We are pleased to introduce the UWE teaching and learning tools matrix – a new framework to support pedagogically informed use of digital tools at UWE.
This framework is designed to help staff with teaching responsibilities to think beyond features and platforms, focusing instead on how tools enable key learning processes such as engagement, assessment, feedback, collaboration, and reflection.
The matrix builds on the ideas explored in a recent article: Rethinking ‘pedagogy first’ – how tools and pedagogy are co-constitutive. Rather than treating pedagogy and technology as separate or sequential decisions, this perspective recognises that they shape each other in practice.
In most real teaching contexts, staff work within existing modules, platforms, and constraints. The matrix responds to this by focusing on how tools enable particular kinds of learning.
A framework organised around teaching purpose
The matrix is structured around six broad pedagogical purposes that capture key aspects of the learning journey. Core teaching and learning tools at UWE are rated according to how effectively they support each of these pedagogical purposes:
- Deliver content
- Actively engage
- Assess learning
- Give feedback
- Support peer collaboration
- Support reflection
These categories reflect common areas of activity across higher education. They are deliberately broad – and importantly, they overlap in practice. For example, collaborative work often involves feedback and reflection; assessment frequently drives engagement and dialogue; and reflection may be embedded within teaching activities or assessment tasks.
Conceptual structure within each teaching purpose
Each pedagogical purpose in the matrix is underpinned by a consistent conceptual distinction. This helps ensure that tools are evaluated in a transparent and meaningful way (see detailed breakdown below), and that comparisons between tools remain consistent and pedagogically grounded. They also help make clear why different tools are more or less suitable for different teaching purposes.
Deliver content – distinguishes between structured delivery and mediated delivery (e.g. live online teaching or video)
Providing students with access to learning materials in a structured and/or mediated way. Suitability is determined by the degree to which a tool supports:
- organisation and sequencing
- clarity and accessibility
- structured navigation through learning
Suitability ratings
- Highly suitable = provides structured, core delivery
- Suitable supporting tool = supports delivery but lacks structure or depends on another system
- Limited suitability = does not deliver content directly
Key interpretation
Delivery is primarily about structure, organisation, and access. Tools that organise and sequence learning are rated more highly than those that simply present or create materials.
In practice at UWE
- Blackboard provides the core structured delivery layer, organising and sequencing materials
- Other tools support:
- Mediated delivery (e.g. live teaching, video, presentation)
- Content creation (materials produced elsewhere and delivered via Blackboard)
Actively engage – distinguishes between interaction, production, and dialogue
Enabling students to participate in learning through interaction, production, and dialogue. Suitability is determined by how far a tool supports:
- meaningful interaction with content
- creation of outputs
- exchange of ideas with others
- sustained participation over time
Suitability ratings
- Highly suitable = drives active participation as a core function
- Suitable supporting tool = supports engagement but not as a primary design
- Limited suitability = minimal direct engagement affordance
Key interpretation
Engagement is defined by the quality and depth of participation. Tools that support structured activity, dialogue, or production are rated more highly than those that generate only surface-level interaction or passive engagement (e.g. watching, listening).
Assess learning – distinguishes between assessment workflows and the production of assessment evidence, as well as formative and summative activity
Designing, capturing, and evaluating evidence of student learning. Suitability is determined by whether a tool supports:
- assessment workflows (submission, marking, grading)
- creation and capture of assessment evidence
- alignment with summative and formative purposes
Suitability ratings
- Highly suitable = supports full assessment workflows, including summative assessment
- Suitable supporting tool = supports formative assessment, evidence creation, or preparation, but not full workflows
- Limited suitability = does not support assessment meaningfully
Key interpretation
Assessment is distinguished by both process and purpose. Tools that support formal workflows and structured assessment processes are rated more highly than those that only generate evidence or support practice.
In practice at UWE
- Blackboard and PebblePad provide summative assessment workflows and structured processes
- Other tools support:
- formative assessment activity
- development and preparation for summative tasks
- creation of assessment evidence
Give feedback – distinguishes between summative, formative, and dialogic feedback
Providing information that helps students understand and improve their learning. Suitability is determined by how well a tool supports:
- structured, recorded feedback
- formative and developmental feedback
- ongoing, dialogic interaction
Suitability ratings
- Highly suitable = supports structured summative and formative feedback processes
- Suitable supporting tool = supports formative or dialogic feedback but not full workflows
- Limited suitability = provides minimal or indirect support for feedback
Key interpretation
Feedback is treated as a process, not just a message. Tools that support structured delivery and continuity are rated more highly than those that only produce feedback artefacts.
In practice at UWE
- Summative feedback is delivered through Blackboard and PebblePad
- Other tools support:
- formative feedback
- dialogic feedback through interaction and collaboration
- embedded feedback within activities
Support peer collaboration – distinguishes between dialogue, co-production, and coordination
Enabling students to work together through shared activity and interaction. Suitability is determined by whether a tool supports:
- shared spaces for working together
- dialogue and exchange
- co-production of outputs
- coordination of group activity over time
Suitability ratings
- Highly suitable = supports structured, sustained collaboration with shared spaces and tools
- Suitable supporting tool = supports collaborative activity but with limitations or requires structure elsewhere
- Limited suitability = minimal or indirect support for collaboration
Key interpretation
Effective collaboration requires sustained, shared activity. Tools that provide continuous collaborative environments are rated more highly than those that only provide inputs or prompts.
Support reflection – distinguishes between prompted, structured, and longitudinal reflection
Enabling students to review, interpret, and learn from their experience. Suitability is determined by how far a tool supports:
- prompted reflection in the moment
- structured reflection that can be revisited
- sustained reflection over time
Suitability ratings
- Highly suitable = supports structured or sustained reflection over time
- Suitable supporting tool = supports prompted or short-term reflection
- Limited suitability = minimal or indirect support for reflection
Key interpretation:
Reflection varies in depth and duration. Tools that support capture, revisiting, and development over time are rated more highly than those that only prompt one-off responses.
The tool suitability rating system
Each tool is rated against each pedagogical purpose.
Highly suitable
Supports a complete, structured, and sustained teaching process
Suitable supporting tool
Supports the teaching purpose but not a full or structured workflow
Limited suitability
Provides minimal or indirect support for the teaching purpose
These ratings are not about overall quality but are intended to reflect how effectively a tool supports a complete learning process over time. For example, a tool may support the creation of an assessment output, but if it does not also support submission, marking, and feedback, it is not considered a full assessment environment.
Evaluating tools by what they enable
A key principle of the matrix is that tools are evaluated according to the role they play within a learning design at UWE, not simply the features they contain. This means the same tool may be highly suitable for one purpose and less so for another.
For example:
- Blackboard is highly suited to delivering content because it provides structured organisation, sequencing, and controlled release of materials
- Panopto supports delivery through video, but typically as a supporting layer, embedded within Blackboard rather than structuring the course itself
- Xerte enables structured, interactive learning sequences that guide students through concepts and activities
Across these examples, higher ratings tend to be associated with tools that support coherent, sustained, and integrated learning processes, rather than one-off or isolated activities.
A layered view of digital learning
The matrix is informed by a layered view of the digital learning environment at UWE:
- Core systems provide structure and workflows – for example Blackboard and PebblePad
- Experience-layer tools support teaching, interaction, and engagement – for example Teams, Mentimeter, Panopto, and Xerte
- Production tools enable the creation of outputs – for example Microsoft 365 and Adobe Express
This helps clarify how tools work together rather than in isolation. For example, a student might engage with a Xerte resource, discuss ideas in Teams, produce work in Microsoft 365, and submit it through Blackboard. The matrix reflects this kind of joined-up practice.
UWE context and wider relevance
The matrix is grounded in UWE Bristol’s specific digital environment, reflecting how tools are used and supported in practice at UWE.
For example, Panopto is used not only for video delivery but, through an in-house integration with Blackboard, also as part of assessment workflows, supporting student presentations and recorded submissions. Similarly, Microsoft Teams is integrated with Blackboard to support communication and collaboration, but is not used as a standalone assessment system, with formal assessment remaining in Blackboard.
These examples show how local systems and integrations shape pedagogical use at UWE. However, the overall framework – focusing on pedagogical purposes and learning processes – is designed to be transferable, allowing other institutions to apply the same thinking to their own contexts.
Important caveats
The matrix should be understood as a guide rather than a definitive judgement.
- Tools can be used in different ways depending on context
- Staff often adapt tools creatively to suit their teaching
- Effective designs typically involve combinations of tools, not single solutions
For example, while Panopto is not primarily a collaboration tool, it can contribute to collaborative activity when used alongside other platforms. Similarly, tools like Adobe Express may play an important role in assessment through creative production, even though they do not manage assessment workflows.
The matrix aims to support informed decision-making, not to prescribe practice.
Key takeaway
For academic staff and learning designers, the matrix provides a clearer way to think about digital tools in context. It helps shift the conversation away from:
“Which tool should I use?”
towards:
“What kind of learning process am I trying to design – and how do different tools support that?”
In doing so, it reflects a view of higher education practice in which pedagogy and technology are inseparable from one another. Effective learning design depends not only on pedagogical intent, but also on understanding how different tools shape participation, interaction, assessment, and reflection.
Have any questions or comments about our tools matrix? We’d love to know what you think.
Get in touch with us at digitallearning@uwe.ac.uk