When universities think about student training on difficult topics such as consent, harassment and respectful behaviour, the default format is still usually e-learning.
That makes sense. How else can a university manage the sheer logistics of training so many students and proving to an external body that the training was completed? That’s why I am so proud of our work at Marshalls and then Ciphr.
But not every university has budget for videos and interactive media. Some go for DIY version which becomes a linear experience of click and read.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how we can be innovative with engaging students on core topics. It seems to me that increasingly they will use AI tools as their main search engine, they like processing information in a very specific question and answer format.
As it stands a student can complete a module without really wrestling with the question. I then worry, is this becoming an exercise in compliance rather than cultural change? They can click through the content, answer enough questions to pass, and move on. Or worse, and often more likely if the e-learning is ‘homemade’ – never engage at all.
I developed Student Compass to initially support student pastoral care. I wonder if it could be used as a training device?
What if some forms of student guidance worked better not only as fixed content, but as structured question and answer?
I do not mean handing sensitive issues over to an improvising chatbot. I mean something more careful than that: a tightly controlled conversational layer built around approved university content, clear boundaries and proper signposting.
That could be particularly relevant where students may have the real question in their head, and let’s face it the limitation of e-learning is…. you can’t ask questions…
Topics around E6 and consent are an obvious place to start thinking about this. The logistics of reaching all students is exceptionally challenging. I know as I’ve been working hard at helping universities with this over the past year. A conventional module can explain the policy, the definitions and the reporting routes. But a conversational format might help some students test their understanding more honestly. It is also discreet, and can be delivered in any language the student would prefer to learn in.
And if that idea has merit there, it may also have merit more broadly.
Take diversity training.
This is a subject I know well, and it offers a useful comparison because it shows the difference between standard e-learning and a more conversational approach very clearly.
In a standard e-learning course, the learner might be given a case study like this: Jamie is writing a person specification for a customer-facing role and wants to include the phrase “presentable, well-turned out and clean-shaven”. The learner is then asked whether there is a problem with this. The right answer is that it may amount to indirect discrimination, because a requirement to be clean-shaven could disadvantage members of some religious
groups unless the employer can justify it.
groups unless the employer can justify it.
That is a perfectly good e-learning interaction. It introduces a legal concept, gives a practical example and checks whether the learner can identify the issue.
But now imagine the same learning point delivered in a conversational format.
Learner
This seems harmless. Why would “clean-shaven” be a problem?AI guide:
Because a rule can appear neutral while still disadvantaging people who share a protected characteristic. In this case, some religious groups may be affected by a requirement to be clean-shaven.
Learner:
But if the rule applies to everyone, surely that is fair?
AI guide:
Not necessarily. That is the key point behind indirect discrimination. A policy can apply to everyone and still have an unequal impact on a particular group.
Learner:
So fairness is not always treating everyone exactly the same?
AI guide:
Exactly. In diversity work, fairness often means recognising difference and responding appropriately, rather than assuming identical treatment is always fair.
The underlying content is the same. The legal principle is the same. But the learning experience is different.
In the standard module, the learner is asked to spot the correct answer.
In the conversational version, the learner is allowed to think out loud, misunderstand the point, test the logic and arrive at a better grasp of what the idea means in practice.
That is what makes this interesting.
The case for conversational learning is not that it replaces e-learning. And it is certainly not that AI should be left to generate sensitive guidance on the fly. The case is that some topics may benefit from a format that allows the learner to ask the next natural question.
That may be particularly relevant in student contexts, where universities are not just trying to push out information, but to help students understand, reflect and act responsibly.
So perhaps the future is not e-learning or AI.
Perhaps it is e-learning plus conversation.
A standard module can still provide the approved structure, the legal clarity and the institutional baseline. A conversational layer could then help students engage more actively with the same approved material, especially in areas where embarrassment, uncertainty or social pressure often get in the way of learning.
That is why I think this question is worth exploring.
If universities are serious about student understanding in areas such as E6 and consent, it may not be enough simply to show students the content. This is one of the questions I’m exploring through Student Compass and in my wider work this year.
