EdTech Evolution 2.0: Enhancing the Framework

Project background

The EdTech ecosystem has become complex and unsustainable with rising costs and support demands and a fragmented decision-making and funding model. The fragmentation degrades the student experience and results in cybersecurity, privacy, and accessibility compliance risks, as well as duplication, increased cost and support demands, and inequitable access to technology. The intent of this project is to address current decision-making and funding challenges that create fragmentation and inefficiencies, while developing an improved strategy to holistically and efficiently manage and support EdTech. 

At present, EdTech is a combination of technologies that are decided upon and funded:

  1. Centrally through the Provost's enterprise software budget; and
  2. Through the faculty or department for specific programs or use cases; and
  3. Selected and funded by individual instructors; and
  4. Required by instructors for a course and funded by students who purchase it

A collaborative strategy to effectively manage EdTech costs and decisions

With the support of Deans Council and EdTech Steering, the project team will work collaboratively with students, faculty, and staff to simplify the model to address duplication and other challenges through:

  1. The prioritization and use of centrally supported EdTech tools in teaching and learning.
  2. Consideration of a small, flat-rate student technology fee, if it is deemed to provide benefit to students without significant overhead, for a pilot period to ensure there is appropriate revenue for the cost of EdTech while the University addresses student out-of-pocket EdTech expenses and current duplication issues. During the pilot of the fee, the project will:
    1. Create a holistic decision-making process for EdTech that considers sustainable funding, appropriate scalability, equity, and inclusion of all stakeholders in decisions.
    2. Establish and design maintenance processes for a core list of safe, institutionally approved EdTech that instructors are required to use.
    3. Create an exception protocol and criteria when instructors want to use EdTech that is not on the approved core list.
    4. Clearly define what technologies are and are not considered EdTech that will be used to decide what is within the scope of a student fee and duplication or exception protocols.

This pilot recommendation is being reviewed and has not yet been approved.

Benefits

  1. Alignment with the Digital Learning Strategy.

  2. More transparent and consistent management of EdTech and a clear, consistent protocol for EdTech decisions and funding.
  3. Improvements to the student experience by addressing duplication and reduced average EdTech cost for students.
  4. Appropriate support frameworks that enable informed decision-making and risk mitigation.

Project outcomes

The goal of the EdTech 2.0 framework project is to ensure these technologies are responsibly managed and used to enhance teaching and learning in a way that provides a consistent, secure, and reliable student experience in alignment with University policies, guidelines, and the digital learning strategy, while reducing the increasing cost of EdTech for the University and students alike. 

Work plan

  1. 2025
    1. Sep
      1. Consultations

        Held September 2025 to April 2026

  2. 2026
    1. Jan
      1. Analysis and recommendations

        From February to June 2026

    2. May
      1. Process recommendation endorsement

        From May to June 2026

    3. Jun
      1. Transition to a collaborative model

        Between June 2026 to April 2027, the following will occur:

        • Implementation of exception protocol and data dashboards; begin addressing duplication, student out-of-pocket expenses, and cybersecurity/privacy risks
        • Endorsement of the Student Technology Fee (October)
        • Student Technology Fee approval (February)

  3. 2027
    1. May
      1. Support of the collaborative model continues

        From May 2027 to April 2029, work continues to ensure a capability-based sustainable ecosystem with defined criteria and exceptions.


A tool is considered Educational Technology (EdTech) if its primary intended purpose is to support instructional delivery, student engagement, or academic assessment within a credit-bearing course or approved academic program, and it is used by students or instructors. 

Detailed EdTech definition with examples

Detailed definition

More specifically, a tool meets the definition of EdTech for the purposes noted if it: 

  • supports one or more of the following core instructional functions:

    • delivery, creation, curation, or facilitation of instructional content or learning activities, 

    • student engagement, interaction, or collaboration,  

    • assessment of student learning or performance (formative or summative), and 

  • is used within the institutional teaching context (i.e., scheduled courses, approved academic programs, or instructional workflows), and typically forms part of the institutional digital learning environment, and 

  • is used directly by students or instructors, or indirectly by students through interaction with instructional materials or outputs created using the tool.  

Where a tool serves multiple functions, classification should be based on its dominant institutional use case in the University context, rather than solely on vendor description or incidental instructional use. 

Out of scope

A tool is not considered EdTech for the purposes noted when its primary purpose is any of the following: 

  • administrative, operational, advising-related, or supporting student-life functions, or 

  • research-only activities not directly tied to instruction or assessment, or 

  • general productivity use across the institution with an enterprise license, or 

  • professional development, executive education, or non-credit course delivery, or  

  • discipline-specific or industry-practice software where the tool itself is the subject of learning rather than a means of instruction.  

Examples

The table below provides some examples to illustrate the interpretation of the definition and is not meant to represent a complete or definitive inventory of tools. 

Considered EdTech  

(according to the definition noted above) 

Not considered EdTech 

Learning management systems (LMSs) and course delivery platforms 

e.g., LEARN, Möbius, Open edX, Canvas

General productivity tools used broadly across the institution 

e.g., Microsoft 365, Word, Excel, PowerPoint 

Assessment and feedback tools used for academic evaluation 

e.g., Crowdmark, Akindi, Proctor360, MathMatize 

Tools primarily used for administrative, advising, finance, HR, or student‑life operations 

e.g., Quest, Odyssey, Workday, Concur, WaterlooWorks 

Tools used by instructors to create instructional materials that students engage with 

e.g., H5P, Articulate 360, Adobe Creative Cloud, Camtasia 

Publishing platforms, content repositories, or websites that provide instructional materials created by third-parties such as Open Educational Resources (OERs), content published by professional associations or governments, or article databases 

e.g., Ivey Casebook, eCampusOntario’s Open Library, CORE-2022 modules on research ethics

Polling, discussion, and peer feedback tools embedded within course activities 

e.g., Vevox, iClicker, Padlet, peerScholar, Ed Discussion, Piazza 

Tools and software used within a particular discipline 

e.g., ArcGIS, AutoCAD, MATLAB, MuseScore Studio, any Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for programming 

Tools used to conduct research that are not used for instruction or assessment 

e.g., PLAXIS 2D, SketchUp, SPSS, COMSOL Multiphysics 

Centrally licensed and supported tools whose primary use is teaching and learning in credit-bearing courses 

e.g., Bongo, PebblePad, Turnitin 

Tools used exclusively for professional development, executive education, or non-credit course delivery 

e.g., Ed2Go, LearnWorlds, Destiny One, Crucial Learning  


Centrally supported means that the University provides funding and/or resources and technical support toward the tool, and that appropriate due diligence has been completed to ensure the tool meets privacy, security, and accessibility requirements.

Approved temporary exception protocol

A master list of known EdTech used across campus has been created and indicates if non-centrally supported EdTech has been reviewed and approved for use for specific pedagogical requirements, or if it is awaiting an assessment. While approval of centrally supported EdTech tools (net new or requests for renewal) must meet defined criteria and must follow guidelines for integrations, the University’s current financial environment may influence the final decision. 

A temporary protocol is available:

  • Should you, as an instructor, want to use a technology that is not centrally supported or on the master list of tools.
  • When there is contention around removing a duplicate or unsafe technology prioritized through the EdTech 2.0 project or on the master list. While the team works through EdTech assessments on the master list, you can continue using software that is "waiting for assessment."

Submission

Exception request
  • Must detail pedagogical requirement.
  • Must include explanation of why a central tool will not work.
  • Include dates for period of use.

Assessment

Assessment of exception request

Notification

Notification of exception request
  • Final decision and rationale provided by the committee.
  • If approved, the instructor is accountable for knowing how the unsupported tool works and acquiring vendor information.

Master list updated

Update master list with assessment decision
  • Master list updated with decision and rationale details.