Dr. Jan Schiller

Jan Schiller is employed at the Helmut Schmidt University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Ham-burg, Germany as a doctoral student and research assistant of Prof. Schmidt-Lauff. His doctoral thesis describes temporal agendas and their impact on education policies in higher education as well as on organisations and learners. He is engaged in the international ERASMUS+ project INTALL (formerly COM-PALL). 

Jan has published on

• media and intellectuality
• quality control and evaluation
• online education and blended learning
• European education policies
• continuing and higher education
• temporal aspects of education.

CG7: (Generative) Artificial Intelligence in Adult Education and Lifelong Learning

Co-Moderators: Lisa Breitschwerdt

Artificial intelligence in education (AIED) is fundamentally changing and transforming educational practices and the delivery and implementation of teaching-learning settings. The development of a wide range of technologies, especially generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) based on large language models (LLMs), is progressing rapidly and there are now numerous AI systems used in education and learning (Holmes & Tuomi, 2022; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). Addressing the social impact of GenAI on our coexistence and our education systems is a central concern of international (education) policy development strategies (e.g. EC, 2024; UNESCO, 2019, 2021). At the same time, (education) policy developments that define the framework for the use of GenAI in (adult) education are only gradually taking place, most recently with the introduction of the AI Act (European Parliament and the Council, 2024), which sets out the framework conditions for the use of GenAI in (educational) organizations and the skills required for this. In the fields of adult education, the use of GenAI is developing in a rhizome-like and needs-oriented manner. To date, there are hardly any studies that examine the use of AI in adult education in a scientifically supported manner. Also, regulations regarding AIED are scarce and offer a fast-evolving field for exploratory comparative work.

Thus, the aim of the Comparative Group is to obtain an initial overview of available usage practices and policy guidelines of GenAI in adult education and lifelong learning through a multi-level approach. To this end, we will determine a common conceptual understanding of GenAI for adult education, and adopt it to the conceptual framework of Lima & Guimaraes (2011, 2016) for policy analysis in adult education. Based on this, we offer to look at the use of AIED from the mega or macro level to the micro level based on the availability of documents and data in the country cases: identify policies and guidelines that regulate the use of GenAI in adult education in the various country contexts; ask about the use of GenAI in organizations and fields of adult education in the different countries; look at concrete practices and approaches of GenAI use in adult education in the different county contexts.

Artificial intelligence in education (AIED) is fundamentally changing and transforming educational practices and the delivery and implementation of teaching-learning settings. The development of a wide range of technologies, especially generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) based on large language models (LLMs), is progressing rapidly and there are now numerous AI systems used in education and learning (Holmes & Tuomi, 2022; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). Addressing the social impact of GenAI on our coexistence and our education systems is a central concern of international (education) policy development strategies (e.g. EC, 2024; UNESCO, 2019, 2021). At the same time, (education) policy developments that define the framework for the use of GenAI in (adult) education are only gradually taking place, most recently with the introduction of the AI Act (European Parliament and the Council, 2024), which sets out the framework conditions for the use of GenAI in (educational) organizations and the skills required for this. In the fields of adult education, the use of GenAI is developing in a rhizome-like and needs-oriented manner. To date, there are hardly any studies that examine the use of AI in adult education in a scientifically supported manner. Also, regulations regarding AIED are scarce and offer a fast-evolving field for exploratory comparative work.

Thus, the aim of the Comparative Group is to obtain an initial overview of available usage practices and policy guidelines of GenAI in adult education and lifelong learning through a multi-level approach. To this end, we will determine a common conceptual understanding of GenAI for adult education, and adopt it to the conceptual framework of Lima & Guimaraes (2011, 2016) for policy analysis in adult education. Based on this, we offer to look at the use of AIED from the mega or macro level to the micro level based on the availability of documents and data in the country cases: identify policies and guidelines that regulate the use of GenAI in adult education in the various country contexts; ask about the use of GenAI in organizations and fields of adult education in the different countries; look at concrete practices and approaches of GenAI use in adult education in the different county contexts.

1. SCHILLER, J. (I.E.): Bildung für eine ungewisse Zukunft. Bielefeld: WBV.
2. SCHILLER, J. / FREILING, F. / MASSONNE, W. / BENNENSON, Z. (2019): Berufsbegleitendes Studieren an Universitäten. Ein Zukunftsfeld für die IT-Sicherheit. In: Informatik Spektrum, 42, 1, S. 38-47, doi: doi.org/10.1007/s00287-019-01145-6
3. SCHILLER, J. (2018): Einsatz und Nutzen von Policy-Analyse in der Hochschulweiterbildung am Beispiel Studium Initiale, in: Klenk, J. (Hrsg.): Weiterbildung an Hochschulen gestalten. Fallstudien aus Baden-Württemberg, Bielefeld: WBV, S. 91-100.
4. SCHILLER, J. (2018): Werte und Einflüsse europäischer Bildungspolitiken. In: Hessische Blätter für Volksbildung 3/2018, S. 224 – 234. DOI: DOI: 10.3278/HBV1803W.
5. SCHILLER, J. / SCHMIDT-LAUFF, S. / CAMILLONI, F. (2017): Comparing temporal agendas of policies and institutions in (work related) adult education. In: Egetenmeyer, R. & Fideli, M. (eds.). Adult Education and Work Contexts: International Perspek tives and Challenges. Comparative Perspectives from the 2017 Würzburg Winter School. Frankfurt am Main e.a.: Peter Lang, S. 25-40.
6. SCHILLER, J. (2017): Gestaltung und Integration propädeutischer Weiterbildung in bestehende Hochschulstrukturen. In: Sturm, N. / Spenner, K. (Hrsg.): Nachhaltigkeit in der wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung. Beiträge zu Verankerung in die Hochschu strukturen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.