Conference Agenda

This paper investigates how the rapid development of generative AI challenges traditional understandings of teaching and compels us to rethink the teacher’s role in education. This central question of this paper is how we should understand the act of teaching in an age when artificial intelligence increasingly assumes the functions of transmitting knowledge and providing individualized learning support. It further asks whether learning can occur without a teacher, and if AI is capable of offering structured, personalized learning programs, whether such activity can truly be called ‘teaching.’ The paper does not adopt a skeptical stance toward technological applications in education; rather, it seeks to clarify the ways in which AI can facilitate teaching and learning, while also examining the risks posed by its widespread use. The objective is to critically analyze the shifting role of teachers, to question the adequacy of learner-centered paradigms in the context of AI, and to propose a philosophical framework that redefines teaching as more than facilitation or transmission, emphasizing its moral and dialogical dimensions.

The main theoretical framework is Michael Oakeshott’s idea of education as the ‘conversation of humankind’. Within this framework, teaching can be understood in two ways: as the provision of answers to inquiries, or as initiation into broader human conversation. The first approach suggests that the act of teaching can be understood within the traditional teacher–student–content triangle as the transmission of established knowledge or the provision of appropriate answers to questions. Oakeshott’s describes this as ‘inquiry,’ a mode of experience shaped by skills, habits, and aptitudes directed toward the pursuit of communicable truths. Science exemplifies this mode, conceiving the world in terms of quantity and striving for transparency and universality. In this sense, teachers act as answer-holders who pass knowledge to students, a role that AI systems can replicate, and in some respects surpass, by providing ‘accurate’, individualized and immediate responses. Yet scientific knowledge, while valuable, is only one mode of experience and is inherently partial. More importantly, it is ultimately a form of judgment rather than a neutral or value-free truth. For this reason, although AI may serve effectively as a provider of answers, this conception of teaching remains inadequate for capturing the full meaning of the act of teaching.

On the other hand, teaching as initiation into the conversation of humankind offers a richer and more comprehensive understanding. This involves recognizing the plurality of modes of experience—science, history, poetry, philosophy—and resisting the reduction of all phenomena to technical or quantitative categories. The voice of poetry, in particular, serves as a remedy to the dominance of technique, reminding us of the value of contemplation, joy, and activities pursued as ends in themselves. Teaching, in this sense, is dialogical and relational: it requires listening, addressing, and moral engagement. It is about inviting students into a shared conversation where diverse voices coexist and interact. AI, however sophisticated, cannot replicate this dimension of teaching, because it lacks the capacity for moral disposition, affective listening, and genuine participation in human dialogue. By situating teaching within Oakeshott’s framework, this paper argues that the act of teaching must be understood not only as inquiry but also as initiation into conversation, and that the human teacher remains indispensable in sustaining this dialogical and moral dimension of education.

Adult education practice across Europe is characterised by increasing diversity in institutional forms, learner populations, and policy expectations. Formal, non-formal, and informal learning contexts coexist with market-driven training provision, civic education initiatives, and programmes aimed at social inclusion and employability. Beneath this diversity, however, educational practice is shaped by implicit philosophical assumptions concerning the purpose of education, the nature of knowledge, the roles of teachers and learners, and the relationship between education and society. Making these assumptions explicit is a core concern of education philosophy and a prerequisite for reflective professional practice.

The aim of this poster is to present an education-philosophical interpretative framework that systematises major theoretical orientations in adult education and connects them to reflective teaching practice in a European and international context. Following Merriam’s argument that theory and philosophy are always embedded—implicitly or explicitly—in practice, the postertreats philosophical typologies not as abstract classifications but as reference frameworks for understanding and justifying pedagogical decisions.

The guiding research questions are:

1. Which major philosophical and theoretical orientations in adult education are identified in international literature, and how are they systematised?
2. How do these orientations conceptualise the aims of adult education, the roles of educators and learners, and the treatment of learner diversity?
3. How can philosophical typologies support reflective adult education practice in contemporary European contexts shaped by labour market pressures, social inequalities, and lifelong learning policies?

The theoretical framework builds on international syntheses of adult education philosophy and theory. Classic typologies distinguish liberal, progressive, behaviourist, humanistic, and radical/critical traditions (Elias & Merriam, 2005; Zinn, 1990), each associated with different assumptions about knowledge, authority, and social change. Liberal traditions emphasise intellectual development and canonical knowledge; progressive approaches foreground experience and problem-solving; behaviourist perspectives focus on measurable learning outcomes and accountability; humanistic traditions stress self-direction, personal growth, and authenticity; while radical and critical approaches view adult education as a means of social transformation and emancipation.

More recent systematisation efforts extend these categories by incorporating constructivist, postmodern, identity-based, feminist, multicultural, and socio-ecological perspectives (Siebert; Tisdell & Taylor, 2000). These approaches respond to changing social conditions, including increased learner heterogeneity, migration, gendered inequalities, and the digital transformation of learning environments. Rather than replacing earlier traditions, they coexist with them, contributing to what several authors describe as an increasingly complex and fragmented theoretical landscape.

Following Tisdell and Taylor (2000), the research adopts a question-based comparative lens to analyse philosophical orientations. Key questions include: What is the purpose of adult education? What is the role of the educator? How are adult learners positioned in the learning process? How is difference understood? What worldview and value assumptions underpin practice? This approach allows philosophical orientations to be connected directly to concrete teaching and programme design decisions.

The European and international dimension of the research lies not in statistical comparison but in contextual interpretation. The analysis considers how philosophical orientations gain prominence in response to European adult education agendas, such as employability and upskilling, democratic participation, inclusion, and lifelong learning. In doing so, the research positions education philosophy as a critical tool for interpreting contemporary adult education practice across diverse European settings.

Recently, interest in student responsibility has been growing in the discourse of future education. This is not the first time that responsibility has been emphasized in education. The accountability movement is most likely a phenomenon with which we are already familiar. This trend often determines how well schools or universities as well as teachers fulfill their responsibilities, based on the academic achievements of the students. In this paper, I would like to examine the nature of responsibility from a slightly different perspective than that of determining how much of the roles and duties expected of schools, universities, and teachers are fulfilled through the accountability movement. The biggest difference could be that the subject of responsibility is shifted to students. Interestingly, the recent curriculum reform emphasizes the responsibilities that must be assumed by students in learning. The emphasis on student responsibility is evident in the OECD Education 2030 project. This project aims to envisage the future of education amidst the emergence of new challenges spurred by the development of digital technology, such as AI, alongside the escalating issues of climate change and wealth concentration (OECD, 2018). According to research released through a series of consultations, student responsibility is an indispensable element in student agency—the central vision of future-oriented education (OECD, 2019a, p. 5). Moreover, the OECD selected ‘taking responsibility’ as one of the transformative competencies necessary for students to live in an uncertain and unpredictable world (OECD, 2019b).

To reconsider the very issue of student responsibility, I attempt to attend to communication between teachers and students across diverse areas of learning. In particular, I think that examining the context of AI-based lessons, which is mentioned as one of the major changes in future education (Holmes et al., 2019; Khan, 2024), can be an interesting phenomenon to shed new light on the nature of the responsibility newly demanded of students. In this respect, I first present vignettes of teaching and learning with AI and then offer a critical reflection on the attributes of the responses students are required to articulate in dialogue with AI tutors. I conclude by exploring alternative ways of conceptualizing student responsibility, drawing on the concepts of ‘the said’ and ‘saying’ within Levinas’s philosophy. To address this issue, I attend to the etymological significance of the term responsibility, which combines response─including, as is more explicit in Levinas’s French, the sense of answering─and ability, and re-examine the meaning of student responsibility in learning as the capacity to respond to the other; interestingly, as Jacques Derrida notes, the close relationship between responsibility and response is evident not only in English but also in other languages such as French, German, and Czech (Derrida, 1996, p. 26).