Veranstaltungsprogramm

This research examines the pivotal role of Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) in spearheading the AI revolution and digital transformation within higher education institutions. Through empirical investigation of faculty members and CTL directors, our study reveals how CTLs are evolving from traditional support units into strategic leaders of technological innovation. The findings demonstrate how CTLs orchestrate the implementation of AI tools and advanced learning technologies while developing innovative models for digital teaching and learning. Our research illuminates three critical dimensions: CTLs' role as strategic mediators of technological change, their leadership in implementing AI-enhanced pedagogical practices, and their evolution into key institutional change agents. These insights contribute significantly to understanding how higher education institutions can effectively navigate the integration of artificial intelligence and digital innovation through their teaching and learning centers. The study provides evidence-based recommendations for institutional leaders and policymakers on leveraging CTLs' capabilities in leading digital transformation while maintaining academic excellence.

The question of whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) must be explainable has been the subject of much debate, particularly within educational settings where a number of intricate legal, ethical and technical challenges have emerged. The integration of AI into learning environments offers opportunities for enhanced efficiency, personalisation, and scalability, yet it also raises critical concerns about Transparency, Fairness and Accountability (TFA). The European Union's AI Act, a pioneering regulatory framework, addresses these challenges by establishing legal obligations for high-risk AI systems, among others, particularly in educational settings where AI is employed for assessments, learning analytics, and admissions. This paper explores the legal aspects of XAI in education, specifically within the context of the AI Act, the GDPR, and other regulatory frameworks shaping the adoption of AI technologies in educational environments. It investigates how XAI principles are vital for ensuring compliance with European legislation and fostering trust in AI systems used in education settings. Furthermore, it examines how these standards can be operationalised, offering guidance on the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, including educators, students, developers, and policymakers. The discussion highlights the importance technical aspects and related user-centered practices.

The expanding use of AI in education has driven initiatives such as the EU’s AI Act and German government sectors (BMBF, KMK) to emphasize AI literacy, underlining the need for critical, ethical, and effective AI use. While AI literacy measures exist, they often rely on self-reports rather than performance-based tests (Lintner, 2024). Also, the gap between perceived and actual AI literacy remains a key issue (Gerlich, 2025). To address this, our study examined university students’ AI use for studying in relation to AI literacy. We distinguished between self-reported META AI literacy (Carolus et al., 2023) and actual knowledge and critical AI use (self-developed test). A total of 135 students (79% female) participated in an online survey. Self-reported measures and test items were largely uncorrelated. Path analyses identified four frequent AI usage patterns, each linked to at least one AI literacy aspect. Using AI for homework correlated positively with perceived application skills. Using AI for time management correlated positively with perceived AI detection ability. However, frequent AI use for presentations negatively correlated with perceived AI ethics knowledge. Interestingly, using AI for research showed opposite findings: positive link with application skills but negative link with critical evaluation of AI-generated content. These insights offer guidelines for educators to foster AI literacy in higher education, promoting both competence and critical engagement.