I didn’t mark the turn from 2025 to 2026 with fireworks or big-year summaries, but with workshops. It may sound unusual, yet for me it has become perfectly natural: over the past few years, my professional rhythm has increasingly revolved around one major theme—how to use artificial intelligence in education thoughtfully, responsibly, and in a way that genuinely serves pedagogy.
In December, I spent five intensive days in Čakovec as a trainer within the AI4VET transnational training “Generative AI and Transformative Educational Content”. The programme brought together 15 educators from five EU countries (Croatia, Poland, Austria, Romania, and Lithuania), and the atmosphere was exactly what I value most: focused, open, critical, and collaborative. In groups like this, the difference between “talking about tools” and real change in practice becomes obvious very quickly. That’s why we kept the emphasis on the pedagogical meaning of GenAI use: what learning outcomes we actually want, how to set boundaries, how to protect data and privacy, how to ensure human oversight, and how to build simple frameworks that educators can take straight into their classroom or training room.
Malo Google reklame:
On a personal level, I’m especially glad that through this process I have become part of a small—but exceptionally high-quality and agile—group of professionals at the Public Open University Čakovec. For years, this team has been consistently delivering Erasmus+ projects in adult education and educator training. What I admire most is the combination of clear purpose, strong organisation, practical orientation, and real impact on the people who learn and teach. Being part of such an environment adds an extra layer of meaning to every workshop and every new learning cycle.
Beyond the core concepts and ethical questions, we worked very concretely: how to design a good prompt, how to recognise typical risks (bias, confidently wrong outputs, overreliance on the tool), and how to develop small, practical workflows that save time without lowering standards. What I found particularly valuable was seeing participants—each in their own context—translate AI from “something that is happening” into “something I can use in a controlled way”, without losing professional integrity.
A few weeks later, I started the new year in Zaprešić—at High School “Ban Josip Jelačić”—with a three-hour workshop for 50+ teachers. Although the group was larger, the tone remained the same: realistic, practice-oriented, and free of technological romanticism. We kept the focus where it matters most: not on “tool hype”, but on how GenAI becomes a didactic resource only when it is embedded into clear rules, verifiable processes, and sensible goals. We practised prompt design, discussed data safety and copyright, analysed common errors and biases, and walked through several practical use cases—from quick warm-up diagnostics and lesson preparation to reflection and fast formative checks.
These trainings keep confirming something that has been crystallising for me for quite some time: AI in education won’t be “just another tool”, but a new type of professional literacy. It includes technical understanding, but even more so pedagogical judgement. It involves speed, but also patience. It encourages creativity, but also disciplined verification. And most importantly, it requires awareness that responsibility always remains with the human being. AI can accelerate a process, but it cannot replace meaning, values, or the decisions that make teaching good.
That’s why I like the symbolism of crossing the year through educator training: ending 2025 with an international “working lab” where people learn from one another, and beginning 2026 in a school, with teachers who want to understand and build a framework—rather than simply “try the tool”. Between these two moments lies the continuity of my work in recent years: AI pedagogy as a response to the speed of change, and as an opportunity to strengthen what has always mattered in education—clear goals, reliable sources, a good learning task, and a relationship of trust between teachers and learners.
In the end, I also want to acknowledge the people who make such learning encounters possible. In Zaprešić, special thanks to the school pedagogue for the invitation and to the principal for the warm welcome. And to everyone who participated—thank you for your openness, your sharp questions, and your willingness to approach AI without fear, but also without naïveté.
If there is one thing I wish for in 2026, it is this: that responsible, pedagogy-driven use of artificial intelligence becomes a shared standard—built gradually, one good workshop at a time.
