From March 8 to 14, 2026, Ina Brandes, Minister for Culture and Science of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), traveled together with a delegation of representatives from universities, universities of applied sciences and research institutions from NRW to Washington and Pittsburgh. The aim was to gain a comprehensive perspective on the opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence (AI). The focus was on exchange with experts from administration, research, education, transformation and industry. Prof. Nikol Rummel, head of the CAIS research program “Educational Technologies and Artificial Intelligence,” was also part of the delegation. Stops on the trip included, among others, visits to George Washington University, Carnegie Mellon University, the Naval Research Laboratory, AI Strike Team and Google.
Interview with Prof. Nikol Rummel
Photo: RUB, Damian Gorczany.
In the interview, Nikol Rummel describes her impressions, key insights and her assessment of developments in the field of artificial intelligence.
Dear Nikol, you recently accompanied the NRW Minister for Science Ina Brandes to the USA as part of a delegation and completed an intensive program of appointments around the topic of artificial intelligence. Which conversations or encounters have remained particularly in your memory in retrospect?
I was particularly impressed by the meetings at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh on the Simon Initiative with Norman Bier (Executive Director) and Ken Koedinger as well as Marsha Lovett (coordinators of the Simon Initiative) and on the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation and its Generative AI Teaching As Research (GAITAR) Initiative with Chad Hershock (Executive Director of the Eberly Center at CMU) and Marsha Lovett (Scientific Director of the Eberly Center at CMU). In these meetings it became very clear what a high scientific standard accompanies the introduction of AI in teaching at CMU. To interlink excellent research and development of technology- and AI-supported teaching and learning arrangements with practice at schools and universities is a very high aspiration. I found it impressive to see with how much passion and commitment, but also with how much experience and professionalism, this approach is implemented at CMU. With regard to Germany, I would wish that we would also try to achieve a similar interlinking of research, technical development and teaching and learning arrangements. My research is located exactly in this area and I often have the feeling that the necessity to proceed professionally and in an evidence-based manner is not seen.
In your research at CAIS you deal with educational technologies and artificial intelligence. How is this topic currently discussed in the USA – and what has surprised you or made you reflect in comparison to the German debate?
Very similar to here, the breakthrough of generative AI has also caused a stir in the USA and raised many questions. In the USA as well, learners and teachers quickly began to use corresponding tools based on generative AI and to explore the possibilities. At the same time, questions arose and continue to arise there as well about necessary changes as well as opportunities in the education system that are triggered by this. However, it seems to me that the focus of the discussion in the USA is more on the possibilities and opportunities and less on the risks. I perceive the discussion in Germany as clearly more negative. In addition, the debate here often runs between extremes: on the one hand, the digital revolution through generative AI tools is praised relatively unreflectively; on the other hand, the downfall of education that is now to be expected is lamented at the same time.
Which concrete impulses do you take with you for your own research? And how can this work contribute to supporting a responsible use of AI in educational institutions?
What I take with me are above all observations and the associated impulses for reflection: it is possible and worthwhile to interlink excellent research and development and reflective, practice-oriented AI use in educational institutions and to work together with stakeholders from the different areas to achieve a forward-looking and responsible use. Why does the interlinking help? Because a responsible use is only possible if we know and understand sufficiently how the use of AI affects learning and teaching, where the challenges lie and how we can support overcoming them – and that both technically but also in a guiding way. This requires research, but also the close involvement of the affected groups of people.
Did concrete agreements or collaborations emerge during the trip that you can talk about?
During our stay in Pittsburgh, a cooperation agreement between CMU and the “Digitale Hochschule” of North Rhine-Westphalia (DH.NRW) was signed. In this, the joint development of a doctoral program on the overarching topic of AI innovations in research and teaching is envisaged. The program is intended to enable both jointly supervised tandem doctorates between CMU and NRW universities as well as exchange and mutual stays within the framework of the doctorates. For me personally, a concrete possibility for cooperation was initiated with a CMU colleague who will move in the summer to the renowned École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). He has in recent years conducted research on highly innovative ideas for the use of digital technologies (e.g. augmented reality) in the classroom and we would like to carry out a joint project starting in the summer.
Finally: What long-term perspective do you see for the interaction of research and politics – especially when it comes to making the educational landscape in NRW fit for the future?
That is a very good question, because it gives me the opportunity to emphasize that exactly this interaction is something that I consider indispensable for change and innovation in education. In various events and contributions in recent years I have pointed this out again and again and I see the delegation trip that has now taken place as a first success that the importance of interaction in this thematic area is also perceived by politics and by university leadership. On the one hand, we looked at examples during the trip and on the other hand we also got to know each other. I carry the hope that contacts were established that can form a basis for such interaction.
