As the accelerated adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in industry extends into classrooms and curricula, a foundational question arises: are we facing a true educational innovation, or are digital technologies simply being incorporated? To delve into this scenario, we took the opportunity to talk with Vicente Atxa Uribe, Rector of Mondragon Unibertsitatea since 2015, who offered a valuable institutional reflection on the post-digital paradigm of AI, the irreplaceable role of human talent in the face of automation, and the ethical commitment of higher education institutions necessary in the training of young people so that they can face a successful future of work and be prepared to transform society.
“We must prioritize the learning process and critical thinking. The fundamental thing is not only the final product but also the progress the student has made along the way. Each person is different and possesses unique abilities and concerns.” – Vicente Atxa Uribe
To begin this interview, tell us about your professional and academic background and the projects you are currently working on.
I am Vicente Atxa, current Rector of Mondragon University and Vice President of the Knowledge Division of Mondragon. I am an electronics engineer from Mondragon University and have a PhD in Telecommunications from Staffordshire University in the United Kingdom.
My professional career has always been closely linked to the cooperative sector and academia. I started my career at Ulma Packaging in Spain and later moved to Germany to work at Rofin-Sinar. Later, I immersed myself in research in Staffordshire, where I did my PhD. After that stage, I joined Mondragon University, where I worked as a professor and researcher before becoming the director of our Higher Polytechnic School (School of Engineering). In recent years, I have held the position of Rector of the university and Vice-president of Mondragon’s Knowledge division, which encompasses educational centers, the university itself, and various technology centers.
Based on your experience, is there a risk that we are confusing educational innovation with technological incorporation?
I believe that, for a long time, so-called technological innovation just meant replacing analog or manual tools with digital alternatives. It has fundamentally been a substitution of media: the ways of viewing information, solving problems, and accessing knowledge have changed, shifting from paper and physical books to the Internet. Essentially, rather than educational innovation, it was merely technological adaptation (something that continues today with the introduction of virtual reality and simulations, among others).
However, I believe that now, with the emergence of artificial intelligence, we are facing a qualitatively different scenario. We are no longer dealing simply with a change of tools; its technological disruption must inevitably bring about authentic and comprehensive educational innovation.
Why is it said that the most important skill will not be knowing how to use AI, but knowing when not to use it?
Learning to use AI will not be complicated, since it will be naturally integrated into almost all everyday tools. In the future, large AI companies will be validated by market applications, or those applications will incorporate AI transparently. End users will find them increasingly simple and intuitive.
Therefore, the challenge will not lie in the technical “how to use it” – in fact, those who do not use it will become non-competitive – but rather in understanding where and when to provide real human value. The key lies in knowing when we should intervene so that, together with AI, we continue to enrich learning processes and work environments.
What aspects of teaching practice do you think need to be rethought, considering the expansion of generative AI?
Without wishing to fall into radicalism, given the exponential pace of AI development I foresee, I believe that we must rethink from the ground up what students should learn, how they should learn it, and how they should spend their time during their stay on our campuses.
Our highest responsibility as a university is to ensure that, when graduates leave our classrooms, they bring differentiated values to their jobs, which will be substantially changed. My opinion is that we must redesign our educational offering almost from scratch: not everything needs to be discarded, but a profound transformation is required.
Why do you consider it important to analyze artificial intelligence from a post-digital perspective and not solely from a technological perspective?
As I recently heard the Basque Government’s Minister for Science, Universities, and Innovation say, the main reason lies in the profound transformations that AI will bring about in science and the labor market. The Minister spoke about the two major shifts in the generation of knowledge: the first, from mythos to logos (6th to 5th centuries BC). This marked the transition from explaining reality primarily through myths, traditions, and religious stories to understanding it through reason, observation, and argumentation. The great impact was establishing the idea that the world could be understood rationally, laying the foundations for philosophy and scientific thought.
The second was the Birth of Experimental Science (16th-17th centuries), when it was no longer enough to reason about how the world works; instead, ideas had to be tested through observation, measurement, and experimentation. Its impact was enormous: it enabled the construction of reproducible, cumulative knowledge and gave rise to modern science, which would later drive the Industrial Revolution and technological development.
Today, with AI, we might be starting a third great leap: if the first transformed how we explain the world and the second how we test it, artificial intelligence is beginning to transform how we discover and generate new knowledge. It is transforming the foundations so profoundly that many scientific disciplines, as we know them today, will either reinvent themselves or disappear.
How can we prevent teacher training from being limited to learning tools and from losing sight of pedagogical and ethical reflection?
Training focused exclusively on mastering tools is not university training. A university must not only teach content and technical tools – which it also does – but also offer a comprehensive educational experience for the individual, equipping them with the capacity for autonomous learning and adaptability in the face of technological change. The human dimension takes on even greater relevance in the age of AI.
At Mondragon University, we have an advantage because we have spent years evolving our learning models through the Mendeberri framework, focusing on training professionals for the workforce who are equipped to transform the society in which they will live. This transformative work goes far beyond simply using tools; I believe we are ready to transform ourselves in the age of AI as well.
Which human skills become more relevant precisely because AI can automate certain tasks?
Rather than focusing only on technical skills, I would highlight values and attitudes. Honesty, humility in collaborating with others, mutual trust, open-mindedness, resilience, and a love for a job well done are especially relevant.
Above all, I would emphasize trust in people: after all, it is human relationships and empathy that truly move the world.
If a student can generate an essay in seconds, what should we start valuing more in higher education: the final product or the thinking processes behind it?
We must prioritize the learning process and critical thinking. The fundamental thing is not only the final product but also the progress the student has made along the way. Each person is different and possesses unique abilities and concerns.
Of course, we should value not only thinking processes but also discipline, perseverance, and a commitment to continuous improvement. AI is and will be another tool; we may no longer need to exercise certain skills as we did before (for example, memorizing facts or dates without context), but we must redirect intellectual effort. Evaluation must serve to bring out the best in each student. If, after four years at university, we cannot provide them with the minimum skills to successfully face the professional world – with or without AI – the failure will be entirely ours.
What are the main risks of the view that “everything depends on how we use AI”?
The use of AI in educational and professional processes will go from being an option to becoming an imperative necessity. It will be difficult for a company or professional to do without it without losing competitiveness. However, jobs will not disappear because of AI itself, but for those who refuse to evolve with it.
The great risk of this reductionist vision is that it simplifies human development. Learning, personal growth, business, and the progress of humanity are infinitely more complex and rich than the mere utilitarian question of whether to use a technology.
How can we teach students and future teachers to ask themselves not only what a tool can do, but also whether it is really worth using?
It is an exercise in judgment that we must apply in every area of life. For example, I will not ask AI which friends I should go out with, what I should say to my sons or daughters, or where to go on vacation; in those personal aspects, I am not competing with anyone, and human judgment is irreplaceable.
On the other hand, I will turn to AI in any academic or professional process where I compete, collaborate, or face a globalized environment that already uses it. In the professional sphere, knowing when to use it responds to clear criteria of efficiency, effectiveness, and competitiveness.
What responsibility do universities have in educating citizens capable of participating in decisions that will shape the development of these technologies?
Universities have the moral and social duty to train people capable of transforming society to make it more advanced, competitive, and just. Social justice is an essential pillar in education.
I often say that our mission is to transform society through training people, generating knowledge, and directly transferring that knowledge to companies and the social environment. The ultimate goal is for our graduates to help build a society based on political, economic, and social democracy; therein lies our true responsibility.
What role should AI literacy play in citizenship education in the 21st century?
It plays an absolutely crucial role. When literacy became widespread in society, there was a risk that people would blindly believe everything they read without questioning it. It’s the same with AI.
We must teach citizens what is behind algorithms: what interests drive them, why they generate particular responses, to what extent they are reliable, and what their capabilities and limitations are. Only in this way will we educate critical and informed citizens.
What characteristics of educational environments foster the best creativity and critical thinking among students?
Perhaps it is not easy to define the perfect ideal environment, but I am very clear about which ones do not work. Traditional campuses and passive methodologies – where 40 students sit one behind another to listen to a professor speak for an hour, and then another, etc. – are 20th-century models designed for a society that no longer exists.
Environments that foster creativity and critical thinking must be collaborative, dynamic, and oriented towards real projects and open debate.
Finally, what message would you like to convey to the university community and future students regarding the impact of AI?
I would like to emphasize that artificial intelligence has the potential to fundamentally transform the very concept of learning. It is not simply a matter of teaching “the same old thing” with technological tools, but of profoundly rethinking the skills, content, and activities that students spend their time on.
AI is progressively redefining the tasks in which people add value to their jobs. Does this mean that we must change everything? No. We must continue to support educational models focused on people’s holistic development. However, we must move decisively toward new learning processes with adapted content and skills if we want to fulfill our responsibility to prepare students for the future that is already here.
From Vicente Atxa Uribe’s vision emerges a central idea: the true transformation of higher education requires going beyond the mere mastery of technology and redesigning education without losing sight of ethics, independent judgment, and the irreplaceable value of the human being.
Mondragon Unibertsitatea is a Spanish university with its main campus in Mondragón. It has several campuses and thousands of students in areas such as engineering, business, education, communication, and gastronomy. The university’s educational model is geared toward practical learning, fostering close relationships with companies, and a focus on innovation and technology. Currently, it offers university studies in artificial intelligence, biomedical technologies, and sustainability, among others. It also has technological laboratories and international programs, preparing its students for the current and future needs of the labor market.
Translation by Daniel Wetta
