Consensus in uncertainty. A group Delphi study on the impact of digitalisation on the continuing education of low-qualified adults in Germany

ABSTRACT

This paper conducts Group Delphi-study and foresight approach within a five-year horizon in the field of digital education, with a specific focus on Continuing Education (CE) in a post-pandemic society. The study examines the impact of increasing digitalisation on the significant population of low-qualified individuals (approximately five million in Germany). The project identifies both opportunities and risks associated with digitalisation in CE for the low-qualified. The study focuses on 1) the impact of digitalisation on the participation of low-qualified people in CE, 2) the impact of accelerated digitalisation on the planning of programmes and services for this target group, 3) the transformation of programmes and services for low-qualified people due to digitalisation, and 4) methodological innovations for predicting the impact of digitalisation in the CE sector.

KEYWORDS:

• Low-qualified
• transformation
• digitalisation

1. Introduction

The speed of technological innovations leads to increasing uncertainty about future economic and societal developments. The digital transformation of the labour market is causing a significant impact on occupational fields, areas of activity, and the skills required. This process of digital transformation entails a fundamental change in the organisational structure, operational processes, functional aspects and business paradigms of companies. It is driven by the incorporation of digital technologies, including (but not limited to): the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, machine learning, augmented reality, and in-memory computing (Kozanoglu & Abedin, 2021; Matt et al., 2015). From both an individual and a labour market perspective, this underlines the need for continuing education (CE) in the use and design of digital technologies (BMWK, 2022; The Federal Government, 2022). Nevertheless, there are significant inequalities in access to CE and the use of digital information and learning resources; both internationally and in Germany (Initiative D21, 2024; OECD, 2023).

Research on digital inclusion focuses primarily on differences in the use of information and communication technologies (ICT). The existing literature shows a lack of research on the social impact that results from differences in the use of digital technologies (Van Deursen et al., 2017). In Germany, inequalities of access and use of digital technologies correlate with educational, socio-economic, and geographical factors, as well as with social and regional origin, and gender (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2020). Adults with lower levels of education, increased age, and/or limited literacy only benefit to a limited extent from digital educational opportunities, due to their comparatively lower digital skills and lower use of digital educational resources (Lutz, 2019; Van Dijk, 2020). Additionally, the risk of unemployment is interlinked with skill level, a factor that is gaining increasing importance amid the ongoing digital transformation of the labour market (Bußmann & Seyda, 2016). Furthermore, it is reasonable to hypothesise that, given the unequal distribution of access to digital technologies among the population, the pandemic has disproportionately affected the educational opportunities of marginalised groups (e.g. Käpplinger & Lichte, 2020).

Therefore, it is crucial to explore the opportunities and challenges that low-qualified adults face in the context of digitalisation, as inequalities in digital skills can lead to exclusion, affecting low-qualified workers in particular, as this skill group is most at risk of unemployment and poverty (Van Deursen et al., 2017).

Low-qualified adults represent a social group of outstanding importance within the digital transformation, as new demands are also being placed on them. In Germany, this group encompasses five million people, who have lower digital skills and higher risk of unemployment than other social groups (on average). Furthermore, low-qualified adults participate less in CE activities, where they might acquire important skills for a labour market in transformation (OECD, 2021). As a consequence, low-qualified adults are not only at risk of being marginalised, but economies also risk losing a quantitatively important part of their workforce. Education and training policies worldwide, therefore, should focus on measures for addressing the needs of low-qualified adults (e.g. European Commission, 2020).

The study presented here uses a Group Delphi within a foresight approach to examine the prospective trajectory of CE initiatives aimed at low-qualified adults within a five-year time frame. Our inquiry arose from the project [anonymised], which was carried out by the German Institute for Adult Education, the Rheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität, and the Institute for Technology and Work Kaiserslautern (and was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research). It deals with the effects of digital transformation on CE for this population group over the next half decade. As part of a Delphi method, we involved experts from the domains of research, politics and education in an online group discourse to record their assessments of the upcoming developments in relation to individual influential facets, encompassing political/legal, technical/technological, and socio-economic dimensions. The insights gained can be used for targeted interventions and political measures to promote the further training of low-qualified adults and their participation in the labour market. This article elucidates the methodological approach employed, presents the outcomes derived from the Delphi study, and sheds light on the future of CE for low-qualified adults.

2. Continuing education for low-qualified adults in the digital transformation era

2.1. Defining low qualification

The term low-qualified is usually categorised on the basis of educational level (CEDEFOP, 2018) or the absence of a vocational qualification (Bürmann & Frick, 2016). Following this definition 23,5% of all adults in Europe are low-qualified (CEDEFOP, 2018). Such a simplified definition of a very heterogeneous target group has been criticised; which calls for a multidimensional and dynamic view of the term (CEDEFOP, 2018). Since the term low-qualified is a labour market status, it should also be defined in relation to the labour market. Therefore, the following definition was created in a comparison of common definitions:

Low-qualified persons are defined as adults who do not (or no longer) have the skills required for a specific job at a certain point in time. In addition to the formal level of education or the existence of professional vocational qualifications, non-formally and informally acquired skills and their current suitability are also taken into account.

This multidimensional definition also takes into account the heterogeneity of the target group, as it considers people with insufficient written or digital skills, people with professional qualifications whose qualifications are no longer in demand by the current labour market and people whose professional qualifications are not formally recognised (Mohajerzad et al., 2022s). Due to the overlap between these groups and different definition bases, it is not possible to make an exact statement about how many low-qualified adults there are according to our definition.

The term ‘low-qualified’ is therefore a relative description based on requirements which are always defined in relation to the occupational field of activity and the needs of the labour market. To be labelled as low-qualified is therefore dependent on time and place. Unfortunately, the majority of studies on the participation of low-qualified people in CE refers to a simplified definition of the term, as a multidimensional view of the term cannot be represented by data available. Nevertheless these studies statistics illustrate the educational inequality in participation in CE.

2.2. Participation of low-qualified adults in continuing education, and digital participation opportunities

In the EU-28, people with lower qualifications face higher unemployment rates, emphasising the need for further training to enhance job prospects (CEDEFOP, 2018). In order to meet the demand for qualified workers in Germany, both qualified people and people with low or no qualifications are urgently needed. The latter group represents an opportunity for workforce integration through further education to close the skills gap through immediate workforce participation and long-term skills development.

Despite the economic and societal importance of CE for low-qualified adults, those at an ISCED level of 0–2 are less likely to participate in all types of CE programmes compared to adults with a higher ISCED level across all OECD countries (OECD, 2021). In Germany, the rate is only 27%, while 55% of adults with higher ISCED level participate (OECD, 2021). With a gap of 28% between the various qualification levels, Germany is located in the middle of the OECD countries (OECD, 2021).

Based on data from the Adult Education Survey (AES), participation in CE among adults without vocational qualifications in Germany lags behind that of all other qualification groups (Seyda, 2019). The factors contributing to low participation among low-qualified adults are diverse. Low-qualified occupations offer fewer CE opportunities and are often found in small and medium-sized companies, which provide fewer opportunities for CE than larger enterprises (Tikkanen & Nissinen, 2018; Ziegler & Akbar, 2021). Additionally, low-qualified adults perceive other barriers to participating in CE than high-qualified adults (Brown & Bimrose, 2018; Osiander, 2019).

A closer look at in-company CE, the largest segment of CE in Germany (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2020), reveals that low-qualified adults have fewer opportunities for CE and lower participation rates compared to other qualification groups (Matthes & Weber, 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2019). Companies tend to provide CE primarily to their core workforce, highly qualified employees, and managers. Nevertheless, CE offerings for low-qualified adults have recently increased (Schöpper-Grabe & Vahlhaus, 2019).

Germany’s labour market is changing. Overall, projections indicate that 5.3 million jobs will disappear in Germany by 2040, while 2.6 million new jobs will be created, indicating a net loss of 2.7 million jobs (OECD, 2021). The change can be partly attributed to accelerated digitalisation (OECD, 2021). The ongoing process of digitalisation in Germany also reshaped the competency requirements for the labour market (Matthes & Severing, 2017). This transformation is particularly relevant for low-qualified adults, as digitalisation and automation trends have amplified in fields of work that employ a higher number of individuals with lower qualifications, resulting in a significant potential for job substitution in these professions (Dengler & Matthes, 2017; Van Nieuwenhove & De Wever, 2021). There is therefore also an increased need for further training among low-qualified adults (Reutter, 2017).

As already mentioned, people with low levels of formal education have a digital skills deficit. This is not only due to inequalities in access to digital devices and the internet. The general educational status is also linked to different forms of utilisation of digital services. For example, people with a low educational status not only participate less in digital training, but also use freely accessible learning resources less for informal learning (Rohs & Ganz, 2015; Van Dijk, 2020). Surveys of adult educators indicate that they tend to underestimate the benefits of self-directed learning with digital media lower for people with learning difficulties and little experience in CE (Rohs et al., 2019). The strategy of CE providers to counteract precisely these barriers by providing computer rooms and intensive counselling should also be interpreted in this way (Lachner & Rohs, 2023). Nevertheless, digitalisation not only presents risks but also opportunities for low-qualified people.

2.3. Continuing education as a multilevel system

The established governance model used in the study (Schrader, 2009) describes CE as a multi-level system whose core function consists in successful teaching and learning processes between professional adult educators and adult learners. So, the level of teaching and learning represents the first level of the model, followed by the level of CE providers. The provider organisations and their staff currently structure learning and teaching to a large extent in terms of content, time and place in their programme planning. They operate within an organisational and institutional environment which is formed by other actors in the field such as partners, participants, societal trends etc., as well as by CE policies. The institutional environment is furthermore embedded into political contexts at the federal, national and supranational levels. Thereby, the model distinguishes between four institutional environments within the German CE system; these differ widely, e.g. in terms of legal regulations, employment groups, participation structures and financing structures. These institutional environments shape the organisational behaviour of the providers and the pedagogical actions of the specialist staff. In Germany, a distinction is generally made between four different contexts of reproduction: communities, state, companies and market.

Our study was based on the governance model of CE as a multi-level system in our sampling approach and in the analysis of the data.

3. Methodology

3.1. Delphi study

The Delphi method is a systematic foresight approach developed in the 1950s (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). It has become a versatile tool for consensus building and decision making in a variety of fields. Characterised by its iterative rounds of questionnaires, it involves a panel of experts who provide and share their expertise and insights, with subsequent rounds refining these inputs based on collective feedback.

In the study’s approach, the conventional group Delphi (Niederberger & Renn, 2018, 2019; Schulz & Renn, 2009) was adapted for implementation in an online format. Thus, not only the specific variant of the group Delphi compared to the classical Delphi method, but also the transfer of the group Delphi concept to an online format, together form the innovative approach of this study.

While the original Delphi technique relies heavily on written surveys and the exchange of information via questionnaires, the ‘Online Group Delphi’ emphasises the importance of direct interaction between experts, usually in the form of workshops. In this project, the latter were conducted online via Zoom.

The Online Group Delphi allows access to in-depth research on controversial topics or partial aspects, as experts can directly exchange arguments with each other and decide on a consensus on the respective question in a participatory manner, although not always finding agreement (Niederberger & Renn, 2018). In this respect, the Online Group Delphi has a decisive advantage over other Delphi methods, as the reasons for the experts’ different assessments are also recorded (Niederberger & Renn, 2019; Schulz & Renn, 2009) and can even be analysed by the researchers during the implementation of the Online Group Delphi. In contrast to a conventional (questionnaire-based) Delphi, the Group Delphi is notably different for the fact that the items and the experts’ assessments are discussed in the groups during the workshop and a decision is then made for each item as to whether it is to be assessed as consensual (the group arrives at the same assessment) or dissensual (the group members arrive at different assessments); the reasons for dissensual assessments are then the subject of argumentative exchange in the workshop.

At the same time, the Group Delphi workshops encourage an open, argument-lead exchange. As such, the Online Group Delphi approach also mirrors a common feature of contemporary Delphi variants: The focus is no longer on the accuracy of the future assessment, but rather on the generation of knowledge about the future and the evaluation of issues according to various criteria (Cuhls, 2021). Group Delphis are particularly suitable for questions where expertise and judgement are required and where the experts’ answers are based on both systematically developed bodies of knowledge and scientific arguments.

A balanced composition of the panel is important in all group Delphis in order to consider a variety of perspectives and points of view, both in the panel discussion and in the analysis. This is because the group Delphi should bring together diverse knowledge and numerous perspectives on the research subject and create a space for the open exchange of knowledge and, if necessary, knowledge-based controversies through the discursive survey situation. The basis for this was created by a balanced selection of experts according to Schrader’s governance model presented in Section 2.3. The sample of experts was limited to 15 experts from research (4 experts), policy (3 experts), and providers (8 experts from the reproduction contexts company and state). All experts were identified on the basis of their particular stakeholder perspective and professional suitability, all proposals were discussed in the project consortium and then specifically invited to participate in the study.

The participants did not just review the documentation of the interim results at the very end of the group discussion, but also after the first round, and added to it if necessary. The second round of the Online Group Delphi then took place at a later date, approximately 6 months after the first date in spring 2023.

3.2. What if?

Foresight approaches are characterised by a systematic and methodical approach to narrowing down the spectrum of possible future developments in a subject area. Foresight differs from forecasts in that it is less concerned with making precise predictions. Instead, the aim is to narrow down a broad spectrum of possible futures. The remaining uncertainties are just as important as the result of a deeper understanding of the driving forces that influence the future.

As mentioned earlier, in the Online Group Delphi we used and validated raw scenarios in a communicative way to develop future scenarios for the training of low-qualified adults in the field of digitalisation. These can only be roughly sketched out in this format, but lead to the typical question for foresight approaches: What if?

In foresight projects, the ‘What if?’ question aims to broaden and deepen thinking about future possibilities. It is a central element in exploring future scenarios and plays an essential role in identifying and assessing risks, opportunities and unexpected developments. ‘What if?’ questions can be used to identify potential risks and uncertainties. They help, among other things, to understand and prepare for the impact of unforeseen events or trends, think beyond the status quo, and explore alternative possible futures. They can encourage people to imagine different scenarios that could result from different developments or decisions. It is therefore a powerful tool for systematically thinking about the future and supporting planning processes and well-founded decisions. It helps to recognise the complexity of future challenges and to prepare for them.

In this respect, from a scientific perspective, the prosaic descriptions of alternative futures are less important than the underlying ‘what if?’ questions about the opportunities, risks and uncertainties identified, e.g.:

• What if the diffusion of new technologies in practice has unexpected, previously unforeseen consequences?

• What if economic and/or social developments differ from current expectations (forecasts, expert assessments)?

• What if the objectives of policy programmes cannot be achieved (politically un/desirable future)?

In essence, scenarios are plausible alternative futures. Scenarios are therefore not ‘the future’ and should not be taken in a predictive sense. They can be distinguished from each other by the different ways in which their elements are likely to evolve, yet how these elements evolve remains inherently uncertain.

3.3. Formulation of projections and scenario development

Scenarios are an outlook on possible future developments that can be constructed based on assumptions and knowledge about the present and the near future. They are a way of systematically thinking-through possible, plausible or desirable futures. Scenarios are not predictions or forecasts, rather they describe different possible paths into ‘the’ future without specifying a probability of their occurrence. Within Foresight-approaches, scenarios serve a communication objective and an analytical objective. Their main objective is to actively address the inherent uncertainties of future developments, and thereby better understand and communicate them. Scenarios aim at alerting stakeholders and organisations to the multitude of possible futures and to better prepare them for future opportunities and risks, e.g. by encouraging the development of ‘future(s)-proof’ strategies.

While the group Delphi formed the methodological core, raw scenarios were also developed and validated. The primary aim was to use these raw scenarios communicatively in the course of the Delphi (Figure 1 shows the process of Delphi design and data collection). While scenarios are powerful communicative tools (that can help to convey complex ideas, promote shared understanding and support strategic action), raw scenarios serve as a tool to stimulate dialogue, discussions and reflections. This assists us to:

Figure 1. Methodological approach: design and data collection process.

• Engage in dialogue with our participants from different stakeholder perspectives and to develop a common perspective.

• Encourage strategic thinking beyond the status quo with the participants. The scenarios visualise possible futures and the implications of different decisions.

• Enable participants to challenge assumptions, integrate new knowledge and reflect on their views.

• Provide a framework for talking about uncertainties (and what options there are to deal with them).

The second aim was to use selected raw scenarios based on the participants’ responses on the one hand and the results of the group Delphi on the other in order to develop possible futures for the CE of low-qualified adults. To this purpose, a two-part scenario workshop was first designed, conducted and followed up to develop the raw scenarios of the digitised CE based on the results of the previous work packages. This comprehensive workshop was decisive in identifying a total of 53 factors influencing the future of digitised CE, with a particular focus on low-qualified adults. These 53 factors cover a wide range of elements, from technological advances to policy changes, each playing a distinct role in shaping the landscape of digitalised CE. Of these 53 factors, 12 were identified as key factors that will have a significant impact on the future of digitalised CE for low-qualified employees. Different possible developments were then formulated for each of these key factors, resulting in 37 alternative future developments.

Building on this foundational work, four raw scenarios for the digitalised CE of low-qualified adults were developed. These scenarios were designed to reflect diverse and plausible futures, taking into account the interdependencies, dynamics and uncertainties of the identified key factors:

1. CE for the low-qualified at a peak: good support and high participation rates,

2. Stagnation in CE training for the low-qualified,

3. Decline in CE training for the low-qualified,

4. Focus on people without a vocational qualification.

3.4. Data collection

The starting point of every Delphi process is the construction of a questionnaire. It lays the foundation and defines the depth of detail, scope and range of the analysis or presentation of the results. The purpose of the questionnaire was to cover all the factors relevant to the research topic that, on the basis of the results of our scenario workshop, were likely to be both highly uncertain and highly relevant to future developments over the next five to six years. Accordingly, the core of the Delphi questionnaire was developed based on the key factors from the scenario workshop. In this respect, all the literature research, surveys (qualitative interviews) and expertise of the entire project consortium carried out up to this point in the project were also incorporated into the development of the Delphi questionnaire with the results of the scenario workshop held in the project consortium.

As a result, a questionnaire with a total of 44 items was developed (43 items with a closed Likert scale and a free field at the end of the questionnaire). The items were broadly grouped thematically according to:

• Socio-economic conditions and contextual factors of continuing training programmes for the low-qualified,

• Political/legal conditions and contextual factors of CVT programmes for the low-qualified,

• Technical and technological conditions and contextual factors of continuing training programmes for the low-qualified,

• Future continuing training programmes for the low-qualified.

The response scale for all questions, with the exception of the last question, was a 10-point Likert scale. For all of these questions, respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 = ‘not sure’ to 10 = ‘sure’, how certain they thought the future development described below would be in the five-year time frame. All experts received the Delphi questionnaire before the first Online Delphi workshop in order to familiarise themselves with the objectives, content and methodological approach of the Delphi. Before the Delphi questionnaire was sent to the experts involved in the Delphi, a pre-test was carried out within the project consortium and some final adjustments were made. As the questionnaire was designed to serve as a basis for the moderated processing of all items in (small) groups during the two rounds of the group Delphi, it did not contain any demographic or other background questions about the participants. Two items yielded no results as the questions were poorly framed, which led to extensive discussion but no clear conclusions. The vague wording of about the demand for skilled labour and the impact on low-qualified adults prevented a definitive result. The narrow focus on internet affordability also ignored wider factors of digital inclusion and led to the exclusion of this item from the evaluation.

4. Results

4.1. Delphi study

The most important results of the Delphi study are summarised below and in accordance with the governance model of CE as a multilevel system (Schrader, 2009, see Chapter 2.3), with a brief presentation of the most important arguments that justify the different assessments of the Delphi panel (see Figure 2). In cases where the experts’ assessments agreed on judging a development as ‘uncertain’, the reasons for this are also given, insofar as they are relevant to the research question.

Figure 2. Items for future possibilities in the next five years on digital CE for low-qualified adults.

4.1.1. Level of teaching and learning

This level pertains to the immediate context in which teaching and learning processes occur. It centres on interactions between professional adult teachers and adult learners, as well as the techniques and materials employed in the teaching and learning process. This involves teaching strategies, methods and techniques, as well as learning and communication processes, and the surroundings in which learning takes place.

The findings of the Delphi study demonstrate that digital trainings will become increasingly important for low-qualified adults. The future will depend on professional media design, that improves the use of digital learning technologies. However, the experts do not assume that the specialised media design of digital courses will make them more attractive to low-qualified adults than conventional face-to-face courses. Certain disadvantages of digital formats, including reduced opportunities for personal contact and social interaction, potentially restricted access to appropriate technical devices and the internet, and a possible lack of digital skills, may present further barriers for low-qualified learners. This can be particularly challenging as direct teacher support is often scarce.

There is broad agreement among the experts surveyed that the acceptance of digital training among learners will continue to increase. With regard to the digitalisation of CE, it seems likely that the use of digital media and learning technologies will increase in the future, as the professional media design of CE courses promotes this trend. In addition, the use of visual aids and iconographic systems in digitised CE will continue to increase in order to facilitate participation for low-qualified and less educated individuals.

Regarding the possibility that new types of learning environments such as mobile or virtual spaces will become commonplace in the next five years, the expert panel is not yet certain (despite their structured exchange). This concerns the question of whether additional mobile learning facilities for outreach education will be set up in the future to involve low-qualified adult trainings, as well as the question of whether the number of virtual learning environments for self-directed digital learning will increase. This context should be considered in light of the different advantages and disadvantages associated with digital training programmes because self-directed learning is challenging for certain learners, since it requires a high degree of self-discipline and self-motivation.

4.1.2. Level of programme and courses

Programme and course offerings refer to the design and planning of CE measures by education providers. This includes the creation and design of curricula, courses and programmes, including topics, content and learning objectives. It also includes the definition of teaching and learning methods, such as face-to-face teaching or e-learning, blended learning or other innovative techniques. In addition, measures are taken to ensure the excellence of courses, to plan resources and to take into account external factors such as legal requirements, market developments and technological trends. At the programme level, it is important to consider both the short-term design of offerings and programmes, as well as the long-term strategic development of processes within organisations.

The experts agree that in the next five years digital media will be more strongly integrated into programme planning and thus become an integral part of CE for low-qualified workers. In this context, however, the Delphi Panel’s assessment must also be emphasised: even a professionalised media design of digital CE courses will still not make them more attractive for the low-qualified target group than face-to-face courses. The reasons for this lie in the fundamental advantages and disadvantages of digital CE courses compared to face-to-face formats, whereby the limitations of (purely) digital formats must be taken into account, particularly for the target group of low-qualified workers.

The experts are unsure whether AI will have a decisive influence on the targeted design of CE programmes in the next five years. The wording ‘decisive’ and the time frame until 2028 contribute to this uncertainty. There is no doubt that AI can already support the design of digital education programmes, even if other factors are likely to play an even greater role in the quality of these programmes. Non-technical aspects should also be considered for the future training of low-qualified adults at both the provision and curriculum levels. These include certification and consideration of the non-vocational training needs of the target group.

4.1.3. Level of CE providers and their management

The organisational level concerns the management and structural aspects of CE providers. This level encompasses all factors pertaining to the administration and leadership of such institutions. This involves recruiting, training, and developing teaching staff (personnel planning and development), overseeing quality standards, evaluating and improving educational programmes, and developing strategies for promoting and advertising the educational programmes (marketing and public relations), or collaborating with relevant stakeholders. However, experts agree that the application of AI in the CE market could result in detrimental effects for certain providers. These effects are expected to impact providers that lack the necessary resources to develop and implement AI systems and invest in technology, data and expertise. In addition, AI systems reap the rewards of vast amounts of data, conferring a further edge to (large) market players who already possess access to extensive databases, but which smaller providers may not (as yet) be able to utilise. There are perils in market concentration and dependence on technology providers here. Moreover, service deficiencies are conceivable for those providers tending to more individual and specialised courses or catering to highly specific target groups. In light of these events, the use of AI also constitutes a regulatory challenge.

The area of AI application and its significance is still not clear. This incorporates the inquiry of whether AI algorithms will provide training providers with suggestions on the development of training programmes in the future. The Delphi panel exhibited diverging opinions concerning whether algorithms or AI applications will provide low-qualified adults with suggestions on choosing CE programmes in the future. Furthermore, there was a debate about whether the use of artificial intelligence will guarantee an ideal match between the educational requirements of low-qualified adults and CE providers/programmes in the future.

Concerning learners, experts agree that guidance services focusing on the digital skills of the target group will grow in the future, which is consistent with the German National Skill Strategy’s interest in expanding digital CE (Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2019). However, there is a discrepancy regarding whether all individuals enrolled in CE programmes will have access to the required end devices in the future, if they do not possess their own end devices. This is a prerequisite for some of the target group to effectively participate in digital lifelong learning programmes and achieve success through a digital platform. It is closely linked to the unresolved issue of funding the distribution of the necessary equipment to learners.

4.1.4. Level of policy and politics

At the policy level, the legal framework conditions and funding policy decisions are particularly relevant, as they have a decisive influence on the financing and financial viability of trainings, especially for the low-qualified. The CE associations, which are regularly involved in the political decision-making process, were also included in this process. At national and European level, initiatives and programmes are regularly developed that influence the field of CE. In addition, quality assurance in CE is also relevant at political and association level, e.g. in the development and monitoring of quality standards or the accreditation and certification of training courses. For their part, the associations and the CE sector are actively involved in political decision-making processes in order to represent the interests and needs of the sector and influence political developments.

Regarding the policy level, the results of the Delphi clearly show that one can currently predict that the participation of low-qualified adults in CE will not decrease over the next five years. Indeed, over the same time the prospects for the participation of low-qualified adults in the labour market are expected to be favourable. While the participants generally believe that CE for the low-qualified will remain a political focus and will receive greater attention in the future (and that this can also be expected to lead to a positive development in participation in CE among the low-qualified), the experts have not yet been able to draw a clear picture of the specific roles that the National Education Platform (Mein Bildungsraum²) or the Digital Pact for CE will play in the expansion and promotion of digital CE programmes.

The experts agree that the digital transformation of the labour market will lead to an increasing need for further training for low-qualified adults over the next five years. Although the labour market is expected to keep developing positively for low-qualified adults, the experts surveyed do not assume that the participation of this target group in CE to deteriorate in this context. With regard to access to the labour market, it cannot be assumed that employers will demand more formal qualifications. It is uncertain whether the remaining unqualified manual-labour jobs in industry will be automated to any significant extent in the next five years. It is also uncertain whether the acceptance of participation qualifications on the labour market will improve significantly in the next five years. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) is committed to this, but other conditions are also relevant in this context, and have so far only been partially realised. In the Delphi panel discussion, it was pointed out that there must be uniformity so that employers also recognise these partial qualifications. This recognition on the part of employers in the labour market is an essential prerequisite for the acceptance of participation qualifications on the part of participants in further training courses.

On the contrary, the respondents expect that CE for the low-qualified will receive (even) more political attention in the future. They also consider the possibility that the further expansion of funding programmes for CE for the low-qualified could significantly increase the participation rate of the low-qualified in the next five years and that bureaucratic hurdles in funding could be further reduced by a significant expansion of the funding conditions for trainings for the low-qualified. Financial incentive instruments to increase the participation of low-qualified adults in training are already having an effect and can be expected to make a significant contribution to increasing training participation.

However, the experts were not unanimous in their assessment of whether politicians will succeed in creating better framework conditions for further education providers and participants over the next five years. It was not only considered uncertain whether, for example, the bureaucratic burden for participation in CE could be significantly reduced in the future. Indeed, the experts were also unsure whether the National Digital Networking Infrastructure for Education as¹ a meta-platform for networked digital education and training courses will contribute to the expansion of digitalised CE and training for the low-qualified in the future. The Delphi panel was unable to reach a consensus on the question relevant to CE providers as to whether the federal government will support CE providers by investing in the digital CE infrastructure within the digital pact for CE settled in the coalition agreement.

In addition, a number of prerequisites must be met for the effective dissemination of digital education and training programmes. For example, it is quite possible that the expansion of broadband in Germany over the next five years will lead to a reduction in the urban-rural divide and a reduction in location-related factors for the digital participation of low-qualified adults.

This question is relevant insofar as the expansion and improvement of the broadband internet infrastructure, (i.e. the nationwide availability of sufficiently fast internet connections) is a basic prerequisite for access to digital learning platforms, online courses and multimedia learning content. This applies all the more if local education programmes will no longer be available locally in all regions of Germany. As far as individual access to digital CE is concerned, we must again emphasise the still unresolved challenge of access to adequate end devices required for participation, which has already been addressed in the Organisational Level subchapter.

4.2. Two futures of digitalisation and CE for the low-qualified

In our study, we used and validated four raw scenarios in order to develop alternative possible futures from them and from the results of the Online Group Delphi. The starting point for the development of the raw scenarios were those influencing factors that were both highly relevant to the subject under investigation and associated with a high degree of uncertainty for future development. Integrating the results of the Delphi Group with the key what-if questions (uncertainties) was crucial in deriving the futures.

Based on the results of the Online Group Delphi, two futures of digitalisation and CE for the low-qualified were created (outlined below). Both futures took into account the results of the Online Group Delphi with regard to the opportunities and risks of digitalisation in CE and training for the low-qualified. Variant One sees a continuation of the developments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and which formed the framework within which the experts in the Delphi panel came to their consensus (or lack thereof). There are no significant breaks in the trends. Instead, the next five years will see a good degree of continuity in the developments that are already apparent today. Conditions for low-qualified adults are relatively good here, both for the labour market and in the area of CE and training. Digitalisation is creating space for innovation in continuing training, both in terms of innovative provision and new providers. An effective policy framework, especially in terms of funding and ensuring a level playing field for all providers in the CE market, is important but not decisive.

Variant two calls into question the fundamentally positive development of the labour market for adults and in particular for the target group of low-qualified adults. In this variant, the framework conditions in Germany are characterised by challenging economic conditions that put pressure on both the target group of low-qualified adults and on education providers. Digitalisation as a ‘bridging technology’ can help to overcome these challenges, but the efficiency and effectiveness of political programmes is crucial.

The core message is that the recipients of foresight results cannot avoid asking themselves the crucial ‘what-if’ questions for their specific situation (subject area, discipline, sector, industry, organisation, etc.). The results presented here, but also the uncertainties highlighted and the ‘what if?’ questions raised, could provide a valuable basis for this.

5. Discussion

The study has given us a glimpse into the crystal ball. There seems to be a consensus in uncertainty: The state of research indicates relatively clearly that low-qualified people in Germany (and probably worldwide) will need more support in the digital transformation of economies and societies – not only to prevent a whole social group from being marginalised, but also to think about qualifying a workforce for upcoming uncertain global changes. Adult- and CE have always followed a mission to support social transformation processes and to serve all learners (including the marginalised) through learning opportunities.

The experts in our study agree that the German CE providers will continue to follow a path of creating well-fitted learning opportunities for low-qualified adults within the digital transformation of the next five years. Despite the technical utopias of the educational technology sector, the near future of learning and teaching with low-qualified adults will probably be based on personal and physical face-to-face learning and teaching arrangements. These settings will be enriched by digital technology and self-learning opportunities and will support digital skills. In order to exploit the opportunities of digital learning for the target group, emerging barriers will be systematically countered by appropriate measures. These findings are in line with other studies; they emphasise that German CE providers do not consider online-only to be suitable for low-qualified learners (Koscheck et al., 2022). The finding that these people need a (timely) structured teaching design which is highly dependent on personal contact and continuity (Sindermann et al., 2023) completes the picture of how to develop teaching programmes for low-qualified learners. So all in all, there seems to be a consensus, on what the uncertain future of CE for Low-qualified learners should look like.

The results also fit in with the results of studies with adult education teachers conducted in Germany (Author5 & Others) and Switzerland (Sgier et al., 2018). They clearly show that these teachers definitely see opportunities in digitalisation, but that this is highly dependent on the target group. In particular, people with a low level of education and little experience in CE are expected to see fewer benefits from digitalisation. This may also explain why the proportion of digitalised courses is declining again after the coronavirus pandemic (Widany et al., 2022). In 2022, the share of online formats in the ACE statistics is at about 10%, which is a lot more than before the pandemic, but still less than during the pandemic. These different findings indicate a need for more research in these different developments of digital learning opportunities and if these are to be explained by differences in target groups and logics of CE sectors. Furthermore, it will be interesting to relate these results to other countries in an international comparative approach.

The idea of blending digital and traditional face-to-face formats with each other is an instructional design that had already been used before the pandemic, and has generally experienced a boost in recent years. From the perspective of learning provision for low-qualified adults, it is relatively new to the German landscape. Before the pandemic legal regulation in Germany partly prevented the use of digital ‘anytime-anywhere’ technologies. Apart from that, no technological revolutions are to be expected within the next five years (at least, when working with low-qualified adults). Particularly when it comes to questions of artificial intelligence, the Delphi experts agree that this ‘revolutionary technology’ will, albeit ‘not certainly’, have an impact on professionally organised teaching and learning for the target group discussed here. This uncertainty of the experts, as well as the hype around tools like Chat GPT, is a call for further research into how these technologies can be used for marginalised learners. There are already some first steps under way towards such a research agenda: the IWWB Plus² project is developing an AI based chatbot and implementing it into a CE database to provide guidance. In addition, a research group at Hamburg University created a literacy Promptathon for migrants and people with low literacy skills using ChatGPT (Grotlüschen et al., 2023). In terms of research, it is worth analysing the development and implementation strategies of such AI tools for use with marginalised learners.

Finally, this study aimed to provide insights into how foresight methodologies – specifically Group Delphi – could be applied to CE. While other studies such as the New Horizon Report³ or the German mmb Learning Delphi⁴ take a technology-driven perspective, this study has taken a CE approach by focussing on a social group at risk of being marginalised. The findings show that this perspective produces very different results from a technology-driven approach.

6. Conclusions and limitations

On a broader scale, we can conclude from the study that low-qualified adults are an important social group in political, societal, economic, and adult educational terms; as well as in numbers. As such, there is a need for further analysis of how this group is (or is not) participating in adult and CE, and what professional CE can do to serve them well in times of global transformation – be it digital or ecological transformation, or other up-coming global changes. Our study has identified areas of action and a well-fitting blended learning strategy for CE providers to work with low-qualified adults in the digital transformation. Although artificial intelligence is regarded to be an important future for CE, the experts doubt that this will be the case for low-qualified learners. All in all, this study provides a critical perspective on technology trends by applying a pedagogical perspective.

The limitations of the study lie, on the one hand, in the definition of the target group. The study describes low-qualified workers in relation to the labour market. This means that they are not only people with a low level of education, but also people whose existing qualifications are not (or no longer) in high demand on the labour market. This heterogeneity of the target group therefore also requires a differentiation of individual requirements. However, the increase in complexity that this would entail could not be realised in the study, so that more in-depth research is needed here.

At the same time, the study is limited to a first attempt at an Online Group Delphi with two rounds. The sample of experts was limited to experts from research (4), policy (3), and providers of CE (8). Unfortunately, the experts from practice did not include the in-company-training sector, which by quantity is an important sector of the German CE system. At the same time, the Online Group Delphi approach provides fruitful discussion, integrating multiple perspectives on how to create high quality learning opportunities for disadvantaged learners. Finally, the study, shows that there is a consensus of these different perspectives, about how to cope with the uncertainties of the future

Ethical statement

All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (revised edition 2017).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. https://www.meinbildungsraum.de/en/

2. https://www.dipf.de/de/forschung/projekte/iwwbplus#0

3. https://www.educause.edu/

4. https://www.mmb-institut.de/category/mmb-trendmonitor/