Dialogue as a Principle of Education

Abstract

In the educational environment, dialogue should be understood as an inseparable tool in an individual’s contact with the academic environment. The dialogue will be used in an educational environment where we are thinking about – the functional development and growth of an individual, where the goal is not just to pass framed levels. The dialogue in both the educational and the life environment encounters a strict mechanism – programs and services based on evidence. The dialogue opens the space for a common third, through which it is possible to provide an original, truly personalised service. The very uniqueness of the human being is a symbol that represents value for the paradigm of inclusion and with which it works. Dialogue and inclusion are intertwined and connected in educational ideas. At the same time the dialogue provides a solution to the issue of introducing inclusion.

1. Introduction

From the beginning of 2022 to the middle of 2023, the thematic priority among the professional public is “Engaging together for a sustainable and inclusive Europe” [1]. The goal of inclusion is generally creating an environment with access to opportunities and resources where an individual can reach his potential and fully participate in society. Inclusive measures in the environment also remove barriers and obstacles preventing an individual’s participation in society. At the same time, in terms of developing his potential and involvement in the community based on the expression of his uniqueness, the individual gets into a mutual reflection with the environment in which processes are regulated based on universal goals. In today’s society, they are presented as 17 sustainable development goals related to resources, infrastructure of values, responsibility, cooperation, education and others. A connected requirement arises – to create a functional environment with the condition of sustainable development, to involve every individual in it with their own needs or other specific requirements and at the same time to use its uniqueness as a potential source of development of society. The mentioned individual forces (organisation, man) have their direction, while the task is to find a consensus. A suitable tool for reaching an agreement is dialogue. The facts and circumstances represent an external motive for treating the given issue on a theoretical level. In a theoretical study, we consider the potential of dialogue, which connects phenomena expanding together with the ongoing givens of the social system in time in social space to that sustainable cooperation in the direction of positive change in society. We perceive dialogue concerning inclusion as a source, method of execution, connecting and regulating mechanism of inclusive aspirations. Since inclusiveness is implemented in the educational environment, and this environment itself needs to be adjusted so that it is a realistic reflection of the functioning of society, it is logical to implement dialogue in all areas of the educational system.

2. Methodology

Within the theoretical study, we present the phenomenon of dialogue. At the theoretical level, we provide a brief insight into the issue, specifically focusing on the characteristics of dialogue while paying attention to causal factors. The reason for choosing the topic is that the dialogue is the socialisation component of the personality and, at the same time, reflects the state and functionality of society. The research aims to provide insight into the dialogue at its theoretical level. Based on the set goal of the study, we set out a research question of an exploratory nature of RQ: What are the status and characteristics of the dialogue within the framework of inclusion at its theoretical level?

We chose the type of research for the selected topic – theoretical research. It was qualitative research, and the exploratory design of the work was chosen. The orientation of the study had an analytical-synthetic nature. The primary method of work was content analysis.

The following methods were used to collect meanings: literary method, analogy, and, at the same time, the processing method – analysis. We used the academic method when studying the sources. The research file consisted of available communications – text in verbal form, namely monographs, scientific studies, professional articles, and development agenda. We obtained the research file from available printed sources. We received resources from platforms for science and research: UNESCO, Frontiers, Elsevier, Internet Archive, Taylor & Francis, Social Pedagogy Professional Association, Thempra, UCL Press. We also drew resources from the official website of the European Union. We obtained information mainly from journal publications focused on humanities, such as the International Journal of Social Pedagogy, the European Educational Research Journal, the British Educational Research Journal, The Journal of Experimental Education, Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, etc. Selecting the initial text documents, we determined the criterion – keywords, and therefore, the set selection was deliberate. From the basic set, there were included just 69 communications to the research. We present the communications in the bibliography.

The processing method – content analysis – was primarily used to process the documents. Logical qualitative methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction) processed meaning units from theoretical sources. We also used the analogy method to evaluate the suitability of theoretical sources for research based on keywords. The direction of analysis of text documents was inductive based on the established criteria. Also, based on the determined criteria, selective coding was used to process text documents. We primarily focused on the dialogue expressed explicitly, and in the first analysis – informative reading, we obtained information about the headlines. As part of the second analysis – with the help of cursive reading, we familiarised ourselves with the contents of the text documents. Through relational analysis, we investigated connections and relationships between meaning units. We grouped meaningful units through the synthesis method, resulting in the identification and content. We were secondarily interested in the latent content – the expressive value of the text. We searched for other sources based on the informative value and focus of the range of the available sources. Using the deductive method, we obtained the meaning, which were implicitly expressed within the context. We have ensured the credibility of the research by including quotations and paraphrases.

3. Results

3.1 Dialogue: Contact with the educational environment

One of the goals of ensuring a sustainable and inclusive Europe is to ensure universal access to quality education at all levels of education ([1], p. 3). Goal 4 commits explicitly to “Ensure inclusive and fair quality education” ([1], p. 14), which is intended to help “…acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to take advantage of opportunities and to participate fully in society” ([1], p. 7), Another goal of education is “so that all students acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to support sustainable development” ([1], p. 17), so that “they can meet needs without jeopardising the ability of future generations needs” [2]. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the context sequence, sensitivity to reality, and reflection in education. The result is the ability to direct one’s needs, skills and behaviour towards common goals.

The stated goals can be achieved through a tool – dialogue, which takes place in environments: at the micro-level as a dialogue of individuals, at the mesolevel as a dialogue in the educational process and at the macro-level as a dialogue between the actors of the state and the institution. At the level of the macro-environment (transnational and national environment) in the direction of the possibility of making decisions regarding policy-making in the issues of active participation of young people in education, there is a Structured Dialogue tool. It is implemented nationally through meetings of young people with policymakers and at the European level through work on a selected topic within the cycle [3, 4]. The dialogue results in provisions and recommendations that explicitly reflect the position of young people, their education and opportunities in society. The European Commission presents them to individual member states intending to implement them [3]. The European Dialogue with Youth strategy for the years (2019–2027) is also committed to specific goals: the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe, the strengthening of civic competencies and a sense of belonging to society, following Article 165 of the TFEU [3, 4]. An example of good practice in the issue of dialogue in the educational environment, which connected the national level (management departments) and the meso-environment (schools) in the Slovak Republic, was represented by the system tool – Digital contribution. It was aimed at changing the paradigm in the educational environment as a reflection on the current state of education with the direct ability of graduates to succeed in the working environment of a technologically advanced society [5]. In this case, the dialogue represented the central process of the system tool, connecting the education system, the labour market system and the service-providing regions.

In the meso-environment within the educational environment, dialogue is an inherent part of how the educational process proceeds as dialogic education [6].

1. Dialogue works with updating the educational process. Dialogues can lead to the transformation of traditional teaching practices and teachers’ thinking and to the development of inclusive schools. As an example of praxis, we present a 20-year longitudinal research [7] focused on developing an inclusive approach between teachers and students. The core of the inclusive approach was the dialogue (discussion with reflection) between teacher and student. At the same time, the inclusive approach facilitated the ongoing dialogue regarding the transformation of procedures and thinking and the development of inclusiveness in selected schools.

2. Through dialogue, an individual can acquire the ability to understand a sequence of contexts, and that is when it is possible to start from current real-life situations, working with current information. This dialogue also brings educational reality [8]. Through dialogue, it is also possible to analyse specific information from different points of view. It thus provides a holistic approach. Research [9] confirms that dialogue-based learning represents an inclusive pedagogy, as it enables epistemological plurality.

3. Dialogue enables the individual to identify himself as an environmental factor, direct his potential and behaviour towards processes ensuring self-development and indirectly participate in society’s goals. For example, according to the research report [10], dialogue has a positive impact on the indicators:

   • Motivation – interest in searching for content, support for open discussion without fear;

   • Cognitive skills – attention, permanent interaction, follow-up on previous knowledge, support of thinking and reasoning, understanding, and creation of a thought process. At the same time, the ability to raise a question is developed. Questions prompt thoughtful responses, and these prompt further questions for discussion;

   • Communication skills – mutual attentive listening, coherent exchange of opinions, balance of conversation between teachers and students, student participation in explanations, questioning, cooperativeness, non-competitiveness, activity of less communicative participants, joint drawing of conclusions;

   • Metacognition – perceiving a mistake as a chance to learn, sharing ideas, building on participants’ contributions, and providing guidance on how to avoid mistakes;

   • Social competencies – mean working on shared understanding, respecting minority opinions, and providing valuable diagnostic feedback.

   • Environment – sufficient space and time for thinking, expressing oneself, relevant to the context and content of the lesson, appropriate pace of handling tasks, getting real answers (not looking for the “correct” answer), and possibility to expand the solutions. The approach of dialogic teaching creates a prerequisite for a safe environment where it is possible to strengthen the self-confidence and engagement of pupils ([10], p. 40).

Another example of good practice from the school environment is represented by the methodology “Introduction to technology in the 21st century” [11]. Here are dialogue figures as a way of implementing an educational unit.

3.2 Dialogue: Development and growth of the individual

The development and growth of an individual is not a one-way issue. The stimuli towards the environment are reflected in such a way that the form of the answer is obtained only from the framework of the created possibilities of the environment. It is only possible to get a response to information in an environment that is adapted to capture and process information. Therefore, at the same time as we ask the question about the stimulus, it is appropriate to ask ourselves whether there is an environment or whether the environment is adapted to the answer to the question that will be posed.

Social, academic and intellectual forms of student engagement are defined as “meaningful participation in the life of the school”, according to the Canadian Education Association ([12], p. 2). Meaningful participation of an individual is possible only in reflection on the environment, which is also called for by UNESCO [13], which is influential in a natural, political, economic and cultural context. Student engagement is vital if education focuses “on the perspective of students in terms of the nature and degree of commitment they feel” ([12], p. 1). A commitment can only be made to a realistic and meaningful goal. The student cannot engage in significant action if he reflects on unrealistic, meaningless, temporal and spatial contexts of the environment. If the meaningfulness of the processes in time and space is to be ensured, the person and the environment must reflect on each other in a dialogue. At the theoretical level, this fact represents the first step and, at the same time, the answer to the question about the possibility of development and growth of the individual. The development and growth of an individual in any direction is thus possible if, in reflection, there is also development and transformation of the environment in which he is located.

In addition to the point mentioned above “(a)” regarding the transformation of procedures in education, it is necessary to state that the dialogue supports the introduction of “transformational” discourse – i.e. with critical emancipatory education, where the educator understands the possibility of providing a transformational view of teaching while acting through the profession on society also by being able to evoke in the basics the attitude of the students so that they understand more deeply the essence of education in the transformation of society. It requires schools to be seen as places where information and values are not transmitted to students without them but are critically evaluated and co-created with them [14]. The teacher is considered part of the change of power and community structures [15] in a teaching system that connects the school with society [16].

In terms of the theory of complex dynamic systems (CDS) [17], we also introduce a new entering factor – AI- in connection with transforming the educational environment. AI can help to transform educational systems towards inclusive education [18]. In the dialogue, the AI tool can be helpful in the direction of information and navigation through the stimuli database and in terms of the processing time of incentives during input analysis and evaluation. We add that if the AI factor is to be accepted as a tool within the dialogue of interested parties, it is necessary to deal with questions regarding providing the possibility for stimuli input.

3.2.1 Common third space

“The common third [19] can be defined as a symmetrical relationship between a teacher and an educator, within which the boundary between who acts as an educator and who is an educator is blurred. The parties involved show a joint interest in the matter, the activity, while the collaborative activity operates on the principle that all participants participate under equal conditions in all its phases (from planning to closing the matter). The common third helps to create an authentic shared educational environment ([20], p. 21). The common third provides a holistic approach [21], considering the potential development of both parties involved [22].

The concept of the common third as a concept of existential philosophy about interpersonal relations is based on the theory of relational dialogue of the philosopher Martin Buber [23]. The common third represents an interpersonal space where a meeting between two subjects as autonomous beings takes place and an authentic dialogue takes place. The common third represents the three basic dimensions of interpersonal relationships: “I” and “You” – “We”. “I and You” describes the relationship of the unity of being; in the dialogue, the parties consider including the whole being of the other [23]. The “we,” as a result, arises from the awareness that the affairs of one affect the position and being of the other. Due to the authenticity of interpersonal communication, dialogue is crucial for mutual recognition, understanding and the creation of relationships. If in the relationship “I and You”, we consider an authentic meeting of two people who are recognised as unique and autonomous beings, the criterion of dialogue is also observed – the elimination of the aged automaton, that is, the elimination of the assignment of competence based on the degree achieved. Buber’s concept also describes the asymmetrical relationship between “I” and “It” [23], where “It” is the object. The perception of a person as an “It” object occurs if the person and his affairs are approached as a specific isolated quality, with the knowledge that the participants are separate and the situation of one participant does not affect the other participant existentially. In this relationship, there is a one-way transformation, the assimilation of the “object”, and a vertically oriented approach is applied ([24], p. 6). It can be described as an anti-dialogue.

Personal interaction is emphasised in the common third concept. The dialogue explicitly enables the emergence and building of a common third; it allows mutual reflection between the participants, i.e. the active participation of all interested parties. Based on reflectivity in communication, one can perceive and pay attention to the specifics of a particular situation. Paying attention to detailed issues [7] arising within a specific situation affects the active involvement of students in teaching. At the same time, the presence of reflection in the actions of individuals determines whether it is the realisation of a dialogue or a completely different process.

The element-active involvement in the activity, which is mediated by dialogue and within the common third, can help in the educational environment in the field of evaluation. It is possible to identify the “level of ability to exert effort” based on active involvement in the educational process. Knowing and accepting the mental ceiling of individuals protects both participants in the dialogue so that the assigned responsibility is adequate and the individuals can fulfil the assigned sub-tasks. Consequently, according to the given approach, it logically makes no sense to specify the “performance of the individual” as the objective of the evaluation but the level of participation that the individual is capable of. Based on it, it is possible to determine what role it can play in the direction of common goals and what other resources are necessary to achieve the common goal in the assigned meaningful activity.

When choosing the type of evaluation, it is necessary to distinguish whether they provide sufficient authoritative information about the actual state of mind, the condition of individuals, the situation and the environment. Dialogue is of fundamental importance for evaluation [25]. In the type of evaluation – prognostic, diagnostic, we find room for dialogue. Assessments – formative, summative assessment, norm-referenced assessment, criteria-based assessment, and quantitative assessment do not include the possibility of dialogue. For example, with the evaluation tool – “performative technologies” [26] intended for measuring the performance of educators, there are difficulties in its introduction, as the recognition of performance is determined relativistically and does not consider collective efforts. Thus, active involvement can serve as a tool of liberation pedagogy in the question of the evaluation method.

Dialogue ensures the conditions for maintaining the cooperation of the participants on a common idea. People can understand things as long as you are close to them in time and space. People need help with the concept in different environments outside of this framework. If there are no changes in the time horizon in favour of the idea, the idea becomes dormant, and the actors who joined together in realising the concept eventually leave it. Removing reflection from activity denies practice; it makes dialogue impossible ([24], p. 94). Dialogue without action is an alienated word losing its essence, and when reflection is lost, it turns into just assigning tasks – “storing” ([24], p. 93). Gradually, there is a big difference between the reality presented and created through the functions and the reality perceived by the recipients of the tasks. If contents are provided that do not follow the perception of reality of the addressee of the service, one can speak of anti-dialogue [24].

In connection with the preference for the use of digital technology, digitised services and A.I. in the field of education and social services, which comes as a consequence of industrialisation and at the same time as a follow-up to the ideas of the common third, reflection in immediate temporal and spatial proximity, it is essential to mention the connection with the associated process “alienation”. “Alienation” can be understood as work or activity that digital technologies perform for humans. In a positive sense, digital devices can engage in relatively unrestricted dialogue and discussion [27], contributing to overcoming social forms and activities described as “alienating”, such as strengthening individuals and groups in opposition to the dominant social order. Information and communication technologies can give subordinate groups and regional formations more power and equality against hegemonic forces. Positive development can be observed when digital technologies represent socially necessary work mediating the common third, and space for individuals and social groups’ self-realisation and creative life activity is freed up. In a negative sense, ICTs can create forms of alienation, increase inequality, increase the power of ruling social forces, and be used as instruments of domination [24]. Dominance can occur if the work is organised according to tendentious intentions; it will be imprisoning – when the majority of the work with the recipient of the service will be made up of bureaucracy, or the individual will not find the type of support for their specific needs in the portfolio of services.

At the same time, it is necessary to draw attention to a possible negative trend due to the preference for providing services through digital technologies – the gradual replacement of face-to-face services. As humans, we are alienating each other in favour of digital devices. Communication in the social service mediated by digital technologies, which reaches the recipient through logging into the digital system, is more anonymous [28]; the disadvantage of the online service is the lack of personal contact, according to Monahan [29]. There is also a reduction of non-verbal cues [28], making it possible to identify the specifics of a concrete life situation and actual needs. At the same time, these are reduced to the framework of the set service. Online access implicitly desensitises the service provider to the specific needs of the service recipient, and concerns about privacy and confidentiality also arise, Monahan [29] states. For example, research [30] implicitly pointed to the principle of the human factor, namely that as a result of “emotional support”, service recipients perceived the effectiveness of solving their crisis higher than when providing “informational support”.

Mediation of the human relationship with the help of digital technologies, where one subject perceives the other as an object, can be identified as an “I and It” (I-It) relationship. Digital service, AI can provide effective and fast help in the direction of information availability and analytical power. Still, it will always be a matter of reciting information from a database, where authentic dialogue between individuals and the situation’s specifics are absent. For example, we can already find the first shortcomings of communication with a service implemented in this way in the primary field of linguistics. While a human can understand expressions in contexts, AI is not yet sensitive enough to context [31], does not distinguish the different meanings of words in contexts, and may create an inappropriate phrase in the context of a conversation.

Last but not least, we add that the relationship between a person and a person is unique; there is a reflection of the attributes of a person with the characteristics of another person, while the relationship between people mediated by an online service, an AI service represents a synergistic relationship, here there is a reflection reduced to the attributes of a person with a database of information, algorithms provided in the programmed service.

In the educational system, we also encounter anti-dialogue in the educational process. The traditional school system either needs more authentic dialogue or fails to ensure it. A mechanism with tendentious strategies and approaches is rooted in the structure. At the relational level, we encounter an asymmetric hierarchical relationship, where the educational service provider becomes the subject and the educator the object. At the same time, a vertically oriented approach prevails ([24], p. 6), within which one-way transformation and assimilation of the service recipient is realised. Following this, a transmissive approach wins in content, where the authority that we consider “the one who knows what is right” prepares and forwards the contents to “the one who does not know”. At the same time, it is related to the regulatory level, where “he who knows what is right” regulates so that the transfer is realised. In practice, what happens is that contents are introduced, and the level of assimilation of “what he doesn’t know” into the system is controlled through the evaluation mechanism.

Regarding the given issue, in the context of education, Martin Buber’s common third ensures the possibility of subjects meeting in a mutually acknowledging dialogue where they share their thoughts, opinions and experiences. The approach in social services can also work on the same principle, preferably in social-pedagogical activities. Paulo Freire [24] also responded to the problem of the approach creating asymmetric relationships in the environment where he worked. With liberating pedagogy, he strove to liberate the individual from the passive role of becoming an object of instruction. He supported a participatory approach, engagement where the subject is active in his educational process.

3.2.2 Uniqueness is a symbol: a value for the paradigm of inclusion

Human uniqueness represents various attributes (dimensions where people can show their differences. The uniqueness that we will focus on in the context of the chapter refers to the attribute – personality characteristics [32]. These are properties: experiences, beliefs, attitudes, perspectives, creativity, intellect, life goals, intuition, individuality, authenticity, values and aspirations and, as stated by [33], personality traits and interests. Uniqueness is something unrepeatable. Based on uniqueness, an individual’s contribution to society has the potential to be unique; he can contribute opinions, ideas and abilities, which brings a higher level of creativity, variety of possibilities and innovation.

According to the balancing model [34], manifestations of individual uniqueness find the purpose and goal of their direction in society (where people feel understood and part of a group). Manifestations of uniqueness, which lack scope and drive in some groups of people or society, represent only a range of “differences”. The attribute of a human being – uniqueness is accepted, recognised and appreciated precisely in the concept of inclusion. Uniqueness concerning the idea of inclusion represents a value – one of inclusion’s principles, characteristics and pillars. It is an added value because it contributes to diversity (experiences and skills arising from it, variety of perspectives), successfully introduces inclusion, strengthens the inclusive environment, and enriches the educational environment. At the same time, an inclusive environment protects the individual from a type of inclusion – assimilation into an environment that does not provide space for the expression of uniqueness, as a result of which the individual feels unappreciated, and society is deprived of creative expressions.

The attribute “uniqueness” of a person gives the concept of inclusion a purpose and a sense for its implementation, and in parallel, an inclusive environment finds the direction of its paradigm in uniqueness:

• The challenge of inclusion concerning uniqueness is to spread awareness of its contribution to spiritual wealth and diversity in the entire society, further to be recognised, respected, involved in processes and welcomed in the community.

• An inclusive approach makes it possible to recognise and appreciate the uniqueness of a human being. Within an inclusive environment, efforts are made to ensure that each individual is provided with space for personal development to express their Uniqueness and subsequently participate in society with their unique contribution. In an inclusive environment, one can develop and apply uniqueness and, at the same time, maintain group belonging so that they “fit in” [35].

• At the same time, in the paradigm of inclusion, individuals strive to create an educational environment and a social environment in which everyone is fully involved and supported, which counts on uniqueness as an entity in self-expression, the expression of a person and the individual’s essential participation in reality. Inclusion can be characterised: “It’s an action, it’s a call to nurture a culture without boundaries, and it’s a belief that everyone brings their own unique perspectives to the table” [36].

• Let us think about a society where there is an expression of uniqueness when participating in reality. An inclusive environment should not be perceived and formed based on the “tendencies” of the preferences of the interests of a narrow circle of groups but as a universal, natural setting of the society’s environment.

3.3 Dialogue and inclusion

Individuals meet in a given environment for the main goal – a positive change in themselves or society. Individuals in the community meet conceptually in time and space, going through individual stages that move them towards a common goal. Individuals mature in a given environment gradually over time and acquire the ability to solve situations to assign competencies autonomously. The extent to which individuals and society manage to process and connect individual levels declares success towards a common goal. Suppose individuals need to meet the community at a certain level. In that case, they are pushed out of their natural path to the destination, resulting in modifications and deviations of behaviour, activities on the part of individuals and regulations and norms on the part of the environment. Some deviation behaviours are acceptable; they can be corrected by setting the social environment. Deviations that are not caught since they were not identified in time or there is no tool to regulate them are pushed into the pathological zone, where the level of support in the form of adaptation measures necessarily begins. We present the facts in a universal model.

As part of the direction towards a common goal, individuals go through individual stages Figure 1, in which they deal with interconnected conditions:

• Getting to know the environment – Turning off your expectations. The first element of dialogue should be to turn off one’s assumptions, suspend assumptions and be open to inquiry [37].

• Analysis of values and risks – Recognising roles – Setting a change strategy. Dialogue is facilitated if value-anchored persons know their values, beliefs and attitudes. Persons can reflect on their values and be open to re-evaluation, change of opinion based on new information, and value perspectives.

• Alignment of vocabulary – Defining and adopting a unified language of communicating parties. The dialogue participants understand the shared contents on the same level – an object of common interest; they know their agreement. The danger in the talk is the use of platitudes that cannot be refuted, and that cannot be disagreed with.

• Creation of argumentative logic – Construction of thought structure – Find a point of view with a wide range. The goal can be reached in several ways, which the individual chooses based on his point of view. It is necessary to argue the opinion in reality with the participants. In the conditions of “argumentative dialogue”, there is a deepening of meanings and problems [38].

• Logical ordering of sub-goals – Presentation (of the proposal). Defining the main goal is necessary based on marginal achievable goals.

• Analysis of reactions – Modification of the strategy – Possibility to reorganise the questions and create a structure. Argumentation can capture reality, identify weak points, and correct marginal goals. Outputs need to be adapted to lower levels, providing the necessary information.

• Confirmation of objectives – Division of competence – Setting the environment. The division of tasks is allocated based on the ability of individuals to exert effort.

• Respecting roles – Dialogue – Listening with understanding. At this stage, it is necessary to have the ability to “listen with understanding” [39], to conduct constructive dialogue, and to accept constructive criticism of opinions.

• Work with information – Own opinion – Argumentation. The information is again subjected to criticism in one’s own mental space.

• Ability to question – Ability to accept criticism.

• Analysis of the conclusions of partial goals.

• Dialogue – Joint adjustment of goals. Here, we can talk about a time subsidy for the sub-goals of the introduced long-term commitment (for example, inclusion).

• Ability to work in a team.

• GOAL.

• Output analysis and confirmation of fulfilling the main uncommunicated goal – Indirect consultations in the form of dialogue.

Figure 1.

Universal model. Legend: Necessary conditions and their logical sequence in the direction of positive change in the social environment. Source: own processing.

The individual’s contact with the environment, society and their mutual passage through individual stages towards the goal is feasible if the participants choose a logical work procedure, a complex approach based on which data can be processed and connected in time. A dialogic approach corresponds to the request. The dialogue is contained in several stages of the process.

4. Discussion

4.1 Dialogic and inclusive approach

With the goal – of implementation inclusion, multiple points of view meet, and new areas and questions related to them open up over time. Dialogue, by its very nature, helps to solve questions about inclusion. Dialogic approach, inclusive approach and the very concepts of dialogue and inclusion are built based on the same interconnected principles in the areas of:

1. Settings and values

   • Openness to differences [40, 41] and an inclusive approach [41]: They support the acceptance of diverse specificities of participants, acceptance regardless of difference. If entry into the dialogue were limited by established exclusive criteria, preferences, and echo chambers, informational social bubbles would arise, making presenting diverse opinions, values, beliefs and an image of a broader spectrum of perspectives impossible.

   • Respect and recognition [42]: They refer to the differences and diversity of individuals. In a respectful environment, specific needs, values, experiences, opinions, and perspectives can be accepted, recognised and better understood. It is possible to enter into dialogue even if we do not necessarily agree with every suggestion; it is here that a space is created where the individual should be heard, different perspectives are understood, and a balanced overview is obtained.

2. Interpersonal communication

   • Active listening, understanding and empathy: They support communication and finding connections from stimuli. “Listening gives dialogue its relational and transformative power. Dialogue clarifies where assumptions are muddled or contradict each other” [43].

   • Open communication, active involvement and participation: They support mutual sharing in constructive cooperation, creating an opportunity to express an opinion, idea, or position.

3. Relations

   • Relationship building: [44] They encourage forming relationships that are perceived as equal. Mutual communication and mutual learning subsequently lead to better knowledge sharing, creating an everyday basis for cooperation or solving problems.

4.2 Dialogue on issues of introducing an inclusive culture

Based on the principles, dialogue as a tool can contribute to solving questions regarding the introduction of inclusion (not only) in the educational system.

The dialogue is a communication channel:

• Enables the sharing and mutual exchange of information (knowledge, insights, experiences, perspectives, examples of good practice, best practices and innovation). It increases awareness and information about needs, specific requirements, and expectations.

• Enables feedback [45] to obtain information about manifestations of inclusion in practice.

• It can serve as a means of lobbying and passing on information about important areas of inclusion to obtain a specific form of assistance.

The dialogue helps in inclusive practice in cultivating a positive attitude towards inclusion, implementing a culture of values and attitudes (variability, uniqueness, incorporation, empowerment, learning to live together) as:

• Enables people to listen actively, perceive other people’s perspectives and raise awareness of individual needs and diversity [46].

• Leads to building empathy and understanding. People can change attitudes and prejudices if they identify with different perspectives and understand the meaning.

• The indicator of dialogue is creating a safe environment for expressing oneself and building mutual trust. For example, cogenerative dialogues help open communication, revealing common goals, interests, and values.

The dialogue helps in the matter of monitoring evaluation: [47]

• Enables monitoring and evaluation of the existing infrastructure of the environment to obtain results on the course of inclusion and to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of existing measures.

• Enables the incorporation of new emerging facts appearing in the process of joint activity.

• Enables joint assessment and evaluation of data, interpretation of meanings, analysis of existing approaches and trends and concluding the effectiveness of measures and strategies.

• Enables identification of successes, challenges.

• Enables reflection and adaptation of strategies and procedures, improvement of measures, and adaptation of approaches and practices based on needs and new knowledge.

The dialogue generally helps in the relationship between stakeholders such as individuals, families with schools, community groups, non-profit organisations, private investors, civil society organisations, governments, and others.

• Assists in determining individual and collective responsibility [47] and engagement.

• Enables the coordination of joint efforts in the implementation of partial tasks.

• Allows to contribute to transparency and accountability to resources and fair redistribution. In dialogue, the risk can be avoided when subjective feeling, responsibility, decision and action are communicated to the public as objectively reasonable, objective social responsibility.

• Enables and supports the creation of partnerships and collaborations to achieve a synergistic and coordinated approach to inclusion. Dialogue is “informed action”, an activity of cooperation [48].

The dialogue helps the procedural side – the functionality of the environment’s infrastructure: It works with the issue of securing and coordinating the infrastructure, a compact approach to inclusion and adapting an inclusive environment that supports the full participation and involvement of all individuals. The dialogue allows:

• Collect and work with contexts with a wide range of factors from communicated stimuli and diverse groups.

• Identifying common goals and strategies.

• Identify priority needs, barriers, inequalities, and systemic and structural problems requiring support.

• Planning and decision-making regarding environmental infrastructure and investments.

• Joint search for possible solutions and strategies to improve or support change, discover new approaches and propose innovative solutions. “…multiple individuals with complementary abilities interact and create a shared meaning that no one previously had or could achieve alone” ([49], p. 40).

• Cooperation in formulating and implementing inclusive policies and measures. It enables consensus building and support for inclusive reforms.

The dialogue represents an unlimited time subsidy for commitment: Dialogue, as a process that is never finished and only the field of interest changes in it, defines the only permanently applicable and functional tool for continuous effort and long-term commitments. One of them is inclusion. Thus, the dialogue is a tool for introducing inclusion over an indefinite time horizon.

The dialogue as a mediator of the type of support – education: Questions regarding providing adequate support are resolved through dialogue.

• Facilitates education and raising awareness of essential aspects, roles and areas of inclusion, for example, through (exchange of views, discussions, training and information campaigns).

• It serves as a platform of opportunities for mutual learning [50] and professional development through education (discussions, workshops, training, and events). For example, they provide opportunities for acquisition (of new knowledge, skills and methods) to effectively implement inclusion.

• Enables the provision of support and mentoring in the form of (advice, guidance and support).

4.3 Dialogue in education: Common educational ideas

Suppose we present an environment and a society with a functional system in dialogue to future generations. In that case, the educational environment should serve as an experimental environment where the individual should experience and reflect on it. At the same time, we add that participants can be guided to the ability to determine a goal and move towards it already in education during the creation of a joint task [11], while the results of functions implemented with the incorporation of dialogue implicitly lead to sustainable development and the provision of inclusivity.

Framed levels:

We understand the term “framework” as a defined circle, scope of activity, scope and interests. The framework in the educational environment represents the structures establishing guidelines for vocational training, curriculum – content, outline, teaching methods, evaluation criteria, and regulatory procedures, the goal of which is a consistent program within which the participants of the education acquire the set learning goals, the required performances for the next level of education, or performance of the profession.

Education is regulated through parameters – performance parameters (performance standards), content parameters (content standards) and time allocation parameters (framework curricula). Dialogue represents a cross-sectional element of education’s content, performance and time aspects. In educational systems where dialogue is not introduced, its application regarding structure change also solves the freeing of space for its introduction and action. It does not represent a sudden, risky change but a gradual transformation. The study [51] provides an example of good practice from the educational environment. Pupils and teachers met at the end of each lesson, analysed and thought about the lesson in dialogue; the children’s opinions were considered when evaluating, planning, and improving the next lesson.

The dialogue can be linked to individual components of the frames:

From the aspect of educational content – “what to teach, what to teach for,” and the curriculum – “what topics and thematic areas to teach” within the subjects for the given age group. Dialogue enables the active involvement of pupils in the learning process [52]. Group discussion among students enables the exchange of content information and information sharing, collaboration, social and communication skills development, and constructive learning. Discussing the relevance of topics within the curriculum can support students’ analytical skills and understanding of the meaning behind the choice of content and topics. The possibility of asking questions focused on the content and goals of education allows the actors of education to express their opinions and understanding of the given topic. Based on the interactive dialogue, students can demonstrate critical thinking. “Because dialogue is the seal of transformed epistemological and ontological relations, it develops critical thinking…” ([53], p. 177). At the same time, they can argue their position based on facts and evidence and explain their positions on the content offered. Argumentation implicitly leads to a way of education called “reciprocal education” [54]. Dialogue ensures interaction between education participants and feedback on content proposals, processes, and results.

The dialogue also serves to correct or eliminate misunderstandings and inconsistencies preventing the achievement of the set goals of the curriculum. Difficulty topics can be directly communicated through dialogue [55].

From the aspect of educational procedures – methods of education, i.e. “how to teach”, dialogue guarantees interactive teaching. It is an explicit part of methods such as (interviews, debates, group discussions, open questions [56], and brainstorming), which ensure active and interactive communication and support balanced expressions of interested parties. Dialogue can be implicit in demonstrations and explanations when participants communicate their procedures and techniques. The possibility of asking questions within the dialogue opens up the possibility of developing teaching using an inverse formula – where the student carries out independent research to deepen knowledge and create his solutions to the problem. This process can also go beyond the defined framework. Feedback as part of the dialogue method enables evaluation, correction of individual components or adaptation of the approach to needs, which goes beyond the defined framework. For example, active learning processes as an attribute of the dialogic method can be developed through group projects, problem-based learning, and role-playing games, enabling cooperation. Dialogue can be a part of cooperative learning, where it is possible to work together in a team, share opinions and solve problems. These skills can also be acquired through collaborative learning (encourages active involvement in the dialogue process) [43].

From the point of view of evaluation and evaluation criteria: the dialogue helps the comprehensive evaluation of the personal progress and success of the participant in the education in achieving the educational goals. It allows space for explaining the evaluation criteria, i.e. what is expected from the education participant and what to focus on to gain a better evaluation. Furthermore, it creates space for self-evaluation – assessing performance based on established criteria and identifying the causes of weaker performances. “Dialogue is a way to mature from an unconsciously competent person to a consciously competent one” [57]. It is important to remember that people’s performance is a nominal variable. The dialogue also helps plan individual development [51] or corrective measures for students requiring specific support. It creates a space for personal feedback on the achieved performance, allows the discussion of observations with the facilitator, and explains one’s evaluation approach, decisions, solutions, and methods. It further allows us to discuss progress over time and associated challenges.

From the aspect of teacher training: in the dialogue, we envisage open frameworks, which may include guidelines and instruction for teacher training but also provide freer reflections on pedagogical activity and professional development. Dialogue can be used in teaching observation and instructional rounds [58] to obtain feedback and performance recommendations. At the same time, within the cooperation framework, teachers can support each other in their professional growth. Also, reflective dialogues can enrich the teacher’s portfolio regarding the learning experiences of colleagues and the achievement of personal and educational goals. Teaching topics, teaching methods, classroom management, and evaluations can be discussed in pedagogical seminars and workshops. The discussion provides space for evaluating the relevance of the chosen approaches, methods, theory and their specific impact on education. At the same time, the dialogue enables working with challenges within the educational environment.

From the perspective of regulatory procedures: frameworks can include administrative and legislative procedures for monitoring, managing and evaluating the education system’s effectiveness. Here, dialogue mediates interactive communication and cooperation of interested parties – educators, school administration, external actors (regulatory authorities), and others. Dialogue is suitable for evaluation – gathering feedback from educators, educators, and families about the quality of the school environment to identify areas that need support and adjustment following regulations and criteria regarding proposals for improving the school system. Here, it also enables communication regarding regulatory procedures, policies and rights related to education. The dialogue is suitable for reflecting on the results of monitoring and data on the progress of educators, as they are following regulatory standards. For example, the dialogue can be suitable for the issue of setting up measuring instruments. As stated by [59], the evaluation results sometimes reflected the limitations of the tools used rather than measuring the educators’ learning. The World Bank In ([59], p. 41) calls for “scan globally, act locally”. It is necessary to develop evaluation tools sensitive to the local context based on the principle of “Show and tell” ([59], p. 27). Dialogue could be a suitable tool in Planning and implementing changes and reflecting on changes as they follow the determined regulatory requirements. At the same time, it enables discussion about initiatives and policies. We agree with evidence-based frameworks ([59], p. 31), namely that they are appropriate in advancing educator policy reforms.

In connection with regulatory procedures, we supplement the influence at the level of meso-environment and macro-environment. Dialogue between educational institutions and external institutions (regulatory bodies) is appropriate in cooperation, support, and guidance regarding compliance with regulatory standards and guidelines. Last but not least, dialogue can help support the professionalisation and quality of teaching, as proven education methods can be communicated through it. At the same time, in transformational education, we express an essential part – the condition of participation in the event. We see transformational education not only as a motivation for students to make informed decisions and actions at the individual, community and global level, as stated by UNESCO [13] but also to participate in decisions based on a dialogical approach.

1. Competences from the aspect of inclusive culture

   • Based on the implementation of the principles of inclusive approach and dialogic approach, and based on the experience of dialogue in an educational environment, an individual can develop inclusive behaviour. It has the potential to acquire the competencies necessary for the backward implementation of an inclusive culture in the working environment. [60, 61] represent:

2. Competences in the field of communication

   • Inclusive communication (listening, responding, providing support, sharing thoughts, feelings, reasoning, building trust, asking for help) [61], openness to different ideas, perspectives and processes [60];

   • Empathy [60, 61] and the effort to understand others on a cognitive (thoughts), affective (feelings) and conative (experience) level;

   • Providing feedback [61], flexibility in changing opinions, plans, and decisions based on these ideas [60];

   • Fair conflict resolution (analysis of prejudices, point of view, motivation) [61], active self-management of one’s prejudices [60].

3. Relationship competencies

   • Inclusive meetings (involvement of even the less dominant ones) [61], curiosity to look for other people’s perspectives, not just a select few [60];

   • Delegation of the opportunity (providing the opportunity and delegating parts of the cooperation).

4. Competence of self-reflection

   • Coach for growth (coaching people different from himself) [61]; humility to recognise one’s limitations, tendencies, vulnerabilities; failure [60].

The abovementioned principles of dialogue and competence can be acquired in the micro-environment as part of dialogical learning. It includes a cumulative, supportive, reciprocal, collective and purposeful conversation, according to Alexander In [10]. A concrete example of good practice for conducting a dialogue – is an interview represented by the technique of dialogue cards. The method is used within the Harvard community. Havard University developed tools called Inclusive Dialogue Cards [62] for creating and facilitating inclusive conversations. Dialogue card you can use to foster meaningful conversation to support a meaningful conversation: The technique contains particular and basic features of conducting a dialogue, which implicitly educates the participants about the dialogue realised at the level of the meso-environment and the macro-environment, for example: pause for processing – predicts the provision of the necessary time for implementation of the action, thinking of people as experts – acceptance and recognition; creating and leaving space – the space of a common third, asking questions and others.

4.4 Programs and services in the context of dialogue

4.4.1 Evidence-based programs and services

Evidence-based programs have a positive impact from the perspective perspective. They ensure transparency in part of social and pedagogical work and offer the structure of short-term service work, supervision, and methodological topics. They are suitable for achieving short-term goals. On the other hand, they may represent an inappropriate tool for providing social services. The risks of evidence-based programs [63] can be as follows:

Lack of transparency in the area of achieving long-term goals for citizens participating in these programs for a long time;

Lack of transparency in the understanding of power – structural power and in the relationship between the actor providing the service and the recipient of the service;

The social service provider could replace their professional approach by looking for behaviour defined by the program, potentially failing to recognise the young person as an individual with a whole identity;

In institutional conditions, there is a “sequestration of experience” – the very presence of disturbing existential questions becomes a disruption of the smooth, predefined course of things. The service provider and receiver sometimes suppress the profoundly human to maintain a coherent narrative. It is an institutionalised act of repression and essentially involuntary [64];

Subsequently, this creates a false sense of security for social and pedagogical practice; they will function only as manuals, manual programs in a reproduction-tuned praxis. There is no mutual dialogue between the provider and the service recipient while working on “fields of tension” [63]. We clarify that work on “fields of tension” is understood as a time-limited trial, which, as an issued request, ceases after the goal is reached or the request is rejected. We also clarify that the type of evidence-based service is based on the generalised outputs of several services provided. In the case of the subsequent service provision without reflection, it is only a schematic provision of the service. This approach, in practice, leads to the fact that the recipient of the service is issued an official document in which the need is expressed, which does not reflect the real condition of the individual. An individual is led to accept a non-personalised service as there is no other way to get that support.

The impossibility of identifying all significant cultural aspects of the country in which the request for help was made represents a failure of the behaviourist theoretical base [63]. Internationalisation, globalisation and Europeanization impose significant framework conditions for social and pedagogical work [65], but they “ignore the different local context in which it is produced and in which it should be read” [65, p. 9]; [66, p. 734] As an example, we can cite social-pedagogical practice in Denmark, where the results of proven praxis in one area were expected to be effective in other areas of the field as well. On the contrary, it caused considerable difficulties after transferring knowledge to the local setting and institutions [67]. In adopting an international perspective that transcends national and local limitations and traditional national identity, it is necessary to respect national differences [65]. National differences should represent an element in the concept of internationalism.

Based on the above facts about evidence-based service, we deduce that stiffness and anomalies in service appear due to the absence of dialogue.

4.4.2 Personalised service

The ‘social’ component in pedagogy is not an evidence-based concept and must, therefore, be constantly open to interpretation by professionals and service recipients [64]. The personalised service is created on the principle of a “social” component – that is, the starting point is a person’s need, and the goal is a benefit for a person. Consider the possibility of personalised service as an adequate form of assistance provided.

The personalised service in the social system is designed and tailored to the needs of the individual. The goal of the personalised service is:

• To improve the quality of life of individuals. Providing tailored and individualised support and solutions helps the individual lead a fulfilling life despite challenges and limitations.

• Provide individualised support and solutions that consider each individual’s unique needs and goals. In this way, the effectiveness and efficiency of the service can be increased and lead to better results.

• Ensure equal opportunities and improve their involvement and full participation in society.

• Ensure that individuals have access to the relevant and appropriate type of support based on specific needs and preferences.

Based on the above facts, the personalised service can be considered a tool of inclusion and an economical form of service from a sustainable approach.

4.4.3 Consensus of evidence-based service and personalised service

In the intentions of dialogue, we think about points of view in principle; in the preferences of an inclusive approach, we think about providing more options. We are considering a service (educational, social) that considers a person’s specifics. At the same time, this should also include the conditions of the environment – a sustainable approach, that is, a targeted service appropriate to the possibilities of resources, supporting growth in adequate time and space. It is natural, logical, and, from an economic point of view, efficient to think about the starting point of the provided service in an already existing service based on evidence, which has the potential to transform into a personalised service when reflecting current requirements. Thus, we consider the concept of consensus between evidence-based service and personalised service.

The concept of personalised service represents the following basic criteria:

1. Defining needs and defining service parameters. Based on the dialogue between the provider and the recipient of the service, listening to the suggestions and preferences of the service recipient, the participants define the parameters of the service.

2. Providing a balanced range of existing and evidence-based services. The service provider provides an offer of existing diversified services. This criterion serves:

   1. as an inspiration for the participants in the process of setting up the service, where the recipient of the service can define their own needs, preferences and parameters of the service so that they are sufficiently oriented in the service options, have access to a variety of services and choices. We add that the criterion is relevant to the work and the relationship between the provider and the recipient of the service according to the democratic model. [68] and the negotiation model [69].

   2. as a service recommendation based on several factors, not only based on personal preferences. Suppose the individual cannot clearly define the parameters, or they need to be clearer or austere. In that case, the service provider will recommend a service based on his professional competence, which also considers other factors, such as the context and the current situation. It could ensure that recommended services are relevant and tailored to current needs and conditions. The aim of this criterion is also to check the tendency of delicacy – the service recipient will receive an offer beyond the parameters defined by him, which can also enrich his point of view when choosing a service. The recommendation should not necessarily lead to selecting a service but to enable an overview of different perspectives and information. The recommended services can subsequently inspire the creation of a customised or personalised service. This criterion has an educational character, aimed at the client’s ability to understand his situation. The standard is helpful in the work and the relationship between the provider and the recipient of the service according to the adaptation model [68] and the treatment model [69].

3. Personalised service:

   1. If an existing service reflecting the parameters is found, service providers and receivers jointly choose the service and subsequently modify it according to specific needs and preferences, considering contexts. The option of adjusting the service protects the recipient of the service so that he receives a tailored service and not a service that minimises the positive impact on improving the quality of his life. The criterion guarantees the control of the tendency of delicacy on the part of the (social) system – that is, the tendency of the (social) plan with a portfolio of social services to move the preferred certified service provided for a long time without updating. The approach guarantees the balance of power in a socially stratified society.

   2. If the service recipient has specifics for which there is no offer from evidence-based service, the provider and the recipient will jointly create a personalised service based on the parameters.

4. Update of the service: If the recipient uses the social service for a more extended period, new requirements arise, and saturated ones disappear. It is recommended to update the service and implement corrections. This option is based on the principle of dialogue when we consider the process unfinished, and it is appropriate to count on this criterion already at the creation of the service. The standard supports the work and the relationship between the provider and the service recipient according to the emancipation model [68] and the action model [69] in the sense of the emancipation of initiatives. The outputs of the update could serve as the starting point for evidence-based services.

5. Conclusion

Individuals or groups express and satisfy different needs even though they function in the environment under the same conditions as others. The environment also represents a demand towards humans regarding a sustainable approach. Let us start from the premise that people and groups have different directions for life. In that case, the purpose is not to provide everything to everyone but to obtain adequate help and create opportunities and opportunities to lead a dignified life. We consider how to conduct an individual in an educational environment so that he understands the sequence of contexts, accepting and including the conditions of his growth, active participation in processes, the value of the individual’s uniqueness, the space of a common third, the type of approach and relationships between people. Here, we view the connected concepts of Buber’s dialogue and Freire’s liberating pedagogy, marginally supplementing the connection with the mediating tool – digital technologies. We specify the idea of dialogue and its position in environments more closely from the aspect of the educational environment. We present dialogue-based learning and transformational processes in the educational environment related to dialogue. We also deal with dialogue and its connections with inclusion. We offer a universal model of a logical procedure for positive change in society, within which it is possible to identify the presence of attributes that direct people towards a common goal – degree of participation, method of communication, and cooperation. We bring closer the dialogic and inclusive approach and their interconnected principles based on which inclusion can subsequently be introduced; we further focus on dialogue as a tool that can be used to answer questions regarding the introduction of inclusion while we, after that, identify and specify these in education in terms of content, performance, framework, evaluation, regulation level. As a result of inclusion in the educational environment, we supplement the competencies of an inclusive culture and work in society to transform social programs and services in general. We compare the evidence-based program and services with the personalised service from a dialogue perspective and present a possible consensus.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Peter Andreánsky for the dialogue and graphic design of the Universal model.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.