2024-03-28T16:32:21Z
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/oai
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/14
2020-06-05T19:04:54Z
dpj1:EDTL
"130112 2013 eng "
2325-3290
dc
DPJ Editorial: Launching the new journal
Matusov, Eugene
University of Delaware
Newark, DE
Marjanovic-Shane, Ana
Chestnut Hill College
Philadelphia, PA
Ben-David Kolikant, Yifat
Hebrew University, Jerusalem
We welcome and invite new readers, authors, reviewers and editors to the new journal. A short history of the journal foundation is given along with the reasons for launching this publication. A long, but not finished, list is provided of important and interesting themes and areas of interest for dialogic educational practice, research and theory.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2013-01-16 16:57:37
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/14
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 1 (2013)
eng
Copyright (c) 2014 Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Yifat Ben-David Kolikant
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/78
2020-06-05T19:02:20Z
dpj1:EDTL
"140219 2014 eng "
2325-3290
dc
Dialogue on ‘Dialogic Education’: Has Rupert gone over to ‘the Dark Side’?
Matusov, Eugene
School of Education
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States
Wegerif, Rupert
University of Exeter http://www.dialogiceducation.net/?page_id=78
This email dialogue that we record and report here between Eugene Matusov and Rupert Wegerif, exemplifies Internet mediated dialogic education. When Eugene emailed Rupert with his initial (mis)understanding of Rupert's position about dialogic pedagogy Rupert felt really motivated to reply. Rupert was not simply motivated to refute Eugene and assert his correctness, although Rupert is sure such elements enter into every dialogue, but also to explore and to try to resolve the issues ignited by the talk in New Zealand. Through this extended dialogue Rupert's and Eugene's positions become more nuanced and focussed. Rupert brings out his concern with the long-term and collective nature of some dialogues claiming that the – "dialogue of humanity that education serves is bigger than the interests of particular students and particular teachers.…" – and so he argues that it is often reasonable to induct students into the dialogue so far so that they can participate fully. On the other hand, Eugene's view of dialogue seems more focussed on personal responsibility, particular individual desires, interests and positions, individual agency and answering the final ethical "damned questions" without an alibi-in-being. Rupert claims that dialogic education is education FOR dialogue and Eugene claims that dialogic education is education AS dialogue. Both believe in education THROUGH dialogue but education through dialogue is not in itself dialogic education. For Rupert dialogic education can include ‘scaffolding’ for full participation in dialogue as long as dialogue is the aim. For Eugene dialogic education has to be a genuine dialogue and this means that a curriculum goal cannot be specified in advance because learning in a dialogue is always emergent and unpredictable. Our dialogue-disagreement is a relational and discursive experiment to develop a new genre of academic critical dialogue. The dialogue itself called to us and motivated us and flowed through us. This dialogue is much bigger than us. It participates in a dialogue that humanity has been having about education for thousands of years. We hope that it also engages you and calls you to respond.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2014-02-10 10:50:24
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/78
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 2 (2014)
eng
Copyright (c) 2014 Eugene Matusov, Rupert Wegerif
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/141
2020-06-05T18:57:15Z
dpj1:EDTL
"150205 2015 eng "
2325-3290
dc
Values in dialogic pedagogy
Matusov, Eugene
School of Education
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States
Lemke, Jay
University of California at San Diego http://www.jaylemke.com/
In November 2014 on the Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Facebook page, there was an interesting discussion of the issue of values in dialogic pedagogy[1]. The main issue can be characterized as the following. Should dialogic pedagogy teach values? Should it avoid teaching values? Is there some kind of a third approach? The participants of the Facebook discussions were focusing on teaching values in dialogic pedagogy and not about teaching aboutvalues. On the one hand, it seems to be impossible to avoid teaching values. However, on the other hand, shaping students in some preset molding is apparently non-dialogic and uncritical (Matusov, 2009). In the former case, successful teaching is defined by how well and deeply the students accept and commit to the taught values. In the latter case, successful dialogic teaching may be defined by students’ critical examination of their own values against alternative values in a critical dialogue. Below, Eugene Matusov and Jay Lemke, active participants of this Facebook dialogue, provide their reflection on this important issue and encourage readers to join their reflective dialogue.
[1] See in a public Facebook domain: https://www.facebook.com/DialogicPedagogyJournal/posts/894734337204533, https://www.facebook.com/DialogicPedagogyJournal/posts/896916850319615
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2015-01-08 11:59:27
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/141
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 3 (2015)
eng
Copyright (c) 2015 Eugene Matusov, Jay Lemke
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/170
2020-06-05T18:53:19Z
dpj1:EDTL
"160219 2016 eng "
2325-3290
dc
Radical Proposal for Educational Pluralism and The State’s Educational Neutrality Policy
Matusov, Eugene
University of Delaware
Marjanovic-Shane, Ana
Chestnut Hill College
Philadelphia, PA http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5913-6880
Currently, in institutionalized education, the balance between global and local forces is skewed in favor of the global through the State (and University) monopoly on educational philosophy. We think that the local has to be prioritized over the global in the balance of these forces. In our view, this promotion should occur both in depth (through open pedagogical experimentation and democratization, defining local values, creating a global dialogue), AND in breadth (through providing opportunities for students and parents to join and financially afford it). We propose that education has to be separated from the State. In our proposal, the State should focus on providing financial access to K-12 education for all citizens through redistribution of taxes while constraining itself through pedagogical neutrality: accepting any educational philosophy for public funding. In our paper, we will consider some of many diverse concerns raised by our colleagues in response to our radical proposal of the State’s educational neutrality, organized in a question-answer format.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2016-01-12 11:24:21
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/170
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 4 (2016)
eng
Copyright (c) 2016 Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/182
2020-06-05T18:51:09Z
dpj1:EDTL
"160919 2016 eng "
2325-3290
dc
Disengagement, Pedagogical Eros and (the undoing of?) Dialogic pedagogy
Cresswell, James
Booth University College http://www.boothuc.ca/directory/james-cresswell
Dialogic pedagogy is an approach to education influenced by Bakhtin, Freire, and others. It is an approach that is critical of conventional education, which tends to be didactic and alienating to students. Student engagement is made central as dialogue takes priority over standardization and core cannons of content. Dialogic pedagogy also emphasizes the importance of communities of learners where teachers are co-learners along with students as all parties work on problems together. I seek to raise challenges to Dialogic Pedagogy and these come from scholars working on the “conduct of everyday life” and from Charles Taylor’s notion of “strong evaluations”. The conduct of everyday life involves a focus on first-person subjectivities with an eye to their constitution in social and power relations. Strong evaluations enhance this discussion by addressing how people can engage in decisions that involve weighing options about the qualitative kind of person one is. I outline how education involves a conduct of everyday life where strong evaluations are promoted. Taking such an approach to education grounds two challenges to dialogic pedagogy. One challenge is that students are reticent to engage in strong evaluations and the modern identity is one disposed to disengagement. The converse challenge is that student engagement entails pedagogical eros, which is easily converted into power and abuse by a pedagogue.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2016-01-12 11:24:21
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/182
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 4 (2016)
eng
Copyright (c) 2016 James Cresswell
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/199
2020-06-05T18:49:46Z
dpj1:EDTL
"170301 2017 eng "
2325-3290
dc
Promoting students’ ownership of their own education through critical dialogue and democratic self-governance
Matusov, Eugene
School of Education
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States
Marjanovic-Shane, Ana
Chestnut Hill College
Philadelphia, PA
We define genuine education as students’ active leisurely pursuit of critical examination of the self, life, society and the world. It is driven by the person’s interests, inquiries, needs, tensions, and puzzlements. Thus, it is based on the students’ ownership of their own education, rather than on the society’s needs and impositions on the students. Hence, genuine education cannot be forced on the students, but rather the students need to be supported and guided to find and pursue their own education as their existential need. We view genuine education as students’ authorship based on the students’ learning activism. In our opinion, the primary condition for the students’ ownership of their education is the students’ freedom to participate in making decisions about their education. In our paper, we discuss pedagogical experimentation aimed at promoting learning activism and ownership of their own education through critical dialogue and democratic self-governance.
However, to our surprise, we found out that merely engaging students in decision making about their own education does not work for many students. After several years of practicing the Open Syllabus pedagogical regime in our undergraduate and graduate classes, we have experienced and abstracted two major mutually related problems: a problem of “culture” and a problem of “self-failure.” The issue of “culture” involved a tension between building a new democratic educational culture while practicing it. We also found that our undergraduate and graduate education students do not follow their own freely chosen educational commitments, and thus they feel betrayed by themselves. Analyzing students’ reflections on the self-failures, we found that they felt pressured by life and institutional survival and necessities. Because of that, they did not have the luxury of prioritizing their own educational self-commitments. In response to this and other concerns, we developed a hybrid pedagogical regime, called Opening Syllabus. We focus on tensions within this new, hybrid pedagogical regime, by analyzing students’ reflections and contributions in class.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2017-01-03 05:07:27
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/199
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 5 (2017)
eng
Copyright (c) 2017 Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/236
2020-06-05T18:43:19Z
dpj1:EDTL
"180126 2018 eng "
2325-3290
dc
Beyond equality and inequality in education: Bakhtinian dialogic ethics approach of human uniqueness to educational justice
Matusov, Eugene
University of Delaware
Marjanovic-Shane, Ana
Chestnut Hill College
Philadelphia, PA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5913-6880
In our essay, we challenge the hegemonic Kantian discourse of defining justice as equality (in a broader sense) and injustice as inequality in education (and elsewhere). We argue that this discourse is based on the underlining assumption of replaceability and measurement of people and of educational practice itself. In contrast, we argue that people and their education are unique. Thus, it is necessary to develop an alternative notion of justice based on uniqueness and immeasurability of people and their education. We found that Bakhtin’s dialogic ethics framework is helpful for developing such an alternative approach. According to the Bakhtinian dialogic ethics, people are engaged in self-contradictory deeds, charged with ethical tensions. These ethically problematic deeds must be challenged by others and the self in critical dialogue and must demand responses by the authors of the deeds striving to achieve justice. Taking responsibility is not merely a discursive process of answering – it is not “answerability” – but rather another ethic deed of defining ethically good or bad, defining quality and values, accepting blame, standing grounds, committing to fixing negative consequences, emotional sympathy, and so on. The process of challenging people’s deeds in critical dialogue and their taking (or not taking) responsibility defines (in)justice of people’s deeds. We examine two cases of educational injustice based on the Bakhtinian dialogic ethics framework of uniquness. We try to show that education and its justice are essentially authorial and, thus, unique processes. Even when justice involves measurable things like money, it is still about unique people with unique educational goals, interests, and needs in unique circumstances that these measurable resources afford. We consider a case of allocation of measurable resources as a compromise between the Kantian formulistic and the Bakhtinian dialogic ethics approaches. We conclude our essay with developing a vision for a just educational practice based on students’ academic freedoms for authorial education.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2018-01-04 13:14:10
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/236
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 6 (2018)
eng
Copyright (c) 2018 Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/268
2020-06-05T18:40:00Z
dpj1:EDTL
"190306 2019 eng "
2325-3290
dc
Whose discourse? Dialogic Pedagogy for a post-truth world
Alexander, Robin
Wolfson College, University of Cambridge https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8278-1327
If, as evidence shows, well-founded classroom dialogue improves student engagement and learning, the logical next step is to take it to scale. However, this presumes consensus on definitions and purposes, whereas accounts of dialogue and dialogic teaching/pedagogy/education range from the narrowly technical to the capaciously ontological. This paper extends the agenda by noting the widening gulf between discourse and values within the classroom and outside it, and the particular challenge to both language and democracy of a currently corrosive alliance of digital technology and “post-truth” political rhetoric. Dialogic teaching is arguably an appropriate and promising response, and an essential ingredient of democratic education, but only if it is strengthened by critical engagement with four imperatives whose vulnerability in contemporary public discourse attests to their importance in the classroom, the more so given their problematic nature: language, voice, argument and truth.[1]
[1] This paper is an edited version of the author’s keynote at the EARLI SIG 20/26 conference Argumentation and inquiry as venues for civic education, held in Jerusalem in October 2018.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2019-01-08 08:37:26
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/268
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 7 (2019)
eng
Copyright (c) 2019 Robin Alexander
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/272
2020-06-05T18:39:40Z
dpj1:EDTL
"190306 2019 eng "
2325-3290
dc
Dialogic analysis vs. discourse analysis of dialogic pedagogy: Social science research in the era of positivism and post-truth
Matusov, Eugene
School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States
Marjanovic-Shane, Ana
Dialogic Pedagogy Journal
Kullenberg, Tina
Kristianstad University, Sweden
Curtis, Kelly
School of Education, University of Delaware
The goal of this article is to compare and contrast dialogic analysis versus discourse analysis of dialogic pedagogy to address Bakhtin’s quest for “human sciences” and avoid modern traps by positivism and by post-truth. We argue that dialogic analysis belongs to dialogic science, which focuses on studying “the surplus of humanness” (Bakhtin, 1991, p. 37). “The surplus of humanness” is “a leftover” from the biologically, socially, culturally, and psychologically given – the typical and general – in the human nature. It is about the human authorship of the ever-unique meaning-making. Dialogic analysis involves the heart and mind of the researchers who try to reveal and deepen the meanings of the studied phenomena by addressing and replying to diverse research participants, other scholars, and anticipated readers (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, & Gradovski, 2019, in press). We argue that dialogic science is concerned with meta-inquiries such as, “What does something in question mean to diverse people, including the researchers, and why? How do diverse people address and reply to diverse meanings?” In contrast, traditional, positivistic, science is concerned with meta-inquiries such as, “How things really are? What is evidence for that? How to eliminate any researchers’ subjectivity from the research?” (Matusov, 2019, submitted). Positivist (and monologic) science focuses on revealing patterns of actions, behaviors, and relationships. We argue that in the study of dialogic pedagogy, it is structural and/or functional discourse analysis that focuses on studying the given and objective aspects of dialogic pedagogy. In the paper, we consider, describe, interpret, and dialogically re-analyze a case of dialogic analysis involving science education coming from David Hammer’s and Emily van Zee’s (2006) book. We also discuss structural and functional discourse analysis of two pedagogical cases, a monologic and a dialogic one, provided by David Skidmore (2000). We dialogically re-analyze these two cases and Skidmore’s research. We conclude that in research on dialogic pedagogy (and beyond, on social sciences in general) both dialogic science (involving dialogic analysis) and positivist science (involving discourse analysis) are unavoidable and needed, while providing the overall different foci of the research. We discuss the appropriateness and the limitations of discourse analysis as predominantly searching for structural-functional patterns in the classroom discourses. We discuss dialogic tensions in the reported dialogues that cannot be captured by discourse analysis search for patterns. Finally, we discuss two emerging issues among ourselves: 1) whether discourse analysis is always positivist and 2) how these two analytic approaches complement each other while doing research on dialogic pedagogy (and beyond).
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2019-01-08 08:37:26
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/272
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 7 (2019)
eng
Copyright (c) 2019 Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Tina Kullenberg, Kelly Curtis
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/314
2020-06-05T18:37:00Z
dpj1:EDTL
"200107 2020 eng "
2325-3290
dc
Pattern-recognition, intersubjectivity, and dialogic meaning-making in education
Matusov, Eugene
School of Education
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States
From a conventional monological view, meaning-making is located in a particular statement. In conventional schools, students are positioned to be enactors of ready-made knowledge and skills on teacher’s demand based on their pattern-recognition and production, rather than to be authors of their own education, learning, knowledge, and meaning. Pattern recognition involves the emergence of active production of diverse potential patterns that may or may not approximate well the targeted pattern (“sprouting”). The sprouting can be guided (“supervised”) by an expert or unguided, mediated or unmediated. These diverse potential patterns are sequentially evaluated about how likely each of them can be close to the targeted pattern. In each evaluation, the probabilistic confidence of some patterns grows while some other patterns decrease. In contrast, according to Bakhtin, meaning-making is defined as the relationship between a genuine, interested, information-seeking, question and serious response to it. From the Bakhtinian dialogic perspective, a statement does not have any meaning until it is viewed as a reply to some question in an internally persuasive discourse. A student’s meaning-making process starts with a genuine, interested, information-seeking, question raised by the student. At least, when a student cannot yet formulate this genuine question, they have to be pregnant with such a question, experiencing a certain puzzlement, uneasiness, curiosity, tension, and so on. Another aspect of dialogic meaning-making is interaddressivity. A student is interested in other people: 1) in what other people may think and how they feel about it; however these people define this it, and 2) in other people as such – in what they are doing, feeling, relating, and thinking about; in the relationship with these people; in the potential that these people may realize and offer; and so on.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2020-01-06 10:25:14
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/314
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 8 (2020)
eng
Copyright (c) 2020 Eugene Matusov
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/425
2021-08-24T14:52:58Z
dpj1:EDTL
"210215 2021 eng "
2325-3290
dc
The relationship between education and learning and its consequences for dialogic pedagogy
Matusov, Eugene
School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States
Education is often viewed as formalized learning. I argue that the relationship between education and formalized learning is more complex and profound. In this conceptual essay, I examine the relationship between education and learning. Specifically, I discuss the cases when learning is not education and education is not learning. I argue that learning becomes educational when the person, the learner themselves, appreciates their learning. When learning is not appreciated by the learner, it does not constitute that person’s education. Thus, education is an ephemeral subjective construct, prone to appear and disappear as the person’s attitude to their learning changes. Also, education can be non-learning-based when it involves insights – abrupt, discontinuous changes of the person’s subjectivity – which are not caused by and rooted in the person’s experiences. Like learning, for an insight to be educational, it has to be perceived and appreciated by the person. I argue that human life consists of the flow of learning and insight. Noticing learning and insight by the person involves discontinuity of the person’s subjectivity, participation in activities, and other people that is recognized by others and the person. I discuss diverse forms of the person’s appreciation of learning and insights that constitute education. These forms vary from the behaviorist appreciation, as its lowest form, to the critical appreciation through critical dialogue as its highest form. Finally, I consider the consequences of defining education through a person’s appreciation of the transformation of their subjectivity for dialogic pedagogy.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2021-02-15 10:18:05
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/425
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 9 (2021)
eng
Copyright (c) 2021 Eugene Matusov
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/497
2022-02-08T14:27:08Z
dpj1:EDTL
"220105 2022 eng "
2325-3290
dc
The University of Students: A place for joint self-education
Shugurova, Olga
University of Manitoba, CA
Matusov, Eugene
University of Delaware, USA
Marjanovic-Shane, Ana
Dialogic Pedagogy Journal http://anamarjanovicshane.com/
In this article, we explain, explore, and problematize the formation, organization, leadership, and daily educational life of the first (to our knowledge) international democratic university of students (UniS) in the 21st century. UniS is run by the students, for the students, and with the students for their diverse purposes, desires, interests, and needs. A student is anyone who freely chooses to study something for whatever reason. Everyone can become a student at any time without any high school credits, fees, bureaucracy, tests, or any other form of human suffering. But what exactly is UniS? Why students? What if…? How can one visualize UniS, which is “so vague, so bizarre, so unnecessary to me!” What are its philosophical principles? Who are we? What does the University of Students look like? In the spirit of curiosity, wonder, leisure, fun, freedom, and love for learning, we invite the reader to attend and connect with two working edu-clubs of UniS: a movie club “Schooling Around the World and Time” and an “Educationalist Club.” In addition, we discuss some of the main issues, limitations, and challenges, including the civilization of the necessities, colonization of the human spirit by the economy, a lack of genuine leisure, and toxification of the human by foisted education. The open-ended, poetic conclusion lets the readers form their own interpretations, ideas, questions, and answers about UniS. What is the future of UniS? And only time will tell, 10, 100 years later or 100 light-years from now.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2022-01-05 13:01:56
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/497
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 10 (2022)
eng
Copyright (c) 2022 Olga Shugurova, Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/561
2023-06-02T18:20:37Z
dpj1:EDTL
"230110 2023 eng "
2325-3290
dc
The educational regime of the Bakhtinian dialogue
Matusov, Eugene
School of EducationUniversity of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States
Many dialogue-oriented educationalists are attracted to the Bakhtinian notion of dialogue. In this theoretical essay, I have abstracted five major features of the Bakhtinian dialogue and considered what kind of educational regime emerges from these features. In conclusion, I problematize the notion of Bakhtinian dialogue and its regime for education. The paper was presented and discussed at the 17th Bakhtinian conference in Saransk, Russia, in 2021.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2023-01-10 11:16:39
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/561
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 11 No. 1 (2023)
eng
Copyright (c) 2023 Eugene Matusov
oai:ojs.dpj.pitt.edu:article/598
2024-01-28T18:17:36Z
dpj1:EDTL
"240111 2024 eng "
2325-3290
dc
The Stand on Dialogic Pedagogy in Our Times of Peace and War: My Perspective on December 12, 2022
Matusov, Eugene
University of Delaware, USA
This essay represents the publication of my keynote address at the First DPJ online conference on December 12, 2022. In my speech, I defined how I perceive “our times” and how Dialogic Pedagogy in our times of peace and war may try to address these challenges or even if we should do so. I continued developing the concept of Ontological Dialogic Education. What is the role of Ontological Dialogic Education in addressing the challenges of our times, and is it relevant at all? Why and how can it contribute to a vision of a liberal democracy, if at all? This questioning let me introduce a key post-Enlightenment notion of education based on students’ self-determination and dignity.
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2024-01-05 09:27:50
Editorial
application/pdf
http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/598
Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education; Vol. 12 No. 1 (2024)
eng
Copyright (c) 2024 Eugene Matusov