**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 serviceproviding regions.

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

a.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.


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,

#### *Dialogue as a Principle of Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.114034*

we find room for dialogue. Assessments – formative, summative assessment, normreferenced 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,

#### *Dialogue as a Principle of Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.114034*

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:

