Explore the vast range of titles available.

Dialogic: Education for the Internet Age argues that despite rapid advances in communications technology, most teaching still relies on traditional approaches to education, built upon the logic of print, and dependent on the notion that there is a single true representation of reality. In practice, the use of the Internet disrupts this traditional logic of education by offering an experience of knowledge as participatory and multiple. This new logic of education is dialogic and characterises education as learning to learn, think and thrive in the context of working with multiple perspectives and ultimate uncertainty. The book builds upon the simple contrast between observing dialogue from an outside point of view, and participating in a dialogue from the inside, before pinpointing an essential feature of dialogic: the gap or difference between voices in dialogue which is understood as an irreducible source of meaning. Each chapter of the book applies this dialogic thinking to a specific challenge facing education, re-thinking the challenge and revealing a new theory of education. Areas covered in the book include: dialogical learning and cognition dialogical learning and emotional intelligence educational technology, dialogic 'spaces' and consciousness global dialogue and global citizenship dialogic theories of science and maths education The challenge identified in Wegerif's text is the growing need to develop a new understanding of education that holds the potential to transform educational policy and pedagogy in order to meet the realities of the digital age. Dialogic: Education for the Internet Age draws upon the latest research in dialogic theory, creativity and technology, and is essential reading for advanced students and researchers in educational psychology, technology and policy.

This article has two purposes: firstly to introduce this special issue on scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education and secondly to review the recent literature on these topics as well as the articles in this special issue. First we define and characterise scaffolding and dialogic teaching and provide a brief historical overview of the scaffolding metaphor. Then we present a review study of the recent scaffolding literature in mathematics education (2010–2015) based on 21 publications that fulfilled our criteria and 14 articles in this special issue that have scaffolding as a central focus. This is complemented with a brief review of the recent literature on dialogic teaching. We critically discuss some of the issues emerging from these reviews and provide some recommendations. We argue that scaffolding has the potential to be a useful integrative concept within mathematics education, especially when taking advantage of the insights from the dialogic teaching literature.

Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy education for young students is gaining traction among researchers and educators. Researchers are developing courses and attempting to teach AI literacy to younger students, using age‐appropriate AI educational learning tools. Although teachers play a crucial role in AI literacy education, their perceptions and attitudes have received little attention. This study explores the perceptions of 60 teachers regarding the use of AI educational learning tools, and examines the factors influencing their attitudes in relation to implementing AI literacy education. The technological acceptance model and the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (CK) (TPACK) framework inform the research design, and a mixed method, combining the statistical package for Social Science and thematic analysis, is employed for data analysis. The study reveals that teachers have positive perceptions regarding the usefulness and ease of use of AI educational learning tools in their AI literacy teaching. This paper also reveals that teachers embrace an arts‐based approach to teaching AI literacy. The qualitative data reveal that teachers face challenges such as insufficient CK and experience with AI; and knowledge of TPACK. The five factors affecting their acceptance of AI educational learning tools are: (a) teachers' perceptions of their AI CK and experience in teaching AI literacy (technological content knowledge); (b) technical challenges and stakeholder acceptance; (c) the attributes of AI educational learning tools; (d) school infrastructure and budget constraints; and (e) potential for distraction and negative emotional responses. This study offers insights for policymakers regarding professional development initiatives and technical support mechanisms, thereby facilitating more effective AI literacy implementation.

We argue that dialogic theory, inspired by the Russian scholar Mikhail Bakhtin, has a distinct contribution to the analysis of the genesis of understanding in the mathematics classroom. We begin by contrasting dialogic theory to other leading theoretical approaches to understanding conceptual development in mathematics influenced by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. We argue that both Piagetian and Vygotskian traditions in mathematics education overlook important dialogic causal processes enabling or hindering switches in perspective between voices in relationship. To illustrate this argument, we use Piagetian-, Vygotskian-and Bakhtinian-inspired approaches to analyse a short extract of classroom data in which two 12-year-old boys using TinkerPlots software change their understanding of a probability problem. While all three analyses have something useful to offer, our dialogic analysis reveals aspects of the episode, in particular the significance of the emotional engagement and the laughter of the students, which are occluded by the other two approaches.

Sociocultural researchers have claimed that students' learning of science is a discursive process, with scientific concepts and ways of reasoning being learned through engagement in practical enquiry and social interaction as well as individualized activity. It is also often claimed that interacting with partners while carrying out scientific investigations is beneficial to students' learning and the development of their understanding. The research we describe investigated the validity of these claims and explored their educational implications. An experimental teaching programme was designed to enable children in British primary schools to talk and reason together and to apply these skills in their study of science. The results obtained indicate that (a) children can be enabled to use talk more effectively as a tool for reasoning and (b) talk-based activities can have a useful function in scaffolding the development of reasoning and scientific understanding. The implications of the findings for educational policy and practice are discussed.

This article explores the relationship between ontological assumptions and studies of educational dialogue through a focus on Bakhtin's 'dialogic'. The term dialogic is frequently appropriated to a modernist framework of assumptions, in particular the neo-Vygotskian or sociocultural tradition. However, Vygotsky's theory of education is dialectic, not dialogic. From a dialogic perspective the difference between voices in dialogue is constitutive of meaning in such a way that it makes no sense to imagine 'overcoming' this difference. By contrast, due to the implicit assumption that meaning is ultimately grounded on identity rather than upon difference, the dialectic perspective applied by Vygotsky interprets differences as 'contradictions' that need to be overcome or transcended. A case study of research on exploratory talk is used to illustrate the potential for a fruitful relationship between 'high level' theory and research that is relevant to classroom practice.

This fascinating dialogue raised many questions. In this commentary I will focus on just three questions that particularly stimulated me to further reflection: ‘why classification?’; ‘what is ontology?’ and ‘where does agency come from?’

Buber’s distinction between the ‘I-It’ mode and the ‘I-Thou’ mode is seminal for dialogic education. While Buber introduces the idea of dialogic space, an idea which has proved useful for the analysis of dialogic education with technology, his account fails to engage adequately with the role of technology. This paper offers an introduction to the significance of the I-It/I-Thou duality of technology in relation with opening dialogic space. This is followed by a short schematic history of educational technology which reveals the role technology plays, not only in opening dialogic space, but also in expanding dialogic space. The expansion of dialogic space is an expansion of what it means to be ‘us’ as dialogic engagement facilitates the incorporation, into our shared sense of identity, of aspects of reality that are initially experienced as alien or ‘other’. Augmenting Buber with an alternative understanding of dialogic space enables us to see how dialogue mediated by technology, as well as dialogue with monologised fragments of technology (robots), can, through education, lead to an expansion of what it means to be human.

Sixty British primary school children aged 9-10 and their teachers took part in an experimental teaching programme, designed to improve the quality of children's reasoning and collaborative activity by developing their awareness of language use and promoting certain 'ground rules' for talking together. Children's subsequent use of language when carrying out collaborative activities in the classroom was observed and analysed, and effects on their performance on Raven's Progressive Matrices test of non-verbal reasoning were also investigated. Comparative data were gathered from children in matched control classes. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of discourse showed a marked shift in target children's use of language in accord with the aims of the teaching programme, and demonstrated that adherence to the ground rules helped groups solve the reasoning test problems. Children's individual scores on the Raven's test also improved. These findings support a sociocultural view of intellectual development and confirm the value of explicitly teaching children how to use language to reason.

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.