This article is inspired by Jane Sahi’s commentary, ‘Dialogue as Education: Martin Buber’, published under the feature ‘Classics with Commentary’ in the Monsoon 2005 issue of Contemporary Education Dialogue. I seek to further the discussion of the contributions of Martin Buber to the discourse of education through an elaboration and clarification of the ideas, concerns and critiques exposited by Jane Sahi. These concerns can perhaps be understood under the following themes: (i) reflections on educational practice in the light of Buber’s (...) ideas; (ii) the role of language in dialogue; (iii) the idea of learning; (iv) attitudes towards the ‘other’; (v) the teacher–pupil relationship and (vi) the role of the teacher. Although ideas on these themes in the writings on Martin Buber’s have helped me in articulating this response, Jane Sahi’s commentary forms the basis of my reflections. (shrink)

This paper is an attempt to further the conversation about the possibilities of dialogue with technology that Wegerif and Major have initiated. In their paper Wegerif and Major have argued that “constructive dialogue with technology is possible, even essential, and that this takes the form of opening a dialogic space” and they also “argue against Buber that dialogic spaces do not all take the same form, but that they take a multitude of forms depending, to a large extent, on the (...) mediating technology”. Reflecting on the paper by Wegerif and Major, the present paper attempts to highlight certain issues and possibilities for such a dialogue. In the first section of the paper, Wegerif and Major’s discussion of technology-mediated dialogue has been reflected upon. This is followed by a reflection on the possibility and challenges of engaging in a dialogue with technology as ‘other’ by referring to the case of a robot ‘Sophia’ getting citizenship in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The third section discusses certain concerns regarding the interpretation of Buber’s idea of dialogue by Wegerif and Major. The conclusive section highlights some key aspects that need to be considered while reflecting on the possibility of dialogue with technology. (shrink)

This paper attempts to explicate the ways in which three important Indian thinkers- Tagore, Sri Aurobindo, and Krishnamurti understand the holistic development of a child. These thinkers become even more important in light of the fact that with periodic changes in the education policies of the state, and the changing view of how a child’s development in school is visualised, the thoughts of these thinkers have, in a sense, remained eternal and have continued to inspire schools and find expression. Their (...) ideas present to us very unique and refreshing ways of looking at childhood and the role of the school. Rather than moving from the theoretical ideas presented by these thinkers to their pedagogical implications, the discussion in the paper would proceed from describing the practices in these schools and then explaining their theoretical bases. The primary focus in the paper is on the holistic development of a child’s personality and re-thinking assessment practices in school. (shrink)