The article explores the phenomenon of dialogue as a mechanism for the development of adolescents’ subject position within a transforming educational space. This context is characterized by a gradual departure from the traditional knowledge-transmission model toward the formation of an active, proactive, and responsible personality. Adolescence is identified as a critical period of ontogenesis, marked by a qualitative leap in the development of self-consciousness, the establishment of foundations for conscious self-determination, the formation of value-semantic orientations, and a reflexive attitude toward one’s own activity as an object of purposeful transformation. The subject position is interpreted as an integrative personal construct that presupposes an individual’s capacity to act as the source of their own activity, to make conscious choices, to assume responsibility for decisions taken, and to critically reflect on the outcomes of their actions. It develops within a communicative context through situations involving the independent resolution of contradictions, the comparison of differing viewpoints, and the elaboration of a personal stance toward a problem. In this framework, dialogue is understood not as a simple speech procedure or frontal questioning but as a fundamental space of encounter between subjects, in which new meanings emerge at the boundary of interacting positions, in line with philosophical traditions concerning the dialogical nature of consciousness and the dialogue of cultures. In mass educational practice, dialogic forms of interaction are frequently implemented in a formal manner without due consideration of necessary conditions. This results in pseudo-dialogue and fails to foster genuine self-determination among adolescents. Consequently, the identification and systematization of key parameters of dialogic interaction that ensure its developmental effect on the components of subjectness acquire particular importance. These components include initiative, reflexivity, responsibility, the capacity for goal-setting, readiness for dialogic interaction, and value-based self-determination. The materials demonstrate that the systematic integration into the educational process of problem-based discussions, Socratic conversations, reflexive dialogues, and group project discussions of varying duration and frequency produces a pronounced positive dynamic across all the indicated components. The greatest gains are observed in indicators of readiness for dialogic interaction and reflexivity, with a transition from predominantly average levels to higher values. By contrast, under traditional instruction such changes remain minimal and are attributable primarily to natural age-related processes. Correlation analysis establishes a hierarchy of significance among dialogue parameters. The greatest contribution to the growth of the subject position is made by the reflexive completeness of discussion as a stage of comprehension and generalization of experience, the symmetry of communication that ensures equal distribution of speech activity and genuine participation by each subject, and, to a lesser extent, the degree of problem openness that permits multiple solutions and the presence of cognitive conflict that stimulates the restructuring of thinking, provided constructive pedagogical support is available. Gender analysis of the dynamics reveals an overall universal character of dialogue’s impact, with moderate differences: a more pronounced increase in reflexivity among girls, associated with their greater inclination toward introspection, and a tendency toward greater growth in initiative and goal-setting among boys. These differences do not preclude the application of such practices in mixed-gender groups. The presented propositions refine current understandings of the nature of dialogue as a pedagogical phenomenon, highlighting the selective character of its influence on the communicative-reflexive components of subjectness as a foundation for the subsequent development of volitional and value-semantic aspects. They also establish the practical significance of the findings for the design of educational processes, the assessment of pedagogical communication quality, and the development of teacher training programs focused on techniques for organizing open questioning, equitable discussion, and reflexive procedures. Collectively, these elements allow the main content of the work to be established, its relevance to pedagogical science and practice to be evaluated, and a decision to be made regarding consultation of the full text for an in-depth examination of the mechanisms and conditions for the effective formation of adolescents’ subject position.