Proposals for Teacher Training in the Face of the Challenge …
555
we find ourselves as humanity. Transformation needs to be driven at some point in
the system, and it is not possible to aid in the transformation of learners without the
effective transformation of educators.
Thinking about the formation of educators to act in the context of higher education requires training that contemplates the epistemological and methodological
dimensions in an ontological context in which the ontological conception is related
to the development of the “being that is the educator” in the intrapersonal, interpersonal, extrapersonal and transpersonal. According to Anastacio (2012), these aspects
presuppose:
(a) intrapersonal—represents the consciousness of unity and the construction of a
more harmonious relationship of the person with him or herself;
(b) interpersonal—represents the work that aims at harmony with the people with
whom one interacts in the closest circles and the attitude of respect for the
incredible diversity and richness of expressions of the human family;
(c) extrapersonal—presupposes the development of a consciousness of equality,
not of superiority, in the face of planetary diversity, the consciousness of unity
with all things and the sense of communion with realities;
(d) transpersonal—in this dimension there is the call to the spiritual mission of
education, understood here as the full unfolding of human potentialities—which
implies the proper relationship of being with oneself, with others, with the world
and with the awareness of the sacredness of life.
Pineau and Patrick (2005), thinkers who defend the transdisciplinary approach,
inspired by Rousseau (1712–1778), when they present what Rousseau considers to
be the three fundamental masters of education (the own person, others and things),
they propose the tripolar theory considering the transdisciplinary view of training.
The theory defended by these authors presupposes that a process of transdisciplinary
formation needs to be worked out from three complementary axes or levels of analysis: self-formation, training in the relation with oneself (personalization); heteroformation, training in relation to others (socialization); and eco-formation, training
in relation to the environment (greening). It is also emphasized that the most common in training processes in the educational context is the hetero-formation, which
comprises formative processes usually marked by the appropriation by others of the
training of the subject.
In order to better clarify the relationship between ontology (in the way understood
here), transdisciplinary education and self-formation, we will turn to Galvani (2002),
when he states that, in order to occur a transdisciplinary formation, it is necessary to
reverse the axis of educational action to develop self-formation as an inner approach
to education, understanding that self-formation constitutes the power of the subject
over their formation; In other words, the subject develops an original awareness in the
interaction with their environment. Such awareness requires considering the plurality
of reality levels of the auto (self) and formation concepts, since it is constituted by
the movement of reflexive awareness and feedback on hetero-formative and ecoformative influences.
555
we find ourselves as humanity. Transformation needs to be driven at some point in
the system, and it is not possible to aid in the transformation of learners without the
effective transformation of educators.
Thinking about the formation of educators to act in the context of higher education requires training that contemplates the epistemological and methodological
dimensions in an ontological context in which the ontological conception is related
to the development of the “being that is the educator” in the intrapersonal, interpersonal, extrapersonal and transpersonal. According to Anastacio (2012), these aspects
presuppose:
(a) intrapersonal—represents the consciousness of unity and the construction of a
more harmonious relationship of the person with him or herself;
(b) interpersonal—represents the work that aims at harmony with the people with
whom one interacts in the closest circles and the attitude of respect for the
incredible diversity and richness of expressions of the human family;
(c) extrapersonal—presupposes the development of a consciousness of equality,
not of superiority, in the face of planetary diversity, the consciousness of unity
with all things and the sense of communion with realities;
(d) transpersonal—in this dimension there is the call to the spiritual mission of
education, understood here as the full unfolding of human potentialities—which
implies the proper relationship of being with oneself, with others, with the world
and with the awareness of the sacredness of life.
Pineau and Patrick (2005), thinkers who defend the transdisciplinary approach,
inspired by Rousseau (1712–1778), when they present what Rousseau considers to
be the three fundamental masters of education (the own person, others and things),
they propose the tripolar theory considering the transdisciplinary view of training.
The theory defended by these authors presupposes that a process of transdisciplinary
formation needs to be worked out from three complementary axes or levels of analysis: self-formation, training in the relation with oneself (personalization); heteroformation, training in relation to others (socialization); and eco-formation, training
in relation to the environment (greening). It is also emphasized that the most common in training processes in the educational context is the hetero-formation, which
comprises formative processes usually marked by the appropriation by others of the
training of the subject.
In order to better clarify the relationship between ontology (in the way understood
here), transdisciplinary education and self-formation, we will turn to Galvani (2002),
when he states that, in order to occur a transdisciplinary formation, it is necessary to
reverse the axis of educational action to develop self-formation as an inner approach
to education, understanding that self-formation constitutes the power of the subject
over their formation; In other words, the subject develops an original awareness in the
interaction with their environment. Such awareness requires considering the plurality
of reality levels of the auto (self) and formation concepts, since it is constituted by
the movement of reflexive awareness and feedback on hetero-formative and ecoformative influences.