556
M. R. Anastacio
In light of the above, some elements that may be present in teacher training
are presented below, considering the assumptions of the transdisciplinary approach
and contemporary demands. These elements are presented without the pretension
of having them as unique, and of exhausting the possibilities existing in formative
processes for teachers of higher education.
(a) methodological congruence—congruence between the assumptions of the
transdisciplinary approach and the methodology used;
(b) multidimensionality of being—perceiving oneself, teacher, and instigating
learners to recognize their multidimensionality: physical, emotional, relational,
mental, creative, environmental, political and spiritual;
(c) multidimensionality of relationships—perceiving oneself and instigating learners to recognize the multidimensionality of intrapersonal, interpersonal, extrapersonal and transpersonal relationships, with which they will always be
involved;
(d) attention to the unveiling of the “power from within”—acting in itself and contributing to the evolution of the consciousness of their students by stimulating
the transformation of frames of reference with a view to the search for liberation
(not alienation and not numbness);
(e) meaningful learning—promoting learning that can penetrate deep into the person’s existence, going beyond the simple accumulation of facts and being able
to generate transformation in their way of being and acting;
(f) solidarity and civic culture—awakening the “power from within” in an ecosystemic way, so that egocentric attitudes can be transformed into feelings of love
and acts of compassion that allow the students to be respectful and open to
differences. Always with a political purpose and focused on peace and social
justice;
(g) learning spaces—considering the expansion of classroom space to produce
learning. Not to limit social transformation to the classroom, expanding the
learning for a transforming action with political intention and in the service of
the reconstruction of the world;
(h) access to truths—recognizing, as Aristotle, the complementary importance of
the various possibilities for working the truths that are not limited only to science as episteme, but also to art or the capacity to produce (techne) and practical
wisdom (phronesis), a science capable of advancing towards a theoretical wisdom (sophia) and able to intuit the sources of intention (nous);
(i) heterogeneous plural practices (transdisciplinarity)—considering the diversity
of sources of access to truth, which presupposes adopting knowledge and
methodologies not exclusive to science, but also of the arts, traditions, philosophy, among others;
(j) wisdom and imagination—focusing on the development of wisdom and the
promotion of imagination instead of focusing predominantly on the production
and systematization of theoretical knowledge;
(k) acting in teams—considering the complexity and the necessary multifunctionality of the educator, it is considered necessary to act in teams. Even for the
M. R. Anastacio
In light of the above, some elements that may be present in teacher training
are presented below, considering the assumptions of the transdisciplinary approach
and contemporary demands. These elements are presented without the pretension
of having them as unique, and of exhausting the possibilities existing in formative
processes for teachers of higher education.
(a) methodological congruence—congruence between the assumptions of the
transdisciplinary approach and the methodology used;
(b) multidimensionality of being—perceiving oneself, teacher, and instigating
learners to recognize their multidimensionality: physical, emotional, relational,
mental, creative, environmental, political and spiritual;
(c) multidimensionality of relationships—perceiving oneself and instigating learners to recognize the multidimensionality of intrapersonal, interpersonal, extrapersonal and transpersonal relationships, with which they will always be
involved;
(d) attention to the unveiling of the “power from within”—acting in itself and contributing to the evolution of the consciousness of their students by stimulating
the transformation of frames of reference with a view to the search for liberation
(not alienation and not numbness);
(e) meaningful learning—promoting learning that can penetrate deep into the person’s existence, going beyond the simple accumulation of facts and being able
to generate transformation in their way of being and acting;
(f) solidarity and civic culture—awakening the “power from within” in an ecosystemic way, so that egocentric attitudes can be transformed into feelings of love
and acts of compassion that allow the students to be respectful and open to
differences. Always with a political purpose and focused on peace and social
justice;
(g) learning spaces—considering the expansion of classroom space to produce
learning. Not to limit social transformation to the classroom, expanding the
learning for a transforming action with political intention and in the service of
the reconstruction of the world;
(h) access to truths—recognizing, as Aristotle, the complementary importance of
the various possibilities for working the truths that are not limited only to science as episteme, but also to art or the capacity to produce (techne) and practical
wisdom (phronesis), a science capable of advancing towards a theoretical wisdom (sophia) and able to intuit the sources of intention (nous);
(i) heterogeneous plural practices (transdisciplinarity)—considering the diversity
of sources of access to truth, which presupposes adopting knowledge and
methodologies not exclusive to science, but also of the arts, traditions, philosophy, among others;
(j) wisdom and imagination—focusing on the development of wisdom and the
promotion of imagination instead of focusing predominantly on the production
and systematization of theoretical knowledge;
(k) acting in teams—considering the complexity and the necessary multifunctionality of the educator, it is considered necessary to act in teams. Even for the