Educating ‘Future Professionals’ for Sustainable …
609
Connecting to de Haan’s (2008) approach on education for sustainable development, the first three sessions in the starting phase of the program aims the goals
(a) to motivate oneself to become active, (b) to motivate others, to become active,
too and (c) to participate in decision making. The first three seminar sessions of the
multiplicator-training address transitional experiences working with image based
approaches, scenic plays and theatre approaches (Hentschel 2010). Using socio
drama and theatre plays (Wildt et al. 2008), the program supports co-sensing.
3.2 Habitus-Reflexivity
Connecting to the inequality critical perspectives of Bourdieu (1987), in its second
phase the program refers to reflexivity of students’ habitual dispositions (Bourdieu
and Wacquant 1996; Bourdieu 2004; Weber 2012; Elven and Weber 2012). The
sequences’ goals are to support students’ reflexivity (Grundmann et al. 2006) within
their specific societal backgrounds and developmental potentials and needs. Especially in the field of education, many ‘first generation in Academia’ students enter.
By seeing different patterns of transitioning, students recognize the internalizing or
externalizing beliefs of control, conceptualizations of self or others, which are hidden
structuring patterns of success and developmental paths of practice, social relations
and design (Grundmann et al. 2006, pp. 30–33).
Students’ educational strategies (Lange-Vester and Teiwes-Kügler 2004) which
differ according to social background, are explored (Bittlingmayer 2006, p. 54).
Problems of match or (non-)fit between biographical dispositions and institutional
requirements are faced here (Brake and Büchner 2012; El Mafalaani 2012; Elven
et al. i.p.).
Learning goals of this section are (a) to be able to reflect ones’ own ‘leading and
guiding images’ (‘Leitbild’) and the guiding images of others, too. Secondly, (b)
empathy and solidarity towards disadvantaged, poor, weak and oppressed become
important learning goals. Students’ learning for reflexivity bends the educational
and pedagogical observation back onto the observing self, students learn methods to
make them see themselves and the systemic and societal embeddings in which they
are socialized into and constantly involved in.
3.3 Sense of Possibility
The third phase of the program addresses students as ‘future professionals’. It invites
them to develop their sense of possibility for creating and bringing about sustainable
futures. Over the next three sessions, ‘coaches’ (multiplicators) support their ‘peers’
to design societal alternatives. Using methods like ‘Appreciative Inquiry’ (Cooperrider et al. 2003), ‘Theory U’ and the ‘Presencing Approach’ (Scharmer 2015a),
609
Connecting to de Haan’s (2008) approach on education for sustainable development, the first three sessions in the starting phase of the program aims the goals
(a) to motivate oneself to become active, (b) to motivate others, to become active,
too and (c) to participate in decision making. The first three seminar sessions of the
multiplicator-training address transitional experiences working with image based
approaches, scenic plays and theatre approaches (Hentschel 2010). Using socio
drama and theatre plays (Wildt et al. 2008), the program supports co-sensing.
3.2 Habitus-Reflexivity
Connecting to the inequality critical perspectives of Bourdieu (1987), in its second
phase the program refers to reflexivity of students’ habitual dispositions (Bourdieu
and Wacquant 1996; Bourdieu 2004; Weber 2012; Elven and Weber 2012). The
sequences’ goals are to support students’ reflexivity (Grundmann et al. 2006) within
their specific societal backgrounds and developmental potentials and needs. Especially in the field of education, many ‘first generation in Academia’ students enter.
By seeing different patterns of transitioning, students recognize the internalizing or
externalizing beliefs of control, conceptualizations of self or others, which are hidden
structuring patterns of success and developmental paths of practice, social relations
and design (Grundmann et al. 2006, pp. 30–33).
Students’ educational strategies (Lange-Vester and Teiwes-Kügler 2004) which
differ according to social background, are explored (Bittlingmayer 2006, p. 54).
Problems of match or (non-)fit between biographical dispositions and institutional
requirements are faced here (Brake and Büchner 2012; El Mafalaani 2012; Elven
et al. i.p.).
Learning goals of this section are (a) to be able to reflect ones’ own ‘leading and
guiding images’ (‘Leitbild’) and the guiding images of others, too. Secondly, (b)
empathy and solidarity towards disadvantaged, poor, weak and oppressed become
important learning goals. Students’ learning for reflexivity bends the educational
and pedagogical observation back onto the observing self, students learn methods to
make them see themselves and the systemic and societal embeddings in which they
are socialized into and constantly involved in.
3.3 Sense of Possibility
The third phase of the program addresses students as ‘future professionals’. It invites
them to develop their sense of possibility for creating and bringing about sustainable
futures. Over the next three sessions, ‘coaches’ (multiplicators) support their ‘peers’
to design societal alternatives. Using methods like ‘Appreciative Inquiry’ (Cooperrider et al. 2003), ‘Theory U’ and the ‘Presencing Approach’ (Scharmer 2015a),