**2. Project design and research methodology**

The action inquiry research project discussed here was initiated due to inspiration from an earlier action inquiry research project designed by Helskog. The project had involved 13 secondary schools in a municipality in Norway [4]. After presentation and preparation meetings between Helskog and the upper secondary school's leader group during spring and summer 2019, the leader group decided that they want to develop a similar project in their upper secondary school consisting of around 100 teachers (teaching both vocational and academic programs) and 650 students, focusing on the new curriculum and the previously mentioned "value lift".

Thus, development of what we might call a value sensitive, attitude- and virtuebased practice was a core purpose of the project. With this in mind, we named the project "Value lift and the edifying mission of education".1 Helskog asked the leader group for permission to include the other authors of this paper, Marcussen and Weiss, the first as a master student and the second as a research colleague and co-facilitator.

#### **2.1 Collaborative action inquiry**

Concretely, the project was planned as a series of action research cycles, while the content "emerged" as the project developed, so to speak, until interrupted by the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdowns. Three so-called pilot groups consisting of approximately 10 teachers were supposed to be given two full day training sessions each. First, they would start with a training session, then try out the Dialogos approach with their students as well as with groups of 10 teachers each during a 1,5 hour session, and then meet up for a new full day training session. This session would include the sharing of experiences as well as trying out new ways of philosophizing. In this way, the whole school would be involved in the project, even though not all participated in the direct training sessions. However, due to the corona situation, we only got started with the second pilot group before the project was put on hold. The project was rounded up with a half day online workshop with lecture in the last week of school, while deciding to continue the project at least one more year. The purpose is to let more teachers learn how to facilitate in-depth philosophical dialogs on sustainable development together with their students, using the Dialogos approach.

Being two researchers and a master student collaborating is a strength in itself, since it has been possible for us to discuss the project along the way. The whole

*Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World*

advance where they would end up in the dialog.

other would jeopardize this purpose.

about time to round up.

conclusion was not the purpose.

*1.3.4 Dialog format: philosophy for children (P4C)*

1.Sit in a circle together with your students.

that other teachers can try it out in their own classrooms too:

ful whole.

Since there are no predefined steps, the dialog process as such relies strongly on improvisation and none of the participants nor the facilitator would know in

• **The facilitator's role**: The role of the dialog facilitator mainly is to remember the order of the participants who raised their hand to make a statement, to pose follow-up questions and to summarize every now and then what has been said in the course of the dialog so far. In a metaphorical sense the facilitator can be seen like a music DJ who mixes all the different tunes and sounds (that is, the statements of the participants) together to a meaning-

• **A dialog, not a discussion**: When responding to each other's statements, the participants might be tempted to let the dialog go over into a discussion. This has to be avoided by the dialog facilitator, who in this case has to point out that different perspectives, opinions and views are important in order to get a deeper understanding of the topic and putting up arguments against each

• **Duration**: From our experience we can say that the ideal length of such a dialog might be about 1 hour, but it is up to each facilitator to sense when it is

• **No conclusion required**: Since the purpose of a Philo Cafè is to investigate a topic in order to get a deeper understanding of it, it can easily be that the dialog ends without a specific conclusion. And that is no problem, since finding a

The third dialog format that was put into practice in the following study was the philosophy for children format (P4C) as developed by Lipman (see [23]). This dialog format consists of several steps, which are presented below and in a way, so

2.The students read a philosophical text, often an excerpt of one of Lipma's novels. Here the students can read one sentence each, one after another.

3.The students have time to think and note associations that come to mind

is written on the blackboard, with the name of the author behind it.

The dialog starts with the question which received the most votes.

4.The students can pose a question, based on what they just read. Each question

5.The students are given the chance to vote for as many questions as they like.

6.During the dialog, the students are asked to relate to what the former speaker said, for instance by saying "I agree with … , because …." or "I disagree with

**178**

intuitively.

….because …"

<sup>1</sup> In Norwegian: Verdiløft og skolens danningsoppdrag.

process can thus be compared to the developmental action inquiry of William Torbert and colleagues [31]. Torbert distinguishes between first-person action inquiry, second-person action inquiry and third-person action inquiry, also making distinctions between the subjective first-person voice, the intersubjective second-person voice and the objectivity-seeking third-person voice ([32], p. 240–246). Reason and Bradbury [33] argue that the best action research will engage all three strategies: First-person research is best when carried out together with colleagues who can give support and challenge. This may evolve into a second-person collaborative inquiry process, as in the mid phase of this project, where Marcussen was given the lead in analyzing the data as part of his master thesis. In this way he has provided a more "objective" third person view and voice in the research, which gives the research a different balance of voices than if Helskog and Weiss were to analyze the data and write out the research report alone. However, when writing this article, their voices have become stronger again, as the focus moved towards dialogic learning-and-teaching.

### **2.2 Data**

The main method for including the participants in this investigation were socalled meta-reflections, which were made both orally, in terms of open dialogs, and in written form. Submitting the written meta-reflection notes was voluntary for the whole staff, but mandatory for the voluntary participating pilot group teachers. This set of data was supplemented by observation notes from Marcussen, who took part in the training in the pilot groups, in the teacher-facilitated workshops with other teachers, and also in philosophical dialogs with students, in addition to reflection logs from all three of the authors.

In the next section, excerpts from the first, and meta reflection notes from the first and second pilot group workshops in action inquiry research cycle 2, are used as examples or cases that are examined in order to find possible answers to the research question. Hence, this will only be one phase taken out of the wider context of the Dialogos process in this project.

For reasons of research ethics, the identities of the participating teachers and students were of course anonymized.

#### **3. Philosophical dialog process and key results**

The pilot group dialogs were facilitated respectively by Weiss and Helskog, while Marcussen took the role as a participating observer, together with 11 teachers. The teachers came from various subject backgrounds – among others agriculture, motor mechanics, science, social studies, curriculum for religions, philosophies of life and ethics, so-called special education, and Norwegian. We all sat in a circle around a meeting table, so that each participant could see the others.

#### **3.1 Two pre-workshop sessions**

The first dialogs that teachers experienced in this project, took place in two sessions prior to the first full day workshop. Around 100 teachers participated in these dialogs, which were carried out in small groups with 3–4 people. The purpose of these pre-workshop sessions was, among other things, to offer all the teachers of this school a first impression of philosophizing the Dialogos way and how philosophizing might contribute to dialogical learning-and-teaching in general. In the following empirical data from these first dialogs are presented in the form of meta-reflections.

**181**

*How Philosophizing the Dialogos Way Can Promote Education for Sustainable Development*

The first dialogs that teachers experienced in this project, took place in two sessions prior to the first full day workshop. The dialog formats used were derived from the Socratic Dialog format as described previously in "1.3.2. Dialogue format: Socratic dialogue (SD)". Around 100 teachers participated in these dialogs, which were carried out in small groups with 3–4 people and in which the values "love of neighbor/spirit of charity" and "dedication" were investigated. Both values were drawn from the paragraph of aims in the Norwegian Education Act (§1). These initial dialogs were important because the teachers experienced what it could mean to philosophize upon personal experiences in "heart-to-heart", and in "I-thou" relationships facilitated through dialog (see "1.3. Philosophizing the Dialogos Way a wisdom-oriented pedagogy"). This was also reflected and confirmed in many of the meta-reflections from the teachers, which they delivered on hand-written, anonymous sheets right after the dialogs. For instance, one teacher said "it was nice to reflect together with others, to become more deeply acquainted with one's colleagues, to see which values they have, what their lives, their image of humanity and society is founded upon", while another wrote that "to share personal experiences with colleagues challenges and makes us more familiar with each other", and a third that "I have never talked so much like today. Inspiring to hear others' stories. I want to use more of this in workshops with my students." Also, being recognized by one's colleagues was important. For instance, one teacher expressed that "colleagues have

Some emphasized the role of dialogic inquiry in the overarching work related to the new curriculum reform, on claiming that he or she saw the importance of working with terms and values from the paragraph of aims in the Norwegian Education Act (§1), and to develop the ability "to personalize these terms in order to understand them." Moreover, one claimed the workshop had "showed that a common room for reflection is important, if we want to pull in the same direction.", another that "it is important to work with your own attitudes", and a third that "the way the reflections have been carried out, triggered an interpersonal process and gave a

Some also claimed they had become inspired to take dialogical philosophizing into the classroom, "fostering dialogic reflection, showing that there is more than argumenting and discussing", and "to be creative, unafraid and transcending, so

The reason why "love of neighbor/spirit of charity" and "dedication" have been chosen as the topics for these initial dialogs was because one can assume that these two values are essential for what Kahn called eco-pedagogy. And that form of pedagogy, in the long run, will promote an ideal of education in the sense of self-formation (in Norwegian *danning*, in German *Bildung*, and in Greek *Paideia*) that will foster "a world of philosophers" ([20], p. 58). Like these two values, also the themes "sustainable development" and "respect for nature" are part of the

Since the teachers already had been introduced to the activity of philosophizing, based on personal examples inspired by the Socratic dialog approach in two

*" and "dedication"3*

*3.1.1 Teachers' dialogs 1: Socratic dialog-inspired reflection upon the topics* 

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96198*

*"love of neighbor/spirit of charity2*

shown interest for my stories and for what I said."

starting point for further reflections. I want more of that."

Educational Act. In the next sections, these will be in focus.

that the students can transcend themselves."

**3.2 The first full day workshop**

<sup>2</sup> "Nestekjærlighet" in Norwegian. <sup>3</sup> "Engasjement" in Norwegian.

*How Philosophizing the Dialogos Way Can Promote Education for Sustainable Development DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96198*

*3.1.1 Teachers' dialogs 1: Socratic dialog-inspired reflection upon the topics "love of neighbor/spirit of charity2 " and "dedication"3*

The first dialogs that teachers experienced in this project, took place in two sessions prior to the first full day workshop. The dialog formats used were derived from the Socratic Dialog format as described previously in "1.3.2. Dialogue format: Socratic dialogue (SD)". Around 100 teachers participated in these dialogs, which were carried out in small groups with 3–4 people and in which the values "love of neighbor/spirit of charity" and "dedication" were investigated. Both values were drawn from the paragraph of aims in the Norwegian Education Act (§1). These initial dialogs were important because the teachers experienced what it could mean to philosophize upon personal experiences in "heart-to-heart", and in "I-thou" relationships facilitated through dialog (see "1.3. Philosophizing the Dialogos Way a wisdom-oriented pedagogy"). This was also reflected and confirmed in many of the meta-reflections from the teachers, which they delivered on hand-written, anonymous sheets right after the dialogs. For instance, one teacher said "it was nice to reflect together with others, to become more deeply acquainted with one's colleagues, to see which values they have, what their lives, their image of humanity and society is founded upon", while another wrote that "to share personal experiences with colleagues challenges and makes us more familiar with each other", and a third that "I have never talked so much like today. Inspiring to hear others' stories. I want to use more of this in workshops with my students." Also, being recognized by one's colleagues was important. For instance, one teacher expressed that "colleagues have shown interest for my stories and for what I said."

Some emphasized the role of dialogic inquiry in the overarching work related to the new curriculum reform, on claiming that he or she saw the importance of working with terms and values from the paragraph of aims in the Norwegian Education Act (§1), and to develop the ability "to personalize these terms in order to understand them." Moreover, one claimed the workshop had "showed that a common room for reflection is important, if we want to pull in the same direction.", another that "it is important to work with your own attitudes", and a third that "the way the reflections have been carried out, triggered an interpersonal process and gave a starting point for further reflections. I want more of that."

Some also claimed they had become inspired to take dialogical philosophizing into the classroom, "fostering dialogic reflection, showing that there is more than argumenting and discussing", and "to be creative, unafraid and transcending, so that the students can transcend themselves."

The reason why "love of neighbor/spirit of charity" and "dedication" have been chosen as the topics for these initial dialogs was because one can assume that these two values are essential for what Kahn called eco-pedagogy. And that form of pedagogy, in the long run, will promote an ideal of education in the sense of self-formation (in Norwegian *danning*, in German *Bildung*, and in Greek *Paideia*) that will foster "a world of philosophers" ([20], p. 58). Like these two values, also the themes "sustainable development" and "respect for nature" are part of the Educational Act. In the next sections, these will be in focus.

#### **3.2 The first full day workshop**

Since the teachers already had been introduced to the activity of philosophizing, based on personal examples inspired by the Socratic dialog approach in two

*Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World*

again, as the focus moved towards dialogic learning-and-teaching.

reflection logs from all three of the authors.

of the Dialogos process in this project.

students were of course anonymized.

**3.1 Two pre-workshop sessions**

**3. Philosophical dialog process and key results**

meeting table, so that each participant could see the others.

process can thus be compared to the developmental action inquiry of William Torbert and colleagues [31]. Torbert distinguishes between first-person action inquiry, second-person action inquiry and third-person action inquiry, also making distinctions between the subjective first-person voice, the intersubjective second-person voice and the objectivity-seeking third-person voice ([32], p. 240–246). Reason and Bradbury [33] argue that the best action research will engage all three strategies: First-person research is best when carried out together with colleagues who can give support and challenge. This may evolve into a second-person collaborative inquiry process, as in the mid phase of this project, where Marcussen was given the lead in analyzing the data as part of his master thesis. In this way he has provided a more "objective" third person view and voice in the research, which gives the research a different balance of voices than if Helskog and Weiss were to analyze the data and write out the research report alone. However, when writing this article, their voices have become stronger

The main method for including the participants in this investigation were socalled meta-reflections, which were made both orally, in terms of open dialogs, and in written form. Submitting the written meta-reflection notes was voluntary for the whole staff, but mandatory for the voluntary participating pilot group teachers. This set of data was supplemented by observation notes from Marcussen, who took part in the training in the pilot groups, in the teacher-facilitated workshops with other teachers, and also in philosophical dialogs with students, in addition to

In the next section, excerpts from the first, and meta reflection notes from the first and second pilot group workshops in action inquiry research cycle 2, are used as examples or cases that are examined in order to find possible answers to the research question. Hence, this will only be one phase taken out of the wider context

For reasons of research ethics, the identities of the participating teachers and

The pilot group dialogs were facilitated respectively by Weiss and Helskog, while Marcussen took the role as a participating observer, together with 11 teachers. The teachers came from various subject backgrounds – among others agriculture, motor mechanics, science, social studies, curriculum for religions, philosophies of life and ethics, so-called special education, and Norwegian. We all sat in a circle around a

The first dialogs that teachers experienced in this project, took place in two sessions prior to the first full day workshop. Around 100 teachers participated in these dialogs, which were carried out in small groups with 3–4 people. The purpose of these pre-workshop sessions was, among other things, to offer all the teachers of this school a first impression of philosophizing the Dialogos way and how philosophizing might contribute to dialogical learning-and-teaching in general. In the following empirical data from these first dialogs are presented in the form of

**180**

meta-reflections.

**2.2 Data**

<sup>2</sup> "Nestekjærlighet" in Norwegian.

<sup>3</sup> "Engasjement" in Norwegian.

pre-workshop sessions, as described previously, Weiss and Helskog then planned the first full day workshop to be an introduction respectively to the Philo Café approach, and the P4C-approach. However, in order to connect general sustainable development issues to their own personal life experiences, the teachers were first asked to reflect upon whether and to what degree they had been teaching about sustainable development in their previous work as teachers. This was done because, as outlined in the introduction, connecting the personal and general, the concrete and the abstract, is essential to philosophizing the Dialogos way. This is also where edification towards wisdom can take place. The question that the teachers were asked to reflect upon read: *To what extent and in what ways did you consciously teach according to the value "respect for nature" in §1 in the Educational Act, and the interdisciplinary theme "sustainable development" in the overarching part of the curriculum in the work with your students?*

The teachers wrote their reflections on sheets of paper that were collected as data by us by the end of the day, but also shared orally in the group before we started the philosophical work. 11 out of 12 claimed to have worked with sustainable development issues previously. Several claimed to have included respect for nature in their lecturing. The agriculture teacher had taught biological diversity. The special education teacher had worked with garbage separation at school, and once while hiking, sustainability in general had been discussed. The social science teacher had compared multinational clothing-retail companies, while the Norwegian teacher wondered whether respecting and tolerating different students' boundaries can be a form of sustainability too.

The teachers were then introduced to an exercise from Dialogos [34] in which general philosophical questions were separated from empirical (fact based) questions and psychological questions. Based on this exercise as well as the examples drawn from their own teaching practice, the teachers formulated one question each. All questions were written on a flip chart paper, before the teachers voted for their favorite question, also giving reasons for their choice. The question "How can we save the planet?" was chosen for the first dialog, and the question "What is respect for nature?" for the second dialog.

#### *3.2.1 Teachers' dialog 2: A Philo Café on "How can we save the planet?"*

The dialog format used in this workshop in order to investigate the question "How can we save the planet?" was the so-called Philo Cafè, as described previously in section "1.3.3 Dialogue format: Philo Café". This dialog began with one teacher indicating that the question of how to save the planet is old, stemming at least from 1972 and the Brundtland report. The dialog moved forward through an interactive dance between Weiss' and Helskog's questions and facilitation-moves, and the joint thinking of the participants. For instance, if one teacher posed a stand, we would ask if somebody disagreed or had a different view. For instance, due to this, the dialog moved between the levels of global interconnectedness in the general, and personal responsibility in the individual. It also touched upon short-term consequences and long-term consequences for coming generations. Sometimes we also added a concept, such as "is this a paradigm shift?", based on what the teachers said. In order to make sure that everyone could follow the development of the dialog, we asked if somebody could repeat what was just said, or if someone could summarize the content of the dialog so far. The philosophical dialog ended with the comment that "Maybe we have to go back to our cave and eat roots and berries. We obviously can't have this much clothes and things – this is absolutely not sustainable", another adding that "It has to be emphasized that basic needs have to be fulfilled. That people have enough to eat and drink, and maybe education and so on, which is higher up in the hierarchy of needs." Weiss then posed the question: "Can we

**183**

*itself up again."*

*for nature?" It implies*

*How Philosophizing the Dialogos Way Can Promote Education for Sustainable Development*

achieve more quality of life without using and consuming resources?" One of the teachers then argued that "Quality of life is something within us, and independent

We then moved on to the next dialog, which was about the question "What is

For this dialog, the teachers were briefly introduced to the Lipman-Sharp philosophy for children (P4C) dialog format, as described previously in "1.3.4. Dialogue format: Philosophy for children (P4C)". The dialog investigated the question "What is respect for nature?" and the teachers read a short text from Helskog [34] about 4-year old Vilgot who is reflecting upon nature when questioned by his mum. The teachers took roles reading the text in pairs, one being Vilgot, and one being the questioning mother. A conversation about what it means to be close to nature unfolds, based in the text and the question "What is respect for nature?" The dialog began with one of the teachers claiming that nature has to be handed over to the next generation in a better condition than it was, or at least in the same condition. Also, when you are hiking, you should leave nature in the same condition as you found it. Another one commented that what you do before going for a hike can also be taken into account, like taking the car to the mountain or using a nonreusable barbecue. The teachers then reflected about how humans cultivate nature and about the relation between nature and culture in general. One teacher stated that there is a difference between cultivated and non-cultivated nature. Another did not see a difference between nature and culture but claimed that culture rather is something we take out into nature, arguing that *"everything is nature"*. Another teacher slightly disagreed and tried to define the difference between culture and nature: *"The difference is to either let things happen, or form and cultivate them the way we want."* Helskog then asked if, seen from a moral perspective. i.e. *respect* for nature, is it right to cultivate nature? One participant stated that there is a relation between us taking care *of* nature and taking *from* it, while another continued: *"Some places should be touched by human hands, others shouldn't."* One of the participants gave a concrete example on that: She once had initiated a project in her neighborhood where they cleaned up the forest. After they cleaned up parts of it, it became more child-friendly and better to walk in. Another realized she had been inconsistent when as a teenager she did not want to watch the butchering of animals, but at the same time she was used to buying meat at the store. The dialog continued along these lines for around an hour, ending with arguments like: *"Nature strikes back. Nature is stronger."* and "*Nature is alive. Multi-drug-resistant bacteria are also life and they will come after us. Why shouldn't they have the right to do that, actually?"* One of the teachers said that the planet will try to find a balance, if something goes wrong. Helskog asked: "*So, nature is seeking balance?" "Yes, it will fix itself if something is hurt"*, one replied. Another one added: *"Even after the apocalypse, nature will build* 

Responding to the guiding question, the group developed the following answers, as summarized on a flip chart paper by Helskog: *"What does it imply to show respect* 

• to utilize nature without destroying it – to administer without overuse

• to leave nature in the same condition as we found it

• to see the whole picture in what we do

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96198*

*3.2.2 Teachers' dialog 3: What is respect for nature?*

from our living standard."

respect for nature?"

#### *How Philosophizing the Dialogos Way Can Promote Education for Sustainable Development DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96198*

achieve more quality of life without using and consuming resources?" One of the teachers then argued that "Quality of life is something within us, and independent from our living standard."

We then moved on to the next dialog, which was about the question "What is respect for nature?"

#### *3.2.2 Teachers' dialog 3: What is respect for nature?*

*Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World*

pre-workshop sessions, as described previously, Weiss and Helskog then planned the first full day workshop to be an introduction respectively to the Philo Café approach, and the P4C-approach. However, in order to connect general sustainable development issues to their own personal life experiences, the teachers were first asked to reflect upon whether and to what degree they had been teaching about sustainable development in their previous work as teachers. This was done because, as outlined in the introduction, connecting the personal and general, the concrete and the abstract, is essential to philosophizing the Dialogos way. This is also where edification towards wisdom can take place. The question that the teachers were asked to reflect upon read: *To what extent and in what ways did you consciously teach according to the value "respect for nature" in §1 in the Educational Act, and the interdisciplinary theme "sustainable development" in the overarching part of the curriculum in the work with your students?* The teachers wrote their reflections on sheets of paper that were collected as data by us by the end of the day, but also shared orally in the group before we started the philosophical work. 11 out of 12 claimed to have worked with sustainable development issues previously. Several claimed to have included respect for nature in their lecturing. The agriculture teacher had taught biological diversity. The special education teacher had worked with garbage separation at school, and once while hiking, sustainability in general had been discussed. The social science teacher had compared multinational clothing-retail companies, while the Norwegian teacher wondered whether respecting and tolerating different students' boundaries can be a

The teachers were then introduced to an exercise from Dialogos [34] in which general philosophical questions were separated from empirical (fact based) questions and psychological questions. Based on this exercise as well as the examples drawn from their own teaching practice, the teachers formulated one question each. All questions were written on a flip chart paper, before the teachers voted for their favorite question, also giving reasons for their choice. The question "How can we save the planet?" was chosen for the first dialog, and the question "What is respect

The dialog format used in this workshop in order to investigate the question "How can we save the planet?" was the so-called Philo Cafè, as described previously in section "1.3.3 Dialogue format: Philo Café". This dialog began with one teacher indicating that the question of how to save the planet is old, stemming at least from 1972 and the Brundtland report. The dialog moved forward through an interactive dance between Weiss' and Helskog's questions and facilitation-moves, and the joint thinking of the participants. For instance, if one teacher posed a stand, we would ask if somebody disagreed or had a different view. For instance, due to this, the dialog moved between the levels of global interconnectedness in the general, and personal responsibility in the individual. It also touched upon short-term consequences and long-term consequences for coming generations. Sometimes we also added a concept, such as "is this a paradigm shift?", based on what the teachers said. In order to make sure that everyone could follow the development of the dialog, we asked if somebody could repeat what was just said, or if someone could summarize the content of the dialog so far. The philosophical dialog ended with the comment that "Maybe we have to go back to our cave and eat roots and berries. We obviously can't have this much clothes and things – this is absolutely not sustainable", another adding that "It has to be emphasized that basic needs have to be fulfilled. That people have enough to eat and drink, and maybe education and so on, which is higher up in the hierarchy of needs." Weiss then posed the question: "Can we

*3.2.1 Teachers' dialog 2: A Philo Café on "How can we save the planet?"*

**182**

form of sustainability too.

for nature?" for the second dialog.

For this dialog, the teachers were briefly introduced to the Lipman-Sharp philosophy for children (P4C) dialog format, as described previously in "1.3.4. Dialogue format: Philosophy for children (P4C)". The dialog investigated the question "What is respect for nature?" and the teachers read a short text from Helskog [34] about 4-year old Vilgot who is reflecting upon nature when questioned by his mum. The teachers took roles reading the text in pairs, one being Vilgot, and one being the questioning mother. A conversation about what it means to be close to nature unfolds, based in the text and the question "What is respect for nature?" The dialog began with one of the teachers claiming that nature has to be handed over to the next generation in a better condition than it was, or at least in the same condition. Also, when you are hiking, you should leave nature in the same condition as you found it. Another one commented that what you do before going for a hike can also be taken into account, like taking the car to the mountain or using a nonreusable barbecue. The teachers then reflected about how humans cultivate nature and about the relation between nature and culture in general. One teacher stated that there is a difference between cultivated and non-cultivated nature. Another did not see a difference between nature and culture but claimed that culture rather is something we take out into nature, arguing that *"everything is nature"*. Another teacher slightly disagreed and tried to define the difference between culture and nature: *"The difference is to either let things happen, or form and cultivate them the way we want."* Helskog then asked if, seen from a moral perspective. i.e. *respect* for nature, is it right to cultivate nature? One participant stated that there is a relation between us taking care *of* nature and taking *from* it, while another continued: *"Some places should be touched by human hands, others shouldn't."* One of the participants gave a concrete example on that: She once had initiated a project in her neighborhood where they cleaned up the forest. After they cleaned up parts of it, it became more child-friendly and better to walk in. Another realized she had been inconsistent when as a teenager she did not want to watch the butchering of animals, but at the same time she was used to buying meat at the store. The dialog continued along these lines for around an hour, ending with arguments like: *"Nature strikes back. Nature is stronger."* and "*Nature is alive. Multi-drug-resistant bacteria are also life and they will come after us. Why shouldn't they have the right to do that, actually?"* One of the teachers said that the planet will try to find a balance, if something goes wrong. Helskog asked: "*So, nature is seeking balance?" "Yes, it will fix itself if something is hurt"*, one replied. Another one added: *"Even after the apocalypse, nature will build itself up again."*

Responding to the guiding question, the group developed the following answers, as summarized on a flip chart paper by Helskog: *"What does it imply to show respect for nature?" It implies*


#### *3.2.3 Further content of the workshop*

The later part of this full day workshop included a philosophical exercise where values behind emotions and/or actions were analyzed, followed by a general reflection on the possibilities of taking what we had worked with into their own practice with students in the classroom, and also with their colleagues. Finally, the teachers wrote meta-reflection notes about their experiences of the day that were gathered by us as data, while also sharing their experiences orally. This is part of the Dialogos process because it encourages participants to put words and concepts to their experiences, thus bringing the reflection process one step further. Furthermore, it is likely helping participants to psychologically "close" the process, which can be quite demanding, as we shall see below.

#### *3.2.4 Teachers' meta reflections after the 1st full day workshop*

As shown in the dialog excerpts above, the teachers talked about multiple perspectives on saving the planet and respect for nature. Nevertheless it is interesting how little these teachers reflected about these topics in their meta reflection notes by the end of the day. A few did though; one teacher stated that the dialogs made her *"widen the perspective on sustainability",* while another teacher wrote that it was "*interesting to see the whole picture".* A third teacher stated that it was challenging "*to work with such big topics, which otherwise often can be forgotten in a busy everyday work",* a fourth writing that it was *"an untidy topic that was tidily organized*" through the philosophical dialog. A fifth teacher emphasized the advantage of getting different perspectives and arguments from others, and that *"the challenge is to organize and to make a system, a summary with the main tendencies."*

Even if there were few reflections on the topic, no teacher mentioned anything negative or voiced criticism. However, seven out of ten answered that they were insecure about their own competence, that it was challenging and new, or that they felt insecure in general. One teacher claimed to have felt physical distress, that his heart was beating, that he felt performance anxiety and that the whole thing was rather" *hovering in the air."* Another said she had been on *"unsteady grounds"*. Three teachers were insecure or curious about how they could transform this into teaching or transfer it to others from the teaching staff. One asserted that it was *"challenging, but edifying"* and that he needed some time to digest it. However, several of the teachers stated that the workshop was relevant for them with regards to their further work with the ongoing curriculum reform, which also required that the teachers worked with values, as stated in the introduction.

Some meta-reflections pointed out the challenge of philosophical dialoguing being a rather open way of working. Some wanted clear structures with unambiguous answers and guidelines, because this is what they as well as their students are used to. One mentioned that even though the dialog was interesting, he/she got a bit stressed of the dialog being a bit "floating". Another teacher wrote: "*If I would* 

**185**

*How Philosophizing the Dialogos Way Can Promote Education for Sustainable Development*

**3.3 Teachers philosophizing with students - how did they experience it?**

*do this in the class, there would be much frustration. I wouldn't have got any answers.*" A third teacher notes something similar: "*I am used to working with more structure*.*"*

Marcussen accompanied one of the teachers as a philosophical dialog facilitator in two of the classes where she taught Norwegian language and literature - respectively an electronics class and an elite sports class. The students were 16–17 years old, the questions explored were "what is respect for nature?" and "what is sustainable development?", and the two sessions lasted for 1,5 hours each. Afterwards, the teacher had told Marcussen that she did not experience the dialogs with the students as successful. She thought they were characterized by teacher dominance and relatively little participation from the students. However, as we shall see, the meta reflection notes of the students revealed that their experience was quite the

• "We thought in a different way, and the answers were not concrete as in other subjects. Now we had to come up with something that could become an answer

• "I felt it was a nice and new way to learn: Not to rely on books and syllabus, but

9 of 22 students described that they think differently after the dialog. Here are

• "I got to think in a new way and develop new thoughts. That the brain was

• "That I thought more deeply about what somebody thinks or about what

Several of the students expressed that their thoughts were "opened". One example is the expression that the dialog "opened up for all my thoughts", another

that s/he "learned to be more open rather than jumping to conclusions".

• "I felt that we all experienced a sparkle of light so that we might think differently about things we did not know much about before we started".

• "I experienced to think and consider things to a larger extent than

• "I got to think in a way that I did not think I was able to"

• "Learned to think more in depth, and pose more questions"

• "I feel that I began thinking in a new way"

challenged in a new and creative way"

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96198*

contrary. These are three examples:

some examples:

ever before"

• "Got a deeper view"

something means"

• "Go deeper into myself"

• "Fun to go deeper into things"

to a question without a conclusion".

instead think to high and dig deep*"*

*How Philosophizing the Dialogos Way Can Promote Education for Sustainable Development DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96198*

*do this in the class, there would be much frustration. I wouldn't have got any answers.*" A third teacher notes something similar: "*I am used to working with more structure*.*"*
