**1. Introduction**

In august 2020 a new national curriculum for education was implemented in Norway. The new curriculum is putting increased emphasis on the values enshrined in §1 in the Education Act of Norway [1]. Respect for human dignity and nature, intellectual freedom, charity, forgiveness, equality, solidarity, democracy, scientific thinking and insight into cultural diversity are among the values highlighted in this education act. These values are supposed to run through education at all levels. Furthermore, three interdisciplinary themes are supposed to be in the focus throughout all school subjects and school levels, from primary through upper secondary education. These are respectively *public health and life skills*, *democratic citizenship* and *sustainable development* [2].

When it comes to teaching practice, one of the challenges is *how* these values and themes can be taught and focused on in practice at schools. Is it enough to teach content the traditional way, whether digital or book-based, where the teacher is the one who knows, while the students are not-knowing? In such traditional didactics the young are supposed to learn through lectures, reading

and written tasks. Or do we, at least to some extent, need to rethink the relationship between teaching and learning, and thus the relationship between teachers and students if we are to enhance the learning and practice of values in schools? In this article, we assume that the values and practices involved for instance in the interdisciplinary theme *sustainable development* can only to a certain extent be taught through traditional didactics*.* More important, teachers and teacher students need to learn how to facilitate dialogs in such a way that their students can explore such topics themselves, and through this, learn how to view issues from multiple perspectives, including the perspectives of their peers. Learning to listen to and consider the perspectives of others, are important skills, which also involve the ability for the self to critically examine one's own beliefs and practices.

By holding this stance, we position ourselves within the classical Greek tradition, with Socrates in the Platonic dialogs as a key-figure. Unlike the sophists, who taught people the art of persuasion, which they (mis)understood as the art of teaching and argumentation, Socrates was rather concerned with existential and ethical reflections. He was questioning what was assumed to be knowledge. He did so through the practice of philosophical dialog, and it seems to be this kind of practice that is of significant relevance when it comes to integrating and practicing the values and themes which are now at the centre of the new national curriculum in Norway.

Teaching values and complex themes like life skills, democracy and sustainable development, appears be doomed to fail when done by means of traditional top-down didactics (the teacher knows while the students are ignorant) and monological teaching methods (the teachers didactically organizing or transmitting the "right" knowledge to students). Rather, it needs to be done in such a way that both teacher and students can shake up their more or less shallow opinions and start searching for wisdom together, and thus gradually "come to consciousness". Instead of top-down didactics, a dialogical "bottom-up" pedagogy needs to be developed. But how?

This is the question that we have explored in an action learning and research project leading up to this article. More concretely, we have tried out the Dialogos approach to pedagogical philosophical practice (see [3, 4]) when training teachers at a combined academic and vocational upper secondary school in facilitating philosophical dialogs with their students. A part of this project was studied by Marcussen in his master thesis [5]. Our collaboration in the project forms the basis for this article.

#### **1.1 Research question and further structure of the article**

The action learning and research project, which will be ongoing until June 2022, has centrally involved philosophizing about several of the values and themes included in the curriculum reform, such as charity, life skills and sustainable development. However, in this article, we have limited our scope on the part of the project that explicitly dealt with sustainable development issues. Our overarching action inquiry research question reads as follows:

*How can training teachers in philosophizing the Dialogos Way promote dialogic learning-and-teaching, and support education for sustainable development?*

First, we discuss some political, theoretical and practical perspectives on education for sustainable development, before we present the Dialogos approach to wisdom oriented pedagogy (see [3]). We discuss what dialogic teaching might mean in more general terms. After the methodology section, we use excerpts from a longitudinal action learning and research project to investigate how philosophizing the Dialogos way might promote sustainable development in education. More concretely, we briefly describe three dialogs in which teachers philosophized together by means of the Dialogos approach. Based on teachers' self-reported experiences,

**173**

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

we discuss the teachers' development of attitudes and skills in relation to the approaches presented in the introduction section. We conclude that training teachers in philosophizing the Dialogos Way might be a fruitful way to promote dialog facilitation skills among teachers, as well as awareness of sustainable development

The vastness and complexity of the theme sustainable development comes to the fore in the 17 United Nations goals for sustainable development adopted by all UN Member States in 2015. The goals are to be understood as a "call for action by all countries – poor, rich and middle-income – to promote prosperity while protecting

• promote good health and education, gender equality and womens'

• provide water, sanitation and (sustainable) energy, economic growth,

• develop sustainable cities and sustainable consumption and production

• cope with climate change, protect oceans, biodiversity and forests, stop desertification, promote peace, justice and strong institutions, and develop

Thus, when sustainable development is enshrined as an interdisciplinary theme in the new national curriculum in Norway, it can be understood as an attempt to answer the UN call to action. Education for sustainable development is broadly defined by the Norwegian government as enhancing understanding of the relationships between social, economical and environmental conditions [7]. Literature about education for sustainable development is based on the same broad definition, revealing a complex and multifaceted field (see i.e. [8]). Thus, there is no consensus about what an education for sustainable development should look like ([9], p. 36), and teachers are insecure as to how they should teach this complex theme [10, 11]. Several researchers argue for a so-called "whole-school approach" [12–15]. This implies that all staff are included in developmental work aimed at

Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss [16] is considered one of the founders of the *deep ecological movement*. The movement is based on the belief that the environmental problems today are symptoms of deeper problems in our societies [17]. The aim of deep ecology is a radical social, political and ideological reorientation for a more sustainable society, as opposed to a shallow ecology ([18], p. 22). The latter lacks philosophical grounding, and works towards short term and limited goals without breaking with dominant ways of life. As part of deep ecology philosophy, Næss argues that animism (the view that everything in nature has soul) is a more realistic approach to the world than modern technical views promoted by the natural sciences. He states that fundamentally speaking, "life as a phenomena is one" ([16], p. 325). A core idea is that diversity increases the potential for survival ([16], p. 282). Thus, we need to awaken the openness to diversity also in people. This can lead individuals to support radical ecological measures, even though they might threaten

issues. This again, appears to be a prerequisite for sustainable action.

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

**1.2 Education for sustainable development**

the planet" [6]. The call includes the goals to:

• end poverty, hunger and inequality

infrastructure and industrialization

international partnerships

promoting sustainable ways of living.

empowerment

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

we discuss the teachers' development of attitudes and skills in relation to the approaches presented in the introduction section. We conclude that training teachers in philosophizing the Dialogos Way might be a fruitful way to promote dialog facilitation skills among teachers, as well as awareness of sustainable development issues. This again, appears to be a prerequisite for sustainable action.

#### **1.2 Education for sustainable development**

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

and written tasks. Or do we, at least to some extent, need to rethink the relationship between teaching and learning, and thus the relationship between teachers and students if we are to enhance the learning and practice of values in schools? In this article, we assume that the values and practices involved for instance in the interdisciplinary theme *sustainable development* can only to a certain extent be taught through traditional didactics*.* More important, teachers and teacher students need to learn how to facilitate dialogs in such a way that their students can explore such topics themselves, and through this, learn how to view issues from multiple perspectives, including the perspectives of their peers. Learning to listen to and consider the perspectives of others, are important skills, which also involve

the ability for the self to critically examine one's own beliefs and practices.

now at the centre of the new national curriculum in Norway.

**1.1 Research question and further structure of the article**

action inquiry research question reads as follows:

By holding this stance, we position ourselves within the classical Greek tradition, with Socrates in the Platonic dialogs as a key-figure. Unlike the sophists, who taught people the art of persuasion, which they (mis)understood as the art of teaching and argumentation, Socrates was rather concerned with existential and ethical reflections. He was questioning what was assumed to be knowledge. He did so through the practice of philosophical dialog, and it seems to be this kind of practice that is of significant relevance when it comes to integrating and practicing the values and themes which are

Teaching values and complex themes like life skills, democracy and sustainable development, appears be doomed to fail when done by means of traditional top-down didactics (the teacher knows while the students are ignorant) and monological teaching methods (the teachers didactically organizing or transmitting the "right" knowledge to students). Rather, it needs to be done in such a way that both teacher and students can shake up their more or less shallow opinions and start searching for wisdom together, and thus gradually "come to consciousness". Instead of top-down didactics, a dialogical "bottom-up" pedagogy needs to be developed. But how? This is the question that we have explored in an action learning and research project leading up to this article. More concretely, we have tried out the Dialogos approach to pedagogical philosophical practice (see [3, 4]) when training teachers at a combined academic and vocational upper secondary school in facilitating philosophical dialogs with their students. A part of this project was studied by Marcussen in his master thesis [5]. Our collaboration in the project forms the basis

The action learning and research project, which will be ongoing until June 2022, has centrally involved philosophizing about several of the values and themes included in the curriculum reform, such as charity, life skills and sustainable development. However, in this article, we have limited our scope on the part of the project that explicitly dealt with sustainable development issues. Our overarching

*How can training teachers in philosophizing the Dialogos Way promote dialogic* 

First, we discuss some political, theoretical and practical perspectives on education for sustainable development, before we present the Dialogos approach to wisdom oriented pedagogy (see [3]). We discuss what dialogic teaching might mean in more general terms. After the methodology section, we use excerpts from a longitudinal action learning and research project to investigate how philosophizing the Dialogos way might promote sustainable development in education. More concretely, we briefly describe three dialogs in which teachers philosophized together by means of the Dialogos approach. Based on teachers' self-reported experiences,

*learning-and-teaching, and support education for sustainable development?*

**172**

for this article.

The vastness and complexity of the theme sustainable development comes to the fore in the 17 United Nations goals for sustainable development adopted by all UN Member States in 2015. The goals are to be understood as a "call for action by all countries – poor, rich and middle-income – to promote prosperity while protecting the planet" [6]. The call includes the goals to:


Thus, when sustainable development is enshrined as an interdisciplinary theme in the new national curriculum in Norway, it can be understood as an attempt to answer the UN call to action. Education for sustainable development is broadly defined by the Norwegian government as enhancing understanding of the relationships between social, economical and environmental conditions [7]. Literature about education for sustainable development is based on the same broad definition, revealing a complex and multifaceted field (see i.e. [8]). Thus, there is no consensus about what an education for sustainable development should look like ([9], p. 36), and teachers are insecure as to how they should teach this complex theme [10, 11]. Several researchers argue for a so-called "whole-school approach" [12–15]. This implies that all staff are included in developmental work aimed at promoting sustainable ways of living.

Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss [16] is considered one of the founders of the *deep ecological movement*. The movement is based on the belief that the environmental problems today are symptoms of deeper problems in our societies [17]. The aim of deep ecology is a radical social, political and ideological reorientation for a more sustainable society, as opposed to a shallow ecology ([18], p. 22). The latter lacks philosophical grounding, and works towards short term and limited goals without breaking with dominant ways of life. As part of deep ecology philosophy, Næss argues that animism (the view that everything in nature has soul) is a more realistic approach to the world than modern technical views promoted by the natural sciences. He states that fundamentally speaking, "life as a phenomena is one" ([16], p. 325). A core idea is that diversity increases the potential for survival ([16], p. 282). Thus, we need to awaken the openness to diversity also in people. This can lead individuals to support radical ecological measures, even though they might threaten material standards of living, Næss states ([16], p. 386). One way to do this, is, as already mentioned, for people to formulate their life philosophies of diversity and how things are connected, and then let others formulate theirs ([18], p. 31).

Based on the early work of Næss and others, Norwegian educational theorists Bjørndal and Lieberg [19] argued that education needs to give students thorough insight into the interplay between human beings and their (cultural and natural) surroundings. This is also in line with deep ecologist Richard Kahn [20], who argues that the focus on processes and interrelations instead of on singular aspects of human action requires dialogical pedagogical approaches. He describes dialog as a critical and self-critical practice in which our self-understanding, discourses and practices are questioned:

*For instance, caring, dialogical, and transformative social relations in critical learning situations would promote civic cooperation, democracy, and positive cultural values, as well as fulfill human needs for communication, esteem, and being politically free with one another ([20], p. 77).*

Kahn has argued that eco-pedagogy in the long run will promote an ideal of education (in the form of danning/Bildung/Paideia) that will foster "a world of philosophers" ([20], p. 58). Hence, there is a link between what we can call the ideas of education for sustainable development as suggested by the referred philosophers and researchers, and the Dialogos approach to practical philosophy, which will be explained in the following.

#### **1.3 Philosophizing the Dialogos way – a wisdom-oriented pedagogy**

The Dialogos approach to pedagogical philosophical practice was initially developed by Guro Hansen Helskog from the mid-1990's on (see [3]). It involves encouraging people to begin formulating their life philosophies, and it invites people to analyze important topics through dialogical thinking and collaboration. Like other philosophical practices, as depicted for instance in Weiss' anthology "The Socratic Handbook" [21], the Dialogos approach is oriented towards developing wisdom. What characterizes the Dialogos approach is, among other things, the following (see [3]):


**175**

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

towards the students, to use the expression of Buber [30].

be connected with the content of school subjects in profound ways.

When the Dialogos approach is practiced in classroom, the role of the

*"that of a facilitator of collaborative thinking through dialogue, rather than that of a transmitter of pre-existing knowledge. Questioning content and exploring different perspectives is here more important than reaching final answers and conclusions. Rather, both the students and the teacher are left in the open, free to integrate* 

In short, a teacher's main task in this form of pedagogy is to pose questions rather than giving answers. This requires an open-minded attitude not only towards the students, but also towards the content. The role of the students is to act as collaborative "wisdom searchers", so to speak. Together with the teacher as a questioning guide, they openly, reflectively and dialogically explore topics from multiple perspectives together with their classmates. Since the dialog process itself is open in the sense that no one can predict its outcomes and results in advance, the teacher must not guide the students in a specific direction or have a hidden

As emphasized by [3] this form of philosophical and dialogical pedagogy cannot and should not substitute traditional forms of teaching. Rather, it should be a supplement to, or better, an *integrated aspect of* traditional disciplinary lectures and discussions, literature studies and written assignments. Instead of thinking in terms of learning outcomes and aims, the teacher acknowledges that he or she can only prepare an educational framework or setting, so that the long-term Dialogos process will eventually result in self-formation and the development of certain skills and insights. However, as it is with other educational settings, there is never a guarantee that this really will take place. For example the insight that we all are a part of nature and that we all need to take part if we are to promote sustainable development on this planet, is to be *gained* by the students and cannot be *given* by the teacher. This brings us to the topic which constitutes the content of our example

educational agenda that would only be known by him or her (see [3, 4].

in this article, namely education for sustainable development.

*1.3.1 Basic attitudes and skills of the teacher as a dialog facilitator*

*divergent perspectives into more unified stances" ([3], p. 2).*

5.However, regardless of the dialog format, the essence of philosophizing the Dialogos Way is the profound encounter between participants when engaging in *heart to heart dialogs* with each other about shared subject matter. Hence, the fostering of dialogical relationships *between* students or participants is essential. This requires that teachers have an open "I-Thou" attitude

As described in Helskog [3], subject matter can be part of traditional school subjects and academic disciplines, and by connecting the content to personal life and vice versa, the edifying process is enhanced. When working with the topic sustainable development, questions concerning one's personal responsibility, and the limitations of this, could for instance be extracted, formulated, argued and

By this, connections are made between content and concept, the personal and the global, the concrete and the abstract, and the private and the public, while students can gradually see how their lives are intertwined in complex social, cultural and historical structures. Thus, aspects of participants' personal lives can

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

reflected upon.

teacher will be

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

5.However, regardless of the dialog format, the essence of philosophizing the Dialogos Way is the profound encounter between participants when engaging in *heart to heart dialogs* with each other about shared subject matter. Hence, the fostering of dialogical relationships *between* students or participants is essential. This requires that teachers have an open "I-Thou" attitude towards the students, to use the expression of Buber [30].

As described in Helskog [3], subject matter can be part of traditional school subjects and academic disciplines, and by connecting the content to personal life and vice versa, the edifying process is enhanced. When working with the topic sustainable development, questions concerning one's personal responsibility, and the limitations of this, could for instance be extracted, formulated, argued and reflected upon.

By this, connections are made between content and concept, the personal and the global, the concrete and the abstract, and the private and the public, while students can gradually see how their lives are intertwined in complex social, cultural and historical structures. Thus, aspects of participants' personal lives can be connected with the content of school subjects in profound ways.

#### *1.3.1 Basic attitudes and skills of the teacher as a dialog facilitator*

When the Dialogos approach is practiced in classroom, the role of the teacher will be

*"that of a facilitator of collaborative thinking through dialogue, rather than that of a transmitter of pre-existing knowledge. Questioning content and exploring different perspectives is here more important than reaching final answers and conclusions. Rather, both the students and the teacher are left in the open, free to integrate divergent perspectives into more unified stances" ([3], p. 2).*

In short, a teacher's main task in this form of pedagogy is to pose questions rather than giving answers. This requires an open-minded attitude not only towards the students, but also towards the content. The role of the students is to act as collaborative "wisdom searchers", so to speak. Together with the teacher as a questioning guide, they openly, reflectively and dialogically explore topics from multiple perspectives together with their classmates. Since the dialog process itself is open in the sense that no one can predict its outcomes and results in advance, the teacher must not guide the students in a specific direction or have a hidden educational agenda that would only be known by him or her (see [3, 4].

As emphasized by [3] this form of philosophical and dialogical pedagogy cannot and should not substitute traditional forms of teaching. Rather, it should be a supplement to, or better, an *integrated aspect of* traditional disciplinary lectures and discussions, literature studies and written assignments. Instead of thinking in terms of learning outcomes and aims, the teacher acknowledges that he or she can only prepare an educational framework or setting, so that the long-term Dialogos process will eventually result in self-formation and the development of certain skills and insights. However, as it is with other educational settings, there is never a guarantee that this really will take place. For example the insight that we all are a part of nature and that we all need to take part if we are to promote sustainable development on this planet, is to be *gained* by the students and cannot be *given* by the teacher. This brings us to the topic which constitutes the content of our example in this article, namely education for sustainable development.

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

practices are questioned:

explained in the following.

things, the following (see [3]):

in groups.

of wisdom.

material standards of living, Næss states ([16], p. 386). One way to do this, is, as already mentioned, for people to formulate their life philosophies of diversity and how things are connected, and then let others formulate theirs ([18], p. 31).

*For instance, caring, dialogical, and transformative social relations in critical learning situations would promote civic cooperation, democracy, and positive cultural values, as well as fulfill human needs for communication, esteem, and* 

Kahn has argued that eco-pedagogy in the long run will promote an ideal of education (in the form of danning/Bildung/Paideia) that will foster "a world of philosophers" ([20], p. 58). Hence, there is a link between what we can call the ideas of education for sustainable development as suggested by the referred philosophers and researchers, and the Dialogos approach to practical philosophy, which will be

The Dialogos approach to pedagogical philosophical practice was initially developed by Guro Hansen Helskog from the mid-1990's on (see [3]). It involves encouraging people to begin formulating their life philosophies, and it invites people to analyze important topics through dialogical thinking and collaboration. Like other philosophical practices, as depicted for instance in Weiss' anthology "The Socratic Handbook" [21], the Dialogos approach is oriented towards developing wisdom. What characterizes the Dialogos approach is, among other

1.It is mainly developed for pedagogical philosophical and dialogical work

3.It focuses on long term open-ended processes that gradually will lead to personal growth and expansion of consciousness and wisdom in multiple dimensions and directions: Existential-emotional, relational-communicative, cultural-historical, practical-ethical, critical-analytical and spiritual-ideal.

4.A Dialogos process might include or be inspired by a variety of different philosophical exercise- and dialog formats, such as Philosophy for Children (P4C) inspired philosophizing [23], Socratic dialog-inspired philosophizing [24–26], contemplative philosophy [27], Daimonic Dialogs [28], Oscar Brenifier-inspired

philosophizing [29], or comparative experiential dialogs [3].

2.It has *will to wisdom*, which extends Frankl's *will to meaning* [22], as a core idea and intends what philosophy literally means, namely philo-sophia - the love

**1.3 Philosophizing the Dialogos way – a wisdom-oriented pedagogy**

*being politically free with one another ([20], p. 77).*

Based on the early work of Næss and others, Norwegian educational theorists Bjørndal and Lieberg [19] argued that education needs to give students thorough insight into the interplay between human beings and their (cultural and natural) surroundings. This is also in line with deep ecologist Richard Kahn [20], who argues that the focus on processes and interrelations instead of on singular aspects of human action requires dialogical pedagogical approaches. He describes dialog as a critical and self-critical practice in which our self-understanding, discourses and

**174**

The Dialogos approach can be understood as an eclectic approach when it comes to dialog formats [3]. That is, it makes use of different dialog formats in order to promote a development process towards self-formation with the participants. Thus, having insight in- and experience with a wide range of dialog models or formats is an advantage, in order to be able to choose between them, pick from them, or combine them.

However, essential to the Dialogos approach is reflection upon personal experiences. For this reason, dialogs inspired by the Socratic dialog (SD) approach has a special standing in philosophizing the Dialogos Way. The Dialogos process with the teachers involved in this project began with such dialogs.

#### *1.3.2 Dialog format: Socratic dialog (SD)*

The Socratic Dialog format was initially developed by Nelson [24] and Heckman [25]. A "proper" Socratic Dialog takes at least a day, preferably three days to a week, working on only one question. A 1,5–2 hour philosophical dialog is of course much more superficial, yet in a Dialogos process, even a mini-Socratic Dialogs have proven to have great impact on participants. A Socratic Dialog (SD) has the following features and facilitation principles, in comparison to a SD inspired dialog in a Dialogos process:

	- a.It should be a concrete example that has happened once upon a time
	- b. It should have a beginning and an end
	- c.It should be emotionally closed

**177**

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

the concrete example and investigating the student's experience.

questions are tackled and take up fruitful contributions.

own life experience and their personal thoughts.

participants can then further investigate the topic.

the topic under investigation.

**Measure 2:** Working from the concrete by constantly guiding students to stay on

**Measure 3:** Expressing thoughts clearly and focusing on understanding the

**Measure 4:** Focus on the current question by keeping the group on track to clarify the question fully and ensure that the group is aware what question is being

**Measure 5:** Striving for consensus by seeking out what reasons we have for our statements, while at the same time knowing that consensus has a provisional

**Measure 6:** Facilitator interventions should seek to protect the dialog from unguided discussion, focus on observing the dialog, ensure that significant

The work of the facilitator of a SD is to patiently assist the students in their effort to reach insights. In the process, Heckman advises facilitators to use a blackboard to have precisely formulated thoughts in view. When closing the SD, there

Another dialog format that was used in the following study is the so-called Philo Café (see i.e. ([21], p. 323f)). It was mainly developed by Marc Sautet in the early 1990's in Paris where he frequently held philosophical dialogs in coffee houses, often with up to 100 participants ([21], p. 323f). In the following, this dialog format is presented in a more descriptive way, so that other teachers can eventually try it

• **Group size**: A Philo Café can be done in groups between 5–100 people.

• **Seating arrangement**: If the group size allows for it, it is recommended to sit

• **No philosophical pre-knowledge required**: The participants do not need any philosophical pre-knowledge, they are supposed to philosophize based on their

• **Purpose**: The main purpose is to learn about other people's thoughts, experiences and perspectives on a specific topic in order to get a deeper understanding of the latter. Therefore, there are no wrong ideas or perspectives in such a dialog, since each individual perspective contributes to a bigger picture about

• **Choosing the topic**: The topic of a Philo Cafè can be chosen in advance by the

speech in which the topic of the dialog is outlined. Based on that key-note, the

• **No specific steps in the dialog**: The dialog format as such represents an open dialog, that means that there are no specific steps or a certain structure that has to be followed. Everything that happens in such a dialog, happens more or less spontaneously, with the participants responding to each others' statements.

• **Key-note speech**: Prior to the Philo Café it is possible to have a key-note

dialog facilitator or it can be decided ad hoc by the participants.

should be a meta-dialog afterwards to close the experience for students.

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

thoughts of the other.

*1.3.3 Dialog format: Philo Café*

out in their classrooms:

in a circle.

discussed.

character.

**Measure 1:** Content impartiality: The facilitator should not influence the content of the dialog, for instance by posing rhetorical questions.

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

**Measure 2:** Working from the concrete by constantly guiding students to stay on the concrete example and investigating the student's experience.

**Measure 3:** Expressing thoughts clearly and focusing on understanding the thoughts of the other.

**Measure 4:** Focus on the current question by keeping the group on track to clarify the question fully and ensure that the group is aware what question is being discussed.

**Measure 5:** Striving for consensus by seeking out what reasons we have for our statements, while at the same time knowing that consensus has a provisional character.

**Measure 6:** Facilitator interventions should seek to protect the dialog from unguided discussion, focus on observing the dialog, ensure that significant questions are tackled and take up fruitful contributions.

The work of the facilitator of a SD is to patiently assist the students in their effort to reach insights. In the process, Heckman advises facilitators to use a blackboard to have precisely formulated thoughts in view. When closing the SD, there should be a meta-dialog afterwards to close the experience for students.

#### *1.3.3 Dialog format: Philo Café*

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

combine them.

Dialogos process:

*1.3.2 Dialog format: Socratic dialog (SD)*

The Dialogos approach can be understood as an eclectic approach when it comes to dialog formats [3]. That is, it makes use of different dialog formats in order to promote a development process towards self-formation with the participants. Thus, having insight in- and experience with a wide range of dialog models or formats is an advantage, in order to be able to choose between them, pick from them, or

However, essential to the Dialogos approach is reflection upon personal experiences. For this reason, dialogs inspired by the Socratic dialog (SD)

process with the teachers involved in this project began with such dialogs.

[25]. A "proper" Socratic Dialog takes at least a day, preferably three days to a week, working on only one question. A 1,5–2 hour philosophical dialog is of course much more superficial, yet in a Dialogos process, even a mini-Socratic Dialogs have proven to have great impact on participants. A Socratic Dialog (SD) has the following features and facilitation principles, in comparison to a SD inspired dialog in a

the topic under investigation, and be open to the participants.

formulated in accordance with the following instructions:

b. It should have a beginning and an end

c.It should be emotionally closed

group members

follows:

approach has a special standing in philosophizing the Dialogos Way. The Dialogos

The Socratic Dialog format was initially developed by Nelson [24] and Heckman

1.The facilitator has prepared a question beforehand, also reading philosophical literature is an advantage, some that gives multiple and contradictory perspectives on the topic chosen. In this way the teacher becomes more able to recognize when the perspectives in line with the literature are actualized by participants. As a consequence, it is easier for the teacher to facilitate the dialog from there. In a short SD-inspired dialog based on questions that are formulated on the spot, such preparations in advance are of course not possible. However, the advantage with questions that are formulated on the spot, is that students have an ownership of the question. The dialog becomes more of an open dialog in which the facilitator has no choice but to let go of his or her preconceptions of

2.The participants formulate an example drawn from their own personal lives,

a.It should be a concrete example that has happened once upon a time

3.Examples are told, and one example is chosen to be explored more deeply

4.The example giver is asked questions on the details of the example by the other

5.The group members philosophize more generally upon the example. This is where Heckman's six pedagogical measures become important [25]. They are as

**Measure 1:** Content impartiality: The facilitator should not influence the

content of the dialog, for instance by posing rhetorical questions.

**176**

Another dialog format that was used in the following study is the so-called Philo Café (see i.e. ([21], p. 323f)). It was mainly developed by Marc Sautet in the early 1990's in Paris where he frequently held philosophical dialogs in coffee houses, often with up to 100 participants ([21], p. 323f). In the following, this dialog format is presented in a more descriptive way, so that other teachers can eventually try it out in their classrooms:


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 advance where they would end up in the dialog.

