200 Chapter 6 head and hands. The conversational community followed her proposal to tie ‘subjectifying education’ first and foremost to the hands, as a symbol of the most practical aspect of the study: to help students to (know how to) act and behave. Thereby, it tied subjectifying education to the practice of social justice for which it is necessary to be a self that chooses to respond to the challenges related to otherness that present themselves to the person. The latter was linked to, but also distinguished from, the formation of a basic attitude underlying to this practice (which is also subjectifying, but aimed at the heart) and to the epistemological formation that is required with it (subjectifying; aimed at the head). The conversational community, thus, chose to start a fundamentally subjectifying approach from practice (the hands), to later dig deeper and find out what that requires on the levels of head and heart. Respecting daily practice, it searched for answers to questions such as the following: How are citizenship and personhood formation related? How does citizenship formation work in practice? What is a holistic way to learn the art of living together? What works and what does not work in this area? All of these questions are related to the core question the conversational community formulated to it: What pedagogical practices appeal to students to prepare themselves for responding freely but faithfully to the challenges posed by high diversity and complexity? These questions emerged from the conversational community’s processing of the exploratory research. This processing led to the identification of two core elements that the conversational community wanted to do justice to— namely, critical openness and critical faithfulness (6.1.1). To stimulate students to develop not just one but both of these core elements, the conversational community started to invite DCU students into the context of urban diversity, evaluating how to deal with it as a Christian teacher and registering their evaluation to see what it did for them (6.1.2). Afterwards, it established a more specific inquiry into personhood formation in students from 8 to 14 years of age to check what this means for their teachers (6.1.3). Each of the following sub-sections shows what the conversational community, when applying TAR, concluded from these findings with regard to the citizenship formation of trainee teachers. 6.1.1 Critical faithfulness and critical openness During the third meeting of the conversational community, the results of the baseline survey, as presented in Chapter 5, were discussed. At the request of several members, this was done in the presence of two DCU students, one more enthusiastic about including higher levels of diversity in the DCU curriculum and one more hesitant towards it. The first student described her upbringing
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw