Training

In ancient times the training focused on sharing with young people the values and techniques of the civilizations in which they lived; in introducing children and young people to the world of privileged classes; in instructing them in the know-how; and in forming them in character (^{MARROU, 1985}). Over time, training privileges rural activities, seeks to promote government skills and generate skills for political performance and, above all, seeks to train the new citizen (^{LUNDGREN, 1991}). In general terms, training was characterized as a space that brought individuals closer to historically accumulated knowledge.

Following ^{Maturana and Nisis (1997)}, the notion of human formation requires revision and understanding beyond the transition to adult life or, in terms of ^{Dewey (1920)}, of being the preparation for a remote future. It needs to be understood in a manner consistent with everyday life and to reassess two central elements: know-how and inner training. From this perspective, training has to do with the development of people in terms of having the capacities to “[…] be co-creators with others of a human space of desirable social coexistence” (^{MATURANA; NISIS, 1997}, p. 15).

In some educational institutions it is common to find that the training process is exclusively aimed at the student acquiring the body of knowledge essential for professional performance. This situation, in perspective with the aforementioned, is problematic, since it does not address training as a process that goes beyond a transmission of existing knowledge and a transit to, which in the case of higher education intends to form a professional in a particular discipline or field. In this sense it is necessary to rethink the notion, for example, overcoming pedagogical orientations anchored in the “transfer of neutral knowledge” (^{FREIRE, 1993}, p. 74). What in other words would mean, to conceive training as an act in which “[…] ethics practitioners and citizens [that focus] on social cohesion and not just competitiveness” are produced, reproduced and appropriated (VILCHES; FERNÁNDEZ; MARTÍNEZ, 2016, p. 85). Knowledge that builds life ethics, that respects and enhances students’ prior knowledge, that guides their own view but contextualized in relation to that of others.

In particular, this training includes the training offered by teachers as a transformative process that focuses on the realization of the contextualized being , where dialogue, knowledge and meaningful experiences are the primary drivers of this agency. In short, training will be understood as a continuous process where the subject seeks to display his potential, seeks to be autonomous and responsible in relation to others, that is, seeks the deployment of cognitive skills, the mastery of emotions and the cultivation of skills, that contribute to the development and personal, social and environmental realization from a fair and sustainable perspective.

Pedagogical practices

In the institutionalized educational context this constant improvement of being has been configured primarily through pedagogical-didactic processes that are specified in teaching, understood in a double movement (^{CARREÑO, 2012}). First, as a deliberative, critical and heuristic intervention that contains and promotes integral development, which in other terms would mean a commitment to strengthen the political dimension of training. And, second, as a dynamic process that is fundamentally based on relational learning, that is, of oneself, of others and of the environment. These processes are possible thanks to the pedagogical practices that, first and foremost, constitute learning devices where teachers and students experience and appropriately and differentially adopt strategies, resources and class interactions.

Pedagogical practices allow the teacher to create training environments that favor the understanding of differential ways of learning: How do you learn?; How do you face the challenges that emerge from the training process and the context in which you are immersed? Reflections involved in the previous questions, no doubt, contribute to the teacher becoming a real companion to the process of personal and professional achievement of the student. For example, by creating interdependence and monitoring between the contents of the class and the stories, memories and personal and social expectations that underlie the group; in planning and evaluating the modalities of interaction and dialogue that characterize the classroom environment; by designing teaching strategies that allow the search for overcoming and improvement of the knowledge achieved.

According to Eusse, Bracht and Almeida (2016), the pedagogical practice is much more than a rational, technical and instrumental process, given that it constitutes a work in which the teacher is an “[…] artist who seeks that the other [the student] is transformed ”(p. 14), that acquires the skills to self-regulate and thus can properly conduct his own formative process. One way of synthesizing some of the most significant topics of pedagogical practices has to do with assuming the classes at three main moments: programming, passing and culminating (^{LITWIN, 2008}; ^{JACKSON, 2002}). Over time the conception and deployment of pedagogical practices are a matter of debate and reflection, in particular for this article it is considered central:

Aspects such as those mentioned above urge to investigate prioritized pedagogical practices in different contexts, disciplines or fields of training, as well as to maintain the invitation to teachers and teacher trainers to deliberate on what it means, among other aspects: the learning ; the essence and educational value (KLAFKI, sf ); and the results of his intervention (^{FREIRE, 1993}; ^{ELLIOT, 1990}).

Pedagogical strategies

Pedagogical strategies transcend the rational and technical mastery of knowledge by including fundamental purposes of the educational act, namely: autonomy (^{FREIRE, 1999}); deliberation (^{GIROUX, 1997}); and transformation (EUSSE; BRACHT; ALMEIDA, 2016). They are understood as reflections and formative actions with a deliberate and critical sense that are guided by artisan professors (^{ALLIAUD, 2017}) that structure creative spaces and forgers of multiple agencies where students approach knowledge to challenge and co-produce it. In terms of what has been proposed or could be suggested for the administration and related teaching, three modalities of formative work are identified: programming and management of participatory activities; interdisciplinary learning; and collaborative learning.

Programming and management of participatory activities

From the point of view of what a teacher requires so that students approach in a significan manner the real context of their training, Quiroga and Schuster (2013) propose linking professional workshops in teacher programming. In particular according to four dimensions of learning: learning to know; learn to do; learn to be; and learn to live together. They identify that incorporating professional workshops in the classroom, inspired by action research methodologies, generates significant changes and excellent results for the teacher and the students.

The authors Quiroga and Schuster believe that this process has to be encouraged by research, checking and constant change to make innovation effective. The professional workshop strengthens the creative, collaborative and reflective work of both teachers and students. The former requires, among other aspects, organization and design of questions that provoke critical and proactive thoughts in dialogic, dynamic and horizontal educational environments. The latter are challenged to examine texts and contexts with relevance and insight. In addition, it invites them to sponsor analysis with critical argumentation, in spaces marked by collaboration, the designation of challenges and the understanding in terms of solving specific problems. Perhaps, here it is important to highlight that this type of collaborative work and social coexistence deployed in professional workshops, reinforces the personal confidence and identity of educational actors, to the point that the participants cooperate and work together without having to “[…] fear of disappearing in the relationship” (^{MATURANA; NISIS, 1997}, p. 15).

On the other hand, ^{Freire (1993)} asserts that the reflective dialogue between teachers and students marks a democratic position in the classroom, unlike the usual classes in which knowledge is transferred from the first to the second. He considers as deeply valid the small presentation that the teacher makes on a subject and that, followed by questions, generates participation among the students. The democratic orientation in the formative process leads to forging the character of political subject of the educational actors and, in particular, to make the classroom experience an exercise in deepening participatory democracy, that is, of democracy anchored in everyday training life.

For his part ^{Worthen (2015)} adds that a good cycle of conferences combined with small sections of weekly discussion produces in students, especially in the fields of the humanities, basic skills that are related to “[…] understanding and reasoning, skills whose value extends beyond the classroom […] a good master class […] teaches a rare skill in our ´Smartphone´ culture: the art of attention, the first crucial step in ´critical thinking” (s. p).

And critical thinking (^{GIROUX, 1997}; ^{PÉREZ; GIMENO SACRISTÁN, 1992}) breaks into the traditional discourses of teaching, which confer to the pedagogical practices the status of instruments of control and reinforcement of the heteronomy of the subjects, by enabling recognition of the relationships between knowledge, power and domination, that is, by understanding educational strategies as virtual carriers of change, possibility and the power of the human.

Likewise, Tejada and other authors (2012) consider that collaborative works in the form of debate and individual practices allow us to reflect on everyday issues, carry out an autonomous learning process and use conceptual and methodological tools according to the objectives set. From the pedagogical practice, they recommend didactics that encourage students to search for new bibliographies, case studies, resources and learning activities that stimulate the exchange and argumentation of their own thesis. In this context, it is important to emphasize that one of the main topics of autonomous learning is related to the generation of self-thinking, which results from an interdependent process of triadic formation, namely: formation of historical sensitivity (^{FREIRE, 1993}); formation of critical sensitivity (^{GIROUX, 1997}); and formation of ethical sensitivity (^{ELLIOT, 1990}).

Collaborative learning

Collaborative learning is based on the social character of learning (^{MALDONADO, 2007}). Learning is seen as a process of interaction, responsibility and reciprocity between the actors that come together in the training. One of the primary postulates of this type of learning is that it is best learned when there is shared work, exchange, creation of meanings and collective argumentation in dissenting scenarios.

Unlike competitive learning, this type of learning intends for the training be generated between and for all, it is for this reason that it privileges work between colleagues-peers, tutorials in groups and plenaries. Montenegro-Velandia and other authors (2016) recommend visits and business practices as spaces to learn in collaboration because it is from “[…] contact with the problems of companies and their working methods” (p. 210) how Students can relate and understand the conceptualizations addressed from the reference readings and classrooms.

To encourage interdisciplinary and collaborative learning, two methods are mainly highlighted in the literature review carried out: case studies and Problem Based Learning - (PBL). Each bet makes sense when the teacher prepares himself in a scientific, physical, emotional and emotional way (^{FREIRE, 1997}), evaluates and monitors all his pedagogical practice and imprints “[…] passion and hope around the contribution to the generation of a better world” (^{GIROUX, 1997}, p. 49).

Case studies have been a widely used method of teaching administration. For Waswerman (1994) it is valuable to use it because it allows to: stimulate thinking; increase learning; strengthen communication; improve the ability to analyze complex problems; and make wise decisions. He adds that with this strategy “[…] students become more curious; their general interest in learning increases. It also increases their respect for opinions, attitudes and different occurrences of other students. They are more motivated to read materials not presented in class” (p. 10).

^{Aktouf (2005)} disagrees with the previous position, for him the use of case studies in administration education reproduces an ideology centered on capital, individual enrichment, mathematization, impersonal and rapid actions. It is suggested from this article and considering these positions, that case study be linked to the perspective of illustration, exemplification, assessment and scrutiny of the different points of view of the actors that converge in the analyzed situation. In addition, the case study could lead to moments of critical reflection towards the purposes of the action, that is, cross-linking: knowledge, ethics and social justice.

The ABP or PBL is conceived as a didactic strategy that promotes self-directed learning and develops in students: holistic understanding of problems; cooperative work in small groups; communication skills and stimulation of independence; information search skills; and analytical, synthesis and knowledge building capabilities based on collective work (^{MORENO; SIERRA, 2011}). The ABP or PBL, in agreement with ^{Poot-Delgado (2013)}, requires the elaboration or sharing of problems, preferably real and difficult to solve, that start from a learning need detected by the teacher and that are interesting and motivating for students so that they locate information to solve them. For its effective application in administration and related fields it is recommended to have: knowledge of the real problem by the teacher and the student; a detailed characterization of the problem and a design of guiding questions by the teacher; student commitment to search information related to the case; and structuring the approach to the problem and its possible resolution in several pedagogical moments.

The presented strategies constitute pedagogical initiatives that pursue not only personal fulfillment, but, mainly, life ethics, professional and social commitment, all in perspective of the contexts, knowledge and related previous experiences. It is important for this article to recognize that these strategies are bets that link uncertainty and continuous challenge. As it was correctly expressed by ^{Shön (1987)}, it is not applying theories and techniques that the professional solves the problems present in his practice; there will be moments of uncertainty or conflict of values in which the teacher will have to improvise and create. Here, teacher training and, in particular, learning by doing or tutorials, according to Shön, can be part of the solution.

Games for pedagogical purposes

For Abt (1970 apud TSEKLEVES; COSMAS; AGGOUN, 2016), serious games are understood as games that are not intended for fun, but have been designed and used for eminently educational purposes. Tsekleves, Cosmas and Aggoun (2016) add that serious games have been used in different areas, including the corporate, and are associated with game-based learning (GBL) because both are aimed at generating learning processes. They differ by the type of games used. The former use the platforms of the new technologies, and the second varied gaming platforms, including traditional tabletops and videogames.

The authors mentioned above find potential in serious games in aspects such as: encouraging and facilitating effective learning; and generate problem solving skills. They propose that, given their potential for problem solving, it is necessary to establish a “[…] common policy for the adoption and use of the PBL methodology for the design and development of serious games” (p. 168), so that the educational value of the game is clearer for educators, managers and parents, differentiated from mere educational entertainment.

Movies, videos and images

Looking for a break between preconceptions and more conservative stereotypes that students may have on different topics related to administration and related fields, ^{Aktouf (2005)} uses and suggests films and excerpts from television news (also press clippings) to contradict and discuss aspects such as “[...] the leader exists to do good, that the company exists to create jobs, to meet needs” (p. 156). It specifies that teaching in specific fields needs to be for change and, in the future, should be integrated into a broader social project. Meanwhile ^{Flacso Argentina (2015)}, from the Center for Studies on the School and Intergenerational Links, proposes the use of images by the “[…] border crossing and at the same time as an area of meetings between young people and adults, to interrogate (and interrogate ourselves) the plots and cracks that occur in these territories” (s. p). Pedagogically it is proposed as an exchange of ideas on the basis of certain approach criteria, each meeting has a specialist commentator that facilitates the analysis and joint debate between the participants.

It brings to the reflection, the experience of ^{Brooks and Hershock (2015)} that linked the video to their classes. They propose to use it as a preamble to introduce themes or as a provocateur of analysis and postures that set the trend in certain subjects and in the lives of students “[…] to have a brief discussion about what singers do in the videos, the messages that they try to get to the other side [...] in large groups we write a thesis statement that generalizes the persuasion that is sought with each video” (s. p).

It is proposed to think the resources for teaching, beyond focusing on its instrumental and technical use, that is, from its generative role of meaningful and transformative pedagogical practices of the subjects, the institutions and their contexts. From this perspective it becomes very important to think about the teaching materials, the game, the video, the photography, the story, the poetry, among others, as possibilities to represent life, to deliberate on it and, especially, to co-produce it from more democratic, fair and sustainable perspectives.

Interactions in class

As mentioned at the beginning of the article, the training process is primarily a transformative and relational act. In this process the educational subjects coexists, negotiates, builds and communicates by generating interactions that allow them to display their cognitive and emotional skills, as well as their personal skills with autonomy, always in situated and relational contexts. From this perspective, teachers and educational organizations are invited to reflect critically on the dynamics that occur within the classroom and that have to do, among other aspects, with the layout of the classroom and its relationship with participation, dialogue and collective work.

From the model of communicative interaction, attention is drawn to the need to be more interested in the interrelations established between teacher-student and student-student. For the first case, according to ^{Domínguez (2011)}, these relationships must be based on joint collaboration and coordination, based on: question and answer exercises; motivation for qualified participation; and design and implementation of strategies that promote increasingly autonomous learning. In the case of student-student relations, joint work must be promoted; selfless help and cooperation; the confrontation of points of view; as well as controversies and dissent. In the case of this article, it is important to make special mention of the interactions that could be encouraged with: the question and the arrangement of the classroom.

The question

The authors ^{Elder and Paul (2002)} give importance to the use of the question as an aspect that drives thinking. Specifically they propose the analytical question as an activity to be incorporated into pedagogical practices emphasizing the need to promote it in students. As a procedure they propose to start from the following components of reason and question the purposes of thought: understand where the idea arises from; presume that the information that supports thought is not fully understood; question the conclusions, concepts and ideas, assumptions, implications and consequences, points of view and perspectives. For example, through the following questions: What is your data based on?; Can you explain your reasoning?; Have you considered the implications of your conclusions? What is sought here is to deconstruct thinking, to examine specific facts and understandings that allow the argument to be improved from analysis and evaluation.

As a result of previous research exercises (^{CARREÑO; DURÁN, 2017}), the authors of this article have found that the questions generate motivation, reflection and contextualized and relevant participation for the students. The power of the questions is that it is a mechanism that aspires to provoke in the student astonishment, new interpretations and the ability to think differently from new experiential and conceptual references. In terms of Freire (1990 apud ^{GIROUX, 1997}) it would be the “[…] open attitude towards all issues, their curiosity, their doubts, their uncertainty regarding certainties, their value for taking the risk and their rigorous methodological and theoretical approaches applied to important issues”(p. 29).

The classroom layout

An investigation not published so far by the authors identified some important elements in the perspective of generating quality training processes in postgraduate and related postgraduate courses. This is how, after observing a series of classes in Curitiba and San Francisco (see figures 1 and 2), classrooms designed for teamwork, among equals, in collaboration to develop joint tasks were identified. Unlike the layout of a regular class (narrow classrooms with fixed chairs), these, due to their large space, location of teachers and layout of chairs and resources, predisposes the group for collaborative work and interaction.

Source: Own making.

Figure 1 Classroom and teacher participation (Curitiba) 

Source: Own making.

Figure 2 Classroom and teacher participation (San Francisco) 

In terms of activities and resources (see figures 1 and 2) the following characteristics are identified. Figure 1: introduction to the topic with presentation of the session and video; presentation of the subject by video beam; use of research tools; work in groups; and a closing with questions and conclusions. Figure 2: introduction with a short intervention; presentation of the topic with video; work in subgroups with specific roles; discussion on the central subject in the groups and with teachers/counselors; and a closing with a plenary and conclusions by participants and counselors.

What is analyzed in these classes is that they are programmed as a team by two or more teachers with a high level of training as a product of research exercises that are also carried out together. In the course of the classes they mix the group proposal and the creation of each teacher, facilitator or counselor based on their teaching style. In this way, content, strategies, resources and environments are conducive to put into dialogue those referents and theoretical debates that motivate the relevant and critical learning, which ultimately allow them to grow professionally. In this sense it is important for the teacher, by asking about what and why he teaches what he teaches, to set the conditions for that achievement. Aspects such as interest in students; the selection, use and delivery of materials; the arrangement of the chairs; the provocation of the encounters and the conversation between the students; among others, are essential decisions because it will be a learning that the graduate will apply in his personal and professional activity.