Microsoft Word Manus hp debatt nr 2 2017. docx

81
Personlig och professionell utveckling inom sociomutbildningen.
En antologi
(pp. 175-189). Sundsvall: Mid Sweden University.
Penn, P. (1985). Feed forward: Future questions. Future maps.
Family Process, 24
, 299 - 311.
Pliner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, Theoretical, and
Foundational Principles of Universal Instructional Design in
Higher Education. Equity & Excellence in Education 37, 105–
113.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practioner. Toward
a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions
. San
Francisco: Josey - Bass Publishers.
Schön, D. A. (2002). The Reflective Practitioner. How
professionals think in action
. Aldershot: Ashgate Arena.
Shotter, J. (2002). Spontaneous responsiveness, chiasmic
relations, and consciousness inside the realm of living
expression. Retrieved 2002-10-23, 2002
Shotter, J. (2004, 2004-12-09). The embodied practitioner:
Toward dialogic-descriptive accounts of social practices. The
Role of the Social Sciences Today
Retrieved 20 January, 2005,
from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jds/page8.html
Shotter, J. (2009). Listening in a Way that Recognizes/Realizes
the World of ‘the Other’. International Journal of Listening,
23
(1), 21-43.
Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2001). Long-term Infuences of
Portfolios on Professional Development. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research,, 45
(2), 183-203.

---

82
Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying Different Types of
Portfolio Use. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
28
(6).
Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2007). Use of Criteria in Assessing
Teaching Portfolios: Judgemental practices in summative
evaluation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
51
(1), 103-117.
Soltvedt, M. (2005). BOF Barnorienterad familjeterapi (K.
Hopstadius, Trans.). Stockholm: Mareld.
Stelter, R. (Ed.). (2003). Coaching - lärande och utveckling.
Malmö: Liber Ekonomi.
the RL Mace Universal Design Institute (udi). (2016). Prinicples
of Universal Design: In different languages. In T. R. M. U. D. I.
(udi) (Ed.) (pp. 1). North Carolina: the RL Mace Universal
Design Institute (udi).
Tillema, H. H., Smith, K., & Leshem, S. (2011). Dual roles –
conflicting purposes: a comparative study on perceptions on
assessment in mentoring relations during practicum. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 34
(2), 139-159.
Tufvesson, C. (2015). Handledning. Värderingsverktyg för
tillgänglig utbildning, Förskola och skola
. Härnösand:
Specialpedagogicka skolmyndigheten.
Van Handle, D. C. (2004). Universal Instructional Design and
World Languages. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 161-
166.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1996). Förändring. Att
ställa och lösa problem
(M. Frisch, Trans.). Stockholm: Natur
och Kultur.

---

83
Whitmore, J. (1997). Coaching - för bättre beslut (M.
Hagelthorn, Trans.). Jönköping: Brains Book.
Wilson, J. (2001). Barnets röst i utredning och behandling (U.
Göthberg, Trans.). Stockholm och London: Mareld.
Zeus, P., & Skiffington, S. (2005). The Complete Guide to
Coaching at Work
. Sydney: McGraw-Hill Companies.

---

84
The fifth SOLO level connecting
Sustainability and Environmental
Management System
Jaromir Korostenski & Arne Halling  
Abstract
The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO taxon-
omy
1
) created 35 years ago still remains a reliable tool for un-
derstanding a student´s learning today, in times of increased
societal complexity, inundation by accessible data and decision
uncertainty throughout the process of striving for sustainabil-
ity.
Universities are urged to reform education in accordance with
societal needs, reflected in sustainability policies. This paper
proposes to extend the SOLO structure to the fifth level beyond
its extended abstract knowledge level and to deploy a systemic
and holistic approach for restructuring education through
Learning for Sustainability.
Outstretched SOLO is also suggested, including a circular im-
provement approach, which is accepted in modern standard
management systems, so that learners become accustomed to
dynamic leadership and broader innovative and creative com-
petences in their future professions. It is an encouraging new
approach to let students be market assets for sustainability, not
just an instantaneous refill that fits unoccupied production
gaps.
1
Biggs, J., Collis, K. (1982).

---

85
Key words 
SOLO, taxonomy, learning for sustainability, environmental
management system.
Acronyms 
AI … Artificial Intelligence
EMS … Environmental Management Systems (in general)
ESD … Education for Sustainable Development
HE … Higher Education institutions
LfS … Learning for Sustainability (in this paper used instead of
ESD, Education for Sustainable Development)
SDG … 17 Sustainable Development Goals
Introduction
The current great meta narrative concerns sustainability in all
its multifaceted aspects as explicitly presented in scientific pa-
pers, followed by mass media or chatted as preconceived col-
lective knowledge. The struggle for sustainability started with
Rachel Carson
2
, proceeded in the Club of Rome
3
and the Brund-
tland report
4
and is now presented by UN’s Agenda 2030
5
, to
mention some of the more important milestones of sustainabil-
ity awareness. The (post)industrial machine-driven era has
flattened out and artificial intelligence
6
(AI) is preparing to
take over a leading position. Decisions made by AI need the
guidance of ”real” people, pointing out the direction and scope
of intentions for sustainability. There can be no higher expecta-
tion for the future than fulfilling future generations’ basic hu-
2
Carson, R. (1962.
3
Club of Rome (1968).
4
Brundtland Commission (1987).
5
UN General Assembly (September 2015) The 17 SDG.
6
Tegmark, M. (2017).

---