Teaching and Researching at the University: on
the Genesis of the Concept of a Teacher-Researcher
Selma Garrido Pimenta
University of São Paulo,
Brazil.
This article deals with interim results of a research project concerning
the intimately connected roles of teacher
and researcher at the university of São Paulo. The concept of a teacher who at the same time applies
his/her pedagogical skills and knowledge in research
was suggested by previous activities within the university involving two
different concepts, reflective teacher
and practical epistemology. Taking
these concepts as a starting point, the present research aims at investigating
teaching practices in the public university so as to identify possibilities of
interconnecting the different activities of teaching
and researching. The aim of the
research is to address four main goals: To obtain a theoretical understanding
of the concept of reflective teacher
in terms of a practical epistemology;
To obtain a theoretical understanding of teaching at the university as a praxis
capable of contributing knowledge concerning the problematic relationship
between teaching and researching; To contemplate the results
of such theoretical activities in a broader perspective so as to compare them
with similar research taking place in other countries; To suggest concrete
measures to effectively integrate teaching
and researching at the university
in institutional terms.
The research is based on two different conceptual points, which in their
turn support the chosen methodology: the conceptions of teaching and learning.
Given that learning is something that surpasses the mere acquisition of
information, involving as it does also the processing, analyzing, comparing,
putting into context, calling into question and interpreting. For the most
part, teachers working at the university have learned to teach through
teaching. The experience of teaching is one of the means to learn how to become
a teacher, but it does not necessarily imply that it is sufficient. And in that
lies the central point concerning processes of preparation of teachers, in
taking the experience of teaching as the starting point for a critical analysis
of the experience itself so as to configure an epistemology of the practice of
construction of the identity of teachers. The professional development of
teachers is the main goal of educational proposals that focus on the training
of teachers not merely understood as a process involving a technical
rationality that considers teachers as mere executors of superior decisions,
but through a perspective that recognizes their capacity to make their own
decisions. In confronting their everyday attitudes with theoretical analysis,
teachers are able to redefine their own practices and their theoretical
support, to research for the constitution of their own practice so as to
produce new knowledge concerning theoretical as well as practical aspects of
their own activity. To transform the practices of teaching is something that
can only be achieved through teachers’ enlarging
their own consciousness concerning their practice in the classroom as part
of the university as a whole, and this is something that presupposes a theoretical
and critical apparatus concerning reality.
During the last eight
years I have carried out three studies on teacher education: Didactics in
the Licentiateship – a study of the effects of a course program in the teaching
activity of former Licentiateship students (Pimenta, 1999a)[1],
Qualification of the Public Teaching and Teacher Education (Pimenta,
1999b)[2],
and Contemporary Research Trends: theoretical-epistemological-methodological
and political issues is under way (Pimenta, 2003)[3].
The nature of the first two studies – investigations with teachers in schools –
has led me to categorize them as practical-interpretive studies, and the
last one as theoretical-interpretive. From them a number of questions
have emerged and/or matured justifying a theoretical elaboration in the field
of teacher education, and finding resonance in studies carried out by other
researchers[4], giving
shape to the motion of contemporary research trends in the field of teacher
education. The issues can be organized in three groups: 1) the importance of
the studies to real situations, configuring what has been called the
epistemology of the practice[5],
in which the processes of knowledge building by teachers are highlighted; 2)
the importance of the ensuing concept of a reflective teacher, its
possibilities and limitations in the school context; 3) the importance of
teachers’ knowledge and identity, profession and professionalism, pointing to
the question of a teacher-researcher. This set of questions emerges in
the context of countries that try to implement public policies that promote
social and school democratization, in which teachers and schools, in their new
curriculum organization logics and new management forms, have attained central
focus.
The study entitled Didactics
in the Licentiateship – a study of the effects of a course program in the
teaching activity of former Licentiateship students has deepened
theoretical aspects, especially issues related to teachers’ knowledge and
identity[6].
The study Qualification of the Public Teaching and Teacher Education
allowed later the move from action research to collaborative research[7].
And in the investigation Contemporary Research Trends:
theoretical-epistemological-methodological and political issues it was
possible to arrive at a critical genesis of the concept of a reflective
teacher, a concept widely and indiscriminately adopted in academia and in
neoliberal teacher education policies[8].
Among the three
groups of questions described above, a category that deserves further
development is the one centering on the teacher-as-researcher controversy: to
what extent is it possible for the teacher to carry out research in his/her
professional activity?[9]
These issues, which
stemmed from studies conducted with primary school teachers, began to make
their way into the field of higher education teaching; in our particular case,
from experiences with teachers from the University of São Paulo which were
taking part in the Teaching Improvement Program (PAE[10]),
and also from the supervision of the postdoctoral work of Léa das Graças de
Camargos Anastasiou[11].
Hence,
The purpose of this Project is to probe into the practices of teachers from a public university for the elements that point to a possible intermingling of teaching and researching; and to proceed, from the empirical data, to a critical conceptual analysis of this outlook on teaching.
Theoretical and methodological grounding for action research and collaborative research
The study entitled Qualification
of the Public Teaching and Teacher Education had as its objective to
analyze the changes in the practices and pedagogical theorizations experienced
by a school team (teachers and coordinators) in a process of pedagogical
intervention emphasizing the collective construction of knowledge at the
workplace (a state school). The study belongs to the research trend that
highlights continuing education as professional and institutional development,
according to the theoretical perspective put forward by Fusari, 1988 and later
by Nóvoa, 1992, which regards the teacher as a reflective professional
(Schön, 1990).
This perspective has
emerged as fruitful for the studies whose focus is to collaborate with the
processes of teachers’ identity construction, understanding that the exercise
of teaching does not reduce to the application of previously established
models, but on the contrary, is constructed in the practice of historically
situated teachers-subjects. Consequently, a formative process would marshal the
knowledge from the theory of education necessary to the understanding of the
teaching practice, capable of developing competence and ability such that
teachers investigate their own teaching activity and, from it, constitute their
teaching savoir-faire in a continual process of building new knowledge.
It is therefore
important to muster the knowledge of experience, the pedagogical knowledge, the
scientific knowledge as constitutive elements of teaching in the processes of
construction of teachers’ identities.
Such a perspective
introduces a new paradigm in teacher education and its implications for the
teaching profession. It appeared in several countries during the last 30 years,
and emerges as a policy of appreciation and personal/professional
development of teachers and school institutions, since it assumes working
conditions that encourage teachers’ continuing education.
In its beginnings we
termed the research as collaborative and/or action research, understanding that
its goal was to create a culture of analyzing practices with a view to their
transformation by teachers in collaboration with university academics. Agreeing
with Zeichner 1998:223 that collaborative research is an important path
towards overcoming the divide between academics and teachers, but it is not
just any collaborative research that will do that, it was significant to us
to constitute it as action research and, furthermore, as a critical action
research (Kincheloe, 1998:180).
One of the main
challenges of collaborative research is the establishment of bonds between the
university researchers and the school teachers. During the first two years of
work at the school we tried to overcome the reservations and create an
effective alliance with the teachers, helping them to conduct action projects.
To this end, we started from their concerns, strongly related to their daily
practices, and which emerged from their needs. We avoided ‘starting’ the
research by bringing texts to be read by the teachers, which could reinforce
the old dictum that ‘in practice the theory is different’. It was also
necessary to overcome the representation that the academics would bring with
them – or would intend to – the answers/recipes for what teachers should do to
solve their problems. At the beginning, the form and direction we gave to the
project, to its establishment and to the actions set in motion starting from
the questions that emerged from the context – school and otherwise – was
revealing of the theories of which we researchers are carriers.
Once the partnership
was established and the teachers’ trust was gained, we began to prioritize the
systematic dialogue about the daily issues with the help of texts (written
texts and movies). We have thus systematized the questions around a few themes:
·
The
social purposes of school and education; what are teachers educated for? The
teaching profession in contemporary society; the knowledge, the savoir-faire,
knowing how to be a teacher. What is it to be a teacher? How did I get here?
Why and how do I remain? What do I intend for the future? Ethical competence
and political commitment: what is ethical? Relations at school: The commitment
to teaching. The associations of the school with the education system and with
other bodies; the system’s authoritarianism and the space for autonomy;
collective work: what binds us together, what motivates us, what are our
individual projects vis-à-vis our being teachers? Group tensions: from
competition, authoritarianism and individualism when sharing experiences, when
searching together for new knowledge.
·
And
what about researching? Am I a teacher-researcher? What does it mean to be a
teacher-researcher? What are the parameters for gauging a teacher-researcher?
Is it possible to be a teacher-researcher in the current work conditions?
We studied texts and
watched movies with which we could work with the role of the teacher in the
organization of education actions and, in particular, in the promotion of
pupils’ self-esteem.
It was interesting to
witness the huge mobilizing potential of the texts when worked in their links
with the practices. Teachers started to rate the readings more highly, and
began to ask for them. The ruptures that the theory caused in their
consolidated knowledge were also clearly seen.
Nevertheless,
questions remained: what kind of research are we doing? Are we
teachers-researchers?
The choice from the
beginning of the project to utilize a qualitative research approach engendered
at first some perplexities in the group of teachers, when they asked themselves
what kind of research was this, so different from the traditional concept of
research in which the academics arrived at school, observed, gathered data and
information, asked questions, and then left, leaving at most a few recipes for
teachers’ actions and usually the feeling that all they did was suspicious and
all they said was incomprehensible.
Once such perception
had been overcome, and the partnership relations had been established, there
remained the task of clarifying the understanding of what was the research that
was being carried out. For that, it was important to recover the objectives of
the Project and to broaden the studies, resulting in the collective production
of an article entitled Collaborative
research at school as an approach to foster the development of the teaching
profession[12].
The research about
the role of practice in teachers’ education and professional identity has been
developed by various authors: Sacristán, (1983), (1992), (1999); Porlán,
(1987), on the development of small theory-based projects. Contreras, (1997);
Goodson, (1993); Zeichner, (1991), (1998); Fiorentini, (1998); Elliot, (1993);
Hargreaves, (1997); Baird, (1986); Pimenta, (1998); Penteado, (1998) Garrido
and others, on school teams, reflection in action, and practice research.
In the process of the
research carried out along this approach, a seminar with the participation of
external consultants was organized with the purpose of expanding the analysis
of theoretical-methodological and political issues of the projects[13].
Some of its conclusions point to the advances, the potential, and difficulties
and, above all, to the need of widening and deepening the theoretical questions
involved with collaborative action research:
·
The
majority of studies exhibit the characteristics of a constructive-collaborative
model, which implies the in-process definition of the elements that comprise
the partnership between the university and the school object of the research.
The studies have as a feature the carrying out of experiences resulting in
products, where both the processes employed and the products achieved – even if
partial – are research data whose analyses often indicate the directions to be
taken by the investigation.
·
In
that way, these researches are predominantly of an in-process character, and the
analysis of the processes constitutes production of knowledge about the
problems under study, pointing to the relevance (and difficulty) of the partial
organization of research data that can allow a more systematic production of
knowledge and also more possible to be shared among different perspectives on
the knowledge about teachers’ development and professional learning processes
at their workplace (…).
·
As a
general synthesis, it can be said that this kind of research is not outlined in
a detailed and a priori controlled fashion, but it is constructed in the
process having as its main thread the problem under investigation, and as
probable directions to be followed the analyses offered by the partial data
obtained, which can, indeed, redirect procedures to unforeseen foci. Under this
prospect it is crucial in terms of group alertness to keep theoretical and
methodological consistency. It is a constructive-collaborative model:
strategies at the same time of action and of investigation conceived and developed
during the investigation process with the intention of supplying answers – even
if partial – to the research problem, and information indispensable to the
decision-making related to the next steps to be taken in the project (…). The
understanding of this kind of research as an open process: each project creates
its own paths starting from the general problem and from specific questions
related to its investigation (…).
·
As a
recommendation: to direct efforts to the construction and/or systematization of
a methodology capable of capturing and analyzing data that see to the problems
investigated by the groups. (Report from the Seminar University and School:
Collaborative Research for the Improvement of Public Education – University
– Fapesp – Public School. FEUSP. 1999).
Explicating the collaborative action research.
Having in mind a
better elucidation of the research Qualification of the Public Teaching and
Teacher Education within this approach, we recover here its objectives and
the text of Thiollent, 1994, a landmark on action research.
Indeed, the
objectives of the research were: to articulate the professional development of
the teachers involved; to analyze the processes of construction of the pedagogical
knowledge by the school team; to stimulate changes in the school organizational
culture; to contribute to public policies of teachers’ continuing education.
Its hypothesis: every teacher is capable of producing (practical) knowledge on
teaching, in as much as he/she proposes innovations in the practices,
transforming and reorienting them with a view to overcoming difficulties and
needs detected by the reflective-collaborative research.
The results expected
from this collaboration can be summarized as follows: pedagogical changes,
engendering the appreciation of work, personal growth, professional commitment,
development of a culture of analysis and of participative organizational
practices.
Methodological paths
followed were: a) researching with the teachers; appreciation of common
decisions and collective projects; reflection about the practice:
problematization, sharing with peers, proposals for innovations; b) Creating
investigation projects: formulating questions for investigation; experimenting
innovations (testing hypotheses); gathering data; documenting; reading
auxiliary material; carrying out a systematic analysis and making the research
work publicly available. At this stage the teachers began to see themselves as
authors, resulting in the increase of self-esteem and professional
qualification.
How do higher
education teachers identify themselves professionally? For instance, a
physicist, a lawyer, a physician, a geographer, an engineer, who teach in
higher education, if asked to fill in a form, how do they identify themselves
professionally? We can imagine some possibilities: simply Physicist, Lawyer,
Physician, Geographer, Engineer; or maybe followed by “university teacher”; or
yet simply as university teacher. Among these, the first option would certainly
be the most frequent. When teaching in higher education alongside their
activities as liberal professionals they often identify themselves in their
practices, clinics, and offices as “Professor”, which reveals a clear
recognition of the title of university teacher. The use of such identification
is frequent in signs, business cards, and prescription forms of doctors,
lawyers, dentists and architects. However, the title of university teacher
alone suggests a lower identity for, socially, it seems to refer to secondary
and primary education teachers.
This question points
to profession-related issues of higher education teachers, concerning identity
issues, i.e., what it means to be a teacher, and also profession issues
associated to the conditions for the exercise of the profession. What
identifies a teacher? And a university teacher? This question has been asked in
many countries, both in the context of the research on education processes and
in the formulation of higher education policies related to teaching and
research, requirements that characterize the exercise of the profession in
general terms. With respect to the education processes, the studies have shown
that:
(…) the university
teacher learns to be one through a socialization process, partly intuitive,
self-educated, partly (…) following the routine of “the others”. This is
explained, no doubt, by the inexistence of a specific education as a university
teacher. In this process, the teacher’s own experience as a student plays a
relatively important role, as do the teaching model that predominates in the
university system and the reactions of his/her pupils, although the teachers’
capacity for self-education should not be underrated. But the latter is
insufficient. (Benedito, 1995:131).
This observation has
encouraged initiatives that stress the continuing or in-service education
through courses, seminars, lato sensu graduate disciplines (no thesis
required), talks, apprenticeship, etc. However, these initiatives are not the
general rule because there is a certain consensus that the exercise of teaching
at higher education does not require training in the field of teaching. The
mastery of specific knowledge would suffice, for the hallmark of higher
education teaching would be researching and/or the exercise of the profession.
According to this conception, the teacher is that who teaches, that is,
dispenses knowledge to the students; if the students learn or not, that is not
the teacher’s problem, even more so if it is a university teacher who, many
times, is there as a concession, as a favor, or to complement his/her salary,
or as a self-sacrificing person who sees his/her teaching as a means to help
the others, or as a sideline, etc.
In most higher
education institutions, including universities, although their teachers do have
substantial experience and even years of study in their respective areas, there
is widespread lack of preparation and even a certain scientific ignorance about
what constitutes the process of teaching and learning for which they become
responsible from the moment they step into the classroom. Usually, teachers
join departments with recognized courses, where the disciplines they will teach
are already established. There they receive ready-made syllabuses; make their
course plans individually and solitarily, and it is in the same condition –
individual and solitary – that they must take responsibility for their
teaching. The results achieved are not subjected to study or analysis, either
individually or by the course or department. Teachers receive no instructions
as to planning, methodological or assessment processes; they do not have to
account for their teaching or write reports, as is the case in research
processes, which are object of attention and institutional control. It can be
seen that the issue of teaching at the university goes beyond classroom
processes, putting under scrutiny the objectives of undergraduate teaching, a
fact that has been recognized in different countries.
An inspection of the
international scene reveals that, in the education area of the more developed
countries, growing attention is being given to the education and professional
development of university teachers, as well as to the innovations in the field
of didactics. One of the factors that explain such concern is undoubtedly the
quantitative expansion of higher education and the corresponding increase in
the number of teachers (UNESCO/CRESALC, 1996). It can also be observed that the
concern with the quality of the results of higher education, particularly of
the undergraduate education, points to the importance of teachers’ preparation
both in the specific fields and in the pedagogical area. Proficiency in these
areas are becoming requisites to the exercise of higher education teaching,
since it is expected that teachers will become involved with the administration
and management of their departments and the university, making decisions on
curricula, research and financing policies, not just within the department but
also with respect to federal and state public systems, research funding
agencies, research policies, and teaching and assessment policies.
The above themes have
led to the concern with university teachers’ preparation, transcending the
teaching-research schism.
Consequently, the
present project aims at deepening the understanding of research as a cognitive
and formative principle in the processes of constitution of identity of
university teaching.
1)
The
epistemology of practice resignifying university teaching: the
teacher-researcher
Numerous authors who
have researched teacher education designate the articulation of theories and
practices as the mainstay of the teaching activity (Pimenta, 1994; Freitas,
1995; Brezinski, 1998; Kemmis, 1993; Zeichner, 1993, among many others). Recent
studies have brought up the role of the research activity in the initial and
continuing education of teachers (Demo, 1992; André, 1996; Lüdke, 1996;
Pimenta, 1996/99; Houssaye, 1995). Some studies emphasize the formative
potential of the practice (of the research on practice), giving shape to the
movement that has been called epistemology of practice (Elliot, 1999; Geraldi,
1999; Pimenta, 1997/98), understanding that the interaction between educational
research and teacher reflective action is the basis for the new epistemology of
practice, for the professional cannot constitute his/her savoir-faire
if not from his/her own doing. It is only upon such basis that the (teaching)
knowledge, as a theoretical elaboration, is constituted (Pimenta, 1999:26).
This perspective establishes, according to Libâneo (1998:57/63), one of the new
themes that have emerged in the conceptual and research field of Didactics.
The epistemology of practice brings into discussion the identity of the teacher
as researcher.
In the present
project the objective is to systematize the fieldwork data obtained with
teachers of a public university, so as to give support to the theoretical
discussions about the teacher-researcher. Some studies by Brazilian researchers
have looked into some of the issues of this theme: the analysis of the
teacher-pupil relationship in the classroom and in the laboratory;
teacher-researcher in the university; teaching and learning in the university;
methodology in higher education; the characterization of university teachers;
the meaning of assessment to teachers and students in higher education[14].
2)
Research
method and teaching method
In order to explicate
the trend of recognizing the relevance of researching in the teaching process
it is necessary to recall its premises related to the concept of teaching and
teacher: teaching, a complex phenomenon, as a social practice conducted by
humans with humans, is modified by the action and relationship between these
subjects, which in their turn are modified by the process. Identity is not an
immutable fact, neither is it external, but happens in a process, in the
construction of the subject in his/her historical context. The teaching
profession emerges in a given context and historical moment, being shaped by
the needs of society, and is built from the social meanings attributed to it.
How does the higher education teacher’s continuing professional development
take place? We know that teaching requires command of the teaching method. What
does such method consist of, and what is our level of command of it? How much
do university teachers and higher education institutions value the mastery of
the teaching method?
In contrast to what
happens with teaching, research is highly valued in universities. However, it
can be seen that being a recognized researcher who adds significantly to the
theoretical knowledge of the field is not a guarantee of an excellent
pedagogical performance. We know that, because research and the production of
knowledge are goals of the graduate activities, teachers systematize and
develop skills appropriate to the research method when they participate in
graduate programs.
In order to go deeper
in what constitutes the method of teaching-researching as well as the
importance of researching the teaching it will be necessary to investigate the
features of each one of these methods from their components: the agents
involved, the time, the method and the knowledge, the results.
3)
The
dialogue between university and policies
To what extent have
studies about teachers contributed to teacher education policies in different
countries? And in Brazil? What is the potential of the Project in this
perspective? What do the fieldwork data reveal as possibilities along these
lines? In contemporary society profound changes can be seen regarding the
sense, meaning, and purpose of the university and of higher education in
general. Therefore, it is fitting to problematize the teacher education and
practice within the various contexts in which they operate.
The development of
research will include, besides studies of a theoretical nature on the issue of
teacher-researcher, a fieldwork to be carried out with teachers from the
University of São Paulo, whose courses will be chosen according to the interest
identified in the activities of the Teaching Improvement Program (PAE)
coordinated by the Faculty of Education. Studies will be carried out on the transformations
in higher education, and in the universities and their purposes, in order to
configure the relationship between research and higher education policies.
The objectives of the
research and the results expected are the following:
1. Theoretical elaboration of the
concept of a teacher-researcher
With this objective
we aim to collaborate in the process of construction of knowledge in the field
of teacher education within the perspective of the epistemology of practice.
2. Theoretical elaboration on the
teaching in the university
With this objective
we aim to collaborate in the process of construction of knowledge on the
problematic relationship between researching and teaching in the university.
3. To situate and contrast the results
of this research within the scenario of recent literature in the area of
university teacher education
With this objective
we expect to identify the limits and possibilities for teacher education of the
methodology used.
4. To analyze the associations of this
research within the context of transformations in the curricular area of the
university
With this objective
we expect to produce elements that will allow analysis of the possible impacts
of the formulation of public policy for higher education in universities.
A version of this article was presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Crete 2004. See also Educação e Pesquisa, volume 31, number 3, p.521-539, 2005.
Bibliography
ALVES,
Nilda & GARCIA, Regina L. (orgs). Formação
de Professores. Rio de Janeiro. Vozes. 2002.
Actes de Colloque La place de la recherche dans la
formation des enseignants. Recherche et Formation. INRP. Paris. 1990.
ALARCÃO,
Isabel. Escola reflexiva e nova
racionalidade. Porto Alegre. ArtMed ABDALLA, Maria de Fátima B. Formação e desenvolvimento profissional do
professor: o aprender da profissão (um estudo em escola pública). Tese de
Doutorado. FEUSP. 2000.
ANASTASIOU,
Léa Graças Camargos . Metodologia do
Ensino Superior: da prática docente a uma possível teoria pedagógica. Curitiba. IBPEX. 1998.
ANASTASIOU,
Léa Graças Camargos. Metodologia do
Ensino Superior: da prática docente a uma possível teoria pedagógica. Curitiba. IBPEX. 1998.
____________________Pesquisar
é preciso: com que recursos?. Blumenau, Revista Seminários em Revista, v.
1, n.º 3, março de 1999.
_____________________Desafios
de um processo de profissionalização continuada: elementos da teoria e da
prática. Revista Saberes, Centro Universitário de Jaraguá
do Sul, Ano 1, V.1, no. 2, maio/ag.2000.
ANDRÉ,
Marli. O papel da pesquisa na prática e na formação dos professores. Campinas. Papirus. 2002.
BALDINO,
José M. Educação Superior no Brasil:
sobre a formação do professor universitário.
Goiânia. Revista da Universidade
Católica de Goiás.1999.
BENEDITO,
Vicente e outros. La formación universitaria a
debate..
Barcelona. Universitat de Barcelona. 1995.
BEHRENS, Marilda
Aparecida. Aprendizagem por projetos num paradigma emergente. In: MORAN, José
Manuel; MASETTO, Marcos;BEHRENS, Marilda Aparecida. Novas tecnologias e mediação . 4ed. Campinas:Papirus, 2001.
BEHRENS, Marilda
A. A formação pedagógica e os desafios do mundo moderno. In:
Masetto, Marcos, (org). Docência na
universidade. Campinas: Papirus, 1998.
BEHRENS,
Marilda A. O paradigma emergente e a
prática pedagógica. Curitiba: Champagnat, 1999.
BOAVENTURA,
E. Universidade e Estado no Brasil. Piracicaba: Revista da Unimep, 1989.
BOURDIEU,
Pierre. Razões práticas: sobre a teoria
da ação. Campinas: Papirus, 1996.
_________.
O poder simbólico. Rio de Janeiro:
Bertrand Brasil, 1998.
_________. A
economia das trocas simbólicas. São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva, 1998.
CARR, Wilfred. Una teoría para la educación - hacia una
investigación educativa crítica. Madrid. Morata.
1996.
CASTANHO, Maria Eugênia .Universidade
à noite : fim ou começo de jornada. Campinas. Papirus, 1989.
CAVALLET,
Valdo J. Educação formal e treinamento:
confundir para doutrinar e dominar. Revista Diálogo Educacional da PUCPR,
Curitiba, v. 1, n. 2, jul./dez., 2000.
CAVALLET,
Valdo J. Os desafios da educação no
ensino superior e a avaliação da aprendizagem.
In: Reunião Anual da Associação Brasileira de Educação Agrícola
Superior, XXXIX, 1999, Gramado. Anais.
Porto Alegre: UFRGS/ABEAS.
CONFERÊNCIA
MUNDIAL SOBRE EDUCAÇÃO SUPERIOR, 1, 1998, Paris. Documentos. Curitiba.
UFPR. 1998.
CUNHA,
Luiz Antonio. A universidade temporã. Rio
de Janeiro, Francisco Alves, 1986.
CUNHA,
Maria I. O professor universitário na transição de paradigmas. Araraquara.
JM Editora. 1998.
CUNHA,
Maria I. Ensino com pesquisa: a prática reconstruída do professor
universitário. Cadernos de Pesquisa,
São Paulo, no. 97, maio 1996.
CHAUI,
Marilena . Escritos sobre a Universidade. São Paulo, Editora Unesp, 2001.
CHARLOT,
B. Formação de professores: a pesquisa e a política educacional. In: Pimenta, & Ghedin, (orgs.) Professor reflexivo no
Brasil: gênese e crítica de um conceito. São Paulo.
Cortez Ed. 2002 (1ª edição: junho de 2002; 2ª edição:
novembro de 2002): 89-110
CONTRERAS, José. La autonomia del profesorado. Madrid.
Ed. Morata. 1997.
CURY,
Carlos R. J. Lei de Diretrizes e Bases e perspectivas da educação nacional. In:
Revista Brasileira de Educação.
ANPEd. São Paulo. No. 08. 1998:72-85
COMISSÃO
DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPÉIAS. Livro branco
sobre a Educação e a Formação. Bruxelas. 1995.
ELLIOT,
John. Recolocando a pesquisa-ação em seu lugar original e próprio. In:
FIORENTINI, GERALDI E PEREIRA (orgs.). Cartografias
do Trabalho Docente. Campinas. Mercado de Letras. 1998.
ESTEVES,
António J.& PIMENTA, Carlos. Notas
sobre pedagogia universitária. In: Esteves & Stoer. A Sociologia na Escola. Porto. Afrontamento. 1993.
FIORENTINI,
GERALDI E PEREIRA (orgs.). Cartografias
do Trabalho Docente. Campinas. Mercado de Letras. 1998.
FUSARI, José C. A Educação do Educador em
Serviço. Mestrado. PUCSP - 1988
GHEDIN,
Evandro. Professor Reflexivo: da alienação da técnica à autonomia da crítica. In Pimenta, & Ghedin, (orgs.) Professor reflexivo no
Brasil: gênese e crítica de um conceito. São Paulo.
Cortez Ed. 2002 (1ª edição: junho de 2002; 2ª edição:
novembro de 2002):129-150
GÖERGEN,
Pedro e SAVIANI, Dermeval (orgs). Formação
de Professores-experiência internacional sob o olhar brasileiro. Campinas.
Autores Associados. 1998.
GUIMARÃES, Valter. Saberes docentes e identidade profissional.
Um estudo a partir da Licenciatura. Tese de Doutorado. FEUSP. 2001.
HARGREAVES, Andy. Profesorado,
cultura y postmodernidad. Madrid. Morata. 1996.
HOUSSAYE, Jean. Une illusion pédagogique?
Cahiers Pédagogiques, 334. INRP. Paris. 1995:28-31.
KINCHELOE,
Joe. A formação do professor como
compromisso político – mapeando o pós-moderno. Porto Alegre. Artes Médicas.
1998.
LIBÂNEO,
José C. Adeus professor, Adeus
professora? São Paulo. Cortez. 1998.
LIBÂNEO,
José C. Organização e gestão de escola.
Goiânia. Ed. Alternativa. 2001.
LIMA,
Maria Socorro L. A formação contínua dos
professores nos caminhos e descaminhos do desenvolvimento profissional. São
Paulo. FE-USP. Tese de Doutorado. 2001.
LOPES,
Alice & MACEDO, Elisabeth (orgs) Currículo:
debates contemporâneos. São Paulo. Cortez Ed. 2002.
LÜBKE.
Menga. O professor e a pesquisa.
Campinas. Papirus. 2001.
MARIN,
Alda J. Desenvolviento profissional docente: início de um processo centrado na
escola. In: VEIGA (org). Caminhos da profissionalização
do magistério. Campinas. Papirus. 1998.
MASETTO,
Marcos T. Professor universitário: um
profissional da educação na atividade docente.
In: Masetto (org.). Docência na universidade. Campinas. Papirus. 1998.
MOROSINI, Marilia Costa. Professor do Ensino Superior: identidade, docência e formação.
Brasília: Instituto Nacional de Estudos
e Pesquisas Educacionais, 2000.
________________
e LEITE, Denise ( orgs). Universidade e Integração no Cone Sul.
Porto Alegra: Editora da Universidade UFRGS.1992.
MORIN
Edgar. Ciência com Consciência. Barcelona, Anthropos, Editorial
del Hombre,1994
MORIN
Edgar. Complexidade e
Transdisciplinaridade: a reforma da universidade e do ensino fundamental.
Natal. EDUFRN. 2000.
MONTEIRO,
Silas B. Epistemologia da prática: o professor reflexivo e a pesquisa
colaborativa. In Pimenta, &
Ghedin, (orgs.) Professor
reflexivo no Brasil: gênese e crítica de um conceito. São Paulo. Cortez Ed. 2002 (1ª edição: junho de 2002; 2ª
edição: novembro de 2002):111-128.
MOURA,
Manoel O. A educação escolar como atividade. In: Anais do IX Encontro Nacional de Didática e Prática de Ensino
(ENDIPE). A´guas de Lindóia. 1998.
MOURA,
Manoel O. O educador matemático na
coletividade de formação: uma experiência com a escola pública. Tese de Livre
Docência. São Paulo. FEUSP. 2000.
PÉREZ GOMEZ, Angel. Autonomía
profesional del docente y control democrático de la prática educativa. Volver a pensar la educación (V. II)
Prácticas y discursos educativos. (Congreso Internacional de Didáctica).
Madrid. Morata. 1995.
PERRENOUD, Philippe. Dix défis
pour les formateurs d´enseignants. Universidade de Genebra. 1998. (tradução:
Márcia Valéria Martinez de Aguiar).
PIMENTA,
Selma G. O estágio na formação
de professores - unidade teoria e prática? São Paulo. Cortez. l994.
PIMENTA,
Selma G. A Didática como mediação na construção da identidade do professor: uma
experiência de ensino e pesquisa. in André, M. & Oliveira, M. R. (orgs.). Alternativas do Ensino de Didática.
Campinas. Papirus. 1997:37-70.
PIMENTA,
Selma G. A prática (e a teoria) docente re-significando a Didática. In:
Oliveira (org) Confluências e
divergências entre Didática e Currículo. Campinas. Papirus. 1998:153-176.
PIMENTA,
Selma G. (org.). Saberes pedagógicos e
atividade docente. São Paulo. Cortez. 1999.
PIMENTA,
Selma G. Itinerário teórico/metodológico de uma pesquisadora. In: PIMENTA, S.G.
DE Professores, Pesquisa e Didática.
Campinas. Papirus. 2002.
PIMENTA,
Selma G. Professor Reflexivo: construindo uma crítica. In Pimenta, & Ghedin, (orgs.) Professor reflexivo no
Brasil: gênese e crítica de um conceito. São Paulo.
Cortez Ed. 2002 (1ª edição: junho de 2002; 2ª edição:
novembro de 2002): 12-52.
PIMENTA,
Selma G. & ANASTASIOU, Léa das Graças. Docência
no Ensino Superior. São Paulo. Cortez d. 2002: 279pp.
PIMENTA,
Selma G. Qualificação do Ensino Público e
formação de professores. FAPESP/FEUSP. Relatório Final da Pesquisa 2000.
PIMENTA,
Selma G. et al. Seminário Universidade e
Escola: pesquisa colaborativa para a melhoria do ensino público. FAPESP -
Programa Ensino Público - USP-UNICAMP-UFSCar-UNESP-USF. Relatório 1999.
PIMENTA,
Selma G. A Didática na Licenciatura - um
estudo dos efeitos de um programa de curso na atividade docente de alunos
egressos da Licenciatura. Relatório de Pesquisa. FEUSP/CNPq. 1999.
PIMENTA; GARRIDO; MOURA, La recherche en collaboration au sein de
l´école: une manière de faciliter le développment du métier d´enseignant. In Raymond D. Nouveaux espaces de développement professionnel et organisationnel.
Éditions du CRP. Québec.
2001:71-84.
PORLÁN, R. 1987. El maestro como
investigador en el aula. Investigar para conocer, conocer para enseñar. Investigación en la Escuela, 1: 63-70.
Recherche
et Formation no. 16. Les
professions de l´édudation: recherches et pratiques en formation. INRP. Paris.
1994.
Recherche
et Formation no. 38. La fabrication de l´enseignant
professionnel: la raison du savoir. INRP. Paris. 2001.
ROJO, Martín R. Hacia una
didáctica crítica. Madrid. Ed. La Muralla, S.A. 1997.
SACRISTÁN, G. J. Poderes Instáveis em Educação. Porto alegre: Artes Médicas, 1999.
SACRISTÁN, G. y PÉREZ-GÓMEZ, Á. Comprender y transformar la ensenãnza. Madrid. Morata. 1992.
SANTOS,
Milton. O professor como intelectual na sociedade contemporânea. In: Anais do IX ENDIPE, v. III. Águas de Lindóia. 1998.
SAVIANI,
Dermeval. Educação: do senso comum à consciência filosófica. São Paulo. Cortez
e Aut. Associados. 1980.
SEVERINO, Antonio J. Educação, sujeito e história. São
Paulo: Olho d’Água, 2001
SCHÖN, Donald A. La formación de profesionales reflexivos.
Barcelona. Paidós. 1992
SINDICAL
INTERNACIONAL DA EDUCAÇÃO Conferência
Internacional sobre Ensino Superior - uma perspectiva docente, Paris, 1997.
STENHOUSE, L. Investigación y desarrollo del curriculum.
Madrid. Morata. 1991.(3ª ed.).
UNESCO/CRESALC. Situación de la educación Superior en
America Latina y Caribe, VII Conferência Regional de Ministros de
Educación, Kingston, Jamaica, , 1996.
UNIVERSIDAD DE DEUSTO. Evaluación de experiencias y tendencias en
la formación del profesorado. Bilbao.1996.
VASCONCELLOS,
Celso dos Santos. Construção do conhecimento em sala de aula. São Paulo: Libertad,
1994. ( Cadernos Pedagógicos do Libertad, 2).
VEIGA,
Ilma A. (org). Caminhos da profissionalização do magistério. Campinas. Papirus.
1998.
WACHOWICZ, Lillian A. O Método Didático e sua Fundamentação na Lógica Dialética. In Anais
do Fórum de Pro-Reitores de Graduação, 5, UFPR Curitiba, 1992.
ZAINKO,
Maria A S; PINTO, Maria L. (org). Avaliação Institucional: a trajetória de uma
década – 1987 /1997. Cadernos da
Pro-Reitoria de Graduação. Curitiba:
UFPR, 1998.
ZEICHNER, Kenneth. El maestro como profesional reflexivo. Cuadernos de pedagogía. 220, 44-49.
[1] In Portuguese: A Didática na Licenciatura - um estudo dos efeitos de um programa de curso na atividade docente de alunos egressos da Licenciatura (Pimenta, 1999a).
[2] In Portuguese: Qualificação do Ensino Público e Formação de Professores (Pimenta,
1999b).
[3] In Portuguese: As tendências investigativas contemporâneas: questões
teórico-epistemológicas-metodológicas e políticas (Pimenta, 2003).
[4] Let us remark, among others:
Geraldi, 1998; Mizukami, 1998; Marin, 1998; Cunha, 1998; Brezinski, 1999;
Libâneo, 1998; Therrien, 1998; Contreras, 1997; Sacristán, 1983; Zeichener,
1993; Perrenoud, 1993; Heargreaves, 1997; Elliot, 1996; Gauthier, 1996; Baird,
1987; Kemmis, 1993; Porlán, 1987; Pérez-Gómes, 1989; Charlot, 1996; Alarcão,
1996; Esteves, 1996.
[5] See PIMENTA, S.G. A Pesquisa em
Didática no Brasil (1996 – 2000), in
PIMENTA, S.G. De Professores,
Pesquisa e Didática. Campinas. Papirus. 2002: 103-128.
[6] See PIMENTA, S.G. Formação de
Professores: saberes e identidade, in: PIMENTA, S.G.Saberes pedagógicos e atividade docente. São Paulo. Cortez. 1998.
[7] See PIMENTA, S. G; GARRIDO, E;
MOURA, M.O. Pesquisa colaborativa na escola; uma maneira de facilitar o
desenvolvimento profissional dos professores. In: MARIN (org) Formação Continuada. Campinas. Papirus.
2000.
[8] PIMENTA, Selma G. Professor
Reflexivo: construindo uma crítica. In Pimenta, & Ghedin, (org.) Professor reflexivo no Brasil: gênese e
crítica de um conceito. São Paulo. Cortez Ed. 2002 (1st edition:
June 2002; 2nd edition: November 2002): 12-52.
[9] See CHARLOT, B. Formação de professores: a pesquisa e a política educacional. In: Pimenta, & Ghedin, (org.) Professor reflexivo no Brasil: gênese e crítica de um conceito. São Paulo. Cortez Ed. 2002 (1st edition: June 2002; 2nd edition: November 2002): 89-110 ANDRÉ, M. (org) O Papel da pesquisa na formação e na prática dos professores. Campinas. Papirus. 2002.
[10] In Portuguese: Programa de Aperfeiçoamento do Ensino.
[11] ANASTASIOU, L.G.C. Educação Superior e Preparação Pedagógica: elementos para um começo de conversa. (Postdoctoral project). Centro Universitário de Jaraguá do Sul. FEUSP. 200/2001.
[12] In Portuguese: PIMENTA; GARRIDO; MOURA, Pesquisa colaborativa na escola: uma maneira de facilitar o desenvolvimento profissional dos professores. In: MARIN (org) Formação Continuada. Campinas. Papirus. 2000. This text was presented in several meetings abroad, where it has also been published: La recherche en collaboration au sein de l´école: une manière de faciliter le développment du métier d´enseignant. In Raymond D. Nouveaux espaces de développement professionnel et organisationnel. Éditions du CRP. Québec. 2001:71-84; Collaborative research as an approach to foster teacher development, teacher´s production of knowledge and changes School Practices. Educational Action Research Journal, London. 2000.
[13] The seminar was Universidade
e Escola: Pesquisa Colaborativa Para Melhoria Do Ensino Público -
Universidade – Fapesp – Escola Pública. FEUSP. 1999, organized by the groups
that composed the following projects: Desenvolvimento
Profissional da Docência: analisando experiências de ensino e aprendizagem
- Coord.: Profa. Dra. Maria da Graça Nicoletti Mizukami, UFSCar; Melhoria do ensino público: a formação de
professores no curso normal - Coord.: Profa. Dra. Yoshie Ussami Ferrari
Leite, UNESP/Prudente; Pesquisa
colaborativa na escola como abordagem facilitadora para o desenvolvimento da
profissão do professor - Coord: Selma Garrido Pimenta, USP; Desenvolvimento Profissional Docente e
Transformações na Escola: objetivos, procedimentos metodológicos, alguns
resultados e pontos que podem favorecer alteração nas políticas públicas em
educação - Coord.: Profa. Dra. Alda Junqueira Marin. UNESP/Araraquara; Revisitando alguns aspectos da parceria
desenvolvida entre a universidade e duas escolas da rede pública de ensino de
Bragança Paulista - Coord.: Prof.
Dr. Miguel Henrique Russo, USF; Pesquisa
em Parceria – EE Barão Geraldo de Rezende e Universidade Estadual de Campinas:
cenário, atores, enredo e ações - Coord.: Profa. Dra. Célia Maria de Castro
Almeida, UNICAMP; Cotidianidade e
produção de conhecimento. Coord.: Prof. Dr. Mansur Lutfi, USP; Geociências e a formação continuada de
professores em exercício no ensino fundamental: reflexões e resultados parciais. Coord.: Prof. Dr. Maurício Compiani, UNICAMP.
The seminar had as its main objectives: 1. to analyze and compare experiences
of collaborative research; 2. to contrast the partial results and the theories
that ground them, aiming at the systematization of the new knowledge; 3. to
give support to public policies for teaching improvement.
[14] See Lima, M. L. R. de. A qualificação do professor é uma questão de didática. (1996); Carniato, I. Práticas de ensino: proposta alternativa para a melhoria do ensino em Ciência e Biologia (1996); Berhens, M. A . A prática pedagógica de professores universitários (1996); Cunha, M. I. C construção do conhecimento na prática pedagógica do ensino superior. (1997); Chaves, S. M. e Rosa, D.E.G. A avaliação da aprendizagem como ponto de partida para a reflexão da prática pedagógica. (1997); Lima, M.L. R. Memória educativa como mediadora da construção histórica de um projeto de didática e formação de professores. ( UFMG), (1998); Berbel, N.ª N. e Guariente, M.H.D.M. Aspectos pedagógicos no ensino de enfermagem. (UEL) (1998).