Abstract
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.
Introduction
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.
Collaborative research and the education of university teachers
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.
Research questions
- 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.
Research objects and setting
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.
Objectives and expected results
The objectives of the research and the results expected are the following:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).