Teaching and Researching at the University: on the Genesis of the Concept of a

Teacher-Researcher

PIMENTA, Selma Garrido

University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.

sgpiment@usp.br

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of

Crete, 22-25 September 2004: Network 22. Research in Higher Education

Abstract

The paper deals with partial results of a research concerning the intimately connected roles of teacher and researcher at the university. 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 research takes place at the University of the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil and is coordinated by the Faculty of Education. The results of the research should address four main goals that can be described in the following terms: 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 and comparing of it, putting it into context, calling it into question and interpreting it, it is not difficult to perceive that we must have a method of studying and inquiring about it. 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 always enough for it. 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

1

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 formation 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 of their own conscience concerning their own 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.

Key Words. University – Teaching – Researching – Reflection – Epistemology.

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 researchers4, 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 practice5, in which the processes of knowledge building by teachers are

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.

2

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’

knowledges and identity, profession and professionality, 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’ knowledges and identity6. The study

Qualification of the Public Teaching and Teacher Education allowed later the move from

action research to collaborative research7. 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 policies8.

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 (PAE10), and also from the supervision of the

postdoctoral work of Léa das Graças de Camargos Anastasiou11.6 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.

3

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 knowledges 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 knowledges from the theory of

education necessary to the understanding of the teaching practice, capable of developing

the competences and abilities such that teachers investigate their own teaching activity and,

from it, constitute their teaching savoir-faire in a continual process of building new

knowledges.

We consider that a professional identity is built from the social signification of the

profession, from the constant revision of the social meanings of the profession, from the

revision of traditions. But it is also built from the reaffirmation of culturally established

practices that have remained significant, practices that withstand innovations because they

are filled with knowledges true to the needs of reality. Also, it is built from the contrast

between theories and practices, from the systematic analysis of the practices in light of

4

existing theories, from the construction of new theories. And also, a professional identity is

built by the meaning that each teacher, as agent and author, attributes to the teaching

activity in his/her daily work based on values, ways of situating him/herself in the world,

life history, representations, knowledge, his/her torments and desires, on the meaning that

being a teacher has in his/her life, as well as on his/her network of relations with other

teachers, within schools, unions, and within other groups.

It is therefore important to muster the knowledges of experience, the pedagogical

knowledges, the scientific knowledges as constitutive elements of teaching in the processes

of construction of teachers’ identities.

Such 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

5

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 to educate teachers for: the teaching

profession in contemporary society; what teacher I am/want to be: 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 at school, and in this school? Relations at

school: democracy? “Democratitis”? The commitment to teaching. The associations of

the school with the education system and with higher bodies; the system’s

authoritarianism and the space for school’s autonomy; collective work: what binds us

together, what motivates us, what are our individual projects vis-à-vis our being

teachers? And the group tensions: from competition, authoritarianism and individualism

when sharing experiences, when searching together for new knowledges.

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? Are we?

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 knowledges

were also clearly seen.

Nevertheless, the uneasiness 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

6

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 profession12.

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 projects13. Some of its 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

7

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:

give support to public policies for teaching improvement.

8

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 knowledges 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) knowledges 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

9

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, 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 knowledges 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

10

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

11

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

12

university; methodology in higher education; the characterization of university teachers; the

meaning of assessment to teachers and students in higher education14.

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

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).

13

To what extent the studies about teachers have contributed to teacher education

policies in different countries? An 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 the 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:

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.

14

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 situating and

discussing the possible impacts for the formulation of public policies for higher education

in universities.

Bibliografia Geral

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.

15

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

16

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).

17

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

18

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.

19