Critical-Collaborative Action Research: constructing itsmeaning through experiences in teacher education

Selma Garrido PimentaUniversidade de São Paulo

Abstract

This text presents the process of reconfiguration of the meaningand sense of action research as a critical-collaborative researchstarting from two experiences we have coordinated involvingteams from university and from public schools in the State ofSão Paulo, as well as discussing its potential for impact inteacher education and action and its implications for publicpolicies in education.Concerned with carrying out research in the school contexts, soas to help their teams to understand and give an answer to theintrinsic difficulties, we find in the qualitative approaches themost natural path. But, what perspective should we adopt?Should it be intervention-based? It did not seem to us to be themost adequate approach given its tendency to overtake theresponsibilities of school workers. The ethnographic approachwas not satisfying either, considering the risks of entanglingourselves in endless descriptions of phenomena. Neither did wewant to carry out case studies. We were sure that we wanted toconduct research with the professionals in school contexts andnot about them. Our expectation was one of contributing totheir processes of continuing education. It thus seemed that theaction research would be an adequate approach. However,considering the complexity that usually surrounds this approach,we were not tempted, at first, to give its name to the approachwe were going to employ. As the study progressed, it gaveshape to what we shall call critical-collaborative action research.It is with this process that the present text shall deal.

Keywords

Critical-Collaborative Action Research – Teacher education –Teaching knowledges – Didactics.

Contact:Selma Garrido PimentaFaculdade de Educação – USPAv. da Universidade, 30805508-040 – São Paulo – SPe-mail: sgpiment@usp.br

This text aims at uncovering the process ofreconfiguration of the meaning and sense of actionresearch as a critical-collaborative research startingfrom two experiences we have coordinatedinvolving teams from university and from publicschools in the State of São Paulo, as well asdiscussing its potential for impact in teachereducation and action and its implications for publicpolicies in education.

Concerned with carrying out research inthe school contexts, so as to help their teams tounderstand and give an answer to the intrinsicdifficulties, we find in the qualitative approachesthe most natural path. But, what perspectiveshould we adopt? Should it be intervention-based? It did not seem to us to be the mostadequate approach given its tendency toovertake the responsibilities of school workers.The ethnographic approach was not satisfyingeither, considering the risks of entanglingourselves in endless descriptions of phenomena.Neither did we want to carry out case studies.We were sure that we wanted to conductresearch with the professionals in schoolcontexts and not about them. Our expectationwas one of contributing to their processes ofcontinuing education. It thus seemed that theaction research would be an adequate approach.However, considering the complexity that usuallysurrounds this approach, we were not tempted,at first, to give its name to the approach wewere going to employ. As the study progressed,it gave shape to what we shall call critical-collaborative action research. It is with thisapproach that the present text shall deal. Thefirst study, Didactics in the Licentiateship – astudy of the effects of a course program in theteaching activity of former Licentiateshipstudents1, had the participation of threeassistants and two teachers from two differentschools, formers students of our Licentiateshipcourse at the Faculty of Education of theUniversity of São Paulo (FEUSP). The secondstudy, Qualification of the Public Teaching andTeacher Education2, had a team of fiveuniversity teachers and 24 teachers from a

school. Both studies were carried out in statepublic schools. From those studies it waspossible to reaffirm what follows.

Action research assumes that the subjectsinvolved in it constitute a group with commonobjectives and goals, interested in a problem thatemerges from a given context in which they playvarious roles: university researchers and (in thepresent case) teacher researchers. Established theproblem, the role of the researcher is that ofhelping the group to problematize it, that is, tosituate it into a wider theoretical context, andtherewith allow the growth of the conscience ofthose involved, with a view to plan the forms oftransformation of the subjects’ actions andinstitutional practices3 (cf. Thiollent, 1994).Collaborative research, in its turn, has as itsobjective to create in schools a culture of analysisof the practices, allowing teachers, with the helpof university teachers, to transform their actionsand institutional practices (cf. Zeichner, 1993). Theanalysis of results from theoretical studies and fromthose in political-institutional contexts endowedcollaborative action research with the adjectivecritical, according to the assumption andcommitment of those involved that carrying outstudies in schools is an investment in the qualityeducation of their teachers, with a view to allow thetransformation of institutional practices towardsthe fulfillment of their role in the social andpolitical democratization of society (cf. Gramsci,1968; Habermas, 1983; Kincheloe, 1997).

The import of research for teachereducation takes place in the movement thatunderstands teachers as subjects who can build

1. “A didática na Licenciatura – um estudo dos efeitos de um programa decurso na atividade docente de alunos egressos da Licenciatura” (inPortuguese).2. “Qualificação do ensino público e formação de professores” (inPortuguese).3. We understand, along with Sacristán (1999) that practice differs fromaction. Action belongs to the subjects, it is typical of the human beings andthey express themselves in it. In action, we act according to what we are,and in what we do it is possible to see what we are. Practice belongs to thesocial sphere and expresses culture objectified, the accumulated legacy,being typical of institutions. It is certain, however, that our actions expresssocial practices and that those are constituted from the subjects historicallyconsidered.

knowledge about teaching in the criticalreflection about their activity, in the institutionallyand historically contextualized collectivedimension. Along these lines, we find studiesdescribed as collaborative carried out in therelation between researchers-teachers from theuniversity and teachers-researchers from schools,making use of action research as theirmethodology. In those studies, teachers constitutethemselves as researchers starting from theproblematization of their contexts. In the criticalreflection jointly made with university researchers,they are instigated to problematize their actionsand the institution’s practices, and to prepareresearch projects followed by interventions (cf.Zeichner, 1998; Fiorentini; Geraldi; Pereira, 1998;Pimenta; Garrido; Moura, 2000).

Configuring the action research

The research Didactics in theLicentiateship – a study of the effects of acourse program in the teaching activity offormer Licentiateship students4 (Pimenta,1999b) had as its objective to analyze thecontribution of our Licentiateship Didacticscourse to the teaching activities of its formerstudents, now teachers in the public schoolsystem, evaluating their processes of identitaryconstruction, based on their pedagogicalknowledge, specific contents and experience.By asking “to what extent does the teaching ofthe Didactics course have meaning to theteachers’ activities in their work realities atpublic schools?” we bring into question thecontribution of didactics theory to the teachingactivities of professionals concretely situated;and, in the reverse movement, what is thecontribution of teachers’ practical activities tothe revision of Didactics courses and to theresignification of didactics theory.

The initial research question unfoldedinto others, which impacted on the researchprocedures: to examine and discuss theassumptions of didactics as a theory ofteaching in teacher education; to examine and

follow the deployment of the program of aDidactics course offered at the Licentiateship atFEUSP; to follow the teaching activities of someof its former students, identifying in theirpractice the processes of construction of theteacher’s know-how and their links with theDidactics course; to gather elements from theteaching activities of former students toreassess/propose Didactics course programs atthe FEUSP Licentiateship; and to consider thelimits and possibilities of a Didactics courseprogram for teacher education.

In view of those objectives, the maincategory that guided the research became theactivity carried out by teachers in publicschools and, within that activity, how theprocess of construction of their know-howtakes place.

We understand that the teacher activityconnected with the widest education action insociety is teaching. As it is currentlyunderstood, it is defined as a practical activity.The teacher under education prepares him/herself to accomplish the practical tasks ofbeing a teacher. This indicates that it is not thecase of educating him/her as a duplicator ofdominant practical models, but as someonecapable of carrying out the material activity totransform the natural and social human world.One should, therefore, investigate whatcontribution Didactics can give to sucheducation.

Placing teacher activity as the object ofour research required understanding it in itsrelations with historically situated socialpractice. Thus, the study of the everydayteacher activity of our former students involvedexamining the wider social determinations, aswell as those of the work organization atschools.

From such considerations we askedourselves “to what extent the pedagogical-

4. The research was carried out in the 1995-1998 period. Its team wascomposed by Maria de Fátima Barbosa Abdalla, Maria do Socorro LucenaLima (PhD students) e Jany Elisabeth Pereira, who holds a Licentiateship inHistory and did the Didactics course in the second semester of 1996.

administrative organization of schools favorsgood teacher activity?”

Three research categories emerged fromtheoretical and fieldwork studies: how does theprocess of construction of the teacher know-how (teaching) happen inside the activity ofconcretely situated teachers at (two São PauloState) public schools; how does the workorganization at school (or the administrative,bureaucratic environs of the classroom) deter-mine that construction; how do teachersposition themselves vis-à-vis the knowledge ofcontemporary society (and how do they dealwith it in the teaching activity at school),thereby constructing their own identities.

From a methodological point of view, afundamental question emerged from thisresearch: would this study, which we initiallycalled interpretive-practical, be an actionresearch?

The objective was not that of evaluatingteachers, but to assess how they would mobi-lize their knowledges to make decisions atschool and in the classroom, how would theymake use of the teacher condition in therelationship with students to answer thequestions posed by the various situations withwhich they would have to deal. We restrictedourselves to one Geography teacher and onePortuguese teacher, both former students of ourDidactics course, and working in differentpublic schools from the outskirts of São PauloCity. We recorded videos and voice tapes; wemade use of life histories, interviews,observations, and semi-structured and openquestionnaires.

Seeing that the researchers did notrestrict themselves to collecting data, but alsomade reflections, oriented teachers wheneverthey asked them to, and also broughttheoretical and instrumental elements,constituting with the teachers a smallcommunity of analysis and reflection, wouldthis be an intervention research? Would this bean action research?

We had it clear from the outset that the

researchers would not act to evaluate teachers’practices based on external criteria, andsupposedly offer them suggestions. However,we also saw clearly that it was not a matter ofsimply observing and recording. What wouldthen be the research attitude that wouldexpress the objectives of the study whilstguaranteeing the space for reflection soughtby researchers and teachers? Jany Pereira’sreflection is enlightening:

From the perception of the way the teacherworks on the issues of the teaching-learningrelation, researchers should help him toreflect upon his own practice, toproblematize situations, reflecting on whyhe had made a given decision, therebyencouraging the teacher to incorporate hisown knowledge, what he is learning,because as the teacher rethinks and reflectsupon his own practice, he becomes subjectand object of the process experienced byhim. (Pereira, 1997)

After reviewing the methodology ofaction research, we concluded that theresearchers acted as participant-observers, oneof the traces of that methodological approach.That fact allowed researcher Maria de FátimaAbdalla (a PhD Student) to express herself inthe following terms:

The question of how the process ofconstruction of the teacher know-how takesplace, alongside the reflection on teachereducation, constituted the basis for thethemes experienced by our research group:researchers and researched, subjects andagents of a social practice in motion. Themesthat, according to Kincheloe (1997, p. 197),unveil the need of thinking about our thinking,because we explore our own construction ofour conscience, our self-production, but aboveall reveal the need to share our thoughts toallow us to engage in a more effective, moreeducative pedagogical practice.

(…) After all, what research is this? We askourselves this question many times in anattempt to make it intelligible, interpretableand comprehensible. Intelligible to theextent that we could decode it; interpretablewhen we could exercise a critical attitudewhen faced with given situations and/orsituations that determine the pedagogicalpractice; and comprehensible when weproblematized and discussed the associatedproblems within the context of the differentsituations that were shared, in the exchangeof our experiences. (Abdalla, 1997)

When he was taking part in one of ourmeetings, Silas5, one of the teachers in thestudy, said that Fátima had helped him with hisclasses: I had always been worried about that,but I never had the habit of recording, ofsystematize the classes; Fátima did a report,she recorded some of my classes and thathelped me to create the habit of systematizingsome of my classes. From that moment on, hebegan to record some of his classes, helped bystudents: (…) and there’s always a student whowants to put it on video, something that evenhelps later to discuss with them whathappened in the classroom. The research of thepractice thus became a modality of in-contextteacher professional development.

(…) We understood the research when, inre-reading the most significant moments,the multiples experiences of the teacherswith respect to the organized body ofknowledge about the teaching material tobe developed revealed themselves, themanner and coherence with which it waspresented and/or built from the variousinteractive moments, the way in which theteacher tried to establish relations betweentext/content and context, bringing forthpedagogical situations and/ormethodological questions that invitedstudents to the reflection, to the critique,to the difference of opinions, to

uncertainties, deconstructing concepts,habits and attitudes, and re-constructingthem.(…) Thus, the research in such contextconfigured itself as a cognitive principle ofcomprehension of the reality and as aformative principle in teaching (cf. Pimenta,1997, p. 51). A cognitive and formativeprinciple, for it encourages the collectiveconstruction of knowledges, attachesimportance to the processes of reflection inaction, of reflection upon the action, andreflection on the reflection in action (Schön,1987, p. 32), in search of alternativescommitted to the social practice; aprinciple that reveals selection, life choice,a space for construction, for the exchangeof experiences, of desire and of becoming.(Abdalla, 1997).

Faced with the methodological problemsraised by the study, the PhD student andresearcher Maria Socorro Lucena Lima broughtin references that helped us to establish thestudy as action research. Let us see a testimonyby Patrícia6:

After the meeting and Socorro’s visits Istarted to observe my ‘pedagogical doing’with a more critical and constructive look. Ibegan to dedicate more time to preparingclasses and analyzing the ‘why’ of some ofmy attitudes in certain situations. That is, Ibegan to associate my pedagogical doingwith my school and personal lives. (Lima,1997)By taking place within the school context,and more specifically in the classroom,action research can constitute apedagogical strategy, a space forconscientization, analysis and critique (…).Teachers that experience this mode ofresearch have the possibility to reflect on

5. His real name, used here with his permission.6. See previous footnote.

their own practices, their condition asworkers, as well as the limits andpossibilities of their work. The five requisi-tes of the action research presented byKincheloe 1997 deal clearly with theimportant tasks it intends to perform,namely: to have methods and politicalquestions; to relate values andcommitments; awareness of theconstruction of the profession; to identifyaspects of dominant nature that undermineour efforts; and the improvement of theteaching profession. When it leads to theorganization of information, interpretingthem, action research opens up spaces forthe critical production of knowledge and,in this process, makes us think about ourown way of seeing and interpreting reality.(…) Thus, the pedagogical praxis of theteachers involved in the study, startingfrom the teaching action itself, reflected,theoretically supported, and systematizedconstitutes a modality of continuingeducation with far-reaching transformingand emancipative possibilities (Lima, 1997).

Two features of action research madethemselves clearly felt along this study: self-education and teacher praxis situated in thewider contexts of the organization of schoolsand of the communities around them. We havethus concluded that we have carried out anaction research with the followingcharacteristics: encouragement to teachersinitiatives; reflection upon the practice; andinclusion of the teachers researched in theresearch process. The latter took place throughprocedures of analysis of the goals and ofqualitative research methodology, through theselection and sharing of texts, and through theredefinition of the research directions.

Those features come close to thosepointed out by Kincheloe: to build aprofessional conscience; to open up space forthe critical production of knowledge; toconduct to the organization of information,

interpreting them; to allow the association ofvalues and commitments; and to allow changesin the everyday actions of teachers in theclassroom.

It can be then concluded that actionresearch was indeed the modality of researchpracticed in the present study. Its differenceswith respect to other modes can also be seen:the observation that teachers that go througha process of action research have the possibilityto reflect upon their own practices, theircondition as workers, as well as upon the limitsand possibilities of their work. In this sense, thestudy constitutes a pedagogical strategy ofconscientization, analysis and critique, and italso proposes, from the reflection afforded bythe dialogue with the observers-researchers andby the involvement in the discussions with theresearch team, changes in their practices, ofwhich the teachers are themselves the authors.

A few concerns did, however, remain. Inthe research process – initiated from aproblematization defined by the researcherwho coordinated the group, in which the PhDstudents and research assistant were includedas participant researchers, and the schoolteachers, chosen by us, agreed to take part asresearched – researchers and researchedgradually constituted a group of analysis andreflection. On the other hand, the scope andtime boundaries of the study did not includethe wider contexts, beyond the classroom. Inthe case of school organization, only theaspects that manifested themselves explicitly inthe classroom were considered. The aspects ofthe educational policies that appeared only inlimited contexts, and were not regarded by theteachers as influential in their practices, werenot considered. In the case of the communityof students, only the general socio-economicalparameters were investigated. We havetherefore concluded that the knowledgeproduced by the study, as pointed out in theprevious paragraph, can be generalized tosituations that take the classroom as theirobject of study. They must, however, be

amplified by the analysis of wider contextualfactors and by the observation of effectivetransformations in the students‘ learning. Thatwould allow us to put into practice thecharacteristic of public and politicalcommitment of action research, such as definedby Kincheloe, 1997.

Those concerns were dealt with in thestudy Qualification of the Public Teaching andTeacher Education, which we now analyze.

Of research in collaborationand of action research

The study Qualification of the PublicTeaching and Teacher Education7 was carriedout from 1996 to 2000. Its objective was toanalyze the changes in the pedagogicalpractices and theorizations of the school team(teachers and coordinators) in a process ofpedagogical intervention that placed stress onthe collective construction of knowledges at theworkplace (a state public school). It was part ofthe research trend that encourages continuingeducation as professional and institutionaldevelopment, according to the theoretical viewput forward by Fusari, 1988, and more recentlyby Nóvoa, 1992, which regards the teacher asa critical-reflective professional (cf. Contreras,1997).

Such perspective has revealed itselffertile for the studies whose focus is one ofcollaborating in the processes of teacheridentitary construction, understanding that theexercise of teaching is not limited to theapplication of previously established modelsbut, on the contrary, is constructed in thepractice of historically situated subjects-teachers. Thus, a formative process wouldmobilize knowledges from the theory ofeducation necessary to the understanding ofthe teaching practice, capable of developing inteachers competencies and abilities to allowthem to investigate their own teaching actions,in a continuing process of construction of newknowledges.

We understand that a professionalidentity is built from the social signification ofthe profession; from the constant revision ofthe social meanings of the profession; from therevision of traditions. However, it is also builtfrom the reaffirmation of culturally consecratedpractices that remain meaningful. Practices thatresist to innovation because they are pregnantwith knowledges valid for the needs of reality,of the confrontation between theory andpractices, of the systematic analysis of practicesin the light of existing theories, of theconstruction of new theories. It is also builtfrom the meaning each teacher attaches, asactor and author, to the everyday teachingactivity based on his values, his presence in theworld, his life history, his representations, hisknowledges, his wishes and pains, on themeaning that being a teacher has in his life, aswell as from his network of relationships withother teachers in the schools, worker’s unionsand other groups.

For that reason, it is important to mobi-lize the knowledges of experience, thepedagogical knowledges and the scientificknowledges as constitutive of teaching in theprocesses of construction of teachers’ identities.

The research Qualification of the PublicTeaching and Teacher Education was initiallydefined as a collaborative research,understanding that such a modality of researchhas as its objective to foster in schools a cultureof analysis of the practices, with a view to allowtheir teachers, helped by university teachers, totransform their actions and the institutional

7. Developed under the Special Program for the Support to Applied Researchon Public Teaching in the State of São Paulo, the project was sponsored byFAPESP. The research team was composed, in addition to ScientificApprenticeship, Master and PhD students, by Drs. Selma Garrido Pimenta(coordinator), Elsa Garrido, Manoel Oriosvaldo de Moura, Maria Felismindade Resende e Fusari, and Heloísa Dupas Penteado from the Faculty ofEducation of the University of São Paulo. From the state Secondary Schoolfor Teacher Education “Prof. Ayres de Moura” (later renamed “Alípio deBarros”), at which the project took place, 24 teachers on average volunteeredto participate during the four-year study, supported by a training scholarshipfrom the sponsoring agency. The data for the analysis of this study arecontained in the Final Report of the Research Qualification of the PublicTeaching and Teacher Education. Garrido, E; Moura, M; Penteado, H; e Pi-menta, S. FE-USP – FAPESP. 2001, particularly in its section III.

practices (cf. Zeichner, 1993). In this sense, thestudy can be conceived as an approachconducive to the professional development ofteachers. It had its beginnings in a requestmade by some teachers from the Special Centerfor Teacher Education “Prof. Ayres de Moura”8

to researchers from the Faculty of Education ofthe University of São Paulo, of whom some ofthem had been students when they did theirundergraduate course in Pedagogy. Theresearchers themselves were already involved instudies with schools, for they saw theircommitment to the university as a commitmentwith the production of knowledge for theimprovement of the public education systems.

The research problem was then to verifyto what extent a collaborative research canencourage processes of construction of groupidentities, placing the subjects in a position ofanalyzing and changing their teaching practicesand the institutional culture, strengtheningthem personally and professionally to createcollective pedagogical projects targeted at thequalitative improvement of the students’formative process.

The study started then with a gamble:that of the possibility and ethical need for theemancipative articulation between researcherand researched subjects, establishing in thescientific activity a commitment with thefertilization of theories and actions that gavesupport to the teachers’ praxis, towards thetransformation of the conditions of teachingand learning, through the transformation of themeaning they would confer to the institutionalpractices (cf. Garrido; Moura; Penteado; Pimen-ta, 2000).

It started from two basic assumptions.The first, about the role of researchers in thestudy, is that they should delve into the realityto be studied and should integrate themselvesinto the modes of production of the existenceof reality created by the subjects to beinvestigated. The second assumption deals withthe role of teachers which, throughcollaborative reflection, should become capable

of problematizing, analyzing and understandingtheir own practices, of producing meaning andknowledges that would guide the process oftransformation of school practices, engenderingchanges in the school culture, creatingcommunities of analysis and investigation,personal growth, professional commitment andparticipative and democratic organizationalpractices. It therefore regards as fair that thosesubjects should participate in the researchers’observations, interfere in their conclusions,incorporate their outlook, sharing andcontributing to the quality of the knowledgeproduced in the process, constitutingthemselves as researchers and authors of thechanges needed in the schools.

Carried out over a period of four years,the study had as its objectives: to encouragechanges in the organizational culture; toanalyze the processes of construction of thepedagogical knowledges by the school team;to articulate the different types of institutionsinvolved in teacher education; to offer elementsfor the public policies for teacher education.The methodology employed was initiallyconceived as that of a collaborative research(Zeichner, 1993). During the process itconfigured itself as a critical-collaborativeaction research (Thiollent, 1994; Kincheloe,1997).

Agreeing with Zeichner, 1998, p. 223 that“the collaborative research is an important pathto overcome the division between academicsand school teachers, but it is not just anycollaborative research that will do that9”, it wasimportant for us to configure the study as acritical action research (Kincheloe, 1998, p. 180).

8.8.8.8.8. This was a CEFAM, a secondary school dedicated specifically to theeducation of pre-school and primary school teachers. A project of thegovernment of the State of São Paulo, the CEFAMs were schools with featuresthat distinguished them from other schools: single shift, scholarships tostudents, definition of the group of teachers based on characteristicsassociated with the teacher education project, among others. The State ofSão Paulo had a group of 52 CEFAMs from their creation in 1986 until theirextinction in 2002.9.9.9.9.9. Here and elsewhere in this article, citations are our translations from thePortuguese edition of the works.

In this sense, it stands for a policy of valuationand personal and professional development ofteachers and school institutions, since it assumesworking conditions conducive of the teachers’continuing education.

Of the main challenges of collaborativeresearch is the establishment of bonds betweenuniversity researchers and school teachers. Duringthe first two years of the research in this particularschool, we tried to overcome teachers’ misgivingsand establish a true partnership with them,helping them to carry out action projects. Forthat, we started from their concerns, stronglyassociated to the everyday practices, whichemerged from their needs. We avoided ‘starting’the research by bringing texts to be read by theteachers, something that could reinforce the olddictum that ‘in practice the theory is different’. Itwas also necessary to overcome the representationthat the academics (particularly those from USP,one of the most highly regarded universities ofthe country) would bring with them – or wouldintend to – the answers or recipes for whatteachers should do to solve their problems. At thistime, the form and direction we gave to theproject, to its establishment and to the actions setin motion starting from the questions thatemerged from its context – school and otherwise– were revealing of the theories of which weresearchers are carriers.

Once the partnership was established andthe teachers’ trust was gained, we began toprioritize the systematic dialogue about the dailyissues, the problems, the dilemmas and difficultieswithin the classroom (in small groups) and withinthe school institution, about the pupils, theteacher career, the public policies (in groups withall involved, including the school principal). Inthese meetings questions emerged whose analysis,with the collaboration of films and text, allowedthe problematizations. The group engaged instudies. Texts were selected, questions wereproposed, texts were written and dialogues werecarried out with the authors, students wereinvolved (the future teachers) and the researchissues were systematized around a few lines:

• the social purposes of school and education;what to educate teachers for: the teachingprofession in contemporary society; what teacherI am/want to be: the knowledge, the savoir-faire,knowing how to be a teacher. What is it to be ateacher? How did I get here? Why and how do Iremain? What do I intend for the future? Ethicalcompetence and political commitment: what isethical at school, and especially in this school?Relations at school: democracy? “Democratitis”?The commitment to teaching. The associationsof the school with the education system andwith higher bodies; the system’s authoritarianismand the space for school’s autonomy; collectivework: what binds us together, what motivates usto be here, what are our individual projects vis-à-vis our being teachers? And the grouptensions: from competition, authoritarianism andindividualism when sharing experiences, whensearching 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 forgauging a teacher-researcher? Is it possible tobe a teacher-researcher in the current workconditions? Are we?

The second set of themes about thenature of the research and each one’s conditionsin it emerged as the group began to realize thatthe research we were carrying out was differentfrom the traditional study in which the universityresearchers go to the schools to collect data andthen proceed to interpret them without theparticipation of the school professionals.Although they valued our procedures, the schoolprofessionals sometimes expected us to presentsolutions to their problems and difficulties.

The choice from the beginning of theproject to utilize a qualitative research approachengendered at first some perplexities in the groupof teachers, when they asked themselves whatkind of research was this, so different from thetraditional concept of research in which “theacademics arrived at school, observed, gathereddata and information, asked questions, and then

left, leaving at most a few recipes for teachers’actions and usually the feeling that all they did wassuspicious and all they said was incomprehensibleto us” (testimony). The uneasiness then remained:what kind of research are we doing? Are weteachers-researchers? If we are, how do we differfrom university researchers? They have bettersalaries; they have the obligation to produceresearch. If they do research, they can solvequestions that we cannot. But if they are going tosolve our problems, they are going to disparageour work!?

Once such perception had been overcome,and the partnership relations had been established,there remained the task of clarifying ourunderstanding of what was the research we werecarrying out. For that, it was important to recoverthe objectives of the Project10.

Collaborative action research

To make explicit the collaborative actionresearch from the study carried out we wentback to its objectives and fieldwork data andproceeded to a cross study between thecharacteristics of collaborative research aspresented by Zeichner, 1998 and thecontributions of Thiollent, 1994 when thecharacteristics, the objectives, and aspects ofaction research are introduced. We also reliedon external evaluation of this study11.

Indeed, the objectives of the researchQualification of the Public Teaching and TeacherEducation were to articulate the professionaldevelopment of the teachers involved; toanalyze the processes of construction of thepedagogical knowledges by the school team; tostimulate changes in the school organizationalculture; to contribute to public policies ofteachers’ continuing education. It assumed thatevery teacher is capable of producingknowledge on teaching. We expected, as a resultfrom the collaborative action of the research,pedagogical changes that engendered thevaluation of work, personal growth, professionalcommitment, development of a culture of

analysis and of participative organizationalpractices.

The methodological paths followed alloweda negotiated common experience throughout theprocess, and can be summarized as follows:

• Organization of four subgroups divided byareas of interest, with weekly meetings;• Fortnightly collective meetings at theschool with the participation of everyone;• Appointment of two teachers to coordinatethe project at the school, selected among theparticipating teachers;• Researching with (and not about) the teachers;valuation of common decisions and collectiveprojects; reflection about the practice:problematization, sharing with peers, proposalsfor innovations.• Creating and developing of research projectsby the teachers12: formulating questions forinvestigation; experimenting innovations (testinghypotheses); gathering data; documenting;

10. Texts that resulted from this study are: Pimenta; Garrido; Moura: Apesquisa colaborativa na escola como abordagem facilitadora para o de-senvolvimento da profissão de professor, in Marin, A. (2000); Collaborativeresearch as an approach to foster teacher development, teacher´sproduction of knowledge and changes in School Practices, in EducationalAction Research Journal, (2001); and La recherche em collaboration ausein de l´école: une manière de faciliter lê développment du métierd´ensegnant Nouveaux espaces de développement professionnel etorganisationnel, In Rymond D. 2001.11. Carried out through a seminar Universidade e Escola: PesquisaColaborativa Para Melhoria Do Ensino Público - Universidade – Fapesp –Escola Pública. FEUSP. 1999, organized by groups from other universitiesthat composed the following projects within FAPESP’s Improvement ofPublic Teaching program: Mizukami et al. Desenvolvimento Profissionalda Docência: analisando experiências de ensino e aprendizagem, UFSCar;Leite et al. Melhoria do ensino público: a formação de professores no cursonormal, UNESP/ Presidente Prudente; Pimenta et al. Pesquisa colaborativana escola como abordagem facilitadora para o desenvolvimento da profis-são do professor, USP; Marin et al. Desenvolvimento Profissional Docentee Transformações na Escola: objetivos, procedimentos metodológicos, al-guns resultados e pontos que podem favorecer alteração nas políticaspúblicas em educação, UNESP/Araraquara; Russo et al. Revisitando al-guns aspectos da parceria desenvolvida entre a universidade e duas esco-las da rede pública de ensino de Bragança Paulista, USF; Almeida et al.Pesquisa em Parceria – EE Barão Geraldo de Rezende e UniversidadeEstadual de Campinas: cenário, atores, enredo e ações, UNICAMP; Compianiet al. Cotidianidade e produção de conhecimento. Coord.: Prof. Dr. MansurLutfi, USP; Geociências e a formação continuada de professores em exer-cício no ensino fundamental: reflexões e resultados parciais, UNICAMP.The seminar had as external analysts Drs. Vicente Benedito from theUniversity of Barcelona, and Marli André from the Pontifical CatholicUniversity of São Paulo.

reading auxiliary material; carrying out asystematic analysis and making the research workpublicly available (creation and publication ofBulletins for the whole community, writing ofindividual and group texts, and presentations inscientific meetings and conferences). At thisstage the teachers began to see themselves asauthors, resulting in the increase of self-esteemand professional qualification, and completeengagement in the project.

With the issues raised by Zeichner, 1998,text where collaborative research is spelled out, wecarried out a work of retrospective reflection aboutthe first two years of the project, asking teachersto establish a dialogue between, on one hand, theobjectives, assumptions, the methodology of theproject, and the experiences so far, and, on theother, the questions put forward by the author.Questions that guided the discussion, and thetestimonies from the teachers are as follows:

1. What are the meaning and the relevance ofthe research? It allowed “to expand theknowledge and the vision of the practice; toquestion the practice and the actions; to makethe teacher more demanding with himself, withstudents and with colleagues. It was thatpractice that ‘matched’ the theory (i.e. thepracticed validating and questioning thetheory). We became authors”.2. Is there collaboration between teachers(those from the school and those from theFEUSP), and between teachers at school? “Atfirst we wanted the (USP) teachers toparticipate in our practices; today we realizethat we are partners. Today we build ourpractice playing different roles; a new valuationof the roles of the whole group. Notrecognizing the individual paces and stylesgenerates conflict: how do we work on thatwithin the group? It is important to distinguish‘respect for the other’ from ‘recognizing theother’. In the latter perspective there is anattitude of incorporating, of doing together.There is genuine collaboration”.

3. The project has offered elements for theindividual projects and those of thesubgroups?13 “Yes, since the informationexpands our perception of the practices; alsoimportant is the information and exchangebetween the subgroups”.

By analyzing the movement of thecollaborative research in this school it was alsopossible to configure it as an action research,from its characteristics, objectives, and aspects,such as defined by Thiollent, 1994.

About the characteristics of actionresearch, we transcribe below excerpts from thetext Action Research and the ‘Qualification ofthe Public Teaching and Teacher Education’Project, prepared by the teachers coordinatorsof the Project at the CEFAM, based on thefieldwork data:

a) Continuing intervention in the systemresearched – How our group is intervening initself?We noticed that changes in the developmentof the Project are in response to needs and to

12. The teachers created, developed and presented (in meetings) smallresearch projects and intervention projects. Prominent among the researchprojects were: a research project with former students to assess the meritsof the education received; assessment of the difficulties brought by innovationto administrative sectors and the involvement of representatives from thehierarchy with the projects; investigation into the reasons that led colleaguesto leave the project or not to engage in it (learn their representations withrespect to innovative practices at school); the use of new communicationand information technologies among teachers and students of the CEFAM;to what extent the equipments made available to the school by the fundingagency and the information technology courses (within the scope of theproject) were permeating the institutional practices; a study of the life historyof the members of the project. Among the intervention projects we have:project of an apprenticeship period created conjointly by the CEFAM teachersand teachers from the primary schools (where the apprenticeships wouldbe developed); project of interdisciplinary action among the different disci-plines of pedagogical education, with teaching workshops; a study on thepedagogical project and the school’s identity (involving the CEFAM, Funda-mental Education and ‘suppletive’ – a substitute education – courses); actionsin the other schools at which the teachers worked.13. The dynamics of the research included fortnightly meetings with allparticipants and the meeting of the subgroups, organized according to thetheme of research of the university teachers and the interests and demandsfrom the CEFAM teachers. Four subgroups were then constituted: Art andCommunication; Mathematical Education; Apprenticeships, and the‘C.R.I.ação’ (Creation, in Portuguese) group – Citizenship, Reflection,Interdisciplinarity – action.

the resolution of everyday problems thatemerged, which, after being considered andreflected upon, steered the research. Forexample:

• the arrival of the USP teachers – Theconstruction of a partnership;• creation of the subgroups;• coordination of the Project at the schoolbeing defined according to the needs of theresearch group;• systematization of the reflections of thegroup and subgroups;• discussion and evaluation of activities,supplementary reading, re-elaboration ofknowledges, preparation and discussion ofthe planning, of the sharing of experiences;• joint reflection and reading changing orconfirming our teaching action;• reflections that allow the understanding ofthe level of our education, which will impactdirectly on the education of our students,future teachers;• from the questions asked and theassociation of people a greater interactionbetween the knowledges specific to eachgroup (university and school) was achieved;• the interaction between the teams causes achange in the school system through theteachers’ practice and the creation of newknowledges; and through the search forimprovement and theoretical enhancement atthe university (teachers from the schoolbegan to take part in courses and seminar atUSP);• our classes became more open to theparticipation of students, and more flexible;we began to create together plans, planning,and mini-projects for apprenticeship,articulating the education school and thefieldwork school;• through the construction of our history weunderstand that there are no ready answers toour questions, but those can and should beconstructed from reflective practice at school;• the appearance of a culture of analysis;

change in the attitude of teachers, who nowbegin to investigate their own practice tounderstand students’ behavior and difficulties;• dimension of the teaching profession (toknow, to know how to be, to know how todo, and to know how to do well);• the beginnings of autonomous reflectionupon the action;• teachers’ concern to participate indiscussions of a political-educational nature;• improvement and extension of the use ofpedagogical resources;• seeing ourselves as researchers, rethinking,evaluating our practice and using thescientific method;• breaking taboos, viz., destroying the imagethat teachers from the university hold thepower of knowledge, and understanding thelatter as resulting from collective work andpartnership;• from the records of the activities carried outat school we realized that our work in theclassroom can be shared, and the reflectionupon it can take place in group;• creation of specific projects with studentsand former students in the subgroups;• participation of the teachers from USP inthe Culture Week (1998);• new signification of the concept ofapprenticeship, seeing it as a space for reflectionabout teaching.

b) Involvement of the subjects in the research.In this item we realized that there is:

• commitment to schedules and meetings ofgroups and subgroups;• reading of the texts;• the need to share the activities carried outby teachers in the respective subgroups;• commitment by the academic researchers toattach meaning and relevance to the researchduring meetings;• the sharing of experiences by opening clas-ses to other teachers;• the search for theoretical enhancement by

teachers (courses, talks, seminars, even duringtheir vacations);• teachers’ availability to the research evenoutside their working hours;• the concern to divulge the results of thestudy (ENDIPE, FAPESP Seminar, at school, atthe Education Regional Office;• joint reflection among peers during coffee,lunchtime, etc.;• valuation of decisions by the group;• concern with collecting material for thepreparation of classes;• concern with individual and group records;• contributions with relevant questions to thegroup discussions;• following up on decisions and actions takenby the group;• requests to the school principal and otherbodies of the system for materials andequipment necessary to the research;• care with the Project materials;• creation of newsletters;• development of research abilities, such astabulation and analysis of results.• In view of these results, one can see thatthe research is not neutral, that it interfereswith the school daily activities, and that itsresults are slow to come, but are targeted atthis community. The knowledge produced isapplied in the school itself.

c) Changes following action, from reflection.As far as this aspect is concerned, we observedthat we accomplished:

• organization of records and documentationof the teaching practice;• request for additional reading;• change of attitude towards the generalmeetings (more participative, and understandingthat solutions do not come ready, but must beconstructed there);• search for new forms of practiceimprovement;• use of new technologies in the classroom;• change of organization and in the work of

coordination;• transformation of the planning, with theparticipation of students;• higher demands on their own production(texts, classes, etc);• form of controlling materials and organizingthe collection of records;• transformation of attitudes and improvementin the level of group discussions.

The authors conclude the text with indicationsabout what advances should be made:

• creation of spaces for exchange, incentiveto interdisciplinarity, also in the fieldworkschools (availability for research);• interchange between CEFAMs for the reflectiveanalysis of the practice of apprenticeship,curriculum, planning;• activities for the integration betweenfieldwork school and teacher education school;• involvement of the community in thepedagogical projects — educating the teacher-citizen;• overcoming individual limits in the processof continuing education;• being conscious of each one’s responsibilityin a research involving a group of people;• bureaucracy at school (our time got shorter– time for meetings, planning activities toimprove the class, use of equipment);• the understanding of being a researcherand observer of your own actions. (Camargo;Moraes; Molina; Leite, 1999).

Recalling that the text above was preparedafter the first three years of the study, themajority of the needed advances pointed outwere achieved by the end of the project in 2000.

Regarding the objectives of actionresearch, still according to Thiollent, 1994, thefollowing aspects could be analyzed:

1. practical objective (or problem-solving):action research aims at contributing to sketcha solution of the central problem of the

research from the possible solutions andproposals for action that help the agents (oractors) in their activity of transformation ofthe situation;2. objective of knowledge (or of becomingconscious): action research gives access toinformation otherwise difficult to obtain and,in doing that, makes it possible to extend theknowledge about certain situations. Pertinentexamples from the research are: requests fromteachers; their representations and that ofstudents and of society about the teachingprofession, about the students, aboutpedagogical issues; their capacity for actionor mobilization, etc;According to the author the relation betweenthose two objectives is variable. Generallyspeaking, greater knowledge leads to a betterperformance of the action. However, in thecase of the present research, we observedthat the daily demands of the practice, rootedin government policies, often appeared aslimiting the time for knowledge. Researchershad then to take special care to keep the ba-lance between the practical objectives andthose knowledge-related during the study.3. objective of producing and socializingknowledge that will not only be useful to thecommunity directly involved in the study, butthat will allow a certain degree of generalization.This objective was present throughout theresearch process, perceived by the identificationof other CEFAMs, in the socialization meetings,of the issues and propositions made the teachersfrom the CEFAM “Ayres de Moura”. Also, in thetexts produced by the teachers involved andpresented in national scientific meetings, therewas a systematization of the knowledgegenerated from the fieldwork data, whichcontribute to the expansion of the field.Thiollent still points out the following aspectsthat give shape to the methodology of actionresearch:

• wide and explicit interaction between theresearchers and other people involved (here,

school teachers) in the situation researched;• from such interaction the definition ofpriorities in the problems to be studies, andin the solutions to be presented as concreteactions are made;• the objectives of the investigation are notthe people themselves, but the socialsituation and its problems, which are of adifferent nature;• the objective of action research consists insolving or, at least, clarifying the problems ofthe situation observed;• there is, during the process, a follow-up ofdecisions, actions, and of every intentionalactivity by the actors involved;• the research is not just a form of action(risk of activism): the aim is of expanding theresearchers’ knowledge or the level ofawareness of the people and groupsconsidered.

Examining these aspects with the groupand using them as categories of analysis of theprocess carried out up until then we concludedthat we were actually developing an actionresearch.

The Report of the external evaluation towhich we submitted the projects belonging toFAPESP’s Improvement of Teaching Program14

confirms the theoretical and methodologicalframework of collaborative action researchpresent in the projects, and develops ananalysis that extends the understanding of itsmeaning, of its potential and of its difficulties,pointing to the need to widen and deepentheoretical questions associated with thismodality of qualitative research.

• The majority of researches display features of aconstructive-collaborative model, which impliesthe processual definition of the elements thatconstitute the partnership between university andfieldwork school. They present as a feature theconduction of experiences that result in

14. See footnote 11.

products, where both the processes employedand products achieved – even when partial – areresearch data whose analysis continuously showsthe way ahead for the investigation.• Consequently, these researches havepredominantly a processual character, and theanalysis of the processes constitutes production ofknowledge about the problems investigated,pointing towards the importance (and difficulty) ofthe partial organization of research data, so that itcan constitute a more systematic production ofknowledge, and to make it possible to be sharedfrom different perspectives – and of the knowledgeabout the processes of teachers’ professionaldevelopment and learning at their workplace (…).• As a general synthesis it is a type of researchthat is not outlined a priori in detail and in acontrolled fashion, but that is constructedprocessually, guided by the problem underinvestigation, and as probable directions theanalyses offered by the partial data obtained,which can even redirect proceedings tounforeseen foci. Under this view, maintaining thetheoretical and methodological coherence isindispensable in terms of group alertness. One isdealing here with a constructive-collaborativemodel: strategies at the same time of action andof investigation conceived and developed alongthe research process, aiming at giving answers –even if partial – to the research question, andindispensable information for the makingdecisions with respect to the next steps incontinuing the project (…). The understanding ofthis kind of research as an open process: eachproject builds its own paths from the generalproblem and from specific questions related toits investigation (…)15.

Critical-collaborative actionresearch

Having configured, at last, thecollaborative action research in the process ofthe study Qualification of the Public Teaching,there remained still one issue: would this be acritical-collaborative action research?

Supported by Kincheloe, 1997, Franco,2004 presents the following considerationwhen analyzing what defines a collaborativeaction research as critical:

When the search for transformation isrequested by the reference group to the teamof researchers, the study has been classifiedas collaborative action research, where thefunction of the researcher will be of takingpart and making scientific a process ofchange previously started by the members ofthe group.

The research was carried out in responseto the request of a group of teachers from theschool, which faced complex, conflicting andunstable situations, situations that characterizethe teaching activity. The university researcherscarried out with the teachers and othermembers of the institution a collaborativeaction research whose purpose was of creatinga culture of analysis of the practices at school,with a view to its transformation by the teacherwith the help of university teachers.

Franco, continues:

If such transformation is perceived as necessarybased on the initial work of the researcher withthe group, as a consequence of a process thatvalues the cognitive construction of experiencesupported on collective critical reflection, with aview to the emancipation of the subjects, andfrom the conditions that the group feels asoppressive, then this research begins to assumethe character of being critical, and thus theclassification of critical action research has beenemployed.16

15. Report of the Seminar University and School: Collaborative Researchfor the Improvement of Public Teaching – University – Fapesp – PublicSchool. FEUSP. 1999.16. The author states that not every collaborative action research isnecessarily critical. If, on the contrary, the transformation is previouslyplanned, without the participation of the subjects, and only the researcherwill follow the effects and will evaluate the results of its application, thisresearch loses the quality of being a critical action research, in which caseit can be named strategic action research (Franco, 2005).

The study started from the assumptionthat teachers are capable of developing amethod for the problematization, analysis andinvestigation of the practical reality of teaching,grounded on their previous experiences, theirinitial education, other people’s experiences inthe school context, and on the existing theoriesto find solutions for the demands that practiceplaces upon them, and thence produceknowledge. The development of this methoddoes not happen spontaneously. It requirescollaboration. Thus, the methodology ofcollaborative action research imposed itself asthe more adequate.

One of the leading factors that gatheredthe team of university researchers around theproposition and conduction of the research wasthe commitment to carry out a study in a publicschool, and such that the study had as itscharacteristic to be conducted with the teachers(and not just about them), and also that it wascarried out with the school community, involvingteachers, principals and coordinators. That is sobecause our assumption is that one of the mostvaluable kinds of continuing education is the onethat takes the school contexts as objects ofanalysis. This favors the theory-practice relation,since in traditional modes of continuingeducation, such as courses and various training,the mediation between those modalities and theschool contexts has not been established,resulting in an investment targeted more at theprofessionalization of the teacher and less at thechanges of institutional practices necessary forthe improvement of the results of schooling.

The choice of configuring the research inthe school space unveiled the complete probleminvolving the school as an organization within agiven system (in this case, the state public system),pointing towards important questions related topublic and governmental education policies.

(…) The condition for being a critical actionresearch is diving into the praxis of the socialgroup under study, whence are extracted thelatent perspectives, the hidden, the unfamiliar

that sustains the practices, and the changeswill be negotiated and engendered in thecollective. In this sense, collaborative actionresearches often take on the character ofcriticality. (Franco, 2004)

To Kincheloe (1997),

(…) the critical action research does notintend to just understand or describe theworld of practice, but to transform it; (…) itis always conceived in relation to thepractice – it exists to improve the practice.Critical action researchers try to uncoverthose aspects of the dominant social orderthat undermine our efforts for emancipativegoals. (p. 179).

Franco, 2005 carries on:

Critical action research considers the voiceof the subject, his perspective, his sense,but not just for the records and laterinterpretation by the researcher, the voice ofthe subject will be part of the fabric of theresearch methodology. In this case themethodology does not happen through thesteps of a method, but is organized in therelevant situations emerging from theprocess. Hence the emphasis on theformative character of this modality ofstudy, for the subject must be conscious ofthe transformations that take place in himand in the process. It is also because of thisthat such methodology assumes anemancipative character, since through theconscious participation the research subjectshave the opportunity to free themselves frommyths and prejudices that organize theirresistance to change, and reorganize theirself-images as historical subjects.

The methodology of collaborative actionresearch allowed this involvement. It consideredissues related to the process of interactionbetween the group of university researchers

and the school team (nature and overcomingof conflicts); to the nature of reflection and tothe knowledge that teachers engendered oftheir practices; to the process and rhythm ofchanges. Through collaborative reflection theteachers became capable of producing meaningand knowledge that allowed them to guide theprocess of transformation of school practices,bringing about changes in the school culture,creating a community of analysis andinvestigation, personal growth, professionalcommitment and democratic and emancipativeorganizational practices.

The dialogue between the authorsreferred to above and the aspects of theresearch makes it possible to identify it as acritical-collaborative action research.

Contributions of critical-collaborative action researchto teacher education

In the 1990s the literature on theeducation of reflective teachers shifted from aperspective excessively centered in themethodological and curriculum aspects to aview that considers the school contexts. Schoolorganizations produce an internal culture oftheir own and that express the values andbeliefs shared by the members of theorganization. They are not just propagators, butalso producers of social practices, of values, ofbeliefs and knowledges, fueled by the effort ofsearching for new solutions to the problemsexperienced.

The valuation of the contextualdimensions shifts the debate about teachereducation from a view excessively centered inthe classroom, in its disciplinary, methodologicaland curriculum aspects (Sacristán, 1983; Baird,1987; Porlán, 1987), to a more complexperspective that considers new dimensions.

According to Zeichner (1993), theeducation always involves mobilizing variousknowledges: knowledges of a reflective practice,knowledges from a specialized theory,

knowledges from a pedagogical militancy (Pi-menta, 1997). According to Nóvoa (1992), theprocess of critical-reflective education impliesproducing the teacher’s life (personaldevelopment), producing the teaching profession(professional development), and producing theschool (organizational development).

Understood as such, the educationconstitutes not just a process of professionalimprovement, but also a process oftransformation of the school culture, in whichnew participative and democratic managementpractices are implemented and consolidated. Inthis sense, the education of reflective teachersconstitutes an emancipative pedagogical project(cf. Kincheloe, 1997; Pimenta 1998 e 1999).

Such proposal of transforming the schoolinto a critical community faced obstacles to itsfulfillment in the case of the Qualification of thePublic Teaching and Teacher Education study.The obstacles were related to attitudes ofresistance to change, to the bureaucratization ofthe education system, to the hierarchical andprofoundly authoritarian structure of the school,and to the fragility of the professional statute ofthe teachers. Both from the point of view of jobinstability, of precarious working conditions thatare more conducive of individual than ofcollective work, of a fragmentary and diffusepresence at school, and from the viewpoint oftheir low salaries pushing teachers to, wheneverpossible, work in other schools and/or activities.Nevertheless, despite their weight on the schoolteam researched, these aspects were offset bythe teachers’ commitment to their profession andjob, several times demonstrated during the fouryears of the study. Teachers resisted to the folliesof authoritarianism. They resisted proposingsolutions not always heard by the authorities.The research project was largely responsible forkeeping the flame of resistance alive byincreasing the teachers’ self-esteem, and bysupplying them with theoretical instruments fortheir analyses and proposals.

To allow the turn away from individualreflection towards emancipative commitments,

educational research must provide thoseinvolved in the action with the instruments forthe critical analysis of the real. As Franco(2000, p. 13) suggests:

In order to be effective, reflective practice,as a political-pedagogical proposal, needsto assume dialectics as the form ofconstructing historical reality; it needsinstitutional spaces not excessivelybureaucratized (…) where collaborative,solidary, critical, intersubjective behavior isvalued (…); it needs to materialize in thenon-acceptance of ready truths (…);everyone involved in the reflective practicemust constitute investigators in the contextof practice.

Conclusions

Analyzing the results from the twoexperiences of critical-collaborative actionresearch discussed in the present text, it ispossible to add a few features that allow a betterconfiguration of the sense and meaning of thismethodological approach from a theoretical-methodological viewpoint and from a political-institutional viewpoint. As for the first:

a) the importance of carrying out critical-collaborative action researches involving theuniversity and schools has been confirmed asa fundamental requisite in the process ofprofessional development of teachers(investment in study, in the analysis ofpedagogical and institutional practices);b) in this process it is essential to start fromthe needs of the teachers involved, and thenevolve from them, consensually, towards theobjectives of the study;c) the critical-collaborative action researchproduces the result of changing practicesalong the process. This, however, takes timeto establish itself and mature;d) as teachers perceive themselves as capableof analyzing, reflecting and changing their

practices, they get stronger as persons and asprofessionals. Nevertheless, difficulties facedat the Alípio17 School to establish a collectivepedagogical project involving the Fundamen-tal Education and CEFAM courses reveal thefragility of the professional statute ofteachers from the public system: they are atthe mercy of the ‘authorities in charge’; itwas impossible to tackle the comings-and-goings of the school administration and ofthe central bodies;e) the researchers from the university cannot(and it is not up to them) change theeducation system, the hierarchy, the currentauthoritarianism. Their role is to strengthen theprofessionalism of the teachers through spellingout, recording, shared reflection, proposition,development, and analysis of participativeprojects from the needs of teachers and fromtheir perception by the researchers. With that,they make it possible to widen the decision andautonomy spaces of teachers against theimpositions placed upon them.

As far as public policies are concerned, thestudies, and particularly the second one, haveshowed, on the one hand, innumerable difficultiesto their realization at the school under study,specially with respect to the poor workingconditions of teachers: paid by the hour, and undertemporary contracts18. The collective andpedagogical time (HTPC) included in the workinghours assume a merely bureaucratic charactersince, in practice, with temporary teachers workingby the hour, the collective aspect becomes afiction, for it is not possible to make teachers hoursmatch under such diverse and unbalancedsituations. On the other hand, the perspective ofthe bureaucratic school makes itself felt in thestrongly authoritarian and hierarchical relationshipwith the Secretariat for Education, something that

17. Name of the school to which the CEFAM was moved by decision of theRegional Office after two years of the study.18. In the case of the study sponsored by FAPESP, teachers involvedreceived a scholarship. Several of them absorbed the cost of taking part inthe study, going beyond their institutional obligations.

was made evident in those four years by the abruptchange of location of the CEFAM to a differentborough, with severe consequences to students andteachers, as well as by the endless modifications tothe school’s managing staff, making it difficult toestablish shared projects. Also by the authoritarianpractice of defining projects at the central level,just from what those bodies believe to the goodfor the school. There is no room for pedagogicalproposals from the problems faced by the school.When the latter do propose something, thanks toteachers’ involvement, the material and humanresources support is nonexistent. Studies carriedout in other countries19 reveal that in the absenceof participation from the actors involved in thedefinition of innovations, particularly from teachersin the case of school institutions, those innovationsdo not materialize.

Despite this picture, the research showedthe gaps in which it worked and those that itmade wider. Many were the difficulties. However,the results could be identified: in the possibilitiesfor teachers’ continuing education – they had theirprofessional statute amplified; they developedresearch abilities; amplified the spaces of collectiveaction; they conducted in countless momentspractices of analysis of the school problems,creating in it a culture of analysis; they madeproposals and executed projects that resulted inimprovements of the classes; they establisheddemocratic practices of discussion with students;they attempted new teaching practices with realresults in the improvement of learning; theyexpanded their competencies with respect tospecific contents of the areas, and with respect topedagogical knowledges, and so many others.20

However, the study also made clear thedifficulties in establishing collectives. The long-standing competitive practice present in society,highly stimulated by the teaching system throughthe fragility of a precarious statute ofprofessionality, was one of the factors moststrongly felt as being difficult to overcome. Theestablished practice in the intermediate levels ofthe administration (Regional Office) of the policyof ‘favors’ and ‘accommodations’, which could beclearly seen in the attribution of classes, apart formthe authoritarianism and administrative centralismthat do not recognize competence as a criterionfor promotion, also hampers any proposal ofprojects and transformation of practices based onthe processes collectively discussed and assumed.

The fieldwork data of the researches carriedout here have confirmed results from otherqualitative studies conducted by researchers fromBrazil and from other countries, which havepointed to the enormous potential for thetransformation of the practices afforded bycollaborative action research. They have alsorevealed the importance of their results fertilizingthe development of transformations in public po-licies and, in particular, in the forms ofmanagement of education systems, valuing andsupporting initiatives and projects originated inschools, creating the structural conditions fortheir establishment as spaces for analysis andpolitical and pedagogical proposals, from acommon goal of effective democratization ofeducation, both quantitatively and qualitatively,with a view to a really inclusive school. Inclusivesocially, politically, economically, culturally,scientifically and technologically.

19. Cf. Nóvoa, 1992; Garcia, 1995; Charlot, 1995; Canário, 1997;Almeida, 1999.20. Apart from that, it is relevant to note that four teachers enrolled inMaster courses in public universities; others were selected in public examsfor tenure in the state and municipal school systems, and almost all of themare getting organized to carry on with their studies.

Bibliography

ABDALLA, Maria de Fátima B. Relatório de Pesquisa. Pesquisa A Didática na Licenciatura - um es-tudo dos efeitos de um programa de curso na atividade docente de alunos egressos da licenciatura.(Pimenta, S. G.). FEUSP. 1997.ALMEIDA, Maria Isabel de. O Sindicato como instância formadora dos professores: novas contribui-ções ao desenvolvimento profissional. Tese de doutorado. FEUSP. 1999.ALMEIDA, Maria I.; FRANCO, Maria A. R. S.; GUIMARÃES, Valter S.; PIMENTA, Selma Garrido. APesquisa Fecundando A Prática Docente: abordagens emancipatórias. Painel apresentado no XENDIPE. Rio de janeiro. 2000.CAMARGO, Rosa; MORAES, Ivonete; MOLINA, Rinaldo e LEITE, Doriscélia. Projeto de PesquisaQualificação do Ensino Público e Formação de Professores. In: III Relatório da Pesquisa Qualifica-ção do Ensino Público e Formação de Professores. FAPESP/FEUSP. 1999.CANÁRIO, Rui. O professor entre a reforma e a inovação. In: BICUDO, M. V. E SILVA JR. C. A. For-mação do educador e avaliação educacional – Organização da escola e do trabalho pedagógico.São Paulo, Ed. UNESP. 1999: 271-289.CHARLOT, Bernard et BEILLEROT, Jacky (orgs). La construction des politiques d´éducation et deformation. Paris. PUF. 1995.CONTRERAS, José. Autonomia de Professores. São Paulo. Cortez. 2002.CONTRERAS, José. La autonomia del profesorado. Madrid. Morata. 1997.ELLIOT, John. Recolocando a pesquisa-ação em seu lugar original e próprio. In: FIORENTINI, GERALDIE PEREIRA (orgs.). Cartografias do Trabalho Docente. Campinas. Mercado de Letras. 1998.FIORENTINI, GERALDI E PEREIRA (orgs.). Cartografias do Trabalho Docente. Campinas. Mercado deLetras. 1998.FIORENTINI, Dario et alii. Saberes docentes: um desafio para acadêmicos e práticos. In: Fiorentini;Geraldi e Pereira (orgs.). Cartografias do Trabalho Docente. Campinas. Mercado de Letras. 1998.FRANCO, Maria A. A pesquisa fecundando a prática docente: fundamentos epistemológicos. Traba-lho de Final de Curso. Doutorado FEUSP. 2000.FRANCO, M. A. A pedagogia da pesquisa – ação. 2005. (no prelo).GARCÍA, Carlos M. A formação de professores: novas perspectivas baseadas na investigação sobreo pensamento do professor. In: NÓVOA (org.). Os professores e sua formação. Lisboa. Dom Quixote.1992:51-76.GRAMSCI, A. Os intelectuais e a organização da cultura. Rio de Janeiro. Ed. Civilização Brasileira.1968.HABERMAS, J. Conhecimento e interesse. Rio de Janeiro. Ed. Paz e Terra. 1983KINCHELOE, Joe. A formação do professor como compromisso político – mapeando o pós-moder-no. Porto Alegre. Artes Médicas. 1997.LIMA, Maria Socorro L. Relatório de Campo. Pesquisa A Didática na Licenciatura - um estudo dosefeitos de um programa de curso na atividade docente de alunos egressos da licenciatura. (Pimen-ta, S. G.). FEUSP. 1997.MARIN, Alda J.(org). Educação Continuada. Campinas. Papirus. 2000.MARIN, Alda J. Investigando com os professores na Escola Pública. In. Anais do IX ENDIPE, v.1/1. 1998.MIZUKAMI, Maria da G. A reflexão sobre a ação pedagógica como estratégia de modificação daEscola Pública Elementar numa perspectiva de formação continuada no local de trabalho. In. Anaisdo IX ENDIPE, v.1/1. 1998.NÓVOA, A. Os professores e sua formação. Lisboa, Dom Quixote. 1992.

OLIVEIRA-FORMOSINHO, Júlia. Em direção a um modelo ecológico de supervisão de professores. InOliveira-Formosinho (org) A Supervisão na Formação de Professores. 1o. v. Porto. Porto Editora. 2002PEREIRA, Jany. Relatório de Campo. Pesquisa A Didática na Licenciatura – um estudo dos efeitosde um programa de curso na atividade docente de alunos egressos da licenciatura. (Pimenta, S. G.).FEUSP. 1997.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: umaexperiência de ensino e pesquisa. In: André, M. & Oliveira, M. R. (orgs.). Alternativas do Ensino deDidática. 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. Formação de professores – saberes da docência e identidade do professor. In:Pimenta, Selma G. (org.). Saberes pedagógicos e atividade docente. São Paulo. Cortez. 1999.PIMENTA, Selma G. A Didática na Licenciatura – um estudo dos efeitos de um programa de curso naatividade docente de alunos egressos da Licenciatura. Relatório de Pesquisa. FEUSP/CNPq. 1999b.PIMENTA Selma; GARRIDO, Elsa; MOURA, Manoel. A Pesquisa colaborativa na escola como abor-dagem facilitadora para o desenvolvimento da profissão de professor. In: Marin, A. (org) EducaçãoContinuada. Campinas. Papirus. 2000.PIMENTA Selma; GARRIDO, Elsa; MOURA, Manoel. Collaborative research as an approach to fosterteacher development, teacher´s production of knowledge and changes. In School Practices.Educational Action Research Journal. London. 2001.PIMENTA Selma; GARRIDO, Elsa; MOURA, Manoel. La recherche em collaboration au sein del´école: une manière de faciliter lê développment du métier d´ensegnant. Nouveaux espaces dedéveloppement professionnel et organisationnel. Rymond D. Éditions du CRP. Sherbrooke, 2001.PIMENTA, Selma G. & GHEDIN, Evandro (orgs). Professor reflexivo no brasil – gênese e crítica doconceito. São Paulo. Cortez Editora. 2002.III Relatório Científico da Pesquisa Qualificação do Ensino Público e Formação de Professores.FAPESP/FEUSP. 1999.Relatório Final da Pesquisa Qualificação do Ensino Público e Formação de Professores. Garrido, E;Moura, M; Penteado, H; e Pimenta, S. FEUSP - FAPESP. 2001).Relatório do Seminário Universidade e Escola: pesquisa colaborativa para a melhoria do ensinopúblico. FAPESP - Programa Ensino Público - USP-UNICAMP-UFSCar-UNESP-USF. 1999.SACRISTÁN, José G. Poderes instáveis em educação. Porto Alegre. ArtMed. 1999.THIOLLENT, M. Metodologia da Pesquisa-Ação. São Paulo. Cortez Ed. 1994.ZEICHNER, Kenneth. Para além da divisão entre professor-pesquisador e pesquisador-acadêmico. In:Fiorentini; Geraldi e Pereira (orgs.). Cartografias do Trabalho Docente. Campinas. Mercado de Letras. 1998.

Received 22.06.05

Accepted 19.10.05

Selma Garrido Pimenta is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of São Paulo. She was Dean of theFaculty from 2002 to 2006 and is the Coordinator of a Group of Research on Teacher’s Education (GEPEFE). Prof. Pimentahas written six books and numerous articles published in Brazilian and international journals.