Education-line Home Page

Action research: limits and possibilities in teacher education

Maria Amélia Santoro Franco
Santos Catholic University, Brazil

Verbena Moreira Soares de Sousa Lisita
Federal University of Goiás, Brazil

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Crete, 22-25 September 2004

Research as an educative instrument does not exist disconnected from the political context, as it is tied to social purposes and values. Neither research nor education is an arbitrary idea, as their proposals result from a concept of education and from the work that they put into action. Therefore, one must ask: education for whom? For what? – Both guide the understanding of the educational processes. Without an effort to answer them, one is at the risk of treating research and educative issues in a naturalized manner, as if they were not performing in a field that is mined with ideologies and commitments.

(Maria Isabel da Cunha, 2003)

Abstract : This paper discusses the possibilities of action research in teacher education. To do so, it analyzes the nature of this work, emphasizing the need for an education that works towards teacher intellectual autonomy. Confronted with this understanding, action research is approached in its educative-emancipatory dimension, supporting concepts that make reference to the need and to the possibility to form the researcher professor. In this regard, it discusses how action research can produce practice subject "empowerment," allowing the objective and subjective conditions necessary to build one’s intellectual autonomy. Considering the institutional and social context of the teaching practice, the paper also discusses the hurdles found in the path towards substantiating this proposal. This work is theoretical, based on recent investigational studies in the area of educating teachers and on the critical and reflexive analysis of previous investigations the authors carried out in continued teacher education.


On the nature of the educators’ work and on the need for research in teacher education

Any project intended to educate teachers presupposes a concept of the role of the educator’s profession. Teachers are education professionals. What is the nature of this work? What does it mean to educate the teacher to perform the teaching profession? These are questions that different projects and educational perspectives have tried to answer, interposing technical rationality, particularly since Schön, in the 1980’s, demonstrated the insufficient nature of this university professional’s educational paradigm.1

This rationality does not suffice for the understanding of the educator’s work because teaching is a human social practice dominated by complexity, uncertainty, instability, singularity, and conflicts of values (Gómez, 1998). The knowledge educators use in their work is more than a mere set of theoretical propositions. It implies in an understanding of how to perform that encompasses emotional, affective, moral, and ethical aspects. It deals with a knowledge that is ingrained in the person who has the profession of teaching, whose main resource and means of performance is the person him/herself, with their vicissitudes and forms of understanding, feelings, and life experiences. We would actually say that successful education in this profession depends more on sensibility to understand human issues than on dominating scientific propositions. Furthermore, technical rationality is pragmatic, not contemplating the political or moral issues involved in the purposes and objectives of every professional activity that aims at human education (Habermas, 1971).2

Teaching is a social practice that seeks to substantiate educational assumptions. Understanding it from this perspective means: a) considering the institutional context it is inserted in and under which it constitutes itself as a practice that occurs in society; b) acknowledging it as a public process, inserted in a tradition that requires meaning; c) understanding that it is concrete people that take-on the commitment to and the ambition of teaching, based on a tradition of its practice, interpreting the meaning and the purpose of context in its performance (Contreras, 1994).

From this point of view, teaching is also a moral and ethical practice that depends largely on the judgment of the person who undertakes it insofar as the meaning and the consequences of his/her practice is concerned. As a moral practice, teaching is a possibility to substantiate the values and intentions proposed by the society where it occurs. In its ethical dimension, teaching presupposes a critical attitude concerning these same values and intentions. This critical attitude is fundamental for an understanding of teaching as a human social practice that does not merely seek to reproduce the current social values and practices – marked by inequality and social injustice – rather to transform it into a more humanistic, just, and respectable social practice.

This understanding brings up the need to work towards educating teachers as professionals who carry out work that is intellectual in nature, with moral and ethical implications that demand an autonomous posture, one that is understood as a permanent construction process for personal and collective emancipation of the current limitations that exist in the institutional and social teaching conditions. This teacher education aspiration is based on the idea of the educator as a critical intellectual, as formulated by Contreras (2002) and based on a critical review of Schön’s (2000) reflexive professor concept, and on Giroux’s (1997) teacher as an intellectual transformer idea, as supported by Smyth (1991), and Carr & Kemmis’ (1988) critical reflection notion.

The author proposes consideration be given to the issue of building teacher autonomy first and foremost as a professional claim and, secondly as an educative demand. In other words, considering it as being intellectual work which, if carried out based on external prescriptions, depending on someone else's knowledge, loses its autonomy and is dehumanized. The idea is that, ultimately, the responsibility for teaching in complex, singular, conflictive, and uncertain situations is the teacher’s, and that this responsibility can only be exercised with independence of judgment, based on one’s own intentions and values.

Nonetheless, independence of judgment does not mean marking territory, or turning teaching into unilateral teacher decision-making. Understanding teaching as a social practice implies in inserting it in a wider performance context involving cultural, historical, ideological, and other factors. It means understanding it, also, as a public professional practice performed in the relationship with others. Thus, the idea of autonomy as a process in construction depends on it being constituted in the relationship with the people implied in the educative practice, based on understanding and cooperation.

The fact that there may be autonomy among the people involved in the educative practice does not mean this is the fruit of balanced positions. The idea of autonomy as emancipation requires a critical distancing regarding the interests and demands of those involved. We don’t live in a merely plural society, rather in one that is divided into social classes, with unequal material and cultural conditions of existence. Thus, building autonomy supposes a position regarding the transformation in the current conditions that distort and limit educative practice, including interests and conflicts that permeate the relations that occur in teaching.

Finally, this idea of autonomy implies in the awareness of the incomplete nature of our values and intentions, as well as of us as human being. While autonomy requires commitment to values that express certain intentions and interests, it is not possible to reduce it to a sole and unified position, accepted as universal truth, even if it is in the field of those who defend values directed towards the common good and social justice. For this, exercising autonomy in the relationship with others presupposes paying attention to them and to us as incomplete and imperfect human beings.

If autonomy is not a present quality, rather a process, in which it is necessary for the people who participate in the process to have objective and subjective conditions to build it, it is important to work in order for teachers to feel they are active subjects in this process. This is what several authors who are critical of the education area have been denominating as empowerment, i.e., as a process of building the power of those who participate in education; power is understood here as the awareness of oneself as the subject of the praxis.

It is based on these ideas that the need for critical action research in educating teachers will be argued.

On the concept of using critical action research to articulate teacher education

The critical concept of action research, based on the critical theory, seeks to reach emancipatory objectives through reason. Habermas (1987), when developing the proposal of a critical social science, understood that emancipation can only be possible through the mediation of a critical theory that allows individuals the conditions to become aware of the limitations and distortions of their conditions of existence. The means to reach these intentions is ideological criticism, as proposed by Marx. In this regard, the proposal of a critical social science is to unveil the limitations and distortions of reality, making it a little more visible to those who affect them.

To achieve this objective, the critical action research proposals (Grundy, 1982; Carr and Kemmis, 1988), based on Habermas, condition their performance to a systematic reflection on the practice and on the theoretical analysis of how the institutional and social contexts limit the subjects’ performance. The goal is having this understanding process transform the non-reflexive practice into praxis, i.e., into socially committed and theoretically founded action, which may transform the theory that informed it (Contreras, 1994).

From this perspective, it is expected that performing action research will become a process through which the participants can develop a style of critical questioning regarding their practices, aiming at transforming them. According to the Carr and Kemmis proposal, critical action research is a form of self-reflexive investigation that participants in social situations undertake aiming at improving the rationality and the justice in their own practices, their understanding of them, and the situations in which they occur (1988, p. 174).

According to these and other authors3, the following are the basic conditions to develop action research in this perspective:

  1. research that integrates both researchers and participants formatively, committed to the emancipation process of all subjects who participate in it and connected to social commitments with the collectivity;

  2. a form of research that induces, motivates and potentializes the subjects’ cognitive and affective mechanisms towards taking-on, with autonomy their self-educating process;

  3. research that works with the dialectic complexity of the educational process; this implies in creative flexibility; which evolves according to the unpredictability of the context; which offers space to the unforeseen, and to the new and emerging, while also offering the possibility of intelligibility of concepts that emerge in the process;

  4. research that allows teachers, who are in the process of getting their education, to learn to dialogue with themselves, giving them direction and meaning in their personal development; to learn to dialogue with the teaching practice, whether their own or their colleagues’ and, in this dialogue, to build a critical and reflexive view regarding them; to also learn to dialogue with the contexts of their practice, contexts that condition their profession.

With these characteristics, one can notice that the purpose of critical action research is not limited to producing data and theories about the educative activity. The intention is, fundamentally, to allow the participants a meta-theoretical cognition supported by reflection and based on a socio-historical context (Kincheloe, 1997). This understanding, however, does not mean making knowledge production a secondary process in this type of research. On the contrary, for dealing with knowledge that is strongly connected to transforming reality, it must be produced in a strict, systematic, and ethical manner (Contreras, 1994).

On the possibilities and on the limitations of critical action research in training for educator autonomy

Based on our experience with research in educating teachers, we highlight three action research possibilities in forming educator autonomy: a) the contribution to the empowerment processes for teachers, considered subjects of knowledge and of transformation in the practice; b) the articulation of theory in practice and of practice as the possibility to build theory; c) the production of knowledge as an educative reality through the integration of scientific and practical knowledge.

a) Action research as a subject "empowerment" instrument towards the effective consideration of teachers as subjects of knowledge

Tardif (2002: 243) analyzes, based on his experience and research abut the educator profession, in several countries, that teachers will only be acknowledged as subjects of knowledge when they are granted the status of true actors, replacing the current status of technicians who reproduce and execute educative reforms conceived based on a bureaucratic logic in which measures and prescriptions come from top to bottom. The author claims that, in most countries, teachers rank last in the decision-making mechanism and in the power structure hierarchical sphere that governs school systems.

In Brazil, this reality is present in all school levels, particularly regarding elementary school educators. The power these teachers have to influence their schools’ life, the structure of the curriculum they work with, as well as the teaching and administrative organizational structure that affects their daily work is quite reduced, often null.4

How would it be possible to build conditions for teachers to feel as the subject of their own work, as the actors of their practices, encouraged to put their knowledge into motion, with power to decide and create in complex situations? This is a task those who teach educators need to confront. We have noticed that ever so often, continued education courses aimed at educators haven’t always been able to achieve relevant results towards enabling the participants to turn their practices into spaces of knowledge transformation and recreation.

In this regard, Tardif (2002:238-239) proposes conceptual and practical changes for the research practices currently in effect:

  1. work towards having teachers no longer being seen as research objects, rather considered as subjects of knowledge;

  2. invest in the elaboration of new research practices that consider teachers as collaborators or co-researchers, giving them space in research devices;

  3. not aim to produce merely research about teaching and teachers, rather research in teaching and with teachers;

  4. work for teachers to consider themselves as producers of knowledge and to learn to reformulate their own discourse, perspectives, interests, and individual or collective needs in language with certain objectification.

It will be aiming at finding mechanisms to achieve the needs that have been brought-up that we will emphasis the issue of empowerment. As explained before, educator autonomy is not a quality that is present individually, in each subject, rather a process that gradually ensures the teacher may take over his/her social responsibility for teaching in complex situations that were built historically and are impaired ideologically. This can only be done with a subject who considers him/herself as an actor in his/her history, an empowered subject, enabled to exercise the power that comes from his/her practice.

The issue at hand is: how will the teachers, by and large educated within the presuppositions of a technical rationality, know how to invert the epistemology that governs their practices and become subjects who are critical of a new practical conception?

Secondly, how will the teachers, inserted in a sociopolitical context that depreciates their profession on a daily basis, immersed in a hegemonic model of a liberal representative democracy (Santos, 2002: 46) that disrespects the role of social mobilization and collective action, be able to break away from such conditioning factors and become historical subjects committed to an emancipatory political praxis?

Finally, how will teachers, historically stripped of their role as active participants, largely inserted in processes of pauperization of their profession (Cunha, 1999), find strength and paths to constitute themselves as social actors, critical and committed to a new life and world concept?

Suojanem (1999), who has published a paper called "action research as an empowerment strategy," claims the creative and transforming exercise of a professional practice can only be exercised by subjects who believe they control their lives and decisions, allowing them to feel encouraged to change, review, and transform. Empowering, to the author, is the act of building skills, seeking personal and collective development, apprehending and increasing power of knowledge and control – which incorporates itself by exercising cooperation – sharing knowledge, and collective work. This means to commit oneself to common objectives, taking-on risks and demonstrating initiative, creativity, and an ethical attitude that comes from the social commitment one takes-on collectively.

Candau (2000: 11) when referring to the work of education on human rights, claims that "all work of Education in Human Rights must begin by ‘empowering’ these subjects to build an affirmative process for their identities, whether personal or ethnic, whether their genre or social identity, but building a positive identity is fundamental in Human Right education processes."

We believe Candau’s consideration may be generalized to the overall process of teacher education: teachers, or future teachers, must review and take-on, in the collective, the identity of their social and professional role, reaffirming the dignity of their work and the potentialities of a praxis that is committed to the collective. To accept oneself as the subject of knowledge, the teacher must first and foremost, and in a concomitant manner, accept oneself as a historical subject.

Studies5 show that educator knowledge is composed of a multiplicity of dimensions, among which the highlight goes to: professional training knowledge; disciplinary knowledge; curricular knowledge; and the knowledge of experience. However, one must consider that such different types of knowledge organize, inter-cross, mobilize, and reformulate themselves through the capacity of the interrogative, open-minded, critical and creative subject. In this regard, one may say that the subject, to integrate and potentialize such knowledge in his/her professional practice, needs to be empowered; capable of maintaining dialogue and contact with him/herself; with availability to take advantage of the criticism and of the collective to recompose and update such knowledge.

Based on its presuppositions, critical action research may contribute to this process, firstly, because it always works with the presupposition of individual authorship, involving the subject’s participation in the entire knowledge construction process. Secondly, because it allows reflexive, critical processes to be systematized, giving them a scientific dimension that extends beyond good sense and spontaneity. To do so, it organizes the participants’ reflections around ideological, political and economic conditioners, "revealing the tactical forces that build awareness on the every day life level" (Kincheloe, 1996:219). Thirdly, because it induces the participants to a critical re-conceptualization of their practices, beliefs and conceptions towards building practices that are more adequate for their current objectives. Lastly, critical action research seeks to replace the teachers’ cognitive and emotional colonization with a pedagogy of participation that seeks to bring the subject closer to his/her conscience; his/her working knowledge; his/her intentionality in his/her practice – leading the subject to replace, in Paulo Freire’s language, naïve conscience for the paths of a critical conscience.

b) Critical action research allows one to know theory in the dimension of practice and practice in the process of building theory

As stated before, one of the major challenges in educating teachers has been the issue of articulation between theory and practice, considering the insufficiency of the technical perspective, which separates and fragments the reality of the praxis, only valuing the practice of technology and what is observable, apparent and visible in it. In this regard, we agree with Grundy (1982:358) that it is only through critique, in particular critical reflection, that it is possible to establish the mediations between theory and practice.

Reflection, guided by criticism, clarifies the conditioners that organize the previous practices, making reference to or refuting concepts that are no longer present in the current contexts. The above-mentioned author claims that when a person reflects about a theory under the light of the praxis, or of one’s practical judgment, the knowledge that emerges from this process is one of personal or implicit knowledge. This implicit knowledge is made possible by the critical interaction between theory, clarification, and action.

The teacher in the educating process, within the perspective of a critical epistemology of the practice, needs to learn how to build, review, critique and create new meaning, in an ongoing process, for such knowledge. Action research may be an instrument to put the teacher in touch with his/her cognitive constructions, conceptions of practice, and his/her cultural representations.

It is necessary to check how action research handles the task of working with the praxis. For this, it may be interesting to report to the two fundamental axles that structure critical action research: the action axle that begins with individual action and goes to a collectively-structured action; and the action representation axle, that begins with the individual conception, based on good sense and arrives at critical ideological clarification. Measuring the two axles, one finds collective and emancipatory reflection.

Critical action research contemplates articulating these axles through dialectic work on the cyclical spirals around the reflexive process. This can be understood as follows:

These axles may be seen better in Morin’s (1992, vol. 2: 21) work, in which the author, when describing the modes of functioning of full action research says: "full action research aims at change through the reciprocal transformation of action and discourse, i.e., individual action changing to a collective practice that is efficacious and instigating, of spontaneous discourse in clarified, and even engaged dialogue."

The change of these two spheres of action and its forms of representation implies in an educative process for the subject and in the existential conditions of his/her action. It is an eminently pedagogical and, under these conditions, political work.

Thus, the process occurs when teachers who participate in processes such as those described above have the chance to understand the historical origin of their theories and, based on such understanding, the chance to propose and operate changes in theories that serve as the base for their practice. This is confirmed by research carried out from this perspective, such as the work of Rosa (2002), whose collaborative investigation results regarding educator practices in continued university professor education included the participants’ political, personal, and professional development.

c) Critical action research allows articulation between scientific and practical knowledge, causing new knowledge to emerge regarding the educative reality.

One of the fundamental presuppositions of any form of action research is the conviction that research and action can and must walk hand-in-hand. Walking hand-in-hand does not mean temporal concomitance, rather, essentially, a dialectic articulation of these two aspects: doing and researching; doing by researching and researching doing. In critical research, it is fundamental for doing together to also mean building inter-subjective, inter-dialogic, and intercommunicative movements. These movements will build a universe of collective meaning organized by the mediation among an individual’s experience and knowledge, forming a network of co-trainers and generating continued self-educative processes.

Franco (2003: 99) believes all those who are involved in the reflexive practice must become investigators in the context of the praxis and, in this regard, they may develop knowledge towards their emancipation as subjects. This knowledge refers both to predisposition to participate in a research process and to the availability to become a researcher in one’s practice or, even, the possibility of becoming a knowledge-producing subject.

Morin et Landry6 analyze a few basic conditions that differentiate action research from traditional research, demonstrating the formative processes that are triggered by the specificity of critical action research itself. These conditions are analyzed in five categories: contract; participation; change; discourse and action.

In contract, one of the basic categories of action research dynamics, one must overcome the strictness of research in which the researcher determines the paths and processes and the researched parts submit to them to arrive at an open contract, one that is based on dialogue and is negotiated. This requires the participants to slowly appropriate the knowledge connected to organized, collective construction and to life in collectivity. In other words, it requires processes of involvement, motivation, learning, and discipline. This knowledge, which is important and builds into the educator, will certainly be reinterpreted and reworked in the teacher’s daily practice.

Participation: It is very common to find teachers who have yet to come across participative, cooperative processes which could be characterized as "co-management" processes. Since research tradition has always been connected to the dissociation between researchers and practical teaching, since our academic tradition has perpetuated the binds of submission between educators and researchers, in the well-known presupposition that "some research, others apply," teachers have built the posture of applying knowledge produced in other spheres. Action research, to become a reality, must brake away from this paradigm. Moreover, with the representations of this paradigm, it will be fundamental for educators, in the action research process, to overcome the postures of being mere applicators, reproducers, to become knowledge builders moving towards negotiation, towards valuing their own knowledge and collegiate participation.

Change: Critical action research proposes to produce changes on several levels, whether among the subjects who participate in it, in the conditions that do not allow practices to be fully realized, or even in the practices themselves and in their contexts.

The subject who participates in action research starts feeling like and considering him/herself as a protagonist of the transformation and self-transformation processes; it will be necessary for knowledge that no longer has any meaning to be deconstructed; favorable perceptions regarding his/her professional identity will have to be built; his/her knowledge of experience will have to be valued and expressed, connected to the collectivity, and socialized; knowledge of experience must be addressed with new presuppositions of change.

Discourse: Critical action research presupposes building a critical, dialogical7, communicative discourse, one that can be understood by all and connected to practical reality. There is a long way to go towards this. We are normally not used to a dialogical and symmetrical relationship in communication. Those who are involved in action research must build knowledge towards making discourse explicit, building objective forms of communication, both oral and in writing. It must be kept in mind that the action research process products must be written collectively, in order to structure and socialize the knowledge that has been produced. Once again it is worthwhile to mention Barbier (2003: 83) here: acting in a spiral with reflection, action continually questions the established discourse. Action research proposes to be a process that educates the subject to integrate critically in this relationship between discourse and action, and it is the base for the revisions among, on one side, the supposed theory that it is based on, and, on the other side, supposed practices. Here, Barbier refers to, in part, what we consider about pedagogical action: in educational processes, what really matters is to produce dissonance between the pre-established and what is possible; between the subject and the surrounding reality; between internalized discourse and the necessary discourse. Once again quoting Barbier (2003: 48), "change is the process through which everything that is repressed escapes from its cycle of repetitions."

Action: In this type of research, action belongs to everyone; action is shared, it belongs to the group, it is collective, of the community. We can even say it is an action that is reflexive, in the sense that it adapts and is made flexible with the requirements of the novelties that appear at each moment; it is dialogical, interpellating discourse and inducing changes; it is critical, analyzing and reorganizing itself, demanding a spiral of revisions that reorganize thought and reflection. Exercising these actions requires and produces knowledge. We are not used to working in groups, and even less in collectivities. In order for action research to become effective, it must organize scenarios and mechanisms that elaborate the capacity to work together, the will to share in and for the collectivity. There is no praxis without the knowledge of collective sharing and living together.

If we consider all possibilities open in each category mentioned above, we can notice the huge pedagogical potential there is in this type of research, which is also a way to produce knowledge, as it is a formative and self-transforming process.

Although we consider the practices’ investigative and collective reflection as a fundamental process to professionalize the educator, and in spite of the fact that we believe critical action research may lead to the building of an investigative culture that will permeate the teachers and the institutions where they work, there are huge hurdles to be overcome.

There is a long way to go when one confronts change in the representations of the educator’s role. The critical and collective reflection process imposes confrontation, embarrassment, and mistakes on the group. This requires the group to build maturity, one that brings about an effective work of controlling and guiding emotions that surface in a process of change; of confronting the organizational culture in schools that are not always organized to favor an environment that is propitious to emancipation and autonomy among its members.

An effective critical reflection work requires that those who are involved in it trigger cognitive and meta-cognitive processes that include the option for change, communication, solidarity, confrontation, introspection, and even to confront one’s own values. Moreover, those who educate teachers aren’t always prepared to work as investigators, mobilizers of movements that challenge the group’s practical knowledge; they must contest the contexts, think beyond everything that is familiar, organize collaborative teams, and this must all be done in a culture that values individualism and competition.

Until it will be possible to build a reflexive professional culture there is a long path ahead: educators have different rhythms and tempos; classes commonly demand emergency procedures and needs that emerge from their contexts. There is a frequent lag between the expectations generated by the introduction of an innovative process and building a new culture. This space is normally filled with anxieties, doubts, regressions, and frustration. This situation of latency in relation to the expected changes towards a new professional culture is made evident quite clearly in the work of Mizukami et al. (2002: 196), in which the authors analyze the results of a four-year research project carried out among elementary school teachers. The results are summarized as follows: "The processes were slow, arduous and involving for all teachers. Small changes are seeds for more significant ones... progress and successes that were achieved are not linear for all of those who were involved". The authors use a metaphor mentioned by one participant: "it is as if we were walking wearing lead boots."

Day (2001), evaluating the professional development processes teachers must undergo, highlights the need for synchronism among teacher and school rhythms and tempos. He emphasizes the fact that educators have "critical learning phases" and that these phases don’t always coincide with the moments of evaluation, nor do they always express themselves at the same time. The author emphasizes the absence of linearity and the unpredictability of the products of education, since each teacher is at a different moment in his/her career, immersed in different personal and professional conditions; each person has a different time and space for change, time and space that must be taken into consideration and respected. Therefore, we believe action research can confirm procedures that allow the participants to have a space to exchange their anxieties, and time to organize their needs and possibilities for change, both emotionally and cognitively.


BARBIER, René. A pesquisa-ação. Brasília: Plano, 2002.

CANDAU, V. Educação em Direitos Humanos no Brasil: realidades e perspectivas. In: CANDAU, V. e SACAVINO, Suzana (org.). Educar em direitos humanos, construir democracia. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A, 2000, p. 72-99.

CARR, W. e KEMMIS, S. T. Teoria critica de la enseñanza. Barcelona: Martinez Roca, 1988.

CONTRERAS, José. Autonomia de professores. São Paulo: Cortez, 2002.

______. La como didáctica como disciplina prática. Madrid: 1994, digitado.

______. La investigación en la acción. Cuadernos de Pedagogía. Barcelona, abr. 1994, p. 7-19.

DAY, Christopher. Desenvolvimento profissional de professores: os desafios da aprendizagem permanente. Portugal: Porto Editora, 2001.

CORINTA, Maria Grisolia Geraldi (org.). Cartografias do trabalho docente. Campinas: Mercado das Letras, 1998.

CUNHA, Maria Isabel. Profissionalização docente: contradições e perspectivas. In: VEIGA, Ilma Passos; CUNHA, Maria Isabel (orgs.). Desmistificando a profissionalização do magistério. Campinas: Papirus, 1999, p. 127-148.

CUNHA, Maria Isabel. Pesquisa e pós-graduação em educação: o sentido político e pedagógico da formação. [online] Disponível na Internet via WWW.URL: Arquivo capturado em 19 de dezembro de 2003.

ELLIOT, J. La investigación-acción en educación. Madri: Morata, 1990.

______. Recolocando a pesquisa-ação em seu lugar original e próprio. In: GERALDI, C. M.G.; FIORENTINI, D; PEREIRA, E.M.A. (orgs.). Cartografias do trabalho docente. Campinas: Mercado da Letras, 1998, p. 137-152.

______. El cambio educativo desde la investigación-acción. Madri: Morata, 1996.

FRANCO, Maria Amélia Santoro. Pedagogia como ciência da educação. Campinas: Papirus, 2003.

______. A metodologia da pesquisa educacional como instrumento da práxis investigativa. Revista Nuances. UNESP, Presidente Prudente, dez. 2003 (no prelo).

GARCIA, Carlos Marcelo. Formação de professores – Para uma mudança educativa. Porto: Porto Editora, 1999.

______. O pensamento prático do professor – a formação do professor como profissional reflexivo. In: NÓVOA, António. Os professores e sua formação. Porto: Porto Editora, 1992.

GARRIDO, Elsa; PIMENTA, Selma Garrido; MOURA, Manoel Oriosvaldo. A pesquisa colaborativa na escola como abordagem facilitadora para o desenvolvimento da profissão do professor. In: MARIN, Alda Junqueira. Educação continuada: reflexões, alternativas. Campinas: Papirus, 2000.

GÓMEZ, Pérez. A função e a formação do professor no ensino para a compreensão: diferentes perspectivas. In: SACRISTÁN, Gimeno; GÓMEZ, Pérez. Compreender e transformar o ensino. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas, 1998.

______. O pensamento prático do professor: a formação do professor como profissional reflexivo. In: NÓVOA, A. (org.). Os professores e a sua formação. Portugal: Dom Quixote, 1992.

GRUNDY, S. Curriculum: Product or Praxis. London: The Falmer Press, 1988.

______. Three modes of action research. London: The Falmer Press. 1982.

HABERMAS, Jürgen. Conhecimento e interesse. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara, 1987.

KEMMIS, S. Action Research. International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon, 1984, p. 35-42.

KINCHELOE, Joe L. A formação do professor como compromisso político: mapeando o pós-moderno. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas, 1997.

LAVOIE, L. MARQUIS, D.; LAURIN, P. La recherché-action: théorie et pratique. (Manuel d’autoformation). Canadá: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 1996.

LIPOVETSKY, Noêmia. Ensino e formação de professores: as representações de professores do curso de pedagogia da Faculdade de Educação da UFG. 2001. 187f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação) – UFG, Goiânia.

LISITA, Verbena M S S; ROSA, Dalva E G; LIPOVETSKY, Noêmia. Formação de professores e pesquisa: uma relação possível? In: ANDRÉ, M E D A (Org.). O papel da pesquisa na formação e na prática docente. Campinas: Papirus, 2001.

MIZUKAMI, Maria da Graça Nicoletti, et al. Escola e aprendizagem da docência: processos de investigação e formação. São Paulo: EduFSCar, 2002.

MOURA, Manoel Oriosvaldo. O educador matemático na coletividade de formação. In: TIBALLI, Elianda F. Arantes; CHAVES, Sandramara Matias (orgs.). Concepções e práticas em formação de professores: diferentes olhares. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A, 2003.

MENEZES, Luiz Carlos (org.). Professores: formação e profissão. São Paulo: Autores Associados/Nupes, 1996.

MORIN, A. Recherche-action intégrale et participation cooperative. Méthodologie et études des cas. Laval: Éditions Agence d’Arc, 1992, vol. I.

______. Recherche-action en éducation: de la pratique à la théorie. Rapport. Canadá: Université de Montreal, 1985.

NÓVOA, A. (org.). Os professores e a sua formação. Portugal: Dom Quixote, 1992.

PIMENTA, Selma G. Professor: formação, identidade e trabalho docente. In: PIMENTA, Selma G. (org.). Saberes pedagógicos e atividade docente. São Paulo: Cortez, 1999, p. 15-34.

______; GHEDIN, Evandro (orgs.). Professor reflexivo no Brasil: gênese e crítica de um conceito. São Paulo: Cortez, 2002.

RIOS, Terezinha A. Ética e competência. 9 ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2000.

ROSA, Dalva E Gonçalves. Investigação-ação colaborativa sobre práticas docentes na formação continuada de formadores. 2003. 201f. Tese (Doutorado em Educação) – UNIMEP, Piracicaba.

SACRISTÁN, Gimeno; GÓMEZ, Pérez. Compreender e transformar o ensino. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas, 1998.

SANTOS, Boaventura. Para ampliar o cânone democrático. In: Democratizar a democracia: os caminhos da democracia participativa. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira,2002

SCHÖN, Donald. Educando o profissional reflexivo: um novo design para o ensino e a aprendizagem. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas, 2000.

STENHOUSE, L. Investigatión y desarollo del curriculum. Madri: Morata, 1994.

SUOJANEN, U. Action Research – a strategy for empowerment. In: K. Turkki (ed.). New approaches to the study of everyday life. Part II. Helsinki, Finland Publications 4, 1999.

TARDIF, M. e LESSARD, C. Le travail enseignant au quotidien. Québec: Presses Universitaires de l’Université de Laval. Bruxelles: De Boeck, 1999.

TARDIF, Maurice. Saberes Docentes e Formação Profissional. Petrópolis: Vozes. 2002.

THERRIEN, J. O saber social da prática docente. In: Educação e Sociedade. Campinas, n. 46, 1993, p. 408-418.

WILSON, P. Empowering the self-directed team. Great Britain: Gower Publishing Limited, 1996.

ZEICHNER, Kenneth. A formação reflexiva de professores - Idéias e praticas. Lisboa: Educa, 1993.


  1. In the 1980’s, Donald Schön, while studying the university professional’s schooling, using the course of architecture as a reference, denounced its connection to technical rationality and proposed educating reflexive professionals, producers of knowledge about their practice. This proposal triggered generalized criticism of technical rationality and had major repercussion in both proposals and research about professor education. Regarding this, see: Nóvoa, 1992; Pérez-Goméz, 1992; Zeichner, 1993; Menezes, 1996; Sacristán e Gómez, 1998; Garcia, 1992, 1999, Corinta, 1998; Lipovetsky, 2001; Mizukami, 2002; Pimenta e Ghedin, 2002; Rosa, 2003

  2. Apud Gómez (1998).

  3. Kemmis (1984), Morin (1985), Lavoie, Marquis et Laurin (1996) and Franco (2003).

  4. In this regard, see: Garrido, Pimenta and Moura (2000), Lisita, Rosa and Lipovetsky (2001) and Pimenta & Gedhin (2002), among others.

  5. Among whom Tardif, M. (2002); Pimenta (1999); Therrien (1993); Tardif e Lessard (1999).

  6. Apud Lavoie, Marquis et Laurin, 1996: 83.

  7. As proposed by Paulo Freire from the Pedagogy of the Oppressed to the Pedagogy of Autonomy.

This document was added to the Education-line database on 06 October 2004