CHALLENGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF NA INVESTIGATION-ACTION PROGRAM IN
THE INITIAL FORMATION OF PHYSICS TEACHERS
MION, Rejane Aurora e ANGOTTI, José André Peres
(Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa. Ponta Grossa (PR) – Brasil. E-mail: [email protected] e
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação -- CED/UFSC. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
Florianópolis(SC) – Brasil. E-mail: [email protected])
ABSTRACT
Our aim is to reflect on an educational investigation-action program for the initial formation of
Physics educators, centered on the possibilities of creating networks of critical communities, committed to
the classroom. We discuss, particularly, a project that has been developed in the Physics teacher
formation course of the State University of Ponta Grossa/PR- Brazil, in the discipline of methodology and
Practice of Teaching. For the development of this educational investigation-action we have used Freirean
categories, in order to think the school culture over, not only directed towards cultural transmission, but
specially towards its production. In initial teacher formation, beyond leading them to incorporate this
investigation project in practice, the greatest challenge is its constructive consolidation in the exercise of
teaching and of citizenship. We aim at emphasizing the collaborative construction of the practices and the
knowledge they guide. For this reason we have adopted a concept of Physics teacher formation based on
the investigation of their own educational practices, as a research program. There are difficulties in the
elaboration of projects. Some challenges to be faced. If the project is part of the teacher’s formation, we
must face and overcome the obstacles. This is also a way of sharing and creating conditions for dialogue,
without concealing our limitations.
Keywords: Initial formation- Physics teachers; investigation-action; problematization and Dialogistic and
Research programs in Science teaching
Introduction and Context
Many are aware of the situation in which Natural Science Education1 is found, concerning its
frail processes and results, the appropriation of scientific knowledge and construction of active
citizenship, by all those involved in the learning process, on all levels of schooling. A plausible
hypothesis for the extension of this problem in Brazil, as well as many other countries with a distinct
culture and history, is the initial teacher formation, and this is reflected on the kind of educational
activities proposed in the classroom. Another hypothesis may be the chaos in which the educational
system as a whole is found, where the traditional lives side-by-side with innovative proposals, originated
even in official agencies such as the Curriculum Parameters and Guidelines (PDC).
Based on these appointments, we present a work, which has been conducted since 1993, and
developed systematically from 1997 on, with an investigation-action group elaborating, implementing and
assessing educational programs, in the sphere of methodology and practice of natural science teaching
(Physics). The thematic concern is the transformation of the educational practice within a dialogical
problematization perspective. We intend to actuate on the formal school scenery in a collaborative
manner, implementing the investigation-action, to point out possible orientation in teacher formation
policies.
One must extend the reflexive process (Mion, 1996), towards networks of critical communities
of educational active investigators, in initial teacher formation. This implies, also, in continued formation,
within the framework of a scientific investigation program. One must conceive the reflexive process as a
means to make the formation of the active investigator possible, empowering him/her before the
knowledge that is exchanged and produced in school education. As teachers in all levels of teaching we
have reasons to state that the changes only occur with active participation of the teachers, willing to
reconstruct their own practice. This conception of work implies in the education worker being more
(Freire, 1987).
This is an investigation-action program, in which there is a collective project to guide
the subject and personal projects, constructed collaboratively by the participants, in order to elaborate,
develop and assess their educational proposals in Physics. The development of the project occurs in
Methodology and Practice of Teaching classes along the 4th and 5th years of the course. In the 4th year the
students research the theoretical and practical background for their classes, and in the 5th year they
elaborate their personal projects, implementing and assessing them, and thus constructing their own
Physics educational proposal.
The project seeks, furthermore, to materialize the connection between teaching, research
and extended activities. In teaching, it involves the initial formation of teachers in the physics teacher
preparation courses, as part of their professional training. In research, it allows them to carry out the
project of Teaching Methodology and Practice as an investigation-action program, on one hand, and on
the other, it allows every one of them to elaborate, implement and assess their own scientific initiation
program, constructing at the same time a proposal for the development of an educational experience in
Physics- the internship. It is important to emphasize that these actions are supported by more than
investigation, it is ‘…the thinking of the practice, and thinking the practice is the best way to think right.’
(Freire, 1982:10). The extended activities are characterized by the implementation of these projects in
elementary and secondary schools in the region. The Physics students, who develop and assess their own
Physics teaching proposal, then take the constructed proposal to the classroom.
Our Theoretical and Practical Guidelines
The greatest subside to this proposal, and which structures the investigation program, is
contained in the functions of the Critical Social Theory (Habermas, 1987): 1) its theoretical elements; 2)
organization of the illustration process by means of project development; 3) organization of action. By
adopting as an educational conception the dialogical problematization perspective (Freire, 1987 and
1997), and, as a research concept, the critical-active educational investigation-action, we addressed the
core of the proposal: the method of conscientization in Freire, and the exponential self-reflective cycle
spiral (Levin, 1978), re-elaborated in educational investigation-action, of an emancipating matrix (Carr
and Kemmis, 1988).
From then on we have added the concept of scientific literacy, looking for its interpretation and
its adequacy to our purposes (Bazin, 1977; DeBastos, 1990 and 1995; Fourez et al., 1977 and Bloomfield,
1997). These authors center on the incorporation of scientific and technological knowledge in the cultural
universe of those involved, even if there are differences in the way each one approaches the problem.
The educational proposals in Physics are structured around an epistemological and
methodological axis in which technical objects are investigated and transformed into generative
equipment. In other words, they obtain an educational and didactic dimension. In order to achieve this, it
is necessary to recreate the concept of Freirean generative themes into generative equipment, a work
started by Bazin (1977), followed by DeBastos (1990 and 1995), and recently with fertile theoretical and
practical approximations, by Bloomfield (1997). Considering the strong restrictions in formal teaching,
this is a complex and difficult work.
For the organization of our activities, we used the Pedagogical Moments (Angotti and
Delizoicov, 1992a and 1992b), which is a result of a construction focused on natural science teaching, and
based on codification, decodification and recodification. Dynamically and evolutionarily speaking, such
moments are categorized in: initial problematization, knowledge organization and application of this
knowledge. Although the third moment, centered on application, may seem to contradict a dialogical
problematization perspective, we would like to stress that this application is neither mechanical nor direct;
but rather, a return to the problematized questions aided by the light of incorporated theory, in search of a
change in the educatees’ cosmovision.
Another relevant aspect is the use of an epistemological category known as the unifying concepts
of the meaningful thematic, in order to avoid excess fragmentation in thematic reduction and in the
approach. The cultural gains obtained from the knowledge of science and technology need to be
socialized among all the students and this will not occur without the acquisition of unifying concepts, the
universals (Angotti, 1991 and 1993). This also leads to an emphasis on the relational aspect, on the
articulating ability of the concepts, associating constructively to others, seeking the structuring and the
ordering of knowledge. What we want, in practice, is to move forward regarding the complexity of
Natural Science teaching, attempting to articulate scientific knowledge, technological processes and
products and the most evident social relations among them.
The unifying concepts, necessarily supra-disciplinary, are: 1)transformation: of the living and
non-living matter, in space and time. 2) Regularity: grouping transformation according to rules,
similarities, open or closed loops, repetition or conservation in space and time.3)Energy: concept that
encompasses the previous one, but attains a higher level of abstraction and permitting its expression in
mathematical language; it is also associated with positive or null variation of entropy in closed systems.
4)Scales: frame studied events in their most distinct dimensions; ergonometric, macro or microscopic, of
normal, instant or remote duration, and using the three previous concepts, the use of ‘energy ranges’, or
energetic scales.
In the problematization perspective of Physics knowledge, its limits are discussed also. When
unveiling the object, the concepts involved are reorganized by means of concept maps, requested for the
analysis of recorded data, in collective or individual reflection, as well as for eventual re-planning. In this
process the educates undergo a re-elaboration, development and assessment of proposals, reflecting their
practices on critical reflective processes.
The reflective process (Mion 1996) privileges two moments: the individual and the collective
ones. On the individual level by self-reflection, and on the collective one, among teachers that elaborate
an action plan, and also among the students they teach. The dialogue, among teachers and students, is the
connection that validates the investigation process.
We understand that contemplating reflective processes enables us to construct and experience
reflective processes around our own educational practices in the school’s daily work. The path lies in the
spiral of planning, action, observation and reflection for re-planning, thus constructing a ‘new’
knowledge, better informed and committed to the changes in our reality- educational knowledge, which
may become critical knowledge.
According to Angulo (1990:41), ‘the development of educational action is attached to the
development of the teacher’s self understanding’, which may reflect on his/her students and on the reality
they experience.
The rationality employed here – critical active educational investigation-action- is in tune with
communicative action (Habermas, apud Carr and Kemmis, 1988) and with dialogistic (Freire 1987).
There are approximations between Habermas’ critical educational science and the conscientization
process described by Freire (1987), and we find common elements between the concepts of ‘educatoreducatee’ and ‘critical active researcher’ (DeBastos 1995).
We may understand, then, that the role of the teacher is to transform an experience lived into an
experience understood, thus reaching critical knowledge. The action itself is the starting point, and once
it is understood, we achieve what I call Freirean study, where ‘studying is, mainly, to think the practice
over’ (Freire, 1982:11). Once this practice is understood, knowledge will be produced, which will
subsidize the indication of a re-planning that may reconstruct this practice and may allow ‘different
doings’ in the following activities.
This subside is the new collaborative knowledge produced in the reflective process, and may be
understood as a rational reconstruction. Once the bi-monthly period ends, with at least 8 weeks of work
within the schools and in Physics class management- the students start to ‘study the practices’, with a
systematization of the reflective processes, which enables them to achieve a higher leap I knowledge
production.
The status of rational reconstruction can be attained at the moment the work developed is
interpreted and critically analyzed. Looking at the inner history of what happened, I am capable of
looking at it from the inside, since I experienced it, thus strengthening the whole process, not as microreconstructions done at the end of each cycle, but as another ring in the self-reflective spiral.
So I find myself in a group with many subjects, including me, and each one analyses one’s
practice. But there are collective moments, when we do Freirean studies within the community of
learning. The characteristic of the program has a shared thematic concern, which is the educational
practice in Physics. In Lakatos (1979:161), the elements of a series of theories are connected by a
remarkable continuity, which welds them to research programs. And, according to him, this continuity
performs a vital role in the history of science.
In our case, this program is composed of many projects. All the questions of the personal
projects, their worries, thematic concerns, derive from the main thematic concern. There must be a
connection beyond the dialogue among those involved, which represents the problematization of the
educational practices proper.
How can one analyze that? Looking back on History, one looks at the program. We look
objectively at the records, and also at what was planned. The objectivity of this rational reconstruction is
reached by means of the records and their distance from us. The subjectiveness is our interpretation;
looking at what happened and interpreting it. According to Lakatos (1979) each one has an individual
‘philosophy’. This means that we have our guiding theories and the idiosyncrasies that guide this
interpretation.
The scientific method is of fundamental importance in the conduction of the research. This
qualifies the investigation-action as the conception of research to address educational practices in the
formation of active investigators, and the work with people to form teachers.
It is precisely this scientifically methodological way of objectively and subjectively analyzing
that allows the production of new knowledge. The subject is inside, the author and actor of the proposal,
teacher and investigator, in the same person. Although these two are not the same thing. When we refer to
the program, we refer to the organization of illustration processes, since there is an established scientific
method in the moments of planning, action, observation and reflection. In the observation records are
collected, and these allow us to do a rational reconstruction, even in a small scale.
In methodology and Practice of Teaching, the supervising teacher does not need to watch the
intern’s classes, but there must be a way to portrait accurately the reality. These are the records. They can
be written and are practical and illustrative. There is also mechanical recording, such as audio or
videocassette.
The following table is an example of the schedule developed since 1998.
Action
Description of action
Period
Present and Analyze
Present and analyze program of the discipline
1st week of March
Elaborate/deliberate/
Construction of the schedule, choice of school and March 1999
chose
group for internship
Construct
Construct pre-projects
March ‘98
Present
Seminars to present internship projects
Last week of march
Reading
Indication of reading
Last week of march
Guidance
Guidance for the first field works
April
Visitation
Visit
the
school
to
make
preliminary April and May
observation/contextualization
Studying
Read and study a concept of research; educational Last week of April
investigation-action
Watch and record
Watch Physics classes in the group chosen, May and June
recording contents addressed, syllabus emphasis,
methodology,
textbook
adopted,
dialogistic,
problematization
Discussion and analysis
Seminars to discuss and analyze what is observed May and June
among colleagues and the supervisor
Organize and construct
Organization of the information collected
March thru June
Planning
Planning classes for the next semester
July
Act and record
Class management in the chosen group, action, July thru October
followed by recording and observation
Reflect
Reflection over the recordings, with colleagues and July thru October
the supervising teacher
Re-planning
Re-planning of 2nd week classes, following the spiral July thru September
above throughout the third bi-monthly period (July,
August, September)
Systematization
Systematization of the reflective process, returning September
thru
to the school to talk to the students about the classes. November
Elaboration
Elaboration of the internship report
November
Writing
Writing the scientific text
November
Presentation
Seminars for presenting research reports
Nov/ Dec
Challenges in the Construction of the internship practice, based on an educational investigationaction
We have noticed some difficulty when students elaborate their projects, such as the resistance
against making records, as well as the lack of perception that the research is a cognitive instrument for
professional formation. In our understanding, this is due to distorted conceptions of teaching, research and
knowledge production.
The university also sets some bureaucratic barriers that limit the responsibility of the intern for
the group. And there is also another challenge: the resistance some teachers offer when they are hired by
one school and need to chose another group they do not teach for their internship.
The relationship between student and teacher is another challenge. We have noticed different
understandings of what dialogue is, maybe due to the conceptions incorporated in our practices. To
establish a dialogue it is necessary to depart from common questions among all of those involved. This
may happen in situations of the student’s reality. But we have two distinct and at the same time connected
situations. The object we have in common, and which we have what to dialogue about, is the educational
practice. On the other hand, in Physics teaching, we have a possibility of reaching a dialogue around
concepts and practices, that is, through the problematization of concepts and their study in Physics, based
on the production and workings of technical artifacts (the fridge, the CD player, and so on), in educational
activities aiming at turning them into generative equipment.
Another challenge is, therefore, to lead the teachers into incorporating the need to investigate,
redirecting the practice towards the construction of active citizenship. Constructing, in practice, our ideas,
from the investigation of our actions, means to plan the changes desired and not merely believe that
practice will bring this experience.
The problem that persists in some of our students is a distorted understanding of the internship,
seen as a period of ‘teaching classes’ only, as if it were the most important in the educational act. That is,
they take long to understand that this step is the moment of transforming experiences lived into
experiences understood. Some students do not seem to understand this intention as a ‘method of
conscientization’. They have a commonsense understanding in which being dialectic means avoiding
conflicts and directness. The ‘right of each one to say one’s own words’ (Freire 1987) may be carried out
by means of the proposal, and this in turn leads to active citizenship.
One must see the contradictions in practice. One of the intentions of this proposal is to lead the
students to notice that they have the capacity for self-change, that is, act differently when it comes to
one’s own educational practices. People must in the first instance understand what they are doing, even if
they decide not to act different later.
Conclusion
We would like to conclude with two relevant aspects:
The fact that the students started to look for strictu-sensu courses on education is the first
positive sign we noticed. For a Physics Teacher Formation course, this means a contribution to the rescue
of the student’s self-esteem. Until then, none of the students who graduated had entered a PostGraduation course in Education. The Physicist was the only one who could be entitled a researcher for
them. We think the merit belongs to this work, whose intention is to change the conception of teacher
formation.
As a second improvement, it can be remarked that the students who graduate return to the
university and engage collaboratively in the project, seeking to continue their formation. One could infer
that this is the result of their understanding of the importance of a research project. It is the link they
needed to establish new interlocutions, and as a consequence, the institutionalization of their personal
projects in Post Graduation Programs in Education. This, in our view, is another clue to the
institutionalization of the teacher initial formation as a research program.
References
ANDERSON, S. e BAZIN, M. Ciência e (in)dependência. Livros Horizonte, Lisboa, 1977 (2 volumes).
ANGOTTI, José André Peres. Conceitos Unificadores e Ensino de Física. Revista Brasileira de Ensino
de Física. Vol. 15, nºs (1 a 4), 1993.
ANGOTTI, José André Peres. Fragmentos e Totalidades no Ensino de Ciências. Tese de
Doutoramento, FEUSP, 1991.
ANGOTTI, J.A.P. e DELIZOICOV, D.N. Metodologia do Ensino de Ciências. Cortez, São Paulo,
1992a.
ANGOTTI, J.A.P. e DELIZOICOV, D.N. Física. Cortez. São Paulo, 1992b.
ÂNGULO, J. F. (1990). “Investigación-acción y Curriculum: una nueva perspectiva en la investigación
educativa”. Investigación en la Escuela, n. 11, p. 39-49.
_____. Hacia una nueva racionalidade educativa: la enseñanza como práctica.
Investigación en la
Escuela, n. 7, p. 23-36.
ATAS das IV, V, VI e VII Escolas de Verão de Investigação-Ação Educacional. Santa Maria/RSBrasil 1998, 1999 e 2000; Ponta Grossa/PR-Brasil em 2001.
BAZIN, Maurice. Ciência na Cultura? Uma Práxis de Educação em Ciências e Matemática: Oficina
Participativa. 1999. ([email protected]).
BLOOMFIELD, Louis A. HOW THINGS WORK: The Physics of Everyday Life. J,Wiley, USA.
1997.
CARR, W. e KEMMIS, S. Teoria crítica de la enseñanza: investigación-acción en la Formación del
Profesorado. Martinez Roca, Barcelona, 1988.
CARR W. Cambio educativo y desarrollo profesional. Investigación en la Escuela, n. 11, p. 3-11,
1990.
_____. What is an Educational Practice? Journal of Philosophy of Education, v. 21, n. 2 : 163-175,
1987.
CHALMERS, A. F. O que é ciência afinal? São Paulo, Brasiliense, 1993.
DE BASTOS, F. P. Alfabetização Técnica na disciplina de Física: uma experiência educacional
dialógica. Dissertação de Mestrado, UFSC/CED, 1990.
_____. Pesquisa-ação emancipatória e prática educacional dialógica em ciências naturais. Tese de
Doutorado, FEUSP, 1995.
FOUREZ, Gérard et al. Alfabetización Científica y Tecnológica: acerca de las finalidades de la
enseñanza de las ciencias. Ediciones Colihue S.R.L. Buenos Aires, Argentina 1997.
FREIRE, P. Pedagogia do Oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1987.
_____. Pedagogia da Autonomia. Rio de janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1997.
_____. Educação como prática da liberdade. Rio de Janeiro : Paz e Terra, 1989.
_____. Ação cultural para a liberdade. 8. ed. Rio de janeiro : Paz e Terra, 1982.
HABERMAS, Jürgen. Conhecimento e Interesse. Rio de Janeiro, Guanabara,1987.
HABERMAS, Jürgen. Teoria y práxis. Madrid. Tecnos, 1987.
KEMMIS, S. La formación del profesor y la creación y extensión de comunidades críticas de
profesores. Investigación en la Escuela N.
KEMMIS, S. e MCTAGGART, R. Como planificar la Investigación-acción. Laertes, Barcelona, 1988.
LAKATOS, Imre. História da Ciência e suas Reconstruções Racionais. Edições 70. Lisboa/Portugal.
LAKATOS, Imre. Falsificação e Metodologia dos Programas de Investigação Científica. Edições 70.
Lisboa. Portugal.
LAKATOS, I. O falseamento e a metodologia dos programas de pesquisa científica. In: LAKATOS, I e
MUSGRAVE, A. (orgs.). A crítica e o desenvolvimento do conhecimento. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1979.
LAKATOS, I. e MUSGRAVE, A. (orgs.). A Crítica e o Desenvolvimento do Conhecimento. São
Paulo, EDUSP/Cultrix, 1976.
MENEZES, L. C. Formar o Professor Junto com a Escola. In: ANAIS do VIII ENDIPE. vol. 2. FpolisSC. 1996.
MENEZES, L. C. Vale a pena ser Físico? São Paulo:Moderna, 1988.
MION, Rejane A . Processo Reflexivo e Pesquisa-ação : apontamentos sobre uma prática educacional
dialógica em Física. Dissertação de Mestrado. PPGE/UFSM-RS, 1996.
MION, Rejane A. e DE BASTOS, Fábio Purificação. A Investigação-Ação na Formação do
Educador. In: ATAS da IV Escola de Verão de Investigação-Ação Educacional. Santa Maria-RS. 1998.
MION, Rejane A. et al. Mudando o Trabalho Educativo de Formar Professores de Física.
PERSPECTIVA: Revista do Centro de Ciências da Educação. Florianópolis, v18,n.33, p.93-114,
jan./jun.2000.
MION, Rejane A. et al. Educação em Física: discutindo ciência, tecnologia e sociedade. Revista Ciência
& Educação. Bauru-SP. Vol.7, n° 2, Dezembro, 2001.