Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20

The pedagogy of Action Research

Maria Amlia Santoro Franco


Catholic University of Santos

Abstract

During the last decades, action research has been used in


different ways, to different ends, giving rise to a mosaic of
theoretical-methodological approaches, inviting us to reflect
upon its epistemological essence, as well as upon its possibilities
as an investigative praxis. This article promotes reflections about
the appropriateness and possibilities of action research as a
scientific and pedagogical instrument, hinting at answers to the
following questions: should action research be essentially
targeted at the participative transformation, where subjects and
researchers interact in the production of new knowledge? Should
it take on a formative-emancipative character? Drawing on
existing research and studies, the text tries to compose a
pedagogical process for action research that tackles the issue of
the coherence between the ontology and the epistemology
envisaged for the research. It was thus necessary to establish
references for the questions: what research do we talk about
when we refer to action research? Or even, what action do we
talk about when we refer to action research? Or still, how do
research and action come together in the pedagogical practice of
action research?
The present work highlights the fact that action research,
structured according to its generating principles, is an eminently
pedagogical research, under the perspective of being the
pedagogical exercise, configured as an action that scientificizes
the educative practice starting from ethical principles that have
in sight the continual formation and emancipation of all
subjects of the practice.

Keywords

Educational research Action research Pedagogical practice


Epistemology.
Contact:
Maria Amlia Santoro Franco
Rua Campevas, 208 Perdizes
05016-010 - So Paulo SP
e-mail: ameliasantoro@uol.com.br
During the last decades, action research have been made in the name of action
has been used in different ways, to different research, giving birth to a mosaic of
ends, giving rise to a mosaic of theoretical- methodological approaches, which often mate-
methodological approaches, inviting us to rialize in the research practice without the
reflect upon its epistemological essence, as necessary elucidation of their theoretical basis,
well as upon its possibilities as an investigative engendering inconsistencies between theory
praxis. and method and compromising the scientific
There is wide consensus in attributing the validity of the studies.
origins of action research to the 1946 work of
Kurt Lewin, in a post-war context, and inside an What research do we talk about
experimental, field study approach. His works when we refer to action
on action research were developed while he research?
was employed by the North American
government, and the purpose of his initial
If someone chooses to work with action
studies was to change food habits of the
research, he or she certainly believes that
population and also their attitude towards
research and action can and should walk
ethnical minorities. Those studies were guided
together when one intends to transform the
by a set of values such as: the construction of
practice. However, the direction, the meaning
democratic relations, the participation of
and the intentionality of this transformation will
subjects, the recognition of individual, cultural
be the axis of the characterization of the
and ethnical rights of the minorities, the
approach to action research.
tolerance of divergent opinions, and also the
I have observed in recent works of
assumption that subjects change more easily
action research in Brazil at least three different
when driven by group decisions. His researches
conceptions:
moved in parallel to his studies about the
dynamics and functioning of groups. His way
of working with action research was to see a) when the search for transformation is
great advance in the companies involved with requested by the reference group to the team
organizational development. of researchers, the research has been
This initial concept of action research classified as collaborative action research, in
within an experimental, field work approach which the researchers function is to be part
becomes fragmented during the fifties, and is of, and make scientific a process of change
structurally transformed since the eighties when previously started by the members of the
it includes among its assumptions the dialectical group;
perspective through the incorporation of the b) if the transformation is perceived as
principles of Habermas critical theory, and necessary after the initial work of the
adopts as its purpose the improvement of the researcher with the group, following a
teaching practice. The studies by Elliot and process that emphasizes the cognitive
Adelman, working in Great Britain at the Centre construction of experience, supported by
for Applied Research in Education under the Ford collective critical reflection with a view to the
Teaching Project (1973-1976) were instrumen- emancipation of the subjects from the
tal to such change. conditions regarded by the collective as
The present article shall highlight the oppressive, the study takes on the character
fact that, since Lewin and after different of being critical, and then the description of
theoretical incorporations to the concept and critical action research has been used;
practice of action research, many interpretations c) if, on the contrary, the transformation is
planned beforehand without the participation ge in the process. Hence the emphasis on the
of the subjects, and only the researcher will formative character of this modality of
follow its effects and evaluate its results, this research, for the subject must take conscience
research loses the condition of being a critical of the transformations that occur with himself
action research, and may then receive the and in the process. That is another reason why
label of strategic action research. this methodology takes on an emancipative
character: because through the conscious
Kincheloe (1997) says that the critical participation the subjects of the research have
action research rejects positivist notions of the opportunity to free themselves from the
rationality, objectivity and truth, and should myths and prejudices that organize their
take on the exchange between personal and resistance to change, and reorganize their self-
practical values. In part this is due to the fact images as historical subjects.
that critical action research does not intend to Based on these first reflections we can
solely understand or describe the world of ask: should action research be essentially a
practice, but to transform it. research targeted at transforming the reality in
The condition for a critical action which it is immersed? Should it be a research
research is delving into the praxis of the soci- fundamentally participative, where subjects and
al group under study, whence the latent researchers interact in the production of new
perspectives, the hidden, the unfamiliar that knowledges? Should it take on a formative-
give support to the practices are extracted, and emancipative character? Answers to these
the changes will be negotiated and managed in questions are still not consensual, but we shall
the collective. Along these lines, the try an approximation, so as to uncover clues to
collaborative action researches many times also the question: what research do we talk about
take on the character of being critical. when we refer to action research?
However, we can still see inexperienced If we go back to the origins of action
researchers make use of action research to research with Kurt Lewin, and following the
implement projects or proposals devised only comments by Mailhiot (1970: 46), who was his
by themselves, or many times even applying a student and collaborated with him, action
proposal for change conceived by someone research should start from a concrete social
above them in the hierarchy. In this case, the situation to be modified, and more than that, it
critical and dialectical dimension of the should take constant inspiration from the
research is being denied. The critical action transformations and new elements that arise
research must generate a process of reflection during the process and under the influence of the
a collective action where there is research. On the other hand, and still according
unpredictability in the strategies to be to Mailhiot, based on the Hegelian conception of
employed. An action research within positivist the social becoming that influenced Lewins
assumptions is highly contradictory with a thought, the latter puts forward the hypothesis
critical action research. that the social phenomena cannot be observed
The critical action research considers the from the outside, in the same way that they
voice of the subject, her perspective and cannot be observed in a laboratory, in a static
meaning, but not just for the record and later way. To Lewin, the group phenomena do not
interpretation by the researcher; the voice of reveal the internal laws of their dynamics except
the subject is part of the fabric of the research to the researchers prepared to engage personally
methodology. In this case, the methodology is and in depth in this ongoing dynamics, to respect
not compose of steps in a method, but orga- its evolution processes in the definite sense that
nizes around the relevant situations that emer- History gives them, and thus best encourage it to
go beyond itself. Mailhiot (1970: 47) still says epistemological roots. Perhaps, this is the birth of
that, according to Lewin, the researcher should the difficulty in answering the question: what
only try to modify the dynamics of a group after research do we talk about when we refer to action
the explicit consent of its members. In this way, research?
according to Lewin, the researcher must take on In the following decades, action research
constantly the two complementary roles: of a will gain strength within the educational field;
researcher and of a participant of the group. however, it followed a simplified model when
Another important alert from Lewin, as noted by compared to Lewins proposal, and it fitted within
Mailhiot, is that to keep the pace of participation a positivist perspective. Two articles typify this
of the members of the group it is essential that period: one by Stephen Corey in 1949, and the
the groups and subgroups are aware of the other by Taba and Noel in 1957. Both sought ways
dynamics inherent to the evolving social of improving the teaching practice and the
situation1 . educative results. Methodologically speaking, these
It can be observed that the origins of action works were more based on a researched action,
research with Lewin identify an investigation that where they started from the identification of
moves towards the transformation of a reality; an problems at school, sought their causal factors,
investigation actively committed to the formulated intervention hypotheses, applied the
participation of the subjects involved in the actions with the teachers and evaluated
process, making it a task of the researcher to take collectively their results. It can be noticed in this
on the double role of researcher and participant, case that the researcher plays an investigating role,
and also signaling to the necessary dialogic but the teachers are not lifted to a position of
emergence of the subjects conscience, in the researchers; however, they changed their actions
direction of a change in perception and behavior. and reflected upon the results.
Therefore, if we consider the initial It can be seen that the spiral cycle, which,
proposal, when we talk about action research we quite important to Lewin, allowed adaptations and
would be assuming a research of transformation, changes in direction along the process, ceases to
participative, moving towards formative processes. exist. There are several ways to view the cyclic
But according to Kemmis (apud Cte- spiral, seen as a process of reconsidering the
Thibault, 1991, p. 169) action research has been actions, analyses, and reflections in an ever-
the object of interpretations and changes that evolving dynamics. Kurt Lewin (1946) thought
modified Lewins original conception: two 1946 that action research is a spiraling process involving
articles by Lippit and Radke, and another article by three phases: 1. planning, including the mapping
Chein, Cook, and Harding of 1948 present action out of the situation; 2. decision-making, and 3.
research in positivist terms, and with that hamper fact-finding about the results of the action. This
its potential for development along Lewins initial fact-finding must be incorporated as a new fact
direction. These authors distinguish four varieties in the subsequent phase of reconsidering the
of action research: the diagnostic action research; planning, and so on.2
the participative action research; the empirical In these cases, the idea of transforming
action research, and the experimental action reality remains, albeit in localized form, in some
research. It is worth noting that these four varieties aspect of reality deemed as relevant. The focus
were present in Lewins proposal in an integrated
way, and that this subdivision progressively allowed
1. Cote-Thibault (1991, p. 167) expresses it by saying that: La recherche-
the defacing of the integrative processes found in action tait ce moment un essai, pour Lewin, dincorporer systmatiquement
the Lewinian proposal, producing, on one side, the la conscientisation de groupe dans un processus de recherche.
2. I shall not dwell on this aspect any longer, because it is not the object
multiple approaches to this form of research, and of this work, however, the notion of cyclic spiral is implied in the reflections
on the other, its disfiguration in terms of its made here.
shifts from the process to the product of the to the works conducted by Elliot and Adelman
change. There is no denying that the teachers at the Centre for Applied Research in Education
involved could benefit from the collective of the University of East Anglia, Great Britain,
analysis of the results, or even from taking part under the Ford Teaching Project (1973-1976).
in the planned changes. However, the These studies were inspired on Lewin and
perspective was lost of a research process Stenhouse, and were characterized by a
creating in the practitioners new forms of proposal of resolution of problems based on a
perceiving and dealing with the situation, pedagogical approach, methodologically carried
forms that would become themselves objects of out through induction and discovery.
the research; the interconnection between To answer to the question: what
research and action was lost. Stanford (apud research do we talk about when we refer to
Cote-Thibault, 1991) when commenting the action research, it will be important to consider
decline of action researches in education in the that, according to Carr and Kemmis (1986), the
late 1950s, speculates that this may have change that took place in the 1970s was very
happened because of the gradual dissociation different from that occurred at the end of the
between research and action. I believe that this 1940s, and the reasons are the following:
dissociation is typical of the positivist outlook,
which, as I have already mentioned citing the great concern of researchers in education
Kincheloe, is incompatible with the intentions to help teachers to solve their problems;
of action research. the great development of the qualitative-
In this sense, Barbier (2003) is quite interpretive approaches to research in education;
emphatic when saying that the nature of action the advancement of the study on collaborative
research is essentially different from the usual forms and models in the development of school
manner of research in the social sciences, and cites programs and education assessment;
Blum (1955) making use of a speech by Dusbot: the ideological and political commitment in
the ways to approach the social and political
problems in education.
[] action research is the revolt against the
separation of facts and values [] it is a
From such considerations it can be seen
protest against the separation of thought
that the continuity of the action research proposal,
and action, which is a legacy of the 19th
starting with Lewin, happens through Stenhouse
century laissez-faire. (1987, p. 136)
and materializes with Elliot and Aldeman. They also
seem to endorse the epistemological statute of this
When talking about action research we form of investigation, and the issue of social
therefore talk of a research that is not based on transformation, now reinforced by ethical and
the positivist epistemology, a research that political commitments, with a view to the
presupposes the dialectical integration of the emancipation of the subjects from the conditions
subject and his existence, of facts and values, of that obstruct this process, and configured by
thought and action, of researcher and researched. interpretive analyses approaches. Structured under
But action research would, historically, the form of critical participation, the research
return to the realm of research in education, process should allow reconstructions and re-
now incorporating the dialectics of social structuring of meanings and paths throughout the
reality and the fundamentals of a critical process, fitting into an essentially pedagogical, and
rationality based on Habermas. therefore political, procedure.
As already mentioned, Kemmis (1984) In a recent work on the specificity of
attributed the reappearance of action research Pedagogy as science of education, I say that
(Franco, 2003) the objective of pedagogy as that scientificizes the educative practice based
science of education will be the reflective and on ethical principles that aim at the continual
transforming explication of the praxis (p. 83). formation and emancipation of all subjects of
To fulfill this objective I reckon that the field the practice. In this sense, I recall the writings
of knowledge of pedagogy will be constituted of Barbier (2003) that say:
at the intersection of the searching
knowledges of the practices, the dialoguing Action research becomes the science of
knowledges of the intentionality of the praxis praxis exercised by professionals at the
and the knowledges that answer to reflective heart of their place of investment. The
questions formulated by this praxis (p. 85). object of the research is the creation of the
Along these lines, to make this specificity of the dialectics of the action in a personal and
science of education operational, I highlight unique process of rational reconstruction
the need for a methodology of a formative and by the social actor. (p. 59)
emancipative character, that follows certain
principles, which I call founding principles, I believe that from the reflections made
indicating that the investigation about the here so far a few approximations can be
educative practice should consider: distinguished to answer to the question that has
been guiding this part of the article: what
the joint action of researcher and researched; research do we talk about when we refer to
the conduction of research in the action research? To that end, I shall group the
environments where the practices take place; clues found into three dimensions3:
the constitution of conditions for self-
education and emancipation of the subjects ontological dimension: relative to the
of the action; nature of the object to be known;
the establishment of commitments to the epistemological dimension: relative to the
formation and development of critical-reflective subject-knowledge relationship;
procedures about reality; methodological dimension: relative to the
the development of collective dynamics that knowledge processes employed by the
allow the setting up of continual references, researcher.
evolving in time, in the direction of
apprehending the meanings constructed and The ontological dimension of action
under construction; research: what do we intend to know when we use
reflections that act in the perspective of action research based on the current assumptions?
overcoming the conditions of oppression, In a broad way, we could say that we intend to
alienation and subjugation to routine; know the social reality, the focus of the research,
collective resignifications of the understanding so as to transform it. However, such a broad answer
of the group, articulated with the socio- is not helpful, and can be dangerous, because
historical conditions; according to it we could use action research to
the cultural development of the subjects of strictly manipulative ends. The knowledge of social
the action. reality is an imperative that will impose itself, but
I believe that, more than that, the knowledge
The point I would like to make is that aspired will be the knowledge of the pedagogy of
action research, structured within its generating
principles, is an eminently pedagogical 3. These three dimensions are inspired in Guba (1990), analyzing the
different specificities contained within the generic label of qualitative
research, under the perspective of being the paradigm. I have made contact with this study through Alves-Mazzotti and
pedagogical exercise, configured as an action Gewandsznajder, F. (2001).
the change of the praxis. When we speak of it studies. Such close connection between research
knowledge based on the pedagogy of the change and action inevitably turns the researcher into part
of the praxis, we shall be referring to a pedagogical of the researched universe, something that refutes
action that must imply: the possibility of a perspective of neutrality
towards, and control over, the circumstances of the
[] attitudes that problematize and contex- research.
tualize the circumstances of the practice, Historically, the epistemological assumptions
within a critical perspective of the ideologies move towards a dialectical perspective, and we can
present in the practice, aiming at the consider as fundamental the following:
emancipation and formation of the subjects
of the practice (Franco, 2003, p. 88). giving priority to the dialectics of social
reality, to the historicity of the phenomena, to
This guiding knowledge must have as the praxis, to the contradictions, to the relations
its consequence the production of other with totality, to the subjects actions upon their
knowledges thanks to: circumstances;
the praxis must be conceived as a basic
producing knowledges that give the subjects mediation in the construction of knowledge,
a better understanding of the conditionings of for through it theory and practice, thinking
the practice; and action, researching and forming, are
producing knowledges that allow the subjects disseminated;
to effect changes in their professional practices; there is no way of separating the knowing
producing knowledges that, after being subject from the object to be known;
scientificized, foster improvement of the knowledge is not restricted to a mere
practices towards collectively desired ends; description, but seeks the explaining; through
producing knowledges that allow restructuring the dialectical movements of thought and
the formative processes. action, it starts from the observable and then
goes beyond it;
The epistemological dimension of action the interpretation of data can only happen
research: how the relationships between subject in context;
and knowledge are established? For what has been the knowledge produced is necessarily
said so far, it can be seen that action research is transforming of the subjects and of the
not compatible with procedures derived from circumstances.
positivist approaches, since it requires for its
exercise diving into the intersubjectivity of the From a methodological point of view there
dialectics of the collective. There is no consensus is now the need for procedures to articulate the
about this incompatibility among the researchers in ontology with the epistemology of action research.
this field. However, I consider that action research Regardless of the techniques to be employed, one
is based on principles that break away from the must move towards a methodology that raises in
positivist view of the creation of knowledge in the group the dynamics of dialogical, participative,
education. This departure is clearly noticeable in and transforming principles and practices. It is
the fact that positivist research, based on interesting here to reaffirm the warning of Thiollant
experimentation, sees itself as neutral and (2003, p. 20) that
autonomous with respect to the social reality. From
its inception, action research takes on a different a huge methodological challenge lies in
position regarding knowledge, since it seeks at the establishing the grounds for the insertion
same time to know and to intervene in the reality of action research within a perspective of
scientific investigation, conceived in an structure the pedagogy of the change of the
open manner, in which science is not praxis within the conditions of the study.
synonymous with positivism, functionalism, Taking action research as an eminently
and other labels. interactive process, the analysis of the quality of
the action between the subjects who take part
I believe we can list a few principles on in it is essential to define its epistemological
which the epistemology of the methodology pertinence and praxiological potential.
can be based: For the present study we have relied on
Habermas and, in a first moment, we draw from
the selection of a methodology must leave the words of Boufleur (1997):
aside positivist notions of rationality,
objectivity and truth (Carr and Kemmis); What determines the rationality of a speech or
the social praxis is the point of departure and of an action? The first impression is that the
point of arrival in the construction/resignification rationality depends on the reliability of the
of knowledge; type of knowledge that the speech expresses
the process of knowledge is dynamically or that the action embodies. In fact, there is a
built in the multiple articulations with the close connection between rationality and
intersubjectivity; knowledge, but Habermas argues that
action research must be carried out in the rationality is not related so much to the
natural environment to be studied; knowledge itself or to its acquisition, but to
the flexibility of procedures is essential and the form in which the subjects capable of
the methodology must allow for adjustments, language and action make use this knowledge.
and move according to the provisional
syntheses established in the group; How can the man make use of his
the method must consider the continual knowledge through action? When carrying out
exercise of cyclic spirals: planning; action; his actions, it is considered that man establishes,
reflection; research; resignification; re- by making use of his knowledge, two fundamen-
planning; actions ever more adjusted to the tal relationships:
collective needs, reflections and so on
the man-nature relationship: based on a
What action do we talk about relationship of knowledge and command,
when we refer to action characterized by Habermas, with respect to its
research? use in the social sphere, as a strategic
relationship;
When we set out to study the action the man-other men relationship: a symbol-
dimension in action research we also intend to mediated relationship used in the sphere of
reflect upon its meaning, its configurations, as the understanding of the other, and thus
well as upon its intertwining with the research considered as a communicative action.
process. Along these lines, one is concerned with
identifying the actions necessary to the Keeping with the authors thinking,
construction/understanding of the object of there are two possible directions here:
study, as well as the actions that are fundamen-
tal to transform such understanding in if we consider the human relationships as
production of knowledge. Thus, the interest here man-nature relationships, in which a non-
is bringing about the knowledge of the actions communicative knowledge is used, we choose
necessary to understand the processes that a concept of cognitive-instrumental rationality;
if, alternatively, we consider human how does one engage in an action based on
relationships as taking place through the weaving the communicative action?
of intersubjectively shared knowledges, we opt Let us imagine for a moment a researcher,
for a concept of communicative rationality. or a team of researchers, coming to a school to
conduct an action research. How should they
Both modes of rationality take place in our position themselves within a culture with its
daily lives. However, the exercise of action codes, meanings, representations, resistances, and
research as a formative-emancipative investigation its certainly varied and dissonant expectations?
requires fundamentally the communicative mode How can they familiarize themselves with such a
of action. What are the assumptions of this new environment, to which they do not belong
model? at first? How should they step into and deal with
According to Rojo (1997), communicative the initial contradictions, how do they notice
action is an eminently interactive action that them? How to turn the groups present there into
emerges out of the collective, of the team. This workgroups? How should they start the job of
action does not intend to guarantee efficiency at smoothing out resistances and prejudices? How
any cost, it is not individualistic, it does not can they achieve an atmosphere of trust and
chase success; on the contrary, it is a dialogical attachment?
action, life-based, that emerges from the lived I share the concern of Mizukami et al.
world. This action grows out of the situation, (2002, p. 122) when they analyze the difficulties
and offers it ways out. It is communal, searches inherent to doing research in/with the practice:
for understanding, goes after negotiation, how do teachers and administrators deal with
agreement, seeks consensus; it is axiological, asymmetric power relations, which can distort
because believes in the validity of the discussed the data and put the participants at risk? And
norms. Serene when listening, strong in the authors alert to the ethical issues that emer-
decision-making (p. 32-33). ge from unequal power relations.
The agreements resulting from negotiation, Therefore the big issue here is that of the
based on the communicative rationality, are necessary intermingling of roles: how does one
intersubjective, critically and dialogically go from researcher to participant, continuing to
negotiated; different from the agreements be eminently researcher?; or how does one go
resulting from the strategic rationality: cold, from teacher subject of the research to
imposed, induced through rewards, threats, researcher of ones doing, whilst keeping oneself
suggestions, in which all that matters is the essentially in the role of teacher? Another
success of the actions proponent. inequality, almost of identities, ensues: the
In the communicative action, the researcher will certainly be primarily involved
participants can reach a shared knowledge that with the research and its results; the teacher will
creates an interactional structure of trust and certainly be primarily involved with the action,
commitment. But in the strategic action, guided waiting for the improvements in his/her practice.
by actions of mutual influence, the subjective How does one reconcile, mediate and articulate
agreement is not possible; the mechanism of these differences, so deeply rooted in the
induction of values and beliefs takes over, professional doing of those involved?
undermining interaction and forbidding the It can be seen that action research will
development of an atmosphere of mutual seldom be carried out by inexperienced
support and true participation. Therefore, the researchers, for the risk of methodological
action necessary for the exercise of the type of naivet: in other words, due to the risk that
research we discuss here shall be the one those dissonances go unnoticed, are dealt with
resulting from the communicative action. But superficially, and that one falls prey of a
strategic action, making it difficult for the universe, time to transform barriers and resistances,
research to move towards its true intentionality. time to comprehend new facts and values that
Along these lines, I believe that the emerge from the constant situations of exercising
collaborative, slow, silent posture, serene when the new, time to reconsider the professional roles,
listening, strong in decision-making, is an time to prepare the ruptures that emerge, time for
important path, often walked by Elliot in his the unforeseen, time to restart
work with teachers on curriculum change: the Another necessary consideration ensues:
collaboration and the negotiation between action research, to be properly conducted, needs
experts and practitioners (teachers) characterize a long time to achieve its full realization. It
the initial form of what became later known as cannot be a hurried, superficial, clocked process.
action research (Elliot, 1998, p. 138). Unpredictability is a fundamental component to
Garrido, Pimenta and Moura (1998) also the practice of action research. To embrace
reached important conclusions in the action unpredictability means to be open to real-time
research they developed at a public school in the reconstructions, to restart form the beginning,
State of So Paulo. They were asked by the school to reposition priorities, always in the collective,
to participate in a movement that was demanding through widely negotiated agreements. Hurrying
changes; they placed themselves as coworkers in is a principle that does not work in action
the group, without surrendering their roles as research, and if it is present it almost invariably
researchers; they stepped into the school culture leads to clumsiness in dealing with the
silently and slowly, while opening to the school collective, giving priority to the product, and
group the culture of the University, always under making it easier to adopt strategic procedures
the perspective of helping in the changes desired that will disfigure the research.
by the group, and without losing sight of the With the purpose of highlighting what
formative character of the process. has been discussed so far in terms of answering
From Lewin to Elliot, it is recognized that the question: what action do we talk about when
an important feature of action research is its we refer to action research?, we can point out:
process of integration between research, reflection
and action, continuously followed in cyclic spirals, the action related to the action research
giving space and time to deepen the group- must the linked to procedures involved in a
researcher integration, as well as allowing the communicative attitude;
practice of this process to gradually become more the actions carried out must emerge from
familiar, and also supplying the time for the the collective and move towards it;
interpersonal knowledge to grow, and lastly, the actions in action research must be
through the spirals, opening up time and space for eminently interactive, dialogical, vitalist;
the cognitive/emotional acquisition of the new the action must lead to understanding/
situations experienced by the whole group of negotiation/agreements;
practitioners and researchers. the actions must reproduce themselves in
Considering how essential the cyclic spirals the production of a shared knowledge;
are, working both as instruments of reflection/ the actions must seek to strengthen the
evaluation of the stages of the process, and as an inter-fertilization of roles: from participant to
instrument of self-formation and enhancement of researcher, and from researcher back to
individual and collective acquisitions, particularly in participant, thereby fulfilling their formative
the affective-emotional aspect, we must recognize role;
that an action research cannot be carried out in a actions must foster the living together, and
short period of time. There must be time to built the overcoming of asymmetric power and role
an intimacy, time to construct a closer cognitive relationships;
actions must be readapted and renewed being able to make oneself available to the
through cyclic spirals; actors, so as to allow them to observe and
actions must integrate processes of understand the logic of the actions;
reflection/research and formation; maintaining the scientific rigor of the work,
actions must reproduce themselves respecting and looking after the just interpretation of the
the different times and spaces that emerge from facts and practices;
the vital necessities of the process. working always for an objective, and not
for a client, thereby becoming an activist and
To analyze the configuration of these not the servant of an imposed project (Pirson,
actions in the social roles of the participants of 1981);
action research we shall highlight here the work of taking part in each stage of the evolution
Lavoie, Marquis and Laurin (1996), in which they of the project, together with the participant
make use of various conceptual references, and subjects.
attempt to synthesize the principal roles of
researcher and actors in a process of action As we can see, the actions listed above
research. From that synthesis I shall make another, presuppose that which we have already stated,
better suited to the focus of our work. that is, that the actions of the researcher must
Principal actions of the researcher (soci- happen within a paradigm of communicative
al roles): action, with a focus on guaranteeing space for
the expression and participation of the
overcoming the purely phenomenological, practitioners, and also on the guarantee of the
essentially subjective knowledge, and move intentionality of an action research.
towards the construction of a knowledge of Let us now inspect the synthesis of
the practice, situated between the subjective expectations of participants actions according
and the objective poles; to these same authors:
establishing an even communication with
the actors, recognizing their capacity for to participate in the creation of the
giving meaning to the facts, organizing and instruments, and thus learn their meaning;
planning; to show commitment according to ones
being a facilitator: intervene only when talents, abilities, experiences and particular
needed; relationships to the situation investigated;
being capable of recognizing that his/her to participate actively in the development
actions have different meanings to different of the research problem, and of the action, in
social actors. The researcher must try to know the search for solutions: in short, of all stages
and adjust to each of these meanings; of the work;
knowing and working with the communication to collaborate in the decision-making, both
and meaning biases: to this end, the researcher in issues of the research and in questions of
must allow integrations to take place as a the action;
consequence of the mechanisms of the to be cautious in dealing with the official
dialectical approach that gives support to the release of results, and prudent in the
action research studies; generalizations;
accepting that things may change, that they to behave professionally, and use ones
can be reconstructed; knowledge and experience to question the
having the ability to live under uncertainty, researcher;
and learning to recognize the unique character to be willing to take part both in the research
of each situation; and in the ensuing actions;
to accept to live with the uncertainty and needs to know and be interested in the dynamics
instability inherent to all dynamic situations, of the groups, in the sense of the dialectics of
where total predictability is impossible; formation and reproduction mechanisms of the
to live intimately the experience and try to group in order to work well with action research.
objectivate it and share its meanings with the Morin (1986) reminds us that the
group. actions of the researcher must be suffused by
an accessible discourse, without any complex
Attitudes of availability, cooperation and scientific apparatus (p. 304). It must be a
commitment are expected. We know, however, that spontaneous discourse, enriched by the
such dispositions are not always readily present in experiences lived through the dialogue, and,
the group. The researcher must know how to build above all, be a discourse open to transfor-
this sense of partnership and cooperation, creating mations and, given that action research is a
a group atmosphere that allows the qualitative procedure open to constant revisions and
emergence of these actions in all participants. This restructuring, have an eminently exploratory
situation can be better experienced when the group character.
requests the intervention of the researchers, as in
the already mentioned case of professor Selma Pi- How do research and action
menta and her team. In this case, the climate of integrate in action research?
cooperation is more evident from the start, but (What is the meaning of the
other problems exist, even because the request hyphen between research and
made by the group does not always express the action?)
wish of the majority: sometimes it reflects a smaller
set of interests within the larger, not always I regard as necessary to reflect about the
convergent, set of interests. quality of the relationship between research
Here we meet again the concerns of Lewin and action in a process of action research
(1946) related to the study of action research, the because I believe that many mistakes arise
growth of the investigations about the dynamics from overlooking this issue.
and genesis of the groups, about group change When we speak of action research, we
blocking mechanisms, or still about the evolution refer to:
of group collective perceptions. Lewin stated that
only a good knowledge of the workings and research in action;
dynamics of a given group would allow the research for action;
researcher to enter its climate, to understand its research with action;
logic. Writing about Lewins considerations, research about action;
Mailhiot (1970, p. 61) says: action with research;
action for research;
At first, the goal to be reached is to make action in research.
groups and subgroups conscious and lucid
about the dynamics inherent to the evolving Are there differences in these subtle
social situation. It is only from this moment statements? Are there any modifications to the
on that groups and subgroups will accept investigation process when we exchange these
changes and complements to their group prepositions or the positions of the two
perceptions. components in the expressions? I believe there
are differences, and they become more clear
Along these lines, another important when we detach the methodological intention
warning to inexperienced researchers is this: one from its procedures.
If we consider the reflections made in research. In developing action research, there is
this article, and drawing for our synthesis from an emphasis on flexibility, on the progressive
Lavoie, Marquis and Laurin (1996: 41), action adjustments to the facts, strengthening the issue
research can be seen as: of research with action.
If we consider action research as a
an approach to research, with social research on/about action, we can make at least
features, associated to a strategy of two mistakes:
intervention, and that evolves in a dynamic
context; we can turn action research into a study to
a research that starts from the assumption evaluate a procedure adopted, a transformation
that research and action can be together; occurred, or even an ongoing process. In this
a research that has as its objectives the case, the research, regardless of being relevant,
change, the understanding of the practices, cannot be considered as action research, for it
the resolution of problems, the production of has lost its dynamic feature of transmutation
knowledges and/or the improvement of a after transformations, and therefore has lost its
given situation in the direction proposed by possibility of progressive adjustment, a funda-
the collective; mental factor to the research of/in the praxis;
a research originated from real social needs, another mistake, quite common among
that must be linked to the natural living inexperienced researchers, is related to the fact
environment, have the participation of all that the researcher investigates his/her own
involved in all its stages; workplace or job. A school principal or a
methodologically, a research that has pedagogical coordinator, or even a teacher,
flexible procedures, that adjusts progressively carries out the research within their own
to the facts, that establishes a systematic professional action. The importance of this
communication between the participants, and positioning notwithstanding, the ensuing
that evaluates itself throughout the process; research can hardly be characterized as action
a research that has an empirical character, research, particularly because of the hierarchy of
that establishes dynamic relationships with professional roles, of the implicit powers that
the experiences, and becomes richer with its demand strategic actions and not communicative
interpretive categories of analysis; actions.
a research that has an innovative design
and a form of collective management where What is important to remark is that action
the researcher is also a participant, and research suggests always the simultaneity of
participants are also researchers. research and action, and action and research, to
the point of considering that perhaps this
If we consider the points raised above, it connection should be denoted by a double arrow
becomes more evident that for an action research between the two words instead of a hyphen:
to take place there must be an association of the action?research, to stress the simultaneity, the
research with a collective strategy or proposal for intercommunication, and the inter-fertilization.
intervention, indicating the research position from I want to make it very clear that there are
the outset with the intervention action, an action other forms of research, very relevant and
that immediately becomes itself object of necessary, which work with the issue of the
investigation. We also assume that research and relationship between action and research in a
action can be united in a same process, different manner. My point does not drive in any
reaffirming the issue of research with action, way at criticisms to other forms of considering and
which gradually also becomes action with discussing this simultaneity. I just want to stress
that when I refer to action research, drawing from knowledges, and also create new knowledges to
the theoretical assumptions briefly exposed in this be incorporated to the scientific field.
text, the simultaneity/intercommunication/inter- These moments to be given priority in
fertilization between research and action is an action research shall be called here intermediate
aspect inherent to the proposal. Thence come the pedagogical processes, and can be summarized
operational/existential difficulties of carrying out an as follows:
action research, since working scientifically under
the uncertainty of roles, under the contradiction of construction of the collective dynamics;
expectations, under the uncertainty of the events resignification of the cyclic spirals;
that shall give new directions to the process, production of knowledge and socialization
requires much conviction, much boldness, and of knowledges;
much perseverance. analysis/redirection and evaluation of
practices;
Structuring a pedagogical awareness of the new dynamics of
process for action research understanding;

It is common for beginner researchers to Construction of the collective


ask for a practical blueprint, like a steps of dynamics
the method to carry out an action research.
There are authors that respond to this demand It is very difficult to deal adequately in
very adequately, and I mention especially the such short space with the importance of the
above-cited work of Lavoie, Marquis and Laurin construction/reconstruction of a collective
(1996). However, I want in this article to dynamics. However, the researchers that set out
highlight the methodological flexibility of action to conduct an action research must be aware of
research as one of its essential components, the fact that they are dealing with a somehow
which entails, as with all work on the practice, structured group that possesses its own
a scientific rigor that is more tied to the dynamics, and that at the outset the researchers
epistemological coherence of the process than to do not belong to the group. In this group the
the adherence to a ritual succession of acts. That researchers intend, along with the collective, to
is why I underline the issue of a pedagogy of process changes. How does one arrive and
action research that considers the complexity, immediately start researching? Certainly there
the unpredictability, the opportunity offered by must be a collective warm-up before the
some unexpected events, the potential fecundity research work proper.
of some moments that emerge from the praxis, Every manual about the phases/stages of
indicating that the researcher many times needs action research suggests that the work should begin
to act at the urgency, and decide under the with a diagnostic of the situation for later planning
uncertainty, as Perrenoud (1999) says with of the action. However, I believe to be impossible to
respect to the working of teachers. conduct the formal work of diagnostic and/or
Thus, as a first conclusion to this text, I planning of actions until researcher and group have
would like to emphasize some moments that positioned themselves as a we, until they are
should be given special attention in a process of together to carry out a collective task.
action research to guarantee the articulation of its There is no room in the space of this
ontological, epistemological and methodological article to discuss the studies that present
assumptions in a pedagogical dynamics that must evidences of the fact that changing collective
bring forth in the subjects, involvement, attitudes or producing social changes in a
participation, commitment, and production of group requires a realignment of its power and
representation structures, and in the dynamics We must make it clear that this
that organize its social practices. We must, intermediate pedagogical process, like the
however, remember that the work with action others that follow, should take place during the
research requires the setting up of an whole process of action research, and also that
atmosphere of professional cooperation, to one must work with the perspective that such
employ the phrase by Thurler (2001). According intermediate processes must be incorporated
to her, professional cooperation does not by the group, transcending the moment of the
correspond to the functioning of the majority research, and function as principles and
of teachers individualism remains at the heart operators of continuing formation. In other
of professional identity (p. 59). For this reason, words, the construction of the dynamics of the
the construction of this culture of cooperation collective is a main focus at the outset of the
must be a task of all who intend to work in the research but must continue in a process of
collective of the school. improvement and strengthening even after the
The construction of the dynamics of the research is concluded.
collective works with the perspective of
increasing the receptivity of the group of Resignification of the cyclic
practitioners to the culture of cooperation. This spirals
is no easy task. According to Thurler (2001) all
professional cooperation is based on some Barbier (2002) says that the true spirit of
attitudes that must be pursued routinely: action research lies in its approach in spiral.
It means that every advancement in action
a certain habit of mutual help and support; research implies the recursive effect due to a
a capital of trust and mutual frankness; permanent reflection upon the action (p. 117).
each ones participation in collective This permanent reflection about the
decision-making; a climate of warmth, of action is the essence of the pedagogical
humor, of camaraderie, and the habit of character of this work of investigation. In this
expressing ones recognition. (p. 75) process of continued reflection upon the
action, which is an eminently collective process,
Still, I ask myself: how do we build up the space is open to form new subjects
the climate of camaraderie? Of shared humor? researchers. I have already mentioned that I
Of mutual frankness? Or, as Shn (1997) says, consider that cyclic spirals play fundamental
how do we overcome the silence game, the roles in action research, such as:
attachment to defenses, the awkwardness, the
shame, the shyness? instruments of reflection/evaluation of the
Along these lines, I propose that the stages of the process;
work with action research should have a instruments of self-formation and collective
preliminary stage constituted by the work of formation of the subjects;
inclusion of the researcher in the group, of the instruments of growth and heightening of
groups self-knowledge with respect to its the individual and collective understandings;
expectations, possibilities and blockages. This instruments of articulation between
preliminary phase is also fundamental to the research/action/reflection and formation.
establishment of a contract of collective action,
commitments to the collective action and to the This issue of the cyclic spirals is directly
goals of the work they will develop. Morin related to the studies of this last decade about
(1992) argues that this contract must be open the formation of critical-reflective teachers. Among
and constantly questioned. those, I consider here the analysis of Libneo
(2002) regarding the hermeneutic, shared, references to the agreements made for the
solidary, and community reflectivity. As the author working of the group;
says, it is about going back to the care of things data related to understandings, interpretations,
and people in the daily social practices, in a and syntheses of the readings of theoretical
shared world, constituting a reflective community fundamentals;
of meaning-sharing (p. 69). descriptions of the activities and practices
In this direction, it is worth reflecting of the group;
along with Monteiro (2002) that the teachers syntheses of group reflections and decisions;
actions tend to become habitual, and that the characterization of the institutional and
habits give support to the actions, and then administrative changes taking place;
noting that the (re)vision of our actions allows description of the participation of the
their transformation. The author then says that elements of the group.
the revision is a theoretical, reflective operation
upon the actions taken or to be taken; it is the These data are discussed, reflected upon,
establishment of a new practice through a new incorporated, and resignified by the group,
look upon it (p. 118). I regard as important the especially through the cyclic spirals, gradually
new look approach, since if we are submerged becoming knowledges of the research process.
in the praxis, in the collective exercise, the look These understandings/interpretations/analyses/
is what changes first, and it is the look that no revisions need to the processed in the form of
longer accepts being confronted with the already critical records. The whole group must take
overcome. This new look, coming from a subject place, even because these discussions and
conscious of the existential and personal records are important formative instruments of
transformations, questions the need for new the researcher.
scenarios. The cyclic spirals intend to objectivate In this reflective process of gathering
this new look, so that new needs will come data, recording them collectively, discussing
from it, implying in new practices. them, and putting them into context, we are
Thus, the method of action research must already moving toward the construction of
include the continual exercise of its various stages knowledges and their sharing, in a unique,
through the cyclic spirals: here, in this intermediate dialectical process, transforming of the
pedagogical process, I refer to the production of participants and of the existential conditions.
knowledge and socialization of knowledges. They
are complementary and associated tasks, Analysis/redirection and
particularly in the case of action research, where evaluation of practices
we aim at the collective, shared work.
The research requires the rigorous and This movement is, in fact, already included
methodic record of the data. This work needs in the process of the cyclic spirals. I mention it
to be constantly done. There are authors, here to stress the importance of this perspective of
among them Lavoie, Marquis and Laurin (1996) the evaluation of the practices, not of the research
and Morin (1986), that even mention the need process, but of the actions carried out by the
for a logbook 4 as an instrument necessary to subjects. We stress this because it is fundamental
put in writing the data gathered during the that, after a work of action research, the participant
whole research process. Be it a logbook or subjects have learned behaviors and attitudes in the
otherwise, it matters that it is a daily and direction of incorporating the daily reflection as an
routine record, so as to objectivate the lived activity inherent to the exercise of their practices.
and the understood. These records of data and
facts include, amongst others: 4. Journal de bord.
According to Smyth (1989), cited in In a previous work (Franco, 2000) I
Amaral, Moreira and Ribeiro (1996), the approached the topic of the teachers that,
reflection about the practice must transcend the entering a continual process of revision of their
aspects of the classroom and contents, to reach own practice, end up incorporating attitudes in
a level of reflection about the ethical and the direction of becoming investigators in the
political principles of society. According to the context of the practice. As investigators they
author, in order to give emancipative powers to will learn and develop abilities to:
the teacher we need to question the ethical
validity of certain practices and beliefs as a way create new hypotheses to carry out new
of giving back to the teacher his/her role as an practices;
intellectual (p. 102). live creatively within diversity;
For this analysis and evaluation of the find new answers to newly-perceived
practices, a continual work will be needed, so that challenges;
the participants get involved in self-observation, recognize and make use of the theories
observation of others, reflecting about the implicit in their practice, renew them and
transformations of reality that the practical actions make them more adequate;
produce, reconstructing their perceptions, building reinterpret the initial hypotheses;
new theories about the practices, exchanging and look for articulations between educational
intersubjectively analyzing their understandings. means and ends;
see themselves as capable of extracting
Awareness of the new from the collective the sources of personal
dynamics of understanding improvement;
learn to understand the dialectical relation
According to Ghedin (2002), what we do between subject and object, theory and practice;
is not explained by how we do it; it makes sense seek out contextualizing, problematizing
after the meanings attributed to it. These meanings attitudes, and establish articulations between
are not latent, but actually emanate from the the fact and the totality;
senses we build (p. 141). To speak of process of reaffirm that transformation is the principle
action research is to speak of a process that must of development; acquire the ability to create
produce transformations of sense, resignifications new visions, to understand the problems in
of what we do or think. The transformation of other ways, beyond their current repertoire;
meaning implies the reconstruction of the subject find out the concrete meaning of the
himself and once again we cite Ghedin to make conflictive and complex situations, making it
explicit that when we construct the knowing of a possible to envisage that practice is an
given object, it is not just the object that becomes investigative process, of experimenting with
known, but the subject himself; the author situations, so as to seek new and more adequate
concludes that the knowledge of something is understandings.
also, simultaneously, a self-knowledge.
It will therefore be important that during Thus, we reaffirm that action research
an action research there is time and space for can and must work as a methodology for
each subject to incorporate the changes that research pedagogically structured, allowing
take place in his/her significations of the world, both the production of new knowledges to the
which essentially imply in changes in his/her area of education, and the formation of critical
perspective as a subject. and reflective researchers.
Bibliographical References

ALVES-MAZZOTTI, Alda J. e GEWANDSZNAJDER, Fernando. O mtodo nas cincias naturais e sociais: pesquisa quantitativa e
qualitativa. So Paulo: Pioneira. 2001.

AMARAL, M. J; MOREIRA, M. A; RIBEIRO, D. O papel do supervisor no desenvolvimento do professor reflexivo: estratgias de


superviso. In: ALARCO, Isabel (org.). Formao reflexiva de professores: estratgias de superviso. Porto: Porto Editora,
1996, p. 91-122.

BARBIER, Rene. A pesquisa-ao. Braslia: Plano, 2002.

BOUFLEUR, Jos Pedro. Pedagogia da ao comunicativa: uma leitura de Habermas. Iju: Editora Iniju, 1997.

CARR, W. Action Research: Ten Years On. Journal of curriculum studies.21 (1), 85-90. USA.

______; KEMMIS, W. Becoming critical education; knowledge and action research. London and Philadelphia: The Palmer Press,
1986.

COREY, M.S. Action Research to improve School Practices. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949.

CTE-THIBAULT, D. Historique de la recherch-action. In: LAVOIE, L.; MARQUIS, D.; LAURIN, P. La recherch-action: thorie et
pratique. Canad: Presses de lUniversit du Qubec, 1996.

DUBOST, Jean. La intervention psycho-sociologique. Paris: PUF, 1987.

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

ELLIOTT, John. El cambio educativo desde la investigatin-accin. Madri: Morata, 1996.

FRANCO, Maria Amlia Santoro. Dinmica compreensiva: integrando identidade e formao docente. Anais do X ENDIPE. Rio de
Janeiro, 2000.

______. Pedagogia como cincia da educao. Campinas: Papirus, 2003.

GARRIDO, Elsa; FUSARI, Maria F.R.; MOURA, Manoel O.; PIMENTA, Selma G. A pesquisa colaborativa, a formao do professor
reflexivo/investigativo e a construo coletiva de saberes e prticas pela equipe escolar. Anais do IX ENDIPE. guas de Lindia,
v. 1: p. 48-49, 1998 (Projeto USP- Ayres/ FE-USP/ Fapesp).

GHEDIN, E. Professor reflexivo: da alienao da tcnica autonomia da crtica. In: PIMENTA, S. e GHEDIN, E. Professor reflexivo no
Brasil: gnese e crtica de um conceito. So Paulo: Cortez, 2002, p. 129-149.

GUBA, E.G. (org.). The paradigm dialog. Londres: Sage Publications, 1989.

HABERMAS, Jrgen. Connaissance et intrt. Paris: Gallimard, 1982.

INGRAM, David. Habermas e a razo dialtica. Braslia: Editora da Unb, 1993.

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

KINCHELOE, Joe L. A formao do professor como compromisso poltico: mapeando o ps-moderno. Porto Alegre: Artes Mdicas,
1997.

LAVOIE, L. MARQUIS, D.; LAURIN, P. La recherch-action: thorie et pratique. (Manuel dautoformation). Canad: Presses de
lUniversit du Qubec, 1996.

LEWIN, K. Action Research and minority problems. Soc. Issues, II, p. 33-34. New York.1946. Artigo representado In: LEWIN, K.
Resolving Social Conflits. New York. Harpers and Brothers. 1948. Traduo brasileira. LEWIN, K. Problemas de Dinmica de
Grupos. So Paulo: Cultrix, 1970.
LIBNEO, J.C. Reflexividade e formao de professores: outra oscilao no pensamento pedaggico brasileiro? In: PIMENTA, S. e
GHEDIN, E. Professor Reflexivo no Brasil: gnese e crtica de um conceito. So Paulo: Cortez Editora, 2002, p. 53-80.

MAILHIOT, Grald Bernard. Dynamique et gense des groupes. Paris: dition de lpi, 1970.

MIZUKAMI, Maria da Graa Nicoletti et alli. Escola e aprendizagem da docncia: processos de investigao e formao. So Carlos:
EdUFSCar, 2002.

MONTEIRO, Silas B. Epistemologia da Prtica: o professor reflexivo e a pesquisa colaborativa. In: PIMENTA, S. e GHEDIN, E.
Professor Reflexivo no Brasil: gnese e crtica de um conceito. So Paulo: Cortez, 2002, p. 111-128.

MORIN, A. Recherche-action en ducation: de la pratique la thorie. Rapport. Canad: Universit de Montreal, 1986.

MORIN, A. Recherche-action intgrale et participation cooperative. Mthodologie et etudes des cas. Laval: ditions Agence dArc,
1992, vol. I.

PERRENOUD, P. Ensinar: agir na urgncia e decidir na incerteza. Porto Alegre: Artes Mdicas, 1991.

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

ROJO, M. R. Hacia uma Didctica crtica. Madri: Editorial La Muralla, 1997.

SCHN, D. la recherche dune nouvelle pistmologie de la pratique et de ce quelle implique pour lducation des adultes. In:
BARBIER, J-M. (org.). Savoirs thoriques et saviors daction. Paris: PUF, 1997, p. 201-222.

SMYTH, J. Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of teacher education. XXXX (2), 1989.

TABA, H. & Noel, E. Acting Research: a case study. Washington, D.C., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
(NEA), 1957, p.12-27.

THURLER, Monica G. Inovar no interior da escola. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2001.

Received 29.06.05
Accepted 15.09.05

Maria Amlia Santoro Franco is pedagogue, PhD in Education from the University of So Paulo, and coordinator of the
program of Master in Education at the Catholic University of Santos.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen