Introduction

Studies in research networks favours debate and dialogue, which generates new interpretations of important themes for teacher education³. As explained by Magalhães, Souza and Argüello (2022), they help in the conjunction of collective dialogues, which ends up consolidating theoretical and epistemological reflections that help to overcome linear thinking, based, for example, on common sense. As the authors explain, linear thinking can be quite common among researchers - beginners, undergraduate and graduate students, scholarship holders, etc., showing difficulties they face in the training process. The association in research networks thus favours the learning of various theoretical or conceptual references, expansion of experience in research development, participation in contexts of debates and dialogues on various objects of study, sharing of knowledge, which influences, in the end, the very production of knowledge generated by the network of researchers (MAGALHÃES; SOUZA; ARGÜELLO, 2022).

It is possible to state that, from the experience as a researcher integrated with Redecentro (Researchers' Network on the teacher in the Midwest region/Brazil), the research capacity is expanded, as well as the interlocution of objects of study. Such is the case of the centrality of the analysis presented in this article, which is concerned with highlighting the principles of teacher education in contemporaneity and, based on collective studies in Network, undertake the analysis of their influence on teacher education promoted at the Pedagogical University (UP) of Mozambique.

Network studies help to compose the reflection on principles that should guide teacher education, and how they are supported by contemporary authors, such as ^{Zeichner (1998}, 2011), ^{Nóvoa (2009}, 2010), ^{Pimenta (2002}) , ^{Sacristán (1999}), ^{Contreras (2003}), and others who, as a whole, emphasize the goal of finding paths that can contribute to the improvement of training processes.

The principles that will be highlighted still follow several epistemological perspectives - from practice or praxis (MAGALHÃES; SOUZA, 2019c), which end up influencing, in a way, the design of teacher training programs in various parts of the world. And yet, the different principles and/or guidelines that influence teacher education are still linked to different paradigms (SOUZA, 2012) that also end up supporting other ways of perceiving and explaining educational phenomena, which also have an impact on teacher education.

Authors such as ^{Zeichner (1998}, 2011), ^{Nóvoa (2009}, 2010) and ^{Pimenta (2002}) are some of the theorists who have contributed with their formulations to the design of new proposals for teacher education, based on a critical conception, with a focus in transforming and overcoming the current situation. Despite all being affiliated with a critical approach, each one develops in their own manner, the way they understand that teacher education should be. This means that, as members of a research network, we must collectively assume a critical conception of teacher education. In this sense, we highlight here the critical conception that we sustain from ^{Silva (2011}) that

[…] understands training as a human activity that transforms the natural and social world to make it a human world, without this activity being conceived with a strictly utilitarian character. It contains the dimensions of knowing - theoretical activity - and transforming - practical activity, in an inseparable relationship between both: theory and practice” (^{SILVA, 2011}, p. 22).

Therefore, the first part of the article will present the principles defended by the authors who were chosen to guide the reflection - ^{Zeichner (1998}, 2011), ^{Nóvoa (2009}, 2010) and ^{Pimenta (2002}); the second describes the approximations of the principles defended by the authors with those who guide training at the Pedagogical University of Mozambique (UP). In the final considerations are presented collective reflections developed by the research group, in a collaborative movement that tries to indicate some limitations for the application of the principles in teacher education in UP-Mozambique.

Principles and guidelines that permeate teacher education in the contemporary phase

^{Nóvoa (2010}) denounces that in the contemporary phase there is a lot of discourse about teachers. However, there is a great distance between the discourse and teaching practice. Nóvoa considers that despite the almost consensual discourse, in terms of principles and measures, it is necessary to consider and ensure teacher learning and development in this regard. Despite a supposed discursive consensus, the author points to the need to:

articulation of initial training, induction and in-service training in a perspective of lifelong learning; attention to the first years of professional practice and the inclusion of young teachers in schools; valuing the reflective teacher and research-based teacher education; importance of collaborative cultures, teamwork, monitoring, supervision and evaluation of teachers; etc. (^{NOVOA, 2010}. p. 15).

Still, according to the author, the speech above became common from two groups: the first, constituted by researchers in the area of ​​teacher education, educational sciences, didactics, institutional networks and various work groups; the second, made up of specialists who are part of large international organizations or who act as consultants to teacher education. Nóvoa also explains that the first group, in recent years, has produced many texts that “have as their mark the concept of reflective teacher and that made a change in thinking about teachers and their training”. (^{NOVOA, 2010}, p. 16). And the second, spread throughout the world, discursive practices based on comparative arguments, due to its knowledge of international networks.

It should be noted that in the measures that Nóvoa points out as consensual, the one referring to the concept of reflective teacher⁴, despite having influenced several professional training programs, it was criticized by several authors, due to the different interpretations given to the concept.

^{Pimenta (2002}) considers that several teacher education programs have emptied the concept of reflective teacher. For her, the limit of this concept lies in the fact that it is restricted to an individual reflection in which the changes that can be made are immediate, but cannot alter situations beyond the classroom. The author states that it is necessary to consider practical and theoretical knowledge in a dialectical way, to show that theory is important in training processes, reinforcing that teaching knowledge is not only constituted by practice, but also nourished by theories of education.

About the role of theory, the author also describes,

Theory as an objective culture is important in teacher education, since, in addition to its formative power, it provides subjects with different points of view for contextualized action. Therefore, the propositional theoretical knowledge is articulated with the knowledge of practice, at the same time re-signifying them and being re-signified by them. The role of theory is to offer teachers perspectives of analysis to understand the historical, social, cultural, organizational contexts and of themselves as professionals, in which their teaching activity takes place, to intervene in them, transforming them (^{PIMENTA, 2002}, p 26).

The quote by ^{Pimenta (2002}) warns against the fact that practice is not only valued at the expense of scientific knowledge. We agree with Pimenta, as teacher education should not be instrumental and technical. For this reason, it is considered that the mastery of scientific knowledge by teachers is important when articulated with practice and other knowledge. The author also suggests that the term reflective critical intellectuals surpass the one of reflective teacher.

Still on the criticism of the concept of reflective teacher, ^{Liston and Zeicnher (2003}) consider that reflection is one of the dimensions of the “pedagogical act, but for its understanding those who reflect must consider the conditions of production of this work”. Thus, it is understood that reflection should not be an individual act. It is necessary to consider the social, political and economic conditions. We agree with them, as what happens in the classroom is a reflection of a whole situation that happens in the surroundings.

Returning to ^{Nóvoa (2010}) and about his concern regarding the distance that exists between discourse and practice in teacher education, and, later, in teaching practice itself, he asks: How to do what we say it is necessary to do?

In an attempt to answer, it presents some guidelines such as: i) Transfer teacher training into the profession; ii) Promote new ways of organizing the teaching profession; iii) Reinforce the personal dimension and public presence of teachers. It is recognized that there is a dialectical relationship between the three orientations, however, in this article, due to space and clipping, the first is developed because it is considered an aspect quite evoked in the reforms of teacher training programs - in Brazil and in Mozambique.

Training built within the profession, as described by ^{Nóvoa (2010}), consists of giving greater prominence to practicing teachers in the training of their fellow-future teachers. Some teacher training institutions, including the Pedagogical University of Mozambique, have neglected this fact. The author, using the example of the training of doctors, argues in the following terms:

It is necessary to transfer teacher training to within the profession (...). By using this expression, I want to emphasize the need for teachers to have a predominant place in the training of their colleagues. There will be no significant change if the “teacher educator community” and the “teacher community” do not become more permeable and intertwined. The example of doctors and teaching hospitals and the way in which their preparation is conceived in the initial training, induction and in-service training phases may perhaps serve as an inspiration” (^{NÓVOA, 2010}, p. 18)

^{Nóvoa (2010}), with this example on the training of doctors, highlighted the importance of involving older teachers in training younger ones in the profession. This proposal is believed to be implemented in a situation where there is communication/partnership between the university and the elementary school, including the recognition of teachers as important actors in the training of future teachers. The author also focuses on the challenges of the teacher's work, in the contemporary phase, and points out the need for a training centered on practices and on the analysis of practices, as a fundamental element in training processes.

He still describes that the

Teacher education is sometimes excessively theoretical and methodological, but there is a deficit of practices, of reflecting on practices, of working on practices, of knowing how to do it. It is hopeless to see certain teachers who are genuinely eager to do otherwise and do not know how. Their bodies and heads are full of theory, books, and theses, of authors, but they do not know how it all turns into practice, how it all organizes itself into a coherent practice. Therefore, I have defended, for many years, the need for training centered on practices and on the analysis of these practices (^{NÓVOA, 2009}, p. 14)

This preposition by ^{Nóvoa (2009}) is related to the one presented previously, it advocates transferring teacher education into the profession. His way of conceiving teacher education breaks with that in which technical rationality guided the organization of teacher education programs. In this sense, technical rationality is based on an epistemology of practice derived from positivist philosophy (^{MAGALHÃES, 2019a}), that is, technical rationality says that professionals are those who solve instrumental problems, selecting the most appropriate technical means for specific purposes. (^{SCHON, 2000}, p. 15).

In training programs that are affiliated with the perspective of technical rationality, therefore, the epistemology of practice, provide a great gap between theory and practice. However, as stated by Nóvoa, it draws attention to the fact that he considers that “it is not the practice that is transforming, but the reflection on the practice. It is the ability to reflect and analyse” (^{NÓVOA, 2009}, p.15).

Nóvoa's warning shows that it is not enough to include the practice in teacher training programs to ensure that future teachers will later be able to deal with the complexity of the teaching profession. He also reaffirms the need to bring problems encountered at school to the University, analyse them critically and find ways to overcome them. One of the paths that the author puts forward with which he agrees, is to conceive teacher training based on research, which has teaching action and school work as problematic. Also with regard to research in training processes, ^{Pimenta (2002}, p. 45) adds that for a solid teacher education, it is important for universities to take research as a fundamental axis in teacher education.

^{Zeichner (2011}), in a different perspective, but which, however, coincides with some aspects of ^{Nóvoa (2009}), highlights the importance of knowing the reality of the school where future teachers will practice their profession. The author argues that there should be no distance between the university and the complexity of schools, after all, the school is a place for learning and not for applying what was studied at the university.

About this ^{Ghedin and Franco (2008}, p. 36-37) highlighted that teacher training institutions should consider the

[…] approximation between the training space and the real contexts of professional practice needs to be based on a new relationship in which schools are considered spaces of professional learning and not simple spaces of application. (^{GHEDIN; FRANCO, 2008}, p. 36-37).

The perspective of teacher training for social justice, another aspect defended by ^{Zeichner (2011}), considers it essential to integrate experienced teachers at the basic level with teaching on campus. This means including basic education teams and community representatives, such as full-time partners in all aspects of planning and renewing teacher education programs, as well as carefully mediating on-campus teaching in relation to the complexity of schools.

There is a new and important element that ^{Zeichner (2011}) points out, which is the involvement of communities in the planning and renewal of training programs. We agree with this idea, as the teachers who are trained have the mission of serving these communities. Unfortunately, decisions about reforms are taken at the highest level without sometimes consider the reality in which teachers will work.

Still with regard to training, ^{Zeichner (2011}) places action research involving academics, elementary school teachers and students in training, as a fundamental element in teacher training processes. He considers the collective project in teacher education to be important.

Giving due importance to collective work in action-research, ^{Geraldi (1998}, p. 259) describes it as follows:

Another issue that Zeichner considers important in action research is its execution in groups, first to overcome the individualistic tendency, already mentioned above and mainly because it is in the group and through it that teachers can support and sustain each other's growth. (…) The group offers the advantage that teachers can support each other and contribute to each other's knowledge. Furthermore, teachers see that their problems are not theirs alone and are related to those of other teachers or to the structure of schools and educational systems.

According to this framework, collective work is an important aspect in professional and institutional development, such as the case of network research and collaborative network work. Individual development cannot bring about a transformation of the situation in a given context, but the collective perspective, as described by ^{Nóvoa (2010}) and ^{Pimenta (2002}), can change a reality. Thus, the importance of collective work in all instances is highlighted.

^{Nóvoa (2010}, p. 23), turning to continuous training programs, argues that they have proved ineffective, and points as a way out the “investment in the construction of collective work networks, which are the support of training practices, based on sharing and professional dialogue”. This again highlights the importance of collaborative network research as well as collective work.

At the end of this argument, some principles/guidelines are highlighted, which the three authors consider fundamental in teacher education:

Next, based on a collective analysis with the network research group, some approximations between some principles that guide teacher education at the Pedagogical University/Mozambique are presented, based on the authors who guide this reflection. It should be noted that the principles mentioned above should not be taken in isolation, as there is a link between them.

Studies in collaborative networks: approximations between the principles of teacher education at UP/Mozambique

In order to approach some principles that guide teacher education at UP and the approaches that exist with the principles outlined by the authors mentioned above, it is important to refer to the curricular model adopted by the institution. It is believed that the principles are not dissociated from the model that supports their teacher education today.

An integrated model guides the Teacher Training at the Pedagogical University of Mozambique, consisting of three components: General Training (CFG) - 10%; Educational Training (CFEd) -25%; Specific Training (CFE) - 65%. There is a combination of all the components mentioned, from the 1st year of the course. Professionalizing practices are the backbone of training, as they start from the 1st year. However, ^{Ribeiro (1993}) warns that it is not enough to record the different components without establishing their articulation. He writes:

It is important, however, to emphasize the existence of different modes and degrees regarding the integration of training components. Strictly speaking, the simple temporal juxtaposition of components throughout training programs, without taking care of their articulation, does not effectively deserve to be considered as a form of curricular integration. The effective integration of the components requires that the program is designed and implemented around programmatic vectors. These elements are mutually reinforcing and that support the different types of training to be considered in the program: general and scientific training is defined in the context of professional teacher training and this does not materialize without that; the practice also does not appear disconnected from the theory that underlies it, and the latter cannot be analysed and clarified without the former (^{RIBEIRO, 1993}, p. 20-21)

Ribeiro's quote shows that the challenge is not to include these components throughout the program, but rather to achieve a coherent articulation. It is considered that for this articulation there must be dialogue between the different professors who work in a given course, in addition to effecting a collaborative work, in which everyone fights for institutional development, but also for the professors in training.

The principles that guide the training of teachers at UP are contained in the document entitled “Curricular Bases and Guidelines of the Pedagogical University (BDCs)”.

The UP Curriculum Bases and Guidelines, known for short as BDC, define the general principles on which the training of teachers and other technicians should be based and establish general Curriculum Guidelines that must be followed by all UP courses. The BDCs aim to raise the quality of teaching, learning, research, extension and academic and administrative management in UP's undergraduate courses. (UP, 2008, p. 20-21).

It is from this document that some principles were selected in order to identify the approximations, according to the initial objective. The Academic Regulation was also used, as it helps to understand some of the principles laid down in the UP's teacher training.

From the reading of table 1, it can be seen that the teacher training program at the UP does not stray too far, in some aspects, from the ideas of the authors that guide the reflection built here. The training program recommends professionalizing practices, inseparability between theory and practice, collective work, as an important element in professional development, integration of knowledge and professional development, as a continuous act and valuing interculturality.

However, despite the description and assumed as principles, it is important to emphasize that the UP opted for teacher training based on competences. This fact creates a certain doubt and ambiguity in the interpretation that can be given by different actors in the process. Yet, the hybridism in the list of principles that guide training can be seen.

Reading the Curriculum Bases and Guidelines of the UP, one can observe principles that guide teacher education combined with the concept of competence, for the articulation of theory and practice, as you can read:

Vocational training leads us to select the concept of “competence” as a basic category that will allow the articulation between theory and practice, assuming that all theory has practical implications and that all practice has a theory (UP, 2008, p. 24)

In this sense, we sought to understand how the authors who serve as a reference in this work position themselves with regard to competency-based training policies and how they interpret this articulation between theory and practice. In collective network studies, it was found that, for example, ^{Pimenta (2002}) does not identify with this policy, as he considers that the concept of competence arises within the scope of neoliberal policies, starting to influence the reforms in various training programs of teachers in Brazil and around the world (^{MAGALHÃES; FORTUNATO; MENA, 2020a}).

As the author states, this has led to a devaluation of the teaching profession, as it is a policy that places on the worker the responsibility of continually looking for new skills, thus favouring the training market.

Pimenta also warns that the concept of competences “is replacing the one of knowledge and skill (in the case of education) and that of qualification (in the case of work)” (^{PIMENTA, 2002}, p. 41). She also adds that the discourse on competences heralds a new (neo) technicality, understood as an improvement of positivism characterized by control and evaluation (^{MAGALHÃES, 2019b}).

As for the reference to the articulation between theory and practice in a competency-based curriculum, ^{Pimenta (2002}) points out that

[…] the term also means theory and practice to do something; knowledge in situation; something that is necessary for any worker (and also for the teacher). However, having competence is different from having knowledge and information about work, about what you do (vision of totality: broad awareness of the roots, consequences and implications of what you do beyond the situation; origins; whys and whys what). Therefore, competence can mean immediate action, refinement of the individual and absence of the political (...). Knowledge is broader, allowing one to critique, assess and surpass competences (^{PIMENTA, 2002}, p. 41).

The competence model is fundamentally directed to the “know-how”, therefore supported by an epistemology of practice (^{SOUZA; MAGALHÃES, 2017a}; 2017b). The analysis undertaken shows that the articulation of theory and practice evoked in the UP Curriculum Bases and guidelines cannot be taken as praxis.

It is considered that despite the influence of neoliberal policies, the UP training program advocates some aspects that are accepted as fundamental in teacher training, as mentioned above. However, it must be underlined that not everything that is defined is applied as recommended.

One of the principles pointed out by ^{Nóvoa (2009}; 2010) is teacher training within the profession and training centered on practices and analysis of practices. In the case of UP, what was requested by Nóvoa is fulfilled through pedagogical practices. However, this is one of the aspects that has brought problems in its implementation, as pointed out by Buque (2012, p. 34), in the following terms

UP professors are unable to adequately monitor practitioners due to their excessive number. The practicing student, according to the Academic Regulation, in its article 9, is the UP student who performs Pedagogical Practices in a school, in which its main tasks are: To observe the school reality as a whole; observe classes given by the tutor and his colleagues at UP; Plan classes and teach; Observe grade councils; participate in all school activities, such as meeting discipline groups, class meetings, meeting with parents and guardians (UP, 2005).

(...) Sometimes, a single teacher has to accompany more than 20 students who are in different schools and far from each other (UP, 2005).

(...) What usually happens is that, when practitioners arrive at schools, some teachers leave them to their fate (UP, 2005).

The quote expresses the difficulty in carrying out practices at school, which is also pointed out by ^{Duarte (1996}). He states that despite considering that pedagogical practices (PPs) have brought substantial changes in the quality of training of future teachers, there are also some constraints. They are the following: the difficulty in articulating with the schools, the difficulty in fitting the PPs into the schedules, the lack of tutor training⁵ and supervisors (supervisor is a professor at the UP who accompanies the practicing student), the overload of UP professors, the high number of students per class and the lack of transport for practitioners and supervisors to travel. One of the solutions that are pointed out is the existence of a memorandum of understanding between the MEC and the UP, in the sense that there are already predetermined schools to receive practitioners.

So far, it can be said that the limitations mentioned above show that in UP formation processes there are internal and external factors that influence. As in most teacher training institutions in Brazil and Mozambique, the UP constitutes a field of tensions and contradictions.

Some considerations

The reflection carried out in this article aimed to identify and understand some principles that permeate teacher education in the contemporary phase, seeking to find possible approaches to the principles that guide education at the UP. It appears that there are some approaches as shown in Table 1, but there are also some divergent aspects, such as the case of training based on competences, a policy that is not defended by the authors prioritized here.

It should also be noted that there are similar principles in the context of the document - Curriculum Bases and Guidelines of the UP, however, as presented, not everything that is defined in the document is applied as recommended. This indicates that under the influence of neoliberal policies, the UP training program starts to advocate aspects that are considered fundamental in teacher training, such as directing it towards the acquisition of skills, distancing the principles of training from those that would consolidate it as a praxis.

With the studies and analyses developed with the Network research group, it is understood that the great challenge is not whether or not to include a certain principle in the UP training program, but rather its interpretation, as well as the creation of a an adequate environment for its development and, above all, help to consolidate a conception of critical and emancipatory education among teachers, who will defend it in the context of their future professional performance.