Systemic Practice and Action Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09532-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Teacher-Researcher Training in Higher Education:

a Systems Thinking Approach

Andrés Felipe Astaíza-Martínez 1 & Julio Eduardo Mazorco-Salas

1
&
María Isabel Castillo-Bohórquez 1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
There is a current consensus on teacher training as a key element to promote the quality of
higher education. Despite that, a lot of teacher preparation programs are short-term
training efforts enmeshed in a politically endorsed ‘social market’ perspective that
emphasized instructional skill training and adaptation to the existing curricular organiza-
tion. In this context, training processes based on an innovative alternative vision framed
in a dynamic learning system were context plays a determining role are crucial. This
article presents a formative experience of teacher-researchers in the university context,
theoretically oriented from systems thinking and characterized by a holistic approach
based on contextual learning. The research was designed using Grounded Theory with a
biographical-narrative approach. Participant observation, sociodemographic question-
naire, and semi-structured interviews were used as data collection instruments. The results
show a formative process in which the pedagogical practice is the training core, and
highlight the strengths of systems thinking to favor the co-construction of a teacher
identity that integrates biographies and personal interests of teachers, as well as the
configuration of teacher training processes oriented to collaborative learning. Addition-
ally, it was found that the process shows strengths in several relevant aspects in teacher
education such as reflective teaching as a rejection of top-down forms of educational
programs, the importance of reflective thinking and reflective feeling and the importance
of collaborative learning to contribute to the solution of contextual problems.

Keywords Teacher education . Higher education . Systems thinking . Teacher identity

* María Isabel Castillo-Bohórquez

maria.castillo@unibague.edu.co

Andrés Felipe Astaíza-Martínez

andres.astaiza@unibague.edu.co

Julio Eduardo Mazorco-Salas

julio.mazorco@unibague.edu.co

1
Teacher-Researcher, Unidad de Proyectos Especiales y Pensamiento Sistémico, Universidad de
Ibagué, Carrera 22 Calle 67 B, Av. Ambalá, Ibagué, Tolima, Colombia
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Introduction

For several decades, the need to transform education and shape a new teaching role according
to the particularities of contemporary societies has been a central issue in educational debates
and rhetoric of the twenty-first century. Writings about attitudes, skills and the knowledge
necessary for training teachers,1 by using different and sometimes conflicting categories as a
competent professional, change agent, reflective practitioner, and transformative intellectual.
Everything, to respond to contemporary challenges in education (Torres, 1999).
Although professional quality and commitment of professors depend on heterogeneous
factors, there is a current consensus on the pre-service teacher training and in-service teacher
training as a key element to promote the quality of higher education. Despite that, some teacher
preparation programs are short-term training efforts that emphasized instructional skill training
and adaptation to the existing curricular organization. Moreover, these programs last anywhere
from 3 to 9 mo (Zeichner and Liston 2014).
As a result, professors are in the center of the debate on how education should respond to
the demands of today’s society (Murillo, 2006). The controversy appears when it comes to
defining what educational quality means, a discussion that requires agreeing on the type of
university that is wanted, the type of needs and demands to be addressed, and therefore, the
type of teachers expected to be trained.
According to Monereo (2013), there are currently two points of view and problematization
on this issue, which cover a continuum of less extreme views. The first view called neo-liberal
economist, which is characterized by promoting education as a service whose costs must be
borne by customers or consumers; is based on open market internationalization processes;
pursues the achievement of academic and economic productivity objectives in terms of
international rankings of universities; homogenizes processes and structures to favor institu-
tional procedures, validations, and the free market; and teaches useful skills for the labor
market, among others. Then there is the commonly named alternative-critical view, which
advocates for subsidized public universities; policies based on the needs of the local population
(for instance, regional networks, indigenous universities, etc.); university autonomy
concerning factual and political powers; and for teaching skills to address the needs of
communities. In that respect, Elliott (2012) submits that generate an innovative alternative
vision of teacher education to oppose the rapidly emerging and politically endorsed ‘social
market’ perspective, is an urgent matter.
Moreover, Hargreaves and O’Connor (2018) point out the need to adapt teacher training
programs to the reality of their immediate contexts, and Harris (2011), based on the ideas of
Hargreaves and Shirley in their work, The fourth way (2009), argues that not considering cultural
and social differences is a problem because there is a misconception that teacher training
programs that have shown successful results in one context will operate the same way in other
contexts. in the same line of thought, Ell et al. (2017) point out the need to understand that
teacher training is framed in a dynamic learning system were context plays a determining role.
In this regard, Shulman (2005, 1986), states that teaching practice can be studied,
systematized and improved by teachers as a strategy to adapt different kinds of educational

1
In the Latin American context, the notion of the teacher is used to describe teaching work at the elementary,
middle school, secondary, and post-secondary level. So, in this academic paper, the notion of teacher refers to a
person who teaches in higher education and may also conduct research, publish scholarly articles, and participate
in various university committees. The concept is similar to notions such as university lecturers or professors.
Systemic Practice and Action Research

knowledge to their specific contexts. Similarly, Combs (1978) proposes a comprehensive

approach that recognizes the relevance of feelings in teacher training processes and other
training dimensions such as interpersonal qualities and self-efficacy (Aspy and Roebuck
1980).
Therefore, this article presents a formative experience of teacher-researchers in the univer-
sity context, theoretically oriented from systems thinking, which can be associated with the
alternative-critical view of educational quality, for its objectives and its formative strategies.
Likewise, the formative experience is characterized by a holistic approach based on contextual
learning. This research, address different educational topics concerning teachers training and
teachers practice, such as reflective teaching as a rejection of top-down forms of educational
programs, the importance of reflective thinking and reflective feeling (Zeichner and Liston
2014), teachers identity as a process of developing a teacher persona, which resonates with the
personal sense of self (Brown and Everson 2019), the need for strong organizational structure
and institutional Support (Chavez and Trias 2016) and the importance of collaborative learning
to contribute to the solution of contextual problems (Vesikivi et al. 2019).
The objective of the research was to comprehend the systemic training experience of a
group of teacher-researchers through the co-constructed senses of the participants. The
research question was: What is the formative experience of teachers-researchers of participat-
ing in a teacher training program oriented from systems thinking? The formative process is
located in the Unidad de Proyectos Especiales y Pensamiento Sistémico (UPEPS)2 at the
Universidad de Ibagué in Colombia and is focused on training teacher-researchers with the
systems thinking approach and with a duration of four semesters to be developed in 2 yrs. This
experience takes 4 yrs since it starts, and approximately twenty people have gone through this
process. On the other hand, besides using the ideas of systems thinking, the formative model is
also based on a constructivist approach with a central idea of learning by doing.
This research was designed using Grounded Theory with a biographical-narrative approach.
Participant observation, sociodemographic questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews were
used as data collection instruments. The analysis process was carried out with Nvivo 12
software. The results show the strengths of systems thinking to design teacher training
processes where the pedagogical practice is the core of the training, as well as promoting
the formation of communities of practice, in which a collective teacher identity, rooted in the
ethical and transformative sense of educational practice, has been co-built.

Context

As Castells (2009) points out, although the importance of innovation in education is currently
highlighted, in Latin America the formative strategies of industrial societies of the twentieth
century remain dominant. Trends in teacher education in Latin America have been character-
ized by hierarchical and bureaucratic structures, the separation between theory and practice and
the lack of linkage between the curriculum and local social problems (Gutiérrez et al. 2016;
Hinojosa and López 2016).
As a consequence, in the region, there are different initiatives and alternative strategies in
education and pedagogy, aimed at social change, the promotion of community participation,
and the decolonization of education. Some examples are Critical Pedagogy (Ortega 2009),

2
Special Projects and Systemic Thinking Unit
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Critical Pedagogies of the South (Mejia 2011), collaborative learning (Felder and Brent 1994),
virtual educational ethnography (Gutiérrez et al. 2016) and the reflexive approach (Tagle
2011).
In the particular case of teacher education and research training, there is a tendency to
develop both activities in isolation, emphasizing the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge and
implementing curricula in which the disconnection between both tasks is evident (Bondarenko
2009). Due to this, alternative approaches that recognize the need to integrate both processes
have also appeared (González et al. 2014). Some relevant cases are the self-study research
(Clavijo 2016), research approach (Bondarenko 2009), action research (Dobles-Trejos 2014;
Aranguren-Peraza 2007), construction of authorial voice (Castro and Sánchez 2016), and
didactic research (Salas et al. 2015).
Regarding the methodological strategies of the teacher-researcher training processes,
Gómez et al. (2014) and Bedoya et al. (2017) team teaching and the creation of
communities of practice to favor learning of new didactical strategies and facilitate reflective
teaching stand out. Likewise, Chávez and Trias (2016) propose action research and cooper-
ative learning as key strategies to improve teacher education. In general, there is a tendency
towards approaches that favor reflection as an ability to transform the classroom experience
into new theoretical and practical knowledge, as in the case of the works of Herrera (2010),
Ayala (2016) and Ruffineli (2017).
In this context, a gap can be recognized in teacher training processes. On the one hand,
there are those focused on disciplinary and content knowledge, in which the professor’s role
and the researcher’s role appear as two different outlines; and on the other hand, there are
approaches based on action research, hermeneutics or the transdisciplinary approach, that
promote collective research practices aimed at shortening the gap between theory and practice.
In that sense, the teacher training process study in this work exposes the need to continue
transforming teacher-researcher education in higher education; research pedagogical models
that generate comprehensive and transdisciplinary training strategies; the problematization of
social reality, and the construction of meaning of their role as teacher-researchers.

Systemic Thinking

Since the mid-twentieth century, the systems approach has been consolidating as a scientific
movement that addresses the complexity and diversity of today’s world, within a framework of
unity. The problem that guides the efforts of systems thinking is and has been, fundamentally,
the limitation of analytical procedures of science and its extension to other areas of life.
Concerning the analytical proceeding, organized around atomistic and linear causality assump-
tions, the systems approach suggests the need to recognize organized totalities in which
different elements interact in a non-linear way, by making visible the emergence of qualities
that cannot be identified from analytical observation (Bertalanffy 1989). The foregoing ideas
are usually put in simple terms using the aphorism originally attributed to Aristotle that
expresses “the whole is more than the sum of the parts” and refers to the presence of certain
types of relationships between the components of a system that had not had distinguishable
properties in the individual elements (Aldana and Reyes 2004).
Systems thinking implies a particular way of addressing issues of interest that require the
observation of totalities and needs holistic understanding. It is an approach that understands
phenomena in context and warns about the existence of networks of interactions that produce
totalities (Espejo and Reyes 2016). Systems thinking constitutes an exhortation to not
Systemic Practice and Action Research

conceiving reality in a fragmented and simplistic viewpoint. It is not only about examining and
synthesizing different variables and perspectives on the problem studied but also implies
inquiring the mental models intertwined with the problems addressed.
In this context, systems thinking is projected as a set of cognitive and practical tools that
guide the comprehension and transformation of problematic situations in a specific social
context while facilitating the construction of agreements between the social actors immersed in
those situations (Aldana and Reyes 2004). Therefore, the teacher training process studied does
not consist too much in learning a series of theories and concepts, but in the acquisition of a
cognitive, affective and methodological toolbox that allows the teachers to develop judgment
about the complexities of the educational process.
It is fitting to remark that within the variety of systemic perspectives, the training process
studied has two key theoretical frameworks: Organizational Cybernetics and Interpretive
Systemology. Cybernetics constitutes a transdisciplinary field that studies control and com-
munication (feedback) processes, both in machines and in living beings. From this perspective,
for example, the human body can be studied as a ‘machine’ made up of complex information
control systems, which regulate processes such as temperature or water level in the body.
Therefore, recognizing the structure of systems facilitates the observation of totalities in spatial
and temporal terms and the recognition of patterns and relationships within the studied
phenomena (Espejo and Reyes 2016).
This is relevant to teacher-researcher training because social and educational realities are
constructed by different social actors in complex interaction processes that require a systemic
appreciation that does not simplify their structure and, therefore, offer reductive solutions. On
the other hand, the Interpretive Systemology constitutes a discipline, whose basic purpose is to
understand phenomena in their holistic condition. Likewise, it involves theory and a method-
ology for systemic-interpretative organizational design, as an effort to transform complex
problems for the benefit of the common good (López-Garay, 2001). The history of
Systemology begins at the Universidad de Los Andes in Mérida-Venezuela, more than
40 yrs ago, where a group of researchers founded it, intending to build an onto-
epistemology for the systems approach that would comprehend the holistic sense of the
phenomena.
As a consequence of the above, researchers identified that the underlying problem of the
systems approach, beyond the limitation of analytical-reductionist methods of traditional
science, is the poverty and fragmentation of the holistic sense of phenomena in contemporary
Western and Westernized societies. The situation that results in the exploitation of knowledge
characterized by a systematic absence of discussion about the purpose it serves and the social
structure in which it is inserted (Fuenmayor 2016).

Training Teacher-Researchers as Systems Thinkers

Five years ago, the UPEPS was created at the Universidad de Ibagué in Colombia, to provide
support for the decision-making of the administration of the University and the theoretical-
practical development of Latin American Systems Thinking, through teaching, research, and
extension programs. The area was founded as part of a process of curricular transformation, in
which the institution set up changes in the pedagogical approach and the curriculum in all
undergraduate programs, intending to adopt a constructivist and competency-based learning
approach.
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Learning by Doing

Within the Professorial Statute of the Universidad de Ibagué, there is the figure of Teacher in
Training, which is focused on young teachers, with little or no professional experience, that
initiates an in-service training. This modality works differently in each department of the
university, so the UPEPS created its training process based on systemic theories and construc-
tivist pedagogical ideas, such as learning by doing.
According to Dewey, human beings learn from interaction with their environment, they
learn by doing. The main concept of Dewey’s theory of knowledge is experience. The
author presents a dynamic vision of the experience that covers the wide scope of the
exchange of a living being with its physical and social environment (Ruiz 2013). For
Dewey (2004), experience includes the relationship between individuals and their context,
and between the present and the future. It is a transaction between the self and the
environment where they transform each other. Consequently, in this perspective, the
educator acts as a designer of pedagogical experiences in which the student can address
practical problems.
This concept of experience is a central dimension of the Training of Teacher-
Researchers in the UPEPS since participants exercise their daily activities accompanying
them with different learning environments and self-reflection strategies aimed at improv-
ing their pedagogical practice. Thereby, action research is another central element of
training. It has been recognized that the success of the educational act depends, to a large
extent, on the fact that professors can be encouraged to understand their practices in a
meaningful and effective way (Meza 2015).
As a consequence, the teacher training process recognizes the need for educational research
that breaks down traditional differentiation between theory and practice, arguing that all
practical action is necessarily theoretical. All this aimed at not only at transforming teaching
in a technical sense but also ethically and politically (Carr 2007). This is important, because
systems thinking addresses the purposes of education, according to the contexts where the
educational practice is carried out. Hence, the UPEPS seeks to facilitate teacher-researchers to
understand the complexity of the interactions between education, the environment, and the
subjects.

Training Process Organization

The formative process of Teacher-Researchers of the UPEPS responds to the need to

educate teachers in a series of capacities that allow them to understand the complexity
of the current world and to develop systems pedagogical strategies. With this purpose,
the training process of Teacher-Researchers is organized in four transversal cores,
namely: Systems Thinking, Education and Pedagogy, Research and Emotional Intelligence
(Mazorco Salas & Cuenca Botero 2019). These cores are operationalized in the following
practices and learning environments (Fig. 1):
It should be noted that the process is in constant transformation. Seminars, teams and
administrative tasks change according to the ideas of professors, who are responsible for
exploring, reflecting, understanding, and improving the training process. This is reflected not
only in the pedagogical practices but also in the administrative organization of the UPEPS, as
teachers assume administrative tasks such as committee coordination, Academic Event Man-
agement among others.
Systemic Practice and Action Research

Fig. 1 Practices and learning environments

Methodology

This study presents a qualitative methodology with a biographical-narrative approach

(Bolívar et al. 2001). The method that guided the research process was Grounded Theory,
particularly, the constructivist perspective established by Charmaz (2006), which recog-
nizes that construction of theory favors the elaboration of an interpretative representation
of reality and not an exact painting of it. Moreover, the author notes that the use of
Grounded Theory is complemented by methods like ethnographic studies, biographical
narratives, or qualitative analysis of interviews, to enrich the collection and analysis of
data.

Participants

The UPEPS is made up of fifteen people; thirteen of them are teacher-researchers in training.
The other members are the founder and coordinator of the unit, and the administrative
assistant, who was not included in the group of participants for not being in the training
program. Of all the teacher-researchers, 13 of them participated in the research, including the
UPEPS coordinator. Most participants make up a young group, with little prior work experi-
ence. However, 10 of the participants had previous experiences related to teaching at various
educational levels. Besides, other previous professional roles were workshop facilitators,
therapists, carpenters, construction assistants, systems engineers, cultural managers, business
consultants, and even librarians.
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

The vast majority of the participants report interests oriented towards education as well as
social issues such as health, public policies and social transformation. It is a group of
participants that recognize themselves in a training process and are willing to take on new
challenges and roles. It is necessary to highlight the various professions held by its members,
ranging from the area of Engineering, Social Sciences, Psychology, Design, and Arts. This
gives a particular nature to the training process that enriches the development of competencies
in Systems Thinking.

Data Collection

With the intention of realizing how ideas and practices linked to systems thinking to promote a
teacher training process, different narratives were used as an approach of data collection.
Bolívar et al. (2001) state that narratives help comprehend subjective and collective identities,
especially those forged from spoken or written speeches concerning an experienced phenom-
enon. This is how narratives recognize professor voices as a central element to understanding
educational processes.
On that basis, three data collection instruments were chosen, namely: a
sociodemographic survey, an open question questionnaire, and a semi-structured
interview. Firstly, the sociodemographic survey and the questionnaire were applied
to all participants to serve as a baseline for data collection. This allowed the basic
characterization of the group and the overall structure of the training process. The
context and purposes of the investigation were previously informed, as well as the
consent for participation.
Secondly, the interviews were conducted. These were carried out with 7 of the
participants (4 men and 3 women) following two criteria: Time in the training process
and basic discipline. Therefore, the UPEPS coordinator, two members with 4 yrs of
training, two members with 2 yrs, and two with less than 1 yr were chosen for the
interview. From these participants, three were from the area of engineering, and four
from social sciences. With each one of them, a 2-h interview session was scheduled and
conducted. The information was recorded and transcribed for systematization and anal-
ysis. The collection and analysis of information were alternated with the application of
instruments and the descriptive and interpretive validation of the information. The 2
types of validation were developed from 3 moments of socialization with the partici-
pants, one for each data collection instrument.

Data Analysis

The comparative data analysis (Charmaz 2006), was examined in open, axial, selective and
theoretical contrast coding phases, and was supported with the use of the Nvivo 12 software.
Data collection and analysis were carried out simultaneously, leading from open to selective
coding in order to expand the variability, amplitude, and saturation of the information. The
process generated categories derived from the participants’ statements. Also, the axial coding
allowed to establish the relationship and association of categories, preserving the enunciative
diversity. Then, the selective categorization led to the identification of central categories about
the training process based on the narratives of the participants. Finally, the theoretical contrast
was made to identify the limits and potential of the study’s findings regarding literature in the
field of interest.
Systemic Practice and Action Research

Results

This section presents the results of the research on three topics: The training experience of the
systems teacher-researcher; Team teaching; Organizational structure and Institutional support.

The Training Experience of the Systems Teacher-Researcher

The research made it possible to recognize how systems thinking is understood by the
participants as an ethical position that recognizes the limits of scientific and pedagogical
practice that promote the transformation of social structures and relationships, rather than as a
mere cognitive tool that allows the recognition of the organization of systems. For the
participants of this research, it is an approach that seeks to rethink the way people relate to
knowledge, with their environment and others and that is open to other disciplines. In this
manner, the teacher-researcher who is expected to emerge from the training process is
characterized by his or her ability to understand the complexity of contemporary social issues,
as well as the role that education, university, and teachers play in the solution of these matters.
According to participating professors, the main competence to acquire during the training
process is the openness to new learning. In narratives, openness is connected with the need to
generate cognitive and emotional efforts aimed at improving the ability to understand and address
educational problems. It is a route of personal and professional growth, which includes the
expansion of curiosity, discipline, observation, and sensitivity. About this, a participant states:
"In the pedagogical sense, I believe that I have grown a lot, that is, I feel that my
relationships or moments with a group of students are very helpful for the teaching-
learning processes. I feel that I owe all that to the process that I have gone through.”
In this way, openness manifests itself as being open to dialogues with students, with other
professors, and, above all, to reflect on the meaning of educational work. On the other hand,
teachers point out that the training allows a bridge between work and everyday life, as it
facilitates reflection on ethical and political issues in the context of pedagogical training. Here,
emotional intelligence training stands out as promoting greater assertiveness in the teaching
practice and promoting a systemic view of him or herself, of the other, and life that links to
their professional practice. In this regard, one of the participants says:
"Somehow I feel that, well, my way of living has completely changed, that is, my way of
understanding reality, my way of feeling, my way of acting, has changed a lot."
It is important to note that this type of training generated more resistance in the participants
with a more fixed professional identity. This was evidenced in some descriptive categories
given the training challenges, which emphasize feelings of frustration and disorientation. For
these people, the process of recognizing themselves as teacher-researchers rather than as
professionals belonging to a discipline was described as a difficult experience.
Finally, it should be noted that during the training process, participants go through a wide
variety of training environments such as seminars and workshops; however, narratives make
clear how the experience of teaching in teams, as well as the design and redesign process of
pedagogical activities, are the training core. In other words, pedagogical practice is the center
of training. In this regard, professors stressed that the possibility of experimenting with
pedagogical and didactic methods, of contributing their ideas and creating educational prac-
tices, has made them recognize the importance of their teaching role.
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Team Teaching

Although team teaching has been studied since the 1970s, there is no conclusive definition for
it. According to Vesikivi et al. (2019), a way of defining it is as a pedagogical approach
characterized by two or more professors planning, instructing and evaluating the learning
process of a group of students. In that sense, another fundamental element found in the
research is the constitution and operation of team teaching. The participants point out that
their pedagogical practice is always characterized by joint work, dialogue, listening, and trust.
In that sense, team teaching represents a re-framing of teaching work, embodied in new forms
of collaborative work, the creation of creative spaces, and the capacity for self-organization,
where there is a balanced assignment of tasks and the leadership is generally shared by all its
members.
These new forms of collaborative work are manifested not only in the design and execution
of class activities but also in theorizing about the pedagogical practices and the creation of
organizational culture. This last point refers to the fact that teachers recognize themselves as
part of a small community with their cultural practices. About this, a participant refers:
“And I think that this is consistent with the permanent idea that I have had about (…)
well, about Proyectos Especiales, it is like a subculture, and training is basically a
process of immersion in spaces that are formal and informal. "
The above constitutes a series of ideas about training, evidenced in the narratives, which refer
to the importance of dialogue in the construction of practices and ideas for social transforma-
tion from the educational field. For this group of professors, the concern for social problems
and their transformation is a sensitivity that characterizes the immersion in the training process.
On the other hand, professors report stress, academic competition and the need for recognition
in the educational and administrative activities; participants highlight collaboration as a notable
feature of team relationships. About this, a participant comments:
"I feel that how the group was structured is in a group that gives support because when
we are involved in an activity, many of us are involved in it, right? It is rarely a matter of
only one person. So, if we have to, I do not know, let's say if we are in a seminar and we
have to do some work because we are several doing that work, then there are several
persons who are thinking, so then that favors camaraderie ".
Consequently, the training process and team teaching favors a high degree of belonging,
manifested in the way in which participants share and build common goals and values.

Organizational Structure and Institutional Support

Linked to the subject of teams, there is the organizational structure of the UPEPS, which is
comprised of committees that make decisions about courses, social projects, research, admis-
sion processes, promotion of personnel, offered postgraduate courses, teacher-researchers
training, among others. Committees are generally guided by the more experienced professors
and are articulated, initially, by the interests and abilities of the participants. However, the aim
is that each teacher-researcher has the experience of participating at least once in each of the
committees, to develop different competences.
The UPEPS has been developed dynamically and adaptively, responding both to the
institutional needs of the university, and to the internal needs. Therefore, according to elements
Systemic Practice and Action Research

such as the number of group members, the roles and work required, emerging training needs
appear that subsequently become available training practices and environments. Hence, the
process has common basic elements, but it is not linear, participants can choose elements to
deepen not only at the level of seminars and workshops but also in terms of their daily work.
In relation to the above, it is important to highlight the positive features of the training
process, work properly thanks to the infrastructure provided by the Universidad de Ibagué.
This is important because the Research shows how the ideas of learning by doing, action
research and systems thinking, are not educational rhetoric but are established in the formal
structure of the training process, and the work plans of teacher-researchers. Similarly, it should
be noted that the university has interactive rooms equipped with everything necessary for
experimenting with learning environments. Thus, it is found that the different learning
environments of the training process are recognized by the participants as essential activities
and not as complementary components of labor.

Discussion and Conclusions

This section discusses the findings concerning specialized literature and presents the lessons
learned in the study. Similarly, the limitations of research and recommendations for the
training process are addressed.

Identity of the Systems Teacher-Researcher

Teacher development programs give participants a new vocabulary to represent their teaching
actions and values (McLean and Price 2019), as a result, training to be a professor is
challenging because it is not simply about learning technical skills but also about finding
ways to develop a teacher persona or identity, which resonates with the personal sense of self
(Brown and Everson 2019). Professional identity is a dynamic, multidimensional and inter-
subjective process, which is constantly changing through the relationships practitioners estab-
lish within professional contexts (Harris 2011).
Professional identity comprehends the perceptions, meanings and self-knowledge individ-
uals have of themselves and is influenced by personal values, emotions, beliefs and historical
and cultural factors (Rodrigues and Mogarro 2019). In the narratives, the construction of
teaching identity is one of the most prominent subjects. It was found that, despite previous
experiences, teacher-researchers recognized how the training process allowed them to co-
construct a teaching identity, which takes into account their biographies and their interests.
This supports the idea of Combs (1978), Aspy and Roebuck (1980) of teacher training as a
permanent process that implies the coherence between a way of life and a way of teaching.
About teachers’ identity, Anijovich et al. (2009) and Shulman (2005), point out how the
professional identity of professors is usually presented as something problematic because many
professors tend to identify themselves with their disciplinary knowledge, rather than with their
role as teachers. Similarly, Vaillant (2016), highlights the identity of professors as a fundamen-
tal issue, closely linked to the perceptions and assumptions that society has of teaching, the
work environment of teachers, as well as levels of professors’ satisfaction regarding their work.
In that order of ideas, the experience studied is successful in the co-construction of a holistic
sense of teachers-researcher role, characterized by a collective teaching identity, which articu-
lates shared and co-constructed values by the participants (Fig. 2).
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Co-construction
of a holistic
sense

Pedagogical
Collective
practice through
teaching identity
Team Teaching

Fig. 2 Co-construction of collective teaching identity

The aforementioned is important because it avoids the isolation of the teaching task. According
to Hargreaves (1998), generally, the structure of educational institutions contributes to professors
not being able to observe or accompany the practices of their colleagues. Some practitioners find
comfort with this, as it avoids external interference and benefits professor autonomy. However,
this isolation prevents accompaniment, observation, and feedback from academic peers.
Consequently, the training process studied is considered to contribute to reducing teachers’
isolation and promoting reflective thinking and reflective feeling (Zeichner and Liston 2014)
through dialogue and feedback.
In this respect, De Longhi et al. (2012) point out the need to integrate a communicative and
dialogic dimension in teacher training, and Gómez et al. (2014); Hargreaves and O’Connor
(2018) state the importance of solidarity, honest communication, and trust for effective
collaborative relationships between teachers. González et al. (2014) highlight the importance
of team teaching in higher education; Chavez and Trias (2016) point out the importance of
collaborative learning to establish knowledge dialogues, share experiences and contribute to
the solution of contextual problems.
In this context, Teacher training becomes largely a matter of facilitating the development of
teachers’ capacities for situational understandings as a basis for intelligent decisions and
holistic understanding (Elliott 2012; Ell et al. 2017), and this the research shows how this
training process successfully implements constructivist theories in terms of the development of
the training experience. Primarily, because professors could become more capable to imple-
ment these theories in their classes, based on their own experience of co-construction. In this
regard, Shulman (2005) and Ell et al. (2017) state that teacher education must promote
autonomy and learning by discovery to train teachers capable of reading their context,
reflecting, and using their experiential learning to support their practice.

Limits and Recommendations

Because the research was focused on the narratives of the participants about the training
process, there was no data collection of the students’ impressions of professors’ performance.
Therefore, it should be noted that the methodology used allowed to see transformations
regarding understandings, attitudes, feelings, and knowledge of teacher-researchers, but did
not deepen the processes of interaction in the classroom. Despite this, it can be recognized
through the study that professors do perceive significant changes in the way they carry out
educational activities.
Systemic Practice and Action Research

Concerning the limitations of the training process, it was found that although this experi-
ence constitutes an educational innovation in the field of systemic thinking and teacher-
researcher training, learning environments oriented towards arts are needed. This represents
an important absence because promoting spaces of artistic expression would contribute to the
consolidation of the holistic and transdisciplinary elements of training and foster systems
thinking (Molderez and Ceulemans 2018).
Additionally, it was found that although the process shows strengths in several relevant
aspects identified in specialized literature, such as the articulation between theory and practice
(Korthagen et al. 2006; Tagle 2011; Clarke et al. 2012) and reflection as a strategy to turn the
classroom experience into new knowledge (Ruffinelli 2017; Zeichner 2013; Herrera 2010), it
is not enough for the improvement of teaching practices. On the contrary, a self-evaluation
device that allows professors to recognize weaknesses and strengths on their performance
might be useful. The idea of the device is not to shape a standard evaluation strategy but to
ease the creation of spaces where each professor can design their instruments to evaluate their
performance and process.

References

Aldana E, Reyes A (2004) Disolver problemas: criterio para formular proyectos sociales. Universidad de los
Andes, Facultad de Ingeniería, Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial
Anijovich R, Capelletti G, Mora S, Sabelli M (2009) Transitar la formación pedagógica. Buenos Aires, Paidós
Aranguren-Peraza G (2007) La investigación-acción sistematizadora como estrategia de intervención y
formación del docente en su rol de investigador. Revista de Pedagogía 28(82):173–195. Available at
http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/659/65908202.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2019
Aspy D, Roebuck F (1980) Teacher Education: A response to Watts’response to Combs. Educational Leadership.
507–510. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198003_aspy.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2020
Ayala R (2016) Formación de Investigadores de las Ciencias Sociales y Humanas en el enfoque fenomenológico
hermenéutico (de Van Manen) en el contexto Hispanoamericano. Education XXI 19(2):359–381. https://doi.
org/10.5944/educxx1.16471
Bedoya JM, Betancourt M, Villa F (2017) Creación de una comunidad de práctica para la formación de docentes
en la integración de las TIC a los procesos de aprendizaje y enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. Ikala 23(1):
121–139 Available at http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/ikala/article/view/326969
/20787404. Accessed 14 Sept 2019
Bertalanffy L (1989) Teoría General de los Sistemas. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México
Bolívar A, Segovia D, Fernández M (2001) La investigación biográfico-narrativa en educación. Enfoque y
metodología, Muralla, Madrid
Bondarenko N (2009) El componente investigativo y la formación docente en Venezuela. Estudios Pedagógicos
35(1):253–260. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052009000100015
Brown S, Everson J (2019) Belonging, becoming, owning: the interplay between identity and self-esteem in
trainee teachers in post-compulsory education and training. Res Post-Compul Educ 24(2–3):231–250.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2019.1596419
Carr W (2007) El docente investigador en educación. UNICACH, México
Castells M (2009) Comunicación y Poder. Alianza, Madrid
Castro M, Sánchez M (2016) La formación de investigadores en el área de humanidades: Los retos de la
construcción de la voz autoral en la escritura de la tesis de doctorado. Revista Signos. Estudios de
Lingüística 49(S1):30–51. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342016000400003
Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE,
Londres
Chávez K, Trias Y (2016) Formación de investigadores noveles mediante el aprendizaje cooperativo. Opcion
32(7):455–460. Available at http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/310/31048480027.pdf. Accessed 04 Sept 2019
Clarke M, Lodge A, Michael SM (2012) Evaluating initial teacher education programmes: Perspectives from the
Republic of Ireland. Teach Teach Educ 28(2):141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.08.004
Clavijo A (2016) Self-study research in teacher education. Colombian Appl Linguist J 18(2):6–10. https://doi.
org/10.14483/calj.v18n2.aa00
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Combs A (1978) Teacher education: the person in the process. Educ Leadersh 35(7):558–561
De Longhi A, Ferreyra A, Peme C, Bermúdez G, Quse L, Martínez S (2012) La interacción comunicativa en
clases de ciencias naturales. Un análisis didáctico a través de circuitos discursivos. Revista Eureka sobre
Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias (9):178–195. Available at http://www.inv.communicare.efn.uncor.
edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/De-Longhi_La-interacci%C3%B3n-comunicativa-en-clases-de-ciencias-
naturales.-Un-an%C3%A1lisis-did%C3%A1ctico-a-trav%C3%A9s-de-circuitos-discursivos_2012.pdf.
Accessed 09 Oct 2019
Dewey J (2004) Experiencia y educación. Biblioteca Nueva, Madrid
Dobles-Trejo C (2014) Recuperando la capacidad de asombro: La investigación-acción en la formación docente.
Revista Electrónica Educare 18(3):285–299. https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.18-3.18
Ell F, Haigh M, Cochran-Smith M, Grudnoff L, Ludlow L, Hill MF (2017) Mapping a complex system: what
influences teacher learning during initial teacher education?Asia Pac J Teach Educ 45(4):327–345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2017.1309640
Elliott J (2012) The Assault on Rationalism and the Emergence of the Social Market Perspectives. In: Elliott J
(ed) Reconstructing teacher education: Teacher development. Routledge, New York, pp 20–31
Espejo R, Reyes A (2016) Sistemas organizacionales: el manejo de la complejidad con el modelo del sistema
viable. Ediciones Uniandes, Colombia
Felder R, Brent R (1994) Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service Report ED 377038. Available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f788
/f2139e2d85838f5ec0dddff65ddb43b00bb1.pdf?_ga=2.2393712.1964483901.1566418755-
2097147262.1562620266. Accessed 21 Oct 2019
Fuenmayor R (2016) El cultivo de la verdad. Editorial Universidad de Ibagué, Colombia
Gómez M, Escofet A, Freixa M (2014) Los equipos docentes en la educación superior ¿Utopía o realidad?
Revista Española de Pedagogía 72(259):509–523. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/24726635.
Accessed 10 Sept 2019
González K, Ceballos A, León F (2014) El docente como investigador de sus prácticas pedagógicas. Revista
TECKNE 12(2):29–33. Available at http://www.unihorizonte.edu.co/revistas/index.
php/TECKNE/article/view/140/135. Accessed 14 Sept 2019
Gutiérrez M, Agudelo N, Caro E (2016) La etnografía educativa virtual y la formación de docentes. Praxis y
Saber 7(15):41–62. https://doi.org/10.19053/22160159.v7.n15.2016.5722
Hargreaves A (1998) Profesorado, cultura y postmodernidad: cambian los tiempos, cambia el profesorado.
Ediciones Morata
Hargreaves A, O’Connor MT (2018) Solidarity with solidity: The case for collaborative professionalism. Phi
Delta Kappan 100(1):20–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718797116
Harris A (2011). Reforming systems: Realizing the Fourth Way. J Educ Chang 12:159–171. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10833-011-9156-z
Herrera J (2010) La formación de docentes investigadores: el estatuto científico de la investigación pedagógica.
Magis, Revista Internacional De Investigación En Educación 3(5). Available at https://revistas.javeriana.edu.
co/index.php/MAGIS/article/view/3526. Accessed 08 Sept 2019
Hinojosa E, López M (2016) Impacto de la formación inicial docente intercultural. Una revisión de la
investigación. Convergencia 23(71):89–109. Available at http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/conver/v23n71
/1405-1435-conver-23-71-00089.pdf. Accessed 08 Sept 2019
Korthagen F, Loughran J, Russell T (2006) Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs
and practices. Teach Teach Educ 22(8):1020–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022
López-Garay H (2001) Geomorfología del Pensamiento Sistémico. In: Hugo Andrade (ed) Pensamiento
Sistémico: Diversidad en búsqueda de unidad. Ediciones UIS, Bucaramanga. 35–42.
Mazorco Salas JE, Cuenca Botero AC (2019) A practical pilot experience of a mindfulness program in
University Teacher—Researcher Training. Hu Arenas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-019-00084-8
McLean N, Price L (2019) Identity formation among novice academic teachers – a longitudinal study. Stud High
Educ 44(6):990–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1405254
Mejía M (2011) Educaciones y Pedagogías Críticas desde el Sur (Cartografías de la Educación Popular). Consejo
de Educación de Adultos de América Latina (CEAAL), Lima
Meza L (2015) La Educación como Pedagogía o como Ciencia de la Educación. Revista Digital: Matemática,
Educación e Internet 3(2). Available at https://revistas.tec.ac.cr/index.php/matematica/article/view/2285.
Accessed 07 Oct 2019
Molderez I, Ceulemans K (2018) The power of art to foster systems thinking, one of the key competencies of
education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 186:758–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.03.120
Monereo C (2013) La investigación en la formación del profesorado universitario: hacia una perspectiva
integradora. Infancia y Aprendizaje 36(3):281–291. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037013807533052
Systemic Practice and Action Research

Murillo E (2006) La formación Docente un clave para la mejora educativa. In: Magaly Robalino y Anton Körner
(Coords.) Modelos innovadores en la formación inicial docente. Estudio de casos de modelos innovadores
en Formación Docente en América Latina y Europa. OREALC-UNESCO, Santiago de Chile. 11–18
Ortega P (2009) La Pedagogía Crítica: Reflexiones en torno a sus prácticas y sus desafíos. Pedagogía y Saberes
(31):23–36. https://doi.org/10.17227/01212494.31pys26.33
Rodrigues F, Mogarro M (2019) Student teachers’ professional identity: A review of research contributions. Educ
Res Rev 28:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100286
Ruffinelli A (2017) Formación de docentes reflexivos: un enfoque en construcción y disputa. Educ Pesqui 43(1):
97–111. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-9702201701158626
Ruiz G (2013) La teoría de la experiencia de John Dewey: significación histórica y vigencia en el debate teórico
contemporáneo. Foro de Educación 11(15):103–124. https://doi.org/10.14516/fde.2013.011.015.005
Salas C, González E, Menoyo, D, De Longi A, Martínez S, Solbes J, Fernández-Sánchez J (2015) Impacto de la
investigación didáctica en la formación de docentes constructivistas de ciencias. Revista de enseñanza de la
física 27(extra):149–156. Available at https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/revistaEF/article/view/12598
/12874. Accessed 16 Sept 2019
Shulman L (1986) Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educ Res 15(2):4–14 Published by:
American Educational Research Association. Avaliable at Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175860
Shulman L (2005) conocimiento y enseñanza: Fundamentos de la nueva reforma. Profesorado. Revista de
currículum y formación del profesorado, 9, 2 pp. 1–30. Avaliable at https://www.ugr.es/~recfpro/rev92
ART1.pdf
Tagle T (2011) El enfoque reflexivo en la formación docente. Calidad en la Educación (34):203–215. https://doi.
org/10.31619/caledu.n34.136
Torres R (1999) Nuevo rol docente ¿qué modelo de formación, para qué modelo educativo? In: Aprender para el
futuro, nuevo marco de la tarea docente: documentos de un debate. Editorial Santillana, España. 99–112
Valliant D (2016) La identidad docente la importancia del profesorado como persona. Tendencias de la
formación permanente del profesorado, Alfaomega, Bogotá, pp 9–23
Vesikivi P, Lakkala M, Holvikivi J, Muukkonen J (2019) Team teaching implementation in engineering
education: teacher perceptions and experiences. Eur J Eng Educ 44(4):519–534. https://doi.org/10.1080
/03043797.2018.1446910
Zeichner N (2013) The next step: a hybrid teaching role. Educ Horiz 91(3):13–15. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0013175X1309100305
Zeichner KM, Liston DP (2014) Reflective teaching: An introduction. Routledge, New York

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.