18 resultados para Currículo na Universidade
Resumo:
This work of qualitative approach, has as its study object the school curriculum, resulting from the implementation of public policies for inclusion in the Brazilian educational field and of the teaching organization in State School Despertar. While we acknowledge advances in government discussions and proposals related to school inclusion in our country, it is still important to develop studies and interventions in the context of basic education focused on the curriculum. With methodological basis in collaborative-critical action research and contribution by Barbier, the survey was conducted in 2013, in a state school in the Natal - Rio Grande do Norte - school system, and aimed to analyze the curriculum of the State School Despertar, in particular issues related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in common teaching classes expressed in the school and in collective situations of continuing education with teachers and interpreter of Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). The school was previously chosen because it had already been locus of research in a study conducted by a professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte promoting the knowledge of their formative needs. The study subjects were 26 teachers in the early years and the end of elementary school and a Libras interpreter. The instruments were direct observation, semi-structured interviews, document analysis and a proposal for continuing education called Collaborative Group on School Inclusion (GCEI), established with the participating subjects and the other research collaborators. The analyzed data showed eight dialogues built with the State School Despertar, being basic the contributions of Goffman (1988) on stigma and of Forquin (1993) on school culture. As a theoretical framework, there were important contributions on School Curriculum (SACRISTÁN, 2000; 2007; APPLE, 2006; 2008), School Inclusion (BUENO, 2008), Continuing Education (NÓVOA, 2002; GATTI, 2003) and the existing studies on the dialogues between Curriculum and Special Education (MAGALHÃES, 2002; SILVA, 2008; 2010; OLIVEIRA, 2004; VIEIRA, 2012). The study highlighted the importance of extending the dialogue, the theoretical deepening of GCEI for the understanding of school curriculum and the specifics of any students, with or without disability. It will be necessary to revisit the school teaching practices that do not correspond to the students, for instance the formation of classes made in classrooms. It is also important to consider the organization of the school day and its interface with the pedagogical functions of each member of the school in building curriculum practices consistent with the diversity of modes and learning styles. Subliminal aspects of the curriculum should be reviewed, given its implications in the context of the classroom and management. However, significant changes identified in the practices of some teachers, such as the use of audio description, stimulus to the participation of students with disabilities and use of images, favored the development of other students, who benefit of more exciting and participatory classes. Based on the conducted research, we conclude on the importance of collectively discuss the conditions for / in schooling of different students and the (re)thinking of curriculum practices in the school as a whole, and therein lies a paradox because, on the one hand, it is not about minimizing the specific knowledge in dealing with the needs of students with disabilities, on the other, we are not interested in distancing these needs from those inherent in human nature, therefore peculiar to the other students. The questioning of our own practices is the challenge imposed, not to special education, or its target audience, but this is undoubtedly task of education.
Resumo:
This work of qualitative approach, has as its study object the school curriculum, resulting from the implementation of public policies for inclusion in the Brazilian educational field and of the teaching organization in State School Despertar. While we acknowledge advances in government discussions and proposals related to school inclusion in our country, it is still important to develop studies and interventions in the context of basic education focused on the curriculum. With methodological basis in collaborative-critical action research and contribution by Barbier, the survey was conducted in 2013, in a state school in the Natal - Rio Grande do Norte - school system, and aimed to analyze the curriculum of the State School Despertar, in particular issues related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in common teaching classes expressed in the school and in collective situations of continuing education with teachers and interpreter of Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). The school was previously chosen because it had already been locus of research in a study conducted by a professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte promoting the knowledge of their formative needs. The study subjects were 26 teachers in the early years and the end of elementary school and a Libras interpreter. The instruments were direct observation, semi-structured interviews, document analysis and a proposal for continuing education called Collaborative Group on School Inclusion (GCEI), established with the participating subjects and the other research collaborators. The analyzed data showed eight dialogues built with the State School Despertar, being basic the contributions of Goffman (1988) on stigma and of Forquin (1993) on school culture. As a theoretical framework, there were important contributions on School Curriculum (SACRISTÁN, 2000; 2007; APPLE, 2006; 2008), School Inclusion (BUENO, 2008), Continuing Education (NÓVOA, 2002; GATTI, 2003) and the existing studies on the dialogues between Curriculum and Special Education (MAGALHÃES, 2002; SILVA, 2008; 2010; OLIVEIRA, 2004; VIEIRA, 2012). The study highlighted the importance of extending the dialogue, the theoretical deepening of GCEI for the understanding of school curriculum and the specifics of any students, with or without disability. It will be necessary to revisit the school teaching practices that do not correspond to the students, for instance the formation of classes made in classrooms. It is also important to consider the organization of the school day and its interface with the pedagogical functions of each member of the school in building curriculum practices consistent with the diversity of modes and learning styles. Subliminal aspects of the curriculum should be reviewed, given its implications in the context of the classroom and management. However, significant changes identified in the practices of some teachers, such as the use of audio description, stimulus to the participation of students with disabilities and use of images, favored the development of other students, who benefit of more exciting and participatory classes. Based on the conducted research, we conclude on the importance of collectively discuss the conditions for / in schooling of different students and the (re)thinking of curriculum practices in the school as a whole, and therein lies a paradox because, on the one hand, it is not about minimizing the specific knowledge in dealing with the needs of students with disabilities, on the other, we are not interested in distancing these needs from those inherent in human nature, therefore peculiar to the other students. The questioning of our own practices is the challenge imposed, not to special education, or its target audience, but this is undoubtedly task of education.
Resumo:
You cannot teach architectonic design, but only learn it. This sentence was, during some decades, especially during the modernism, the starting point, adopted by several architectonic design professors, when they had to approach their subject. An attitude that, some years ago, was reviewed and fighted by area s experts. This paper join this criticism, and try to add something to the pre-existing discussion, analyzing with the case-study method all the subjects related with architectonic design of the Architecture and Urbanism degree, at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte CAU/UFRN . The aim is to identify and analyze the teaching methodologies used by the professors and their effects related to the students. To reach this purpose four different methods were used: i) Professors interviews; ii) Different forms submitted to students and professors; iii) Daily practice s observation, developed during classes; iv) Documents analysis about the degree (historical development and subjects) and about the subjects themselves (summaries, table of contents and planning). Studying the results, it was possible to underline that, in spite of the efforts of some of the professors to find a way to teach with more appropriate educational and pedagogic bases, some of the teaching methodologies, criticized in articles dealing with the matter, were still used. With regard to these, the research pointed out some suggestions that could help to improve the teaching and learning process, joining professors and students that are the most important subjects of the teaching activity. Developing the idea living in the paper s title Teaching and learning , it s now clear that only the practice, through the improvement of the pedagogic techniques, together with critical analysis can help the professors to reach a relationship level, regarding the teaching and learning process, as that described in the epigraph s text, into which teaching and learning, can t be done only by one of the process subject, but must be lived by both of them: professors and students
