Educação infantil, cultura, currículo e conhecimento: sentidos em discussão
This thesis regards questions related to the knowledges that can constitute the experiences children have in kindergarten institutions on a daily basis that, by consequence, constitute the curricula they experience in this context, by which – alongside other experiences from assorted social spaces –...
Na minha lista:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Formato: | doctoralThesis |
| Idioma: | por |
| Publicado em: |
Brasil
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Endereço do item: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/22052 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | This thesis regards questions related to the knowledges that can constitute the experiences children have in kindergarten institutions on a daily basis that, by consequence, constitute the curricula they experience in this context, by which – alongside other experiences from assorted social spaces – they interact with culture and constitute themselves as subjects. The problematizations that generate this study unfold in a context of imprecision, contradictions and confrontations regarding what needs to constitute such curricula. Its considered that, historically, the circulating senses that children may learn in early education are being (un)defined in, at least, two instances: a deliberative one – national policies documents; and a practical one – planning/development of daily experiences of the teachers alongside their students in educational institutions. Thus, the research seeks to answer the question: “Which senses are attributed to curriculum and the knowledges that can constitute the objects/objectives of child education by the National Curricular Directives for Child Education (port. DCNEI) and by teachers acting in this educational stage?” The study was theoretically-methodologically based in the principals of historical-cultural approach of L. S. Vigotski (2000; 2005; 2007; 2009) and in the dialogic analysis of M. Bakhtin’s discourse (1995; 2003). Thereby, understanding that the meanings/senses, while human-social productions, can only be studied in their constitution movement, the investigation has as objective: to analyze the senses attributed to the curriculum and the knowledges that might/need (to) constitute themselves as objects/objectives of child education by DCNEI and by teachers that act in this stage. Therefore, a dual nature research was devised – documental and empirical, with document analysis and semi-structured interviews, both nine-person groups and individual public kindergarten teachers. The data construction and analysis unfolded in a dialogic movement of negotiation and production of senses systematized in two thematic fields present in the object: 1) senses related to curricula and 2) senses related to knowledges. With the analysis, directions of senses were identified/organized: 1a) senses on curricula of the DCNEI; 1b) senses on curricula on the voices of teachers (on what constitutes curriculum and the processes of production/definition of the curriculum); and 2a)senses regarding knowledge in the DCNEI (What constitutes knowledge in/for child education: different heritages of knowledge, knowledge and wisdom, knowledge and language, knowledges that constitute curricula; Knowledge in the interactions and playtimes; Knowledge and the educational experiences that compose the curriculum); 2b) senses of knowledge on the voices of kindergarten teachers (What children might learn in educational experiences: knowledge as abilities/capacities of child development, knowledge related to literacy processes, knowledge in logic/mathematical experiences, knowledge on the physical and social world, knowledge in art languages, knowledge for babies; Organizational means of knowledge in the curriculum: knowledge directions between DCNEI and RCNEI, curricular experiences, interactions and playtime). Agreements and disagreements were verified as to what children need to learn in child education between what is proposed in the DCNEI and the teachers. The official text’s analysis shows a need for more clarity, broadening and deepening of its definitions, considering the teachers need “keys” unavailable in the text, to access the significations it contains. We still indicate the need for more investment in service formation and conditions for proper appropriation by the teachers of the current theoretical and official propositions for young and very young child education, groundwork for development and to the reflection of their own practices. |
|---|