Affection, dialogue, and bureaucracy: what constitutes teaching work according to basic education teachers?

Abstract

Introduction.  This study analyzes elements of teaching work considered congruent with its pedagogical function and those that are carried out bureaucratically or rejected by teachers in their pedagogical practice.

Methodology.  Reports produced between 2020 and 2023 were analyzed based on an activity examining what teachers like to do and do; like to do and do not do; do not like to do and do; and do not like to do and do not do.

Results.  A critical-reflexive analysis was developed, drawing on elements of content analysis, and three categories were constructed: “Dialogical pedagogical actions, highlighting the importance of interaction with students”; “Affectivity, understood as a sensitive regard for the other”; and “Bureaucracies, which problematize what constitutes teaching work?”.

Discussion.  The intensification of work has been a challenge for teachers, who resist bureaucratic tasks but remain committed to the ethical imperative inherent in their work, despite the constraints of a system that considers them “technical executors”.

Keywords
teaching work; dialogicity; affection; ethics.

Resumo

Introdução.  Esta pesquisa analisa elementos do trabalho docente considerados congruentes com sua função e aqueles que são cumpridos de forma burocrática ou rejeitados pelos professores na prática pedagógica.

Metodologia.  Relatórios (2020 e 2023) foram analisados apoiados em uma atividade sobre o que os professores gostam de fazer e fazem; gostam de fazer e não fazem; não gostam de fazer e fazem; e não gostam de fazer e não fazem.

Resultados.  Desenvolveu-se uma análise crítico-reflexiva utilizando elementos da análise de conteúdo e construíram-se três categorias: “Ações pedagógicas dialógicas: a importância da interação com os alunos”; “Afetividade: o olhar sensível para o outro”; “Burocracias: o que compõe o trabalho docente?”.

Discussão.  A intensificação do trabalho tem sido enfrentada pelos docentes, que resistem ao trabalho burocrático, mas permanecem cumprindo com o imperativo ético como constituinte do seu trabalho, apesar das amarras de um sistema que os considera “executores técnicos”.

Palavras-chave
trabalho docente; dialogicidade; afetividade; ética.

Resumen

Introducción.  Esta investigación analiza elementos del trabajo docente considerados congruentes con su función y aquellos que se realizan de forma burocrática o son rechazados por los profesores en la práctica pedagógica.

Metodología.  Se analizaron informes (2020 y 2023), apoyados en una actividad que indagó sobre lo que a los profesores les gusta hacer y hacen; les gusta hacer y no hacen; no les gusta hacer y hacen; y no les gusta hacer y no hacen.

Resultados.  Se desarrolló un análisis crítico-reflexivo, utilizando elementos del análisis de contenido y se construyeron tres categorías: “Acciones pedagógicas dialógicas: la importancia de la interacción con los estudiantes”; “Afectividad: una mirada sensible hacia el outro”; y “Burocracias: qué compone el trabajo docente?”.

Discusión.  La intensificación del trabajo ha sido enfrentada por los docentes, quienes resisten al trabajo burocrático, pero continúan cumpliendo con el imperativo ético como elemento constitutivo de su labor, a pesar de los condicionamientos de un sistema que los considera “ejecutores técnicos”.

Palabras clave
trabajo docente; dialogicidade; afectividad; ética.

1 Introduction

This article discusses the Teacher and Student Training Paths in the Basic Education System (Performa)¹, It began in 2020 and has since brought together the undergraduate programs in psychology, law, and visual arts, as well as the postgraduate program in education (PPGE) at the Universidade da Região de Joinville (Univille), located in northern Santa Catarina. The main objective of this training course is

[...] To implement a collaborative, community-based, and interdisciplinary space for teaching, research, and outreach on teacher and student paths in their formative dimension within the context of the public education system, with an emphasis on participative, dialogic, and integrative methodological processes (SPSI, 2024).

The Performa Project is based on Historical and Dialectical Materialism, which, according to Frigotto (2020, p. 24), seeks to “[...] grasp the contradictory structure and processuality, the connections or mediations and the particularity of the research object, which are not immediately given to the researcher.”. The study focuses on five thematic axes: (1) Biographical; (2) Work; (3) Conceptual; (4) Aesthetic; and (5) Collective. The material produced with the teachers participating in the project, such as audio recordings of interviews, transcripts, reports, photos, and videos, is stored in an archive. This study focuses on axis 2 - Work, to analyze elements of teaching work that are considered by the participating teachers, congruent with their function, and those that are performed bureaucratically or rejected by teachers in their pedagogical practice. To achieve the main objective, a qualitative research approach was chosen, based on Gatti (2021) and Gatti and André (2010), and the data were analyzed using the Content Analysis methodology of Bardin (2020) and Franco (2018).

According to research conducted by Assis, Neves, and Aragão (2023), studies on teaching work available on the Web of Science (WoS) were limited until 2006. Although research on this topic has intensified since 2018, there is still much to be investigated in Brazil. Thus, discussions about teaching are considered indispensable for the scientific community since the subject is not limited to specific discussions but requires in-depth reflection on the ongoing agenda of monitoring the contours of teaching (Assis; Neves; Aragão, 2023, p. 3).

We adopt the understanding of Freire and Shor (2021) that considers dialogicity, affectivity, and ethics as the foundations of this research. They define dialogue as a practice that reflects respect for human dignity and a belief in each person's potential to develop and transform their surroundings. According to the authors, dialogue enables a horizontal relationship between educator and learner, breaking with the traditional banking model of education, which considers the student a mere receiver of information. Proposing a liberating education, Freire, in his work with Shor (2021), emphasizes that, despite their differences, both teachers and students are there to learn, as critical agents in the act of knowing (Freire; Shor, 2021). Dialogicity is, therefore, a path to a democratic education, where the objective is to form conscious, critical, and participatory citizens.

In the process of dialogicity, affectivity is fundamental. Freire (2008) describes it as an ethical and transformative component of education that is essential for inclusive, democratic, and humanizing pedagogical practices. From this perspective, affectivity becomes an essential element, since "[...] as a strictly human practice, I could never understand education as a cold, soulless experience, in which feelings and emotions, desires, and dreams should be repressed by a kind of reactionary dictatorship." (Freire, 2008, p. 145).

Affectivity and rationality always go together in the teaching and learning process. Only through an affective approach can an educator establish a relationship of trust and respect with a student.

Although Paulo Freire did not write a work dedicated exclusively to ethics, an ethical imperative is evident throughout his extensive body of work. For Freire, ethics are an integral aspect of human existence and action. According to Freire (2008), teachers and students cannot escape ethical rigor. However, this ethics does not align with capitalist and market interests. Rather, it corroborates the human being as a universal individual who is part of society, as well as its construction and transformation.

For Freire (2008, p. 33), ethics is intrinsic to human beings, because “[...] we only are because we are becoming. Being is the condition, among us, for being. It is not possible to think of human beings even apart from ethics, much less outside of it.” The awareness of incompleteness leads teachers to reflect critically on pedagogical practice, and the ethical imperative is necessary for critical reflection to generate changes in actions, attitudes, and positions, thus enabling students to see themselves as constituent parts of a different educational practice and of another possible society.

This research aims to analyze the elements of teaching work considered congruent with the teacher's role, as well as those performed bureaucratically or rejected in pedagogical practice. The following questions are posed to address this issue: Which elements of teaching work are considered congruent with the role, and which elements are performed bureaucratically or rejected by teachers in their pedagogical practice? The authors who provide the foundation for this research are Contreras (2002), Freire (2005, 2008), Freire and Shor (2021), Giroux (1997), and Nóvoa (2023).

2 Methodology

In light of the primary goal of this study, reports compiled by research assistants from 2020 to 2023 were examined. These assistants were participants in an integrated research, teaching, and outreach project that primarily involves undergraduate courses in Psychology, Law, and Visual Arts, as well as postgraduate students from the PPGE program at Univille, located in northern Santa Catarina².

These reports are part of a collection of materials produced during teacher training programs, primarily in public elementary schools in a municipality in northern Santa Catarina.

Of the five axes developed in the project in question, this research draws from an activity in axis 2, commonly called a "curtigrama," or a tool for self-knowledge. This term has been used in the field of Psychology as a self-knowledge tool and consists of four quadrants, each with a different indication: "I like it and I do it"; "I don't like it and I do it"; "I like it and I don't do it"; "I don't like it and I don't do it" (Lucchiari, 1993). In this case, the formative process was used to reflect on teaching activities and to encourage dialogue between teachers and research assistants.

For analysis, this work will discuss the axes "I like it and I do it" and "I don't like it and I don't do it." Regarding the search, organization, and composition of information for this research, a qualitative approach was used, as it allows for understanding educational phenomena from the participants' perspective. This methodology employs various techniques, such as document analysis, to capture the experiences and perceptions of those involved in the educational environment (Gatti; André, 2010). It is noteworthy that qualitative research offers methodological flexibility, allowing initial hooks to open up in "[...] various routes, which pave the way for obtaining elements related to the problem that one intends to analyze, often seemingly disconnected and disparate, but which make it possible to delineate confrontations, relationships and meanings" (Gatti, 2021, p. 52).

Therefore, by reflecting on what has already been produced (the reports), one can focus on issues of daily school work based on elements that are congruent (or not) with its function (the object of this study).

Twenty-four reports produced between 2020 and 2023, totaling 107 participating teachers, were evaluated³. The inclusion criterion for the research was being employed as a teacher at the time of the meetings that gave rise to the reports. The exclusion criterion was holding a management position at the time of the meetings. Fourteen teachers were excluded from this research because they held management positions and were not teaching in the classroom. Furthermore, some reports did not include the participants' responses (31 of them) regarding the "work" axis related to the curriculum framework. Considering these parameters, the responses of 62 participants constitute the corpus of the research and were considered for analysis.

To construct and analyze the information, the teachers' responses from the curriculum activity were compiled into an Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contains the following information: year of the report, report title, fictitious teacher name and role, and specific responses for each quadrant. In this phase, a preliminary analysis of the material was carried out, based on Bardin (2020) and Franco (2018), which is characterized as a crucial phase for organizing the information to constitute the research corpus. Also in the preliminary analysis, the information was read, revealing repeated elements in the responses.

According to Bardin (2020), two more steps are necessary to complete content analysis in addition to pre-analysis: exploration and processing of the material, and interpretation of the data. In exploring the material based on an exhaustive reading of the data, aspects that drew attention in relation to possible thematic axes for composing the units of analysis were highlighted. Finally, in the processing and interpretation of the data, the categories of analysis were delimited and discussed.

Therefore, using a qualitative approach to analyze the information allows us to explore the complexities and dynamics present in teachers' accounts of their daily work at school. This approach reveals nuances and particularities that are not easily quantifiable but provide researchers with significant information about pedagogical practice and educational contexts (Gatti; André, 2010). Thus, the information was organized into three categories encompassing the elements of teaching work considered by teachers. The categories are: (a) Dialogical pedagogical actions: the importance of interaction with students; (b) Affectivity: a sensitive look at the other; and (c) Bureaucracies: what constitutes teaching work?, which will be presented in the results and discussion.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Dialogic pedagogical actions: the importance of interaction with students

Teaching is a relational activity and also, as Freire (2008, p. 144) would say, “[...] ours is a work carried out with people, kids, young, or adult, but people in a permanent process of searching. [...] it demands from me a high level of ethical responsibility of which my own scientific training is a part.”.

The teachers in this research highlighted in the "I like and I do" quadrant of the curriculum diagram precisely the importance of interactions with students, specifically being attentive to their educational and personal needs.:

Set aside the textbook and open the door to dialogue. Try not to keep the student confined to the book and provide opportunities for debate; get involved in the student's life; give students autonomy (Teacher Ailton, n.d.).

Being close to the students; whenever possible, encouraging curiosity and dialogue in the classroom (Teacher Eloísa, n.d.).

The elements identified by the teachers align with Freire's (2008) discussion of learner autonomy. Providing spaces for dialogue in educational practices is essential. Beyond being a teaching strategy, dialogue is a powerful way to connect with students by listening to them and understanding their contexts, experiences, living conditions, and needs. School education happens through the relationship established with others, between teachers and students. In this sense, it is necessary to listen attentively to what students have to say about their lives, their difficulties, and their aspirations. As Freire would say (2008, p. 119-120):

[...] listening is obviously something that goes beyond the auditory capacity of each individual. Listening, in the sense discussed here, means the permanent availability on the part of the listener to be open to the other's speech, gestures, and differences. This does not mean, of course, that listening requires the listener to reduce themselves to the other who speaks. That would not be listening, but self-annihilation. True listening does not diminish my capacity to disagree, oppose, or take a stand. On the contrary, I prepare myself to better position or situate myself from the point of view of ideas by listening well.

By observing the student's reality through listening, the teacher can equip themselves with tools to intervene, because when there is collective reflection on the known and the unknown, it is possible to act critically to transform reality (Freire; Shor, 2021). As Teacher Ivan (n.d.) points out, in his teaching practices, he does “[...] readings about everyday subjects, daily, on the Internet and in newspapers”, together with the students, to share “[...] his desire to change the world with the students”. Therefore, dialogue goes beyond communication; it involves joint reflection on reality, "[...] it is this encounter of men, mediated by the world, to pronounce it, not being exhausted, therefore, in the me-you relationship" (Freire, 2005, p. 91, author's emphasis). For the author, dialogicity is characterized by encounters between human beings who recognize each other as subjects in a relationship of equality and mutual respect.

According to Freire (2008), when engaging in dialogue with students, teachers must be available to connect theoretical and practical knowledge to the concrete reality in which they work. He emphasizes that:

I already know, without a doubt, that the material conditions in which and under which students live influence their understanding of the world, their ability to learn, and to respond to challenges. Now, I need to understand, or open myself to, the reality of these students with whom I share my teaching activities (Freire, 2008, p. 137).

This pedagogical stance, present in the statements of the teachers in the research, should also be observed in a scenario of adversities, difficulties, and confrontations; however, it is perceived that there is an ethical-political decision, a “[...] not at all sentimental desire to intervene in the world” (Freire, 2008, p. 138). This dialogical approach opens up possibilities for structuring pedagogical practices that are consistent with a liberating education. In this approach, both the educator and the learner become subjects of the learning process. Respecting the worldviews that each person brings from their own life experience is what enriches the educational process and leads to critical awareness, that is, the ability to question and understand the world, causing the individual not to passively accept reality, but to seek to transform it. In this sense, dialogue is a mediation between the subject and the world, a critical reading of reality. This approach rejects neutrality and emphasizes the political nature of education.

Freire (2008) warns that teaching is an act that demands ethical responsibility, and this ethics is manifested above all in the way the teacher relates to their students. The teachers' statements in the research, highlighting the pleasure of interacting with students, demonstrate an awareness that the educational process is an encounter between human beings, and not an exercise of power or imposition. “Setting aside the material and opening up to dialogue,” as Teacher Ailton (n.d.) expresses it, highlights a break with the banking model of pedagogy - where the student is seen as an empty vessel to be filled - and reaffirms the centrality of dialogue as a path to knowledge construction.

Therefore, following the teachings of Freire and Shor (2021), rather than speaking louder to be heard, teachers should modulate their voices for conversation. They should open themselves to what others have to say, encourage students to speak up, and help them understand their perceptions and society as a whole. Dialogic interaction with students, as proposed by the teachers in the research, is not a complement to pedagogical practices, but their vital core. It is in dialogue that bonds are woven, meanings are constructed, and consciousness is awakened.

Analysis reveals that teachers' resistance to prescribed practices is rooted in their intellectual capacity. By challenging those standards, teachers demonstrate their commitment to student engagement and the exploration of content and their students' lived realities through reflection. In this sense, teaching is inventive because it does not conform to what is already established. There is also recognition that students have their own stories and the right to express themselves in the classroom, building new ways of dealing with lived situations and planning for the future. The researchers point out that the most relevant and effective pedagogical practice in the classroom is that which involves the encounter of words and their meanings, allowing students to discuss concepts, living conditions, and anything else relevant to classroom dialogue, even if that dialogue doesn't begin or end there.

3.2 Affectivity: a sensitive look at the other

Reflections on this category revolve around affections, understanding that affectivity is linked to how one affects others and is affected by them. The teachers who participated in the research brought relevant contributions to the "I like and I do" quadrant regarding the relationship of affection and sensitivity towards others:

Friendship with students facilitates classroom dynamics (Teacher Cravo, n.d.).

I enjoy seeing the happiness on the student's face when they understand something they have explained (Teacher Carmelia, n.d.).

Helping students who come seeking assistance not only with the subject matter, but also with their specific needs; some are experiencing significant difficulties. I don't limit myself to my own students, but to any student in the school who stops me in the hallway (Teacher Cleiton, n.d.).

To teach, to embrace, to support, to be there for the students (Teacher Ana, n.d.).

Show up for the children, listen to them. Talk to the parents, make home visits (Teacher Denis, n.d.).

The aforementioned contributions align with Freire's (2008, p. 141) idea that "teaching requires wanting the best for students.". This desire for good does not negate the teacher's authority in the classroom, nor does it mean wanting the same type of good for all students. Rather, it means understanding and acknowledging that affectivity is part of teaching practice, as well as a commitment to students' well-being and the teaching and learning process. For the author, "[...] affectivity is not excluded from cognizability. What I obviously cannot allow is for my affectivity to interfere with the ethical fulfillment of my duty as a teacher in the exercise of my authority." (Freire, 2008, p. 141).

In Freire's perspective, affectivity is an integral part of educational practice and an ethical expression of the educator's commitment to humanizing the teaching and learning process. The statements of the teachers who participated in the research show the value placed on the affective bond as an essential element of teaching practice. Expressions such as "teaching, embracing, supporting" or "helping students who come looking for help" demonstrate the presence of an ethical and empathetic commitment that goes beyond the strictly cognitive realm. Learning, therefore, is not a purely rational act, but an existential process in which the individual is fully involved.

When considering education as a relationship of affection, in which teachers and students mutually affect each other and can give new meaning to their actions, we corroborate Nóvoa (2023, p. 23), when the author states that:

Education cannot exist without affection, feeling, or deep human connections between students and teachers. One cannot know without feeling; one cannot learn without emotion or empathy. We cannot educate ourselves without others.

Although society may seem to be moving towards greater distance between people with the advent of digital media and information overload, education still takes place in relation to others (Nóvoa, 2023). While it is possible to learn alone, education only happens through exchange, dialogue, and mutual collaboration between students and teachers, within the institution called "school." Thus, both Freire's and Nóvoa's perspectives converge in their defense of a humanized education, based on sensitivity as a condition for meaningful and transformative knowledge.

3.3 Bureaucracies: what constitutes teaching work?

As discussions about this category began, it became clear that the participating teachers did not view bureaucratic work as contributing to teaching or different educational practices. The consolidation of merely technical and control-related actions denotes a professional overload due to the intensification of teaching work. According to Contreras (2002, p. 37):

[...] the intensification is thus linked to the process of intellectual devaluation and degradation of teachers' professional skills and competencies, reducing their work to the daily struggle of managing all the tasks they must perform.

In the "I don't like it and I do it" quadrant of the curtigrama, the teachers brought elements that highlight this:

I don't like posting the plans because it's too much work, and I don't like the bureaucracy (Teacher Luis, n.d.).

Bureaucratic tasks: taking attendance, typing grades, entering content, preparing extra materials, which are the school's responsibility but are not provided (Teacher Elcio, n.d.).

Recording attendance and absences is a bureaucratic task that takes up class time (Teacher Jair, n.d.).

It is understood that these actions were already occurring even before Digital Information and Communication Technologies (DICT) entered the formal pedagogical and educational environment. However, it is not enough to just plan and take attendance; it must also be entered into a system under the control or monitoring of someone or a team. Thus, the rationalization of teaching is perceived (Contreras, 2002), as it is up to the teacher to carry out externally determined actions.

According to Giroux (1997, p. 158), there is an ideological trend called the "proletarianization of teaching work." This refers to teachers as technical executors of a curriculum who have no voice in critical and intellectual decisions. This condition weakens pedagogical autonomy and breaks with the possibility of a critical exercise of teaching. Instead of being subjects of reflection and action - from the perspective of Freirean praxis - teachers become agents of reproduction of a system that privileges standardization and control. Therefore, there is a need to defend teachers as “[...] transformative intellectuals” (Giroux, 1997, p. 158), capable of acting critically on their actions, intertwining reflection and pedagogical practice to contribute to the development of critical and reflective students.

Given the work assigned to teachers as technicians and the new bureaucratic functions they must fulfill, the need for professional retraining becomes apparent. However, the imposition of deadlines for completing routine and mechanical tasks further intensifies the teaching workload. Consequently, this distances the teacher from the reflection-action-reflection process (Freire, 2008) and collaborative work (Nóvoa, 2023), and increasingly approaches individualism.

Although teaching has been traditionally seen as an isolated profession, it is important to understand it as a collaborative one. Therefore, planning (weekly or bi-weekly) is understood as intrinsic to teaching work. Posting on a digital system should allow a professional from the pedagogical management team to monitor it and contribute to teaching practice. It should not be used for the supervision and control commonly associated with the system.

Most teachers are aware that planning is part of pedagogical actions, as these actions need to be intentionally planned, considering the consolidation of the objectives proposed for each cycle/grade/segment. For years, planning was done in a notebook under the sole control of the teacher, which emphasized isolated work. Currently, however, some scholars advocate opening up to other educational perspectives, such as collaborative perspectives with peers and the management team (Nóvoa, 2023).

However, there are other ways to make collaborative work more effective, without being restricted to following a protocol through posting on a system. If the pedagogical organization were different from what the teachers describe, there would be more time for joint planning, research, record-keeping, and ongoing in-service training centered on the school and teachers' needs during planning time.

It is important to note that there should be a distinction between making a decision and doing something one dislikes. This distinction is directly related to ethical issues. Teaching takes place within the ethical framework of one's actions, as it is a formative practice, as Freire points out (2008). For the author, teaching ethics should not be linked to capitalist and elitist interests, but to “[...] the universal ethics of the human being” (Freire, 2008, p. 15). For this ethics to be consolidated, it needs to constitute itself as the essence of educational practice, because “[...] it is in the domain of decision, evaluation, freedom, rupture, and choice that the need for ethics is established and responsibility is imposed [...] we are conditioned beings, but not determined” (Freire, 2008, p. 18-19, author's emphasis).

Teaching is a difficult and complex task that demands teachers possess the ability to think, act, and solve problems. A collaborative approach requires respect, flexibility, commitment, and, above all, the willingness to share ideas and knowledge (Silva; Oliveira, 2022). Collaborative work is considered an essential skill today because, through it, teachers identify and expand practices, share experiences, which confers co-responsibility for teaching work.

Therefore, criticism of the bureaucratization of teaching work is not limited to denouncing administrative overload, but extends to a reflection on the meaning of education itself. Teaching is a formative, creative, and ethical practice by nature. Reducing it to technical procedures diminishes its transformative power and disregards its social function. Therefore, recovering the collaborative, reflective, and ethical dimensions of teaching is a political and pedagogical imperative.

4 Final considerations

Based on the educational paths of teachers and students in Basic Education, the objective was to analyze elements of teaching work that are considered congruent with their function and those that are fulfilled bureaucratically or rejected by teachers in their pedagogical practice. Among the thematic axes, axis 2 - Work - was analyzed through content analysis.

Dialogicity, as a constitutive element of democracy; affectivity, as the basis for a more inclusive, democratic, and humanizing pedagogy; and ethics, as a constitutive imperative of the human being, were considered as the foundations of this research, grounded in Historical and Dialectical Materialism.

The qualitative methodology used allowed 24 reports produced between 2020 and 2023 on training courses to be analyzed and organized in such a way that the categories of analysis converged on what was most emphasized in the teachers' responses. Thus, three categories of analysis were defined: (a) Dialogical pedagogical actions: The importance of interacting with students. In the first category, the "I like and I do" quadrant, teachers emphasized the importance of interacting with students because the educational process occurs when relationships are formed. To this end, the need for attentive and pedagogical listening is highlighted; (b) Affectivity: a sensitive look at the other - in this second category, it is understood that ethics is interrelated with the way in which one affects the other and is affected by them. Affecting and allowing oneself to be affected by students enables well-being between students and teachers; (c) Bureaucracies: what constitutes teaching work? - finally, in this category, a professional overload related to teaching work was identified. This devalues the teacher's intellect by portraying them as someone who carries out activities that are planned and overseen by other professionals, who are often external to the school.

Therefore, it is important to emphasize that teachers have been faced with an intensification of work, and they complain about and resist bureaucratic tasks. Despite the constraints of a system that considers teachers to be "technical executors," they continue to fulfill the ethical imperative as a constituent of their work. Many teachers, as found in this research, in their pedagogical actions consider dialogical strategies, affectivity, and ethics as means for a critical and liberating education.

Emphasis is placed on the teacher's power and engagement with the main aspect that characterizes teaching activity, which is teaching itself. This strengthens the argument that training and working conditions should foster discussions that enhance teacher autonomy and the theoretical and practical development of their pedagogical actions. However, it must be made clear that the bureaucratization of work can be one of the challenges and obstacles to the feasibility of the inventive and affective facet of the teacher's work. Without this critique, one can easily adopt an individualistic, meritocratic approach, which is based on the idea that a good teacher is one who has good intentions. This position depoliticizes the work of teachers and dialogue as a didactic category in the process of building liberation.

Thus, analyzing teaching work from critical and reflective perspectives makes it clear that the intensification and bureaucratization of pedagogical tasks are not isolated phenomena. Rather, they are products of a managerial logic that permeates contemporary educational policies. This logic, anchored in parameters of efficiency, productivity, and control, distances the teacher from their social and intellectual function, transforming the educational act into an instrumental practice devoid of emancipatory meaning. In this context, teachers are frequently faced with ethical and professional dilemmas that force them to reconcile institutional demands with the political commitment to educating critical and autonomous individuals. Resistance to this technical rationality therefore emerges in the choice of participatory methodologies, in fostering empathy, and in valuing dialogue with students.

Therefore, it becomes urgent to rethink the role of the school and the teacher in the face of forces that tend to empty the humanizing perspective of education. Addressing the bureaucratization and devaluation of teaching work requires a collective movement grounded in class consciousness and solidarity among education professionals. According to Paulo Freire, only through this unity can we break with the logic of alienation and reaffirm education as a practice of freedom. Thus, teaching must be understood as a political, ethical, and aesthetic practice, as well as a technical one. It implies a commitment to social transformation and to the construction of a democratic, critical, and effectively engaged school connected to the reality of those who participate in it.

• How to cite this article (ABNT):
  OLIVEIRA, Lucilene Simone Felippe; GIORDAN, Miriane Zanetti; CORDEIRO, Aliciene Fusca Machado. Afetividade, diálogo e burocracias: o que constitui o trabalho docente segundo professores da educação básica?. Educação & Formação, Fortaleza, v. 11, e16612, 2026. Disponível em: https://revistas.uece.br/index.php/redufor/article/view/e16612
• Translated by:
  Marina Pompeu
• Ad hoc experts:
  Hamilton Perninck Vieira e Carlos Barreira
• 1
  This research was funded by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina (Fapesc).
• 2
  This research was approved by the Ethics Committee under opinion number 6.440.023 and followed all necessary recommendations to ensure the anonymity of the participants, who also signed the Informed Consent Form and the Image Use Authorization Form.
• 3
  In this phase of the project, researcher Maria Júlia do Rosário actively participated in the activities, and we are immensely grateful to her, recognizing the importance of her dedication to the development of this article.

Data Availability:

Research data are available in the body of the document.

References

• ASSIS, V. D.; NEVES, V. N. S.; ARAGÃO, W. H. Um balanço da produção científica brasileira sobre trabalho docente (2008-2023). Educação & Formação, Fortaleza, v. 8, e11805, 2023, p. 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25053/redufor.v8.e11805 Disponível em: https://revistas.uece.br/index.php/redufor/article/view/11805/10486 Acesso em: 28 out. 2024.
  » https://doi.org/10.25053/redufor.v8.e11805» https://revistas.uece.br/index.php/redufor/article/view/11805/10486
• BARDIN, L. Análise de Conteúdo 5. ed. Lisboa: 70, 2020.
• CONTRERAS, J. Autonomia de professores Tradução: Sandra Trabucco Valenzuela. São Paulo: Cortez, 2002.
• FRANCO, M. L. P. B. Análise de Conteúdo 5. ed. Brasília, DF: Líber, 2018.
• FREIRE, P. Pedagogia da autonomia: saberes necessários à prática educativa. 37. ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2008.
• FREIRE, P. Pedagogia do oprimido 47. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 2005.
• FREIRE, P.; SHOR, I. Medo e ousadia: o cotidiano do professor. 14. ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2021.
• FRIGOTTO, G. Método materialista histórico como instrumento de análise da realidade. In: TULESKI, S. C.; FRANCO, A. F.; CALVE, T. M. (org.). Materialismo histórico-dialético e psicologia histórico-cultural: expressões da luta de classes no interior do capitalismo. [e-book]. Paranavaí: EduFatecie, 2020. p.15-35.
• GATTI, B A. A pesquisa em Educação e o campo da formação de educadores: diálogos com Marli André. Formação Docente: Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa sobre Formação de Professores, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 28, p. 47-56, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31639/rbpfp.v13i28.546 Disponível em: https://revformacaodocente.com.br/index.php/rbpfp/article/view/546 Acesso em: 19 jun. 2024.
  » https://doi.org/10.31639/rbpfp.v13i28.546» https://revformacaodocente.com.br/index.php/rbpfp/article/view/546
• GATTI, B. A.; ANDRÉ, M. E. D. A. A relevância dos métodos de pesquisa qualitativa em Educação no Brasil. In: WELLER, W.; PFAFF, N. (org.). Metodologias da pesquisa qualitativa em Educação Petrópolis: Vozes, 2010. p. 29-38.
• GIROUX, H. Os professores como intelectuais: rumo a uma pedagogia crítica da aprendizagem. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas, 1997.
• LUCCHIARI, D. H. P. S. (org.). Pensando e vivendo a orientação profissional 7. ed. São Paulo: Summus, 1993.
• NÓVOA, A. Professores: libertar o futuro. São Paulo: Diálogos Embalados, 2023.
• SILVA, L. M.; OLIVEIRA, J. F. V. As contribuições do trabalho colaborativo: reflexões sobre os afazeres pedagógicos entre os professores e a discussão com e para os alunos. Revista Educere et Educare, Cascavel, v. 17, n. 41, p. 108-127, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48075/educare.v17i41.26596 Disponível em: https://e-revista.unioeste.br/index.php/educereeteducare/article/view/26596 Acesso em: 20 jan. 2025.
  » https://doi.org/10.48075/educare.v17i41.26596» https://e-revista.unioeste.br/index.php/educereeteducare/article/view/26596
• SPSI. Projeto Performa: Percursos Formativos Docentes e Discentes na Rede de Educação Básica. Joinville: Universidade da Região de Joinville, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.univille.edu.br//pt-br/institucional/proreitorias/proex/spsi/projetos/886582 Acesso em: 17 jun. 2024.
  » https://www.univille.edu.br//pt-br/institucional/proreitorias/proex/spsi/projetos/886582

Edited by

• Responsible editor:
  Lia Machado Fiuza Fialho

• Responsible editor:
  Lia Machado Fiuza Fialho

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  10 Apr 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  10 Nov 2025
• Accepted
  22 Jan 2026
• Published
  12 Feb 2026