Uma avaliação longituginal de um projeto de formação de professores: CLAC 20 anos depois

Zyngier, Sonia; Marques-Schäfer, Gabriela; Menezes, Danielle de Almeida; Spallanzani, Alessandra Mitie

doi:10.1590/1984-6398201914851

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Rev. bras. linguist. apl. 20 (2) • Apr-Jun 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-6398201914851 copiar

Uma avaliação longituginal de um projeto de formação de professores: CLAC 20 anos depois

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMO

Atualmente, o envolvimento em programas de extensão universitária é obrigatório para alunos de graduação na área de Ciências Humanas. No entanto, antes de 2015, os esforços nessa área eram bastante escassos e tendiam a se concentrar em serviços e consultoria. Poucos eram os projetos como o CLAC (Cursos de Línguas Abertos à Comunidade) que visavam preparar os professores para as realidades da sala de aula por meio de uma experiência prática. A fim de examinar a influência que este projeto pioneiro pode ter sobre a vida acadêmica, profissional e pessoal dos participantes, este artigo relata um estudo longitudinal com 60 participantes. Suas respostas a um questionário on-line indicam que o projeto atingiu seus objetivos em termos de promoção de pensamento crítico, autonomia e preparação de profissionais bem qualificados. Essa avaliação evidencia que esse projeto pioneiro é um modelo a ser replicado.

PALAVRAS CHAVE:
formação de professores; programa de formação de professores; extensão universitária; autonomia e avaliação longitudinal

University				Schools				Independent language courses				Total
In Brazil		Abroad		Private		Public		In Brazil		Abroad		Total
#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
16	24.6	3	4.6	16	24.6	18	27.6	10	15.3	2	3	65	100

Influence		Partial Influence		No Influence		Total
#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
48	80%	5	8.3%	7	11.7%	60	100%

Categories	#	%
Teaching experience	10	30.3
Learning offered	9	27.2
Supervision obtained	4	12.1
Stimulus to autonomy, critical thinking, and/or academic studies/ research	6	18.1
Teamwork	2	6.1
Entrepreneurship and business	1	3.1
Scholarship obtained	1	3.1
Total	33	100

Categories	#	%
Experience	13	48.2
Knowledge	8	29.5
Research	3	11.1
Reflection	2	7.5
Professional choice	1	3.7
TOTAL	27	100

Categories	#	%
General experience and teaching practice	28	29.4
Pedagogical support/reflective teaching	21	22.1
Teamwork	11	11.6
Preparation for the job market	7	7.3
Experience in research and publication	4	4.2
Events	4	4.2
Socialization and affect	4	4.2
Preparing classes, didactic material, and evaluation	3	3.2
Attendance/Interaction with the community and fees charged	3	3.2
Incentive to study and continuing education	3	3.2
Autonomy and sense of responsibility	3	3.2
Structure and quality of the courses	2	2.1
Nothing else	2	2.1
Total	95	100

Categories	Scale
Categories	1	2	3	4	5
Organizational skills	0	0	9	12	39
Sense of responsibility	0	0	4	6	50
Academic growth	0	0	3	16	41
Interaction with the community	0	0	2	8	50
Social interaction with colleagues, students, and teachers	0	0	2	9	49
Critical capacity	0	0	5	14	41
Autonomy	0	0	2	5	53
Motivation to study	0	0	4	13	43
Stimulus for teaching career	0	0	3	5	52
Motivation for research	0	4	16	12	28
Total out of 600 (#)	0	4	50	100	446
Total in %	0%	0.7%	8.3%	16.7%	74.3%

Categories	#	%
General appraisal	60	22.9
Motivation and pleasure	38	14.4
Formative role	36	13.6
Innovative nature	18	6.8
Re Relevance to the community	18	6.8
Reliability	17	6.4
Socialization	16	6.0
Challenge	14	5.3
Learning Environment	17	6.4
Organization	11	4.2
Critical reflection	10	3.8
Results	8	3.0
Scholarships	2	0.7
Total	265	100

Categories	#	%
No/Nothing	37	55
I don’t know how it is today	8	12
Distribute time better and share material	6	9
Offer more supervision, classroom observation, and cooperation between coordinators and pre-teachers	5	7.5
Increase the number of segments and expand the options	2	3
Provide more resources and better classrooms	2	3
Expand to other contexts	2	3
Improve the quality of the pre-service teacher evaluation forms and methods of selection	2	3
Reduce the number of pupils in the classroom	1	1.5
Carry out more research	1	1.5
Avoid local politics	1	1.5
TOTAL	67	100

Item	Frequency	Word
1	61	As (used as “como”)
2	61	Me (“me”)
3	56	No (“não”)
4	54	My (“minha”)
5	44	Was (“foi”)
6	39	(I) (“eu”)
7	37	Very (as the intensifier “muito”)
8	34	Class (“aula”)
9	32	More (as the intensifier “mais”)
10	29	Professional (“profissional”)
11	28	Today (“hoje”)
12	26	Classroom (“sala”)
13	25	Students (“alunos”)
14	25	Experience (“experiência”)
15	25	Pre-service teachers (“monitores”)
16	22	Teachers (“professores”)
17	22	To be (“ser”)
18	21	Opportunity (“oportunidade”)
19	20	Study (“formação”)
20	20	My (“meu”)

Faculdade de Letras - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - Faculdade de Letras, Av. Antônio Carlos, 6627 4º. Andar/4036, 31270-901 Belo Horizonte/ MG/ Brasil, Tel.: (55 31) 3409-6044, Fax: (55 31) 3409-5120 - Belo Horizonte - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rblasecretaria@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Author’s contribution All authors participated in each stage of the work: together they designed and implemented the research, built the instruments, contacted the participants, and carried out the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Sonia Zyngier gave more input to the general essay and Sections 2 and 4. Gabriela Marques-Schäfer analyzed data from the questionnaire, drafted Section 4, and worked on the formatting, submission, and proofreading of the text. Danielle Menezes analyzed specific items of the questionnaire, drafted Section 3.1, wrote Sections 3.2 and 5 and contributed to other Sections. Alessandra Mitie Spallanzani analyzed part of the data and wrote Sections 3.3 and 5. The introduction and conclusion were written by all authors collectively.