"Fala, prof!: Professores em diálogo (re)pensando a Educação": um curso de formação continuada contado pelo viés da autoetnografia

Abstract

In this research study, you will have the opportunity to know a story of continuing education for public school teachers, which aimed to investigate possible moments of critical education provided in this course. This story will be investigated based on autoethnography as a methodological approach. In this sense, this qualitative, interpretative and autoethnographic research had as its object of study and investigation a continuing education course for teachers entitled "Fala, prof! – Teachers in dialogue (re)thinking Education”. This course was attended by twenty teachers, besides me, from different public school contexts, as well as different areas of expertise, who met weekly in the space of a public university for a period of five months, to engage in reflective processes about themselves, as teachers. As this work was built under the methodological bias of autoethnography, the object of study will be presented based on my interpretations of it. Therefore, autoethnography is a qualitative research method that allows researchers to write about their study in a personalized way, making use of their experiences, or their interpretations about them, to understand a social practice. One of the purposes of autoethnography is to recognize the complex link that exists between the personal and the cultural, and for this, I rely on theorists who discuss autoethnography, such as Adams, Ellis and Jones (2013), Anderson (2006), Anderson and Glass-Coffin (2013), Biancalana and Santos (2017), Bochner and Ellis (2000, 2006), Cano and Opazo (2014), Chang (2008) and Versiani (2005), as well as authors who have integrated autoethnography in their research as a methodological procedure, namely Araújo (2018), Bottura (2019), Caetano (2017), Ono (2017) and Paiva (2018). In order to make the interpretations that I bring in this study possible, I had as research instruments audio recordings of the meetings and their respective transcriptions and a written record produced by the teachers. The education intended by the course was investigated based on reflections that emerged from the interactions between teachers, seeking to problematize in what sense they provided moments of criticality. In this perspective, I rely on authors from Critical Literacy (CL) studies, such as Duboc (2012, 2018), Jordão (2006, 2007, 2013, 2018), Mattos (2011, 2018), Menezes de Souza (2011a, 2011b) and Monte Mór (2007, 2013, 2018a, 2018b), as well as authors from Critical Applied Linguistics, such as Pennycook (1998, 2001, 2006) and critical teacher education, such as Liberali (2015) to support my interpretations. I refer to the concepts of interpretive habitus/expansion of perspectives, concept of language, reading and self-reading and curriculum cracks, proposed by CL researchers. Finally, I hope that this thesis encourages teachers to be autoethnographers of their teaching practices, understanding autoethnography beyond a methodological approach, but conceiving it as a way to position oneself, others and the world. I hope that based on the questions that may be raised in this study, teachers understand how their subjectivity, beliefs, desires and fears affect and influence their interpretations of their experiences. In addition, I hope that critical education is promoted in teacher education courses so that we have greater possibilities to develop a critical education for/with our students and, therefore, provide them with a critical posture necessary for their happy existence with/in the world.