INTRODUCTION

In this article, we present the results of a research conducted in 2019 and 2020 about the articulation that is established between the university, the training field of future teachers and the schools, institutions that receive the student interns. The motivation came after reports from students who were enrolled in the subject Supervised Internship in Elementary Education: early years, in which I was teaching in the second semester of 2018. The questions brought by the students instigated me to follow more closely how the schools received them and how they perceived their role as co-trainers of such students, the participation of the university in the process, and how the interns felt in this training process.

This research was characterized as a case study, because it followed in loco the work of teachers from the first to the fifth year of elementary school and the relationships established with the trainees of the Pedagogy course. According to ^{Morgado (2012}, p.56-57), the case study

is an investigative strategy through which we seek to analyze, describe and understand certain particular cases (of individuals, groups or situations), and may later begin comparisons with other cases and formulate certain generalizations [... ].

In this sense, we can understand that the case study takes the researcher to a detailed observation and requires a personal involvement in order to interact with the researched field. It can be considered a type of research that leads the field investigated to a self-evaluation of the activities it develops, or even to a reflection on the implementation of new practices.

At first, I surveyed the schools that were most popular among the students and those that, for some reason, were not mentioned very often. The survey was done by consulting the reports and internships conducted in 2018 and by the observations of the interns in the subject evaluation form. We arrived at the students' reports about Escola Aquarela (Watercolor School)², a large institution in the Municipal Education Network that offered differentiated practices to receive and welcome the interns.

At the beginning of 2019, when contacting the school management, we realized that six of the eight interns of the school belonged to the Pedagogy course of the Universidade Católica de Petrópolis (Catholic University of Petrópolis) and we chose, after the consent of the management team, to develop our research in this space. During 2019, we were present, in loco, twice a week, to observe the activities of the teachers and the management and pedagogical team with the interns. We intended to continue this routine during the year 2020, however, with the arrival of the pandemic caused by Covid-19, our planning was modified and we started to communicate remotely, using Google Meet.

We used as theoretical reference the reflections of Professors Menga ^{Ludke (2013}) and Selma Garrido ^{Pimenta (2019}) about internships in teacher education. Their considerations instigated us to seek answers to the questions and considerations presented by the authors. In view of the references selected to support the research, we sought to understand the conception of theory and practice from the point of view of those involved in the process of training future teachers: the university and the internship school, as well as the intern student. Unraveling such questions instigated us to reflect on the curricula of teacher training courses in the light of the CNE Resolution No. 2 of December 2019, especially when we refer to the internship discipline. We also point out, reflections about the Resolution CNE nº 2/2015, which in our understanding, presents greater organicity for teacher education courses, especially when it comes to the relationship between theory and practice and internships.

The article is divided into two sections. In the first, we present considerations about internship in teacher education: the research developed by authors who research the topic, the internship in the scope of Resolution CNE No. 2 of December 20, 2019 and reflections on the conception of internship in the view of mentor teachers, school supervisors and interns. In the second section, we develop considerations about the research conducted at Escola Aquarela and the dialogues established envisioning a partnership between the institutions that receive the interns and the universities. Finally, our final considerations are that the issue of internship in teacher education needs to be deepened and brought up in meetings, debates, discussions and within university practice itself, in the field of pedagogy.

THE INTERNSHIP IN TEACHER EDUCATION

We can begin this section with two questions: is the internship in teacher training an imitation of models or an instrumentalized technique? Or can we say that it is a moment of reflection on the practice observed? We raise these questions because the internship is still a weakness in teacher education courses. Many scholars in the area, among them Menga Ludke and Selma Garrido Pimenta, have been developing research to understand how internships take place in teacher education courses and if they contribute to the intern student's ability to work in teaching after his initial training.

In dealing with the internship as an imitation of models, Pimenta and Lima (2005/2006, p. 7) argue that "the teaching profession is also practice. And the way to learn the profession, according to the perspective of imitation, will be from the observation, imitation, reproduction and, sometimes, re-elaboration of existing models in practice, consecrated as good." We can understand that observation contributes to some practices being assimilated by the trainees who may reproduce them in the future or not. It will depend on their ability to reflect on the observed practice and their discernment in applying it according to the historical context. We consider the importance of a so-called artisanal model, through imitation. We cannot, however, fail to emphasize that the students and the way of teaching are not the same throughout the history of education. There is a need for teachers to adapt to the new ways of teaching and learning. Just observing teaching models can promote conformism and the perpetuation of traditional practices that were considered effective at certain times in history. Pimenta and Lima (2019, p. 10) point out that "teaching is reduced to instrumental skills and practical knowledge, without theory" when the teacher only reproduces models and executes already consolidated practices.

We understand that every profession needs technical skills for its development. And it would be no different for those involved in the teaching process. However, technical skills alone cannot solve all the situations that involve the teaching and learning process. Scientific knowledge needs to go hand in hand with practice, that is, theory and practice as allies in the teaching process. In this sense, we see the fragility of the partnership between schools (internship field) and universities. The university as a place to discuss theory and the school as a field of study. The experiences lived and the theories studied as opportunities to meet to reflect on the practice. And when these moments do not occur, the internship activity is reduced only to the development of activities in the internship field and the writing of a report.

In a broader sense, we can explain that internship is theory and practice, not theory or practice. The purpose of theory is to clarify, to organize systems of actions, and to promote reflections on instrumentalized practice. In this sense, we understand that theory problematizes practice, provides evidence and causes the organization of new ways of interacting in the teaching process. Despite the presentation of such conception, we think that we have not yet overcome the dichotomy between theory and practice related to internships. ^{Pimenta and Lima (2019}), emphasize the importance of internships being configured as a research space in teacher education courses. Research provides and intends to broaden and deepen pedagogical knowledge and teaching practice. Moreover, it also contributes to the construction of a teaching identity.

It is in the development of their profession that teachers establish specific actions to act in school spaces. They develop beliefs, habits, and a teaching culture that becomes a specific way to promote teaching. Thus, in the exercise of their profession, teachers develop an identity that manifests itself through specific forms of a practice. According to ^{Roldão (2010}), teachers develop particular knowledge that is embodied in their action of teaching. This action has two dimensions: teaching as preconizing knowledge and teaching as making others learn. In the first dimension, the teacher is seen as a holder of content knowledge and makes it publicly available; in the second dimension, the teacher is seen as a professional who is able to mediate his knowledge with the student, to develop ways to make the student learn.

Even having developed skills and abilities to know how to teach, however, the teaching and learning processes do not always occur, since the two actors - teacher and student - are in different positions and are subjects that differ from each other. In this way, we understand that teaching does not automatically lead to the action of learning. Many intervening factors, which may come from the teacher or the student, between the act of teaching and the act of learning may occur for the process to take place or not.

For ^{Perrenoud (1993}), the teacher's action is linked to a didactic transposition related to the time and apprehension of each student and to the communication system that is established between the two subjects. For this transposition to occur successfully, teachers need to reflect on the dichotomies between their action and that of the learner. This requires a confrontation between academic knowledge versus pedagogical knowledge; knowledge to be taught versus knowledge taught; and knowledge taught versus knowledge actually learned. These approaches highlight the complexity of the teaching work, especially in relation to the teaching and learning process.

We express, at this moment, the weaving about the internship offer in Resolution No. 2/2019, which in article fourteen, second paragraph, emphasizes that "the pedagogical practice must, obligatorily, be accompanied by a teacher from the training institution and by an experienced teacher from the school where the student performs it, aiming at the union between theory and practice and between the training institution and the internship field" (ABMES, 2019, s/p). However, what the resolution foresees requires from the university and the internship field school, an understanding about the conception that the mentioned institutions and the subjects involved have about their responsibilities. The university and its teacher trainers are responsible for questioning the practice in the light of the theory, and the schools of internship and their experienced teachers are responsible for the understanding that they are co-trainers of future teachers. In view of the above, we wonder: wouldn't the text of Resolution CNE no. 2/2019 be precisely separating theory from practice? According to ^{Gonçalves, Mota and Anadon (2020}, p. 374), in this Resolution, "practice is posed as a know-how, as a domain of the content to be developed and the best methodology to do so, as a list of competencies and skills enclosed in itself". We observe that the new guidelines for teacher education do not mention a dialogical relationship between practice and theory, just as they do not question practice with historically constructed contents. We point out that in Resolution CNE nº 2/2015, prior to Resolution CNE nº 02/2019, the inseparability between theory and practice was evident in activities involving internship, scientific initiation, initiation to teaching, extension and monitoring, present in the theoretical-practical activities promoted by institutions, according to the pedagogical project of the course.

In an article published in 2019 in the Inter-Action Journal, Menga Ludke, Bortolotti and Bersan present some research developed by their research group GEProf and raise issues that were the subject of strong discussions in the group. Among them, we can highlight the contributions of the protagonists³ on issues related to the university advisor, the supervising teacher in schools and the trainee. The issues raised by GEProf interested us a lot in the development of our research. The concerns that took us to the field revealed how much we still need to study the practice of internships in teacher education courses. After all, the legislation stipulates that theory and practice go hand in hand. Article 5, item II of CNE Resolution No. 2 of December 20, 2019 puts it as follows:

Art. 5. The training of teachers and other education professionals, according to the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education, to meet the specificities of the exercise of their activities, as well as the objectives of the different stages and modalities of Basic Education, is based on:

II. the association between theories and pedagogical practices [... ] (ABMES, CNE Resolution No. 2 of 2019)

Resuming the discussions of Menga ^{Ludke, Bortolotti and Bersan (2019}, s/p) on the protagonists of the internship, with regard to the guiding teacher at the university, the authors highlight that "there is a lack of clarity about the place of the internship in the undergraduate course and of specific preparation of the guiding teacher, responsible for the discipline related to the supervised internship. Specific cases are likely to occur in teacher education courses, as we still find teachers without experience in Basic Education or who do not understand the role of the internship in the future teacher's education.

When it comes to the supervising teacher in schools, the authors point out that there is "a fear, almost unconscious, hovering like a ghost over the figure of the trainee as a possible (and fearful) evaluator of the work of the teacher who receives him/her in his/her classroom" (s/p). We can understand the fear of the supervising teachers in terms of how they understand the arrival of the trainees. What the authors cite about what teachers think about interns was possible to observe in the report of two students of the subject "Supervised Internship in Elementary Education: early years" in the year 2019. One of the students presented that, when he was introduced to the teacher, she immediately asked if he was there to check whether his practices were traditional or constructivist. And the second student reported that he perceived the teacher's discomfort when something went contrary to what she had planned. He pointed out that the teacher would justify herself, saying that the situation had not been foreseen in the planning. The students' reports show the lack of clarity of some teachers about those who come to the schools to expand their knowledge about teaching practice.

In our research we were able to verify that the teachers of the internship field want to help, but do not see themselves as co-trainers. The vision they still have of the trainee is that he is only a "supervisor" of his practice, in the sense that he presents to the university what should be "right or wrong". We think that, as soon as these teachers understand that their role at school is to guide the trainees in their practices, their fear or dissatisfaction in receiving the trainee can be minimized. At this point, we ask: what is the understanding of these teachers about mentoring the student interns? We understand that the teachers of the internship field need to be instructed on how they should act to help the interns in the development of their teaching practice so that we do not fall back into what Pimenta and Lima point out, that is, the internship as an imitation of the observed practice.

And finally, the issues related to the interns. The authors ^{Ludke, Bortolotti and Bersan (2019}, s/p), state that "the idealization of the internship by students, with the consequent disappointment, in general, with the reality found, without an effective preparation of teachers, as well as of the entire school team." It is recurrent to hear from the interns that the school teams do not make available the necessary documents, such as the Political Pedagogical Project, the Curricular Proposal or even that there is a difficulty for a presentation of the school as a whole. Another trainees' report is that when they arrive at schools, they are sent to classes without teachers. And when this happens, they are not oriented about the activities they need to develop with the students. We emphasize that, in this last episode, those in charge of the school are unaware that students in training phase (trainees) cannot lead a class without the presence and guidance of the head teacher. We understand that school routines are very intense, however, in our research we found a very practical example that could be organized by other schools. We think that the trainee should be well received, be introduced to the school's routine and physical space, and be introduced to the class in which he or she will do the internship.

In view of what has been presented in this section, we can see how far we are from an effective involvement between the school and the university as far as internships are concerned. The reflections presented here lead us to think that the theme "internship - theory and practice" needs to be at the center of discussions in teacher education. There are still, however, schools that develop differentiated work regarding the reception and care of interns and are trying to minimize the abyss created for a better training of future teachers. In the next section, we will report the considerations made in our research.

DIALOGUE, INTEGRATION AND LEARNING

In February 2019, we started research in a school of the Municipal Network of Petrópolis to understand the articulation between the school (internship field) and the university (training space). We chose a school considered prestigious for developing innovative pedagogical practices and for being highly sought after by students from a private university in the city of Petrópolis⁴ to carry out their mandatory internships. We emphasize that we intended to carry out the research during the years 2019 and 2020. Due to the pandemic caused by Covid 19, however, we interrupted the in loco observation in March 2020. We only maintained contact with the management and pedagogical team, teachers, and interns via Google Meet meetings.

Initially, we talked to the principal of Escola Aquarela and then held a meeting with the teachers who work from 1st to 5th grade of elementary school to explain the objectives of our research. Besides the teachers and the school principal, we also had the participation of the two school counselors, who showed great interest and commitment to the research objectives. During the explanation about our presence in the school, specifically in the classrooms, the teachers asked some questions, such as: how will our participation in the research be? Do we need to prepare a different plan on the day that you will be in the school? Will the trainees have to apply an intervention project? From our point of view, the teachers' questions showed anxiety, discomfort and insecurity about our proposal. We referred to the observations of Menga ^{Ludke, Bortolotti and Bersan (2019}) about the interpretation that the trainees and, in our case, the researchers would be in the environment to supervise the teachers' practice. After the clarifications, the group showed interest in our actions. A recently graduated teacher commented on the importance of the research and helped us with positive comments about the reflections on the relationship between theory and practice in teacher education.

At the time we started the research, the school had eight trainees from the Pedagogy course, six from the university mentioned in the research and two from another private university located in the city. The interns from the university mentioned were seventh period students, while those from the other institution were in the fifth period of the Pedagogy course. All of them had already had internships in other public and private institutions in the city, that is, they had lived diversified experiences. Aquarela School is considered a large school and serves from the first to the ninth grades of elementary school. It has thirty-two classes divided into two shifts - morning and afternoon. In the first shift, students from sixth to ninth grade are attended, and in the second shift, students from first to fifth grade and one class with special needs students (Special Class). We noticed that, of the sixteen teachers who work in the first to fifth grades and in the Special Class, fourteen have been at the school for more than eighteen years, which reminds us of a group committed to the teaching process, experienced and stable. We can emphasize the same about the management and pedagogical team. The principal has been leading the school for sixteen years and the guidance counselors for fifteen years. The stability of the management and the teaching staff can provide greater involvement of the team with the community and with the pedagogical process, as well as the identification of possible points that can intervene in the smooth running of the educational processes. All teachers have a degree in Pedagogy and a Lato Senso specialization. We found two teachers with a Master's degree and one concluding his Doctorate in Education.

In view of the observations, we highlight the way the school staff organizes itself to receive the undergraduate trainees. In an easily accessible place, there is a folder called "Trainee's folder" which contains all the information about the school. In the case of Escola Aquarela, there were the following documents: political and pedagogical project, school history, SOP - standard operating procedure - of all the functions (principal, guidance counselor, teacher, janitor, discipline inspector, lunchroom attendant, secretary), pedagogical proposal of the municipality and of the school, school rules. After the presentation of the whole school space, the trainees received the folder with the documents for consultation and, if they needed, they could make a copy. We observed that the trainees were introduced to all the employees and spaces in the school, from the kitchen to the library, from the office to the classrooms, from the playground to the extracurricular activities’ rooms.

After this welcoming moment conducted by the school counselors, they were called individually to present the internship plan organized by the university and then sent to a class. When they arrived at the class they were introduced to the teacher and to the students. During the presentation, the instructors explained the role of the trainee and the institution they came from. We noticed that Escola Aquarela's welcoming practice shows its commitment to education and to future teachers in the sense of orienting them about pedagogical processes and school routine. The moment they become aware of the political pedagogical project and the curricular proposal, they begin to understand how the pedagogical, evaluation, and inclusion practices take place in that space. The same happens when they learn about the role played by each member of the school community. We understand that learning about the school space, introducing all the school employees, understanding about the school routine, and explaining the role of the trainees to teachers and students is also part of the training process under the responsibility of the host school. We also consider it to be a learning process for the students, because during the reconnaissance of the school space, many unusual situations may occur. This demonstrates the flexibility of the team to solve unusual situations. During the interns' monitoring, one of the children in the Special Class presented a convulsive crisis. The counselors, who were in the vicinity of the classroom, helped the teacher to handle the situation. The unexpected interruption of the counselors' action with the trainees served to orient them about the school's procedures when facing similar situations. We observed the organization of the school and the calmness of the counselors and the teacher in making decisions.

As we observed the development of activities by the trainee in the classroom under the class teacher's guidance, we noticed that he is not, as teacher Menga Ludke⁵ used to say, a mere "fern vase", that is, an ornament, a static subject in the back of the classroom. The trainees are offered some tasks such as guiding a student with difficulty, going around the desks checking to see if the students have done their homework, writing an activity on the white board, helping to correct an activity, updating calendars, accompanying a student to another school branch, organizing an activity to be applied (intervention project), among others. During the development of the activities, the class teacher was always close by, guiding the trainee in moments of difficulty. It is curious that some teachers oriented the trainees as if they were explaining a new content to their students. At no time did we notice any indifference on the part of the teacher when receiving the trainee student. We highlight the procedures adopted by Juraci, a first-year elementary school teacher, to explain to Janaína, a trainee, the literacy process, how she plans her classes to meet the diversity of the students, and how she selects the teaching materials and activities. During Janaína's stay in her class, Juraci provided moments for the intern to put into practice what she had previously explained. We observed that both of them felt at ease to proceed with the pedagogical actions in that class.

The school counselors explained to us that it is a school procedure to welcome student interns and that teachers are instructed to help in the future teacher's training process. They considered that all those who now have much or little teaching experience were once trainees and needed help. They informed that when they receive trainees in their area of work, they act in the same way. According to supervisor Sofia⁶,

We are very happy to receive the trainees here at school. We give the initial orientation and inform them about their duties and rights at school. We try to orient them and make them learn in practice. In the last class council, we let an intern conduct a class meeting. He called out the names of the students and made notes about each one in the class folder. We let him make some interventions and then we did the completion.

The speech of Sofia's counselor demonstrates the formative character of the school professionals, acting as co-supervisors of the future teacher, in the case mentioned, in the area of school guidance. The situation reported by the supervisor presents the conception of supervised internship as a curricular component that will lead the student intern to build his/her own practice, based on experiences in school and non-school contexts.

We started the year 2020 with the purpose of continuing our research at Escola Aquarela, observing the new interns who would arrive at the school unit. On March 13, however, face-to-face activities at all schools were interrupted due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The teachers at Escola Aquarela, as well as at all schools in the education network of the municipality surveyed, did not provide remote attendance to students. Between March and September, only the managerial and pedagogical teams appeared in person at the school to resolve situations referred by the Secretary of Education. In September, the Educa em Casa platform was launched, a means by which students in the network started to have access to some educational activities posted by the Secretary of Education's pedagogical team. The Pedagogy course at the university where this research started, kept the remote classes, but the internships were suspended. Opinion CNE (Conselho Nacional de Educação - National Council of Education) (/CP Nº: 5/2020, specifically in section 2.15, which deals with Higher Education, supported the performance of internship activities remotely. The trainees of the Pedagogy course were directed to the Application School, linked to the university, to do their internships through Google Meet, following the activities developed by the teachers. Thus, in face of the installed reality, our interns could not work in the public schools of the municipality.

Thus, in order not to interrupt our research, from April 2020, during our contact with the management/pedagogical team and with the teachers, we conducted the interviews using Google Meet. We chose to interview only three interns we observed in 2019, the two guidance counselors, and five teachers who work from the first to the fifth year of elementary school. In the interviews, it was evident the concern on the part of the teachers for the formative process of the student interns. Despite this concern, however, not all teachers see themselves as co-trainers of future teachers. In the following speeches, this conception was latent:

I like to mentor the trainees that come into my class and show them that being a teacher is not just about having theory. We need to have practice and know how to deal with everyday problems. That is why I always show them the "silver bullet" in some situations. Simple things, but they help. It is in the university that they develop knowledge (Teacher Yone, 5th grade).

I work with the literacy class. It is the time when the trainees are most afraid because they feel insecure to teach the children to read and write. I show them how to organize the planning, how to look for activities that are dynamic and how to teach them to read and write. I try to make them comfortable to do activities under my guidance. I think we should help them to develop autonomy in decision making. Of course, after their (trainees') action I always give my opinion, or rather, my guidance. I have 23 years of teaching, eighteen of them in literacy. I think I have a little bit of experience (laughs). I think that observing my practice also helps them learn. [... ] although I help the trainees, I don't feel like their teacher. I think they learn on their own, observing (Teacher Juraci, 1st year).

I think the responsibility of teaching the trainees to become teachers lies with the university. We at the school only help by showing how the practice works. Here the student learns by seeing and putting into practice what he learns at the university. I think that the trainees learn a lot from the teachers at school. During my time as an intern, I was always willing to help the teachers. I learned a lot. Later, at the university, it was no different. I was already a teacher and had my own class, but the theory helped me a lot to understand what happens to children when it comes to learning (Teacher Marilda, 4th grade).

If we take Tardif's (2004) studies, we understand that teacher education involves different types of teacher knowledge that are developed before, during, and after their training. For now, we will highlight disciplinary knowledge and experiential knowledge. The first, offered by universities in teacher education courses, and the second, those that teachers develop "in the exercise of their functions and in the practice of their profession" (TARDIF, 2004, p. 38) in their daily work. We consider that teachers who already work in the position have undergone a "disciplinary" training and during their performance have acquired their own pedagogical experiences that contribute to the development of a practice that leads students to learn. These "pedagogical experiences" specific to each teacher become essential to be observed by the student trainees. This is what teacher Yone called "the cat's eye", that is, actions that only appear when you are in the field. We understand that these experiences lived by the student interns in the school, followed by reflection by the teacher in the field and the university professor, contribute to the professional development of the future teacher. Professor Juraci emphasizes that she guides the student interns in the organization of the planning and also in the dynamics used to teach students to read and write. We understand that the teacher's experience helps the student interns to understand how the literacy process happens, and that this knowledge allied with the knowledge developed at the university can generate new knowledge or a new way of teaching. In view of these considerations, we can understand that the teacher in the field is a co-trainer of future teachers, although they do not see themselves developing this function.

We open a parenthesis to highlight the teachers' surprise at being informed that they are also considered co-trainers of future teachers. At the end of our research, we had the opportunity to present our final considerations to the staff of Escola Aquarela and the trainees. When we analyzed, together with the teachers, what they reported about their perception of their work with the trainees and presented our vision as researchers, they were surprised to understand that the orientations offered to future teachers are considered formative actions. Professor Juraci's account makes her surprise clear: "(laughs) I understood that only university teachers could form. I couldn't imagine that my orientations were also considered formative." We consider the internship as a formative scenario in which teachers and student-interns establish a dialogical relationship in which the former expresses their practical knowledge anchored in theory and in their teaching experience. We emphasize that, in the classroom setting, this dialogical relationship does not always happen in a harmonious way, because teachers, besides their routine and recurring challenges with their students, add the task of receiving and guiding student-interns.

The school counselors highlighted their commitment to the continuing education of teachers and included in this group, the training of interns. They recognize that they need to be welcomed in the internship field and oriented about the routines of a school and about the didactic and pedagogical procedures performed by the teachers. They emphasize that the internship field is the continuity of the training offered in the Teacher Education courses, and the importance of the interns having experiences that contribute to their professional development.

I am very pleased to receive trainees from undergraduate programs. Here at the school, we receive students of Literature, History and Mathematics for the final years of elementary school, but the main students are from the Pedagogy courses of the city's universities. Most of these students are full of dreams and expectations. They envision an ideal school, but are faced with a real school. It is at this moment that the interventions of us, counselors and teachers, help them to situate themselves in the educational field. I notice how their eyes shine when I guide them in relation to pedagogical actions (Supervisor Zuleika).

When I was a Pedagogy student, at that time in the training course for education specialists, I did an internship at the SOE of a school and was very well oriented. At the time, the counselor explained to me, in detail, all the work of a counselor. I was delighted. Nowadays, I try to do the same with the students that come here, either to do an internship in the guidance office or to become a teacher (Counselor Sofia).

Unlike the teachers' perception, the two counselors at Escola Aquarela conceived their orientation to the trainees as a continuing education, which extends the training offered in the undergraduate courses. They understand that their professional experiences should be a source of information for those who arrive in the school field. At this point, we refer to Resolution CNE nº 2/2015 when it considers that the exercise of teaching configures actions that involve intentionality and methodology and that demand knowledge from different disciplinary fields in continuous dialogue (BRASIL, 2015). We understand that this knowledge is also what the intern student learns in the internship field. The experiences lived and the guidance received in the field schools constitute knowledge that enriches the future teacher's education.

We emphasize that the internship is a mandatory activity based on a dialectical relationship between theory and practice. We understand that this concern with internship activities is linked to the need to systematize practice by means of theory. Resolution No. 2 of December 20, 2019, chapter III, items VIII, IX, X and XI presents the need for a proximity between the school and the university in order to promote a dialogical relationship and the understanding that the school is the place where the student intern will learn to deal with the real situations of everyday life in teaching. In this sense, the internship cannot be understood as just an obligation of the intern to the curriculum of the university and the field school, as just a routine at the beginning of each school semester.

VIII - centrality of practice through internships that focus on planning, supervision and classroom assessment, under the mentorship of experienced teachers or coordinators of the school where the internship will take place, in accordance with the Course Pedagogical Project (PPC)

X - recognition and respect for Basic Education institutions as essential partners in teacher training, especially those in public education networks; X - engagement of the entire teaching staff of the course in the planning and monitoring of mandatory internship activities

XI - establishment of formalized partnerships between schools, networks or education systems and local institutions for the planning, execution and joint evaluation of practical activities foreseen in the graduate's training. (ABMES, Resolution No. 2 of 2019)

Thus, in order to establish this dialectical relationship, the student intern is offered possibilities to problematize reality with the help of theory and build pertinent knowledge incorporated to the experiences lived in the internship activities. The development of practice is not limited only to the development of skills and competencies for teaching. It implies the construction of knowledge through reflective teaching, which, according to ^{Pimenta (2012}, p. 64): "aims to promote greater opportunities for teaching practice and provide feedback to master students on their performance, enabling reflection on the reasons that contributed to their relative success." It emphasizes that internship activities constitute learning under the guidance of experienced professionals, according to the field of performance. Agreeing with Pimenta, we emphasize that the reflection of the situations experienced in the internship field enables trainees to take more consistent future actions and take autonomous decisions. We emphasize that pedagogical actions are not ready-made recipes, through which future teachers should be guided. The experiences lived and thought about together are not rules, but opportunities to be put into practice in similar situations. By reflecting on the situations lived in the internship field, the student-teacher will be able to understand the fundamentals that govern the teaching practice, as well as to argue about the positive or negative points of the action carried out.

In the view of the student interns, the internship field and the experiences in the classroom are considered an education outside the university. They consider that the teachers of the classes in which they did their internships are also participants in their training. They also believe that the experiences lived during the internship are the consolidation of the theories developed and studied during the teacher training course. According to the student interns, the relationship between the university and the internship field:

[... ] should be close and both parties - school and university - should establish a dialogical relationship in the sense that one should know the field of action and training of the other. The university should be in the school and the school in the university (Janaína, trainee of the 5th period of Pedagogy).

I believe that the participation of the university professors should be to provide a reflection on the practice that we observe in the internship field. When we take the problem situation to class, we can discuss and reflect on the possibility of new actions regarding the action of the teacher in the internship field. This should be a constant practice, present in the routine of the internship classes (Poliana, 7th period Pedagogy intern).

The teachers on the internship field are also our teachers. They have a lot to teach us because they are acting and solving day-to-day situations. I understand that they have already been through the training at the university and now they are putting it into practice, being able to help us with new situations. I just think that there should be a closer relationship between the university and the internship field. In the field there are only us and the teachers of the classes. The university professors who guide us in our internship only accompany us when we read the reports and answer questions (Joana, 7th period Pedagogy intern).

The record of the student interns shows the need for a closer relationship between the school and the university. Something, perhaps, still distant from the reality experienced in our city. We emphasize that the field of this research can be considered the beginning of this partnership, since there is an indication that training in the field is complemented by the way the school welcomes the student interns. Since we deal directly with students in compulsory internships, however, we noticed that in most schools, internship is still seen only as a bureaucracy of the universities.

A point to be considered in Joana's account is the fact that there is no follow-up by the university teacher in the internship field, or that the facts reported in class are not used for reflection on the practice. We emphasize that when this research was completed, the university curriculum was not yet in accordance with Resolution No. 2 of December 20, 2019. The new curriculum was implemented in February 2021. It is evident the fact that there is a mediation of the internship guiding teacher about the situations experienced by students in the internship field.

We understand that the practice of supervised internship is still a weakness in teacher education courses, especially with regard to the relationship between schools and the university. Escola Aquarela stands out in the city of Petrópolis for the practices developed in relation to the interns, but it is one in a universe of one hundred and fifty public school units. An example to be disseminated? Certainly. We need, however, to be careful that schools do not become the main responsible for the practical training of future teachers. It is the responsibility of universities to promote "the articulation between theory and practice for teacher training, founded on scientific and didactic knowledge, contemplating the inseparability between teaching, research and extension, aiming at ensuring the development of students" (ABMES, Resolution No. 2 of 2019, chapter II, item V, s/p). Thus, according to Resolution No. 2/2019, it is up to universities to organize an action plan aimed at their integration with schools in the sense that the relationship between theory and practice is understood and expanded. Given the provisions of chapter II, item V of Resolution CNE no. 2/2019, we wonder: does this wording present clarity when proposing the articulation between theory and practice? In our understanding, the current legislation goes against the principles that guide teacher education: "[... ] a solid theoretical and interdisciplinary training in the field of education; unity between theory and practice; social, political and ethical commitment; problematizing character of the educational work" (^{GONÇALVES, MOTA, ANADON, 2020}, p. 372).

In addition to the partnership with schools, the university teachers are responsible for the pedagogical updating in face of the new educational policies, especially those related to teacher education, curriculum and literacy practices.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

We are facing a theme that needs to be further discussed in order to strengthen teacher education policies. Many questions were raised in the text presented: What should the relationship between schools and university be like? What is the perception of the university and school teachers, and of the trainees about the internship in teacher education? We should understand that this relationship is at the peak of discussions and is the subject of much research. However, we have not yet reached any conclusion about how this relationship should be established in such a way that the protagonists - teachers from the undergraduate courses, teachers from the schools, and trainees - become active in the training of new teachers.

Since teaching practice is an object of knowledge of the educational sciences, it can be said that it is an activity that implies several types of knowledge, which can be called "pedagogical knowledge" and to which reflections about educational practice in different historical contexts, doctrines, and pedagogical ideologies are added. In addition to pedagogical knowledge and the knowledge built up by the educational sciences, there is disciplinary and curricular knowledge. The former refers to the knowledge offered by the educational institutions through the degrees. The second, through the objectives, contents, discourses, and methods defined for each discipline in the educational institutions.

The experiential knowledge is directly linked to the constitution of the knowledge that is put into each teacher's daily practice. It is considered that the organization of the teaching situations that energize learning strategies for students with different knowledge, belonging to different cultures and social trajectories, as well as the daily dynamics and disciplinary control, are linked to the teaching experience factor. It can be observed that teachers who have only been teaching for a short time have difficulty in organizing their daily planning, updating documents such as agendas and reports, and especially in controlling classroom discipline. This is knowledge that they have not learned in their training courses, but that can be developed throughout their career in the profession. In this way, school comes to be considered as an important and privileged place for learning and professional development, as well as for the development of new professional knowledge about teaching.

It is in the exercise of their profession that teachers create their habitus, which eventually becomes a way of teaching. The daily routine starts to outline their professional identity and becomes their teaching culture in action. According to ^{Tardif (2002}, p. 49), these identity traits "are then manifested through a personal and professional know-how validated by daily work. In the expressions "know-how" and "know-how" are implicit the plural and heterogeneous knowledges of teachers who were constituted in different historical, cultural, and social times.

It is in the field of construction of experiential knowledge that teachers need to put into play the formal knowledge and reflect on the following situations: learning to teach, thinking as a teacher, and dealing with the complexity of the profession. Learning to teach means understanding and thinking about teaching in a way that allies the theory learned as a student with the practice now experienced as a teacher who belongs to a team and has to develop his or her work in the classroom. To think as a teacher, that is, to look for strategies that motivate students to learn, that make them think of the classroom as a pleasurable learning environment, to think about how you evaluate, how you deal with students' dilemmas, failures and successes. And, finally, deal with the complexities of the profession. Teaching not only implies knowing how to teach, but to deal with all the demands that involve school situations, such as: organizing pedagogical work to meet diversity, filling out documents (agendas, reports, forms), relating to students and their families, attending to students with special needs, managing the curriculum, and living with the educational reforms proposed at different times.

The research shows us that the teachers at Escola Aquarela have a different way of working with the interns who come to them. We can consider that the teachers have a different look on the trainees' training. However, they still do not perceive themselves as co-trainers of these students. We understand that the lack of perception of these protagonists is linked to the lack of a public policy that establishes a partnership between the university and the school, that is, that there is a training to guide them and a financial incentive for them to act, also, in the training of the trainees. Different from the teachers, the pedagogical team of Escola Aquarela has a formative look at those who come to school inexperienced, in this case the interns. We perceive this action as a starting point in the sense of providing an integrated training - university and school.

The research reveals, from what the trainees say, that the universities lack the presence of the supervising teacher in the internship field. We understand that, perhaps, the trainees do not yet have the dichotomous view regarding the inseparability between theory and practice brought by Resolution CNE No. 2/2019, and they think that with the presence of the university professor in the internship field, this relationship is solved. In our understanding, the situations observed by trainees in the research field can be taken to the university and discussed in light of the theories studied. However, this does not make this relationship effective. We can consider that such relationship can be present when it comes to actions that lead future teachers to research, to scientific initiation, to research groups, to monitoring, among other actions contemplated in the resolution prior to that of 2019.

Finally, we present reflections and data observed in a research field that strengthen us to think vehemently about the issues that plague us in teacher education: the internships. As we present in the text, we need to think of theory and practice as inseparable in the integral formation of the future teacher. It is not about one or the other. Both should be present in the curricula and teaching practices of teacher education courses. Not only as stated in the legislation, but also in an active way in the educational projects of universities and schools. Thus, we remain firm in our research on the subject, in the conviction of finding practices that stand out in the relationship between schools and universities. Our goal is to raise controversies, establish reflections and find possible solutions to improve the practices developed in teacher education.