The search paths

The selection of keywords that would guide the searches was an arduous and careful step, carried out during the first week of June 2019. At first, we used the following terms: literacy; teacher training; University education; academic literacy; reading and writing at the university; practices and teaching-learning, sometimes combining them, sometimes using some to the detriment of others, that is, using different combinations. We observed that a reduced number of works appeared, noting, by reading the abstract, that they did not meet the objectives proposed for this article.

After several combinations of descriptors, we decided to use them comprehensively: literacy; teacher training (using the Boolean operators and for the search terms), in the search by subject. This action led us to an initial hypothesis: that there is little national production on the topic of literacy-related to teacher training. Even with these broader terms, we found 223 articles in the Capes Periodicals Portal and 15 in the SciELO Portal.

From this survey, we noticed that the debate on teacher training in literacy practices that occur within universities, although it appears in these researches, is often diluted in the body of the study, requiring a deeper reading of the selected works.

For the inclusion of articles in the integrative review, we adopted the following criteria: (1) Articles that addressed the issue of literacy and teacher education, produced on a national stage; (2) Works related to the training of teachers in higher education or for professional practice at this stage of education and (3) Studies carried out between 2013 and July 2019. Consequently, we excluded: (1) Studies that analyze literacy practices carried out in the initial grades of basic schooling; (2) Research on teacher training in a foreign language; (3) Works whose theme differs from what is proposed in the title and/or abstract, divergent from what is proposed to investigate in this study and (4) Repeated articles since they were counted only once.

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the selected studies were compiled in an Excel spreadsheet, using the following organizational categorization items: title, authorship, linking institution, publication date, type of research, participating subjects, central question, theme, theoretical contribution, results, language concepts and teacher training (demarcated or implicit).

The axis “participating subjects” was fundamental for categorizing the types of studies and whether they are related to teacher training in undergraduate courses or teacher training to work in higher education.

We also present and discuss the main fields of knowledge that focus on these studies, their objectives, their contribution to literacy practices developed in higher education, and the theoretical foundation used for the analyses. Therefore, we identified the similarities and the gaps between the approaches to verify the gaps and point out important points for the advancement of the discussions.

Thus, we intended to compose the arena of the voices of the authors of the selected articles, of the language conceptions that permeate them, as well as to exercise the exotopic look to situate the historical context of production of these studies, following the Bakhtinian teachings about the functioning of language, being “(...) possible to apprehend the movements of transformation of meanings, which produce the scenarios of everyday experiences of a given society, in a given time” (^{PAN; LITENSKI, 2018}, p.529).

Characterization of the research corpus

After employing the exclusion criteria, 36 articles remained, which were submitted to the second stage of analysis, reading the works in full. After this more careful approach, we selected 20 articles (Box 1). Most of the excluded research was related to the continuing education of teachers or was focused on literacy practices carried out in elementary school.

SOURCE: Prepared by the researchers (2019).

BOX 1  ARTICLES THAT COMPOSE THE RESEARCH CORPUS 

With these selected articles (N=20), we carried out the first categorization, seeking to map from which universities the researchers of these works come from. We found that most of the research comes from public institutions (N=19), six (6) from the Universidade Federal do Tocantins, and the others from different institutions, including Universidade Federal de Brasília, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, and Universidade Federal da Bahia

The articles that make up the corpus of this study were published in 12 different journals, all evaluated within the CAPES quality criteria (results presented in the 2013/2016 triennium), and the most common and convergence areas were: Linguistics (N=14) and Education (N=6).

Among the totality of articles, we can see (8) eight that, from the identification of problems related to structural issues of the language, propose models of practices, aiming at the development and mastery of reading and writing skills related to an academic genre specific. In this line of approach, we find studies such as those by ^{Bittencourt; Avelar (2013}), ^{Silva et al. (2016}), and ^{Florek (2016}). Among the academic genres related to the analyzes and interventions proposed by the articles, there are infographics, monographs, internship reports, and training memorials.

The following box presents a categorization of the analyzed studies about the subjects participating in the investigations and reflections.

SOURCE: Prepared by the researchers (2019).

BOX 2: CLASSIFICATION OF RECOVERED STUDIES IN TERMS OF ATTENDANCE IN THE ESTABLISHED CATEGORIES 

We observed that, among the studies analyzed, only four (4) brought the issue of teacher training for higher education and its relationship with literacy practices directly into the theme. The other articles are related to teacher training that occurs in undergraduate courses, or deal with training more broadly, from basic to higher education.

Next, the articles will be categorized in two axes, according to the participants, the research objectives, and the adopted language conceptions.

The formation of the university professor and the practices of academic literacies

We start this section by highlighting that, among the four (4) articles that compose it (^{FLOREK, 2016}, ^{BITTENCOURT; AVELAR, 2013}, ^{FERRAGINI, 2018}, ^{SILVA; FRANCO, 2017}), two (2) of the present studies beyond the field of degrees. ^{Bittencourt and Avelar (2013}) brought the theme to the area of Social Communication, while ^{Florek (2016}) presented reflections and guidelines aimed at reaching undergraduate and graduate professors from different courses.

In the article Estratégias instrutivas na docência do ensino superior: o letramento e a habilidade da leitura e da escrita em cursos de Comunicação Social (2013), Bittencourt and Avelar emphasized the writing difficulties of academics when entering the university, as observed in the excerpt: “(...) This historical heritage still generates gaps in cognitive skills for the apprehension of content, weakening the teaching-learning process, especially in the didactic models commonly used in school daily life” (^{BITTENCOURT; AVELAR, 2013}, p. 31).

Based on this finding, they highlighted the importance of actions planned by teachers to advance this scenario. To better understand this possibility, they analyzed student productions, verifying that they improved a lot after directed and guided academic literacy practices. These practices consisted of what the authors called “exercises” involving oral readings, summaries, report writing, and case studies, for example. Although it is not explicitly demarcated in the text, there is a conception of language as the development of essential skills for professional practice, as the courses in the article are in the area of Social Communication.

In the body of the study, the authors presented literacy as an essential teaching method to reverse students' cognitive deficits. Thus, we can see in the excerpt: “In higher education, literacy, when planned and methodologically applied, can be an instrument of great value to reverse cognitive deficits, break crystallized barriers and establish positive attitudes of mutual respect in the classroom” (^{BITTENCOURT); AVELAR, 2013}, p. 32). Finally, they reiterated the importance of adequate training for professors working in higher education, which considers the type of texts that circulate in this space, creativity, and the teacher-student relationship.

^{Florek (2016}) in his article showed a systematized didactic proposal for the teaching of a multimodal genre of the scientific sphere, the graphic academic summary (GAS), which can be applied to students from different courses. Thus, he considered how cultural multiplicity and linguistic meanings can be socially materialized and the contemporary forms of communication amid new technologies.

The author built her methodology based on Critical Gender Analysis, on the Pedagogy of Multiliteracies and the conception of text as “(...) a semantic unit (from a gesture, a word to an entire speech) produced by the linguistic exchanges carried out between certain participants in specific socio-historical contexts (HALLIDAY; HASAN, 1989; MEURER; MOTTA-ROTH, 1997 apud ^{FLOREK, 2016}, p.244). This study aimed to bring analytical procedures on multimodal genres, with an emphasis on GASs, and also to present some conceptions of learning (behaviorist, cognitivist and sociocultural perspectives) that, according to the researcher, when intercrossing can help in reading and academic writing.

^{Ferragini (2018}) shows an action-research, located in the field of applied linguistics studies and that allows reflections for university professors of the Arts course, based on a proposal for didacticization of the literary essay genre, aiming to bring the conception of language closer together and Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of discursive genres to Historical-Critical Pedagogy. It was intended, therefore, “(...) to demonstrate, in that context, theoretical-practical directions that lead to meaningful learning and, consequently, to a more reflective training” (p. 295).

Among the main results, we found the importance of the teacher to evaluate the writing practices he develops with the undergraduate students in Arts to find new ways of acting, more meaningful and contextualized in the teaching of Portuguese Language, articulating theory and practice.

^{Silva and Franco (2017}) represent the only study in the sample that brings academic reading as the focus of discussions. The authors aimed to verify to what extent the teaching praxis, present in Pedagogy Courses, implies the formation of reading teachers. For this, they analyzed the documents guiding the Courses, such as the Pedagogical Project, Curricular Matrices and the Menus of the subjects of Literacy, Portuguese Language Teaching Methodology and Theoretical-methodological Foundations in Literacy and Portuguese Language; the answers given by students and professors to the applied semi-structured questionnaires and the observations made in the classes. The participants were the professors who taught the subjects related to the teaching of reading and the formation of the reader, and students enrolled in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-grade classes.

Although they do not bring in their article the theoretical assumptions that supported the discussions about reading, the authors highlighted its importance for the intellectual emancipation of students, acting as a fundamental piece for the improvement of writing.

Among the results, it was evident that there is little workload available for these subjects that deal with reading in the Pedagogy course, as well as the presence of a bureaucratized praxis, which does not transform the reality of these students, that is, “(...) it was possible to observe that people talk about the concepts of reading and their importance, but they do not read; that the languages of different social contexts are talked about, but the language present in the different moments of dialogue in the classroom is not discussed” (^{SILVA; FRANCO, 2017}, p. 102).

It is important to note that, among the articles investigated, in addition to this study by ^{Silva and Franco (2017}), only ^{Muniz and Vilas Boas (2018}) emphasized the importance of reading for teacher education; the others remained focused on writing. Regarding oral genres, there is no specific study in the selected articles.

Teacher training and reading and writing practices in undergraduate courses

As shown in Table 2, there is a significant number of works focused on the discussion of literacy in teacher training in undergraduate courses (N=13). These are articles that raise, at specific moments, some discussions about the formation of the university professor, that is, the one who trains the professor, especially in the passages in which, after the presentation of a problem related to academic literacy (learning deficit of a certain genre from the scientific sphere, for example), highlight the need to re-signify the training practices that take place in this space. This justifies the selection of these studies for the sample.

Most of the articles (N=9) bring to their field of analysis the teacher training that takes place during Arts, a space where language is the main object of study. They are: ^{Silva (2013}, ²⁰¹⁵, ²⁰¹⁵); Silva and Oliveira (²⁰¹⁸); ^{Lima et al. (2014}); ^{Sartori (2015}); ^{Silva et al. (2016)}; ^{Muniz and Vilas Boas (2018}); ^{Pereira and Leitão (2015}).

In them, based on the analysis of students' evaluative work, topics such as “teacher reflective training” and “teacher literacy” (^{SILVA, 2015}), “the insertion of the academic as a researcher in another literacy space” (^{LIMA et al., 2014}), “authorship and identity in academic writing” (^{PEREIRA; LEITÃO, 2015}) and “the importance of digital information literacy in the formation of contemporary teachers” (^{SILVA et al., 2016}).

Among the articles in this section, there are five (5) studies (^{SILVA, 2013}, ²⁰¹⁵, ²⁰¹⁶e ²⁰¹⁷; ^{SILVA; OLIVEIRA, 2018}) related to the scientific production of professor and researcher Wagner Rodrigues da ^{Silva (UFT), member, since 2017}, of the management committee of the Latin American Systemic-Functional Linguistics Association (2017-2020). These researches are located in the interdisciplinary field of Applied Linguistics (A.L) - characterized by a socio-semiotic theory that enables the understanding of contextual aspects from the lexical-grammatical analysis of the linguistic materiality of the text - and in literacy studies.

Some studies in this section (^{SILVA, 2013}; ^{SILVA; SILVA; BORBA, 2016}; ^{SILVA; OLIVEIRA, 2018}; ^{AZEVEDO; SANTOS, 2018} and ^{FISHER; COLAÇO, 2017}), when approaching reading and writing in different courses (History, Mathematics, and Geography), showed that the centrality of discussions about reading and writing remains linked to Linguistics.

Even the articles that deal with teacher training in graduate courses (^{SILVA, 2017}; ^{GRANDE; NASCIMENTO, 2018}) analyze the preparation of professors in Professional Master's courses (ProfiLetras) to work in Basic Education classes. While ^{Silva (2017}) criticizes academic theory, ^{Grande and Nascimento (2018}) highlight that these training practices because they are very prescriptive and imposing, end up neglecting the identity conflicts of the subjects involved in it (students and professors).

Among the analyzed studies, there are thirteen (13) articles (^{LIMA et al., 2014}; ^{KLEIMAN, 2014}; ^{SARTORI, 2015}; ^{MUNIZ; VILAS BOAS, 2018}; ^{GRANDE; NASCIMENTO, 2018}; ^{SILVA, 2013}, ²⁰¹⁶e ²⁰¹⁷; ^{SILVA; OLIVEIRA, 2018}; ^{SARTORI, 2015}; ^{FISCHER; COLAÇO, 2017}; ^{AZEVEDO; SANTOS, 2018}) that present the concept of literacy linked to the New Literacy Studies. These studies “(...) emphasize the need to consider the social environment of interaction, in literacy practices aimed at the needs of social use, therefore, in social practices (...)” (^{FISCHER; COLAÇO, 2017}, p. 440) and “(...) circumstantiated by the power relations that constitute the socio-historical identity of the university and its cultural selections that unfold in the curriculum (...)” (^{AZEVEDO; SANTOS, 2018}, p. 368- 369).

There are also, for this study, two works that reflect on the training of teachers who work in different segments of education (Primary and Higher) and the literacy practices that occur in these spaces: ^{Szundy (2014}) and ^{Kleiman (2014}).

From an enunciative-discursive perspective of language, in Literacy in contemporaneity (^{KLEIMAN, 2014}), based on examples of teaching and learning situations, there are reflections on the relationships established between the school and other institutions (multiliteracies of print and digital cultures, for example), “(...) keeping as a background for the discussion the objectives and functions of school literacy and the training of the teacher who wants to actively act as a literacy agent in the contemporary world” (^{KLEIMAN, 2014}, p. 72). In this way, it brings to light the need to rethink reading and writing beyond the walls of educational institutions but establishing relationships with life.

^{Szundy (2014}) used readings on the Bakhtin Circle and knowledge from the field of Applied Linguistics to discuss the characteristics of responsible education and training. According to the author, educating as a responsible act “(...) implies reflecting on an education that is responsive to contemporary social demands” (^{SZUNDI, 2014}, p. 30).

As in the works of ^{Szundy (2014}) and ^{Kleiman (2014}), there are five (5) more articles that base their discussions on language in a conception anchored in the theoretical assumptions of the Bakhtin Circle: ^{Lima et al. (2014}), ^{Azevedo and Santos (2018}), ^{Fischer and Colaço (2017}), ^{Sartori (2015}), ^{Grande and Nascimento (2018}).

The training space circumscribed in the procedural technical field

The articles analyzed showed that the research interests discuss teacher training that takes place primarily within the teaching courses, that is, that prepare them to work with language in Basic Education classes. Among these degrees, the Arts course is the most investigated, reflecting on another important fact: literacy is closely related to courses whose language is the object of study.

In this direction, ^{Muniz and Vilas Boas (2018}) emphasize that there is a whole social valuation about the professional of Arts as being the main agent responsible “(...) for implementing a pedagogical practice that aims at the progressive development of linguistic-discursive competence, a fundamental principle for the multiple social actions of its students” (p. 2015). However, language permeates all training processes at the university, making it necessary to expand its investigative horizon, mainly because through language, subjects understand how knowledge is produced and the intertwined power relations. And, “(...) the way language is approached in pedagogical practices can favor the expansion of awareness in the professional universe, or reduce it to a technical and reproductive dimension of the knowledge of an area” (^{ALMEIDA; PAN, 2017}, p. 90).

Another important fact to be highlighted is that the look at the topic of academic literacy is very specific to some subjects, in this case, Linguistics, especially Applied Linguistics. Although ^{Silva (2013}, 2015) points out that this field of knowledge is limited to an interdisciplinary approach, oriented from the perspective of new literacy studies (^{STREET, 2014}), it is necessary to bring other voices to the discussion of this topic, in an interdisciplinary perspective, understanding that “The one-sidedness and limitations of the point of view (of the position of the observer) can always be corrected, completed and transformed (enumerated) with the help of the same observations carried out from other points of view” (^{BAKHTIN, 2011}, p. 330), making the debate on the subject of teacher education and its relationship with academic literacy more fertile.

All teachers, from the different courses and subjects, work with reading and writing practices, while they were also trained by them. This is because the language “(...) is validated by a double clash - one on the factual plane (reflecting the world) and another on the axiological plane (on the plane of refractions)” (^{FARACO, 2017}, p. 48). This axiological relationship at the university is marked by its history and the established sociocultural context, especially in how the teacher acts and understands the role and the way he relates to reading and writing practices.

To better situate this discussion, it is necessary to highlight that, just as the history of Higher Education is recent in Brazil (^{ZAVADSKI E FACCI, 2012}), the consolidation of training processes for professionals working in universities continues to take its first steps. This formation is defined in art. 66, of the LDB, in the following terms: “Art. 66 - The preparation for the exercise of higher teaching will take place at the postgraduate level, primarily in master's and doctoral programs”. In this sense: “The LDB does not conceive university teaching as a training process, but as a preparation for the exercise of higher education, which should be carried out primarily (not exclusively) in graduate courses” (^{PIMENTA et al., 2005}, p. 273).

Postgraduate courses, especially in the academic master's and doctorate are more concerned with the formation of the researcher, leaving a workload restricted to the subjects aimed at the formation of the teacher who will work within the universities, which are often not even mandatory. Therefore, this teacher is constituted almost intuitively, based on their formative experiences and the action of their peers, which end up determining the characteristics that define them as a “university professor”.

If there is little space in postgraduate courses for training actions focused on methodologies, didactics, teaching strategies, etc. much fewer discussions related to literacies that occur in a university, such as the appropriation, not always smooth, of the textual genres of the academic community. Quite the contrary, there is often a problematic relationship “(...) which leads us to conclude that this is a field of production of stigmas and symbolic violence. Teachers and students are victims of difficulties that can be alleviated if there is an investment in understanding the problems surrounding this theme and in proactive actions” (^{MARINHO, 2010}, p. 383).

However, if this training, involving teaching strategies for working with textual genres in the academic sphere, has not occurred in many graduate courses, some researchers have addressed this issue. As we can see in the results within the set of articles studied, there is an expressive number of works aimed at proposing and discussing didactic models that guide the practices of specific genres, such as the works of ^{Bittencourt and Avelar (2013}), ^{Florek (2016}) and ^{Ferragini (2018}).

^{Ferragini (2018}) justifies this methodological strategy, present in his article, as a possibility to bring the theory of discursive genres closer to didactics and demonstrate “(...) theoretical-practical directions that lead to meaningful learning and, consequently, to a more reflective training” (p. 296).

Some researchers, such as ^{Bittencourt and Avelar (2013}) and ^{Silva and Franco (2017}) justify the choice of the didactic-methodological approach, present in the articles, as strategies to recover reading and writing deficits that students bring from Basic Education. As we see in this excerpt from the research by Silva and Franco (2017): “(...) it is possible to perceive the difficulties of Brazilian students in reading, since students in the 3rd year of high school have the same knowledge in this area of students who are in the 9th Year of Middle School, even with three more years of schooling” (p. 83).

In this sense, a first point to be highlighted is that the genres that circulate in the scientific community have different structures and specificities from those that make up the literacy processes experienced in previous stages of schooling. Even students who excel well in their written productions in high school tend to have difficulties with these more specific genres of higher education.

^{Azevedo and Santos (2018}), when analyzing excerpts from the speeches of university students about the writing of the conclusion work of the History course, highlight that there is a false understanding that autonomous literacy enables the reader to move through different texts with autonomy without considering “(...) that different textual genres require different skills from their readers/writers” (p. 381). Or, in the words of ^{Bakhtin (2011}): “(...) there are many people who, having mastered the language magnificently, immediately feel helpless in certain spheres of verbal communication, precisely because they do not, in practice, master the forms of the genre of a given sphere” (p. 303).

This conception of genres leads us to the understanding that it is not enough for the teacher to expose students to contact with academic texts, as this will not always guarantee the understanding of technical-scientific knowledge. It is necessary to mediate this meeting, calling attention to the particularities of the language used and how it is articulated for the production of meanings in the different texts (articles, essays, reviews, etc.); its production context; to situate the authors and the schools of belonging that confront each other or are silent. That is, the teacher needs to receive adequate training for these practices.

We can also historicize this need for practical approaches in research on literacies in higher education, aiming to better understand their centrality in academics, in this first moment of the rise of the theme as a field of research, as verified in the studies of ^{Sartori (2015}), ^{Silva et al. (2016}), ^{Muniz and Vilas Boas (2018}), Silva and Franco (2017), ^{Pereira and Leitão (2015}).

During the Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1994-2002) and Lula (2003-2011) governments, the main measures were taken to create programs to encourage student access and permanence at the university. As an example, we can mention the University for All Program (Prouni) and the Support Program for Restructuring and Expansion Plans of Federal Universities (Reuni), in addition to expanding the scope of existing programs, such as the Student Financing Fund (Fies). The Quota Law, number 12,711/2012, was also implemented, providing that half of the vacancies of all courses and shifts at federal institutions be reserved for students who studied the entire high school level in public schools. A part of these vacancies is reserved for browns, blacks, and indigenous people; the other part for students with a family income equal to or less than 1.5 minimum wage per capita, promoting the access of the historically disadvantaged population to higher education. These programs increased vacancies in public universities and, mainly, facilitated the access of the lower classes to private HEIs.

This new profile of students who entered the university subverted the idea of the ideal academic, requiring new forms of reception and care, as well as requiring structural changes in the pedagogical policies of the courses, for which the professors were not prepared. However, it is observed that:

The entry and permanence of popular layers traditionally excluded from academic spaces impact the established structures and the correlation of force and power existing in legitimized literacy practices. The University in the last decade has been responding to public policies that enable the entry of new actors but promotes or accepts few changes in its established traditions. (^{AZEVEDO; SANTOS, 2018}, p. 383).

Regarding literacy, the absence and urgency of training for reading and writing practices, due to this heterogeneity, was partially supplied with didactic models of action in the face of specific genres. This is what this study showed us, which also revealed that the adoption of didactic-procedural models does not require an explanation of the conceptions that support them, especially the concept of student.

However, for the deficits in the acquisition of academic literacy do not fall only to the student and their cognitive disabilities, the analysis needs to include teachers and their practices, as discussed by ^{Lima et al. al (2014}); the university as a whole, given the complexities of literacies in contemporary times, as pointed out by studies by ^{Kleiman (2014}), ^{Szundy (2014}), ^{Silva et al. (2016}) and ^{Grande and Nascimento (2018}); and the heterogeneity of the profile of students who make up higher education, so well emphasized by ^{Azevedo and Santos (2018}) and Fisher and Colaço (2017), at the historical moment when access policies are democratized.

Regarding the educational demands of contemporary literacies, there are two (2) articles, among those analyzed, that indicate important advances in the way of thinking about teacher training, so that this professional can respond to these new forms of communication. ^{Kleiman (2014}), based on Bakhtinian architecture, highlights that, for the formation of autonomous and emancipated subjects, capable of acting as real participants in different discursive situations, teachers should not be mere replicators of theories imposed by the academy, but must understand that the genres that circulate in it are part of a complex cultural communication; that need to be reflected, debated, complemented, discussed and transformed in contact with other genres of discourse (^{KLEIMAN, 2014}, p. 89).

With the same theoretical basis, ^{Szundy (2014}) emphasizes the importance of responsive training that enables teachers from the most different areas to “(...) guide verbal and non-verbal choices to reveal the refracted meanings from the choices carried out and problematize how meanings that cause suffering, exclusion or reveal prejudices can be reconstructed more critically and ethically” (p. 20). In this way, these professionals, when exercising teaching as a responsible act, would be able to seek more dialogical and persuasive experiences, aiming at the (re) construction of meanings about reading and writing at the university.

Many other analyzed articles also brought theoretical contributions anchored in the architecture of the Bakhtin Circle, mainly to support the discussions about the discursive genres present in the university, although, at times, oriented in a perspective more focused on the compositional structure, circumscribing in the background its dialogical orientation, that is, its historical and active responsive character, which gives voice to the academic community.

Divorcing the axiological and structural dimensions of language can reduce it to a transparent means of transmitting knowledge from a certain professional sphere, which is recurrent in universities, a reflection of a conception of language that understands reading and writing as products of a system abstract of signs aimed only at technical use. This character “(...) naturalizes the production devices of what they intend to form, on prevalent social values such as productivity and competition, to the detriment of the social, affective, language-transforming dimension” (^{ALMEIDA; PAN, 2017}, p. 96).

It is necessary to bring to the discussion the understanding of language in its discursive dimension, permeated by a myriad of dialogic relationships that involve the different socio-ideological contexts of organization of the courses and of how the professionalization for the performance in universities occurs, mainly understanding that:

Reading and writing the technical language of the profession combined with the domains of language norms, without the discursive, creative, political, and authorial dimension, is the subjugation of the author creator's role to assume a technical reproducer of the use of language and knowledge. (^{ALMEIDA; PAN, 2017}, p. 92).

As a consequence of this objective view of language, many university professors, as well as students, are not aware of the discursive modes that operate in certain professional areas and that they require different reading and writing resources (^{ALMEIDA; PAN, 2017}), not least because such learning is not always done intuitively.