INTRODUCTION

The affective dimension in pedagogical mediation has been the object of analysis of several researchers in the educational area since the end of the 90s. Meanwhile, in the School of Education (FE/Unicamp), a group of young researchers from distinct levels - post-doctorate, doctorate, master's degree and undergraduate research projects - called Group of Affection ² was formed, with several studies and researches developed on the theme ³.

The research carried through, using the procedures called recurring interviews and autoscopy (^{SADALLA; LAROCCA, 2004}; ^{LEITE; COLOMBO, 2006}), focused the affective impacts of the process of pedagogical mediation in the relationships set up between the subject and the object of knowledge, in classroom. Among the researches, we highlight the ones that focused on the character known as Unforgettable Teacher (^{FALCIN, 2003}; ^{TAGLIAFERRO, 2003}).

According to the data produced by such projects, it is possible to suppose that when pedagogical mediation allows the student to successfully appropriate the object in question and, more than that, when such success is perceived by the student, that is, when the student is aware of the process, the possibilities of establishing a positive affective bond between the student and the respective object/content increase. The inverse relationship is detected, that is, pedagogical mediation processes whose final product is marked by a negative affective relationship - of distancing - between the subject and the object.

The theoretical assumptions of the Group of Affection were set up based on two authors of contemporary psychology: L. S. Vygotsky and H. Wallon. In common, both authors elaborated theories with assumptions centered on the dialectic materialist conception, according to which the human development process should be explained by the relations that man keeps with his culture, in his social environment.

^{Wallon (1968}; ¹⁹⁷¹; ¹⁹⁷⁸) developed a theory about the process of human development centered on the relationships among four major functional nuclei, determinants of the process: affectivity, cognition, movement, which generate the fourth nucleus, namely the person. According to the author, the development process, which occurs through the continuous interaction between these nuclei, it is only explained by the dialectical relationship among the biological/organic processes and the social environment.

Emotion, in Wallonian theory, is the first and strongest bond that is established between the subject and the people of the environment, constituting the first manifestations of subjective states, with organic components. Furthermore, affectivity is a broader concept, constituted later in development process, involving more complex human experiences and forms of expression, appearing with the appropriation by the individual of the symbolic processes of culture, which will enable its representation. It is a concept which, "besides involving an organic, corporal, motor and plastic component, which is emotion, also presents a cognitive, representational component, which are the feelings and passion". (^{DÉR, 2004}, p. 61). According to ^{Dantas (1992}), the complexity of forms of affective manifestation ('affective-cognitive development process') can be reached through cultural mediation only.

Similarly, ^{Vygotsky (1993}; ¹⁹⁹⁸) assumes a position according to which the individual is born as a biological being, a result of the phylogenetic history of the species, but through the insertion in the culture, will constitute itself as a socio-historical being. I.e., the human being is born with the so-called elementary functions, of biological nature. It is up to the psychological theory to explain how such functions, from the cultural insertion, will constitute themselves in the so-called higher functions, which characterise the human being.

Hence, human development becomes a process of appropriation of cultural elements and processes, occurring from the external (interpersonal relationships) to the internal (intrapersonal relationships), mediated by the other's action (physical persons or cultural agents). However, ^{Vygotsky (1998}) assumes a conception of an interactive subject, i.e., a subject who suffers the effects of culture, while acting and changing the environment.

Regarding affectivity, ^{Vygotsky (1993}) exposes the historical division between affections and cognition, pointing it as one of the great problems of Psychology in his time, while criticizing the organic approaches. According to the author, the emotions are dislocated from the individual, initially biological level, to a higher function and symbolic level, of meanings and senses, constituted on/by culture. The meanings and senses, attributed by culture and by the individual to cultural objects and functions, are internalised in this process, based on the experiences of the individual.

This article consists of eight sections. In this first section, the theoretical foundations of the Group of Affection were presented. Following this, section 2 deals with the history and structure of the subject ED707 - Development and Learning. The third section discusses the research justification and the aims to be achieved. The procedures of data construction and analysis are described in section 4. Meanwhile, section 5 describes and analyses the documentary data about this specific subject, while section 6 is composed of the quantitative and qualitative data analysis conducted in this research. The discussion based on the data analysed is presented in section 7 and the final considerations in section 8.

SUBJECT ED707 - DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

ED-707 Development and Learning is a subject of the curriculum of the Postgraduate Program of FE/Unicamp and it is offered since 1988. Currently, ED707 is one of the subjects suggested to graduate students enrolled in other programs and in FE, especially to students mentored by teachers of the Educational Psychology Department, but it is not a mandatory subject.

Since the beginning, the subject aims to enable the student to describe and analyse the Human Development and Learning concepts, in the light of some psychological theories. Currently, three theories are addressed during the course - Behaviourism, Piagetian Psychogenesis and Historical - Cultural Approach - and the course is offered in the first semester, with twenty vacancies for regular students and five vacancies for listeners.

Therefore, it is a subject that intends to ensure the proper comprehension of these theories' central ideas, as well as the main concepts involved in them. Furthermore, in the final phase of the analysis of each theory, the theme addressed is directed to find the possible contributions of each approach to the pedagogical work developed by the teacher in the classroom.

Basically, the current structure of the referred subject is summarized as follows: a) initial two weeks of reading and discussion on the historical origin of science and especially Psychology, which is characterized as an area of knowledge marked by diversity; b) four weeks directed to reading and discussion of each of the three theories, organized as follows in the first week, participatory class taught by the teacher, in which the guidelines and general concepts of the theory are presented, usually accompanied by a video; in the second and third weeks, reading and discussion for deepening of the theories; in the fourth week, reading and discussion about the possible links between the theory and teaching practices in the classroom; c) after these activities, the student prepares and delivers a written assignment, for which it is oriented to present a synthesis of the theory, as well as possible relationships with the Education. The written work ⁴ is corrected by the teacher and, if any student has not achieved the smallest required criteria, they are recommended to rewrite the text. The final assessment of each student corresponds to the average of the three assessments of the partial work corresponding to each theory. In addition, according to the university rules, the student must attend 75% of the classes.

The central question that justifies the present research is related to the fact that the authors who integrate the Group of Affection, suggested this investigation to find the impacts that have caused in the students who attended the subject. Although, in this process, several alterations have occurred, related to contents, texts and some developed activities, but the structure and aims have remained the same. Moreover, in the final evaluation of the course, held since the first class, students are invited to evaluate the subject, in its general aspect and in the details, all have recognized its relevance in their academic training process. This condition led the authors to set up the current research, aiming to identify the macro and micro relationships that this experience enables the students who participate in it.

ABOUT THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND JUSTIFICATION

This research aims to identify, describe, and analyse the impacts produced by the subject ED707 - “Development and Learning” in the process of academic constitution of some students who took it, in the period from 2009 to 2019. That is, we sought to build data that would allow inferring the possible relationships between the pedagogical practices, concretely developed during the course, and their respective impacts on students, which are characterized by movements of closeness / detachment detected between them and the contents and practices experienced. About the pedagogical practices developed by teachers, the set of data produced by the researches developed by the Group of Affection (^{LEITE; TASSONI, 2002}; ²⁰⁰⁷; ^{LEITE; TAGLIAFERRO, 2005}; ^{LEITE, 2006}; ^{LEITE; FALCIN, 2006}; ^{LEITE; KAGER, 2009}) allows us to identify some of the decisions taken by an Unforgettable Teacher, which produce inevitable affective consequences of closeness in the relationship established between the student and the specific teaching contents.

Without reductionist pretension and recognizing that there are certainly countless other factors that make up the process of pedagogical mediation, we identified five basic decisions that, depending on how they are taken, produce positive or negative affective impacts, since they can determine the success or failure of the teaching-learning relationship experienced by the student. They are a) the choice of teaching objectives; b) the decision about the beginning of the teaching process; c) the organization of the teaching content; d) the choice of teaching activities and procedures; e) the choice of teaching evaluation procedures. For the present research, the five decisions will play an important role in directing the discussion of the constructed data.

ON THE DATA CONSTRUCTION

In this research, it was decided to use predominantly the qualitative approach. However, it is worth noting that a portion is quantitative data. The methodological procedures of the research included document analysis, as well as the use of questionnaires and interviews, which were video, and audio recorded with the subjects' consent. The present work was submitted and approved by the Unicamp Ethics Committee (CAAE: 45323221.0.0000.8142).

It was decided to limit the analysis to the classes from 2009 to 2019, considering the possibility of accessing the students through their e-mails. Thus, the research subjects were former students who were regularly enrolled in the subject ED707 - Development and Learning during that period. From a total of 513 students who took the course during the period, we had access to the e-mails of 450, and, from these, we obtained feedback from 176 students. From this group, we identified the students who answered the questionnaire (25) and who were chosen for the interviews (5).

The documentary analysis, performed in the first moment, was based on the subject records, filed by the teacher. These records include lesson plans, attendance diaries, student work, as well as grades and rewrites. We tried to gather and synthesize the data from all 29 classes, to reconstruct the pedagogical history of the subject.

The first contact with the former students was made by means of e-mails that explained the research, its objectives and procedures, aiming to highlight the importance of the collaboration of the participants in the production of the data. A copy of the Free and Informed Consent Term (TCLE acronym in Portuguese) was sent for each one to sign, as well as the link to access the questionnaire, through the Google Form platform, so that they could answer.

The questionnaire was based on the five pedagogical decisions that have been studied by the Group of Affection, as mentioned above. In addition to detailing these decisions to be evaluated by the research participants, questions were also asked about the emotional climate, the teacher-student relationship and the teacher's mastery of the content, issues that are also frequent in the productions of the Group of Affection (^{LEITE, 2018}). The questionnaire had closed questions, following the Likert scale methodology (^{DALMORO; VIEIRA, 2013}), allowing the subject to rate the pedagogical and methodological aspects of the subject among five response options, where 1 meant "terrible" and 5, "great". In addition, the questionnaire also presented an open question that was repeated: "why do you make this evaluation?".

The data analysis of this first moment, generated by 25 answers obtained from the questionnaire, also followed two phases. In the first, an analysis of the closed questions was performed to obtain some quantitative data. This way, the quantity and percentage of each answer for each question were calculated, determining the percentages of students who answered 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 for each question, considering the total answers obtained for each question as 100%.

After the production and analysis of the quantitative data, the second stage of the research, of qualitative nature, was carried out. Based on the tables of categories developed from the answers to the open questions, the group of answers from each participant (numbered between 1 and 25) was analysed, selecting those who presented questions, examples, more elaborate answers, new arguments, etc. In this way, five subjects were selected to participate in the interviews, with the objective of deepening the answers given to the questionnaire, as well as understanding, in a detailed way, the impacts of the subject on the personal and professional life history of these participants. These people also signed the TCLE by e-mail.

All interviews were conducted via Google Meet, with one researcher and one participant at a time. The interview format was based on the answers given by the subject to the questionnaire, with no pre-established script or structure. Each interview was recorded and archived in the Google Drive of each researcher, and later transcribed in partial form, that is, the exact transcription of the words in the moments in which the participant narrates relevant facts for the research results was performed.

ABOUT THE DOCUMENTARY DATA

ON THE STUDENTS' VIEW

The closed questions in the questionnaire asked the subject to evaluate a certain aspect of the course, selecting among five options on a Likert scale: bad, regular, good, very good, and excellent. There were no answers to the first two options. Table 5 was constructed from the answers to these questions.

Regarding the question "Did you face difficulties during the course?", the answers were grouped as follows: fifteen people said they had not faced difficulties during the course, and among the reasons, the following answers appeared: "I was familiar"; "didactic teacher; organized, good planning helped"; "basilar course". Eight participants said yes, they had faced difficulties during the course, and these were the reasons: "study load and reading; demanded time and attention; assignments; textual production"; "I had high expectations"; "it was my first subject, I was not familiar with it"; "the strike got in the way"; "difficult, but it was worth it, I learned a lot". Two of the participants chose not to answer.

Regarding the fulfilment of the course objective, the interview analysis allows us to observe that the course objective met the students' expectations.

Ad: &391;...&393; And his proposal, we know, is... he calls it calibrating the concepts, right? &391;...&393; obviously everyone sees Vygotsky, Piaget, Skinner, right, especially these three in undergraduate studies, of course we study these authors and read books like this, but the postgraduate course allows us to deepen these studies, right? (Interview data).

The questionnaire had an open question about the evaluation made by the subject regarding the course contents. In this space, there were 24 positive answers, among which 13 talked about the contents, stating that they were coherent, comprehensive, had logical sequence and that the teacher is a reference in the subject. Another eight positive answers showed that the subjects still remember the contents. Still, three answers talked about the choice of the authors of the theories covered and how much the subject contributed to their teaching practices. Only one answer was negative about the theoretical contents, in which the student said he missed studying Wallon in the course.

The interviewees highlighted the relevance of the initial classes, in which the teacher discusses psychology as a science. As for learning about Behaviourism, the speeches indicated that they were able to appropriate new knowledge or even that they possessed, in a very shallow or distorted way. Regarding the study of Constructivism, the participants showed they already had previous knowledge about this theoretical approach, but they felt they could go deeper and learn more. The Cultural-Historical approach, in turn, impacted the participants in the sense that it dialogued with the pedagogical practices that the subjects had in their professional lives.

Mn: So, sometimes we read some article that tangents, right, I don't know, something about Vygotsky or Piaget, right? &391;...&393; The sense of common-sense learning that I had. &391;...&393; This course helped me a lot to think about these other issues, besides presenting consolidated theoretical references in psychology, on the issue of learning and development, there was also the issue of conversations, the in-between classes. It was also very important for me to understand how other people understand, from different areas... (Interview data).

About the lecture class with slides, the results of the interview revealed the perception of an interviewee:

An: Look, the dynamics of his class, you could tell it wasn't an unprepared class, he had a logic. &391;...&393; So the classes and the explanations that he gave, that thing of a more... ... of exposure, of knowledge, but also always trying to dialogue with us to understand what we were thinking, right? (Interview data).

In the interviews, the students also emphasized the use of introductory videos by the teacher as a starting point for discussions.

Ad: He always brings a documentary, a movie, so we watched programs that are available on YouTube about... I don't know if he still does that, but I think he does, right? &391;...&393; Those discussions, there's Yves de La Taille speaking, there's... Isabel Galvão, anyway... Then he brings these videos, I think it's important too, I always liked to teach using audio visual resources, using video, it's... so I reaffirmed this, I used to do this, but seeing the teacher doing this in the post-graduation course, I said "hey, you can do this" &391;...&393;. (Interview data).

The questionnaire had an open question that allowed the students to justify their evaluations about the small groups. In this question, a total of 17 positive evaluations about the activity were obtained from which comments appeared, such as: enriching, dialogical, excellent, clarified the vision, the diversity of people helped, allowed the socialization of ideas, systematized concept, clarified doubts, etc. Five of the responses were positive, but general, with comments saying that the course had been outstanding, that the set of activities was essential, and that there was a variety of activities. Two responses were considered as a negative evaluation of the activity, as some students were intimidated and that, in the year of the strike, this was a very big hindrance. One participant chose not to answer.

Th: &391;...&393; the teacher always organized the space in which we would discuss in small groups and then the conversation or discussion would expand to the whole group, so this was good because in these small moments, besides us being able to talk exactly about the class theme, we also had this space to comment on things from our own research etc. (Interview data).

When asked about the reason for the evaluation carried out about the group work practice, 20 participants highlighted the positive aspects of this practice. It was affirmed that the small group worked to elaborate and the big group to socialize; that it was a moment that allowed to clarify doubts, confront ideas; the teacher makes good interventions; it helps to identify the limits of the theory; it motivates to read the texts; there is a lot of exchange of opinions; the contents of the big group allow to relate with the experiences.

On the other hand, four former students highlighted the negative aspects of this pedagogical practice: students are not always focused; there are students who are shy (more participation in the small group). In addition, one subject did not answer this question. At the time of the interviews, one subject addressed the big group issue as follows:

Mn: It was cool in this issue of small groups and big groups that so, I was a chemist &391;...&393;, but so there were many people from other courses nothing to do, is... Physical Education, I kept thinking "gee," it made me think "this person is coming here, I'm sure he or she wants to, this knowledge is going to affect the work of this person”. So, I kept thinking, several other areas of humanities, it is quite interesting this. (Interview data).

During the interview, the issue of the texts proposed was addressed to the extent that some subjects referred to the texts chosen as fundamental to underpin the pedagogical discussion:

Ad: &391;...&393; the texts are here to this day, the photocopies of the folder are here to this day, with the highlights, the class notes are here, so we carry this material around with us through life, this material, we never throw it away, do we? I have all this material prepared today for both school and higher education training &391;...&393; (Interview data).

Regarding the evaluation procedure, 19 participants highlighted the positive aspects: until today consult the work done; teacher read and commented; made thorough correction; dedicated teacher; procedure helped to understand the theories; it was a synthesis exercise; the procedure is a rare practice in graduate studies; evaluation procedure distributed throughout the semester.

On the other hand, four participants highlighted the negative aspects of the evaluation: lack of space for critical evaluation; lack of teaching how to make citations; high level of demand, demands time. Still, there was one participant who talked about the negative aspect of another question, mentioning some texts with mistranslations (Vygotsky), and one subject who did not answer this question.

At the time of the interview, the impact of the evaluative activity on the participants' experience was evident. One subject reported:

An: And so, apart from all this, I realize that one thing, a differential, an impact, is in relation to the production of the works that he corrected, right? Because even in the questionnaire that you sent before, I pointed this out, that it was very hard work, you know, to produce, &391;...&393; and you could see that on his part, he really read the works and made notes in relation to what you had produced. &391;On the development of writing based on the teacher's corrections&393; oh, for sure. Sure, because when we write, it's also a reading exercise, right? It's you expressing your thoughts, the way you are organizing your thoughts, based on the knowledge that was presented in the subject, right?

About the possibility of rewriting, it is observed that only one of the participants chose not to answer, while the others brought in their answers that the possibility of rewriting was a form of improvement, lapidation, a means of learning from one's own mistake, demonstrates that the teacher is not concerned with the grade itself, assists in the writing of the thesis, allows the improvement of academic writing and the level of written production, enables continuous learning.

During the interview, it was also possible to perceive the importance of the process of rewriting the papers to improve knowledge.

An: Because it came back corrected, and even had the first situation, I had to rewrite the work, because he pointed out that it wasn't presenting what he would have liked, right, related to the first moment of the class, since he organized the subject in three major axes. So, for example, this first situation that he asked us to rewrite, I remember that the first writing was much more complicated, because we didn't understand very well "but what does he want, right? What is he doing... ah, I'll do it here and then if he punctuates something, we'll redo it". (Interview data).

In the open question about the feedback given by the professor, 14 participants highlighted the positive aspects of this process: harsh, but helpful; improve concepts; complement and deepen; rare practice in graduate studies; the best feedback of all the courses I took; few, but punctual; attentive to academic writing. At the same time, nine subjects used this space to highlight positive characteristics of the professor: detailed; careful and kind; gave tips and praise; dedicated in corrections; precise; highlights strengths and what is lacking. In addition, one subject highlighted a positive aspect of the evaluation itself, stating that text production is important, and one subject did not answer this question.

In the interview, the issue of feedback stood out. The participants talked about the thoroughness with which the teacher corrects the texts, about the spelling notes, and also emphasized how rare this practice is in their post-graduation experience. One participant recounted an experience involving feedback from the professor:

Pe: Yes. And you also told in the questionnaire that you had a situation where the professor left to hand in your work last...

Mn: Oh my, it is unforgettable. Unforgettable. So, it was one of the last papers... The last, the last work, talking about Vygotsky. And then, gee, I remember it was a time when &391;...&393; I was very discouraged, very tired. &391;...&393; And the teacher always did that, he would call us one by one, you know, so we already knew, we said "the ones he called first, he didn't go too, so when he called first, we were like: um...". That was fine, but my work always got good grades because I really worked hard. Then it went on and on, he called everyone, then I got desperate, I said "my God, did I not hand it in? Did I not deliver? And I called, and called, and the girls who were with me there in chemistry, said "gee, what's up, right?” Then he called everyone, I said "professor, you didn't call my name", he said, "what's your name?", I said "M., professor", "ah, let me see". &391;Imitating the teacher&393; "ah, I know why I didn't call your name, it's because you were the last because your work was the best in the class" &391;laughs&393; it was something, it knocked me down, it knocked me down. I only didn't cry because I held on so tightly. But I remember this situation very fondly. It was what saved me, let's say, in the post-graduation &391;...&393; (Interview data).

Regarding the teacher-student relationship, the open question of the questionnaire received 11 answers that talked about positive characteristics of the teacher. Moreover, seven answers were related to the characteristics of the teacher-student relationship in the subject: respectful and ethical relationship; good relationship; maintained even after the end of the course; interactive relationship; attention and dedication; positive affective relationship. There were also five answers related to the impact on the students: loved the course; gratitude towards the teacher; wonderful relationship; missed it. Two subjects did not answer this question.

The product of the interviews evidences the positively affective character of the participants' memories concerning the teacher-student relationship. As one subject narrated:

Mn: And from this subject, and I mean, not as content, but as discussion in the classroom, it was very enriching. The teacher always brought up discussions, questions, sometimes he would say "really?” He would say "Really? But tell me again", I don't know what, so this had a very positive effect on my education, it was very interesting. &391;...&393; The teacher was always very nice, he talked to us, he tried... That's what is cool, he tried to try to understand what we were saying, which is something that teachers sometimes don't have.

In the open question that inquired about the reason for a certain evaluation of the emotional climate in the classroom, ten participants mentioned the positive characteristics of the emotional climate in the classroom: favourable for learning; healthy, pleasant; welcoming; possibility of exchange and sharing; familiar and relaxed environment; climate of cooperation and tranquillity. In addition, seven responses highlighted positive characteristics of the teacher in relation to the emotional climate in the classroom. Another two responses highlighted negative aspects of the emotional climate in the classroom: “I felt that there were people who were tense to give opinions; relationship between students sometimes made the climate heavy”. Two more responses reported the impacts of the emotional climate on students: they felt comfortable; positive climate increases students' confidence. Finally, two answers dealt with general aspects of the subject: teacher affected students in a positive way; assignments and activities made the climate easier. And two participants did not answer this question. At the time of the interview, only one line emphasized the issue of the emotional climate in the classroom, highlighting the role of the teacher in this context: "Mn: Memories are always of admiration. And he is a very high-spirited person, you know, always happy, that would end up affecting the classroom" (Interview data).

About the last question on the questionnaire ("What other aspects of the course would you like to evaluate?"), the answers were grouped as follows: six participants brought up issues related to the impacts of the course as being "basic and necessary for all students", "it allowed for a deeper theoretical understanding", "I was very satisfied"; "feeling of gratitude towards the teacher" and, finally, "as a teacher, you still remember the course and the activities developed by the teacher during the course; you contributed as a student and as an educator". Five of the responses highlighted the role of the teacher: "it was crucial; respectful and welcoming; positive interpersonal relationships", "the teacher played an important role in his education", "the teacher has a rare didactic approach in the university". Only one of the participants presented the strike as one of the negative aspects of the course, because classes were not restored. Four participants said they had nothing to add, and nine chose not to answer.

Besides the answers obtained in the questionnaire, the students brought significant aspects of how the contents and the dynamics of the class itself influenced and still influences both their academic life, as a researcher, and their professional life.

An: &391;...&393; But I work in a team, right, in the Pedagogical Directorate of the Municipal Secretariat of Education, in a team that is known as the Teacher Training Team. &391;...&393; So when we were there studying, thinking about some teacher training, and some doubt would arise, I would resort to what he had presented to us in the course. (Interview data)

Mn: &391;...&393; the affection he had, that he spoke... and that is what I try to do with my students too, I joke, I talk, I talk about my life, I try to bring them to me, because I feel that it is different, you know? They feel like that, an interaction &391;...&393;. So, everything I saw from the teacher, at some point I use, you know? Sometimes I think 'wow, this reminds me of him', there are some moments that we rescue, right? Because he also used a lot of affection. (Interview data)

Another thematic nucleus that appeared because of the interviews was the influence of the subject on academic production. One participant reported that the subject was very important for his training as a researcher, because he used the concepts discussed to write his dissertation.

ON THE DATA DISCUSSION

The data set build in this research allows us to state that, during the period under study, the course ED707 - Development and Learning had a strong impact on the students who took it. The subjects' overall assessment of the course indicates that 92% of the answers were "excellent" and 8% were "very good". In addition, the quantitative results indicate that there were strong impacts because the "very good" and "excellent" answers are the majority (more than 75.0%) in all questions, because there were no answers below "good" and because the "good" answers were only punctual in relation to some dimensions.

These results can be discussed from the theoretical bases assumed here, centered on the interactionist conception of teaching-learning, which can be summarized as follows: the knowledge process is not transmitted, as the traditional learning model used to predict. It is currently understood that the knowledge process is build on the relationship established between the subject and the object, that is, the knowledge construction process occurs through the action established between the subject and the object, which involves a double movement - that of the subject's action on the respective object and that of the consequent elaboration of this action by the subject itself. However, the success or failure of such process is largely determined by the quality of pedagogical mediation developed by the mediating agents of culture, as explained by ^{Vygotsky (2013}).

In this case, the focus is on the student-content relationship, mediated mainly by the teacher - undoubtedly the main mediating agent in the classroom. In this framework, the contribution of research conducted by the Group of Affection (^{LEITE, 2006}; ²⁰¹³; ²⁰¹⁸) has shown that pedagogical practices, developed by the teacher in the classroom, produce, simultaneously, impacts of cognitive and affective nature in the relationships that are established between the student and the object. The present research contributes exactly in this sense: to identify the conditions planned in subject ED707 that produced such impacts, which can be inferred from the data constructed.

The research developed on the so-called Unforgettable Teacher, conducted by the members of the Group of Affection, has pointed to at least five determining decisions, already presented here, which have been assumed by these teachers, and can be used as a roadmap for the discussion of the present data. Beginning with the objectives, one can state that the data from the research conducted by the members of the Group of Affection indicate that one of the characteristics of this professional is to ensure that students identify the importance and function of the objectives and the content to be covered during the course - their relevance. In this sense, it is argued that the definition of objectives is not a technical matter, but involves values and beliefs, which should lead the teacher to continually evaluate the relevance of their teaching proposals to the lives of students. It can be assumed that, without this recognition, it will be difficult for students to get affectively involved with the topics in question.

Besides relevance, there is also the issue of the clarity of the objectives: when they are described in terms of expected performance, the chances of students identifying their relevance increase. In contrast, when they are described in vague terms, students do not identify what is expected of them during the course. As early as the 1970s, ^{Vargas (1974}) and ^{Mager (1976}) advocated the need for educational objectives to meet the criteria of relevance and clarity, and thus proposed planning functionally important objectives and describing them in terms of expected student performance.

The data from the open-ended questions in the questionnaire and the interviews in this research suggest that the students recognized the importance that the subject ED707 had for their academic and professional lives, identifying in each theory covered the possible relationships with the field of Education. Two aspects are worth mentioning: first, there was unanimous recognition of the importance of the content covered in the first two weeks involving the constitution of science in relation to the development of the capitalist system and the historical constitution of Psychology, characterized by the diversity of objects, objectives, and methods. The second highlight refers to Behaviourism, as several subjects reported that they were effectively unaware of this approach, and that it was common to think that Skinner's ideas were the same as Watson's.

The second characteristic, related to the work developed by Unforgettable Teachers, refers to the decision about the beginning of the teaching program. When approaching a new subject, these teachers tried to identify the knowledge that the students already presented in the area in question. Specifically, their gaze focused on the so-called prerequisite knowledge necessary for students to start at the point the teacher desired. However, when they identified that there were students who did not present some of the prerequisites, they immediately reorganized their strategy by including this necessary knowledge as content to be covered, without which the students would certainly present difficulties already at the beginning of the program. It should be noted that this is one of the main factors responsible for the school failure observed in the university, especially in some of the subjects located in the first semesters of undergraduate courses (^{BRONCHER, 2014}). In subject ED707, regarding the issue of prerequisites, the very pedagogical work developed during the subject seems to have collaborated to overcome some difficulties that students faced, such as difficulties in reading, understanding the selected texts and rewriting the assessment.

The organization of the contents, the third decision, was also one of the factors identified by the participants as a relevant point of the course. About 88% and 12% of the answers indicated the organization of the contents as "excellent" and "very good", respectively. The answers value the sequence of the five moments planned in the course: a) science and psychology; b) behaviourism; c) piagetian psychogenesis; d) the historical-cultural approach; e) the course closing activity. The complete course involves 16 weeks, the first of which is only for presentations, when the program and the schedule of the course are distributed. The latter identifies all the weekly activities, including the required texts, with their respective references. In this way, the students are informed about all the activities to be developed during the following 15 weeks. The first theme is developed for two weeks and each theory, in turn, for four weeks. This period, although it does not guarantee a deep theoretical knowledge, has been enough to present and discuss the main ideas and concepts of each approach. It should be noted that the course ED707, in its first version in 1988, had six theories, and it was only in the 1992 edition that it reached the current model of three theories. This gradual reduction was basically determined by the feedback that the students produced at the end of each edition of the course.

In the data collected, one frequently finds comments referring to the organization of the course as an important factor. Based on these comments, it can be inferred that students value planned pedagogical work, allowing participants to identify what is expected from each of the actors in the process - students and teacher.

The fourth characteristic that marks the Unforgettable Teacher's pedagogical work refers to the planning of teaching activities and procedures used in the course. By teaching activity, we mean the process of relationship that is established between teacher and student, with a specific goal in mind within the procedure. The activities can be planned and analysed through a theoretical model involving three moments: a) the moment of the teacher's instruction; b) the moment of the student's performance; and c) the moment of the teacher's feedback. When the activity is not adequately planned with these moments, students usually end up facing the resulting problems, either due to the absence or the inadequacy of instruction and/or feedback, or due to the lack of adequate activity planned to be performed.

A procedure, in turn, can be understood as a set of activities aimed at achieving the objective of a given program unit. ^{Popham and Baker (1978}) suggest that the activities in a procedure can be considered analogous when the student performance predicted in the activity is similar the performance predicted in the unit objective, or equivalent when the performances are the same. This observation is important for two reasons: a) every procedure should include analogous activities that prepare the learner to perform an equivalent activity in the respective teaching unit, and b) every procedure should end with an equivalent activity in which the learner can demonstrate the performance predicted in the unit objective.

In the present research, the data suggest that the participants highly valued the procedures used. In each theory, the pedagogical work is initiated by the teacher through a dialogical activity, in which the main ideas and concepts are addressed step by step, a situation in which students are encouraged to verbalize about how they are elaborating on the topics discussed. This activity usually covers an entire class, ending with the presentation of a video. In the sequence, the procedure foresees the reading of texts at home, and, in the classroom, there is discussion in small groups following a script and discussion in big groups with the teacher, ending with a synthesis activity presented by the teacher. This sequence involves two weeks, in which the focus is on building an adequate reading of the principles and concepts of the theory. In the fourth week, the procedure provides for activities on the contributions of the theory to the field of education. The procedure ends with an equivalent activity, performed at home, but prepared in class: the writing of a text with the theme "The concepts of Development and Learning following the theory...".

According to the constructed data, all activities were very well evaluated, and it can be inferred that they produced the expected impacts. About 96% of the answers about the procedures used were distributed between "great" (88%) and "very good" (8%). Among the analysed activities, the item "reading script" stands out, having been positively evaluated by 96% of the students. The critical remarks refer to the small group discussions - 79% of answers "excellent", 8% "very good", and 12% "good". In this case, some issues related to possible imbalances in participation among students, such as lack of space to speak, shyness, etc., emerged.

The fifth decision that characterizes the work of the Unforgettable Teacher, according to the research of the Group of Affection, refers to the evaluation procedures. It should be noted that, in traditional educational thinking, evaluation has become a process of ranking students, identifying the "best" and the "worst" ones, which is expressed through grades, a process that ends up blaming the student for the possible failures observed. This probably occurs for two reasons: the first, for the very concept of evaluation that existed and persists in many pockets of education, since, in the traditional view, evaluation means checking whether the student was able to adequately learn what the teacher taught, which suggests a dichotomy between teaching (teacher's action) and learning (student's responsibility). The second reason is more complex: the traditional model of evaluation is strongly characterized by the conceptions of liberal ideology, underlying capitalism system, which has, as its central focus, the concept of individualism, according to which men are born with differentiated abilities, some showing better potential than others. Therefore, it is to be expected that the more gifted will be more successful than the less gifted. In practice, we can say that evaluation, in the traditional model, has become one of the main instruments by which the school excludes those who fail.

The concept of evaluation, according to the interactionist conception, is radically different from the one presented above. According to ^{Luckesi (2011}), assessment can be defined as "a quality assignment, based on relevant data of learners' learning for decision making" (^{LUCKESI, 2011}, p. 264). That is, based on relevant data about the student's performance, the teacher must decide whether to advance in the teaching-learning process or reorganize the pedagogical conditions if the student's performance is below expectations. Under these conditions, the results of the evaluation will never be used against the student; on the contrary, they will always be used to redirect the concrete conditions in view of the student's success.

The question of evaluation was one of the most cited and valued aspects in subject ED707, according to the data constructed. The entire procedure was rated as "excellent" by 80% and "very good" by 20%. In detail, 96% rated as "excellent" the feedback process provided by the teacher, implemented in the 1995 edition, and 92% rated as "excellent" the rewriting of assignments, when the student showed difficulties and did not meet the expected criteria, a change included in the 1998 edition. It should be noted that, in ED707, the equivalent activity has also been considered as the evaluation activity: the written synthesis that the student must present at the end of each theoretical approach.

The implementation of feedback was also a learning process experienced by the students and the teacher. In fact, more by the teacher than by the students. In this process, it was observed that the written feedback from the teacher should be centered around all the concepts and principles of the focused approach. In addition, the issue of text structure came to be understood as a relevant aspect. In the same sense, rewriting does not always correspond to the student completely rewriting the text, because, in most cases, the student is directed to elaborate a complementary text addressing only the points considered inadequate, but this activity is conditioned to the student resuming the reading of the material already seen to then elaborate the rewrite. In this sense, it can be stated that the evaluation procedure used in subject ED707 has been a potential teaching-learning activity, suggesting that, probably, the apprehension time of the contents covered vary among the subjects, since some subjects need more time to deepen their relationship with the contents covered.

Besides the five decisions assumed by the Unforgettable Teacher, used here as a script for discussion, there is an aspect much cited by the subjects, which relates to the emotional climate of the classroom, a factor that involves the relationships between students and teacher. According to ^{Casassus (2009}), who researched on the differences in learning among different countries, "the variable that most explains the differences in learning is the emotional climate in the classroom" (^{CASASSUS, 2009}, p. 204). For the author, the emotional climate in the classroom is a composite of three other variables. The first of these is the type of bond that is established between the teacher and students. The second is the type of bond that exists between the students. The third is the climate that arises from these two variables. According to the same author, an adequate and positive emotional climate favours the teaching-learning process of children and adolescents in the classroom.

In the same sense, research on the Unforgettable Teacher, conducted by the members of the Group of Affection, points out that the image that students show about these teachers presents two important dimensions. The first is that the students recognize that the Unforgettable Teacher has a broad domain of knowledge about the area he or she teaches. The second refers to the fact that, in the students' view, these teachers show a passion for what they teach, and this makes a big difference in the quality of the process. In this sense, the so-called Unforgettable Teacher has nothing to do with a traditional concept of a "nice guy" teacher who works in a classroom where "anything goes". On the contrary, it is a demanding teacher, who works hard, demands constantly, but offers all possible conditions for the student to succeed in the teaching-learning process.

The data from the present research can be explained through these considerations. In subject ED707, about 88% of the subjects considered their relationship with the teacher "excellent" and 12% considered it "very good". Also, 96% answered "excellent" and 4% "very good" for the knowledge domain demonstrated by the professor during the course. Regarding the emotional climate, presented in the questionnaire, 80% considered it "excellent" and 20% "very good". It can be assumed that a course, although well planned, will hardly have broad success - in terms of the impacts produced in the relationships between students and the objects of knowledge - if the face-to-face relationships in the classroom are not marked by a positive climate. This item highlights the epidermal aspects of the process, such as physical proximity, touch, body posture, looks, tone of voice, forms of expression, in addition to the quality of instructions and feedbacks.

Finally, the thematic core "Others" is highlighted, resulting from the data produced from the interviews with the participants, within which the sub-cores "Influences of the subject in professional life" and "Influences in academic life" were created. The former students reported the use of the texts read, of their own evaluative productions and of the notes taken from the discussions in the course on occasions when they acted, later, as teacher trainers, participants in the selection process or even when writing their master's thesis. These statements illustrate part of the affective and cognitive impacts provided by subject ED707.

ABOUT FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The history of subject ED707 - Development and Learning, reported here through research, demonstrates a process that has nothing natural or casual, but, on the contrary, a socially constructed process, based on the commitment assumed by the students and the teacher. Moreover, it is configured as a gradual construction of a subject largely based on the research developed by the members of the Group of Affection. This suggests that the relationship/approximation between research and teaching is a real alternative for the construction of a quality teaching in any educational institution, especially the university.

Nevertheless, the story told here demonstrates that it is no longer possible to discuss the teaching-learning process without considering the affective dimension that is unquestionably part of the process. This is because, by assuming a monist vision, in relation to reason and emotion, it is assumed that every relationship between subject and objects of culture presents these two dimensions, which involve thoughts and affections. It can be assumed that the persistence of subject ED707 in the Postgraduate Program of the School of Education at Unicamp (remember that, until 2019, there were 29 editions) can be, in part, explained by the fact that, in its planning and development, these two and inseparable dimensions - reason and emotion - have been considered, as taught by ^{Espinosa (2009}).