INTRODUCTION

In this poem, ^{Goulart (2010}, p.352) asks the question: what do I see? And he concludes with the answer that “knowing what you see” takes us out of the condition of being almost the object seen, that is, it humanizes us. It is not enough to look; it is necessary to be aware of what you are seeing. Research has shown (^{KRAMER, 2009}) that educational practices in Early Childhood Education often happen without awareness of why we do what we do and that pedagogical intentionality has not always been the result of collective reflections. We understand that this awareness of the look - and here we take the look as a metaphor for human action - is fundamental for doing to be a praxis (^{FREIRE, 1982}) and not an empty action. In this process, another poem completes the reflection: “your look, your look improves/improves mine” (^{ANTUNES, 1995}). The look of the other improves mine, because as ^{Bakhtin (2003}) warns, only the other can see of me what I do not see (like seeing the back of my neck). Only the other, with his surplus of vision, can finish my actions and reflections. From this perspective, we understand that context assessment has a lot to contribute to the construction of a collective educational praxis that triggers a dialogical action. A dialogue with ourselves, in the sense of questioning our purposes, our conceptions about children, and our educational beliefs. Dialogue with the situations that we were willing to verify and our assumptions based on what the situations, carefully investigated, suggest. As a reflective, participatory and formative evaluative movement, which challenges participants to “know what they see”, context evaluation has the potential to change everyone's actions and lead to an improvement in the educational context of daycare centers and preschools.

This work aims to analyze one of the stages of context assessment, in two different experiences: one held in Rio de Janeiro-RJ and another in Pinhais-PR. This context assessment consists of a self- and hetero-assessment methodology that aims to improve the quality of educational practices. Bondioli and Savio, based on ^{Guba & Lincoln (1989}), define context assessment as a fourth-generation assessment, that is, an assessment that seeks not only to break with the positivist paradigm, of quantitative measurements, of disregarding the context, of elimination of alternative ways to think about the object of the evaluation but also to attend to the demands, concerns, and questions of the interest groups. It is a dialogic, responsive, formative assessment that has participated as a principle. In this article, we propose an analysis of the third stage of context assessment, in two different realities and with different instruments. This phase consists of discussing the instrument as the basis for the assessment process, referring to the collective and democratic debate of each descriptor of the instrument chosen by the group, and initiating the process of negotiation of educational quality. Thus, before proceeding immediately with the discussion about the relationship between evaluation and quality, it is worth making considerations from some interlocutors regarding the conceptualization of quality.

For ^{Dourado, Oliveira, and Santos (2007}), defining and conceptualizing quality education requires keeping up with historical changes and local particularities, considering social transformations and the new demands resulting from them. ^{Cury (2014}) when discussing the National Education Plan (PNE- Plano Nacional de Educação) states that educational quality is multidimensional, as it depends on initial and continuing teacher training, career plans, more dignified salaries, structural conditions, and adequate pedagogical resources and the guarantee of significant learning, which is understood to be available in school documentation - pedagogical project, planning, among others - and in educational-pedagogical practices. For this author, the PNE contemplates such dimensions, legitimizing their values.

With this, it is interesting to emphasize, in agreement with Peter ^{Moss (2008}, p. 17), that “the concept of quality is neither neutral nor free of values”. It is a subjective question, a specific way of seeing the world. Thus, the definition of quality is based on values and beliefs. It is a relative concept, articulated according to each context and socially constructed (^{DAHLBERG; MOSS; PENCE, 2019}). For Moss (2008) defining quality is a process and this process is important per se.

According to Anna ^{Bondioli and Donatella Savio (2013}, p. 17), when thinking about educational quality, it is essential to consider “the very purpose of such institutions, being places of life, of culture, of “care”. The quality of an educational institution is what allows it to pursue this purpose in the best possible way (^{BONDIOLI; SAVIO, 2013}, p.17, emphasis added by the authors). In this sense, they seem to agree with Moss, when they state:

Quality is not a fact, it is not an absolute value, and it is not adequacy to standards or norms established a priori and coming from above. Quality is a transaction, that is, a debate between individuals and groups who have an interest in the institution, who have responsibilities towards it, who are somehow involved with it, and who work to make explicit and consensually define values, objectives, priorities, ideas about what the institution is like and how it should or could be. (^{BONDIOLI; SAVIO, 2013}, p.23).

Moss (2017, p.20-21) deals with the quality definition process as

[...] opportunities to share, discuss and understand values, ideas, knowledge, and experience;

- the process must be participatory and democratic, involving different groups that include children, parents, relatives, and professionals in the field;

- the needs, perspectives, and values of these groups may differ at times;

- defining quality should be seen as a dynamic and continuous process, involving regular review and never reaching a final, “objective” statement (emphasis added by the author).

^{Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (2019}, p. 119) propose the “meaning construction discourse”, which aims to deepen the understanding of the pedagogical work in the educational institution through a dialogical process and critical reflection with others. According to ^{Savio (2018}), “evaluating a given context means defining its quality profile, strengths and instabilities through comparison and negotiation” (p. 75). In this perspective, quality is understood as the result of confrontation and negotiation processes between the individuals that make up the educational context, mediated by an external participant, trainer/researcher. It is a participatory training methodology whose principles are “negotiation of quality” and “promotion based on from the inside”.

^{Bondioli and Savio (2015}) understand the “negotiation of quality” as a process of explaining and adjusting conceptions and values among the members of the evaluated context. In this process, the individuals must share their intentions and aspirations to reach to minimum consensus among those who are part of the educational context (^{BONDIOLI, 2014}). Through dialogue between them, the negotiation their values are woven and defined which are essential and shared by the group. Quality parameters and criteria are discussed in the collegiate dialogue to create a collective conscience about what will be evaluated. ^{Freitas (2005}), points out that “negotiated quality” it is not meant that each institution defines “autonomously and separately its quality indicators. This could lead to the perpetuation of economic inequalities in the form of school inequalities and vice versa (BOURDIEU; PASSERON, 1975; BOUR DIEU, 2001) or the creation of “schools for the poor”. (p.924). The author also states that:

It is important to emphasize that the definition of indicators, despite the local characteristics that will strongly explain the difficulties or facilities of implementation, is established in the set of needs and commitments of the public education system. It should also be noted that, for the public sector, quality is not optional, it is mandatory. In this sense, an intelligent and critical interface with the local community and with central public policies is a necessity (^{FREITAS, 2005}, p. 924).

The “promotion from the inside” concerns the reflection of the educational practice in the quality indicators proposed in the evaluative instruments, individually and collectively by the participants of the process. ^{Savio (2018}) states that this reflective process takes place on two levels. The first of them involves the punctual observation of the educational actions around what is being evaluated in the educational context and the denaturalization of what is usual, reflecting on them in the sense of questioning “why do they do that action”. The intention is to question what is the objective of what is done and what are the foundations and references that support it. The second level concerns the comparison between “what you do” and “why you do it” with “what could be done” or “how you would like to do it”. It is in this reflective process, in the investigation of the differences between these two levels - what happens, why it happens, how it could be and how I can improve it - that “promotion from within” takes place. When reflecting on their educational practices, professionals become aware of them and their intentions and can think of possibilities and strategies, collective and individual, to improve the educational context.

The context evaluation methodology is characterized by the use of instruments with items, and indicators, to be evaluated and by the articulation between self-evaluation and external evaluation, in an evaluation process that does not end with verification but aims at a collective plan of actions for institutional improvement. The instrument chosen for the evaluation process aims to propose and encourage reflections on what is being evaluated in a given educational reality, such as the physical, relational or social environment; educational practices, educational strategies, and interventions; the curriculum in action; the organization of work among professionals, etc. - to raise awareness about the choices made (^{BRASIL, 2015}). For ^{Bondioli (2004}) a reliable instrument demonstrates which are the relevant aspects to be observed and proposes quality parameters based on explicit criteria, allowing a confrontation between the real and the ideal school. It imposes a decentering concerning the situated view, invites the production of data and information for the issuance of a judgment, and encourages debate. Each instrument delimits the objective of the evaluation as well as defines the evaluation criteria. Through the instrument, fundamental questions are raised for the reflection of the individuals of the educational context involved in the evaluation process, it works as a mediator of the reflective-formative process.

To carry out the evaluation process as a whole, according to the methodological approach in question, successive steps must be followed by the trainer/researcher in a reflective and transactional way. Generally, seven steps are performed:

At all stages of the context assessment, it is important that each participant freely share their point of view, that there is empathy and trust among the members, and that a collective commitment to the evaluated context is built.

In this article, we will analyze the third step of the context assessment methodology in two experiences with different evaluative objectives, instruments, and educational realities. One of them was carried out in an Early Childhood Education School of the municipal public network of Rio de Janeiro - RJ. It aimed to evaluate educational practices in the field of language in preschool through the Context Assessment Instrument of Educational Practices of Orality, Reading, and Writing - IAPEOLE (Instrumento de Avaliação de Contexto das Práticas Educativas de Oralidade, Leitura e Escrita), developed to carry out this evaluation process. The other investigation was carried out with the municipal public network of Pinhais - PR (^{MORO et al., 2022}), to debate the theme of the play and the possibility of this network carrying out an evaluation process based on the Good News instrument. Boa Creche Lúdica (^{SAVIO, 2011}). The text is organized into three parts. In the first part, we make a brief characterization of the two instruments developed for the context assessment methodology. Then, we analyze the third phase of the methodology in both experiences and discuss what crosses them. Finally, we conclude with reflections on the possibilities of the methodology in the process of institutional self- and hetero-evaluation regarding the awareness of educational practices by teachers and their potential for reflection so that prospects for improving the quality of educational practice are established.

BRIEF CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS: “CONTEXT EVALUATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES OF SPEAKING, READING, AND WRITING-IAPEOLE” AND “GOOD PLAYFUL CARE”

The Context Assessment Instrument for Orality, Reading, and Writing Educational Practices - IAPEOLE was developed by ^{Branco, Corsino, Bondioli, and Savio (2020 1}) to think about a dialogic educational practice for children aged 3 to 5 years and 11 months, consistent with the National Curriculum Guidelines for Early Childhood Education - DCNEI- Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Educação Infantil (BRASIL, 2009), which consider children as the center of the educational process and interactions and play as axes of pedagogical work. In addition to this document, the instrument used ^{Bakhtin's studies (1995}, ²⁰⁰³) as a theoretical basis, which considers language in its discursive dimension and constituent of the subject.

The instrument is based on ten principles that are explained in its introduction. Among them, we will highlight a few below. Children are considered active and creative individuals who form themselves in their relationships with each other. They not only receive the other's word but also interpret and transform it. The interactions they establish with each other and with their surroundings are understood as interlocutions, as they are linked to the production of meaning. They are answers that trigger new questions and new answers, in an uninterrupted interlocutory flow. Play, written in the singular because it refers to the symbolic game of make-believe, is linked to interactions, since it is taken as an important voice of children, as it is how they re-signify what they live and feel, participate in culture, produce culture in relationships with their peers, interact with each other, develop, in addition to other inherent processes. Orality, reading, and writing practices, to make sense to children, need to be developed in meaningful, real, and/or imaginary situations. Oral expression, which is accompanied by gestures and intonations, is seen as a possibility to talk about oneself, the other, and the world, narrate, argue, defend a point of view, etc. Reading is understood as a significant action in which subjects expand their symbolic universe, their references, and their knowledge of themselves, others, and the world. It is the place for fabulation, imagination, creation, encounter, and interaction with the other, as well as language use and reflection on it. Children's participation in writing practices is taken as a possibility of recording different situations, both by the children, with spontaneous writing and drawings, and by the teacher, but always as part of a discursive process. The performance of the adult who reads and writes allows children to get to know different genres, functions, and materialities.

The instrument started with some questions: how are orality, reading, and writing considered in educational practices with children aged 3 to 5 years and 11 months? How is the educational context organized to provoke and sustain situations and games in which children can express orally and graphically, register in different ways, read, listen, narrate and create stories, speak, and talk, among others? What materials are available and what times are allocated for these practices? What is the role of the adult in this process? What has been prioritized in the teachers' planning?

The instrument's construction process was based on the following documents: “Contributions to national policy: assessment in Early Childhood Education based on Context Assessment” (^{BRASIL, 2015}); the “Reading and Writing Project in Early Childhood Education” (BRASIL, 2016), especially Notebook 5, and the Auto Valutazione Della Scuola dell'Infanzia - AVSI instrument (^{BONDIOLI; FERRARI, 2008}). From them, 10 principles and 71 questions were obtained, grouped into three areas: i) materials and organization of the environment (space and time), ii) educational proposal and role of the adult, and iii) planning; the first two being subdivided into two blocks: orality and reading/writing. These three areas also correspond to guiding principles. Each question is scored on what was observed throughout the research period, on a scale of 0 to 1 as follows: yes (1 point) - corresponds to the questions that were observed as constantly present in the educational context; sometimes (0.5 point) to items seen occasionally or infrequently and no (0 point) to those that were not observed in the period. The answers “sometimes” and “no” are asked for justifications that will subsidize the confrontation of points of view between the self-evaluation and the external evaluation. It should be noted that the instrument is also composed of a general definition of each area and each block.

As an example, we bring below the indicators related to the orality block in area i) materials and organization of the environment (time and space)

A1. Orality

Even before birth, children are named and referenced, they are part of various enunciations and interlocutions. At birth, the mother feeds them, puts them on the lap, cares for them, and also gives the word that comes coated with tones, rhythms, touches, and affections. The verbal is accompanied by appreciative accents, non-verbal expressions, assumptions, feelings, and life. It is initially with his body that the child dialogically experiences the world, in a continuous relationship with the other, which also requires a constant negotiation of meanings and production of meaning. Interactive processes are interlocutory processes, although they are often non-verbal, as they share meanings and constitute language, speech, thought, and consciousness. When we refer to orality, verbal and non-verbal processes are in question, such as gestures, intonations, and the enunciative context. All understanding is a reply and there is no first or last word, as we enter an uninterrupted enunciative flow. Orality relates to this flow. It is worth highlighting that each sphere of human activity constitutes discursive practices that we can identify a set of genres. Each genre has a compositional structure, relatively stable, which is appropriated and used by the interlocutors. We also learn to speak in gender. In this item, the context assessment focuses on how much the available spaces and materials, as well as the time for their exploration, can provoke and sustain the children's enunciative processes.

Source:   ^{Branco, Corsino, Bondioli and Savio (2020}) 

The Instrument of Boa Creche Lúdica (^{SAVIO, 2011}) recognizes playing as crucial for the child’s growth and well-being and “provides the active participation of the child and indicates playing as the “authentic voice of childhood, the main instrument to be able to carry it out” (SAVIO, 2013, p.257). Based on studies of the sociology of childhood, especially ^{Corsaro (2011}) and ^{Mayall (2007}), and psychoanalysis, especially ^{Winnicott (1975}), it starts from the assumption that playing is the voice of the child, its main form of expression. Observing the game is a privileged way to hear and listen to this voice to accept the children's point of view. It is also an important means of promoting children's participation in educational contexts designed for them. ^{Savio (2013}, 2011), in addition to the contributions of such authors, dialogues with J.Piaget, l. S. Vygotsky, J. S. Bruner, C. Garvey, S. Isaacs, S. Freud; M. Klein, A. Bondioli, T. Musatti, among others². The author points out that observation as a tool to enhance the child's participation does not exempt adults, especially teachers, from maintaining and reverberating complex issues, such as, for example: listening to the child's voice without distorting it, so as not to be based on the adult-centered references for the interpretation; when and how to report to children to give them space without giving up their educational role as adults.

The main question of the instrument is: what educational conditions are the best for children's play? It was collectively prepared in an investigative-training process led by Donatella Savio, which involved 90 professionals from municipal and affiliated daycare centers in Modena, Italy. The instrument is based on a conceptual map that brings the meanings and educational reference values and six indicators (which sub-divided make up a total of ten items) with quality aspects to be evaluated to qualify a good daycare center, in its ludic dimension. They are: educational projects and play; spaces for play; play materials; times for play; formation of groups for play; and adults and play. The indicators related to space and materials are divided into three others, considering the reference room, and internal and external common areas.

Thus, each of the ten indicators brings the description of circumstances that characterize a “good ludic daycare center” and are evaluated based on established criteria to guide the attentive and sensitive look of the professionals, from a lack of quality to a quality of excellence in the daily offer of possibilities for children's games. There are seven criteria for each indicator. Below, in Chart 1, one of the indicators that make up the instrument can be seen as an example.

Source: Translated and organized by Catarina Moro, based on ^{Savio (2011}).

Chart 1 Indicator 4: Playtime 

The score follows a scale from “0” to “1”, as it best meets the requirements of each criterion: “0” if it does not meet that requirement at all, “0.5” if it corresponds to the partial fulfillment of that requirement, and, “1” if it corresponds to the full fulfillment of the criterion. Each indicator may not receive any score - when all criteria from “a” to “g” are not scored; up to score 7 - when all criteria receive a score “1”. Thus, the score of the indicators may vary between “0” and “7”.

For ^{Bondioli (2004}) the validity of the evaluation process as a whole depends on the adherence of the participants of the work groups to the criteria and quality parameters proposed by the instrument. The debate on the indicators and assessment criteria contained in the instrument encourages reflection (the basis of a formative assessment course) on the very idea of ​​quality, implicit in the effort to judge whether the instrument's proposals coincide with those of the institution. Good assessment instruments outline a model of the evaluative object; determine what information will be collected, and declared, for each essential element that engenders an environment as educational; they define the evaluation criteria and envisage an achievable ideal for each specific element. Following the context assessment paradigm of the Pavia researchers, an investigation in Brazil focused on the ad hoc construction of an instrument for playing, which enabled the group of professionals involved to increase their awareness of the individual and collective perspectives related to the theme. It also provided the deepening of related concepts and a very unique modality of continuing education in terms of playing (^{COUTINHO; MORO; VIEIRA, 2019}).

DISCUSSION OF INSTRUMENTS

Visions and understandings about games and playing

The path taken from the instrument of “Good Playful Day Care” (^{SAVIO, 2011}), which came to be identified in the investigation as “Assessment of Playful Contexts in Early Childhood Education”, had as its purpose the reading, study, and analysis of its translation³, to consider the potential and adequacy of triggering a process of reflection and improvement of the quality of the offer of games to groups of children in the educational units of the municipal network of Early Childhood Education in Pinhais, metropolitan region of the capital of Pinhais, state of Paraná. (^{MORO et al., 2022}).

This Network provides regular care for children up to 5 years and 11 months of age from 21 Municipal Centers for Early Childhood Education (CMEIs) and 22 Municipal Schools, and most of the final classes of Early Childhood Education (Kindergarten 5) are offered in Elementary Schools. However, also for these units, the guidance and follow-up of the pedagogical work are carried out by the Early Childhood Education Management (GEINF- Gerência da Educação Infantil).

Regarding the route taken, the first meetings between the technical team (5 professionals) from GEINF/SEMED and the researcher-trainer took place in the second half of 2019⁴ to discuss playing in early childhood education and its centrality in making educational of the Network. There were 5 meetings of approximately 2 hours each. For the evaluation of the assessment instrument, the script set out in Chart 2 is the basis for discussions within this smaller and beginner group in research training.

Then, during the process, a group of six educational units was chosen for a pilot research using the instrument translated and adapted to the Network, in which there was at least one unit: i) exclusively for children from 0 to 3 years old; ii) exclusively for children from 4 to 5 years old; iii) for children from 0 to 5 years old; iv) that assisted only Kindergarten V and with different dimensions of the internal/external spaces, v) reduced or vi) wide and; vii) in which the management team had already started debates about playing with the teachers and/or other professionals. Four meetings were held with the pedagogues and principals of the 6 units, all online, with a duration of 2 and a half to 3 hours. The 3 final meetings for appreciation and debate of the instrument, occupied 3 hours of work each and involved a large group, also gathered online via the Google Meet platform. It was made up of the researcher-trainer, the 5 GEINF professionals, 118 educators, 9 pedagogues, 8 professors, and 6 principals⁵. A total of 147 participants were involved in the process.

Source: Elaborated by Catarina Moro (2019).

Chart 2 Script for evaluating the Instrument “Assessment of Ludic Contexts in Early Childhood Education”. 

To introduce the discussion with the expanded group of educators and teachers, we organized a form on Google Docs to obtain information about the group and their understanding of play and its role in the educational daily life of the units. In addition to requesting some data about the participants and linkage with the stage and with the municipal network, some ideas were raised from the questions listed in Chart 3.

Source: Elaborated by Catarina Moro (2020).

Chart 3 Questions about play and its presence in Early Childhood Education”. 

In this survey, professionals reported romanticized images concerning play: “happy children playing in a group, smiling, having fun”, “old and wheel games”, “lots of scattered toys”, “children running outdoors”, “wide spaces”, “situation of free imagination”. Other images associated with more education aspects, such as “children learning while playing”, “playing is a fundamental role in learning and integral development”, and “for the development of creativity, imagination, and abstraction, to build knowledge and develop skills”.

Regarding the relationship between the provision of quality play by the institution, there was reference: to children having “freedom to play and express themselves”, the appreciation of play in the Pedagogical Proposal, the possibility of playing every day of the week, the organization of environments and selection of toys by the teachers/educators, their participation in the games, the contact with structured and unstructured toys, the respect and involvement of children as protagonists and “architects” in playing, as they have a say in the planning of spaces and choice of toys. Also relevant for the group is the institution providing training on playing and other related topics.

After analyzing these preliminary data, and continuing the investigative-training path, the teams of the units had access to the translation of the instrument for an individual reading followed by the response to another form also proposed via Google Docs, in which there were 5 questions related to the analysis of the document and which would be a basis for mobilizing the discussion of the theme in online meetings. Below are the questions on the form that were answered by 141 professionals - educators (the majority), teachers, pedagogues, and directors. (Table 4).

Source: Elaborated by Catarina Moro (2020).

Chart 4 Questions for evaluating the Instrument “Assessment of Ludic Contexts in Early Childhood Education”. 

The reading and critical appreciation of the instrument raised essential reflections in the group that raised questions about which one could think there were no doubts. However, the awareness of the role of playing in the educational daily life of institutions implies asking what constitutes play. How can or how should the teacher's intervention be so that the game does not become a didactic activity? How to define and differentiate “free play” from “guided play”? What is heuristic play? This stage of the evaluation process turns out to be crucial for understanding and discussing certain concepts and the notion of quality implicit in the different criteria of each indicator. Thus, how to think about how important and decisive they are: the planning and organization of times and spaces and the role of adults, teachers, and other professionals who share the daily experiences in Early Childhood Education institutions.

The analysis of the instrument also led to small adjustments, and textual changes, as long as they did not distort the original idea, to better articulate it to the educational reality of the Pinhais Network and so that it could be used in educational contexts for children from 0 to 6 incomplete years. The critical appreciation of the instrument allowed collegiate involvement, with the professionals' attentive and curious participation around the theme of the play, enhancing the formative dimension involved in the process. Issues related to the theme and which are directly or indirectly guided by the instrument were highlighted as aspects to be better understood and offered to children, such as: playing in and with nature and with natural resources and materials; the importance of the time allocated to playing in the pedagogical routine”; better use of spaces outside the unit, such as parks; the value of creating opportunities for socializing and playing among children of different ages; the use of varied materialities; implement and/or expand the offers of heuristic play; approach play, periodically and systematically, in continuing training, in service.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Assessment and reflection are intrinsically linked and converging processes. Evaluating the factors that guarantee and “make” the quality of a context, as a reflective practice, is a process of raising awareness about basic pedagogical options and concrete educational problems. It is an authentic formative process (^{BONDIOLI, 2004}). Authentic because it is the result of a displacement, of a decentralization movement that allows looking at established pedagogical practices from another place, opening up the possibility of deviating from what is often empty. Reflecting with others on “what we do” and seeking to collectively understand “why we do what we do” is an authentic formative process because it originates from the field and goes back to it.

^{Bondioli and Savio (2015}), based on ^{Guba and Lincoln (1989}), define context assessment as a “fourth generation” assessment, that is, an assessment that seeks to break with the hegemony of the positivist paradigm, quantitative measurements, disregard the context, elimination of alternative ways to think about the object of the evaluation, non-ethical responsibility of the evaluator for what emerges from the evaluation or for the use of its results, among others. Context assessment seeks a dialogical, participatory, responsive paradigm, in which the claims, concerns, and questions of the interest group are the basis for determining the information necessary for the assessment and whose result supports the development of projects and proposals for improving the quality of the evaluated context. As quality is a polysemic and contextual concept, which implies conceptions and values, the use of an instrument in the context assessment is presented as a quality parameter of the aspect to be evaluated. A parameter that is put to the test by the group, which critically analyzes each descriptor, being able to reflect, question, agree, disagree, and negotiate its point of view in the collective. The instrument, by putting the usual in check, either to affirm a perspective or to oppose it, causes displacements; and it is precisely this movement that, when made explicit in the collective, enhances the search for consensus and points to changes.

Context assessment, in this “fourth generation” paradigm, breaks with the idea of assessment as finding or checking descriptors, elaborated from outside and often unknown by the members of the evaluated context, to establish a sustained commitment with the members of the process principles of participation, reflection, and perspective of change. An evaluation vision that is formative from the choice of the instrument, passing through the sharing of the participants' points of view, until the consensual definition of the strengths and critical points of the institution, in its structural and procedural aspects. This is an assessment of a social and political nature, in which the entire dialogical process that is inherent to it - with reflections, considerations, and opinions of the members - favors the understanding of the investigated context deeply and dynamically and allows continuous reformulations based on the demands of the group.

As observed throughout the article, the reflections based on the analysis of the instruments, which were constructed by the researcher-trainers, are an important stage in the evaluation process. The instruments, when tested, individually and collectively, with directed questions favored reflections that were not given a priori. We analyzed this stage of context assessment in two different realities, with different instruments and procedures to highlight the inflection point that characterizes this evaluative paradigm. It is not just about knowing in advance what will be evaluated, but reflecting on the evaluation, questioning the descriptors, confronting them with the reality to be evaluated, and becoming aware of the theoretical issues that support them. The process is formative in different dimensions, especially because of the possibility for the group to seek grounded understandings and consensus. Research has shown that the analysis of the instrument is a watershed in the evaluation process, as it is already part of the evaluation. As we have already pointed out, evaluation and reflection are intrinsically linked and convergent processes. Careful listening to the reflections with a horizontal and dialogical mediation by the researcher-evaluators proved to be fundamental in the process, which shows that the choice of this professional requires criteria that concern not only the theoretical knowledge of the area that will be evaluated and mastery of the instrument, as well as a democratic posture. Thus, it is necessary to invest in a training process for specialists in Early Childhood Education who can integrate a mediating posture of acceptance that simultaneously encourages reflection and active participation, both about the sharing of points of view and of experiences, of the subjects involved in the evaluation process. It is how the mediation of the process is carried out that defines the characteristics of the external evaluator as a facilitator and trainer since the participation of the members of the context evaluation is directly related to how the mediation is carried out.

Both the process of analysis of the instrument “Evaluation of the context of educational practices of orality, reading, and writing”, carried out with the 7 teachers of the municipal school in the city of Rio de Janeiro, and the process of analysis of the instrument “Boa Creche Lúdica”, which involved 147 professionals working in Early Childhood Education in the city of Pinhais-PR, showed the formative power of the methodology. The instruments are i) conceptions-of language, of play-, ii) the relationship between time and space and the materiality offered to children in Early Childhood Education institutions, ii) the role/function of the adult, and iv) the importance of proposal planning. These four dimensions, which cross both instruments, have been understood in the field of Early Childhood Education, as key points for thinking about the educational quality of daycare centers and preschools. We can state that the analyzes of the instruments' indicators outlined an overview of educational quality in orality, reading, writing, and playing. The teachers' awareness of these indicators, which took place in the participatory and democratic process, enabled the teams to build some common understandings, triggered a training process, and also demanded an understanding of the need for studies and deepening. Returning to the poem in the epigraph (^{GOULART (2010}, p.352)) the explanation of the descriptors in the instruments favored the members' awareness of educational practices, placing them in the condition of those who “know what they see” and opening perspectives for change to improve the quality of Early Childhood Education.

Preprint

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002322