The Sport Education model

The SE model was created by the North American Physical Education teacher and researcher Daryl Siedentop with the aim of countering the traditional way of teaching sports, signaling a critique of reductionist, decontextualized, and inauthentic pedagogical proposals (Siedentop, 1994). Its objective is to develop three learning outcomes: (a) to form competent students - who have basic skills and strategies so that they can enjoy and successfully participate in sports; (b) to form literate students - who understand the rules, traditions, and values ​​associated with sports, in addition to distinguishing between good and bad sports practices; and (c) to form enthusiastic students - who play and have respectful attitudes towards sports culture (^{Siedentop, 1994}; Siedentop; ^{Hastie; Mars, 2011}).

Based on constructivist ideas, the model emphasizes that students must gradually assume responsibility for their own learning and play an active role in their own sporting experience, which provides an expanded understanding of the practice through acting in different roles beyond that of an athlete, such as captains, coaches, statisticians, referees, managers etc. (^{Siedentop, 1994}).

Studies indicate that the SE model reinforces the critical and post-critical pedagogical conceptions of Brazilian Physical Education, which seek to break with practices centered on physical fitness that praise solely biological views on the body and bodily practices (^{Ginciene; Matthiesen, 2017}; Souza; ^{Costa, 2020}; ^{Vargas et al., 2018}). The way in which the SE is structured dialogues with an educational perspective that strives to understand sport as a sociocultural phenomenon constantly resignified in society, which contributes to students engaging with this cultural manifestation in a free and critical way. An authentic sports experience provides opportunities for group integration through different forms of participation, which fosters not only sports-related training but also humanizing training by promoting skills that value personal development and social relationships (^{Costa et al., 2020}; ^{Kirk, 2013}; ^{Luguetti et al., 2018}; ^{Siedentop, 2002}).

With the possibility of adaptation so that the practice is viable in light of the reality of each educational institution, the SE uses six critical elements that guarantee the legitimacy of the sports experience, namely: season, affiliation, formal competition, record keeping, festivity, and culminating event (^{Siedentop, 1994}; Siedentop; ^{Hastie; Mars, 2011}).

The season aims to increase the time students spend in contact with the teaching and learning content, in order to provide effective knowledge about the sport. The amount of time dedicated to the season should take into account the topic studied, and should be planned in such a way as to provide an opportunity for systematization of knowledge that will enable students to appropriate the sporting practice so that they can practice it.

In the affiliation, students participate as members of a team, in which each one performs a role in addition to being an athlete. The aim is to foster a sense of belonging to the group based on the recognition of the importance of each role in the development of the sporting practice, eliminating exclusionary factors, and favoring the effective and balanced participation of all.

Formal competition takes place through the preparation of a schedule built by the students in a season, that is, the practice of the sport as it happens in the real world. The aim is to facilitate decision-making in planning that promotes equal opportunities for all, valuing fair play.

In parallel with the formal competition, performance records are kept, consisting of grades on individual and team performance, which provides feedback to students and encourages them to set goals. They also include the process of disseminating both these records and the culminating event, with the aim of telling the story of the competition.

The celebration refers to the movement of fellowship, which should be encouraged throughout the process to establish a pleasant and motivating environment in the educational action. Finally, the culminating event determines the end of the sports season in a competition that involves all subjects.

Although the SE aims at a comprehensive and conscious education of students in the sense of knowledge and practice of sports, it does not show a greater concern with the formation of critical thinking in relation to the broader context of sports in society. Thus, we understand that the SE linked to Freirean pedagogy can be a methodological strategy with the potential to face the challenges of critically working AG in higher education.

The possibility of authentically experiencing the sport during undergraduate studies can expand the education of students beyond the pedagogical aspects that involve the teaching and learning of gymnastic movements, the main skill expected of a Physical Education professional, whether they are a school teacher or a sports coach. In this proposal, it is necessary for students to understand the social occurrence of AG today, so that it is possible not only to plan the structuring of a competition, but also to develop ways to study the modality in its entirety. Likewise, it is essential that students understand who the actors are who make AG happen, what their functions are, and how they are carried out. The complexity of the knowledge worked on allows for the foundation of a solid pedagogical basis for the broad and critical teaching performance that is expected in today's society.

Freire's pedagogy

The choice of Freirean pedagogy as a methodological proposal at the university is based on the assumption that, regardless of the level of education, educational practice is never neutral; it is always intentional and, in this case, driven by the idea of ​​education for freedom (Freire, 1994). Thus, based on the questioning of what is being taught when teaching, decisions are made about principles and values ​​that will guide all pedagogical action (^{Ramos; Sampaio; Saul, 2021}).

Paulo Freire's pedagogical proposal contrasts the banking model of education centered on the educator who, in an anti-dialogical and authoritarian manner, disregards the knowledge that students bring with them and deposits knowledge that they consider superior. On the contrary, Freirean pedagogy proposes a liberating education that stimulates critical-problematizing thinking in a horizontal and inseparable relationship between educator-student-object of knowledge (Freire, 1994). Dialogicity and politicality in the educational act are basic principles of Freirean pedagogy, which highlight dialogue as a fundamental tool in pedagogical action and determine the movement of action-reflection-action that presupposes an attitude of the subject towards reality (^{Feitosa, 2003}; ^{Gadotti, 2000}).

Once proposed as a literacy method, Freirean pedagogy was expanded to various areas of knowledge other than its origin (^{Beisiegel, 2010}; ^{Brandão, 1981}). In this movement, several socio-educational experiences elucidated essential pedagogical devices so that cultural action could be considered as dialogic and political in favor of a liberating education (^{Ramalho, 2022}). Such devices correspond to the set of actions that characterize the pedagogical mediation of the educator, which permeate both the fundamental knowledge inherent to the ethical nature of a liberating educational practice and the understanding of the systematization of Paulo Freire's pedagogical proposal. Regarding the fundamental knowledge for teaching practice, Freire (¹⁹⁹⁶) argues that education goes beyond training to perform technical tasks and, therefore, points out attitudes necessary for all those committed to building a transformative educational relationship inside and outside the classroom.

Among the 27 requirements outlined in the work Pedagogy of autonomy: knowledge necessary for educational practice (^{Freire, 1996}), we highlight, first, Horizontality. To overcome the welfare-based connotation of education, which insists on an active stance by the educator who donates knowledge to the student, who remains passive - a relationship in which there is no dialogue -, it is necessary to establish a horizontal relationship between these subjects. Therefore, the educator must assume the role of coordinator of debates, while the students act as participants in the group. The balance between the freedom of the student and the democratic authority of the educator favors the creation of a relationship of mutual respect, an essential requirement for establishing the discipline necessary for learning (^{Freire, 1963}, ¹⁹⁹⁶).

In this educational logic, it is necessary to pay attention to stimulating curiosity, which contributes to the construction of an investigative spirit in students. By overcoming the educational concept of knowledge donation, the educator must create challenging strategies that promote conditions so that students feel provoked to doubt and, thus, exercise their reasoning, leading them to criticize consolidated knowledge, compare, formulate new questions, and advance in the development of a critical stance towards the object of study (^{Freire, 1996}).

What is expected is that the (Re)construction of (new) knowledge occurs in a collective, democratic way and in line with the reality of the students (^{Freire, 1996}). The aim is for the pedagogical process to generate the creation of something original for the subjects, free from myths produced by oppressors and conceivable for the collective, reorganized with its own authentic senses and meanings (^{Ramalho, 2022}). Thus, from a stance that challenges the subjects to appropriate specific knowledge, always questioning and relating the information in dialogue with the concrete reality of the context in which they are inserted, the epistemological curiosity of everyone is instigated. With ethics and aesthetics, depth in the interpretation of facts and review of findings, the critique of deep-rooted knowledge, and the contestation of hegemonic ideologies that determine the lack of access to certain knowledge and practices are facilitated. Aware that history is a possibility and that nothing is determined, what is studied begins to make more sense when the transformation of reality is a possibility. In this way, the aim is to generate theoretical-practical knowledge, more in line with the needs of subjects today, placing them in the participation of the unfinished process of humanization of the world (Freire, 1996).

We therefore observe the materialization of an environment that promotes the Stimulation of autonomy since, in Freire's conception, education should enable the student to recognize themselves as the protagonist of their story and no longer as a mere supporting actor. By placing the student at the center of the educational action, autonomy strongly influences the process of emancipation and empowerment, as the students begin to think for themselves and lear to govern and govern themselves (Freire, 1996; ^{Gadotti, 2000}).

Regarding the systematization of Freire's pedagogical proposal, researchers who were guided by the work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (^{Freire, 1994}) point out three important phases for its development, namely: Investigation, Thematization and Problematization. Such moments can be adapted to different areas of knowledge and are essential in the liberating educational process (^{Beisiegel, 2010}; ^{Feitosa, 2003}; ^{Freire, 1994}).

Investigation is highlighted as the first step in the pedagogical process. Also known as Reading the World (^{Freire, 1978}), it refers to the moment of surveying the reality of students and their ways of life (^{Beisiegel, 2010}; ^{Feitosa, 2003}). In the adult literacy experience, this phase aimed to discover, collectively (between educators and students), “[...] life through speech; the world through words [...]” (^{Brandão, 1981}, p. 13). In different educational contexts, Investigation consists of reflecting on the critical perception of reality, “[...] of life-lived, including both the most intimate subjective experiences and the most complex historical-social relationships [...]” of the subjects, paying attention to the inequalities produced throughout history (^{Britto; Giorgi, 2022}, p. 7). It is at this first moment that the subjects discuss the prior knowledge they have about what will be studied, their impressions before beginning to dig deeper into the object of knowledge, highlighting unknown or mistaken points that need to be expanded and unveiled during the educational process.

This Investigation allows for Thematization, which consists of selecting the generating themes that emerged from the students' knowledge of the Reading the World based on their pragmatic meaning - potential for critical nature or the set of sociocultural reactions that it can generate, and which will be studied (^{Beisiegel, 2010}; ^{Feitosa, 2003}; ^{Freire, 1963}).

Therefore, with the themes defined, Problematization occurs, aiming to replace a naive view with a critical view, creating possibilities for the subjects to become capable of transforming the context in which they live (^{Feitosa, 2003}; ^{Freire, 1994}). When studying the scientific knowledge produced by humanity, underlying questions arise regarding the broader problems related to the themes addressed, mainly those that are pertinent to the context in which the subjects are inserted, which need to be decoded through debates and reflections, leading the students to rethink their situation in the world. Pedagogical action goes beyond the specific content to be taught, encouraging the expansion of critical nature levels and envisioning possibilities for change in search of a transformation process (^{Beisiegel, 2010}; ^{Freire, 1963}, ¹⁹⁹⁴).

Context and participants

The group of subjects was composed of 17 students (13 men and four women), whose ages ranged from 19 to 30 years old, who participated in the discipline "Sports and leisure gymnastics" of the PE school at the Federal University of the Jequitinhonha and Mucuri Valleys (UFVJM) in 2022.

Offered in the second semester of the course, the objectives of the discipline include knowledge about the characteristics of competitive gymnastics modalities, basic notions of refereeing, and pedagogical procedures for teaching gymnastics in different contexts. The students had already taken, in the first semester, "Fundamentals of gymnastics", a prerequisite discipline that aims to develop historical, cultural, and social knowledge about the various forms of expression of gymnastics and their possibilities of movements.

Four other subjects also participated in the study: a research professor (responsible for the discipline and first author of this article) - with more than twenty years of experience in AG, twelve of them in higher education, in addition to experience with the SE during her PhD (^{Luguetti et al., 2018}); and three monitors (two women and one man) - students who had already taken the aforementioned disciplines in previous semesters and who were active members of a gymnastics extension project at UFVJM. The monitors had the function of assisting in the process of co-creation of the adapted AG code of points (CP) and acted as referees with the other students. The monitors and students had no experience with the implementation of the SE.

The names of the students were changed to fictitious names in the presentation of the results.

The implementation of SE with GA in higher education

The implementation of the SE with the AG lasted twelve weeks, with weekly sessions of four hours plus twelve hours of extra-class activities, totaling 60 hours of workload in the discipline, under the planning and mediation of the research professor. Chart 1 presents the relationship of the six critical elements of the SE worked on in the implementation with AG:

Source: The authors.

Chart 1 - Critical elements of SE and how they were developed in the discipline 

The research professor presented the proposal to develop the SE for teaching and learning sport-based gymnastics in the first meeting, briefly explaining the idea of ​​organizing and participating in an AG competition (week 1). After accepting the invitation, the students read bibliographical materials and discussed the differences and similarities between competitive and non-competitive gymnastics regulated by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) (week 2).

During the pre-season, we worked on preparing for the culminating event (weeks 3-9). To understand the complex dynamics of the AG rules, we carried out the process of explaining the CP with a drawing competition, whose rules were collectively developed with criteria similar to those of the sport (weeks 3-4). Next, the students organized themselves into four teams, trying to equalize the distribution of people who had previous skills with gymnastic movements - three teams with four gymnasts and one with five (totaling 17 students). In addition to the role of gymnast, each student also took on the role of coach, manager, referee or journalist. In the team of five students, two acted as journalists (week 4).

The creation of the rules (co-creation of an adapted CP) occurred concurrently with the training of the teams, qualification, and performance of the assignments beyond gymnastics (weeks 4-9).

In the regular season, the students chose to hold the competitive event in a single day, in which, in addition to the AG competition by team, by apparatus, and individual all-around, a GFA choreography show was held with the students of the first semester. All gymnasts were awarded medals according to their placement (1st to 4th or 5th place) in the team competitions (sum of the three highest scores in each event), by apparatus (best scores on vault, beam, and floor) and individual all-around (sum of the scores of all events) (week 10). In the post-season, students read bibliographical materials about SE and discussed the similarities and differences between the events: GFA (non-competitive), in which they had participated in the first semester, and the current AG (competitive). They also carried out a self-assessment on their participation and the knowledge acquired during the semester (weeks 11-12).

Data collection and analysis

We used multiple techniques to collect data, which were applied during the development of the discipline and at its end: (a) pedagogical documentation produced during the course - teaching plan, lesson plans and CP record created by the collective; (b) field diaries written by the research professor at the end of each meeting, so that a detailed description of the facts that occurred during the investigation could be recorded (^{Minayo, 2012}), represented by the acronym FD followed by the number corresponding to the classes; (c) discussions with a critical friend throughout the development of the educational process (^{Baskerville; Goldblatt, 2009}; Ní Chróinín; O’Sullivan; Fletcher, 2016); and (d) conducting four focus groups (FG), which occurred after the entire process, with the aim of promoting spaces for group debates, with discussions that problematize issues pertinent to the study (^{Barbour, 2009}; ^{Minayo, 2012}).

To process the data, we used Thematic Analysis, which refers to “[...] a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within the data. It minimally organizes and describes the data set in (rich) detail” (^{Braun; Clark, 2006}, p. 7). Initially, the research professor read the multiple data sources and identified themes and categories. In meetings with the critical friend, these categories were discussed, and three pedagogical strategies were co-constructed from the data (^{Braun; Clark, 2019}).

The research was submitted to and approved by the UFVJM Research Ethics Committee (CAAE no. 67021122.8.0000.5108), ensuring that all procedures involving human beings complied with current ethical-scientific standards, so that subjects participated voluntarily, signing the Free and Informed Consent Form.

Perform different functions

The research professor proposed an initial action to raise students' knowledge about the world of AG in order to contextualize what would be studied. In addition to surveying previous experiences with sport-based gymnastics, videos of competitions in the sport at different skill levels - from school to high-performance - were read/analyzed, which allowed students to identify different social issues, such as the “[...] high cost of the physical structure, the majority of gymnasts being white and with a similar body type (thin and strong), early specialization in the sport, only female gymnasts not wearing pants or shorts and using music and dance in their series etc.” (FD2).

In this process, the subjects involved in an AG competition were also recognized: “[...] gymnasts, referees, commentators, spectators, coaches, technical team, people who organized the event - who set up the space, who was counting the scores, playing the music etc.” (FD2). They identified that, “[...] although it was an individual competition (each gymnast performs alone), there is a very strong interaction between the athletes on the same team, especially when they are setting up the apparatus for their teammates to compete and when encouraging each other during the performance of the series” (FD2).

These findings led to a reflection on the different facts that involve the sport and that are not directly related to the technical aspects of gymnastic motor actions. They also considered the need for essential actors and actresses for a competition to take place, that is, Physical Education professionals can act beyond the role of coach (FD2).

That said, we discussed the roles necessary for a competition adapted to the level of the students to take place: gymnasts, referees, and event organizers. The research professor also added the coach, a role that the students did not consider necessary due to the fact that they all had a similar level of knowledge about AG and, in their opinion, “[...] a coach should know more” (FD2). After discussions, we established that the coach would act as the team leader and that the event organizers would include managers and journalists.

The students asked the research professor to determine the organization of the teams, respecting the criteria that “[...] those who were also part of a gymnastics extension project that takes place at the university should not be together, to balance the skill level” (FD4). Once the division was made, the students chose the other roles they would assume according to their affinities.

Over the course of six meetings (FD4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9), while the co-creation of the CP took place collectively, the groups of each role performed their tasks beyond gymnastics, namely: the coaches helped the gymnasts to create and train the series; the referees practiced refereeing together with the monitor; the managers planned the organization of the space, developed spreadsheets to calculate the scores for the competition, and sought sponsors to buy the medals; the journalists recorded images and created promotional materials for the social network. In addition to helping with all the functions, the research professor and the monitors took on the responsibility of recording the CP definitions and the summaries, making them available to everyone through a closed group on the social network.

The students' testimonies suggest that participation in different roles helped in understanding AG, as we can see below:

Caio Souza: I think that this issue of rotating roles, [...] you end up creating an awareness of what you are actually doing. [...] this was essential for us to create a consensus that goes beyond competing, being an athlete, and really understanding how the competition works. So that you could really experience all aspects of the competition in the best possible way (FG).

Patrick Sampaio: [...] Before, we knew the basics of gymnastics, we learned how to do some things. Now that we have learned outside the athlete, we know more about refereeing, about management, and these things. We know more about not just being an athlete but also about the organizer, the person in the middle (FG).

Laís Souza: [...] you experience the sport itself. From refereeing, the organization, to being an athlete, the summary. I myself had never paid attention to how the summary of a gymnastics competition worked. [...] we learn more in practice what gymnastics as a sport is (FG).

Flávia Saraiva: [...] I thought it was cool that everyone experienced everything, the rotation, you know? The organization, you know? Because I think that from that point on, they have a much broader vision [...].

This strategy also appears to have helped in the development of gymnastic skills when the students were performing as gymnasts:

Daniele Hypólito: It's the fact that you, as a student, are acting differently; for example, as a coach, you analyze the movement that your colleague is doing; you are also training. You can even tell where you are making mistakes and where you can improve (FG).

The strategy also made it possible for everyone to participate in the discipline and, consequently, in the teaching-learning process, even without practicing the modality:

Daiane dos Santos: [...] even though I didn't participate in the practice itself, I participated in other functions, management, media. [...] I also had contact with the summary, and I never tried to find out how it was done. And we start to have a little idea, right, from this class format (FG).

Drawing dynamics

The research professor began the explanation of AG rules with a discussion about the different forms of competition. The students mentioned examples such as “who gets there first” (racing, swimming etc.), “who scores the most points” (ball sports), “who knocks down the opponent” (wrestling), until they got to gymnastics, in which the one who “does the best” is evaluated (FD3).

This led to the question: “how do we evaluate who does the best?” (FD3). At this point, the students presented some prior knowledge about the sport, such as “stepping outside the line deducts a point, falling deducts a point” (FD3), but were unable to discuss the specifics of the rules.

The following statements demonstrate the students’ limited knowledge about AG rules before experiencing the SE:

Diogo Soares: [...] before we started the discipline, I liked watching the Games and the Olympics because I thought they were beautiful and interesting, but I didn't understand how the scores were calculated, for example. [...] I only saw the athlete's performance. I didn't understand why they got a certain score, what criteria were used to disqualify them [...] FG).

Mosiah Rodrigues: [...] if you're going to do this with soccer, for example, like, everyone knows the rules. You don't have to teach the referee, people know more or less. Not in gymnastics, you have to teach everything, it's different, no one has ever done it and it takes a while to learn the rules, it's hard (FG).

In view of this, the research professor invited the students to a drawing competition since it would be possible to evaluate the “most beautiful” drawing from the same perspective in which the “most beautiful” AG series is evaluated (FD3).

The dynamic began with generating questions to stimulate the collective creation of rules: “What are the subjects necessary for the drawing competition to take place? What will be compared? What should the drawing be like in order to be compared? What elements should make up the drawing? What values ​​will each element have? Can we value connections between elements? How will we evaluate the flaws in the drawings?” (FD3). As the questions were answered, the rules of the game were determined, following the logic of the official AG CP:

Entries in the FD indicate how complex the process of creating the rules for the drawing competition was:

Research professor: [...] at first, the students thought it would be easy to create a drawing competition, but as soon as some elements emerged, everything became more confusing, such as what to have in the drawing so that it could be compared. I had to start structuring a value chart for each element of the drawing, in the same way as is done in gymnastics - the chart of gymnastic movements that can make up the series, each with a degree of difficulty. The students were unable to come up with this strategy on their own. From then on, they began to form associations with gymnastics. Occasionally a comment would come up: is it like this in gymnastics? We created all the rules together, with me managing the drawing composition requirements - defining the general rules, and them defining what to draw and the values ​​- flower with such value, tree with such value, flower connection in the tree, having ten elements in the drawing etc. So I got into the execution point part. I explained the grade that adds (difficulty grade) and the grade that deducts (execution grade) and I explained that in the drawing competition, we would be very subjective, giving examples of types of lines that could be discounted. I added that they needed to be fair between the designers, the same criteria for both^{3 ]} (FD3).

However, statements in the FGs also demonstrate that students began to relate the rules for the drawing competition with those of the AG during this process:

Yuri Guimarães: That drawing thing, at first, I thought you were tripping. [...]. Then you started doing it, creating it, making that table, giving value to things, then it started to fit together, and you could already see that it was gymnastics you were talking about. Because if you went straight into the movements, ugh, I wouldn't understand anything (FG).

In the same way, we observed the students' recognition of being protagonists in their teaching-learning process, which also contributed to the understanding of the rules:

Daniele Hypólito: [...] we participated in the process of choosing what we were going to do in the drawing and then in the gymnastics. It was easier to understand. [...] it was much more concrete (FG).

The following images illustrate the rules created collectively during the meeting to hold the drawing competition⁴:

Source: Image from FD3.

Figure 1 - Rules for the drawing competition 

Source: Image from FD3.

Figure 2 - Rules for the drawing competition 

Source: Image from FD3.

Figure 3 - Rules for the drawing competition 

After completing the rules of the game, the students were divided into competitors, coaches, referees (difficulty, execution, timekeeper and chief referee) and fans. After writing down the rules, the class ended with the proposal to study them in order to hold the drawing competition in the next meeting.

The competition began with the first competitor drawing while the opponent waited outside the classroom, so that they would not feel influenced to change their strategy based on what they were seeing. Entries in the FD show that, even with an analogy, the aesthetic evaluation to determine a winner was not easy:

Research professor: The most interesting part was evaluating the drawing, the referees didn't even know how to start, and I helped with the first drawing - I started by putting the values ​​of each element drawn and counting the quantity to see if the first requirement was met. We all judged the difficulty score together, the judges and all the other students helped, but we didn't add up the scores, so there would be [sic] some suspense. For the execution score, I indicated what I would discount, but I asked the judges to do the analysis alone. We didn't disclose the score of the first artist at that time. In the second drawing, I also helped evaluate the difficulty score, but I had to interfere less because the whole class had already understood the process and were practically talking along with me (FD4).

After the two competitors’ performances, the scores were given to the chief referee, who calculated the final score, which was only announced after the second competitor’s evaluation. The students pointed out the “[...] need to create strategies, choose the best elements to score more, and manage time to be able to draw everything and what they could have done differently to get higher scores” (FD4).

At the end of the game, the official AG CP was presented, associating the rules created for the drawing competition with those specific to the modality. Even recognizing the amount and complexity of information in the FIG document, the students were able to establish connections with what they had just experienced, as illustrated by the statements below:

Diogo Soares: [...] When we see the presentation, no, wait a minute! As if it were the drawing. So you didn't meet those requirements, so you will lose points. So if you comply with the connection, you will have an additional point. I think it was a more didactic way of understanding what the final evaluation is like (FG).

Rebeca Andrade: [...] the drawing competition, right, which made things easier. You first compete by drawing, understanding that it is something, how do you say? Aesthetic, right? That explanation of seeing the flaws in the lines and each drawing has a value. I think it was very didactic (FG).

To facilitate the association, we made some changes to the rules of the drawing competition. We included gymnastic elements that the students were able to perform in the difficulty table, in addition to some types of execution errors, such as, for example, a bent knee in the movement in an arabesque balance. These adaptations also contributed to a better understanding, bringing the requirements closer to the students' skill level:

Daiane dos Santos: [...] And also to analyze what each one could do and what they couldn't. Because even in the drawing there were things that you didn't know how to do and you could choose another one (FG).

Arthur Nory: [...] in the drawing it helps to understand exactly what the criteria are, even more than in the practice of gymnastics itself. There, you can simulate and then put it into practice during gymnastics [...] (FG).

At this point, we also presented some symbols that represent the gymnastic movements in the official CP, making it clear that we could create a symbology adapted to the group's skill level (FD4). The monitors had participated in the same dynamic when they took the course in the previous semester; thus, they also emphasized the relevance of this pedagogical strategy for understanding the AG rules, as illustrated by the following statements:

Jade Barbosa: [...] I think it is essential because it already starts with a competition. [...] It already anticipates how this business of putting together the series will be, you know? (FG).

Flávia Saraiva: It already gives an outline, right, of what we are going to do, it provides a basis. Like, you have to look at the score, how many drawings you need to beat the other, both in terms of connection, like we put the car with the apple [...] (FG).

Mosiah Rodrigues: It's more illustrative of what you'll have to do in gymnastics, you can already see that you have to have a strategy, what you know how to draw to make it worthwhile, to not lose points. The same thing in gymnastics, if it's worth doing something that you don't know how to do it properly [...] (FG).

Co-creation of the adapted code of points

The research professor encouraged the students to reflect on the complexity involved in practicing official AG and how it would be possible to provide access to it in different contexts and for people with lower skill levels. Based on the study and knowledge of the official regulations governing the modality, carried out in line with the dynamics of the design, the students identified elements that needed to be changed so that the new rules created in the adapted CP would meet everyone's needs, respecting individual skills, as illustrated by the FD entries:

Research professor: Next, I designed the women's floor gymnastics CP and asked about similarities with what we had done in the drawing. They identified the requirements, the value chart, the connections etc. They also said that everything was more confusing in the floor gymnastics, especially in relation to the movements, many of which they had never seen before and many types of discounts, since the CP shows angles that they thought were impossible to identify in movement. The students returned to the question posed when they watched the competition videos, asking why only the women's floor gymnastics has music and dance, which led to other points, such as the difference between the apparatus, the number of events for each category (more for the men), the artistic aspect being more evident in the women's etc. I couldn't answer the reason for these differences, I said that it was necessary to study the history of the sport in more depth. After some discussion, we came to the conclusion that it possibly had to do with the sexist society, the fact that the [sic] women's floor gymnastics competition in the Olympic Games started much later, and all the other differences that also occur in other sports. They also asked about the symbolism and I explained that we could even create our own symbols for movements that do not appear in the official CP. I informed them that we would make an adapted CP according to our abilities and that we would define everything together. At that moment, the students demanded that they wear the same clothes, stating that they would not wear swimsuits. Everyone laughed and agreed, saying that all the rules should be the same for everyone: no differences between the tests, music and dance for everyone, and so on (FD4).

Such gender equality and the involvement of male students were points highlighted in the testimonies after the entire experience, as illustrated in the following statement:

Rebeca Andrade: [...] I think it's interesting to look at it from the outside, because they say that gymnastics is for women, right? And you see the boys very involved, participating. They excelled, because there were only three women competing, that's it. From the outside looking in, it was really good. [...] Neither did I. No one said: I'm not going to do that because it's a girl's movement, you know? They didn't put any limitations on their movements (FG).

After the explanation of the official CP was finished, the next meetings were dedicated to experimenting with gymnastic movements on the AG equipment to define the CP rules adapted to the students' reality (information from the teaching plan). During five meetings (FD4; 5; 6; 7; 8), with the help of the research professor and the monitors, the students listed the movements they knew how to perform, or that they believed were feasible to learn, and tried them out on the respective equipment, while determining their values. The research professor presented the symbology of some movements, and, as changes were made, new symbols were created or adapted.

Although the possibility of creating elements that are not specific to AG was opened up, the students defined the vault, balance beam and floor exercises to compose the competition, eliminating other apparatuses that they considered very different from what they had already experienced throughout their lives, according to the FD entries:

Research professor: In the first moment of experimentation, the students found it very difficult on the parallel bars. I said that they could create movements that did not even exist, but they found it too complicated due to the short time until the competitions, which made us discard this event immediately (FD6).

Once the events were determined, we continued experimenting and establishing the rules: difficulty table, connections between the movements to compose the list of bonuses according to the complexity of the execution, composition requirements for each event, and execution discounts (criteria for small, medium, large, and very large errors in each gymnastic movement selected to compose the CP).

The entire process of creating the adapted CP was centered on the students, who participated in all decisions in a collective and democratic manner, as illustrated by the following statements:

Sérgio Sasaki: Yes, it helped us by putting us at the center of the entire process. We were the main people in the entire process (FG).

Daniele Hypólito: [...] So that we would know what we were going to do, we created, experimented, and then studied [...] (FG).

Arthur Zanetti: [...] it was more learned than memorized, because we did things, you know? [...] I learned, I didn't memorize. I know how to do the movements and even the scoring code; I know what this difficulty and execution thing is [...] (FG).

It is important to emphasize that there were conflicts during the decision-making process regarding the movements that would make up the table of difficulties and connections. Divided into teams, each group was responsible for experimenting and defining the movements of a test, which would be validated or modified by the next group that tried the apparatus. During this exchange, when they came across ready-made definitions, some disagreements emerged:

Research professor: As soon as they came into contact with the written definitions from the previous group, there was a moment of tension. Both groups complained about the definitions that had already been made, they didn't feel included, they said that the definitions hadn't taken everyone's abilities into consideration, that not everyone would be able to do what was written etc. There were a lot of complaints! It was really funny to hear the complaints, because I was on the outside just supporting the monitor who had questions about what was written in the table and how to do a certain movement, if it could be changed to a certain thing etc. Both groups felt wronged; it wasn't just one group complaining. It seems that the fact that they hadn't created the rules for that test made them feel like they weren't included. I asked them to try out the movements that had been selected by the previous group and to suggest changing the value if they thought it was necessary, then we would discuss everything at the end of the meeting. By allowing themselves to try out what another group had created/determined, the tensions diminished, and a few adjustments were made without many problems. I think the tension was just initial when they came across something ready, different from what they had been experiencing since the beginning of the curricular unit with everything defined collectively. In other words, the acceptance of the rules is greater when I participate in the creation process. That's incredible! (FD6).

The students agreed that the movement would be included in the difficulty table if “at least two people could do it without falling” (FD6), which fostered a sense of respect for different abilities, as illustrated in the following statement:

Diego Hypólito: And adapted for the people who are going to participate, right? In this case, like you did with us, you let us set the rules according to our abilities. That makes it more inclusive (FG).

In addition to the movements, all the other components of the CP were created collectively during the Season:

Research professor: [...] we sat in front of the board to define the jumps and their respective values. We decided that we would have the jump without and with the table, since two students were still unable to do jumps on the table, so that everyone would have the chance to participate in this test. To define the execution discounts, it was necessary for some students to demonstrate, again, how they were executing the jumps and, based on the aesthetics, how much they could extend their knees, elbows, toes etc., we determined the discount parameters (FD5).

Research professor: [...] we defined the requirements for the composition of the floor and beam: number of elements in the series, how many from each group and value, artistic elements etc. The students negotiated a lot, demanding points that would allow the less skilled ones to be able to create a series with all the requirements. We also talked about execution discounts, and, at the same time as they demonstrated how much they could raise their legs during the arabesque move, extend their knees in the star, remain still in the handstand etc., we were determining what would be considered a small, medium, or large error (FD7).

Research professor: I started the meeting by presenting the printed CP, which was also shared with the group via WhatsApp. I printed and handed out the CP with the descriptions of each test to the coaches of each team, explaining some points and that they could make adjustments according to what was happening in the training: we could change values, remove or add movements, modify the determined connections etc., all with the consent of the group (FD8).

The following images illustrate fragments of the specific rules of the floor test, described in the document prepared by the collective, to exemplify the CP created during the pedagogical action:

Source: Pedagogical documentation.

Chart 2 - Specific rules for the floor test 

Source: Pedagogical documentation.

Chart 3 - Fragment of the element difficulty table 

Source: Pedagogical documentation.

Chart 4 - Fragment of the bonus table for connections 

Source: Pedagogical documentation.

Chart 5 - Discounts for execution failure 

The following statements show that providing the opportunity to experience an AG competition designed by the subjects themselves made it possible to transform a reality. A modality that was previously inaccessible became knowable in its different aspects, both for the students and for the monitors:

Caio Souza: We created it; each one was able to create their own using the rules that we also created. You know that there is a rulebook, the one that counts; if you don't have the ability, you won't take the most difficult one, you will improve during the training period to arrive on the day and present in the best possible way (FG).

Daniele Hypólito: Participating in the process itself, a process that you can do. It's as if you were actually there in a real competition [...] (FG).

Arthur Nory: [...] I only had contact with it at university. So, I think that something, some competition, some presentation [...] I think that these things help the person in practice to have an idea of ​​what it's like when it's done the correct way (FG).

Mosiah Rodrigues: [...] there were a lot of movements that I didn't even know about. I was like: "What's this gallop, this scissors, these things?" [...] I said: "Wow! Cool! I'll take it to another practice". So, I took many of the movements that were there to teach in the monitoring [...] (FG).