Introduction

The initial teacher education in higher education, with the creation of bachelor’s courses in the 1930s, it is a field of study in Brazil from the perspective of basic teacher education. Research in the field of education indicates a concern with this training by examining bachelor’s courses as responsible for teacher education in basic education (^{GATTI, 2010}).

In this perspective, we present indicator elements in the insertion of Didactics in the Pedagogy course, from the history of this bachelor’s course. In electing the Didactics exam, we understand this discipline as fundamental because its study object is the teaching and learning process and, consequently, teaching (^{CRUZ, 2017}), the central axis of initial teacher education courses. (^{MARCELO, 1999}; ^{ROMANOWSKI, 2016}).

In the context of the history of the Pedagogy course and the teaching of Didactics, we aim to present the relationships between the policies for initial teacher education and the perspectives of Didactics teaching over the years and implications of the teaching program expressed in the subject's syllabus, that is, the relationship between politics, theory and practice in teaching Didactics.

In order to better understand these relationships, the qualitative research developed, according to Lüdke and André (1986, p. 13) “[...] involves obtaining descriptive data, obtained from the researcher's direct contact with the situation studied, emphasizes more on the process than the product.” The study is documentary, based on the Teacher Education Guidelines (BRAZIL, 2002, 2006 and 2015), the educational policies (^{GATTI, 2009}) and the teaching plans of the Didactics subject from a bachelor’s course in Pedagogy in a public university in the state of Paraná and also in field references. The data examination is based on the syllabus analysis regarding the knowledge items understood as teaching contents.

The study was carried out consulting the Didactics subject syllabuses, based on the teaching plans available in the education sector of the Federal University of Paraná. Teaching plans have been located since the 1970s. We use Content Analysis (^{BARDIN, 2011}) as a research methodology for the systematization and analysis of the collected data. One of the content analysis techniques that we will use is the word association test, which ^{Bardin (2011}) reports to be the oldest of the projective tests, understanding that this test is used in Content Analysis to spontaneously arise associations related to the words explored at the level of the stereotypes they create. The different phases of Content Analysis are organized around three poles, according to Bardin (2011, p. 125) “[...] pre-analysis; exploration of the material; and, finally, the treatment of results: inference and interpretation”.

From this continuous movement of analysis and synthesis, constantly comparing the meaning units and relating the collected data, the categories were established, based on the content analysis of ^{Bardin (2011}), considering the problem of this investigation.

The article is organized as follows: the first section presents the elements of the history of teacher education in Brazil and the relationship with the teaching of Didactics in this context. In the second section, we analyze the trajectory of the constitution of the Didactics subject in a Bachelor’s course of a public University in Paraná. Finally, the objectives are retaken in the considerations.

The bachelor’s courses and teaching Didactics facing teacher education policies

Higher education teacher education courses in Brazil began to be designed from the 1930s onwards, through the New School Pioneers movement which stated that, until that time, higher education was only at the service of the so-called liberal professions, which catered to engineering, medicine and law (MACHADO; TERUYA, 2007). In this elitist perspective, there was no room for teacher education, as they had only the secondary education of general culture, as foreseen by Francisco Campos Reform and the idea of the Pioneers that announced the need for university education for teachers (^{AZEVEDO, 1932}).

Thus, in the 1930s, there was the organization of the first university, the College of Philosophy, Sciences and Arts of the University of São Paulo. This College conceived a teacher education to teach in the secondary courses and with characteristics of a modern university: teaching, research and extension, becoming, according to ^{Saviani (2009}), reference for the other institutions of higher education. In the legal political context, in 1939, Decree-Law No. 1,190 of April 4, 1939 was extended throughout the country and composed the training model instituted as a “3 + 1 scheme”, adopted in the organization of bachelor’s courses and Pedagogy. The Decree-Law had as its main objective the training for secondary courses, being divided in 3 years for the specific training and another year for the pedagogical/ didactic education, establishing a generic training, impregnated of general culture transmission (^{VEIGA, 1994}).

Didactics is thus understood as a set of rules and norms, which “[...] aims at the technical orientation of teaching and studying [...]” (^{VEIGA, 1994}, p. 41), determining the order, the rhythm, searching to disseminate a bourgeois vision of the world. As a result, it was detached from the social context and political education of students, based on pragmatism (^{MARTINS; DUARTE, 2010}), especially Evolutionary Psychology and Learning, pointing learning to learn and learning to do as central pillars in the teaching-learning process, in a process of valuing psychological knowledge on the social.

In the 1960s, the year in which struggles to expand access to public education were developed, resulting in the first National Educational Bases and Guidelines Law (Law No. 4,024 of December 20, 1961 (BRASIL, 1961), determining that teacher education for primary education would be carried out in high school normal schools with at least three yearly grades, with pedagogical training being provided. Teacher education for specific secondary and high school subjects would be provided in Colleges of Philosophy, Sciences and Arts. Under Opinion 262/62 (BRAZIL, 1962), the minimum curricula were regulated for bachelor degree courses and pedagogical processes, which maintained the formula 3 + 1.

In mid-1964, the military regime repositioned education, society, and public policies, expanding the industrialization process, service renewal, and private capital. The combination of these factors was called the economic miracle and, consequently, it contributed to the expansion of schools and higher education. Coupled to the factors of population demand, to the new requirements of the economic model requirements were legitimized with the military regime. According to ^{Sauthier and Junges (2016}), the government entered into agreements with the United States providing financial resources and technical assistance for the presumed educational reform (MEC/USAID ).

During this period, Didactics was structured into a normative discipline, based on scientific neutrality, developing through techniques and guidelines, with planning and control at the center as a guarantee of productivity. The contents of the Didactics courses “[...] focused on the rational organization of the teaching process, that is, on the formal didactic planning and the elaboration of instructional materials” (^{VEIGA, 2004}, p. 24). From this perspective, ^{Rosa (1989}, p. 32) points out that “the Didactics courses are basically courses on teaching planning, whose approach corresponds to the operationalization of the system itself”.

In this developmental context, Law No. 5,692/71 (BRAZIL, 1971) was enacted, which defined the reform of the Brazilian basic education, transforming the normal schools into qualification of the Teacher Education courses. This model was sustained under a technicist logic, in the education of a technically competent teacher (^{MARTINS, 2009}), that is, a good task performer, who promoted an effective and efficient teaching. According to ^{Gatti (2009}), teacher education was permeated by a dispersed, neutral curriculum, with concerns about the modernization of practice through methods and techniques, with an empty training, sustained on the productive force of serving capital. ^{Pereira (1999}) highlights the appreciation of the mastery of the specific knowledge area of what will be taught highlighted in the proposals of teacher education courses.

In 1972, the First National Meeting of Didactics Teachers was held, a movement contradictory to liberal and authoritarian policies, resulting in the formulation of a document entitled “Redefinition of Didactics” (^{MARTINS, 1998}), which emphasizes the need to understand new social relations and ruptures with the relationships established in the military regime. The document is a germ of resistance.

Towards the end of this decade, discussions on the importance of the political dimension for teaching became accentuated, hitherto silenced by the instrumental perspective founded on technical neutrality (^{CANDAU, 1984}). It was in the 1980s that the New Republic was established, starting a movement of ascension of the civil government and the workers' struggle, strengthening the concerns and dissatisfactions of educators who understand education as a social practice, linked to a historical project (^{GATTI, 2009}). Thus, in the 1980s attempts to break with the technicist thought began, seeking advances towards an emancipatory education (^{FREITAS, 2002}). The expanding society brought new needs, which went beyond technical training, allowing the rethinking of a new professional.

At this juncture, in 1982 the second meeting “Didactics in Question” was held, so that the concern revolved around a teacher politically committed to social transformation (^{MARTINS, 2012}), seeking to understand the relationship between school practice and the broader social structure, through the relationship between a ‘thought’ Didactics and a ‘lived’ Didactics (MARTINS, 1998). The context marked a period of critical review and reconstruction of Didactics, a special moment of intellectual production and break with paradigms strongly established in the political and educational scenario of that regime.

That same year, Law No. 7,044 of October 18, 1982 (BRASIL, 1982) was approved, amending Article 30 of Law No. 5,692/71 (BRAZIL, 1971), altering the proposals for training in Teaching Qualification, restricting the performance from 1st to 4th grade. It also alters the performance of short bachelor’s courses by training teachers to work from 5th to 8th grade, but also from 1st to 4th grade, and the full bachelor’s degree to act in the entire elementary education, according to ^{Gatti (2009}), the short bachelor’s degree has been retained, even if amended.

The enactment of the Federal Constitution in 1988 contributed to the 1990s to represent a relevant milestone in Brazilian education, especially the configuration of teacher education, with the profusion of opinions, guidelines, parameters and resolutions published by the Ministry of Education. At that juncture, new directions for Brazilian education were defined, but sustained by capitalism, whose educational project is based on a market economy and access to private institutions, especially at a higher level. The enactment of LDBEN (BRAZIL, 1996), even with advances, continues contributing to the privatization of education. Contradictorily, this expansion may have favored the increase of teachers’ titles in basic education, since, in 1966, higher education in early childhood education was about 17%, - 18.5% in the early years of elementary school, 68 % in final years and 74.3% in high school. Data from 2018 indicate that teachers' higher education attainment is 68.4% in early childhood education, 77.3% in elementary school early years, 84.3% in elementary school final years and 88.6% in high school (INEP, 2018).

The enactment of LDBEN (BRAZIL, 1996), stimulated the debate about teacher education, defining the need for the establishment of guidelines and other legislation specific to this education. This moment was permeated by the intensification of a critical Didactics, at the same time as there was an expansion of neoliberal policies in education, influencing contradictions in the organization of the teaching-learning process and in teacher education.

Due to the control principles of neoliberalism, external evaluations result in the devaluation of pedagogical training and the need for a practical and light training, which impacts the proposals of critical propositions of the epistemological field in teacher education. This logic contributes to the substitution of general Didactics by specific Didactics (^{MARTINS; ROMANOWSKI, 2010}) and teaching practices, valuing the subject's technical knowledge, thus complying with the training model advocated by neoliberal policies, supported by the four pillars for basic education (^{VEIGA, 2004}).

In this perspective, there is in the initial teacher education, a collision in the teaching of Didactics taken ambiguously, both in defense of a fundamental Didactics as in an Instrumental Didactics (^{CRUZ; ANDRÉ, 2012}), in which the valorization of the pedagogical act is considered relevant, from a perspective of education as a social practice, based on the teaching of a Didactics that values the political act under the pedagogical act, but also a Didactics based on the legal norms that values the pedagogical practice.

In the midst of this debate, the National Curriculum Guidelines for Teacher Education are published in 2002 through the National Education Council (CNE), which establishes the National Curriculum Guidelines for Teacher Training in CNE/CP n. 1/2002 (BRAZIL, 2002) which sought to establish a dialogue with LDBEN (BRAZIL, 1996). In this sense, contemplating the educational policies already materialized, the conception of teacher education falls on teaching by competences, defining that it should consider the “[...] set of competences necessary for professional performance” (BRASIL, 2002, p. 2).

From the moment the National Curriculum Guidelines for Teacher Training (CNE/CP No.1/2002) were promulgated, discussions began on the Curriculum Guidelines for bachelor’s courses which, despite being adjusted, continued to announce the prevalence of training by knowledge area, with little room for pedagogical training (^{GATTI, 2009}). The 21st century has entered, repeating the training consolidated in the previous century, which values the specific education and integrates little with the teaching or the pedagogical area. However, valuing the operational model, with emphasis on results, from the perspective of a light training from the theoretical point of view, gives way to practical education (^{SCHEIBE; BAZZO, 2013}).

Given opinions, norms and guidelines, we can say that there is a discontinuity in educational policies related to teacher education, establishing a back and forth resolutions that define, institute and postpone educational policies, a consequence of many factors, among them it is highlighted “[...] the absence of a State policy that assumes its responsibility for the initial education of teachers with the quality required by the contemporary world” (^{SCHEIBE; BAZZO, 2013}, p. 23).

The teacher education of the 2000s, proposes changes to the initial education, and it causes contradictory movements in its development and materialization. On the one hand, education based on knowing how to make and valuing specific knowledge, that is, on the contents to be taught, meeting the demands of a disintegrated and fragile education. And, on the other hand, a movement that values teaching as a social practice, starting from progressive conceptions that enjoy university autonomy for a curricular flexibility, conceiving teaching as a political and pedagogical act (^{MARTINS, 1998}).

The National Curriculum Guidelines for the Pedagogy Course CNE/CP No. 01/2006 (BRAZIL, 2006) were only published in 2006, a guideline that points to a new identity, granting teaching as the basis for the course formation. The guidelines justify the conception of teaching as a central axis in teacher education, understanding it as “[...] educational action and methodical and intentional process [...] developing in the articulation between scientific and cultural knowledge, ethical and aesthetics values and knowledge construction, between different worldviews” (BRASIL, 2006, p. 1). In the document, teaching is especially intended for teacher education for the early years of elementary school and for early childhood education.

The enactment of DCN 01/2006 (BRAZIL, 2006) seems to indicate in its core, a relevance to the field of Didactics, general and specific, once we understand that this field of knowledge has teaching and education as the main focus for teacher education. However, regarding this model of organization, the guidelines indicate three study cores: basic studies, involvement and diversification of studies and integrative studies for curriculum enrichment (BRASIL, 2006). ^{Saviani (2008}, p. 29) points out that the guidelines mention the study “[...] of Didactics, pedagogical theories and methodologies, processes of the organization of teaching work [...]”; then, it refers to the “[...] decoding and use of codes of different languages used by children, besides the didactic work with contents, relevant to the first years of schooling”.

Continuing the materialization of policies aimed at teacher education, in the movement of advances, setbacks and ruptures, in 2015, there was the approval of the Initial and Continuing Education Guidelines for Teachers of Basic Education (BRASIL, 2015), this time including the Pedagogy course. These guidelines emphasize the need for teacher education in bachelor’s courses and reaffirm the necessary rapprochement between the university and the elementary schools. The statements expressed in this Resolution highlight nuances that initial education is not limited to specific knowledge and teaching techniques, which indicates a break with previous guidelines directed at competences as the basis of the formative process with little emphasis on the field of Didactics in initial education of teachers. Discussing the guidelines 02/2015 (BRAZIL, 2015) is still a challenge in the current political moment, in which there are signs of policies for the dismantling of higher education. In addition, these guidelines have their implementation delayed by the extension of materialization time and there are even announcements that in December 2018 a Common National Basis proposal for the Teacher Education of Basic Education was sent to the National Council of Education and a new proposal is under way, generating a climate of uncertainties in the continuity of deeper discussions of the teacher process, in which it is inserted advances and setbacks, in meeting society’s needs.

However, Resolution 02/2015 highlights the need for teacher education in bachelor’s courses, reaffirming the necessary rapprochement between the university and the basic education schools. The statements highlight nuances that initial education is not limited to specific knowledge and teaching techniques, which indicates a break with previous guidelines that indicated competence as the basis of the formative process and devalued the field of Didactics in initial teacher education.

Discussing the Guidelines 02/2015 (BRAZIL, 2015) is still a challenge in the current political moment, in a period of transition of governments, dismantling of higher education and the expansion of the time of materialization of the legislation itself. In this movement, it is clear that education and, especially, teacher education are always inserted in a process of contradiction, advances and setbacks, regarding the fulfillment of socio-historical needs. It is essential to reaffirm the need for pedagogical training of teachers in undergraduate courses with the necessary approximation between the university and the schools of basic education.

In order to approach this clash and identify the specificity of Didactics in the Pedagogy bachelor’s course throughout the history of teacher education, we chose, after this contextualization based on references, to examine how the General Didactics discipline materialized at the first university in Paraná to offer this course. The subject of General Didactics becomes fundamental because it expresses the conception of learning within teacher education, influenced by the way society, politics, economy and the school itself are organized. However, it is historically situated and it is expressing in practice the relations and tensions throughout the constitution of educational policies.

Bachelor Course in Pedagogy at the Federal University of Parana

The University of Paraná was established in 1912, but it was only federalized and named as the Federal University of Paraná in 1950. In 1938, the Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Arts was created, which in 1939 started to have the Department of Pedagogy (Pedagogy and Didactics), and the course was recognized by the Federal Government in 1940, graduating under-graduates and Bachelors, but only in 1946 it is integrated to the University of Paraná. In early 1961, the Department of Pedagogy began to offer courses in Pedagogy, Didactics and Educational Guidance. In 1975, the curriculum that approved the qualifications of School Supervision, Educational Guidance, School Administration, plus the training for the teaching of the teaching subjects of the high school (^{GONÇALVES; VIEIRA, 2016}) was approved. Subsequently, in 1994, a proposal for the reformulation of the curriculum of the UFPR Pedagogy Course, approved in 1996, with a focus on teacher education was submitted. A new reformulation of the curriculum of the face-to-face pedagogy course was approved in 2007, and in 2009 the distance pedagogy course was created. In early 1961, the Department of Pedagogy began to offer courses in Pedagogy, Didactics and Educational Guidance. In 1975, the curriculum that approved the qualifications of School Supervision, Educational Guidance, School Administration, plus the training for the teaching of the high school teaching subjects (GONÇALVES; VIEIRA, 2016) was approved. Subsequently, in 1994, a proposal for the reformulation of the curriculum of the UFPR Pedagogy Course, approved in 1996, with a focus on teacher education was submitted. A new reformulation of the curriculum of the face-to-face Pedagogy course was approved in 2007 and, in 2009 the distance Pedagogy course was created.

The guidelines approved in 2006, echo the discussion about the unitary pedagogue, which indicate the completion of the offer of qualifications in the Pedagogy course and expands the training time from four to five years (^{GONÇALVES; VIEIRA 2016}). From this perspective, the course covers 2,800 hours of compulsory subjects, 300 hours of optional and 100 hours of training activities. According to ^{Gonçalves and Vieira (2016}, p.16) “[...] these changes resulted from the attempt to contemplate the various functions corresponding to the conception of the unitary pedagogue, present in the multiple - albeit unique - qualification”.

The table below presents the contents of the UFPR Didactics subject systematized by year from 1972 to 2018.

After the analysis of the teaching plans, from their disassembly and fragmentation and, after, the process of unitarization, we sought to identify the units of meaning, defining the categories, formed from the analysis of the syllabuses and contents indicated in teaching plans. From the analysis, the following categories of Didactics approach stand out: (i) Didactics with approach in psychology, (ii) Didactics with approach in technicism, (iii) Didactics with sociopolitical approach, (iiii) Didactics with approach in teaching and teacher professionalization.

(i) Didactics with emphasis in psychology

By verifying the expression of the contents throughout the Pedagogy course, we identified that, in the early 1970s, the teaching proposal of Didactics adopted a Psychological Emphasis approach, valuing learning based on Piagetian theories. They are listed as contents: intelligence and biological adaptation. The psychology of thought and the psychological nature of logical operations; intelligence and perception; habit and sense-motor intelligence; the elaboration of thought - intuition and operations; social factors of intellectual development; didactics based on Piaget's psychological theory.

In this sense, the study by ^{Tezza (2018}, p. 32-33) points out that, in this journal at FFCUnesp/Marília, Didactics follows with “[...] reasoning in psychological theories for the study of learning [...]” as well, “[...] concern with working on individualized teaching and the creation of methods in order to obtain a more active participation from students”. ^{Reis (2017}), when examining Education magazines from 1945 to 1961, finds articles based on John Dewey and Maria Montessori that focused on Didactics. In Didactics developed in Pedagogy courses at UFPR from 1969 to 1972, teaching was developed in laboratories, considering General Didactics and Specific Didactics, called Portuguese Language Teaching Methodology, Mathematics Teaching Methodology, Biology Teaching Methodology and Arts Teaching Methodology .

The laboratories consisted of ambient rooms according to the methodology for which they were intended. For example, for Mathematics Teaching Methodology the logical blocks games, golden material, shapes, volume, weight, finally, materials for decimal numbering system, work with the set, geometric figures, measurements. The Didactics lab had furniture built from a Montessorian perspective into an oval for conversation and discussion circles. The studies carried out involved learning foundations through texts, conducting investigative activities, and conducting learning-centered activities. The classes were not expository, having the participation of students. The learning record was made in the form of diaries called dossiers, containing texts, reflections, notes and observations.

The studies based on Piaget, Montessori, Gagné, Dienes, formed the examined texts, in which the students elaborated their study and commentary scripts, therefore, of a psychologically based on the Escolanovista (based on John Dewey’s ´New School´ theories) approach. As ^{Veiga (1994}) warns, the teaching of Didactics in this period respected individualities and the teacher became the facilitator of learning, in a practical-technical character, in which theory and practice were juxtaposed, valuing the instrumental dimension.

(ii) Didactics with emphasis on technicism

As noted earlier during the 1970s, Didactics teaching began to take on a technicist didactics that began with a rationalist perspective. The teaching of Didactics in the Pedagogy course at UFPR indicates as contents in the 1975 program: Modern teaching Philosophy and Technology, modern curricular notion, behavioral objectives as learning outcomes, modern teaching projection. In this approach, according to ^{Martins (2012}, p. 92) “[...] learning situations and productive teaching stages [...]”, students were required to “[...] give specific answers defined in the operational objectives. [...]”, by a technically competent teacher.

The class as a provider of learning activities and situations and productive teaching stages was part of the contents of the 1978 program. By indicating modern teaching technology and behavioral goals, it expresses a technicist approach. The inclusion of the relationship with the curriculum may be related to the newly created Graduate Program in Education, whose area of concentration was curriculum, as many Didactics teachers of this period had their master’s qualification in this program.

The Didactics discipline in the 1981 pedagogical course reformulation proposal was called Introduction to Pedagogical and Didactic Methods and it integrated the Common Core disciplines (^{PEDRA, 1982}). The program’s content kept the following disciplines: The Impact of Technology in Education; Innovative Teaching Techniques; The Evaluation of Teaching According to the Objectives; Perspective for Innovation and Inclusion. However, this year there were two other strands that were indicated: the preparation of the educator, the new tasks of the teacher and the social context and the educational reality. Thus, a transition phase begins between the technicist approach to the educator-centered education approach as expressed in the course proposal (PEDRA, 1982).

In 1982, the syllabus was changed, restricting some items from the previous year such as - educational strategy and teacher motivation; the principles of Didactic action in language development, and it reduced the emphasis on the technicist approach, broadening to an approach centered on educator training including subjects such as: new teacher tasks and the individual care process.

(iii) Didactics with socio-political approach

The 1980s were marked by the political reopening in the country with complaints of an education based on transmission and assimilation and the question is: education for what? In whose favor? It is in this scenario that teacher education begins to perform a critical review, based on the understanding that education is a social practice. Regarding these discussions, the Pedagogy course starts to conceive the teaching of Didactics with a sociopolitical emphasis.

The sociopolitical emphasis on the teaching of Didactics materialized at the same time as the second meeting of the “Didactics in question” (^{MARTINS, 1998}) happened. There was an expansion of the specificities of teacher education for basic education and a movement of complaints against teaching based on detached practices of social relationships established within society. ^{Candau (1984}, p. 19) points out that at this moment we began to awaken to the “[...] importance of the political dimension hitherto silenced by the instrumental perspective, founded on the technique neutrality”. The contents expressed in the teaching plan of the Didactics discipline “[...] the social context and the educational reality, reality diagnosis: underprivileged, creativity and critical awareness in the educational process [...]” (UFPR, 1982) reported the changes indicated in the discussions of the Didactics meeting, in a movement that emerged within the formation of the bachelor’s course in Pedagogy to answer these questions, in a perspective that considers the human, technical and social policy dimensions, allied to the concrete pedagogical practice (MARTINS, 1998). Throughout the 1980s, the Didactics discipline underwent a moment of reconstruction, based on the theory/practice relationship, the production of knowledge and the commitment to social transformation.

In this scenario and as a consequence of this movement to restructure Didactics, the curriculum is highlighted in this relationship. Didactics maintained its sociopolitical emphasis and, along with it, inferred the study of curriculum. In Paraná, the 1980-1990 decade represented a milestone, since the state was building its curriculum for basic education and, for this, defined it as a conception of education, the historical-critical pedagogy, which comprises education as mediation within the global social practice (^{SAVIANI, 2008}), that is, based on the conception of world and man from historical materialism.

The 1985 Didactics proposal in the Pedagogy course pointed to this socio-historical approach by indicating as content items: education and its relationships with the historical, social, philosophical, psychological and methodological dimensions and Didactics and its implication in the pedagogical act. Considering the movement of curricular reformulation during this period, it is verified the inclusion of items in this perspective in the proposal of that year of 1985: conception of school curriculum, the curriculum plan components and the didactic planning.

(iiii) Didactics with teaching and teacher professionalization approach

Faced with changes in the teaching of Didactics, the 1990s began to emphasize the professionalization of teachers, recognizing the relationship with the process of teacher education. From this perspective, the conception of teacher education highlights teacher professionalization, which is characterized by “[...] a permanent process of construction and is not restricted to acquisition, it is a conduct” (^{ROMANOWSKI, 2010}, p. 37). This perspective values the teaching pedagogical relationship and understands that its political function lies in the relationship between teachers, government policy determinations and the school community (ROMANOWSKI, 2010). These relationships are intertwined in the teaching knowledge, which is constituted throughout the process of schooling of training courses and professional practice.

Didactics, in this approach perspective in teacher professionalization, is expressed in the 1994 content listing: teacher professionalization; theoretical foundations of teaching; didactic action planning; teacher and the quality of teaching. The indication of these contents related to teacher education and professionalization are present from 1996 to 2018 in all programs. However, from the 1996 program it was proposed: pedagogical trends and teaching action; the teaching process at school; the didactic components and their development in the situations of teaching and learning: objectives, contents, methods, resources and evaluation. In addition to this there are: the pedagogical relationship teacher, student, knowledge and the different aspects of teaching and learning, that is, not only the elements of the teaching composition, but the subjects of teacher and students. Also, as common content in all programs from 2008 on: didactic knowledge and its relationships with other areas of knowledge.

Listings from 2008 to 2018 show contents that are not repeated in other years: the Didactic action and its insertion in culture; the subjects, the new subjectivities and the new objects of education at cultural intersections; conceptual maps and networks. In the 2008 program: didactics and communication: the classroom as a communicative space, information technologies and didactic resources. And in 1997 and 2018, some didactics theorists and in some programs the class as content item. Thus, teaching and teacher education and professionalization are items of content present in all programs in these three decades, therefore, a didactic approach to teaching and professionalization of the teacher. However, we emphasize that the work with the historical construction of the teaching process comprises classical authors and new authors that problematize the organization of the teacher's pedagogical work as Herbart, Dewey, Maria Montessori, Jean Piaget, Paulo Freire, Antonio Carlos Gomes da Costa, Fernando Francisco de Gois, Maria Candida de Moraes, Edgar Morin” (UFPR, 2018).

School is now valued as a locus of knowledge and knowledge construction and the university as a place of production of this knowledge that is not detached from the practices carried out within the schools, which express a certain education of man for life in society (^{VEIGA, 1994}). In this perspective, we understand the appreciation of Didactics teaching as a transformation of the pedagogical practice in school, through the conception of man, of the world, determined by different social relationships when seeking teacher education and professionalization.

The study points out the mediations between social and cultural determinations, from 1970 to 2018, of Didactics teaching and the society context in which it takes place. From 1960 to 1978 the marks of psychologism in technical rationality (^{ROSA 1989}; MARTINS 1989; ^{VEIGA 1994}; ^{CANDAU 1984}), transformed from 1982 to 1985 into proposals sensitive to the recognition of the educational needs of students in the context where they are located. From 1994 to 1997, the proposals recognized the relationship between Didactics and teacher education, defended the foundations of the discipline and recognized the integration of teaching technologies. In the years 2008 to 2018 this approach was maintained and it was added the dimension of learning.

Final considerations

We consider that the research developed made it possible to understand Didactics as an area of teacher education that has been undergoing changes throughout history due to the implications of educational policy, academic research, discussions in the disciplinary field of Didactics, Pedagogy and school organization, especially the teaching practice.

Didactics, when considering the process of teaching and learning, that is, the teacher, the students and the knowledge in the dynamics of the pedagogical practice, constitutes a fundamental knowledge for teaching that takes place in the school space and time, therefore, powerful knowledge for teacher education and professionalization.

In this study, which examined the Didactics programs of the UFPR pedagogy course from the 1970s to 2018, we identified the relationship between Didactics and the conjuncture of educational policies, society and the university. The Didactics teaching approaches of this course are in the context of the Didactics teaching trends. It was possible to verify that the teaching of the Didactics discipline at UFPR followed the current legislation and its alterations, but, above all, in a process that materialized the educational trends in its practice, present in the formative content marks that express forms of resistance around political determinations. Sometimes this resistance is expressed in only one piece of content, however, it is present.

A more in-depth study on the references of the programs, about the teachers who taught this discipline, may broaden and deepen the results of this research, allowing assertions around a proposal that keeps the universal and the local, therefore, a proper identity of the program of Didactics of this course at this institution.

In the study of the contents explained in this research, we identified that the Didactics discipline has always been present in the Pedagogy bachelor’s course and that it materializes the political character in Education, surpassing the instrumental and detached practices of society as a whole, especially since the 1980s. The education with emphasis on Sociopolitical Didactics has been present in the Didactics discipline from the 1980s to the present day. This discipline currently comprises the unity between learning and teaching, articulated the epistemological, psycho-pedagogical and sociocultural dimension.

Throughout this period from 1972 to 2018, the Didactics teaching programs in the Pedagogy course are permeated by a technicality, which seeks a new socio-historical approach committed to teacher education and professionalization by understanding the teaching-learning process. These changes, not always noticeable in the school practices in which the educators coming from this course work, give rise to permanent questions and reflections on the determinations at the core of the programs. It is possible to affirm that the programs express changes linked to research that analyzes the teaching of Didactics as proposed by ^{André (1985}) and ^{Cruz (2017}), but, at the same time, are mediated by the socio-political determinants expressed in ^{Rosa (1989}), ^{Martins (1998}), Freitas (2016). May the teaching of Didactics resist the new conservative and neoliberal waves that are announced in these new times.