Introduction

The life stories and autobiographical studies have been gaining visibility in academic productions in Brazil, cementing itself as a scientific investigation methodology in the Education area. According to ^{Bueno et al. (2006}), the (auto)biographic movement in the country in linked to researches in the educational area both in the History of Education scope, Didactics and Teacher Training, and in other areas that use (auto)biographical narratives as research and formation perspective.

According to ^{Silva (2014}, p. 17, our translation), “training is a progressive construction, which manifests and is inscribed in a life story, in a personal and professional trajectory, which can be expressed through (auto)biographical writing”. For this trajectory to be known, it must be reported by the subject himself, in the form of a memorial, where feelings, senses and meanings experienced have different dimensions.

In this investigation, it is about the context and space-time in the initial teacher education with focus on the teaching internship in the Youth and Adult Education (YAE) modality. The formation narratives are the result of group discussion and reflection (Biographical Workshops), which were registered and recorded in audio format and later transcribed. The reflections of the experiences collected in the internship field were gathered and organized in a final report in the format of a training memorial, along with the (auto)biographical narrative writing which summarizes the entire training process.

The goal is to analyze the meanings attributed by the Pedagogy course academics to the formative experiential aspects that they have been exposed in their life trajectories and in pedagogical practice - which can be meaningful to understand “becoming” a teacher - and identify in which ways the supervised internship, performed in the YAE modality, can contribute to the formation of teachers and to the personal and professional development of academics in the process of initial teacher education.

Thus, the aim of this article is to discuss how the Meaning Cores of the training memorials and the (auto)biographical writings of the academics participating in the research are constituted. This research is the result of doctoral studies, approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), with a position paper consubstantiated by the Ethics Committee², where the studies were performed, following all precepts, guidelines and regulations designated by this committee.

(Auto)biographical narratives on teacher training

To talk about the (auto)biographical movement in teacher training and in the life stories in formation, we initially turn to the works of ^{Nóvoa (1988}, 1995), who, in his summaries, considered that there is a multiplicity of perspectives and strategies generated from (auto)biographical approaches and life stories. It also expresses the “vigor of this science of the production of concrete man”, as defined by ^{Pineau (1988}, p. 63, our translation), by placing centrality in the figure of the teacher in training.

In this perspective, researchers in the area of teacher training have reinforced the importance of looking at the figure of the teacher in training. The concept of listening to the voice of academics in the process of initial training, seeking interfaces between the personal and professional dimensions of training, is aligned with ^{Goodson’s (1996}) conception. According to him, the act of listening allows us to recognize that life data are relevant as long as personal projects are articulated with others of a collective nature.

^{Josso (2004}, p. 60 apud^{LOSS, 2015}, p. 4, our translation) states that “training research as a self-knowledge project suggests the constitution of a self-oriented project of the self, which enables a subject who becomes an author by thinking about his existentiality enters the scene”. Or, as the author states, “Action Research and Training Research are inter-experiences of intersubjectivity, the search for an inter-human exchange on the facts of our humanity, on our generic and sociocultural subjectivities” (JOSSO, 2010, p. 121-122 apud LOSS, 2015, p. 4, our translation).

Research-training as an educational device proposes the orientation of subjects to the production of knowledge and training project. In this sense, “the researcher-trainer instigates the subject to build a training project that gives meaning to their act of learning, training and transforming themselves as a person” (^{LOSS, 2015}, p. 4, our translation). Thus,

[…] self-training in formal or non-formal educational spaces means living experiences of the individual and collective self, in order to project towards new possibilities of being, knowing and doing, cohabiting and living fully. It is through dialoguing and reflecting on what we are and what we do that it is possible to project what we want to be and do during our existence (^{LOSS, 2015}, p. 4, our translation).

Therefore, as ^{Pineau (1988}, p. 63, our translation) proposes,

[…] self-training as part of the educational process and the construction of self-ethics allows the sensitization, awareness and accountability, in order to emphasize the importance of learning by “walking for oneself and for the other”,

or, still, when we live experiences “with the other and with the world” (^{FREIRE, 1996}, p. 16, our translation), “we elaborate and recreate our inner world”; and in this way, “we build our personal biography, our identity” (^{LOSS, 2015}, p. 4, our translation).

^{Freitas and Souza Júnior (2004}, p. 7, our translation) points to “the contributions of the narrative instrument in the process of identity reconstruction, validation of knowledge produced by teachers and also in the construction of autonomy”. For the authors, “a memorial is not, or should not be written to speak properly of itself, but to understand what each one understood about the experiences, facts, events that contributed to the formation” reinforcing that “the word Memorial comes from the Latin Memoriale and means memento, memorable facts that need to be remembered” (^{FREITAS; SOUSA JÚNIOR, 2004}, p. 3, our translation).

In the universe of (auto)biographical narratives of teachers, ^{Souza (2007}, p. 66, our translation) states that “to narrate is to enunciate a particular reflected experience on which we build sense and give meaning”.

^{Clandinin and Conelly (2015}, p. 11, our translation) consider that “man is essentially a storyteller who extracts meaning from the world through the stories he tells”. For these authors, the main reason for the use of narrative in educational research is that education is the construction and reconstruction of personal and social stories, and “both teachers and students are storytellers, as well as characters in their own stories and those of others. Therefore, “the study of narrative is the study of the way in which human beings experience the world" (CONNELLY; ^{CLANDININ, 2015}, p. 11, our translation).

The objective, therefore, reverts to the very formative and self-reflective process of this (auto)biographical exercise, which permeates those who accept the challenge of looking at themselves and to their formation history. Thus, the significant points that are worth being told and narrated are evaluated - the author, then, starts from his experience to question the meanings of his experiences and learnings, autobiographing the most relevant moments of his personal and professional history, reflecting on how they intertwine in different educational contexts and in possible formative experiences.

About (auto)biographical studies and their great potential, ^{Bueno et al. (2006}, p. 392 apud^{SOKOLOVICZ; HAGEMEYER, 2017}, p. 6, our translation) states that they reside precisely “in the explanatory/training potential, in addition to being sources for comprehending the peculiarities of training and the specificities of educational situations”.

It is noteworthy that, in the search for references on how to make an (auto)biography, there are no recipes or forms, since each story and its meanings are unique, personal, subjective, self-reflective, singular and, as described by ^{Pineau (2006}), autopoietic, as part of the art that forms existence.

Methodologic strategies

The empirical field investigated, which “in narrative research [is] called ‘context’ makes all the difference”, as “the context is necessary to make sense of any person, event or thing” (^{CLANDININ; CONELLY, 2015}, p. 59, our translation). The context and space-time of this investigation encompass the initial teacher training in the Pedagogy course, specifically the teaching internship performed in the YAE modality.

As a methodology, (auto)biographical devices and life histories in formation were used, in addition to “Biographical Workshops”, for debate and reflection on the supervised internship experiences and the experiences of life histories that were meaningful for the choice and definition of the profession. As for the referrals of (auto)biographical writing, 10 academics, in the process of initial teacher training from a supervised internship class of the Pedagogy course, participated in the research. All participants signed the Informed Consent Form, and codenames were used in this article to preserve their identities.

In outlining the investigative proposal, the genesis of the research, the definitions of the problem and the possible approaches were guided, initially, by exploring the theme based on the bibliographic survey, with a view to making it more explicit in the construction of a viable methodology.

As soon as the context and characteristics of the participants were defined, guidelines aimed at both the internship and the methodological devices for the production of research data were carried out.

Therefore, the methodological devices used are articulated and complemented. The idea of this triangulation of devices, resulting from the reflections of the Biographical Workshops, the (auto)biographical writings and the Formation Memories that articulate and complement each other, was to create a list of information, experiences, records and reflections, enhancing this moment lived in the initial formation. Thus, the biographical workshops would serve as a basis for guidance and also for socializing experiences, which helped to compose the training memorial together with the (auto)biographical writings, as a record of the most significant experiences. Through a (auto)biographical narrative writing of the experiences and trajectories of personal and family life, experiences, influences to become a teacher and representations of oneself that have been transformed by the living context, such as the giving the first class in the supervised internship, are redefined; in this way, formative experiences are configured, that is, everything that could substantially emerge in this moment of formation.

For Delory-Momberger (2006, p. 362, our translation), working with (auto)biographies, whether oral or written

[...] does not in itself constitute the subject's life, but rather a reproduction of life through language. [...] the narratives are inscribed in a certain time, space and interrelationship; far from being fixed in a single form that would give them an objectively and definitively fixed past, the narrative of life is an unstable, transitory and living matter, which constantly recomposes itself at the moment it announces itself.

For this author, “experiences do not carry a hidden meaning, because it is when narrating that these meanings are built”, since “[...] we do not narrate our lives because we have a story; we have a story because we make the narrative of our life” (^{DELORY-MOMBERGER, 2006}, p. 363, our translation).

Each individual story allowed analysis and reflection on the stories as a collective. In this aspect, “the narrative is just the initial step, requiring a certain distance to enable a look at the ‘writing of oneself’, permeated collectively in the formative process” (^{SOKOLOVICZ, 2015}, p. 82-83, our translation).

Results and discussions

Following the methodological devices and the assumptions of narrative (auto)biographical research and training research, the entire analysis was structured in Investigative Fields due to its space/time conjectures, namely:

This demarcation contemplates the training amplitude, departing from this triangulation: personal dimension, professional dimension and organizational dimension, in a movement that conceives the formation process through the teacher. As also proposed by ^{Nóvoa (1995}, p. 38, our translation), “training is not built through accumulation (of courses, knowledge or techniques), but through a work of critical reflection on practices and permanent (re)construction of a personal identity”.

The aforementioned personal dimension does not exclude the organizational dimension, as it presupposes the training process in a social context, contemplated by an internship proposal that aims to insert the student into the educational reality. In this same training perspective, Delory-Momberger (2006 apud^{SOKOLOVICZ, 2015}, p. 66, our translation) states that it is in this “[…] process that subjects create, recreate and reproduce social reality. These factors are not stable, therefore, precisely because of these interactions, the subject is a constant project of himself; by recreating their social environment”, and they recreate themselves, and vice versa.

The notion of time presented here derives from the reflections of ^{Haracemiv (2002}), who presents the different notions of time. The author not only refers to the Chronos Time - which is the chronological time, measured in hours, days, months or training schedules - but also to the Kairós Time - which is the time of sensations, of feeling (“Who knows does the time, does not wait for it to happen”) -, to Transcourse Time - which is the time of crossings, of trajectories and of those with whom one walks - and, fundamentally, to Intensity Time - which is the time and “non-time” of meanings, of relationships, of belongingness and the climate that permeates the entire training process.

These notions of time were fundamental in the organization and analysis of data research to arrive at the Meaning Cores, since it is not a literal and chronological reading of the facts reported, but rather a three-dimensional reading, by separating writings, speeches, statements and narratives, and for taking into account the dimension between remembering and forgetting, the said and the unsaid, the singular and the plural, between what is the process of formation and what is not. Between presences, absences and silences.

With the research data, the mapping and organization of relevant clippings of (auto)biographical narratives, training memorials and moments of reflection which were recorded and transcribed were carried out. In this categorization, a table was organized, thus crossing individual information with collective information, through a comparison of each participant’s information; seeking to bring together similarities, presences and absences in Investigative Fields, and finally the emergence of Meaning Cores, based on the methodology proposed by ^{Aguiar and Ozella (2006}), updated in 2013.

To define the Meaning Cores, we started with analytical readings of the entire research content, which was separated and organized into pre-indicators and indicators. Through the categorization in Investigative Fields, the themes of each report are identified, or even those that we assume exist, but that have been silenced. From this exercise of approximation and distancing proposed in smaller units of analysis - enabling the apprehension of differences, particularities and proximities among the participants - the Meaning Cores emerged in each Investigative Field.

During the process, some specific difficulties arose. Difficulties were perceived in the way the interns express themselves, difficulties in talking about themselves and, especially, difficulty in the act of writing about themselves. For students in training, sometimes speaking or reading in public is already difficult; to write and publish, even more about themselves, proved to be a proportionally more arduous task. That is why this “writing of oneself” was considered so difficult. When analyzing this fact, we turn to the writings of ^{Foucault (1992}), who, right at the beginning of his explanation of the text “The writing of the self”, deals with the movement and the difficulty of exposing oneself:

[…] that each one of us notices and write down the actions and movements of our soul, as if to make mutually known and to be sure that, for the shame of being known, we will stop sinning and carrying in our hearts whatever is perverse (^{FOUCAULT, 1992}, p. 129, our translation).

By retrospectively analyzing the role of writing in the philosophical culture of the self, ^{Foucault (1992}) weaves analogies about the role that this “writing of the self” plays in the formation of being, and, in addition, we explore here, from the perspective of value judgments, the hardships in exposing oneself in “writing of the self” for others. For Foucault (1992, p. 129, our translation), “the fact of obliging oneself to write plays the role of a companion, by arousing the human respect and the shame”. The philosopher proposes some analogies to this act of writing; the first analogy says that “what others are for the ascetic in a community will be the notebook for the solitary” (^{FOUCAULT, 1992}, p. 129, our translation). But, simultaneously, a second analogy arises, referring to

[…] the practice of ascesis as work not only on acts, but more precisely on thought: the constraint that the presence of others exerts on the order of conduct, will be exercised by writing in the order of the inner movements of the soul (^{FOUCAULT, 1992}, p. 129, our translation).

Finally, the writing of interior movements appears, also according to ^{Foucault (1992}, p. 129, our translation), “as a weapon of spiritual combat: since the devil is a power that deceives and makes us deceive ourselves”. Thus, for him, “writing constitutes a test and a touchstone: by bringing to light the movements of thought, it dissipates the inner shadow where the enemy’s plots are woven” (^{FOUCAULT, 1992}, p. 129, our translation).

In other words, it is a difficulty in talking about oneself and writing about oneself, thus preserving oneself from the opinion and knowledge of the other about us. This was evidenced right at the first meeting, in which it was said: “I will not expose my personal life here, there are things that no one needs to know, it is only part of my life” (José, our translation).

Ironically, the same student, who showed a lot of initial resistance in “writing of the self”, was the one who most actively participated in all stages of the process, finishing, at the end of the semester, his (auto)biographical writing without the fears and dreads of the start. On the other hand, students who initially did not show difficulties in talking about their personal life had, throughout the process, difficulties in (auto)biographical writing.

This issue can be identified in one of the writings that begins by describing exactly this embarrassment: “Writing my autobiography can be quite complicated. That’s because we develop the habit of seeing others, listening to others, thinking about others, but we hardly do these same things with ourselves” (Anny, our translation).

In the analysis of (auto)biographical narratives, it was noticed that they express the most diverse forms and styles, differing in vocabulary, in phrasing and in the clarity and expansion of the text, as well as in the narrated content or in the speech presented. ^{Clandinin and Conelly (2015}, p. 11, our translation) state that the study of narrative “is the study of the way in which human beings experience the world [...] of how they translate an ability to objectify and rationalize”.

The challenge was to demonstrate how these processes of meaning take place, which is why the methodological option for interpreting the data was about the Meaning Cores, as described and proposed by ^{Aguiar and Ozella (2006}, 2013), which base themselves on Vygotsky’s Socio-Historic Psychology to explain the notions of sense and meaning, necessity and motive.

According to the authors, “meaning is placed on a plane that approaches subjectivity, which more accurately depicts the subject, the unit of all cognitive, affective and biological processes” (^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2006}, p. 227, our translation). Therefore, as stated by “to speak of meanings is to speak of subjectivity, of the affective/cognitive dialectic, it is to speak of an undiluted subject, of a historical and singular subject at the same time” (AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2013, p. 305, our translation). Therefore,

The apprehension of the senses does not mean to apprehend a single, coherent, absolutely defined, complete response, but expressions that are many times partial, full of contradictions, often not meant by the subject, but that present us with indicators of the ways of being of the subject, of processes experienced by him (^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2013}, p. 307, our translation).

Meanings are, according to the authors, historical and social productions. Therefore, “meanings refer, thus, to the instituted, more fixed, shared contents, which are appropriated by the subjects, configured from their own subjectivities” (^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2006}, p. 226, our translation).

In the interpretation of ^{Vygotsky (2001}apud^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2006}, p. 226, our translation), “the meaning, in the semantic field, corresponds to the relations that the word can contain; in the psychological field, it is a generalization, a concept. They are what allow communication, the socialization of our experiences”. The authors state that

[...] although the meaning is more stable, “dictionary”, it also becomes the historical movement, in which its inner nature changes, consequently changing the relationship it maintains with thought, understood as a process (^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2006}, p. 226, our translation).

According to ^{Aguiar and Ozella (2006}, p. 226, our translation) “in the perspective of better understanding” the experiences of the subjects in training and the values that are attributed to them,

[…] the meanings constitute the starting point: it is known that they contain more than they appear and that, through a work of analysis and interpretation, one can walk to the most unstable, fluid and deep zones, that is, to the zones of meaning (^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2006}, p. 226, our translation)..

It is said “that the meaning is much broader than the meaning, because that constitutes the articulation of the psychological events that the subject produces when faced with a reality” (^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2006}, p. 226-227, our translation).

In this sense, that the meaning that each subject gives to their training is conditioned by their values and their life trajectories, in a personal sphere. Therefore, their way of situating themselves in the world is significant for the construction of their teaching identity. In this understanding, in (auto)biographical research,

The subject is perceived as a singular and social being. It is unique in that it reflects a unique form of articulation between the axes presented in Figure 1 below, and social in the complex of the individual’s relationships in his constitution, because he is immersed in these relationships (^{SOKOLOVICZ, 2015}, p. 66, our translation).

SOURCE: ^{Sokolovicz (2015}, p. 66, our translation).

FIGURE 1 SYSTEMATIZATION OF THE COMPLEX OF INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIPS IN ITS CONSTITUTION  

Identifying the assigned meanings, constructed senses, relationships, interests, conflicts and anxieties were the challenges of this research. By privileging the theoretical-methodological perspective of the Meaning Cores of ^{Aguiar and Ozella (2006}, p. 238), it was necessary to look, through the categories of sense and meaning, at knowledge as a possibility. With this “cut”, in an attempt to locate the Meaning Cores in the Investigative Fields, observation options were established, because, as the authors say, the survey and organization of the meaning cores is already a moment of analysis, since “[...] the act of ‘cutting’ is carried out based on the criteria proposed by the researcher, and these criteria are always chosen according to the research objectives, and, therefore, they are never neutral” (^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2006}, p. 238, our translation).

Thus, all the material collected in the research was analyzed in pre-indicators and indicators, until reaching the Meaning Cores. We call pre-indicators the first analysis resulting from several fluctuating readings of the collected material, familiarizing ourselves with the data we had at hand. At this stage, we selected sentences, paragraphs, stories; in short, data that referred to the themes of the three main axes of the Investigative Fields, with an extensive volume of narratives at this stage. Preliminarily, we organized the material, so as to try to understand what had been said or written, including the silencing of what had not been said. Thus, in the various readings of the (auto)biographical material, we highlighted the contents of the training memorials, shown without any greater emotional charge.

The next step, called identification of indicators, consisted of categorizing the pre-indicators through the principles of similarity, that is, different narratives, but which dealt with the same thing. This action reduced the diversity of the large number of pre-indicators, as “they are the indicators that enable the construction of the direction of the meaning cores” (^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2006}, p. 238, our translation). In possession of the set of indicators and their contents of the material collected, a first selection of the concepts that illustrate and clarify the indicators was made. This moment already characterizes, according to the authors, a phase of the analysis process that points to the beginning of nuclearization.

According to ^{Vygotsky (2001}), a single word can express multiple senses. Based on the foundations of ^{Campos and Vasconcelos (2016}, p. 375), it was identified that meaning is central to the understanding of the most varied senses and designates all the elements within that word. Therefore, a categorization was performed with the intention of agglutinating the indicators by similarity or by complementation in order to take us to smaller units of analysis. Thus, approximations between what was said and written by each research participant were possible.

For each indicator, a name, a concept and a word were chosen to compose reduced units of analysis, which was later articulated to the constitution of the Meaning Cores presented in the various collected materials.

The third stage is the constitution of the Meaning Cores themselves. Following the reasoning of ^{Aguiar and Ozella (2013}), it results from the process of articulating the set of indicators. In this way, “the process of constructing the meaning core is already constructive-interpretative, as it is crossed by the researcher’s critical understanding in relation to reality” (^{AGUIAR; OZELLA, 2013}, p. 310, our translation). By the enunciated in the expression of the narratives, whether written or spoken, a descriptor was created, which, when combined in front of their senses, expressed in words, became a Meaning Core, around each of the investigative fields.

In the investigative field Identity, it was assumed to investigate and analyze from the perspective of retrospection (past) what identifies them, as belonging to the same class, that of teachers in training, considering their personal and family life trajectories, their formation trajectories and their interaction trajectories between the personal and social.

In this field, the Meaning Cores revolved around the characterization of identity. Expressions such as: “I am”, “I came from a family”, “My mother and grandmother were teachers”, “I am totally inexperienced”, “I want to be like her when I become a teacher”, “I don’t see myself as a teacher”, revealed the various forms of belonging to the same identity. In addition, the Meaning Cores were associated with words such as: family, school, experiences, culture, work, profession, decisions, beliefs, choices, possibilities, influences, society, feelings, legacy, representation, language, persons, peoples, ideas, frustrations.

In the centrality of the investigative field on Supervised Internship and Pedagogical Practice in Youth and Adult Education - which aimed to identify the lives, meaning, perceptions and experiences in their life trajectories and during the teaching internship, in the present -, it is reaffirmed in several (auto)biographical narratives by the following expressions: “I felt like a teacher”, “It was a reality check”, “There are teachers who do not like interns”, “I could see that the regent teacher did not want us there”, “I would need more preparation”, “In our class a lot of things went wrong, but the teacher was very professional in pointing out how to improve”, “The biggest difficulty I had was related to dealing with people” , demonstrating how the participants felt at this important moment of training. The Meaning Cores were responsible for characterizing the role of the university in this stage of training, terms utilized were such as: school, class, class plan, students, experience of the internship itself, methodologies, content, feelings and sensations when teaching the class, social aspects, identification with adult students, difficulties, taking advantage of experiences in the educational area, internships as an obligation, lack of flexibility in internships, criticism of current models, internships as work.

Finally, in the investigative field of Teaching Constitution, it was interesting to know what unites the participants and what is common in this process of “becoming” a teacher, through prospecting for the future. Although many people only have teaching experience via supervised internship, they make considerations such as: “Learning to be a teacher by example”, “Is this really what I want to be?”, “It’s different when you go to school as a teacher”, “Now I have a different look, no longer that of a student, but of a teacher”, “The content is not the challenge, the challenge is to gain the student’s attention”, “Here at the University there is a lot of content just for the sake of the content, it’s difficult to figure how I’m going to apply it teaching a class in elementary school”, “I don’t feel prepared for this [being a teacher]”, “This internship is not enough to generate confidence in being a teacher”, “I don’t feel ready for the classroom”, “When teaching the class I was able to feel what it is like to be a teacher, the challenges you face”, “I think that our training does not prepare for any other modality”, “I was afraid to even think about teaching adults”, “I don’t see myself taking on a classroom with such diverse students”, “I feel more safe in working with children, even more so because I’ve done other paid internships with children, it’s much more relaxed”, “I wanted to feel recognized as a teacher”. The most significant cores are: training, meanings attributed to being a teacher, teaching experiences, prospecting the type of teacher one wants to be, cultural capital, career access, possibilities of exercising the profession, education for transformation and social change.

According to ^{Kenski (2000}), the reconstruction and reflection of the stories promote interactions between the past and the present, contributing to the subject in training to have knowledge of themselves, because it recovers the motivations, the reasons for their choices and the meanings attributed to the performances in life stories.

In addition to the self-reflective and formative aspects employed in the challenge of (auto)biographing, the academics, by portraying the life stories and experiences of educational and training times and spaces, translated feelings, representations and individual meanings of the memories, histories and social relationships with the school. Revealing, as ^{Souza (2007}, p. 59, our translation) reaffirms, “the formative potential of the autobiographical method” used with students in the process of initial training, based on supervised internship experiences.

It is understood, therefore, that each story is unique and singular, but it can be revealed, in this exercise of the individual/collective, singular/universal, both the social and the temporal, institutional and formative memories of the subjects in their contexts, as they show individual practices that are inscribed in the density of certain socio-historical contexts par excellence.

Final considerations

According to ^{Silva (2014}, p. 21, our translation) linking an (auto)biographical narrative project “to the internship structure in institutionalized meetings, consistent with its referral in the form of stages”, was intended to enable autonomy through their perceptions, due “to the condition of subjects of their training caused in learning the reflexivity of their experiences, formative and existential” (^{SILVA, 2014}, p. 21, our translation).

When considering the production of (auto)biographical writing, from a procedural perspective, performed by the intern student as a reflective effort “on themselves”, the objective was to identify the significant moments of their training paths, as well as the consequent contribution to “becoming a teacher” during the internship (^{SILVA, 2014}, p. 21, our translation).

In order to analyze the relationships between the personal and professional dimensions in initial teacher education at YAE - making it possible to describe contexts, situations and training processes from the meanings attributed to the experiences, and adopting the support of (auto)biographical research as a methodological device -, all this process was developed in stages, articulated in Investigative Fields, and analyzed in their relationship with the Meaning Cores involved in this training process.

It is understood that the investigation was very fruitful in the sense of characterizing the role of the teaching internship, as a formative space, in initial teacher training courses, enabling contact with the school reality and with experiences of pedagogical practice in the context of working with YAE. These formative elements of life histories and aspects of personal development, collected in the reports of academics, can be considered as constitutive for identity, when analyzing the possible interactions between the personal and professional dimensions involved in initial education teacher.

The limits of initial teacher training courses were also pointed out in preparing to face educational diversity, not only in terms of student profiles, but also in the specificities that each teaching modality requires, especially the insufficiency of pedagogical preparation to work with Youth and Adult Education.

Finally, it is expected that, when working with (auto)biographical processes linked to life histories in formation, it is possible to demarcate important methodological devices in practices with supervised internships in initial teacher education. As stated by ^{Nóvoa (1988}, p. 116, our translation),

[…] the life stories and the autobiographical method are part of the movement that seeks to rethink training issues, emphasizing the idea that “nobody trains anybody” and that “training is inevitably a work of reflection on the paths of life”,

thus allowing “[…] processes of self-knowledge and reflection on the constitution of teaching through experiences in the field of supervised internship as a project of construction and reconstruction of the self” (^{NÓVOA, 1988}, p. 116, our translation).