Introduction

The professional practice in Physical Education (PE) is diverse and can be developed in different spaces, such as schools, clubs, gyms, companies, hospitals, and clinics. In order to be effective, however, the professionals’ roles should adapt to the characteristics of both the population and the environment in which they are performed - which requires the mastery of competencies such as planning, delivering, and assessing the intervention (^{FEITOSA; NASCIMENTO, 2003}).

These competences, although they are consolidated in professional practice, are developed to a large extent in the experiences gained during initial education. In this sense, the universities become formally and socially recognized spaces for the development of these professionals (^{NEVES, 2007}), since they are responsible for certifying the profession. In order to effectively contribute to the preparation of professionals capable of meeting the current, dynamic social needs, the university should not restrict its contents to the technical aspects of the profession (^{FEITOSA; NASCIMENTO, 2003}), but must be attentive to the social changes in order to confront them with the proposed curriculum.

The new graduates have an important role in contemplating the quality of the initial education, since they are confronting what was learned at university and what is required in professional practice (^{ABREU, 2006}). Thus, considering that the graduates may face some challenges during their professional insertion, they are in a unique position to identify the weaknesses of the curriculum, as well as its potential improvements (^{SALLES; FARIAS; NASCIMENTO, 2015}).

Studies that consider PE graduates’ experiences to evaluate the curriculum show clear possibilities of using this information for the continuous improvement of the programs (^{SALLES et al., 2013}; ^{ESPARTEL, 2009}). However, while the investigation of these individuals’ perceptions is pertinent, studies are still scarce (^{FOLLE; NASCIMENTO, 2011}), which is why the implementation of such initiatives contributes to a better understanding of the processes that permeate the graduates’ professional insertion and the role of initial education on this path, by approximating the relationship between theory and practice. Considering the aforementioned, this study aims to investigate the perceptions of PE graduates on their initial education held at a public university in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil.

Methods

Results

The group of graduates (Table 1) was composed predominantly of younger (53.2%), single (73.4%) and female (56.4%) residents of Greater Florianopolis (86.2%). Most of them graduated from the baccalaureate program (53.2%) and delayed completing the program for at least one semester (57.4%).

Table 2 presents the results regarding the evaluation of the components of initial education by the investigated bachelors and teachers. Extension activities (8.35±1.51) and research activities (8.24±1.66) had the highest scores, while the graduates’ classmates (7.45±1.73) and the curricular structure (7.64±1.59) received the lowest scores.

The main positive aspect mentioned by fifteen graduates (Box 1) regarding the extension activities relates to the diversity of structures and options of activities offered by the educational center. For G27B, “there is scope for extension activities in the area the graduate wants”, and according to G37B there is “a great diversity of quality projects involving undergraduates, graduate students, and the community”. In this sense, for G02B “the students just need to choose what they want”, because such activities “help the students and add to their curriculum” (G11B). Another valuable featurewas the high quality and organization of such activities (G01B; G73B; G74B; G51B). For G01B, specifically, “the extension activities are excellent since they are responsible for all my current professional success”. According to this graduate, one benefit of the extension activities was that they “have always been well organized and offered to the community for free”.

Similarly, the research activities were positively evaluated by eleven graduates regarding the diversity of structures and options of activities. According to G39B, “we have opportunities in many areas, and there are many open positions”, which was confirmed by G43B when he affirmed that “there are several research groups”. Five individuals also mentioned that activities of this nature are very important because they contribute to the enrichment of the student's academic preparation. In the perception of G91B, “research activities determined all my professional training”, especially since he had been a scientific initiation fellow, a master's student and a doctorate student. This view was shared by G63B, when he stated that “the personal growth that the individual has when engaging in research is tremendous”. In addition to the diversity of options, G91B recognized“great scholarship opportunities, guidance, and best-quality supervision”.

As for classmates, most graduates (twenty-five) perceived little dedication and commitment to the course, as well as immaturity and lack of respect (eight), and excessive absences and delays (seven). In this regard, G06B commented that only “a few were really interested in the program and in their professional future” and that “numerous laboratories were underutilized by the students, because they did not see the importance of them in their professional future”. For G11B, the main problem of his classmates was that “many just wanted to have a degree in order to apply for a public job, or just wanted to go to parties and have fun”. This feeling was shared by G12B, who stated that “many people did not know or did not really want to graduate in PE but chose the program for convenience”. The lack of interest in the program can be explained, according to G43B, by the fact that “even by studying a little, an individual could pass some courses”. This was enhanced in the perception of G45B, because “some students entered the Physical Education program with an understanding that it would be a very practical program, without many theoretical requirements”.

On the other hand, G67T recalled that such lack of interest could be explained because “some students were overwhelmed by work and family, so they had moments of less commitment”. The overload of activities was also noticed by G82B, when he stated that “many colleagues started other activities during the program, thus dividing their commitment”. The need to work, specifically, contributed to some individuals “ending up being not so punctual” (G05T) and “arriving late” (G87T). While acknowledging the difficulties faced by some colleagues in reconciling their other activities with their studies, or even in not being interested in all subjects, G86B mentioned that “respect for the professors and for their classmates should be greater”. G67T witnessed “even some cases of student aggression toward professors”.

When analyzing the curricular structure, twenty-five graduates identified failures in the courses’ semiannual organization. It was noticed that “some courses were not positioned exactly in the semester they should be” (G10B), so “they could be rethought and changed” (E26B). Some graduates felt lack of essential content before the internships, which could be exemplified by the words of both G83T “when I completed the first internship, I had not had the Adapted Physical Education course yet, but I already had a student with a disability in my class” and G90T “the methodology courses should occur before the internship because we often go to school still learning about sports”.

To solve these problems, some graduates suggested the reorganization of the courses within the curriculum based on their degree of specificity. G11B, for example, stated that “the curriculum could have a block of basic or general courses and other blocks in specific areas of Physical Education”, an aspect that was reinforced by G12B when affirming that “to offer basic courses at the beginning of the program, and more specific courses from the middle to the end, would be an ideal proposition”. Finally, some graduates observed accumulation of courses in the last semesters. According to G42B, “during the final semesters, there is an accumulation of courses, internships, and our program’s final project”. This problem was confirmed by other graduates when they stated that “the last semester is the one with the most internships, making it more complicated since you also have your program’s final project to work on” (G21T), or that “I felt very overwhelmed at the end of the program, perhaps because of the excessive internships” (G32T).

In addition to the semiannual organization, fifteen graduates perceived problems in the courses’ workloads, “especially in relation to the excess of time for certain subjects and lack of time for other essential ones” (G15B). According to some graduates, there was a heavy workload for sports and a lack of in-depth instruction in more basic courses such as Anatomy, Physiology, and Biomechanics (G07B; G45B; G86B), or in subjects related to Pedagogical Practice in School (G67T; G88T), Physical Activity and Health/Fitness (G09B; G91B), and Exercise Physiology and Sports Training (G43B). Finally, twelve graduates indicated that some courses were irrelevant. A few individuals perceived that “some courses were unnecessary” (G16T), especially since “many courses repeated the same subjects from the beginning to the end” (G17T). According to G38T, “the problem occurred because some courses were taught in the same way in both the baccalaureate and in the teacher education programs, which should not happen”. Additionally, the need to attend courses outside the student’s area of interest was criticized: “I always wanted to follow the Bodybuilding and Personal Trainer area, so why did I need to enroll in sports training and volleyball courses?” (G51B).

As shown in Table 2, there were significant differences in the scores attributed by bachelors and teachers in the components of faculty (T = 8.55±1.02; B = 7.28±1.37), classmates (T = 7.91±1.60; B = 7.04±1.76), physical infrastructure (T = 8.30±1.69; B = 7.64±1.34), supervised internships (T = 8.61±1.45; B = 7.72±1.73) and overall program evaluation (L = 8.64 ± 1.10, B = 7.82 ± 1.35). In all cases, the teachers evaluated these components higher than the bachelors. The main positive and negative aspects perceived by bachelors and teachers in some components are presented in Box 2.

In the analysis of faculty, thirteen bachelors and six teachers observed problems in didactics and in content transmission. While “many teachers did not have the practical knowledge of the course” (G01B), others had “a lot of theoretical-practical knowledge, but no didactics or patience with students” (G18B), lacking organization and having difficulties in transmitting content to the students (G26B; G57T). It was acknowledged that “some professors need to better understand the quality of their teaching and to know how much the student is learning” (G74B). At the same time, it was identified that this problem could be occurring “due to the fact that some professors often have to be in charge of particular courses due to a lack of other professionals, which promotes a separation between the subjects taught and the areas in which they are more skilled” (G33B). The lack of motivation and/or commitment of some professors was also identified by nine bachelors and six teachers. Some professors did not show any commitment to class preparation, “improvising in the presentation and, in some cases, not demonstrating mastery of the content” (G06B). The excessive involvement with research activities, in the perception of some graduates (G12B; G27B; G49B), meant that certain professors did not pay due attention to the responsibilities of teaching the students. In addition, the excessive absence of some professors was negatively perceived by graduates G05T, G30T, and G66B. In the words of G66B, “some professors did not show up, so their master’s or doctoral students taught in their place”. For G67T, this problem can be explained, in part, by the “convenience of holding a public job, which may favor the professors’ lack of planning and organization”.

Regarding the positive aspects, seven bachelors identified that the professors had adequate knowledge of the subject matters, while five teachers emphasized good teacher qualification. As G18B pointed out, “in most courses, professors presented in-depth knowledge and willingness to teach”. The graduate G35B recalls that “I only had wonderful professors, who gave me both theoretical and practical knowledge that allowed me to feel secure when I entered the job market”. For G78T, “many of the professors had excellent qualifications and knowledge”, since “many of them were doctors, some were masters, and a few were specialists in their disciplines” (G70T).

As for physical infrastructure, the main negative aspects were the lack of resources and an insufficient structure for the activities developed in the educational center as perceived by eighteen bachelors and nine teachers. According to graduates G18B, G33B, G46T, and G70T, physical space was small for the demand of teaching, researching, and extension activities, resulting in many “schedule conflicts between extension projects at gymnasiums and the academy” (G75B). The Anatomy laboratory could be better structured (G03B, G51B, G63B, G66B, G71B, G89B, G76T); according to G51B and G66B, the “puppet practice” (i.e. practice performed with puppets or other representations of human body) and the “lack of contact with biological tissues” impair learning in this specific course. The quality of both the cafeteriaand the living space (G09B; G38T), the structure of the classrooms (G06B) and the accessibility and quantity of washrooms (G07B) were also perceived as insufficient. For some graduates, the structure was “very limited and in poor condition”, mainly the Athletics area and the gyms (G01B; G49B; G19T). The justification given for the physical infrastructure problems was that “the construction of the sports center was not planned, and did not provide much room to grow” (G11B),because “the ideal scenario would be to have a place with physical infrastructure specifically designed for a PE program” (G58T).

On the other hand, ten bachelors and nine teachers perceived the structure differently and emphasized its good quality. Within the space where the center is installed, G02B and G53T believed that there is a good structure. The quality of spaces such as swimming pool (G29B; G29B; G51B; G53T; G74T), gymnasiums (G09B; G29B; G51B), classrooms (G29B; G51B; G74B), laboratories (G51B) and library (G74B) was specifically cited by the graduates. For G70T, the educational center has a very good structure. According to his words, “as I came from a public school, which had a fan and a chalkboard at most, I was delighted when I came across the university’s educational center! Available computers and Internet, swimming pool, sports courts, Athletics track and field, Gymnastics table, many mats, gym...”.

The main negative aspect perceived by fifteen bachelors and six teachers, regarding the supervised internships, related to the problems in receptivity and/or in supervision (G06B, G42B, G51B, G51B, G91B, G54T, G83T). For certain graduates, “some places did not provide due attention to the students” (G06B), especially attributable to the little or no supervision. The seriousness of the problem is pointed out by G33B, who stated that “some internships were developed in contexts where supervisors did not even know the structure of the internship, or even the student’s presence in the institution”. Although they understood the limiting factors that made it difficult to supervise all the students at each internship site (G67T), some graduates criticized the lack of standardization or systematization in the way the internship was conducted (G11B; G29B; G86B; G57T; G78T). According to G11B, “we had a professor who supervised the internship, visited the student and was present, but also had a teacher who never spoke about the student's internship site, did not visit and did not know what was happening at the internship”, causing “many students not to fulfill what they should at the internship” (G86B). As an alternative to address this constraint, G29B suggested that the “supervision may be more systematic in guiding the student to solve the daily problems encountered in the internship context”, while G78T indicated the need for mentoring professors “to be present in all interventions”.

Nine teachers observed problems in the internship’s organization and workload. Specifically, the excessive concentration of internships in the final semesters of the program was interpreted as prejudicial to the student's appropriate involvement with such activities: “I found it very tiring to have five internships during the program. Perhaps it could work with two or three elective internships, plus other projects that could help the students to integrate themselves with practice” (G08T). According to G83T, “our workload was heavy for those who needed to work, study, and still do the internships... it was complicated”, making it a “chaotic period of difficult reconciliation with life outside the university” (G30T). Among the graduates who worked during their program (G13T, G21T, G53T, G69T), it was difficult to reconcile work schedules with the internship demands: “It was difficult for those who, like me, had to work in other areas during the internship, because there was a break in schedules that divided the internship. The internship could be concentrated on the same day in order to facilitate the student's schedule” (G13T).

In contrast, thirteen bachelors and five teachers recognized that the internship positively contributed to the enrichment of their professional preparation. In addition to enabling the development of skills and knowledge necessary for professional practice (G18B), the internships helped some graduates to create links and gain experience in the area in which they would like to work (G94B; G39T). Others noted that this period allowed them to move beyond their comfort zones and undergo challenging situations that allowed them to develop certain aspects of their professional competence (G40B; G38T). Finally, the diversity of areas covered by the internships was positively perceived by some bachelors (G20B; G60B). For these individuals, the possibility of living in different areas was “very important” (G20B) because “it greatly enlarged our view of the work possibilities in the near future” (G60B).

In the overall program evaluation, seven bachelors and seven teachers agreed that their respective programs offered good professional preparation, especially for enabling the development of professional knowledge and skills - aspects mentioned by five bachelors and four teachers. According to G04T, the program provided them “a good knowledge base”, and for G05T it provided “all the support I needed to get into the job market”. Initial education had the merit of “providing access to basic knowledge areas” (G89B), in addition to directing where the students could obtain the other relevant information for their professional practice (G18B; G89B; G94B).

The large scope of the initial education was positively perceived by the graduates, since it expanded their perspectives on the possibilities of professional practice (G82B, G30T, G70T). For G70T, the program was “a watershed in my life for having shown what it is to be a teacher, and how I could obtain the knowledge to better act in my professional practice”. The reassurance provided by the knowledge acquired was also highlighted by some graduates (G15B, G35B, G24T, G87T). In addition to recognizing the good quality of the education offered in the program, G40B emphasized the student's role in the program’s quality by stating that “it depends very much on the students’ willingness to look for what they want to study and to specialize”. On the other hand, the lack and/or superficiality in approaching important knowledge for professional practice was recognized as the program’s main negative aspect for five bachelors and two teachers. As G03B stated, “I feel at times that I lack some basic knowledge - which, although were specified in the curriculum, was not well developed by the professors”. G91B, specifically, experienced a lack of content related to public health, an area in which he was working at the time of data collection.

As a result of this problem of content superficiality, some graduates recognized the need to acquire certain knowledge and skills by other means (G11B, G30T, G33B). G11B, for example, stated that “much of what I use in my day-to-day work I got from my athletics experiences or from learning on my own”. This view was also shared by G30T when she stated that “I needed to understand how to teach a class by myself”. For G27B, the lack of time during the program made it difficult to discuss the relevant topics in depth, so that “the university gave me basic concepts that I had to better understand later, as I needed them”.

The analysis of the associated factors (IVs) for the overall program evaluation (DV) is presented in Table 3 and 4. Initially, crude linear regressions were performed between the characterization variables (gender, age, marital status, housing region, program, and delay in completing the program) and the components of the initial education evaluation with the overall program evaluation. To determine the variables to be included in the adjusted model, α = 0.20 was adopted as the criterion, which implied the removal of the variables gender, marital status, and housing region.

Afterwards, the multiple linear regression analysis (Table 4) was applied to the variables included through the crude linear regressions (shown in Table 3). The Stepwise method was used to introduce the variables into the adjusted model, with α = 0.05 being considered as the input/elimination criterion.

The adjusted final model (model 4 presented in Table 4, p <0.01) included the factors: supervised internships, curricular structure, faculty, and extension activities, and was able to explain 59.0% (adjusted R2 = 0.59) of the variance of the overall program evaluation by the graduates. The suitability of the adjusted model was confirmed after the diagnosis of non-existence of multicollinearity between the IVs (VIFs between 1.06 and 1.71). In addition, the Durbin-Watson test analysis of the residual distribution showed a score of 1.98, confirming the randomness required for applying the linear regression analysis (^{MARÔCO, 2011}).