SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.43Midias digitales y producción audiovisual en la asignatura de Español como lengua extranjera: una experiencia en la enseñanza media integrada al técnicoA Balhestilha (1603) como instrumento matemático para el estudio de la formación del profesor de medición índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Compartir


Acta Scientiarum. Education

versión impresa ISSN 2178-5198versión On-line ISSN 2178-5201

Acta Educ. vol.43  Maringá  2021  Epub 01-Nov-2020

https://doi.org/10.4025/actascieduc.v43i1.48032 

TEACHERS' FORMATION AND PUBLIC POLICY

Child education and physical education in the interdisciplinary perspective: (im) possibilities

Marta Regina Brostolin1  * 
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4262-2222

Claudia Diniz de Moraes1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6813-3430

1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação, Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação, Universidade Católica Dom Bosco, Rua Tamandaré, 6000, 79117-900, Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil.


ABSTRACT.

This text, an excerpt from a Master's research, has as its theme the relationship between Infant Education, Physical Education and Interdisciplinarity and aims to understand if there is an interdisciplinary pedagogical practice among Physical Education teachers and pedagogues that work in the Centers of Infant Education (CEINFs) of a city of Mato Grosso do Sul. The research conducted in 2017 was developed in two steps. In the first, a questionnaire-invitation was used as a methodological instrument, which was delivered to 111 teachers who work in the 100 CEINFs, with 106 of them returned, and whose objective was to characterize the Physical Education professionals who work in CEINFs, data not discussed on this text. In the second step, the methodological instrument applied was the Focal Group technique, in which 10 teachers representing seventeen CEINFs participated, since some of those work in more than one of those institutions. For the analysis of the data of the research two thematic categories were listed: the planning elaboration; and interdisciplinary pedagogical practices. The results showed that although Physical Education is present in Early Childhood Education, it is not part of Early Childhood Education, as it is still seen as a discipline that is developed by specialists. In this way, dialogue opportunities and formation in group are not made available, thus occurring the fragmentation of planning, which consequently fragments the teaching actions and the opportunity for children.

Keywords: physical education teachers; teachers of early childhood education; interdisciplinary pedagogical practice

RESUMO.

Este texto, um recorte de uma pesquisa de Mestrado, tem por temática a relação entre a Educação Infantil, a Educação Física e a Interdisciplinaridade e, por objetivo, compreender se ocorre a prática pedagógica interdisciplinar entre os professores de educação física e pedagogos que atuam nos Centros de Educação Infantil (CEINFs) de uma cidade de Mato Grosso do Sul. A pesquisa realizada em 2017 foi desenvolvida em dois momentos. No primeiro, utilizou-se como instrumento metodológico um questionário-convite, entregue a 111 professores que atuam em cem instituições de CEINFs, com devolutiva de 106 deles, e que tinha como objetivo caracterizar quem são os profissionais de Educação Física que atuam nos CEINFS, dados esses não focalizados nesse texto. Na segunda etapa, o instrumento metodológico aplicado foi o referente à técnica do Grupo Focal, do qual participaram 10 professores que representaram dezessete CEINFs, tendo em vista que alguns desses professores atuam em mais de uma instituição. Para a análise dos dados da pesquisa foram elencadas duas categorias temáticas: a elaboração do planejamento; e práticas pedagógicas interdisciplinares. Os resultados apontaram que, apesar da Educação Física estar presente na Educação Infantil, ela não faz parte da Educação Infantil, pois ainda é vista como uma disciplina desenvolvida por especialistas. Desta forma, não são oportunizados momentos de diálogo e de formação em conjunto, ocorrendo, assim, a fragmentação dos planejamentos, que por consequência, também fragmenta as ações docentes e o conhecimento oportunizado às crianças.

Palavras-chave: professores de educação física; professores de educação infantil; prática pedagógica interdisciplinar

RESUMEN.

Este texto, extraído de una investigación de Maestría, tiene como temática la relación entre la Educación infantil, la Educación Física y la Interdisciplinariedad y como objetivo comprender si hay práctica pedagógica interdisciplinar entre los profesores de Educación Física y pedagogos que actúan en los Centros de Educación Infantil (CEINFs) de una ciudad de Mato Grosso do Sul. La investigación realizada en 2017 se desarrolló en dos momentos. En primer lugar, se utilizó como instrumento metodológico un cuestionario-convite, que se entregó a 111 profesores que actúan en los cien CEINFs, con retorno de 106 cuestionarios, y que tenía como objetivo caracterizar quienes son los profesionales de Educación Física que actúan en los CEINFS, datos no trabajados en este texto. En segundo lugar, el instrumento metodológico aplicado fue la técnica del grupo focal, del cual participaron 10 profesores que representaron diecisiete CEINFs, considerando que algunos actúan en más de una institución. Para el análisis de los datos de la investigación se definieron dos categorías temáticas: la elaboración de la planificación; y prácticas pedagógicas interdisciplinares. Los datos apuntaron que, aunque la Educación Física está presente en la Educación Infantil, no forma parte de la Educación Infantil, pues aún es vista como asignatura desarrollada por especialistas. De esa manera, no se promueven momentos de diálogo y de formación conjunta, provocando una fragmentación de la planificación y, como consecuencia, se fragmenta la actividad de los docentes y el conocimiento de los alumnos.

Palabras-clave: profesores de educación física; profesores de educación infantil; práctica pedagógica interdisciplinar

Introduction

This text is presented as an excerpt from a master's degree research and is inserted in the set of concerns about the non-fragmentation of knowledge in Early Childhood Education, understanding that interdisciplinary action becomes indispensable in the educational institution. It is assumed, in this study, the view that interdisciplinarity should be valued and made feasible in educational institutions, in accordance with the words of Fazenda (2013), when explaining that in school interdisciplinarity the notions, purposes and techniques aim to favor, above all, the learning process, respecting children's knowledges and their integration.

The research focusing on ‘Early Childhood Education, Physical Education and Interdisciplinarity’ still finds an open space due to the complexity of the subject. This data was confirmed when, in the initial period of the research, the State of Knowledge was carried out in order to survey the scientific productions that are close to the object of study and confirmed by Betti, Ferraz and Dantas (2011) who found, by means of an identical procedure, that of the 1,582 articles published in the eleven journals selected that specialize in Physical Education at school, only 9.2% (28 articles) were related to the topic of Physical Education for children.

Consultation with both CAPES4 Thesis and Dissertation and IBICT5 databases, between 2000 and 2016, initially showed, through title analysis, twenty-eight works, including theses and dissertations defended in the stipulated period, with themes focused on Physical Education in Early Childhood Education and Interdisciplinarity. After this stage, a partial analytical reading of the works was carried out, analyzing the introduction and the specific chapters that made it possible to meet the objectives proposed in the research.

The criteria for the selection of works were the identification with the theoretical-methodological assumptions of Physical Education in Early Childhood Education and interdisciplinary pedagogical practice. The objective was to enable a theoretical and methodological deepening based on the produced dissertations and theses. After the analysis, eighteen works were selected, with thirteen dissertations and five theses, as it was understood that only these were more related to the object of study.

Therefore, evidencing the relevance and topicality of the theme and investigation, it was established the problem underlying the research which, in this work, focuses on the elaboration of the Physical Education teachers' planning in the Early Childhood Education Centers - CEINFs, of the Municipal teaching network of a city in Mato Grosso do Sul, aiming to understand if the interdisciplinary pedagogical practice occurs in the CEINFs between physical education teachers and pedagogues

The research was characterized as qualitative because, according to Ludke and André (2014, p. 1), “[...] to carry out a research it is necessary to promote the confrontation between the data, the evidence, the information collected on a given subject and the theoretical knowledge about it”. In this research, it was preferred to gather the thoughts and actions of a group of teachers in order to collect knowledges of aspects of concrete reality in relation to the action of planning of Physical Education teachers in CEINFs and the (im)possibilities of occurring an interdisciplinary practice.

Empirical research took place between March and October 2017 and was divided into two steps, the first relating to the visit to the hundred CEINFs, spread across the seven regions of the city and the delivery of an invitation questionnaire to 111 Physical Education teachers. Of these, 106 teachers agreed to participate in the research by responding to the instrument. The data resulting from this instrument will not be focused on in this text.

Secondly, the Focus Group was chosen, with 10 teachers who agreed to participate in this stage of the research. According to Gatti (2012), the choice of the Focus Group as a technique for data collection is made when one wants to understand divergences, contrasts and contradictions. Following this thought, the method gains strength, considering that the contradiction is the driving force for the unveiling and apprehension of the real.

For Rebolo (2005), more than a group interview technique, the Focus Group discussion allows to collect data from several participants in a short period of time.

The discussion in a group formed by participants who have a common experience, who share similar sociodemographic characteristics (level of education, socioeconomic conditions, profession) favors the fluidity of the conversation, the appearance of disagreements between the opinions of the participants and obtaining information that are not limited to the researcher's previous conception. Thus, it constitutes an appropriate technique when the aim is to collect information about the experience of a phenomenon that, many times, is not clear even to those who experience it (Rebolo, 2005, p. 17).

In order to deepen the discussion already initiated through the invitation questionnaire regarding the relationship between interdisciplinarity, physical education and early childhood education, the Focus Group was formed based on the following procedures: after the period for collecting the invitation questionnaires, a survey of the number of people interested in participating in the discussion group was carried out (Focal Group meeting). Of the 106 respondent teachers, 68 (64%) indicated interest in participating and were contacted via telephone (WhatsApp), informing the day and place. Scheduling with teachers was not easy due to difficulties in reconciling schedules, thus resulting in the acceptance of 10 physical education teachers.

The group that actually participated in the meetings represented seventeen CEINFs, about 20% of the existing hundred, due to some teachers working in more than one institution. The participants were between 18 and 40 years old: four were between 18 and 30 years old and six were between 31 and 40 years old; eight are women and two are men. Everyone has a specialization in the area and one is completing a professional master's degree. In this text, for ethical reasons, teachers will be identified by numbers from 1 to 10. The discussions that took place in the Focus Group contemplated issues surrounding planning and the (im)possibilities of interdisciplinary practices among physical education teachers and educators.

Understanding interdisciplinarity and its relations with Early Childhood Education and Physical Education

For Japiassu (1976), several conceptions seek to make interdisciplinarity at school possible, in order to favor a re-linking of the boundaries between disciplines or knowledge, allowing knowledge to occur in a more harmonious way. Fazenda (1994), who has been studying interdisciplinarity for more than thirty years, lists some essential foundations that help in the understanding of an interdisciplinary teaching practice: dialectics, memory, partnership, interdisciplinary classroom and interdisciplinary projects.

The author states that there are three distinct phases in the trajectory of interdisciplinarity: the first, in the 1970s, is considered the phase of definition; the second, in the 1980s, when the method is explained; and the third, in the 1990s, with the construction of the theory. In the three phases, it is evident the concern with the fragmentation of knowledge and the effort to seek ways that enable the integration between knowledges. Fazenda (1994) still draws attention to the mistakes of some professionals, when they claim to carry out interdisciplinary projects, but they do not do it correctly and consciously, because all the work of this kind must go beyond simply mixing the disciplines intuitively.

To think of a complex interdisciplinary process in education is to manage the school curriculum. According to Fazenda (2003, p. 72), this would be one of the ways to achieve a broader and more adequate view of reality and allow to overcome the natural limits of each field of knowledge, that is, “[...] interdisciplinary knowledge seeks the totality of knowledge and respects the specificities of the disciplines”. To make interdisciplinary practice effective, according to the author, it is important to observe the levels of school interdisciplinarity, which are: the curriculum, didactics and pedagogics.

The curricular level preferably requires the incorporation of knowledges within a set and the collaboration of different disciplines in terms of equality, complementarity and interdependence as to the contributions they can provide. At the level of didactic interdisciplinarity, the planning, organization and evaluation of the educational action ensure the mediating function between the curricular (teaching plan) and pedagogical (lesson plan) plans. In the dialectic between curriculum planning and lesson planning, interdisciplinary didactic models are found. The level of pedagogical interdisciplinarity, on the other hand, results from the preliminary interdisciplinary work of previous levels and is effective in updating didactic interdisciplinarity in the classroom (Fazenda 1995).

Finally, in general, the authors presented assume that in interdisciplinarity there is a commitment to the totality, seeking to overcome the fragmentation of knowledge. In summary, interdisciplinarity is an approach that must be present at different levels of education, promoting more significant knowledge, in this specific case, for children. In this perspective, children's curiosity under the teacher's attentive perception will provide the child with a critical and transforming insertion in the reality in which they are inserted, promoting essential conditions in the construction of their citizenship.

Fazenda (1994) stresses the need to understand how children live, what their living conditions are, their problems, their cultural universe, the groups they participate in, where they and/or their family came from, their health conditions, their history of life. It is understood that, for the author, the process of moving from a traditional didactic to a more transformative didactic, in an interdisciplinary perspective, requires a review of everyday aspects performed by the teacher. That is, when verifying how these aspects are reviewed, the process of entering an interdisciplinary didactics begins.

In view of the above, the following concern arises: why is interdisciplinarity so difficult to put into practice, if in theory it is a pedagogical tool? Xavier and Teno (2015) affirm that, although several studies carried out focus on the interdisciplinary theme, what is observed is that this concept still provokes distrust.

Additionally, according to the authors, the difficulties are related to the training of professionals in Education, which, most of the time, occurred through a positivist and fragmented perspective. In this sense, the teacher may feel insecure about taking on a new task, not being able to think interdisciplinarly because all of his or her learning was carried out within a compartmentalized curriculum.

According to Fazenda (2003), in order to overcome the lack of teacher articulation, it is essential that there are interlocutors in the institution who help teachers to understand their interdisciplinary practices, promoting the reading of the teaching practice of other colleagues. Xavier and Tenon (2015) mention some difficulties in the development of an interdisciplinary practice. The first, which the authors call ‘parish spirit’, is the tendency to ‘overvalue’ the discipline itself and devalue the others. The second is the ‘informal loss’ which means being afraid to mischaracterize and trivialize your discipline. The third refers to ‘institutional conservatism’ which fears frontier transgression, leading the educational institution to discredit. And, finally, the ‘individual conservatism’, characterized by insecurity when our area of ​​knowledge is invaded or when we enter an unknown area, which can mean taking on what is not dominated.

Fazenda (2003) argues that a teacher training project in an interdisciplinary perspective needs to take into account the following questions: how to make the teacher engagement process effective in an interdisciplinary work, even if their training has been fragmented? How to provide ways of establishing dialogue, even if the teacher was not prepared for it? How to provide conditions for exchanges with other subjects, even if the teacher has not yet acquired mastery of his or her own subject? According to the author, a project that does not pay attention to these assumptions is bound to fail.

Xavier and Teno (2015) affirm that it is important to consider that the teacher committed to interdisciplinary didactics respects the territory of each field of knowledge. And, in this perspective, working interdisciplinarily means believing and defending the specialties of each science, taking into account that theories are not built in isolation without a base that unites them:

For interdisciplinary work to become effective, the cultivation of the teacher becomes essential, insofar as he or she is recognized as being with an incomplete image. Thus, it is admitted that the teacher is not the 'owner' of the truth to be transmitted and incorporated by the students, without question. The teacher must constantly seek to improve his or her knowledge, that is, cultivating in group and individually. (Xavier & Teno, 2015, p. 101, emphasis in the original).

Still, according to the authors, the teacher who seeks to work in an interdisciplinary way must have a dynamic attitude towards knowledge, always seeking to deepen his or her disciplinary knowledge from different sources. Furthermore, it is necessary to have the humility to admit your mistakes and always be willing to change, being always open to new expectations, to research and to the ease of working together with other colleagues.

Therefore, in accordance with the concepts of interdisciplinarity already mentioned, it is evident that the institution's curriculum must be based on relationships, interactions and educational practices, intentionally focused on experiences that stimulate learning, living in the collective space and in production of narratives, through different languages.

And, in Early Childhood Education itself, such languages are different forms of expression, such as images, songs and music, theater, dance and movement, as well as written, spoken and sign language. It is understood, therefore, that the movement is the articulator of the different interdisciplinary activities in Early Childhood Education:

It is necessary to consider that the languages are interrelated: for example, in the sung games the child explores the expressive possibilities of their movements while playing with words and imitating certain characters. When the child turns to build knowledge about different aspects of their environment, the child develops their linguistic and cognitive abilities involved in explanation, argumentation and others, at the same time that the child expand their knowledge about the world and records their discoveries by drawing or even by shapes well before written record. For this reason, when planning the work, it is important not to take languages in an isolated or disciplinary way, but contextualized, in the service of significant learning (National Curriculum Guidelines for Early Childhood Education, 2009, p. 15).

Soares (2015) points out that in all actions, such as playing, drawing or writing, it is possible to observe that movement is the central axis of the pedagogical practice developed by the child, and that, consequently, other languages are developed in an interdisciplinary way.

Ricardi (2008) points out that professionals who work with young children build and (re)build in the daily lives of the institutions where they work, a practice that is based on their knowledge. This knowledge can originate from teacher training or practice, or even from interaction with other more experienced professionals in daycare centers.

Kishimoto (2002) points out that the valorization of playing as a natural and spontaneous activity is not present only in contemporary studies. It has already been in the thinking of Rousseau and Froebel, when they consider that playing gives children the opportunity to recapitulate the experiences passed by humanity in a spontaneous way. The development of the playful aspect facilitates personal, social and cultural development, contributes to satisfactory mental health, prepares for a fertile inner state, facilitates the processes of socialization, communication, expression and construction of knowledge. Thus, the role of playfulness in childhood is undeniable and as such it must occupy a privileged space in early childhood education.

It should be noted that professionals in Early Childhood Education still face the challenge of organizing teaching work that does not separate activities and, at the same time, show the educational intentionality among them. It is understood, therefore, that it is necessary a process of collective and participative construction, in order to study, know, discuss, analyze, reflect, understand and transform reality, with the knowledge and experiences of each area, together with peers.

Therefore, in order to act in Early Childhood Education, it is necessary to understand that the knowledge is articulated between the areas of knowledge and that they contemplate several languages of the child, such as oral and written, mathematical, artistic, corporal, musical, temporal and spatial and cultural.

Research: planning in the voices of Physical Education teachers at CEINFs

To think about the Physical Education teacher's pedagogical practice is to plan it composed of senses and meanings in which motor actions are related to children's cognitive, affective, cultural and social aspects (Palma, Oliveira, & Palma, 2010). To this end, the Municipal Department of Education, through the sector specific to the area, seeks to organize the work of teachers requesting the annual plan at the beginning of the year. All physical education teachers participating in the survey mentioned that they prepared the annual plan.

To understand how this organization occurs in the reality of early childhood education institutions, the voices of teachers were heard:

  1. Teacher 1: ...so, for us to start working with them, we receive a parameter here from SEMED[Municipal Department of Education] that gives us guidance. From this parameter, we start to prepare our annual planning to work with them. Also from the parameter that they send, we set up fortnightly plans.

  2. Teacher 8: I joined; I didn't have much experience... The teachers, coordinators and principals did not know how to guide me because they did not have this knowledge of Physical Education. So when I got there I had to do everything from scratch. So I sat down with my coordinator, went and did everything from scratch. There are the curricular parameters, I learned that later, there is no specific one for Physical Education, but there is one for Early Childhood Education. Like as a general base. And through it I planned, the coordinator helped and so we managed to do it [the annual plan].

  3. Teacher 6: as I joined in the middle of the year, I already had another teacher's annual plan, in this case the teacher that left. I had access to his annual plan, and since it was ready for that year, I continued to follow. This year I made my own annual plan. So there is a plan... the same contents, skills, competencies that the previous one had. I broke it into pieces in the way that I found most practical to work with. And now I do it like so. But I also prepare weekly plans.

It is understood that Physical Education teachers still initially have some difficulties in organizing and systematizing their activities. For instance, what to work in each class? The other teachers have systematized content that clearly indicates what to work on throughout the year, and these doubts about what to address end up generating works with reduced articulation and little logical sequence.

Darido and Rangel (2010, p. 77), regarding the annual plan, consider it to be a “[...] step that should be understood as support for the teacher's work, it should not be relegated to the background, nor repeated year after year, much less forgotten in a drawer”.

Through the answers it was possible to observe that the elaboration of the teachers' annual plan occurs in many cases in a solitary way and surrounded by doubts about the elaboration of this document so essential for the teacher. In an attempt to resolve doubts and insecurities, they seek support from the educational team of the educational institution.

In order to better understand how the planning occurs, the question was again asked by the teachers how they plan the classes and what are the support bases used?

  1. Teacher 10: there at the CEINF there are some books too, but they are more pedagogical, but we always find something we can use… I use the internet too, after it is finished I show it to the coordinator and she also gives me tips on how I can improve my class, mainly with the behavior, something that I have difficulty in.

  2. Teacher 8: I researched a lot of Early Childhood Education books, games. Teachers and coordinators gave me things to put on, but I still feel pretty outdated.

The act of planning for some teachers is not a very easy task, as they should reflect on the teaching-learning process. According to Gallardo, Oliveira, and Aravena (1998), one of the paths for participatory planning is to define some thematic lines and generate axes of interest, considering the objectives of Physical Education in Early Childhood Education for the year in question.

Preparing a plan requires paying attention to the legal guidelines in force, mainly from the Municipal Department of Education. It is essential to integrate planning with the CEINF PPP[Political-Pedagogic Project], so that planning meets the reality and needs of children.

In this intention, Physical Education in Early Childhood Education should provide as many diverse experiences as possible, but always linked to educational practice, with intentions that contribute to the child's education, presenting new possibilities, expanding experiences and deepening knowledge and not only disciplinary and motor objectives.

Kishimoto (2002) points out that playful practices are valuable supports for teaching action, which enrich the pedagogical work and allow the acquisition of skills and knowledge:

When playful situations are intentionally created by the adult in order to stimulate certain types of learning, the educational dimension emerges. As long as the conditions for the expression of the game are maintained, that is, the child's intentional action to play, the educator is enhancing the learning situations. Using the game in early childhood education means transporting conditions to maximize the construction of knowledge to the field of teaching-learning, introducing the properties of playfulness, pleasure, the capacity for initiation and active and motivating action (Kishimoto, 2002, p. 37-38).

What was perceived during the research and also pointed out in the studies brought up by the State of Knowledge was that Early Childhood Education follows the perspective of schooling with an emphasis on literacy. In this way, the other languages end up being in the background, as in the specific case of Physical Education, being associated as a break from classroom activities for children or time to guarantee the planning of teachers, or even as a resource to improve the development of cognitive and motor skills.

Palma et al. (2010) emphasize that it is still common sense to understand Physical Education as the interval for playing and not the moment of reflecting, researching, analyzing and evaluating. Some teachers mentioned feeling this view that other teachers have of their classes:

  1. Teacher 4: I think they don't see the objective being explored in the child, which has a didactic sequence…

  2. Teacher 6: I think the classroom teachers think that we only play in class...

  3. Teacher 9: At the beginning, there were some moments that I even talked to the coordinator, because I was evaluating the children and I left them free and then I put some activities to analyze the children's movement. Then the recesser complained: "teacher, this is too much of a mess". I replied: "No, I am analyzing... you think it is a mess, but for me it is not a mess, I am seeing what is happening". Then I talked to the coordinator and said: "Look, this and that happened, but I was in the room to be able to analyze what I needed to apply to the children. So when she asked me to reduce the noise, I did… Because the class is not mine". The director said: "No teacher, the class is yours!"

Regarding material and space for classes, teachers reported:

Teacher 8: a large part of the materials that I have are the ones that I make available, because my CEINF has no material... It is a CEINF that is well isolated. It is not new, but it is very isolated, a very deprived community. It is very cozy, because it is tiny. Only I also have little space to work. So my biggest difficulty is the material and the space to be able to work, because it's just a garage. It's a little corridor and I just have it to work. As for the didactic resources, the coordinator and the director get together and we try to get things done and so we are proceeding with our annual and monthly/semester plans too. Teacher 9: there are no materials, together with the director we looked for resources because there was no ball, there was no material, so I adapted everything. So I'm starting from scratch with these kids. With very little material and space.

The lack of spaces and materials are difficulties faced mainly by public school teachers, who find, in most cases, precarious situations for the realization of classes. However, it is known that all institutions receive resources for the purchase of materials or deliver a list of materials they need, and then a question arises that may serve for new research: how does the administration of resources for materials and the use of spaces for Physical Education classes occur? Does it enter the list like other institutions' requests or if investment occurs only when there are spare resources?

(Im)possibilities of interdisciplinarity in the pedagogical practice of the Physical Education teacher

In view of the question posed to the participants of the Focus Group, planning is carried out jointly with the other teachers, most of them were positioned in a negative way, because of the schedules, the possibility of joint planning is reduced. The teachers claimed that the planning hours at the institution do not correspond to the available time of the classroom teachers, making it difficult to think about an interdisciplinary practice:

  1. Teacher 10: so I do my planning alone... We also don't have a schedule... planning hours don't match. So, normally, when we meet we exchange a word there quickly [laughs].

  2. Teacher 3: in my case it's the time. Because the moments I can talk to them are in my PL, and they are in the room so I go into her room to be able to talk... We have, in some weeks, three free hours, only that free time is private use. If I go it is my free time and I am willing to go. I don't always have that possibility. And it is also a time of rest, of recovery. That is, the conversation happens, but in an informal way.

  3. Teacher 6 and 7: No way! Our schedule doesn't match… [expression of discontent]

  4. Teacher 5: teacher 1: I think a little because of the lack of custom and also the question of meeting up. [...] We are not always able to have this direct contact. So it gets a little complicated.

  5. Participante 4: No due to the schedule

It is noted through the reports of these teachers that the preparation of plans occurs separately between Physical Education and classroom teachers resulting in a possible discontinuity between what is taught in class and what is taught in Physical Education classes. Sayão (1999, p. 225) emphasizes that “[...] whenever it is essential, it is necessary to guarantee the constant integration between everyone, so that the work does not lose its continuity and objectivity”. Therefore, it is necessary to provide times and spaces in which there is the possibility of developing collective works, promoting dialogue and exchanges between teachers and having the child as the center of the educational process.

However, there were signs of a desire and attempts to be together. Three teachers stated that they are able to talk to classroom teachers, using some strategies:

  1. Teacher 2: the moments I can talk to the teachers are in my PL, in which case I go into her classroom that she is in class, so I can talk quickly.

  2. Teacher 9: as the PLs match, I have this facility, I can talk to everyone on different days. That's why I organize a monthly plan, because then I already asked them... I already talked to them, I already talked to the coordinator. So it's easy for me to capture the information. Because I plan based on what they also say.

  3. Teacher 1: it is because we usually have planning sessions together. For example, when I get there she might say: no, teacher we will work this and this. If you want to put it in your planning... And I will fit it, as... Also because we also have very little time. I only go once a week.

In view of the reports, quick conversations are observed in inappropriate places and times. The form of dialogue presented by teacher 1 causes some reflections. In fact, will there be an interdisciplinary dialogue?

In view of this questioning, Sayão (1999) mentions that it is necessary to cross the borders of the different areas of knowledge, allowing moments and spaces for exchanges, discussion and integration to occur between teachers. The author also warns of:

[...] the need to overcome the watertight boundaries that determine the specificity of the different areas of knowledge and to open the space for exchange, discussion, integration between the different professionals who work with young children who, in isolation, are unable to build work aimed at the 'real' needs that the children's world demands, given that these needs span a range of areas of knowledge (Sayão, 1999, p. 235, emphasis in the original).

Therefore, the importance of promoting meetings and an interdisciplinary dialogue is emphasized, in which teachers who work with the same group of children reflect on the proposed activities, since in dialoguing, they enrich and favor the integral formation of their students.

For Fazenda (2003), interdisciplinarity is a commitment to the totality, that is, it is a search for overcoming the fragmentation of knowledge. Fragmented teaching does not allow students (in this case children) the logic of all knowledge. Thus, as they grow older, the teaching of Mathematics, Sciences, among others, becomes nothing more than an accumulation of knowledge that has been memorized and forgotten, as they have no relationship with each other. Therefore, there is a need to think about building an interdisciplinary planning.

The verification of this reality in relation to the elaboration of the planning of practical educational activities carried out by Physical Education teachers at CEINFs, leads us to think that, despite advances in academic discussions and debates about the specificity of Early Childhood Education and the non-fragmentation of knowledge, practice still runs counter to theory.

Notably, it was possible to observe that, in some CEINFs, there are more than one Physical Education teacher, sometimes in the same shift or in different shifts of the participants. What drew attention is that, even among peers, the dialogue on planning is almost nonexistent according to the testimonies of the teachers.

Teacher 3: I work in the afternoon and the other teacher in the morning. So we don't meet. Only during training. When it is available that there is no class in the whole period I can go the same period as the teacher in the morning or she in my period for us to meet. Teacher 2: but we also don’t meet, but in training we can talk… Teacher 7: each one does their own... organize it in the way that it becomes more viable and practical... Teacher 4: no! Even because [he or she] doesn't teach the same class as I do... Teacher 6: it's hard because of the schedule, for people who work at two CEINFs it is hard to coincide the PL schedule...

The narratives of Physical Education teachers portray the uncertainties regarding the work developed within the CEINFs, both methodological and administrative.

In this context, as the teachers describe in their reports, the justification for the lack of time for the preparation of plans is recurrent, and the biggest aggravating factor is the fact that sometimes in the same CEINF there may be more than one Physical Education teacher and the dialogue remains virtually non-existent. Xavier and Teno (2015) emphasize that when planning does not include dialogue between professionals, it becomes difficult to strengthen (or to occur) an interdisciplinary practice.

Pedagogical work requires an organization of materials and also the accompaniment of someone who has the pedagogical domain to articulate the teaching-learning process. Through the speeches of the teachers, there was a clear need for assistance in solving some situations of the teacher's daily life.

For Fazenda (2003), interdisciplinary pedagogical practice should not be just a name, but an intention, based on epistemological and methodological assumptions, periodically reviewed. In this context, it is again evident why there are few interdisciplinary pedagogical actions. It is understood, therefore, that which Fazenda (2003) points out: more difficult than the elimination of barriers between disciplines is the elimination of barriers between people.

Rabinovich (2007) highlights the importance of Physical Education classes being linked to the areas of knowledge worked on in the classroom, that is, the child will be able to play in the yard and then represent it on paper through drawing, painting, collage , clipping or other techniques. In carrying out this activity, the student resorts to the transition from the real (practical classes) to the symbolic (representation).

The teachers who participated in the Focus Group showed the understanding that Physical Education provides an opportunity to promote interdisciplinarity in Early Childhood Education. It is evident in their speeches, the possibility of Physical Education classes to provide interaction between teachers, seeking to overcome difficulties, through the playful universe and the experiences provided to children, thus favoring their learning and development.

Final considerations

The research made it possible to understand that Physical Education is an area of knowledge that allows numerous experiences, not only in the motor aspects, but in all social, emotional, cultural and cognitive aspects of the child. However, it was observed that although Physical Education is present in Early Childhood Education, it is not part of Early Childhood Education, as it is still seen as a discipline that is developed by specialists. In this way, moments of dialogue and training together are not provided, thus occurring the fragmentation of planning, which, consequently, fragments the teaching actions and the knowledge provided to children.

The reflections/analyzes of the results obtained showed that there is an understanding of the importance and the need for an interdisciplinary practice in Early Childhood Education, and that there are several factors that make its implementation unfeasible, especially the question of the time dedicated to planning that should be reviewed for enable planning together with the exchange of knowledge and experiences among all teachers, with the child as the center of attention with a view to significant interdisciplinary actions. Difficulties and challenges also permeate the Municipal Department of Education in order to offer conditions of time and space to promote reflections on planning and the importance of dialogue between teachers.

It is reaffirmed that participation in training or specialization courses does not guarantee the effectiveness of interdisciplinary actions, but expands the professional's view. Finally, we defend the thesis that undergraduate courses, based on interdisciplinary principles, can offer essential elements for the re-signification of teachers' pedagogical practice in Early Childhood Education.

REFERENCES

Betti, M., Ferraz, O., & Dantas, L. E. P. B. T. (2011). Educação física escolar: estado da arte e direções futuras. Revista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte, 25(n. spe), 105-115. doi: 10.1590/S1807-55092011000500011 [ Links ]

Darido, S. C., & Rangel, I. C. A. (2010). Educação Física na escola: implicações para a prática pedagógica. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Guanabara Koogan. [ Links ]

Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Educação Infantil. (2009). Brasília, DF: Ministério da Educação. Secretaria de Educação Básica. [ Links ]

Fazenda, I. C. A. (1994). A interdisciplinaridade: história, teoria e pesquisa. Campinas, SP: Papirus. [ Links ]

Fazenda, I. C. A. (1995). Interdisciplinaridade: história, teoria e pesquisa (2a ed.). Campinas, SP: Papirus . [ Links ]

Fazenda, I. C. A. (2003). Interdisciplinaridade: qual o sentido? São Paulo, SP: Paulus. [ Links ]

Fazenda, I. C. A. (Org.), (2013). O que é interdisciplinaridade? (2a ed.). São Paulo, SP: Cortez. [ Links ]

Gatti, B. A. (2012). Grupo focal na pesquisa em Ciências Sociais e Humanas. Brasília, DF: Líber Livro. [ Links ]

Gallardo, J., Oliveira, A., & Aravena, C. (1998). Didática de educação física. A criança em movimento: jogo, prazer e transformação. São Paulo, SP: FTD. [ Links ]

Japiassu, H. (1976). Interdisciplinaridade e patologia do saber. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Imago. [ Links ]

Kishimoto, T. M. (2002). Jogo, brinquedo, brincadeira e a educação (3a ed.). São Paulo, SP: Cortez . [ Links ]

Ludke, M., & André, M. (2014). Pesquisa em educação: abordagens qualitativas (2a ed.). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: EPU. [ Links ]

Palma, A. P. T. V., Oliveira, A. A. B., & Palma, J. A. V. (2010). Educação física e a organização curricular: educação infantil, ensino fundamental, ensino médio (2a ed.). Londrina, PR: EdUEL. [ Links ]

Rabinovich, S. B. (2007). O Espaço do movimento na educação infantil. Formação e experiência profissional. São Paulo, SP: Phorte. [ Links ]

Rebolo, F. (2005). O bem-estar docente: limites e possibilidade para a felicidade do professor no trabalho (Tese de Doutorado em Educação). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. [ Links ]

Ricardi, G. C. L. (2008). O contexto pedagógico de CEINFS de Campo Grande/MS: um olhar sobre a atuação das profissionais de educação infantil (Dissertação de Mestrado). Universidade Católica Dom Bosco, Campo Grande. [ Links ]

Sayão, D. T. (1999). Educação Fisica na educacfio infantil: riscos, conflitos e controvérsias. Motrivivência, XI(13), 221-238. [ Links ]

Soares, D. (2015). O diálogo na Educação Infantil: o movimento, a interdisciplinaridade e a Educação Física (Dissertação de Mestrado em Educação Física). Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas. [ Links ]

Xavier, M., & Tenon, N. (2015). Interdisciplinaridade: possibilidades e desafios. In L. S. Mello, & J. Rojas (Orgs.), A transversalidade da interdisciplinaridade em metodologias e pesquisa (p. 87-106). Curitiba, PR: CRV. [ Links ]

4Coordination for higher Education Staff Development.

5Brazilian Institute for Information in Science and Technology.

NOTE: Marta Regina Brostolin and Claudia Diniz de Moraes were responsible for the design, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing and critical review of the manuscript content and also approval of the final version to be published.

Received: May 23, 2019; Accepted: December 03, 2019

INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORS Marta Regina Brostolin: Graduation in Pedagogy (1994), Master in Education (1998), Doctorate (2005). She carried out a post-doctoral internship at the University of Minho, Braga/Portugal under the supervision of Prof. Dr Manuel Jacinto Sarmento in the specialty of Sociology of Childhood (2017). She works at Catholic University Dom Bosco in the undergraduate course of Pedagogy and Postgraduate Program in Education - Master and Doctorate at UCDB researching the themes: Teacher Education; Childhood and Early Childhood Education and Sociology of Childhood. She is the leader of GEPDI - Group for the Study and Research of Teaching in Childhood. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4262-2222 E-mail: brosto@ucdb.br

Claudia Diniz de Moraes: Master in Education from the Graduate Program in Education at the Catholic University Dom Bosco (UCDB-2018). Specialization in Critical Pedagogy of Physical Education by the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS-2010). Graduated in Physical Education at Catholic University Dom Bosco (UCDB-2009). Professor at Catholic University Dom Bosco in Physical Education and Pedagogy Courses. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6813-3430 E-mail: profclaudiadms@gmail.com

Creative Commons License Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto sob uma licença Creative Commons