SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.21‘El cuerpo como residencia del Espíritu Santo’: educación del cuerpo en la obra de Benjamin Franklin (1732-1790)Educación museal y producción de memorias: Museo ‘Ozildo Albano’ índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Compartir


Revista Brasileira de História da Educação

versión impresa ISSN 1519-5902versión On-line ISSN 2238-0094

Rev. Bras. Hist. Educ vol.21  Maringá  2021  Epub 09-Dic-2020

https://doi.org/10.4025/rbhe.v21.2021.e147 

Original Article

Between production and circulation: Carleton Washburne’s studies viaNew Education Fellowship’s publications

Nara Vilma Lima Pinheiro1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2868-4435

1Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.


Abstract:

By retracing Carleton Wolsey Washburne’s professional journey, this study sought to evidence the circumstances under which his educational ideas were produced. With the intention to learn more about his journey and educational actions, important communication networks revealed themselves, showing that his actions were not isolated, but intertwined with international networks, whose discourses and practices were incorporated by individuals and institutions adept at the Éducation Nouvelle advocated by the New Education Fellowship (NEF). Specifically, it is interesting to know which of Washburne’s ideas were disseminated internationally by the NEF’s founding journals. To this end, this research, inserted in the History of Education and Cultural History fields, uses documentary analysis based on Michel de Certeau’s and Peter Burke’s studies. Results showed that the circulation of Washburne’s ideas, via NEF’s publications, did not privilege his work as a whole, but the self-instructional materials, especially those referring to the teaching of arithmetic.

Keywords: protestantism; education of the body; history of the body; health

Resumo:

Por meio da reconstituição da trajetória profissional de Carleton Wolsey Washburne, este estudo procurou evidenciar as circunstâncias de produção suas ideias educacionais. Ao procurar saber mais sobre sua trajetória e suas ações educacionais, importantes redes de comunicação se revelaram, evidenciando que suas ações não foram isoladas, mas entrelaçadas a redes internacionais, cujos discursos e práticas foram incorporados por indivíduos e instituições adeptas da Éducation Nouvelle defendida pela New Education Fellowship [NEF]. De modo específico, interessa saber quais ideias de Washburne, os periódicos fundadores da NEF, fizeram circular internacionalmente. Para tanto, essa pesquisa se insere no campo da História da Educação e da História Cultural, utiliza-se da análise documental amparando-se nos estudos de Michel de Certeau e Peter Burke. Os resultados evidenciaram que a circulação das ideias de Washburne, via publicações da NEF, não privilegiou o conjunto de sua obra, mas os materiais autoinstrucionais, em especial os referentes ao ensino de aritmética.

Palavras-chave: educação progressista; escola individualizada; educação nova; ensino de aritmética

Resumen:

A través de la reconstrucción de la trayectoria profesional de Carleton Wolsey Washburne, este estudio buscó resaltar las circunstancias de la producción de sus ideas educativas. Al buscar conocer más sobre su trayectoria y sus acciones educativas, se revelaron importantes redes de comunicación, mostrando que sus acciones no fueron aisladas, sino entrelazadas con redes internacionales, cuyos discursos y prácticas fueron incorporados por individuos e instituciones adeptas de la Education Nouvelle defendidas por New Education Fellowship [NEF]. Específicamente, estábamos interesados en conocer qué ideas de Washburne, las revistas fundadoras de NEF, circularon internacionalmente. Por eso, esta investigación se inserta en el campo de la Historia de la Educación y la Historia Cultural, utiliza un análisis documental basado en los estudios de Michel de Certeau y Peter Burke. Los resultados mostraron que la circulación de las ideas de Washburne, a través de las publicaciones de la NEF, no favoreció la totalidad de su obra, sino los materiales de autoinstrucción, especialmente los relacionados con la enseñanza de la aritmética.

Palabras clave: educación progresiva; escuela individualizada; nueva educacion; enseñanza de aritmética

Introduction

This text aims to analyze the production and circulation of studies conducted by Carleton Washburne, an important character in the articulation and dissemination of Progressive Education ideas. His pedagogical experiences were recognized internationally as an innovative pedagogical model for the intended educational renewal, mentioned by renowned pedagogues and disseminated in the middle of the 20th century by the New Education Fellowship (NEF), also known as Ligue Internationale Pour L’Education Nouvelle, an important organization created with the aim of promoting a new education and developing a broad international network of collaborators to spread its ideals (Rabelo, 2016). Through its publications and international conferences, the NEF mobilized “[...] theories, models, objects and people related to the New Education agenda, reaching different places and gathering new researchers and enthusiasts” (Vidal & Rabelo, 2019, p. 211). After joining this organization, Washburne shared his experiences and helped build a common and shared repertoire of experimental and theoretical knowledge.

Despite not being totally absent in the Brazilian historiography, few studies have focused on the life or educational actions of this North American pedagogue (Pinheiro & Valente, 2016; Pinheiro, 2017; Rabelo & Vidal, 2018; Rabelo, 2019). Given this finding, the first part of this article seeks to present the main elements of Washburne’s personal and professional life that helped build his educational actions. The analyzed data were collected from international references focusing on the progressive education of the United States of America. Afterwards, the pedagogical innovations under his supervision are examined, which transformed Winnetka’s public schools into a progressive education center of international reference, from 1919 to 1943. And finally, using the Fellowship’s publications, the international circulation of Washburne’s ideas will be analyzed. To this end, the journals Pour l’ére nouvelle (PEN) and The New Era (TNE) were taken as a “[...] social and cultural space for the reception and diffusion, interpretation and negotiation of educational knowledge [...] “, that is, as a product of a communication network designed to produce and pass on knowledge about education (Carvalho, 2009, p. 190). This communication network is understood as ‘a discourse community’ in which several discourses arise from interactions between individuals, who produce, interpret and spread knowledge. These interactions include spaces for exchanging ideas and projects, for discussing methods and results, where disputes and alliances are established (Hofstetter & Schneuwly, 2004). The NEF’s journals materialize the production generated in these spaces of exchanges about the new education. Specifically, it is interesting to know which of Washburne’s ideas were disseminated internationally by the NEF’s founding journals.

Carleton Washburne’s course of production

Son of the physician George F. Washburne (1855 - 1936) and the teacher, writer and editor Marion Foster Washburne (1863 -1944), Carleton Washburne (1889 - 1968) was born in Chicago, United States, to a family that respected and valued education. His mother was an enthusiast of the movement that focused on studying child development and an advocate for progressive education, especially for the ideas of Francis Parker (1837 - 1902) and John Dewey (1859 - 1952). According to Washburne, his entire life was marked by ideas of the new education, discussed around the dining table and the fireplace in his home (Washburne & Marland, 1963).

Early in his school life, Washburne spent some time at the experimental school founded by Francis Parker. At the age of ten, he moved with his family to rural Elkhart, Indiana, where he completed high school. His experience at the school in Elkhart was quite different from that at Parker school. Whereas his primary education was founded on a child-centered approach, his secondary education was guided by the traditional approach of the lock-step method, built along the same lines as those of the military system, based on the assumption that all individuals could be organized and controlled “[ ...] the same manner that a military officer marshals and directs the bodily movements of a company of soldiers” (Washburne & Marland, 1963, p. 9). Worried about this kind of education, his maternal grandparents took him to study in Chicago, at John Marshall High School, where he finished his studies.

In college, Washburne decided to pursue the career of his father and maternal grandfather, when he enrolled, in 1908, in the medical course at the University of Chicago. After three years of study, he requested a transfer from the medical course and completed his training in the physiology department, from which he received the title of Master of Arts.

Without institutional pedagogical training, but benefited by a law that allowed all holders of university degrees to teach at public elementary schools, Washburne took advantage of his school experience to teach at rural schools. The initial difficulties combined with his desire to give children the same education he had received, at the progressive schools he had attended, convinced him that the curriculum should be adapted to the interests, abilities and understanding of each child (Zilversmit, 1993). But Washburne was not the first to have this perception.

In San Francisco, another renowned figure in the progressive education of the USA, Frederick Burk, was already denouncing the disadvantages of the traditional instruction provided by primary schools, its inefficiency and the dropout rates of children who fell behind in school. His experiences warned about the need to individualize teaching with textbooks adapted by subject to the potential of each student (Meuer, 1988). An advocate for the individualization of teaching, Washburne became a disciple of Burk and started to develop experiences with individualized materials, in the classrooms attached to the San Francisco Normal School (Gardet, 2018). In partnership with Burk, he spent five years (1914 - 1919) in ‘hard work, rigorous training and productive activity’. During that time, he was responsible for developing and implementing science curriculum materials. In 1918, he defended his doctoral thesis entitled A science curriculum based on research (Meuer, 1988).

Later, on Burk’s recommendation, Washburne had the opportunity to experiment with his own pedagogical conceptions in Winnetka’s public schools, in the suburbs of Chicago. For Burk, the town was small, so the experience would be easy to apply, and with Washburne still young, any failure would not have much impact. As a superintendent, Washburne was able to execute a more ambitious plan; instead of developing his ideas inside a classroom, he managed to turn public schools into a true laboratory. The place proved to be favorable to the adoption of progressive educational ideas because, since its foundation, the town had been a stage for the development of theories on the practice of democracy, enabling the reception of John Dewey’s ideas, of the school as a miniature of society, as an agency to build a new and more pleasant community (Zilversmit, 1993).

Unlike what happens in other places, where the State holds itself accountable for public education, in Winnetka this was the duty of men of power, mainly businessmen who took responsibility for public education. They were responsible for appointing education experts, who were entrusted with “[...] the right and the duty to organize a coherent and complete public school system, by means of their direction and funding” (Hofstetter, Schnewuwly & Freymond, 2017, p. 61). Such was the case with Washburne, subject of expertise6, called on to produce knowledge about the school system, in accordance with a logic organized by rules specific to the scientific world. The businessmen responsible for public education gave him freedom to experiment with new pedagogical concepts, facilitating the development of a program that could please diverse audiences, from the supporters of Dewey’s ideas; progressives concerned with the need to restore a sense of community in the American life; those committed to promoting creativity and the arts; those concerned with psychological development; to those seeking efficiency and better school performance. These ideas took place at a time “[...] when America, in a trance of work organization, suggests the seductive, but ambiguous formula of taylorizing instruction, to value education” (Gilbert, 1974, p. 112).

In summary, the educational philosophy of Winnetka’s schools was the result of three converging currents that involved: the initiative of some parents to take the reins of public education in Winnetka, so that “[...] they would be proud to send their children to them” (Zilversmit, 1993, p. 47); the work of Frederick Burk and his associates; and his own initial experience as a teacher. According to Washburne and Marland (1963), the convergence of these currents stemmed from the appropriation of educational ideas that were being developing previously with Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, William James, G. Staley Hall, Francis W. Parker and John Dewey, as well as others who were included in the course of his investigations.

When it comes to appropriation, it is worth remembering the analysis by the historian Michel de Certeau (2012) on cultural practices, on a supposedly passive consumption of products received, to extract from them ‘ways of doing’, that is, the ‘combinatorial and utilitarian consumptions’ by which users articulate ways of thinking and practical procedures, configuring a new repertoire of knowledge. In this sense, Washburne considers that

As a growing organism assimilates many elements, selecting and using what it needs and recombining them, so Winnetka has freely used the ideas and experiences of many people over the world and made them a part of itself. Then, in turn, it has become an element to be assimilated by others, losing its identity in proportion to its assimilation Then, in its turn, it became an element to be assimilated by others, losing its identity as it was assimilated (Washburne & Marland, 1963, p. 158).

Analyzing this quote from the perspective of Certeau, one can go further and understand that these appropriations of knowledge correspond to another production, which was noticed for the ways in which its practitioners employed them, in accordance with their own interests and their own rules. These ways of employing them composed what became known as the Winnetka system.

For 24 years, Washburne devoted himself to the education system of Winnetka; in partnership with his team of teachers, he reorganized the curriculum, wrote new materials, all made-to-measure, which allowed children to instruct themselves in accordance with their progress or delays in different subjects and at different levels, then proceed to a self-assessment with the aid of diagnostic tests (Gardet, 2018). During that time, under his supervision, teachers were encouraged to participate in all aspects of research development for professional growth.

Washburne and his disciples spent some time teaching at the École Internationale in Geneva, Switzerland, at the American School in Tokyo, Japan, and at the American College in Beirut, Lebanon. Others worked, taught or studied as well at various colleges and universities in the United States. The experiences supervised by Washburne drew international attention, and his articles were translated into several languages.

Interested in the Éducation Nouvelle (New Education, in the United States), in 1926 Washburne went on a study trip to the main places of dissemination of this ideology in Europe (England, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia). Upon returning from that trip, he published his impressions of the work entitled ‘New schools in the old world’ (Gardet, 2018). In the following year, 1927, he joined the New Education Fellowship (Ligue internationale d’éducation nouvelle) to participate in the fourth congress held in Locarno. At said congress, Washburne presented, in partnership with eight members of his team of teachers, a conference on the technique developed in Winnetka. His lecture gained notoriety and was widely commented on in specialized journals (Gardet, 2018). The participation of Washburne and his team became constant in congresses held under the aegis of the NEF. These spaces turned into privileged moments for exchanges, playing a fundamental role in the circulation of knowledge about the new education.

Throughout his first ten years of work, Washburne managed to make his method an experience of international recognition, cited by renowned pedagogues and by the main newspapers of the time, thus becoming, just as Francis Parker or John Dewey, one of the main figures of the progressive education in the United States (Gardet, 2018).

In the 1930s, he joined the executive committee of the Progressive Education Association (PEA), founded in 1919 and chaired by John Dewey since 1926, which became, in 1932, the American section of the NEF. His active participation in the association earned him the presidency of the PEA’s executive committee, from 1937 to 1941. A particularly difficult decade, both for Washburne and the progressive education movement in the United States, due to the economic crisis that had been hitting the country since 1929, generating implications as to the exorbitant costs of individualized pedagogy.

In addition to economic difficulties, Washburne faced political issues, due to the increasingly ideological engagement of the PEA in favor of a new social order, and criticisms of the capitalist system. As a PEA member, he was forced to defend himself several times from the economic leaders who accused him of being a communist or leftist because of his trips to the former Soviet Union, and because his mother and brother were supporters of socialist ideas.

Summoned by the US army to rework the educational systems and textbooks of countries subjected to fascism, Washburne leaves in the 1940s, after three months of training at the military school of the University of Virginia, in order to render Italian schools democratic and instill in them the principles of the progressive school (Gardet, 2018). As a minister of education in Italy, a position he holds from 1945 to 1946, Washburne established, together with Italian specialists, new programs for kindergarten and elementary school. In addition to helping reorganize schools subjected to fascism, Washburne had an active participation in the creation of the Brazilian section of the NEF, in 1942, on the occasion of his visit to Brazil (Rabelo & Vidal, 2020).

He was disappointed with the small impact of the guidelines he tries to provide to the Italian educational reform, given the difficulties of living and working for the reconstruction of a country divided and destroyed by Nazi bombings. Washburne is interested in the experiences developed in schools such as Scuola-Città Pestalozzi. It was an experimental school, founded in 1945 by Ernesto Codignola, in Florence. Based on the principles of Dewey’s active school, Scuola-Città Pestalozzi took “[...] the school as a community and the community as society [...]”, considering the “[..] need to form self-governed citizens” (Gobbo & Pizzi, 2013, p. 229). It is this model that he tries to promote upon his return to Milan, Italy, during the period (1947 - 1949) he was in charge of the United States Information Agency (Gardet, 2018).

It is also at this time that he becomes the NEF’s international president, from 1948 to 1956 (Meuer, 1988). In 1949, he returned to the United States, where he became the director of the teacher training school of Brooklyn College, in New York. After 40 years dedicated to education, Washburne retires as a professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Education, in 1961.

Educational innovations carried out in Winnetka

In this section, innovation is not deemed as something sudden and individual, but as the creative use of pre-existing ideas, developed gradually and collectively, just as Burke (2016) suggests. Analyzing in detail that which is taken as innovation, Burke (2016) draws attention to the fact that it often reveals itself as ‘an adaptation for new purposes of an earlier idea or technique’. A sort of ‘displacement’ from one field of action to another, performed by people who ‘work harder’, as they had to deal with some difficulties that led them to take “[...] more risks than their established colleagues because they have less to lose” (Burke, 2016, p. 50). This displacement of ideas can occur both individually and collectively. And when it occurs collectively, it is because of the creative interaction of a small group, with common interests, with different backgrounds, that meets with some regularity.

As mentioned in the previous section, the idea of individualizing teaching was not entirely new. Experiences were already unfolding within the scope of the San Francisco Normal School, under Burk’s supervision. Upon coming into contact with these ideas, of which he was a supporter, it is inevitable that Washburne will try to appropriate them, giving them new meanings. But this did not happen individually.

Articulating theory and practical procedures, Washburne used scientific investigations to legitimize his reform project. In this undertaking, he appropriated vocabularies, expressions, as well as psychological and statistical tools that best justified his actions, and invited the teachers at the schools under his supervision to compose the staff of researchers, encouraging them to participate in all aspects of research development, in order to convince them to change already consolidated pedagogical practices. With the purpose of individualizing teaching, the initial idea was to organize, in partnership with the teachers who supported his proposal, a list of contents and goals to be achieved by students in each teaching subject. It was a curricular reorganization based on ‘what to teach’, with themes necessary for anyone who grew up in a modern society, on which the student could work (Zilversmit, 1993). In this first stage, the work consisted of unfolding the program into general questions and individual exercises. The list should contain basic skills and information that were absolutely essential for all members of society. It was what Washburne called common essentials, i.e., essential knowledge used by most adults in civil, social, private life, and, at the same time, something common to all people, regardless of profession.

The list of contents to be taught in Winnetka’s schools was built from an ambitious research, launched in the popular media, on the subjects of primary school. With the results provided by the surveys, his team came up with a first list of what would come to be the school program for social sciences, geography and history. Afterwards, a list with the contents necessary for the teaching of arithmetic was also made through a survey. However, due to high failure rates in arithmetic, a simple list of contents would not be enough to overcome this problem. It would be necessary to know, scientifically, the most appropriate age to introduce children to each of the subjects present in the arithmetic program. In this sense, Washburne criticized the way mathematicians and authors of arithmetic books organized the subjects to be taught in primary school, which seemed “[...] to lack a clear, concise and logical basis to discriminate what must be included from what must be excluded” (Washburne, 1934, p. 3, our translation)7. It was a matter of replacing the internal organization logic of arithmetic itself with a psychological logic whose arithmetic content made sense for practical life (Pinheiro & Valente, 2016). By applying psychological tests and pedagogical tests (for diagnosis and performance check), Washburne discovered the chronological order to be followed while teaching arithmetic in accordance with the child’s psychology.

Establishing a program based on life in society and arranging it taking into account the psychological development of children would still not be enough for a made-to-measure education that considered individual differences. Individualizing teaching was necessary. This was not a matter of individual education, in which everyone performs the same activities individually and at the same time, but of choosing schoolwork for each one in accordance with their particularities, with a view to ensuring better performance and teaching efficiency. This individualization would only be possible with the making of suitable self-instruction and self-correction materials.

The making of appropriate materials was considered by Washburne as the most difficult part of individualizing teaching, as there were no adequate and sufficient texts for sale. The solution found was to mimeograph sheets with tasks and supplementary explanations, or texts used in schools that had already been working with the individual education system. As a starting point, Washburne borrowed from Burk the arithmetic test stencils used at the San Francisco Normal School, with the promise of later sending him the stencils reworked from the data collected in Winnetka.

In that material, each subject to be learned would start with a self-instructional text containing explanations so clear that almost every child could understand its vocabulary and content. Each unit of the material was divided into stages, involving only one new concept, with examples, exercises for practice, and diagnostic tests.

The individualization of arithmetic teaching required clear objectives that could be achieved directly, and others, indirectly. General objectives, i.e., broader ones, could be achieved indirectly by means of discussions and projects, such as the notion of quantity and the concept of number, order and rigor at work, in addition to mastery of the Indo-Arabic numbering system. More specific and indispensable objectives would be learning about all elementary numerical facts and the most common units of measurement; a mastered practice of the four fundamental operations with integers, fractions and decimals; as well as ability and accuracy to apply these operations to routine uses and situations. Each one of these three objectives required its own individualization technique.

For Washburne, failure in arithmetic derived from insufficient mental development and an inadequate mastery of the ‘knowledge foundation’ of basic notions, such as numbers and operations. With this in mind, he created a set of cards to work on the concept of number (Figure 1), considering that the first years would be dedicated to the transition from an objective education to the first abstractions, and another set (Figure 2) to work on the first three series with the easiest combinations of the addition and subtraction operations.

Source: Author’s iconographic collection.

Figure 1 Washburne individual Arithmetic Cards, N415.  

Source: Author’s iconographic collection.

Figure 2 Washburne individual Arithmetic Cards, N416.  

In the remaining years of primary school, children would continue to learn the combinations of all fundamental operations through the Washburne Individual Arithmetic collection (Figure 3), with a view to automating the combinations and their employment in problem solving.

Source: Alda Lodi Collection.

Figure 3 Cover of Washburne Individual Arithmetic (livro 6).  

Although the focus of Winnetka’s schools was on individualizing teaching, their practices included group and creative activities, such as art, music, discussions on current events, student self-government and field trips, so that children could work together in order to learn how to cooperate socially with other individuals (Washburne, 1925). These creative activities, considered the exponents of the educational function, would be responsible for giving “[...] life to the school program, its true education [...]”, since subjecting students to learning how to read, write and calculate was nothing but instruction (Washburne, 1934, p. 29). Such activities would involve discussions around debatable subjects, around studied subjects, organized by means of games, bazaars, clubs, committees, self-government assemblies, making of school newspapers, manual work, in short, any type of project involving the school collectively.

This part of teaching was founded on the studies of the avatars of the progressive education in the US, on the needs of children, who were entitled to mastering the knowledge and skills that they would probably use in adulthood, and on ensuring that they lived naturally, happily and fully as children. According to Zilversmit (1993), except for the individualization of teaching, group and creative activities were compatible with those advocated by John Dewey, placing Winnetka’s public schools within the tradition of progressive education. These activities were firmly based on progressive principles, by considering the child’s interests, stimulating creativity and a sense of community. In this regard, Winnetka’s educational plan aimed to materialize Dewey’s vision for a school capable of preparing children, helping them create a better society. However, even though individualized instruction and the adaptation of curricula to the abilities of each student reflected the concern of progressivism, the program did not include the premise that the interests of children should be the basis for schoolwork. This aspect of Washburne’s philosophy of education was founded much more on Stanley Hall’s ideas8 of individualism and the movement of efficiency in education, with the priority being to identify the common essentials, whose main representative was E. L. Thorndike, than on Dewey’s ideas (Zilversmit, 1993).

Convinced that the success of his educational plan depended on a more appropriate professional training for teachers, Washburne, in late 1928, started offering a six-week summer course at the University of Minnesota, with demonstration classes taught by the best teachers from Winnetka. In the following 12 years, the course started to be offered in the town itself under the name of Winnetka Summer School for Teachers. Despite the good results, Washburne was still not satisfied with the length of the course. He thought it was virtually impossible, in six weeks of lectures, seminars and observations, to undo habits and techniques already incorporated by teachers used to dealing with lessons, instead of individuals. In order for them to deal with individuals, it would be necessary to teach them how to organize creative group activities, give them insight into the causes of undesirables behavior in children, and how to deal effectively with those who exhibited such behaviors (Washburne & Marland, 1963, p. 124).

This dissatisfaction led him to organize, in partnership with Flora J. Cooke and Perry Dunlap Smith, the Winnetka Graduate Teachers College (1932 - 1954). Both principals of well-known private schools whose philosophy was similar to that of Winnetka’s schools. These partners were not chosen by chance. Flora Cooke had been the principal of Francis W. Parker School, which was named after its founder, Colonel Francis W. Parker, considered by John Dewey as ‘the father of progressive education’. As previously said, school attended by Washburne in his childhood. As for Perry Smith, he was a childhood friend, from the times he went to Parker School, and coincidentally arrived in Winnetka, in 1919, to organize and run the North Shore Country Day School.

The Graduate Teachers College of Winnetka functioned as a laboratory school, with opportunities for observation, experience and research for graduates. This institution was seen by Cooke as a small college for well-qualified graduates seeking to prepare themselves to teach the type of education that the founding schools represented. The school’s curriculum was founded on the progressive principle of learning by doing, in which qualification occurred through a system of seminars and training courses, so the student spent most of their time as an intern, receiving from experienced teachers preparation that better suited their interests, skills and the postgraduate work field (Sadovnik & Semel, 2002, p. 136).

Each year, the institution received an average of 12 students; some of them were foreigners, from European countries, Australia, Canada, China or India, sent by renowned people, such as the psychologists Alfred Adler (Vienna) and Jean Piaget (Switzerland). Some of its graduates excelled in education, as is the case with Anathnath Basu from India, organizer and director of the Faculty of Education at the University of Calcutta and of the Central Institute of Education in Delhi. Others took up positions at the collaborating institutions of the Graduate Teachers College.

With the retirement of Flora Cooke, in 1934, of Perry Smith, in 1954, and Washburne leaving in 1943, all responsible for attracting students and guiding them to their destinations, the Graduate Teachers College ceased to exist in 1954.

International circulation via Nef’s publications

Washburne’s philosophy, as well as his educational experiences and research projects, developed in Winnetka, did not take long to cross US borders. Through the publishing of articles and books, courses taught at the Teacher College, national and international trips and cooperative relations with colleagues from universities, Washburne made Winnetka’s pedagogical system known worldwide. His studies were published in England and Australia, and in many other languages, such as French (Belgium and France), Spanish (Spain, Argentina, Ecuador and Chile), Italian, German, Finnish, Danish, Polish, Arabic, Czech, Chinese, Japanese and Bengali (Washburne & Marland, 1963). According to Washburne, his reputation began to spread nationally and internationally from the moment that Winnetka’s schools opened their doors to all those who wished to assist, question and criticize his work. His ideas attracted representatives from the old world, including Ovide Decroly, Raymond Buyse and Theódore Simon (Vergnon, 2019).

In particular, his ideas began to circulate through a non-governmental and, consequently, non-prescriptive network. Undoubtedly, his participation in national and international associations allowed him to expand his professional activity. Mainly when representatives of Winnetka became part of the program of almost all international congresses held by the NEF, since 1925. Cooperation with colleagues was established with teachers being borrowed to demonstrate the teaching method and practice developed at Winnetka’s schools. This was the case with Marion Carswell, one of the first teachers borrowed to work in Bronxville (USA) in 1924, and at the École International in Geneva (Switzerland) in 1927; Mildred Hurghes, who worked at the American School in Tokyo (Japan); and the American College of Beirut (Lebanon). They all took one to three teachers from Winnetka with them (Wasburne & Marland, 1963).

We judged it imperative to study the journals Pour l’ére nouvelle (PEN) and The New Era (TNE), both founders of the NEF, especially given the wide representativeness of these publications on an international scale, in order to better understand the international circulation of his ideas. These journals operated as some kind of meeting point for ideas, open to everyone who worked with educational renewal, along the lines defended by the NEF. It was a privileged publishing space meant for both the educators who wanted to share their experiences, and the scientists intending to present the progress of their research, thus building an international network for the circulation of experimental or theoretical knowledge.

The preliminary analysis of the journals evidenced that the communication networks to which Washburne was connected had an unparalleled importance in the circulation and appropriation of individualized teaching, especially in arithmetic. Some key NEF characters, in the midst of their conceptions of new education, selected and disseminated practical procedures from Washburne’s experiences, such as Adolphe Ferrière and Beatrice Ensor.

When Washburne published his first article in PEN to present the pedagogical renewal he had been developing in Winnetka’s schools, he was not unknown to the readers. Two previous articles had already been mentioning his experiences as one of the “[...] most interesting school practices in America” (Écoles expérimentales ..., 1923, p. 65). In addition to the visibility of his practices, there was the publicity of his visit to Geneva and his study trip around Europe in late 1922.

In a context in which transatlantic exchanges on educational issues were limited, Washburne embarked on a study tour in order to better understand the educational experiences developed on the European continent, and spread the US experiences (Vergnon, 2019). The idea was not to visit all experimental schools, but to visit all types that existed in each country. It was not about statistical mapping, or research on schools, but about trying to discover the educational ideas that supported such experiences, about how they were being implemented, and the personal opinion of those who were concerned about the results of the experiments (Washburne, 1923). On that occasion, he visited 21 schools in eight countries, all of which made up the list made by the NEF during his visit. Back in the United States, he published his impressions in the text entitled ‘Progressive tendencies in European education’ (1923). Three years later, in partnership with Myrion Stearns, he published the book ‘New schools in the old world’.

According to Carvalho (2007, p. 277), in the 1920s and 1930s, this type of visit/study trip was aimed at “[...] advertising a cause, intended for expanding and strengthening a movement, and gaining support for the cause one defends”. Several figures in the movement for the new education used this means of dissemination and learning through visits. For instance, Ferrière visited several experiences in Eastern Europe and Latin America, and Decroly visited several schools on the American continent. This way of learning and disseminating allowed travelers to see what others were doing, learn about their methods and, mainly, share their own experiences. In this sense, Washburne traveled with the purpose of learning, spreading and making the pedagogical practices of the progressive education developed in Winnetka’s schools internationally known.

From his travels across the European continent, Washburne gave visibility to Russian education by publishing his travel report in TNE (Washburne, 1928a), entitled ‘The good and bad in Russian education’, and in PEN, entitled ‘Ce qu’il y a de bon et ce qu’il y a de mauvais dans l’Education en Russie’ (Washburne, 1928b). Apparently, the publication on Russian education was due to the difficulty in carrying out the visit, which resulted in the trip, initially planned for 1922, being postponed. This trip only happened years later, when, at the request of the NEF’s executive committee, during the Locarno congress, Washburne resumed his attempt to travel to Russia.

The interest in reports “[...] about the reorganization of public education systems of other countries [...]” became more frequent in the NEF’s journals with the change in the administration of PEN, which, in 1925, started to count on a French writer, Paul Fauconnet, and a Belgian writer, Ovide Decroly, in addition to Ferrière’s position as editor-in-chief (Carvalho, 2004, p. 154). Taking Russia as an example, the reports on the educational work, “[...] understood as a factor of social transformation [...]”, had a special place on journal pages “[...] whose objectives were to propagate and evidence the extraordinary international expansion of the new education [...]” and which, “[...] in a way, make the reported initiatives equivalent” (Carvalho, 2004, p. 155). Indeed, in his text, Washburne points out some elements of the new education in Russian schools and the social transformations they operated. Although the centralization of teaching and ignorance about individual diversities were still an obstacle to the progress of Russian education (Washburne, 1928a, p. 31).

Back to the first article published by Washburne (1925) in PEN, in that text the renewed schools of Winnetka are presented in a descriptive and detailed narrative so that the reader could understand all of their characteristics, objectives, methods, activities and, mainly, distinguish them from another type of new school, common in both Europe and America. To mark this difference well, he presents two types of new schools: one that preserved the old methods of teaching as to reading, writing, calculus and other major branches, but which broadened the program by including manual work, walking tours, the natural sciences and arts; and another one that founded all the reform undertaken on the results of scientific investigations, from the most elementary branches of education (Washburne, 1925).

Some renowned characters of the new education mention Washburne’s experiences in their PEN articles. Such was the case with Ferrière, who, under the aegis of the Éducation Nouvelle, disseminated through various articles, published between 1925 and 1939, the experiences developed in Winnetka’s schools and their use in some classes at the École Internationale in Geneva. Under his direction, the École Internationale appropriated Washburne’s experiences, assigning them new meanings, which led Ferrière to exemplify them as successful practices alongside the Dalton plan, and John Dewey and Decroly’s method, all adopted by the school.

Published on the pages of PEN by Ferrière himself, the experiences in Winnetka gained the NEF’s seal, which facilitated their propagation in other lands. This can be confirmed in the Livres et revues section of PEN, from 1925 to 1936. Said section brings other journals that were mouthpieces of the NEF and published Washburne’s work. They include: Revista de Pedagogía (Spain); La Nueva Era (Chile); La Obra (Argentina); Pedagogiska Spornormal (Sweden); Nové Skoly (Czechoslovakia); Progressive Education, (United States); Paedagogische Bladen, (Belgium); To Jovo Utjain (Hungary); Escuela Activa (Uruguay); La Nueva Enseñanza (Paraguay); Svobodno Vaspitanie (Bulgaria); Den Frie Skole (Denmark).

Despite all the publicity about the model practices developed in Winnetka, PEN disseminated, through Delaunay’s texts (1926a, 1926b, 1927, 1933, 1939), the criticisms of French pedagogues about the individualization of teaching that Washburne defended. Among pros and cons, there is a clear concern about the individualization of teaching to the point of a serial instruction, of a child taylorization, of a mechanization of learning, considered a threat to French thinking (Moyon & Pinheiro, 2019). In this sense, some French pedagogues oppose themselves to the individualization of teaching, but are for worksheets being used to teach arithmetic because, in some experiences, students showed better performance. Although this was also not a consensus among them, the criticisms did not prevent the arithmetic material from being translated into French, which was done by Celestin Freinet in partnership with René Duthil, with the latter being one of the biggest advocates for Washburne’s ideas in France.

Apparently, the translation and use of the arithmetic material benefited from its own language. In this sense, according to Comas (1930, p. 161),9

[...] Unfortunately, the differences in language and race do not allow the work done in Winnetka to be used; only self-teaching arithmetic material could be used with some changes. Besides, we must start with the preliminary work of determining and gradually serializing the minimum program, taking into account our civilization, culture and psychological characteristics.

By mapping all articles published by PEN that made reference to Washburne’s studies or the practices developed in Winnetka, it is possible to observe that his ideas circulated, above all, through the publicity of his studies, whether via reviews of his works; publications in other journals affiliated with the NEF; and promotion of courses and lectures at events held by the NEF. And also via texts by authors whose focus was to disseminate models of practices that could be applied in schools seeking an educational renewal along the lines defended by the NEF. When it comes to the texts written by Washburne himself, his participation was relatively small, with five articles, compared to the publications of TNE, with 13 articles. It seems that the fact that he mastered the English language, his mother tongue, predominated.

Unlike what happens in the publications of PEN, in which we find a more explicit support to Washburne’s ideas, mainly from one of the journal’s editors, the idea is different in TNE. The editorials written by Biatrice Ensor show that the main objective is to disseminate all experiences of education renewal, instead of supporting a doctrine or specific method. Because of that, in her publications, Ensor does not emphasize Washburne’s work, as Ferrière did in PEN. When referring to the experiences developed in Winnetka, she oftentimes appears alongside other initiatives linked to the New Education, such as the Decroly method, the Montessori method, the project method and the Dalton Plan, to name a few.

In its first decade of existence, TNE was characterized by a large number of thematic editions, gathering articles written by experts. This practice did not favor the publishing of ‘spontaneous’ articles by NEF members who wanted to share their experiences. Washburne’s first articles were published in thematic issues addressing education in the US (1926), freedom in education (1927), education in Russia (1928) and the teaching of mathematics (1934).

In the late 1920s, the journal TNE stopped following a more spiritist orientation with an emphasis on predominantly pedagogical themes, inspired by theosophy, whose influence is perceived both in the philosophical objectives attributed to education, and in the conception of childhood and its development, to adopt a pragmatic view of education. The latter is inspired by the ideas of American progressives such as Dewey, Kilpatrick and Washburne. Several American collaborators sign the articles of the English journal, but priority is given to those involved with the various commissions and committees of the NEF, with the most frequent ones being Carleton Washburne, Harold Rugg and Carson Ryan (Haenggeli-Jenni, 2011).

With the change in orientation, the publications started to adopt a discourse focused on the practical and applied dimensions of the new education, privileging the practical experiences developed in schools that appear on the lists disclosed by Ferrière in the 1922 edition of TNE, and in the 1925 edition of PEN. These experiences were published by school principals as a way of documenting the movement and, at the same time, showing the diversity of possibilities with the new education and the reach of the movement in the world (Haenggeli-Jenni, 2011).

In the 1930s, the editions of TNE started to evidence the concrete applications of new methods, in order to transform the educational systems. There is a particular interest in the teaching methods for artistic disciplines and history, which take a central reflection place. Another widely discussed topic refers to children who are unable to keep up with the formal education system, focusing on psychological problems, learning difficulties and delinquency (Haenggeli-Jenni, 2011). Washburne’s articles, published at that time by TNE, do not shy away from these themes. His publications seek to insert the following as a possible solution to the poor performance of children: individualized teaching, organization of curricula on scientific bases, insertion of free and creative activities, such as those developed in Winnetka’s public schools, whose objective is to defend human progress by developing the potential of children, preparing them to live efficiently in the world.

On the actual teaching of the subjects offered in primary school, Washburne publishes, in a thematic issue, an article on the teaching of mathematics in primary school. Analyzing the discussion on mathematics, present throughout the journal’s 14 years of publications, Rabelo (2019) found only three articles, which corroborates with the idea of a thematic issue on the teaching of mathematics, in the light of modern approaches, being a milestone in the agendas of TNE. Of the authors who appear in this thematic issue, Washburne is the one with the largest number of contributions until 1933, including the articles that did not deal specifically with mathematics (Rabelo, 2019).

Founded on results of scientific research, especially on psychology applied to education, to determine ‘what, when and how to teach’, his studies directly interfere in the introduction of mathematical rudiments in primary school (Rabelo, 2019). With the publishing of this article, Washburne discusses the curricular organization of mathematical content and the objectives of teaching arithmetic in primary school, which, in his view, should focus on contents that would most likely be used by most children. He defended, above all, the psychological organization of arithmetic programs in accordance with the maturity of children; individual work, considering that maturity developed at different paces; that teaching should be developed from real situations, through the active participation of students and motivation. Apparently, it was through the teaching of arithmetic that Washburne’s experience gained the upper hand, either because it was one of the first contents taught in primary school to be the focus of his experiences, or because he was one of the first to publish a complete self-corrective program in calculus, allowing students to work freely and autonomously (Pinheiro, 2017).

In general, the articles published from 1920 to 1960, in TNE, show that Washburne’s studies circulated in three different ways: through reviews of his works; in the midst of more general themes on education that sought in innovative methods ways of disseminating NEF’s ideas and, more specifically, in the teaching of mathematics; and through publications by American authors seeking to disseminate the progressive education.

Further considerations

The proposal of this article was to evidence the circumstances of production and circulation of Washburne’s educational ideas, via NEF’s publications. By comparing elements of his professional journey with the context of production of his ideas, it was possible to reestablish the international and intercontinental connections that were interrupted, and to better understand how the experiences developed and tested in Winnetka took place, beyond the American borders. These connections boosted circulation in an “[...] unfixed space, created through communications and travel” (Lawn, 2014, p. 141) favoring the appropriation of his ideas.

The analysis of the NEF’s official journals showed that Washburne’s actions were not isolated, but intertwined with communication networks, whose discourses and practices were incorporated by individuals and institutions that aimed to promote the new education, founded on the scientific knowledge of children. To a large extent, the circulation of Washburne’s ideas played a dual role: on the one hand, that of legitimizing a set of model practices of the new education, defended by the NEF; on the other hand, that of giving visibility to the progressive education movement in the United States.

Circulating in different social spaces, Washburne’s ideas gained different uses and interpretations. It is worth recalling that his ideas were originally implemented as a teaching technique, used in conjunction with other procedures, such as individualized teaching, the organization of curricula on scientific bases, besides the insertion of free and creative activities. However, in the circulation process, via NEF’s publications, what was privileged was not his work as a whole, but the self-instructional materials, especially those referring to the teaching of arithmetic.

REFERENCES

Burke, P. (2016). O que é história do conhecimento? (Cláudia Freire, trad., 1a ed.). São Paulo, SP: Editora Unesp. [ Links ]

Carvalho, L. M. (2009). Notas para um estudo da circulação e estruturação do conhecimento educacional na imprensa de educação e ensino. In J. R. Ó & L. M. Carvalho (Eds.),Emergência e circulação do conhecimento psicopedagógico moderno (1880-1960): estudos comparados Portugal-Brasil (p. 173-194). Lisboa, PT: Educa. [ Links ]

Carvalho, M. M. C. (2007). A bordo do navio, lendo notícias do Brasil: o relato de viagem de Adolphe Ferrière. In A. C. V. Mignot & J. G. Gondra (Ed.), Viagens pedagógicas (p. 277-293). São Paulo, SP: Cortez. [ Links ]

Carvalho, M. M. C. (2004). O manifesto e a liga internacional pela educação nova. In M. Xavier (Ed), Manifesto dos pioneiros da educação: um legado em debate (p. 147-181). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: FGV. [ Links ]

Certeau, M. (2012). A invenção do cotidiano: 1. artes do fazer. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes. [ Links ]

Comas, J. (1930). El sistema de Winnetka en la práctica. Revista de Pedagogía. [ Links ]

Delaunay, E. (1926b). Chronique française. Pourl´Ère Nouvelle, 21, 93-94. [ Links ]

Delaunay, E. (1927). Chronique française. Pourl´Ère Nouvelle, 29, 119-121. [ Links ]

Delaunay, E. (1939) Chronique française: encore la taylorisation de l’instruction. Pourl´Ère Nouvelle, 148, 174-180. [ Links ]

Delaunay, E. (1933). Chronique française: gradation et graduation des difficultés. Pourl´Ère Nouvelle, 87, 107-110. [ Links ]

Delaunay, E. (1926a). Chronique française: individualisation de l’enseignement. Pourl´Ère Nouvelle, 18, 8-9. [ Links ]

Écoles expérimentales aux États-Unis: Winnetka Public Schools. (1923). Pour Ere Nouvelle, 7, 63-65. [ Links ]

Gardet, M. (2018). Carleton Wolsey Washburne (1889-1968): un pédagogue américain à la pointe de la Progressive education. Recuperado de: https://repenf.hypotheses.org/296Links ]

Gilbert, R. (1974). As ideias actuais em pedagogia (4a ed.). Lisboa, PT: Moraes Editores. [ Links ]

Gobbo, G., & Pizzi, L. C. V. (2013). Currículo, autonomia e cidadania: a experiência da Scuola-Città Pestalozzi em Florença/IT. Revista Teias, 33(14), 228-248. [ Links ]

Haenggeli-Jenni, B. (2011). Pour l'ere nouvelle: une revue-carrefour entre science et militance (1922-1940) (Tese de Doutorado). Université de Genève, Genebra. [ Links ]

Hofstetter, R., & Schnewuwly, B. (2017). Diciplinarização e disciplinação: as ciências da educação e as didáticas das disciplinas sob análise. In R. Hofstetter & R. W. Valente (Ed.), Saberes em (trans)formação: tema central da formação dos professores (p. 21-54). São Paulo, SP: Editora Livraria da Física. [ Links ]

Hofstetter, R., & Schnewuwly, B. (2004). Introduction educationalsciences in dynamic and hybrid institutionalization. Paedagogica Historica, 40 (5-6), 569-589. [ Links ]

Hofstetter, R., Schnewuwly, B., & Freymond, M. (2017). Penetrar na verdade da escola para ter elementos concretos de sua avaliação - a irresistível institucionalização do expert em educação (século XIX e XX). In R. Hofstetter & R. W. Valente (Ed.), Saberes em (trans)formação: tema central da formação dos professores (p. 55-112). São Paulo, SP: Editora Livraria da Física . [ Links ]

Lawn, M. (2014). Um conhecimento complexo: o historiador da educação e as circulações transfronteiriças. Revista Brasileira de História da Educação , 1(14), 127-144. Recuperado de: http://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/rbhe/article/view/38866Links ]

Meuer, W. G. (1988). Carleton W. Washburne: his administrative and curricular contributions in the Winnetka Public Schools, 1919, through 1943 (Dissertação de Mestrado). Loyola University Chicago, US. [ Links ]

Moyon, M., & Pinheiro, N. V. L. (2019). René Duthil, militant français de l’adoption des tests à l’école dans l'entre-deux-guerres.Histoire de l’éducation, 152(2), 37-61. [ Links ]

Pinheiro, N. V. L. (2017). A aritmética sob medida: a matemática em tempos da pedagogia científica (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Guarulhos. [ Links ]

Pinheiro, N. V. L., & Valente, W. R. (2016). Carleton Washburne e as pesquisas sobre a aritmética nos primeiros anos escolares. Revista Pesquisa Qualitativa, 4(4), 88-105. [ Links ]

Rabelo, R. S. (2016). Destinos e trajetos: Edward Lee Thorndike e John Dewey na formação matemática do professor primário no Brasil (1920-1960) (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. [ Links ]

Rabelo, R. S. (2019). O ensino de matemática em um número especial da revista The New Era, 1934. Bolema, 65 (33),1109-1132. [ Links ]

Rabelo, R. S., & Vidal, D. G. (2020). A seção brasileira da New Education Fellowship: (des)encontros e (des)conexões. In D. G. Vidal & R. S. Rabelo. Movimento internacional da educação nova (1a ed., p. 25-47). Belo Horizonte, MG: Fino Traço. [ Links ]

Rabelo, R. S., & Vidal, D. G. (2018). A seção brasileira da New Education Fellowship: explorando o cenário de sua criação. In Anais do 13º Congreso Iberoamericano de História de la Educación Latinoamericano. Montevideu, UR. [ Links ]

Sadovnik, A. R., & Semel, S. F. (2002). Founding mothers and others: women educational leaders during the progressive era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. [ Links ]

Vergon, M. (2019). Carleton Washburne, passeur transathantique des conceptions de l’éducation nouvelle. In: Colloque international de l’ATRHE. Passagers, transferts, trajectoires en education. Genève, CH. Recuperado de: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02342293Links ]

Vidal, D. G., & Rabelo, R. S. (2019). A criação de Institutos de Educação no Brasil como parte de uma história conectada da formação de professores. Cadernos de História da educação, 1(18), 208-220. Recuperado de: http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/che/article/view/47659Links ]

Washburne, C. W. (1928b). Ce qu’il y a de bon et ce qu’il y a de mauvais dans l’Education en Russie. Pour Ere Nouvelle, 35, 27-38. [ Links ]

Washburne, C. W. (1925). Les écoles rénovées de Winnetka aux États-Unis. Pour l´Ère Nouvelle, 14, 3-6. [ Links ]

Washburne, C. W. (1934). La escuela individualizada. Revista de Pedagogia. [ Links ]

Washburne, C. W. (1927). Freedon by individual mastery. The New Era, 32(8), 126- 128. [ Links ]

Washburne, C. W. (1928a). The good and bad in russian education. The New Era, 33(9), 8 - 12. [ Links ]

Washburne, C. W. (1923). Progressive tendencies in european education (Bulletin, 37). Washington, DC.: Government printing office. [ Links ]

Washburne, C. W. (1926). Winnetka - an education laboratory. The New Era, 27(7), 115-120. [ Links ]

Washburne, C. W., & Marland, S. P. (1963). Winnetka: the history and significance of an educational experiment. New Jersey, EUA: Prentice-Hall. [ Links ]

Zilversmit, A. (1993). Changing schools: progressive education theory and practice, 1930-1960. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Links ]

15Note: The present article presents partial results from the postdoctoral research developed under the supervision of Professor Diana Vidal, entitled “Appropriations from the United States for the Constitution of a Made-to-Measure Arithmetic in Teaching and Training Aimed at Teachers of the Rio de Janeiro Institute of Education 1930 - 1960” [Apropriações estadunidenses para a constituição de uma aritmética sob medida no ensino e na formação de professores do Instituto de Educação do Rio de Janeiro 1930 - 1960] (FAPESP process 2018/24382-3).

16Published: 01.28.2021 (English version)

How to cite this article: Pinheiro, N. V. L. Between production and circulation: Carleton Washburne’s studies via New Education Fellowship’s publications. (2021). Revista Brasileira de História da Educação, 21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4025/rbhe.v21.2021.e147

This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY 4) License.

6According to Hofstetter and Schneuwly (2017, p. 38) expertise is understood as “[...] an instance, at first recognized as legitimate, attributed to one or more specialists - supposedly distinguished by their knowledge, attitudes, experiences -, in order to examine a situation, to assess a phenomenon, to verify facts”.

7“[...] tener ninguna base clara, concisa y lógica para discriminar lo que se debe incluir de lo que se debe excluir”.

8Washburne appropriated the ideas of Hall via Burk, his mentor. Burk had studied with Hall.

9“[...] desgraciadamente, las diferencias de idioma y raza no permiten el aprovechamiento del trabajo realizado em Winnetka; sólo el material auto didático de aritmética pudiera usar-se previas algumas modificaciones. Para el resto hay que comenzar por los trabajos preliminares de determinación y seriación gradual del programa mínimo, teniendo en cuenta nuestra civilización, cultura y características psicológicas”.

Received: June 01, 2020; Accepted: September 08, 2020; Published: December 09, 2020

Nara Vilma Lima Pinheiro: postdoctoral student at the University of São Paulo’s School of Education. PhD (2017) and Master (2013) in Sciences from the Graduate Program in Education and Health in Childhood and Adolescence of the Federal University of São Paulo [Universidade Federal de São Paulo] - UNIFESP. Doctoral internship (2016) at the University of Limoges [Université of Limoges], France. Member of the Interdisciplinary Center for Studies and Research on History of Education [Núcleo Interdisciplinar de Estudos e Pesquisas em História da Educação] - NIEPHE. E-mail: naravlp@yahoo.com.br https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2868-4435

Responsible associate editor: José Gonçalves Gondra (UERJ) E-mail: gondra.uerj@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0669-1661

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