Intermingling theories and methodologies we introduce the discussion

The formative spaces are propitious scenarios for the potentiation of transgressive attitudes (HERNÁNDEZ, 1998), considering the volume and the content of the relations established in them, crossed by political and social pressures not always consistent with the demands of the students and the students and teachers.

At university this is no different and the adoption of transgressive practices is an essential element of academic dynamics, whose production of knowledge requires investigative posture in the search for unusual methodologies and answers to questions, often still unsolved. In the case of public universities, besides the mentioned aspects, students, teachers, managers and servants have been living with pressures resulting from the spread of distorted ideas that seek to delegitimize their own history and deny their contributions. Immersed in environments that suffer from the consequences of the sharp budget decrease, the academic community continues to work in precarious infrastructure conditions, in which teachers unfold in fulfilling the intense workload while meeting the institutional demands of the most diverse instances.

In the specific case of undergraduate courses, these factors are added to the serious consequences of fragmented, discontinuous, inconsistent and often incoherent public policies that feed the social discredit of the teaching profession itself, causing the dropout of students enrolled in the undergraduate courses, disinterest for its completion and abandonment of the profession.

The Higher Education Census (BRASIL, 2016) highlights that in 2014, the level of dropout in the Pedagogy course, for example, reached 39%, while courses such as Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics have rates of 57.2%, 52.3% and 52.6% respectively.

If, on the one hand, such a complex scenario can generate stagnation, on the other, it is conducive to the creation of formative paths that produce ruptures and generate transgressions due to the challenges posed by the political-epistemological nature of the courses themselves, which, in general terms, have a responsibility to train the teachers of basic education of our country.

Driven by this understanding and inspired by field studies (CANDAU, 2012; GATTI, 2013; GAUTHIER, 1998; NÓVOA, 2015; among others), in 2017, teachers of Didactics at the Fluminense Federal University School of Education (FEUFF) published a text titled Teaching Didactics: between resignifications and possibilities at FEUFF (DOMINICK et al., 2017). The text is part of the book called Teaching of Didactics: between resignifications and possibilities, organized by teachers of the Faculty of Education of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (CRUZ; OLIVEIRA; NASCIMENTO, 2017). In it,

[...] we present the movement that the group of Didactics teachers of the School of Education of the Fluminense Federal University (FEUFF / UFF), Gragoatá/Niterói-RJ campus, has been conducting since 2015, seeking the reorganization of the area from the definition and understanding of its theoretical-practical specificity in the context of our faculty. [...] It is a movement of identification and delineation of the possibilities and limits of Didactics to situate it in the institution and show its importance in teacher education (DOMINICK et al., 2017, p. 49).³

Rejecting the idea of Didactics as a field of theories that are uncompromised with the school, the practices and the teaching profession, and in opposition to the understanding that, from their perspective, teaching techniques based on themselves are based on the same period, the teachers of Didactics of FEUFF formed the Center for Didactics and Teacher Training/CNPq. Currently, the Center consists of 10 teachers who work in this area and, every six months, teach classes to about 400 students enrolled in more than 20 undergraduate courses at UFF.

Since 2017, members meet monthly to discuss, define and evaluate issues in the area, share the ways they think, organize and implement their classes; exchange information about the theoretical frameworks with which they work, dialogue about the methodological procedures they employ and the forms of assessment they implement. On these occasions, they are willing to listen to criticism and suggestions about their work, talk to their peers about what they think, how they act and how they justify their choices in the light of the contents of the subject menu, which referrals and bibliography are quite distinct.

This dynamic has been rich due to the guarantee of the collective listening space and mutual respect for differences, which has favored the opportunity to know more deeply the type of work that each teacher implements, as well as the revision of their own practices and inspired the constitution of varied theoretical-methodological perspectives.

It was at one of the meetings organized by the Center that we had the opportunity to exchange information with the other members about the work we have been doing in UFF's undergraduate classes, whose focus is based on the understanding of the idea that teacher education requires recognition and appreciation of teaching and professional knowledge (TARDIF, 2014; SCHULMAN, 1987) as foundations of this process. At the time, we had the opportunity to point out the importance of continuous adoption of referrals aligned with democratic principles that contemplate horizontality and affection in relationships; the understanding of school and university as legitimate spaces for knowledge production, teacher training and empowerment of human emancipation.

In our view, drawing attention to this approach is essential because it highlights its opposition to the more conservative models of formation, in which “[...] the classroom is a space of order, from the organization of classes and students to the recognition that some disciplines are more important than others ” (CUNHA, 2016, p. 90).

The qualitative assessments we have conducted with students during and at the end of the course lead us to realize that the adoption of this perspective, to a certain extent, transgresses in different directions when compared to the training processes to which most graduates and their trainers were linked in the course of their schooling. We consider that by immersing ourselves in this work and being urged to reflect and act with/about it, it is possible that future teachers will become professional learning in tune with the principles listed and thus be inspired to reflect collectively on other ways of thinking and doing the school.

At the same time that it moves us, this assumption raises other questions: to what extent has this work contributed to the revision of the conceptions of undergraduates around the idea of school and teacher training? To what extent, the approached content and the adopted approach have favored the constitution of professional knowledge that transgress with conservative approaches? Does transgressing with these approaches mean establishing a rapprochement with the idea of pedagogical innovation?

For the questions formulated we still do not have strong answers, however, we think it is important to make some comments about the concept of pedagogical innovation. This is because, although the production on the subject is not extensive, the little that has spread so far does not clearly express the authors' understanding of the subject, implying that it is a self-explanatory concept. Also, it is common to find publications that combine pedagogical innovation with digital technologies in teaching and learning processes that occur in the school and/or academic environment.

In opposition to this understanding, the concept of pedagogical innovation with which we are tuned goes beyond the idea that the use of technological apparatus itself represents innovation, because we understand that subjects innovate, especially in relation to their attitudes, and not to objects (VASCONCELLOS; SANTIAGO, 2018). In other words, pedagogical innovation requires

[...] a paradigmatic rupture that requires teachers to reconfigure knowledge and recognize the need to work towards transforming [...] 'restlessness' into emancipatory energy, that is, it is about [...] a new way of understanding knowledge [...] [causing] a change in the epistemological basis of pedagogical practice (CUNHA, 2016, p. 8).⁴

To these clarifications we add the recognition of difference as value and the quality of social relations that are built with students as preponderant.

Instigated by this perspective, we organized the discipline and proposed to FEUFF's Didactics students to look at the suggested studies and to perform activities that could provoke them to think of a transgressive or innovative school, as defined by Cunha (2016).

In this article we discuss and problematize two of these activities, articulated among themselves, proposed by the two Didactic teachers, authors of this article. They are: 1) (re) approximation with the basic school, followed by collective debate and individual registration; 2) Interview with elementary school teachers, considered innovative by the undergraduates and analysis of the testimonials based on the literature.

It should be clarified that the (re)rapprochement with the school was treated by the two teachers and their 3 respective classes, as a field activity. One of the teachers did not give marks to the completion or elaboration of records produced by the undergraduates. Even so, the participation of its two classes was complete (55 students), generating, even, the request of more than one presentation letter by student, due to the intention of some to integrate more than one school. 28 of these subjects elaborated and delivered the records that, after careful reading, led to the selection of 5, caused by the identification of representative aspects of the others. This done, we organized, described and analyzed the information acquired in line with the objective outlined and in line with the contributions of the scholars who make up our theoretical framework.

The other repertoire of data analyzed originates from 13 interviews that the third class of graduates implemented with teachers from the elementary schools in which the activity took place. The interviews were filmed and edited by the students of the bachelor degree courses, later presented during the classes, followed by debate about the concept of pedagogical innovation, provoked by the interviewees' statements. Among the 13 videos produced and screened in class, we selected excerpts from 5 teachers of kindergarten, elementary school and high school, randomly chosen: Maria, Andreia, Richard, Augusto and Adriane.

So, we could review your testimonials, we watched the videos again and dedicated ourselves to transcribing the shared information. It is noteworthy that the students chose teachers that they considered to have an innovative practice, but in their interview they did not ask the teachers what innovation would be, but asked to talk about their pedagogical practices, the methodologies used, the meaning of teaching for each one. The proposal was for them to conduct open interviews and that, when interviewing, they would listen to what teachers had to say, without inducing answers, but, in fact, to show interest and curiosity for what teachers had to say about their work.

Upon revisiting the interviews, a semester later (May 2019), transcripts were made of all material, which was analyzed and categorized. Among the categories that had highlight in the analysis, stands out Pedagogical Innovation as the macrotheme and the subthemes: listening, dialogicity, creativity and teaching autonomy.

It is based on these two materials - videos with interviews of teachers of basic education and written records of undergraduates - that our research was conducted, based on studies on the development of qualitative research (LÜDKE; ANDRÉ, 2004; MINAYO, 2003 ). That said, we clarify that our intention is to identify elements that point to innovative pedagogical perspectives, from the perspective of undergraduates and teachers of basic education.

That said, we inform that in the next item, we will briefly systematize the discussions in the area of Education around the debate on teacher education, followed by the analysis of the data collected in the two proposed activities, when we will address the issue of pedagogical innovation in dialogue with the material selected for this investigation.

Training for innovation or to train innovating?

In doing their job, the teachers often used

[...] their personal knowledge and personalized know-how, they work with the programs and textbooks, based on school knowledge related to the subjects taught, rely on their experience and retain certain elements of their vocational training (TARDIF, 2014, p. 64).⁵

But it turns out that they are not always aware of the nature of the knowledge they employ or the motives that led them to adopt it. They act as if their actions walked spontaneously/autonomously, in a “natural” way, without the need to elaborate explanations to justify them. That

[...] unconsciousness is not necessarily the product of a refusal, of defense mechanisms, as psychoanalysis describes them. In general, it is a 'practical unconscious', according to Piaget's formula, the product of a progressive oblivion through the formation of routines, or a lack of familiarity, a simple effect of the impossibility and futility of being permanently aware of our actions and motivations (PERRENOUD, 2001, p. 161).⁶

Although often unconscious, the knowledge mobilized by teachers has been modeled during their life and socialization history (pre-professional and professional) and as they are rooted, they believe they are part of their personality and are therefore considered “innate” or “natural”.

This naturalization and personalization of professional knowledge are so strong that they result in practices that often reproduce the school's institutionalized roles and routines (TARDIF, 2014, p. 78).⁷

This is because the knowledge linked to experience begins to be constituted from the entrance into the teaching profession and it is precisely in this “[...] beginning of the career that [its] structure [...] is stronger and more important” (Ibid. , p. 86), because as a result of their experience, step by step they become certain about what they develop in the school environment and thus begin to feel integrated and able to perform their work. Commonly, when faced with adversity, they judge the initial formation and indicate that there is "[...] a gap, a critical distance" between the knowledge acquired in the formation and the problems they need to face. In this process, new understandings related to the exercise of teaching are woven (TARDIF, 2014; NÓVOA, 2015) and most of the time this is because

[...] work-related knowledge is temporal, as it is built and progressively mastered during a variable learning period, according to each occupation, so it is in the implementation of work that such adversities emerge and make teachers mobilize specific knowledge in an attempt to overcome it, requiring them to [...] progressively develop knowledge generated and based on the work process itself (TARDIF, 2014, p. 58).⁸

In order to minimize such difficulties, scholars have pointed to the need to involve future teachers in studies and situations that lead them to understand

[...] the centrality of knowledge of the object with regard to teaching and the consequences of the lack of this knowledge. [...] need to learn about the core concepts and the organization of principles of a content (SHULMAN; GROSSMAN; WILSON, 1989, p. 28).⁹

The results of some of the research (GAUTHIER, 1998; TARDIF, 2014; TERRIEN, 1993) conducted on the mobilization of the knowledge acquired in the teachers' life history (especially of school life), are consistent with the information revealed by the investigations that we have developed about probable relationships between school experiences and the professional performance of beginning teachers (MACIEL; JAEHN; VASCONCELLOS, 2018; VASCONCELLOS; OLIVEIRA; MENEZES, 2016).

In one of these investigations, it is highlighted in the testimonies that emerged the understanding that upon entering the career, the participants stated that they came across a reality quite different from the one they envisioned during the initial training period. Faced with the problems that arose and faced with the urgency that the school context required, they made decisions that were not always “in tune” with their points of view, either because they contradicted their studies during undergraduate studies or because they were not clear about the reasons that led them to act that way. This caused anguish and made them feel “[...] good or bad about this or that way of working in the classroom” (NÓVOA, 1999, p. 16).

To better understand this relationship, we warn that teachers often employ practices inspired by situations that derive from their academic, school, or life stories (TARDIF, 2014). By employing those, they “re-actualize” and “reuse” them as a way of coping with situations arising from the contexts in which they are immersed, without being aware of this resumption. This resumption, in turn, is related to the fact that even before starting to act, teachers live together as students with their work environment for a long period of time, providing the construction of

[...] a background of previous knowledge, beliefs, representations and certainties about teaching practice that helps to compose a set of pre-professional knowledge that will be mobilized and used in the [...] exercise of teaching (TARDIF, 2014, p. 68-69).¹⁰

Thus, when returning to schools, “[...] at the time of the internships [...], teachers in training tend to pay more attention to classroom phenomena for which they have strong expectations or representations” (Ibid., P. 70) that were woven during this trajectory. For this reason, we believe that the trainers' attention should be focused on this aspect and, in this sense, they need to implement practices that also focus on what was ignored, in an attempt to favor the overcoming of the beliefs they carry and the broadening of their knowledge repertoire.

We are aware that we still have a long way to go in order to improve and enhance teacher education and work, and we believe that one possibility involves the assumption that one of

[...] important roles of initial education would be to change previous reference frames of future teachers about school activity, pupils, school context, school content, etc. (MIZUKAMI, 2006, p. 152).¹¹

This might happen through

[...] analysis of the practices, tasks and knowledge of teachers by profession; [...] through a reflexive approach, taking into account the actual conditioning factors of teaching work and the strategies used to eliminate these conditioning factors in action (TARDIF, 2014, p. 242).¹²

Thoughts such as these have influenced our actions as researchers and teacher educators, leading us to evaluate our practices, either individually; in the meetings of the Teaching and Teacher Training Center or with the students of the classes involved. This reflection process led us to realize the need to integrate graduates into the school space more effectively and through a path that was not only through the compulsory internship.

To this end, step by step the teachers of Didactics were creating space for this articulation and, currently, 4 of the 10 responsible for this discipline, when elaborating their respective course plans started to incorporate the (re)approximation with the school as part of the studies and the activities they develop with their students, as explained in the following topic.

Back to school from the perspective of future teacher

At UFF, the Faculty of Education (FEUFF) is responsible for offering the compulsory subjects that make up the Common Core of Bachelor Degrees. According to Resolution 616/2017 published by the Fluminense Federal University (NITERÓI, 2018), this Core comprises: Didactics (60h), Educational Organization in Brazil (60h), Educational Psychology (60h) and Libras I (30h). Therefore, attending the 4 subjects is part of the requirements required for undergraduates to complete their respective undergraduate courses.

In general, the connection with the disciplines occurs during the enrollment period, in which the Faculty of Education presents to the course coordinators a variety of schedules in an attempt to meet the demands. Thus, students, according to the organization and curriculum requirements of each course, try to make their enrollment at the time that best meets their specificities and thus, the classes are constituted varying in quantity and profile from semester to semester.

If in compulsory internships undergraduate students join schools with colleagues of the same course, under the supervision of university and school teachers in the same area/discipline, in Didactics, the approach to the school occurs from the constitution of groups of students from different areas (Physics, Cinema, History, Letters, Geography, Biology, Mathematics, Philosophy, etc.), which are at different levels/periods. Most of the time, this is the first opportunity to return to school that these young people have experienced since graduating from high school and for their completion will count on the participation and the eyes of colleagues with personal experiences and varied academic backgrounds.

We believe that it is precisely because we count on this diversity that the activity offers horizons that go beyond the dimensions provided by the internships, enabling the crossing of broader points of view about the school and the relationships established there and more complex analyzes that exceed the debate on teaching and learning specific content.

In this case, the idea is to offer students a collective (re) rapprochement, with a very familiar environment that under the condition of basic education student has been part of their lives for over a decade (TARDIF, 2014). Now, upon returning under the lens of a future teacher, they have access to the nuances that had not been noticed before (VASCONCELLOS; VILELA, 2017). For this and other reasons, this moment of (re) approximation is carefully chosen, carefully routed and may vary from semester to semester, from class to class, in view of the demands, the unforeseen events, the variation of the school calendar and the study of the bibliography preceding this entry.

To make this process happen, we clarify, talk to students about their questions, get details right and define some points. In general, the following agreement has prevailed: 3 Didactic classes (at UFF) will be available for the accomplishment of the activity; the class will be organized into groups of 3 and 5 students so that there is no turmoil in the schools; each group will be free to choose the school and grade/year of their choice; at school, in addition to attending the classes of at least one teacher of the subject you prefer, it is important to talk to students and staff, including principals, coordinators, teachers, cooks, porters and others; for the activity to be formally presented to the school, a presentation letter will be signed by the Didactics teacher and delivered by the undergraduates to the school board; the Didactics teacher will give the groups an observation script with suggestions regarding aspects that can be appreciated at school and, at the end of each day, discussed with their classmates.

At the end of the third day of approaching the school, the activities are resumed at UFF and a conversation wheel is held to share experiences, learnings, doubts and wishes that are usually announced with enthusiasm and desire to express the experiences and reveal constituted perceptions.

In most cases, the statements are accompanied by questions that show interest in the reports of colleagues and comparisons between experiences. Although all (re) rapprochement with the school and the conversation circle are carried out collectively, an individual text is produced by the undergraduates and delivered to the Didactics teacher, with the purpose of recording the learning, expectations, fears, hypotheses. and other elements that this process triggered. If possible, the students were asked that the elaborated text articulate the reflections raised from this experience, the texts studied in the Didactics classes and/or others read in the other subjects.

It was the reading of the records produced in November 2018 that gave rise to this article, considering that the answers provided provide relevant information about the debate on didactics and teacher education under the focus of pedagogical innovation.

It is worth adding that the two Teachers of Didactics who in the second semester of 2018 proposed this (re) approximation had the intention of causing consequences that would generate the constitution of teaching and learning perspectives that would provoke other ways of thinking and doing school. These perspectives would contribute to the professional education of future teachers, in order to extrapolate the simple observation of the classes and the mere transcription of mechanical information about each step of a teacher observed under the light of a fragile lantern, opaque and unable to illuminate the effects, the subjectivity and complexity inherent in pedagogical action.

To our surprise, the reflections shared by the 28 undergraduates, through the written material they produced, announce questions and concerns with the school that go beyond the simple look at the appearances of the pedagogical relations that are established in it and converge to a position that strives for the valorization of broader, more complex and more subtle aspects. So that we can perceive such convergence, we present the transcribed excerpts of the records prepared by 3 of these students, in an attempt to favor the follow-up of the reasoning expressed.

Denominated in this work by Laura, Tamires and Mariah, the students offer us powerful information, in the sense of the possibility of glimpsing paths that cause small fissures in the relations between teaching and learning, triggered from the reflections that the field class provoked. The 3, elected public schools located in the city of Niterói/RJ, one of them federal and other two state schools.

Let’s see what the future teachers tell us:

In addition to being there to learn by observing new experiences and teachings, I was back in that school with a new purpose: teaching. Something I thought I would never be able to do until I realized that my place is the classroom. Pointing out that the classroom should not just be a content display venue, because it must be far beyond that. It should be where teachers and students can exchange ideas, dialogue and reflect. It must be the space of resistance of the teacher and the teacher to be (like me). Before, I saw school as a punishment, because before it was seen as an obligation and I imagined that I would never return. Nowadays, with more maturity, I totally changed my perspective and I see the school as a space of coexistence and social construction of children, being necessary its presence in the process of individuation of these children in society. In this space of construction, I want to act and help to form individuals who criticize and reflect so that we can build a better, fairer society (LAURA).¹³

Before talking about the prospects, I would like to talk about the now. It's very strange to realize how much my view of school has already changed. In this fieldwork this was very visible. When we get to school, we observe the environment, how the teacher works, how the students feel and if the methodology is effective. Concerns about social issues and how students feel escaped me a little. I thought the important thing was for the teacher to be in school and to teach the content in the best way (which was generally approaching well what was in ENEM). Concern about what to do when it was my turn to be in front of a class was big. The reality of the school, especially the public one, is very delicate (besides precariousness, competition with trafficking, teenage pregnancy, dropout, among many other things make this environment a place in need of change). So far, I think about it: what can I do? I hope that students will not see physics as a demon, but besides teaching the content I would like to be able to connect with them, offer new perspectives, help them. The teacher is not a magician, there are things that are beyond our reach, but we have access to many and this is too beautiful! I hope I can share knowledge, experiences and learn a lot, both today with friends and teachers, and in the future with my students (TAMIRES).¹⁴

Presented then to the school and its philosophical and pedagogical structures, I can now report what it meant for me to return to this school. The first feeling is a return to the past and going back to the past is not always filled with fond memories or nostalgia that makes us feel good or embraced by our own history. There are many confused and / or even dramatic or traumatic feelings that appear at these times without being asked. My relationship with the school I studied most of the time, wasn't really a very satisfying experience most of the time. I believe it to be a very strict school, focused on results, exams and tests. We had little creative stimulation, and we were often called 'mediocre' because we simply kept the grades on average (7). Therefore, the return for me is the possibility of reframing the idea of school. Undoubtedly the undergraduate degree provided me with this more libertarian and inclusive view of education, far from old and exclusionary teaching methodologies. Today, I recognize the laboratory of potentialities of this space, that can create a new perspective on society and important paradigms. In addition, despite many contradictions, it is good to witness a school that puts itself differently from most extremely meritocratic and dubious formats. It's at least a sigh in the chaos. So for me, going back to school is going back to the past and opening up to the future. If this is the profession I have chosen, which my colleagues have chosen, the prospects are meant to be endless, for I truly believe that every corner has a way out (MARIAH).¹⁵

Faced with the richness of information revealed in the excerpts, what can we still say without being redundant? Without falling into the temptation to say the obvious? We cannot guarantee that we will not make this slip, but we will ensure that we will strive to move a little further.

Faced with this challenge, we began our analysis by resuming the discussion on pedagogical innovation, which requires us to reiterate that, in addition to the insertion of various technological devices, innovating pedagogically requires qualitative changes in school practices. These changes always demand “[...] a critical position, explicit or implicit, in view of traditional pedagogical practices [...]. If we want to raise the issue in terms of disruption [...] pedagogical innovation presupposes a leap, a discontinuity” (FINO, 2008, p. 01).

When talking about discontinuity, we are referring to "[...] the old and ubiquitous factory paradigm [...] that takes place locally in the physical or virtual space where learners and teachers move, working deliberately as agents of change". This requires “[...] the creation of learning contexts, unusual in relation to those usual in schools, as an alternative to the insistence on teaching contexts (FINO, 2008, p. 01).

And why do we resume discussions about pedagogical innovation at this very moment? To what extent does this subject dialogue with the information offered by the 3 undergraduates?

In order to delve deeper into these issues, we draw from Laura, Tamires and Mariah's records the main elements that compose them, in which the school they aspire to help reframing is conceived as the environment of:

• resistance and professional performance;

• overcoming practices that value the mere transmission of content;

• exchange of ideas, reflections and dialogue between teachers and students;

• coexistence, individual and social formation;

• building of a fairer society to the detriment of the meritocracy valorization and exclusionary processes.

If we take as reference the clarifications of Fino (2008) and Cunha (2016) and compare them to the data resulting from the testimonies of the 3 undergraduates, we will verify the prevalence of common aspects that point to the desire for the formation of a truly human society. Among other things, this requires the consolidation of principles that involve dimensions of affection, listening, dialogue, commitment and solidarity, as well as the political and social recognition that the school is the space for its realization and, therefore, the main locus of this formation.

In short, what the theoretical and empirical data offer us are not elucidations about the relevance or not of the school in our society. Conversely, they provoke us a lot to redefine the policies, the contents, the choices, the referrals, the type of communication and, especially, the quality of the relationships that are instituted in it and with it.

Pedagogical innovation from the perspective of elementary school teachers

The approach with the space of the elementary school has been a constant demand of the graduates. Students during Didactics classes are emphatic in stating that they do not feel prepared to teach, that there is a distance between the actual school and what they learn throughout the teacher training course. Their demands for a formation closer to the reality of schools are echoed in the research dedicated to studying teacher education, as stated by Cruz and Campelo (2016, p. 96).

Research on this subject has raised many concerns about current patterns of teacher education. In dealing with initial teacher education for basic education, many studies have found a distance between the initial teacher education process and the reality found in schools, which concerns the gap between the theory studied in universities and the practice developed in the environment. between training and work (COCHRAN; LYTLE, 1999; ROLDÃO, 2007; ZEICHNER, 2010).¹⁶

Listening to the demands of the undergraduates, provoked the teachers of the Didactics Center to seek strategies that would contribute to the reflection/action on the school space, as a privileged place for the problematization of issues involving the profession. Thus, the field classes held in schools have served as input for discussions about being a teacher and about the anguish that surrounds them. Although permeated by doubts, we have noticed in our classes that most students want to be a teacher and see (re) rapprochement with the school as an important part of their education.

To broaden this contact with the elementary school, in the first semester of 2018, in addition to the proposed (re) approximation, we asked the graduates of one of the three groups involved to interview the teachers they accompanied, provided that in their points of view they presented pedagogical practices that considered innovative.

Still without previous theoretical discussion about this concept, we take this initiative because we intend to provoke initial reflections, based on the conceptions of undergraduates and teachers of basic education aiming at its review and the composition of knowledge on the subject. Thus, it was possible to foster discussions and advance the subsequent processes of the discipline, especially in studies and workshops conducted with them on didactic planning. Therefore, upon returning from school, we refer to the intersection between the teachers' point of view, the conceptions of the undergraduates and the literature that discusses pedagogical innovation (FINO, 2008; CUNHA, 2016).

So, organized in groups of 4-5 students on average, the graduates left for the field eager to interact and listen to what their chosen teachers had to say.

It is noteworthy that, although the interest was to interview teachers that students considered to develop innovative practices, the questions focused specifically on the practices. It was not asked what innovation is, but how the teachers interviewed work, how their classes are, their pedagogical choices. This choice was fundamental so that the answers were not restricted to trying to conceptualize innovation, but listening to what they had to say about their practices.

The main theme addressed by the teachers interviewed was the importance of listening to the student as a way to teach teaching. When talking about this issue, teacher Maria, for example, who works in kindergarten, provides us with information that illustrates this understanding: “It is an always reflective practice, we become teachers every day and every moment, studying and listening to each other”.

About this learning, Andreia, another kindergarten teacher, makes a statement that complements the previous understanding. In your words,

What the child says matters, her curiosity matters, that is the contribution of childhood. It is the differentiated look of someone who is seeing the world for the first time, who is unaware of what we are already used to see. So this is a principle strongly held here in early childhood education, the issue of listening. It is what the child says and the child's interests that will make the direction of our work (TEACHER ANDREIA).¹⁷

As Cunha (2016, p. 97) points out, the teachers interviewed seek, through attentive listening to the students' demands, “[...] the authorship and the protagonism of the students in an emancipatory perspective”. Professor Richard, who teaches High School Philosophy, highlights the importance of instigate students to listen to each other:

As a teacher I encourage my students to listen to others. This is very difficult, ultimately, I cannot force anyone to listen to each other. I can only try to create stimuli for this. One such stimulus needs to be: Me, myself as a teacher need to stimulate this on a daily basis and give this example that the student can talk and be heard. If he feels heard, he will be more likely to listen too (TEACHER RICHARD).

We cannot ensure that the teacher's example is sufficient for a sensitive conduct to listening the other effectively reverberates among the students. In any case, we agree with the interviewed teachers' understanding about the relevance of this subject and warn that we consider urgent the adoption of practices that cause ruptures with the predominance of speaking to the other, due to the development of processes that envision listening to the listening of the subject. other.

About this, Freire (1996) adds:

If, in fact, the dream that animates us is democratic and supportive, it is not talking to others, from top to bottom, above all, as if we were the bearers of the truth to be transmitted to others, that we learn to listen, but it is by listening that we learned to hurt with them. Only those who listen patiently and critically to the other, talk to him (1996, p. 43).¹⁸

For Paulo Freire, student listening is a necessary learning for teaching and, although we do not have a predominantly school trajectory guided by this approach “[...] it is not difficult to understand how there are so many qualities that legitimate listening demands from its subject. Qualities that are constituted in the democratic practice of listening” (1996, p. 45).

Listening to our students and making room for them to listen is first and foremost an important part of an exercise that tends to provoke learning about democracy through processes that in themselves can be democratic. However, in everyday life, we have noticed the predominance of the imposition of one way of thinking over another in which, regardless of the defended point of view, there is no interest in listening to anyone who thinks or speaks in a way other than mine (FREIRE, 1996). The problem is that maintaining this stance feeds oppression, silences voices, strengthens social inequalities and injustices, and endangers the construction of a democratic society - and school - project. Thus, such an expensive and relevant topic for any society in our country has been suppressed by conservative rhetoric that

[...] has sought to spread fear and insecurity through moralizing discourses, as a way to open the way for political conservatism, to explore the possibilities of social and democratic advancement built in the last fifteen years in Brazil (MACIEL; JAEHN; VASCONCELLOS 2018, p. 1505).¹⁹

This attempt at action, through the expansion of conservative discourse, which aims to nullify the critical discussion of classroom space, clashes with the students' desire to understand the complexity of this political moment and the role of the school itself, as stated by the High School History teacher, Augusto:

What has happened a lot today, for example with this climate of political instability that we live in, is often students come up with questions about how politics works, what democracy is like in practice, what fascism is. Questions of this kind that I think I, the teacher, cannot ignore (TEACHER AUGUSTO).²⁰

To develop attitudes committed to respect for the other, recognizing and valuing their singularities, the variation between the times and the knowledge of each one, the teacher of Early Childhood Education, Adriane, emphasizes that school planning is a contemporary challenge, considering the prior organization of the teacher is essential, however, in order to make sense it is necessary to consider that "In everyday life children are conducting our work."

Even though it is a common practice for teachers, the planning and organization of teaching work has still been thought, primarily, from an ideal of distant child, the real child (FAGUNDES, 2011). For the teachers who were part of our research, it is precisely the proximity with the young people and the children present in the school institutions in which the future teachers will work that it will be possible to establish bonds of affection and dialogue that encourage us to perceive the different nuances that emerge in the classroom.

As stated by Fino (2008, p. 5) “[...] pedagogical innovation can only be put in terms of change and transformation”, it is not a technology that matters or something that can be quantified in terms of pedagogical effectiveness. What the interviewed teachers show in their speeches is that, beyond a question of method or didactic planning, pedagogical innovation goes through teaching autonomy, dialogicity, creativity and listening to the other.

Final considerations

Approaching the space of the elementary school has been a constant demand from undergraduates, who claim that the teacher training course has not been able to prepare them to teach, in part because of the distance between the real school and what they learn about school at the university. Discussions that are in keeping with this perspective have instigated us and provoked us to review and change our practices as teacher trainers, responsible for the Didactics discipline, at the UFF School of Education, as explained in the text.

The processes and results of this work prompted us to revisit the material produced by the undergraduates, under the focus of the literature that discusses pedagogical innovation. This movement occurred due to the fact that, in our Formar Research group²¹, as well as in the group of teachers that constitutes the International Observatory of Inclusion, Interculturality and Pedagogical Innovation, this concept has been widely studied (FINO, 2008; CUNHA, 2016; among others).

Thus, inspired by the clarifications of these scholars, we focus on the material produced, in order to identify elements that point to innovative pedagogical perspectives, from the perspective of undergraduates and teachers of basic education.

Through individual records and interviews with teachers of basic education, raised by the field class called (re)rapprochement with the school, we identified elements of the investigated pedagogical practices that reveal the attempt by teachers to provoke discontinuities in a traditional teaching practice and overcome the mere transmission of knowledge in the classroom space. The materials produced also express, even on a small scale, the assumption of schools that have sought to prioritize aspects such as listening to others, affectivity, teacher autonomy, dialogicity, commitment and creativity.

For the students, the contact with teachers of the elementary school was a unique opportunity to exchange ideas, reflection and dialogue within the future professional space.

It is highlighted in this text that the search for an innovative pedagogical practice, essentially, involves the political and social recognition that the school is the main locus of teacher education and the urgency to reflect collectively - university and school - on other forms of thinking and doing school, but also about other ways of thinking and doing teacher education.

REFERENCES

BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Censo do Ensino Superior 2017. Disponível em: http://portal.mec.gov.br/docman/setembro-2018-pdf/97041-apresentac-a-o-censo-superior-u-ltimo/file. Acesso em: 22 mar. 2019.

CANDAU, V. Didática crítica intercultural: aproximações. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2012.

CRUZ, G. B.; CAMPELO, T. Parceria universidade-escola básica e a aprendizagem da docência: contribuições da relação entre os professores supervisores do PIBID e os licenciandos bolsistas. Formação Docente, Belo Horizonte, v. 09, n. 15, ago./dez., 2016. Disponível em: http://formacaodocente.autenticaeditora.com.br . Acesso em: 14 maio 2019.

CRUZ, G. B.; OLIVEIRA, A. T. de C. C. de; NASCIMENTO, M. das G. C. de A. Ensino de Didática: entre ressignificações e possibilidades. Curitiba: CRV, 2017.

CUNHA, M. I. Inovações na educação superior: impactos na prática pedagógica e nos saberes da docência. Em Aberto, Brasília, v. 29, n. 97, p. 97-101, 2016.

DOMINICK, R. et al. Ensino de Didática: entre ressignificações e possibilidades na FEUFF. In: CRUZ, G.; OLIVEIRA, A. T. de C. C. de; NASCIMENTO, M. das G. C. de A. Ensino de Didática: entre ressignificações e possibilidades. Curitiba: CRV, 2017.

FAGUNDES, T. B. A pesquisa docente: sobre o conceito de professor pesquisador na formação inicial de agentes de letramento. 2011. 157f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação) - Faculdade de Educação, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2011. Disponível em: http://proped.pro.br/teses/teses_pdf/2009_1-571-ME.pdf. Acesso em: 16 maio 2019.

FINO, C. N. Inovação Pedagógica: Significado e Campo de (Investigação). In: Alice Mendonça & António V. Bento (Orgs.). Educação em Tempo de Mudança (p. 277-287). Funchal: Grafimadeira, 2008. Disponível em: http://www3.uma.pt/carlosfino/publicacoes/Investigacao_e_inovacao.pdf. Acesso em: 16 abr. 2019.

FREIRE, P. Pedagogia da Autonomia: saberes necessários à prática educativa. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 1996.

GATTI, B. Educação, escola e formação de professores: políticas e impasses. Educar em Revista, Curitiba, Brasil, n. 50, p. 51-67, out./dez. 2013.

GAUTHIER, C. et al. Por uma teoria da pedagogia: pesquisas contemporâneas sobre o saber docente. Ijuí: Ed. UNIJUÍ, 480p., 1998.

HERNÁNDEZ, F.; VENTURA, M. A organização do currículo por projetos de trabalho. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 1998.

LÜDKE, M; ANDRÉ, M. E. D. A. Pesquisa em educação: abordagens qualitativas. 8. ed. São Paulo: EPU, 2004.

MINAYO, M. C. de S. (Org.). Pesquisa Social: teoria, método e criatividade. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2003.

MACIEL, S.; JAEHN, L.; VASCONCELLOS, M. Precisamos falar de gênero: por uma educação democrática. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos em Educação, v. 13, p. 1503-1517, 2018. Disponível em: https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/iberoamericana/article/view/11657/7602 . Acesso em: 14 maio 2019.

MIZUKAMI, M. da G. N. Analisando a função social da escola: a inserção do pedagogo na vida escolar durante o primeiro ano de curso. In: SILVA, A. M. M. et. al. (Orgs.). Políticas educacionais, tecnologias e formação do educador: repercussões sobre a didática e as práticas de ensino. Recife: ENDIPE, p. 65-81, 2006.

NITERÓI. Universidade Federal Fluminense. Resolução n^o 616, de 2018. Estabelece a Base Comum para os Cursos de Licenciatura da UFF. Disponível em http://www.uff.br/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/imagens-das-noticias/20._015-2018_-_resoluaeo_616-17_base_comum_licenciaturas.pdf. Acesso em: 17 maio 2019.

NOVOA, A. Os professores: um “novo” objecto da investigação educacional?. In: NOVOA, A. (Org.). Vidas de professores. 2. ed. Porto: Porto Editora, p. 13-30, 1999.

NÓVOA, A. Os professores: um novo objeto de investigação educacional? In: NÓVOA, A. (Org.). Vidas de professores. 2. ed. Porto: Porto Editora, p. 13-30, 2015.

PERRENOUD, P. O trabalho sobre o habitus na formação de professores: análise das práticas e tomada de consciência. In: PERRENOUD, P. et.al. (Orgs.). Formando professores profissionais: Quais estratégias? Quais competências? Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora, p. 161-184, 2001.

SHULMAN, L. Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, n. 1, p. 1-22, February 1987.

SHULMAN, L., GROSSMAN, P. L., WILSON, S. M. Teachers of substance: subject matter knowledge for teaching. In: REYNOLDS, M. C. (Org.). Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. New York: Pergamon Press, p. 23- 36, 1989

TARDIF, M. Saberes docentes e formação profissional. 5. ed. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 325 p., 2014.

TERRIEN, J. O saber social da prática docente. Educação & Sociedade, Campinas, n. 46, p. 408-418, dez. 1993.

VASCONCELLOS, M.; SANTIAGO, M. C. D. Grupo de Pesquisa Formar: Inovação ou reinvenção de saberes? Revista Educação e Fronteiras, Dourados/MS, v. 8, n. 22, p. 35-46, jan./abr., 2018.

VASCONCELLOS, M.; OLIVEIRA, L. F. de; MENEZES, G. L. P. de. Formação superior e opção pelo magistério: quais são as razões apresentadas por alunos das licenciaturas para sua escolha profissional? In: SANTIAGO, M. C. e AKKARI A. (Orgs) Formação de professores: perspectivas interculturais. Rio de Janeiro: Autografia, p. 35-56, 2016.

VASCONCELLOS, M.; VILELA, M. Limites e possibilidades da formação inicial para o desenvolvimento de práticas autônomas. Educar em Revista, Curitiba, Brasil, n. 63, p. 157-172, jan./mar., 2017.

Notes