Introduction

To understand the categorization of social representations, it is necessary to analyze their epistemological bases. This term was born in French society, where through the culmination of Serge Moscovici´s doctoral study in 1979 and his book entitled Psychoanalysis: Its Image and Its Public, was the beginning of what is known nowadays as social representation. We can understand that more than half a century has passed, and that therefore various research has been developed and has contributed to its expansion.

As a result, the analysis of the concept of social representation arises from a collective representation, postulated by Durkheim“s writings who devoted himself to developing his sociological theory of knowledge, where his application was made in 1898 when the essay Individual Representations and Collective Representations was published. In this way and according to Vera (2002, p. 107) who mentions that “collective representations need individual representations but do not arise from individuals taken in isolation, but as a whole; it takes the partnership for people“s representations to become things outside individual consciences,” this collective construction is part of and a result of the knowledge that all subjects hold individually and among those around them.

In this way, it is necessary to rely on a framework of general orientations in which the concept of collective representations, as elaborated by Durkheim, is delimited as a social fact which differs from a psychological phenomenon because human beings make sense concerning democracy, the sacred, the ritual, science, and morality. Due to this, Villarroel (2007, p. 438) mentions “regarding the notion of collective representation coined by Durkheim, Moscovici introduces a radical turn. The human being is eminently social and is shaped, in particular, by the language of the society to which he belongs and, in this way, by the cognitive and symbolic universe that precedes him.” In turn, Durkheim (quoted in Ibanez, 1988) states that “collective representations are imposed on persons with a truly constructive force, since they seem to possess, before their eyes, the same objectivity as natural causes” (pp. 168-169). In this connection, Moscovici (1984, p. 3), unlike Durkheim, states that “Collective representations are an explanatory mechanism and refer to a general class of ideas or beliefs (science, myth, religion), for us, they are phenomena that need to be described and explained. Specific phenomena that relate to a particular way of understanding and communicating – a way that creates reality and common sense. He used the term “social” instead of “collective” to identify this distinction. Because of this, Moscovici directs his studies to respond to the cognitive process where each subject produces a social construction.

According to the previous paragraph, some theorists manage to align their thoughts with the epistemological postures of Moscovici, where Jodelet (1986, pp. 474 - 475) mentions that social representation constitutes practical thought modalities oriented towards communication, understanding, and mastery of the social, material and ideal environment”. In turn, Lacolla (2004, p. 9) also states that social representation “is constituted from one”s own experience, but also from the information, knowledge, and models of thought that we receive and transmit through tradition, education and social communication.”

In this case, the theory of social representations was born with the expansion of cognitive studies that sought to establish knowledge about life experiences, the characteristics of societies, and the work of subjects from the aforementioned elements because they start from the premise that there are different ways of knowing and communicating through the cognitive and symbolic. Subsequently, the contributions of social representations come from Emile Durkheim, who, using sociology, encompasses collective representations.

According to what has been developed in relation to social representations, Serge Moscovici uses social psychology to support the subject and emphasizes that this deals with knowledge that plays a crucial role in how people think and organize their daily lives ( Jodelet, 1984). This is because it includes meanings and beliefs at the individual and group level, since they are a form of knowledge and practical thinking that is supported by a series of experiences that determine in the short, medium and long term the actions of the subject in the environment, and therefore their understanding and meanings in the face of their work. That is why social representations can be referenced in the pedagogical practices carried out by the Bachelors of Primary Basic Education in rural contexts, since these educational actions are driven by several benchmarks highlighting individuals, collectives, cultures and the influence of teachers who train practitioners.

Currently, in the Colombian rural context, social dynamics have emerged that have been generating inequality of opportunity, causing the interest of various professions to intervene in the needs and situations that are present. Because of this, in the globalized society of knowledge and technology in which we are immersed, challenges arise in different areas, one of them being the methods of learning and the role that Bachelors of Primary Basic Education have in rurality through their Pedagogical Practices, which undoubtedly allows these training professionals to establish strategies according to the teaching styles and means, which contribute to the strengthening of the knowledge and skills of teachers.

Also, the presence of Bachelors of Primary Basic Education in rural contexts through Pedagogical Practices contributes to the improvement of the quality of education given to children and adolescents in the area, as this population immersed in rurality is one of the most vulnerable regarding the fulfillment and guarantee of their right to education, considering that 70 % of infants and young people who do not have accessible learning spaces in Colombia come from rural areas and remote regions ( National Administrative Department of Statistics – DANE, 2018) where the intervention of the state and trained professionals is minimal.

Despite the importance of trained teachers in rural areas, the lack of participation of these professionals in said areas has been identified, due to few guarantees provided by the context. This is due to the low accessibility of public services, the low or almost nonexistent budget for the improvement of school facilities, lack of physical and human resources, the difficult access to the area and the methodology of classes to be taught where the teacher should be multigrade. That is why, for its part, Graeme (2008) states that the preparation at the University has been insufficient for teachers to face the special challenges and conditions of rural education and proposes that university teacher training programs offer opportunities that encourage the participation in internships within these social contexts that require so much intervention. He also agrees with Jones (2011), in expressing that such initiatives can help in attracting and retaining teachers in rural areas.

Similarly, different studies have pointed out that the main drawback of the low intervention of graduates in this area refers to the isolated or remote schools being unattractive, since, for the most part, the subject assumes only the negative stereotypes of rurality, thus generating that these professionals do not want to carry out their research in this environment ( Sharplin, 2010). Despite the above, some research has confirmed the relevance of the Pedagogical Practices of Bachelors in training, since according to the social representations and meanings at this stage, subjects have the opportunity to experiment in rural contexts, which in the short term will be their professional activity, and also allows them to recreate the content built about science and knowledge, to strengthen their role as research teachers and clarify their vocational disposition which is a determining factor for the adaptation of the professional in rurality and conditions involved in teaching ( Rojas, Ramírez and Tobón, 2013).

Taking these aspects into account, it is important to know and make visible the social representations that Bachelors of Primary Basic Education have in respect to rural pedagogical practices, since, the meanings developed in this article will allow the state, university contexts, teachers in training and citizens in general to recognize the important role that teachers have in the rural context and in learning about the actors immersed in this process, which are undoubtedly children, adolescents and families residing in the area and are the ones who face daily dynamics of inequality that refer not only to the social area, but also to the educational, economic, political and other aspects that alter human development in rurality and the guarantees regarding the quality of life of these subjects.

Theoretical contributions from social representation

It should be mentioned that within the interests of this work are to reconstruct historically and systematically the concept of social representations to allow a thoughtful process around social construction that graduates have in primary basic education around their posture and assessment of rural schools. The following chart describes the importance of the meaning of social representations.

Chart 1
Social Representation Concepts

Source: authors.

In this sense, a common sense is maintained among which is the initial concept of Moscovici “social representation is an organized body of knowledge and one of the psychic activities through which men make reality intelligible” (p. 18). In addition to this, social representation is built by two processes; objectification and anchoring, where “Objectation shows how represented elements of a science are integrated into a social reality, anchoring allows capturing how they contribute to modeling social relationships and how they express them” ( Moscovici, 1979, p. 123), in this way, the human being manages to make sense of his context and his reality. Therefore, the concept of anchoring is described by Moscovici (1979), as the one by which “society changes the social object to an instrument that it can dispose of and this object is placed on a scale of preference in existing social relations““ (p. 121). In turn, the anchor “Allows the integration of information about an object within our thought system, facing the innovations of objects that are not familiar to us” ( Lacolla, 2005, p. 7), is how categorization is carried out in which the subject manages to designate a name for certain things, people or groups.

As mentioned above and, according to Villamañan (2016, p. 498) it is stated that “These processes mediatize social dynamics, as meaning is assigned to the social object represented, and it is used in everyday practice. The inalienable link practice social representation is contained in the community and in the fragment, outlined as an image through objection and used in anchoring, in the processes of interaction as discourse contained in the activity”. Seen in this way, these two postulated processes manage to exert meaning for the subject on the social objects that are linked to his reality.

In this sense and considering the above role of macro and micro social factors, the shaping of social representation is provided, and in this way, it manages to be understood from the formulation of three axes of analysis, including field of information, field of social representation and field of attitude.

First to be defined, is the field of information. According to Cuevas (2016), this field “is understood from the selection made by subjects of some of the information that is available about the object of representation” (p. 121). In turn, Moscovici (1979) states that “it relates to the knowledge organization that a group possesses with respect to a social object” (p. 45).

Second, the field of social representation is arranged by Jodelet (1989) as the field that “understands the meanings assigned to the object of representation and which can be diverse as to assert judgments, typologies, beliefs, cultural elements” (p. 20), and consequently, it is these meanings that bachelors in Primary Basic Education make about school. In relation to this connection, Cuevas (2016) stipulates that this axis of analysis may “generate questions of evocation for the subject to express with what or with whom he relates the object of representation, what meanings he attributes to it, and with which elements of daily life the object relates” (p. 122).

And finally, the field of attitude explained by Moscovici (1979), consists of those expressions of an evaluative character in relation to the object of representation, that is why it is based on the information which manages to be simultaneous with its community. From there it is possible to make sense of the meanings and positions of the object of representation and as Cuevas points out (2016), to approach this dimension, “questions must be constructed that point to the research of the assessments made by the subjects, the positions they take and the actions they intend to take in the face of the object of social representation” (p. 112).

As a result of the above by the various fields of social representation, it is important to investigate such principles, in relation to the practices of the Bachelor in Primary Basic Education, since having been involved in this rural context, one can assess and propose methods that help proportional growth in academic fields, taking into account their own experience for this rurality that calls for change, thinking of this from the various actors who are participants in the construction of new academic processes.

Contributions from Pedagogical Practices in Rural Contexts

The elements of social representations according to Moscovici (1979) refer to the communication, knowledge, and meanings present in a context or grouping. This is why it emphasizes that the information refers to the understanding of Bachelors in Primary Basic Education from rural contexts versus Pedagogical Practices, which contain stereotypical characteristics that may vary according to the dynamics and needs, tradition, and culture where they are immersed, leading to data that facilitates the professional reality of individuals, since it is also related to the knowledge of a group in respect to a social object such as the generation of learning in a rural classroom.

Besides, it is important to note that social representations “involve not only building, but also rebuilding a reality, where the subject is constantly in a relationship of information exchange and collective distribution of knowledge that generates identities, norms and values” (Farr, 1986, p. 18). That is, that the individual through representations has a notion of thought constituted and constituent around two central aspects which identify them, where the first of them emphasizes that the representations of the subject are changing, that is, that they are mobilized and recreated in practice, which in it becomes how the subject relates to his environment and to the extent of that relationship, the individual is configured and in turn contributes to the configuration of that reality.

In this sense, in the field of Bachelor“s Degree in rural contexts, the teacher assumes the reality from social representations built on the previous educational processes with teachers, interactions, experiences and environment, but in turn constitutes it through their educational work in the classroom, which is established by the dynamics of the classroom and the needs of the students to whom the processes are taught. The second aspect corresponds to the social character of these representations, which is created and recreated within the framework of relationships and interactions between the subjects of the group and social environment in which pedagogical strategies are developed. ( Aldemar, 2014).

Likewise, the information corresponds to the different content and linguistic, socio-historical data that are acquired as cultural patterns, through which the processes of interaction and dialogue are facilitated in the contexts and cultures ( Gómez and Suárez, 2011) this being how the social representations of the Bachelors are created, modified or strengthened in the face of Pedagogical Practices that involve knowledge processes, experience and adaptation, to meet the educational objectives and professional ethics regardless of the context.

In the field of social representations, the content is set hierarchically considering the character and properties of the group, where the information can be qualitative or imaginary. As Moscovici (1979) considers, it refers “to the idea of image, of social model, to the concrete and limited content of the proposals that refer to an accurate aspect of the object of representation” (p. 96), which refers to the meanings, beliefs and experiences present in the Bachelors at the time of carrying out their Pedagogical Practices at educational institutions.

In turn, the Pedagogical Practice since the conception of the Ministry of National Education: Law 115 of 1994 framing the training and purpose of educators, Resolution No. 6966 from August 6, 2010, is defined as the fundamental means for learning and developing skills in educators who are in the training process. Besides, Resolution 18583 of September 15, 2017, specifying the experience of the practice where teachers in training must understand and make sense of the dynamics in various learning environments. Finally, Resolution 37 November 22, 2015, issued by the UPTC academic board sets out guidelines for investigative pedagogical practices that allow the future teacher to know the context of their performance and the basic realities of the teaching exercise, therefore reaffirming their professional identity within local, academic and work frameworks, and learning with educators in exercise and to strengthen contextualized collaborative learning.

In fact, since 1990, Colombia“s Ministry of Education has been promoting and adapting the new school pedagogical model, with the components of acceleration of learning, post-primary, tele secondary and tutorial learning system; it is important to emphasize, that from this method, rural education operates under the guidance of a multigrade teacher, who carries out their training process in all areas of knowledge for basic primary grades, thus generating evidence of the various contextual conditions and challenges that the graduate must face with his pedagogical practices and also, to make visible the large learning gap between an urban and rural student. Seen in this way, Valbuena, Jiménez and Jiménez (2021) state;

The optimization of educational quality leads to the improvement of teacher training, which implies the teacher leaving behind the traditional models of teaching and learning, and developing skills in students, stimulating reading, creativity, critical thinking, among others. Other skills necessary for the citizens of this century. However, for this achievement it is necessary to promote development. (p. 250)

Consequently, to the above, it is visible that pedagogical practice from social representations refers to immersion of teachers in the professional field. Therefore, the group and the teaching actor in training deploy before them the regulations (system of values and standards) of that environment through the relationship of the practitioner with the other subjects immersed in the educational area. Initially, the graduate assumes this process of interaction, that is, his practice, from his representational framework that consists essentially of the development of the pensum of the Bachelor“s Degree, but also, in a repertoire of beliefs, perceptions and personal judgments about the teaching profession in the rural context, in which his experience as a past student intervene ( Aldemar, 2014) and in the professional future of the same by observation, interaction, imitation, questioning and evaluation.

From these perceptions, it is important to emphasize that the pedagogical practices of graduates are made up of several components related to teaching activities, orientation and scenarios, the first being the training dimension with the greatest involvement, since, according to Vezub (2002) education is composed of three stages: the pre-active that refers to the planning of the lesson carried out by the teacher according to their meanings, experiences, knowledge and dynamics of the context; the interactive phase that corresponds to the action of teaching through playful pedagogical strategies; and the post-active one that involves the teacher performing an analysis, reflection and evaluation of what was taught in the classroom and the progress they were able to establish in the context and immersed actors, in this case, the rural classroom.

The dimension of guidance carried out by graduates in pedagogical practices, refers to the accompaniment of teachers in the face of the actions and professional work of the teacher in training, this all to promote ethics and objective communication processes that allow the same work to be appropriate for the dynamics and needs of the urban and rural context, bearing in mind that the conditions of the means are different and require that the methodologies and teaching staff be adapted to the scenarios, this being the last component of pedagogical practices, which allows processes of interaction and knowledge for both schoolchildren and graduates, due to the pedagogical strategies they develop linked to the type of schooling, which focus on the organization of class, group management, content and learning environments.

Also, in relation to pedagogical practices, we must recognize a tension between the type of standard schooling that is asked of schools and teachers, and others that are carried out within the framework of the school, but which are not recognized as being academic. This pressure is given by classical school practices (notebook work, schedules, and activity in the classroom), which are crossed by those that are typical of rural areas, where teachers carry out activities that have to do with food, the care of the physical space, plants, and trees, in which teachers see the need to intervene (garden assembly, planting and care of fruit trees, etc.); activities that have to do with the characteristics of the area, different from the typical activities covered by standard teaching strategies. In line with the contexts and educational institutions or schools, the representation of the Bachelor appears in the middle as a particular social agent, resembling a public official, on par with the community chief or the priest of the nearest community ( Brumat and Baca, 2015)

Considering the dynamics laid out above in the face of the work of the Bachelor, it can be established from the construction carried out by professionals through the social representations that the pedagogical practice in rural school is considered an important process that requires teachers to use all the knowledge acquired during their training cycle in the Bachelor“s Degree. They also must know the context in which the rural school is located, their students, previous interests and ideas, all of which are undoubtedly the means that guide educational practices and cultural knowledge ( Henao, Peláez and Cueto, 2017). That is why it can also be noted that the plans and programs of study must be adapted to the realities of schools so that they incentivize learning processes and the concern of trained teachers to carry out their practices in this medium that requires intervention and is being forgotten by the state, professionals and citizens in general.

Human training in rural educational contexts and emerging technologies

Understanding the definitions and classifications of social representations, a new reference emerges of cultural and educational practices in rural schools. The insertion of technology is one of these, resulting in a new configuration of reality and how it is represented by the people who make up the rural community. In particular, the human condition is represented through the inclusion of cultural artifacts for technological purposes that resign human formation as a practice mediated by cultural practices in which the use of technological artifacts is integrated into previous representations as a new reality through which new adaptations, adjustments and hybridizations of this practice are generated.

This all is accompanied by teaching mediation as a cultural agent, which in its performance acts as a mediator and social manager, shaping a social representation based on technique and dialogue, supported by human relations, which are coupled with the execution of a practice. Understood as the adaptation of the curriculum to the processes of transmission of pedagogical knowledge ( Gómez and Suárez, 2011). Much of this teaching knowledge is based on pedagogical beliefs about how to teach and its recognition before the rural community, understanding that technologies as they are; the Internet, the computer, and the cell phone emerge as technological tools or artifacts that transform practices, becoming teaching devices that are part of the community and rural beliefs, perceptions and social representations ( Moscovici, 1984). Also, as mentioned by Zapata and Cardona (2021):

It leads students to install themselves in a position from which social reality is seen from a simplistic perspective that excludes the notion of it as a social construction and establishes barriers in the formation of a holistic social thought. (p. 144)

Along with the above-mentioned changes, there is a variation in pedagogical practices with the use of emerging technologies, which emerge as a novel element or artifact for many, but which emerge without further foresight or planning at a social and cultural moment that is not easy to identify, which often happens in rural contexts where the use of these technologies such as the cellphone are not only used to communicate but on the contrary, allow other activities to be diversified, such as the economic and social activities of a community. Social representation processes in education with the use of emerging technologies in rural social contexts demonstrate a new subjectivization and anchoring ( Lacallo, 2005) that puts the aforementioned technologies in a new place, putting them at an important relationship level to include communities in the regional and global educational framework. These considerations lead to an in-depth question about the impact of educational technologies on social, educational, computer, internet, and cell phone representations, the most commonly used artifacts in these dynamics based on the actions undertaken by teachers as alternatives to be able to integrate a community.

The human training of graduates in Primary Basic Education from practice in the Rural School is certainly on a double path between the perception of the context of the educational community and that of the information it holds to shape the possible outcome of the realities that derive from variables from its origin from primary studies and higher education that also derives from a perception of life and is expressed by Navarrete-Cazales, Z. (2015) on the training of teachers in Rural Normal Schools and their projection to professionalization as a Graduate through a Bachelor“s Degree to perform his profession perhaps initially in a rural context and that as a consequence must be the solid human training that generates conviction of the professional exercise of the Bachelor and contributes in a point of balance to the development of the educational community with which he shares through his students.

Professionals in Education since their training as Graduates in Primary Basic Education in the process of developing their practice and exercising their profession in a rural context are focused on emerging technologies and that becomes necessary as expressed by Alvarez-Quiroz, G.; Blanquicett-Romero, J. (2015) in the research on “Perceptions of rural teachers on ICT in their pedagogical practices”, for which it can be considered as a new reality of the Graduates who perform during their practice and then in their professional performance in a rural context to energize the pedagogical work and consolidation of the formation of the necessary knowledge and the construction of humanity with their students and the educational community.

Finally, human and educational training in rural areas remains very rooted in cultural, social, and economic elements surrounding rural communities. Social practices, however, are no strangers to global educational processes, each of which affects educational and institutional policies, especially at a time when the use of information and communication technologies are huge as part of a logic that seeks to be represented in every social and cultural context ( Fainholc, 2012) rural area, for the extensive and expansive effect of connectivity, techno-pedagogical curriculum models and new scenarios of social and cultural representation.

Conclusions

Following the above, it is possible to conclude:

The social representations of Bachelors in Primary Basic Education on Pedagogical Practices in rural contexts are determined by the experiences, knowledge, meanings, processes of interaction and values of the subject. As a result, it can be established that from the aforementioned means, the subject creates and recreates conceptions in the face of his professional work and the challenges involved in being immersed in an isolated area. Because the area has barriers to the provision of basic services, and also, with low accessibility to the territory and minimal coverage of Education, few Bachelors carry out their pedagogical practices in these schools that are immersed in rurality, which undoubtedly require new pedagogical strategies that motivate learning in children and adolescents and that also strengthen the community together with the skills, capabilities and knowledge of teachers in training.

Similarly, it is important to highlight the meanings given to pedagogical practices by Bachelors of Primary Basic Education in rural contexts from their social representations, bearing in mind that this conception is constituted by the elements of practice in rural school, in which classroom management, disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge are visible. The characteristics of rural areas that must be considered include access to the institution, which often is subject to remoteness, climatic conditions, and the infrastructure of the school or classroom. The aforementioned components facilitate the configuration of the teacher”s identity and also allow them to acquire experiences in their profession, know the role and functions they fulfill in rural schools, learn from the experience of students and understand their environment along with the conditions in which they live, and finally to contextualize teaching to the dynamics, needs and cultures present in rurality.

Finally, pedagogical strategies must adapt to the dynamics and needs of the context, as all community situations and perspectives are diverse. It is relevant that from university educational spaces, graduates are trained and encouraged to develop their Pedagogical Practices in the rural context, since the medium requires the educational intervention of these professionals and also allows the strengthening of the Bachelor“s Degree at the disciplinary and professional level through the experiences of the subjects, research processes and development of skills, capabilities and knowledge in this area of intervention of the Human Sciences and Education.

References

Aldemar, Y. (2014). Representaciones sociales sobre práctica pedagógica en los estudiantes practicantes de la licenciatura en educación básica con énfasis en ciencias sociales de la Universidad de Nariño UDENAR. Tesis de maestría, Universidad de Nariño. Repositorio Institucional. http://sired.udenar.edu.co/1843/1/2.pdf

Araya, S. (2002). Las representaciones sociales: Ejes teóricos para su discusión. Costa Rica: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales.

Alvarez-Quiroz, G.; Blanquicett-Romero, J. (2015). Percepciones de los docentes rurales sobre las tic en sus prácticas pedagógicas. Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología, 26(51), 371-394. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=14542676016

Brumat, M. y Baca, C. (2015). Prácticas docentes en contextos de ruralidad. Un estudio en escuelas rurales del norte de córdoba. Revista Educación, Formación e Investigación., 1(2), 1-16. ISSN 2422-5975.

Cuevas, Y. (2016). Recomendaciones para el estudio de representaciones sociales en investigación educativa. Cultura y representaciones sociales, 11(21), 109-140. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-81102016000200109&lng=es&tlng=es.

Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística – DANE, Censo Nacional de Población y vivienda. (2018). https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/demografia-y-poblacion/censo-nacional-de-poblacion-y-vivenda-2018

Farr, R. (1984). Las representaciones sociales. Psicología social II. Pensamiento y vida social. Psicología social y problemas sociales., 1ra edición. Barcelona: Paidós.

Flick, U. (2007). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Madrid: Morata.

Fainholc, B. (2012). Una Tecnología Educativa apropiada y crítica. Nuevos enfoques. Aproximaciones conceptuales, metodológicas y críticas. Alemania. Editorial Académica Española.

Gómez, R., y Suárez, G. (2011). Representaciones sociales sobre la violencia: los niños y las niñas escriben sobre la violencia: un estudio de caso. Tesis de maestría, Universidad de Antioquia. http://ayura.udea.edu.co:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/202/1/PB0621.pdf

Graeme, L. (2008). Preparing Teachers for Rural Appointments: Lessons from Australia. Rural Educator, 29 (2), 24-30. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ869290.pdf,

Henao, F., Peláez, D., y Cueto, J. (2017). El aporte de la práctica pedagógica en escuela rural a la formación inicial de maestros de ciencias naturales. Trabajo de grado, Universidad de Antioquia.

Ibañez, T. (1988). Ideologías de la vida cotidiana. Barcelona: Sendai.

Jodelet, D. (1984). La representación social: fenómeno, concepto y teoría., Psicología social II. Pensamiento y vida social. Psicología social y problemas sociales. Barcelona: Paidós.

Jodelet, D. (1986). La representación social: fenómenos, concepto y teoría. Psicología social II de Serge. Paidós.

Jones, A. (2011). Rethinking the Rural Practicum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. ERIC.

Lacolla, L. (2005). Representaciones sociales: una manera de entender las ideas de nuestros alumnos. Revista Electrónica de la Red de Investigación Educativa, 1(3). http://revista.iered.org/v1n3/pdf/llacolla.pdf

Congreso de la República de Colombia. (1994, 8 de febrero). Ley 115. Por la cual se expide la Ley General de Educación. Diario Oficial 41214. https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma_pdf.php?i=292

Moscovici, S. (1979). El psicoanálisis, su imagen y su público. Buenos aires: Huemul.

Moscovici, S. (1984). El fenómeno de las Representaciones Sociales. Cambridge: University Press.

Navarrete-Cázales, Z. (2015). Formación de profesores en las Escuelas Normales de México. Siglo XX. Revista Historia De La Educación Latinoamericana, 17(25), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.19053/01227238.3805

Perera Pérez, M. (2005). Sistematización crítica de la teoría de las representaciones sociales. Tesis de Doctorado en Ciencias Psicológicas, Universidad de La Habana.

Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2010, 6 de agosto). Resolución 6966. características específicas de calidad de los programas de formación profesional en educación. http://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1621/article-243532.html

Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia. (2015, 3 de noviembre). Resolución 37. Lineamiento para las Prácticas Pedagógicas Investigativas de los programas de Licenciatura Presencial y a Distancia. http://www.uptc.edu.co/export/sites/default/secretaria_general/consejo_academico/resoluciones_2015/res_37_2015.pdf

Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2017, 15 de septiembre). Resolución 18583. características específicas de los programas de Licenciatura para la obtención, renovación o modificación del registro calificado., 1-12. https://www.usbcali.edu.co/sites/default/files/resolucion_final_18583_de_2017deroga_2041.pdf

Rojas, Y., Ramírez, J., y Tobón, F. (2013). Evaluación de la práctica pedagógica en comunidades rurales y suburbanas. Educ.16 (2), 267-282. http://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstream/10495/3516/1/RojasYesenia_2013_EvaluacionPracticaPedagogica.pdf

Sharplin, E. (2010). A Taste of Country: A Pre-Service Teacher Rural Field Trip. Education in Rural Australia, 20 (1), 17-27. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ897612.

Valbuena-Duarte, S., Jiménez Ávila, M. A. y Jiménez Ávila, W. (2021). Aportes de los actores de la práctica pedagógica al desarrollo de las competencias específicas en la licenciatura en matemática en formación virtual y presencial. Revista Interamericana de Investigación, Educación y Pedagogía, 14 (2), 247-275. https://doi.org/10.15332/25005421.6114

Vera, H. (2002). Representaciones y clasificaciones colectivas. La teoría sociológica del conocimiento de Durkheim. Sociológica, 17(50), 103-121. ISSN: 0187-0173. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=3050/305026563005

Vezub, L . (2002). Los residentes en acción. Las tareas y preocupaciones en el proceso de inducción al magisterio, de aprendices a maestros: enseñar y aprender a enseñar., 1.ª edición., 81-122. Buenos Aires: Papers Editores.

Villamañan Alba, M. (2016). Lo comunitario en las representaciones sociales de la violencia. Psicologia & Sociedade, 28(3), 494-504.

Zapata-Cardona, G. y Cardona Restrepo, J. D. (2021). Concepciones de estudiantes y maestros de educación básica en torno a lo sonoro y el espacio geográfico: implicaciones didácticas . Revista Interamericana de Investigación, Educación y Pedagogía, 14 (2), 141-167. https://doi.org/10.15332/25005421.6026

Notas

Autor notes

Informação adicional

Cite this article: : Valiente López, E. J., Bustamante Parra, A. C., Cifuentes Medina, J. E. y Torres Ortiz, J. A. (2023). The Rural School from Students-Teachers Practices at Primary School: A Reflection of Social Representations. Revista Interamericana de Investigación, Educación y Pedagogía, 16(1), 371-394. https://doi.org/10.15332/25005421.7945