Ludicity: conceptual comprehension of graduate students in education ^*

Abstract

Luckesi (2014) Lopes (2014) Moraes (2014) Caillois (1990) Huizinga (2000) Luckesi (2000) Retondar (2007) Holzapfer (2003) Kishimoto (2011)

Ludicity; Higher education; Education

Resumo

A ludicidade, presente no vocabulário corriqueiro de muitas pessoas, é compreendida simplesmente como sinônimo de jogo, mormente ligada ao universo infantil. Após aceder à literatura, ao estudo e discussão concernente à essa temática, podem emergir significações de viés acadêmico. O artigo apresenta respostas à questão norteadora: quais são as compreensões dos discentes, pós-graduandos em educação, sobre a ludicidade? Buscou-se aprofundamento teórico em Luckesi (2014), Lopes (2014) e Moraes (2014). O objetivo geral é analisar as compreensões conceituais sobre a ludicidade pelo prisma dos discentes pós-graduandos em educação. Buscou-se especificamente: levantar o conceito de ludicidade e seu campo semântico construído pelos discentes; identificar relações entre o lúdico e a educação; e reconhecer as singularidades da ludicidade e das atividades potencialmente lúdicas sob o ponto de vista discente. Justifica-se a importância da temática pelas contribuições teórico-práticas às discussões acadêmicas em educação sobre ludicidade no contexto do ensino superior, enriquecendo a formação profissional de docentes que se proponham a mediar ludicamente. Metodologicamente é um estudo de caso qualitativo, junto aos discentes de um componente curricular concernente à ludicidade, oferecido em uma instituição de ensino superior federal. Os dados interpretados pela análise de conteúdo são oriundos de fórum eletrônico. Na interpretação, outras fontes literárias ampliam a discussão: Caillois (1990); Brougère (1998); Huizinga (2000); Luckesi (2000); Retondar (2007); Holzapfer (2003); Kishimoto (2011) e D’Ávila e Leal (2012). Entre outras conclusões, levantou-se que o conceito lukesiano de ludicidade como inteireza, plenitude e estado subjetivo interno foi internalizado e compreendido pelo olhar discente.

Ludicidade; Ensino superior; Educação

Introduction

“He who does not comprehend a look, will neither comprehend a long explanation”

(Mario Quintana).

The words ludicity and ludic are, in their general sense, used as game synonyms, mainly linked to the infantile universe. In regard to academic bias, once one gains access to the literature, studies and discussion related to the subject, it is possible that re-significations may appear as well as a deeper conceptualization.

At the core of the educational work of higher education, one notices the primacy of pedagogical academicism, which does not give space to other languages and for the pleasure of teaching and learning. This teaching has been based on teacher verbiage and on a vertical and transmissive model. Maybe this explains the illness in professors and graduate students in different areas, specifically in the field of education, in which this research is focused.

Ludicity appears as a curricular component in a graduate program (master’s and doctoral degree) of an institution of higher education (IHE), in Salvador, Bahia, in the midst of a program geared towards teacher training. The idea behind this curricular component is to manifest in the students an expansive comprehension of the ludic or ludicity concept through a pedagogic work developed with contributions of this language.

This article was constructed through a research in order to understand this concept from a student’s perspective. The research was conducted among the students of the mentioned curricular component, that was dedicated to, among other things, the study of ludicity in teacher training, and it was offered in one stricto sensu graduate program in Brazil in a federal institution of higher education.

The curricular component has the workload of 68 hours. It was offered in the second semester of 2017 and it had as syllabus:

The desire to teach and the contributions of art and ludicity for pre-service and in-service teachers. Knowledge of teaching: the knowledge of being, the knowledge of how to do; and sensible knowledge. The aesthetic dimension in teacher training and the educational practices. Rising paradigms in teacher education. Educative practices and creativity: from the ludic to the art. ³

Ludicity, the main element of this curricular component, has topics that were widely debated throughout the whole semester. Countless materials were made available by the professors teaching the subject. A lot of strategies were used in the class. In the first classes, the syllabus was discussed and adjusted to take into account the needs, contexts and schedules.

Once the rules were set, the class opted for requisite readings and discussions of three scientific articles whose key point was ludicity, written by recognized authors for their discussion and thematic defence: Luckesi (2014) , Lopes (2014) and Moraes (2014) . The three texts are summarized in the development of this article which serve as theoretical underpinning through which the reader will become familiar with the keynote and the contents of the discussion that took place in classes on the topic, as well as the ideas defended by the referenced authors.

After the reading, it was proposed one dialogued exposition supported by PowerPoint presentations. The professors explained the concepts, addressed concerns and meditated discussions. Students were requested to produce conceptual maps ( NOVAK; GOWIN, 1995 ) or mind maps ( BUZAN, 2009 ) on the content of the studied texts. In the next class, such materials were presented and explored, allowing for a consolidation of the discussions.

Ensuring the broad work about conceptions and ludic relations, a moment of culmination was proposed through the participation in a forum in the virtual learning environment (AVA) moodle of the IHE. The students had to post comments discussing ludicity, to show that they thoroughly understood the material.

The virtual discussion gave way to scientific concerns around the students’ comprehension – graduate students in education – of ludicity. So, this article began with the following main question: What are the comprehensions of students, graduate students in education, about ludicity? From this question, there are others to deepen the research in specific research elements, such as: How to the students interpret the semantic field related to ludicity? What is the relationship established by the students between ludicity and education? What are the singularities of ludicity and the potentially ludic activities from the students’ point of view?

The contribution given by this article aims to analyse how graduate students in education comprehend the concept of ludicity. The specific objectives are: to bolster the concept of ludicity and the semantic field related to the ludicity built by the students; to identify the relationships between ludic and education; and to recognize the singularities of lucidity and potentially ludic activities from the students’ point of view. Actually, what is searched in this work is to comprehend the view of the student about ludicity ⁴ .

In terms of justification to produce this article, it is evident that it contributes positively to the academic discussions in education about ludicity, exposing the results of the work built in a more mature classroom context (the Graduate stage). It gives more in-depth examination of a subject, which structures teaching by ludic mediation, providing elements of theoretical and practical enrichment to the professional teacher education. By re-signifying their practice, these teachers then contribute to the formation and development of social individuals (students/citizens) who feel complete and aware of their cognitive and affective growing process.

Particularly, there is the enrichment of the theoretical-empirical anchor to support debates among research groups in the discussions concerned with didactic mediation based on the ludicity language in the higher education context.

Methodologically speaking, the research is exploratory and qualitative, whose main procedure is a case study with data produced by an online retrieval system and examined by content analysis.

The theoretical trajectory consists of the summary of what have been worked in the classroom; in the methodological trajectory, there are more details about the course completed to obtain the proposed objectives. After that, in the analytical trajectory, there are categories to present the particularities of what have been found on the posts about ludicity (research results); which are summarized in the final considerations, in which the results are discussed. A reference section is also provided, should the reader care to deepen his or her knowledge of the texts used to support this article.

Theoretical trajectory

The first texts studied in the curricular component was of Luckesi (2014) , which elaborates the conceptual discussion of the word ludicity, going through its dimensions, the activities that manifest ludicity and teacher training. It reminds that the concept of ludicity is not present in dictionaries; it refers to a subjective state, to one inner experience, to the sensation of totality and fulfilment with joy.

It is clear that, among other dimensions that may emerge, ludicity is presented under objective and subjective dimensions, and both can be understood by the individual and collective prism. The activities, that the author classifies as either non-ludic or ludic, may be jokes, entertainment, games or trips, among other things. He also states that for an activity to be considered ludic or not depends on personal subjective experience. Luckesi (2014) also defends a ludic education that proposes supervision mediation that is built in the midst of a relationship between what is cognitive and affective, because the teacher always sets the tone of the class, arguing that the learning is the fruit of lived experiences.

The second text is from Lopes (2014) , who proposes the idea of design of ludicity, which is not explicitly conceptualized in the text. The author defends three dimensions of design: wish, that drags body and mind and is a source of pleasure, emotion, social interaction, intrinsic motivation and challenge; design, that is, the rationality that subjugates the emotion, giving purpose to the project, to the intent and it is the desire’s consequence; and drawing, that is, intervention by the creative representation of the human social action, which manifests desire guided by the design that constrains it.

According to the referred author, there are conditions to the drawing, namely: technical competence, operationalization, capacity, attitude, and knowhow guided by ethical principles. As consequences of the design, these conditions evoke the exponential increase of the metacommunication, the communicator potential and the growth of communication.

Lopes (2014) ’s text presents one ludicity conceptual approach, defending that this word is not present in dictionaries and it is one human condition, related to humour and freedom. Making synergies of daily fun experiences brisk, the author inadvertently simplifies ludicity as a synonym for playing and joking. The text associates a semantic family with ludicity, composed by: to joke (whose focus is in the process, it is spontaneous, self-motivated and does not depend on precise rules); leisure (referring to resting, idle time, fruition, relaxing and it is reflected in any activity); playtime (proposed by the time recess logic, it is an allowed idle time); and to play a game (whose interaction is controlled by rules, related to sports, with rules and focus on the result).

Concerning the manifestations of ludicity, the author states that they may occur at any time, context or age. They demand negotiation, playing the leading role and making decisions, creating clear capacities of transformation, of learning to learn and the possibility of constructing ludic artefacts. Such artefacts promote playing jokes, games as well as having playtime and leisure time.

Lopes (2014) also evokes questions such as the intercomprehension of sharing whole experiences amid communication, for example: taxonomic (concerned to symbolic interactionism and pragmatics); ontological (of consequentiality); and etymological (to put together senses in the diversity of manifestations). The author maintains that ludicity gives away to learning, teaching and mediation in training and highlights that ludicity has been sought with interests from alienating mercantilism with a generalized effect of profit and hedonism.

The third article read and discussed was by Moraes (2014) , which is concerned with the relationship between transdisciplinarity and ludicity. It starts from the explanations about traditional (of objectivity) and complex (of subjectivity) paradigms of transdisciplinarity. Their ontological methodological and epistemological dimensions have complexity because they are self-organized in an environment that is dialogical, recursive, indeterminate, unpredictable and uncertain of emerging and transcending multidimensionality.

This article details the complex transdiciplinary nature on different levels of comprehension, reality and perception, intermediated by cognitive operators, in non-Manichean, non-linear and non-determinist logic. It points out that the individual is made by interactions and nourished by a structured flow of transdisciplinary knowledge. This is both internal and external, mediated by ludic language that proposes a new logic of feasibility, visibility and possibility for unprecedented challenges.

The text points out the benefits of ludicity: redemption of self-esteem, respect, personal transformation, construction of autonomy, identity and otherness. These benefits create new Ludic moments, according to Moraes (2014) , have a complex nature – as well as transdisciplinarity – of totality, listening and a great transcendent perception of pleasure.

It is clear that potentially ludic activities may involve different subjects, promote re-signification, creativity and promote the emergence of deep feelings coming from experiences and lived moments. These experiences are meaningful, creative, and comprehensive, acting in personal and collective form, promoting integration and fullfilment of creative, non-passive forces.

In order to conceptualize ludicity, the article points out that this is a spontaneous trait of human behaviour, a benefit of a state of optimal experience, fullness, and satisfaction of the person. In other words, it refers to a state of consciousness, experience and inner perception that breaks down dichotomies. In order to conceptualize transdisciplinarity, Moraes points out that it is open knowledge of structural complexity, whose levels of perception are diverse because they permeate and transcend the dynamic bond between knowledge that is still in appropriation and in an ongoing process.

The texts of Luckesi (2014) , Lopes (2014) and Moraes (2014) , purposely chosen by the teachers of the curricular component analysed, served as the initial theoretical subsidy for constructions, deconstructions and re-significations of concepts about the ludicity of students. Next, the methodology used in this work is explained.

Methodological trajectory

The research is based on the qualitative paradigm with exploratory aims. Its thoughts are built by inductive logic, without despising the interaction and dialogue between research subjects, here understood as collaborators.

It is a case study ( YIN, 2003 ), with data production accessed through an online retrieval system. The interpretation through content analysis ( BARDIN, 2011 ) is based on the following categories (and subcategories): 1) concept (conceptual aptitude); 2) ludicity in the individual (synonymous dimensions); 3) ludicity in education (ludic teaching skills and ludic learning); 4) the singularity of ludicity; and 5) potentially ludic activities.

The case under study refers to a curricular component linked to ludicity, taught in an IHE, in the second semester of 2017 in a graduate program in education. The component is lectured in person and has the moodle platform of the institution to make materials available, with the aim of providing greater interaction among the participants, as well as providing a virtual interface for materials and didactic activities. Among the contents of the course syllabus is the Ludicity (“Ludicity: conceptions and relationships”).

In order to anchor the first theoretical approximations, readings of scientific articles ( LOPES, 2014 , LUCKESI, 2014 , MORAES, 2014 ) were assigned, followed by explanations and discussions in class, after which an electronic forum was proposed on the platform moodle to discuss ludicity. It was an open and subjective question; in fact, the subject was given and the students were asked to express themselves freely.

The course consisted of 21 enrolled participants, all registered on the moodle platform, of which seventeen participated in the forum with one posting each.

For ethical safeguards, authorization was expressly requested in writing, by means of a signature of consent form to undertake an analysis of the material exposed in this forum. Fifteen participants granted authorization, to whom anonymity was assured. The names of the fifteen first letters of the Greek alphabet were adopted to designate each collaborator, people from diverse academic backgrounds - pedagogues, social scientists, psychologists, dramatists, chemists, accountants, biologists, graduates in language and arts, geographers, physical educators, etc. -, who are in one of three situations: special students, master’s students or PhD students in the IHE education program.

The academic diversity of academic training of the students provides a rare eclecticism that permits an even richer discussion by providing a plurality of viewpoints, making this case study even more relevant.

Analytical trajectory

For this section, the text was organized into categories. Although the categories are interdependent, they are presented in a more individualized way, merely for the purpose of facilitating the understanding of the analytical trajectory.

Conceptual aspects

Taking into consideration the conceptual aptitude category of ludicity, it was noted that two collaborators, although having made comments on ludicity, did not point out to a concept, nor did they appropriate themselves of any concept brought by the discussed literature. The thirteen others did so, even though they set out some disclaimers, such as feeling insecure for conceptualization despite discussions and readings made.

It was also disclaimed the fact that the word ludicity is not present in dictionaries. The term often carries a simplistic meaning, without covering all of its dimensions. Several meanings are the conceptualizations that affect it, generating a lot of conceptual divergences which make it clear that the concept is still expanding or being built. What is perceived is that the term still lacks literary consolidation, coming across to those who read materials concerning ludicity that this concept is very broad, subjective and in some cases vague or surrounded by attempts at simplification that only diminish the understanding and diffusion of this knowledge.

In conceptual terms, taking into account the incidences (not the number of collaborators), it was noted that the conceptualization of ludicity that became internalized in the collaborators is in line with Lukesi (2014) and D’Ávila (2014) , since 62.5% of the concepts exposed portray that ludicity is an internal experience or state. A complementary conception to this is that ludicity is a state of fulfilment, which was highlighted in 18.75% of the lines. Supported explicitly in the lukesian conceptualization, there are 87.5% of the conceptualizations that express ludicity as an inner state/experience of entirety and fulfilment.

Figure 1
– Conceptualization

Beyond this conceptualization, one collaborator referred to ludicity as a “state of brilliance” (Epsilon), an authoritative way of expressing what was actually understood. However, disregarding the cognitive understanding of the majority, the concept that “Ludicity is a very important tool for teacher education processes” (Omicron, emphasis added) was enforced. This concept brings a utilitarian view of ludicity embedded, which has the potential of contributing in the educational process as a tool. It should be remembered, however, that ludicity has an end in itself ( HUIZINGA, 2000 ; HOLZAPFER, 2003 ).

Such a utilitarian concept has more to do with a marketing view that seeks to give functionality to everything. Since current society widely seeks pleasure and satisfaction, it is not surprising that ludicity is also viewed in terms of its pleasure factor. It is up to those who dedicate themselves to its study to vehemently emphasize that this state of inner totality and fulfilment ( LUCKESI, 2014 ) is not in line with hedonism, but rather with the flow of positive feelings ( CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, 1999 ) that coexist in the midst of other feelings inherent in real life.

In other words, the defence of ludicity made in this article comes from a positive outlook (which embraces both the moments of entirety and the moments of incompleteness) and not from a totalitarian outlook (which focuses only on pleasure not accepting the circumstances in which it naturally does not emerge).

Another element to be highlighted is the fact that what a collaborator expressed had been passed through the process of re-signification of the concept of ludicity. the concept that the collaborator brought from his undergraduate experience was deconstructed after the readings and discussions in this curricular component. “I have known ludicity as a synonym of ludic activities through jokes, games and educational activities; being something external to the person [...] it is an already deconstructed idea [...] [now I adopt] the meaning of ludicity as an inner experience of the person” (Eta).

It is clear that the curricular component was successful in its attempt of bringing the participants to an active conceptualization. It is evident that it is in permanent construction, deconstruction and re-signification that improvements and consolidation of scientific basis are realized. It is inferred that the lukesian concept found greater resonance in collaborators, who understand the profusion and the need for more conceptual consolidation of ludicity.

Ludicity in the individual

For the second category of ludicity in the individual (synonymous dimensions), a theoretical contribution in D’Ávila and Leal (2012) was referenced. According to them, there are three dimensions in the concept of ludicity: cultural, since the potentially ludic activities are contextually social and relational acts; psychological, which evokes a state of mood expressed by feelings: fulfilment, full experience of life, inner subjective reality of the person; and pedagogical, as a formative principle and structure of meaningful teaching and learning without any dichotomies between thinking and feeling.

In forms of knowing the synonymous dimensions that the students attribute to ludicity, an effort was made to raise in an orderly manner the terms informed throughout the postings that brought words whose meaning would represent their comprehension of ludicity. It was identified that the students who had already had contact with the literature on ludicity represented it mainly in terms of totality, pleasure and fulfilment, which appear respectively in 17%, 16% and 14% of the posted lines (according to Figure 2 ).

Figure 2
– Synonymy of ludicity

There was a great dispersion on the terms, so they were organized into three large groups (see Chart 1 ), with inspiration in the theory exposed by D’Ávila and Leal (2012); however, the organization was built with what emerged from the posts, namely: 1) emotion (the emotions awakened by ludicity, similar to the psychological dimension of these authors, interspersed by the cultural dimension); 2) religiosity (terms that per se already refer to the religious connotation because they come from theological contexts, which nevertheless expresses the cultural dimension); 3) action (terms evoking practices which come from the state of the psychological dimension, also embedded in cultural content).

Chart 1
– Synonym groupings

Emotion (subjectivity, abstract feelings)	f	%	Religiosity	f	%	Action (what you do)	f	%
Entirety (entire, integral, integration body and mind)	10	23%	Paradise	1	50%	Surrender (of body and soul)	5	42%
Pleasure (pleasant)	9	20%	Ecstasy	1	50%	Touched (feeling touched)	2	17%
Fulfilment (full state)	8	18%	TOTAL	2		Individual experience	2	17%
State of mind (mood)	2	5%				Involved	1	8%
Subjectivity (subjective)	2	5%				Spontaneous	1	8%
Welfare	2	5%				Idle time	1	8%
Joy (cheerful)	2	5%				TOTAL	12
Satisfaction	2	5%
Internal Contentment	1	2%
Fun	1	2%
Relational	1	2%
Fruition	1	2%
Creative	1	2%
Positive flow of emotions	1	2%
Freedom	1	2%
TOTAL	44

• Source: research data, self-elaboration (2018).

The data permit, therefore, the inference that there is a preponderance of the psychological dimension (D’ÁVILA; LEAL, 2012) in the representation and understanding of postgraduate students about ludicity, which represents 76% (see Figure 3 ).

Figure 3
– Synonym grouping by prevalence

The prevalence of emotional states related to ludicity to objectify it in its own language, leads one to believe that the concept of Lukesian ludicity was internalized by the students throughout the studies, readings and discussions proposed in the curricular component.

Ludicity in education

Working with the third category of ludicity in education (ludic teaching skills and ludic learning) it is exposed that by the profile of the students people related to education in some way (relationship between teaching and learning), it is surprising that explicit manifestations about the pedagogical dimension in only half of the posts appeared, whether in relation to the teaching process or to the learning, or both.

The postings in this sense evoke the attributions of a teacher in a ludic environment, which are primarily to understand sensitively the student as an integral being inextricably gifted with subjectivity and cognition (reason and emotion). They also reveal other responsibilities of the teacher (which do not depend on whether he is mediating ludically or not): the need to plan his actions, the importance of researching and the recognition of his intentionality.

It was also observed that ludicity is seen as a contribution, as a path to the process of teaching and learning, without, however, saying of what it consists. It is perceived that there is recognition of its importance without materializing it in actions, yet ludicity is still not fully comprehended as a structural element of the educational process. It is understood that it is important, but it is unclear how to evoke it in practice in classroom settings. One of the posts makes it clear that ludic teaching depends on at least two factors: the teacher’s style and teacher training that he or she has received.

The style refers to the psychological, cultural and pedagogical condition of the teacher in order to be an integral human in what he or she does. It also refers to self-satisfaction with teaching and having a positive flow ( CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, 1999 ), which is reflected in the individual’s language and body language, as well as in the insertion of devices that potentially evoke ludicity in academic contexts (such as ludic metaphors, games, group dynamics, among others). The individual understands the other’s positive view as a peculiar taste for what he does, and is exhilarating in teaching, that is, evokes ludicity in mediation that is a sine qua non condition to be ludic. It should be noted that the paradigm in which this speech is anchored is not hedonistic, but one of balance between joyful and non-joyful elements.

The condition of learning reflects the search for a construction of sensitive knowledge ( TARDIFF, 2010 ; D’ÁVILA; SONEVILLE, 2008) linked to the aesthetic and ludic dimensions, since teacher education programs in higher education or even in other programs focused on teaching.

One cannot avoid to remark that teacher training must be understood in the social dimension – it is a right, “surpassing the moment of individual initiatives for self-improvement, coming from the public sphere “( VEIGA, 2008 , p. 15) – as well as by the look of the unfinished. It is important to understand that the exercise of the profession refines the reflexive teacher about his or her practice, leading him or her to improvements in skills and values, because “training through reflection allows us to think about the possibility of also promoting innovation and breaking with technicality” ( FERREIRA, 2014 , p. 177).

By showing how much the excessive use of technicality is present, it was discovered through analysis that it emerges subliminally in language, as can be seen in part of the following post: “Very important tool for educator training” (Ómicron, our italic). Referring to ludicity as a tool denotes a functionalist applicability and a pragmatic approach that is consistent with the labour market logic underlying a mercantilist logic and automation of productivity related to something that is done mechanically, through tools.

It would be possible, on the other hand, to have the orchestral notion of work as an interdependent set that offers an instrument, which can be tuned and adjusted during a teaching career. Deep inside, the post evokes an alien conception to the political act of being a teacher, idealizing a neutral and efficient professional teacher ( NOVA, 2014 ).

Be it due to naiveness, ignorance, lack of adequate training or intentional choice, the fact is that that idea of ludicity as a tool cannot be encouraged or disseminated. Ludicity is a structural element, a means, a language that can permeate the entire profession of teaching. It is the instrument that can, in consonance with the other instruments of the educational orchestra, play a touching piece of re-signification.

The singularity of ludicity

In the attempt to develop the analyses under the fourth category of the singularity of ludicity, it is clarified that singularities are subtleties which are only accessed cognitively after the conceptually-based elements are consolidated in order to be able to anchor those elements resulting from the maturation on a certain theme. In other words, only the one who has already advanced in his knowledge-building process is able to perceive the singularities, finding himself beyond the initial and superficial assimilation that happens when a neophyte begins to take ownership of a new subject.

Of the fifteen respondents, in only two was it not possible to find traces of singularity. The different singularities are dispersed in Figure 4 , so it is possible to assume that the efforts made by teachers in the didactic work of the content (reading texts, dialogued exposition, map building, collective discussions and posting in virtual forum) had effect, allowing the identification of cognitive advances in approximately 87% of participants in the forum.

Figure 4
– Singularities of ludicity

Taking into account the frequency with which the subtleties appeared in the data, it was possible to elaborate Figure 4 to didactically illustrate the students’ advanced comprehension.

It became evident that, according to the student viewpoint, the singularity that received more recognition was a differentiated perception of ludicity which is subjective and personalized, because each individual perceives it in a particular and subjective way that takes into account his background, his subsumers (AUBUBEL, 2002), knowledge, psychological status, and environment. What is ludic and leads a person to the feeling of fulfilment and totality may not be the same for another person. These who remain indifferent to the ludic potential of a type of manifestation, may also feel bothered, irritated or deceived.

The singularity receiving the second-most recognition on the graph stated that ludicity is contextual and cultural. Everything depends on the external, internal and cultural context in which this aspect is inserted for manifestation. This singularity is corroborated by the ideas of ludic culture found in Brougère (1998 , p. 108), for whom ludicity varies “depending on ludic habits, climatic or spatial conditions”.

Two singularities appear with the same numerical results, namely: inherent condition and relational dimension. According to the first, the human being is born with aptitude for ludicity. It is an ontological condition ( LOPES, 2014 ), centered around an inherent condition for the human being’s ability to obtain a state of fulfilment, which is independent of age, gender, ethnicity, or social class.

It is worth noting that ludicity must find resonance in both adult and infant environments, since it is an inherent condition to the human being, whom Huizinga (2000) refers to as homo ludens . The relational dimension that ludicity has, is concerned with the fact that it only occurs when there is a relationship between at least two individuals; with the environment, for example, when a person feels in positive flow of emotions evoked by contemplating the sunset; or even with artefacts – games, toys, or surrogate elements, such as a reel becoming a little toy car.

Potentially ludic activities

The last perceived singularity is relative to the function and reason for the existence of ludicity. As Huizinga (2000) says, it has no pragmatic purpose that is perceptible to the production of consumption means by the working world. Referring to ludicity indirectly under the manifestation of the game, the author says that it “[...] has no useful purpose other than to give pleasure, relaxation, and to elevate the spirit” ( HUIZINGA, 2000 , p. 135). Or, in the words of Holzapfer (2003) , it is a sufficient reason (autotelic), for being in and of itself; it does not lack a cause to make itself present.

To conclude this part of analysis, corroborating the thesis that the perception of singularities goes beyond superficial learning, it is argued that the authors mentioned here are philosophers and sociologists, thinkers who by virtue of the studies they carry out, go beyond appearances and offer thematic maturations that lie beyond neophyte studies.

Although the literature on the curricular component does not have the main objective to discuss the issue of potentially ludic activities (PLA), it was identified as an overarching theme in most of the graph results. This aspect of the discussion about ludicity therefore receives special attention from the research collaborators, thus becoming a category for this analyse.

It is believed that this is the case because it is usually through PLA that ludicity is manifested in school. It was possible to infer from the posts that the student collaborators comprehended the differentiation: ludicity and ludic activities are different terms, although, by common sense, they tend to be used incorrectly as interchangeable synonyms.

According to Luckesi (2000 , p. 96) ludic activities are those that stimulate “[...] the fullness of experience. It is commonly thought that a ludic activity is a fun activity, it may or may not be”. The controversy present in the concept is remarkable since ludicity is a state of inner and subjective fulfilment; it leads to the conclusion that an activity can be ludic for one person and not for another. It is a mistake to assume that because a ludic activity was undertaken, all those who participate of it will feel inexorably ludic.

Therefore, it is necessary to promote immediately upon conceptual comprehension, the assimilation of the notion of potentiality and not of a ludic inexorability; a potentially ludic activity does not compel the individual to feel playful.

Still referring to the characterization of ludicity as an internal phenomenon. The postings evoke the externality of PLAs, which are based on the individual or collective dimension, but always external to the individual. From the angle of the external dimensions, it is stated that the manifestation, that is, the way it appears and can be perceived objectively by other individuals is intermediation for ludicity to possibly emerge in an individual. Some manifestations of ludicity were evoked in postings such as: idle time, games, jokes, humour, leisure, poetry, and recreation.

The highlighted terms purposely are organized in Figure 5 , which tries to represent the frequency at which these subcategories of singularities referring to the potentially ludic activities appeared in the collaborators’ speeches.

Figure 5
– Singularities in potentially ludic activities

It is explained in Figure 5 that the three terms that appeared in the postings with slightly lower frequency were related to the distinction between activities of a ludic nature and to the sensations that come to the surface when potentially ludic activities are realized, as well as their informal nature.

Some students drew attention to the distinction between playing and educational activities that are referred to as ludic, which vary is nomenclature and conceptualization. Kishimoto (2011) refers to ludic activity as being created towards didactic work of educational games others like Vial (1981 apud KISHIMOTO, 2011 ) calls it as didactical game, there is also the term pedagogical game ( ANTUNES; PEGAIA, 1974 ). In the present work, we use the denomination potentially ludic-pedagogical activities (PLPA).

Without going into the conceptualization of these activities, one can see their use in language as synonyms, as well as substitutes for the word ludicity. The results from Figure 5 fortunately show the understanding that there are differences between them, but it was not explained what they are.

With regard to the ludic sensations that can be caused by potentially ludic activities, the collaborators referred mainly to freedom, total surrender, humour and frivolity. Finally, they also mentioned the informality that ludicity carries with it, making it clear that there is no need to use a lot of gadgetry to make an activity to be ludic. The sensation can be triggered by very simple processes.

The other data elements that did not find adequate place in the categories of analysis proposed in this paper show that ludicity is, as Moraes (2014) affirms, a transdisciplinary experience. Participants express opinions that the contributions of ludicity are also studied in other areas such as “sociology, anthropology, education, psychology” (Gama).

A substantial element that was alluded to in the posts was re-signification. One participant claimed to have deconstructed previous concepts derived from other instances of learning, especially related to the understanding that ludicity was a synonym of ludic activities, games and jokes, being therefore something external to the person. It is important to affirm that the work undertaken in the curricular component reached much deeper goals. It was possible to establish a dual process of deconstruction and reconstruction (re-signification) of the subject.

One last element that also deserves attention is the issue of evasion provoked by ludicity. Students called attention to the fact that, when the individual is in a ludic state, he does not notice the time passing and he perceives in a differentiated way the space in which he is in. This observation is synthesized by Retondar (2007) , Caillois (1990) , Huizinga (2000) and other authors by the term of space-time relationship and evasion of real life, these are some diagnostic characteristics of ludicity.

According to the author, “the time of pleasure, the time of joy, the time of satisfaction is a subjective time” ( RETONDAR, 2007 , p. 31). It is known that the individual is ludic when he does not feel the passage of time and takes off from physical space, finding himself in a world of fantasy. The individual, then, travels in his mind while remaining physically present, being distant and in illusion. It is not by chance that the word comes from Latin etymology of the term ludic, in lusio , “which means illusion” (D’ÁVILA, LEAL,2012, p. 200) - when he is hit by ludicity, it sharpens the emotions and instigates the individual to continue the ludic experience.

In order to summarize in a didactic way the results found through the analysis undertaken, Chart 2 contains the intended objectives in contrast to what was obtained.

Chart 2
– Summary chart

Objectives	Results found
General
Analyse the conceptual understanding about ludicity through the viewpoint of graduate students in education.	The graduate students in education show a good capacity to construct, deconstruct and re-signify their concepts of ludicity with support of the theory studied, with a relevant degree of autonomy, comprehending that ludicity is an inner subjective state of totality. The prevalent synonyms (entireness, pleasure and plenitude) reside in the field of emotion. They comprehend that ludicity is an important component of the teaching and learning process, but it demands a teacher training in the field of sensitive knowledge. They also comprehend the presence of several singularities (differentiated, subjective and personalized perception of the ludic; inherent human condition; transdisciplinarity, among others), advancing cognitively on the thematic beyond conceptualization.
Specific
To raise the concept of ludicity and the semantic field related to the ludicity built by the students.	The most emergent concept of ludicity on students’ posts is one of totality, fulfilment, and inner subjective state, supported by Luckesi (2014) . In descending order totality, pleasure and plenitude were prevalent synonyms of ludicity in the analysed forum, referring to a semantic framework related to emotion.
To identify the relationships between ludicity and education.	The relationships between ludicity and education that emerged from the lines are about the pedagogical dimension regarding the teaching and learning process. In regard to teaching, the students speak of a ludic teaching practice which requires style and sensitive teacher training, while the relations with learning refer to ludicity like a contribution of the process, without mentioning what that contribution is.
To recognize the singularities of lucidity and potentially ludic activities from the students’ point of view.	The singularities of ludicity that were recognized by the research collaborators were: differentiated, subjective and particular perception of ludicity; age is contextual and cultural; condition of inherence; relational dimension; and ludicity as a reason for itself. Related to the potentially ludic activities, it has been comprehended that they are external manifestations of ludicity, they are not synonymous, and that they mediate the emergence of potential ludicity in individuals. They also mentioned the distinction between types of potentially ludic activities, the sensations provoked by them (for example: freedom) and their informal character. A couple of characteristics of the ludicity, such as: the non-linearity, transdisciplinarity and the evasion of time and space also appeared on a small scale

• Source: the authors’ own design, conception and elaboration (2018).

After exposing the analyses of the virtual forum posts about ludicity, and believing that all the projected goals were achieved, this article ends with final considerations.

Final considerations

This work sought to analyse the postings in a virtual forum about ludicity in a course taught in a Graduate Program in Education at a federal HEI, whose theme was conceptions and relationships of ludicity. The main theoretical underpinning were the works by Luckesi (2014) , Lopes (2014) and Moraes (2014) . In a content analysis, within the qualitative logic of a case study, the objectives were achieved, being the main one to analyse the comprehensions about ludicity by the prism of post-graduate students in education.

From the analysis, it was recognized that the Lukesian concept of ludicity as entireness, plenitude, and inner subjective state was the most comprehended and internalized. There were constructions, deconstructions and re-significations of concepts for ludicity, and the majority of the students knew how to contribute with a conceptualization to the forum. It is remarkable that some students demonstrated enough autonomy in the construction of their concepts, as well as the emergence of a concept beyond the utilitarian view of ludicity.

The analysis allowed to know that the synonymous grouping in which students locate the ludicity is that related to emotion (comprehended as subjectivity, linked to feelings and abstraction). The prevailing emotions mentioned by them were totality, pleasure and fulfilment. The cultural/religious dimension also appears with some synonyms.

The dimension of ludicity in education that was mentioned in the posts refers to the pedagogical field (specifically in the teaching and learning process) and only appeared in half of the posts, referring to the process of teaching and learning. The students understood that teaching in a ludic environment regards the student as a whole human being (reason and emotion), demanding a sensitive teaching practice. It is understood that they see ludicity contributing to the relationship between teaching and learning, requiring certain type of teacher education. They comprehend ludicity as a contribution to learning, without informing what effectively that contribution is.

It is evident that the students went beyond the mere conceptualization when they demonstrated the recognition of several singularities present in the ludicity area, such as: differentiated, subjective and personalized perception of ludicity; cultural contextualization expressed in ludicity; inherent human condition; relational dimension; and sufficient reason. It became evident that the learning that took place during this curricular component under study promoted a great cognitive advance.

With regard to potentially ludic activities, students comprehended that these are not synonymous with ludicity, but rather they are external manifestations of it and that they keep a potentiality, not an inexorability to mediate and evoke ludicity in people, triggering sensations like freedom and humour.

Extrapolating the categories proposed for the analysis, characteristics such as non-linearity, transdisciplinarity and evasion of time and space also appeared in a non-prevalent way.

After the readings, experiencing the face-to-face/virtual dialogues, and analysing them, it is possible to conclude that there is no doubt about the importance and the comprehension of the students about ludicity and that transcends superficiality by demonstrating significant cognitive advances.

Referências

• ANTUNES , Celso ; PEGAIA , Uyvão Antonio . Ludopedagogia . São Paulo : Editora do Brasil , 1974 .
• AUSUBEL , David P . Adquisición y retención del conocimiento: una perspectiva cognitiva. Cognición y desarrollo humano . Barcelona : Paidós , 2002 .
• BARDIN , Laurence . Análise de conteúdo . Ed. revista e ampliada . São Paulo : Edições 70 , 2011 .
• BROUGÈRE , Gilles . A criança e a cultura lúdica . Revista da Faculdade de Educação , São Paulo , v. 24 , n. 2 , p. 103 - 116 , jul./dez . 1998 .
• BUZAN , Tony . Mapas mentais . Rio de Janeiro : Sextante , 2009 .
• CAILLOIS , Roger . Os jogos e os homens . Lisboa : Cotovia , 1990 .
• CSIKSZENTMIHALYI , Mihaly . A descoberta do fluxo: a psicologia do envolvimento com a vida cotidiana . São Paulo : Rocco , 1999 .
• D’ÁVILA , Cristina Maria . Didática lúdica: saberes pedagógicos e ludicidade no contexto da educação superior . Revista Entreideias , Salvador , v. 3 , n. 2 , p. 87 - 100 , jul./dez . 2014 .
• D´ÁVILA , Cristina Maria ; LEAL , Luiz Antonio Batista . Docência universitária e metáfora lúdica mediada pelas tecnologias digitais . Revista Teias , Rio de Janeiro , v. 13 , n. 30 , p. 197 - 207 , set./dez . 2012 .
• D’ÁVILA , Cristina , SONNEVILLE , Jacques . Trilhas percorridas na formação de professores: da epistemologia da prática à fenomenologia existencial . In: VEIGA , Ilma Passos A. ; D’ÁVILA , Cristina ( Org .) . Profissão docente: novos sentidos, novas perspectivas . Campinas : Papirus , 2008 . p. 23 - 42 .
• FERREIRA , Lúcia Gracia . Formação e identidade docente: práticas e políticas de formação . In: FERREIRA , Lúcia Gracia ; FERRAZ , Rita de Cássia Souza Nascimento . ( Org .) . Formação docente: identidade, diversidade e saberes . Curitiba : CRV , 2014 . p. 167 - 179 .
• HOLZAPFER , Cristóbal . Crítica de la razón lúdica . Madrid : Trotta , 2003 .
• HUIZINGA , Johan . Homo ludens: o jogo como elemento da cultura . 4 . ed. São Paulo : Perspectiva , 2000 .
• KISHIMOTO , Tizuko Morchida . O jogo e a educação infantil . 7 . reimp. São Paulo : Cengage Learning , 2011 .
• LOPES , Conceição . Design de ludicidade . Revista Entreideias , Salvador , v. 3 , n. 2 , p. 25 - 46 , jul./dez . 2014 .
• LUCKESI , Cipriano . Ludicidade e formação do educador . Revista Entreideias , Salvador , v. 3 , n. 2 , p. 13 - 23 , jul./dez . 2014 .
• LUCKESI , Cipriano C . ( Org .) . Ludopedagogia: ensaios 01: educação e ludicidade . Salvador : Gepel , 2000 .
• MORAES , Maria Cândida . Ludicidade e transdiciplinariedade . Revista Entreideias , Salvador , v. 3 , n. 2 , p. 47 - 72 , jul./dez . 2014 .
• NOVA , Carla Carolina Costa da . Professor, profissional e intelectual: em busca de uma identidade alternativa . In: FERREIRA , Lúcia Gracia ; FERRAZ , Rita de Cássia Souza Nascimento ( Org .) . Formação docente: identidade, diversidade e saberes . Curitiba : CRV . 2014 . p. 161 - 166 .
• NOVAK , Joseph D. ; GOWIN , D. Bob . Learning how to learn . New York : Cambridge Press , 1995 .
• RETONDAR , Jeferson José Moebus . Teoria do jogo: a dimensão lúdica da existência humana . Petrópolis : Vozes , 2007 .
• TARDIFF , Maurice . Saberes docentes e formação profissional . 11 . ed. Petrópolis : Vozes , 2010 .
• VEIGA , Ilma Passos A . Docência como atividade profissional . In: VEIGA , Ilma Passos A. ; D’ÁVILA , Cristina ( Org .) . Profissão docente: novos sentidos, novas perspectivas . Campinas : Papirus , 2008 . p. 13 - 21 .
• YIN , Robert K . Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos . 2 . ed. Porto Alegre : Bookman , 2003 .

• 3
  - Source: Syllabus posted in the digital platform Moodle/IHE in 2017-2.
• 4
  - The word ludicity is out of dictionaries, it is a kind of neologism from the Portuguese word “ludicidade” which means much more than games (so it is different from “playfulness”). This article will show and develop the concept of ludicity. (This article adopted the translation from all Lopes’ materials as Lopes, 2014, for instance). N.T.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  14 Oct 2019
• Date of issue
  2019

History

• Received
  18 July 2018
• Reviewed
  29 Oct 2018
• Accepted
  06 Nov 2018