The participation of the university and the school in the supervised school placement of future teachers of Physical Education ^{1 2 3 4}

Abstract

This is a qualitative study that aimed to understand the participation of the school and the university during the supervised school placement (SSP) in Physical Education. The results and discussion highlighted: (i) the context: which comprised the elements coming from the SSP environment at school and the established relationships; (ii) the dynamics: which presented how the SSP takes place at the university and in schools and the challenges set for teachers and the concerns of pre-service teachers; and (iii) the role of teachers and their representations. As considerations it was noted that both institutions are collaborative with the SSP, but do not have extremely formative links or balanced engagement to the point of forming a partnership.

Keywords
teacher training; supervised school placement; physical education

Resumo

Trata-se de um estudo qualitativo que teve como objetivo compreender a participação da escola e da universidade durante o estágio curricular supervisionado em Educação Física. Os resultados e discussão evidenciaram: (i) o contexto, que compreendeu os elementos advindos do ambiente do estágio na escola e as relações estabelecidas; (ii) a dinâmica, que apresentou como o estágio acontece na universidade e nas escolas e os desafios estabelecidos para os professores e as inquietudes dos estagiários; e (iii) o papel dos professores e suas representações. Como considerações registrou-se que ambas as instituições são colaborativas para com o estágio, mas não apresentam vínculos extremamente formativos ou engajamento equilibrado a ponto de constituírem uma parceria.

Palavras-chave
formação de professores; estágio curricular supervisionado; educação física

1. Introduction

In Brazil, the supervised school placement (SSP)⁵ has been a space to reflect on the pre-service teacher training. There has been a broad discussion on its goals, organization, and the relation it establishes between theory and the preconized models (Pimenta & Lima, 2011).

The current legislation prioritizes and normatizes school placement, establishing guidelines for the university and the school, mentioning both duties and rights. However, some issues are let open, such as the training of the teachers involved and how the university and the school are involved in this training process. On one hand, the law draws some instructions, on the other, there is still the need to think on possible improvements in different areas of intervention (Benites, 2012; Lei nº 11.788, 2008).

Particularly on the issue of proximity between the training instances of SSP and how they are involved in the training process, we can see this has been shown in the legal regulations that guide the placements, for instance: the notion given to colégios de aplicação (Laboratory schools) and their relation with the university, mainly the offer of Didactic courses (Decreto-Lei nº 1.190, 1939; Decreto-Lei nº 9.053, 1946); the introduction of the concept of teaching practice (Ministério da Educação, 1969), according to which there would be an articulation between the university and the schools in the community; and the focus given in the last guidelines on the work plans drawn together with the school (Ministério da Educação, 2001a, 2015).

The historic trajectory of these legal outlines have been debated and redrawn, as the teacher training/education programs have been organized and enacted. To Zabalza (2014), pre-service training shows models of SSP that can intertwine different goals, such as the acquisition of professional qualities, the experience of diversified practices, personal development, the building of a professional identity, the integration of theoretical-practical knowledge, among others, guiding the behavior at the university and at school.

However, this can show a cultural obstacle between the institutions, as the university focuses the discursive logic of the educational issues and their pedagogical relations, while the school follows a practical logic of the its everyday events (Sarti, 2008). During the SSP, these interrelations create conflicts and clashes due to the lack of clarity of its importance, the roles of those involved, the lack of cooperation protocols, among others.

Thus, in this context, it is possible to question the role given to each of the institutions involved in the SSP and how teachers and pre-service teachers see the proximity, the collaboration, and/or partnership between university and school.

The idea of partnership emerged in the educational field aiming to find answers for some crisis or problem, implying the need to negotiate between the parts to reach possible solutions (Mérini, 2006).

Landry (2013) found different ways to collaborate between these institutions with different levels of approximation. The first level is mutual information, in which there is an exchange of information on common interests, establishing a weak relationship with little formality. The second is the consultation, which foresees a formal relation in which each part brings something to the table to solve a common problem. Finally, the third is the concertation that aims to prolong and deepen the previous contact between the parts so that the information can turn into actions. According to this author, it is in this last level that the notion of partnership starts to structure itself, as it foresees a strong notion of collaboration and co-responsibility for the actions. Then, the partnership can be seen as an advanced stage and, according to Borges (2011), it is key to be established between universities and schools to develop SSP for teacher training.

However, we question: considering partnership a concept that involves a high level of collaboration, can we see this type of relation in the scope of SSP? This is a comprehensive question and assumes a broad understanding of the educational context, training programs, school organization, professional contracts, pre-service teachers’ profiles, times of each institution, objectives, and ends, among others. But it also provides different possibilities to examine SSP.

The aim of this study was based on these possibilities, mainly under the lenses of the partnership concept. We propose to understand the participation of school and university during the SSP of pre-service Physical Education teachers.

2. The backstage of the research

This research emerged from the interest and approximation with the theme of school placement, but was also incentivized, as a methodological proposition, by the work of Gervais and Desrosiers (2005) L’école, lieu de formation d’enseignants: questions et repères pour l’accompagnement de stagiaires (School, a place of teacher training: issues and guideline to follow interns)⁶, which carefully present the scenario of school placement in Québec, focusing on its operation; the relation between institutions; the welcome and follow of pre-service teachers; the achievements, types of learning, and limitations; the relationship between collaborating teachers⁷ and supervising professors⁸; and the perspective of pre-service teachers on their trajectories.

Gervais and Desrosiers (2005) point out the need to understand how the school teams assume school placement, how collaborating teachers and supervising professors follow-up and interact with pre-service teachers, how pre-service teachers integrate themselves at school, and what they take away from the partnership school- university. The authors investigated this theme by following the development of school placements in seven schools (elementary and middle schools) with a total of 164 participants directly involved in the school placement (principals, collaborating teachers, pre-service teachers, supervising professors).

Though approaching a scenario completely different from the Brazilian one, the book has led us to think on a research in the context of the SSP in the Teaching undergraduate degree in Physical Education in Universidade Estadual Paulista, campus Rio Claro (Unesp/RC), considering as a reference the schools from the city of Rio Claro.

The possibility to propose a study with similar characteristics of Gervais and Desrosiers’s (2005) study has risen by a reflection on some items listed by the authors when proposing an organization of the SSP aiming the professionalization of teaching.

The teaching professionalization proposal originated in the Movimento pela Profissionalização do Ensino (Movement for the Professionalization of Teaching), in the mid-1980s, in the U.S.A. context, with the promulgation of some documents which pointed a crisis in teaching, highlighting the need to revise the model of teacher education, and proposing a body of specialized knowledge and information for teaching (Gauthier, Martineau, Desbiens, Malo, & Simard, 1998).

This proposal gained strength and generated debate in different parts of the world. In Brazil, the ideas appeared in the 1980s through claims on the increase of teaching quality and gained prominence with the Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (Law of Directives and Basis for National Education), in 1996, and later with a set of curricular guidelines that proposed the debate on the construction of teachers’ identity (Lei nº 9.394, 1996; Weber, 2003).

However, one of the challenges of the national scenario, despite the professionalization model, is the overcoming of a standard of training that has the technical rationality as a prerogative (Saviani, 2009). In this perspective, which emphasizes a strong theoretical conception in the start of the formation and a practical application in the end, the teacher is considered a technician, subordinated to a set of scientists that dictate what should or should not be put into practice, thus, having a more passive profile towards their own profession (Schön, 1992).

In this model, SSP follows the same logic. It takes place in the end of the undergraduate degree and prevails its conception as an activity and/or practice of imitation and observation of teachers, furthermore, the university proposes the task and the school welcomes it (Pimenta & Lima, 2011).

However, as a counterpart, the proposal of teaching professionalization highlights a training model supported by the practical rationality, with the notion that the practice must permeate all training, indicating a professional action through the analysis of teaching complexty, its instability and uncertainty, as it is a profession of interaction, in which teachers produce their practice (Tardif, 2002).

In this sense, SSP is distinguished by being a space that creates a relation between insertion, action, and reflection on teaching. Besides this, new ways of guidance, supervision, and approximation between the institutions can be implemented, as this contact will take place during the whole training (Zabalza, 2014)

Gatti and Barretto (2009) showed in their study that the school placement is a conflicting period, as few universities are clear on what needs to be done during this activity, indicating a void on the participation/role of the schools.

Though this is the scenario announced, particulary in the case of Unesp/RC, there are documents produced and thought to organize the SSP that announce an initiative of approximation, as well as an institutional understanding on school teachers. This meets what is expected within the movement of teaching professionalization.

Any efficient project to educate teachers nowadays passes through the inclusion of K-12 schools and their teachers as partners in the training tasks. This task needs to be shared by on-service professional with experiences to be taugh, not only to the undergraduate students but also to the university professors…we can no longer accept school placement activities based on personal agreements or relations. It is crucial to officially implement, through conventions and agreements, activities between the schools and UNESP, in the various campi, in a processes of mutual collaboration: the schools and the teachers train our undergraduates, and the university must contribute on the qualification of the schools, their projects, and teachers.

(Universidade Estadual Paulista [Unesp], 2002, p. 9)

Similarly, the Secretaria de Educação do Município (SME- Municipal Secretary of Education) and the Diretoria de Ensino (DE- Teaching Directory) from the region of Rio Claro have been close to the activities of Unesp/RC, opening spaces for training, and, furthermore, allowing the presence of university professors in their commitees. In the case of Physical Education, one of these iniatives was an outreach course in 2010 for teachers who welcomed or were interested on welcoming pre-service teachers (Benites, 2012).

Gervais and Desrosiers (2005) noted that the role of collaborating teachers was to welcome and integrate the pre-service teacher in the school, validate the school placement project, transmit their knowledge-experience, supervise, reflect on the actions, and demonstrate actions and attitudes when demanded. To do so, these teachers, who were trained to do so, showed certain specificities on their training profile, which were altered during the school placement.

This point led to the discussion of the training proposal for teachers to receive/train the pre-service teachers, as well as the attention given to the supervision/follow-up. Cid, Pérez and Sarmiento (2011), in a review of literature on tutoring and school placement supervision, pointed out the need of a specific training of teachers in the schools and in the university regarding the guidance and evaluation of pre-service teachers, the importance to participate of meetings, follow the lesson plans, facilitate the access of materials and data from the school, and promote professional development.

This contrasts with Brazilian reality because, despite legal indications that the teacher welcoming pre-service teachers can have some type of continuous education provided by the university (Ministério da Educação, 2001b), this happens isolatedly and in some areas (Souza Neto & Benites, 2008; Vasques & Sarti, 2017). Most often, SSP takes place without the requirement of a specific formation of collaborating teachers and supervising professors.

In this sense, the last point we highlight in Gervais & Desrosiers’s (2005) study focused on the supervising professor as the one who observes, gives feedback, promotes seminars, evaluates, facilitate an exchange among pre-service teachers’ groups, and establishes a relationship between university and school.

In Brazil, the supervising professor is often the one responsible for the SSP and/or Teaching Practices classes. She/He can visit the schools in-person (frequently and/or sporadically) or opt to follow the school placement at a distance. However, this should be designated on the guidelines and resolutions of higher educations institutions and the pedagogical projects of the undergraduate courses but many institutions do not show their propositions (Gatti & Barretto, 2009).

In Unesp/RC, the supervising professors are those responsible for the subjects of school placement and have the challenge to conciliate the schedule of the course curricula with the in loco supervision. These professors have been on charge of this subject for some years and have already established a network of collaborating teachers though informal agreements but that continue with the designations imposed by the legislation and sign terms of responsibility. Besides this, it is difficult for them to count this supervision time in their carrer pathways, as these are often extra work hours, out of their contract and without any transportation aid (Benites, 2012).

Thus, by highlighting these itens and establishing the counterpoints with Brazilian reality, especially the context of Unesp/RC and the Teaching degree in Physical Education, we intended to better understand the role of the school, the notion of collaborating teacher and supervising professor, and the establishment of SSP as a space to reflect on teacher education.

3. Methodology

This is an interpretative qualitative research aiming to reveal the studied phenomena through the researcher’s contact with the participants and the exchange of experiences (Karsenti & Savoie-Zajc, 2011).

The research took place in the city of Rio Claro, in the countryside of the state of São Paulo, where are Unesp/RC and the schools which welcomed the pre-service teachers of the Teaching undergraduate degree in Physical Education (PE). Six schools participated, involving the principals (P), coordinators (C), and collaborating teachers (CT). Two supervising professors (SP) from Unesp/RC, PE course, also participated, thus, we had a total of 19 participants.

Table 1
Description of participants

School	Instance	Level	Welcomes SSP since	Participants	Teaching time (years)	Time in the position (years)
1	SME	Preschool and Primary school	2009	P1	19	4
				C1	5	1
				CT1	1	-
2	SME	Primary	Always	P2	33	28
				C2	26	4
				CT2	8	-
3	SME	Preschool	2005	P3	29	11
				-	-	-
				CT3	25	-
4	SME	Preschool	2009	P4	30	5
				C4	17	5
				CT4	13	-
5	DE	Lower secondary and high school	2005	P5	37	27
				C5	25	17
				CT5	25	-
6	DE	Lower secondary and high school	2005	P6	21	6
				C6	18	7
				CT6	18	-
Unesp	State	Higher Ed.	-	SP1	15	3
Unesp	State	Higher Ed.	-	SP2	30	27

As an instrument, we have used four questionnaires built based on the work of Gervais and Desrosiers (2005), translated and adapted for the Brazilian terms. They were open questions and have gone through a validation phase with a similar group of participants and methodological evaluators who were not official participants of the study.

We have used the Term of Free and Informed Consent (TFIC) approved by the Ethics Committee of the institution⁹, as well as the approval of SME and DE. All participants signed the TFIC.

The data was verified by a thematic analysis aiming to give meaning and systematically organize the textual documents (questionnaires) by theme.

Paillé and Mucchielli (2012) have mentioned that, in order to make a thematic analysis, it is necessary to clearly define the research questions and the objectives drawn, as well as not having a priori categories. We have opted by the sequencial strategy of thematic analysis in which a sample of the corups is selected at random and analyzed to establish an information sheet, adding new elements to it, when necessary. After this process, the descriptions are gathered in themes, what was done using the software programs QDAMiner and Excel.

Thus, we have reached three themes: (i) the school placement context: comprehending the elements emerged from the questions that aimed to present how the school was, the school placement environment, the perspective of those involved, and unveil the relationships established in that space; (ii) the school placement dynamic: presented how the school placement took place, how the collaborating teacher participated, which were the strategies and dynamics used by the university and the school, what was learnt during school placement; and (iii) the teachers/professors in the school placement: approached the role of the collaborating teachers, the supervising professors, and their representations.

4. Data presentation and discussion

4.1- The context of school placement

The schools researched welcomed pre-service teachers from the Teaching undergraduate degree in Physical Education of Unesp/RC for more than five years and the supervising professors reported that these institutions had a good organization and clear educational principles. However, year after year there was the need to reestablish these aliances to enact the school placement.

Nothing is won. Every year we need to do everything again, as if it were our first time in that school, the partnership is always thin, as it is not formal or guided by some project or agreement (SP1)

In this structure, the SSP started in the university but the principals and coordinators showed that the schools are interested in receiving pre-service teachers to “attend the current legislation” (P6) and “develop partnerships with the university and socialize experiences…” (C5), showing some weak evidences on the idea of partnership or the need to “be partners” (SP1).

There is a great interest on the part of the school staff to receive the pre-service teachers, as we believe it is an interesting exchange between them and our teachers. There are rich moments of discussion and reflection about the practice. When the pre-service teachers teach, teachers can observe innovative activities that can improve their practice. When the pre-service teachers observe, they can see good practices or even wrong ones that can be analyzed under theoretical lights. (P4).

In most perspectives presented on SSP, it was seen as an act of social contribution that has a tradition, as it has been under development for many years, though, in some moments, it is seen as an obligation, as can be seen in the statement of P2, who declared that “the school doesn’t benefit from the pre-service teachers, as they are many, thus not allowing an individual contact and the exchange of information”.

This comment partially reflected the reality of the investigated school who welcomed pre-service teachers from various institutions and areas, overpassing their limits, but not attending the administrative prerogatives of SME, which P2 considers to be “forced to a broad and irrestricted limit”.

With the increasing large number of pre-service teachers, the most immediate problem is finding collaborating teachers that can welcome them. In the investigated schools, the CT are asked by the principals on the possibility of welcoming pre-service teachers. However, these can also be ‘indicated by the principal’s office” (P1, P3, P4), “chosen by the need of interns” (P2) or selected according to the “schedule availability” (P5, P6).

In this context, the school placement is seen as an already established activity, with no regulation on its framework in terms of prescriptions to the unities, and the topic is rarely debated among the principals, coordinators, and teachers, so much so that it is not a part of schools’ pedagogical projects:

No, the school placement was not discussed in the political-pedagogical project of the school, nor in school regulation. (P4).

It was talked about in some project discussion, but nothing was registered about it.(P3)

Thus, the school placement is a practice/activity established in the schools for many years, which encompasses different tasks, such as welcoming pre-service teachers, designate a coordinator to follow the school placement, find a collaborating teacher responsible for the pre-service teacher, etc. A practice that guarantees the idea of school participation.

When receiving the pre-service teacher/future professional, the school has the clear notion that it is participating in their training. Often, it is the first professional contact with the role they want to play. (P4)

The context presented, though having aspects connected to the historic trajectory of legal rules and practices established through the years, also portrays, at least discursively, a logic closer to principles of the professionalization movement on the recognition of SI spaces as specific training loci.

The participants are aware of the importance of the SSP and its challenges, this can be seen as a particular situation because, in this specific case, Unesp/RC and the SME/DE are close. In 2014, SME even published a reorganization on the framework of Physical education due to the participation of teachers in various areas of SME and elected a professor of Unesp/RC to follow the works, mainly those of SSP (Rio Claro, 2014).

Gervais and Desrosiers (2005) affirm that the first measures to be taken in their context was to remodel institutional position, allowing the start of new agreements to the SSP.

The remodeling of the study programs required a harmonization between pre-service programs and the changes demanded by the schools. These changes mention: school autonomy, a process to decentralize decision-making, redefinition of school mission…¹⁰.

(Gervais & Desrosiers, 2005, p. 14)

In a study on the scientific production on school placement on Physical Education journals, Isse (2014) found the emergence of great themes, such as reports of experiences, the perception of pre-service teachers, the relationship theory-practice, and issues on structural and organization aspects of SSP. On this last aspect, close to the theme proposed here, the authors noticed that the studies showed the question of SSP enactment as a training space, the careful attention given to the follow-up and supervision, the notation of practice, and the role of teachers/professors involved. However, it was unanimous in the studies the need to approximate the training instances:

The authors…are basically unanimous in saying that we have problems in the articulation between university and K-12. Teachers’ training needs to be connected to the reality of professional induction. The school teacher is an important partner in the process of consolidadting the relationship between school and the university, and the school placement is often the main, if not the only, mechanism of dialogue between the university and K-12 education systems.

(Isse, 2014, p. 9)

In this sense, the notion of partnership and collaboration, as the position adopted by the institution regarding SSP, is highlighted in the school administration discourse:

The school not only understands the need of the school placement, but also aims to establish a partnership to guarantee that this training takes place in the best way possible. (C1)

It is a relation of partnership. We belive that both sides are benefited. When receiving the pre-service teachers we have a connection with the university and vice versa. It is when practice and theory meet. (P4)

The school has a favorable position, of collaboration and the achievement of positive experiences. (C5)

Supervising professors seem aware of this perspective of participation and school involvement when mentioning that the school “has a central role in the moment of SI” (SP1) and that it “offers its space and formalizes the insternship contract” (SP2). However, the supervisors see it from a university context and, though the school is part of the process, the impression is that there is something missing in this process, for example the need to “divide the training protagonism with the university” (SP 2).

It [school] participates, as it opens a school placement space and allows the participation of students in different moments. On the other hand, this is not enough to say there is a partnership as, in my opinion, there needs to be an intentional participation, with a training proposal that attends the principles of reality, but considering the references that support them. (PS2)

The indications presented in the participants’ comments perpass elements that portray a different understanding on the training process regarding the school and the university, and highlight possibilities of criticism in the SSP process.

When investigating two editions of the Congresso Brasileiro de Ciência do Esporte (CBCE- Brazilian Congress on Sport Science), Silva and Molina Neto (2014) found eight published works that highlighted criticisms on the context of SSP and their different perspectives. The authors then reflected on how the school placement is understood, structured and analyzed as training phase.

That said, these criticisms and the understanding of the context can help to propose ways to deal with the notion of a SSP that goes beyond an idea of ‘passage ritual’, in which the notion of partnership is more closely connected to a casual relation between university and school. The idea is to understand and highlight this scenario so that, in the future, the negotiation proposal (Mérine, 2006) is done based on identity and behavioral changes.

4.2 The school placement dynamic

Dynamic is a concept that brings with it the underlying relation of movement and force, here understood in the movement established within the SSP by its participants and their influences. Thus, one of the first elements highlighted was the condition of the university, as the initiative and the need to complete the curricula starts from the university. The university plays the first movement to organize this subject (supervised school placement), the approximation with the school, and the signing of a commitment terms. The second movement takes place with the arrival of pre-service teachers in the school and how schools welcome them.

There is no specific preparation. The teachers are guided by the principal/coordination to be cordial and receptive. (P3)

There is no preparation. As the presence of pre-service teachers is already a practice at the school, the only demand is the teacher’s authorization so that pre-service teachers can participate. (C6)

There is no preparation, nothing different, we talk, I tell them that some teachers will go, but that I’ll be together and that the studnets might follow the same rules as they do when they are with me. (CT4)

Though the situation is common in the researched schools, some coordinators showed a dissatisfaction towards this process, pointing out that “there should be more solid guidelines” (C2), noting that this can often be one of the factors that cause negative impacts in the pre-service teachers.

According to their testimonies, SSP takes place in a mixture of formality/informality. Principals, coordinators, and collaborating teachers note that SSP has an impact at school, as a factor that “brings the reflection on teachers’ pedagocial action” (P1), “a strangeness on who is the pre-service teacher” (C4), and the fact that the students enjoy the presence of their “new teachers” feeling “euphoric” (CT4), “they identify themselves with them [pre-service teachers] and are interested on them” (CT6).

It called our attention that affective and personal relationships (Kulinna, Brusseau, Ferry, & Cothran, 2010) often mediated the movement and forces in the SSP within the school and they ended up being responsible for establishing a harmony among pre-service teachers, the collaborating teachers, the school culture, and the duties towards the university, decoding the meanings and senses in their coexistence and interaction (Tunes, Tacca, & Barthollo Junior, 2005).

Thus, in this dynamic, collaborating teachers stand side-by-side with pre-service teachers, letting them feel themselves as teachers, and helping them in some moments, as during the visits of supervising teachers or when students have bad behaviors that can significantly interfere in the classes (Benites, 2012).

Collaborating teachers affirmed that they intervened with talks and observations on the context of the class and the adaptation of the students, noting that the greatest concerns of pre-service teachers revolved around the sense of responsibility to give classes (CT1, CT3) and the feeling of frustration (CT5, CT2). On top of that, they also perceived if the follow-up was positive when talking with the pre-service teachers about their school placement (CT1, CT3, CT4) or when questioning them (CT6).

When asked on how they analyzed the content of the classes and the pre-service teachers’ knowledge, the teachers answered that they used the following stratagies: observation (CT1), perception on the mastery of the content (CT5,CT6), and follow-up the school placement program ( CT3,CT4).

As a counterpoint, the supervising professors mentioned that they used checklists when visiting the schools to analyze the pre-service teachers, having as a background the academic guidelines, the school placement projects, and the work developed by the collaborating teachers.

I have as a guide some criteria based in different sources, as the procedures of the curricular guidelines ( competences, knowledge, contents); the aims of the school placement subject; the checklist with the evaluation criteria on the school placement development; the objectives of the school placement built by the students; different evaluations of the subject (seminars, problem-solving/teaching cases) (SP1)

Around this dynamic of SSP, a clash emerges on the overload of tasks and activities faced by the school. Brazilian school nowadays is marked by work saturation and excess of students, portraying a feeling of crisis (França, 2011).

In this context, the researched schools were submitted to a survival process and strong demands, with projects and tasks that appear everyday on their doors, and charges from the educational system (Nóvoa, 2008). Teachers assume an increasing number of tasks and SSP became one of them, as mentioned by P2 when saying that SSP leads to a “break on the classroom routine” and that teachers “have a work increase”.

We could say the the SSP dynamic necessarily refers to the notion of school routine, altering the logic of school activities, and interfering in its rules, regulataions, and procedures. It also promotes an entanglement of connections among the different school actors.

In an analogy, the movement created by SSP can be seen as a spring¹¹ that takes place year after year, not always with the same people involved, but as an established practice ( Figure 1). This practice has highs, lows, and elasticity, due to the interaction of behaviors and senses of those involved; it is molded by culture and takes place in an environment that produces senses.

Figure 1
The event of SSP

However, this spring has stress points that can be described as an increase on the workload, interns’ expectations, the impact of SSP at school, the relationships created, teachers’ possibilities to reflect, the number of pre-service teachers, the moments to share experiences, summing up various elements that are evident in the force of the personal/affective relationships.

With the continuation of the SSP process, these stress points distorce, flexibilize, and distend, creating successes and failures. We can understand this movement through the actions pertinanents to the school placement, as moments of decision making, strategies created to solve problems, interns’ expectations, that “expect interventions in their classes” (SP2) and the collaborating teachers who “expect a moment in which they can update themselves” (SP1), due to the contact established with the university and the coexistence process.

However, with the end of SSP, the spring tends to go back to its original stage, as despite been enlarged (or not) by the positive and/or negative experiences, in the end retuns to a “be ready” phase, so that all the movement can start once again the next year.

This dynamic can be understood under the light of resilience, a term with physical meanings, but that started to be used in other areas and is understood as the ability to return to its natural state after some critical situation, as a possibility to deal with the problems, emphasizing the notion of resitance (Fajardo, Minayo, & Moreira, 2010).

In the educational context, this term has some discussion strands: as the difficulty to break away from a repeated dynamic; or even as a survival aspect, faced by the innumerous attributions demanded by the school and its agents, working out as a strenghthening measure (Tavares, 2001).

In the case of SSP, we can think that there is an oscillatory dynamic caused by the action of the different participants and that resilience, in a way, acts as a power that keeps the school as a participant of the school placement. Because, though there is a bureaucratic organization and different pressures, when the school placement is over, there is an accommodation and a settling of the experiences, leading those involved (teachers and administrators) to reflect on the situation and, in a way, to continue open to resume the process.

In this sense, there can be some speculations: is the dynamic so rooted in the school that, despite negative school placement experiences, the connections can be kept? Would that be the limit of the school participation in the current conditions?

In Landry’s (2013) proposal this is the beginning of a pathway established to reach a partnership, as there is the need to manage this dynamic and what takes place in both parts, so that changes can be proposed. The author affirms that collaboration is the term closer to the idea of partnership, in this dynamic that involves the university and the school, and is considered a phase that aims to regulate the actions of the participants.

Thus, this dynamic, though it may be seen as habitual in Brazilian context, indicates a frequence of events that, at a first glance, point out a privileged context, in which continuous efforts have been taken between the institution and, later, have developed in the portrayal of their practices and routines. These are subject to criticisms (Silva & Molina Neto, 2014), but, at the same time, present possibilities to think ruptures, such as reflecting on the school time.

It is undeniable that the schools participate in the SSP, after all they offer their spaces and designate collaborating teachers. However, this participation is kept more as a tradition, as there were no mentions in the data collected on its participation on the training of future teachers. This is an important data to future reflections.

4.3 – The collaborating teacher and the supervising professor in the school placement

The teacher is a professional that has acquired, through a long study process, the status and the ability to perform autonomously and responsabily non-routine intellectual acts, searching for objectives within a complex situation, named teaching that allows the mobilitization of different types of knowledge (Perrenoud, Paquay, Altet & Charlier, 2001).

Thus, when teachers become collaborators, they add to their list of activities the responsibility of helping future teachers in their didactic-pedagogic experiences during SSP. The supervising professor is a university professor responsible for the subjects of SSP and that has, among his/her responsabilities, the mission to follow the school placements underway.

During this study, the supervising professors were interested in the area they worked and developed studies on school placement, as well as being members of academic committes which followed and improved the SSP in the institution. As a guiding material, they used a document produced by the university that defined the profile and the type of tasks they should perform.

…is someone who should collaborate, plan, organize, and follow the school placement activities, the requirements to be hired are a basic formation in the area, a post-graduation in education or similar area, with an emphasis on teacher training, as well as having at least three years of experience as a K-12 teachers in the area of studies.

(Unesp, 2008, p. 18)

The collaborating teachers were perceived by the supervisors as those available for the SSP and started to welcome the pre-service teachers as a way to receive in-service education. Therefore, the pre-service teachers would be a source of innovation, with recently-acquired experience in the university, and an approximation with the academic universe. Besides this, they were pleased to be able to help with the experience of future colleagues.

What motivates me the most in receiving the pre-service teachers is that they can bring something new, something different that can be taught in the classes. (CT4)

Colaborating with the training process, participating in the study groups on professional training [in the university] (CT6)

It is interesting to see that according to the collaborating teachers the pre-service teachers would be key for a process of experience exchange as, in a way, this extrapolates the natural condition on the pre-service teacher because he/she would be the less didactically experienced. On the other hand, in this process, the collaborating teachers would get closer to the activities and strategies brought by pre-service teachers; they would discover courses, events, and study groups; and could also establish a dialogue with the supervising professors. The collaborating teachers reinforced this idea by mentioning that welcoming pre-service teachers “is a good opportunity for the pre-service teachers and for the teacher” (CT1, CT4).

Another point was that the collaborating teacher wanted to provide pre-service teachers with something different from what was offered to them during their own intership process, as some had no following (CT6, CT3), did not actually teach (CT4), or were not supported by a teacher in the school (CT2). Still, some wanted to offer the chance of making something meanighful, as providing a good experience and follow-up (CT1) and give the current pre-service teachers the same conditions they had (CT5).

Supervising professors recognized the collaborating teachers as crucial to the training process in the school placement, however they alerted to the fact that simply having this perspective does not guarantee that the collaborators would be aware of their roles and an intention on their actions.

… the collaborating teacher is the professional responsible for the training of the future teacher while I’m at the university….I recognize him/her as key to legitimize the training process to the pre-service teachers, the school, and the university. I also know that, the fact that I see them as this, does not mean that he/she thinks or acts this way. There are those that recognize this perspectice and try to follow it. But there are also those that, though recognizing this, choose other pathway. (SP1)

The supervising professors mentioned that in their university there are some modalities of in-servince education, as outreach courses, study and research groups, but that the teachers connected to the SME/DE face challenges to participate in these activities, so there needs to be improvements in this sense.

The university offers outreach courses in the only possible modality of in-service training, as well as meetining and biannual sessions with these teachers, but not many come…there is no policy of school placement in the scope of training that involves the university and the school. The public bodies also do not ease this tasks, for instance by dismissing this collaborating teacher for the biannual meeting. This is when we see a lack of understanding by the school, as a space of training and the role of the collaborating teacher as a trainer…the process is very slow. The collaborating teacher does not have a specific time in their official schedule to assist the pre-service teachers or the professors, nor a time to give feedback (SP 2)

Therefore, it is often in the proximity of the supervisor with the collaborator that the school placement develops some training possibilities, as the exchange of information, reading material, and talks, confirming what the collaborators said on receiving pre-service teachers as an ‘access key’. For this reason, the supervising professor becomes an important figure with great responsability, guiding the school placement, and also the pre-service teacher, evaluating him/her, discussing difficulties, and following them during classes.

The supervisor is the mediator of the school placement in the school, as it is up to him/her to guide the pre-service teachers’ behavior within the school. In this sense, the school placement supervisor should be a constant role in the school and should have a very close relationship with the administration team. (P1)

He is the one who should guide the pre-service teachers and survey the school that will welcome them. (CT6)

However, according to the supervising professors, some itens mentioned by the principals and collaborators would be fitting to the collaborator. This shows a certain uncertainty, from a discursive point of view, on the role of each person involved.

In this sense, we can say that the supervising professor and the collaborating teacher are trainers in the school placement with roles defined by the place they work (university and school), but that also have mixed roles due to factors such as lack of intention in their functions or the non-adherence to a specific preparation (Oliveira-Formosinho, 2002).

Maybe it would be up to the duet university-school to propose means and possibilities to promote “the creation of new ways to help them in their own reinventions” (Sarti, 2008, p. 63), allowing teachers, as claimed by Nóvoa (2008), to remodel themsevels within the profession to the point of establishing with more detail and specificities what their responsabilities, without expecting only from the university or from the school.

5. Final remarks

This study focused on the context of school placement in the city of Rio Claro, encompassing some schools that received pre-service teachers from the Teaching undergraduate degree in Physical Education of Unesp/RC, in order to understand the participation of the school and the university in the SSP of future teachers.

In this context, SSPwas seen as an important moment of teacher training that changes the work routine in the school. It was also found that, when confronted, the two categories of teachers/professors involved have well-defined identities. However, this does not mean that both have similar perspectives or clearly know their responsabilities.

When referring to the central issue of participation in school and the university, we can say that the relationship has some traces of collaboration but no strong bonds of training or a balanced engagement between both sides.

Resuming the concept of Landry (2013), it is worth mentioning that the phase of mutual information was long in the context researched, as the schools received pre-service teachers for more than five years and had a long contact with the supervising professors even if the collaborating teachers changed. The consultation was also developed in the study, as both institutions signed a mutural term of commitment on the internship, they had a formal administrative bond, and aimed for dialogue moments, and possibilities to solve a common problem: school placement guidance. However, concertation was a phase that started in the researched context but that did not come to fruition.

The data indicates a scenario in which both sides do everything in their reach. Taking the next step of more detailed actions – for instance, realizing that the school is a co-trainer of pre-service teachers (supervisors’ discourse) or even the university giving more support to the schools and keep the supervisors close to their realities (principals’ discourse) – demands a leap of quality in the relationship, one that pays attention to the administrative (finance, support, benefits); educational (improve the SSP situation, mainly regarding the idea of learning); and social (careful eye towards particular contexts, respect different cultures, propose policies, etc) principles (Landry, 2013).

It is worth mentioning that this study was developed in 2013-2014 and the dissemination of these data allowed the reflection and the proposal of new initiatives and studies, mainly those connected to the Núcleo de Estudos e Pesquisa em Educação Física (Nepef-FPCT)¹², on the collaboration and/or partnership on SSP.

In this sense, one of the initiatives was the Congresso Nacional de Estágio Supervisionado e Prática de Ensino (National Congress on Supervised School Placement and Teaching Practice), promoted by Unesp/RC in 2018 and 2019, which will have its third edition in 2021.

If the notion on the concept of partnership is still restricted, it appears in the discourses of those involved in SSP. The teachers use the word partnership to refer to the type of bond they establish, even though not its all elements can be considered a partnership. However, this is a slow process that requires time, dedication, and work, as they can alter the training logic.

That is, it is useless to say that the school needs to be aware of the importance of SSP beyond what it does now, without a structural change in which relations can be built. Similarly, it is fruitless to ask the university to see heartlier the practice and the importance of SSP if there is no space in the curriculum, no work conditions, and no professors engaged in this process.

… it is meaningless to propose a qualification based on the investigation and partnership between schools and higher education insitutions if the legal guidelines insist in making this approximation harder. In a word, it is not worthwhile to repeat intentions that are not translated into concret actions and political commitments. (Nóvoa, 2008, p. 8)

In this respect, public policies such as the Programa Institucional de Bolsas de Iniciação à Docência (Pibid- Institutional Program of Pre-service Teaching Grants)¹³ and the Residência Pedagógica (Pedagogical Resident)¹⁴, can be answers within the national scenario towards an approximation university-school and that can also allow us to think on a partnership structure.

Thus, the debate on these programs remains open, which can be seen as good initiatives, but that overlap the school placement and end up not giving them the possibility of remodeling. Furthermore, we question if these proposals would be a way towards a new format. Besides this discussion, there is the hope that the Brazilian scenario can soon see the benefits of the term partnership between university and school in the SSP process.

• 2
  Normalization, preparation, and Portuguese review: Lucas Giron (Tikinet)– [e-mail]
• 3
  Support: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes) (BEX nº 18016/12-0).
• 4
  English version: Viviane Ramos- [e-mail]
• 5
  There are many different terms to express this idea. In this study, we opted for the term ‘supervised school placement’ to refer to the learning period, organized by the university as a subject and/or activity, but directly linked to the school.
• 6
  Our translation.
• 7
  In Brazil, thre are different terms for this teacher. However, in this study they are called collaborating teachers and are school teachers.
• 8
  In this study they are called supervising professor. They are responsible for the subject SSP in the university and follow the placements in the schools.
• 9
  Evaluation 006 from February 07, 2013, Protocol 8099.
• 10
  In the original : “Cette reforme du programme d’études oblige une harmonisation des programmes des formations à les enseignement aux changements instaurés dans les écoles. Parmi ces changements, mentionnons : l’autonomie accrue des écoles à la suite d’un processus de décentralisation des prises de décision; la redéfinition de la mission de l’école...”.
• 11
  Term used illustratively.
• 12
  http://dgp.cnpq.br/dgp/espelhogrupo/5651.
• 13
  http://portal.mec.gov.br/pibid.
• 14
  http://www.capes.gov.br/educacao-basica/programa-residencia-pedagogica.

Referências

• Benites, L.C. (2012). O professor-colaborador no estágio curricular supervisionado em educação física: perfil, papel e potencialidades Tese de doutorado, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro.
• Borges, C. (2011). La collaboration enseignante en education physique et à la santé. In L. Portelance, C. Borges, & J. Pharand, (Orgs.), La collaboration dans le mileu de l’éducation: dimensions pratiques et perspectives théoriques (pp. 83-102). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
• Cid, A., Pérez, A., & Sarmiento, J. A. (2011). La tutoría en el practicum: revisión de la literatura. Revista de Educación, (354), 127-154.
• Decreto-Lei nº 1.190, de 4 de abril de 1939. (1939, 31 de dezembro). Dá organização à Faculdade Nacional de Filosofia. Coleção de Leis do Brasil
• Decreto-Lei nº 9.053, de 12 de março de 1946. (1946, 15 de março). Cria um ginásio de aplicação nas Faculdades de Filosofia do País. Diário Oficial da União
• Fajardo, I. N., Minayo, M. C. S., & Moreira, C. O. F. (2010). Educação escolar e resiliência: política de educação e a prática docente em meios adversos. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação, 18(69), 761-774.
• França, D. S. (2011). Os estágios de ensino: novas questões para velhos problemas. Nuances: Estudos Sobre Educação, 20(21), 117-130.
• Gatti, B. A., & Barretto, E. S. S. (2009). Professores do Brasil: impasses e desafios Brasília: Unesco.
• Gauthier, C., Martineu, S., Desbiens, J.-F., Malo, A., & Simard, D. (1998). Por uma teoria da pedagogia: pesquisas contemporâneas sobre o saber docente Ijuí: Editora Unijuí, 1998.
• Gervais, C., & Desrosiers, P. (2005). L’école, lieu de formation d’enseignants: questions et repères pour l’accompagnement de stagiaires Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.
• Isse, S. F. (2014). Estágio supervisionado na formação de professores de educação física: análise de produções científicas. In Anais do VII Congresso Sulbrasileiro de Ciências do Esporte Universidade Federal do Paraná, Matinhos. Recuperado de http://cbce.tempsite.ws/congressos/index.php/7csbce/2014/paper/view/6018
  » http://cbce.tempsite.ws/congressos/index.php/7csbce/2014/paper/view/6018
• Karsenti, T., & Savoie-Zajc, L. (Orgs.).(2011). La recherche en education: étapes et aproches Saint-Laurent: Erpi.
• Kulinna, P. H., Brusseau, T., Ferry, M., & Cothran, D. (2010). Preservice teachers’ belief systems toward curricular outcomes for physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81(2), 189-198.
• Landry, C. (2013). Le partenariat en éducation et en formation: des formes de collaboration à l’espace partenarial. In C. Landry, & C. Garant (Dir.), Formation continue, recherche et partenariat. pour construire la collaboration entre l’université et le milieu scolaire (pp. 31-62). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
• Lei nº 11.788, de 25 de setembro de 2008. (2008, 26 de setembro). Dispõe sobre o estágio de estudantes; altera a redação do art. 428 da Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho – CLT, aprovada pelo Decreto-Lei nº 5.452, de 1º de maio de 1943, e a Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996; revoga as Leis n^os 6.494, de 7 de dezembro de 1977, e 8.859, de 23 de março de 1994, o parágrafo único do art. 82 da Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996, e o art. 6o da Medida Provisória nº 2.164-41, de 24 de agosto de 2001; e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União
• Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. (1996, 23 de dezembro). Estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional. Diário Oficial da União
• Mérini, C. (2006). Le partenariat en formation: de la modélisation à une application Paris: L’Harmattan.
• Ministério da Educação. (1969). Resolução nº 9, de 10 de outubro de 1969 Fixa a formação pedagógica em 1/8 das horas obrigatórias de trabalho de cada licenciatura voltada para o ensino de 2º grau. Recuperado de: http://cev.org.br/biblioteca/resolucao-n-9-10-outubro-1969/
  » http://cev.org.br/biblioteca/resolucao-n-9-10-outubro-1969/
• Ministério da Educação. (2001a, 2 de outubro). Parecer CNE/CP 27 Dá nova redação ao item 3.6, alínea c, do Parecer CNE/CP 9/2001, que dispõe sobre as diretrizes curriculares nacionais para a formação de professores da educação básica, em nível superior, curso de licenciatura, de graduação plena. Recuperado de http://portal.mec.gov.br/cne/arquivos/pdf/027.pdf
  » http://portal.mec.gov.br/cne/arquivos/pdf/027.pdf
• Ministério da Educação. (2001b, 8 de maio). Parecer CNE/CP 28 Dá nova redação ao Parecer CNE/CP 21/2001, que estabelece a duração e a carga horária dos cursos de formação de professores da educação básica, em nível superior, curso de licenciatura, de graduação plena. Recuperado de http://portal.mec.gov.br/cne/arquivos/pdf/028.pdf
  » http://portal.mec.gov.br/cne/arquivos/pdf/028.pdf
• Ministério da Educação. (2015, 3 de julho). Resolução CP nº 2, de 1º de julho de 2015. Define as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a formação inicial em nível superior (cursos de licenciatura, cursos de formação pedagógica para graduados e cursos de segunda licenciatura) e para a formação continuada. Diário Oficial da União
• Nóvoa, A. (2008). The return of teachers. In Ministry of Education, Portugal 2007: teacher professional development for the quality and equity of lifelong learning (pp. 21-28). Lisboa: [s. n.].
• Oliveira-Formosinho, J. (2002). Em direção a um modelo ecológico de supervisão de professores. uma investigação na formação de educadores de infância. In J. Oliveira-Formosinho (Org.), A supervisão na formação de professores: da sala à escola (pp. 94-120). Porto: Porto Editora.
• Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2012). L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales Paris: Armand Colin.
• Perrenoud, P., Paquay, L., Altet, M., & Charlier, E. (2001). Formando professores profissionais: três conjuntos de questões. In L. Paquay, P. Perrenoud, M. Altet, & E. Charlier (Orgs.), Formando professores profissionais: Quais estratégias? Quais competências? (pp. 11-22). Porto Alegre: Artmed.
• Pimenta, S. G., & Lima, M. S. L. (2011). Estágio e docência São Paulo: Cortez.
• Rio Claro. (2014, 4 de abril). Portaria SME nº 3 Rio Claro: Prefeitura Municipal. Recuperado de http://www.educacaorc.com.br/media/biblioteca/7000799/Portaria%20SME%20003_Comiss%C3%A3oReorganiza%C3%A7%C3%A3oCurricularEduca%C3%A7%C3%A3oF%C3%ADsica.pdf
  » http://www.educacaorc.com.br/media/biblioteca/7000799/Portaria%20SME%20003_Comiss%C3%A3oReorganiza%C3%A7%C3%A3oCurricularEduca%C3%A7%C3%A3oF%C3%ADsica.pdf
• Sarti, F. M. (2008). O professor e as mil maneiras de fazer no cotidiano escolar. Educação: Teoria e Prática, 18(30),47-66.
• Saviani, D. (2009). Formação de professores: aspectos históricos e teóricos do problema no contexto brasileiro. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 14(40), 143-155.
• Schön, D. A. (1992). Formar professores como profissionais reflexivos. In A. Nóvoa (Coord.), Os professores e sua formação (pp. 77-92). Lisboa: Don Quixote.
• Silva, M. A., & Molina Neto, V. (2014). Potencialidades do estágio docente para a construção da identidade do professor de educação física: uma revisão de literatura. Anais do VII Congresso Sulbrasileiro de Ciências do Esporte Universidade Federal do Paraná, Matinhos. Recuperado de http://cbce.tempsite.ws/congressos/index.php/7csbce/2014/paper/view/5999
  » http://cbce.tempsite.ws/congressos/index.php/7csbce/2014/paper/view/5999
• Souza Neto, S., & Benites, L. C. (2008). Perspectivas para o desenvolvimento e construção do ser-professor: a educação física em questão Rio Claro: Unesp.
• Tardif, M. (2002). Saberes docentes e formação profissional Petrópolis: Vozes.
• Tavares, J. (Org.). (2011). Resiliência e educação São Paulo: Cortez.
• Tunes, E., Tacca, M. C. V. R., & Bartholo Junior, R. S. (2005). O professor e o ato de ensinar. Caderno de Pesquisa, 35(126), 689-698.
• Universidade Estadual Paulista. (2002). Pensando a formação de professores na Unesp São Paulo: Unesp.
• Universidade Estadual Paulista. (2008). Minuta de resolução para regulamento geral dos estágios curriculares dos cursos de graduação da Unesp São Paulo: Unesp.
• Vasques, A. L. P., & Sarti, F. M. (2017). Entre o ‘aproveitamento’ e o provimento da prática na formação continuada de professores. Acta Scientiarum Education, 39(1), 67-77.
• Weber, S. (2003). Profissionalização docente e políticas públicas no brasil. Educação e Sociedade, 24(85), 1125-1154.
• Zabalza, M. A. (2014). O estágio e as práticas em contexto profissionais na formação universitária São Paulo: Cortez.

Referências Consultadas

• Lima, M. S. L. (2008). Reflexões sobre o estágio/prática de ensino na formação de professores. Revista Diálogo Educacional, 8(23), 195-205.
• Perrenoud, P. (1997). Práticas pedagógicas, profissão docente e formação: perspectivas sociológicas Lisboa: Dom Quixote.

1

Responsible editor: Carmen Lúcia Soares. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4347-1924

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  26 July 2021
• Date of issue
  2021

History

• Received
  08 Aug 2018
• Reviewed
  16 Oct 2019
• Accepted
  24 Oct 2019