Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2013

Abstract

The aim of this project is to give a voice to the teachers who have participated in the Upgrading State Courses (CEA) organized by the National Teachers' Upgrading Program (PRONAP), and applied throug the Teachers Centers, in order to recognize the meaning given to the activity called “upgrading” and thus to understand if the teachers who participated in such Courses managed to develop any reflective process derived from this experience, or if they attended to trifling courses that only tried to alienate and looked for dogmatisms, leaving aside the condition of possibility and existence.

The paradigm followed in this research allows us to understand and to ponder about the different meanings and interpretations that the high-school teachers give to an Upgrading process imposed by the State through institutional devices. The perfect tool to understand which way to look is the amalgamation of research/action/reflection which has as its main purpose to produce changes on the studied reality. This tool does not mind the generalization of the results and allows to catch a glimpse of the meanings and insights of the teachers concerning their upgrading process through the State Courses. Participant observation was employed using records from field notes, and this yielded information about the confusing situation that teachers in service have gone through, concerning mainly the developmental processes and the overlapping with the stories of the institutions entitled to certify them. The results of this research show that the features that have been reinforced are the following: misunderstanding of the functions and of the acknowledgment of the different functions - introductory training, leveling, upgrading, further training, improvement and professional development; ambition and institutional conflict due to the availability of spaces and budget; disruption of internal policies; enhancement of misunderstood accreditations; deterioration of a training based only on scattered courses; impoverishment of the content because of the acceptance of theoretical or methodological trends; little or no evaluation at all of the results, and a noticeable impoverishment in the teachers’ training, in their facilities and in their capability to produce knowledge, among others.

Publication Source (Journal or Book title)

Social Sciences and Health Research Journal

Download

Share

COinS