MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7120578627

O Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior (SINAES) e sua ação sobre a autorização e avaliação dos cursos de licenciatura em pedagogia / EAD

2024· dissertation· pt· W7120578627 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Géverton João Rockenbach

Notice bibliographique

RevueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languept
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation and Public Policy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegislationStrengths and weaknessesAuthorizationScope (computer science)Higher educationWork (physics)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This dissertation was developed within the scope of the Postgraduate Program in Education (PPGEDU) of the University of Passo Fundo (UPF), in the line of Educational Policies. The research problem is guided by the following question: Given the significant expansion of Pedagogy Courses, in the Distance Learning (EaD) modality, how are the strengths and weaknesses in the processes of authorization and evaluation of these courses becoming evident? As a general objective, this dissertation sought to understand the process of evaluation and regulation of higher education, in order to verify strengths and weaknesses in the processes of authorization and evaluation of the Pedagogy course in the EaD modality. As for specific objectives, three were presented: to analyze aspects of the evolution of higher education in Brazil through some of its main legal frameworks; to identify the constituent elements of the system of evaluation, regulation and supervision of higher education and the interlocutions with the concept of quality; and, finally, to reflect on aspects of the authorization and evaluation processes of undergraduate courses in Pedagogy in the distance learning modality, considering the current legislation and official regulations. To make the research viable, documentary analysis and bibliographic review were adopted as methodological processes. The documentary analysis focused on part of the legislation in force in our country and on some of the educational policies related to the research problem. The bibliographic review, in turn, was carried out in books and articles published on the subject. In order to achieve the proposed objectives, the work consisted of five moments: the first of them presents the paths taken to consolidate this master's dissertation, in order to elucidate the methodology used, the proposed objectives, the research problem and some initial considerations that support the reflections presented here. The second moment directs the reflections towards higher education in Brazil by presenting important aspects about its expansion, legislation, regulations and documents relevant to the object of study. The third moment brings some reflections on the concept of quality in education, pointing out knowledge evidenced by authors such as Charlot (2021), Gadotti (2010), Dourado and Oliveira (2009) and Esquinsani and Dametto (2018). The understanding of the social function of higher education institutions, the democratization of access, as well as commodification and neoliberalism is also reconsidered, based on the knowledge presented by Masschelein (2014), Teixeira (1964), Gasparotto, Grossi and Vieira (2014), Soares (2000), Laval (2019) and Dourado (2002). The fourth part presents a historical retrospective on the evolution of the Higher Education Evaluation, Regulation and Supervision System in Brazil. Finally, the fifth part analyzes the authorization and evaluation of undergraduate courses in Pedagogy EaD, their regulations, evaluation instruments, strengths and weaknesses, based on theoretical foundations from authors such as Gadotti (2010), Leite (1980) and Weber (1999), among others. Upon completion of the work, the following limitations were found as the main ones regarding the authorization and evaluation of Pedagogy Courses, distance learning modality: weaknesses in public policies; unbridled expansion of higher education and its supposed democratization; reductionist concept of quality in higher education; lack of specific training of professionals to work in the distance learning modality; predominance of commodification and neoliberalism; outsourcing of the task of educating and instructionism; weakened processes in the training of future pedagogues; opening of centers by one's own act; substantial risks to practices carried out in the face-to-face format; evaluation instruments with a strong tendency to be outdated; poor understanding of the function of teaching material, excessive bureaucratization; and, finally, the fragility in the interaction between teachers, tutors and students.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,869
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,000
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0040,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,329
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Même sujetEducation and Public PolicyTravaux en français237 207