Eu vejo o futuro repetir o passado : a natureza da Política Nacional de Alfabetização (PNA/2019-2022) para as crianças da educação infantil brasileira
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
From a critical dialectical epistemological standpoint, this doctoral thesis, situated in the field of educational policies for Early Childhood Education (BRAZIL, 2009a; ABRAMOVAY, 1984; 1985; BARBOSA, 2009; CAMPOS, 1979; 2001; 2010; KRAMER, 1982; 1984; 1985; 2003; 2006; 2007; ROSEMBERG, 1992; 2001; 2002; 2003), aimed to develop a theoretical critique of the nature of the National Literacy Policy (PNA/2019-2022) for Early Childhood Education, reaffirming the sociopolitical and pedagogical role of the first stage of Basic Education in guaranteeing children's rights. Guided by the research questions, the following problematic issues were outlined: What conception of Early Childhood Education and literacy do the legal norms, publications, and actions of the National Literacy Policy (2019-2022) reveal? What is the nature of the proposal for Early Childhood Education expressed in the National Literacy Policy? The hermeneutic method was employed in the research process, involving analytical and careful interpretation of the documents that established the National Literacy Policy in Brazil (FLICKINGER, 2010; DALBOSCO; SANTA; BARONI, 2018; MATOS DE SOUZA, 2022). The research is of a basic nature, adopting a qualitative approach (BAUER; GASKEL, 2000). It has exploratory objectives and employs bibliographic and documentary procedures (CELLARD, 2008; FÁVERO; CENTENARO, 2019). To comprehend the essence of the studied phenomenon, the data produced were discussed using Discursive Textual Analysis (MORAES; GALIAZZI, 2007). Given the complexity of the research topic, the theoretical framework drew from a pluralistic perspective, combining the epistemological viewpoints of i) historical-cultural (VYGOTSKY, 2005; 2007; 2018); ii) poststructuralist (BALL, 2005; 2020; DARDOT; LAVAL, 2016; 2019; 2021; DAHLBERG; MOSS; PENCE, 2019; PERONI, 2006; 2018; 2020); and iii) critical dialectical (FREIRE, 1981; 1989; 2011; 2013; 2014; 2021). The research findings concluded that current educational policies for Early Childhood Education in Brazil, such as the National Curriculum Guidelines for Early Childhood Education and its revision (DCNEI/BRAZIL, 2009), standardize discourses that aim to insert children into the participation of a freer, fairer, and more solidary society, constructing new forms of sociability committed to breaking relations of domination and oppression. This entails ensuring the comprehensive care and education of children, respecting their own ways of learning and developing during childhood through social interactions, dialogical relationships, and play. Based on this premise, writing is conceived as a language, as a social right, as a cultural asset of humanity for the expression of thoughts, ideas, feelings, and imagination. These conceptions are centered on a democratic perspective of work, which contrasts with the individualistic, authoritarian, and compensatory nature presented by the National Literacy Policy, which idealizes Early Childhood Education as a preparation for literacy, anticipating content from primary education, in a mechanical and technical way. Therefore, it is concluded that the PNA, as an educational policy of a far-right government, views literacy as the teaching of mechanical coding and decoding skills, rendering the child invisible as a subject of rights and a participant in the learning process, as it focuses on a model of the universal, standardized, and homogeneous child dictated by the principles of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».