Historical knowledge after BNCC and the New High School: changes and permanences of a school discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates the changes and the continuation in History teaching after the approval of the National Common Curricular Base (BNCC) and the Reform called New High School (NEM). The research starts from the reading key that associates these educational reforms with neoliberalism (LAVAL, 2019). It is also important for this research to analyze the “narrative warfare” around the History curriculum (LAVILLE, 1999), to investigate the conflicts and conceptions of History teaching, brought to the midst of debates about reforms and the concept of disciplinary code (FERNÁNDEZ, 1997) to think about the changes and the permanencies in History teaching. An investigation was carried out into the documentation that instituted the reforms, such as Law No. 13,415/2017 (High School reform), texts from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd versions of the BNCC and the DCRC (Ceará Reference Curricular Document). The research was carried out using quantitative and qualitative methodology, using a questionnaire, with 50 answers; 6 interviews with High School History teachers from the Ceará state schools network. Among the results, it was found that the reforms studied affect teachers in different ways, depending on the school model and the teacher's stability in the education network and at the school. 92% responded that they notice changes in history teaching, caused by the reduction of the workload, which leads to increasingly larger cuts by teachers, the lack of rganization of content by grade, the organization of content by skills and abilities and the absence of a History book. However, the teachers also state that they feel more autonomy to choose the contents after the reforms (18%) and 78% stated thatw although they feel negative impacts, they are able to maintain autonomy in their teaching practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".