O Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior (SINAES) e sua ação sobre a autorização e avaliação dos cursos de licenciatura em pedagogia / EAD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.037 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".