Continuing education for Physical Education teachers in Manaus/AM: problematizing the relationship between innovation and disinvestment in teaching

Abstract

We aimed to identify the innovative practices developed by physical education teachers and the barriers that produce pedagogical disinvestment. An action-research encompassing a continuing education program in Manaus/AM whose participants were students and teachers. Field diaries, textual productions, and evaluation reports composed the empirical material analyzed. The innovative practices materialized in the inclusion of subjects and inclusive and critical classes. Some barriers were the school culture, the devaluation of the subject, and the lack of time for planning. We advocate for training policies that focus on professional development and consider teachers as researchers of their practice.

Keywords
Teachers' continuing education; School physical education; Research-action

Resumo

Objetiva-se identificar as práticas inovadoras desenvolvidas pelos professores de Educação Física e as barreiras que impulsionam o desinvestimento pedagógico. Uma pesquisa-ação encampou uma formação continuada em Manaus/AM, cujos participantes foram discentes e professores. Diários de campo, produções textuais e relatos de avaliação compuseram o material empírico alvo de uma análise de conteúdo. As práticas inovadoras se materializaram na inclusão de conteúdos e em aulas inclusivas e críticas. A cultura escolar, a desvalorização da disciplina e a falta de tempo para o planejamento foram obstáculos. Advoga-se por políticas de formação que foquem no desenvolvimento profissional e considerem os professores como pesquisadores de sua prática.

Palavras-chave
formação continuada de professores; Educação Física escolar; pesquisa-ação

Resumen

Planteamos identificar las prácticas innovadoras desarrolladas por los profesores de Educación Física y las barreras que producen la desinversión pedagógica. Una investigación-acción abarcó una educación continuada en Manaos/AM cuyos participantes fueron alumnos y profesores. Diarios de campo, producciones textuales y reportes de evaluación compusieron el material empírico objeto de un análisis de contenido. Las prácticas innovadoras se materializaron en la inclusión de contenidos y en clases inclusivas y críticas. La cultura escolar, la desvalorización de la disciplina y la falta de tiempo para la planificación fueron barreras. Abogamos por políticas de formación centradas en el desarrollo profesional y que consideren a los profesores como investigadores de su práctica.

Palabras clave
Formación continua del professorado; Educación Física escolar; Investigaciónacción

Introduction

Innovation practices and pedagogical disinvestment in school physical education (PE) have been the theme of countless studies developed by research groups in South America (Almeida, 2017). In this scenario, the Rede Internacional de Investigação Pedagógica em Educação Física Escolar (Reiipefe) stands out. It comprises research groups from Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, which have been studying the phenomenon for over a decade (Bracht et al., 2018).

Almeida (2017) presented a review identifying studies focused on the issue of what innovative or good practices in school PE would be, mobilizing several concepts such as school culture, life stories, teachers’ biographies, and reflexive teacher, thus establishing a multifactorial and complex phenomenon. Furthermore, Almeida (2017) concluded that teachers in innovation processes can contribute to overcoming the hiatus of PE nowadays, between “no longer” and the “not yet” – a metaphor coined by González and Fensterseifer (2009).

Talking about innovative practices and disinvestment in school PE leads us to consider the specificities of the curriculum component. Souza, Nascimento, and Fensterseifer (2018) comment that the 1980s movement changed PE from the status of simple activity towards a curriculum component, creating the need for curriculum and pedagogical investment to allow students to access the knowledge of body culture of movement (Bracht, 2014) and its appropriation¹. Thus, investing in teachers’ professional development (Marcelo, 2009) is essential to follow the social role expected by school PE in a critical direction.

However, we observed a devaluation phenomenon of school PE, which is considered a “second class” subject. According to Faria, Machado, and Bracht (2012), “the social imaginary built around PE, and that places it as a curriculum component of less value, seems to work as an engine that, besides stimulating situations of non-recognition, can even ‘legitimize’ such actions” [emphasis in the original] (p. 27). A negative effect of this “delegitimization” unfolds itself into pedagogical disinvestment because it affects teachers’ self-esteem and identity, resulting in a scenario characterized in many cases as “rola-bola” [roll the ball]. However, the contrary is possible; in other contexts, PE devaluing leads teachers to a process of pedagogical innovation when fighting for this curriculum component (Faria et al., 2012).

As seen, the phenomenon of innovation/pedagogical disinvestment has been investigated in many places in South America, including Brazil – for instance, in the Southeast and South regions. The North region has started to emerge in this investigation field (Furtado & Borges, 2020; Furtado, 2020; Santos, 2021), including in Amazonas. In this sense, we justify the need to develop studies in this region, not only due to its thematic novelty but because this type of research seeks to change the reality of the participant teachers and can strengthen teachers’ identities and promote the circulation of good practices connected to school PE, thus, creating an “innovative wave” in the education systems.

Its social, professional, pedagogical, and formative commitment also justifies this research. Social because it approaches a theme that affects the production and the mediation of body culture of movement, as PE teachers are the main agents responsible for mediating these types of knowledge. Professional because it is an action that seeks to qualify further the work developed by the teachers, giving them autonomy and protagonism. Pedagogical because it contributes to the investment in producing educational practices towards pedagogical innovation in the school environment. Formative because it encompasses the sharing of knowledge between in-training teachers and teachers already in the system.

Faced with this scenario and the problematic field observed, we have as a guiding question of this research: How are PE teachers producing innovative practices in their work contexts? To answer this question, we sought to identify the innovative practices developed by PE teachers and the barriers that compromise the development of these practices or stimulate pedagogical disinvestment.

Innovation/pedagogical disinvestment and teachers’ professional development

In a review, Almeida (2017) identified that the concept/term “innovation” was connected to the world of production/management and associated with the technical aspect. However, the concept of pedagogical innovation discussed here goes beyond such perspectives. Faria et al. (2010) consider that there are multiple concepts about pedagogical innovation and that trying to rigidly define it would be a mistake. With no intention to conceptualize it, Almeida (2017) presents some characteristics of a practice that can be considered innovative when there is:

a diversified relationship with culture, so that the broader the teacher formation, the more resources he has access to conduct teaching; the problematizing and intentional character of practice, which is favored when teachers have a different relationship with the theory, acting as an intellectual/interpreter/translator. The attribution of a critical sense to knowledge, followed by the recognition of an ethical-political dimension of the profession; the understanding of physical education as a subject (and not an activity) that has a specific knowledge to be transmitted, what demands pedagogical mediation in the sense of transforming it into school content; the introduction of new contents and an assessment system that involves students in the decisions of what to assess, how to assess, and even the act of assessing; a disposition to face the many difficulties that the school routine imposes to pedagogical intervention; an inclusive relationship with students based on fraternal and honest dialogue; an education that overcomes the stereotyped models of movement, which would be able to introduce new practices and reinvent the traditional ones that compose the universe of body culture of movement, thus, broadening students’ access to this cultural dimension; the capacity of reinventing/re-elaborating school ‘times’ and ‘spaces’ in favor of a necessary organization to transmit knowledge (and not only as a form of control, closed on itself); a diversity of methodological alternatives able to lead to appropriation, (re)elaboration, and even cultural production. (p. 12)

The elements presented by Almeida (2017) are summed up in the teachers’ actions when giving a good class in a critical manner and broadening students’ cultural-motor repertoire, as well as foment the valuing of PE as a curriculum component that allows the thematization of knowledge from the body culture of movement.

Faria et al. (2010) abandoned the explanatory intention to weave a comprehensive theory for the phenomenon of pedagogical innovation, in which they highlight the common characteristics among the groups. Therefore, they list: 1) that the participation in continuing education moments had different aspects so that teachers could build meaning around “being a teacher”; 2) and that the organization of contents through thematic projects was significantly different for the pedagogical innovation processes (Faria et al., 2010).

These pieces of evidence allow us to conceive that, following the production of formative spaces, teachers can produce and socialize projects to build innovative practices. In this scenario, we need to consider teachers’ professional constitution in their biographies, as self-knowledge is one of the first steps to identifying the premises that can influence their pedagogical practices (Fensterseifer & Silva, 2011; Santos, Bracht, & Almeida, 2009).

Souza, Nascimento, and Fensterseifer (2018) list some issues that can be determinant in the innovation processes: 1) personal factors emerging from their personal history before the undergraduate course; 2) the type of training, which can have traditional or critical/progressive tendencies; 3) the continuing education; 4) the formation reflections, regarding teachers’ clarity about their role and PE specificities; 5) school culture; 6) attitudinal and professional factors related with teachers’ attitudes and their professional satisfaction/achievement.

We decided to comment on school culture separately because it strongly influences innovation processes and pedagogical abandonment. Faria and Bracht perceived that school culture directly affects the processes of social recognition (theory grounded on Axel Honneth). So, when teachers are recognized, a possible unfolding is that they can produce innovative practices. The contrary is also possible, when there is no recognition². The authors also observed that there is “a culture of pedagogical practices atomism and the denial of solidary recognition in the community school values” [highlight in the original] (Faria & Bracht, 2014, p. 313).

In these cases, investing³ in continuing education can be a way for teachers to feel able to question and transform their contexts, fighting for recognition, and producing innovative practices. Therefore, training gains more than a pedagogical contour, establishing a political role. Continuing education based/inspired by the research-action principles was fruitful in developing pedagogical projects and practices considered innovative and strengthening teachers’ identities (Bracht et al., 2014; Oliveira, Martins, & Bracht, 2015). Relying on continuous education, focused on research-action, establishes an engine for collective work guided by understanding and problem-solution to improve didactic-pedagogical practices and processes, allowing the creation of innovative pedagogical practices.

Moving beyond the idea of continuing education, the research leads us to other perspectives. This involves the insertion of teachers in (early) training as participants in continuing education. Thus, we have observed the need to use the teachers’ professional development concept, considering that it gives the idea of continuity and “overcomes the traditional juxtaposition between teachers’ initial and continuing training” (Marcelo, 2009, p. 9). Marcelo (2009) indicates that becoming a teacher presupposes a long process. Therefore, we seek to insert trainee teachers into spaces of dialogue and learning with teachers who work daily in the schools, overcoming the fragmentation between theory and practice usually present in the training curricula. Hence, the opportunity of participating in continuous formations can lead trainee teachers to understand that teaching is shaped as a long-life professional development (Marcelo, 2009).

The meeting between in-training teachers working in the education systems creates fruitful training possibilities, considering that more experienced teachers “know and identify characteristics of problems and situations that can escape beginners’ attention” (Marcelo, 2009, p. 14). The formative spaces become more than simple “updating” or “recycling” moments, establishing spaces of collective teaching work, whose objective is the education enabled by teachers’ actions mediated by knowledge, reflection on and over action, and teachers’ behaviors as researchers of their own practices and as reflexive professionals (Pimenta & Ghedin, 2008; Schön, 2000). Examples of public policies, such as Programa Institucional de Bolsas de Iniciação à Docência (PIBID- Institutional Program of Scholarships for Early Teaching) and the Residência Pedagógica (Pedagogical Residence), are modern efforts in the education field that seek mediations for the teachers’ professional development.

When formative spaces break the banking conception (Freire, 2005) that merely replicates techniques to be (acritically) reproduced, it is possible to overcome the perception of teachers as technicians who do not investigate their practices (Zeichner, 2008). The epistemological shift proposed enables the establishment of a new praxis epistemology, prioritizing shared reflection and collective, collaborative, and participative work, in which academic groups and teachers share the investigation of common problems of everyday educational processes from the critical reflection in and over teachers’ actions. In such processes, conditions to establish formative policies committed to social transformation are established and here, specifically, the valuing of PE becomes a right.

To do so, continuing training with PE teachers of K-12 education was developed. This formation was theoretically and methodologically guided by studies about pedagogical innovation in school PE, having the notion of teachers’ professional development as a background. Different from other more traditional formats of continuous training, which have a pre-defined structure, the training started from the particularities of each teacher, allowing them to speak (Santos et al., 2009).

Hence, the formation was built grounded on research-action principles, in which teachers are considered researchers of their practices (Bracht et al., 2014). From the methodological model of research-action, we went from training to participants’ shared investigation in a movement open to the stories and experiences built every day. First, we proposed listening to the teachers and seek to identify with them their daily problems, trying to understand and solve them together. Continuing education was based on a work methodology of collective production, in which the university and school are in a horizontal relationship. We also highlight the participation of students from the PE Teaching undergraduate degree as tutors of this training, thus connecting initial and continuous training and strengthening teachers’ professional development. Later, we continue this presentation, considering the itineraries of an ongoing research-action

Itineraries of a research-action

This article results from a qualitative study based on research-action principles, grounded on the collective action guided in problem-solving seeking to critically understand/transform teachers’ reality (Thiollent, 1985). We also guided our investigation, focused on the school context, to improve the quality of teachers’ actions (Elliott, 2000). In PE, research-action has been perceived as a fruitful proposal for teachers’ continuing education (Bracht et al., 2014).

A continuing education project was conducted in the city of Manaus, state of Amazonas, Brazil, based on a partnership school-university⁴, with monthly meetings at the Faculdade de Educação Física e Fisioterapia [School of Physical Education and Physical Therapy] at Universidade Federal do Amazonas. The partnership⁵ was established with District 1 of Secretaria de Educação e Desporto do Estado do Amazonas (SEDUC- Amazonas Secretary of Education and Sport). The research-action methodology was composed as a spiral of cycles, following Kurt Lewin model adapted by Elliot (2000):

1. basic cycle: identification of the initial idea –˃ recognition (discovery and analysis of axes) –> elaboration of general plan –> implementation of steps –> review of implementation –> recognition (explanation of flaws in its implementation and effects –> review general idea –> plan correction;

2. other cycles: implementation of following steps–> implementation review –> recognition (explanation of flaws in its implementation and effects –> review general idea –> plan correction; –> etc.

The work developed encompassed the first cycle, identifying the initial idea and the recognition (axes discovery and analysis), which was connected to the reflexive process of being a teacher and the pedagogical practice developed in schools. This beginning of the cycle was developed in five meetings between June and October 2022, with four groups meeting every fortnight during the morning and afternoon. We established a previous schedule during the school year, seeking the best dates that coincided with teachers’ planning days. Each meeting lasted approximately three hours.

Table 1
Summary of the activities developed in the training meetings

Meeting	Activities developed
1	Presentation of the training proposal, coordinators-teachers, in-training teachers, and teachers in the system. Dialogue about the teachers’ previous experiences in the system to plan their next steps.
2	Discussion of the text by Almeida (2017). Proposal to make teachers reflect on having identified themselves (or not) with the text. Corporal activity of experiencing (im)balance with rolling to reflect on the daily challenges of teachers’ lives. Teachers were challenged to write about what motivated them to study PE and continue in the profession until now, as well as present a practice developed in the school that they considered innovative.
3	Follow-up of text productions and the importance of writing and research in teachers’ work. Discussion of the text by Souza, Nascimento, and Fensterseifer (2018) mainly thinking about the elements that can lead teachers to innovation or pedagogical disinvestment.
4	Presentation of text productions and sharing experiences of practices considered innovative developed by teachers.
5	Discussion of the text by Sagredo and Almeida (2021), especially considering the example of an experience report that portrays innovation and teacher investment. Reflection on the importance of systematizing teachers’ work for good practice in PE.

The formation received 29 subscriptions via Google Forms. This form was shared in the teachers’ WhatsApp groups from District 1 at SEDUC. Out of the 29 teachers enrolled, only 18 continued until the end. We believe the dropout was mainly due to problems arising from participants’ difficulties to be released from their schools. One of them was that the planning day of several teachers did not coincide with their formation day, or a planning “spread” during the week in short-time fractions.

Out of those who continued in training, most graduated from public higher education institutions, and some of them worked in the state and municipal systems. In the first meetings, we observed that many of them claimed they faced different types of challenges in their schools (for example, structural problems, lack of materials, didactic-pedagogical, and relational issues). In this scenario, from the meetings, we could delineate two profiles of teachers: a group that could be closer to processes of pedagogical disinvestment, seen as barriers experienced daily, and another group that seemed to be in processes of pedagogical innovation, considering that they intended to face daily challenges.

Four PE students and two teacher-coordinators also participated in the formation project. We guaranteed that those who did not wish to take part in the research would not have their participation in the formation hindered. After some clarifications, all participants received and signed the Informed Consent Form. Some inclusion criteria were established to participate in the research: 1) be a PE teacher (in training or graduate and working in the public education system); 2) participate in the continuing training. Everyone agreed to participate in the research.

Data production was materialized based on 19 field diaries written by the four students (due to logistics, academic and personal issues, the four students were not present in all meetings). These diaries (and memories) resulted from the constant discussions in specific meetings with coordinators and students. The diaries were done in each meeting and encompassed the description of events, testimonies, expressions, discussions, and the impressions of those responsible for doing them. We also had four text productions (about what motivated them to study PE and continue in the profession, as well as the presentation of a practice considered to be innovative) handed by the teachers (what showed the difficulty of finding time to produce, considering the endless work and personal demands). Another empirical element was the assessment reports of students and teachers about their experience in the formation.

We applied on the data the technique of Bardin’s content analysis based on Silva and Fossá (2015), encompassing three moments: 1) pre-analysis, 2) exploration of the material, and 3) treatment of results, inference, and interpretation. At first, the materials were read to give a general idea. At a second moment, the material was organized, and initial, intermediate, and final categories were created. After, at a third moment, data inference and interpretation were used based on the specialized literature. These analytical movements sought to strengthen the construction of collaborative networks and knowledge production about PE innovative practices in the schools of Manaus/AM.

This research followed the ethical research precepts with human beings and was submitted and approved by the evaluation n.º 5.797.889 of the Ethics and Research Committee at the Universidade Federal do Amazonas.

What can be learned with the collaborative educational spaces?

The knowledge built in the research-action allowed us to observe factors that affect the pedagogical practices reverberating in innovation or in teaching disinvestment. When the teachers started to reflect on their professional practice, they were allowed to identify daily problems to improve their pedagogical practice. Two categories were identified: 1) innovative practices and facing school culture; 2) obstacles that lead teachers to pedagogical disinvestment. We present them below.

Innovative practices and facing the school culture

Innovation has a conceptual heritage that emerged from the universe of production-management, giving it a technical contour (Almeida, 2017). We observed that many of the teachers’ perceptions about innovation were connected to this perspective because they reported that pedagogical innovation was always to give a “different” class (meaning a product) so that it was always something “not common,” and that called students’ attention. The class was taken as a production line always ready for innovative transformations for immediate consumption.

However, innovation is open when considering its concept and can adopt multiple forms and meanings associated with the context in which it is (Messina, 2001). Beginning from the search to broaden the understanding of pedagogical investment and innovative practices, teachers reflected on what an innovative class is. We see this movement in the records:

Opening the discussion of the base text for the meeting, teacher Natan reported that he identified himself with it, regarding just following the syllabus in a technical way. His narrative showed the problems of seeing oneself alone in school and that they were common everywhere. Corroborating this testimony, the teacher Norma said that an innovative class does not need to be something ‘amazing’ to innovate. That is, innovating would be giving a basic class, depending on the context. In this sense, the teacher commented that she still felt as a technician and that now she was already thinking on how to make a more successful class, as the text ‘opened her mind’ and, thus, realized that innovation is not something unreachable.

(Field diary, D3, July 27, 2022)

The diary record narrates the discussion of the first text discussed in the formation. In the dialogue, two teachers seemed to identify themselves with the topic in their daily pedagogical practices and reflected that, often, the technical perspective is present in the actions considered to be innovative. Innovation, in its technical sense, is centered in class management, with the need to always bring some “novelty.” However, the discussions allowed a broader understanding of what any pedagogical innovation would be when the practice is built from the teachers’ competence to commit themselves to giving a good class, developing criticism, considering the school context, widening the cultural repertoire, and the engine for students to, then, value PE (Almeida, 2017).

The formation also allowed the sharing of practices that teachers had been developing in their schools and considered successful. A teacher wrote about a practice she considered innovative:

Nowadays, I’m a PE teacher in the state full-time school ‘Banzeiro’, from Grade 1 to 5, where I coordinate a project of body practices aiming to promote general gymnastics, dance, and theater, as modalities that prioritize students’ corporal and personal satisfaction, helping in the process of developing basic motor abilities with a program of physical exercises for leisure, with no intention of competition but a work group, beating challenges and overcoming physical and social limits, transforming values in the life of children and teenagers. Besides body satisfaction, the group presents to the school community showing the results and incentivizing other children to participate. I consider this an innovative practice.

(Testimony written by the teacher Luíza)

The previous testimony indicates that an innovative practice also depends on the teacher’s commitment to dedicate time to coordinate a project, thus investing in the teaching practice. Furthermore, we can see the methodological diversification that engenders general gymnastics and leisure, so as to make students appropriate systematized corporal practices, as well as how they create cultural productions that culminate in presentations for the community (Almeida, 2017).

During a dialogue during training, in a moment of criticism towards how school games are organized, teachers reported other possible ways to implement the games in their schools:

Fernanda and Júlio also criticize the organization of school games. Fernanda says she was not satisfied with the event organization…Júlio argues that the games are too closed in comparison to the number of students; and cites the interclass games in which more students can directly or indirectly participate in the event. He gives an example of his experience, where he organized interclass games in the school where he worked, but he was not limited to the common formula of making this event. Thus, he comments that he tried to innovate by listening students’ opinions about what they wanted and how they wanted to participate, as athletes and as part of the organization. He concluded by saying that it was a good event in which all students participated, working on inclusion within that school. The teacher Cassandra said that, in her school, she also made a similar event and shared the roles so that all students could give their opinion and participate, in which she could share the roles based on what they wanted. ‘Each one does what they want,’ she concluded.

(Field diary, D1, July 06, 2022)

The previous report expresses some elements Almeida (2017) pointed out regarding pedagogical innovation. In this case, we see that teachers problematized the traditional practice of games and intentionally guided their transformation, often establishing an inclusive relationship with the students based on dialogue. The stereotyped models of the movement were extrapolated to introduce new practices to implement the games, broadening students’ access to the body culture of movement (not only as “athletes” but as actors of their own organization). A similar practice was built in a research-action reported by Oliveira, Martins, and Bracht (2015) when the traditional modus operandi of school games⁶ was deconstructed to become more inclusive – something that was considered innovative.

Other forms of innovation were observed, in this case with the inclusion of new contents:

Jeferson and Fernanda continued the discussion about the students’ limits to the teacher, she ended up saying that there is no limit. She talks about teachers’ creative idleness, using as an example her experiences in the classroom when she introduced lacrosse as an activity within the school context. In her speech, she says that she studied this sport before giving the content to the students, and sought ways to adapt such activities, which was an innovative and satisfying experience to her.

(Field diary, D1, July 06, 2022)

In the previous testimony, we noticed that the teacher surpassed the stereotyped models of movement when introducing an atypical new content suggested by the students, broadening their dimensions of the body culture of movement and involving them in decision-making (Almeida, 2017). This shows a quest to study the content proposed by the students and adapt it depending on the context, which brought personal/professional satisfaction, thus motivating the teacher.

Amidst the experiences narrated by the teachers, they also mentioned the battles faced in this pedagogical investment, which is characterized by attitudes of organization and guiding the education process seeking to reach positive results in the teaching-learning process (Souza et al., 2018).

From the students’ perspective, the reports pointed out that, while they learned with the teachers, they could observe the reflection in the processes of pedagogical innovation.

The formation proposal called attention to understanding the perspective of PE teachers working in K-12 education so that I could prepare myself to deal with these recurrent situations in the school environment... The search for motivation was necessary for self-criticism, as well as the understanding that innovation is not something extraordinary but something that makes a difference ... Through this, we highlighted the importance of teaching identity so that they can stress the activities seeking to build a network of pedagogical support

(Report written by the student Manoela)

The topics approached contributed to a view of what will happen after the undergraduate degree, in which teachers’ reports show us how much we need to invest in our formation, and how much we should seek recognition to change the view of others about PE.

(Report written by the student Humberto)

A remarkable point for me in this experience as a collaborating student was always this exchange of experiences in which I find myself in the position of an undergraduate seeking to work in the public system and can hear the testimonies about teachers’ current reality. It is like having a new academic subject that adds even more to my studies and prepares me better for what I intend to face in the future. The situations teachers report about the schools we don’t always experience in the university and they bring another viewpoint for us undergraduates and the opportunity of being able to think, together with the teachers, innovative solutions to the problems portrayed that we could be facing as teachers

(Report written by the student Aguinaldo)

The reports of students’ perceptions point towards a collective-collaborative work that foments teachers’ professional development. It is interesting to notice that, for them, it was a singular opportunity to experience the spaces of research-action as the formative space-time of knowledge that, often, cannot access the subjects of initial training. Thus, in a continuous movement of becoming a teacher, they observed the possibilities of conceiving innovative manners to solve problems from the school routine together with more experienced teachers. In this way, we observed that actions that assemble in-training teachers, school teachers, and university professors help to overcome the dichotomy between pre- and continuous training building together a process of life-long professional development (Marcelo, 2009).

In this process of becoming teachers, we have noticed that students started to perceive the problems that emerged from the professional practices, as highlighted in the report below:

Innovation was always a Strong point in the meetings. It is important to bring this agenda to teachers’ attention because, due to the full routine teachers have in Brazil, they end up joining a situation of pedagogical disinvestment.

(Written testimony by the student Nívia)

This narrative corroborates other dialogues registered in the formation. Through these testimonies, it was possible to perceive evidence that some of them could be starting a process of pedagogical disinvestment. Within this scenario, the reflections guide us towards a discussion in which school culture presented itself as one of the elements that can be determinant for the result of these practices:

Teachers alleged that they saw themselves in some part of the text. Cassandra started by saying that she identified herself in the part of the text in which the lack of materials in the school demotivates the PE teacher, claiming that in the school where she works, there are no courts, and she always has to adapt activities for the teachers to do. Afterward, the teacher Jeferson says that his school has an external area but there is a whole protocol that normally forbids them to leave for some reason. Continuing with this topic, teacher Júlio states that his school has a structure for the practice. However, there are no materials to work with some sports modalities or activities, hindering innovation, but he seeks to make his practical classes more dynamic, sometimes trying to innovate within the classroom.

(Field diary, D1, July 06, 2022)

Teacher Arnaldo talks about the bureaucracy in the school context, saying that he often does not have the school support. However, he states he has the support of students and parents, which motivates his practices. He also cites part of the text in which the lack of material demotivates teachers’ innovation, what is similar to his reality. On his turn, teacher Hebert claims he faces problems with being recognized by the teachers of the other subjects, as many see PE classes as a type of “recreation” with no pedagogical intentions of teaching.

(Field diary, D1, July 27, 2022)

In the previous testimonies, there is a criticism towards a series of elements, such as bureaucracy, lack of pedagogical support, lack of work conditions, and non-recognition– what might seem a reality experienced by many teachers in Brazil (Jacomini & Penna, 2016). These aspects were perceived as influencing teachers’ motivational aspects to give a good class. Faria and Bracht (2014) highlight that school culture can contribute, in the circumstances reported by teachers, to teachers’ abandonment but can also help face these difficulties imposed by the school routine in their pedagogical intervention, thus producing innovative practices.

Faced with adverse contexts, anonymous statements registered in the Google Form to evaluate the training show that teachers could “hope⁷”:

The exchange of information and experiences opens our minds to possible possibilities. Even though we know the system’s limitations, we see that some classmates could implement relevant feats, inspiring us to do it.

(Anonymous assessment 1)

I learned about concepts and practices that will be extremely valuable in my professional life.

(Anonymous assessment 2)

It was a period of excellence in which we could learn new things, increasing the wish to continue.

(Anonymous assessment 3)

The continuing training course was very good. I learned about investments and disinvestment in education, as well as the rich contributions through teachers’ reports.

(Anonymous assessment 4)

I learned to be more critical with my work, to seek new methodologies and ways to teach the content, and, in this type of training I have time to reflect on several aspects.

(Anonymous assessment 5)

We saw that continuous education was established in different shapes, allowing teachers to perceive they were not acritical reproducers of techniques. Shared reflection, collective, collaborative, and participative work established a new praxis epistemology for a critical-reflexive teacher action. The assessment reports and formation diaries show that teachers conceptually approximated/appropriated a reflexive base about innovation and pedagogical disinvestment in PE. This movement enabled qualitative leaps regarding the possibilities of implementing innovative practices in their work contexts. Furthermore, according to the assessment reports, it was possible to hope to move forward as protagonists of their professional development and invest in their pedagogical practice. The training gained contours beyond “updating knowledge” or “recycling” to become a space-time to build a reflection focused on the teacher as a researcher and the protagonist of his/her practice (Schön, 2000; Zeichner, 2008).

In the dialogues and reflections, we could see that the crossing between innovation and disinvestment was constant in continuing education, showing us that they were phenomena daily present in the professional work of each teacher. Therefore, we reach another category in which we will deal better with this issue of obstacles that can result in pedagogical disinvestment.

Obstacles that lead teachers toward pedagogical disinvestment

We observe elements in the teachers’ narratives that refer to the phenomenon of pedagogical disinvestment, considering that, in the context they are, there were crucial factors to potentialize and de-potentialize the innovative process (Faria et al., 2010). They report this in their reflections based on the second text worked in the training:

As cited in the text, teacher Débora says that the lack of materials demotivates the teacher. Teacher Carmen continues by exposing her personal experience in a classroom in which she had many problems with the lack of material and professional recognition. However, she always had attitudinal methods to seek such recognition. In her specific case, she asked the manager for dodgeball and futsal balls, and he answered: “What for if nobody uses them?’. The teacher sought recognition for her practice, and the principal started buying the materials she requested.

(Field diary, D1, July 27, 2022)

Based on the report above, we can perceive that the lack of materials is a factor that demotivates the teacher and, consequently, moves toward disinvestment. On the other hand, the testimony continues with another teacher with an innovative attitude, showing themselves to be willing and wishing for recognition, even when faced with the challenges imposed by school routine on their pedagogical practice (Almeida, 2017).

It is clear the fight for recognition that PE teachers (or teachers of subjects considered as “second class”) carry in their careers and life stories (Faria & Bracht, 2014). The limited expectation of school management regarding the teacher’s ability to teach PE is also shown because she needs to justify why she asked for the materials to implement her pedagogical activities, which can collaborate for the abandonment of teachers’ work (González et al., 2013).

Other narratives highlight the debates raised in training:

Vera comments that school culture hinders the elaboration of creative classes and that the issue of ‘more of the same’ are easier methods for such culture. According to the teacher’s reports, ‘the system tries to make the teacher just reproduce content’ when dealing with the questions she cannot deal with. ‘Sometimes the school does not want the teacher to do something different,’ she says, adding that they do not accept anything more than futsal and dodgeball. If there is something different, the students complain to the school management, and they call the teachers’ attention. ‘It is difficult to have a bureaucracy that helps the PE teacher, ‘ vents the teacher.

(Field diary, D1, August 17, 2022)

The testimony shows the teacher’s critical view regarding the limitations imposed on her autonomy and authority as a PE teacher. Moreover, it shows that the subject is seen by the school culture as a type of “appendix,” insinuating that it is only a simple pastime activity (“more of the same”). We observed that the management position does not value and even does not duly recognize the subject and the teacher, which seems to be a common characteristic of school culture concerning PE (Faria & Bracht, 2014). The related position is similar to the phenomenon observed by Pich, Schaeffer, and Carvalho (2013) and is characterized as a functional abandonment of teachers’ work. This phenomenon occurs when the school value values PE teachers’ actions as simple managers of students’ pastimes, hence stimulating disinvestment.

Another factor mentioned by the teachers in the continuous training was the lack of time to organize their classes. This factor is directly related to planning that, in its absence, becomes one of the main characteristics of disinvestment. This happens because the variety of contents specific to PE is not contemplated, corroborating the lack of coherent objectives with the social role of the subject related to the others in school (Souza et al., 2018). Let us read the testimonies below:

Vera expresses the need for the teacher to have more time for planning because being invested or disinvested is influenced by this. She highlights that, normally, teachers cannot give 100% in all the activities due to the lack of time. ‘We have to do a thousand things at the same time,’ she says.

(Field diary, D2, August 17, 2022)

Nevertheless, teachers complained about the Successful Practices (reports, experiences, projects, and ideas that seek improvements in the quality of Education considering the fulfillment of the targets established by the National, State, and Municipal Education Plan)proposed/demanded by SEDUC [Education Secretary]. SEDUC does not seem concerned with the practice itself but with ‘evidence’ or ‘facts’ about this practice (normally proved by sending photos). There is a lack of planning for this. Therefore, teachers Carmen and Débora believe that Successful Practices, in their perspectives, can be interesting; however, how SEDUC demands always collide with the short deadlines to develop the many activities, leading to a ‘rush’ and lack of planning. Hence, teachers end up doing the registers carelessly just to hand in the ‘task.’

(Field diary, D2, July 27, 2022)

The previous reports mention that the lack of planning is a factor that, when not organized, makes it difficult for the teacher to develop their pedagogical practices effectively. Afterward, the teachers criticized the planning demands imposed by SEDUC, which affected the development and organization of pedagogical practices. The time for planning is essential for teachers’ work because it allows moments for the teachers to establish themselves as researchers of their practices, in a process of action-reflection-action. Teachers get the responsibility of becoming protagonists and being researchers of their practices, mediating knowledge through reflection in and over action (Pimenta & Ghedin, 2008).

During their planning time, teachers can reinvent/re-elaborate their pedagogical practices considering innovative classes (Almeida, 2017). When duly organized, the planning time can allow teachers to participate in continuous training to reflect on their practice (Faria et al., 2010; Fensterseifer & Silva, 2011). In our case, we perceived how teachers’ dropouts and “disappearances” were connected to the lack of time and the difficulty of being released from their school, creating barriers to developing formative-reflexive actions.

With the third text approached in the continuous training, teachers raised some reflections about their teaching practices:

Some points were raised about the fact that the teacher in the text has a flexibility that is different from the reality of most teachers, however, they complimented and highlighted the author’s innovation points, such as the valuing of the area, attitudinal factors, and engagement, highlighting the importance of continuous education and a PE notebook.

(Field diary, D4, Sep.14, 2022)

Teacher Arnaldo says he ‘seeks to systematize sports practices with theory (health, ethics, moral, etc.).’ Teacher Carmélia says she ‘tries to move a bit from sports and seeks to implement games and play’. When questioned about how they are registering their classes, teacher Arnaldo reports he records all his information in a class plan format but highlights that, due to the demands, he had no time to do an actual register.

(Field Diary, D2, Sep.14, 2022)

In the previous testimonies, the teachers admired the work presented in the third text, and they could see the factors that compose the process of pedagogical investment, highlighting the importance of planning and content progression. However, they mentioned that the reality of the report differed from theirs. They also reported that they tried to follow a plan but could not continue it due to the demands imposed by the educational system. Once more, we see the elements of school culture materialized in the apparatus of the educational structure (official curriculum) that end up transforming teachers into managers of class time, as acritical technicians (Zeichner, 2008). This scenario expresses the neoliberal logic that standardizes teaching and foments a pedagogy of transmission and the banking deposit of knowledge that needs to be overcome (Freire, 2005).

Besides school culture and the lack of time for planning, teachers pointed out the difficulty of following students as another possible determinant for pedagogical disinvestment:

Teacher Carmen gives a testimony in which she says she started working in the modalities of childhood, elementary, middle, and high school. According to her, the process is easier when following a class since previous moments, as in the beginning of high school until the senior year. She also reports how it is a problem when she receives groups she did not follow because this interferes with her planning. She also says she seeks to solve such a problem by giving a review class to present the content. Teacher Arnaldo reaffirms what Carmen said and adds that he had an experience in which she taught for a senior class and had problems adapting the content to a new class, and only in the following years could he follow the classes from Grade 11 to Grade 12.

(Field Diary, D1, Sep.14, 2022)

The report problematizes teachers’ hardships in establishing content progression with students in the education phases. This might be related to school planning, in which little importance is given to the continuity of the teaching methodology through which PE teachers organize students’ progress. This phenomenon can also be related to the classes that had pedagogically disinvested teachers, which might have led to a learning gap. Hence, when these classes go to the next year with a teacher who seeks pedagogical investment, tension is created that can even result in the demotivation of the current teacher.

A problem that emerged from the elements reported in this topic is the ambiguous consequence that places teachers between investment and disinvestment, creating a sensation of anxiety (Almeida, 2017). Therefore, it is important to give teachers a voice so they understand the reasons why they might be turning into a “rolling ball” teacher or one that invests in their teaching (Santos et al., 2009).

Based on the innovation and pedagogical disinvestment studies, we understand that both phenomena do not emerge from a single determination and are easy to observe. They are complex phenomena that permeate life stories, the type of pre- and continuous training, school culture, teachers’ attitudinal factors, and their clearness regarding the role and specificity of physical education in school (Souza et al., 2018). Therefore, the solutions should be sought contextually, including offering formative spaces-times based on collaborative work, as seen in the developed research-action. Despite the obstacles that can lead teachers to disinvestment, it is an ethical-political duty to invest in partnership actions to help these teachers to “hope” and to seek new ways for their pedagogical practices.

Final remarks

How are PE teachers producing pedagogical practices in their work contexts? Based on a collective-collaborative investigation, we identified that participant teachers could broaden their theoretical-conceptual repertoire about the innovation processes and pedagogical disinvestment. Thus, they reported having developed pedagogical actions considered innovative in their practice contexts, including new content, the contextualization of knowledge, and the implementation of more participative, inclusive, and critical classes. They were also motivated to continue investing in their pedagogical practices, recognizing PE objectives and social role. However, at the same time, they highlighted barriers, such as lack of recognition; lack of structure and materials; a school culture that undervalues the subject and hinders time for planning; and the difficulty to progress in contents.

Continuing training, based on research-action, was fruitful for the participants’ professional development, establishing spaces-times of exchange and sharing between in-training teachers, at the system and in the university. Hence, the data built point toward constructing a new epistemology of praxis, guided in the professional development of reflexive teachers and researchers of their practices. In other words, they lead to a deep reflection in the sense of improving teachers’ thoughts as professionals who, investigating their own practices, produce pedagogical knowledge in the school daily routine. The creation of powerful networks stood out, and they should be kept to hope and move forward. Therefore, many teachers could broaden a restricted and technical view of pedagogical innovation to conceive it within the endless possibilities beyond a merely administrative practice of the classroom as a product. Recognizing the barriers that can halt the development of good practices allowed participants to question and point out other ways to overcome them.

Finally, the formation gave voice to the teachers and led them to reflect their practices, enabling them to share their knowledge and practices. However, in the next steps (and other investigations), participants’ formative trajectories should be deepened to broaden the understanding of their relationships with the innovation processes and pedagogical disinvestment. As the research-action established was connected to the first steps of the first cycle, the continuous training should continue. Therefore, there is a need to establish partnerships between schools and universities to strengthen training policies, including those that guarantee that teachers have the opportunity to be released during their work hours to participate in training moments. Hence, we believe we can reach new heights for a more critical, collaborative, and emancipating education focused on strengthening the teaching identities of PE teachers in Amazonas.

• 1
  There are several concepts in the PE field about its possible object of study/intervention: corporal/body culture, body culture of movement, movement culture, human motricity, etc. Here, we use the concept of body culture of movement, as proposed by Bracht (2014), to refer to the manifestations of body practices historically built as cultural and symbolic elements pedagogically mediated by PE.
• 2
  This statement cannot be taken as a cause-and-effect practice, as the configurations of social relationships can compose other formats. For example, Borges (2019) highlighted that a school culture that recognizes the results from school tournaments as positive will reinforce traditional practices, hindering the development of innovative practices, as we have shown with Almeida (2017) at the beginning of this topic.
• 3
  The investment should be fomented by the states and municipalities with Federal support to plan and implement public policies that encompass better salaries, adequate work conditions, and access to continuous education. This is a sine qua non condition for a teaching career befitting the political and social valuing of teachers (Jacomini & Penna, 2016).
• 4
  We refer to the partnership school-university as a policy of horizontal formation, when the education systems meet the university to produce knowledge, improve teachers’ actions, and critically transform society.
• 5
  This partnership was an initiative of the education system, though there was no formal implementation of a teachers’ training policy regarding the action developed. This approximation aimed to list the possibilities from the implemented experience and establish a connection between the university and the Education Secretary.
• 6
  The central displacement was from playing “against” to playing “with” the other, promoting health in social relationships.
• 7
  In Portuguese, Paulo Freire (1992) makes a wordplay with the word esperança [hope] as being a verb (ter esperança – to have hope) instead of esperar [to wait], in the sense of waiting for something to happen. Instead of waiting for better days, for him, to hope means an action and attitude to create together other ways of being in the world.

• Support and Funding:
  Fundação Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
  Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (FAPEAM)

References

• Almeida, F. Q. (2017). Educação Física escolar e práticas inovadoras: uma revisão. Corpoconsciência, 21(3), 7-16.
• Borges, R. M. (2019). Estudar com professores: a formação continuada e o processo de mudança de concepção de ensino na educação física escolar. CRV.
• Bracht, V. (2014). Educação Física & ciência: cenas de um casamento infeliz (4a ed.). Unijuí.
• Bracht, V., Almeida, U. R., & Wenetz, I. (2018). A Educação Física escolar na América do Sul: entre a inovação e o abandono/desinvestimento pedagógico. CRV.
• Bracht, V., Caparroz, F. E., Della Fonte, S. S., Frade, J. C., Paiva, F., & Pires, R. (2014). Pesquisa em ação: Educação Física na escola (3a ed.). Unijuí.
• Elliott, J. (2000). El cambio educativo desde la investigación-acción (3a ed.). Ediciones Morata.
• Faria, B. A., & Bracht, V. (2014). Cultura escolar, reconhecimento e Educação Física. Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte, 36(2, supl.), S310-S323.
• Faria, B. A., Machado, T. S., & Bracht, V. (2012). A inovação e o desinvestimento pedagógico na Educação Física escolar: uma leitura a partir da teoria do reconhecimento social. Motriz, 18(1), 120-129.
• Faria, B. A., Bracht, V., Machado, T. S., Moraes, C. E. A., Almeida, U. R., & Almeida, F. Q. (2010). Inovação pedagógica na Educação Física: o que aprender com práticas bem sucedidas. Ágora para la EF y el Deporte, 12(1), 11-28.
• Fensterseifer, P. E., & Silva, M. A. (2011). Ensaiando o “novo” em Educação Física escolar: a perspectiva de seus atores. Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte, 33(1), 119-134.
• Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogia da esperança: um reencontro com a pedagogia do oprimido. Paz e Terra.
• Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogia do oprimido. Paz e Terra.
• Furtado, R. S. (2020). Práticas corporais e Educação Física escolar: sentidos e finalidades. Corpoconsciência, 24(3), 156-167.
• Furtado, R. S., & Borges, C. N. F. (2020). Educação Física escolar, legitimidade e escolarização. Humanidades & Inovação, 7(10), 24-38.
• González, F. J., & Fensterseifer, P. E. (2009). Entre o “não mais” e o “ainda não”: pensando saídas do não-lugar da EF escolar I. Cadernos de Formação RBCE, 1(1), 9-24.
• González, F. J., Fensterseifer, P. E., Ristow, R. W., & Glitz, A. P. (2013). O abandono do trabalho docente em aulas de educação física: a invisibilidade do conhecimento disciplinar. Educación Física y Ciencia, 15(2), 1-16.
• Jacomini, M. A., & Penna, M. G. O. (2016). Carreira docente e valorização do magistério: condições de trabalho e desenvolvimento profissional. Pro-Posições, 27(2), 177-202. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-6248-2015-0022
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-6248-2015-0022
• Marcelo, C. (2009). Desenvolvimento profissional docente: passado e futuro. Sísifo. Revista de Ciências da Educação, 8, 7-22.
• Messina, G. (2001). Mudança e renovação educacional: notas para reflexão. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 114, 225-233.
• Oliveira, V. J. M., Martins, I. R., & Bracht, V. (2015). Projetos e práticas em educação para a saúde na Educação Física escolar: possibilidades! Revista da Educação Física/UEM, 26(2), 243-255.
• Pich, S., Schaeffer, P. A., & Carvalho, L. P. (2013). O caráter funcional do abandono do trabalho docente na Educação Física na dinâmica da cultura escolar. Educação, 38(3), 631-640.
• Pimenta, S. G., & Ghedin E. (2008). Professor reflexivo no Brasil: gênese e crítica de um conceito Cortez.
• Sagredo, A. S. G., & Almeida, U. R. (2021). O trato didático-pedagógico da saúde nas aulas de Educação Física: uma experiência no ensino fundamental II. Cadernos de Formação RBCE, 12(2), 25-43.
• Santos, C. A. F. (2021). Inovação pedagógica e o currículo de Educação Física: percepções de docentes da Escola de Aplicação da UFPA [Dissertação de Mestrado], Universidade Federal do Pará.
• Santos, N. Z., Bracht, V., & Almeida, F. Q. (2009). Vida de professores de Educação Física: o pessoal e o profissional no exercício da docência. Movimento, 15(2), 141-165.
• Schön, D. A. (2000). Educando o profissional reflexivo: um novo design para o ensino e a aprendizagem Artmed.
• Silva, A. H., & Fossá, M. I. T. (2015). Análise de conteúdo: exemplo de aplicação da técnica para análise de dados qualitativos. Qualitas Revista Eletrônica, 17(1), 1-14.
• Souza, S. P., Nascimento, P. R., & Fensterseifer, P. E. (2018). Atuação docente em Educação Física escolar: entre investimento e desinvestimento pedagógico. Motrivivência, 30(54), 143-159.
• Thiollent, M. (1985). Metodologia da pesquisa-ação. Cortez/Autores Associados.
• Zeichner, K. M. (2008). Uma análise crítica sobre a “reflexão” como conceito estruturante na formação docente. Educação & Sociedade, 29(103), 535-554.

Edited by

• Responsible editors:
  Associate Editor: Alexandre Fernandez Vaz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4194-3876
  Editor-in-Chief: Antônio Carlos Rodrigues de Amorim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0323-9207

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Nov 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  01 Apr 2023
• Reviewed
  03 Jan 2024
• Accepted
  01 June 2024