Discursos curriculares de geografia em análise
Carregando...
Data
2018-02-27
Autores
Carvalho, Thamiris Slanzon de [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Esta pesquisa se vale de dois documentos oficiais referentes ao ensino de Geografia, um estadual e outro federal, respectivamente, a Proposta Curricular para o Ensino de Geografia - 1° Grau e os Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais: Geografia (Terceiro e Quarto Ciclos do Ensino Fundamental), aqui designados Proposta da CENP e PCN. Valendo-se do aporte teórico pós-estruturalista, este estudo teve como objetivo analisar os discursos curriculares de Geografia hegemonizados na Proposta da CENP e nos PCN. Para tanto, e reconhecendo que tais documentos se mostram sobremaneira díspares, investigou-se o contexto histórico-social em que foram produzidos, os atores sociais participantes e a perspectiva teórico-metodológica da ciência geográfica utilizada, sendo estas as categorias analíticas empregadas. O estudo na Proposta da CENP e nos PCN justifica-se por se tratarem de documentos pouco pesquisados na atualidade, assim, retomar o debate e colocá-los em evidência é reconhecer sua importância histórica e social. A Proposta da CENP e os PCN são tratados como currículos, os quais, por sua vez, são compreendidos como discursos. Ancorando-se no pós-estruturalismo, currículo é discurso hegemonizado, temporariamente, sendo passível de transformação e ressignificação, visto que é constituído pela linguagem, e esta retrata a realidade, sendo dinâmica e não linear. Desse modo, o discurso é sempre provisório e inacabado, por isso é inconcebível pensar a Proposta da CENP e os PCN desvinculados do momento histórico em que foram elaborados. Eles são o discurso hegemonizado em um dado período. A Proposta da CENP hegemonizou o materialismo histórico e a dialética, ao passo que os PCN fixaram uma pluralidade teórico-metodológica. Em suma, não se pode elencar qual desses currículos é mais verdadeiro ou representador da realidade. Ambos representaram a realidade em que estavam inseridos, pois os significados nunca são fixos, mas constantemente construídos. Em vista disso, não é possível julgar qual foi o mais importante, tampouco considerar apenas um dos currículos como detentor de saberes universais absolutos.
This research uses two official documents from Geography‟s area, one of them state and the other federal which are respectively Curricular Proposal for the Teaching of Geography - 1st Degree and National Curricular Parameters: Geography (Third and Fourth Cycles of Elementary Education), called here CENP‟s Proposal and PCN. Using the theoretical contributions of the post-structuralist perspective, the goal was analyze Geography‟s curricular discourses which were hegemoniac in CENP‟s Proposal and in the PCN. So that, and recognizing that these documents seem to be too different from each other, the social-historical context which they belong was analyzed, as well as the social agents involved and the theoretical-methodological perspective used by Geographic Science. These elements, mentioned before, constitute the analytical categories used. CENP‟s Proposal and the PCN were chosen as object of analysis in this research because they are not frequently researched nowadays, so recover the discussion as well put them in evidence show their social and historical concernment. These documents are understood here as discourse, and using the post-structuralist perspective it‟s possible to say that curriculum is a discourse which was hegemoniac momentarily, which means it become able to be transformed and get other meanings, once discourse is constituted by the language and it represents the reality, dynamically. This way, discourse is always temporary and unclosed, so it‟s unthinkable to think CENP‟s Proposal and the PCN disassociated from the historical context they belong. They are the hegemoniac discourse in a specific moment. CENP‟s Proposal hegemoniac the historical materialism and the dialectic, while the PCN determined a theoretical-methodological‟s pluralism. So, it‟s impossible to determine which of these curriculums are more true or which of them represent better the reality. Both of them represent the reality they belong because they are not stable, they are built constantly. Therefore, it‟s not possible to say which of them is more important neither consider one of them the only document with total knowledge.
This research uses two official documents from Geography‟s area, one of them state and the other federal which are respectively Curricular Proposal for the Teaching of Geography - 1st Degree and National Curricular Parameters: Geography (Third and Fourth Cycles of Elementary Education), called here CENP‟s Proposal and PCN. Using the theoretical contributions of the post-structuralist perspective, the goal was analyze Geography‟s curricular discourses which were hegemoniac in CENP‟s Proposal and in the PCN. So that, and recognizing that these documents seem to be too different from each other, the social-historical context which they belong was analyzed, as well as the social agents involved and the theoretical-methodological perspective used by Geographic Science. These elements, mentioned before, constitute the analytical categories used. CENP‟s Proposal and the PCN were chosen as object of analysis in this research because they are not frequently researched nowadays, so recover the discussion as well put them in evidence show their social and historical concernment. These documents are understood here as discourse, and using the post-structuralist perspective it‟s possible to say that curriculum is a discourse which was hegemoniac momentarily, which means it become able to be transformed and get other meanings, once discourse is constituted by the language and it represents the reality, dynamically. This way, discourse is always temporary and unclosed, so it‟s unthinkable to think CENP‟s Proposal and the PCN disassociated from the historical context they belong. They are the hegemoniac discourse in a specific moment. CENP‟s Proposal hegemoniac the historical materialism and the dialectic, while the PCN determined a theoretical-methodological‟s pluralism. So, it‟s impossible to determine which of these curriculums are more true or which of them represent better the reality. Both of them represent the reality they belong because they are not stable, they are built constantly. Therefore, it‟s not possible to say which of them is more important neither consider one of them the only document with total knowledge.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Currículos, Discursos, Geografia, PCN, Proposta da CENP, Curriculums, Discourses, Geography, CENP’s proposal