Processos formativos no contexto das disciplinas escolares: identidades e diferenças na produção de sentidos sobre o papel da escrita nas aulas de História.

Abstract

The present master's research is associated with the research line “Formative processes, educational practices, differences” of the Graduate Program in Education of the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (PPGEdu/UFMS). Our analyses have pointed out that the strong presence of teaching practices inspired by the so-called “traditional conception of History teaching”, whose central qualities are memory, content, linearity and the reaffirmation of a Eurocentric perspective, seems to us to be reinforced by the conception in which the written language is conceived as a technique and, therefore, seen as a fundamental support for learning focused on memorization. Based on this assumption, this research considers that both writing and the teaching of History are contextualized and political practices, and writing, essentially, is a political practice. In this context, there is no writing thought of in the singular, but several ways of expressing oneself within a society of written culture (Santos, 2024). From the theoretical-methodological point of view, the research is based on the principles of qualitative research in interpretative and ethnographic bias, with the objective of analyzing the meanings that teachers attribute to the role of writing in History classes, considering, in addition, the theme of identities, differences, and racial relations in school formative processes. To analyze the data produced, references from Cultural Studies, post-modernity and post-colonialism are articulated with the critical and post-critical perspectives in Education and History Teaching, relating the discussions from studies on race relations. The recurrence of some signifiers in the discourse of other teachers from other school institutions evidences the existence of networks of meanings through which certain ways of teaching History are reproduced and reinvented. Thus, it is not possible to state with certainty the reasons for certain choices of the teachers, however, based on the indiciary paradigm of Ginzburg (1989), we can raise hypotheses and observe clues, marks and traces left in the subjects speeches, actions and gestures. These evidences, articulated with the networks of meanings (Furlan, 2004) and the idea of meanings (Hall, 2016), allow us to understand that what is at stake is not only the “teaching of History”, but the way in which this teaching is articulated with certain education projects and processes of production of subjectivities marked by power relations, silencing and erasure.