Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2021 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Gomes, Maria Suely Ferreira
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Pietrafesa, José Paulo
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Pietrafesa, José Paulo,
Queiroz, João Batista Pereira de,
Sousa, Romier da Paixão,
Resende, Anita Cristina Azevedo,
Alves, Amone Inácia |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal de Goiás
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-graduação em Educação (FE)
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Educação - FE (RG)
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tede/handle/tede/11643
|
Resumo: |
Rural education in the Southeast region of Pará has advanced significantly. In this process, the Agriculture integrated with High School vocational course, through pedagogical alternation, has been a great challenge. This study examined the advances in the training of young rural workers after the implementation of the Federal Institute of Pará – Rural Campus in Marabá (IFPA-CRMB). The study aimed to understand the process of education for these young people and its implications for the construction and “development” of rural territory in the Southeast of the state of Pará. The qualitative research was based on historical materialism, evidencing tensions and contradictions, considering the historical time. It was developed through interviews, using a survey and semi-structured scripts. The research participants were graduates of the technical Agriculture Integrated with High School vocational course (classes of 2009, 2014 and 2015), teachers, managers and leaders of social movements in the countryside. It was also based on the analysis of documents such as the Political-Pedagogical Project of the Rural Campus of Marabá and the Political-Pedagogical Project of the vocational course, as well as photographic records. Some categories that permeate the genesis of rural education and the process of construction of education from the perspective of social transformation were revisited, such as: peasantry, social movements, rural youth. The research revealed some advances and challenges: a) the initial formation of the IFPA-CRMB, based on the Rural Family School proposal, underwent several changes, mainly due to the institutional bureaucracy that caused the removal of social movements from practical activities and its insertion in the political-pedagogical coordination of the course, in addition to the limits and challenges of the dynamics of the Board of Directors; b) some obstacles hindered and are hindering the advancement of the pedagogical proposal, such as the lack of leveling with respect to concepts such as the principles of agroecology, work and research, in addition to pedagogical alternation, especially with regard to Community Time; c) not separating teaching-research-extension has been a challenge for the “development” of actions within land reform settlements and rural communities; d) in general, many positive experiences have been and continue to be carried out by IFPA-CRMB, either by the Teaching, Research and Extension Unit (UNIEPEs), or by the communities; e) the training managed to meet the expectations of the graduates; f) the integration of the areas of knowledge was paramount for achieving the results of each cycle, and the connection of the subjects with the land and the work was necessary to carry out research and experiments; g) the training course encouraged conversations with families in the territories and monitoring through unions, associations and/or cooperatives; h) Finally, the participants stated that the initiative still needs to bring the institution closer to rural territories and their populations, promoting teaching, research and extension in land reform encampments and settlements. Considering all the changes to the original proposal based on the Rural Family School, the participants’ statements are in line with the importance of the Campus for the Southeast region of Pará, and the training, without disregarding limits and challenges, contributed to the connection of graduates with the land and to the “development” of rural territories. |
