ÉVALUATION DE LA QUALITÉ DES JEUX DANS L’ÉDUCATION PRÉSCOLAIRE

Ce texte concerne une enquête qualitative sur l’évaluation des jeux dans un établissement d’éducation préscolaire à Curitiba. Une démarche d’évaluation interne, participative et formative a été proposée au corps enseignant, à la coordination, à la direction et au conseil pédagogique d’un établissement d’éducation préscolaire destiné aux enfants de 4 mois à 6 ans. La construction ad hoc d’un instrument s’est inscrite dans le cadre de ce processus, afin de soutenir la réflexion et la discussion du groupe et d’encourager une “participation engagée”. Les résultats de cette enquête ont mis en évidence l’élargissement de la prise de conscience des perspectives individuelles et collectives concernant le jeu. La construction collective de cet instrument à partir d’un processus de recherche a permis d’approfondir les concepts liés au thème et de développer un processus singulier de formation continue.

ÉDUCATION DE LA PETITE ENFANCE; JEU; QUALITÉ; ÉVALUATION

Authorship

Ângela Scalabrin Coutinho

Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba (PR), Brazil; angelamscoutinho@gmail.comUniversidade Federal do ParanáBrazilCuritiba, PR, Brazil Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba (PR), Brazil; angelamscoutinho@gmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3709-8561

Catarina Moro

Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba (PR), Brazil; moro.catarina@gmail.comUniversidade Federal do ParanáBrazilCuritiba, PR, Brazil Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba (PR), Brazil; moro.catarina@gmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3109-5885

Daniele Marques Vieira

Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba (PR), Brazil; danielemarquesvieira@gmail.comUniversidade Federal do ParanáBrazilCuritiba, PR, Brazil Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba (PR), Brazil; danielemarquesvieira@gmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6866-7053

TRANSLATED BY Julián Bargueño^IV

IV
Freelancer; julianbarg@yahoo.com

NOTE:

The authors equally participated in the elaboration and revision of the article.

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figures | Tables

Figures (1)
Tables (3)

Thumbnail

FIGURE 1
CONCEPTUAL MAP ON EARLY CHILDHOOD PLAY

Thumbnail

TABLE 1
STEPS OF THE METHODOLOGICAL PATH OF CONTEXT EVALUATION

Thumbnail

TABLE 2
SPACE DIMENSION, PART OF THE PLAY QUALITY EVALUATION INSTRUMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, FIRST VERSION

Thumbnail

TABLE 3
SPACE DIMENSION, PART OF THE PLAY QUALITY EVALUATION INSTRUMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, FINAL VERSION

FIGURE 1 CONCEPTUAL MAP ON EARLY CHILDHOOD PLAY

Source: Prepared from data provided by the early childhood institution.

TABLE 1 STEPS OF THE METHODOLOGICAL PATH OF CONTEXT EVALUATION

PHASES	ACTIONS
I	The collective or one of the participants of a given educational institution or network manifest themselves in the search to effect an evaluative contextual path. It is negotiated who will participate (actively) in the work group, which depending on the choices may also consist of family members, technical and political managers, and the professional team of the educational context to be evaluated. The working group must have a maximum of 20 participants. With a higher number, the best option is to work in parallel with more than one group.
II	The group or working groups set up specify and negotiate the goals as well as the relevant aspects in the evaluation path. The goal may be to evaluate the educational institution as a whole in order to reflect on “what is done and why it is done”, as well as to evaluate elements or aspects, part of the educational offer that is being carried out⁷ 7 Bondioli and Savio (2015, p. 30) state that: “In any case, the task always has to do with reflecting on the educational identity of the institution under examination, for example, choosing to evaluate the spaces for the play of the educational context itself means reflecting on its quality in relation to the pedagogical ideas of the participants and, therefore, definitely means reflecting on the individual and group educational identities”. [In the original: “Seja como for, a tarefa tem sempre a ver com a reflexão sobre a identidade educativa da instituição em exame, por exemplo, a escolha de avaliar os espaços para a brincadeira do próprio contexto educativo significa refletir sobre sua qualidade em relação às ideias pedagógicas dos participantes e, portanto, definitivamente, significa refletir sobre as identidades educativas individuais e do próprio grupo”.] in this institution. This choice is open and can be renegotiated along the way, in order to better reflect on the educational identity of that reality, looking for improvement projects.
III	The group identifies, negotiates, (re)constructs the evaluation instrument to be used to collect information about the reality/aspect to be evaluated. It is worth considering as a constitutive part of this stage the critical analysis of the instrument. Each participant of the evaluation process will explain their agreements and disagreements with the indicative of the educational quality proposed by the chosen instrument.
PHASES	ACTIONS
IV	Realization of the evaluation itself, through the observation of the educational routine using the chosen instrument, as well as making use of other data collection strategies - consultation of documents, interviews and others. This step is done individually. The time will be common for each participant, for example one week, to observe reality compared to what is described in the instrument, assigning the quality criteria or describing the quality found and assigning the corresponding scores.
V	Reflection stage on the records and individual evaluation data, prepared and given back to the group by the mediator, with particular attention to aspects that emerge as “strengths” or “weaknesses”, and the eventual evaluation differences, even negotiating a profile, at least in part, shared, of the educational identity of the institution itself.
VI	Negotiation and decision making about the implementation of an improvement project, based on the discussion of data collected by the group.
VII	As a final (even partial) conclusion of the process, it is important to evaluate the evaluative path taken. This action reaffirms the formative potentiality of the whole process.

Source: Prepared by the authors based on Bondioli and Savio (2015BONDIOLI, Anna; SAVIO, Donatella. Elaborar indicadores de qualidade educativa das instituições de educação infantil: uma pesquisa compartilhada entre Itália e Brasil. In: SOUZA, Gizele de; MORO, Catarina; COUTINHO, Ângela Scalabrin (org.). Formação da rede em educação infantil: avaliação de contexto. Curitiba: Appris, 2015. p. 21-49.) and Coutinho, Moro and Souza (2015SOUZA, Gizele; MORO, Catarina; COUTINHO, Ângela Scalabrin. Formação da rede em educação infantil: avaliação de contexto. Curitiba: Appris, 2015.).

TABLE 2 SPACE DIMENSION, PART OF THE PLAY QUALITY EVALUATION INSTRUMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, FIRST VERSION

DIMENSION 3: SPACE

FIRST VERSION

3.1 Does space provide enchantment and curiosity?

3.2 Does space organization invite play?

3.3 Are different spatial configurations guaranteed for repertoire expansion?

3.4 Does space favor the formation of bonds and interactions (between pairs; with objects; with adults)?

3.5 Are spaces delimited to favor play (between pairs; with objects; with adults)? How?

3.6 Can children access materials in space independently?

3.7 Does space cause body challenge games?

3.8 In space are there environments or objects that offer continuity of play?

3.9 What contexts or spaces do we provide for children to experience different social roles?

3.10 What plays are recurring? Internal spaces; External spaces; Others:

Source: Instrument for the Evaluation of Play Quality in Early Childhood Education, elaborated by the staff of the early childhood institution.

TABLE 3 SPACE DIMENSION, PART OF THE PLAY QUALITY EVALUATION INSTRUMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, FINAL VERSION

Dimension 3: Space

Final version

3.1 Does space provide enchantment and curiosity? How?

3.2 Does space organization invite play? How?

3.3 Are different spatial configurations guaranteed for the experience of which repertoires?

3.4 Does space favor the formation of bonds and interactions? How? Describe situations.
- between pairs
- with objects
- with adults

3.5 Are spaces delimited to favor play? How?
- between pairs
- with objects
- with adults
- How is the space delimited?
- What plays does it favor?

3.6 Can children access materials in space independently? How?

3.7 Does space cause body challenge games? How?

3.8 In space, are there environments or objects that refer to the continuity of play?

3.9 What contexts or spaces do we provide for children to experience different social roles? Unconventional or diversified?

3.10 What plays are recurring?
- Indoor Spaces
- Outdoor Spaces

3.11 Do children organize the space for play? How?

Source: Instrument for the Evaluation of Play Quality in Early Childhood Education, elaborated by the staff of the early childhood institution.

How to cite

copy

Fundação Carlos Chagas Av. Prof. Francisco Morato, 1565, 05513-900 São Paulo SP Brasil, Tel.: +55 11 3723-3000 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: cadpesq@fcc.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês
Português

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English
Português

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

ÉVALUATION DE LA QUALITÉ DES JEUX DANS L’ÉDUCATION PRÉSCOLAIRE

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] TRANSLATED BY Julián Bargueño^IV