SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.45The pedagogy course and the universitarization of teaching in Brazil: from the disputes over teachers’ education to its deprofessionalisationWhat is behind higher-education permanence? author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

Share


Educação e Pesquisa

Print version ISSN 1517-9702On-line version ISSN 1678-4634

Educ. Pesqui. vol.45  São Paulo  2019  Epub May 09, 2019

https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634201945190102 

SEÇÃO: ARTICLES

Scene understanding: interpretative possibility of (self-)training narratives of former Pibid scholarship holders*

Lourdes Maria Bragagnolo Frison1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6671-5808

Maria Helena Menna Barreto Abrahão1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1278-4098

1- Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Contatos: frisonlourdes@gmail.com; abrahaomhmb@gmail.com.


Abstract

This study aims to use Scene Understanding as an interpretative possibility in the process of analyzing (self-)training narratives of former scholarship holders of the Institutional Scholarship Program of Initiation to Teaching (Pibid). The text states, through this methodology, that narratives are understood as a recursive process, in which they are dialogically articulated between the speaker and the listener. The narratives analyzed in this study were written by 20 students, participants of the Pibid from a federal university in the south of Brazil, between 2010 and 2012. These narratives were later analyzed in relation to Scene Understanding, and three scenes were produced. Scene 1 gathered narrators and researchers in listening that evokes the given word; scene 2 referred to multiple daily facts and experiences of the narrators; and scene 3 highlighted experiences and situations repressed or forgotten in the narrative process. These scenes configure biographical and narrative times and spaces and constitute a systemic group, in which the sense of the experienced/narrated fact is understood in relation to the spaces/times that concern it. The text concludes that revisiting the training trajectories of former students helped clarify the reservoir of images recorded by them, providing a meaning and understanding of their choices and motivations in the construction of professional identities.

Key words: Scene understanding; (Self-)training narratives in teaching; Former Pibid scholarship holders

Resumo

Este artigo tem como escopo evidenciar a compreensão cênica como possibilidade interpretativa no processo de análise das narrativas de (auto)formação de ex-bolsistas do Programa Institucional de Bolsas de Iniciação à Docência (Pibid). O texto afirma, por meio dessa metodologia, que as narrativas são entendidas como um processo recursivo, no qual estão dialogicamente articuladas entre quem fala e quem as ouve. As narrativas em foco foram escritas por 20 alunas em formação, participantes do Pibid em uma universidade federal do sul do Brasil, no período de 2010 a 2012. Essas narrativas foram posteriormente analisadas à luz da compreensão cênica e delas emergiram três cenas. A cena 1 reuniu narradoras e pesquisadoras na escuta que suscita a palavra dada; a cena 2 referiu-se a múltiplos fatos e vivências da vida cotidiana das narradoras; e a cena 3 salientou vivências e situações reprimidas ou esquecidas no processo narrativo. O conjunto das cenas configura tempos e espaços biográfico-narrativos e constitui-se como um conjunto sistêmico, em que o sentido do vivenciado/narrado é compreendido em conformação com espaços/tempos que lhe dizem respeito. O texto conclui que revisitar as trajetórias formativas das ex-estudantes permitiu clarificar o reservatório de imagens registradas por elas, fornecendo sentido e significado para a compreensão de suas escolhas e motivações na construção de identidades profissionais.

Palavras-Chave: Compreensão cênica; Narrativas de (auto)formação na docência; Ex-pibidianas

This article discusses a study the authors have conducted with narratives of (self-)training of former scholarship holders of the Institutional Scholarship Program of Initiation to Teaching (Pibid) interpreted in relation to Scene Understanding (MARINAS, 2007; SANTAMARINA; MARINAS, 1994), an (auto)biographical research methodology for data production and analysis which has been used in the postgraduate program in education of a federal university in the south region of Brazil.

While developing this text, the authors presented the theoretical-methodological method analysis of the narratives written in reports of (self-)training by former PiBid scholarship holders, where they reproduce their (self-)training efforts, revealing how they added values and competences to their own identity construction, through training in both periods – initial and continuing education. Working with Scene Understanding associated with the theory of (auto)biographical research, especially with (self-)training narratives, reinforces our understanding, from previous studies, that one’s training becomes aware of one’s own experience as, when narrating it in a process of this nature, the subject makes it reflexively, re-signifying and transforming these experiences into training experiences, which are important for the recognition of one’s cognitive and emotional abilities (BERTAUX, 2010; BOLIVAR, 2012, 2016).

Developing a report of (self-)training is an exercise that demands reflexive efforts and allows the people involved in this practice to closely observe their reservoir of images, providing a meaning and understanding of their choices and motivations (NÓVOA, 1992; NÓVOA; FINGER, 2010; JOSSO, 2002; PINEAU, 2010). This way, the experiences reflected make up the individual and social scenario where people internalize, in their own manner, the events experienced, which helps strengthen their training process, finding paths that allowed them to develop strategies and invest in their learning.

In the process of (self-)training, autobiographical narratives reveal an “active search for human desires and achievements, encouraging potentialities. The art of narrating one’s own story is linked with an inner search and it is closely related to the space/time dimensions where subjects are when narrating their experiences” (ABRAHÃO, 2013, p. 9). Self-writing is a tool through which people reflect about their trajectories and experiences built in multiple contexts: family, school, personal and professional environments.

The methodology used in this study was Scene Understanding, an operational type of analysis (MARINAS, 2007; SANTAMARINA; MARINAS, 1994), which allowed a more organic construction of the narratives analyzed in this study, also by the researchers, considering the possibilities offered by the adopted methodology of analysis. This study proposed to analyze 20 training narratives of former PiBid scholarship holders from a federal university in the south region of Brazil, from 2010 to 2012. The narratives, written in reports of (self-)training for two years, were later published in the book Diálogo entre formação inicial e continuada através da escrita e autoformação (Dialogue between initial and continuing training through writing and self-training – free translation) (FRISON; PORTO, 2013). The book preface emphasizes that (auto)biographical narratives enrich the study, as they are powerful reports produced by a group of students who wish to be teachers and who are preparing to practice the profession. The desire to become teachers is seen in each sentence through the intention of the words in the text, which end up constituting the “memory of this group, of these students, supervisors and teachers coordinating the project that are dedicated to producing a process (self-)training, but who also learn in the collective what being an education professional is like” (ABRAHÃO, 2013, p. 10).

The narratives highlight facts that happened in the two-year period of this study and which portray the course of each former scholarship holder, individually, in the small group and in meetings with all other groups of the university. In this sense, “(auto)biographies allow the students to remember facts that marked their life, connected in a network of other facts that defined the course of this working group” (ABRAHÃO, 2013, p. 10). The reports brought up memories, family and university experiences, role models of teachers, work performed for the project, memories that made them rethink about their professional choice of becoming a teacher. The former PiBid scholarship holders found support in this process, which reinforced their respective choices and transformed that moment into a basic element of the migration from being a student to becoming a teacher.

When analyzing the implied process that permeates the narratives published in the book mentioned above, a careful, judicious and reflective reading was performed, in which processes, anxieties, adaptations, successes, failures, satisfactions were observed, in an attempt to identify what was said and which was subsumed, not revealed, just described as something that happened.

When seeking to understand the facts revealed or implied in the narratives, elements related to the existential paths of former scholarship holders enabled an understanding of (self-)training processes; then, the investigators decided to verticalize the study on the theory with which they had been working, for the analysis of the material contained in the narratives and for the perceptions resulting from these narratives. The theoretical framework selected for this study were the studies conducted by Marinas (2007) and Santamarina and Marinas (1994), which helped identify, in practice, comprehensive dimensions. Of note, the methodology used in this study aimed to analyze the narratives that were initially written by former PiBid scholarship holders and later read to the Pedagogy group, unlike Marinas (2007, 2014), who was focused on oral narratives and life stories using interviews.

Before explaining how these narratives were analyzed, the theoretical-methodological framework was described for a better discernment of Scene Understanding as conceived by its authors.

Scene understanding

When explaining Scene Understanding, Marinas (2007) points out four poles: saying it all, silence, full word, and empty word – between which the given word and listening moves as elements of the annunciation which reveals the subject that narrates.

These four poles of Scene Understanding show a level of expressiveness. Even silence reveals what the subject of the given word thinks, feels, does, says and does not say. Full word is marked by life impulse and full meaning; and the empty word “has no meaning” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 68), but both reveal existentiality, a space where experiences, feelings, ways of life are found and developed internally. A notion of listening, characterized by the author, enables the given word, with which the subject highlights the experienced facts. Listening demands respect for the feelings revealed by the narrator; those who listen, according to this conception, resize the experienced facts, instigated by the word used in the narration. Therefore, it creates a loop that embraces both the narrator and the listener, connected by the given word and the listening. Listening and given word contribute to share and rethink life. Listening enables the construction of a life story, even if it is not brilliant or amusing, since most of them are marked by “common places, redundancies, but also moments of surprise and illumination” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 42). This way, a narrative is conceived as a repertoire of scenes; scenes in which the biographical accounts are full of internal and external elements. In this perspective, “life story is the link between forms of listening and discursive production” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 89).

Listening is the main dimension pointed out by Marinas (2007): “listening means not obstructing, not interrupting, neither with knowledge (about the theme) nor with interpretation (of the speaker). The speaker grants a given word whose dimensions and implications are not fully known” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 20).

In our understanding, listening happens not only with spoken words, but also with written words. Listening means the word does not end in itself because it was said; it reveals an existence, a presence and personal knowledge. The given word sums an idea, it is something a person grants to the listener; it is a commitment [of the speaker and the listener]. What commitment? One that ensures the narration loop, “that ensures a significant relationship between narration and listening, since the one who narrates his/her story is questioned by it, not only for what Marinas calls the core of the fact, but also by the peripheral dimensions of what happened” (ABRAHÃO, 2014, p. 62).

In this process, the narrator may question himself or herself given the facts and feelings that may arise. For this reason, the given word means “watching, contributing, not disturbing the process of appropriation” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 20) of facts and deeds by the subject.

Then, inspired by Marinas (2007), the stories of narratives of professional identities are understood from two processes (Figure 1): the process of data and information production, which includes the positivist, dialectical, interactionist approaches; and the process of interpretation, which highlights the structural, scene and hermeneutic approaches. Between these two processes, two different dimensions are observed: a socio-structural dimension and a socio-symbolic dimension, which “select the narrative forms” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 104), as illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Source: (MARINAS, 2007, p. 103).

Figure 1 – Discourse analysis in oral history: production and interpretation 

The socio-structural dimension has organization elements, institutional components, which means the places they occupy in the course of the account. The socio-symbolic dimension refers to the “ways of representation, symbolization, forms of shared imaginary” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 204). The motivations narrated under a given focus may constitute a foundation or a barrier, as they are representations that explains or legitimizes what one does. They can define how listening meetings are conducted, as well as the interpretation given to narrated facts; however, in practice this division is not so simple. Regarding the issue of professional training of teachers, on the one hand, they seek to understand the organization, the institutional structure, the ways to perform according to the reasons of the system, the determinations; and on the other hand, they perceive the contradictions in this instance and change the focus, that is, they start to consider a symbolic perspective of representations, and start to question and listen to the particular reasons of their own training (MARINAS, 2007).

The differences and forms of production can also be considered according to Marinas (2007), classified in one or another dimension: positivist, when highlighting the fact itself; interactionist, when emphasizing the discourse; and dialectical, when narrating the fact that happens in a plot, thus constituting a clear image. In some narrative processes, understanding the information they convey is the most important aspect, as well as the circumstances that condition the narrated events. In this sense, a positivist perspective is considered as the focus is on facts only, not on the reasons or ways to represent them. Every event has facts and meanings, which can be reported in a distorted way. However, this is not the main issue here, as the true meaning of the narrated fact would not be understood. In the interactionist perspective, what matters is not the fact itself, but knowing what it represents, symbolizes, the senses and meanings of the discourse. Between the positivist and the interactionist perspectives, the dialectical perspective (of conflict) was chosen as the balance, which shows the presence of listening in the process; and that, in such listening, understanding the facts is enabled by the articulation of relation systems and the meaning given to the interpretation process by the conflict between the narrated fact and the deed.

The three categories are effective “forms of discursive production, which arise spontaneously according to the interest of the discourse for the narrator” (MARINAS 2007, p. 107). This triple mode of discursive production leads to the second specific moment: listening. In it, transfer and countertransference of data and information may be implied, as long as there is information we actually hear, but other information arises from our own reflections. Cognitive understanding is present in this aspect, but affective understanding is also implied, which allows one to follow what the other says, and the ability to wait for it, even if the other presents any challenge, restlessness, interruption, and acceleration. Then, the subject of the narration is likely to reveal what is forgotten. During the interview, it is advisable to not use interpretation, because one may not grasp the sense that is being developed, with time and efforts that are not exactly those of the attentive listening (MARINAS, 2007).

When using narrative interviews as a source in searches or the methodology of life stories or oral history, attention should be dedicated to the relationship between what is being said and what is being recorded. It is an essential moment to consider whether a speaker plans what he/she says and whether a writer thinks about what is being written. It requires a specific time, focused on the process of listening and interpreting, since “we investigate not to check, but to discover” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 108). It requires an understanding of other three moments of interpretation (Figure 1), respectively: structural (based on document), hermeneutic (based on text), scene (based on conflict).

It has already been stated that the “structural interpretation aims to produce a model that represents the documentary value of the narrated fact” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 109). Reporting facts as if they were an event does not mean sense has been found. The hermeneutic interpretation “uses the subjective dimension of meaning construction. This sense does not pre-exist in the interpretative process, it is produced in the interaction resulting from a ‘negotiation’ between hypotheses of reading” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 109). Scene interpretation, as described by the author and seen in general, intends to ‘incorporate the conflict,’ recognizing that in each report the development “is not simply a linear transcription of the sayings of a mind that peacefully recalls or narrates” something (MARINAS, 2007, p. 109). The author emphasizes that when one speaks, one cannot control the speech; it just happens spontaneously. Even if someone thinks about what he wants to talk about, when actually speaking it, unplanned facts and situations may be described. The discourse itself can act against, can be disguised, and the person may end up saying things he or she did not mean to say. As Marinas intended to show, it is in a dialectical process that narratives are understood as a recursive process in which they are articulated between the speaker – who reveals situations – and the listener. For this reason, the dialectical process was used in this study, in an attempt to interpret the narratives of former scholarship holders, as described by Marinas.

Clarifications about scene understanding

“Scene Understanding implies understanding narrative not as linear cumulative story, but as a repertoire of scenes” (MARINAS, 2007, p. 118); therefore, the focus of the analysis is on each scene and the relationship between them. Marinas (2007) presents three groups of scenes (Figure 2): 1) the scene that gathers narrator and interviewer in listening that evokes the given word; 2) scenes that refer to multiple facts and experiences of the interviewee’s daily life; 3) scenes that have been either repressed or forgotten.

Source: (MARINAS, 2007, p. 118).

Figure 2 – Model of Scene Understanding 

In other words, scene 1 (S1), motivated by listening, gathers narrator and interviewer, resulting in phenomena that arise from deep inside (intimus) of the narrator, and from out (extimus) of social contexts and discursive conditions surrounding them. Scene 2 (S2) is the group of scenes experienced in the daily life of the narrator. The sender and receiver return to S1, as the discursive elements are updated in this space. According to Marinas (2007, p. 119), “scenes 2 are part of the daily life of the narrator, his/her roles as sender and receiver go back to scene 1 as they are updated in it.” This game played in scenes 1 and 2 is the possible step to create scene 3 (S3), revealing something that may have been forgotten or unsaid for some reason, which, according to the author, may have been repressed.

This model, as proposed by Marinas, is illustrated below:

Based on the theoretical conception and the consequent methodological practice proposed by Marinas (2007) in Figure 2, Abrahão (2014) built a new graphic representation of Scene Understanding (Figure 3). In this new model, the scenes are configured according to biographical-narrative times and spaces and support each other for a more organic systemic understanding of the phenomena. In Figure 3, the author represents the movement to update the different scenes (scenes 2 and 3) in their own locus, the moment of enunciation (scene 1). In this representation, the three scenes constitute the whole system, in which the meaning of the experienced/narrated fact is understood in relation to spaces/times that concern it. In this system, the forgotten scenes are represented together with those understood as scenes repressed by the narrator.

Source: (ABRAHÃO, 2014, p. 69).

Figure 3 – Adapted model of Scene Understanding according to Marinas (2007)  

Marinas (2007, p. 118) and Abrahão (2014, p. 69) use in their respective representations the three dimensions of Scene Understanding: the context experienced in the past, which includes memories rescued from the past, that is, the context of past events; the context of present events, which refers to how people understand and re-signify what they have lived at the moment of the narrative; and the context of the narrative, a moment in which narration and listening are indispensable, considering that, in this process, both the narrator and the researcher have a change to refine their perceptions in a dialogue where reciprocity and openness are conditions for reflection – and here, the given word is highlighted. These moments are essential for Scene Understanding, through which subjects

[...] re-update, re-adjust the meaning, the collective ideological positions of the vital processes of stories. [...]. It is about interpreting the stories from games and dimensions of their context, but also from the dimension of subject construction... to place life stories in their subjects and plural processes (SANTAMARINA; MARINAS, 1994, p. 272).

The methodology in process: seeking scene understanding in narratives

In the context of Scene Understanding, this study highlights sharing of narratives through given word, or in this case, through careful reading of what was written in the reports, plus the dialogue provided by the group at the moment the narratives were read, allowing the group to think about them. That moment provided an opportunity to resize projections, involving memories, facts and questioning verbalized by the group.

In this review of what each of these former Pibid participants has lived, lives and intends to live, clues were identified to search for an interpretative approach where each narrator presents yarns, like a yearn ball in their hands, that keeps winding/unwinding/winding again carefully, representing facts, places, emotions. It keeps seeking memories that describe the context: where one lives/has lived, what one does/has done, why one did/has done something. This process involves attentive listening of the researchers who seek, with each new clue, elements to create the story of the narrators, their tastes, their preferences, their concerns. In this movement, the group of former scholarship holders was engaged with what each narrator said and described, and they perceived, in the narrative, words they said, or unsaid and silenced words, and words stamped on the trajectories resulting from the analysis. They also referred to the context of the schools where they worked during the Pibid program, verbalizing, between the lines, expressions of events that were not explained in detail, but that had been experienced intensely and even with a certain level of suffering.

The dimensions of given word were crosschecked with the context of (self-)training narrative revealed in the different scenes, so the different moments will be explained through the scenes, in relation to Scene Understanding. The narratives of the former Pibid participants showed changes caused by the understanding of themselves and others. They revealed they were committed to the educational, cultural and social dimension of the training itself, assuming a reflexive condition, willing to organize learning spaces and contexts for the students. Therefore, they assumed training as (self-)training, revealing that the practices experienced in the Pibid program consolidated this process of becoming teachers.

Then, when revisiting the narratives and trying to understand them, describing the different scenes revealed in the narratives, the authors attempted to advance in the understanding of how (self-)training of teachers is configured, through the reflection of former Pibid participants in training process, especially through the experiences acquired in the Pibid program.

Moment of revealing choices – Scene 1

An important moment for the former students was when they were welcomed by the group who would listen to their narratives. The attentive look and sensitive listening of the group of colleagues from the program encouraged the narrative of facts that each had recorded in the written report. This reading did not happen in one day only; they met many days so that all narratives could be read. They stated that writing for themselves is very different from writing to other people. The big difference is in the attentive listening of other people, which initially, causes restlessness and fear due to possible misinterpretation of narratives. Combinations were made, from the beginning, so that every0one involved could feel at ease and confident to provide their narratives as previously agreed. The room organization, the work performed by the large group and the possibility of speaking and being heard contributed to narrative reading. The procedure of reading and speaking openly to the group was positive, because it had a warm and pleasant atmosphere. The support from the group showed all participants they would be heard, allowing them to speak up. As they narrated their own trajectory, they recalled peculiar and significant events and events of each of them. The tone of the voice changed according to the facts narrated: smooth, soft or heavy voice, full of feeling and emotion. These facts touched the group, leading to moments of closeness and reactions of empathy.

All 20 narratives had two main focuses: the choice to start the course of Pedagogy and actively participate in the Pibid program. Such choices revealed tensions, fears, uncertainties, insecurities, but also the conviction that they would be able to overcome the obstacles involved in their choice of becoming a teacher. They revealed that they grew up hearing that they should study, considering that from a very early age it was a requirement of their parents, a goal to be achieved. They had models that strengthened their decision at the school and the university.

Every former scholarship holder, while narrating her story, had the time she needed to read what she had written and saw the acceptance of her colleagues. The meetings had the environment of expectation and respect. These were moments of achievements for each of them, as they were heard, marked by understanding, opening and group welcome. Speakers and listeners were involved in the same proposal, each one learning in her own way with one another, listening and imagining the scenario of experiences. Listening and being heard was the high point of Scene 1, even though the narratives and listening itself were full of tension. The participants felt touched by the narrative of the other colleagues, the life story reported, and then they also experienced the narrated stories, so that each narrative became part of the collective, where the life stories were strengthened.

Daily life at school: the great challenge of being a teacher – Scene 2

In scenes of daily life at school, the narratives of 20 former scholarship holders revealed facts that were significant moments of learning. Students of the teacher training course in Pedagogy – some in the beginning of the course, others in the advanced stages – were all anxious to understand and live the teacher role. Planning, organizing intervention activities for reading, writing, and playing, led them to a state of expectation and deep sense of accomplishment.

In the multiple scenes that involved the context, the former scholarship holders explained they had intense, often exhaustive, long and complex moments of reading texts, but all of them highlighted these moments provided meaningful learning. They also stated the interaction of colleagues, teachers and supervisors significantly contributed to their understanding of the true meaning of teaching. They emphasized that project development, participation in seminars, lectures and other activities expanded their knowledge, with valuable experiences for the training itself. Their speeches showed an understanding that hard work was required to find solutions for learning issues revealed by students from the schools in the Pibid program.

In all different scenes reported and as the facts were revealed, teaching was thought and experienced in each phrase, moments permeated of joy, fear and determination. In the narratives, the context was not only linked with school; they also mentioned difficult times when they decided to be a teacher in their homes, in their personal choices, in relationships, weddings, children. They explained that influences from the family and friends contributed to their professional decision, a choice they were thankful for, more specifically when they started in the Pibid program.

The following are excerpts from the participants (indicated by letter P), which highlight aspects that reveal scenes of daily life at school:

I learned a lot. The diagnostic evaluation was a great challenge, I was afraid of not knowing how to do it right. I didn’t want to be superficial when writing the texts, it was hard for me. I realized the failure of children at school can be linked with how we work on literacy. Working with different text holders made me realize how productive it is, perhaps the main door to a child’s learning. The whole work was magical; I realized how important I was for that context. (P1, 2013, p. 98).

Another important situation in a classroom is the teacher listening to the student, as there may be many possibilities of using the concepts and contents with the children’s speech, encouraging discussion and exchange of ideas among everyone. (P5, 2013, p. 93).

[...] when thinking about education, I’ve always had a general focus, but, today, after several studies offered by the program, this thought doesn’t and won’t make a difference, since the change must start in classrooms, with everyone doing his or her best. [...] the teacher is one of the most important agents of transformation, a critical figure in the changes required in school nowadays. (P19, 2013, p. 203).

Facts that have not been revealed: implied, forgotten or repressed facts – Scene 3

Thinking about what has not been said seems a little strange, but the methodology that uses Scene Understanding emphasizes the importance of this dimension, in agreement with the perspective of the authors of this study. This scene is relevant for the narratives of all 20 former scholarship holders, because much has not been expressed, facts have not been said or explained; many phrases were implied, not verbalized. Some speeches were an attempt to state what they considered to be wrong at school, but they ended up repressed at that moment.

It should be noted that all narratives occurred while the students were in the Pibid scholarship program and the material produced at that time is being read today. So, former scholarship holders understood that it was inappropriate to verbalize thoughts that could trigger feelings of hostility or embarrassing situations.

The scholarship holders reported that, many times in the classroom, when they observed study proposals submitted by some teachers in a completely different way from what the group had planned, they felt like saying something, that it did not match what they were doing, or saying what had to be said, but in front of the children this feeling had to be silenced and repressed. They were silent to avoid embarrassment and disagreements. They were silent because they also learned in silence, they learned what should not be done as a teacher. Several findings were observed in the classroom about the fact that young children were copying things from the blackboard without understanding what they were doing, which, in the opinion of the former scholarship holders, caused them suffering, because they understood they would act differently. Then, many words were left unsaid, because there was no time, no space, no moments or possibilities to do that. The former scholarship holders revealed in their narratives that the school context is complex and difficult and that many teachers also remain silent. Speaking/listening is complicated because it also causes fragilities. Then resentment and silence prevailed without investment in proposals that could help students learn more and better.

Some excerpts from the narratives are presented here, highlighting an experience of these students: “We need to state our ideas and our point of view, but we are afraid of being misinterpreted, which often happens in the school context” (P1, 2013, p. 68); “We need to plan with the teacher, so I think we can make our position clear in discussions” (P6, 2013, p. 99); “The playroom couldn’t become a reality... there are implied reasons that have not been revealed, the question is why such facts are recurrent in schools (P19, 2013, p. 204); “I saw in preschool education, the teacher gave a sheet for the children to paint or fill in and, as they finished, she graded it. I admit I felt very restless” (P6, 2013, p. 95).

Then the former scholarship holders did not know what to do or say in these situations. They reported that an open dialogue was possible in a few times only; there were always issues and embarrassment. Some scenes, so clear for listeners, were systematically repressed at school and in dialogues between teachers and scholarship holders. Of note, thoughts and perceived facts were repressed and not revealed, as one of the participants said: “The teacher is one of the most important agents of transformation, a critical figure in the changes required in school, but how to make this process actually happen?” (P19, 2013, p. 209).

Collaborative work among teachers can support the search for solutions to problems, creating possibilities for success in the difficult pedagogical task (DAMIANI, 2008). The relation between scholarship holders and teachers described above clearly shows challenges in sharing and, consequently, developing collaborative work, causing fragmentation of the pedagogical work conducted with the students.

In addition, the obstacles for former scholarship holders are evident, because, according to their statements, the obstacles or problems, as mentioned above, paralyze, generate doubts and suffering, and it is difficult to control and overcome them. Different challenges and obstacles were mentioned, with specific reference to the lack of meetings and open dialogue in the school. It should be noted the former scholarship holders understood they had no right to evaluate the teacher in the classroom, but they could propose ideas, build partnerships, without expecting their ideas would be accepted by the teacher. They often limited themselves to this position, which is a fact to feel sorry about, although the exchange of knowledge implies a rupture of hierarchies. In the course of narratives, a suggestion was offered to the scholarship holders: to mobilize themselves in order to face the inherent tensions of education and, together, try to overcome them. This way, the obstacles would not be so frightening, as the scholarship holders would start thinking of how to overcome these challenges.

Conclusion

What do the scenes show? That there may be a fertile articulation between the scenes of training and (self-)training; that the writing of reports in (self-)training processes is a possibility to promote learning about oneself and about the other through autobiographical reflection (DELORY-MOMBERGER, 2008), which qualifies (self-)training narrative as a process through which everyone involved sets goals to be achieved, reflects on this process, understands the meanings of challenges that may arise, and makes decisions through a dialogue with himself/herself (VEIGA SIMÃO, 2004).

This understanding is aligned with what the perception of the authors of this study regarding the training process conducted with the group of former PiBid scholarship holders. Writing the narratives by the members of this group, through (self-)training reports, allowed a contact with themselves, seeking to overcome anxieties and uncertainties emerged in school contexts, (re)build their own personal/professional identity. This way, the reflective writing of (self-)training reports became, for these former scholarship holders, a special moment, through which they were able to record facts and learning experiences that were re-signified in training experiences, as exemplified below:

It was in the Pibid program that I became a person, because I understood the great meaning of our profession, the great responsibility that I have to change the lives of my students, build a new way to educate, invest in a transformative education which qualifies and enhances the potential of students and encourages them to seek a better world. (P15, 2013, p.180).

Understanding oneself seems to be revealed in scene 3. As discussed earlier, when important facts and deeds for the training process of the narrator are repressed or forgotten, this phenomenon may occur because of a related obstacle. On the other hand, based on Scene Understanding, the experience of these facts and deeds can be re-signified. At first, Scene Understanding is perceptible to those who hear the other one’s word, who listens attentively, but it is precisely this attentive listening to the other that allows the narrator to become aware of what he or she said or silenced, strengthening the narrator so that during the narrative he or she might understand something that has been repressed, that has not been said.

This analysis, based on Marinas (2014), shows that three types of listening may exist: communicative-social listening, psychoanalytic listening, and strictly biographical listening, which is the one used in this study. The narrator process of finding himself or herself can benefit from the biographical listening process, which assumes or even demands reflective thinking by the narrator when transforming a life story into a story with meaning for the narrator and listeners (BOLÍVAR, 2016). A life story that has been reflected on, the appreciation of autobiographical narratives towards the subjects and the community are certainly elements that favor the production of meanings. According to Marinas (2014), if someone speaks, it is because someone is listening – and carefully. Someone speaks to put thoughts and life in order. It seems to reveal the loop of life mediated by the loop of narration.

Scene 3 indicates that re-signifying facts requires efforts and a desire to look at oneself and to see beyond the usual, beyond objective facts. It refers to learning how to live with one’s life. Marinas (2014, p. 49) states that “speakers plan what they will say,” in their own time, which is not the same as that for listeners. The autobiographical narrative is mediated by the person’s own determinants, influenced by social regulators affecting one’s story or past, triggered by the present context and based on the narrator projecting networks of relations built in the present and in the past, with future prospects.

Then, narratives of (auto)biographical approach can be understood as one way to mediate strategies that allow future teachers to become aware of their responsibilities through their own training process, with retrospective appropriation of their life course, evidenced in the present narrative and prospectively planned considering future actions. The perspective of three-dimension narrative time (RICOEUR, 1995) was evident in the narratives of (self-)training and somehow related and crosschecked scenes 1, 2 and 3, as previously described. They allowed former Pibid participants, during their training, to (re)organize their own representations, contributing to (re)construction and (re-)signification of present situations, which were based on the past but projected the future.

This understanding comes from having perceived in practice that the perspective of working with autobiographical narratives from the point of view of Scene Understanding enables the person who builds a narrative to become more visible to the narrative itself; ensuring self-knowledge that enables transformation of oneself and own actions, if and when appropriate.

Likewise, promoting the reconstruction of knowledge of oneself favors an access to the universe of training, provided there is a reflexive effort of the subject in this sense.

Therefore, this internal process could be compared to a movie, in which the learning process is a process in motion, and the students who want to be teachers can include alternative processes of reflection, considering various and particular situations that constitute the group of unique/plural experiences of each individual.

This study provides considerations about the interpretative possibility of Scene Understanding, having as empirical basis the training narratives of former Pibid scholarship holders who, having already experienced this training process, provided ideas for future training achievements.

The authors of this study hope to have successfully achieved such purpose.

Referências

ABRAHÃO, Maria Helena Menna Barreto. Fontes orais, escritas e (áudio)visuais em pesquisa (auto)biográfica: palavra dada, escuta atenta, compreensão cênica. O studium e o punctum possíveis. In: ABRAHÃO, Maria Helena Menna Barreto; BRAGANÇA, Inês Ferreira de Souza; ARAÚJO, Mairce da Silva (Org.). Pesquisa (auto)biográfica: fontes e questões. Curitiba: CRV, 2014. p. 57-77. [ Links ]

ABRAHÃO, Maria Helena Menna Barreto. Prefácio. In: FRISON, Lourdes Maria Bragagnolo; PORTO, Gilceane Caetano (Org.). Diálogo entre a formação inicial e continuada através da escrita e autoformação. 1. ed. Porto Alegre: Observatório Gráfico, 2013. p. 9-11. [ Links ]

BERTAUX, Daniel. Narrativa de vida: a pesquisa e seus métodos. São Paulo: Paulus; Natal: Edufrn, 2010. [ Links ]

BOLÍVAR, Antonio, Dimensiones epistemológicas y metodológicas de la investigación (auto)biográfica. In: ABRAHÃO, Maria Helena Menna Barreto; PASSEGGI, Maria da Conceição (Org.). Dimensões epistemológicas e metodológicas da pesquisa (auto)biográfica. Tomo 1. Natal: Edufrn; Salvador: Eduneb; Porto Alegre: Edipucrs, 2012. p. 27-69. (Pesquisa (auto)biográfica: temas transversais; 1). [ Links ]

BOLÍVAR, Antonio. Las historias de vida y construcción de identidades profesionales. In: ABRAHÃO, Maria Helena Menna Barreto; FRISON, Lourdes Maria Bragagnolo; BARREIRO, Cristhianny (Org.). A nova aventura (auto)biográfica. Tomo I. Porto Alegre: Edipucrs, 2016. p. 251-287. [ Links ]

DAMIANI, Magda. Entendendo o trabalho colaborativo em educação e revelando seus benefícios. Educar, Curitiba, n. 31, p. 213-230, 2008. [ Links ]

DELORY-MOMBERGER, Christine. Biografia e educação: figuras do indivíduo projeto. São Paulo: Paulus; Natal: Edufrn, 2008. [ Links ]

FRISON, Lourdes Maria Bragagnolo; PORTO, Gilceane Caetano (Org.). Diálogo entre a formação inicial e continuada através da escrita e autoformação. 1. ed. Porto Alegre: Observatório Gráfico, 2013. [ Links ]

JOSSO, Marie-Christine. Experiências de vida e formação. Lisboa: Educa, 2002. [ Links ]

MARINAS, José Miguel. La escucha en la historia oral. Palabra dada. Madrid: Síntesis, 2007. [ Links ]

MARINAS, José Miguel. Lo inconsciente en las historias. In: ABRAHÃO, Maria Helena Menna Barreto; BRAGANÇA, Inês Ferreira de Souza; ARAÚJO, Mairce da Silva (Org.). Pesquisa (auto)biográfica: fontes e questões. Curitiba: CRV, 2014. p. 39-56. [ Links ]

NÓVOA, António. Os professores e as histórias da sua vida. In: NÓVOA, António (Org.). Vidas de professores. Porto: Porto Editora, 1992. p. 11-30. [ Links ]

NÓVOA, António; FINGER, Matthias (orgs.). O método (auto)biográfico e a formação. Natal: EDUFRN; São Paulo: Paulus, 2010. [ Links ]

PINEAU, Gaston. A autoformação no decurso da vida: entre a hetero e a ecoformação. In: NÓVOA, António; FINGER, Matthias (Org.). O método (auto)biográfico e a formação. Natal: Edufrn; São Paulo: Paulus, 2010. p. 82-97. [ Links ]

RICOEUR. Paul. Tempo e narrativa. Tomo II. São Paulo: Papirus, 1995. [ Links ]

SANTAMARINA, Cristina; MARINAS, José Miguel. Historias de vida y historia oral. In: DELGADO, Juan Manuel; GUTIÉRRES, Juan (Org.). Métodos y técnicas cualitativas de investigación en ciencias sociales. Madrid: Síntesis, 1994. p. 259-285. [ Links ]

VEIGA SIMÃO, Ana Margarida. Autorregulação da aprendizagem: um desafio para a formação de professores. In: BIZARRO, Rosa; BRAGA, Fátima (Org.). Formação de professores de línguas estrangeiras: reflexões, estudos e experiências. Porto: Porto Editora, 2004. p. 192-206. [ Links ]

Received: January 12, 2018; Revised: April 24, 2018; Accepted: June 13, 2018

Lourdes Maria Bragagnolo Frison is an associate professor at the Universidade Federal de Pelotas (FAE/PPGE/UFPel), leader of GEPAAR, and researcher at CNPq (Pq2) and CAPES (senior training – Proc. 2583-15-1).

Maria Helena Menna Barreto Abrahão has a doctor’s degree in Human Sciences – Education from Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), and is a permanent professor at Universidade Federal de Pelotas (FaE/PPGE/UFPel), coordinator of GRUPRODOCI/CNPq and researcher 1A at CNPq.

*

Translated by Hamilton Fernandes da Silva. Contact: www.tikinet.com.br.

Creative Commons License  This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.