Technological Education Contexts: teacher narratives about ethical-political spaces of trainingAbstract
Introdução. This manuscript stems from doctoral research linked to the Graduate Program in Technological Education of the Federal Institute of Amazonas. The objective is to systematize and characterize the contexts of Technological Education based on the dialogue between references on teacher training and narratives of 11 teachers of the aforementioned program, participants in the research.
Methodology. The methodological path, of a qualitative nature, employed narrative interviews, analyzed through Discursive Textual Analysis.
Results. The results allowed us to identify constitutive dimensions of Technological Education contexts, as well as characterizing axes.
Discussion. It was concluded that such contexts are configured as living, ethical-political and under construction spaces, which are distinguished by their multifaceted nature, thematic diversity and emerging character - constituting a promising field for research in the area of teacher education in Technological Education.
Keywords
Technological Education; continuing education; praxis.
Resumo
Introdução. Este manuscrito decorre de uma pesquisa de doutorado vinculada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ensino Tecnológico do Instituto Federal do Amazonas. O objetivo é sistematizar e caracterizar os contextos de Ensino Tecnológico a partir do diálogo entre referenciais sobre formação de professores e narrativas de 11 docentes do referido programa, participantes da investigação.
Metodologia. O percurso metodológico, de natureza qualitativa, mobilizou entrevistas narrativas, analisadas à luz da Análise Textual Discursiva.
Resultados. Os resultados permitiram identificar dimensões constitutivas dos contextos de Ensino Tecnológico, bem como eixos caracterizadores.
Discussão. Concluiu-se que tais contextos configuram-se como espaços vivos, ético-políticos e em construção, que se distinguem por sua natureza multifacetada, pluralidade temática e caráter emergente - constituindo um campo promissor para pesquisas na área de formação de professores em Ensino Tecnológico.
Palavras-chave
Ensino Tecnológico; formação continuada; práxis.
Resumen
Introducción. Este manuscrito deriva de una investigación de doctorado vinculada al Programa de Posgrado en Enseñanza Tecnológica del Instituto Federal de Amazonas. El objetivo es sistematizar y caracterizar los contextos de Enseñanza Tecnológica a partir del diálogo entre referentes sobre formación de profesores y las narrativas de 11 docentes del referido programa, participantes de la investigación.
Metodología. El recorrido metodológico, de naturaleza cualitativa, movilizó entrevistas narrativas, analizadas a la luz del Análisis Textual Discursivo.
Resultados. Los resultados permitieron identificar dimensiones constitutivas de los contextos de Enseñanza Tecnológica, así como ejes caracterizadores.
Discusión. Se concluyó que tales contextos se configuran como espacios vivos, ético-políticos y en construcción, que se distinguen por su naturaleza multifacética, pluralidad temática y carácter emergente - constituyendo un campo promisorio para investigaciones en el área de formación de profesores en Enseñanza Tecnológica.
Palabras clave
Enseñanza Tecnológica; formación continua; praxis.
1 Introduction
This article presents part of the results of doctoral research linked to the Graduate Program in Technological Education of the Federal Institute of Amazonas (PPGET/IFAM). As it is a professional program in the area of Teaching, the academic requirements include the elaboration of a thesis and an educational product. It should be noted that the investigation strictly followed the guidelines for research with human beings (Resolutions of the National Health Council - CNS No. 466/2012 and No. 510/2016), having been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of IFAM under Opinion No. 6.887.816. It is noteworthy that the participants were aware of the purpose of the interview, as they were told in the invitation and in the Informed Consent Form (ICF) signed by them.
The research, which has the working title "Teacher training in technology education: Problem-Based Learning as Praxis", is dedicated to understanding in which aspects a formative process, which elects the problematization of Technological Education as a nucleus, acts to build a more in-depth understanding of this teaching. In this sense, the objective of this article is to present the perspective of Technological Education contexts from the voices of the research participants.
From a methodological point of view, this production results from a qualitative investigation (Flick, 2013), which used the narrative interview (Vieira, 2021) to generate data. Discursive Text Analysis (DTA) was adopted as an analytical perspective for data processing.
This study included 11 professors from PPGET/IFAM, whose testimonies were submitted to analysis. To ensure the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants, it was decided to replace their real names with pseudonyms. Since the investigation is contextualized on the Manaus Centro Campus, in the capital of Amazonas, the chosen denominations refer to the imaginary of Amazonian myths and legends, as shown in Table 1.
The understandings woven into this text, designated as Technological Educartion contexts, are based on the findings of narrative interviews under the lens of DTA. These results are the product of an interpretative exercise that puts into dialogue the researcher's subjectivity, the theoretical framework and the nuances of the phenomenon in question.
Regarding the use of DTA, it is important to highlight that, based on contributions from authors such as Galiazzi and Sousa (2022) and Moraes (2003), the approach is structured in three main stages: unitarization, which corresponds to the disassembly of texts and the identification of significant units; categorization, which establishes relationships between these units; and, finally, the production of the metatext, which seeks to capture the new emerging and present an interpretation of the results.
It is worth mentioning that, between the introduction, the final considerations and the references, this work is organized into three sections/metatexts: specificities of the contexts of Technological Education; contexts as living and fertile spaces for authorship; and contexts as an emerging theme.
The analysis of the teachers' voices that follows, as well as the discussion about their emergent character, constitutes an analytical movement guided by the ATD - according to Galiazzi and Sousa (2022) and Moraes (2003) -, which, in the present study, allowed the conceptions of context extracted from the literature (section 2) to be disassembled into units of meaning and then re-signified in the light of the narratives of the PPGET/IFAM teachers (section 3). Thus, the theory did not serve as a fixed interpretation grid, but as a horizon of meaning that, confronted with the participants' speeches, produced emerging understandings about the contexts of Technological Education. Such understandings - sometimes dialoguing with the theoretical dimensions previously discussed, sometimes tensioning them - show the power of the interpretative movement proposed by the DTA, revealing living and fertile spaces for teaching authorship in its formative process, as well as the character of the theme in dispute and under construction that characterizes this field (section 4).
It is hoped that this text will contribute to a better understanding of what the contexts of Technological Education are.
2 Specificities of Technological Education contexts
The discussion about the contexts of Technological Education is located in teacher training, with particularities that make them unique. The uniqueness of Technological Education contexts lies in their multifaceted and dynamic nature: they are not application environments, but active spaces of conceptual dispute, investigative plurality, social relevance and ethical-political commitment to emancipation. They are distinguished by being territorial and situated, although not geographically limited; plural and open, but requiring epistemological clarity; emerging and in dispute, but with potency of authorship and innovation; and technological, even if beyond the instrumental use of artifacts. Such particularities configure them as a promising and under construction field of research, which is done when thinking and researching about oneself.
This discussion can be approached from several perspectives, which give different meanings to the notion of context in that formation. There are authors, such as Nóvoa (2009), who defend the thesis that discussions about teacher education need to be thought from the context in which they develop their work. Thus, thinking about this continuing education should be guided by the needs that emerge from the school. In this perspective, the context of formation involves three inseparable aspects: the institutional space (the school), the social, cultural and economic dynamics that permeate it and the human factor. The latter - understood as the set of subjects (teachers, managers, students and community) - is one of the central aspects of the formative context, because, through its interactions, values and subjectivities, it gives life and meaning to the formation process, making it a relational construction and not just structural.
This understanding of the formative context, anchored in its institutional, sociocultural and human aspects, finds in the literature two recurrent theoretical approaches to explain how teachers learn and develop: the socioconstructivist and sociocultural perspectives, as systematized by Mondin and Dias (2017).
In the socioconstructivist perspective, the teacher is seen as an active subject who, based on the examination of his own practice, collaboration with his peers and critical reflection on the school and social context, reconstructs theoretical and practical knowledge, highlighting the context as a space for the re-elaboration of knowledge. In the sociocultural perspective, according to the authors, training occurs from the organization of experiences in which the teacher builds knowledge with trainers and colleagues, in real teaching situations, taking into account the social, cultural and political dimensions of the context in which he/she operates, which reinforces the context as an environment of co-construction of situated knowledge.
Thinking from this perspective allows us to reflect on five dimensions of the teacher education context:
-
1) political-normative, which encompasses guidelines, programs and reforms that define teaching profiles amid disputes between critical, technicalist and managerialist views (Gomes et al., 2019; Rego; Fontoura, 2024);
-
2) institutional-organizational, referring to the complex set of values, beliefs, norms and practices that guide behavior in universities and schools, including course models, theory-practice articulation and professional development policies (Ambrosetti et al., 2020; Macedo, 2011; Oliveira; Lima; Azevedo, 2023);
-
3) professional and teaching work, which encompasses the concrete working conditions - such as workload, class size and external control - and its impact on the critical appropriation of knowledge and the transformation of practice (Macedo, 2011; Zeichner, 2008);
-
4) socio-cultural and local dimension, which presupposes specific formative demands, requiring contextualized and sensitive approaches to inequalities and struggles for recognition (Rego; Fontoura, 2024);
-
5) technological dimension, understood not as instrumental use of artifacts, but as ontological and political mediation that constitutes the formative processes. Inspired by Feenberg (2002, 2017), technology is a field of dispute where social values materialize in projects and practices. For the training of teachers in Technological Education, this implies assuming technology as a philosophical and political problem - which requires from educators not only technical mastery, but the ability to question which technologies, what they are for and for whom they are intended. Technological decisions are thus ethical, political and curricular decisions, crossed by power relations and disputes over the very meaning of what is “technological” in teaching.
Given these perspectives and dimensions mentioned, it can be said that teacher education - understood as a process of professional development and knowledge construction - transcends the conception of a prescribed curriculum and restricted to the space of undergraduate degrees. This training takes place in and through the formative contexts, which are actually constituted by the dynamics and interaction between the multiple dimensions discussed here (political, institutional, professional, sociocultural and technological). This complex fabric points, in a convergent way, to the school and to the teaching practice as the structuring axes and central references of the formative process.
The contexts of teacher education consist, therefore, in the understanding that training is built not only from disciplinary theoretical knowledge, but, above all, in confronting the realities, contradictions and concrete demands of everyday school life, which function as a privileged locus of teacher learning.
Another way of thinking about teacher education and its contexts is linked to theories that present the critical perspectives of teaching knowledge and reflective education.
In the critical perspective, based on Freire (1987, 1996) and Pimenta (2013), it appears that the formative processes start from the problematization of the reality of the subjects in the course; teacher training is seen as historically and politically situated praxis, which leads to understanding the context as a field of contradictions in which education and society projects are disputed, not as a neutral background.
From the perspective of teaching knowledge, authors such as Tardif (2021) reinforce that teaching knowledge is constituted in the relationship with work at school and in the classroom, being produced and instituted in the daily professional practice, in concrete situations, which leads to understanding the context as the appreciation of knowledge from experience in training actions to promote critical reflection on teaching practice.
In turn, the perspective of reflective training is highlighted in Zeichner (2008), who, when discussing this training, points out that many discourses about reflective teachers disregard the material conditions of teaching work and the social contexts in which teachers work, which leads to understanding the context as actions linked to reflections on inequalities and concrete struggles experienced in schools and communities.
As a synthesis of what has been exposed so far, it is understood that the contexts of teacher education can be analyzed and discussed from four interrelated axes: the institutional environment, where courses, internships and in-service training are developed; the objective and subjective conditions of this environment, which include policies, norms, organizational culture, resources and power relations; the socio-cultural characteristics of the subjects involved, such as trainers, future teachers, students and the community; and, finally, the pedagogical practices that articulate theory, practice and critical reflection, such as action research and integrative projects, but this is flexible, as it is understood that the focus to be given in the discussions is born in the research objectives and what emerges from them.
In this sense, the following considerations derive from the data emerged during the investigation carried out in the aforementioned doctoral research. Its purpose, therefore, is not to prescribe or standardize the discussion about the context of Technological Education, but to present it as evidenced in the study. Thus, the following exposition will show - based on the speeches of the professors - how the conceptions of context in PPGET/IFAM built by them are configured, which, in turn, dialogue now and then with the theoretical perspectives mentioned above.
Before proceeding with the considerations about the contexts of Technological Education, it is important to make explicit the understanding that is taken here by context. The definition of context has as reference Abbagnano (2012, p. 223), for whom it “[...] is the linguistic set [sic] of which the utterance is part and which conditions its meaning (in ways and in degrees that can be very different)”. In this perspective, Technological Education is taken as an utterance, which has its meaning evidenced by the set of traits that characterize it, although there may be marked differences between these traits.
Training in/for Technological Education impacts not only the structures of its master's and doctoral students, as can be seen in the following excerpt. A founding member of PPGET/IFAM exemplifies this perspective by discussing the themes that guide the program and his attitude towards the act of guiding in this specific context:
And I was still at that stage kind of closed in the sense: let's go more to Biology, let's not run away (from the area of initial training and guidance expertise). So, we worked in non-formal spaces trying to promote, build the educational product that could impact society (Juma - PPGET/IFAM teacher).
It can be seen, from the excerpt, that the student and advisor jointly open themselves to new possibilities, leaving their comfort zones to confront a particular problem, in order to solve it and return to society a response to the public investment made in it. In the aforementioned case, this was done through research in non-formal spaces. This dynamic represents one of the characteristic features of the training process - stricto sensu - in PPGET/IFAM, contextualizing Technological Education. In the light of Freire 'ssense, this characterizing trait can be understood as praxis, as the movement of action and reflection on reality to transform itis present; it can also be understood as an exercise of knowledge of experience and practice. Freire (1996) asserts that teacher education only occurs in the articulation between critical reflection and concrete action, in processes committed to social transformation.
Juma's speech (professor at PPGET/IFAM) - especially when mentioning the fear of fleeing "[...] from the area of initial training and guidance expertise" - highlights a central issue: teaching knowledge and its construction. In this sense, Block and Rausch (2015) emphasize that professional knowledge is produced in and through practice, in close connection with concrete work contexts.
Research on themes such as multiculturalism, gender issues and formal and non-formal teaching spaces, among others, allow us to identify a characteristic feature of training in/for Technological Education: its wide openness to different possibilities of investigation. This plurality is evident, for example, in the words of professor Yepá (PPGET/IFAM): "If we look at the products they already have here [...] the research they already have here, you will see the theme of diversity, the theme of gender diversity, ethnic-racial, indigenous issues".
Thus, it appears that training is not oriented towards a single theme, but rather is characterized by the diversity of research objects and the construction of varied educational products, even though two distinct lines of research are constituents of PPGET/IFAM. The contexts of Technological Education also turn to training articulated with multicultural assumptions, which reinforces the reading of a plural training field and sensitive to the social markers of difference - a theme discussed by Canen and Xavier (2011) as a fruitful path to be followed for a culturally responsive school.
Another fact to be considered in the research results is present in the words of Dinahi (PPGET/IFAM professor), which stress the need for greater conceptual clarity within the PPGET, by insisting that the graduate “[...] has to come out with these very clear concepts of what technology is, what technological process is, what technological Education is”, shifting the debate from didactic resources to the definition of the field itself. By bringing conceptual clarity and training of masters and doctors in Technological Education, the teacher reinforces the idea that the contexts of Technological Education are not only application scenarios, but spaces in which the meaning of technological and teachingis disputed.
In the same direction that the contexts show, Honorato (professor at PPGET/IFAM) associates Technological Education with the very technological condition of contemporary society, stating that "[...] you cannot have education today if it is not technological", suggesting that any formative context is crossed by languages, artifacts and technical mediations. This understanding expands the notion of multiple context by indicating that Technological Education is not restricted to technical courses, but accompanies the totality of educational practices in a society marked by the ubiquitous presence of technologies.
In analogy to this understanding of the speeches of Dinahi and Honorato (professors of PPGET/IFAM), there is the understanding of Espíndola and Grané (2024, p. 9, emphasis added) on critical approaches in educational technology; the authors state that it is necessary to question “[...] why, for what and what technologies do we want for education”, whichleads to the problematization of models that reduce technology to an instrumental resource and defending socio-critical analyzes of the relations between education and technologies. Here in this text, the problematization is necessary about what Technological Education is and what technology is in teaching contexts.
In the same direction, Bazzo (2015), when discussing the theme Science, Technology and Society (STS) in the context of Technological Education, proposes to train professionals with a critical vision not only capable of developing and applying technology, but above all to evaluate its social, economic and environmental consequences, insisting on a training that is not limited to the use of artifacts. This is linked to the idea that Technological Education is not centered on technology as a utility, but on problematizing what it means for teaching, in the sense that all practice that focuses on teaching and learning is permeated by technical mediations and technological culture.
It should also be noted that Dinahi and Honorato (PPGET/IFAM professors) are not providing a definitive concept, but presenting characterizing aspects that constitute part of their context. Their speeches converge to present Technological Education as a living and strategic epistemological field, which is not centered on technology as a utility, but on problematizing what it means for teaching in a deeply technological society. Training, therefore, is contextual, critical and central to the very definition of this field, marked by dynamic relations of meaning. Regarding the understanding of what Technological Education is, Lima and Azevedo's statement (2025, p. 7) is elucidating:
[...] it can be said that Technological Education is not a mere education through Technology . This does not account for the dimension of this teaching, verified during the research in development. Just look at how PPGET/IFAM came about and realize that it went beyond the two concepts, but it does not disregard them, because in PPGET/IFAM there is teaching and there is technology, but with its originality, uniqueness, particularity.
Here, we highlight the intersection between the speeches of Dinahi and Honorato (professors of PPGET/IFAM) and the elucidation of Lima and Azevedo (2025) that makes the problematization of Technological Education imperative. This need is amplified by establishing an analogy between three epistemological frameworks: the Freirean stance of refusal to technicist and “banking” education (which situates technology beyond the apparatus, in a pedagogy of autonomy); the STS approaches defended by Bazzo (2015); and the criticism of educational technology presented by Espíndola and Grané (2024). In view of this theoretical dialogue, the thesis that the field (praxis) of Technological Education in PPGET/IFAM constitutes a unique way of articulating teaching, technology and teacher training in the Amazonian context becomes explicit, going far beyond the simple adjectivation of teaching.
Given the above in this section, it can be inferred that the contexts of Technological Education are multifaceted and dynamic, characterized not as application environments, but as active spaces of conceptual dispute, investigative plurality and social relevance. These contexts are also defined by the search for epistemological clarity, by the openness to a wide thematic diversity of research and by an inseparable relationship with the demands and technological condition of today's society. Understanding these contexts, therefore, means going beyond the instrumental and utilitarian dimension, recognizing in them critical instances where training is constituted by the problematization and, consequently, by the resignification of teaching in a technological society. Such understandings allow us to understand the contexts of Technological Education both as living and fertile spaces for authorship and as an emerging theme, characteristic traits that will be developed below.
3 Contexts as living and fertile spaces for authorship
Another relevant point about the contexts of Technological Education is that they turn “[...] to think about Technological Education in the Amazon” (Yukatã, PPGET/IFAM professor). From this premise, it is inferred that such teaching plays a relevant role in the face of regional geographical complexity. This relevance stems from the logistical barriers of access to municipalities and the profound socioeconomic disparities that characterize the Amazon territory, requiring actions that overcome isolation and social stratification. In this sense, the contexts of Technological Education are configured as spaces of authorship that respond to concrete challenges in this region.
Relief, climate, fauna and flora, for example, among the states that make up the northern region of the country, are very similar, and this makes the actions of PPGET/IFAM very practical for the neighboring states of Amazonas. About this, Jurupari (professor at PPGET/IFAM) says the following:
[...] in these ten years [refers to the space from 2014 to 2024], our greatest impact is still regional. [...] I think we have more impact here in the North region. So, I think we will still make this bigger leap for the national team. And then I'll explain it. First, that when this course starts to expand, then there are students from the countryside who come to take courses with us, which is wonderful, because it is difficult [...]; if it is already difficult for you to take a program in a capital, imagine moving from the countryside knowing that the reality of our interiors and the cost associated with transportation, everything, are different. This is a positive point, then. The second point is that neighboring locations do the program with us. So, we had the opportunity, for example, to open a class at IFAC for fellow teachers from Acre. This is a goal, because it generates an impact in a state close to ours. See that it is not the South that comes to prepare them. Look how deep it is. We are the ones preparing. And when I say, ‘We have a very close reality.’ Why was the idea in the past? So, let's do a project with Rio, with Minas Gerais, with Rio Grande do Sul, to train people here, but these people, I think they learned more from us than we did from them, because our reality is very different. And then, when we change this axis, that is, it is now Amazonas helping Acre; the reality we know very well. I think this gives greater depth to the research, provides direction, adds fluidity to the research, and offers this perspective on the Amazonian context.
The excerpt from Jurupari's speech (professor at PPGET/IFAM) demonstrates that Technological Education, based on PPGET/IFAM, contributes to local training, which was once carried out by institutions from other regions. This demonstrates the potential of Technological Education to contribute to the development of the region by considering the various realities of the northern people. The reading that “[...] it is not the South that comes to prepare [...]”, but “[...] the Amazon helping Acre [...]”, allows us to characterize the contexts of Technological Education as territorialized contexts of formation, in which local knowledge and the approximation between neighboring Amazonian realities are central to the relevance of training.
The emphasis that Yukatã and Jurupari (PPGET/IFAM professors) give to the distant dimensions and the difficulties of displacement can be supported by studies such as those by Santana, Osório and Rocha (2023) and the Sustainable Amazon Foundation (FAS, 2021). The productions that deal with teacher training in the Amazon as conditioned by logistical obstacles, precarious infrastructure and socioeconomic inequalities, but also by a strong community and territorial bond, show that access to training programs is a challenge and that initiatives developed from the region itself have a qualitative impact on the practice and professional identity of teachers. It is this reality that the fruits of the training of masters and doctors in Technological Education achieve, such as the regional expansion of PPGET/IFAM.
Faced with the reality of doing Technological Education in the North of Brazil, one must be aware of what Monan says (PPGET/IFAM teacher), because, in order to develop activities located in the perspectives of Technological Education, the actions are centered on training: “[...] in teacher training, in student training, it is from this perspective that it is emancipatory, that it is reflective, that it is to educate citizens. This is the principle of PPGET, this is the principle of Technological Education”.
In addition to attention to physical spaces - both formal and non-formal, with emphasis on the North region - it is necessary to turn attention to other contexts. Monan's reflections (PPGET/IFAM professor) contribute to this:
[...] Technological Education has this characteristic and it can be in any space where it proposes, within a systematized teaching perspective, to reach an objective [...]; provided that [...] the objective to be reached is in this perspective of an emancipatory education of those who participate, I think that this is Technological Education and this is teaching for understanding. [...]. It would be this context where there could be creativity, where there could be creation, where the student had the possibility to think about what he does, how he does it, why he does it, why he does it. So, I think this is this context, this living context that allows the student to build, to build with others, to build from their own perspectives. This is the context of Technological Education [...].
It should be considered that the teacher does not fix her understanding in a physical place, she extrapolates this understanding by explaining that this context is also the relationships that are established in environments conducive to teaching and learning, living and opportune environments for creation and authorship, where the human being becomes the author of his formative processes.
In contrast to living and opportune environments for creation and authorship, Monan (professor at PPGET/IFAM) points out that:
The reality that we have today of education, of school, of the classroom, is very far from being Technological Education, thinking of this context as a context of creativity, of creation, of joint, collaborative work, based on what I lived my whole life in the internship, of recent research. Last week, an advisor in the classroom, I went to do a job with a 9th grade student in the classroom, the students stay seated, the teacher asks them to open the book on the Tal page; open it, do the exercise, correct it, hit the signal, it's over, turned back in the next class, remembered what was done; from that, she explained everything with a lot of discipline; very calm [...].
In another speech, Monan (professor at PPGET/IFAM) adds that he did not notice moments in “[...] that students could build something, could be creative”. From this confrontational look, it can be seen that the contexts of Technological Education are seen as something to be achieved, unlike what is seen in practice.
Following Monan's line of reasoning, it is understood that the contexts of Technological Education are directly linked to the idea of teaching for understanding defended by Sacristán and Gómez (1998), since teaching is seen as an action for “[...] understanding the world around, understanding oneself, understanding the possibilities I have to act in this world” (Monan, PPGET/IFAM professor). Therefore, the teacher's conception allows us to infer that the contexts of Technological Education are also focused on transformation, for the “[...] construction, of art, of life, of possibility, of an ‘insertion’ in certain contexts” (Monan, PPGET/IFAM teacher).
It can be seen in Monan's speeches that the contexts of Technological Education are shown as ethical-political spaces oriented towards emancipation. Monan (professor at PPGET/IFAM) states that Technological Education is a dynamic, creative teaching, for creation, "[...] a teaching that will allow this autonomy and this emancipation of those who are (in teaching and learning environments) and that must occur since Early Childhood Education". For her, Technological Education is “[...] above all this critical teaching, this reflective teaching that will lead to the emancipation of this autonomous subject that we so desire” (Monan, PPGET/IFAM professor). Consider, in view of the teacher's words, the contexts in which Technological Education occurs as intentionally planned occasions aimed at reflection, dialogue and responsibility.
Monan's speeches (PPGET/IFAM professor) always bring a different look to the young PPGET/IFAM, in which training is for life, because:
When, at IFAM, we have a master's and doctorate that have this proposal to train teachers for Technological Education, in a professional program that is always proposing something, creating something, not in the sense of being a recipe, of being manual, but in the sense of leaving a contribution so that this work that they do in educational spaces, classroom or not, they can be in this creative, participatory, collaborative, reflective line, then, yes, this is the proposal that the program has to collaborate for this teacher training or student training, with methodologies that are sustained, let's say, by this context of Technological Education [...]. And then, to get to this, I need these technological contexts, which is this context of this place of teaching for understanding, for understanding myself, for understanding the other, for understanding what surrounds me, for understanding why I am doing that activity, what it has to do with my life.
To the saying of contexts as ethical-political spaces oriented to emancipation, it should be added that there can be "[...] each space, in particular, in each classroom, where it proposes a construction that is autonomous of those participants in the process, you know? And that there is a perspective of emancipation” (Monan, professor at PPGET/IFAM).
In view of the discussions presented, it can be inferred that the contexts of Technological Education are configured from three fundamental and interdependent axes: territoriality; spaces of dispute and conceptual resignification; and ethical-political aspects guided by emancipation.
Territoriality emphasizes the Amazonian reality (its geographical dimensions, logistical challenges and socio-cultural diversity) and the need for teacher training that responds to these local specificities and promotes development from within this region, which inverts historical facts of dependence. The spaces of dispute and conceptual resignification signal the demand for epistemological clarity of the field and signal the need for a dynamic, creative and understanding-centered teaching.
Finally, the ethical-political aspects guided by emancipation indicate that training in Technological Education is done as a praxis aimed at emancipation, a training contrary to banking and technical models. They are living spaces, relational and intentional environments to foster creation, collaboration and social responsibility. These spaces are fertile for authorship, which can be observed in the convergence of the statements of Jurupari and Monan (PPGET/IFAM teachers), which reveal that the contexts of Technological Education in PPGET/IFAM transcend geographical location. This authorship manifests itself in two interdependent ways: 1) a territorial authorship, expressed by Jurupari (PPGET/IFAM professor) by emphasizing the rupture with external dependence (it is not the South that comes to prepare), positioning the Amazonian subject as a producer of its own knowledge and regional solutions; and 2) a pedagogical authorship is established, defended by Monan (PPGET/IFAM professor), in which the formative environment is resignified as a living context of creation and autonomy. In these spaces, the teacher and the student cease to be task performers to become authors of their processes, capable of building knowledge that responds, with fluidity and depth, to the urgencies and specificities of the Amazonian reality.
From this emerges that Technological Education is not merely the characterization of teaching as technological through the use of technology (teaching + technology) and as a fertile field of articulation that is made between teaching, technology and teacher training, aiming at the construction of contextualized and critical responses to the challenges of the Amazon and the country, characterizing it as something emerging.
4 Contexts as an emerging theme
In PPGET/IFAM, Technological Education can be understood as an emerging theme in a field of dispute, which can be inferred from the lines of Maíra's speech (PPGET/IFAM professor, emphasis added):
[...] it is also a new field [...], because we assume this from our teaching perspective [...]. Bourdieu will say this, the formation of the field, of a field that is the academic field. Our PPGET field is formed by agents who are in a dispute of prestige, of power. So that generates some tension. Maybe leave it out altogether... Don't be a questioner [referring that the field of dispute is not central to doctoral research]. [...] it cannot create a vision of a harmonic or idyllic program.
When understanding the contexts of Technological Education as a line or an emerging theme, think of them as possible to be investigated from many perspectives, which, because there are many possibilities to investigate it, many are the disputes for evidencing certain understandings. This is a challenge for those who do it, but someone has to start, even if groping in this new universe. As Mapinguari (professor at PPGET/IFAM) told us:
And you are now on this arduous path there, trying to start to walk a conceptualization possibility, to have a reasoned reference for your concepts, because it is difficult for us to talk about something or conceptualize something when we do not have a support, a reasoned reference. And this reasoned reference of ours comes from literature, it comes from the state of the art, from how this issue is understood today. But, anyway, let's go: PPGET today, for me, from the beginning, but now with the entry of the doctorate, is a program that is challenging.
In fact, this investigation is challenging and, as Monan (professor at PPGET/IFAM) said: “[...] it may seem utopian, but it's a construction work that we need to start someday, isn't it? And PPGET has been there for ten years, right?”.
Curupira (PPGET/IFAM professor) characterizes Technological Education as “[...] a new field”, assumed from “[...] our teaching perspective”, which reinforces the idea that PPGET actively participates in the construction of a specific academic field, with its own categories and disputes, while Mapinguari (PPGET/IFAM professor) qualifies PPGET as “[...] a program that is challenging” and adds:
[...] that's why I talked about the innovation of this work [referring to the doctoral research from which the data presented here came], because, when we don't have it, we start producing it. They begin their research, production begins, discussion of terms begins, several looks. You collect data and point out these demands, and these demands emerge as gaps to expand future studies. To expand, for example, or to even demonstrate a need, there we need a Thesaurus in the area of Teaching. We need it because today we have a mother area, which is Education, in which we are connected. Our program is not Education; our program is Teaching; to complete our program in the area of Teaching [...], we have a qualifier after this term ‘Teaching’, the qualifier is‘ technological ’.
Curupira and Mapinguari (professors at PPGET/IFAM) explain that Technological Education can be understood as an emerging line or theme in a field under constitution - a unique teaching perspective - in which, for example, the absence of specific Thesaurus, consolidated taxonomies and conceptual consensus becomes, at the same time, a challenge and opportunity for investigation. This indicates that the thematization of Technological Education involves both conceptual gaps and institutional and epistemological limits.
In this section, it is summarized that the contexts of Technological Teaching in PPGET/IFAM are characterized as an emerging and disputed line or theme, within a field of teacher training still under constitution. The results indicate that this consolidation presents two perspectives: on the one hand, a dimension marked by internal tensions, conceptual gaps and the continuous need for theoretical foundation - a challenging and sometimes utopian scenario; on the other hand, there is evidence of an embryonic condition that constitutes its main strength and uniqueness; this translates into a space of collective authorship, aimed at the production of its own references and the construction of an epistemological identity that starts from the Amazonian reality and refuses harmonic visions.
From this perspective, understanding Technological Education as an emerging line or theme means recognizing it as a dynamic process of invention and negotiation. The absence of consensus, the lack of consolidated instruments (such as a specific Thesaurus) and the debates around its meanings are not obstacles that paralyze research on it, but show themselves as constitutive conditions of a teaching that is done when thinking and researching about oneself. Thus, the investigation into their Technological Teaching contexts that had its results presented here served to map existing understandings, establishing the beginning of a systematic dialogue that their agents complain about. A work in construction that, far from ending, is beginning.
5 Final considerations
In view of the understandings presented about the contexts of Technological Education, it is understood that they are constituted by circumstances, conditions, situations or background in which the actions arising from the training in PPGET/IFAM occur, characterized by the activities developed in the program - albeit with different purposes -, correlated with each other by a principle. They can be understood as arising from action-reflection-action closely linked to the act of researching and building educational products/processes for this teaching.
This process of action-reflection-action can be understood as the training of teachers in Technological Education; in turn, this specific training in a specific context would come into existence as an emerging line or theme within the field of teacher training research, all governed by an ordering principle formed by “minor principles”.
One can also understand the contexts of Technological Education as living, intentional and situated environments, in addition to the presence of digital or technical resources such as utensils. They are spaces for creation, understanding, emancipation and social intervention. They are constituents of Technological Education both in the identity condition of PPGET/IFAM and in the challenges of its materialization in schools in Amazonian spaces. They form a conceptual fabric whose threads are woven through teacher education, constituting spaces of creation and intervention in movement, which are guided by forming critical subjects, capable of acting and transforming the reality in which they live, in a space called the North region and beyond it.
How to cite this article (ABNT):
Ad hoc reviewers:
Data availability:
Research data is only available upon request.
References
- ABBAGNANO, N. Dicionário de filosofia 6. ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2012.
-
AMBROSETTI, N. B.; LIMA, F. P. M.; SIGNORELLI, G.; CALIL, A. M. G. C. Formadores de professores: conceito, contextos e perspectivas de atuação em processos de indução à docência. Revista Eletrônica de Educação, São Carlos, v. 14, e4263118, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14244/198271994263 Disponível em: https://www.reveduc.ufscar.br/index.php/reveduc/article/view/4263 Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.14244/198271994263» https://www.reveduc.ufscar.br/index.php/reveduc/article/view/4263 - BAZZO, W. A. Ciência, tecnologia e sociedade e o contexto da educação tecnológica 5. ed. Florianópolis: UFSC, 2015.
-
BLOCK, O.; RAUSCH, R. B. Saberes docentes: dialogando com Tardif, Pimenta e Freire. Revista de Ensino, Educação e Ciências Humanas, Londrina, v. 15, n. 3, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17921/2447-8733.2014v15n3p%p Disponível em: https://revistaensinoeeducacao.pgsscogna.com.br/ensino/article/view/493 Acesso em: 15 dez. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.17921/2447-8733.2014v15n3p%p» https://revistaensinoeeducacao.pgsscogna.com.br/ensino/article/view/493 - BRASIL. Resolução nº 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012. Diretrizes e normas regulamentadoras de pesquisas em seres humanos. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 13 dez. 2012.
- BRASIL. Resolução nº 510, de 7 de abril de 2016. Dispõe sobre as normas aplicáveis a pesquisas em Ciências Humanas e Sociais cujos procedimentos metodológicos envolvam a utilização de dados diretamente obtidos com os participantes ou de informações identificáveis ou que possam acarretar riscos maiores do que os existentes na vida cotidiana, na forma definida nesta Resolução. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 8 abr. 2016.
-
CANEN, A.; XAVIER, G. P. M. Formação continuada de professores para a diversidade cultural: ênfases, silêncios e perspectivas. Revista Brasileira de Educação, Rio de Janeiro, v. 16, n. 48, p. 641-661, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782011000300007 Acesso em: 15 dez. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782011000300007 -
ESPÍNDOLA, M. B.; GRANÉ, M. Abordagens críticas em tecnologia educativa: questionamentos necessários. Sisyphus, Lisboa, v. 11, n. 3, p. 6-10, 2024. Disponível em: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2182-84742024000100006&lng=pt&nrm=iso Acesso em: 15 dez. 2025.
» http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2182-84742024000100006&lng=pt&nrm=iso -
FAS. Formação de professores na Amazônia rural: a experiência do Projeto Amazonas Sustentável. Manaus, 2021. Livro eletrônico. Disponível em: https://fas-amazonia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/pas-relatorio-formacao-professores-amazonia-rural-compressed.pdf Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://fas-amazonia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/pas-relatorio-formacao-professores-amazonia-rural-compressed.pdf - FEENBERG, A. Technosystem: the social life of reason. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2017.
- FEENBERG, A. Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. New York: Oxford University, 2002.
- FLICK, U. Introdução à metodologia da pesquisa: um guia para iniciantes. Porto Alegre: Penso, 2013.
-
FORMAÇÃO em movimento: formação de professores na perspectiva freireana: políticas, concepções e experiências. Formação em Movimento, Seropédica, v. 4, n. 8/9, 2022. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufrrj.br/index.php/formov/issue/view/89 Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://periodicos.ufrrj.br/index.php/formov/issue/view/89 - FREIRE, P. Pedagogia da autonomia: saberes necessários à prática educativa. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 1996.
- FREIRE, P. Pedagogia do oprimido 17. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1987.
- GALIAZZI, M. C.; SOUSA, R. S. de. Análise textual discursiva: uma ampliação de horizontes. Ijuí: Unijuí, 2022.
-
GOMES, M. M. et al. Reflexões sobre a formação de professores: características, histórico e perspectivas. Revista Educação Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 19, n. 15, 2019. Disponível em: https://educacaopublica.cecierj.edu.br/artigos/19/15/reflexoes-sobre-a-formacao-de-professores-caracteristicas-historico-e-perspectivas Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://educacaopublica.cecierj.edu.br/artigos/19/15/reflexoes-sobre-a-formacao-de-professores-caracteristicas-historico-e-perspectivas -
LIMA, A. J. S.; AZEVEDO, R. O. M. Ensino Tecnológico: entre sentidos e significados, acepções e perspectivas. Revista de Estudos e Pesquisas sobre Ensino Tecnológico, Manaus, v. 11, e249625, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31417/educitec.v11.249625 Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.31417/educitec.v11.249625 -
MACEDO, V. P. Formação de professores no contexto das mudanças educativas. In: da ANPAE, 2011, São Paulo. Anais [...]. São Paulo: Associação Nacional de Política e Administração da Educação, 2011. Disponível em: https://anpae.org.br/simposio2011/cdrom2011/PDFs/trabalhosCompletos/comunicacoesRelatos/0525.pdf Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://anpae.org.br/simposio2011/cdrom2011/PDFs/trabalhosCompletos/comunicacoesRelatos/0525.pdf -
MONDIN, E. M. C.; DIAS, C. L. A profissão docente sob diferentes concepções psicológicas: o enfoque construtivista e o socioconstrutivista. Psicologia Argumento, Curitiba, v. 31, n. 74, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7213/psicol.argum.31.074.AO03 Disponível em: https://periodicos.pucpr.br/psicologiaargumento/article/view/20549 Acesso em: 13 dez. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.7213/psicol.argum.31.074.AO03» https://periodicos.pucpr.br/psicologiaargumento/article/view/20549 -
MORAES, R. Uma tempestade de luz: a compreensão possibilitada pela análise textual discursiva. Ciência & Educação, Bauru, v. 9, n. 2, p. 191-211, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-73132003000200004 Acesso em: 13 dez. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-73132003000200004 - NÓVOA, A. Professores: imagens do futuro presente. Lisboa: Educa, 2009.
-
OLIVEIRA, J. L. D.; LIMA, A. J. S.; AZEVEDO, R. O. M. A escola como lugar privilegiado de aprendizagem docente. Educação & Formação, Fortaleza, v. 8, e10905, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25053/redufor.v8.e10905 Disponível em: https://revistas.uece.br/index.php/redufor/article/view/10905 Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.25053/redufor.v8.e10905» https://revistas.uece.br/index.php/redufor/article/view/10905 - PIMENTA, S. G. Formação de professores: saberes da docência e identidade do professor. 7. ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2013.
-
REGO, F. C. N. A.; FONTOURA, H. A. O que sabemos sobre formar professores/as no contexto das disputas educacionais no Brasil?. Educar em Revista, Curitiba, v. 40, e86000, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0411.86000 Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0411.86000 - SACRISTÁN, J. G.; GÓMEZ, Á. I. P. Compreender e transformar o ensino Porto Alegre: Artmed, 1998.
-
SANTANA, W. V.; OSÓRIO, N. B.; ROCHA, J. D. T. Uma revisão sobre a formação de professores na Amazônia. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Bogor, v. 28, n. 3, ser. 1, p. 56-61, 2023. Disponível em: https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.28-Issue3/Series-1/I2803015661.pdf Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.28-Issue3/Series-1/I2803015661.pdf - TARDIF, M. Saberes docentes e formação profissional 17. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2021.
- VIEIRA, R. V. S. Roteiro sequencial para entrevistas narrativas como instrumento de construção de dados no método (auto)biográfico Curitiba: Instituto Federal do Paraná, 2021.
-
ZEICHNER, K. M. Uma análise crítica sobre a “reflexão” como conceito estruturante na formação docente. Educação & Sociedade, Campinas, v. 29, n. 103, p. 535-554, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302008000200012 Acesso em: 14 dez. 2025.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302008000200012
