A transversalidade no desenho e a possibilidade de uma sua dimensão clusiva
Miniatura indisponível
Data
2018
Título da revista
ISSN da revista
Título do Volume
Editora
Resumo
Esta reflexão surgiu durante a prática docente com crianças com Necessidades
Educativas Especiais (NEE) e da seguinte observação: o ensino tradicional do desenho
(aqui designado, de um modo muito amplo, por ´ensino académico´) depende da
apropriação de um determinado conjunto de regras e de competências específicas que,
muitas vezes, por limitações físicas ou cognitivas, não estão ao alcance destas crianças.
Existe, por oposição, uma outra abordagem aqui designada, também muito genericamente,
por ´ensino livre´, onde se privilegia sobretudo o fazer e a experiência por parte dos
executantes e onde todos os resultados são legítimos, o que nem sempre se traduz num
desenvolvimento de competências satisfatório e comprovável. Estas duas vias alternativas
metodológicas têm, ora uma ora outra, consequências nas respostas aos desafios lançados
em sala de aula na disciplina de Desenho A, sobretudo porque a escolaridade obrigatória foi
alargada até aos 18 anos, implicando a frequência de áreas de escolaridade vocacionais e
de prosseguimento de estudos, e porque, simultaneamente, se promove a integração de
alunos com NEE nas turmas regulares. O nosso desafio passou por, durante a prática
supervisionada, no âmbito do Mestrado em Ensino de Artes Visuais no 3º Ciclo do Ensino
Básico e no Ensino Secundário, colocar em prática uma unidade de trabalho que, pelas
suas características, integrasse as melhores propriedades tanto do ´ensino académico´
como do ´ensino livre´ e tentar compreender se seria possível encontrar uma outra
dimensão no ensino do desenho. Poderemos, em certos processos de ensino-aprendizagem
do desenho apropriarmo-nos do termo clusividade utilizado na linguística, termo que
designa os pronomes com dupla valência no binómio inclusivo-exclusivo? A metodologia
utilizada no nosso estudo para tentar responder a esta questão foi a investigação-acção com
base nesse mesmo exercício.
This reflective piece emerged from the teaching practice with children who have Special Educational Needs (SEN) and derived from the following observation: the traditional teaching of drawing (henceforth, broadly speaking, referred to as ‘academic teaching') depends on the successful achievement of a certain set of rules and specific competences which, often due to physical or cognitive limitations, are not within reach of these children. There is an opposing approach, here referred to as ‘free teaching', where the emphasis is primarily on the executor’s completion and experience whereby all the results are legitimate; this does not always translate into a satisfactory and verifiable competence development. Each of these two methodological routes cast consequences on the response to the challenges faced in Drawing A’s classroom. This is due mainly to compulsory schooling having been extended up to the age of 18 years old, compelling the attendance of optional subjects, and concurrently, the encouragement towards the integration of SEN students into regular classrooms. During the supervised practice within the Visual Arts Teaching in the 3rd Cycle of Primary Education and Secondary Education Masters Degree, our challenge was to put into practice a work unit integrating the champion components of both the ‘academic' and ‘free’ teaching methods and try to determine whether it would be possible to find one other realm for the teaching of drawing. May we, in certain teaching-learning processes of drawing, appropriate the term clusivity used in linguistics, a grammatical distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person pronouns and verbal morphology? The methodology used in our study to try to answer this question was action research based on this same exercise.
This reflective piece emerged from the teaching practice with children who have Special Educational Needs (SEN) and derived from the following observation: the traditional teaching of drawing (henceforth, broadly speaking, referred to as ‘academic teaching') depends on the successful achievement of a certain set of rules and specific competences which, often due to physical or cognitive limitations, are not within reach of these children. There is an opposing approach, here referred to as ‘free teaching', where the emphasis is primarily on the executor’s completion and experience whereby all the results are legitimate; this does not always translate into a satisfactory and verifiable competence development. Each of these two methodological routes cast consequences on the response to the challenges faced in Drawing A’s classroom. This is due mainly to compulsory schooling having been extended up to the age of 18 years old, compelling the attendance of optional subjects, and concurrently, the encouragement towards the integration of SEN students into regular classrooms. During the supervised practice within the Visual Arts Teaching in the 3rd Cycle of Primary Education and Secondary Education Masters Degree, our challenge was to put into practice a work unit integrating the champion components of both the ‘academic' and ‘free’ teaching methods and try to determine whether it would be possible to find one other realm for the teaching of drawing. May we, in certain teaching-learning processes of drawing, appropriate the term clusivity used in linguistics, a grammatical distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person pronouns and verbal morphology? The methodology used in our study to try to answer this question was action research based on this same exercise.
Descrição
Orientação: Jorge Manuel Gomes da
Silva Rocha
Palavras-chave
MESTRADO EM ENSINO DAS ARTES VISUAIS NO 3.º CICLO DO ENS. BÁSICO E SECUNDÁRIO, ENSINO DE ARTES VISUAIS, DESENHO, INCLUSÃO ESCOLAR, NECESSIDADES EDUCATIVAS ESPECIAIS, VISUAL ARTS TEACHING, DRAWING, SCHOOL INCLUSION, SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS