In 1999, the Judaic Education Council of Rio de
Janeiro implemented the Educational Innovation Program (EIP) in the Israeli
schools of that city so as to meet the new trends in Brazilian education. The
present work was designed to evaluate the modifications taking place in the
school environment as a result of EIP implementation, a program whose core idea
is to work on knowledge building from the Piagetian perspective, active
learning in Dewey’s conception, and multiple intelligences as presented by
Gardner. In order to assess the chosen program, we used a qualitative approach
through semi-structured interviews with the participants and observation of
classrooms from the first to the fifth grade of elementary school. The results
of our study showed that from the implementation of the program, the
professionals involved were more motivated to search for information and update
their knowledge so as to meet the differences between students, using a
diversity of strategies and dynamic activities which led to encouraging student
autonomy as regards their learning. The reported difficulties for the work to
proceed were mainly about the schoolwork timetable planned for both the project
and the subjects, and teachers having to cover an extensive curriculum, common
to other Brazilian schools. In every innovative program, it is important for
the professionals involved in it to continually re-evaluate its development,
searching for changes or alternatives as difficulties are encountered. The aim
of the present paper is to report the main findings of this research, as well
as indicate the strengths and precautions to take in educational innovation
proposals whose primary focus is classroom innovation.
References
[1]
Alves-Mazzoti, A. J., & Gewandsznajder, F. (2001). O método nas ciências naturais e sociais—Pesquisa quantitativa e qualitativa. Sao Paulo: Pioneira Thomson Learning.
[2]
Armstrong, T. (2001) Inteligências múltiplas na sala de aula. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
[3]
Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edicaes 70.
[4]
Brazil (1996). Lei de diretrizes e bases (LDB). Lei 9394/96. Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educacao Nacional. www.planalto.gov.br
[5]
Denzin, N. (1978). The research act. New York: McGraw Hill.
[6]
Dewey, J. (1976). Experiência e educacao. Traducao de Anísio Teixeira (2nd ed.). Sao Paulo: Nacional.
[7]
Gardner, H. (1987) Beyond IQ: Education and human development. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 187-193.
[8]
Gardner. H. (1995). Inteligências múltiplas: A teoria na prática. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas.
[9]
Gimeno Sacristán, J. (2000). O currículo: uma reflexao sobre a prática. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
[10]
Glubman, R., & Yram, I. (1996). Desenvolvimento das técnicas de ensino em Israel. Ramat Gan: Universidade de Bar-Ilan.
[11]
Ginzburg, C. (1991). Mitos, emblemas e sinais. Sao Paulo: Cia das Letras.
[12]
Hernández, F. (2000). Aprendendo com as inovacaes nas escolas. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas Sul.
[13]
Lüdke, M., & André, M. (1986). Pesquisa em educacao: Abordagens qualitativas. Sao Paulo: EPU.
[14]
Mello, G. N. (1998). Cidadania e competitividade. Sao Paulo: Cortez.
[15]
Moulin, N. (1988). Projeto novo saber: Mudancas e inovacaes em educacao. Sao Goncalo: Universidade Salgado de Oliveira.
[16]
Nóvoa, A. (2013) Nada substitui o bom professor. www.sinprosp.org.br/arquivos/novoa/livreto_novoa.pdf
[17]
Santomé, J. T. (1998). Globalizacao e interdisciplinaridade: O currículo integrado. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas.
[18]
Sechter, F. (2001). Desafios da educacao em um país nascente (pp. 25-35). Rio de Janeiro: Revista Fundo Comunitário.
[19]
Smole, K. C. S. (2000) Matemática na educacao infantil: A teoria das inteligências múltiplas na prática escolar. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
[20]
Thurler, M. G. (2001). Inovar no interior da escola. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
