O processo de curricularização da extensão universitária na formação de licenciandos na UEPG.

Abstract

This study is on the process of curriculization of extension for teaching undergraduate courses at the Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG). Considering the indissociatibility between teaching, research and extension and with a view to target 12, strategy 12.7 of the National Education Plan – Law no. 13.005, of June 25, 2014 –, which determines the curriculization of extension: it is asked: How is the process of curriculization of extension for teaching undergraduate courses at the Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa being constituted and in which fundamentals it is sustained? As a general objective, it is proposed to unveil how the process of curriculization of extension for teaching undergraduate courses is being constituted at the Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa from the fundamentals produced in the institution, which support the conception of university extension. As specific objectives, it is intended to: a) examine how the legislation on the curriculization of extension is interpreted at UEPG; b) investigate the meanings on curriculization of extension in the teaching undergraduate courses assumed by different subjects at and by UEPG; c) identify the determining factors that influence/influenced decision-making on the curriculization of the extension; d) highlight the conceptions of university and university extension announced by the research participants in the curriculization process in the teaching undergraduate courses at UEPG. It is argued that the process of curriculization of extension in the education of pre-service teaching undergraduate students expresses a reflection on the history constructed in relation to the university extension; however, it meets the definitions of teaching policy, the institution’s budget, the availability of time/space of pre-service teaching undergraduate students in extensions practices, as well as it is not unlinked to the conception of disciplinary curriculum. As fundamentals for the understanding and defense of the university extension, it is assumed the concept of dialogicity in Freire (1969, 1987a, 1987b, 2001) and the theory of communicative action in Habermas (1997, 2000, 2012a, 2012b). In Freire, dialogicity is a requirement of human nature, being essential the dialogical relationship in the construction of epistemological curiosity. In the theory of communicative action in Habermas, all men have the ability to act and, for this, they make use of language to communicate and, through it, come to a mutual understanding. Theoretical foundations on university extension and its curriculization come from the works of Botomé (1996), Deus (2020), Freire (1969), Imperatore (2019), Jezine (2004), Kochhann and Silva (2017), Nogueira (2005), Reis (1996) and Sousa (2010). The qualitative research approach is adopted, proceeding from documentary analysis, based on Cellard (2008) on the university extension and the semi-structured interview (MINAYO, 2009) with 17 interviewees, among these, professionals of the Pró-Reitoria de Extensão e Assuntos Culturais (PROEX) [Pro-Rectory of Extension and Cultural Affairs], participants in the curriculization committee and extension proposals. For the analysis of the data, the tool of validity claims was chosen, based on Carspecken (2011) and Habermas (2012a), which focuses on the relationship between validity claims and records of the dialog with the research participants. The results of the research revealed the understanding of the process of curriculization of extension at the teaching undergraduate courses at UEPG, from the conception of university as a public asset and social institution, being the university extension conceived as an academic process, a dialogical interaction and a service provision. The fundamentals that support the dialogs on the curriculization of extension are the indissociability between teaching, research and extension, as well as the relationship between university and society and curriculum conceptions, which can intertwine, contributing to breaking with the linearity of the curricular matrix, with a view to critical and human education, in a process of reflection and action – praxis. However, the process of curriculization of extension is not linear, faces challenges ranging from budgetary issues to teaching policy and rupture with conceptions and pedagogical practices that privilege teaching and research, disregarding extension.