SOCIOLINGUISTIC EDUCATION AND MULTIPLE LITERACIES FOR QUILOMBOLA TEACHERS

SOCIOLINGUISTIC EDUCATION AND MULTIPLE LITERACIES FOR QUILOMBOLA TEACHERS’ TRAINING: A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR RURAL STUDENTS V NGELA VASCONCELOS – UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASÍLIA, BRAZIL SUPERVISOR: ROSINEIDE MAGALHÃES DE SOUSA

What does ‘Quilombo’ mean? Contemporary Quilombos are rural black communities inhabited by descendants of slaves who maintain kinship ties. Most live on subsistence crops on donated / purchased / secularly occupied land. Its residents value cultural traditions of ancestors, religious (or not), recreating them. It has a common history, explicit rules of belonging, awareness of its ethnic identity.

INTRODUCTION The Rural Education Degree (LEdo. C) was implemented at Universidade de Brasilia in 2007 with the objective of training rural educators (Peasants and Quilombolas), so that they could develop educational activities in their communities. The teaching work at LEdo. C starts from an interdisciplinary curriculum and provides in-person stages alternating with ‘UNIVERSITY TIME’ (TU), which takes place at the University and ‘COMMUNITY TIME’ (TC), which takes place in the students' home regions, which currently are from the Central–West region.

RESEARCH CONTEXT: KALUNGA’S TERRITORY

The training of these rural educators is extremely important for the life of peasant communities, since it is based on the principle of a training committed to the transformation of the reality of the rural people, concerned with raising the education of the individuals in the countryside and, at the same time, contribute to structural changes in this territory (SOUSA, 2011).

‘COMMUNITY TIME’ - KALUNGA’S TERRITORY IN DIADEMA - GO

The Ethnographic research on literacy practices and the interaction frameworks of LEdo. C - DF will enable reflection on sociolinguistic education and multiple literacies for the training of rural educators, it will also seek to contribute to teacher training based on collaborative actions, both in TU, as in TC.

RESEARCH QUESTION To what extent do LEdo. C's sociolinguistic education and literacy practices contribute to the academic and professional development of rural educators? MAIN AIM Investigate sociolinguistic and multiple literacy practices during initial and continuing education of rural educators

OTHER OBJECTIVES ØIdentify the discursive genres (canonic and non canonical) that circulate in the initial and ongoing education of LEdo. C. ØDevelop thematic workshops and application of Didactic material in the framework of LEdo. C pedagogical practices, identifying possible developments of students’ academic process.

The Thesis The academic training, initial and continuous, of Quilombola and peasant students, takes place through a sociolinguistic education and multiple literacies in the different contexts of LEdo. C. This formation corroborates the human, critical, political and social development of these students and triggers transformative practices inside and outside the academic context. Foruns, organicity classes, Community time

Theoretical contribution As a theoretical and methodological foundation, this research will have as a methodological contribution critical ethnography and collaborative action research, based on the following fields of study: Qualitative Sociolinguistics (HYMES, 1972; COUPLAND, 2001, 2016; BORTONI-RICARDO, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2014; SOUSA; 2006; 2011; 2016, GOFFMAN, 1983; GUMPERZ, 1982), Literacy Studies(BARTON, 1994; BARTON & HAMILTON, 1998; BARTON & HAMILTON, 2000; STREET, 1984, 2001, KLEIMAN, 1995, 2008; GEE, 2012.

METHODOLOGY The methodological orientation that will be applied to the research process will consist in the adoption of principles of qualitative critical ethnography (THOMAS, 1993 ; MACEDO, 2010), and the collaborative action research presented by Zeichner (1998) and Thiollent (1994), based on theoretical-methodological assumptions of Interactional Qualitative Sociolinguistics and Literacy Studies.

Analysis categories in academic interactions and practices In literacy events: (i) Participants: who is involved in an interaction with a written text; (ii) Activities: what the participants do with the texts (and that doesn't just involve reading or writing; (iii) Settings: where they do it physically - at home; at school, on the bus. . . (iv) Domains: the different areas of social life, such as family / community / public life / citizenship; workplace; education, commerce, dealing with public services and bureaucracies; Cheers; children; legal matters. The notion of 'dominance' involves values and purposes, not just local ones; (v) Resources: can be cognitive skills and knowledge; they can also be paper, a wall or other writing surface, a computer, a printer, a set of colored pens or a can of spray paint, a hammer and a chisel. Speaking (HYMES): we investigate the environment, the participants, the ends, the form the content of the message, the tone or way of pronouncing, the instruments of transmission, the norms of interpretation, the oral or written textual genres

Research fields & participants Work field Graduation class PARTICIPANTS 20 students Undergraduation class 5 students, 2 professors

Data collection and generation procedures and instruments During academic interactions at LEdo. C classes, we use, as methodological procedures for data collection and generation: Participant observation, field notes, the recording of the training meetings and interviews with students and teachers.

Corpus DATA OF AN ETHNOGRAPHIC NATURE DOCUMENTARY DATA LEdo. C’s Project FN Field notes – graduation undergraduate classes PI Professors’ interviews WM and LP Workshop meetings – interacional BNCC framework Common Base Curriculum National

Paraphrasing ROJO. . . “It is up to the UNIVERSITY to enhance multicultural dialogue, bringing into its walls not only the valued, dominant, canonical culture, but also local and popular cultures and mass culture, to make them voices of dialogue, objects of study and criticism”. (ROJO, 2009, p. 12)

References BORTONI-RICARDO. Stella Maris. Educação em Língua materna. São Paulo: Contexto, 2004. HYMES, D. On communicative competence. In: PRIDE, J. B; HOLMES, J. Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin, 1972. ROJO, Roxane. Letramentos múltiplos, escola e inclusão social. Série estratégias de ensino. São Paulo: Parábola, 2009. ROJO, Roxane; ALMEIDA, Eduardo de Moura. Multiletramentos na escola. São Paulo: Parábola, 2012. SOARES, Magda. Alfabetização e letramento. 2° ed. São Paulo: Contexto, 2003. STREET, Brian. V. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. ____. Letramentos sociais: abordagens críticas do letramento no desenvolvimento, na etnografia e na educação. Trad. Marcos Bagno. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2014. THIOLLENT, M. Metodologia da pesquisa-ação. São Paulo: Cortez, 1994. THOMAS, J. Doing critical ethnography. London: Sage Publications, 1993. SOUSA, Rosineide Magalhães de. Gênero discursivo mediacional da elaboração à recepção: uma pesquisa na perspectiva etnográfica. 2006. 257 f. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística) - Universidade de Brasília, 2006.

Obrigada! THANK YOU