Material didático impresso na educação a distância: um estudo sobre as experiências de produção e desenvolvimento no Rio de Janeiro

Abstract

The evaluation of the didactic material in DE is still a little approached subject in the elaboration of teaching activities in the virtual learning environments. However, in a scattered way, we find some indications of the importance of the elaboration of didactic material in the teaching activities mediated by ICTs, as well as the essential aspects for the material to be better explored and used in teaching and learning situations. This paper aimed to analyze the assumptions and modus operandi that guide the production and development of printed learning materials for distance learning courses, as well as the possible relations with the guiding documents. For the investigative study, we adopted the documentary analysis of the assumptions related to the didactic material present in the official documents of MEC: Quality References for Higher Distance Education (Secretariat of Distance Education, MEC, 2007) and the References for the elaboration of printed learning materials for distance education in vocational and technological education (Secretariat of Professional and Technological Education and Secretariat of Distance Education, 2007). In order to build a critical and creative dialogue with reality, we chose to conduct interviews focused on the analysis of production experiences and development of teaching materials, taking into account the experience of professionals working in the area of production management of DE materials. In this research, 3 Higher Education Institutions were visited, which contained the DE nucleus, producers of printed didactic material. They are: a Public University and two privates universities, both references in RJ. Semi-structured interviews wereconducted with the professionals, where we built a dialogue in which DE conceptions ofeach of them were discussed (PETERS, 2006), how is the material offered to thestudent, the search for quality and possibilities of material evaluation, as well asfuture perspectives on the subject. At the end, we reflect on these aspects, makingan analysis of the entire content of the interviews (BARDIN, 2006), bringing theresults of these questions, relating them to the current documentation presentedduring the research. When investigating the institutions and their ways of conceivingthe production of didactic material, it can be stated that, because they differ in theconception of DE, they are organized under different formats of production andmonitoring of the material quality. From the standpoint of the adoptedconceptions, it can be identified that the model adopted in HEI 1 is understood asconversation, as they try, from the language used in the didactic material, to reducethe distance between teachers and students, through simulation of a on versationbetween them. At HEI 2, we saw a university imagining DE as an extension technology model, with emphasis on video classes, powerpoints, and other resources available online, and HEI 3 adopts the teacher's model, where teachers try to compensate for physical absence with a special way of exposing the contents of the classes, employing a whole arsenal of measures to foster and ensure student learning. Students are led to reflect on and answer questions, recognize problems and analyze them, solve tasks and exercises