Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:20:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
PedroIXL_DISSERT_PARCIAL.pdf: 48804 bytes, checksum: cae9c1e2413f3678cd4dc5335be3afd2 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2013-03-08 / We had as the problem of analysis in this research: what are the assumptions, principles and
general content that based the Sistema Nacional de Avalia??o da Educa??o Superior
(SINAES). We started from the hypothesis that the general content of SINAES is essentially
based on the assumptions and principles of a control/regulatory perspective of evaluation and
a summative epistemology, objectivist and quantitativist, constituted by members who
prioritize testing and classification of courses and institutions based on market values. The
overall goal was to make a political evaluation of SINAES and the specific objectives were:
a) apply the concepts of politics evaluation and meta-evaluation, b) identify the role of
international organizations in education reform in the 1990s and its impact on superior
education in Brazil c) redeem the concept of evaluation, especially in the field of studies in
education; and d) investigate the evaluation policies of Brazilian superior education leading to
SINAES. As for the technical procedures for collecting and analyzing data, the research was
made with bibliography and documents, considering that it was developed by bibliographic
sources and official publications. It was developed by crossing sources: texts or documents
remitted to others; it was also concentrated: on the role of international organizations in
educational and State reforms (in the 1990s); on the policies of evaluation of the Brazilian
superior education (1980s and 1990s); on the proposal of the Comiss?o Especial de Avalia??o
(CEA); on the Law No. 10.861/2004; on the documents of CONAES; on the Decree No.
5.773/2006, and the MEC Regulatory Ordinances No. 4/2008 and No. 12/2008. It did not stop
in the so called purely technical aspects, but in the ideological field itself. The research found
that international organizations, notably the World Bank, played a political, intellectual and
financial role determinant to the field of education, a fact that reflects in the legal framework.
It was also found that the politics of evaluation of the superior education is historically
marked by conflict, represented by two distinct perspectives of different natures and
emphases. On one hand, the focus is on control / regulation, favoring efficiency, productivity
and competitiveness benchmarking and prioritizing the punctual performance and
measurement. On the other, it seeks to transform academic perspective in primarily formative
/ emancipatory, in order to support more institutional improvement. It was concluded that the
CEA presented a conception evaluation predominantly formative and emancipatory, which
emphasized the idea of system, centered around the institution and repudiated the rankings
practices. In the post-formulation period, however, some of its principles were fragmenting
and, gradually, the institution was giving way to the courses and the Exame Nacional de
Desempenho de Estudantes (ENADE) grew in prominence. With the creation of the Conceito
Preliminar de Cursos superiores (CPC) and of the ?ndice Geral de Cursos da Institui??o de
Educa??o Superior (IGC), it was redemeed the practice of evaluation as measurement and
control, under the principles of efficiency and productivity. So, SINAES that seemed like a
progressive evaluation method has assumed a setting that close resembles the Exame
Nacional de Cursos (ENC-Prov?o). Nevertheless, the survival of institutional formative
evaluation, in the superior education evaluation policies, still an issue in dispute / Teve-se como problema de an?lise nesta pesquisa: quais os pressupostos, princ?pios e
conte?do geral que fundamentam o Sistema Nacional de Avalia??o da Educa??o Superior
(SINAES)?. Partiu-se da hip?tese que o conte?do geral do SINAES est? essencialmente
fundamentado nos pressupostos e princ?pios de uma perspectiva de controle/regulat?ria da
avalia??o e de uma epistemologia somativa, quantitativista e objetivista, constitu?do por
elementos que priorizam os testes e a classifica??o de cursos e institui??es, baseados em
valores de mercado. O objetivo geral foi realizar uma avalia??o pol?tica do SINAES e os
objetivos espec?ficos foram: a) aplicar os conceitos de avalia??o pol?tica e meta-avalia??o; b)
identificar o papel dos organismos internacionais na reforma educativa nos anos 1990 e sua
repercuss?o na educa??o superior no Brasil; c) resgatar a concep??o de avalia??o, sobretudo
no campo de estudos da Educa??o; e d) investigar as pol?ticas avaliativas da educa??o
superior brasileira que antecederam ao SINAES. Quanto aos procedimentos t?cnicos de coleta
e an?lise dos dados, a pesquisa foi bibliogr?fica e documental, uma vez que se desenvolveu
por fontes bibliogr?ficas e publica??es oficiais. Desenvolveu-se atrav?s do cruzamento de
fontes: textos ou documentos remetiam a outros; tamb?m se concentrou: no papel dos
organismos internacionais nas reformas educativa e do Estado (d?cada de 1990); nas pol?ticas
de avalia??o da educa??o superior brasileira (d?cadas de 1980 e 1990); na proposta da
Comiss?o Especial de Avalia??o (CEA); na Lei n? 10.861/2004; nos documentos da
CONAES; no Decreto n? 5.773/2006; e nas Portarias Normativas do MEC n? 4/2008 e n?
12/2008. N?o se deteve a aspectos ditos puramente t?cnicos, mas sim ao campo propriamente
ideol?gico. A pesquisa constatou que os organismos internacionais, destacadamente o Banco
Mundial, tiveram um papel pol?tico, intelectual e financeiro, determinantes para o campo da
educa??o, fato este que reflete no marco jur?dico. Verificou-se tamb?m que a pol?tica de
avalia??o da educa??o superior ? marcada historicamente por um conflito, representado por
duas perspectivas de naturezas distintas e de ?nfases diferentes. Por um lado, o foco ocorre no
controle/regula??o, privilegiando efici?ncia, produtividade e competitividade e priorizando a
aferi??o pontual de desempenhos e a mensura??o. Por outro, busca-se a transforma??o
acad?mica, em uma perspectiva prioritariamente formativa/emancipat?ria, com o intuito de
subsidiar a melhoria institucional. Concluiu-se que a CEA apresentou uma concep??o de
avalia??o predominantemente formativa e emancipat?ria, que enfatizava a ideia de sistema,
centralizava a institui??o e repudiava as pr?ticas de rankings. No per?odo p?s-formula??o,
por?m, alguns de seus princ?pios foram se fragmentando e, paulatinamente, a institui??o foi
cedendo lugar aos cursos e o Exame Nacional de Desempenho de Estudantes (ENADE) foi
crescendo em destaque. Com a cria??o do Conceito Preliminar de Cursos superiores (CPC) e
do ?ndice Geral de Cursos da Institui??o de Educa??o Superior (IGC), resgatou-se a pr?tica de
avalia??o como medida e controle, sob os princ?pios de efici?ncia e produtividade. Assim, o
SINAES, que parecia possibilitar uma avalia??o progressista, tem assumido uma configura??o
que o aproxima da sistem?tica do Exame Nacional de Cursos (ENC-Prov?o). N?o obstante, a
sobreviv?ncia da avalia??o institucional formativa, nas pol?ticas de avalia??o da educa??o
superior, ainda ? uma quest?o em disputa
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:repositorio.ufrn.br:123456789/13669 |
| Date | 08 March 2013 |
| Creators | Lopes, Pedro Isaac Ximenes |
| Contributors | CPF:05944538368, http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4794937H2, Paiva, Irene Alves de, CPF:29898005491, http://lattes.cnpq.br/7842254018559167, Azevedo, M?rcio Adriano de, CPF:83901701400, http://lattes.cnpq.br/2689467070016983, Souza, Lincoln Moraes de |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Ci?ncias Sociais, UFRN, BR, Desenvolvimento Regional; Cultura e Representa??es |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRN, instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, instacron:UFRN |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds