Entre o planejar e o fazer: construindo saberes sobre a prática de ensino de matemática em uma turma do terceiro ano dos anos iniciais

Abstract

This study presents an investigation into the teaching practice of pre-service teacher-researchers, focusing on the movement between lesson planning and its materialization in pedagogical action during mathematical problem-solving classes with third-grade students in the early years of elementary education. The research is justified by the need to understand the relationship between intention and practice, especially in teaching contexts in which classroom heterogeneity poses significant challenges for teachers. The general objective was to analyze how the planned practice was implemented in the classroom. The study was conducted during Supervised Internship IV of the Mathematics Teacher Education program at the Federal University of Goiás, which enabled direct engagement with the investigated situations in the school context. The theoretical framework was grounded in Alarcão (2011) and Schön (2000), who conceive the teacher as a reflective practitioner capable of interpreting and re-signifying their practice, as well as in Ponte (2004), who addresses research on one’s own practice. Adopting a qualitative approach, the study used the narrative perspective of Clandinin and Connelly (2011), and the analysis of the experiences lived by the teacher-researchers was based on Fiorentini and Lorenzato (2006). The theoretical assumptions underlying the work developed with students were based on Polya (1995) and Smole and Muniz (2013) regarding problem solving; Libâneo (2013) on planning; and Nacarato, Mengali, and Passos (2011), who address teaching in early childhood education. The qualitative analysis identified three a priori categories: Category I – Planning: assumptions and intentionalities; Category II – Practice in action: teaching decisions during the lesson; and Category III – Teaching reflections and meanings constructed by the teacher-researchers. Among the main constraints faced were limited time for activities and gaps in planning related to anticipating students’ difficulties. On several occasions, at the beginning of the lesson, the teachers realized that students did not master essential prerequisites for the proposed tasks, which required revisiting content before moving forward. Although necessary, this process compromised the planned time and made the development of activities more challenging. Additionally, challenges related to initial teacher education were encountered, as such training does not sufficiently prepare future teachers to work with students who have not yet mastered elementary knowledge, such as reading, numerical recognition, or quantity comparison. The results revealed discrepancies between what was planned and what was implemented, highlighting the dynamic, uncertain, and adaptive nature of teaching work. Throughout this process, fundamental teaching knowledge was constructed, such as the ability to manage classroom conflicts, diagnose students’ real difficulties, adjust pedagogical mediation to ensure content comprehension, and balance instructional support with the development of student autonomy. This trajectory showed that teaching practice is constituted precisely in this ongoing movement between anticipation and adjustment, between intention and action. It is concluded that, although lesson plans signal powerful intentionalities, their effective implementation depends on pedagogical, formative, and organizational conditions that must be considered at the planning stage.