Dinâmica de grupo: instrumento de transformação ou conservação?
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
The objective of the present study was to investigate lf the Course of Groups Dynamic in Education (GDE) offerred by NUTES/CLATES was able to develop the particlpating professor's ability to institute (to create ar transform).To attain this objective the following questions were put: 1. Of what need was satisfaction sought in taking the GDE course? 2 . Up to which point coordinators and teacher-pupils sought to develop their capacity to institute in the GDE course? 3 . What are the obstacles indicated in the literature as possible impediments to the attainment of the objective - develop the capacity to institute - and which can be found in the NUTES/CLATES GDE course? With regard to the first question, an answer was sought in the analysis of expectations before the GDE course and evaluations made after its completion. The answer to the second question was obtained mainly from the analysis of each course's records. Finally, the third question was answered in accordance with the views of Lewin, Moreno, Rogers, pages, Freud, Bion, and Loureau and Lapassade, these latter representing the Institutional Analysis movement. The results show in relation to the first question that the course was sought explicitly for intellectual needs of learning teaching techniques and resources and implicitly for affective needs (centered on the interpersonal communications demonstrated, during the GDE course) As for the second question the results can be interpreted in two ways: if the group ' s reality is restricted to the duration of the GDE course it can be affirmed that the capacity to institute was exercised; if on the other hand, it is resumed that the group's reality is its transversality which goes beyond the 'here and now', the answer would be that the capacity to institute was not develope because there was no attempt to act on the reality through analysis of the transversality. The main obstacles found in the literature which would have hindered the development of the capacity to institute in the GDE courses at NUTES/CLATES and which formalize the answer to the answer to the third question were : the larger social context (Lewin); the non-development of the teacher's role (Moreno); the idealization of the role of the person in authority (Freud and Bion); the non-focusing of social practices as reproducers of imposed models (Pages); the silence with regard to group transversality (Lapassaàe and Loureau) . No obstacles we re found taking Rogers as a reference. The three conclusions reached were: 1. Strenghtening of the separation of the affective and intellectual components of the human behaviour in the GDE courses; 2. The capacity to institute was developed to the extent permitted by the social context; 3. The main obstacles were time, the authoritarian social organization in Brazil and the adoption of a mechanistic perspective of Groups Dynamic. Based on the results and conclusions the following modifications were suggested for future GDE's: 1. Broadening of the there and now'; 2. Dialectic view of the group process; 3. Incorporation of the concept of transversality; 4. Discussion of the relationship between technique and ideology.