Writing Teaching – TESOL 2015

I had the honor of being invited to take part in the panel “Crossing Borders, Building Bridges: Second Language Writing in Global Contexts” at TESOL 2015 in Toronto, CA. The presenters shared their experiences in Second Language Writing (SLW) practice and research in global contexts including Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. The presenters discussed best practices in SLW pedagogy and research projects that are influenced by contextual factors such as medium of instruction, culture, and politics. Below I share a transcript of my talk.

Many thanks to Lúcia Santos, Isabela Villas Boas, Denise De Felice and Vânia Rodrigues for this wonderful opportunity of sharing the hard work we do at the Casa.


I have been at Casa Thomas Jefferson for fifteen years, the last five of which working as Advanced Course Supervisor. Let me briefly describe my context to provide you with some background information that will, hopefully, help you better understand the scope and nature of our work in the teaching of writing, as well as the challenges we face in our educational context.

Casa Thomas Jefferson is a language institute, which, for the past 51 years, has specialized in teaching English as a foreign language. We currently have a little over 17 thousand students, distributed among 6 different campuses, 10 outposts in private K through 12 grade schools, and a select number of corporate courses  in Brasília. Our students have English classes with us twice a week, which amount to a total of approximately 4 hours a week. We are an extra-curricular program, and a large number of our students begin studying with us from as early as 4 years of age, staying with us until they become young adults, teenagers ranging from 16 to 18 years of age. Therefore, the bulk of our student population are youngsters, some of whose parents have been our students in the past, so we do have a reputation of excellence and tradition in teaching English, which we strive to uphold every day.

The teenagers who have been with us since their early years graduate from our Advanced Course, the course which I oversee; these students speak fluent English, and achieve a very respectable command of the language in terms of structure and vocabulary. They can understand spoken and written English, as well as produce the language with a dependable degree of accuracy and fluency both in oral and in written form. That is a result of our skills-based approach to teaching English, adopting communicative methodologies that are informed by highly regarded, pedagogical practices, such as those informed by social-constructivist principles. Another key feature of our methodology is that our classes are taught in English, since we have a strong English-only-environment policy in our classroom.

We adopt coursebooks in all of our courses, which we choose via a comprehensive book analysis process in which teachers, as well as other members of the school Coordination, evaluate and critique several coursebook series before we make a final choice and adopt one specific series. We are, however, very particular about how we need to adapt whatever material adopted to best suit our own context and our students’ needs. That is actually one of the major sources of impetus for the ongoing professional development that takes place at the Casa. Course Supervisors, such as myself, are responsible, among other things, for assessing the success in the adaptation process and spotting opportunities for improvement and development, which result in training for our teachers.

So, as you can see, the work has really only just begun when a new coursebook is adopted. And, traditionally, one of the major components of our courses which require lots of adaptation and personalization is exactly the teaching of writing.


Let me now go into the writing teaching methodology we adopt at the Casa. As mentioned before, we adopt a skills-based approach to teaching English. Therefore, writing is one of other skills that we want our students to develop in English. From beginner levels, our students already start producing short texts, and are exposed to tasks which will foster an experience in writing as a process which not only involves linguistic knowledge but also planning and drafting skills. In other words, we expose our students early on to practices informed by the belief that writing is a sociocognitive process, recursive and non-linear in its creative nature, and the very expression of one’s voice.

By the time our students reach the Advanced levels, they have developed a repertoire of basic writing skills, as well as some writing metalanguage. They have also been introduced to the concepts of audience and purpose, with some experience with different genres. They have worked with drafts, receiving feedback on their writing by means of comments addressing content, style and organization, as well as indications of linguistic improvements by means of proofreading symbols used by teachers.

In the Advanced levels, our students, who are mostly teenagers going to high school, are asked to focus on a specific genre, namely the academic essay, which they are required to master both for language proficiency and college entrance exams.


I would now like to focus on some of the distinguishing features of the Writing Program we develop in the Advanced Course. Our Advanced Course is made up of four semesters. The first two, corresponding to the upper-intermediate level, are critical for the success of the writing program developed during the last two semesters, which correspond to an advanced level of English.

During the first semester of the upper-intermediate levels, students’ writing goals are to consolidate and master the writing of paragraphs, following the linguistic and organizational requirements of body paragraphs in academic essays. Now, once they go on to their second semester in upper-intermediate, they will gradually expand on their previous knowledge to learn how to structure a full essay, containing an introduction, body paragraphs and a conclusion. They acquire some basic training and knowledge of the overall requirements of a well-structured essay before going into the advanced levels in the next two semesters.

Once they get to their third semester in the Advanced Course, they’ll get plenty of practice in the four-paragraph academic essay. They will be provided with practice in a variety of writing strategies, producing expository and argumentative essays, for example. In other words, they are learning a specific rhetoric and genre that will benefit their writing skills in and outside of our English classroom.

At this point, it’s appropriate that I mention another aspect of our educational context. In Brazil, they way our teenagers are taught Composition in their K through 12 schools, more specifically in grades 10 through 12, is fundamentally different from the experience with Composition they have with us at the Casa. A vast majority of Composition teachers in Brazilian high schools adopt a product-oriented approach, where writing teaching means correcting students’ mistakes and grading essays against college entrance exams parameters. There is emphasis on neither the cognitive nor the social dimension of the writing process, which relegates writing to being an end-product, resulting from the mechanical replication of models, which is ultimately a score on a life-changing exam for these teenagers, the one that will get them into a good university as soon as they leave high school.

Back to our English teaching context, in the Advanced Course, teachers are required to use a set of writing worksheets which will serve as the basis for their pre-writing lessons. The writing topics are adapted so as to become appealing to our teenagers, and are chosen in order to fit the subject-matter explored in their coursebook units. Students are assigned their writings at the end of a unit, after they have had plenty of opportunities to explore a given topic. In the case of the Advanced Course, pre-writing lessons are preceded by a Reading lesson, which will serve as an entry point to the required writing for the unit.

Now, keeping in mind that we have approximately 100 teachers working with a population of a little over 2000 Advanced students, we need to adopt instruments that will ensure the quality of every lesson, be it a pre-writing, or any other type of lesson. So, we try to select and adapt topics that we believe will entice our teenagers, stimulating their creativity and willingness to voice their opinions and feelings. We also adopt the use of writing scoring rubrics to try to minimize subjectivity in the feedback process, as well as to provide students with a set of clear expectations for their work. Our students need to know how their writing will be assessed by their teachers.

A pre-writing lesson will typically contain the following stages: think about and discuss the writing topic, brainstorm content, outline ideas, study and analyze a model and focus on specific language strategies to convey meaning. Once students have had their pre-writing lesson, they produce their 1st drafts, on which they’ll get feedback from their teachers regarding several aspects of their writing: content (their ideas), text (organization, genre, style), and language (grammatical accuracy and word choice). Students may also get feedback from peers and from one-on-one conferences with their teachers. They are then asked to produce their final drafts, whose grade will be considered for evaluation purposes, together with the other grades they have as part of our course.

We have also been adopting a Portfolio approach, in which students are encouraged to reflect on their overall development through the semesters as Casa Advanced students. One of the strategies we want our students to learn with the collection of a portfolio is to identify areas for improvement and establish goals for future assignments.

Now, the use of portfolios in the Advanced Course presents challenges. Brazilian students, coming from the background they have in their K-12 school culture, do not seem to value their own writings. That is understandable, given the mechanical production of essays for college entrance exam prep. By implementing writing portfolios, we are trying to foster a sense of value regarding writing as a means of personal expression.

Another challenge we face is a certain level of resistance to adopting peer revision, which I personally believe to be a natural fit to a portfolio approach and a writing teaching pedagogy based on socio-constructivist principles of learning.

Another challenge worth mentioning has to do with time constraints and teachers’ workload. It is no easy task for teachers to do the necessary planning and keep up with the drafting process, providing the necessary support and the high quality feedback our students need to succeed. One major adaptation we’ve had to implement is that of bringing the number of drafts from three to only two. That means that teachers now provide feedback on content, organization, as well as language use upon correcting students’ 1st drafts. Teachers are also instructed to grade 1st drafts so that, should a student fail to produce a final draft, that student already has a grade for his writing work, even if he or she do not follow through with the entire drafting process.

To the effect of tackling those issues involving time constraints and handling logistics (turning in assignments and providing feedback in a timely manner), we have started experimenting with a digital alternative to the physical portfolios. We are experimenting with the affordances of Google Classroom for the development of our Advanced Writing program. We are still in a piloting stage, having invited a small group of about ten teachers who were eager to try out this new tool with their Advanced students. We hope that, by making the handling of logistics simpler and paperless, students and teachers might find ways of managing the process more rapidly and more conveniently. And of course, that is not to mention other possibilities of sharing content, communicating, and classroom flipping that we have just begun exploring with this tool. Digital portfolios and the possibility of showcasing students’ writings to a real audience online are what’s next for our students’ writings.

I’d like to share a quote by Professor Ken Hyland in his book Second Language Writing, which I feel synthesizes our efforts towards an effective writing teaching pedagogy:

“In practice this (an effective methodology for L2 writing teaching) means a synthesis to ensure that learners have an adequate understanding of the processes of text creation; the purposes of writing and how to express these in effective ways through formal and rhetorical text choices; and the contexts within which texts are composed and read and which give them meaning.”

We choose to teach writing the way we do because we believe that effective, communicative writing can and should be taught to our English learners. We believe that the very development of their writing skills directly impacts their cognitive and expressive abilities, empowering our teenagers as they exercise and get to know their own voices.


HYLAND, Ken. Second Language Writing. Cambridge Language Education series (Editor: Jack C. Richards) Cambridge University Press, 2003.

VILLAS BOAS, I. F. Stepping Stones for Successful Writing. In: VI Seminário de Línguas Estrangeiras da Universidade Federal de Goiás, 2006, Goiânia. Anais do VI Seminário de Línguas Estrangeiras – UFG, 2006. p. 453-464

VILLAS BOAS, I. F. Process Writing in a Product-Oriented Context: Challenges and Possibilities. Article based on part of the Doctoral Dissertation entitled A Contribuição do Processo de Ensino-Aprendizagem de Produção Textual em Língua Inglesa para o Letramento do Aluno,  presented at the School of Education, Universidade de Brasília, 2008. In: RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v.14, n.2, p. 463-490, 2014.

1st ATNU – Advanced Teacher Network Unmeeting

On February 6 I held a meeting with our In-Service Advanced Course teachers. My group of Supervisors had decided that it would be worthwhile to try a different approach to our In-Service meetings, which have traditionally been lectures containing announcements and information about course features, with an audience of teachers passively taking it all in. I wanted to engage teachers in reflection on their own practice, as well as tap into their beliefs and values as educators, so I gave them a challenge, a driving question that would sort of give some direction and purpose for the session. This was our driving question:

How can we adapt coursebook use in order to foster more meaningful learning experiences to our Advanced students?

In order to get teachers immersed in our context, they were asked to carry out a poster & post-its activity. They sat together in groups of five to six people at round tables in our Resource Center. Each group was given a poster containing three questions: who are our students? what are their needs? how might we meet their needs? Teachers were asked to brainstorm responses to those questions, writing their ideas/responses on sticky notes for each of the three questions. Once they had generated plenty of ideas, they went over their notes with their groups, selecting what they agreed to be the most relevant ones and placing those higher up on the poster. The atmosphere fired up with the buzz of nearly ninety people talking, exchanging ideas, interpreting their findings together.

Now that they had brainstormed and discussed their teaching/learning context, they had a vivid, dynamic image of their students in mind, as well as their challenges in their everyday teaching practice. The next stage would take them closer to the topic addressed in the driving question – coursebook use and adaptation. For this stage of the session, I had reccommended (a few weeks before the session) that teachers read a post written my me on the subject of materials adaptation. The idea was to give them some theoretical and methodological references to help them shape their contributions and reflect on their materials’ use so far in the piloting stage. Each group accessed a Google Doc, which I had previously created especially for this meeting, where they would be guided in their reflection and suggestions for making the best of the coursebook we are currently phasing in in our Advanced Course.

Before we finished the session, once groups of teachers had finished editing their Google Docs, they were asked to leave an exit ticket, sharing their impressions of the session. I will now share some of their responses, sharing some of my reflections triggered by their feedback.

“I think this session was very interesting for learning and suggesting improvements for the advanced course. Sharing experiences with more experienced teachers, was also fantastic.”

This was definitely a concern of mine when planning the session: creating opportunities for teachers with different backgrounds and classroom experience to work together and engage in meaningful discussion. I was hopeful that this kind of heterogeneous collaboration would produce interesting learning for all involved, regardless of how experienced they are, or whether they are new teachers at our institution.

“It was great to have this opportunity to share experiences and generate new ideas with other advanced teachers. The discussions we carried out today will help me plan my lessons and adapt the course materials this semester.”

Hopefully, a great number of teachers was able to take something practical from the session. The fact that they were asked to collaborate in order to carry out the tasks proposed naturally led teachers to share experiences and tacit knowledge, which is especially valuable for those teachers starting out. It’s also a positive way to make the institutional culture known among the people – teachers – who directly contribute to (re)creating it every day, in and out of the classroom.

“it’s important to get someone to keep group on course or discussions become very general rather than specific…” 

This was also an experiment in teachers’ capacity for self-directed, self-managed collaborative work. Some groups seemed to manage to keep on track, being highly productive, whereas others seemed to lag, getting sidetracked in long discussions. This is, therefore, a valuable suggestion for future sessions. I should point out, though, that I feel it’s only natural that it so happens, especially when we are beginning a shift from sessions centered on one person transmitting the information to a hundred passive listeners, to decentralized, collaborative (and often times messy) work among different individuals.

“This was a very hands-on meeting which was very productive. We have had the opportunity to share many ideas and impressions related to the advanced series. There was active participation and a thorough exchange of ideas/concerns/experiences.”

“I really enjoyed the way that this meeting was planned as it allowed us to participate actively and to go deep into the topics discussed. It was also very nice to get to know my colleagues better and to find out their ways to teach the advanced course.”

My two takeaways from these two quotes are hands-on and participate actively. One of my core goals was to have teachers go beyond the generation and discussion of ideas by actually getting them engaged in making something. For me, the posters and the docs they created as a result of their negotiations are valuable iterations of collective knowledge.

“I think this was a very interesting attempt at dealing with such an overwhelming topic. I find the session would’be been more effective if we didn’t need to go through the warm up stage in the meeting.”

This comment has given me some insight on the issue of timing. It had been my idea not to spend too long on the poster & post-its stage of the session. I must confess, nonetheless, that I myself lost track of time at certain points of the session, since discussions seemed to become denser and denser by the minute. This suggestion also reflects a concern I mentioned above, regarding the different teacher backgrounds and levels of experience. A very experienced teacher, having been immersed in the Advanced Course context for a long time, might have been ready to dive into the second stage of the session right away. My takeaway here is differentiation. How might I be able to differentiate without alienating, and still keeping it productive?

There were 43 exit tickets total. Below are a few other comments (highlights are mine and will hopefully speak for themselves):

“it was interesting to share opinions and discuss the questions. i felt there was a sense of focus and that our group feels more ready to tackle this semester. a great way to have the ‘meeting’.”

“A profitable and organized session! I actually had new ideas and heard nice ideas from peers!”

“I much prefer this over the traditional meeting. I think the activity was fantastic for generation of ideas. It was very focused and could have been more productive if people kept the conversation on task.(…)”

“The discussion was relevant and productive. Thank you for the opportunity. I’m looking forward to our next meetings.”

“Very organized and productive!!! I was glad you opened a channel for us teachers to express our real concerns about the book. Hope we find our way out of the main problematic situations.”

“The session was thought- provoking and insightful. The steps were clear and meant to fit a very demanding audience. The group discussions were interesting throughout the session. Most of all, it gave room to the ” Thank God I’ m a teacher” feeling we need in the beginning of the semester!

I will end this post here, for it’s already quite long, but I’ll be coming back to this session in future posts where I hope to explore the richness of content generated and beliefs shared by this amazing group of teachers.

I take this opportunity to thank each and every teacher who participated in this session for their commitment to their own professional development, and to being eager to provide meaningful learning experiences to our students. Thank you.

Tablets na sala de aula

photo 1 (2)

Foto: Clarissa Bezerra


Segundo MORAES (2002), novas ferramentas e instrumentos causam mudanças culturais ao propiciar novas formas de fazer. Com novas formas de fazer, surgem novas formas de pensar esse fazer, gerando mudanças no saber. Diferentes tipos de tecnologias intelectuais estimulam diferentes dimensões cognitivas, ativando com mais frequência e/ou intensidade partes específicas do cérebro. Em decorrência disso, enfraquecem-se determinados estilos de saber derivados de outros modos de acesso e processamento de informação.  Percebendo essa tendência do processamento cognitivo diferenciado dos alunos pertencentes à nova geração, diversas escolas estão adotando o uso dos tablets para fins educacionais.  

Existe nos dias de hoje uma ampla discussão acerca da defasagem da educação tradicional, especialmente no que diz respeito à perspectiva dos jovens da ‘geração digital’. Para SACCOL et al (2011), o aluno de hoje já não consegue fazer sentido na maneira como a educação tradicional se estrutura, centrada no professor e desenvolvida de forma linear com base em texto e aulas expositivas. “A nova geração está costumada a agir em vez de passivamente assistir (…) Em vez de simplesmente absorver conteúdo, essa é uma geração acostumada a produzi-lo, tanto individualmente quanto em grupo, e compartilhá-lo em redes sociais.” (ibid p.21) Nessa perspectiva, a utilização de tablets para fins educacionais oferece um imenso potencial de engajamento por parte do aluno ao propiciar experiências de aprendizagem por meio de uma mídia digital que permite um tipo de interação com a informação que corresponde de maneira mais pessoal, e por que não dizer prazerosa, com a forma com a qual o jovem tem acesso à informação no mundo atual.

No entanto, não basta que haja uma mudança somente de ferramenta, nem mesmo uma mudança somente na maneira como o aluno entra em contato com a informação, ou conteúdo curricular. É necessária uma mudança mais profunda de paradigma educacional, de maneira que evoluamos em direção a uma abordagem mais complexa e menos linear, ou cartesiana (MORAES, 2002), do processo de ensino-aprendizagem. Um componente importante dos saberes do professor (TARDIFF, 2002) é fazer com que qualquer material, seja ele impresso na forma de um livro ou apostila, ou outro tipo qualquer, ganhe vida no processo de ensino-aprendizagem. O professor é o elemento humano responsável pela mediação pedagógica que deve acontecer entre aluno e conteúdo, que nesse caso acontece por meio de uma interface digital, de maneira que a informação se torne conhecimento para o aluno por meio da experiência de aprendizagem significativa (AUSUBEL, 1965). É por isso que GABRIEL (2013) defende que “(…) o principal investimento deve ser feito em pessoas para capacitá-las e educá-las para esse cenário. (…) Tecnologia não é diferencial, mas o modo como a utilizamos, sim.” (ibid, p.7) Sendo assim, a formação continuada do professor segue tendo um papel preponderante na qualidade da experiência de aprendizagem do aluno.


A capacitação dos professores para utilização efetiva de conteúdo por meio de plataformas digitais exige, entretanto, uma apropriação mais pessoal por parte do professor das tecnologias utilizadas. Um aspecto que torna essa apropriação problemática é o fato de que o professor de hoje não é um ‘nativo digital’, ou seja, ainda opera sob princípios e saberes advindos de tecnologias do conhecimento antigas, normalmente aquelas que foram utilizadas quando ele mesmo foi aluno. Esse aspecto torna o treinamento para a utilização efetiva dessas novas ferramentas um grande desafio para esses profissionais, desafio esse que deve ser conquistado se quisermos evitar continuar “otimizando o péssimo” (MORAES, 2002) ao utilizar novas tecnologias apoiadas, no entanto, numa visão pedagógica tradicionalista e instrucionista, na qual o aluno permanece passivo no processo de aprendizagem. Ainda segundo MORAES,


O fato de integrar imagens, textos, sons, animação, e mesmo de interligar informação em sequências não lineares, como as atualmente utilizadas em multimídia e hipermídia, não é garantia de boa qualidade pedagógica e de uma nova abordagem educacional. Programas visualmente agradáveis, bonitos e até criativos podem continuar representando o paradigma instrucionista ao colocar no recurso tecnológico uma série de informações a ser repassada ao aluno. Dessa forma, continuamos preservando e expandindo a velha forma como fomos educados, sem refletir sobre o significado de uma nova prática pedagógica que utilize esses novos instrumentos. (ibid, p.16)

Segundo o NMC Horizon Report, o desenvolvimento profissional contínuo é condição sine qua non para que alcancemos altos níveis de qualidade do processo de ensino-aprendizagem por meio do uso de tecnologias digitais. Esse tipo de treinamento precisa ser valorizado e se tornar parte da cultura das escolas. Os professores precisam desenvolver as habilidades necessárias para integrar os recursos tecnológicos de maneira efetiva, tornando a experiência de aprendizagem ainda mais significativa para os alunos.


O uso de dispositivos móveis, tais como os smart phones e tablets, para fins educacionais constitui um grande desafio para as práticas docentes atuais. Por todo o mundo, educadores e pesquisadores na área de educação têm se debruçado sobre o desenvolvimento de metodologias didático-pedagógicas que possam incorporar o uso desses dispositivos de forma a explorar todo o seu potencial de mobilidade sem, no entanto, perder de vista valores centrais que informam as boas práticas docentes que colocam o aluno e sua experiência de aprendizagem no centro do planejamento e das ações pedagógicas. É nesse contexto que se fundamentam os conceitos de mobile learning ou m-learning (aprendizagem com mobilidade), e ubiquitous learning ou u-learning (aprendizagem ubíqua).

Para que o planejamento e as ações didático-pedagógicas possam propiciar aprendizagem de qualidade, é imprescindível que tenhamos conhecimento dos diversos benefícios e potenciais, assim como das limitações, desses tipos de aprendizagens. SACCOL, SCHLEMMER e BARBOSA (2011) fazem uma exposição detalhada desses aspectos no quadro 1.1 (ibid, p. 34 e 35), do qual escolheremos aqueles mais relevantes para o cenário da escola em questão.


O primeiro benefício do m-learning e u-learning é a flexibilidade em termos de local e horário em que a prendizagem pode ocorrer. No entanto, segundo SACCOL et al, pode haver limitações de tempo disponível ao aluno para desempenhar as atividades, assim como pode ser limitada a própria quantidade de conteúdo a ser coberto pelo aluno. No presente contexto, o aluno faz uso de um material didático desenhado e desenvolvido para ser acessado pelo tablet. O professor pode extrapolar esse conteúdo, compartilhando outros recursos pertinentes aos conteúdos curriculares, direcionando os alunos a simular ou aplicar conteúdo teórico em situações práticas ou por meio do uso de recursos digitais tanto do próprio material quanto daqueles existentes online. Para tanto, faz-se necessário que o professor busque desenvolver suas habilidades de curadoria digital, explorando as possibilidades da Internet e o vasto universo de conteúdo que se encontra à disposição de todos aqueles que a ela tem acesso. Ainda na dimensão da flexibilidade, podemos explorar também aquela referente à aprendizagem de campo, fora do ambiente da sala de aula. Essa liberdade de movimento por parte dos alunos promove grandes potenciais para experiências de aprendizagem significativa, favorecendo ainda aqueles alunos que se beneficiam do movimento corporal, por exemplo, para dar maior significado ao seu aprendizado.

Outra dimensão do m-learning e u-learning que consideramos como um de seus maiores benefícios é a personalização da experiência de aprendizagem da qual decorrem outros aspectos importantes, tais como o engajamento, a autonomia e a criação de conteúdo por parte do aluno.  São inúmeras as possibilidades de engajamento em pesquisa propiciadas pelos dispositivos móveis conectados à Internet. Os alunos podem ser direcionados a exercitar e desenvolver suas habilidades de pesquisa ao buscar conteúdos pertinentes ao que se está aprendendo no currículo, ou conteúdos que beneficiem e enriqueçam as discussões de sala de aula. Tais dinâmicas de pesquisa e aprendizagem podem ser ainda mais valorizadas por meio da colaboração e do compartilhamento do conteúdo curado ou criado pelo próprio aprendiz, agregando valor ao seu trabalho a partir do momento em que ele pode ser desenvolvido para uma audiência real, constituída de seus pares, professores, familiares e quaisquer outros indivíduos com quem possa conectar.  Tomemos como exemplo a possibilidade de um aluno poder dividir uma resenha crítica de sua autoria com o próprio escritor da obra estudada. É perfeitamente possível hoje em dia essa conexão por meio das mídias sociais, a exemplo do Twitter.

Diante de tantas possibilidades proporcionadas dentro do contexto do m-learning e u-learning deve-se sempre manter o foco no aluno e nos objetivos da aprendizagem, já que o apelo estimulante da exploração dessas tecnologias pode resultar num foco excessivo na tecnologia (tecnocentrismo), razão pela qual voltamos a enfatizar a importância do treinamento continuado do corpo docente de forma a assegurar o foco central das práticas pedagógicas adotadas nos objetivos reais de aprendizagem.


AUSUBEL, D. A cognitive structure view of word and concept meaning. In R.C. Anderson e D. Ausubel.Readings in the Psychology of Cognition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

DIAMANDIS, Peter H. KOTLER, Steven. Abundance: the future is better than you think. New York: Free Press, 2012.

GABRIEL, Martha. Educar: a revolução digital na educação. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2013.

GARDNER, Howard. Inteligências múltiplas. A teoria na prática. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 1995.

JOHNSON, L., ADAMS BECKER, S., CUMMINS, M., ESTRADA, V., FREEMAN, A., LUDGATE, H. NMC Horizon Report: Edição K-12 2013. Tradução para o português pela Ez2translate. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium, 2013.

MERIJE, Wagner. Mobimento: educação e comunicação mobile. São Paulo: Peirópolis, 2012.

MORAES, Maria Cândida. O Paradigma Educacional Emergente. Campinas: Papirus, 2002.

SACCOL, Amarolinda. SCHLEMMER, Eliane. BARBOSA, Jorge. M-learning e u-learning: novas perspectivas das aprendizagens móvel e ubíqua. São Paulo: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2011.

TARDIFF, Maurice. Saberes docentes e formação profissional. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes, 2002.