Altas habilidades/superdotação na educação superior: contextos das universidades federais do Rio Grande do Sul

Abstract

This doctoral research is linked to the Graduate Program in Education of Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (Federal University of Santa Maria) and discusses about the inclusion of academics with High Abilities/Giftedness in Higher Education. The writing is originated from concerns about the data available in the Higher Education Census regarding the number of enrollments of this Target Public of Special Education in the respective level of education. From readings of theories and comprehension that these statistical data do not represent the reality of the Brazilian public university context, we traced the objective of verifying if they are – and in which way the actions of orientation to the recognition and identification of indicators of High Abilities/Giftedness in Public Universities of Rio Grande do Sul are offered in a perspective of Inclusive Education. As methodological approach, the research was defined as qualitative (TRIVIÑOS, 1987; CRESWELL, 2014; GIL, 2008), exploratory-descriptive, of Multiple Cases (Multicases) Study type (YIN, 2010; 2015; 2016). For data collection, semi-structured interviews (GIL, 2018) and questionnaires (PRODANOV; FREITAS, 2013) were used. We also consulted the institutional documents of each university, such as the Institutional Development Plan and the Institutional Pedagogical Project. The data organization followed the triangulation and were analyzed through the content analysis by Bardin (2011). The study was developed with the public universities of Rio Grande do Sul that accepted to participate and collaborate with the information: UFSM, UFPel, FURG and UFRGS. The research subjects were four coordinators of the accessibility centers or similar, three representatives of undergraduate pro-rectory, two psychologists and three academics with indicators of high abilities/giftedness. For giving theoretical support to the writing, we used in our study authors such as Renzulli (2004; 2014; 2018), Freitas and Pérez (2012); Pérez and Freitas (2013; 2016); Barrera (2018); Alencar (2012); Arantes-Brero (2016; 2020); Delou (2007; 2012); Fleith (2007a; 2007b; 2007c); Virgolim (2007; 2014); Simplício (2014). From the interpretation of the speeches and questionnaires, eight categories translate the findings: Knowledge x lack of knowledge; teacher training; profile of the “prominent public”: the late identification/outside the university, invisibility that accommodates/disturbs, the documented inclusion: from the interviewees‟ opinion about the institutional documents; not everything is rock and thorn: the possibilities of metamorphosing; identifying is possible, but what about assisting?; long way: “we are preparing ourselves”. And two subcategories: Self-knowledge: the perception of HA/G in the subject himself; suggestions: giving voice to the participants. It was found two students identified at UFSM, one at UFRGS, two at UFPel with active enrollments at the moment of the research and no academic at FURG. Such numbers represent the necessity of thinking about actions to identify this public in institutions of higher education. We noted that the universities are seeking to organize themselves; however, they still need more basis to implement the recognition and assistance of these students. The inclusion within the referred universities is glimpsed, however with the focus on students with disability and autistic spectrum disorder, and it is lagged for the High Abilities/Giftedness. One of the greatest perceptions, whether from the professionals or the participating students, was the demand for more knowledge, being indispensable the continued education that subsidizes the work with this specificity. The students said that they were identified when they were adults and that this process happened outside the university. Only one of them stated that while still a teenager, she participated in extracurricular enrichment programs, but, even so, it was required her formal identification by the university, and she had to seek for a qualified professional for this. It was exposed complaints about some professors that do not comprehend and do not respect their way of being. We noted positive aspects, mainly to the support offered by the accessibility center, besides the monitoring by a special educator in the accessibility center (UFSM); the call for evaluation inside the institution and the attempt to listen to the demands of the academic (UFRGS), the possibility of self-declaration at the moment of enrollment and the quotas for the HA/G (UFPel). Nevertheless, the three students think that many students remain in the invisibility and that they do not find structure for their educational demands in the institutions. Anxieties were noticed by part of the coordinators who wish to assist these students, but recognize that they need more support. In some of the speeches, this support fell to the management team, which is not always opened for this thought of effective inclusion. And also, issues involving the bureaucratic part were mentioned, when it is not something that depends only on the university (this organization). It was verified the relevance of the accessibility centers for the work with these academics, whether in the orientation of coordinators and professors; sending memorandums about the existence of this public and what this public requires in their educational process; meetings for dialogue together with this professionals; searching for partnerships with other sectors in the university, such as psychology for the evaluation/recognition of these subjects; joint construction of strategies with the students. For the inclusion of these students in Higher Education, teamwork is necessary, because it surpasses the necessity of identifying them, demanding the awareness of teachers and the institutional community of what High Abilities/Giftedness are.