Marina Filier de Oliveira; Adriessa Santos

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603259

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The growing heterogeneity of the classroom and inclusive legislation have driven the search for pedagogical strategies that cater to student diversity, highlighting active methodologies and the atelier organization proposed by Celestin Freinet. The potentialities and limits of the atelier organization of pedagogical work in the school inclusion process were identified in light of neuroscience. To this end, a descriptive field survey research was conducted. Questionnaires were administered to six elementary school teachers from the public school system in Campinas, São Paulo, who used ateliers in their teaching practice. The responses were qualitatively analyzed to identify the contributions and limits of this pedagogical organization for inclusion. The results revealed that ateliers were a powerful strategy for promoting personalized learning, peer interaction, and the development of student autonomy. However, significant limitations were observed related to the concrete working conditions of teachers, such as the high number of students per class, the absence of support staff, and the lack of time for collective planning. It was concluded that, although the teachers have a broad conception of inclusion and knowledge of active practices, the effectiveness of inclusion is directly related to the institutional and structural conditions of the school.

Keywords: Inclusive education; Freinet; Active methodologies; Neuroscience; Pedagogical practice.

1. Introduction

The heterogeneity of the classroom represents a constant concern and one of the greatest challenges faced by teachers today. Although diversity has always been a reality, recent legislation, such as the Law of Directives and Bases of Education (LDB), the Brazilian Law of Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities (LBI), and the National Policy of Special Education from an Inclusive Perspective (Brazil, 2008), along with the Brazilian Federal Constitution (1988), have driven the configuration of an increasingly plural school environment. In this scenario, the need for inclusive care for all students is pressing.

The importance of the topic is reinforced by data from the 2023 School Census, which indicate a gradual increase in the percentage of enrollments for students eligible for Special Education. Of the 1,771,430 enrollments counted, the largest concentration, with 62.90% (1,114,230), was in elementary education (INEP, 2024). These numbers reflect teachers’ perception of the growing number of students with disabilities, learning difficulties, and neurodivergent individuals in the classroom.

However, classroom heterogeneity is not a direct and exclusive consequence of legal advances for the inclusion of neurodivergent or disabled students. It is an inherent reality, as each human being has a unique way of learning. The challenge lies in how to conceive inclusive support for each student. Ainscow (2009) highlights that inclusion is the greatest challenge of the global school system, being seen as a project that welcomes the diversity of all students (UNESCO, 2001). This conception is based on the premise that education is a fundamental human right and the foundation for a more just society (Ainscow, 2009).

Inclusion, according to Ainscow (2020), should be understood as a continuous process of seeking better ways to deal with diversity. It is a principle that celebrates diversity in the classroom and combats social exclusion resulting from discriminatory attitudes, focusing on the presence, participation, and success of all children and young people. There is no single model of inclusive education, but highly inclusive schools share the characteristic of being welcoming to all their students.

Given this context, many teachers still feel unprepared to address such diversity. The central question, therefore, is how to organize pedagogical work taking individual differences as a starting point. Mantoan (2015) emphasizes the need for an active, dialogical, interactive, and integrating pedagogical conception, which moves away from a unidirectional and hierarchical view of knowledge, recognizing that each individual learns in a distinct way.

Neuroscience research corroborates that the learning process is unique to each human being, and people learn what is most relevant and meaningful to them, that is, what generates cognitive and emotional connections (Moran, 2018). Learning is deepened with frequent practice spaces and environments rich in varied stimuli (Consenza and Guerra, 2011). Thus, a learning process organized actively, with methodologies that promote student protagonism, can be more effective in generating lasting, flexible learning that respects different ways of learning.

In this sense, active methodologies, centered on the effective participation of students in the construction of their knowledge, emerge as a promising path. Moran (2018) describes three principles of these methodologies: personalized learning, shared learning, and peer tutoring. These foundations seek to create learning paths that make sense for each student, meeting their needs and interests.

Within active methodologies and the proposals of the New School, the contribution of Celestin Freinet stands out, who, at the beginning of the 20th century, already advocated for the modernization of the school, abandoning standardized activities and expository classes (Silva, 2004). To this end, Freinet developed instruments and techniques to facilitate pedagogical work, among which are the work ateliers (Fechi, 2022).

The workshops represent a way of organizing the classroom that decentralizes the learning process from the teacher. In them, desks are grouped for different activity proposals, and students choose groups based on their needs and interests, stimulating autonomy (Fechi, 2022). The Freinetian proposal of workshops is, in its essence, inclusive, as it starts from the heterogeneity and diversity of the classroom as a prerequisite, offering different simultaneous activities that meet the specific learning needs of the students. This approach promotes active, personalized, and shared learning, configuring itself as a possibility to face the challenge of diversity in the classroom.

Despite the recognition of active methodologies and the relevance of work workshops, the practical application of these approaches in a school inclusion context still faces significant challenges, such as the lack of pedagogical support, planning time, and the number of students per class, as pointed out by teachers. The gap lies in understanding how the organization of pedagogical work in workshops, in light of neuroscience and active methodologies, can effectively contribute to inclusive education, overcoming existing barriers. Thus, this work seeks to identify the potentialities and limits of the organization of pedagogical work in work workshops, as proposed by Celestin Freinet, in the inclusion process. This investigation is intended to be carried out in light of neuroscience research, guided by investigations into active methodologies, in order to understand the effects that this form of pedagogical work organization can effectively have on student learning.

2. Material and Methods

The present investigation was characterized as a descriptive research, adopting the field survey approach, known as survey (Gil, 2017). This type of research in social sciences was selected for its ability to collect data directly from reality through interrogation, allowing for objective knowledge about the phenomenon studied. The choice for this type of study aligned with the objective of describing participants’ perceptions, without the intention of explaining broader social processes.

The unit of analysis for the study consisted of female teachers from Elementary School I in the public school system of the municipality of Campinas, in the State of São Paulo. The selection of this specific group aimed to understand the experiences of teachers who already integrated workshops into their pedagogical practice. The focus on the public school system in Campinas allowed for a geographical and institutional delimitation for data collection.

The sample consisted of six female teachers, selected for convenience. The participants were initially contacted by the researcher, who already knew about their use of workshops in the classroom. Subsequently, other professionals who met the criteria were asked to be recommended. The inclusion criteria for participation in the research were: being a teacher of Elementary School I in the public school system of Campinas, São Paulo, and using workshops in their teaching practice.

As a data collection instrument, a questionnaire was used. It was designed to be administered online, facilitating participant access and allowing them to answer the questions at their own time and convenience. The questionnaire was structured to collect both quantitative data, through closed-ended and multiple-choice questions, and qualitative data, through open-ended and essay questions.

The questionnaire was organized into three distinct sections. The first section sought to outline the sociodemographic profile of the participants, including information on academic background, time of experience in the classroom, and area of work in public education. The second section aimed to collect data on teachers’ conceptions of inclusive education. The third section focused on the organization of pedagogical work in workshops, exploring aspects such as time of use, reasons for choice, and perceptions of potentialities and limitations.

Data collection was carried out by sending the electronic questionnaire, hosted on the Google Forms platform. Before responding, participants had access to the Free and Informed Consent Form (TCLE) online, ensuring voluntariness and awareness about the research. The study was submitted and approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), under CAAE No. 95764825.0.0000.9927, ensuring the ethical precepts of confidentiality and privacy of the collected data.

After collection, the participants’ raw responses were organized into a tabular structure, following the questionnaire’s division. A table was created for each of the three sections of the questionnaire: sociodemographic profile, conceptions of inclusive education, and organization of pedagogical work in workshops. The column titles of each table indicated the type of information intended to be obtained from each question, facilitating the initial visualization and systematization of the data.

The analysis of the collected data was qualitative in nature, using Content Analysis, as proposed by Bardin (2016). This method was used to identify the senses and meanings attributed by the participants to the themes directly related to the work’s objectives. The open-ended questions of the questionnaire, present in the sections on conceptions of inclusive education and organization in workshops, were the main focus of this analysis.

The analysis process began with the systematization of data in the aforementioned tables, followed by an interpretive reading of the responses. From this reading, recurrences of meaning were identified, which allowed for the construction of two main analytical categories. The first category addressed conceptions of inclusive education and its challenges, while the second explored the potentialities and limits of workshops for the inclusion of all students. Furthermore, the study sought to relate neuroscience knowledge with the workshop practices reported by the teachers.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the collected data, from questionnaires applied to six female teachers of Elementary School I in the public school system of Campinas, São Paulo, who use workshops in their pedagogical practice, revealed important insights into inclusive education and the organization of work in workshops. The results were structured into two main axes: the conceptions and challenges inherent to inclusive education, and the potentialities and limits of pedagogical organization in workshops. Before delving into these axes, a summary of the participants’ sociodemographic profile is presented, which provides the context for subsequent interpretations.

The profile of the participating teachers indicated a group of professionals with solid academic training and significant experience. Of the six female teachers who responded to the questionnaire, two had postgraduate lato sensu degrees, two had completed master’s degrees, one was pursuing a doctorate, and another had already completed her doctorate. Regarding teaching experience, five teachers had more than ten years of experience, while one had between three and five years of experience. All participants worked in the municipal education system, which suggests an updated teaching staff with considerable practical experience, crucial elements for the richness of the collected perceptions.

Conceptions of inclusive education and its challenges

The teachers’ conceptions of inclusive education demonstrated a comprehensive understanding aligned with contemporary perspectives in the field. Five of the six participants defined inclusive education as a process that welcomes all students, values their potential, and seeks to meet their needs to promote learning progress. One of the instructors, for example, emphasized that inclusive education “looks at students’ potential and seeks to meet their needs to achieve progress in their teaching and learning processes,” while another described it as the guarantee of equity, adapting activities and removing barriers. These views converge with the perspective of Ainscow (2020), who highlights inclusion as a continuous process of seeking better ways to deal with diversity, focusing on the presence, participation, and success of all children and young people.

Despite this broad conception, the teachers also revealed the challenges faced in implementing inclusive education in their schools. All participants stated that their institutions seek an inclusive approach, but four of them emphasized that this approach occurs “despite the concrete conditions” or “within the school’s possibilities.” This observation points to a gap between pedagogical intentionality and structural conditions, suggesting that the effectiveness of inclusion depends not only on the goodwill or knowledge of educators, but also on robust institutional support. Teacher 5, for example, highlighted that the school should be democratic and welcoming, celebrating diversity, but the concrete conditions often prevent this full realization.

Among the most frequently cited challenges by teachers were the lack of human and material resources, the absence of support professionals, and the scarcity of time for planning. One participant expressed the difficulty of working without the support of another teacher, which makes individualized attention necessary for students with specific needs unfeasible. Another teacher mentioned that inclusion “requires a lot of study, professional qualification, reflection time, and, in some cases, many material and structural resources,” conditions that, according to her, are not present in the school. These accounts highlight that, although teachers understand the need for personalized learning (Valente, 2018), working conditions severely limit their ability to implement it.

The issue of the high number of students per class also emerged as a significant obstacle. Professor 5, for example, reported that her biggest difficulty is related to the “number of students per classroom”, especially when dealing with children with disabilities without the support of an auxiliary teacher. This overload makes direct mediation and individualized attention, essential for learning that respects the different paces and needs of each student, difficult. Professor 6 added, mentioning the “external demands that do not consider the reality of the classrooms, the number of students per class, and the lack of pedagogical support”, as well as the “little paid time for (re)planning, grading, and assessment”.

These difficulties reinforce the idea that inclusive education, to be effective, demands more than an adequate pedagogical conception. It requires the removal of structural barriers and the creation of working conditions that allow teachers to personalize teaching and cater to diversity. Neuroscience, by indicating that the brain learns what is significant and relevant (Moran, 2018; Consenza and Guerra, 2011), underlines the importance of an individualized approach. However, the absence of support and the large number of students per class make this close and personalized monitoring an almost impossible task for the lead teacher, compromising the quality of inclusion.

Despite the challenging scenario, the teachers also reported pedagogical practices that seek to promote inclusion. They mentioned the use of conversation circles, the support of more experienced students for colleagues with difficulties, and the use of media resources and multiple languages. These strategies, which promote active student participation, are facilitated by the organization of the classroom into workshops. One of the teachers highlighted the strategy of “counting on the support of students who are willing and understand the content to help these students during collective work, especially in the workshops,” evidencing the search for collaborative solutions within existing limitations.

Organization of pedagogical work in workshops

The work studios, as proposed by Celestin Freinet, represent a form of pedagogical organization that decentralizes the learning process from the teacher, promoting student autonomy. In this approach, desks are grouped for different activity proposals, and students choose groups based on their needs and interests (Fechi, 2022). This structure allows for a greater offer of simultaneous activities, addressing classroom heterogeneity and promoting active, personalized, and shared learning, aligning with the principles of active methodologies described by Moran (2018).

The participating teachers identified several potentials of working in workshops for inclusive education. They highlighted the possibility for children to work on different proposals, respecting their interests and learning paces. Teacher 1, for example, valued the “possibility of dialoguing with colleagues, exchanging knowledge, clearing up doubts, strengthening bonds, acquiring autonomy, and the pleasure of carrying out activities by being able to choose the order of their interests in the work”. This perception corroborates the idea that learning is more effective when motivated by interest and connected to the student’s developmental stage, as indicated by neuroscience studies (Moran, 2018; Consenza and Guerra, 2011).

The personalization of activities was a point frequently mentioned as a great advantage of the workshops. Professor 2 stated that “in the workshops, the activities are more individualized and designed for all children”, while Professor 3 emphasized that it is “a moment of individual work where I can offer specific activities for the needs of a student who requires something different”. This flexibility allows the teacher to meet the specific needs of each student, offering a more meaningful and adapted learning path, which is fundamental for the inclusion of all students, regardless of their abilities or difficulties.

Another relevant potentiality is the promotion of interaction and dialogue among colleagues. The organization into workshops, by bringing together students with different needs and abilities in groups, favors shared and peer tutoring learning, where more experienced students can assist those who present greater difficulty. Professor 6 highlighted that this organization “favors exchanges between children of diverse knowledge and by respecting their interests”. This dynamic is crucial, as the brain learns by connecting in networks (Moran, 2018), and collaboration expands learning opportunities, allowing everyone to progress and feel included.

The development of student autonomy was also pointed out as a significant potential of the workshops. The Freinet proposal encourages students to choose their own activities, which stimulates self-awareness of their interests and learning needs. Professor 6 mentioned that the workshops “develop autonomy and commitment to meaningful work”. This protagonism is essential for lasting and flexible learning, as students engage more actively when they feel responsible for their own knowledge construction process.

However, the teachers also identified important limits to the effectiveness of atelier work in the context of inclusive education. The issue of student autonomy emerged as a challenge, especially with very young children (such as those in the first year of Elementary School) or with disabilities and developmental disorders that demand greater dependence on an adult. Teacher 4, for example, observed that “atelier work requires a certain level of student autonomy” and that highly dependent students, such as a student with non-verbal Autism Spectrum Disorder, may not be able to progress without constant support.

The absence of a support professional alongside the lead teacher was a recurring limitation in the responses. Professor 3 expressed that when students do not develop activities autonomously, “a support teacher is necessary, which is not always available.” This lack of support prevents the lead teacher from dedicating sufficient individualized attention, as other students also demand their help. This difficulty is aggravated by the high number of children per class, which compromises the quality of work in workshops and the ability to meet all specific needs.

Other limits include the need for greater preparation of materials and the classroom for workshop work, as well as curriculum and content demands that “plow through” available time. Professor 5 highlighted that “the limits are more related to the number of children per class” and that “workshop work also requires greater preparation of materials and the classroom”. Professor 6 added that the “number of students per class that makes more direct mediation difficult and the lack of pedagogical support” are significant barriers. These points reinforce that, for workshops to reach their inclusive potential, it is essential that schools offer adequate working conditions, including the participation of specialized teachers as support, as suggested by Ainscow (2020).

The lack of time for collective planning and peer exchange was also mentioned as a barrier. The teachers recognize the importance of interaction and dialogue with their colleagues to build and overcome the challenges of inclusion. However, the school reality often does not offer adequate moments for this collaboration, which prevents the continuous improvement of inclusive practices. This condition is essential for teachers to develop collaborative approaches and adapt the school’s culture to welcome diversity, according to Ainscow’s (2020) vision.

In summary, the results of this research indicate that the organization of pedagogical work in workshops, inspired by the principles of Celestin Freinet and aligned with active methodologies and neuroscience, offers a promising path for inclusive education, by promoting the personalization of learning, peer interaction, and the development of student autonomy. However, the effectiveness of this approach is severely limited by precarious structural and institutional conditions, such as the high number of students per class, the absence of support professionals, and the scarcity of time for planning and resources. Thus, although teachers demonstrate a broad conception of inclusion and knowledge of active practices, the realization of truly inclusive education intrinsically depends on structural and institutional support that transcends individual pedagogical intentionality.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to identify the potentialities and limits of the organization of pedagogical work in workshops, as proposed by Celestin Freinet, in the process of school inclusion, in light of neuroscience and active methodologies. It was verified that workshops are configured as a promising pedagogical strategy, capable of fostering the personalization of learning, interaction between peers, and the development of student autonomy. This approach aligns with the principles of neuroscience, which indicate the effectiveness of active and meaningful learning environments. However, the research revealed that the effectiveness of this organization is significantly impacted by structural and institutional challenges. It was identified that the high number of students per class, the absence of support professionals, and the scarcity of time for collective planning represent substantial barriers to the full implementation of a truly inclusive education, even in the face of a broad conception of inclusion and the knowledge of active practices by the teachers.

The main contribution of this work lies in demonstrating that, although active methodologies and atelier organization offer a potent theoretical and practical framework for inclusion, their realization intrinsically depends on adequate working conditions and robust institutional support. As limitations of the study, the reduced number of participants and the subjective nature of the data, obtained through questionnaires, are acknowledged, which prevents generalizations. However, the findings provide valuable clues for understanding the topic. For future studies, it is suggested to conduct direct observations of classroom practices and include other actors in the school context, such as students and managers, in order to deepen the analysis of the inclusion dynamics and the role of ateliers.

Bibliographic References

Ainscow, M. (2009). Tornar a educação inclusiva: como esta tarefa deve ser conceituada?. IN: Tornar a educação inclusiva / organizado por Osmar Fávero, Windyz Ferreira, Timothy Ireland e Débora Barreiros. – Brasília : UNESCO, 2009. 220 р.

Ainscow, M. (2020). “Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges”. Prospects, 17 September, 2020.

Bacich, L.; Moran, J. (orgs). (2018). Metodologias ativas para uma educação inovadora: uma abordagem teórico-prática. 1ed. Penso, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Bardin, L. (2016). Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70, 2016.

Brasil. (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República.

BRASIL. (2008). Ministério da Educação. Política Nacional de Educação Especial na Perspectiva da Educação Inclusiva. Brasília, DF, Brasil.

Consenza, R. M.; Guerra, L. B. (2011). Neurociência e educação: como o cérebro aprende. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2011.

Fechi, P. G. G. (2022). Ateliês, plano individual de trabalho e autocorreção. p. 239-262. In: Arena, A. P. B.; Resende, V. A. D. L. de (Orgs.). Diálogos com a Pedagogia Freinet: fundamentos e práticas em movimento. 1ed. Pedro & João Editores, São Carlos, SP, Brasil.

Gil, A. C. (2017). Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa. 6ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

INEP. (2024). Matrículas na educação especial chegam a mais de 1,7 milhão. https://www.gov.br/inep/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/noticias/censo-escolar/matriculas-na-educacao-especial-chegam-a-mais-de-1-7-milhao (Acessado em 29/09/2025)

Silva, A. F. V. T. da. (2004). Nessa tribo cabem todos: a escola Curumim e a inclusão escolar. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso em Pedagogia. Unicamp, Campinas, SP, Brasil.

UNESCO. (2001). The Open File on Inclusive Education. Paris: UNESCO, 2001.

Valente, J. A. (2018). A sala de aula invertida e a possibilidade do ensino personalizado: um experiência com a graduação em midialogia. IN: Bacich, L.; Moran, J. (orgs). 2018. Metodologias ativas para uma educação inovadora: uma abordagem teórico-prática. 1ed. Penso, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Article originating from a Final Course Work on Neuroscience and Learning in Education

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform