UNIVERSITY TEACHING: MASTER’S STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF TEACHING KNOWLEDGE

Resumo

Introduction: Stricto sensu graduate studies in Brazil, structured in Master’s and Doctoral programs, are one of the pillars of the national strategy for scientific and technological development. Their creation, in the mid-20th century, and their institutionalization, formalized by Opinion No. 977/65, had a dual purpose: to train researchers and prepare the future generation of university professors. The I National Graduate Plan reinforced this vision, consolidating a system that should balance knowledge production with the training of qualified human resources to work both in research and teaching. However, over the decades, there has been a predominant inclination toward research training. The curricular structures of graduate programs, especially academic ones, are focused on advanced theory and research methodology, often neglecting pedagogical training (Alves et al., 2019). This gap becomes even more evident and problematic when considering that the title of master or doctor is, in most cases, a requirement for entering and advancing in a teaching career in higher education. The absence of systematic pedagogical foundations in graduate training creates a paradox: the university trains professors without formally preparing them for teaching. In the field of nursing, the urgency to qualify teaching practice is amplified by the National Curricular Guidelines (DCNs) and the complexity of the Unified Health System (SUS). Nursing education requires more than the simple transmission of technical content; it demands the development of critical, reflective, and humanized skills capable of responding to the multidimensional challenges of health in Brazil. Teaching in nursing must be a journey of continuous improvement, where the professor acts as a facilitator, stimulating students’ intellectual autonomy and their ability to integrate theory and practice. Didactic-pedagogical qualification, as highlighted by Oliveira (2021), is fundamental for the professor to articulate technical-scientific knowledge with the principles of SUS, training professionals who are engaged and competent to work at different levels of health care. In this context, pedagogical practice needs to transcend the classroom, encouraging critical reflection and the ability to propose solutions to society’s problems (Zamprogna et al., 2020). The experience reported in this work emerges from this understanding, seeking to fill the gap in teaching training in graduate nursing programs and to value the strategic role of the professor. Objective: To report the teaching experience in didactic-pedagogical activities with students from the Graduate Nursing Program (PPGENF) at the Federal University of Fronteira Sul (UFFS). Methodology: This is an experience report developed in the mandatory discipline of University Teaching. The experience took place in the second semester of 2025, involved 12 students, and was carefully structured to promote immersion in pedagogical practice through active methodologies. The methodological approach aimed to break with the traditional model of teaching, in which the professor is the knowledge holder, and placed students as protagonists of their learning. The process was divided into three stages: Critical Analysis of a Course Pedagogical Project (PPC): The class was organized into groups to analyze a nursing undergraduate PPC. The task was to evaluate the internal coherence of the document, the compatibility of its structure with the DCNs, and its capacity to train professionals aligned with SUS needs. This stage was crucial for developing students’ ability to view education as a complex and interconnected system, where a course syllabus is linked to the macro proposal of the program. The analysis of PPCs functioned as an exercise in deconstruction and reconstruction, allowing future professors to understand the importance of solid and intentional planning. Development of a Teaching Plan: Each group was challenged to prepare a teaching plan for a curricular component of their choice, considering didactic-pedagogical principles and the needs identified in the PPC analysis. This required defining clear learning objectives, selecting relevant content, choosing active teaching methodologies (such as problem-based learning, team-based learning, and case studies), and formulating a coherent evaluation system. This phase served as a practical laboratory where theory about lesson planning was applied, requiring students to articulate their nursing knowledge with didactics. Planning and Execution of Mini Classes: The final stage was the most challenging and reflective. Individually, each student planned and delivered a 10-minute mini class based on the teaching plan prepared by their group. Presentations took place in the classroom, using supporting materials and focusing on time management and clarity of objectives. This activity simulated real teaching practice, allowing each student to experience the nuances of acting as a knowledge facilitator while receiving immediate feedback from peers and professors. Reflection on their own practice, encouraged after each presentation, was the highlight of this stage, consolidating learning. The activities were constantly mediated and guided by the professors of the discipline, who acted not as mere evaluators but as mentors, promoting critical reflection and continuous integration between theory and practice in health education. Results and Discussion: The experience in the discipline unequivocally demonstrated the complexity and challenges inherent in teaching practice in nursing, reinforcing that this role requires qualifications far beyond technical-scientific expertise, as suggested by Oliveira (2021). The experience, conducted with 12 students divided into groups, allowed for a rich diversity of perceptions and challenges, which ultimately converged toward the same conclusion. To illustrate the richness of the activity, the following report details the experiences of two groups, one focused on public health and the other on the fundamentals of care practice. The first group analyzed a PPC focused on Family Health and public management, which revealed a robust document aligned with the DCNs and SUS demands. Their main challenge was to develop a teaching plan for a 90-hour curricular component that required integration of theory, practice, and extension. This challenge forced them to think methodologically to ensure the content was coherently applied and that students had effective exposure to real health services. The experience showed that articulating different teaching modalities is not trivial and demands meticulous planning. The second group, analyzing a PPC focused on Basic Fundamentals of Care Practice, faced a different challenge: identifying significant gaps in the syllabus and workload distribution. This initial phase revealed the importance of deep critical analysis, since a teaching plan can only be successful if the pedagogical proposal that underpins it is solid. From this analysis, the group built a teaching plan that corrected these gaps, enhancing content to include semiology and semiotechnique, and incorporating active teaching methodologies and an evaluation/recovery system that favored integration between theory and practice. Sharing this plan with other groups enriched the collective experience and demonstrated the value of collaborative knowledge building. In the mini-class stage, one participant addressed the topic “Health Care Networks (RAS)” and another “Patient Safety,” both demonstrating competence in time management and assessment application. However, the report highlighted that, even when achieving the proposed objectives, the experience revealed the need for continuous improvement of teaching skills, as discussed by Zamprogna et al. (2020) and Alves et al. (2019). The final evaluation by professors reinforced the idea that preparing and applying a teaching plan is not a simple task but a process that requires critical and reflective skills, reinforcing that teaching is a journey of continuous improvement. Contributions Toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): The reported experience contributes directly to achieving several SDGs of the 2030 Agenda. It relates to SDG 3 Good Health and Well-Being, by qualifying the training of future nursing professors, preparing them to promote comprehensive care. It also aligns with SDG 4 Quality Education, by employing innovative pedagogical practices with active methodologies, stimulating continuous learning. Finally, it relates to SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities, since the critical analysis of Course Pedagogical Projects prepares professors to adapt their practices to local and regional realities, combating educational inequalities. Concluding remarks: The experience in the discipline of University Teaching in Nursing highlighted a crucial weakness in graduate training: the lack of systematic and formal preparation for teaching practice. Academic curricula, primarily focused on research, often fail to provide the necessary tools for teaching. This gap makes the teaching profession a challenge for professionals, who are forced to seek improvement on their own. In this sense, the experience reinforces the urgency for nursing curricula and their Course Pedagogical Projects, especially in graduate programs, to be revised and restructured to systematically integrate methodologies and teaching practices that prepare students for more than just delivering a lecture. It is essential to equip future professors for building a critical, reflective, and formative practice capable of strategically and humanely guiding the teaching-learning process. The experience, therefore, underscores that teaching training in health is not optional but an urgent necessity, and Graduate Programs have a central and unavoidable role in stimulating and preparing future professors.