The notion of identity is addressed by all areas interested in the individual and the image of himself (Vasquez & Lipiansky, 1997). Not being a unique construct of sciences like psychology, or sociology, is, when referring to humans, very marked for its philosophical roots. Thus, continues to persist in the speeches of kindergartners teachers about the pedagogical practice, an insistent reusing of concepts arising from the Cartesian paradigm, which show a kind of epistemological contamination of rationalist content. This impact has influenced for a long time theories that imposed, for the understanding of the child, the existence of barriers between the interior, (symbolized by the intern, the psychic) and the exterior (symbolized by the social), by agglomerating the supposed realities. In this paradigm called representationist, are included the theories that assume that each person represents a motivational system, singular, delimited, where the identity is understood as leading to a vision of the child as a "sponge", "closed in himself. These perspectives opposed those that point to the fact that knowledge is something that we share under the linguistic form. Under this paradigm called Dialogic, evidenced in the movement of social constructivism, it is proposed that the identity, does not constitute a representation, but an expression a "nuance" of our narrative, a way to tell the individuality, resulting from a creative construction of multiple realities about us and the world (Rosa & Valsiner, 2007). It is understood that the actors, perceived as interlocutors, negotiating permanently their identity in transitional communicates, where there is no inside or outside. The interaction is itself a creative activity, given that each one must take into account the other (Oles & Hermans, 2005). We went from an epistemological position of a lone actor, on his relationship with the world, which finds others in your life context (Habermas, 1987), for the defence of the construction of a public space negotiated through communication. Both paradigms allow to envisage direct implications on pedagogy of childhood and is not least follow one or the other. The understanding of the concept of identity from the representationist paradigm implies that the educator is seen as a strategist, in a logic of transmission, which has a child as a starting point, helping in the process of discovery of two worlds (indoor and outdoor) in order to be able to answer the question "who am I?" In a sense Dialogic sets course for a communicational action and questioning of the meanings that the child constructs and the way it communicates, how do you choose to keep in touch. This is to replace the "action that meets the child", by "acting with the child". The pedagogical model of the Modern School Movement (MEM) implemented by a group of educators, which cooperated in the present investigation, plays, from the conceptual point of view, the assumptions of the Dialogic paradigm, as recommended practices, with an emphasis on communicational aspects of valorisation of language and collaborative learning. In this context, the research question is as follows: The educators who implement the pedagogical model MEM are distinguished from other educators, who do not use a specific pedagogical model (SMPE), as to how they define and identity the child and the pedagogical strategies used? It must therefore be: know how to define the concept of identity educators of the child; analyse if the fact of using the MEM model ensures an understanding of the concept of identity in line with the dialogical paradigm; analyse the consistency between the concept and the type of educational practices that want to implement; withdraw implications of the results for education of these professionals.

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: CA Sage. Gonçalves, O. (2000). Viver narrativamente - A psicoterapia como adjectivação da experiência. Coimbra: Quarteto Editora. Habermas, J. (1987). Théorie de l’agir communicationnel. Rationalité de l’agir et rationalisation de la societé. Poitiers: Fayard. Oles, P. & Hermans, H. (2005). The dialogical self: Theory and research. Lublin, Poland: Wydawnictwo KUL. Rosa, A. & Valsiner, J. (2007). The cambridge handbook of social cultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shotter J., Gergen K. (1989). Texts of identity. London: Sage. Vasquez, Taboada-Leonetti & Lipiansky (1997). Introduction à la problematique de l’Identité. In C. Camilleri, J. Kastersztein et al (Org.), Stratégies Identitaires. Paris: PUF