Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

It is adequate do say that pedagogical practices “become less and less preoccupied with limited and unified actions typical of content transmission in teaching-learning processes, and increase the instances of social practices that create possibilities of student engagement in the world.” (Magalhães & Carrijo, 2019, p. 215). We could broaden this and state that it is essential that education be less concerned with limited and limiting actions that look at the other - the student in general - but especially the student who is somehow different from the educators’ or the policy makers’ expectations as just that: a monolith of difference. This notion of difference as a monolith makes us see all SIEN¹ students as one single individual or block of individuals (i.e., as if they all had the same features); all deaf students as another monolith; all students in the autism spectrum as still another. But we are not equal. People vary in every aspect of humanity (the way they dress, speak, eat, think, learn). As Adichie (2009) stated in her famous TED: “The single story has a consequence: It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult.”

(Magalhães, M.C.C. et al. Viable-transformative inclusion: diverse means of agency by an adolescent with Specific Intellectual Educational Needs (SIEN) and his educators. In: Delta: Documentação de Estudos em Linguística Teórica e Aplicada, Volume: 38, Número: 1. 2022)

¹ SIEN students: students with specific intellectual educational needs

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

It is adequate do say that pedagogical practices “become less and less preoccupied with limited and unified actions typical of content transmission in teaching-learning processes, and increase the instances of social practices that create possibilities of student engagement in the world.” (Magalhães & Carrijo, 2019, p. 215). We could broaden this and state that it is essential that education be less concerned with limited and limiting actions that look at the other - the student in general - but especially the student who is somehow different from the educators’ or the policy makers’ expectations as just that: a monolith of difference. This notion of difference as a monolith makes us see all SIEN¹ students as one single individual or block of individuals (i.e., as if they all had the same features); all deaf students as another monolith; all students in the autism spectrum as still another. But we are not equal. People vary in every aspect of humanity (the way they dress, speak, eat, think, learn). As Adichie (2009) stated in her famous TED: “The single story has a consequence: It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult.”

(Magalhães, M.C.C. et al. Viable-transformative inclusion: diverse means of agency by an adolescent with Specific Intellectual Educational Needs (SIEN) and his educators. In: Delta: Documentação de Estudos em Linguística Teórica e Aplicada, Volume: 38, Número: 1. 2022)

¹ SIEN students: students with specific intellectual educational needs

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

It is adequate do say that pedagogical practices “become less and less preoccupied with limited and unified actions typical of content transmission in teaching-learning processes, and increase the instances of social practices that create possibilities of student engagement in the world.” (Magalhães & Carrijo, 2019, p. 215). We could broaden this and state that it is essential that education be less concerned with limited and limiting actions that look at the other - the student in general - but especially the student who is somehow different from the educators’ or the policy makers’ expectations as just that: a monolith of difference. This notion of difference as a monolith makes us see all SIEN¹ students as one single individual or block of individuals (i.e., as if they all had the same features); all deaf students as another monolith; all students in the autism spectrum as still another. But we are not equal. People vary in every aspect of humanity (the way they dress, speak, eat, think, learn). As Adichie (2009) stated in her famous TED: “The single story has a consequence: It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult.”

(Magalhães, M.C.C. et al. Viable-transformative inclusion: diverse means of agency by an adolescent with Specific Intellectual Educational Needs (SIEN) and his educators. In: Delta: Documentação de Estudos em Linguística Teórica e Aplicada, Volume: 38, Número: 1. 2022)

¹ SIEN students: students with specific intellectual educational needs

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

Morley (1999) has outlined four important goals for pronunciation instruction: functional intelligibility, functional communicability, increased self-confidence, and speech monitoring abilities.

For our purposes, intelligibility is defined as spoken English in which an accent, if present, is not distracting to the listener. Since learners rarely achieve an accent-free pronunciation, we are setting our students up for failure if we strive for nativelike accuracy. Eradication of an accent should not be our goal; in fact, some practitioners use the term accent addition as opposed to accent reduction to acknowledge the individual’s first language (L1) identity without demanding it be sublimated in the new second language (L2).

Functional communicability is the learner’s ability to function successfully within the specific communicative situations he or she faces. And, as they gain communicative skill, they also need to gain confidence in their ability to speak and be understood.

Bv teaching learners to pay attention to their own speech as well as that of others, we help our learners make better use of the input they receive. Good learners “attend” to certain aspects of the speech they hear and then try to imitate it. Speech monitoring activities help to focus learners’ attention on such features both in our courses and beyond them.

(Goodwin, Janet. Teaching Pronunciation. In Marianne Celce-Murcia. 3^rd ed. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 3^rd edition. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

Morley (1999) has outlined four important goals for pronunciation instruction: functional intelligibility, functional communicability, increased self-confidence, and speech monitoring abilities.

For our purposes, intelligibility is defined as spoken English in which an accent, if present, is not distracting to the listener. Since learners rarely achieve an accent-free pronunciation, we are setting our students up for failure if we strive for nativelike accuracy. Eradication of an accent should not be our goal; in fact, some practitioners use the term accent addition as opposed to accent reduction to acknowledge the individual’s first language (L1) identity without demanding it be sublimated in the new second language (L2).

Functional communicability is the learner’s ability to function successfully within the specific communicative situations he or she faces. And, as they gain communicative skill, they also need to gain confidence in their ability to speak and be understood.

Bv teaching learners to pay attention to their own speech as well as that of others, we help our learners make better use of the input they receive. Good learners “attend” to certain aspects of the speech they hear and then try to imitate it. Speech monitoring activities help to focus learners’ attention on such features both in our courses and beyond them.

(Goodwin, Janet. Teaching Pronunciation. In Marianne Celce-Murcia. 3^rd ed. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 3^rd edition. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

Morley (1999) has outlined four important goals for pronunciation instruction: functional intelligibility, functional communicability, increased self-confidence, and speech monitoring abilities.

For our purposes, intelligibility is defined as spoken English in which an accent, if present, is not distracting to the listener. Since learners rarely achieve an accent-free pronunciation, we are setting our students up for failure if we strive for nativelike accuracy. Eradication of an accent should not be our goal; in fact, some practitioners use the term accent addition as opposed to accent reduction to acknowledge the individual’s first language (L1) identity without demanding it be sublimated in the new second language (L2).

Functional communicability is the learner’s ability to function successfully within the specific communicative situations he or she faces. And, as they gain communicative skill, they also need to gain confidence in their ability to speak and be understood.

Bv teaching learners to pay attention to their own speech as well as that of others, we help our learners make better use of the input they receive. Good learners “attend” to certain aspects of the speech they hear and then try to imitate it. Speech monitoring activities help to focus learners’ attention on such features both in our courses and beyond them.

(Goodwin, Janet. Teaching Pronunciation. In Marianne Celce-Murcia. 3^rd ed. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 3^rd edition. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers need to tackle the challenges they are confronted with every day of their professional lives.

Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time, grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was not only favored but considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions where certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings.

The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to statements such as “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), and that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method.

(Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2003. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers need to tackle the challenges they are confronted with every day of their professional lives.

Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time, grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was not only favored but considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions where certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings.

The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to statements such as “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), and that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method.

(Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2003. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers need to tackle the challenges they are confronted with every day of their professional lives.

Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time, grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was not only favored but considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions where certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings.

The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to statements such as “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), and that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method.

(Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2003. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers need to tackle the challenges they are confronted with every day of their professional lives.

Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time, grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was not only favored but considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions where certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings.

The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to statements such as “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), and that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method.

(Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2003. Adaptado)