Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 36 a 38.

O estudo da língua inglesa pode possibilitar a todos o acesso aos saberes linguísticos necessários para engajamento e participação, contribuindo para o agenciamento crítico dos estudantes e para o exercício da cidadania ativa, além de ampliar as possibilidades de interação e mobilidade, abrindo novos percursos de construção de conhecimentos e de continuidade nos estudos. É esse caráter formativo que inscreve a aprendizagem de inglês em uma perspectiva de educação linguística, consciente e crítica, na qual as dimensões pedagógicas e políticas estão intrinsecamente ligadas.

Ensinar inglês com essa finalidade tem, para o currículo, três implicações importantes. A primeira é que esse caráter formativo obriga a rever as relações entre língua, território e cultura, na medida em que os falantes de inglês já não se encontram apenas nos países em que essa é a língua oficial. Esse fato provoca uma série de indagações, dentre elas, “Que inglês é esse que ensinamos na escola?”. Alguns conceitos parecem já não atender as perspectivas de compreensão de uma língua que “viralizou” e se tornou “miscigenada”, como é o caso do conceito de língua estrangeira, fortemente criticado por seu viés eurocêntrico. Outras terminologias, mais recentemente propostas, também provocam um intenso debate no campo, tais como inglês como língua internacional, como língua global, como língua adicional, como língua franca, dentre outras. Em que pese as diferenças entre uma terminologia e outra, suas ênfases, pontos de contato e eventuais sobreposições, o tratamento dado ao componente na BNCC prioriza o foco da função social e política do inglês e, nesse sentido, passa a tratá-la em seu status de língua franca. O conceito não é novo e tem sido recontextualizado por teóricos do campo em estudos recentes que analisam os usos da língua inglesa no mundo contemporâneo. Nessa proposta, a língua inglesa não é mais aquela do “estrangeiro”, oriundo de países hegemônicos, cujos falantes servem de modelo a ser seguido.

(BRASIL. Base Nacional Comum Curricular. 2019. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 36 a 38.

O estudo da língua inglesa pode possibilitar a todos o acesso aos saberes linguísticos necessários para engajamento e participação, contribuindo para o agenciamento crítico dos estudantes e para o exercício da cidadania ativa, além de ampliar as possibilidades de interação e mobilidade, abrindo novos percursos de construção de conhecimentos e de continuidade nos estudos. É esse caráter formativo que inscreve a aprendizagem de inglês em uma perspectiva de educação linguística, consciente e crítica, na qual as dimensões pedagógicas e políticas estão intrinsecamente ligadas.

Ensinar inglês com essa finalidade tem, para o currículo, três implicações importantes. A primeira é que esse caráter formativo obriga a rever as relações entre língua, território e cultura, na medida em que os falantes de inglês já não se encontram apenas nos países em que essa é a língua oficial. Esse fato provoca uma série de indagações, dentre elas, “Que inglês é esse que ensinamos na escola?”. Alguns conceitos parecem já não atender as perspectivas de compreensão de uma língua que “viralizou” e se tornou “miscigenada”, como é o caso do conceito de língua estrangeira, fortemente criticado por seu viés eurocêntrico. Outras terminologias, mais recentemente propostas, também provocam um intenso debate no campo, tais como inglês como língua internacional, como língua global, como língua adicional, como língua franca, dentre outras. Em que pese as diferenças entre uma terminologia e outra, suas ênfases, pontos de contato e eventuais sobreposições, o tratamento dado ao componente na BNCC prioriza o foco da função social e política do inglês e, nesse sentido, passa a tratá-la em seu status de língua franca. O conceito não é novo e tem sido recontextualizado por teóricos do campo em estudos recentes que analisam os usos da língua inglesa no mundo contemporâneo. Nessa proposta, a língua inglesa não é mais aquela do “estrangeiro”, oriundo de países hegemônicos, cujos falantes servem de modelo a ser seguido.

(BRASIL. Base Nacional Comum Curricular. 2019. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 31 a 35.

Discussions of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) not infrequently lead to questions of grammatical or formal accuracy. The perceived displacement of attention to morphosyntactic features in learner expression in favor of a focus on meaning has led in some cases to the impression that grammar is unimportant or that proponents of CLT favor learner self-expression without regard to form. While involvement in communicative events is seen as central to language development, this involvement requires attention to form.

The nature of contribution to language development of both form-focused and meaning-focused classroom activity remains a question in ongoing research. Undoubtedly, the optimum combination of these activities in any given instructional setting depends on a number of factors such as learner age, nature and length of instructional sequence, opportunities for language contact outside the classroom, teacher preparation, among other factors. However, for the development of communicative ability, research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience. Learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences.

(Sandra J. Savignon. Communicative language teaching for the Twenty-first century. In: Marianne Cerce-Murcia(ed). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 3rd edition. 2001. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 31 a 35.

Discussions of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) not infrequently lead to questions of grammatical or formal accuracy. The perceived displacement of attention to morphosyntactic features in learner expression in favor of a focus on meaning has led in some cases to the impression that grammar is unimportant or that proponents of CLT favor learner self-expression without regard to form. While involvement in communicative events is seen as central to language development, this involvement requires attention to form.

The nature of contribution to language development of both form-focused and meaning-focused classroom activity remains a question in ongoing research. Undoubtedly, the optimum combination of these activities in any given instructional setting depends on a number of factors such as learner age, nature and length of instructional sequence, opportunities for language contact outside the classroom, teacher preparation, among other factors. However, for the development of communicative ability, research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience. Learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences.

(Sandra J. Savignon. Communicative language teaching for the Twenty-first century. In: Marianne Cerce-Murcia(ed). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 3rd edition. 2001. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 31 a 35.

Discussions of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) not infrequently lead to questions of grammatical or formal accuracy. The perceived displacement of attention to morphosyntactic features in learner expression in favor of a focus on meaning has led in some cases to the impression that grammar is unimportant or that proponents of CLT favor learner self-expression without regard to form. While involvement in communicative events is seen as central to language development, this involvement requires attention to form.

The nature of contribution to language development of both form-focused and meaning-focused classroom activity remains a question in ongoing research. Undoubtedly, the optimum combination of these activities in any given instructional setting depends on a number of factors such as learner age, nature and length of instructional sequence, opportunities for language contact outside the classroom, teacher preparation, among other factors. However, for the development of communicative ability, research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience. Learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences.

(Sandra J. Savignon. Communicative language teaching for the Twenty-first century. In: Marianne Cerce-Murcia(ed). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 3rd edition. 2001. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 31 a 35.

Discussions of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) not infrequently lead to questions of grammatical or formal accuracy. The perceived displacement of attention to morphosyntactic features in learner expression in favor of a focus on meaning has led in some cases to the impression that grammar is unimportant or that proponents of CLT favor learner self-expression without regard to form. While involvement in communicative events is seen as central to language development, this involvement requires attention to form.

The nature of contribution to language development of both form-focused and meaning-focused classroom activity remains a question in ongoing research. Undoubtedly, the optimum combination of these activities in any given instructional setting depends on a number of factors such as learner age, nature and length of instructional sequence, opportunities for language contact outside the classroom, teacher preparation, among other factors. However, for the development of communicative ability, research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience. Learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences.

(Sandra J. Savignon. Communicative language teaching for the Twenty-first century. In: Marianne Cerce-Murcia(ed). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 3rd edition. 2001. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 31 a 35.

Discussions of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) not infrequently lead to questions of grammatical or formal accuracy. The perceived displacement of attention to morphosyntactic features in learner expression in favor of a focus on meaning has led in some cases to the impression that grammar is unimportant or that proponents of CLT favor learner self-expression without regard to form. While involvement in communicative events is seen as central to language development, this involvement requires attention to form.

The nature of contribution to language development of both form-focused and meaning-focused classroom activity remains a question in ongoing research. Undoubtedly, the optimum combination of these activities in any given instructional setting depends on a number of factors such as learner age, nature and length of instructional sequence, opportunities for language contact outside the classroom, teacher preparation, among other factors. However, for the development of communicative ability, research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience. Learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences.

(Sandra J. Savignon. Communicative language teaching for the Twenty-first century. In: Marianne Cerce-Murcia(ed). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 3rd edition. 2001. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 39 a 49.

As a scholar of education who studies grading practices, I’ve seen how important grades are to schools, students and their families.

Teachers, too, certainly know how important grades are. In fact, teachers spend over one-third of their professional work time assessing and evaluating student learning. But most university teacher-education programs focus on curriculum and instruction, with less attention attached to assessment. These programs do not talk about how to actually grade student work.

In keeping with a long-held tradition in education, teachers also have, and like, the autonomy to set their own practices. That has resulted in inconsistency, inequity and even unreliability in teachers’ grading practices.

For example, teachers decide if grades will be based on tests, quizzes, homework, participation, behavior, effort, extra credit or other evidence. When surveying over 15,000 teachers, administrators, support educators, parents and students, I found teachers use a rather comprehensive range of evidence in grades. While they primarily use tests, quizzes, projects, and homework to assign grades, teachers at all grade levels also include nonacademic evidence, like behavior and effort, in their grading equations.

Once teachers decide what to include in their grades, they decide how much weight to assign to each grade category. One teacher may weigh homework as 20% of the final course grade, while another teacher in the same grade level may choose a different weight or not grade homework at all.

In my study, I have talked to teachers who curve grades, that is, these teachers adjust grades by adding points to all students’ scores to bring the highest score up to 100%. Other teachers in the same school told me they do not grade on a curve - they add extra credit points to students’ final course grades if they attend a school event, such as a play. Some teachers told me they also add grade points if a student was never tardy to class or never missed an assignment deadline.

The effort to keep up with multiple teachers’ different grading expectations causes students chronic stress and anxiety, especially for those students with poor organizational, time-management and self-regulation skills. This is also the case for students competing for high grade-point averages and class rank. Still, students rarely question teachers’ grading or the grading differences between teachers; rather, they have accepted these differences because “this is how it’s always been”.

(Laura Link theconversation.com, 16.03.2023. Adaptado)