Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 39 a 44.

ELF: English as a lingua franca

The Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), a collection of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) currently under construction, defines lingua franca as an additionally acquired language system that serves as a means of communication for speakers from different speech communities, who use it to communicate with each other but for whom it is not their native language.

Early findings from the VOICE corpus tentatively identify a number of features which point to systematic lexico-grammatical differences between native-speaker English and ELF, for example dropping the third person present tense ‘s’ (e.g. she wear), omitting definite and indefinite articles, insertion of prepositions (e.g. can we discuss about this issue). These features are not a threat to comprehension, as they involve typical errors that most English teachers would correct and remediate. However, Seidlhofer (2004) points out that they appear to be generally unproblematic and do not cause an obstacle to communicative success in ELF.

The work of Jenkins (1996, 2000, 2004, 2005) has also been very influential in relation to the teaching of pronunciation for ELF. Her research finds that a number of items common to most native-speaker varieties of English were not necessary in successful ELF interactions; for example, the substitution of voiceless and voiced th with /t/ or /s/ and /d/ or /z/ (e.g. think became sink or tink, and this became dis or zis). Jenkins argues that such features occur regularly in ELF interactions and do not cause intelligibility problems.

Problems may arise in the (perhaps unfair) equation between a reduced or ‘stripped down’ ELF syllabus and an impoverished experience of the L2. Indeed, it could be argued that learners of any language always end up producing less than the input they are exposed to, and that if that input itself is deliberately restricted, then even less will be the outcome.

(O’KEEFFE, A., MCCARTHY, M. & CARTER, R. From corpus to classroom. Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge, CUP. 2007. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 39 a 44.

ELF: English as a lingua franca

The Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), a collection of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) currently under construction, defines lingua franca as an additionally acquired language system that serves as a means of communication for speakers from different speech communities, who use it to communicate with each other but for whom it is not their native language.

Early findings from the VOICE corpus tentatively identify a number of features which point to systematic lexico-grammatical differences between native-speaker English and ELF, for example dropping the third person present tense ‘s’ (e.g. she wear), omitting definite and indefinite articles, insertion of prepositions (e.g. can we discuss about this issue). These features are not a threat to comprehension, as they involve typical errors that most English teachers would correct and remediate. However, Seidlhofer (2004) points out that they appear to be generally unproblematic and do not cause an obstacle to communicative success in ELF.

The work of Jenkins (1996, 2000, 2004, 2005) has also been very influential in relation to the teaching of pronunciation for ELF. Her research finds that a number of items common to most native-speaker varieties of English were not necessary in successful ELF interactions; for example, the substitution of voiceless and voiced th with /t/ or /s/ and /d/ or /z/ (e.g. think became sink or tink, and this became dis or zis). Jenkins argues that such features occur regularly in ELF interactions and do not cause intelligibility problems.

Problems may arise in the (perhaps unfair) equation between a reduced or ‘stripped down’ ELF syllabus and an impoverished experience of the L2. Indeed, it could be argued that learners of any language always end up producing less than the input they are exposed to, and that if that input itself is deliberately restricted, then even less will be the outcome.

(O’KEEFFE, A., MCCARTHY, M. & CARTER, R. From corpus to classroom. Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge, CUP. 2007. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 35 a 38.

Practice often receives an unfair treatment in the field of applied linguistics. Most laypeople simply assume that practice is a necessary condition for language learning without giving the concept much further thought, but many applied linguists deliberately avoid the term practice. For some, the word conjures up images of repetitive drills in the factories of foreign language learning, while for others it means fun and games to entertain students on Friday afternoons.

Practice is by no means a dirty word in other domains of human endeavor, however. Parents dutifully take their kids to soccer practice, and professional athletes dutifully show up for team practice, sometimes even with recent injuries. Parents make their kids practice their piano skills at home, and the world’s most famous performers of classical music often practice for many hours a day, even if it makes their fingers hurt. If even idolized, spoiled, and highly paid celebrities are willing to put up with practice, why not language learners, teachers, or researchers?

(DEKEYSER, Robert. Practice in a second language. Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge, 2007. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 35 a 38.

Practice often receives an unfair treatment in the field of applied linguistics. Most laypeople simply assume that practice is a necessary condition for language learning without giving the concept much further thought, but many applied linguists deliberately avoid the term practice. For some, the word conjures up images of repetitive drills in the factories of foreign language learning, while for others it means fun and games to entertain students on Friday afternoons.

Practice is by no means a dirty word in other domains of human endeavor, however. Parents dutifully take their kids to soccer practice, and professional athletes dutifully show up for team practice, sometimes even with recent injuries. Parents make their kids practice their piano skills at home, and the world’s most famous performers of classical music often practice for many hours a day, even if it makes their fingers hurt. If even idolized, spoiled, and highly paid celebrities are willing to put up with practice, why not language learners, teachers, or researchers?

(DEKEYSER, Robert. Practice in a second language. Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge, 2007. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 35 a 38.

Practice often receives an unfair treatment in the field of applied linguistics. Most laypeople simply assume that practice is a necessary condition for language learning without giving the concept much further thought, but many applied linguists deliberately avoid the term practice. For some, the word conjures up images of repetitive drills in the factories of foreign language learning, while for others it means fun and games to entertain students on Friday afternoons.

Practice is by no means a dirty word in other domains of human endeavor, however. Parents dutifully take their kids to soccer practice, and professional athletes dutifully show up for team practice, sometimes even with recent injuries. Parents make their kids practice their piano skills at home, and the world’s most famous performers of classical music often practice for many hours a day, even if it makes their fingers hurt. If even idolized, spoiled, and highly paid celebrities are willing to put up with practice, why not language learners, teachers, or researchers?

(DEKEYSER, Robert. Practice in a second language. Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge, 2007. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 35 a 38.

Practice often receives an unfair treatment in the field of applied linguistics. Most laypeople simply assume that practice is a necessary condition for language learning without giving the concept much further thought, but many applied linguists deliberately avoid the term practice. For some, the word conjures up images of repetitive drills in the factories of foreign language learning, while for others it means fun and games to entertain students on Friday afternoons.

Practice is by no means a dirty word in other domains of human endeavor, however. Parents dutifully take their kids to soccer practice, and professional athletes dutifully show up for team practice, sometimes even with recent injuries. Parents make their kids practice their piano skills at home, and the world’s most famous performers of classical music often practice for many hours a day, even if it makes their fingers hurt. If even idolized, spoiled, and highly paid celebrities are willing to put up with practice, why not language learners, teachers, or researchers?

(DEKEYSER, Robert. Practice in a second language. Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge, 2007. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 27 a 34.

In teaching, “fidelity” refers to closely following specific procedures for how to teach a lesson or respond to student behavior. For example, following a curriculum to fidelity might mean a teacher is required to read from a script, use a certain tone or expression, or teach from a designated page in a guidebook on a specific day. While prevalent across the country, this kind of micromanaging is more common in schools that serve low-income and minority students.

I’m a former elementary school teacher in the United States and I now study how teachers make ethical decisions. This includes how they observe their students and try to help them – regardless of whether their decisions align with a prescribed curriculum.

In a recent study, I interviewed 12 teachers about how they deal with problems that arise in the classroom every day. These teachers discussed how they came up with responses based on best practices they had learned from their own experience as teachers. They also spoke of the knowledge acquired in professional development courses.

Of the nine who worked in public schools, however, all but one of the teachers were influenced by pressure to follow a curriculum to fidelity. This kindergarten teacher described how, when she was teaching preschool, her students who lived in a rural area did not understand references to crossing busy city streets in a book she was required to read as part of the curriculum. She brought her students outside to the parking lot to practice street crossing and listen to the noises of local traffic. This was not part of the curriculum. Had the teacher followed the curriculum strictly, the students may not have been able to grasp the lesson from the book.

Research shows that flexibility in teaching methods and curricula allows teachers and students to participate more fully in the learning process – and even promotes a more democratic society. Instead of mandating that teachers stick to the curriculum word for word, schools should trust teachers and ask why they want to teach. Working with teachers should begin with the belief in their good intentions.

(Cara Elizabeth Furman. http://theconversation.com, 11.12.2024. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 27 a 34.

In teaching, “fidelity” refers to closely following specific procedures for how to teach a lesson or respond to student behavior. For example, following a curriculum to fidelity might mean a teacher is required to read from a script, use a certain tone or expression, or teach from a designated page in a guidebook on a specific day. While prevalent across the country, this kind of micromanaging is more common in schools that serve low-income and minority students.

I’m a former elementary school teacher in the United States and I now study how teachers make ethical decisions. This includes how they observe their students and try to help them – regardless of whether their decisions align with a prescribed curriculum.

In a recent study, I interviewed 12 teachers about how they deal with problems that arise in the classroom every day. These teachers discussed how they came up with responses based on best practices they had learned from their own experience as teachers. They also spoke of the knowledge acquired in professional development courses.

Of the nine who worked in public schools, however, all but one of the teachers were influenced by pressure to follow a curriculum to fidelity. This kindergarten teacher described how, when she was teaching preschool, her students who lived in a rural area did not understand references to crossing busy city streets in a book she was required to read as part of the curriculum. She brought her students outside to the parking lot to practice street crossing and listen to the noises of local traffic. This was not part of the curriculum. Had the teacher followed the curriculum strictly, the students may not have been able to grasp the lesson from the book.

Research shows that flexibility in teaching methods and curricula allows teachers and students to participate more fully in the learning process – and even promotes a more democratic society. Instead of mandating that teachers stick to the curriculum word for word, schools should trust teachers and ask why they want to teach. Working with teachers should begin with the belief in their good intentions.

(Cara Elizabeth Furman. http://theconversation.com, 11.12.2024. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 27 a 34.

In teaching, “fidelity” refers to closely following specific procedures for how to teach a lesson or respond to student behavior. For example, following a curriculum to fidelity might mean a teacher is required to read from a script, use a certain tone or expression, or teach from a designated page in a guidebook on a specific day. While prevalent across the country, this kind of micromanaging is more common in schools that serve low-income and minority students.

I’m a former elementary school teacher in the United States and I now study how teachers make ethical decisions. This includes how they observe their students and try to help them – regardless of whether their decisions align with a prescribed curriculum.

In a recent study, I interviewed 12 teachers about how they deal with problems that arise in the classroom every day. These teachers discussed how they came up with responses based on best practices they had learned from their own experience as teachers. They also spoke of the knowledge acquired in professional development courses.

Of the nine who worked in public schools, however, all but one of the teachers were influenced by pressure to follow a curriculum to fidelity. This kindergarten teacher described how, when she was teaching preschool, her students who lived in a rural area did not understand references to crossing busy city streets in a book she was required to read as part of the curriculum. She brought her students outside to the parking lot to practice street crossing and listen to the noises of local traffic. This was not part of the curriculum. Had the teacher followed the curriculum strictly, the students may not have been able to grasp the lesson from the book.

Research shows that flexibility in teaching methods and curricula allows teachers and students to participate more fully in the learning process – and even promotes a more democratic society. Instead of mandating that teachers stick to the curriculum word for word, schools should trust teachers and ask why they want to teach. Working with teachers should begin with the belief in their good intentions.

(Cara Elizabeth Furman. http://theconversation.com, 11.12.2024. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 27 a 34.

In teaching, “fidelity” refers to closely following specific procedures for how to teach a lesson or respond to student behavior. For example, following a curriculum to fidelity might mean a teacher is required to read from a script, use a certain tone or expression, or teach from a designated page in a guidebook on a specific day. While prevalent across the country, this kind of micromanaging is more common in schools that serve low-income and minority students.

I’m a former elementary school teacher in the United States and I now study how teachers make ethical decisions. This includes how they observe their students and try to help them – regardless of whether their decisions align with a prescribed curriculum.

In a recent study, I interviewed 12 teachers about how they deal with problems that arise in the classroom every day. These teachers discussed how they came up with responses based on best practices they had learned from their own experience as teachers. They also spoke of the knowledge acquired in professional development courses.

Of the nine who worked in public schools, however, all but one of the teachers were influenced by pressure to follow a curriculum to fidelity. This kindergarten teacher described how, when she was teaching preschool, her students who lived in a rural area did not understand references to crossing busy city streets in a book she was required to read as part of the curriculum. She brought her students outside to the parking lot to practice street crossing and listen to the noises of local traffic. This was not part of the curriculum. Had the teacher followed the curriculum strictly, the students may not have been able to grasp the lesson from the book.

Research shows that flexibility in teaching methods and curricula allows teachers and students to participate more fully in the learning process – and even promotes a more democratic society. Instead of mandating that teachers stick to the curriculum word for word, schools should trust teachers and ask why they want to teach. Working with teachers should begin with the belief in their good intentions.

(Cara Elizabeth Furman. http://theconversation.com, 11.12.2024. Adaptado)