No one who speaks English has any difficulty understanding the meaning of a sentence like ‘It’s warm in here’. We all recognize that it is a comment on the temperature in some place or other. But why it is being said, and what the speaker wishes to convey by saying it, depends entirely on two things: the context in which it is said and what the speaker wants people to understand. Suppose, for example, that the words are spoken by someone who is either lazy, ill or in some position of power. ‘It’s warm in here’ might then be either a request or an order for someone to open a window. If, however, two people come in out of the cold, ‘It’s warm in here’ might well be an expression of satisfaction or pleasure. In each case, the sentence is performing a different language function, e.g. requesting, suggesting, etc.

(HARMER, Jeremy. How to teach English. Adaptado)

Em relação ao ensino de cultura, Kramasch escreve:

   In foreign language education, the teaching of culture remains a hotly debated issue. What is culture? What is its relation to language? Which and whose culture should be taught? What role should the learners’ culture play in the acquisition of knowledge of the target culture? How can we avoid essentializing cultures and teaching stereotypes? And how can we develop in the learners an intercultural competence that would shortchange neither their own culture nor the target culture, but would make them into cultural mediators in a globalized world?

(KRAMASCH, Claire. 2024. Adaptado)

   Implied in any consideration of the role of styles and strategies in learning a second language are three linked concepts: autonomy, awareness, and action. These three “As” of learner development have taken on significance in recent years, especially with increasing pedagogical emphasis on learner-centered language teaching (Wenden,2002). A review of the history of language teaching will reveal some interesting “changing winds and shifting sands”. One way of looking at this history is to consider the extent to which methodological trends have emphasized the respective roles of the teacher and the learner. Until some of the “designer” methods appeared in the 1970s, most of language teaching methodology was teacher centered. Students entered a classroom, sat down dutifully in their desks, and waited for the teacher to tell them what to do. Those directives might have been to translate a passage, to memorize a rule, or to repeat a dialogue. Then, the profession seemed to discover the value of learner autonomy in the form of allowing learners to do things like initiate oral production, solve problems in small groups, practice language forms in pairs, and practice using the language outside of the classroom.

   The literature on the topic raises some caution flags, though. Schmenk (2005) appropriately described the nonuniversality of the concept of autonomy, and Pennycook (1994) warned us about the potential cultural imperialism involved in assuming every culture equally values and promotes autonomy, especially in educational institutions. For language teaching in sub-Saharan Africa, Sonaiya (2002, p. 106) questioned “the global validity of the so-called autonomous method of language learning ... which has obvious origins in European and North American traditions of individualism.” However, some recent studies are more encouraging, underscoring the need for teachers to be sensitive to the cultural background of students.

(HARMER, Jeremy. 1998. How to teach English. Adaptado)

   Implied in any consideration of the role of styles and strategies in learning a second language are three linked concepts: autonomy, awareness, and action. These three “As” of learner development have taken on significance in recent years, especially with increasing pedagogical emphasis on learner-centered language teaching (Wenden,2002). A review of the history of language teaching will reveal some interesting “changing winds and shifting sands”. One way of looking at this history is to consider the extent to which methodological trends have emphasized the respective roles of the teacher and the learner. Until some of the “designer” methods appeared in the 1970s, most of language teaching methodology was teacher centered. Students entered a classroom, sat down dutifully in their desks, and waited for the teacher to tell them what to do. Those directives might have been to translate a passage, to memorize a rule, or to repeat a dialogue. Then, the profession seemed to discover the value of learner autonomy in the form of allowing learners to do things like initiate oral production, solve problems in small groups, practice language forms in pairs, and practice using the language outside of the classroom.

   The literature on the topic raises some caution flags, though. Schmenk (2005) appropriately described the nonuniversality of the concept of autonomy, and Pennycook (1994) warned us about the potential cultural imperialism involved in assuming every culture equally values and promotes autonomy, especially in educational institutions. For language teaching in sub-Saharan Africa, Sonaiya (2002, p. 106) questioned “the global validity of the so-called autonomous method of language learning ... which has obvious origins in European and North American traditions of individualism.” However, some recent studies are more encouraging, underscoring the need for teachers to be sensitive to the cultural background of students.

(HARMER, Jeremy. 1998. How to teach English. Adaptado)

   Implied in any consideration of the role of styles and strategies in learning a second language are three linked concepts: autonomy, awareness, and action. These three “As” of learner development have taken on significance in recent years, especially with increasing pedagogical emphasis on learner-centered language teaching (Wenden,2002). A review of the history of language teaching will reveal some interesting “changing winds and shifting sands”. One way of looking at this history is to consider the extent to which methodological trends have emphasized the respective roles of the teacher and the learner. Until some of the “designer” methods appeared in the 1970s, most of language teaching methodology was teacher centered. Students entered a classroom, sat down dutifully in their desks, and waited for the teacher to tell them what to do. Those directives might have been to translate a passage, to memorize a rule, or to repeat a dialogue. Then, the profession seemed to discover the value of learner autonomy in the form of allowing learners to do things like initiate oral production, solve problems in small groups, practice language forms in pairs, and practice using the language outside of the classroom.

   The literature on the topic raises some caution flags, though. Schmenk (2005) appropriately described the nonuniversality of the concept of autonomy, and Pennycook (1994) warned us about the potential cultural imperialism involved in assuming every culture equally values and promotes autonomy, especially in educational institutions. For language teaching in sub-Saharan Africa, Sonaiya (2002, p. 106) questioned “the global validity of the so-called autonomous method of language learning ... which has obvious origins in European and North American traditions of individualism.” However, some recent studies are more encouraging, underscoring the need for teachers to be sensitive to the cultural background of students.

(HARMER, Jeremy. 1998. How to teach English. Adaptado)

   Implied in any consideration of the role of styles and strategies in learning a second language are three linked concepts: autonomy, awareness, and action. These three “As” of learner development have taken on significance in recent years, especially with increasing pedagogical emphasis on learner-centered language teaching (Wenden,2002). A review of the history of language teaching will reveal some interesting “changing winds and shifting sands”. One way of looking at this history is to consider the extent to which methodological trends have emphasized the respective roles of the teacher and the learner. Until some of the “designer” methods appeared in the 1970s, most of language teaching methodology was teacher centered. Students entered a classroom, sat down dutifully in their desks, and waited for the teacher to tell them what to do. Those directives might have been to translate a passage, to memorize a rule, or to repeat a dialogue. Then, the profession seemed to discover the value of learner autonomy in the form of allowing learners to do things like initiate oral production, solve problems in small groups, practice language forms in pairs, and practice using the language outside of the classroom.

   The literature on the topic raises some caution flags, though. Schmenk (2005) appropriately described the nonuniversality of the concept of autonomy, and Pennycook (1994) warned us about the potential cultural imperialism involved in assuming every culture equally values and promotes autonomy, especially in educational institutions. For language teaching in sub-Saharan Africa, Sonaiya (2002, p. 106) questioned “the global validity of the so-called autonomous method of language learning ... which has obvious origins in European and North American traditions of individualism.” However, some recent studies are more encouraging, underscoring the need for teachers to be sensitive to the cultural background of students.

(HARMER, Jeremy. 1998. How to teach English. Adaptado)

   Implied in any consideration of the role of styles and strategies in learning a second language are three linked concepts: autonomy, awareness, and action. These three “As” of learner development have taken on significance in recent years, especially with increasing pedagogical emphasis on learner-centered language teaching (Wenden,2002). A review of the history of language teaching will reveal some interesting “changing winds and shifting sands”. One way of looking at this history is to consider the extent to which methodological trends have emphasized the respective roles of the teacher and the learner. Until some of the “designer” methods appeared in the 1970s, most of language teaching methodology was teacher centered. Students entered a classroom, sat down dutifully in their desks, and waited for the teacher to tell them what to do. Those directives might have been to translate a passage, to memorize a rule, or to repeat a dialogue. Then, the profession seemed to discover the value of learner autonomy in the form of allowing learners to do things like initiate oral production, solve problems in small groups, practice language forms in pairs, and practice using the language outside of the classroom.

   The literature on the topic raises some caution flags, though. Schmenk (2005) appropriately described the nonuniversality of the concept of autonomy, and Pennycook (1994) warned us about the potential cultural imperialism involved in assuming every culture equally values and promotes autonomy, especially in educational institutions. For language teaching in sub-Saharan Africa, Sonaiya (2002, p. 106) questioned “the global validity of the so-called autonomous method of language learning ... which has obvious origins in European and North American traditions of individualism.” However, some recent studies are more encouraging, underscoring the need for teachers to be sensitive to the cultural background of students.

(HARMER, Jeremy. 1998. How to teach English. Adaptado)