Questões de Concurso

According to Motta-Roth (2008), the Critical Genre Pedagogy sees the process of teaching/ learning as situated. That means it’s necessary to contextualize content and syllabus based on educational, cultural, social, and political imperatives, connecting individual experience to social experiences as well as social historic conditions of production, distribution and consumption of texts in society. A good example of genre pedagogy in use can be seen when the teacher proposes:

Still in practical terms, focusing on lexical terms may be a challenge for the teacher and the student. Penny Ur (2012, p.69) alerts teachers to the importance of revising vocabulary instead of testing students on it so as to “consolidate and deepen students’ basic knowledge”. It’s important to focus the revision on single-items as well as items in context, using a wide range of exercises, which means, for example:

I conducting dictations.

II having students brainstorm in groups.

III doing a quick bingo.

IV composing stories together.

V finding collocations on websites or dictionaries.

The alternative that best matches the exercises suggested above with their target language is:

In practical terms, focusing on a grammar topic may be a challenge for the teacher and the student. Using the Passive Voice as mere example, Larsen-Freeman (2003, p.47) states that “the ultimate challenge of the passive voice is not form” because “although it is a grammatical form, it is not the form that presents the learning challenge”. In her example, focusing on form, teachers may mistakenly choose to introduce the passive as a transformed version of the active, implying they are interchangeable or that all passive sentences include the agent, which is definitely not the case. A good alternative to teaching through form could be to:

According to Larsen-Freeman (2003), it’s possible to assert that focusing on the dynamics of language (grammaring) is very important and it helps improve teaching/ learning abilities because:

I it allows teachers/ learners to understand language as having an organic dynamism that renders it simultaneously flexible (real-time) and stable (over-time).

II teachers/ learners tend to perceive language as an idealized, objectified, atemporal “thing” that can be easily understood by the examination of its parts, which is very limited.

Looking at I and II, the most appropriate conclusion is that:

Larsen-Freeman (2003, p.34) asserts that “there is much more of concern in the teaching and learning of grammar than whether or not students produce grammatical forms accurately” and she goes on to say that “the complexity is partly captured by the fact that form is only one of three dimensions, all of which play a part in grammaring”. The other two dimensions she refers to are: