Leia o texto e responda à questão.

In a research project at the University of Illinois, US, Savignon (1972) adopted the term ‘communicative competence’ to characterize the ability of classroom language learners to interact with other speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to recite dialogs or perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge.

At a time when pattern practice and error avoidance were the rule in language teaching, this study of classroom acquisition of language looked at the effect of practice on the use of coping strategies as part of an instructional program. By encouraging students to ask for information, to seek out clarification, or to use whatever linguistic or nonlinguistic resources they could gather to negotiate meaning and stick to the communicative task at hand, teachers were invariably leading learners to take risks and speak in other than memorized patterns.

Test results at the end of the instructional period showed conclusively that learners who practiced communication in place of laboratory pattern drills performed with no less accuracy on discrete-points tests of grammatical structure. On the other hand, their communicative competence as measured in terms of fluency, comprehensibility, effort and amount of communication in unrehearsed oral communication tasks significantly surpassed that of learners who had had no such practice. Learners’ reactions to the test formats added further support to the view that even beginners respond well to activities that let them focus on meaning rather than formal features.

(Sandra J. Savignon. Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century. In: Marianne Celce-Murcia. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Adaptado)

Leia o texto e responda à questão.

In a research project at the University of Illinois, US, Savignon (1972) adopted the term ‘communicative competence’ to characterize the ability of classroom language learners to interact with other speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to recite dialogs or perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge.

At a time when pattern practice and error avoidance were the rule in language teaching, this study of classroom acquisition of language looked at the effect of practice on the use of coping strategies as part of an instructional program. By encouraging students to ask for information, to seek out clarification, or to use whatever linguistic or nonlinguistic resources they could gather to negotiate meaning and stick to the communicative task at hand, teachers were invariably leading learners to take risks and speak in other than memorized patterns.

Test results at the end of the instructional period showed conclusively that learners who practiced communication in place of laboratory pattern drills performed with no less accuracy on discrete-points tests of grammatical structure. On the other hand, their communicative competence as measured in terms of fluency, comprehensibility, effort and amount of communication in unrehearsed oral communication tasks significantly surpassed that of learners who had had no such practice. Learners’ reactions to the test formats added further support to the view that even beginners respond well to activities that let them focus on meaning rather than formal features.

(Sandra J. Savignon. Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century. In: Marianne Celce-Murcia. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Adaptado)

Leia o texto e responda à questão.

In a research project at the University of Illinois, US, Savignon (1972) adopted the term ‘communicative competence’ to characterize the ability of classroom language learners to interact with other speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to recite dialogs or perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge.

At a time when pattern practice and error avoidance were the rule in language teaching, this study of classroom acquisition of language looked at the effect of practice on the use of coping strategies as part of an instructional program. By encouraging students to ask for information, to seek out clarification, or to use whatever linguistic or nonlinguistic resources they could gather to negotiate meaning and stick to the communicative task at hand, teachers were invariably leading learners to take risks and speak in other than memorized patterns.

Test results at the end of the instructional period showed conclusively that learners who practiced communication in place of laboratory pattern drills performed with no less accuracy on discrete-points tests of grammatical structure. On the other hand, their communicative competence as measured in terms of fluency, comprehensibility, effort and amount of communication in unrehearsed oral communication tasks significantly surpassed that of learners who had had no such practice. Learners’ reactions to the test formats added further support to the view that even beginners respond well to activities that let them focus on meaning rather than formal features.

(Sandra J. Savignon. Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century. In: Marianne Celce-Murcia. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Adaptado)