Questões de Concurso

Leia os textos a seguir para responder à questão:

Texto 1

Simplified texts are those which have been made simpler so as to make it easier for learners to read them. The usual principles of simplification involve reduction in length of the text, shortening of sentences, omission or replacement of difficult words or structures, and omission of non-essential detail. Some applied linguists prefer to simplify texts by adding examples, by using repetition and paraphrase and by increasing redundant information.

(TOMLINSON, B. (ed.). Materials Development in Language Teaching.2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2023)

Texto 2

A “dificuldade” de um texto não se mede pelo tipo de oração ou complexidade sintática que ele contém. Não há texto fácil ou difícil do ponto de vista linguístico, simplesmente. Na sala de aula, o sucesso de um texto como parte de uma atividade depende do que se vai fazer com ele.

(Tony B. Sardinha. The book is not on the table: autenticidade e idiomaticidade do texto para ensino de inglês na perspectiva da linguística de corpus. IN: Maria Cristina Damianovic (org). Material Didático: Elaboração e Avaliação. Taubaté: Cabral - Editora e Livraria Universitária.2007. Adaptado)

Leia os textos a seguir para responder à questão:

Texto 1

Simplified texts are those which have been made simpler so as to make it easier for learners to read them. The usual principles of simplification involve reduction in length of the text, shortening of sentences, omission or replacement of difficult words or structures, and omission of non-essential detail. Some applied linguists prefer to simplify texts by adding examples, by using repetition and paraphrase and by increasing redundant information.

(TOMLINSON, B. (ed.). Materials Development in Language Teaching.2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2023)

Texto 2

A “dificuldade” de um texto não se mede pelo tipo de oração ou complexidade sintática que ele contém. Não há texto fácil ou difícil do ponto de vista linguístico, simplesmente. Na sala de aula, o sucesso de um texto como parte de uma atividade depende do que se vai fazer com ele.

(Tony B. Sardinha. The book is not on the table: autenticidade e idiomaticidade do texto para ensino de inglês na perspectiva da linguística de corpus. IN: Maria Cristina Damianovic (org). Material Didático: Elaboração e Avaliação. Taubaté: Cabral - Editora e Livraria Universitária.2007. Adaptado)

Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão:

Kumaravadivelu’s work on language teaching aims to illustrate the emergence of a postmethod condition in the literature on teaching second/foreign languages, and has what I realize to be a very personalized vision of language teaching.

The different chapters discuss how methods evolved, and then critically assess those methods. A theme emerges that methods and predetermined materials and strategies lack the flexibility to be applied to the many varied contexts of English Language Teaching. Postmethod pedagogies can be differentiated from methods by an emphasis on developing teachers’ skills and flexibility to meet students’ needs. Kumaravadivelu’s critique of methods is the most comprehensive and detailed I have read.

The book is divided into three major sections. The first section describes language as system, discourse and ideology. The second section provides a brief history, description, and assessment of language teaching methods and categorizes them as language-centered, learner-centered, and learningcentered. The third section, Postmethod Perspectives, discusses the parameters of postmethod pedagogy and analyses its challenges and barriers. I found this final section the most compelling reading. The postmethod condition commends strategies to “advance a context-sensitive, locationspecific pedagogy that is based on a true understanding of local linguistic, socio-cultural, and political particularities” (p.224). An approach to language teaching that embraces such situational criteria is relevant to any teacher’s, researcher’s or attentive student’s awareness of just what is being taught and how.

(https://tesl-ej.org. Adaptado)

Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão:

Kumaravadivelu’s work on language teaching aims to illustrate the emergence of a postmethod condition in the literature on teaching second/foreign languages, and has what I realize to be a very personalized vision of language teaching.

The different chapters discuss how methods evolved, and then critically assess those methods. A theme emerges that methods and predetermined materials and strategies lack the flexibility to be applied to the many varied contexts of English Language Teaching. Postmethod pedagogies can be differentiated from methods by an emphasis on developing teachers’ skills and flexibility to meet students’ needs. Kumaravadivelu’s critique of methods is the most comprehensive and detailed I have read.

The book is divided into three major sections. The first section describes language as system, discourse and ideology. The second section provides a brief history, description, and assessment of language teaching methods and categorizes them as language-centered, learner-centered, and learningcentered. The third section, Postmethod Perspectives, discusses the parameters of postmethod pedagogy and analyses its challenges and barriers. I found this final section the most compelling reading. The postmethod condition commends strategies to “advance a context-sensitive, locationspecific pedagogy that is based on a true understanding of local linguistic, socio-cultural, and political particularities” (p.224). An approach to language teaching that embraces such situational criteria is relevant to any teacher’s, researcher’s or attentive student’s awareness of just what is being taught and how.

(https://tesl-ej.org. Adaptado)

Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão:

Kumaravadivelu’s work on language teaching aims to illustrate the emergence of a postmethod condition in the literature on teaching second/foreign languages, and has what I realize to be a very personalized vision of language teaching.

The different chapters discuss how methods evolved, and then critically assess those methods. A theme emerges that methods and predetermined materials and strategies lack the flexibility to be applied to the many varied contexts of English Language Teaching. Postmethod pedagogies can be differentiated from methods by an emphasis on developing teachers’ skills and flexibility to meet students’ needs. Kumaravadivelu’s critique of methods is the most comprehensive and detailed I have read.

The book is divided into three major sections. The first section describes language as system, discourse and ideology. The second section provides a brief history, description, and assessment of language teaching methods and categorizes them as language-centered, learner-centered, and learningcentered. The third section, Postmethod Perspectives, discusses the parameters of postmethod pedagogy and analyses its challenges and barriers. I found this final section the most compelling reading. The postmethod condition commends strategies to “advance a context-sensitive, locationspecific pedagogy that is based on a true understanding of local linguistic, socio-cultural, and political particularities” (p.224). An approach to language teaching that embraces such situational criteria is relevant to any teacher’s, researcher’s or attentive student’s awareness of just what is being taught and how.

(https://tesl-ej.org. Adaptado)