Questões de Concurso Sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês

Para responder à questão, leia o texto a seguir, que exemplifica estratégias de leitura, e assinale a alternativa que melhor completa cada uma das lacunas numeradas, considerando o sentido do texto e a norma-padrão da língua inglesa.

John is a conscientious student. When he is told he will 41 tested on the contents of Chapter 2 in the textbook, he looks 42 every unknown word in the dictionary in an effort to fix the information in his memory. Despite his extended preparations, he doesn’t do very well 43 the test, though he says he spent hours preparing. Lia, on the other 44 , excels on the exam, but she has approached the text in a very different way. Before she reads the chapter, she skims through it, looking at subheadings and graphics so as to give herself a general idea of what the text will be about. 45 she reads, she connects the material in the chapter to what she already knows. She frequently asks herself 46 about the text, looking back or ahead to link one part of the text to another. When she is puzzled by the content, she searches for clues in the 47 , tries to paraphrase, or considers what she knows about text 48 . In short, Lia is reading like an expert, 49 John is relying on just one technique. The difference between the two is in 50 use of reading strategies.

[Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice,

by Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya (Eds.)]

Para responder à questão, leia o texto a seguir, que exemplifica estratégias de leitura, e assinale a alternativa que melhor completa cada uma das lacunas numeradas, considerando o sentido do texto e a norma-padrão da língua inglesa.

John is a conscientious student. When he is told he will 41 tested on the contents of Chapter 2 in the textbook, he looks 42 every unknown word in the dictionary in an effort to fix the information in his memory. Despite his extended preparations, he doesn’t do very well 43 the test, though he says he spent hours preparing. Lia, on the other 44 , excels on the exam, but she has approached the text in a very different way. Before she reads the chapter, she skims through it, looking at subheadings and graphics so as to give herself a general idea of what the text will be about. 45 she reads, she connects the material in the chapter to what she already knows. She frequently asks herself 46 about the text, looking back or ahead to link one part of the text to another. When she is puzzled by the content, she searches for clues in the 47 , tries to paraphrase, or considers what she knows about text 48 . In short, Lia is reading like an expert, 49 John is relying on just one technique. The difference between the two is in 50 use of reading strategies.

[Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice,

by Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya (Eds.)]

Para responder à questão, leia o texto a seguir, que exemplifica estratégias de leitura, e assinale a alternativa que melhor completa cada uma das lacunas numeradas, considerando o sentido do texto e a norma-padrão da língua inglesa.

John is a conscientious student. When he is told he will 41 tested on the contents of Chapter 2 in the textbook, he looks 42 every unknown word in the dictionary in an effort to fix the information in his memory. Despite his extended preparations, he doesn’t do very well 43 the test, though he says he spent hours preparing. Lia, on the other 44 , excels on the exam, but she has approached the text in a very different way. Before she reads the chapter, she skims through it, looking at subheadings and graphics so as to give herself a general idea of what the text will be about. 45 she reads, she connects the material in the chapter to what she already knows. She frequently asks herself 46 about the text, looking back or ahead to link one part of the text to another. When she is puzzled by the content, she searches for clues in the 47 , tries to paraphrase, or considers what she knows about text 48 . In short, Lia is reading like an expert, 49 John is relying on just one technique. The difference between the two is in 50 use of reading strategies.

[Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice,

by Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya (Eds.)]

Para responder à questão, leia o texto a seguir, que exemplifica estratégias de leitura, e assinale a alternativa que melhor completa cada uma das lacunas numeradas, considerando o sentido do texto e a norma-padrão da língua inglesa.

John is a conscientious student. When he is told he will 41 tested on the contents of Chapter 2 in the textbook, he looks 42 every unknown word in the dictionary in an effort to fix the information in his memory. Despite his extended preparations, he doesn’t do very well 43 the test, though he says he spent hours preparing. Lia, on the other 44 , excels on the exam, but she has approached the text in a very different way. Before she reads the chapter, she skims through it, looking at subheadings and graphics so as to give herself a general idea of what the text will be about. 45 she reads, she connects the material in the chapter to what she already knows. She frequently asks herself 46 about the text, looking back or ahead to link one part of the text to another. When she is puzzled by the content, she searches for clues in the 47 , tries to paraphrase, or considers what she knows about text 48 . In short, Lia is reading like an expert, 49 John is relying on just one technique. The difference between the two is in 50 use of reading strategies.

[Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice,

by Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya (Eds.)]

Para responder à questão, leia o texto a seguir, que exemplifica estratégias de leitura, e assinale a alternativa que melhor completa cada uma das lacunas numeradas, considerando o sentido do texto e a norma-padrão da língua inglesa.

John is a conscientious student. When he is told he will 41 tested on the contents of Chapter 2 in the textbook, he looks 42 every unknown word in the dictionary in an effort to fix the information in his memory. Despite his extended preparations, he doesn’t do very well 43 the test, though he says he spent hours preparing. Lia, on the other 44 , excels on the exam, but she has approached the text in a very different way. Before she reads the chapter, she skims through it, looking at subheadings and graphics so as to give herself a general idea of what the text will be about. 45 she reads, she connects the material in the chapter to what she already knows. She frequently asks herself 46 about the text, looking back or ahead to link one part of the text to another. When she is puzzled by the content, she searches for clues in the 47 , tries to paraphrase, or considers what she knows about text 48 . In short, Lia is reading like an expert, 49 John is relying on just one technique. The difference between the two is in 50 use of reading strategies.

[Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice,

by Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya (Eds.)]

Para responder à questão, leia o texto a seguir, que exemplifica estratégias de leitura, e assinale a alternativa que melhor completa cada uma das lacunas numeradas, considerando o sentido do texto e a norma-padrão da língua inglesa.

John is a conscientious student. When he is told he will 41 tested on the contents of Chapter 2 in the textbook, he looks 42 every unknown word in the dictionary in an effort to fix the information in his memory. Despite his extended preparations, he doesn’t do very well 43 the test, though he says he spent hours preparing. Lia, on the other 44 , excels on the exam, but she has approached the text in a very different way. Before she reads the chapter, she skims through it, looking at subheadings and graphics so as to give herself a general idea of what the text will be about. 45 she reads, she connects the material in the chapter to what she already knows. She frequently asks herself 46 about the text, looking back or ahead to link one part of the text to another. When she is puzzled by the content, she searches for clues in the 47 , tries to paraphrase, or considers what she knows about text 48 . In short, Lia is reading like an expert, 49 John is relying on just one technique. The difference between the two is in 50 use of reading strategies.

[Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice,

by Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya (Eds.)]

Para responder à questão, leia o texto a seguir, que exemplifica estratégias de leitura, e assinale a alternativa que melhor completa cada uma das lacunas numeradas, considerando o sentido do texto e a norma-padrão da língua inglesa.

John is a conscientious student. When he is told he will 41 tested on the contents of Chapter 2 in the textbook, he looks 42 every unknown word in the dictionary in an effort to fix the information in his memory. Despite his extended preparations, he doesn’t do very well 43 the test, though he says he spent hours preparing. Lia, on the other 44 , excels on the exam, but she has approached the text in a very different way. Before she reads the chapter, she skims through it, looking at subheadings and graphics so as to give herself a general idea of what the text will be about. 45 she reads, she connects the material in the chapter to what she already knows. She frequently asks herself 46 about the text, looking back or ahead to link one part of the text to another. When she is puzzled by the content, she searches for clues in the 47 , tries to paraphrase, or considers what she knows about text 48 . In short, Lia is reading like an expert, 49 John is relying on just one technique. The difference between the two is in 50 use of reading strategies.

[Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice,

by Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya (Eds.)]

Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.

The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …

Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …

Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.

(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)

Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.

The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …

Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …

Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.

(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)

Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.

The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …

Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …

Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.

(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)

Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.

The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …

Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …

Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.

(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)

Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.

The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …

Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …

Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.

(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)

Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.

The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …

Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …

Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.

(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)

Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.

The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …

Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …

Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.

(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)

Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.

The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …

Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …

Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.

(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)

Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.

The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …

Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …

Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’

On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.

(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)