Questões de Concurso Público IF-PB 2019 para Professor - Língua Inglesa

                  The “Social Practice” of Teaching

      Examining teaching from the context of a ‘social practice’ may provide us with fresh insights that will challenge the accepted ways of seeing the world of teaching with important implications for faculty development. First, we will look at what we mean by a social practice and then see how teaching falls into that category. A social practice needs to be understood in terms of purpose, context, and a complex array of norms. A social practice is, first, a form of activity that has grown out of common needs in a community to accomplish certain purposes.

      A system of etiquette and a means for communication serve to make human society more civil. Second, a social practice involves shared and mutually understood ways of behaving or acting. Third, the patterns of action are guided by a complex array or norms that we might call rules, standards, principles, precepts, and unwritten policies. These norms have authority (people comply willingly), and they are created and recreated in and through the interactions of those involved in the practice (Case, 1990; Selman, 1989; MacIntyre, 1984; Taylor, 1983). The norms provide reasons for the actions or behaviors of individuals. As in etiquette using particular forms of address, handshaking, and removing or wearing particular headwear are the behaviors that constitute the practice.

      The behaviors have meaning only in terms of the context of that particular community and purpose and can only be explained in relation to the guiding norms. The feature of a social practice (they develop out of the common needs of the community) is clearly consistent with what has already been said about the purposive nature of teaching. Teaching is an activity that has grown out of the need in a community to pass on its knowledge, mores, and behaviors and in medical schools these are formulated as mission statements which include educational aims. To view teaching as a social practice is to acknowledge, first and foremost, the expectations society has for teaching, or in other words, the particular purposes of teaching.

(Available in: D’Eon, M., Overgaard, V., & Harding, S. R. (2000). Advances in Health Sciences Education, 5(2), 151–162. Accessed on May 18st, 2019. Adapted.)

                  The “Social Practice” of Teaching

      Examining teaching from the context of a ‘social practice’ may provide us with fresh insights that will challenge the accepted ways of seeing the world of teaching with important implications for faculty development. First, we will look at what we mean by a social practice and then see how teaching falls into that category. A social practice needs to be understood in terms of purpose, context, and a complex array of norms. A social practice is, first, a form of activity that has grown out of common needs in a community to accomplish certain purposes.

      A system of etiquette and a means for communication serve to make human society more civil. Second, a social practice involves shared and mutually understood ways of behaving or acting. Third, the patterns of action are guided by a complex array or norms that we might call rules, standards, principles, precepts, and unwritten policies. These norms have authority (people comply willingly), and they are created and recreated in and through the interactions of those involved in the practice (Case, 1990; Selman, 1989; MacIntyre, 1984; Taylor, 1983). The norms provide reasons for the actions or behaviors of individuals. As in etiquette using particular forms of address, handshaking, and removing or wearing particular headwear are the behaviors that constitute the practice.

      The behaviors have meaning only in terms of the context of that particular community and purpose and can only be explained in relation to the guiding norms. The feature of a social practice (they develop out of the common needs of the community) is clearly consistent with what has already been said about the purposive nature of teaching. Teaching is an activity that has grown out of the need in a community to pass on its knowledge, mores, and behaviors and in medical schools these are formulated as mission statements which include educational aims. To view teaching as a social practice is to acknowledge, first and foremost, the expectations society has for teaching, or in other words, the particular purposes of teaching.

(Available in: D’Eon, M., Overgaard, V., & Harding, S. R. (2000). Advances in Health Sciences Education, 5(2), 151–162. Accessed on May 18st, 2019. Adapted.)

            Technology in schools: Future changes in classrooms

      Technology has the power to transform how people learn - but walk into some classrooms and you could be forgiven for thinking you were entering a time warp. There will probably be a whiteboard instead of the traditional blackboard, and the children may be using laptops or tablets, but plenty of textbooks, pens and photocopied sheets are still likely.

      The curriculum and theory have changed little since Victorian times, according to the educationalist and author Marc Prensky. "The world needs a new curriculum," he said at the recent Bett show, a conference dedicated to technology in education. Most of the education products on the market are just aids to teach the existing curriculum, he says, based on the false assumption "we need to teach better what we teach today". He feels a whole new core of subjects is needed, focusing on the skills that will equip today's learners for tomorrow's world of work. These include problem-solving, creative thinking and collaboration.

'Flipped' classrooms

      One of the biggest problems with radically changing centuries-old pedagogical methods is that no generation of parents wants their children to be the guinea pigs. Mr Prensky he thinks we have little choice, however: "We are living in an age of accelerating change. We have to experiment and figure out what works."

      "We are at the ground floor of a new world full of imagination, creativity, innovation and digital wisdom. We are going to have to create the education of the future because it doesn't exist anywhere today." He might be wrong there. Change is already afoot to disrupt the traditional classroom. The "flipped" classroom - the idea of inverting traditional teaching methods by delivering instructions online outside of the classroom and using the time in school as the place to do homework - has gained in popularity in US schools. The teacher's role becomes one of a guide, while students watch lectures at home at their own pace, communicating with classmates and teachers online.

(Available in:https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30814302. Accessed on May 18st, 2019. Adapted. Author: Jane Wakefield.) 

            Technology in schools: Future changes in classrooms

      Technology has the power to transform how people learn - but walk into some classrooms and you could be forgiven for thinking you were entering a time warp. There will probably be a whiteboard instead of the traditional blackboard, and the children may be using laptops or tablets, but plenty of textbooks, pens and photocopied sheets are still likely.

      The curriculum and theory have changed little since Victorian times, according to the educationalist and author Marc Prensky. "The world needs a new curriculum," he said at the recent Bett show, a conference dedicated to technology in education. Most of the education products on the market are just aids to teach the existing curriculum, he says, based on the false assumption "we need to teach better what we teach today". He feels a whole new core of subjects is needed, focusing on the skills that will equip today's learners for tomorrow's world of work. These include problem-solving, creative thinking and collaboration.

'Flipped' classrooms

      One of the biggest problems with radically changing centuries-old pedagogical methods is that no generation of parents wants their children to be the guinea pigs. Mr Prensky he thinks we have little choice, however: "We are living in an age of accelerating change. We have to experiment and figure out what works."

      "We are at the ground floor of a new world full of imagination, creativity, innovation and digital wisdom. We are going to have to create the education of the future because it doesn't exist anywhere today." He might be wrong there. Change is already afoot to disrupt the traditional classroom. The "flipped" classroom - the idea of inverting traditional teaching methods by delivering instructions online outside of the classroom and using the time in school as the place to do homework - has gained in popularity in US schools. The teacher's role becomes one of a guide, while students watch lectures at home at their own pace, communicating with classmates and teachers online.

(Available in:https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30814302. Accessed on May 18st, 2019. Adapted. Author: Jane Wakefield.) 

The real reason Apple and Google want you to use your phone less

                                         NIR EYAL MAY 19, 2019

If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests?

      This week Apple follows Google by announcing features to help people cut back on their tech use. Why would the companies that make your phone want you to use it less? If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests? Perhaps the tech giants have had a change of heart or have been persuaded by public pressure to change their ways? Hardly. I studied the sophisticated psychology these companies deploy to keep people hooked and wrote a book about how they do it. At first glance, it appears their business model would benefit from addiction. The more you use your phone, the more money they make through the apps you buy and the ads you view.

      However, the addiction story falls short when considering the long-term interests of these companies. Apple and Google are making it easier for consumers to cut back on phone use because it is in their interest to do so. In this case, what’s good for the user is also good for these companies’ bottom lines. Apple and Google don’t want you to get addicted. Addiction is a compulsive harmful behavior. Rather, they’d prefer you form healthy habits with your digital devices.

      Consider why you wear a seatbelt. In 1968, the Federal Government mandated that seat belts come equipped in all cars. However, nineteen years before any such regulation, American car makers started offering seat belts as a feature. The laws came well after car makers started offering seatbelts because that’s what consumers wanted. Car makers who sold safer cars sold more.

      Similarly, thousands of third-party apps have given smartphone owners ways to moderate tech use with tools to help them monitor how much time they spend online, turn off access to certain sites, and reduce digital distraction — tools very similar to what Apple and Google recently announced. I started writing about this burgeoning trend, in what I called “attention retention” devices, back in early 2015 and today there are more digital wellness products than ever.

       As they often do with successful apps built on their platforms, Apple and Google took note of what consumers wanted and decided to incorporate these features as standard — just as car makers did with seat belts in the 1950s. They also went beyond what app makers can do by adding features only the operating system makers can offer, like batch notifications to reduce the frequency of intraday interruptions and the ability to put the phone in “shush” mode by flipping it over.

      The history of innovation is littered with examples of new technologies causing unintended harm. As cultural theorist Paul Virilio said, “When you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck.” Although the devices these modern shipbuilders make certainly have potential negative consequences, like overuse, it’s also in their interests to make their products less harmful.

      With few exceptions, when a product harms people, consumers tend to use it less often or find better alternatives. The feature fight between these two tech rivals benefits everyone. The move to help users create healthy habits with their devices is an example of competition making products better.

       Although they are certainly designed to be persuasive and user-friendly, we aren’t slaves to our technologies and it behooves us to stop thinking we’re powerless. The tech companies are taking steps to help users rein in device overuse. Now it’s our turn to put these features to use, buckle down, and buckle up

(Available in: https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-reason-apple-and-google-want-you-to-use-your-phone-less. Accessed on May 19th, 2019. Adapted.)

The real reason Apple and Google want you to use your phone less

                                         NIR EYAL MAY 19, 2019

If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests?

      This week Apple follows Google by announcing features to help people cut back on their tech use. Why would the companies that make your phone want you to use it less? If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests? Perhaps the tech giants have had a change of heart or have been persuaded by public pressure to change their ways? Hardly. I studied the sophisticated psychology these companies deploy to keep people hooked and wrote a book about how they do it. At first glance, it appears their business model would benefit from addiction. The more you use your phone, the more money they make through the apps you buy and the ads you view.

      However, the addiction story falls short when considering the long-term interests of these companies. Apple and Google are making it easier for consumers to cut back on phone use because it is in their interest to do so. In this case, what’s good for the user is also good for these companies’ bottom lines. Apple and Google don’t want you to get addicted. Addiction is a compulsive harmful behavior. Rather, they’d prefer you form healthy habits with your digital devices.

      Consider why you wear a seatbelt. In 1968, the Federal Government mandated that seat belts come equipped in all cars. However, nineteen years before any such regulation, American car makers started offering seat belts as a feature. The laws came well after car makers started offering seatbelts because that’s what consumers wanted. Car makers who sold safer cars sold more.

      Similarly, thousands of third-party apps have given smartphone owners ways to moderate tech use with tools to help them monitor how much time they spend online, turn off access to certain sites, and reduce digital distraction — tools very similar to what Apple and Google recently announced. I started writing about this burgeoning trend, in what I called “attention retention” devices, back in early 2015 and today there are more digital wellness products than ever.

       As they often do with successful apps built on their platforms, Apple and Google took note of what consumers wanted and decided to incorporate these features as standard — just as car makers did with seat belts in the 1950s. They also went beyond what app makers can do by adding features only the operating system makers can offer, like batch notifications to reduce the frequency of intraday interruptions and the ability to put the phone in “shush” mode by flipping it over.

      The history of innovation is littered with examples of new technologies causing unintended harm. As cultural theorist Paul Virilio said, “When you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck.” Although the devices these modern shipbuilders make certainly have potential negative consequences, like overuse, it’s also in their interests to make their products less harmful.

      With few exceptions, when a product harms people, consumers tend to use it less often or find better alternatives. The feature fight between these two tech rivals benefits everyone. The move to help users create healthy habits with their devices is an example of competition making products better.

       Although they are certainly designed to be persuasive and user-friendly, we aren’t slaves to our technologies and it behooves us to stop thinking we’re powerless. The tech companies are taking steps to help users rein in device overuse. Now it’s our turn to put these features to use, buckle down, and buckle up

(Available in: https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-reason-apple-and-google-want-you-to-use-your-phone-less. Accessed on May 19th, 2019. Adapted.)