Questões de Concurso

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

As questões de números 36 a 40 verificam conhecimentos relativos ao documento oficial Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais para o terceiro e quarto ciclos do ensino fundamental: língua estrangeira (Brasília, MEC/SEF, 1998). Em cada uma delas, assinale a alternativa correta.

As questões de números 36 a 40 verificam conhecimentos relativos ao documento oficial Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais para o terceiro e quarto ciclos do ensino fundamental: língua estrangeira (Brasília, MEC/SEF, 1998). Em cada uma delas, assinale a alternativa correta.

As questões de números 36 a 40 verificam conhecimentos relativos ao documento oficial Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais para o terceiro e quarto ciclos do ensino fundamental: língua estrangeira (Brasília, MEC/SEF, 1998). Em cada uma delas, assinale a alternativa correta.

As questões de números 36 a 40 verificam conhecimentos relativos ao documento oficial Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais para o terceiro e quarto ciclos do ensino fundamental: língua estrangeira (Brasília, MEC/SEF, 1998). Em cada uma delas, assinale a alternativa correta.

As questões de números 31 a 35 referem-se ao texto a seguir.

Teaching Children Literacy Skills in a Second Language

by ANNE EDIGER

In recent years, there has been increased focus on the teaching of reading and other literacy skills to children, both in North America and abroad. Part of this may relate to the recognition that reading is probably the most important skill for second language (L2) learners in academic contexts, and part of it may come from an increase in the numbers of children worldwide who are learning English as a second or foreign language (hereafter ESL or EFL). It may also be a result of the recent implementation of standards in much of public education in the United States and Canada, a movement built upon the belief that basic literacy instruction should be a fundamental component of public education.

Another possible factor contributing to an increased focus on literacy instruction to children in EFL contexts may be the growing numbers of countries that are moving toward making English language instruction mandatory from a younger age. Given the portability of books and other reading materials (as well as the increasing availability of reading material over the Internet), reading is gradually being recognized as a valuable source of language input, particularly for students in learning environments (as in some EFL contexts) in which fluent speakers of English are generally not available to provide other kinds of language input.

Notions of literacy are expanding as well. Although many different definitions of literacy can be found in the literature on the subject, and reading still seems to be primary to most of them, the teaching of writing and oral skills is increasingly being integrated with reading instruction for both native English speakers (NES) and English language learners (ELLs). Many of the new standards, both for ELLs and NES children, also integrate expectations for the development of all four language skills — reading, writing, listening, and speaking. In fact, increasingly, the large-scale standardized tests ask students to bring together all of these skills, requiring students to demonstrate competence in synthesizing information from multiple sources, or bringing information they have heard or read into written.

_{(Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Adapted)}

As questões de números 31 a 35 referem-se ao texto a seguir.

Teaching Children Literacy Skills in a Second Language

by ANNE EDIGER

In recent years, there has been increased focus on the teaching of reading and other literacy skills to children, both in North America and abroad. Part of this may relate to the recognition that reading is probably the most important skill for second language (L2) learners in academic contexts, and part of it may come from an increase in the numbers of children worldwide who are learning English as a second or foreign language (hereafter ESL or EFL). It may also be a result of the recent implementation of standards in much of public education in the United States and Canada, a movement built upon the belief that basic literacy instruction should be a fundamental component of public education.

Another possible factor contributing to an increased focus on literacy instruction to children in EFL contexts may be the growing numbers of countries that are moving toward making English language instruction mandatory from a younger age. Given the portability of books and other reading materials (as well as the increasing availability of reading material over the Internet), reading is gradually being recognized as a valuable source of language input, particularly for students in learning environments (as in some EFL contexts) in which fluent speakers of English are generally not available to provide other kinds of language input.

Notions of literacy are expanding as well. Although many different definitions of literacy can be found in the literature on the subject, and reading still seems to be primary to most of them, the teaching of writing and oral skills is increasingly being integrated with reading instruction for both native English speakers (NES) and English language learners (ELLs). Many of the new standards, both for ELLs and NES children, also integrate expectations for the development of all four language skills — reading, writing, listening, and speaking. In fact, increasingly, the large-scale standardized tests ask students to bring together all of these skills, requiring students to demonstrate competence in synthesizing information from multiple sources, or bringing information they have heard or read into written.

_{(Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Adapted)}

As questões de números 31 a 35 referem-se ao texto a seguir.

Teaching Children Literacy Skills in a Second Language

by ANNE EDIGER

In recent years, there has been increased focus on the teaching of reading and other literacy skills to children, both in North America and abroad. Part of this may relate to the recognition that reading is probably the most important skill for second language (L2) learners in academic contexts, and part of it may come from an increase in the numbers of children worldwide who are learning English as a second or foreign language (hereafter ESL or EFL). It may also be a result of the recent implementation of standards in much of public education in the United States and Canada, a movement built upon the belief that basic literacy instruction should be a fundamental component of public education.

Another possible factor contributing to an increased focus on literacy instruction to children in EFL contexts may be the growing numbers of countries that are moving toward making English language instruction mandatory from a younger age. Given the portability of books and other reading materials (as well as the increasing availability of reading material over the Internet), reading is gradually being recognized as a valuable source of language input, particularly for students in learning environments (as in some EFL contexts) in which fluent speakers of English are generally not available to provide other kinds of language input.

Notions of literacy are expanding as well. Although many different definitions of literacy can be found in the literature on the subject, and reading still seems to be primary to most of them, the teaching of writing and oral skills is increasingly being integrated with reading instruction for both native English speakers (NES) and English language learners (ELLs). Many of the new standards, both for ELLs and NES children, also integrate expectations for the development of all four language skills — reading, writing, listening, and speaking. In fact, increasingly, the large-scale standardized tests ask students to bring together all of these skills, requiring students to demonstrate competence in synthesizing information from multiple sources, or bringing information they have heard or read into written.

_{(Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Adapted)}

As questões de números 31 a 35 referem-se ao texto a seguir.

Teaching Children Literacy Skills in a Second Language

by ANNE EDIGER

In recent years, there has been increased focus on the teaching of reading and other literacy skills to children, both in North America and abroad. Part of this may relate to the recognition that reading is probably the most important skill for second language (L2) learners in academic contexts, and part of it may come from an increase in the numbers of children worldwide who are learning English as a second or foreign language (hereafter ESL or EFL). It may also be a result of the recent implementation of standards in much of public education in the United States and Canada, a movement built upon the belief that basic literacy instruction should be a fundamental component of public education.

Another possible factor contributing to an increased focus on literacy instruction to children in EFL contexts may be the growing numbers of countries that are moving toward making English language instruction mandatory from a younger age. Given the portability of books and other reading materials (as well as the increasing availability of reading material over the Internet), reading is gradually being recognized as a valuable source of language input, particularly for students in learning environments (as in some EFL contexts) in which fluent speakers of English are generally not available to provide other kinds of language input.

Notions of literacy are expanding as well. Although many different definitions of literacy can be found in the literature on the subject, and reading still seems to be primary to most of them, the teaching of writing and oral skills is increasingly being integrated with reading instruction for both native English speakers (NES) and English language learners (ELLs). Many of the new standards, both for ELLs and NES children, also integrate expectations for the development of all four language skills — reading, writing, listening, and speaking. In fact, increasingly, the large-scale standardized tests ask students to bring together all of these skills, requiring students to demonstrate competence in synthesizing information from multiple sources, or bringing information they have heard or read into written.

_{(Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Adapted)}