TEXT III

TEXT II

Affordances and limitations of technology: Voices from EFLteachers and learners.

(Mohammad Amiryousefi)

(Source: Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning. Article 2, Volume 9, Issue 19, Winter and Spring 2017, page 1-24. Available at: https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_6252.html . Accessed on April 20 , 2019)

TEXT I

The teaching of English as a foreign language in the context of Brazilian regular schools: a retrospective and prospective view of policies and practices.

(Ricardo Luiz Teixeira de Almeida).

(…) A brief overview of the recent history of ELT in Brazilian regular schools

During the 1970s, the so-called audiolingual method, based on behaviorist and structuralist assumptions, was still considered the only scientific way of teaching a foreign language. Its emphasis on the oral skills and on the exhaustive repetition of structural exercises seemed to work well in the contexts of private language institutes. Those contexts were characterized by the gathering of small numbers of highly motivated students per class, a weekly time-table superior in the number of hours to the one adopted in regular schools, and plenty of audiovisual resources. Questionable in itself, both because of its results (which in time were revealed to be less efficient than believed, especially in terms of fluency) and its theoretical assumptions, the method ended up being adopted by regular schools due to its positive reputation at the time. The failure of the methodology in this context would soon become evident, generating extreme frustration both amongst teachers and students.

From the 1980s on, with the spread of ideas connected to the so-called communicative approach and the growth of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), the community of researchers and teachers interested in the context of regular schools started reviewing the assumptions and logic of English Language Teaching (ELT). Recognizing that each and every school discipline needs to justify its presence in the curriculum socially and educationally, this movement identified the skill of reading as the most relevant one for the students attending the majority of Brazilian regular schools. This understanding was achieved by considering not only the possibility of real use outside school, but also the role this approach could play in the achievement of other educational goals, such as the improvement of student's reading abilities in Portuguese as a mother tongue (MOITA LOPES, 1996)*. This movement reached its climax with the publication of the Brazilian National Curricular Parameters (PCN) for the teaching of foreign languages at basic education level by the end of the 1990s. The document recommended the focus on the teaching of reading within a view of language as discourse. However, it did not close the door on the teaching of any other skill, as long as the context made it possible and relevant.

It is important at this point to clarify a few things about the emergence of this educational policy. First of all, it was not formulated apart from the community of teachers and researchers and then imposed upon them. On the contrary, great names in Brazilian Applied Linguistics, such as Luiz Paulo da Moita Lopes and Maria Antonieta Celani among others, were involved in the formulation of the Parameters. Even more important than that, a lot of teachers, individually or collectively, with or without supervision, were already trying the focus on reading as an alternative to the failure of previous practices before the Parameters were elaborated. Two well-known examples are those from Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo during the late 1980s and early 1990s. In São Paulo, The Catholic University (PUCSP) became a national center for foreign language teacher education, through the development of a Brazilian ESP project focusing on reading (CELANI, 2005)**. In Rio de Janeiro, a discussion conducted by the city educational authorities and the teachers in public schools (concerning the contents and methodology of each school discipline), during the administrations of Saturnino Braga and Marcelo Alencar, led to the proposition that the focus on reading for foreign language teaching reflected the will of most teachers who participated in the discussion.

Another important characteristic of the Parameters that should not be overlooked is their emphasis on teacher's autonomy. This emphasis can be seen clearly in the fact that no content or method is imposed upon the teachers. What one can find are suggestions and relevant information for teachers to make their own decisions, taking into consideration the context within which they work. In other words, the Parameters do not force any teacher to limit their focus on the teaching of reading, if they believe they can go further than that.

In spite of all these positive points, since their publication, it is possible to identify a strong resistance to the focus on reading on the part of many teachers. The reasons for this resistance will be discussed in the following sections of this paper. […] (p.333-334)

*MOITA LOPES, Luiz Paulo da. Oficina de Lingüística Aplicada: a natureza social e educacional dos processos de ensino / aprendizagem de línguas. Campinas:

Mercado de Letras, 1996.

**CELANI, M. A. Introduction. In: CELANI, M. A. et al. ESPin Brazil: 25 years of evolution and reflection. Campinas-SP: Mercado de Letras, São Paulo: Educ, 2005.

p. 13-26.

(Adapted from: Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada. vol.12. nº.2. Belo Horizonte. Apr./June 2012, p. 331-348. Available at:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-63982012000200006 Accessed on April 15 , 2019) 

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)

                             What Is the Interactive Reading Model?

                                                                                                          by Alicia Anthony

The Interactive Reading Model, as developed by David E. Rumelhart in 1977, describes a model of the reading process and the way linguistic elements are processed and interpreted by the brain. The model combines both surface structure systems – the sensory, bottom-up portion of reading – with deep structure systems – the thinking, or top-down, aspects of reading – to build meaning and memory for all learners.

How it Works

Readers use both knowledge of word structure and background knowledge to interpret the texts they read. For example, a student who encounters an unknown word might use surface structure systems like graphophonic, or letter-sound, knowledge to decode the word. A different student might find it easier to use deep structure systems like semantic knowledge, such as meaning and vocabulary, to decode the same unknown word. Each student makes connections in different ways. This process validates and supports both methods of understanding, realizing that individuals process information in very different ways.

Benefits of Interactive Model

The most evident benefit of this model is the opportunity for the differentiation that it provides students. Students are not required to fit into a set mold or have identical skill sets to decode and interpret text. They are encouraged to use their own strengths to gain understanding and new information. When used in the classroom setting, students should be encouraged to share their knowledge with classmates or peers. This model allows the reader to bring his own background knowledge to reading and to interact with others to build meaning and memory from the text.

                  (http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/interactive-reading-model-13048.html)

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.)]