Questões de Concurso Público Prefeitura de Cerquilho - SP 2019 para Professor de Educação Básica - Inglês

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)

      Characteristics of a good test

      In order to judge the effectiveness of any test, it is sensible to lay down criteria against which the test can be measured, as follows:

      Validity: a test is valid if it tests what it is supposed to test. Thus it is not valid, for example, to test writing ability with an essay question that demands specialist knowledge of history or biology — unless it is known that all students share this knowledge before they do the test.

      A particular kind of ‘validity’ that concerns most test designers is face validity. This means that the test should look, on the ‘face’ of it, as if it is valid. A test which consisted of only three multiple choice items would not convince students of its face validity however reliable or practical teachers thought it to be.

      Reliability: a good test should give consistent results. For example, if the same group of students took the same test twice within two days — without reflecting on the first test before they sat it again — they should get the same results on each occasion. If two groups who were demonstrably alike took the test, the marking range would be the same.

      In practice, ‘reliability’ is enhanced by making the test instructions absolutely clear, restricting the scope for variety in the answers. Reliability also depends on the people who mark the tests. Clearly a test is unreliable if the result depends to any large extent on who is marking it. Much thought has gone into making the scoring of tests as reliable as possible.

(Jeremy Harmer. The practice of English language teaching. 2007. Adaptado)