In the excerpt “Before the mid-1980s, several different
attempts were made to make ELT work out at regular schools…”,
the underlined word can be replaced, with no change in meaning, by:

Question

Read the following text:
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
Read the following text:The movement towards a more meaningful approach to the
teaching of English as a foreign language in Brazilian regular
schools reached its climax in the 20th century with the publication
of the Brazilian National Curricular Parameters (PCN) for the
teaching of foreign languages at basic education level. Since
then, the community of teachers has been divided into those who
welcomed the contents, views and propositions of the document,
and the ones who believed that the suggestions it contained were
inappropriate. At the center of this controversy was the importance
given by the official policies to the teaching of reading, as opposed
to an approach, borrowed from private language institutes, which
historically favored a focus on the oral skills.A brief overview of the recent history of ELT in Brazilian regular
schoolsDuring 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. 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.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. 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.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.To be or not to be: professional identities and beliefsWhen asked why they were against the focus on reading, most
teachers who take this position, told me that they considered
the teaching of reading to be "not enough". Most of them also
added that if the teaching of reading was designed to fit a context
where one cannot effectively teach the oral skills, then we should
not adapt ourselves to that context, but rather demand the
improvements that would make more feasible the teaching of the
so-called four skills.Let us consider these statements more closely. The first one is
about quantity, that is, by teaching "only" the reading skill, the
teacher would be denying her/his students the opportunity for
learning all the other skills. They would be denied the opportunity
for learning to speak English, which is, after all, assumed to be the
real goal of teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL).Reasonable and democratic as it may seem, such an argument
fails to take into consideration at least one extremely relevant
issue: the fact that in Brazil there are virtually no reports of
successful teaching of the four skills in contexts other than the
private language institutes. Before the mid-1980s, several different
attempts were made to make ELT work out at regular schools,
but only those which completely changed the characteristics
of the classes (making them look almost exactly like the small,
homogeneous classes of the private institutes) were able to
achieve some (questionable) level of success. In other words, the
integrative approach to ELT, with its claim of teaching the four skills,
focusing especially on the oral skills, has never been successful in
our regular schools, including most of the private ones, with very
few exceptions. If that is indeed the case, then it makes very little
sense to speak of giving our students more or less of something
that they never really had. And even if we are to speak in such
terms, then it is extremely clear (at least for those who tried it) that
the communicative teaching of one skill is definitely better (and
more) than the pantomime of allegedly teaching the four skills,
which was never successful in the context of Brazilian schools.Where do we go from here?Any attempt to establish new policies for the teaching of EFL at
Brazilian regular schools should start with the recognition that
the PCN were a very important step towards meaningful foreign
language education in this context. Without such recognition,
there will always be the suspicion that the old beliefs connected to
the professional identity of the teacher as an instructor are coming
back.Surely, we do not want to teach only reading forever. But sound
attempts to go forward in enhancing the relevance of our teaching
should start with the discussion of the three groups of reasons
that justified the propositions of the PCN. The focus on reading
was considered the most adequate for the majority of our schools
because of practical considerations about our working conditions,
social relevance, and educational relevance.As far as practical conditions and educational relevance are
concerned, virtually no major change has occurred in order to
justify reframing our teaching. However, in what concerns social
relevance, it is undeniable that the growth of the Internet has
provided a new context for the use of the English language outside
schools. For that reason, it is my belief that skills other than reading
may now be taught in our classes without representing a return to
a rationale that is alien to our schools. The teaching of writing in
the context of Internet genres and practices is definitely necessary,
if we want our students to have their own voice, becoming able to
project their own local identities in global contexts.Adapted from: ALMEIDA, Ricardo Luiz Teixeira de. Scielo Brazil –
Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada - https://www.scielo.br/j/rbla/a/
nNz3Jtj85xmms8MnNfwRpMn/?lang=en. Accessed: 05/02/2024. In the excerpt “Before the mid-1980s, several different
attempts were made to make ELT work out at regular schools…”,
the underlined word can be replaced, with no change in meaning, by: Alternativa A: few Ou Alternativa B: much  Ou Alternativa C: many Ou Alternativa D: some

Qconcursos · Accepted Answer

Alternativa [D] some Tema central: O foco da questão é a compreensão e aplicação de quantificadores (quantifiers) em inglês, especialmente aqueles usados com substantivos contáveis no plural, como "several", "many" e "some". Esses termos são essenciais para expressar quantidade de forma correta, clara e adequada em diferentes contextos.

Comentário didático sobre o conceito: Quantifiers são determinantes que indicam quantidade. No texto apresentado, o termo several aparece qualificando "different attempts", ou seja, indicando que houve "diversas" tentativas feitas antes de meados da década de 1980. "Several", segundo gramáticas como Raymond Murphy (English Grammar in Use), expressa uma quantidade maior que dois, mas não exagerada, sempre acompanhado de substantivos contáveis no plural.

Justificativa da alternativa correta (D): "Some" é o substituto mais próximo para "several" nesse contexto, pois ambos indicam uma quantidade indefinida, suficientemente significativa, mas não excessiva, e são utilizados antes de substantivos contáveis no plural. A substituição não altera o sentido original da frase do texto.

Análise das alternativas incorretas:

A) few: significa "poucos", geralmente com significado negativo, sugerindo quase nenhuma quantidade. Não corresponde à ideia de "several".
B) much: usado apenas com substantivos incontáveis. Não pode ser aplicado a "attempts", que é contável.
C) many: significa "muitos", sendo quantitativamente maior que "several" e expressando uma ênfase superior. Alteraria o significado original, pois não reflete a intenção do texto.

Estratégias para provas: Observe o tipo de substantivo (contável x incontável) e o grau de quantidade subentendido no texto. Cuidado com quantificadores parecidos, pois "few", "several", "some" e "many" têm nuances específicas e não são totalmente intercambiáveis.

Referência: Gramáticas como Practical English Usage (Swan) e English Grammar in Use (Murphy) reforçam estas distinções de uso.

Resumo final: A alternativa correta é D) some, pois mantém o sentido de quantidade indefinida, plural e moderada, tal qual "several".

Gostou do comentário? Deixe sua avaliação aqui embaixo!

🚀 Quer mais performance?

🚀 Quer mais performance?

In the excerpt “Before the mid-1980s, several different att...

Gabarito comentado

Clique para visualizar este gabarito

Comentários

Clique para visualizar este comentário

Resumos relacionados

Advérbios e conjunções em inglês para concursos públicos

Artigos (Articles) em inglês: uso em concursos públicos

Questões de assuntos semelhantes

Provas relacionadas