Questões de Concursos Promoção do QM 2022

Read the text to answer question:

Language learning styles and strategies are among the main factors that help determine how – and how well – our students learn a second or foreign language. The term L2 is used in this text to refer to either a second or a foreign language, following the tradition in our field.

Learning styles are the general approaches – global or analytic, auditory or visual – that students use in acquiring a new language or in learning any other subject. These styles are “the overall patterns that give general direction to learning behavior” (Cornett 1983, p. 9). Of great relevance is this statement: “Learning style is the biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for some and terrible for others” (Dunn and Griggs 1988, p. 3).

Learning strategies are defined as “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques – such as seeking out conversation partners, or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language task – used by students to enhance their own learning” (Scarcella and Oxford 1992, p. 63). When the learner consciously chooses strategies that fit his or her learning style and the L2 task at hand, these strategies become a useful tool-kit for active, conscious, and purposeful self-regulation of learning. Learning strategies can be classified into six types: cognitive, metacognitive, memoryrelated, compensatory, affective, and social.

(M. Celce-Murcia, 2001. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question:

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but an amalgam of both and is linked to the processes of convergence – the fusion of elements which may have been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the curriculum. This is where CLIL is groundbreaking.

To give a parallel example common in recent times, we can take studies on the environment. A seminal publication on the subject in the 1960s later led to a need to educate young people in schools so as to both inform and, perhaps more crucially, influence behavior. Topics relating to the environment could already be found in chemistry, economics, geography, physics, and even psychology. Yet, as climate change became increasingly worrying, education responded with the introduction of a new subject: “Environmental studies”.

In order to structure this new subject, teachers of different disciplines would have needed to climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in physics, chemistry, geography, psychology and so on, to explore ways of building an integrated curriculum, and to develop alternative methodologies by which to implement it. Climate change is a global and local phenomenon, so the increasing availability in some countries of information and communication technologies during the 1990s provided tools by which to make some of these methodologies operational.

If we return to languages and CLIL, we have a similar situation. The late 1990s meant that educational insight was firmly set on achieving a high degree of language awareness. Appropriate methodologies were to be used to attain the best possible results in a way which accommodated diverse learning styles.

(D. Coyle, P. Hood, D. Marsh. CLIL: content language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010.)

Read the text to answer question:

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but an amalgam of both and is linked to the processes of convergence – the fusion of elements which may have been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the curriculum. This is where CLIL is groundbreaking.

To give a parallel example common in recent times, we can take studies on the environment. A seminal publication on the subject in the 1960s later led to a need to educate young people in schools so as to both inform and, perhaps more crucially, influence behavior. Topics relating to the environment could already be found in chemistry, economics, geography, physics, and even psychology. Yet, as climate change became increasingly worrying, education responded with the introduction of a new subject: “Environmental studies”.

In order to structure this new subject, teachers of different disciplines would have needed to climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in physics, chemistry, geography, psychology and so on, to explore ways of building an integrated curriculum, and to develop alternative methodologies by which to implement it. Climate change is a global and local phenomenon, so the increasing availability in some countries of information and communication technologies during the 1990s provided tools by which to make some of these methodologies operational.

If we return to languages and CLIL, we have a similar situation. The late 1990s meant that educational insight was firmly set on achieving a high degree of language awareness. Appropriate methodologies were to be used to attain the best possible results in a way which accommodated diverse learning styles.

(D. Coyle, P. Hood, D. Marsh. CLIL: content language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010.)

Read the text to answer question:

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but an amalgam of both and is linked to the processes of convergence – the fusion of elements which may have been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the curriculum. This is where CLIL is groundbreaking.

To give a parallel example common in recent times, we can take studies on the environment. A seminal publication on the subject in the 1960s later led to a need to educate young people in schools so as to both inform and, perhaps more crucially, influence behavior. Topics relating to the environment could already be found in chemistry, economics, geography, physics, and even psychology. Yet, as climate change became increasingly worrying, education responded with the introduction of a new subject: “Environmental studies”.

In order to structure this new subject, teachers of different disciplines would have needed to climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in physics, chemistry, geography, psychology and so on, to explore ways of building an integrated curriculum, and to develop alternative methodologies by which to implement it. Climate change is a global and local phenomenon, so the increasing availability in some countries of information and communication technologies during the 1990s provided tools by which to make some of these methodologies operational.

If we return to languages and CLIL, we have a similar situation. The late 1990s meant that educational insight was firmly set on achieving a high degree of language awareness. Appropriate methodologies were to be used to attain the best possible results in a way which accommodated diverse learning styles.

(D. Coyle, P. Hood, D. Marsh. CLIL: content language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010.)

Read the text to answer question:

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but an amalgam of both and is linked to the processes of convergence – the fusion of elements which may have been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the curriculum. This is where CLIL is groundbreaking.

To give a parallel example common in recent times, we can take studies on the environment. A seminal publication on the subject in the 1960s later led to a need to educate young people in schools so as to both inform and, perhaps more crucially, influence behavior. Topics relating to the environment could already be found in chemistry, economics, geography, physics, and even psychology. Yet, as climate change became increasingly worrying, education responded with the introduction of a new subject: “Environmental studies”.

In order to structure this new subject, teachers of different disciplines would have needed to climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in physics, chemistry, geography, psychology and so on, to explore ways of building an integrated curriculum, and to develop alternative methodologies by which to implement it. Climate change is a global and local phenomenon, so the increasing availability in some countries of information and communication technologies during the 1990s provided tools by which to make some of these methodologies operational.

If we return to languages and CLIL, we have a similar situation. The late 1990s meant that educational insight was firmly set on achieving a high degree of language awareness. Appropriate methodologies were to be used to attain the best possible results in a way which accommodated diverse learning styles.

(D. Coyle, P. Hood, D. Marsh. CLIL: content language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010.)

Read the text to answer question:

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but an amalgam of both and is linked to the processes of convergence – the fusion of elements which may have been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the curriculum. This is where CLIL is groundbreaking.

To give a parallel example common in recent times, we can take studies on the environment. A seminal publication on the subject in the 1960s later led to a need to educate young people in schools so as to both inform and, perhaps more crucially, influence behavior. Topics relating to the environment could already be found in chemistry, economics, geography, physics, and even psychology. Yet, as climate change became increasingly worrying, education responded with the introduction of a new subject: “Environmental studies”.

In order to structure this new subject, teachers of different disciplines would have needed to climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in physics, chemistry, geography, psychology and so on, to explore ways of building an integrated curriculum, and to develop alternative methodologies by which to implement it. Climate change is a global and local phenomenon, so the increasing availability in some countries of information and communication technologies during the 1990s provided tools by which to make some of these methodologies operational.

If we return to languages and CLIL, we have a similar situation. The late 1990s meant that educational insight was firmly set on achieving a high degree of language awareness. Appropriate methodologies were to be used to attain the best possible results in a way which accommodated diverse learning styles.

(D. Coyle, P. Hood, D. Marsh. CLIL: content language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010.)

Read the text to answer question:

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but an amalgam of both and is linked to the processes of convergence – the fusion of elements which may have been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the curriculum. This is where CLIL is groundbreaking.

To give a parallel example common in recent times, we can take studies on the environment. A seminal publication on the subject in the 1960s later led to a need to educate young people in schools so as to both inform and, perhaps more crucially, influence behavior. Topics relating to the environment could already be found in chemistry, economics, geography, physics, and even psychology. Yet, as climate change became increasingly worrying, education responded with the introduction of a new subject: “Environmental studies”.

In order to structure this new subject, teachers of different disciplines would have needed to climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in physics, chemistry, geography, psychology and so on, to explore ways of building an integrated curriculum, and to develop alternative methodologies by which to implement it. Climate change is a global and local phenomenon, so the increasing availability in some countries of information and communication technologies during the 1990s provided tools by which to make some of these methodologies operational.

If we return to languages and CLIL, we have a similar situation. The late 1990s meant that educational insight was firmly set on achieving a high degree of language awareness. Appropriate methodologies were to be used to attain the best possible results in a way which accommodated diverse learning styles.

(D. Coyle, P. Hood, D. Marsh. CLIL: content language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010.)

Read the text to answer question:

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but an amalgam of both and is linked to the processes of convergence – the fusion of elements which may have been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the curriculum. This is where CLIL is groundbreaking.

To give a parallel example common in recent times, we can take studies on the environment. A seminal publication on the subject in the 1960s later led to a need to educate young people in schools so as to both inform and, perhaps more crucially, influence behavior. Topics relating to the environment could already be found in chemistry, economics, geography, physics, and even psychology. Yet, as climate change became increasingly worrying, education responded with the introduction of a new subject: “Environmental studies”.

In order to structure this new subject, teachers of different disciplines would have needed to climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in physics, chemistry, geography, psychology and so on, to explore ways of building an integrated curriculum, and to develop alternative methodologies by which to implement it. Climate change is a global and local phenomenon, so the increasing availability in some countries of information and communication technologies during the 1990s provided tools by which to make some of these methodologies operational.

If we return to languages and CLIL, we have a similar situation. The late 1990s meant that educational insight was firmly set on achieving a high degree of language awareness. Appropriate methodologies were to be used to attain the best possible results in a way which accommodated diverse learning styles.

(D. Coyle, P. Hood, D. Marsh. CLIL: content language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010.)

Read the text to answer question:

It is suggested that the field of language teaching has moved away from a reliance on prescriptive methods towards a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of language learning. For example, Richards and Rodgers (1986) note that there have been calls to abandon the search for a single “supermethod” and to instead focus on equipping teachers with “a repertoire of methods and skills that can be used selectively in different contexts”. This reflects a move away from the idea that there is one “right” way to teach language, and towards an approach that values flexibility, adaptability, and a recognition of the diverse contexts in which language learning takes place (Richards, 2001).

Realistically speaking, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages; up till now, no method has been empirically proven the best for all language educators to blindly adopt without discussion. For example, the current great enthusiasm for (and wide adoption of) the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method in Egypt can be attributed to the failure of the previously adopted method (i.e. the Grammar-Translation Method) to meet the national language learning goals. It failed to develop a language learner who can communicate properly in English. This does not mean that the CLT will stay forever, especially in this Information and Communication Technology-dominated age (ICT) that has been changing the nature of language and how it should be taught (Abdallah, 2011).

(M. Abdallah, 2024. Disponível em: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED660475.pdf. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question:

It is suggested that the field of language teaching has moved away from a reliance on prescriptive methods towards a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of language learning. For example, Richards and Rodgers (1986) note that there have been calls to abandon the search for a single “supermethod” and to instead focus on equipping teachers with “a repertoire of methods and skills that can be used selectively in different contexts”. This reflects a move away from the idea that there is one “right” way to teach language, and towards an approach that values flexibility, adaptability, and a recognition of the diverse contexts in which language learning takes place (Richards, 2001).

Realistically speaking, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages; up till now, no method has been empirically proven the best for all language educators to blindly adopt without discussion. For example, the current great enthusiasm for (and wide adoption of) the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method in Egypt can be attributed to the failure of the previously adopted method (i.e. the Grammar-Translation Method) to meet the national language learning goals. It failed to develop a language learner who can communicate properly in English. This does not mean that the CLT will stay forever, especially in this Information and Communication Technology-dominated age (ICT) that has been changing the nature of language and how it should be taught (Abdallah, 2011).

(M. Abdallah, 2024. Disponível em: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED660475.pdf. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question:

It is suggested that the field of language teaching has moved away from a reliance on prescriptive methods towards a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of language learning. For example, Richards and Rodgers (1986) note that there have been calls to abandon the search for a single “supermethod” and to instead focus on equipping teachers with “a repertoire of methods and skills that can be used selectively in different contexts”. This reflects a move away from the idea that there is one “right” way to teach language, and towards an approach that values flexibility, adaptability, and a recognition of the diverse contexts in which language learning takes place (Richards, 2001).

Realistically speaking, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages; up till now, no method has been empirically proven the best for all language educators to blindly adopt without discussion. For example, the current great enthusiasm for (and wide adoption of) the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method in Egypt can be attributed to the failure of the previously adopted method (i.e. the Grammar-Translation Method) to meet the national language learning goals. It failed to develop a language learner who can communicate properly in English. This does not mean that the CLT will stay forever, especially in this Information and Communication Technology-dominated age (ICT) that has been changing the nature of language and how it should be taught (Abdallah, 2011).

(M. Abdallah, 2024. Disponível em: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED660475.pdf. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question:

It is suggested that the field of language teaching has moved away from a reliance on prescriptive methods towards a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of language learning. For example, Richards and Rodgers (1986) note that there have been calls to abandon the search for a single “supermethod” and to instead focus on equipping teachers with “a repertoire of methods and skills that can be used selectively in different contexts”. This reflects a move away from the idea that there is one “right” way to teach language, and towards an approach that values flexibility, adaptability, and a recognition of the diverse contexts in which language learning takes place (Richards, 2001).

Realistically speaking, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages; up till now, no method has been empirically proven the best for all language educators to blindly adopt without discussion. For example, the current great enthusiasm for (and wide adoption of) the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method in Egypt can be attributed to the failure of the previously adopted method (i.e. the Grammar-Translation Method) to meet the national language learning goals. It failed to develop a language learner who can communicate properly in English. This does not mean that the CLT will stay forever, especially in this Information and Communication Technology-dominated age (ICT) that has been changing the nature of language and how it should be taught (Abdallah, 2011).

(M. Abdallah, 2024. Disponível em: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED660475.pdf. Adaptado)