UFF RESUMO: O presente artigo pretende suscitar reflexões acerca dos pontos de contato e de distanciamento entre o ensino comunicativo, abordagem amplamente difundida para o ensino de língua inglesa no Brasil, e o letramento crítico, proposta recentemente feita pelas novas Orientações Curriculares para o Ensino Médio (OCEM). Primeiramente, faremos um levantamento das tradições teóricas que dão origem às duas concepções de ensino, abordando seus principais conceitos. Depois, discutiremos questões que aproximam as duas abordagens, assim como aquelas que tendem a distanciá-las. Ressaltamos que as duas concepções de ensino, embora distintas em várias de suas propostas, não são incompatíveis, mas, sim, complementares. Ofereceremos, por fim, um exemplo de uma atividade integrada que tem por objetivo conciliar os anseios dessas duas concepções. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: abordagem comunicativa, letramento crítico, integração.ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to foster reflections on the similarities and differences between the Communicative Approach, a well-known method for English language teaching in Brazil, and Critical Literacy, the latest suggestion made by the new Orientações Curriculares para o Ensino Médio (OCEM). First, we will address the theoretical traditions that give origin to the two teaching approaches, explaining their main concepts. Then, we will discuss the similarities between the two approaches, as well as their main differences. We claim that the two teaching approaches, however different in their proposals, are not incompatible, but complementary. Finally, we suggest an example of an integrated activity that aims to reconcile the objectives of the two approaches.
The objective of this paper is to foster reflections on the similarities and differences between the Communicative Approach, one of the best-known methods for teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) around the world, and Critical Literacy, a relatively recent trend in the Brazilian EFL scenario, as suggested by the National Guidelines for High School Teaching (BRASIL, 2006). First, we will address the theoretical traditions that give rise to the two teaching approaches, explaining their main concepts. We will then discuss the similarities between the two approaches, as well as their main differences. We claim that the two teaching approaches, however different in their epistemological underpinnings, are not incompatible, but rather complementary. Finally, we suggest an example of an integrated activity that aims to reconcile the objectives of the two approaches.
The aim of this paper is to describe some of the linguistic and strategic means used for the construction of social relations by the participants of face to face interactions. Based on the notion of facework introduced by GOFFMAN (1967), we have analyzed the interactional moves of 12 members of a social subgroup in a Brazilian speech community when asked to express their views on a few polemical topics in individual and group interview situations. Having in mind that the blend of such interactional moves might lead to the overriding line of conduct adopted, we have set out to describe the interactional function of the linguistic and conversational strategies in which these moves seem to be partly encoded. The strategies focused on here are the ones whose social meaning contributes to what GOFFMAN (1967) called "aggressive use of facework", here referred to as Agonism.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.