CESGRANRIO 2010 • Inglês • SEPLAG (Pref. Salvador/BA) • Questão 28 • Professor

Cesgranrio
B3GE™ • Questão Comentada
CESGRANRIO 2010 • Questão Comentada
Secretaria Municipal de Planejamento, Tecnologia e Gestão (SEPLAG) • Professor de Inglês
📄 Prova Oficial ✓ Gabarito Oficial
28
B3GE™ • Concursos Públicos Questão
CESGRANRIO 2010 • SEPLAG (Pref. Salvador/BA) • Professor de Inglês
📘 Lexical Context | 03. Synonyms in Context | 11. Education
Text I
Teacher Sense of Efficacy 

         Teacher sense of efficacy, defined as a teacher’s “judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001, p. 783), is [5] now regarded as a relevant variable in educational research, especially in relation to teacher performance and student achievement gains (Good & Brophy, 2003).
         The strong link between this important construct [10] and student achievement has been demonstrated through many studies, mostly in mainstream education (e.g., Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1997; Good & Brophy, 2003; Midgley et al., 1989; Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1991; [15] Zimmerman, 1995).
         These studies have shown that teachers with a strong sense of efficacy take more risks, set higher standards for themselves and their students, and provide the potential for higher academic gains [20] among learners (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Teacher efficacy also has been shown to be related to many other behaviors that have the potential to impact student achievement. For instance, teacher efficacy has been shown to be strongly related to teachers’ [25] adoption of innovations (Gusky, 1988; Smylie, 1988) and classroom management strategies (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) which preserve student motivation and self-esteem, both with the possibility of being translated into more success for individual students.
         [30] It is also argued that teacher efficacy may influence student achievement through teacher persistence (Good & Brophy, 2003). Teachers with high efficacy take responsibility for student learning and may view student failure as a push for greater effort to improve [35] achievement. These teachers spend more time monitoring and working with their students (through whole-group instruction, for example), providing the means for higher levels of student engagement. Efficacious teachers are more likely to implement [40] instructional strategies to enhance student learning, rather than just covering the curriculum. They also take more risks and have confidence in overcoming classroom challenges, which contributes to higher student achievement (Good & Brophy, 2003).
         [45] In contrast, teachers with low efficacy feel they have only minimal influence on students’ learning outcomes. Such teachers give up more easily when confronted with difficult situations, are less resourceful, and often feel that students cannot learn [50] because of extenuating circumstances (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1997). Such teachers tend to create classroom cultures that “undermine students’ sense of efficacy and cognitive development” (Bandura, 1995, p. 20) and rely on extrinsic motivation [55] or punishment to get students to study. According to Hoy (2000), pre-service teachers with a low sense of teacher efficacy have an orientation toward control, take a pessimistic view of students’ motivation, and rely more on strict classroom regulations, extrinsic [60] rewards, and punishments to make students study. Teachers who lacked a secure sense of teacher efficacy were reported to “show weak commitment to teaching, spend less time in subject matters in their areas of perceived inefficacy, and devote less overall [65] time to academic matters” (Bandura, 1995, p. 20).
         Teachers’ efficacy beliefs have also been studied with reference to their behavior in the classroom, which in turn helps students’ academic growth. Efficacy influences the effort teachers invest in [70] teaching, the goals they set for their classes, and their level of aspiration (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007); in addition, teachers with a strong sense of efficacy often tend to manifest greater levels of planning and organization (Allinder, 1994). They are also more [75] open to new ideas and tend to experiment with new methods and strategies to better meet the needs of their students (Berman, et al., 1977; Guskey, 1987; Stein & Wang, 1988). Furthermore, efficacy beliefs influence teachers’ persistence when things do not go [80] smoothly and enhance their resilience in the face of setbacks (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
         Greater efficacy makes teachers less critical of students when they make errors (Ashton & Webb, 1986) and pushes them to work longer and better [85] with a student who is struggling (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Teachers with a higher sense of efficacy show greater enthusiasm for and are more inclined towards teaching, feel more commitment to teaching and are more likely to stay in the profession (Burley, et al., 1991; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982).

🔗 Texto adaptado de:
AKBARI, Ramin & ALLVAR, Nabi Karimi. L2 Teacher Characteristics as Predictors of Students’ Academic Achievement. TESL-EJ (The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language), vol 13, n. 4, March 2010. http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume13/ej52/ej52a2/, Retrieved on August 11, 2010.

In terms of meaning,

A

“...outcomes...” (line 3) and results are antonyms.

B

“...enhance...” (line 40) is similar in meaning to minimize.

C

“...undermine...” (line 52) and strengthen are synonyms.

D

“...smoothly...” (line 80) and easily express opposite ideas.

E

“...setbacks” (line 81) can be replaced by obstacles.

📊 Revisão da questão
B3GE™ Simulados • Concursos Públicos • Inglês
Cesgranrio • SEPLAG (Pref. Salvador/BA) • Professor
Questão 28 • Gabarito: (E)
Enunciado:

In terms of meaning,

(A) “...outcomes...” (line 3) and results are antonyms.
(B) “...enhance...” (line 40) is similar in meaning to minimize.
(C) “...undermine...” (line 52) and strengthen are synonyms.
(D) “...smoothly...” (line 80) and easily express opposite ideas.
(E) “...setbacks” (line 81) can be replaced by obstacles.
🔎 Leitura Orientada
A questão exige uma análise de equivalência semântica contextual. O comando “In terms of meaning” direciona a comparação entre o vocábulo destacado e o termo apresentado na alternativa. A expressão “can be replaced by” acrescenta um teste de substituição: o novo termo deve preservar o sentido original no contexto.

A alternativa correta é (E), pois “setbacks” designa situações de dificuldade, revés ou impedimento, enquanto “obstacles” expressa a ideia de obstáculos ou dificuldades. A substituição preserva o sentido contextual da passagem “enhance their resilience in the face of setbacks”.
[setbacks] ≈ [obstacles] ➔ Equivalência semântica contextual ➔ Option E
As demais alternativas apresentam inversão ou classificação incorreta da relação semântica: “outcomes” e “results” são semanticamente próximos; “enhance” e “minimize” apresentam polaridades opostas; “undermine” e “strengthen” também expressam sentidos opostos; e “smoothly” e “easily” podem compartilhar a ideia de realização sem dificuldade.
🟢 GABARITO VERDÃO: (E)
“Setbacks” pode ser substituído por “obstacles” sem alteração relevante do sentido contextual, pois ambos expressam situações de dificuldade ou impedimento. A alternativa E é a única que apresenta corretamente a equivalência lexical proposta.
🧠 Regra B3GE™ • Régua das 7 Inteligências Cognitivas:

01. Comando (Command): identificar a alternativa em que a relação de significado apresentada está correta.
02. Gatilho (Trigger): reconhecer “In terms of meaning” e “can be replaced by” como direcionadores para análise de equivalência lexical.
03. Operação (Operation): comparar o significado contextual dos vocábulos destacados com os termos propostos e verificar sua equivalência semântica.
04. Evidência (Evidence): localizar “setbacks” (linha 81) no contexto de “enhance their resilience in the face of setbacks” e testar sua substituição por “obstacles”.
05. Discriminação (Discrimination): distinguir sinonímia de antonímia, verificando a preservação ou inversão da polaridade semântica entre os termos comparados.
06. Validação (Validation): confirmar que “setbacks” e “obstacles” expressam situações de dificuldade ou impedimento, mantendo o sentido do enunciado.
07. Decisão (Decision): selecionar a alternativa E por apresentar corretamente a equivalência contextual entre “setbacks” e “obstacles”.
📝 Análise das alternativas (Mapeamento de Restrições Sintático-Regenciais)
(A) “...outcomes...” (line 3) and results are antonyms.
🔴 B3GE™ • 04. Antonyms in Context

Classifica “outcomes” e “results” como antônimos, embora ambos expressem resultados ou consequências e mantenham relação de sinonímia contextual. O erro está em inverter a relação semântica apresentada.
(B) “...enhance...” (line 40) is similar in meaning to minimize.
🔴 B3GE™ • 04. Antonyms in Context

Relaciona “enhance”, que expressa intensificação ou melhoria, a “minimize”, que expressa redução. A alternativa inverte a polaridade semântica dos vocábulos.
(C) “...undermine...” (line 52) and strengthen are synonyms.
🔴 B3GE™ • 04. Antonyms in Context

Classifica “undermine”, associado a enfraquecer ou prejudicar, como sinônimo de “strengthen”, que expressa fortalecimento. A relação semântica é de oposição, não de sinonímia.
(D) “...smoothly...” (line 80) and easily express opposite ideas.
🔴 B3GE™ • 04. Antonyms in Context

Afirma que “smoothly” e “easily” expressam ideias opostas, embora ambas possam indicar a realização de algo de maneira fluida ou sem dificuldade. A alternativa cria uma oposição semântica inexistente.
(E) “...setbacks” (line 81) can be replaced by obstacles.
🟢 B3GE™ • 03. Contextual Substitution

Correta. “Setbacks” pode ser compreendido como situações de dificuldade ou obstáculos. A substituição por “obstacles” preserva o sentido contextual da passagem e estabelece a equivalência lexical exigida pelo comando.
🧠 Resumo B3GE™ Master
A questão exige verificar se a relação semântica proposta entre cada palavra e seu correspondente é efetivamente preservada no contexto. O ponto decisivo é diferenciar sinonímia, antonímia e substituição contextual.
Filtro 1 — Relação Semântica: determinar se os termos são equivalentes ou opostos.
Filtro 2 — Polaridade: verificar se o segundo termo mantém ou inverte o sentido do primeiro.
Filtro 3 — Substituição Contextual: testar se o novo vocábulo preserva o significado da passagem.
Resultado: “setbacks” e “obstacles” mantêm equivalência semântica contextual ➔ alternativa E.
🏛️ Classificação B3GE™ Final
SILO 2: 📘 Lexical Context
Taxonomia Core: 03. Synonyms in Context
SILO 3: 11. Education
Subtema Técnico: Equivalência semântica contextual e substituição lexical de vocábulos por sinônimos sem alteração do sentido.