Cesgranrio
B3GE™ • Questão Comentada
CESGRANRIO 2010 • Questão Comentada
Secretaria Municipal de Planejamento, Tecnologia e Gestão (SEPLAG) • Professor de Inglês
29
B3GE™ • Concursos Públicos
Questão
CESGRANRIO 2010 • SEPLAG (Pref. Salvador/BA) • Professor de Inglês
📝 Grammar in Context" | 20. Modal Verbs | 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 “It is also argued that teacher efficacy may influence student achievement through teacher persistence” (lines 30-31), the modal auxiliary may expresses
A
anticipated possibility.
B
remote probability.
C
formal permission.
D
definite certainty.
E
clear necessity.
📊 Revisão da questão
B3GE™ Simulados • Concursos Públicos • Inglês
Cesgranrio • SEPLAG (Pref. Salvador/BA) • Professor
Questão 29 • Gabarito: (A)
Cesgranrio • SEPLAG (Pref. Salvador/BA) • Professor
Questão 29 • Gabarito: (A)
Enunciado:
In “It is also argued that teacher efficacy may influence student achievement through teacher persistence” (lines 30-31), the modal auxiliary may expresses
(A) anticipated possibility.
(B) remote probability.
(C) formal permission.
(D) definite certainty.
(E) clear necessity.
In “It is also argued that teacher efficacy may influence student achievement through teacher persistence” (lines 30-31), the modal auxiliary may expresses
(A) anticipated possibility.
(B) remote probability.
(C) formal permission.
(D) definite certainty.
(E) clear necessity.
🔎 Leitura Orientada
A questão exige identificar o valor semântico do modal “may” dentro de uma construção acadêmica. O verbo modal aparece em “may influence”, projetando uma possível relação entre a teacher efficacy e o student achievement por meio da persistência docente.
Nesse contexto, “may” não concede autorização, não expressa certeza nem estabelece necessidade. Também não há elemento suficiente para caracterizar a possibilidade como especificamente remota. O modal introduz uma possibilidade antecipada, isto é, apresenta uma influência que pode ocorrer sem afirmar que ocorrerá necessariamente.
Nesse contexto, “may” não concede autorização, não expressa certeza nem estabelece necessidade. Também não há elemento suficiente para caracterizar a possibilidade como especificamente remota. O modal introduz uma possibilidade antecipada, isto é, apresenta uma influência que pode ocorrer sem afirmar que ocorrerá necessariamente.
[may influence] ➔ [possibilidade] ➔ [não é certeza nem necessidade] ➔ Option A
O Motor de Distratores B3GE™ explora principalmente a alteração da força modal: algumas alternativas transformam possibilidade em certeza ou necessidade, enquanto outras deslocam “may” para valores que não correspondem à construção apresentada.
🟢 GABARITO VERDÃO: (A)
Em “teacher efficacy may influence student achievement”, o modal may apresenta a influência como uma possibilidade, sem indicar certeza, necessidade, permissão formal ou probabilidade necessariamente remota. Portanto, expressa anticipated possibility.
🧠 Regra B3GE™ • Régua das 7 Inteligências Cognitivas:
01. Comando (Command): identificar o valor semântico expresso pelo auxiliar modal “may” no fragmento apresentado.
02. Gatilho (Trigger): reconhecer “the modal auxiliary may expresses” como direcionador para a análise do valor modal.
03. Operação (Operation): interpretar “may” no contexto e determinar se expressa possibilidade, probabilidade remota, permissão, certeza ou necessidade.
04. Evidência (Evidence): localizar “teacher efficacy may influence student achievement through teacher persistence” (linhas 30-31) e observar a projeção de uma possível influência.
05. Discriminação (Discrimination): distinguir possibilidade de permissão formal, certeza definida e necessidade, além de diferenciar a possibilidade contextual de uma probabilidade caracterizada como remota.
06. Validação (Validation): confirmar que “may influence” apresenta a influência da autoeficácia docente sobre o desempenho dos estudantes como possibilidade antecipada, sem afirmar que ela ocorrerá necessariamente.
07. Decisão (Decision): selecionar a alternativa A por identificar corretamente o valor modal de possibilidade antecipada.
01. Comando (Command): identificar o valor semântico expresso pelo auxiliar modal “may” no fragmento apresentado.
02. Gatilho (Trigger): reconhecer “the modal auxiliary may expresses” como direcionador para a análise do valor modal.
03. Operação (Operation): interpretar “may” no contexto e determinar se expressa possibilidade, probabilidade remota, permissão, certeza ou necessidade.
04. Evidência (Evidence): localizar “teacher efficacy may influence student achievement through teacher persistence” (linhas 30-31) e observar a projeção de uma possível influência.
05. Discriminação (Discrimination): distinguir possibilidade de permissão formal, certeza definida e necessidade, além de diferenciar a possibilidade contextual de uma probabilidade caracterizada como remota.
06. Validação (Validation): confirmar que “may influence” apresenta a influência da autoeficácia docente sobre o desempenho dos estudantes como possibilidade antecipada, sem afirmar que ela ocorrerá necessariamente.
07. Decisão (Decision): selecionar a alternativa A por identificar corretamente o valor modal de possibilidade antecipada.