Aplicativos com foco na oralidade em língua inglesa: espaços para educação linguística e/ou reprodução da racionalidade neoliberal?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In recent years, due to greater accessibility to the internet and smartphones, the use of apps has intensified, especially for learning purposes. Considering also that the virtual world has become increasingly integrated into teaching work, research that is concerned with investigating not only how the language learning process takes place in apps, but also with reflecting on their use in the context of teacher training, is becoming necessary. Thus, the main objective of this research is to reflect on and discuss orality, the use of digital educational technologies, and the training of English language teachers, based on the observation and use of two apps and the analysis of the materials collected and generated, which focus on developing the oral skills of their users, also problematizing how these aspects dialogue with the neoliberal rationality. The specifics include: a) discussing the conception(s) of orality/speaking and language that emerge from the selected applications; b) discussing the role of the language teacher and teacher training in the face of technological advances in a neoliberal context; c) reflecting on the development of orality in the training of English language teachers, based on research already carried out, and in what aspects the use of digital technologies may or may not be significant in this context. To this end, the research was based on the qualitative paradigm of investigation (Denzin; Lincoln, 2006; Mattos; Jucá, 2022), also following the methodologies of documentary analysis (Cellard, 2012; Sousa; Oliveira; Alves, 2021) and exploratory analysis (Leffa, 2006; Raupp; Beuren, 2006). We adopted the theoretical considerations of Bakhtin (1981), Ferraz (2024), and Volóchinov (2018) on the conception of language; I searched theoretical basis in Brasil (2006), Ferraz (2024), Freire (1987), Monte Mor (2013; 2015), among others, to problematize and discuss the concept of language teaching, to then discuss language education (Cavalcanti, 2013; Ferraz, 2015; 2018; 2024; Menezes de Souza, 2019a). Furthermore, we consulted the discussions of various authors, such as Apple (2001); Biondo (2016; 2017); Dardot and Laval (2016); Ferraz (2015); Knobel and Kalman (2016); Laval (2004); Menezes de Souza (2019a); Monte Mor (2015, 2017); Signorini (2012), to critically articulate the themes listed in the specific objectives: digital technologies, neoliberalism and teacher training. Based on these references, the analytical path privileged three aspects to be discussed through the data collected and generated in the two applications: i) interface; ii) types of activity, and iii) feedback. Regarding the findings, we were able to demonstrate how neoliberal rationality materialized in both of the selected apps, which I will list below: in the way the interfaces were developed, configuring a commercialization space, and stimulating competition and individuality through the integration of the gamified system. The neoliberal perspective was also observed in the types of activities available, manifesting a conception of education focused on the development and acquisition of techniques/skills/competencies that focus on the user's performance and attribute value to them as a subject, such as an entrepreneur of themselves (Mariutti, 2019; Szundy, 2019). In addition, this relationship was also evidenced through the feedback provided by the two software, which took on a judgmental (Kalantzis; Cope; Pinheiro, 2020), quantitative perspective and assigned negative or positive values, depending on the student's performance in the target language compared to a “native speaker”. Throughout the analytical process, I have argued in favor of adopting a critical stance concerning digital educational tools, so that those involved start to see them as products of a time that dialogue with market ideology, which, in turn, subverts the concept of education (Apple, 2001; Laval, 2004), distancing it from its social and critical purpose (Freire, 1987; Ferraz, 2024), a perspective supported in this work.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».