Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2014 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Milanez, Maria Kassimati |
| Orientador(a): |
Vian Júnior, Orlando |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos da Linguagem
|
| Departamento: |
Linguística Aplicada; Literatura Comparada
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/16389
|
Resumo: |
This research has as its theoretical and methodological assumptions (1) the Narrative Inquiry (CLANDININ; CONNELLY, 2011), (2) the Systemic Functional Grammar (HALLIDAY, 1985, 1994; THOMPSON, 2002; EGGINS, 1994; HALLIDAY; MATTHIESSEN, 2004) and (3) the English for Specific Purposes Approach (ESP - HUTCHINSON; WATERS, 1987; CELANI, 2005; RAMOS, 2005), and its overall objective is to survey the meanings construed by the participants who are ESP practitioners and have not received a specific education to teach this approach at their undergraduation. The field texts and therefore the analises were divided into two distinct groups: the first with data generated from a questionnaire applied to nine professors from a federal university in the northeast of Brazil, which contains open and closed questions about their training and their experiences in teaching ESP; the second group, focusing this time on the experiences of three professors from the first group who were still teaching ESP, with data generated from interviews with these participants in addition to the data generated from their autobiographies and from the researcher´s as well. The computational tool WordSmith Tools 6.0 (SCOTT, 2012) was used to select, organize, and quantify data to be analyzed in the first group of texts, identifying the types of Processes and Participants through the Transitivity System (HALLIDAY; MATTHIESSEN, 2004). The Processes which were more used by the professors in the questionnaire were the Material, followed by the Relational and then the Mental ones, indicating that most professors reported their actions related to the teaching of ESP, rated or evaluated the approach, their training to teach it and their experiences, hence, rarely showing their thoughts and emotions about teaching ESP. Most of the nine professors say they carry out needs analysis, but not all do it according to the authors cited by them or the ones that are considered a reference in this area, such as the ones used in this research as reference. Similarly, their definitions and conceptions of ESP, in most cases, differed from these authors. All the professors claim not having had specific education to teach ESP at the undergraduation. When examining the stories of the four teachers, in the second group of the field texts, based on meaning composition according to Ely, Vinz, Downing and Anzul (2001), it was revealed that the kind of knowledge they report using when they teach ESP is related to their Personal Practical Knowledge and their Professional Knowledge (ELBAZ, 1983; CLANDININ, 1988). In their autobiographies, metaphors were also identified and they represent their concepts of teaching and being a teacher. Through this research, we hope to contribute to the understanding of what teaching ESP might mean for professors in the researched context and also to the continuing education of ESP practitioners, as well as to a review of the curricula in the English language undergraduate courses and of the role of ESP in the training of these professionals |
