Introduction

Across civilizations, human beings have populated the heavens with gods. From Mesopotamian sky deities to Mesoamerican feathered serpents and Greco-Roman Olympians, divine figures descend from the sky, intervene in human affairs, and depart, often promising return. Jacqueline Alves Souza opens Visitantes do Céu: Entre Mito, História e Realidade with a provocative but carefully framed question: E se os deuses do passado não fossem deuses? Rather than offering a sensationalist claim, Souza invites readers to reconsider how ancient peoples may have interpreted extraordinary phenomena using the conceptual tools available to them. Her work does not demand belief; it demands reflection. This essay explores her guiding question through archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, and the history of science, engaging critically with both proponents of ancient astronaut theories and their strongest skeptics. Ultimately, the question is less about extraterrestrial visitors and more about human epistemology, how meaning is constructed in the face of the unknown.

Souza’s Core Argument: Reframing, Not Replacing, the Divine

Souza’s central contribution lies in her refusal to reduce ancient narratives either to literal divine intervention or to simplistic modern explanations. She proposes that myths, religious texts, and iconography may encode experiences that were real to their observers but interpreted symbolically or theologically. Rather than asserting that ancient gods were extraterrestrials, she asks whether divine language might reflect encounters with phenomena, natural, technological, or psychological, that exceeded contemporary explanatory frameworks.

This framing aligns with a hermeneutic approach: myths are not lies, nor are they scientific reports. They are meaning-making systems. Souza treats ancient texts as cultural artifacts shaped by cosmology, power structures, and human imagination. Her question thus destabilizes rigid binaries between belief and disbelief, faith and fraud. Importantly, she avoids asserting conclusions that exceed available evidence, positioning her inquiry as exploratory rather than declarative.

Anthropology and the Cultural Logic of Gods

Anthropology provides a crucial lens for evaluating Souza’s question. Early societies routinely personified natural forces, social hierarchies, and cosmic order through divine figures. As Mircea Eliade (1959) argued, myth is a way of grounding human existence within a sacred cosmos. Gods descending from the sky may symbolize authority, fertility, or celestial cycles rather than literal beings.

However, anthropology also recognizes that myth often preserves memory. Claude Lévi-Strauss (1963) noted that myths encode structural truths about human experience, even when detached from historical events. Souza’s approach resonates here: ancient peoples may have witnessed rare astronomical events, comets, meteor impacts, eclipses, or encountered technologically advanced outsiders within their own world, later mythologized as divine.

Anthropology thus neither confirms nor dismisses Souza’s question. Instead, it reveals why such interpretations would have been culturally inevitable. To ancient observers, the sky was not empty space; it was the realm of power.

Archaeology and Its Limits

Mainstream archaeology remains cautious, and rightly so. Scholars such as Kenneth Feder (2019) emphasize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Monumental architecture like the pyramids or Machu Picchu, often cited by alternative theorists, can be explained through known human engineering, social organization, and incremental innovation. Archaeological records demonstrate continuity rather than rupture.

Yet archaeology also acknowledges gaps. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is not evidence of presence either. Souza’s contribution lies in highlighting these epistemic limits without exploiting them. She does not claim archaeology is wrong; she suggests it is incomplete, as all sciences are. Her question operates in the space between what is known and what is assumed.

Ancient Astronaut Hypotheses: Von Däniken and Sitchin

Erich von Däniken (1968) popularized the idea that ancient gods were extraterrestrial visitors, citing architectural feats, ancient artwork, and mythological texts as evidence. His work resonated because it offered a modern myth, aliens replacing gods, while retaining a sense of cosmic wonder. However, von Däniken’s methodology has been widely criticized for selective evidence, anachronistic interpretations, and lack of falsifiability.

Zecharia Sitchin (1976) went further, proposing that the Anunnaki of Sumerian texts were extraterrestrial beings who engineered humanity. While linguists and Assyriologists have repeatedly rejected his translations, Sitchin’s work persists in popular culture because it offers coherence and narrative clarity where history fails and feels fragmented.

Souza’s work differs fundamentally from both towering figures in extraterrestrial visitors, von Däniken and Sitchin. She does not present ancient astronaut theory as fact but as a lens, one among many, that reflects modern anxieties about origins, technology, and transcendence. Where von Däniken and Sitchin assert answers, Souza preserves the question.

Astronomy and the Shock of the Sky

Astronomy provides a sobering context. Ancient skies were darker, clearer, and more psychologically overwhelming. Rare celestial events in the eyes of the ancient man could appear terrifying or miraculous. Carl Sagan (1995) emphasized that humans are pattern-seeking creatures, especially when confronted with the vastness of the cosmos. Without scientific models, ancient observers naturally attributed intention to celestial phenomena.

Sagan’s work is essential here because it validates awe without surrendering rigor. He acknowledged humanity’s longing to not be alone while warning against mistaking desire for evidence. Souza’s framing aligns with this balance. She does not deny the possibility of extraterrestrial life; she questions whether ancient narratives should be retrofitted with modern assumptions.

Skepticism as Method, Not Dismissal

Scientific skeptics such as Michael Shermer (2011) and Brian Dunning (2014) argue that alternative ancient theories often underestimate ancient intelligence and overestimate mystery. They warn that attributing achievements to outsiders risks a subtle form of cultural diminishment. Souza avoids this trap by centering ancient peoples as meaning-makers rather than passive recipients of intervention.

Her question is thus methodological: How do we interpret ancient texts responsibly? Skepticism, in this sense, is not hostility toward wonder but discipline in interpretation. It asks not only what could have happened, but why a particular explanation appeals to us now.

History of Science and Changing Explanations

The history of science demonstrates that explanations evolve. Phenomena once attributed to gods, disease, lightning, planetary motion, are now understood through empirical models. Souza’s question echoes Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) insight that paradigms shape perception. Ancient people explained the unknown using theological paradigms; modern readers risk imposing technological paradigms in response.

Thus, asking whether ancient gods were “not gods” may reveal more about modern secular imagination than ancient belief. The danger is not curiosity but projection. Souza’s restraint keeps her inquiry grounded.

Conclusion: The Value of the Question

“If the gods of the past were not gods,” what were they? Souza does not answer definitively, and that is her strength. Her work invites interdisciplinary humility, reminding readers that myth, science, and history are not adversaries but complementary modes of understanding. Ancient gods may have been metaphors, memories, misinterpretations, or meaning systems, perhaps all at once.

By engaging archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, and skepticism, Souza reframes a popular question into an intellectual exercise rather than a speculative claim. In doing so, she honors both ancient imagination and modern critical thought. The enduring lesson is not that the gods were aliens, but that humans have always looked to the sky to understand themselves. 

San José, Costa Rica

Sunday, February 15, 2026

📚 References

Dunning, B. (2014). Skeptoid: Critical thinking about the paranormal. Wiley.

Eliade, M. (1959). The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion. Harcourt.

Feder, K. L. (2019). Frauds, myths, and mysteries: Science and pseudoscience in archaeology (9th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. Basic Books.

Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House.

Shermer, M. (2011). The believing brain. Times Books.

Sitchin, Z. (1976). The 12th planet. Stein and Day.

von Däniken, E. (1968). Chariots of the gods? Putnam.

Souza, J. A. (2025). Visitantes do céu: Entre mito, história e realidade. Independent publication.

Effective classroom management in English Language Teaching (ELT) extends beyond discipline; it involves fostering learner autonomy, responsibility, and engagement. The British Council’s TeachingEnglish: Managing learners and resources course (Module 3 – Unit 3) emphasizes the importance of managing difficulties in groups through strategies such as designing group contracts and structuring group work carefully. These practices align with contemporary educational theories that highlight collaborative learning, learner agency, and the shifting role of the teacher. Drawing on insights from this course, my own teaching experience, and established scholarship, this essay explores the pedagogical value of group contracts, the benefits and challenges of group work, and the transformation of the teacher’s role in communicative classrooms.

Designing a Group Contract: Shared Responsibility and Learner Agency

One of the central ideas in the module is that “even if you feel you're doing everything right, you can still have disruptive learners” (British Council, n.d.). This statement acknowledges an essential truth: classroom management is not solely about teacher competence but about shared responsibility. A proposed solution is the creation of a group contract, a set of rules co-constructed by learners. The benefit of such a contract is that it “provides a clear framework that all members of the group understand and agree with” (British Council, n.d.).

The pedagogical foundation for group contracts can be traced to constructivist principles. Vygotsky (1978) argued that learning is socially mediated, and classroom norms are part of the social structure within which cognition develops. When learners co-create rules, they internalize expectations more effectively than when rules are imposed externally. This aligns with Deci and Ryan’s (2000) Self-Determination Theory, which posits that autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. A group contract is not merely administrative; it is motivational.

From my own professional context, I have come to observe the following:

These institutional frameworks provide structure, yet I have come to see that institutional rules and learner-generated contracts serve different but complementary purposes. Institutional documents ensure accountability, while group contracts foster ownership. When students participate in rule-making, they move from compliance to commitment.

Harmer (2015) notes that classroom management is most effective when expectations are transparent and negotiated. A negotiated contract clarifies behavioral and academic norms, reducing ambiguity and potential conflict. In large or multicultural classes, such clarity is particularly valuable, as assumptions about acceptable behavior may vary.

Benefits of Group Work: Participation and Communicative Competence

The British Council’s course module also underscores the importance of group work across language skills. Group work is described as “useful for almost all areas of classroom practice – for grammar and writing tasks, for reading and taking notes while listening” (British Council, n.d.). Most importantly, it is “excellent for speaking and listening because in groups learners can practise both at the same time” (British Council, n.d.).

This observation reflects principles from Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). As Littlewood (1981) argues, communicative competence develops through meaningful interaction rather than passive reception. If only one or two learners present at the front of the class, the majority remain passive listeners. In contrast, group work democratizes participation. It multiplies speaking opportunities and reduces anxiety, especially for learners reluctant to speak in plenary settings.

Moreover, Swain’s (1985) Output Hypothesis suggests that producing language pushes learners to process it more deeply. Group discussions require learners to articulate ideas, negotiate meaning, and reformulate expressions, processes essential for interlanguage development. Simultaneously, Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis highlights how negotiation of meaning during interaction facilitates acquisition. Group work, therefore, is not simply a classroom management technique; it is a core mechanism of language development.

The module also emphasizes large classes as a global reality, especially in state sectors in many countries across the globe. In such contexts, teacher-fronted instruction limits individual practice. Carefully structured group work, however, allows “all learners a chance to participate and practise” (British Council, n.d.). This is particularly relevant in contexts like Costa Rica or other Central American countires, where class sizes can vary significantly across institutions.

Challenges in Group Work: Off-Task Behavior and L1 Use

Despite its advantages, group work is not without challenges. Some teachers express concerns about control and focus. In my own experience, I have noted that:

This difficulty is common in online and face-to-face settings alike. L1 use and off-task behavior can undermine communicative objectives. However, rather than abandoning group work, the solution lies in task design and accountability structures.

The British Council’s course provides practical strategies to keep learners engaged while others present. Suggested tasks include:

• Noting down target language
• Completing charts about who spoke and when
• Identifying which language was used
• Listening for specific words or phrases
• Ticking expressions from a list
• Noting arguments in favour or against

These activities transform passive listening into active processing. They create a clear purpose for attention and reduce opportunities for disengagement. Dörnyei (2001) emphasizes that clear task goals enhance motivation and persistence. When learners know exactly what to listen for, cognitive engagement increases.

Furthermore, assigning roles within groups, such as facilitator, note-taker, or language monitor. can reduce off-task behavior. According to Johnson and Johnson (1999), positive interdependence and individual accountability are key components of effective cooperative learning. If each student is responsible for a specific contribution, the group dynamic shifts from social chatting to collaborative productivity.

Regarding L1 use, research suggests a nuanced perspective. While excessive reliance on the first language may limit exposure to English, strategic L1 use can support comprehension (Cook, 2001). Rather than banning Spanish outright in Costa Rican or Central American scenarios, teachers might establish contract-based agreements about when English is required and when L1 scaffolding is acceptable. This approach aligns with the spirit of shared responsibility embedded in group contracts.

The Teacher’s Role: From Authority to Facilitator

Perhaps one of the most transformative insights from the British Council’s course module concerns the teacher’s role. During group work, “the teacher moves away from the front of the class and quietly monitors” (British Council, n.d.). This physical repositioning symbolizes a pedagogical shift, from transmitter of knowledge to facilitator of learning.

ELT authors such as Freeman and Johnson (1998) argue that teaching expertise involves understanding learning as situated and interactive. When teachers monitor rather than dominate, they gather formative data about learner language, misconceptions, and interaction patterns. This observational stance enables more targeted feedback and remedial “actions” (plans) to help language learners to fully understand content and to use it correctly.

In my own teaching journey, I have experienced this shift, as both liberating and challenging (Acuña Solano, 2026). Stepping back requires trust, trust in learners’ capacity to manage their own learning and trust in the process of collaborative interaction. Yet the rewards are significant. As the course notes, “Dynamism springs from the group” (British Council, n.d.). When learners drive discussion, energy becomes decentralized and more authentic.

This idea of trust resonates with learner-centered pedagogy, which positions students as active constructors of knowledge (Nunan, 1988). It also aligns with contemporary views of teacher identity as adaptive and relational rather than authoritarian. By relinquishing constant control, teachers create space for learner voice and agency.

Motivation and Collective Energy

Group work is described in the British Council’s (n.d.) course module as “highly motivating” because learners are active and can “draw on each other's knowledge and experience.” This collaborative energy fosters what Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) term “group dynamics” in the language classroom. A cohesive group can amplify motivation beyond individual effort; it can boost student interest beyond initial thoughts.

When students feel accountable to peers, participation often increases. Social interaction adds a relational dimension to language use, transforming abstract grammar practice into meaningful communication. In my own classes, I have observed that quieter learners often speak more freely in small groups than in whole-class settings (Acuña Solano, 2026). The smaller audience reduces anxiety and increases willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998).

Ultimately, motivation is not generated solely by engaging materials but by meaningful participation. Group contracts establish expectations; structured tasks maintain focus; and the teacher’s facilitative role sustains autonomy. Together, these elements create an ecosystem in which responsibility and motivation reinforce each other.

Conclusion

Designing group contracts and implementing structured group work are powerful strategies for managing difficulties in ELT classrooms. Rooted in constructivist and communicative principles, these classroom practices promote learner autonomy, equitable participation, and intrinsic motivation. While challenges such as off-task behavior and L1 use persist, careful task design and shared accountability can mitigate these issues.

As I reflect on my own contexts, both university and cultural center, I recognize that institutional policies provide structure, but learner-generated agreements foster ownership (Acuña Solano, 2026). By stepping away from the front of the classroom and embracing the role of facilitator, I witness how “dynamism springs from the group” (Acuña Solano, 2026). Ultimately, effective classroom management is not about control; it is about cultivating a community of learners who share responsibility for their environment and their growth in English.

San José, Costa Rica

Saturday, February 14, 2026

📚 References

Acuña Solano, J. (2026). Personal reflections on group contracts and group work in ELT (TeachingEnglish: Managing learners and resources, Module 3, Unit 3) [Unpublished course notes]. British Council TeachingEnglish course.

British Council. (n.d.). TeachingEnglish: Managing learners and resources – Module 3, Unit 3: Difficulties in groups. https://open.teachingenglish.org.uk/

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588114

Harmer, J. (2015). How to teach English (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.