Questões de Inglês

The work Santa Ceia Moderna, by Brazilian artist Acme, presented above,

Science Education in the United States of America

(Audrey B. Champagne.)

 

    Science education in the United States of America is in the midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented because the movement is driven by national standards developed with support from the federal government. The standards for science education are redefining the character of science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the education in most countries of the world, education of students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United States is not the responsibility of the federal government but is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all students are expected to learn, the structural organization of programs across all grades, the structural organization of the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal government to exercise control over matters that are the responsibility of the states. The federal government's involvement in education has been to identify matters of national priority and to provide funds and other resources to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and its national safety were threatened, science education was identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the federal government's initiatives was to encourage and upgrade the science education of young people who would become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the science education of a relatively few students. The current situation is quite different.

    The federal government's underwriting of the development of national standards for education has the potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the states to the federal government. This initiative, supported by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the poor quality of education across the nation and with the effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world economy. The goal of the standards movement from the prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to strengthen education so that the schools will produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to be productive in the workplace.

    The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly motivated and highly intelligent students survived science courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers, are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is taught? While historically the answer to the question may well have been survival, the national standards are based on the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter people.

(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)

Analyse the items usage in the text. Mark the one which is a modifier

Science Education in the United States of America

(Audrey B. Champagne.)

 

    Science education in the United States of America is in the midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented because the movement is driven by national standards developed with support from the federal government. The standards for science education are redefining the character of science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the education in most countries of the world, education of students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United States is not the responsibility of the federal government but is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all students are expected to learn, the structural organization of programs across all grades, the structural organization of the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal government to exercise control over matters that are the responsibility of the states. The federal government's involvement in education has been to identify matters of national priority and to provide funds and other resources to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and its national safety were threatened, science education was identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the federal government's initiatives was to encourage and upgrade the science education of young people who would become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the science education of a relatively few students. The current situation is quite different.

    The federal government's underwriting of the development of national standards for education has the potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the states to the federal government. This initiative, supported by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the poor quality of education across the nation and with the effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world economy. The goal of the standards movement from the prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to strengthen education so that the schools will produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to be productive in the workplace.

    The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly motivated and highly intelligent students survived science courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers, are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is taught? While historically the answer to the question may well have been survival, the national standards are based on the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter people.

(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)

For Instance (L22) sets:

Science Education in the United States of America

(Audrey B. Champagne.)

 

    Science education in the United States of America is in the midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented because the movement is driven by national standards developed with support from the federal government. The standards for science education are redefining the character of science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the education in most countries of the world, education of students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United States is not the responsibility of the federal government but is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all students are expected to learn, the structural organization of programs across all grades, the structural organization of the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal government to exercise control over matters that are the responsibility of the states. The federal government's involvement in education has been to identify matters of national priority and to provide funds and other resources to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and its national safety were threatened, science education was identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the federal government's initiatives was to encourage and upgrade the science education of young people who would become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the science education of a relatively few students. The current situation is quite different.

    The federal government's underwriting of the development of national standards for education has the potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the states to the federal government. This initiative, supported by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the poor quality of education across the nation and with the effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world economy. The goal of the standards movement from the prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to strengthen education so that the schools will produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to be productive in the workplace.

    The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly motivated and highly intelligent students survived science courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers, are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is taught? While historically the answer to the question may well have been survival, the national standards are based on the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter people.

(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)

The text states that:

Science Education in the United States of America

(Audrey B. Champagne.)

 

    Science education in the United States of America is in the midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented because the movement is driven by national standards developed with support from the federal government. The standards for science education are redefining the character of science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the education in most countries of the world, education of students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United States is not the responsibility of the federal government but is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all students are expected to learn, the structural organization of programs across all grades, the structural organization of the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal government to exercise control over matters that are the responsibility of the states. The federal government's involvement in education has been to identify matters of national priority and to provide funds and other resources to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and its national safety were threatened, science education was identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the federal government's initiatives was to encourage and upgrade the science education of young people who would become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the science education of a relatively few students. The current situation is quite different.

    The federal government's underwriting of the development of national standards for education has the potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the states to the federal government. This initiative, supported by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the poor quality of education across the nation and with the effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world economy. The goal of the standards movement from the prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to strengthen education so that the schools will produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to be productive in the workplace.

    The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly motivated and highly intelligent students survived science courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers, are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is taught? While historically the answer to the question may well have been survival, the national standards are based on the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter people.

(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)

“Thus” (L52) introduces a/an:

Text

 

Chinese doctor accused of posing for photographs while woman fought for her life is suspended

 

A doctor in northern China has been suspended pending an investigation into allegations he was posing for photographs for a hospital brochure while one of his elderly patients was in need of emergency medical care.

 

The patient, 84-year-old Kang Jinlian, died at Wenshui County People’s Hospital in Shanxi province on July 15, after being admitted at about 9pm the night before suffering from nausea, according to a report by Shanxi Radio Television.

 

After an initial assessment, Kang was transferred to the intensive care unit of the cardiology department, it said.

 

In a separate report by Pearvideo.com, Kang’s grandson, Wu, said that as the family was waiting for the doctor to check on her condition, all of the medical staff left the ward and went to another area of the hospital where a photographer was taking pictures for a brochure.

 

While the doctor was away, Kang’s pain intensified and her condition worsened, news website China Economic Net reported.

 

Wu was quoted as saying that over a 20-minute period he and his family tried four times to get a doctor to look at his grandmother but without success. The report said that Kang died the following morning, though did not elaborate.

 

In a statement issued on social media on Tuesday, the health authority in Shanxi expressed its condolences to the family for Kang’s death and shock at the apparent way in which the situation had been handled.

 

It said it had “zero tolerance” for unethical behaviour, and that a doctor from the hospital in Wenshui had been suspended pending a full investigation. Once completed, the results of the inquiry would be made public, it said.

 

Neither the hospital nor the health authority was prepared to comment further on the matter.

(https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3019922/chinese-doctoraccused-posing-photographs-while-woman-fought-her - acesso 19.10.19 )

Check the wrong definition that explains the vocabulary in italics in the text.