Questões de Inglês

TEXT

Howard Gardner: ‘Multiple intelligences’ are not ‘learning styles’ by Valerie Strauss

 

The fields of psychology and education were

revolutionized 30 years ago when we now worldrenowned

psychologist Howard Gardner published his

1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple

[5]  Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human

intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that

there was a single kind that could be measured by

standardized tests.

Gardner’s theory initially listed seven intelligences

[10]  which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical,

musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and

intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist

intelligence and says there may be a few more. The

theory became highly popular with K-12 educators1

[15]  around the world seeking ways to reach students who

did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time,

‘multiple intelligences’ somehow became synonymous

with the concept of ‘learning styles’. In this important

post, Gardner explains why the former is not the latter.

[20]  It’s been 30 years since I developed the notion of

‘multiple intelligences’. I have been gratified by the

interest shown in this idea and the ways it’s been used in

schools, museums, and business around the world. But

one unanticipated consequence has driven me to

[25]  distraction and that’s the tendency of many people,

including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the

notion of ‘learning styles’ or to collapse ‘multiple

intelligences’ with ‘learning styles’. It’s high time to

relieve my pain and to set the record straight.

[30]  First a word about ‘MI theory’. On the basis of

research in several disciplines, including the study of

how human capacities are represented in the brain, I

developed the idea that each of us has a number of

relatively independent mental faculties, which can be

[35]  termed our ‘multiple intelligences’. The basic idea is

simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes

that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it

determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In

contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that

[40]  human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences.

Even before I spoke and wrote about ‘MI’, the term

‘learning styles’ was being bandied about in educational

circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is

that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds

[45]  and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out

about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways

that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are

effective.

Two problems: first, the notion of ‘learning styles’ is

[50]  itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not

define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come

from, how they are recognized/ assessed/ exploited. Say

that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is

‘impulsive’. Does that mean that Johnny is ‘impulsive’

[55]  about everything? How do we know this? What does this

imply about teaching? Should we teach ‘impulsively’, or

should we compensate by ‘teaching reflectively’? What of

learning style is ‘right-brained’ or visual or tactile? Same

issues apply.

[60]  Problem #2: when researchers have tried to identify

learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and

examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that

the learning style analysis produces more effective

outcomes than a ‘one size fits all approach’. Of course,

[65]  the learning style analysis might have been inadequate.

Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention

did not work does not mean that the concept of learning

styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might

have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not

[70]  prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to

educational researchers: ‘back to the drawing boards’.

Here’s my considered judgment about the best way

to analyze this lexical terrain:

Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But

[75]  we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where

the person has considerable computational power.

Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual

approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a

‘reflective style’, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective

[80]  about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that

reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals

reflectiveness in one’s interaction with the others.

Senses: Sometimes people speak about a ‘visual’

learner or an ‘auditory’ learner. The implication is that

[85]  some people learn through their eyes, others through

their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial

information and reading occur with the eyes, but they

make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What

matters is the power of the mental computer, the

[90]  intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once

picked up.

These distinctions are consequential. If people want

to talk about ‘an impulsive style’ or a ‘visual learner’,

that’s their prerogative. But they should recognize that

[95]  these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived

at worst.

In contrast, there is strong evidence that human

beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or

weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength

[100]  (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit

jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense

ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it

seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test

battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or selfassessors,

[105]  we can decide how best to make use of this

information.

(Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet)

 

Glossary:
1. K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary
curriculum and methods for teaching with objects.

The text

'Post-truth' named word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries

 

In the era of Donald Trump and Brexit, Oxford Dictionaries has declared “post-truth” to be its international word of the year.

 

Defined by the dictionary as an adjective “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”, editors said that use of the term “post-truth” had increased by around 2,000% in 2016 compared to last year. The spike in usage, it said, is “in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States”.

 

Contenders for the title had included the noun “alt-right”, shortened from the fuller form “alternative right” and defined as “an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints, characterised by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content”. First used in 2008, its use “surged” this spring and summer, said the dictionary, with 30% of usage in August alone.

 

But the increase in usage of post-truth saw the term eventually emerge ahead of the pack. “We first saw the frequency really spike this year in June with buzz over the Brexit vote and Donald Trump securing the Republican presidential nomination. Given that usage of the term hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down, I wouldn’t be surprised if post-truth becomes one of the defining words of our time,” predicted Oxford Dictionaries president Casper Grathwohl.

 

“It’s not surprising that our choice reflects a year dominated by highly-charged political and social discourse. Fuelled by the rise of social media as a news source and a growing distrust of facts offered up by the establishment, post-truth as a concept has been finding its linguistic footing for some time.”

 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/15/post-truth-named-word-of-the-year-by-oxford-dictionaries>. Acesso em: 21 fev. 2017. (Adaptado).

Considerando-se a estrutura linguística do texto, verifica-se que

'Post-truth' named word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries

 

In the era of Donald Trump and Brexit, Oxford Dictionaries has declared “post-truth” to be its international word of the year.

 

Defined by the dictionary as an adjective “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”, editors said that use of the term “post-truth” had increased by around 2,000% in 2016 compared to last year. The spike in usage, it said, is “in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States”.

 

Contenders for the title had included the noun “alt-right”, shortened from the fuller form “alternative right” and defined as “an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints, characterised by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content”. First used in 2008, its use “surged” this spring and summer, said the dictionary, with 30% of usage in August alone.

 

But the increase in usage of post-truth saw the term eventually emerge ahead of the pack. “We first saw the frequency really spike this year in June with buzz over the Brexit vote and Donald Trump securing the Republican presidential nomination. Given that usage of the term hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down, I wouldn’t be surprised if post-truth becomes one of the defining words of our time,” predicted Oxford Dictionaries president Casper Grathwohl.

 

“It’s not surprising that our choice reflects a year dominated by highly-charged political and social discourse. Fuelled by the rise of social media as a news source and a growing distrust of facts offered up by the establishment, post-truth as a concept has been finding its linguistic footing for some time.”

 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/15/post-truth-named-word-of-the-year-by-oxford-dictionaries>. Acesso em: 21 fev. 2017. (Adaptado).

De acordo com o texto, o termo “pós-verdade”

According to the charge, the term “christian”

The Internet of Things

The “Internet of Things” (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It’s a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the “Internet of Things” and what impact is it going to have on you, if any? There are a lot of complexities around the “Internet of Things” but we want to stick to the basics. Lots of technical and policy-related conversations are being had but many people are still just trying to grasp the foundation of what the heck these conversations are about.

 

Let’s start with understanding a few things.

Broadband Internet is becoming more widely available, the cost of connecting is decreasing, more devices are being created with Wi-Fi capabilities and sensors built into them, technology costs are going down, and smartphone penetration is sky-rocketing. All of these things are creating a “perfect storm” for the IoT.

 

So What Is The Internet of Things?

Simply put, this is the concept of basically connecting any device with an on and off switch to the Internet (and/or to each other). This includes everything from cellphones, coffee makers, washing machines, headphones, lamps, wearable devices and almost anything else you can think of. So what now?

The new rule for the future is going to be, “Anything that can be connected, will be connected.”

 

Disponível em: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-can-understand/#29a0a1cd6828>. Acesso em: 12 set. 2016. (Adaptado).

Analisando-se os aspectos estruturais do texto, verifica-se que

The Internet of Things

The “Internet of Things” (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It’s a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the “Internet of Things” and what impact is it going to have on you, if any? There are a lot of complexities around the “Internet of Things” but we want to stick to the basics. Lots of technical and policy-related conversations are being had but many people are still just trying to grasp the foundation of what the heck these conversations are about.

 

Let’s start with understanding a few things.

Broadband Internet is becoming more widely available, the cost of connecting is decreasing, more devices are being created with Wi-Fi capabilities and sensors built into them, technology costs are going down, and smartphone penetration is sky-rocketing. All of these things are creating a “perfect storm” for the IoT.

 

So What Is The Internet of Things?

Simply put, this is the concept of basically connecting any device with an on and off switch to the Internet (and/or to each other). This includes everything from cellphones, coffee makers, washing machines, headphones, lamps, wearable devices and almost anything else you can think of. So what now?

The new rule for the future is going to be, “Anything that can be connected, will be connected.”

 

Disponível em: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-can-understand/#29a0a1cd6828>. Acesso em: 12 set. 2016. (Adaptado).

Considering the text, the Internet of Things(IoT) is