Questões de Inglês - AFA 2017 | Gabarito e resoluções

QUESTO ANULADA (AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized30 years ago when we now world renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that 1there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 2K-12 educators 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 3why the former is not the latter. 4Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But 5one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. 6Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how 7human 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 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 human beings have 7to 10distinct 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 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 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 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. Problem #2: when 8researchers 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 9one size fits all approach. Of course, 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 prove non-existence of a 10phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: 11back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. 12These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self-assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. In the third paragraph, the author (a)delves into the mind of human beings. (b)reinforces the importance of a thirty-year study. (c)tries to make controversial issues clear. (d)apologizes for the fact that his theory has collapsed.

(AFA - 2017) 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 world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple 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. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 educators 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. Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain:Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 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, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self- assessors, 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 expression one size fits all approach (line 64) means

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized30 years ago when we now world renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that1there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 with2K-12 educators 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 explains3why the former is not the latter. 4Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But5one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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.6Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how7human 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 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 human beings have 7to 10distinct 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 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 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 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. Problem #2: when8researchers 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 a9one size fits all approach. Of course, 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 prove non-existence of a10phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers:11back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. 12These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self-assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. Mark the option which shows the appropriate plural form for the word phenomenon (reference 10).

(AFA - 2017) 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 world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple 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. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 educators 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. Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 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, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. Choose the option that shows the indirect speech form for These distinctions are consequential. (line 92). Gardner

(AFA - 2017) 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 world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple 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. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 educators 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. Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 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, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. According to the last paragraph

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized30 years ago when we now world renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that1there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 with2K-12 educators 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 explains3why the former is not the latter. 4Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But5one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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.6Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how7human 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 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 human beings have 7to 10distinct 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 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 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 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. Problem #2: when8researchers 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 a9one size fits all approach. Of course, 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 prove non-existence of a10phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers:11back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. 12These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self-assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. In the fourth paragraph (lines 30 to 40), its said that

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized30 years ago when we now world renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that 1there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 2K-12 educators 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 3why the former is not the latter. 4Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But 5one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. 6Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how 7human 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 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 human beings have 7to 10distinct 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 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 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 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. Problem #2: when 8researchers 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 9one size fits all approach. Of course, 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 prove non-existence of a 10phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: 11back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. 12These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self-assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. Choose the best option to change the sentence human capacities are represented in the brain (reference 7), into the active form. The brain __________ human capacities.

(AFA - 2017) 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 world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple 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. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 educators 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. Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 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, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. In the fragment why the former is not the latter (line 19), the highlighted words refer to

(AFA - 2017) 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 world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple 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. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 educators 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. Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 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, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. Mark the option that shows synonyms for the underlined expressions in its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight (lines 28 and 29).

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized30 years ago when we now world renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that1there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 with2K-12 educators 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 explains3why the former is not the latter. 4Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But5one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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.6Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how7human 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 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 human beings have 7to 10distinct 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 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 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 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. Problem #2: when8researchers 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 a9one size fits all approach. Of course, 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 prove non-existence of a10phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers:11back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. 12These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self-assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. Mark the alternative in which the problems described in paragraphs 6 and 7 (lines 49 to 71) are correctly summarized.

(AFA - 2017) 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 world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple 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. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 educators 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. Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 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, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. The text

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized30 years ago when we now world renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that1there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 with2K-12 educators 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 explains3why the former is not the latter. 4Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But5one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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.6Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how7human 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 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 human beings have 7to 10distinct 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 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 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 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. Problem #2: when8researchers 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 a9one size fits all approach. Of course, 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 prove non-existence of a10phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers:11back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. 12These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self-assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. The expression back to the drawing boards (line 71) suggests that

(AFA - 2017) 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 world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple 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. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 educators 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. Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 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, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. Mark the option that contains the correct negative form for the sentence researchers have tried to identify learning styles (lines 60 and 61)

(AFA - 2017) 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 world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple 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. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 educators 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. Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 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, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. In the sentence there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests (lines 07 and 08), it is possible to find an option to substitute the pronoun accordingly in

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized30 years ago when we now world renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that 1there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences 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 2K-12 educators 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 3why the former is not the latter. 4Its 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 its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But 5one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats 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. 6Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how 7human 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 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 human beings have 7to 10distinct 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 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 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 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. Problem #2: when 8researchers 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 9one size fits all approach. Of course, 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 prove non-existence of a 10phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: 11back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But 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 about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that 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 intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. 12These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that 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 (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 self-assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. In the sentence its been 30years since I developed the notion of multiple intelligences (reference 4), the contraction refers to