Questões - AFA 2017 | Gabarito e resoluções

(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) Na situao da figura a seguir, os blocos Ae Btm massas mA= 3,0 kge mB= 1,0 kg.O atrito entre o bloco Ae o plano horizontal de apoio desprezvel, e o coeficiente de atrito esttico entre Be Avale 0,4. O bloco Aest preso numa mola ideal, inicialmente no deformada, de constante elstica K = 160 N/mque, por sua vez, est presa ao suporte S. O conjunto formado pelos dois blocos pode ser movimentado produzindo uma deformao na mola e, quando solto, a mola produzir certa acelerao nesse conjunto. Desconsiderando a resistncia do ar, para que Bno escorregue sobre A,a deformao mxima que a mola pode experimentar, em cm,vale

(AFA - 2017) LEITE DERRAMADO Um homem muito velho est num leito de hospital. E desfia a quem quiser ouvir suas memrias. Uma saga familiar caracterizada pela decadncia social e econmica, tendo como pano de fundo a histria do Brasil dos ltimos dois sculos. No sei por que voc no me alivia a dor. Todo dia a senhora levanta a persiana com bruteza e joga sol no meu rosto. No sei que graa pode achar dos meus esgares, uma pontada cada vez que respiro. s vezes aspiro fundo e encho os pulmes de um ar insuportvel, para ter alguns segundos de conforto, expelindo a dor. Mas bem antes da doena e da velhice, talvez minha vida j fosse um pouco assim, uma dorzinha chata a me espetar o tempo todo, e de repente uma lambada atroz. Quando perdi minha mulher, foi atroz. E qualquer coisa que eu recorde agora, vai doer, a memria uma vasta ferida. Mas nem assim voc me d os remdios, voc meio desumana. Acho que nem da enfermagem, nunca vi essa cara sua por aqui. Claro, voc a minha filha que estava na contraluz, me d um beijo. Eu ia mesmo lhe telefonar para me fazer companhia, me ler jornais, romances russos. Fica essa televiso ligada o dia inteiro, as pessoas aqui no so sociveis. No estou me queixando de nada, seria uma ingratido com voc e com o seu filho. Mas se o garoto est to rico, no sei por que diabos no me interna em uma casa de sade tradicional, de religiosas. Eu prprio poderia arcar com viagem e tratamento no estrangeiro, se o seu marido no me tivesse arruinado. BUARQUE, Chico. Leite derramado. So Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2009, p. 10-11. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta uma inferncia INCORRETA.

(AFA - 2017) A figura 1 mostra uma espira quadrada, feita de material condutor, contida num plano zy, e um fio condutor retilneo e muito longo, paralelo ao eixo z, sendo percorrido por uma corrente eltrica de intensidade i, dada pelo grfico da Figura 2. A partir da anlise das Figuras 1 e 2, pode-se afirmar que o grfico que melhor representa a fem induzida entre os pontos A e B :

(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) Uma pequena esfera C com carga eltrica de , guiada por um aro isolante e semicircular de raio Rigual a 2,5 m, situado num plano horizontal, com extremidades Ae Bcomo indica a figura abaixo. A esfera pode se deslocar sem atrito tendo o aro como guia. Nas extremidades Ae Bdeste aro so fixadas duas cargas eltricas puntiformes dee respectivamente. Sendo a constante eletrosttica do meio igual a na posio de equilbrio da esfera C,a reao normal do aro sobre a esfera, em N,tem mdulo igual a

(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) LEITE DERRAMADO Um homem muito velho est num leito de hospital. E desfia a quem quiser ouvir suas memrias. Uma saga familiar caracterizada pela decadncia social e econmica, tendo como pano de fundo a histria do Brasil dos ltimos dois sculos. No sei por que voc no me alivia a dor. Todo dia a senhora levanta a persiana com bruteza e joga sol no meu rosto. No sei que graa pode achar dos meus esgares, uma pontada cada vez que respiro. s vezes aspiro fundo e encho os pulmes de um ar insuportvel, para ter alguns segundos de conforto, expelindo a dor. Mas bem antes da doena e da velhice, talvez minha vida j fosse um pouco assim, uma dorzinha chata a me espetar o tempo todo, e de repente uma lambada atroz. Quando perdi minha mulher, foi atroz. E qualquer coisa que eu recorde agora, vai doer, a memria uma vasta ferida. Mas nem assim voc me d os remdios, voc meio desumana. Acho que nem da enfermagem, nunca vi essa cara sua por aqui. Claro, voc a minha filha que estava na contraluz, me d um beijo. Eu ia mesmo lhe telefonar para me fazer companhia, me ler jornais, romances russos. Fica essa televiso ligada o dia inteiro, as pessoas aqui no so sociveis. No estou me queixando de nada, seria uma ingratido com voc e com o seu filho. Mas se o garoto est to rico, no sei por que diabos no me interna em uma casa de sade tradicional, de religiosas. Eu prprio poderia arcar com viagem e tratamento no estrangeiro, se o seu marido no me tivesse arruinado. BUARQUE, Chico. Leite derramado. So Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2009, p. 10-11. O discurso do personagem s NO nos permite afirmar que ele:

(AFA - 2017) Um sistema composto por quatro cargas eltricas puntiformes fixadas nos vrtices de um quadrado, conforme ilustrado na figura abaixo. As cargas q1e q2so desconhecidas. No centro Odo quadrado o vetor campo eltrico E,devido s quatro cargas, tem a direo e o sentido indicados na figura. A partir da anlise deste campo eltrico, pode-se afirmar que o potencial eltrico em O.

(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 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 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)