Read the text and answer question.

    Help wanted: $78,000 a year to taste candy while sitting on your couch

Alexandra Peers

    Candy Funhouse, an online shop that sells from chocolate bars to gummies and licorice, is hiring for a $78,000 a year, work-from-home job as its Chief Candy Officer. Duties include: “leading candy board meetings, being the head taste tester and all things fun. Several thousand candidates have already applied for the position”, said Chief Executive Officer Jamal Hejazi. He noted that he’s been surprised by the number of applications and the elaborate videos of entire families offering to share the tasting duties and the salary. (...) Candy Funhouse, based outside of Toronto, is headed by a quartet of 20-and-30-something-year- old siblings who grew up in the area and_____parents owned donut shops and a local restaurant. (...) Hejazi noted that reports on social media claiming that the Chief Candy Officer will be required to eat 3,500 pieces of candy per month are incorrect. “That’s too many”, Hejazi said.

Adapted from https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/01/business-food/candy- tasting-job-posting/index.html

TEXT

The Jurutauí Legend

    Jurutauí was the bird with the most beautiful song in the forest and, because it sang so melodiously, it was truly admired by the other birds. One day Jurutauí saw the moon shining splendidly and fell deeply in love with her. Then, to be heard by its muse, it flew to the highest tree to sing love songs through the night, filling the forest with the most devoted sounds.

    Jurutauí couldn’t accept such a distance from its lover and flew higher and higher, trying to reach it. But the power of gravity could not be overcome. After a long struggle Jurutauí fell straight to the ground. Dizzy, it tried to recover and sing its beautiful song, but only a strident and terrible screech came from its throat and echoed through the forest. The other birds surrounded Jurutauí and mourned for the loss of the most beautiful birdsong in the forest. Now when the forest echoes with raucous and sad notes, everyone knows that it’s because Jurutauí is singing.

Disponível em: < http://www.sumauma.net/amazonian/legends/ legends-juru.html > CELEMENT, Rosa. Acesso em:31 jul. 16 (adaptado).

TEXT

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

The fields of psychology and education were

revolutionized 30 years ago when we now worldrenowned

psychologist Howard Gardner published his

1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple

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

intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that

there was a single kind that could be measured by

standardized tests.

Gardner’s theory initially listed seven intelligences

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

musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and

intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist

intelligence and says there may be a few more. The

theory became highly popular with K-12 educators1

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

did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time,

‘multiple intelligences’ somehow became synonymous

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

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

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

‘multiple intelligences’. I have been gratified by the

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

schools, museums, and business around the world. But

one unanticipated consequence has driven me to

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

including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the

notion of ‘learning styles’ or to collapse ‘multiple

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

relieve my pain and to set the record straight.

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

research in several disciplines, including the study of

how human capacities are represented in the brain, I

developed the idea that each of us has a number of

relatively independent mental faculties, which can be

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

simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes

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

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

contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that

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

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

‘learning styles’ was being bandied about in educational

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

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

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

about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways

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

effective.

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

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

define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come

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

that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is

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

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

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

should we compensate by ‘teaching reflectively’? What of

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

issues apply.

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

learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and

examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that

the learning style analysis produces more effective

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

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

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

did not work does not mean that the concept of learning

styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might

have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not

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

educational researchers: ‘back to the drawing boards’.

Here’s my considered judgment about the best way

to analyze this lexical terrain:

Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But

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

the person has considerable computational power.

Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual

approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a

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

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

reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals

reflectiveness in one’s interaction with the others.

Senses: Sometimes people speak about a ‘visual’

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

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

their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial

information and reading occur with the eyes, but they

make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What

matters is the power of the mental computer, the

[90]  intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once

picked up.

These distinctions are consequential. If people want

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

that’s their prerogative. But they should recognize that

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

at worst.

In contrast, there is strong evidence that human

beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or

weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength

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

jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense

ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it

seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test

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

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

information.

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

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