Questões de Vestibular FIMCA 2019 para Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020
Foram encontradas 60 questões
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790449
Física
Um espelho côncavo de raio de curva igual a 50 cm tem
sobre o seu foco um objeto de altura igual a 20 cm. É correto
afirmar que a imagem deste objeto é:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790450
Física
Leia os trechos a seguir.
“A corrente elétrica é o fluxo ordenado de cargas elétricas, que se movem de forma orientada em um condutor elétrico sólido ou em soluções iônicas.”
“Esse fenômeno ocorre devido ao encontro dos elétrons da corrente elétrica com as partículas do condutor. Os elétrons sofrem colisões com átomos do condutor; parte da energia cinética (energia de movimento) do elétron é transferida para o átomo aumentando seu estado de agitação, consequentemente a sua temperatura.”
Considerando os trechos anteriores podemos afirmar que a transformação de energia elétrica em energia cinética é conhecido por:
“A corrente elétrica é o fluxo ordenado de cargas elétricas, que se movem de forma orientada em um condutor elétrico sólido ou em soluções iônicas.”
“Esse fenômeno ocorre devido ao encontro dos elétrons da corrente elétrica com as partículas do condutor. Os elétrons sofrem colisões com átomos do condutor; parte da energia cinética (energia de movimento) do elétron é transferida para o átomo aumentando seu estado de agitação, consequentemente a sua temperatura.”
Considerando os trechos anteriores podemos afirmar que a transformação de energia elétrica em energia cinética é conhecido por:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790451
Engenharia Mecânica
Brasil atinge maior nível de produção de energia elétrica em 20 anos
Sistema de geração de energia tem registrado recordes de consumo, principalmente no horário de calor mais intenso, entre as 14h e as 17h.
(22/01/2019 22h32. Atualizado há 7 meses.)
Suadeira agora só na hora de pagar a conta de luz. A despesa com energia elétrica mais que dobrou. De cara, o especialista identificou um problema: o ar-condicionado é daqueles que consomem mais energia. “No caso aqui, você comprou um equipamento classificado como C. Ele consome mais energia. O A é o mais eficiente, chega a ser quase 30% mais eficiente do que este classificado como C. Então, quando você compra o equipamento talvez um pouco mais barato, ao longo do tempo de uso, você vai pagando essa diferença. Acaba ficando bem mais caro. É o barato que sai caro”, explicou o especialista da Cemig. E tem muito mais coisa para ajudar o bolso: usar o chuveiro na posição desligado; trocar lâmpadas por modelos de led, mais eficientes; verificar se a borracha da geladeira está vedando adequadamente. Uma dica é fazer o teste da folha de papel na porta. Se ela não ficar presa, está na hora de trocar o isolamento.
(Disponível em:https://g1.globo.com/jornal-nacional/noticia/2019/01/22/brasil-atinge-maior-nivel-de-producao-de-energia-eletrica-em-20-anos. ghtml/. Acesso em: 14/09/2019.)
Se o ar-condicionado de uma casa apresentar a tarjeta abaixo e potência de 1.400 W, qual será o consumo mensal, se ele ficar funcionando 9 horas por dia durante 20 dias?
Sistema de geração de energia tem registrado recordes de consumo, principalmente no horário de calor mais intenso, entre as 14h e as 17h.
(22/01/2019 22h32. Atualizado há 7 meses.)
Suadeira agora só na hora de pagar a conta de luz. A despesa com energia elétrica mais que dobrou. De cara, o especialista identificou um problema: o ar-condicionado é daqueles que consomem mais energia. “No caso aqui, você comprou um equipamento classificado como C. Ele consome mais energia. O A é o mais eficiente, chega a ser quase 30% mais eficiente do que este classificado como C. Então, quando você compra o equipamento talvez um pouco mais barato, ao longo do tempo de uso, você vai pagando essa diferença. Acaba ficando bem mais caro. É o barato que sai caro”, explicou o especialista da Cemig. E tem muito mais coisa para ajudar o bolso: usar o chuveiro na posição desligado; trocar lâmpadas por modelos de led, mais eficientes; verificar se a borracha da geladeira está vedando adequadamente. Uma dica é fazer o teste da folha de papel na porta. Se ela não ficar presa, está na hora de trocar o isolamento.
(Disponível em:https://g1.globo.com/jornal-nacional/noticia/2019/01/22/brasil-atinge-maior-nivel-de-producao-de-energia-eletrica-em-20-anos. ghtml/. Acesso em: 14/09/2019.)
Se o ar-condicionado de uma casa apresentar a tarjeta abaixo e potência de 1.400 W, qual será o consumo mensal, se ele ficar funcionando 9 horas por dia durante 20 dias?
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790452
Física
Um carrinho de massa X parte do repouso do ponto mais
alto H de determinada montanha-russa. Quando chega ao
ponto, H/4 a velocidade do carrinho vale: (Considere o sistema
conservativo.)
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790453
Química
Entende-se que a reação de halogenação de hidrocarbonetos
pode formar diferentes compostos. Considerando a reação
de halogenação do metilpropano, pode-se afirmar que o
composto de maior formação:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790454
Química
Certo professor misturou 5,6 g de metano e 0,4 g de hélio.
Pediu, então, que os seus alunos fizessem os cálculos das
porcentagens em massa e em mols de hélio na mistura.
Assinale a alternativa que corresponde correta e
respectivamente, em %, ao pedido realizado:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790455
Química
Considerando o estudo da eletrólise ígnea do cloreto de
magnésio, indique a quantidade de massa de magnésio
metálico obtido quando uma corrente de 10 A atravessa a
cuba eletrolítica durante 40 minutos.
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790456
Química
Texto associado
Considere a estrutura referente ao composto telmisartana,
utilizado na redução da pressão arterial, para responder à questão.
Indique a alternativa que corresponde correta e respectivamente à massa molar e ao número de ligações pi do composto.
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790457
Química
Texto associado
Considere a estrutura referente ao composto telmisartana,
utilizado na redução da pressão arterial, para responder à questão.
Assinale a quantidade de hibridação sp3 e sp presente no
composto telmisartana, respectivamente.
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790458
Química
Texto associado
Considere a estrutura referente ao composto telmisartana,
utilizado na redução da pressão arterial, para responder à questão.
A fração mássica correta, em %, do calcogênio na estrutura
do composto é:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790459
Química
O trecho a seguir contextualiza a questão. Leia-o
atentamente.
Considerando a reação entre o gás carbônico e a água dentro dos vegetais tem-se a produção de glicose e gás oxigênio.
Indique a quantidade do volume molar, em L, de glicose ao ser produzido 6 mols de gás oxigênio, tendo o volume molar igual a 22,4 L.
Considerando a reação entre o gás carbônico e a água dentro dos vegetais tem-se a produção de glicose e gás oxigênio.
Indique a quantidade do volume molar, em L, de glicose ao ser produzido 6 mols de gás oxigênio, tendo o volume molar igual a 22,4 L.
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790460
Química
O trecho a seguir contextualiza a questão. Leia-o atentamente.
Considerando a reação entre o gás carbônico e a água dentro dos vegetais tem-se a produção de glicose e gás oxigênio.
Reagindo 154 g de gás carbônico com 72 g de água, espera-se a formação de 96 g de gás oxigênio. Assinale a alternativa que compromete tal afirmação.
Considerando a reação entre o gás carbônico e a água dentro dos vegetais tem-se a produção de glicose e gás oxigênio.
Reagindo 154 g de gás carbônico com 72 g de água, espera-se a formação de 96 g de gás oxigênio. Assinale a alternativa que compromete tal afirmação.
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790461
Química
Assinale a afirmativa que corresponde à Lei de Ação das
Massas.
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790462
Química
Considerando o parametilbenzenol, conhecido usualmente
como orto-cresol, assinale o número de carbonos, o tipo de
ligação, a função e a massa molar, em g/mol, respectivamente:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790463
Inglês
Texto associado
Science Education in the United States of America
(Audrey B. Champagne.)
Science education in the United States of America is in the
midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented
because the movement is driven by national standards
developed with support from the federal government. The
standards for science education are redefining the character of
science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate
education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the
education in most countries of the world, education of
students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United
States is not the responsibility of the federal government but
is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all
students are expected to learn, the structural organization
of programs across all grades, the structural organization of
the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and
textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously
guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal
government to exercise control over matters that are the
responsibility of the states. The federal government's
involvement in education has been to identify matters of
national priority and to provide funds and other resources
to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance,
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States
felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and
its national safety were threatened, science education was
identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the
federal government's initiatives was to encourage and
upgrade the science education of young people who would
become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived
by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a
response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the
science education of a relatively few students. The current
situation is quite different.
The federal government's underwriting of the
development of national standards for education has the
potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the
states to the federal government. This initiative, supported
by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the
concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the
poor quality of education across the nation and with the
effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world
economy. The goal of the standards movement from the
prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to
strengthen education so that the schools will produce
graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to
be productive in the workplace.
The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and
professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little
concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or
to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly
motivated and highly intelligent students survived science
courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences
develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers,
are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we
must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce
smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is
taught? While historically the answer to the question may
well have been survival, the national standards are based on
the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter
people.
(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)
“Thus” (L52) introduces a/an:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790464
Inglês
Texto associado
Science Education in the United States of America
(Audrey B. Champagne.)
Science education in the United States of America is in the
midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented
because the movement is driven by national standards
developed with support from the federal government. The
standards for science education are redefining the character of
science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate
education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the
education in most countries of the world, education of
students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United
States is not the responsibility of the federal government but
is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all
students are expected to learn, the structural organization
of programs across all grades, the structural organization of
the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and
textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously
guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal
government to exercise control over matters that are the
responsibility of the states. The federal government's
involvement in education has been to identify matters of
national priority and to provide funds and other resources
to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance,
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States
felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and
its national safety were threatened, science education was
identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the
federal government's initiatives was to encourage and
upgrade the science education of young people who would
become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived
by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a
response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the
science education of a relatively few students. The current
situation is quite different.
The federal government's underwriting of the
development of national standards for education has the
potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the
states to the federal government. This initiative, supported
by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the
concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the
poor quality of education across the nation and with the
effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world
economy. The goal of the standards movement from the
prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to
strengthen education so that the schools will produce
graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to
be productive in the workplace.
The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and
professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little
concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or
to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly
motivated and highly intelligent students survived science
courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences
develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers,
are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we
must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce
smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is
taught? While historically the answer to the question may
well have been survival, the national standards are based on
the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter
people.
(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)
The text states that:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790465
Inglês
Texto associado
Science Education in the United States of America
(Audrey B. Champagne.)
Science education in the United States of America is in the
midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented
because the movement is driven by national standards
developed with support from the federal government. The
standards for science education are redefining the character of
science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate
education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the
education in most countries of the world, education of
students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United
States is not the responsibility of the federal government but
is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all
students are expected to learn, the structural organization
of programs across all grades, the structural organization of
the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and
textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously
guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal
government to exercise control over matters that are the
responsibility of the states. The federal government's
involvement in education has been to identify matters of
national priority and to provide funds and other resources
to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance,
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States
felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and
its national safety were threatened, science education was
identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the
federal government's initiatives was to encourage and
upgrade the science education of young people who would
become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived
by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a
response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the
science education of a relatively few students. The current
situation is quite different.
The federal government's underwriting of the
development of national standards for education has the
potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the
states to the federal government. This initiative, supported
by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the
concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the
poor quality of education across the nation and with the
effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world
economy. The goal of the standards movement from the
prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to
strengthen education so that the schools will produce
graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to
be productive in the workplace.
The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and
professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little
concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or
to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly
motivated and highly intelligent students survived science
courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences
develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers,
are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we
must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce
smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is
taught? While historically the answer to the question may
well have been survival, the national standards are based on
the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter
people.
(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)
“Meet” (L22) does NOT mean:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790466
Inglês
Texto associado
Science Education in the United States of America
(Audrey B. Champagne.)
Science education in the United States of America is in the
midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented
because the movement is driven by national standards
developed with support from the federal government. The
standards for science education are redefining the character of
science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate
education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the
education in most countries of the world, education of
students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United
States is not the responsibility of the federal government but
is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all
students are expected to learn, the structural organization
of programs across all grades, the structural organization of
the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and
textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously
guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal
government to exercise control over matters that are the
responsibility of the states. The federal government's
involvement in education has been to identify matters of
national priority and to provide funds and other resources
to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance,
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States
felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and
its national safety were threatened, science education was
identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the
federal government's initiatives was to encourage and
upgrade the science education of young people who would
become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived
by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a
response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the
science education of a relatively few students. The current
situation is quite different.
The federal government's underwriting of the
development of national standards for education has the
potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the
states to the federal government. This initiative, supported
by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the
concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the
poor quality of education across the nation and with the
effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world
economy. The goal of the standards movement from the
prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to
strengthen education so that the schools will produce
graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to
be productive in the workplace.
The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and
professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little
concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or
to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly
motivated and highly intelligent students survived science
courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences
develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers,
are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we
must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce
smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is
taught? While historically the answer to the question may
well have been survival, the national standards are based on
the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter
people.
(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)
The goal of the standards movement is to:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790467
Inglês
Texto associado
Science Education in the United States of America
(Audrey B. Champagne.)
Science education in the United States of America is in the
midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented
because the movement is driven by national standards
developed with support from the federal government. The
standards for science education are redefining the character of
science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate
education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the
education in most countries of the world, education of
students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United
States is not the responsibility of the federal government but
is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all
students are expected to learn, the structural organization
of programs across all grades, the structural organization of
the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and
textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously
guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal
government to exercise control over matters that are the
responsibility of the states. The federal government's
involvement in education has been to identify matters of
national priority and to provide funds and other resources
to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance,
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States
felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and
its national safety were threatened, science education was
identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the
federal government's initiatives was to encourage and
upgrade the science education of young people who would
become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived
by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a
response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the
science education of a relatively few students. The current
situation is quite different.
The federal government's underwriting of the
development of national standards for education has the
potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the
states to the federal government. This initiative, supported
by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the
concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the
poor quality of education across the nation and with the
effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world
economy. The goal of the standards movement from the
prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to
strengthen education so that the schools will produce
graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to
be productive in the workplace.
The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and
professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little
concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or
to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly
motivated and highly intelligent students survived science
courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences
develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers,
are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we
must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce
smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is
taught? While historically the answer to the question may
well have been survival, the national standards are based on
the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter
people.
(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)
For Instance (L22) sets:
Ano: 2019
Banca:
Instituto Consulplan
Órgão:
FIMCA
Prova:
Instituto Consulplan - 2019 - FIMCA - Vestibular de Medicina - Edital nº 01/ 2020 |
Q1790468
Inglês
Texto associado
Science Education in the United States of America
(Audrey B. Champagne.)
Science education in the United States of America is in the
midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented
because the movement is driven by national standards
developed with support from the federal government. The
standards for science education are redefining the character of
science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate
education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the
education in most countries of the world, education of
students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United
States is not the responsibility of the federal government but
is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all
students are expected to learn, the structural organization
of programs across all grades, the structural organization of
the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and
textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously
guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal
government to exercise control over matters that are the
responsibility of the states. The federal government's
involvement in education has been to identify matters of
national priority and to provide funds and other resources
to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance,
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States
felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and
its national safety were threatened, science education was
identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the
federal government's initiatives was to encourage and
upgrade the science education of young people who would
become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived
by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a
response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the
science education of a relatively few students. The current
situation is quite different.
The federal government's underwriting of the
development of national standards for education has the
potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the
states to the federal government. This initiative, supported
by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the
concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the
poor quality of education across the nation and with the
effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world
economy. The goal of the standards movement from the
prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to
strengthen education so that the schools will produce
graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to
be productive in the workplace.
The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and
professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little
concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or
to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly
motivated and highly intelligent students survived science
courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences
develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers,
are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we
must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce
smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is
taught? While historically the answer to the question may
well have been survival, the national standards are based on
the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter
people.
(Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ608194.pdf. Adapted.)
Analyse the items usage in the text. Mark the one which is
a modifier.
Conheça nossos planos