Questões: Universidade Estadual de Goiás (UEG) — com gabarito

    Since 2000 when the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched a global academic benchmark for measuring student outcomes by testing 15-year-olds, many global education systems have been impacted by what sometimes looks and feels like a race to rank high.
    When the OECD launched the Programme for International Student Assessment — PISA — the idea was to enable countries to make cross-national comparisons of student achievement using a common/standard metric to increase human capital. In other words, higher academic achievement should corelate with earnings in the future and a country’s standard of living. As PISA states, it publishes the results of the test a year after the students are tested to help governments shape their education policies.
    As PISA has developed, through seven global testing rounds every three years, with the first in 2000 and the most recent in 2018, for some it has gained a reputation as the “Olympics of education” given the widespread attention that country rankings receive following the release of results.
    Now, partly in the face of criticisms, PISA is looking at expanding how and what it tests. As this process unfolds, policy-makers must remember that the social consequences of a test are just as important as the test’s content. Putting a new face on PISA will undoubtedly present various opportunities and challenges.
    To date, PISA has been restricted to what is generally called the “cognitive” side of learning, focusing on reading, mathematics and scientific literacy. In addition to test questions, students and school principals fill out questionnaires to provide contextual information on student and school environment characteristics that can be associated with more or less favourable performance.
    Countries that excel in PISA tests, such as Finland, a country with less than six million people, have become regarded by policy-makers as a “global reference society” — an ideal to aspire to — due to their high performance in PISA rankings.
    Asian countries or jurisdictions like Singapore, Hong Kong (China) and Japan tend to consistently achieve exceptional PISA performances and hence get a lot of attention from other countries wishing to emulate their success via borrowing policy. For example, England flew teachers out to China to study mathematics teaching.
    In the next administration in 2021, PISA will tackle creative thinking, trying to find ways to assess, and have students assess, flexibility in thinking and habits of creativity such as being inquisitive and persistent. The PISA team is also developing a way of testing students’ digital learning, which should be ready in time for the 2024 assessment.
    However, it should be remembered that education policies from high achieving nations don’t migrate across international boundaries without consideration given to national and cultural contexts. Rather, innovations and changes in education require teachers to have the time and opportunity to re-educate themselves in relation to more recent insights in what it means to get the best out of children.

    The OECD will need to respond to previous critiques and provide greater transparency around newer test instruments and the choices made to arrive at rankings. The latter is no small challenge since the future focus of PISA is based on topics which seem more difficult to evaluate than math, science or reading skills.

According to the information in the text, the global education systems are assessed by PISA and it is

    Since 2000 when the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched a global academic benchmark for measuring student outcomes by testing 15-year-olds, many global education systems have been impacted by what sometimes looks and feels like a race to rank high.
    When the OECD launched the Programme for International Student Assessment — PISA — the idea was to enable countries to make cross-national comparisons of student achievement using a common/standard metric to increase human capital. In other words, higher academic achievement should corelate with earnings in the future and a country’s standard of living. As PISA states, it publishes the results of the test a year after the students are tested to help governments shape their education policies.
    As PISA has developed, through seven global testing rounds every three years, with the first in 2000 and the most recent in 2018, for some it has gained a reputation as the “Olympics of education” given the widespread attention that country rankings receive following the release of results.
    Now, partly in the face of criticisms, PISA is looking at expanding how and what it tests. As this process unfolds, policy-makers must remember that the social consequences of a test are just as important as the test’s content. Putting a new face on PISA will undoubtedly present various opportunities and challenges.
    To date, PISA has been restricted to what is generally called the “cognitive” side of learning, focusing on reading, mathematics and scientific literacy. In addition to test questions, students and school principals fill out questionnaires to provide contextual information on student and school environment characteristics that can be associated with more or less favourable performance.
    Countries that excel in PISA tests, such as Finland, a country with less than six million people, have become regarded by policy-makers as a “global reference society” — an ideal to aspire to — due to their high performance in PISA rankings.
    Asian countries or jurisdictions like Singapore, Hong Kong (China) and Japan tend to consistently achieve exceptional PISA performances and hence get a lot of attention from other countries wishing to emulate their success via borrowing policy. For example, England flew teachers out to China to study mathematics teaching.
    In the next administration in 2021, PISA will tackle creative thinking, trying to find ways to assess, and have students assess, flexibility in thinking and habits of creativity such as being inquisitive and persistent. The PISA team is also developing a way of testing students’ digital learning, which should be ready in time for the 2024 assessment.
    However, it should be remembered that education policies from high achieving nations don’t migrate across international boundaries without consideration given to national and cultural contexts. Rather, innovations and changes in education require teachers to have the time and opportunity to re-educate themselves in relation to more recent insights in what it means to get the best out of children.

    The OECD will need to respond to previous critiques and provide greater transparency around newer test instruments and the choices made to arrive at rankings. The latter is no small challenge since the future focus of PISA is based on topics which seem more difficult to evaluate than math, science or reading skills.

Considerando-se os aspectos semânticos presentes no texto, verifica-se que a construção

    Since 2000 when the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched a global academic benchmark for measuring student outcomes by testing 15-year-olds, many global education systems have been impacted by what sometimes looks and feels like a race to rank high.
    When the OECD launched the Programme for International Student Assessment — PISA — the idea was to enable countries to make cross-national comparisons of student achievement using a common/standard metric to increase human capital. In other words, higher academic achievement should corelate with earnings in the future and a country’s standard of living. As PISA states, it publishes the results of the test a year after the students are tested to help governments shape their education policies.
    As PISA has developed, through seven global testing rounds every three years, with the first in 2000 and the most recent in 2018, for some it has gained a reputation as the “Olympics of education” given the widespread attention that country rankings receive following the release of results.
    Now, partly in the face of criticisms, PISA is looking at expanding how and what it tests. As this process unfolds, policy-makers must remember that the social consequences of a test are just as important as the test’s content. Putting a new face on PISA will undoubtedly present various opportunities and challenges.
    To date, PISA has been restricted to what is generally called the “cognitive” side of learning, focusing on reading, mathematics and scientific literacy. In addition to test questions, students and school principals fill out questionnaires to provide contextual information on student and school environment characteristics that can be associated with more or less favourable performance.
    Countries that excel in PISA tests, such as Finland, a country with less than six million people, have become regarded by policy-makers as a “global reference society” — an ideal to aspire to — due to their high performance in PISA rankings.
    Asian countries or jurisdictions like Singapore, Hong Kong (China) and Japan tend to consistently achieve exceptional PISA performances and hence get a lot of attention from other countries wishing to emulate their success via borrowing policy. For example, England flew teachers out to China to study mathematics teaching.
    In the next administration in 2021, PISA will tackle creative thinking, trying to find ways to assess, and have students assess, flexibility in thinking and habits of creativity such as being inquisitive and persistent. The PISA team is also developing a way of testing students’ digital learning, which should be ready in time for the 2024 assessment.
    However, it should be remembered that education policies from high achieving nations don’t migrate across international boundaries without consideration given to national and cultural contexts. Rather, innovations and changes in education require teachers to have the time and opportunity to re-educate themselves in relation to more recent insights in what it means to get the best out of children.

    The OECD will need to respond to previous critiques and provide greater transparency around newer test instruments and the choices made to arrive at rankings. The latter is no small challenge since the future focus of PISA is based on topics which seem more difficult to evaluate than math, science or reading skills.

Considerando-se os aspectos linguísticos e estruturais presentes no texto, constata-se que

AGÊNCIA AFP. Planeta "potencialmente habitável" é descoberto em novo sistema solar. Disponível em: https://noticias.uol.com.br/ciencia/ultimasnoticias/afp/2019/08/01/planeta-potencialmente-habitavel-e-descoberto-em-novo-sistema-solar.htm. Acesso em: 05 ago. 2019. 

AGÊNCIA AFP. Planeta "potencialmente habitável" é descoberto em novo sistema solar. Disponível em: https://noticias.uol.com.br/ciencia/ultimasnoticias/afp/2019/08/01/planeta-potencialmente-habitavel-e-descoberto-em-novo-sistema-solar.htm. Acesso em: 05 ago. 2019. 

AGÊNCIA AFP. Planeta "potencialmente habitável" é descoberto em novo sistema solar. Disponível em: https://noticias.uol.com.br/ciencia/ultimasnoticias/afp/2019/08/01/planeta-potencialmente-habitavel-e-descoberto-em-novo-sistema-solar.htm. Acesso em: 05 ago. 2019. 

Dentre os critérios mencionados para medir a possibilidade de existência de seres vivos em um planeta, o mais importante, segundo o texto, é

AGÊNCIA AFP. Planeta "potencialmente habitável" é descoberto em novo sistema solar. Disponível em: https://noticias.uol.com.br/ciencia/ultimasnoticias/afp/2019/08/01/planeta-potencialmente-habitavel-e-descoberto-em-novo-sistema-solar.htm. Acesso em: 05 ago. 2019. 

Em termos artísticos, a pintora Tarsila do Amaral e o poeta Carlos Drummond de Andrade têm em comum sua participação

Em termos de construção, verifica-se, no poema, a presença de rimas externas, ao passo que a pintura retrata elementos trabalhados por uma perspectiva

Em termos de periodização estético-literária, tanto a pintura quanto o fragmento apresentados constituem obras pertencentes ao

Tem-se, na imagem, figuras retratadas por uma perspectiva que se atém ao plano do real, ao passo que, no fragmento, constrói-se, em relação à índia Iracema, uma descrição cuja perspectiva é

           Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN secretary general. The main reason? We’re transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet’s environmental resources and the shift to less efficient energy sources .

    Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems these are not really separate crises at all.

        These crises are part of the same fundamental transition. The new era is characterized by inefficient fossil fuel production and escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer explain, predict or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age.

       Those are the implications of a new background paper prepared by a team of Finnish biophysicists who were asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), which will be released in 2019.

          For the “first time in human history”, the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.” Producing usable energy (“exergy”) to keep powering “both basic and non-basic human activities” in industrial civilisation “will require more, not less, effort”.

        At the same time, our hunger for energy is driving what the paper refers to as “sink costs.” The greater our energy and material use, the more waste we generate, and so the greater the environmental costs. Though they can be ignored for a while, eventually those environmental costs translate directly into economic costs as it becomes more and more difficult to ignore their impacts on our societies.

         Overall, the amount of energy we can extract, compared to the energy we are using to extract it, is decreasing across the spectrum – unconventional oils, nuclear and renewables return less energy in generation than conventional oils, whose production has peaked – and societies need to abandon fossil fuels because of their impact on the climate.

         Whether or not this system still comprises a form of capitalism is ultimately a semantic question. It depends on how you define capitalism.

          Economic activity is driven by meaning – maintaining equal possibilities for the good life while lowering emissions dramatically – rather than profit, and the meaning is politically, collectively constructed. Well, this is the best conceivable case in terms of modern state and market institutions. It can’t happen without considerable reframing of economic-political thinking, in short words: rethinking capitalism as it is nowadays.

           Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN secretary general. The main reason? We’re transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet’s environmental resources and the shift to less efficient energy sources .

    Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems these are not really separate crises at all.

        These crises are part of the same fundamental transition. The new era is characterized by inefficient fossil fuel production and escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer explain, predict or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age.

       Those are the implications of a new background paper prepared by a team of Finnish biophysicists who were asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), which will be released in 2019.

          For the “first time in human history”, the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.” Producing usable energy (“exergy”) to keep powering “both basic and non-basic human activities” in industrial civilisation “will require more, not less, effort”.

        At the same time, our hunger for energy is driving what the paper refers to as “sink costs.” The greater our energy and material use, the more waste we generate, and so the greater the environmental costs. Though they can be ignored for a while, eventually those environmental costs translate directly into economic costs as it becomes more and more difficult to ignore their impacts on our societies.

         Overall, the amount of energy we can extract, compared to the energy we are using to extract it, is decreasing across the spectrum – unconventional oils, nuclear and renewables return less energy in generation than conventional oils, whose production has peaked – and societies need to abandon fossil fuels because of their impact on the climate.

         Whether or not this system still comprises a form of capitalism is ultimately a semantic question. It depends on how you define capitalism.

          Economic activity is driven by meaning – maintaining equal possibilities for the good life while lowering emissions dramatically – rather than profit, and the meaning is politically, collectively constructed. Well, this is the best conceivable case in terms of modern state and market institutions. It can’t happen without considerable reframing of economic-political thinking, in short words: rethinking capitalism as it is nowadays.

           Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN secretary general. The main reason? We’re transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet’s environmental resources and the shift to less efficient energy sources .

    Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems these are not really separate crises at all.

        These crises are part of the same fundamental transition. The new era is characterized by inefficient fossil fuel production and escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer explain, predict or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age.

       Those are the implications of a new background paper prepared by a team of Finnish biophysicists who were asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), which will be released in 2019.

          For the “first time in human history”, the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.” Producing usable energy (“exergy”) to keep powering “both basic and non-basic human activities” in industrial civilisation “will require more, not less, effort”.

        At the same time, our hunger for energy is driving what the paper refers to as “sink costs.” The greater our energy and material use, the more waste we generate, and so the greater the environmental costs. Though they can be ignored for a while, eventually those environmental costs translate directly into economic costs as it becomes more and more difficult to ignore their impacts on our societies.

         Overall, the amount of energy we can extract, compared to the energy we are using to extract it, is decreasing across the spectrum – unconventional oils, nuclear and renewables return less energy in generation than conventional oils, whose production has peaked – and societies need to abandon fossil fuels because of their impact on the climate.

         Whether or not this system still comprises a form of capitalism is ultimately a semantic question. It depends on how you define capitalism.

          Economic activity is driven by meaning – maintaining equal possibilities for the good life while lowering emissions dramatically – rather than profit, and the meaning is politically, collectively constructed. Well, this is the best conceivable case in terms of modern state and market institutions. It can’t happen without considerable reframing of economic-political thinking, in short words: rethinking capitalism as it is nowadays.

O enunciado “É uma espécie de ‘inatenção polida’” contém uma forma de modalização discursiva na qual o autor apresenta