quarta-feira, 29 de março de 2017
Por Bernardo Caram, G1, Brasília
Câmara dos Deputados rejeitou nesta quarta-feira (29), em segundo turno, a Proposta de Emenda à Constituição (PEC) que permitiria às universidades públicas a possibilidade de cobrar mensalidade de cursos de extensão e pós-graduação lato sensu.
Por se tratar de uma emenda à Constituição, o projeto precisava do apoio de, pelo menos, três quintos dos deputados (308 dos 513), mas recebeu 304 votos a favor. Ao todo, 139 deputados foram contra o texto e dois se abstiveram. Com isso, a PEC será arquivada.
A proposta, aprovada em primeiro turno pela Câmara em outubro de 2015, previa alteração no Artigo 206 da Constituição.
Conforme a PEC, esse artigo passaria a prever que o princípio da gratuidade do ensino público em estabelecimentos oficiais não se aplica nos casos de pós-graduação lato sensu e cursos de extensão. Nesses casos, caberia à direção da universidade decidir sobre cobrar ou não mensalidade dos alunos.
Atualmente, algumas universidades que cobram mensalidade são alvos de processos judiciais que questionam a legalidade desse tipo de procedimento.
Deputados que integram a base de apoio do governo do presidente Michel Temer trabalharam para que a PEC fosse aprovada, enquanto parlamentares da oposição buscavam votos para que a proposta fosse rejeitada.
Durante a sessão, o líder do PSOL, Glauber Braga (RJ), por exemplo, disse que os deputados não poderiam "brincar com algo que é muito sério".
"Vai se passar a mensagem de que a educação pública não tem que ser gratuita. Isso é absurdo", disse.
terça-feira, 28 de março de 2017
Data:04 de abril de 2017
Local:Faculdade de Ciências Médicas e da Saúde da PUC-SP
Anfiteatro da Biblioteca “Prof. Dr. Luiz Ferraz de Sampaio Junior”
Inscrições GratuitasInscrições abertas até o dia 03/04/2017 – Gratuita - Vagas limitadas
Luiz Ferraz de Sampaio Neto
Vice-Coordenador do PEPG Educação nas Profissões da Saúde da PUC-SP
MESTRADO PROFISSIONAL: DESAFIOS NO ATUAL PANORAMA DE ESTUDOS PÓS-GRADUADOS
Marcio Alves da Fonseca (Pró-reitor de Pós-Graduação da PUC-SP)*
08h30-09h00: Maria Amália Pie Abib Andery (Reitora da PUC-SP)
09h00-09h30: Interação com a plateia
EDUCAÇÃO SAUDÁVEL: RECEITA PARA UMA SAÚDE DOENTE
Maria Helena Senger (PUC-SP)*
10h00-10h30: Denise Herdy (UERJ)
10h30-11h00: Interação com a plateia
A FORMAÇÃO DO MESTRE PROFISSIONAL COMO FORTALECIMENTO PARA O SUS
Cibele Isaac Saad Rodrigues (PUC-SP)*
11h00-11h15: Do ponto de vista do gestor: Liliane Pinho (PMS)
11h15-11h30: Do ponto de vista da academia: Eliana Amaral (UNICAMP)
11h30-11h45: Do ponto de vista do egresso: José Manoel A. Guerrero (PUC-SP)
|14h00-15h30||Grupos de Estudo||
Grupo 1 – O papel da Pós-graduação Profissional no Ensino da Saúde
Coordenadores: Regina Maria Giffoni Marsiglia (PUC-SP e Santa Casa de São Paulo) e Fernando A. de Almeida (PUC-SP)
Grupo 2 – Metodologias Ativas de Aprendizagem Aplicada à Educação na Saúde
Coordenadores: Leni Boghossiam Lanza e Lúcia Rondelo Duarte (PUC-SP)
Grupo 3: Como trabalhar a formação interprofissional
Coordenadores: Ana Laura Schlliemann (UNISO e PUC – SP) e Luiz Ferraz de Sampaio Neto (PUC-SP)
Grupos de Estudo
APRESENTAÇÃO DOS RELATÓRIOS DOS GRUPOS
Grupo 1: 16h00-16h15
Grupo 2: 16h15-16h30
Grupo 3: 16h30-16h45
Raquel Aparecida de Oliveira
(Coordenadora do PEPG Educação nas Profissões da Saúde)
Transmissão ao Vivo pelo YoutubeTodo o encontro será transmitido ao vivo pela internet no canal do Youtube, da PUC-SP - DTI ao Vivo, conforme instruções a seguir:
Emissão de certificados será onlineOs certificados serão emitidos a partir do mês de maio de 2017 e estarão disponíveis por 60 dias para download. E não se preocupe: você receberá um e-mail quando estiver tudo pronto.
Qualquer dúvida, a Comissão Organizadora está à disposição pelo e-mail email@example.com
segunda-feira, 27 de março de 2017
Estratégias para consolidação do SUS e do direito à saúde
Gastão Wagner de Sousa Campos
Neste artigo para a revista Ensaios & Diálogos em Saúde Coletiva, o presidente da Abrasco, professor Gastão Wagner de Sousa Campos, reflete sobre os avanços e os problemas do SUS, bem como os significados da crise atual e os desafios da formação e pesquisa em Saúde Coletiva e na área de Políticas, Planejamento e Gestão em Saúde. Gastão vai além e propõe o SUS Brasil – “Uma utopia possível?” pergunta.
Para Gastão, a fragmentação não é a única causa para a péssima gestão, nem para a péssima política de pessoal do SUS, entretanto, neste caos, diluiu-se a responsabilidade de estados e da União, delegando-se aos municípios tarefas impossíveis de serem levadas a cabo ao nível local e de maneira isolada – “Produziu-se com isto uma cultura da improvisação, de precariedade e de maltrato em relação aos profissionais de saúde e ao cuidado dos usuários. Infelizmente, esse padrão de simplificação, de estratégia da precariedade, estendeu-se também para infraestrutura, equipamentos e modelo de atenção e de cuidado. Gostaria de indicar algumas estratégias para o SUS Brasil para concretizar esse debate em caminhos concretos: uma utopia possível? O SUS Brasil deveria superar a fragmentação, a privatização, a inadequação da política de pessoal tendo como núcleo organizacional as Regiões de Saúde. Constituir o SUS Brasil: uma autarquia especial integrada pelo Ministério da Saúde, Secretarias de Estado da Saúde e Secretarias Municipais de Saúde. Todos os serviços de saúde de caráter público, bem como contratos e convênios de todos os entes federados passariam a esta autarquia especial. Constituir a autarquia com modelo organizacional e de gestão próprio e específico conforme as singularidades e características da área da saúde”, propõe.
Gastão Wagner é médico sanitarista e professor titular da Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Militante da Reforma Sanitária, Gastão é um defensor intransigente do Sistema Único e Saúde e uma referência notória no campo da Saúde Coletiva no Brasil.
sábado, 18 de março de 2017
Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An HETL Interview with Dr. Dee Fink
HETL note: Dr. Dee Fink is the author of Creating Significant Learning Experiences for College Classrooms: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses, published in 2003 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). Dr. Fink asserts that to create more significant learning experiences for students, teachers need to shift from a content-centered approach to a learning-centered approach. In so doing he addresses the question “What kinds of learning will be significant for students, and how can I create a course that will result in that kind of learning?” HETL interviewed Dr. Fink via Skype to dig deeper into this question.
Bio: Dr. Dee Fink currently works as a consultant in higher education (www.finkconsulting.info). In the last several years, he has led numerous workshops on integrated course design at conferences and campuses in the US, Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. He served as the founding director of the Instructional Development Program at the University of Oklahoma (1979-2005). He received two awards for teaching excellence: He was the University of Oklahoma recipient of the national teaching award presented by the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE), the Jaime Escalante “Stand and Deliver” Award, April, 1989, and the recipient of the Outstanding Faculty Award, College of Liberal Studies, University of Oklahoma, 1992. Dr. Fink has been active for thirty years in the POD Network [Professional and Organizational Development] in Higher Education. He served as President of POD in 2004-2005. Dr Fink can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
HETL interviewers: Patrick Blessinger and Krassie Petrova
HETL: Dr. Fink, in your book Creating Significant Learning Experiences, you ask an important question faced by all educators who are interested in improving learning: Should we make the effort to change, or not? Some would say that major change is not necessary because the traditional model of higher education has worked well; it has helped create an explosion of new knowledge and has established a standard of living never seen before. So, why do you believe change is necessary?
Dee Fink [DF]: There are two major observations that make me believe change is necessary. The first is all the evidence, using multiple criteria, that we are not currently doing a good job in higher education. One of these is a study by Derek Bok [i], the former president of Harvard University. He did some careful research on how well American students were achieving eight kinds of learning we would all like to see in college graduates, e.g., how to communicate, how to think, how to live with diversity, preparing for a global society, etc. His conclusion for all eight kinds of learning was the same: Students are achieving each of these desirable kinds of learning to a degree but nowhere near what they could be and should be achieving.
The second source of concern is the new kinds of learning that are being identified as important in the 21st Century. AAC&U (Association of American Colleges and Universities) recently asked a major set of civic and corporate leaders what kinds of learning they thought were essential today. They identified, among others: Information literacy, teamwork and problem solving abilities, intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical reasoning, integrative learning, preparing for lifelong learning. These are similar to the kinds of learning in my taxonomy of significant learning.
The problem is that most professors are so focused on communicating the content of their discipline, that they do not even see these additional, possible kinds of learning. Our students, though, are going to live their lives in the 21st Century, and it is already quite clear that life in this century is going to require more than just “knowledge of the various disciplines.”
HETL: Dr. Fink, what specific types and levels of change are you referring to, and do these changes require an investment by educators?
DF: We need changes at three levels: the classroom level, the organizational level, and the national level.
At the classroom level, college professors need to learn about and use the many new ideas about teaching and learning that have been developed in the last two decades. The scholars of teaching and learning in higher education have generated a number of concepts and theories that can make a major difference in student engagement and student learning. These include active learning, learning-centered course design, effective use of small groups, educative assessment, reflective writing and learning portfolios, a deeper understanding of how people learn, deep learning, and others.
If we want our students to achieve more powerful kinds of learning, college professors need to learn about and use more powerful kinds of teaching.
For this to happen, we will need the second kind of change, at the organizational level. First and foremost, this means colleges and universities need to find ways to support and encourage college teachers in their effort to learn and use new ideas about teaching and learning. This is likely to involve new ways of evaluating teaching, evaluating faculty work, and rewarding faculty – all challenging tasks.
A third level of change must occur at the national level. Organizations involved in higher education that can influence individual universities – disciplinary associations, accrediting associations, quality assurance organizations, and ministries of higher education in the countries that have them – need to use their resources and leverage to encourage greater attention by universities to good learning and teaching.
In the USA, there is growing interest in such changes. In Europe, the Bologna Process has begun to encourage institutions to set learning outcomes for the whole institution; they call them “campus-wide competencies.” In other regions of the world, I see a steadily increasing realization that better kinds of learning by university graduates are needed, more than just so many hours of seat-time and the ability to pass traditional tests.
HETL: Dr. Fink, how can resistance to change be overcome?
DF: The most effective way to deal with any resistance to change is to help people understand that a particular change is what they already want.
When working with professors, we need to recognize that they obviously do not enjoy seeing disinterested students in their courses, or the evidence of lackluster learning in the final exams. If we can help them see that new ways of teaching can make dramatic changes in both these situations, it would go a long way toward helping professors take a more positive attitude toward learning about new ways of teaching.
At the university level, we badly need a means of measuring the general quality of the educational programs at different institutions. Institutional leaders are well aware that they are competing for students, faculty, funds and prestige. If they could be “incentivized” to focus institutional attention on creating better curricula and promoting better teaching and learning across the whole campus, this would make a huge difference in higher education, nationally and globally.
HETL: Dr. Fink, if the reward system for faculty is based upon the research they do, i.e., “publish or perish”, and not specifically on the quality of teaching or on learning outcomes, then how will faculty be motivated to invest in developing student- centered learning?
DF: This is part of the institutional change that I just mentioned. Institutions need to find a reliable way to evaluate teaching, and then to give more weight to that in the overall assessment of faculty work.
Some institutions do a good job of evaluating teaching with procedures going beyond that of just collecting student questionnaires. But there also needs to be a culture-change on most campuses. When faculty vote (as is typical in most institutions in the USA) on annual merit raises or tenure questions, they need to put weight on the quality of teaching done and the learning outcomes – as well as on the traditional criteria of publications and grant dollars. To do this, they have to have faith in the way teaching is evaluated locally.
In an article published in 2008 [ii], I outlined a way of evaluating teaching that is focused on four major performance areas:
- The quality of the professor’s course design, e.g., learning & assessment activities aligned with good learning goals;
- How well they interacted with students, e.g., enthusiasm, clarity, fairness;
- The quantity and quality of student learning; and
- Efforts to get better each year as a teacher, i.e., learning new ideas, changing the way they teach.
Universities would need different sources of information and criteria for each of these. Having standards for good teaching would accomplish two things. It would alert teachers that this is what they need to pay attention to if they want high teaching evaluations, and it would allow the university recognize and reward those teachers who really are performing well in these areas.
HETL: Dr. Fink, you make a distinction between a content-centered approach to course design versus a learning-centered approach. Can you briefly describe the differences between the two approaches, and why you believe a learning-centered approach is more effective?
DF: When we design a course using the content-centered approach, we basically do two things only: Identify the major topics, and then decide how much time we are going to spend on each. Our attention is focused on the relative importance of the different aspects of content.
When we use a learning-centered approach, the first thing we need to do is identify the kinds of learning we want our students to engage in. Then we need to identify the learning and assessment activities needed for each kind of learning:
- What will students need to do, to achieve that kind of learning? And,
- What will they need to do, for them and us to know how well they are achieving each kind of learning?
One major problem with the content-centered approach is that it tends to put teachers in an “information dispensing” mode of operation. We organize lots of information about the content of the course, and then try to “dump it” into students heads. Unfortunately, after the course is over, they often “dump it out”, i.e., they have the retention problem I mentioned earlier.
Another major problem is that content-centered learning only supports one kind of learning, what I call “Foundational Knowledge”: A basic understanding of terms, concepts, principles, possibly with some basic application knowledge. Students today need a lot more than that.
HETL: Dr. Fink, when you say students today need “a lot more than that”, you are presumably referring to the concept of significant learning. What exactly is significant learning?
DF: Significant learning, as I use that term, refers to learning that meets two criteria: (1) learning that lasts beyond the end of the course, i.e., students retain the learning, and (2) learning that has an impact on their personal, professional, social or civic life, i.e., it changes how they think, feel, or act in their lives.
For several decades, I have been asking students: “Have you ever had a course that had a major impact on your lives, and when it did, what was it you learned that had an impact on your life?” When I did my own ‘factor analysis’ of their answers, I came up with the six categories in the taxonomy of significant learning.
Sometimes students said there was some content and basic application skills that were important. But more often, they referred to the following kinds of learning (my label for each kind of learning is shown in parentheses):
- complex application skills (Application),
- how to connect one kind of knowledge with other kinds of knowledge (Integration),
- understanding themselves and how to interact with others vis-à-vis a particular kind of knowledge (Human Dimension),
- the values and interests that can be associated with new kinds of knowledge (Caring), and
- how to keep on learning about a subject after the course is over (Learning how to learn).
HETL: Dr. Fink, you contend that traditional instructional methods are not very effective in achieving important kinds of student learning. Why do you believe this to be so and what are some of the problems faced by teachers using traditional instructional methods?
DF: First, let me identify what I mean by “traditional” ways of teaching. In general, this refers to a predominant reliance on lectures, homework and textbooks. In the humanities, this is often augmented by whole-class discussions, and in the sciences and engineering, by labs. Good things can happen with these methods, but student learning can and needs to be made even better. Here are the problems that teachers face when they cling to the traditional methods.
First, there is a serious problem with students retaining their knowledge. In one study [iii], students’ performance at a “final” exam dropped 50% only two weeks after the initial taking of that exam. In another study [iv] it was found that students who had completed a particular course performed only 5-10% better than people who had never had the course (on a test on the course topic, taken one year after finishing the course).
Second, traditional teaching runs a serious danger of being boring. We see evidence of that in professors’ complaints about how often their students are reading newspapers in class, or checking their email. But think about it from the students’ perspective: How exciting can it be, to sit in a class day after day, where they only listen to one person and see nothing but the backs of other people’s heads?
Finally, teaching aimed primarily at conveying knowledge is simply outdated in the 21st century. Students can look up all this information on their cell phones faster than we can talk about it! They need to be doing something else, both in-class and out-of-class.
HETL: Dr. Fink, what is this “something else” that teachers need to be doing? That is, if teachers accept your challenge of formulating learning outcomes for their courses such as you describe above, how can they achieve these new and ambitious kinds of learning? They have difficulty achieving their current learning goals, which are more limited than what you propose.
DF: You are absolutely right in raising this question. To achieve more powerful kinds of learning, teachers will need to use more powerful kinds of teaching. The good news is that the scholars of teaching and learning have developed an extensive set of new ideas about teaching and learning in the last two decades. Let me mention some.
- Some of these are theories dealing with how students learn (e.g., learning styles, how the brain works; see also the recent book on the 7 principles of how students learn [v].
- Others pertain to some of the fundamental tasks of teaching:
- Others deal with some of the special situations and needs in teaching, for example:
- How to deal with large classes
- How to deal with beginning students
- How to teach creativity.
Any teacher who can learn about and apply one or more of these educational ideas will see a substantial positive response from students. If they can use two or three of these ideas, the impact will be even more dramatic.
Anyone who aspires to the kinds of learning in my taxonomy will definitely need to start using several of these new, more powerful ways of teaching. And if they do, they will start to see more significant learning start to happen – and for many professors, the joy of teaching will come back. This is what many people who have read my book or taken my workshop report back to me: “Teaching is exciting again. This is why I wanted to be a teacher, to see students excited about learning.”
HETL: Dr. Fink, some might contend that this approach is culture-specific. What is your experience in implementing it in countries with different cultures?
DF: One of the exciting aspects of my consulting experience have been the invitations to do faculty workshops in 13 countries around the world, in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, New Zealand, and in several countries in Asia.
I can say, without reservation, that faculty members have responded enthusiastically to such things as learning-centered course design, small group work, and educative assessment. I have also had feedback from teachers in all these regions that, when they tried these ideas in their teaching, students responded very positively. Sometimes, especially in countries with strong traditions of lecturing, the teacher had to explain to students why they were doing what they were doing. But when they did that, students liked the new ways of learning much better. They liked the higher level of engagement and they could see the value [i.e., significance] of what they were learning much more clearly.
HETL: Dr. Fink, you state that learning should be an experience and not just a set of activities and that the teacher plays a critical role in shaping that experience. So, what should be the proper relationship between teacher and student in achieving significant learning outcomes?
DF: Obviously both teachers and students must fulfill their respective responsibilities for good learning to happen. The teacher structures the learning experience initially but it is the student who does the work of learning.
In her book [vi], Maryellen Weimer made the important suggestion that teachers can both empower and motivate students by sharing some of the decision-making power with the students.
In addition professors need to learn how to use their expertise, not just to make an organized presentation of what they know, but to formulate valuable learning outcomes, create learning and assessment activities that embody authentic tasks and standards of performance for a particular subject, and develop a positive, supportive relationship with students.
Students, the other major party in this process, need to develop a better understanding of what constitutes good learning and good teaching, and develop the skills for good learning. This will require help from their teachers and from university programs for beginning students.
It then becomes the responsibility of university leaders to find ways to encourage and support both faculty and students in the proper fulfillment of their respective responsibilities.
HETL: Dr. Fink, in summary, you contend that improving student learning starts with developing a new way of thinking about teaching and learning. How do we begin to do that?
DF: The first thing that has to happen, obviously, is that someone has to care, to care about the quality of teaching and learning in higher education. Then whoever cares has to develop a vision of what would have to happen to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Finally, whoever has this vision has to find a way to promote that vision; this generally will require both “top-down” and “bottom-up” processes.
For the bottom-up part, individual professors need to spend more time learning about the many new ideas about teaching and learning that are now available, and then use them. This is what faculty development programs are trying to achieve, where they exist.
The problem with many of these programs, though, it is often only the people inclined to be “early adopters of change”, i.e., 15-20% of all faculty members, who participate. To increase the proportion of the faculty who regularly and continuously engage in instructional development, there also needs to be change at the organizational level; this is the top-down part of the process.
Campus leaders need to send a message:
“This matters. This is not optional; faculty improving their capabilities as professional educators is essential for this institution to fulfill its educational mission.”
This can be done by promoting a change in the campus culture and/or by changing campus policies for things like evaluating teaching.
Institutions that succeed in making these changes are seeing a clear shift in the quality of teaching and, as a result of that, in the level of student engagement and the quality of student learning.
[i] Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[ii] Fink, D. (2008). Evaluating teaching: A new approach to an old problem. In To Improve the Academy, 26. An annual publication of the POD Network in Higher Education. SF: Jossey-Bass, 2008.
[iii] McLeish, J. (1968). The lecture method. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Institute of Education.
[iv] Saunders, P. (1980, Winter). The lasting effects of introductory economics courses. Journal of Economic Education, 12, 1-14.
[v] Ambrose, S., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. SF: Jossey-Bass.
[vi] Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. SF: Jossey-Bass.
Fink, D. (2011, September 9). Creating significant learning experiences: An HETL interview with Dr. Dee Fink. Interviewers: Patrick Blessinger and Krassie Petrova. The International HETL Review. Volume 1, Article 10, https://www.hetl.org/interview-articles/significant-learning-experiences/
Copyright ©  Dee Fink and The International HETL Association
sexta-feira, 17 de março de 2017
Participation Points: Making Student Engagement Visible
As I contemplate my syllabi for a new semester, I possess renewed hope for students eager to discuss anything at 8 a.m., yet I have taught long enough to know that I will simply appreciate clean clothes and brushed teeth. As reality sets in, I add to my grading criteria an element that I hope will encourage engagement from even the most timid learners.
Often labeled “participation points,” this topic has been explored from myriad perspectives in any number of books and articles published in the last 20 years. Some approaches to participation include using discussion to facilitate teaching and learning, implementing standard-based grading to eliminate participation points, or creating rubrics for participation to make standards visible to the students.
Here I must acknowledge that my 8 a.m. courses are usually populated by freshmen; many of these students, educated during the NCLB era and fresh from standardized tests and state-mandated EOCTs here in Georgia, struggle to adjust to rigorous college expectations. Most can’t comprehend or articulate our expectations for participation and thus often don’t participate fully.
And here’s the rub—first-year students often don’t know why engagement is important either in their classroom or their learning. They’ve yet to learn that participation is an investment in themselves. We know that engaged learners are active learners, but how do we help our students shift from grade seekers to knowledge seekers? Even college students need to be reminded that they are building intellectual and personal skills that will serve them well in all future professional and personal endeavors.
In order to help students become aware of the need for a new level of academic performance, let’s change our own strategies concerning participation points.
- Use a new moniker
- Instead of participation points, call them engagement points
- The goal is to move students from grade seekers (passive regurgitation of information—written or verbal) to knowledge seekers (independent, engaged learners who see, reflect on, and share their thoughts on the complexity of problems/situations)
- Balance preparation and participation
- Lead with preparation
- Engagement = Preparation + Participation
- Create opportunities for students to share homework or research
- Make homework vital to class conversation and student learning, not simply a formative check preceding a summative assessment
- Share and review your Engagement Rubric from Day 1 (below is a version of the rubric I created for my 2000- and 3000-level students)
- Make the balance of preparation and participation part of your classroom routine in independent daily writing or group work by encouraging students to reference their notes and research.
- Students must score themselves against the Engagement Rubric
- Metacognitive exercises help students understand their responsibility in their own learning
- Make this a quick two minute monthly activity
- Repetition allows students to reacquaint themselves with the desired behavior
- A monthly check allows you to praise, schedule conferences, or recommend tutoring while the semester is still salvageable.
|PREPARATION (outside of class)||PARTICIPATION (in class)|
I am fully engaged
I read carefully and research background information on the author/topic ahead of time.
I research social, cultural, historic, economic, political connections to the text/topic.
I consider the course’s Essential Questions as I prepare.
I attend class and I speak daily.
I try to advance the conversation by presenting evidence to support my ideas.
I present related research, implications, or complexities in the text/situation/topic.
I am occasionally engaged
I read assignments ahead of time.
I do basic research to understand the material, but I do not go beyond the obvious.
Sometimes I consider the course’s Essential Questions as I prepare.
I attend class daily.
I speak occasionally—mainly when called upon by the professor.
Sometimes I present general evidence to support my position.
I’m not sure how to be engaged; I need some direction
Sometimes I do the reading.
I don’t research to understand the material, nor do I go beyond the obvious.
My attendance is inconsistent.
I participate only when prompted.
|No Preparation I neither read nor research before class.||No Participation
My attendance is inconsistent.
I do not speak in class.
- Recognize quiet learners (during and after class)
- Accept e-mail responses from quiet students
- Accept reflective e-mails—after class discussion has occurred
- Ask permission to share their ideas (with attribution) in the next class session
- Re-direct garrulous students who don’t full engage with the content
- Reinforce preparation by encouraging “talkers” to support their ideas with research, articles, quotations from the text as hand, homework, etc.
Engaged students are agents in their own education. Of course, the sole responsibility for engagement mustn’t fall squarely on the students’ shoulders; professors can prepare the classroom and create daily activities to support knowledge-seeking, engaged students. Take a look at your syllabi and lesson plans to ensure that you provide opportunities for students to share their preparation, research, and new knowledge gleaned, even early in the morning.
Dr. Stephanie Almagno is a professor of English at Piedmont College, Demorest, GA.
quarta-feira, 15 de março de 2017
CARTA ABERTA DO INSTITUTO DE ESTUDOS EM SAÚDE COLETIVA
O CRIME CONTINUADO DOS ADITIVOS: ATÉ QUANDO?
Recentemente tomamos conhecimento, por meio de artigo do Dr. Drauzio Varella publicado na Folha de São Paulo (“O crime continuado dos aditivos”, FSP, pg3, 15/12/2016) da situação vergonhosa que existe em nosso País.
Apesar dos pareceres dos especialistas de vários países e da OMS, que alertam sobre os perigos dos aditivos nos cigarros e recomendam a sua proibição definitiva, a indústria tabagista continua fazendo uso deles para manter seus lucros em detrimento das mortes e doenças que o tabagismo causa.
Há 5 anos, em 15/3/2012, a Diretoria Colegiada da Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária aprovou uma Resolução (RDC 14/12), cujo Art. 1o diz “Ficam estabelecidos os limites máximos de alcatrão, nicotina e monóxido de carbono na corrente primária da fumaça dos cigarros e a restrição do uso de aditivos em todos os produtos fumígenos derivados do tabaco comercializados no Brasil.”
Inexplicavelmente (?), a respeitável Confederação Nacional da Indústria – CNI entrou com uma Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade, com pedido de liminar, junto ao Supremo Tribunal Federal e teve sucesso! Desde então, o cumprimento da Resolução está suspenso. Apesar da elucidativa e competente manifestação do Advogado Geral da União, com certeza embasado em subsídios técnicos fornecidos pela equipe da ANVISA, protocolado em 25/3/2013, a ação ainda não foi julgada.
O Instituto de Estudos em Saúde Coletiva – INESCO, sediado em Londrina – Paraná, buscou informações a respeito do assunto e, lastreado pela histórica luta antitabagista que teve e tem lugar no Paraná, sempre pautada pela busca de melhores condições de saúde para a população, decide por enviar esta Carta Aberta à Exma. Sra. Ministra Relatora da Ação, Dra. Rosa Weber e aos demais Ministros do STF.
Senhora Ministra-relatora, Senhores Ministros: A RDC 14/12 precisa ser implementada com urgência. A cada dia, milhares de pessoas são vítimas da epidemia do tabagismo cujo impacto dos aditivos para que a matança continue está cientificamente comprovada. A Resolução atende as exigências da própria Convenção-Quadro, o primeiro Tratado Internacional de Saúde Pública, pela qual tanto lutamos e da qual o Brasil é signatário.
Nessa oportunidade, passados CINCO ANOS, apelamos para a sensibilidade de VV.Excias e para a necessidade de fazer valer os interesses da sociedade e não os interesses econômicos de um segmento da economia nacional e internacional.
Londrina, 15 de março de 2017.
Prof. Dr. João José Batista de Campos
Diretor-presidente do iNESCO