Read Text I and answer question.

Is social media harming teens? A dive into the research cites risks but returns few hard answers 

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine grapples with the questions: Is social media harming teenagers? And what can Congress, the Education Department and parents do about it?

The answers are murky. The authors surveyed hundreds of studies across more than a decade and came to complicated, occasionally contradictory, conclusions. On one hand, they found there isn’t enough population data to specifically blame social media for changes in adolescent health. On the other hand, as shown in study after study cited by the report, social media has the clear potential to hurt the health of teenagers, and in situations where a teenager is already experiencing difficulties like a mental health crisis, social media tends to make it worse.

“There is much we still don’t know, but our report lays out a clear path forward for both pursuing the biggest unanswered questions about youth health and social media, and taking steps that can minimize the risk to young people using social media now,” Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health and chair of the committee behind the report, said in a news release.

According to the report, the ways social media is used seem to make a difference. When a teenager passively scrolls, as opposed to actively posting, that’s connected by many studies to low life satisfaction and feelings of sadness. It may be that showcasing a hobby or an interest on social media doesn’t produce the same harms. But those rates differ by demographic group: Black, non-Hispanic participants in one study reported more negative moods during active social media use, suggesting that the potential benefits of posting on social media are not the same for teenagers of all backgrounds.

In addition, age affects how well certain strategies work. In younger children, a family policy that restricts social media except when it’s actively guided by a parent seems to reduce the risk of problematic use and inappropriate behavior online. But in adolescents, overly restrictive and controlling parental rules, like confiscating a phone for punishment, are often associated with that teenager taking more risks online.

Faced with an urgent need to “create a more transparent industry and a better-informed consumer of social media,” the report calls on companies and regulators to establish international standards, such as clear ways for companies to share data with researchers and accepted best practices to avoid proven harms where possible. It recommends that the International Organization for Standardization – a body that sets global rules in areas such as manufacturing and food safety – be tasked with creating a new system, one that could be used by federal and international agencies to track and evaluate social media companies and the algorithms they build. And it asks for funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other agencies to pay for the sort of large, long-term studies that have in the past identified major public health crises.

Adapted from: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/socialmedia/social-media-harming-teens-dive-research-citesrisks-returns-hard-answ-rcna129490  

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

    Building on the professional consensus that no method could claim supremacy, Prabhu (1990) asks why there is no best method. He suggests that there are three possible explanations: (1) different methods are best for different teaching / learning circumstances; (2) all methods have some truth or validity; and (3) the whole notion of what is a good or a bad method is irrelevant. Prabhu argues for the third possibility and concludes that we need to rethink what is “best” such that classroom teachers and applied linguists can develop shared pedagogical perceptions of what real-world classroom teaching is.

    H.D. Brown (2002), in his critique of methods, adds the following two observations: (1) so-called designer methods seem distinctive at the initial stage of learning but soon come to look like any other learner centered approach; and (2) it has proven impossible to empirically (i.e., quantitatively) demonstrate the superiority of one method over another. Brown (2002) concludes that classroom teachers do best when they ground their pedagogy in “well-established principles of language teaching and learning” (p.17).

    So what are these well-established principles that teachers should apply in the post methods era? One of the early concrete proposals comes from Kamaravadivelu (1994), who offers a framework consisting of 10 macro strategies, some of which are summarized below:

    – Maximize learning opportunities. The teacher’s job is not to transmit knowledge but to create and manage as many learning opportunities as possible.

    – Facilitate negotiated interaction. Learners should initiate classroom talk (not just respond to the teacher’s prompts) by asking for clarification, by confirming, by reacting, and so on, as part of teacher-student and student-student interaction.

    – Activate intuitive heuristics. Teachers should provide enough data for learners to infer underlying grammatical rules, since it is impossible to explicitly teach all rules of the L2.

    – Integrate language skills. The separation of listening, reading, speaking, and writing is artificial. As in the real-world, learners should integrate skills: conversation (listening and speaking), note-taking (listening and writing), self-study (reading and writing), and so on.

    – Raise cultural consciousness. Teachers should allow learners to become sources of cultural information so that knowledge about the culture of the L2 and of other cultures (especially those represented by the students) becomes part of classroom communication.

    – Ensure social relevance: acknowledge that language learning has social, political, economic, and educational dimensions that shape the motivation to learn the L2, determine the uses to which the L2 will be put, and define the skills and proficiency level needed in the L2.

(Celce-Murcia, M. 2001. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

    Building on the professional consensus that no method could claim supremacy, Prabhu (1990) asks why there is no best method. He suggests that there are three possible explanations: (1) different methods are best for different teaching / learning circumstances; (2) all methods have some truth or validity; and (3) the whole notion of what is a good or a bad method is irrelevant. Prabhu argues for the third possibility and concludes that we need to rethink what is “best” such that classroom teachers and applied linguists can develop shared pedagogical perceptions of what real-world classroom teaching is.

    H.D. Brown (2002), in his critique of methods, adds the following two observations: (1) so-called designer methods seem distinctive at the initial stage of learning but soon come to look like any other learner centered approach; and (2) it has proven impossible to empirically (i.e., quantitatively) demonstrate the superiority of one method over another. Brown (2002) concludes that classroom teachers do best when they ground their pedagogy in “well-established principles of language teaching and learning” (p.17).

    So what are these well-established principles that teachers should apply in the post methods era? One of the early concrete proposals comes from Kamaravadivelu (1994), who offers a framework consisting of 10 macro strategies, some of which are summarized below:

    – Maximize learning opportunities. The teacher’s job is not to transmit knowledge but to create and manage as many learning opportunities as possible.

    – Facilitate negotiated interaction. Learners should initiate classroom talk (not just respond to the teacher’s prompts) by asking for clarification, by confirming, by reacting, and so on, as part of teacher-student and student-student interaction.

    – Activate intuitive heuristics. Teachers should provide enough data for learners to infer underlying grammatical rules, since it is impossible to explicitly teach all rules of the L2.

    – Integrate language skills. The separation of listening, reading, speaking, and writing is artificial. As in the real-world, learners should integrate skills: conversation (listening and speaking), note-taking (listening and writing), self-study (reading and writing), and so on.

    – Raise cultural consciousness. Teachers should allow learners to become sources of cultural information so that knowledge about the culture of the L2 and of other cultures (especially those represented by the students) becomes part of classroom communication.

    – Ensure social relevance: acknowledge that language learning has social, political, economic, and educational dimensions that shape the motivation to learn the L2, determine the uses to which the L2 will be put, and define the skills and proficiency level needed in the L2.

(Celce-Murcia, M. 2001. Adaptado)