Read the following article and answer question based on the text.

Faced with the unprecedented stream of migrants fleeing war and trauma in the Middle East and North Africa, Europe needs to take clear-sighted action.

        For its part, the UK has agreed to take 20,000 refugees, a significant portion of whom will likely be children and orphans according to report. One key aspect in ensuring their smooth settlement in the UK will be providing these refugees with language training.

       Many Syrians are well-educated and many speak fluent English. Others, however, do not speak English well enough to function professionally within the UK. The issue of language is so fundamental to our lives that we often overlook it. Several multi-million pound training contracts have failed to be delivered on account of not addressing the language barrier. All the goodwill, financial backing, and technical expertise to deliver needed medical, economic, military,engineering, or navigational training may be present; but unless there is a shared language in which to impart that knowledge, little will be accomplished.

        One of the biggest misconceptions about language is that if you “just go to the country,” you’ll pick it up. Many people believe that immersion will guarantee fluency; yet you may well know several immigrants who have been in this country for years and still only speak broken English. You might also know dozens of expats in various countries across the world who have failed to pick up the local languages of their host countries. Training and effort are both necessary.

        Though not a guarantee of fluency, immersion is a wonderful opportunity. The first issue we need to address with respect to refugees is ensuring that those who come will actually be immersed. That is, that they will be welcomed as part of larger communities, and not simply join communities of other refugees. On the other hand, immersion is just an opportunity, and in order to take full advantage of it, training and education are required. In terms of refugees, we need to consider options for the provision of language training, whether by self-study, classroom instruction, private tuition, or some combination of the three.        

       The array of needs is staggering. In truth, every language learner has a different set of learning objectives, and will require different training to meet those objectives. Coordinating the actual needs with providers in different regions and accounting for different personal schedules and start dates is a significant challenge. It is, however, a challenge that must be addressed immediately, as proficiency in English will be a key enabler of success for refugees in this country.

(Adapted from Aaron Ralby http://www.blogs.jbs.cam.ac.uk/ socialinnovation/2015/11/16/)

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

O texto a seguir apresenta lacunas numeradas de 41 a 51, das quais foi omitida uma ou mais palavras. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a palavra ou expressão que completa corretamente cada uma das lacunas numeradas, tanto quanto à correção gramatical como quanto ao sentido e estruturação do texto.

Why talk about language teaching methods at all? In recent years, a number of writers have criticized the very concept of (41) in our field. “Let’s just focus on learners and teachers and everything else will fall into place,” they seem to suggest. Some say that teachers see methods as prescriptions for classroom behavior and follow them too (42) , too inflexibly. By contrast, others argue that in planning their lessons, (43) don’t really think about codified methods at all. In the one view, methods and the prefabricated materials that embody them (44) teachers to mere technicians; in the other, teachers are mere improvisers in the here-and-now, with no use for general statements about how (45) acts may fit together. Either view should make any writer about methods and materials stop and think.

Having stopped and (46) , I find myself giving a single reply to both of the above objections: Language teachers are simply not “mere.” They are neither mere technicians (47) mere improvisers. They are professionals who make their own decisions, informed by their own (48) but informed also by the findings of researchers and by the accumulated, distilled, crystallized experience of their peers.

Let me then suggest three questions that we might well ask about “method,” together with my proposed answers:

What is a “method”? A method is more concrete than (49) . An approach is a set of understandings about what is at stake in learning and also about the equipment, mechanical or neurological, that is at work in learning. At the same time, a method is more abstract than a teaching act, which is a one-time event that can be recorded on videotape and on the neurocortexes of learners.

Is it possible to evaluate or to profit from an approach without embodying it in some kind of (50) ? Possible, perhaps, to some limited degree, but not easy.

Is it possible to improvise teaching acts apart from some more or less conscious approach? Possible, perhaps, but rare.

“Method,” then, seems to occupy a strategic mid-position between approach and (51) . For this reason, whoever would either think usefully about teaching or would teach thoughtfully can profit from learning about methods.

_{(E. W. Stevick, Working with Teaching Methods)}

TEXT III

Important reasons for teaching kindness in schools

Most people have heard the phrase random acts of kindness, which refers to a selfless act of giving

resulting in the happiness of another person. Terms like this are increasing in popularity around the

world, as more people identify a deficiency in their lives that can only be fulfilled by altruism.

It seems we just can't get enough of those addictive feel good emotions and with good reason.

5 Scientific studies have shown that kindness has a great number of physical and emotional benefits,

and that children require a healthy dose of the warm and fuzzies in order to flourish as health, happy,

well-rounded individuals.

Patty O'Grady, PhD, is an expert in the area of neuroscience, emotional learning, and positive

psychology with special attention to the educational arena. She believes that kindness changes the brain

10 by the experience of kindness. Children and adolescents do not learn kindness by only thinking about it and

talking about it. Kindness is best learned by feeling it so that they can reproduce it. Kindness is an emotion that

students feel and empathy is a strength that they share.

A great number of benefits have been reported to support the theory of teaching kindness in schools:

1. Happy Children

15 Science explains that the good feelings we experience when being kind are produced by endorphins

that activate areas of the brain that are associated with pleasure, social connection and trust, and it's

proven that these feelings of joyfulness are contagious, encouraging more kind behaviour by the giver

and recipient.

2. Increased Peer Acceptance

20 Research on the subject has determined that kindness increases our ability to form meaningful

connections with others. Studies show that kind, happy children enjoy greater peer acceptance

because they are well-liked and that better than average mental health is reported in classrooms that

practice more inclusive behaviour due to an even distribution of popularity.

3. Improved Health and Less Stress

25 It's widely documented that being kind can trigger a release of the hormone oxytocin which has a

number of physical and mental health benefits as it can significantly increase a person's level of

happiness and reduce stress. More recently though, it's been found it plays a significant role in the

cardiovascular system, helping protect the heart by lowering blood pressure and reducing free

radicals and inflammation, which incidentally speed up the aging process.

30 4. Greater Sense of Belonging and Improved Self Esteem

Studies show that people experience a 'helpers high' when they do a good deed, a rush of endorphins

that creates a lasting sense of pride, wellbeing and an enriched sense of belonging. Even small acts of

kindness are reported to heighten our sense of wellbeing, increase energy and give a wonderful

feeling of optimism and self worth.

35 5. Increased Feelings of Gratitude

When children are part of projects that help others less fortunate than themselves, it provides them

with a real sense of perspective and helps them appreciate the good things in their own lives.

6. Better Concentration and Improved Results

As it increases serotonin, which plays an important part in learning, memory, mood, sleep, health and

40 digestion, kindness is a key ingredient that helps children feel good. Having a positive outlook allows

them greater attentions spans and enables more creative thinking to produce better results at school.

7. Less Bullying

Two Penn State Harrisburg faculty researchers, Shanetia Clark and Barbara Marinak say, unlike

previous generations, today's adolescents are victimizing each other at alarming rates. They argue adolescent

45 bullying and youth violence can be confronted through in-school programs that integrate kindness the

antithesis of victimization.

Many traditional anti-bullying programs focus on the negative actions that cause children anxiety and

often with little impact. Teaching kindness and compassion in schools, not only fosters the positive

behaviour that creates warm and inclusive school environments, but helps children feel that they

50 belong. It's documented that the effects of bullying can be significantly reduced by integrating

kindness based programs in schools.

8. Reduced Depression

Dr. Wayne Dyer, internationally renowned author and speaker, says research has discovered that an

act of kindness increases levels of serotonin (a natural chemical responsible for improving mood) in

55 the brain. It's also found that serotonin levels are increased in both the giver and receiver of an act of

kindness, as well as anyone who witnesses that kindness, making it a wonderful natural

antidepressant.

Maurice Elias, a professor at Rutgers University Psychology Department says that as a citizen,

grandparent, father, and professional, it is clear to me that the mission of schools must include teaching kindness.

60 Without it, communities, families, schools, and classrooms become places of incivility where lasting learning is

unlikely to take place.

We need to be prepared to teach kindness, because it can be delayed due to maltreatment early in life. It can be

smothered under the weight of poverty, and it can be derailed by victimization later in life. Yet despite these and

other travails, the receipt of kindness and the ability to show kindness through service are both growth enhancing

65 and soul cleansing.

Kindness can be taught, and it is a defining aspect of civilized human life. It belongs in every home, school,

neighborhood, and society.

It's become quite clear that modern education must encompass more than just academics, that in order

for children to develop into happy, confident, well-rounded individuals, matters of the heart must be

70 taken seriously and nurtured as a matter of priority.

Disponível em: <http://edarticle.com/8-important-reasons-for-teaching-kindness-in-schools/>. Acesso em: 15 set. 2016.

TEXT III

Important reasons for teaching kindness in schools

Most people have heard the phrase random acts of kindness, which refers to a selfless act of giving

resulting in the happiness of another person. Terms like this are increasing in popularity around the

world, as more people identify a deficiency in their lives that can only be fulfilled by altruism.

It seems we just can't get enough of those addictive feel good emotions and with good reason.

5 Scientific studies have shown that kindness has a great number of physical and emotional benefits,

and that children require a healthy dose of the warm and fuzzies in order to flourish as health, happy,

well-rounded individuals.

Patty O'Grady, PhD, is an expert in the area of neuroscience, emotional learning, and positive

psychology with special attention to the educational arena. She believes that kindness changes the brain

10 by the experience of kindness. Children and adolescents do not learn kindness by only thinking about it and

talking about it. Kindness is best learned by feeling it so that they can reproduce it. Kindness is an emotion that

students feel and empathy is a strength that they share.

A great number of benefits have been reported to support the theory of teaching kindness in schools:

1. Happy Children

15 Science explains that the good feelings we experience when being kind are produced by endorphins

that activate areas of the brain that are associated with pleasure, social connection and trust, and it's

proven that these feelings of joyfulness are contagious, encouraging more kind behaviour by the giver

and recipient.

2. Increased Peer Acceptance

20 Research on the subject has determined that kindness increases our ability to form meaningful

connections with others. Studies show that kind, happy children enjoy greater peer acceptance

because they are well-liked and that better than average mental health is reported in classrooms that

practice more inclusive behaviour due to an even distribution of popularity.

3. Improved Health and Less Stress

25 It's widely documented that being kind can trigger a release of the hormone oxytocin which has a

number of physical and mental health benefits as it can significantly increase a person's level of

happiness and reduce stress. More recently though, it's been found it plays a significant role in the

cardiovascular system, helping protect the heart by lowering blood pressure and reducing free

radicals and inflammation, which incidentally speed up the aging process.

30 4. Greater Sense of Belonging and Improved Self Esteem

Studies show that people experience a 'helpers high' when they do a good deed, a rush of endorphins

that creates a lasting sense of pride, wellbeing and an enriched sense of belonging. Even small acts of

kindness are reported to heighten our sense of wellbeing, increase energy and give a wonderful

feeling of optimism and self worth.

35 5. Increased Feelings of Gratitude

When children are part of projects that help others less fortunate than themselves, it provides them

with a real sense of perspective and helps them appreciate the good things in their own lives.

6. Better Concentration and Improved Results

As it increases serotonin, which plays an important part in learning, memory, mood, sleep, health and

40 digestion, kindness is a key ingredient that helps children feel good. Having a positive outlook allows

them greater attentions spans and enables more creative thinking to produce better results at school.

7. Less Bullying

Two Penn State Harrisburg faculty researchers, Shanetia Clark and Barbara Marinak say, unlike

previous generations, today's adolescents are victimizing each other at alarming rates. They argue adolescent

45 bullying and youth violence can be confronted through in-school programs that integrate kindness the

antithesis of victimization.

Many traditional anti-bullying programs focus on the negative actions that cause children anxiety and

often with little impact. Teaching kindness and compassion in schools, not only fosters the positive

behaviour that creates warm and inclusive school environments, but helps children feel that they

50 belong. It's documented that the effects of bullying can be significantly reduced by integrating

kindness based programs in schools.

8. Reduced Depression

Dr. Wayne Dyer, internationally renowned author and speaker, says research has discovered that an

act of kindness increases levels of serotonin (a natural chemical responsible for improving mood) in

55 the brain. It's also found that serotonin levels are increased in both the giver and receiver of an act of

kindness, as well as anyone who witnesses that kindness, making it a wonderful natural

antidepressant.

Maurice Elias, a professor at Rutgers University Psychology Department says that as a citizen,

grandparent, father, and professional, it is clear to me that the mission of schools must include teaching kindness.

60 Without it, communities, families, schools, and classrooms become places of incivility where lasting learning is

unlikely to take place.

We need to be prepared to teach kindness, because it can be delayed due to maltreatment early in life. It can be

smothered under the weight of poverty, and it can be derailed by victimization later in life. Yet despite these and

other travails, the receipt of kindness and the ability to show kindness through service are both growth enhancing

65 and soul cleansing.

Kindness can be taught, and it is a defining aspect of civilized human life. It belongs in every home, school,

neighborhood, and society.

It's become quite clear that modern education must encompass more than just academics, that in order

for children to develop into happy, confident, well-rounded individuals, matters of the heart must be

70 taken seriously and nurtured as a matter of priority.

Disponível em: <http://edarticle.com/8-important-reasons-for-teaching-kindness-in-schools/>. Acesso em: 15 set. 2016.

Instructions: Question are based on the following text.

Source: http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=124967