Wanna help me out writing your collaboration? Let’s create a collaborative writing project?

Here you are a short text I wrote about LIFE. in which you can collaborate with your own ideas:

http://123.writeboard.com/5b5c60c1ef6dd3904

and the password is LUV

See you there

Cheers

THIEDU

Dear Ones,

Be sure not to miss it, great lecturers will be there!

Also, I’m presenting about the web 2.0 – not just about blogging, but about how to get the best out of it:

The title is:

Are you fed (up) by the net 2.0?

Feeds, RSS, podcasts, torrents, Digg, de.li.ci.ous, twitter, teacher tube: is the net 2.0 feeding your up properly? Are you i-Tuned to the latest revolution in electronic gadgets and to the best EFL teacher-friendly websites? Want to learn how to set up a blog project? Come and learn how to get the best out of the net 2.0 and how not to lose hours looking for appealing and unique websites to use in class even if you don’t have internet access in your classroom.

See you then!

Thiago Eduardo

Excuse me to speak in Portuguese:

Why English is simpler than Portuguese? – Part I – Masculine and Feminine

Vamos falar de pessoas, no masculino e na feminina… (Sei, sei! Não é feminina, é feminino, adjetivo masculino para “mulheres”. Muito bom, hein!) Pois bem, imagine a seguinte situação: Eu e um colega acabamos de ver dois homens conversarem animadamente e vamos comentar esse fato “extraordinário” com outra pessoa. O meu amigo relata: “Michael e eu vimos duas pessoas conversarem. Elas estavam conversando animadas”. Mas eu sei que eram (foram?) dois homens; portanto, a minha tendência será dizer: “Vi duas pessoas conversarem. Eles estavam conversando animadamente”. Errado, Michael! Eram pessoas, duas pessoas. Assim, o correto é (a minha verificação ortográfica está querendo que eu escreva “são elas”, mas não é isso que quero dizer – você me entende?) elas. Não obstante o que você queira, as regras do português não vão se curvar às suas vontades.

Outro dia, quase escrevi “uma mapa”. A tentação foi (ou era?) grande, mas me contive a tempo. (Ou é “em tempo”? Em inglês, é in time.)

Uma das primeiras regras que aprendemos a respeito do português é que os substantivos são masculinos ou femininos. Depois de passada a surpresa ou choque inicial, nós nos conformamos (“conformamos-nos?”) com essa realidade cruel. Em português, há sexo em todas as coisas. (Quisera eu ter tanto!) “Mesa” é mulher! “Piso” é homem! E ai de nós, curiosos e curiosas, se perguntamos por que é assim. Para nós, simples falantes de inglês, questões de sexo são reservadas às coisas obviamente masculinas (eu, por exemplo) e femininas (Julia Roberts e Cameron Diaz). Os pronomes she e he, os possessivos hers e his, os objetos her e him e… acabou-se. Em inglês, nós nos referimos ao sexo dos homens, das mulheres, dos gatos, cachorros e outros bichos do reino animal e pronto: esgotaram-se aí as questões masculinas e femininas. Mas, com o português, não: a questão está (estar?) apenas começando.

Bom, a duras penas, mas com muita (muito?) boa vontade, aprendemos e aceitamos que as coisas têm gênero. Uma das primeiras coisas que aprendemos é que as palavras que terminam com “o” são masculinas e que as que terminam com “a” são femininas. Mas aí vem alguém e diz: “Bom dia”. Como assim? Não deveria ser “Boa dia” ou “Bom dio”? Mas, como ia dizendo, aprendemos que os adjetivos em português vêm após o substantivo (mas, é claro, nem sempre), ao passo que em inglês vêm antes. Sim, posso arriscar: sempre. Em português, além de engolir esse fato, precisamos aprender a lidar com as exceções. É “bom dia” mesmo (mas tivemos um dia bom no trabalho hoje), e não é “minha guarda-roupa”, mas “meu guarda-roupa”. Porque “guarda-roupa” é substantivo masculino. E “dia”, quem diria, também.

Eu me lembrei de um diálogo engraçado que, volta e meia, tenho com os meus filhos, em casa.

Filho(a): “Pai, cadê a minha camiseta?”
Eu: “Estar na minha guarda-roupa”.
Correção do filho(a): “Na minha não, no meu”.
Eu: “Na seu não, na minha”.

Juro que esse tipo de diálogo é comum. Posso perguntar, ou pelo menos perguntava quando tinha mais cabelo (por que não cabelos, se em inglês hairs significa “fios” de cabelo?): “Alguém viu minha pente?” Posso dizer “Recebi uma telefonema de fulano”? Não só posso, como de fato faço (faço-o?; o faço?; faço o?) com freqüência, e não me sinto constrangido em (ou ao?) admitir isso. Desculpe-me, mas, apesar de tanto tempo aqui, ainda sou bem capaz de errar o sexo dos artigos e dos substantivos. Para mim, não há lógica atrás da escolha. Afinal, não aprendi naturalmente quando era criança; não foi algo que aprendi no colo da minha mãe. (Mas nem tudo está perdido: ela me ajudou bastante com o inglês.)

Há várias maneiras de aprender e decorar as coisas. Tive dificuldade de lembrar a diferença entre um lenço e um lençol, por exemplo, até que um colega de trabalho me fez perceber que eu não dormia num lenço, nem usava lençol para secar as mãos, e aí ele me disse: “Michael, é fácil. É só lembrar que um lenço tem cinco letras e um lençol – que é maior – tem seis”. Nunca mais esqueci.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/webcast/index.shtml


Who on Earth are we? is a series about culture and how it affects us. It explores some of the major differences between cultures and looks at what happens when people from different cultures meet and communicate. The series is presented by Marc Beeby.
Part 3
Language and culture: Marc Beeby looks at language as one of the building blocks of culture and discovers that we don’t all describe the world in the same way.

• Listen online
• Download mp3 (3.8 MB)
• Download script (46 K)

Download or subscribe to this programme’s podcast

Previous Programmes
Part 2
What is culture? In this programme Marc Beeby tries to answer this question and discover just why culture is so difficult to define and talk about.

• Listen online
• Download mp3 (3.8 MB)
• Download script (46 K)

Part 1
In this first episode of Who on Earth are we? Marc Beeby introduces the topic of culture and inter-cultural communication. We hear some anecdotes relating to cross-cultural surprises and discover that the more we learn about other cultures, the more we learn about ourselves.

• Listen online
• Download mp3 (3.5 MB)
• Download script (46 K)

• Talk About English: Better Speaking
• Talk About English discussion programmes

 Welcome to your weekly podcast!

My name is Thiago Eduardo, I’m an EFL teacher in Brasilia, Brazil and my students and I have decided to start our weekly podcast talking about current affairs, jokes and any and everything we want! Here you are our pilot podcast, so that you can get to know a bit more about ourselves!

I’m quite sure we’ll have a blast doing these programmes and you out there will enjoy it as well! If you are listening, send us a feedback!

 Podcast programme #1

… in the same city

Just click on the pic in different places and enjoy yourself!

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/flash/cntower_timelapse.swf

from the series

 ”separar o joio do trigo”

to separate/sort the wheat from the chaff 

or

to sort out the sheep from the goats 

this is the motto of the film I talked about in class – of a woman genius.

IN A NUTSHELL:

A former student (Jake Gyllenhaal) of a recently deceased, brilliant mathematician (Anthony Hopkins) finds a notebook in his office containing a proof of an important theorem, but the mathematician’s 27-year-old daughter (Gwyneth Paltrow) claims it is hers. The ensuing dispute is complicated by a burgeoning romance and signs that she may have inherited her father’s mental illness.

TRAILER:

IN A NUTSHELL:

The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. These intelligences are:

A TV programme on HOWARD GARDNER’s THEORY:

Decoding the multiple intelligences

A slideshare file on the multiple intelligence theory:

If you have the time, more on the theory:

Howard Gardner initially formulated a list of seven intelligences. His listing was provisional. The first two are ones that have been typically valued in schools; the next three are usually associated with the arts; and the final two are what Howard Gardner called ‘personal intelligences’ (Gardner 1999: 41-43).

Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that Howard Gardner sees as having high linguistic intelligence.

Logical-mathematical intelligence consists of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. In Howard Gardner’s words, in entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking.

Musical intelligence involves skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms. According to Howard Gardner musical intelligence runs in an almost structural parallel to linguistic intelligence.

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails the potential of using one’s whole body or parts of the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements. Howard Gardner sees mental and physical activity as related.

Spatial intelligence involves the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas.

Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others. Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence.

Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one’s feelings, fears and motivations. In Howard Gardner’s view it involves having an effective working model of ourselves, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives.

In Frames of Mind Howard Gardner treated the personal intelligences ‘as a piece’. Because of their close association in most cultures, they are often linked together. However, he still argues that it makes sense to think of two forms of personal intelligence. Gardner claimed that the seven intelligences rarely operate independently. They are used at the same time and tend to complement each other as people develop skills or solve problems.

source: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

more on wikipedia

What’s your take on this theory? Do you think it’s really groundbreaking or it maybe an excuse for people who don’t have or don’t want to develop their abilities to say: I have a different kind of intelligence?