Atividade de consolidação 01_ Revisão da tentativa

Prévia do material em texto

21/11/21, 13:13 Atividade de consolidação 01: Revisão da tentativa
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=114529&cmid=47905 1/7
PAINEL > MINHAS TURMAS > 2021_2 - INGLES INSTRUMENTAL II - METATURMA > UNIDADES INTRODUTÓRIA E 1
> ATIVIDADE DE CONSOLIDAÇÃO 01
Iniciado em sábado, 20 Nov 2021, 21:07
Estado Finalizada
Concluída em sábado, 20 Nov 2021, 21:21
Tempo
empregado
14 minutos 19 segundos
Notas 30,00/30,00
Avaliar 4,00 de um máximo de 4,00(100%)
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/my/
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/course/view.php?id=11967
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/course/view.php?id=11967&section=4
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/view.php?id=47905
21/11/21, 13:13 Atividade de consolidação 01: Revisão da tentativa
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=114529&cmid=47905 2/7
Questão 1
Correto
Atingiu 18,00 de 18,00
Research papers
Research papers are generally written for scientists working in the same field and therefore have a more limited, and more specialised, readership than articles.
Research papers can appear in specialist journals or be presented at conferences.
The structure of a research paper
Usually, a research paper follows a quite similar pattern, the so-called IMRAD format – an acronym for Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion (Day and
Gastel, 2006). Each main section is structured to address certain questions, and together they shape a critical argument. Happily, this fairly rigid structure
usually makes scientific writing easier, not more difficult. Each element is further described and explained in the next sections.
Introduction
What is the problem, and why should anyone care? In other words, why was this work done? Deal with these questions briefly, interestingly, and as simply as
possible. A well-written introduction should persuade colleagues and even non-specialists to begin reading the paper’s text after their attention has been
attracted by the title, abstract, tables, and figures.
A three-part introduction works well. First state the general field of interest. Concisely present what is already known about the subject of your investigation,
referencing the most important publications. Don’t try to mention everything, unless you are writing a review article or a thesis. One to three paragraphs should
be enough for most journal articles.
Next, present others’ findings that will be challenged or expanded. Explain how you are hoping to extend or modify what is already known or believed. Provide
support for your argument.
Finally, specify the question that the paper addresses, and how it does so. This sentence is often phrased in hypothesis form. Indicate your experimental
approach. Point out what is new and important about your work. When appropriate, briefly summarize the answer(s) you found.
Materials and methods
This section may have any of several names. Materials and/or Methods, Experimental Design, Protocol, and Procedure are some of the common ones.
Sometimes it is divided into separately titled subsections, as well. Overall, it answers a simple question – how was the evidence obtained?
Begin by listing the supplies that were necessary for your work, including both animate materials such as experimental animals and inanimate ones such as
chemicals. Explicitly note that use of animals and human subjects conformed to the legal requirements for the country in which the research was conducted.
Next, specify what was done, and for what purpose. Chronological order is a common way to proceed through this segment. Alternatively, parallel the sequence
in which you present results. A flowchart may be useful for readers. Conclude with a discussion of any statistical procedures employed (but not the tests’
outcomes, which belong in Results).
The key to a successful Methods section is to include the right amount of detail – too much, and it begins to sound like a laboratory manual; too little, and no one
can determine what you actually did. For publication of a new discovery to be “valid” or scientifically accepted, it must appear in a form so that a reader could
repeat the experiment. However, this really means not just any reader, but a trained investigator with considerable experience. Once again, it is important to
know one’s audience. As an additional guide, frequently refer to examples published in your chosen journal.
If you have followed a widely known method, simply name the principles on which it is based and cite the original publication or recent textbooks or handbooks
that give full details. If you made changes to a published procedure, describe only the changes and reference the rest. Only if you have employed an entirely
new process or technique must you describe it in full. In this last instance, you may wish to test the adequacy of your description by asking a colleague to do an
experiment while following the technique as your text describes it.
Results
This section should be relatively easy. What was found or seen? Decide on a logical order for presentation (see Table 2.1). Present the results that have a
bearing on the question you are examining, but do not interpret them here unless your journal combines Results and Discussion. Exclude irrelevant findings, but
never omit valid results that appear to contradict your hypothesis. Suppressing such data is unethical, but when presenting them you may explain why you feel
they are anomalous.
Tables and figures are usually an integral part of this section. Don’t use the text to parrot the information they contain. Readers can see the data for themselves.
Instead, point out salient features and note relationships between the various results.
21/11/21, 13:13 Atividade de consolidação 01: Revisão da tentativa
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=114529&cmid=47905 3/7
Discussion and conclusions
What do your findings mean? Why are they important? Discussion and Conclusions sections exist to answer these questions. Often combined with each other
and sometimes with the Results as well, these sections generally parallel the organization used in earlier sections of the paper.
Your task here is to interpret your results against a background of existing knowledge. Explain what is new in your work, and why it matters. Discuss both the
limitations and the implications of your results, and relate your observations to other relevant studies. State new hypotheses (clearly labeled as such) when they
are warranted. Include recommendations when appropriate.
When writing this section, watch for symptoms of megalomania. Avoid exaggerated or extravagant claims for your work. Carefully distinguish between facts and
speculation. Be wary about extrapolating your results to other species or conditions. Rein in the natural human tendency to want to point out the shortcomings of
another investigator’s report. Indicate what the next steps might be to resolve any apparent conflicts. Frankly admit anomalies. Discuss any possible errors or
limitations in your methods and assumptions. And finally, don’t stack in so many alternative hypotheses to explain the results that readers become buried in the
pile. Hailman and Strier (1997) state that as a general rule, the discussion should never be the longest section in a paper.
Excerpt from: Matthews, J & Matthews, R. Successful Scientific Writing. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Match the following information to the parts in which they are found:
( I ) Introduction
( M) Materials and Methods
( R) Results
( D) Discussion
 It should contain enough information so as to allow other researchers to replicate the study.
 Limitations of your research are presented.
 It has a persuasive function.
 It should be related to the research question.
 It describes how evidence was obtained.
 It relates the study’s results to other published studies.
 It states what you intend to discover or challenge.
 A flowchart may be used.
 It should have 3 parts.
 Ideas for further researchare presented.
 It may present events in a chronological order.
 Facts are distinguished from speculation.
 It contains tables and figures.
 It contains your research question.
M
D
I
R
M
D
I
M
I
D
M
D
R
I
21/11/21, 13:13 Atividade de consolidação 01: Revisão da tentativa
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=114529&cmid=47905 4/7
 It has several names.
 It presents the result.
 It presents an interpretation of the results.
 It presents what is known about the subject.
M
R
D
I
Correto
Notas para este envio: 18,00/18,00.
21/11/21, 13:13 Atividade de consolidação 01: Revisão da tentativa
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=114529&cmid=47905 5/7
Questão 2
Correto
Atingiu 11,00 de 11,00
The following excerpts are from the following article: Merchavy, S. et al. Method of placental removal during cesarean delivery and
postpartum complications.International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. (2007) 98, 232–236.
Match the excerpts to the parts they were taken from.
 
( I ) Introduction
( M) Materials and Methods
( R) Results
( D) Discussion
 An ongoing debate in the literature surrounds the presence or absence of a difference in efficacy and the extent of postoperative
complications between these two methods. To date, there is no unanimity or uniform protocol for the excision of the placenta during CD.
 It was hypothesized that the removal of the placenta by manual method would yield higher rates of infections as compared to the
spontaneous method. The study was aimed to determine whether the method of placental removal at the time of the cesarean delivery is
associated with postpartum complications such as postpartum fever and wound infection.
 Four hundred and twenty two consecutive women that underwent CD in the Soroka University MedicalCenter between January
2004 and March 2005 were included in the study.
 During the hospitalization the progress of the surgical wound's healing was recorded as were the hemoglobin and any rise in
temperature.
 It can be seen that the risk for surgical wound infection is increased in a direct relation with the number of previous CD. The
explanation for this is the prolonged duration of surgery in woman who have undergone previous CD due to adhesions and scar tissue in the
area of the uterus.
 During the dictation of surgical note immediately following the CD, the medical secretaries inquired about the recorded method of
placental removal employed. The remaining data were taken from the discharge summaries for each group of woman using a data collection
form.
 Clinical and demographics characteristics of the mothers with and without fever after CD are presented in Table 1.
 This study shows that the method of placental removal leads to no significant difference in risk for the development of
postoperative fever or infection. Thus, it is not clear whether there is a place for a universal protocol for placental extraction. This demands
further randomized controlled studies before a final conclusion can be reached, although it seems that spontaneous removal might be
beneficial.
 No significant correlation was found between the method for placental removal during CD and postoperative fever.
 Wound infection was found in 3.7% of women who had the manual method for removal of the placenta, and in 5.1% of women
who had the placental removal by the spontaneous method.
 In the present study no statistically significant difference was found in the rate of fever or postoperative wound infection when the
two methods for placenta removal, the manual and the spontaneous, were compared. Likewise, several articles have shown that there is no
difference in risk for fever or wound infection following surgery between the two methods for placental removal.
I
I
M
M
D
M
R
D
R
R
D
Correto
Notas para este envio: 11,00/11,00.
21/11/21, 13:13 Atividade de consolidação 01: Revisão da tentativa
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=114529&cmid=47905 6/7
Questão 3
Correto
Atingiu 1,00 de 1,00
The following excerpts are from the following article: WANG, J. et al. School Bullying Among Adolescents in the United States: Physical, Verbal,
Relational, and Cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health. 45 (2009) 368–375.
Match the excerpts to the information they provide:
There were several limitations to this study. First, the cross-sectional nature of
the survey limits the ability to make causal conclusions. Longitudinal studies
are needed to confirm the predictive effects of parental support and number of
friends on bullying.

There is no doubt that parenting and friendships play important roles for
understanding adolescent bullying. However, no studies have examined their
roles across different forms of bullying, particularly cyber bullying. 
The current study examined four forms of in-school bullying, with two main
purposes: (1) to explore gender, age, racial, and SES differences in prevalence
of each form of bullying among adolescents in grades 6 through 10; and (2) to
examine the roles of parental support and number of friends on each form.

The negative relations between having more friends and victimization in
physical, verbal, and relational forms supports the ‘‘friendship protection
hypothesis’’ suggesting that friendship protects adolescents from being
selected as targets of bullies [15,23].

Previous studies have found that boys have a higher prevalence of bullying
perpetration than girls and bullying behavior tends to peak in middle school
and then decrease [5]. 
The positive relation between having more friends and bullying in the three
traditional forms is consistent with previously reported lower social isolation in
bullies [16]. 
When examining the combined measures of bullying and victimization, we
found that the prevalence of involvement in bullying others, being bullied, or
both, was 20.8% for physical, 
53.6% for verbal, 51.4% for relational, and 13.6% for cyber (Table 3).

The items assessing physical, verbal, and relational bullying were based on the
revised Olweus Bully/ Victim Questionnaire [20]. For each item, two parallel
questions asked how often participants had either bullied others (bullying) or
been bullied (victimization) in the past 2 months at school.

Limitations of the research are presented.
It states what was intended to discover or challenge.
It states the research question.
It presents an interpretation of the results.
It presents what is known about the subject.
It relates the study’s results to other published studies.
The results are presented.
It describes how data were collected.
A resposta correta é: There were several limitations to this study. First, the cross-sectional nature of the survey limits the ability to make causal
conclusions. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the predictive effects of parental support and number of friends on bullying. →
Limitations of the research are presented., There is no doubt that parenting and friendships play important roles for understanding
adolescent bullying. However, no studies have examined their roles across different forms of bullying, particularly cyber bullying. → It states
what was intended to discover or challenge., The current study examined four forms of in-school bullying, with two main purposes: (1) to
explore gender, age, racial, and SES differences in prevalence of each form of bullying among adolescents in grades 6 through 10; and (2) to
examine the roles of parental support and number of friends on each form. → It states the research question., The negative relations between
having more friends and victimization in physical, verbal, and relational forms supports the ‘‘friendship protection hypothesis’’ suggesting
that friendship protects adolescents from being selected as targets of bullies [15,23]. → It presents an interpretation of the results., Previous
studies have found that boys have a higher prevalenceof bullying perpetration than girls and bullying behavior tends to peak in middle
school and then decrease [5]. → It presents what is known about the subject., The positive relation between having more friends and bullying
in the three traditional forms is consistent with previously reported lower social isolation in bullies [16]. → It relates the study’s results to other
published studies., When examining the combined measures of bullying and victimization, we found that the prevalence of involvement in
bullying others, being bullied, or both, was 20.8% for physical, 
53.6% for verbal, 51.4% for relational, and 13.6% for cyber (Table 3). → The results are presented., The items assessing physical, verbal, and
relational bullying were based on the revised Olweus Bully/ Victim Questionnaire [20]. For each item, two parallel questions asked how often
participants had either bullied others (bullying) or been bullied (victimization) in the past 2 months at school. → It describes how data were
collected..
Correto
Notas para este envio: 1,00/1,00.
21/11/21, 13:13 Atividade de consolidação 01: Revisão da tentativa
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=114529&cmid=47905 7/7
◄ Unidade 1 :: Aula 5
Seguir para...
Atividade de consolidação 02 ►
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/view.php?id=47904&forceview=1
https://virtual.ufmg.br/20212/mod/quiz/view.php?id=47906&forceview=1