MSU LIBRARIES m... RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drob to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF CONSULTATION TO IMPROVE COLLEGE INSTRUCTION By Deborah A. Orban A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education Educational Systems Development 1981 I I! v’ / .‘ - ‘ TY) J ‘ \‘_ C) Copyright by Deborah A. Orban 198l ABSTRACT AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF CONSULTATION TO IMPROVE COLLEGE INSTRUCTION By Deborah A. Orban Recent research on teaching has led to fuller understanding of social interactive aspects of teaching and mental processes that guide teacher decision making. These findings prompted development of an instructional improvement consultation process to utilize them and reduce limitations of college teaching improvement approaches. The purpose of this study'was to describe and analyze the dynamics of consultation by examining activities and negotiations that occurred during enactment of the Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning (CAP) process. An instruc- tional developer, four university faculty clients, and student volunteers from their classes participated in the study. The results constitute a descriptive account of the process and its dynamics. The inquiry employed ethnography, ethnomethodology, and sociolin- guistic methods. The holistic, interactive, and iterative process examined consultation on several levels. Broad questions about events comprising the CAP process were addressed through reviews of audiotapes of the consultations, participant interview and questionnaires, and observa- tions of sessions. From these data, narrative descriptions, four brief case studies, and an evaluation report were constructed. More specific questions about tasks and social dynamics were addressed through audio- tape analyses and participant interviews. These were combined with discourse and conversational analyses to develop grounded theory of the cognitive-social-interactive process of teaching improvement consultation using CAP. A series of conclusions and implications were integrated to con- struct the descriptive model. These conclusions presented CAP as a potential learning event in which instructor values and reflection play central rofles. The joint problem solving process was described as a collaborative venture with specific, rule-governed procedures and as an instructional analysis that demanded and was enriched by' multiple perspectives and interpretations. The collaboration and negotiations during problem solving were the basis for the evolving relationship between the instructor and the developer. This fluid conceptualization represents an alternative to the relatively static relationship reported throughout instructional development literature. The source of motiva- tion was theorized to arise from balanced emphasis on teacher strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the change process was initiated through the cognitive-social-interactive dynamic which generated expanded models of the teaching-learning process. Recommendations for using the CAP process were also presented. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This writer wishes to express her appreciation to the many persons who have contributed to the design, development and exe- cution of this study. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Christopher M. Clark, the director of the dissertation study, for his guidance and advice, and to Drs. Allan J. Abedor, Lawrence W. Lezotte and Stephen L. Yelon for their assistance and insightful suggestions. Sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Susan Florio and Arly Anang for their encouragement during the preparation of this document. Gratitude is also extended to the instructional developer and faculty who participated in this study. A special thank you goes to my husband for his patience and support while this dissertation was in progress. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................... LIST OF FIGURES ........................ CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ............. Introduction ......................... Background .......................... Statement of the Problem ................... Scope of the Investigation .................. Assumptions ......................... Summary . .......................... CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............... Introduction ......................... Limitations of Teaching Improvement Strategies ........ The Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning Process . . . . Introduction ........................ Qualitative Theoretic Base in Research on Teaching ..... Ethnographic Approach ................... Research on Teacher Thinking ................ Teacher.Confrontation Using Video Technology ........ Summary .......................... CHAPTER III. THE INQUIRY PROCESS ............... Overview of the Research Process ............... Research Questions ...................... The Participants and the Setting . .............. Sources of Data ....................... Audio-Recordings of the Sessions .............. Participant Interviews ................... Questionnaire ....................... Developer Interviews .................... Audio-Review Sessions and Verification Interviews ..... Summary Letter ....................... Analysis and Interpretation ................. CHAPTER IV. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA ...... Narrative Overview of the CAP Process ............ iv Initial Contact and Interview ............... Classroom Observation and Observational Notes ....... Videotape of Class Session ................. Instructor Videotape Review Session ............ Student Videotape Review Session .............. Review and Planning Session ................ Summary Case Studi Letter ....................... es of Four Enactments of the CAP Process ...... Instructor One ....................... Instructor TWO ....................... Instructor Three ...................... Instructor Four ...................... Instructor Evaluations of the CAP Experience ......... Introduction ........................ Results and Interpretations ................ Summary OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Micro-Analysis ........................ Introduction ........................ Social I nteracti on Framework ................ Discourse Analysis: Introduction ............. Discourse Analysis: Findings and Interpretations ..... Social Organizational Features ............... Nature of Task ....................... Summary Conversational Analysis: Introduction ........... Conversational Analysis: Findings and Interpretations . . . Summary CHAPTER V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ....... Findings of the Study .................... Broad Research Questions .................. Descriptive Overview of the CAP Process .......... Intermediate and Specific Research Questions ........ The Dynamics of the CAP Process .............. Conclusions and Implications ................. Recommendations for Users of the CAP Process ......... Limitations of the Study ................... Suggestions for Further Research ............... APPENDIX . . BIBLIOGRAPHY 166 168 168 I76 187 190 192 193 LIST OF TABLES Table Page l Degree of Verbal Participation During Instructor Review Sessions ............ 53 2 Degree of Verbal Participation During Student Review Sessions ............. 53 3 Categories of Instruction Variables Discussed During Review and Planning Session, Instructor 2 .............. 56 4 Categories of Instructional Variables . Discussed During Review and Planning Session, Instructor 3 .............. 57 5 Categories of Instructional Variables Discussed During Review and Planning Session, Instructor 4 .............. 58 6 Degree of Verbal Participation During Review and Planning Sessions ........... ‘ 59 7 Results of Instructor Responses to Post-CAP Questionnaire .............. 7l 8 Summary of Topic Phases and Instructional Variables .................... 93 9 Analysis of Behavioral Norms: Developer Courtesy ..................... lOl l0 Analysis of the Discourse in Establishing Conditions for Reflection ............ l22 ll Map of Instructor's Reflection Process During Problem Solving Exchanges ......... 125 l2 Analysis of Conversational Cooperation ....... I35 l3 Strategies Employed by Developer During the Review and Planning Session ......... T73 vi Figure LIST OF FIGURES Steps in the Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning (CAP) Process ........... Social-Organizational Features of the Review and Planning Session ............ vii 22 88 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction The primary purpose of this study was to explore and describe the dynamics of college teaching improvement consultation by examining the analyses and negotiations which occurred during the use of a specific developing consultation process, Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning (CAP). The CAP process represented a rational response to a number of limitations which exist within the) current approaches to instructional improvement. However, a full description and analysis of the process and its dynamics were required in order to determine how these limitations were reduced. The study utilized a practicing instructional developer, university faculty clients, and students. It documented and analyzed interchanges centered around the analysis of teacher behaviors videotaped during actual class sessions and plans for improving classroom instruction. The enactment of the CAP process was captured through audiotapes of consultant-client and consultant-student review and planning conferences. A series of interviews and questionnaires were used to collect evaluative data and to verify findings. The findings of this study report the results of the analysis of those audiotapes, interviews and questionnaires. They include recommendations for improvements to the process and its utilization in the hope that the quality of college instruction might be enhanced through its use. The research was conducted at Michigan State University during the academic year of 1980-81. The intent of this research was to broaden the 1 2 body of knowledge in college teaching improvement and to document a process which facilitated teaching improvement by providing consultants with an additional instructional systems analysis strategy. It repre- sents a reconceptualization of the client-consultant relationship as an evolving and negotiated interaction during which problem solving and social interaction strategies are employed by the participants in order to analyze the instructional system and derive meaningful improvement plans. Background of the Problem Research on college teaching has identified characteristics of effective teaching, such as enthusiasm, interesting (Wilson & Gaff, et al., 1975), systematic, based on principles of discovery and inquiry (Axelrod, 1973), utilizing the mastery model of instruction (Block & Burns, 1976), and involving student interaction (Centra & Rock, 1971; Wood & Wilson, 1972). These findings are largely the result of educational inquiry conducted in the quantitative tradition. Thus, they reflect the assumptions which underlie quantitative research and have taken a component approach which stresses individual presage, process, and product variables. These findings have also been necessarily defined and limited by the nature of research questions and methods dictated by the quantitative paradigm. Domination by this tradition has also influenced teaching improvement programs designed to assist college faculty in their roles as teachers. Such programs for teaching improvement have used research on teaching as their foundation. They were established in recognition that college faculty receive no specific training in preparation for teaching (Shoben, 1968) and in response to the current climate of retrenchment in institutions of higher education (Centra, 1976; Gaff, 1975; Astin, et al., 3 1974). This climate, caused by shifts and reductions in student enroll- ment, increased numbers of tenured faculty and reduced faculty mobility, has also contributed to an expansion in the scope of instructional improvement efforts (Berquist & Phillips, 1975). These efforts now seek to achieve improvement through changes in individual faculty members, courses, curricula, course materials, and policies within the insti- tution. However, within this comprehensive framework, a major focus continues to be on interventions directed toward behavior changes in the teacher (Levinson & Menges, 1980). These interventions have varied in form, in purpose, and in the manner in which they utilize research findings. They include newsletters, internal grants, workshops, seminars, microteaching laboratories, student ratings and individual consultation (Burris, 1979; Ericksen, 1979; Levinson & Menges, 1980). While there is some overlap in their functions, they can be grouped in three categories: the resource approach, the training approach, and the consultation approach. The resource approach is intended to facilitate change through the provision of information or financial support. Examples of this approach are newsletters distributed by improvement centers and internal grants awarded to faculty who propose improvement projects. Newsletters report new developments in college teaching and accomplishments of local faculty to reduce departmental provincialism and the isolation of classroom teachers (Ericksen, 1979). They are based on the assumption that college teachers have both willingness and ability to adapt ideas to their own teaching situation. Grants, on the other hand, are intended to create a climate for change (Davis, 1979) by providing the necessary dollars to individuals evidencing commitment to innovation and requisite skills to implement instructional change. The resource approach thus facilitates 4 instructional improvement by providing additional information or finances. It can operate most successfully when the conditions of adequate faculty commitment, skill, and ability to improve instruction independently, are met. Like the resource approach, the training approach also attempts to improve instruction by remedying a deficiency. In this case, the intent is to increase faculty skills and commitment to teaching. This approach includes seminars, workshops, and training programs. Workshops and seminars are programs designed to inform faculty about learning theory and college teaching practices, to encourage discussion and analysis of complex problems and issues, and to provide an opportunity to practice specific teaching skills (Burris, 1979). Annual reports from ten large universities indicate that the major topics of these programs include: goals, objectives and performance criteria, teaching and learning activities, material presentation and student characteristics (Burris, 1979). Training programs promote the use of specific teaching skills through the use of techniques adapted from preservice teacher education programs. Microteaching and its variations form the basis for many of these programs. They represent a process-product conception of teaching as a series of discrete components which combine to form the instructional process. The third approach for facilitating teacher change is individual consultation. Consultation is intended to provide direct assistance to the faculty member relating to the content, process, structure or evalu- ation of some instructional task. It involves a temporary relationship with the client during which information is gathered and processed in preparation for some action (Pilon & Berquist, 1979). Consultation offers the potential to focus on both the deficiencies and strengths of the 5 college teacher and to permit the client to assume an active role in determining the nature and scope of his or her behavior change. Consultation for instructional improvement, as it occurs in higher education, can be characterized as taking two distinct approaches. The first is instructional development consultation. This approach has been defined as the process of providing professional assistance in solving instructional problems (Bratton, 1979) and as a process of giving advice to clients while allowing them to make final decisions (Davies, 1973). This occurs within the context of instructional development, which is a systematic intervention into an on-going system for the purpose of instructional design, development, implementation and evaluation (Davies, 1973). There are three major models of instructional development consul- tation which determine the nature of the resulting client-consultant relationship. Davies (1973) identified these as the product, process, and product-process models. These are very similar to the puchase, doctor- patient, and process models described by Schein (1969). Limitations and weaknesses in these models have led Davies (1973) to recommend the use of the product-process model and Schein (1969) to favor process consul- tation. These two models are very similar and share a set of assumptions about the most effective type of client-consultant relationship. Davies describes these assumptions in the following way: The product-process orientated set of assump- tions concern themselves with the view that the most efficient and effective relationship comes from considering it as a process directed towards the achievement of some mutually agreed and valued instructional result in accord with the organiza- tion's mission. In other words, what is involved in the relationship is a system of decisions, reached by aggreement, concerning what is expected in terms of both results to be achieved and the changing roles to be exercised as advice is given and critically accepted. The relationship is essentially a dynamic 6 one, as compared with the static relationship assumed in the two previous models, continuously looks upon the relationship between the two parties as something to be managed and above all a relationship that is managed by the client. (p. 359) Although a series of theoretic models and heuristic guidelines have been posited (Davies, 1973; Havelock, 1973; Silber, 1973; Haney, Lange & Barson, 1968), very little is known about the actual practice of consul- tation for instructional improvement in higher education. The limited research in this area suggests that theoretic models are not adhered to in actual practice (Price, 1976) and that instructional improvement consul- tants tend to shift between product, process and process-product models (Rutt, 1979) with a marked tendency toward a prescriptive role (Price, 1976). Further, Price found that data collection leading to the identification and solution of instructional problems was limited to verbal exchanges between the client and consultant during the initial session. Class observation, student ratings or other data sources were not used. These findings were reiterated by Pilon and Berquist (1979), who reported that data collection, analysis, and feedback were the most frequently bypassed activites among those listed in their comprehensive ten stage consultation model. These findings clearly' suggest. that instructional improvement consultants tend to adopt a problem-orientation and base their analyses on a limited information exchange with clients. The second consultation approach, less widely used in higher educa- tion, is the clinical supervision model advocated by Cogan (1973) and Goldhammer (1969) for use with preservice and inservice elementary and secondary teachers. This approach, with modifications in the specificity of the models and roles of supervisory personnel, was used by graduate student supervisors at the now defunct Clinic to Improve University Teaching at the University of Massachusetts (Melnik & Sheehan, 1976). It 7 was intended to identify and remediate instructional weaknesses using teaching skills inventories derived from the microteaching literature (Allen & Ryan, 1969; Hildebrand, Wilson & Dienst, 1971) and the experience of the clinical supervisors. While a collaborative relationship between the supervisor and teacher and focus on both strengths and weaknesses of the teacher are the theoretical backbone of clinical supervision (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer, 1969), practice in higher education suggests that these goals have yet to be realized. Statement of the Problem From this brief review of interventions to produce teacher change, it is clear that a number of shortcomings exist which reduce the effective- ness of the entire teaching improvement enterprise. These shortcomings are the following: 1. Teaching has yet to be addressed as a dynamic and inter- active process. The cursory analysis of instructional systems practiced by consultants and reported in the literature (Price, 1976; Pilon & Berquist, 1979) precludes the possibility of a full consideration of teaching as a complex social interaction between an instructor and students. A more complete analysis has also been hampered by a lack of appropriate methodologies available to the consultant (Gallessich, 1974; Cooper, 1979) and the domina- tion of competing definitions of teaching (Gage, 1977). 2. The multiple data sources representing the viewpoints of the participants in the instructional system .have not been adequately represented in the analysis of the instructional system. Various interventions emphasize the teacher's, student's, or consultant's views, but none have fully combined the knowledge of all three to more completely analyze the inter-workings of the instructional system. 3. The strengths of the teacher have been neglected as points of departure for further improvement. Interventions have assumed a deficiency- or problem-orientation which empha- sizes remediation, rather than addressing both strengths and weaknesses. 8 4. The collaborative quality of decision-making, identified by social psychologists (Zimbardo & Ebbesen, 1970) and change theorists (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1973) as the decisive factor in the persistence of behavior change over time, has yet to be evidenced in the client-consultant relationship (Price, 1976). In light of the foregoing, what is needed is an intervention which follows a qualitative paradigm to examine teaching as a holistic, inter- active process. This requires data and interpretations from the relevant social actors that can be analyzed to identify strengths and weaknesses in the instructional system. Through a collaborative analysis process, the knowledge of the teacher and students can be combined with the consul- tant's expertise to reach accurate, data based statements of need and specific achievable goals. Such an intervention has been under develop- ment at Michigan State University (Cooper, 1980). Scope of the Investigation The primary purpose of this study was to explore and describe the nature of the analyses and negotiations which occurred during the enact- ment of the Collaborative Analysis and Action (CAP) process of teaching improvement consultation. The study utilized practicing instructional developer, four university faculty clients, and student volunteers from their classes. The inquiry process was based on methods of ethnography, ethnomethodology, and sociolinguistics. It was initiated in order to examine the process on several levels. Methods were chosen as the study progressed and were matched to questions as they were generated through the inquiry process. Broad questions about the events which comprised the CAP process were addressed through reviews of audiotapes of the consultation sessions, interviews and questionnaires completed by the participants, and observa- tions of review sessions. From these data, a narrative description of the 9 process, four brief case studies, and an evaluation report were constructed. The broad questions included the following: What are the elements of the CAP process? What are the stages? When do they occur?’ When asked to assess their experience as participants in the CAP consultation process, what are the faculty members' judgments about its usefulness? In what ways are teacher strengths emphasized during the process? What are the categories of instructional variables addressed during the consultations? More specific questions about the tasks and social dynamics of the consultations were addressed through audiotape analysis and participant review sessions. They were combined with discourse and conversational analysis techniques to develop a grounded theory of the social-cognitive- interactive process of teaching improvement consultation using the CAP model. The specific questions included the following: How is the CAP process enacted? What are the dynamics of the process? How are the perspectives of the client, students and consultant evidenced? How does the planning process occur? How is the developer able to engage the instructor in joint problem solving? How is commitment generated by the developer? In what ways is the instructor involved in the analysis and planning process? Are there specific skills and strategies employed by the developer during the consultation process? In what ways can the process be described as collaborative? Findings from the inquiry and analysis process were integrated to construct a descriptive model of the CAP process of teaching improvement consultation. 10 Assumptions Assumptions which underlie the naturalistic inquiry process employed in this study include the following: 1. In order to understand how people interact to accomplish goals within social events, those events must be studied as they naturally occur. 2. During social interactions, individuals interpret and assign meanings to behaviors in order to guide their own behavioral responses. 3. In order to understand the behaviors which occur during an interaction, the behaviors must be examined from the perspectives of the participants in the interaction. 4. The interpretations and meanings that individuals assign to events and behaviors can be discovered by examining the talk and actions of those individuals. 5. A holistic understanding of the event requires that an inductive, open-ended inquiry approach be taken to examine the event in its totality and within the context in which it occurs. Summary In the interest of achieving, maintaining and improving instruc- tional effectiveness, agencies have been established within higher education institutions and improvement efforts have been undertaken. These efforts have included a number of interventions which adopt a resource approach, a training approach, and a consultation approach. The resource approach includes newsletters, internal grants, and student ratings. It is intended to eliminate deficiencies in information and financial resources, thereby permitting faculty members to improve their teaching through the implementation of innovations. The training approach is also intended to reduce deficiencies by providing seminars, workshops and training programs which encourage the development of commitment and skills necessary for improving instruc- tional performance. 11 The third approach to changing teacher behavior is consultation between a: faculty-client and an instructional improvement specialist. While such consultation has the potential to provide extensive analysis of the instructional system, to identify strengths and assist in the remedia- tion of weaknesses, and to place the change process in the hands of the client through a collaborative relationship, research suggests that these goals are seldom realized (Price, 1976; Melnik & Sheehan, 1976). From this brief review of interventions to produce teacher change, it is clear that a number of shortcomings exist which reduce the effective- ness of the entire teaching improvement enterprise. The Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning (CAP) process has been proposed as a means of reducing these shortcomings. The purpose of this study was to examine the CAP process and to construct a descriptive model of the interactive dynamics of teaching improvement consultation. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The purpose of this study is to explore the nature of the information and negotiation process which arise during the analysis of college teaching using the CAP process within an instructional consultation intervention. The strategy employed in this review was to address the limitations of current teaching improvement interventions and to indicate how the CAP process might address those limitations. Thus, the first part of this review will offer evidence suggesting the importance of reducing each of the four major limitations identified in the background and statement of the problem. The second part of the review will present research related to the two major components of CAP: confrontation and the qualitative tradition in research on teaching. Limitations of Teaching Improvement Strategies Interventions to facilitate changes in college teacher behavior have been a major focus of teaching improvement programs in higher education. Resource, training, and consultation approaches have been based on knowledge of effective college teaching characteristics and practices. Since most of this research has been conducted in the quantitative tradition, the limitations of this paradigm have been shared by improve- ment interventions. Fer this and other reasons, four limitations in current practices exist. For each limitation, there is evidence that its reduction could contribute to the effectiveness of teaching improvement programs. 12 13 Limitation 1: Teaching is not Analyzed as a Dynamic and Interactive Process. In 1975, McKeachie concluded an extensive review of literature on college teacher effectiveness with a statement about the important role that student participation and interpersonal interactions play in teaching and learning. More recently, support for his statement has been forthcoming from three separate lines of inquiry. First, process-product research has provided increasing evidence for the Pygmalian effect established and maintained through differential patterns of teacher behavior, particularly when eliciting student responses and providing feedback (Brophy & Good, 1970, 1974; Evertson, Brophy & Good, 1973; Mendoza, Good & Brophy, 1969). In a complex reconceptualization of the phenomenon, Cooper and others (Cooper, 1979; Cooper, Burger & Seymour, 1979) have posited and tested a causal model which outlines the cognitive processes through which teacher expectations, communicated by teacher behavior, can sustain a given level of achievement in students. Second, research in the Carroll Model tradition has provided extensive support for the relationship between active learning time and achievement (Wiley & Harnischfeger, 1978; Berliner, 1978) thus, by implication, suggesting the necessity for engagement of students in classroom interactions. Third, recent ethnographic studies in education have defined teaching as social events during which teachers and students interact for the purpose of teaching and learning (Becker, Geer & Hughes, 1968). This research has shown that the norms and expectations which define appropriate classroom behavior are communicated by the teacher, often through subtle verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Becker, Geer & Hughes, 1968; Mann, et al., 1970; Cooper, 1979). These studies indicate that the teaching-learning process is highly complex with considerable potential for breakdowns resulting from incomplete or misunderstood communications. A cursory third party 14 analysis of instruction, such as those typically occurring during a consultation intervention, is unlikely to sufficiently address these concerns. Instead, the capture of such dynamic variables requires sensitive naturalistic observations and interpretations by participants. Limitation 2: Multiple Data Sources Emphasizing Viewpoints of 'the Participants in the Instructional System have not been Included in the Analysis afithe Instructional System. A sufficient analysis of the instructional system, when defined as a complex, dynamic and interactive social event, demands that it be examined from the perspectives of the participants. A social event is a subjective experience which is jointly created by the participants and assigned meanings according to their individual interpretations of it. Thus, to define concerns and recommend solutions in this context without theory triangulation, or the examination of events from multiple perspectives (Denzin, 1980), increases the probability of error in conclusions reached. Such an analysis has yet to be documented in instructional improvement consultation, since most teaching improvement interventions have involved the client alone (resource approach) or the client and a consultant (training and consultation approaches). The closest approximation of 'theory 'triangulation has been the combined use (H’ student ratings and individual consultation between a supervisor and faculty member, as in the consultation approach practiced at the Clinic to Improve University Teaching, or between an instructional developer and faculty member, as reported by Centra (1979). However, such rating systems do not capture the students' reactions to specific classroom activities or teacher behaviors. Instead they require the students to make judgments about the adequacy of global characteristics of the course or classes of behavior defined by the item writer. 15 In spite of their inherent limitations, the use of student rating forms with consultation has been shown to be highly effective in stimu- lating faculty behavior change (Roten, 1978; Braunstein, Klein & Pachla, 1973; Pambookiam, 1974; Centra, 1973; McKeachie & Lin, 1975). These rating forms are usually distributed at the conclusion of courses and most often assess dimensions of organization, structure or clarity; student- teacher interaction or rapport; and teacher skill, communication or lecturing ability (Coffman, 1974; Hodgson, 1978; Isaacson, et al., 1964; Centra, 1973). The informational and motivational (Yelon, 1977) value of these responses as feedback to the instructor varies with the quality and purpose of the instrument (Centra, 1979). The most useful were designed for teaching improvement, rather than administrative purposes. They function as powerful impetus for change under two conditions: first, when student-assigned ratings are lower than faculty self-evaluations and, second, when they are combined with consultation (Roten, 1978; Braunstein, Klein & Pachla, 1973; Pambookiam, 1974; Centra, 1973; McKeachie & Lin, 1975). While this approach has been effective in encouraging instructional improvement, it is not without weaknesses. Centra (1979) has identified four. First, student ratings are highly prone to the "micrometer fallacy," or assumptions of excessive precision and assignment of undue weight as a result of quantitative design characteristics. Second, ratings are subject to teacher manipulation through grading and behavioral practices. Third, items are frequently formulated to carry deceptive positive bias. Fourth, the high visibility of ratings invites assumptions of adequate institutional support for the larger mission of improving teaching. To Centra's list, a fifth limitation can be added. The general nature of the information provided by ratings is less useful 16 as feedback than information related to specific teacher behaviors. Thus, consultation should involve additional analysis to identify specific, attainable behavioral goals, which educators and psychologists have indicated have the greatest liklihood of implementation (Stewart, et al., 1978; Yelon, 1977). Limitation 3: The Strengths of the Teacher have been Neglected as Points of Departure for Further Improvement. A comprehensive teaching improvement program might be expected to include interventions which address both teacher strengths and weak- nesses. Yet, the resource, training, and consultation approaches in higher education have been almost exclusively concerned with the remedia- tion of deficiencies and reduction of problems. The resource approach has emphasized the provision of information or monies where they are lacking. The training approach has emphasized the development of commitment and skills where they are deficient. Consultation has been largely devoted to correcting instructional problems or directing faculty into microteaching laboratories for training (Price, 1976; Melnik & Sheehan, 1976). This condition exists in spite of the obvious validity that an approach accentuating the positive aspects of the faculty's teaching skills would seem to possess. In addition to a certain face validity, an approach emphasizing strengths is advocated by Goldhammer (1969) and Cogan (1973). These authors were responsible for the clinical supervision approach to profes- sional development which originated at Harvard University. Clinical supervision was intended to address both the personal and professional aspects of teaching with public school teachers. In that context, Cogan (1973) described the role of the supervisor as one which "starts from and returns to the process of working within the frame of the teacher's l7 classroom strengths and weaknesses" (Cogan, 1973:73). However, as both Cogan (1976) and Krajewski (1976) have observed, supervision in public schools remains heavily weighted toward general administrative and evalu- ative concerns with the ideals of personal and professional development yet unrealized. In contrast to the) public school setting, teaching improvement interventions in higher education are usually administered at the request of a faculty-client. Thus, the administrative and evaluative concerns of public school supervisors are not in competition with improvement efforts at the college level. Instead, the ideals of clinical supervision were exchanged for a prescriptive, skills training approach when this model was implemented in higher education at the Clinic to Improve University Teaching (Melnik & Sheehan, 1976). The emphasis on deficiency approaches also suggests that consultants have overlooked the powerful technology of positive reinforcement (Skinner, 1968) as a tool in teaching improvement interventions. The principle of reinforcement states that the strength of a response and the liklihood of its recurrance is dependent on its consequences. Therefore, responses which are reinforced are more likely to recur while responses which are not reinforced are less probable in the future. The effective- ness of positive reinforcement strategies in the counseling setting has been well documented (Krasner, 1962; Murray, 1956; Truax, 1966; Winder, Ahmed, Bandura & Rau, 1962). This approach has been shown to produce more effective responses by clients outside the counseling environment (Stewart, et al., 1978). Thus, in addition to face validity, an approach which builds on the faculty-client's strengths as a teacher would be consistent with the aims and ideals of clinical supervision and would permit the consultant to rely on the technology of positive reinforcement. 18 Limitation 4: The Client-Consultant Relationship During Teaching Improvement Activities has not been Collaborative. In 1973, Davies wrote one of the definitive works on the client- consultant relationship in the college instruction improvement context. In that article he warned that ...great care needs to be exercised so as to insure that it is advice and not decisions that are offered (by the consultant). Developers and evaluators are usually called in to help their client make a decision. It is not really their function to make that decision for him...(p. 353) The model of consultation Davies was recommending in that statement is known as "product-process" and assumes the same collaborative relation- ship referred to as characteristic of instructional development consul- tations by Bratton (1971). However, a review of the literature on instructional improvement consultation suggests that this recomended model is not the predominant one in practice. Rutt (1979) concluded that instructional developers use product, prescriptive, product- process/collaborative and affiliative models approximately equally. 'This was based on responses by 83 practitioners to statements within six scenarios, which composed a self-report inventory of consulting styles. In contrast to Rutt's conclusion, the only empirical study of an instructional devel0pment consultation intervention indicated that each of the six developers observed were highly prescriptive in their behaviors and did not foster a collaborative relationship with their clients (Price, 1976). Support for the adoption of such a relationship extends beyond the recommendations of instructional improvement practitioners to include social psychology and communication theorists. Zimbardo and Ebbesen (1970) summarized social psychological research findings to conclude: 19 Attitude change is more persistent over time if the receiver actively participates in, rather than passively receives, the communication. Providing information, per se, may be the least effective way to change behavior (p. 23). Zaltman, Florio, and Sikorski (1977) reviewed studies in communication and organizational change which led to these summary statements: Innovation is facilitated by the meaningful and early involvement of those who will implement change, and it is seriously hampered when participants are not involved... It is not enough to simply consult with or ask the approval of those who will implement change; rather, they must be actively involved in shaping change, there must be real resolution of conflicts and differences, and there needs to be meaningful collaboration among key actors...(p. 95) The Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning Process Introduction Recent research in the: qualitative tradition holds promise 'for contributing to the remedy of some of these deficiencies. By providing an alternative. set of assumptions and methods, a fuller analysis of the instructional system and more collaborative relationship within instruc- tional improvement consultations may be possible. Such an intervention would examine teaching as a luflistic, interactive process. It would require data and interpretations from the relevant social actors that can be analyzed to identify strengths and weaknesses in the instructional system. Through a collaborative analysis process, the knowledge of the teacher and students can be combined with the consultant's expertise to reach accurate, data-based statements of need and specific achievable goals. Such an intervention has been under development at Michigan State University and is known as the Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning 20 (CAP) process. Step Step Step Step Step Step The steps for conducting a CAP process analysis are as follows: 1: Initial Contact The CAP process typically begins when a faculty member contacts an instructional developer or consultant for assistance with teaching matters. Tasks accomplished at this time usually include a determi- nation of instructor interests and whether the CAP process will address those interests, an explanation of the process, and arrange- ments to observe the instructor's teaching. 2: Classroom Observation Consultant observes the actual classroom instruction. He or she sits among the students and prepares observational notes of the events with as little inference as possible. The notes are later analyzed to identify patterns of verbal and nonverbal behavior, the general instructional character of the class session, and the roles assumed by the teacher. General working hypotheses about the teacher's behaviors and their effects are posited. 3: Classroom Videotape A videotape of an actual class session is made, focussing on the client as teacher. Student volunteers for reviewing the tape are solicited. 4: Instructor Review Session An instructor videotape review session is conducted. At this time, the client-instructor is asked to describe his or her behaviors and the intentions or beliefs which motivated them while observing the taped class session. Other instructor concerns are identified at that time. 5: Student Review Session A student videotape review session is conducted with several (usually five to eight) student volunteers. These students are enrolled in the client's class and were present during the day of the videotaping. At this time, they are asked to describe the behaviors of the teacher and their impact on student learning and motivation. 6: Review and Planning Session A review and action planning session is conducted by the instructor and developer. At this time, the transcripts of earlier review sessions are used to identify discrepencies between the client's and students' descriptions and interpretations of teacher behaviors, as those behaviors are viewed on the videotape. Together the instructor and developer discuss the discrepencies and mutually agreeable plans for constructively responding to those discrepencies are made. 21 Step 7: Summary Letter A record of the final session is provided by the developer for the instructor's use. It includes a listing of the strengths and weaknesses identifed during their discussions and a statement of the action plans reached at its conclusions. The Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning (CAP) process can be described in terms of the levels of inquiry and analysis through which it passes, the stages of the process, or from the perspective of the roles assumed by the consultant at each stage. These levels, stages, and roles are described by Figure 1, as well as the procedures completed during the one week period in which the CAP process occurs. The major theoretical basis of the CAP process are the 1) emphasis on qualitative data collection and analysis and 2) video confrontation. From the qualitative research tradition, the social interaction definition of teaching and data collection and analysis strategies are derived. Confrontation provides direction and motivation in the behavioral change process through joint use of the techniques of feedback and discrepency analysis. The literature in the areas of qualitative research on college teaching and video confrontation of teachers will be reviewed next. Qualitative Theoretic Base in Research on Teaching. The qualitative theoretic base is derived from research on teaching using the ethnographic approach and that of research on teacher thinking. Studies in these areas typically employ an inductive approach and emphasize subjective beliefs held by the participants. They are often conducted in the natural setting and employ' methods of participant observation, in-depth interviewing, and total participation in the activity being investigated. The researcher obtains first hand knowledge about events and the participants' interpretations in order to analyze reality, meaning, and behavior from both the observer's and the 22 LEVELS oI . ROLES of INQUIRY STAGES "‘ PROCESS DEVELOPER STEP 1: INITIAL CONTACT 8 INTERVIEW INQUIRER/ MANAGER STEP 2: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INQUIRER STEP 3: DATA COLLECTION VIOEOTAPING OF CLASS MANAGER/ TECHNICIAN STEP 4: INSTRUCTOR REVIEW SESSION MANAGER/ FACILITATOR STEP 5: STUDENT REVIEW SESSION MANAGER/ FACILITATOR DATA ANALYSIS, STEP 6: EXPERT/ DATA INTEGRATION & REVIEW & PLANNING SESSION FACILITATOR/ ACTION PLANNING PLANNING AGENT RECORD OF FINDINGS & ACTION PLAN STEP 7: SUMMARY LETTER REPORTER Figure 1. Steps in the Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning (CAP) Process. 23 participants' perspectives (Rist, 1977). Through these activities, new phenomena, relationships, and hypotheses may be discovered. The holistic approach permits the identification of causal links without separating teaching acts into component parts (Gage, 1977). Several assumptions which underlie this approach can be identified. The first assumption is related to the philosophical concept of inten- tionality (Fenstermacher, 1978). It is assumed that human behavior is purposive and goal-oriented. The teacher is viewed as a thinking agent capable of explaining the rationale behind his or her actions. Second, this research assumes that situations in which social interactions are prominent cannot be separated into component parts without obscuring important boundaries and destroying information. Third, it is assumed that man is concerned with structuring and making sense of his experiences as a means of accumulating knowledge and gaining understanding. Thus, much of behavior is controlled from within and reflects efforts to understand and meaningfully interact with the environment. The descriptions which result from these inquiries are intended to contribute to an understanding of the behaviors of teachers and the process of teaching. Because this research is based on a collaborative effort between the teacher and the researcher, the results are related to the subjective beliefs of the participating teachers. Both the ethnographic and research on teacher thinking approaches are reflected in the CAP process because through it, teaching is examined as a jointly constructed process in which all of the classroom interactors play a part and one in which the teacher's intentions, decisions and concepts of profession and role are among the central determinants of the structures and activities which are permissible in that setting. The CAP process also emphasizes analysis which is derived through inquiry'in which 24 the developer and instructor act as co-researchers. Ethnographic Approach When ethnographers study teaching, they examine the dynamics and structure of events within the context of social interaction. Each event is viewed as a whole and the perspectives of both the instructor and the students are reported. The classroom activities are studied as they naturally occur in that setting. In order to gain access into the instructional process, the researcher must negotiate entry with the teacher and the students. The goal of the researcher is to describe instructional events, record the participants' understandings of them, and analyze them to reveal their underlying meanings. Wilson (1977) describes this quest as "seeking theory grounded in the reality of the participants." The major tool in ethnography is the researcher. He or she begins by adopting the role of participant observer and collects field notes as a means of addressing broad questions about complex social events. While general approaches and suggestions for accomplishing this are provided in the literature, an important underlying belief in ethnography is that no one right method can be prescribed. Instead the method must be matched to the particular study (Wilson, 1977). Additional data is collected using multiple methods which may include audio- and video-taped records of events, course documents, and observational notes. Frequently interviews and questionnaires may be designed as a means of casting a participant in the role of informant. This permits a closer examination of personal thoughts and feelings. Wilson (1977) classifies these data into five categories: 1. Form and content of verbal interaction between participants. 25 . Form and content of verbal interaction with the researcher. . Nonverbal behavior. Patterns of action and nonaction. 01 «b (A) N O O Traces, archival records, artifacts, documents. The researcher examines the data and begins to develop tentative hypo- theses from them. These working hypotheses lead to more specific questions and continued data collection in order to confirm or disconfirm them. This continued search for evidence to verify hypotheses and to correct for bias is known as "disciplined subjectivity." At this point, the multiple methods of studying the phenomena become part of a triangulation process (Denzen, 1978) which ensures that observed results are valid. Triangulation is accomplished when two or more distinct methods are found to be congruent and yield comparable data (Jick, 1980). The researcher also begins to move between the perspectives of the insider (emic) and the outsider (etic) to uncover the implicit guiding logic of the behaviors. Within this paradigm, the college classroom has been described as a culture in which individuals interact in order to teach and learn (Becker, Geer & Hughes, 1968). Mann and others (1970) further developed this analogy by examining the roles of the participants. The college classroom was found to function as a social unit with its own set of rules, norms, and expectations (Becker, Geer & Hughes, 1968). To determine what these rules and expectations are, participants gather information from three sources. These include the social context of the classroom, social interactions of the participants, and the social order of the event. In addition to examining the classroom as a culture, Mann, and others (1970), concluded that both the task or work perspective and dynamic interpersonal relationships need to be explicated before these events can be understood. 26 Cooper (1979) expressed this notion more simply by describing a class session as consisting of two loops: the instructional loop and the involvement loop. As ethnography becomes a more widely accepted and utilized approach in research on teaching, some authors have expressed concern that it not be reduced to "mere" ethnography (Erickson, 1979). Erickson defines mereness as the tendency of ethnography to lapse into "mere subjective idealism." His discussion of the limitations of ethnography identify the problems of timing and sequencing, validity, superficiality, evidentiary adequacy, and bias toward the typical as potential problems of ethno- graphic studies. These concerns are shared by other researchers in education (Rist, 1977) who recognize that ethnography demands the same precision and discipline as more traditional quantitative research and that these qualities are frequently lacking in educational research. Research on Teacher Thinking Research which focuses on the mental operations of teachers has been called research on teacher thinking. These studies have attempted to document teacher cognitive processes as critical variables in the educa- tional setting. They have examined teacher thinking in four major areas: teacher planning, teacher judgment, teacher interactive decision making, and teachers' implicit theories or perspectives (Clark & Yinger, 1978). Two models have been developed as frameworks for defining and organizing these studies. Both models define the teacher as a rational being and the educational environment as a complex setting. However, the emphases of the two models differ. First, the decision making model is concerned with explaining and understanding deliberate teacher activity. It focuses on the kinds, nature, and frequency of decisions made by the 27 teacher. Research which employs this model is highly controlled by the researcher, who defines the situations to be examined (Clark & Yinger, 1978). In this model, teaching is conceived as decision making under uncertainty (Shavelson, 1976). It has its origins in Bayesian probability and employs the Brunswick (1956) lens model, where accuracy of judgment is based on assignment of value to cues or objects in a situation. The accuracy of decision making is determined by how the accumulation of new information changes one's beliefs. From these studies, models can be constructed to predict decisions. The second model is the information-processing model. Its focus is on how teachers define teaching situations and determine their actions (Clark, 1978). Research within the information-processing model leads to descriptions of reasoning processes teachers use to simplify and understand their environment. The goal here is to provide explanations of teacher thinking as the teacher engages in planning, judging, problem solving, and prescribing. Frequently, a more open ended and exhaustive approach characterizes these studies (Clark, 1978). Studies of research on teacher thinking have been reviewed from the point of view of the researchers (Shulman & Elstein, 1975; Clark & Yinger, 1978, 1979) as well as from the educational philosopher's point of view (Fenstermacher, 1978). Shulman, Elstein, Clark and ‘Yinger' generally agree that this line of inquiry is a promising one. They anticipate the integration of existing theories as one of its possible outcomes. Fenstermacher (1978) is less enthusiastic. His concern is that the research might fail to include the education of teachers and generation of knowledge useful to teachers among its primary aims. In his view, research on teacher thinking is appropriate if the possibilities for collaboration and intentionality inherent. within it are realized in 28 practice. This demands that it hold the improvement of education as its goal. In general, data in these studies have been collected through self reports, observations, and policy capturing techniques. Self reports have taken the form of interviews, questionnaires, journals, audiotapes and stimulated recall. Both participant observations and unobtrusive observations have been conducted. Policy capturing techniques include the use of the lens model (Brunswick, 1956) and computer modelling of decision processes (Vinsonhaler, 1978). Three major classes of research findings have been identified by Clark (1979). First, research on teacher thinking yields descriptions of teachers' thoughts, theories, deliberations, and decisions. Second, the professional deliberations which result in the application of theory to practice can be revealed. Third, a collegiality which contributes to the credibility of both the research community and practitioners can be fostered by the collaborative nature of research on teacher thinking. While it is currently too early to predict the final contributions this line of inquiry will make to the field of education, one can conclude that research on teacher thinking is taking the research community in new directions and that it has the potential to link existing theories within its framework. However, this approach has yet to be applied to teaching in the higher education setting. Each of the specified topics of study addressed by this research bear further investigation and exploration with college teachers. In addition, it would be useful to examine the collaborative relationship which can develop in the conduct of these research studies. 29 Teacher Confrontation Using Video Technology Self-confrontation is a techinque for directing and motivating behavior change. It used mirror feedback, a direct representation of one's own behavior with a minimal amount of distortion, selection, translation or evaluation (Fuller & Manning, 1973). Among teachers, self- confrontation has usually involved a videotape of performance which permits the viewer to compare their actual behavior with their ideal performance or goals. This discrepency between the two is intended to create a dissonant state leading to the initiation of change (Fuller & Manning, 1973; Schmuck, 1971). Self-confrontation has the potential for increasing teachers' real- ism about themselves (Braucht, 1970) and receptivity to pupil input (Fuller' & Manning, 1971). Previous research has shown that self- confrontation may also incidentally arouse interest or motivation of subjects (Cooper, 1970; Geertsma & Reivich, 1965; Hedges, 1970; Hopkins, 1969; Kagan & Krathwohl, 1967; Neilsen, 1964; Neilson & Gold, 1964; Stoller, 1967; Walz & Johnston, 1963; Yenawine, 1969), increase verbal productivity (Bailey, 1968; Kidorf, 1963), physical activity (Barnhart, 1971; Yenawine, 1969), experimentation with new behaviors (Kagen, 1970), positive attitudes toward learning (Bradley, 1970), and interpersonal skills (Archer, 1972). Videotape feedback can also be a stressful, anxiety-arousing experience (Nielsen, 1964; Perlberg, Peri, _t”_1., 1971; Steward & Steward, 1970). A review of self-confrontation and anxiety effects led Fuller and Manning (1973) to conclude that the viewer notiCed discrepencies between actual and ideal behaviors when he or she was "not too stressed, or closed, or anxious, or distracted" (p. 147). Other authors have provided recommendations for coping with user's stress reactions (Perlberg & O'Bryant, 1968; Schmuck, 1971) in order to prevent 30 their rise to dysfunctional levels, especially among those who are already anxious (Harvey, Hunt & Schroder, 1961; May, 1950; Schumacher, Wright & Wiesen, 1968). Performance confrontation is concerned with the task environment and permits the client to reflect on his or her goal oriented behaviors, decision making and information processing activities. It combines videotape viewing of one's performance with focussed feedback (Stoller, 1968). The focus may range from instructions provided during micro- teaching to thoughts and feelings in stimulated recall (Bloom, 1954; Kagan & Krathwohl, 1967) and explanatory information provided by counselors (Fuller & Baker, 1970; Fuller, Brown, Newlove & Brown, 1973). Fuller and Manning (1973) report greater effectiveness of focussed confrontations in contrast to self-confrontation with mirror feedback only. Two explana- tions for this difference have been proposed. First, dissonance is low in cases of independent viewing, therefore contributing little to the behavioral change process (Fuller & Manning, 1973). Second, the viewer often unknowingly employs psychological devices to protect his or her self-esteem (Kagan, 1970). Research also suggests that focus on infor- mation which is only moderately different from the person's expectations or ideal behavior is most effective in raising and maintaining behavior change (Bergin, 1966; Bergman, 1951; Speisman, 1959). This is in contrast to focus on behaviors which cannot be changed, are highly resistent to change, or inconsequential to the purposes of the encounter. Microteaching is the most familiar example of performance confron- tation in the educational setting. It was developed (Allen, gt 21-: 1967; 1969) as a laboratory approach to training inservice teachers in specific skills. Microteaching is based on a teach-reteach cycle with four steps: small group practice, videotape and audiotapes. of’ practice lessons, 31 feedback, and reteaching. This scaled down version of teaching permits direct practice with guidance and suggests criteria for assessing mastery in each component skill. Most of the research on this methodology has been conducted with preservice teachers or practicing elementary or secondary teachers (Turney, Clift, Dunkin & Trail, 1973; Perrott, 1977; Bush & Allen, 1967; Stoller, 1968; Young, 1968). However, in a recent review of literature, Levinson & Menges (1980) identified three studies which investigated microteaching with college teachers. Two of these studies found significant improvement in the performance of skills addressed in the microteaching training. Perlberg, Peri, Weinred, Nitzam and Shimron (1972) found that with Dentistry faculty Inicroteaching techniques increased the use of classroom interaction styles which were student centered. In a study' of 14 community and junior college professors which combined microteaching with training in Flanders' Inter- action Analysis, Johnson (1977) found significant changes in interaction behavior, questioning and use of reinforcement techniques. Modified Observational Learning, a variation of microteaching which combines feed- back with cognitive discrimination training was studied by Perry, Leventhal and Abrami (1979). The researchers, using graduate students as subjects, found that lecturers who were initially rated low by students did not show an improvement in student ratings following the training while lecturers initially rated high by students were rated higher after training. Findings from research on microteaching have shown that change in teacher behavior is most likely to occur when feedback with focus is provided (Bush & lAllen, 1967); when adequate information about the discrepency between actual and desired performance is provided; and when teacher viewing of their videotaped lesson is combined with focus or goal 32 setting activities (Fuller & Manning, 1973). However, it has also been suggested that the optimal effectiveness of performance confrontation is unrealized in the microteaching laboratory. Fuller and Manning (1973) indicate that this may be due to the narrow task orientation of micro- teaching, which focuses exclusively on specific predefined skill behaviors. Impact confrontation centers (Ni student concerns. It relies on confrontation and impact feedback, which is information about the conse- quences of one's behavior. Impact feedback can be provided by student questionnaires, course ratings, and program analyzers. One scheme for providing impact confrontation has been the use of split screen playback to include both presenter and audience (Fuller & Manning, 1973). Researchers report this type of confrontation to be the most powerful as well as the most disturbing to the individual (Johnson, _t__l,, 1963; Lawroesch, gt al., 1969). Nevertheless, it is described as being highly responsive to the concerns most frequently expressed by inservice teachers (Fuller, 1969; Fuller, Parsons & Watskin, 1973) and its cautious and responsible use recommended. Summary In summary, this review of literature has identified four limita- tions of current interventions to improve college instruction and presented evidence suggesting that their reduction might increase the effectiveness of teaching improvement programs. The Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning (CAP) process has been described as a potential means for reducing those deficiencies. Relevant research relating to these theoretic bases which comprise that consultation inter- vention has been reported. It has been shown to combine the qualitative 33 approach to research on teaching, rely on collaborative analysis, and use the technology of video confrontation. The qualitative approach permits the identification of the central concerns of both students and faculty- clients, thereby bypassing the quantitative issue of determining the critical variables in instruction. The collaborative approach which is central to this process also insures that the analysis will be more readily accepted by the faculty-client. The effects of video-confron- tation may be optimized by this process since it permits the provision of each of the three classes of feedback. This study will attempt to identify the inter-working of each of these components as a means of documenting the potential of the CAP process in the college setting. CHAPTER III THE INQUIRY PROCESS Overview of the Research Process The research process employed in this study was complex, holistic, interactive and iterative. It involved the collection and analysis of data from naturalistic discourse, interviews and questionnaires to produce and corroborate descriptive and explanative accounts of the CAP process and its dynamic interworkings. The inquiry proceeded from broad questions about the process to intermediate and more spectific questions. Although the process was not linear, the broad questions guided preliminary analysis of the data, followed by micro-analysis to answer intermediate and specific questions, and a return to initial questions to focus final conslusions. The inquiry, analysis, integration and verifi- cation activities are listed below according to the phase of the study in which they occurred. Phase 1: Generation of Basic Research Questions A. Review of Literature 1. Teaching Improvement Approaches 2. Research on Teacher Thinking and Educational Ethnographies 3. Video Self-Confrontation 8. Develop Theoretical Model of CAP Process C. Collect Data 1. Observations with running notes . Audiotapes of CAP sessions 2 3. Questionnaires 4. Participant Interviews 34 Phase II: A. 35 Compile Data 1. Listen to and transcribe audiotapes 2. Review and revise transcripts 3. Sort and Code Data Analyze Data 1. List instructional variables 2. Time length of turns 3. Compare lengths between sessions 4. Construct case records Write narrative descriptions and reports 1. Write narrative descriptions of process 2. Write case study narratives 3. Chart pertinent data 4. Report evaluation data Generate Intermediate and Specific Questions Review literature 1. Social Interaction 2. Dyadic Communication Develop model of social interaction Micro-Analyze Review and Planning Session sample Choose sample Search for patterns Define analyst typologies . Develop functional discourse analysis framework bWND—A o o o a. Develop category system 1. Define speech acts 2. Define speech exchanges b. Apply category system to transcript 5. Create analysis charts a. Identify and explicate dominant patterns b. Chart stages in session c. Specify social-organizational features Write narrative description, analysis and interpretation of conversation 1. Search for patterns within segments 36 2. Explicate and/or chart dominant patterns a. Role making and power b. Problem-solving and Planning Problem finding . Problem assessment Solution finding Solution assessment Direct feedback Summarization mmthH o o o o c. Negotiation and cooperation d. Reflection e. Developer strategies 1. Politeness 2. Persuasion 3. Process Management E. Construct model of the dynamics of the CAP process Phase III: Verify Findings and Report Conclusions A. Verify Findings 1. Interview participants 2. Revise as necessary 8. Report Conclusions . Review research questions . Report conclusions . Specify implications . Make recommendations thI—l Research Questions The research questions which guided this study included initial questions, as well as intermediate and more specific questions which were generated during the inquiry process. They addressed the events and the dynamics of the CAP process on many levels. The study was initiated to address broad questions about the nature of the CAP consultation process. They included: 1- What are the elements of the CAP process? 2. What are the stages? 37 3. When do they occur? 4. What are the participants' assessments of the process? 5. In what ways does the process address teacher strengths? Intermediate questions about the tasks and social dynamics of the consultations developed during the study. They included: 1. What are the categories of instructional vari- ables addressed during the process? 2. In what sense is the process collaborative? 3. How is the CAP process jointly enacted by the participants? 4. What are the dynamics of the process? 5. How are the perspectives of the client, students and consultant evidenced? 6. How does the planning process occur? More specific questions included the following: 1. How is the developer able to engage the instructor in joint problem solving? 2. In what ways is the instructor involved in analysis and planning? 3. How is commitment generated by the developer? 4. Are there specific skills and strategies employed by the developer? The Participants and the Setting As a naturalistic study of the CAP process, the participants in this study included those who chose to participate in the CAP process and secondarily, agreed to serve as subjects for this study. The developer was a practicing teaching improvement specialist at Michigan State University with professional training and experience in instructional development. She held the rank of Assistant Professor with the Learning 38 and Evaluation Service and was a recent graduate of the doctoral program through the College of Education. Within the university community, she was considered to be a pleasant and competent professional member of the university's faculty development team. The other participants were all college teachers at Michigan State University during the academic year of 1980-1981. Three were faculty with the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and one was a faculty member with the College of Human Ecology. Each taught several courses during the year and each was a member of a different academic department. Two were males and two were females. Among them, three were assistant professors and one was an instructor. While all learned of the process through colleagues or at meetings, three had expressed interest to the developer without initiating the process themselves. Instead, the initial contact was established through a phone call from the developer who routinely followed up on such expressions of interest. The fourth faculty member learned of the process from a colleague, expressed interest to that individual and was also subse- quently contacted by the developer. Sources of Data For each participant, the process consisted of seven steps: the initial contact, class observation, class videotaping, instructor review session, student review session, review and planning session, and summary letter. Videotaping occurred during normal class proceedings and all review sessions were conducted in the developer's office. Individual sessions averaged one hour in length and the process frequently extended over a two-week period. The average time expended by the teachers, in addition to normal teaching time, was a little more than two hours. The developer's time averaged more than six hours for each recipient. 39 Participants completed the entire process during Fall quarter. At the conclusion of the process, all received a summary letter from the developer. Participants agreed to permit their review sessions to be audio-- recorded for purposes of this study. Each responded to a questionnaire and was interviewed in their respective office after the process was complete. Data for the study consisted of these audiorecordings, verbatim quotes collected during the interviews, questionnaire responses from the instructors, running notes from frequent developer interviews, and the summary letter sent to each instructor. Audio-Recordings of the Sessions. The developer was asked to audio- record each session with the faculty members and their students. The results were sixteen cassette tapes of conversations ranging from 50 minutes to one and one half hours in length. Each tape was duplicated before it was replayed by the researcher and transcribed by hired secre- taries. During duplication, one tape was inadvertently destroyed. The quality of the remaining tapes varied, but all were adequate for transcription. Following the initial transcription, the researcher listened to all tapes and made extensive corrections to the typed transcripts. A stop- watch was used to determine length of turns and pauses in the speech. A corrected copy of each transcript was used in the analysis. The correction process proved important for two reasons. First, nonresearchers failed to appreciate nuances and natural grammar when transcribing conversation for study. Transcription was very difficult for those unfamiliar with the context and purpose of the conversations. Therefore, completely correct accounts of the audiotape did not result 40 from efforts by the secretaries. The review insured that the transcripts were as accurate as possible. Second, the review process required thoroughness and iteration such that the researcher became very familiar with the audiotape content. This facilitated the analysis process. The audiotapes and transcripts were used in both the early analysis of the entire process and the later micro-analysis of a single Review and Planning Session. Participant Interviews. Each instructor participating in the study was interviewed at least twice during the study. All were interviewed before the study began and after the last session of the CAP had been completed. The purpose of these interviews was to elicit their expec- tations and evaluations of the process. Both interviews were relatively unstructured. However, the post-CAP interview included a structured component after the respondents had finished talking freely about their experiences. This component required the instructors to talk about their responses to a questionnaire about the process. The results of the interviews were used to produce the narrative descriptions, case studies, and evaluation report. Questionnaire. Each of the instructors was asked to complete a 14 item forced choice questionnaire two weeks after completing their parti- cipation in the CAP process. The questionnaire asked them to rate the usefulness, relevance, and efficiency of the process as well as the proficiency of the consultant. The results are reported in the evaluation portion of this chapter. Developer Interviews. Throughout the study, frequent informal and 41 formal interviews were scheduled with the developer. Running notes of the - conversations were produced by the researcher. They also documented opinions and ideas in the developer's own words. These were the source of the indigenous typologies which provided conceptional leverage during the micro-analysis of the task and social dynamics of the process. The interviews were also used to collect impressions and to check patterns detected by the researcher. Finally, the interviews were used to verify the analyst-created category systems and interpretations of the analyses. Audio-Review Sessions and Verification Interviews. During the second micro-analysis of the study, two of the instructors participated in an individual audio-review session and a series of verification inter- views. The audiotape data from Instructor Two comprised the sample for the Inicro-analysis reported later in this chapter. ‘The choice of Instructor Two represented purposeful, strategic sampling since this case was particularly rich in detail due to the instructor's practice of verbalizing her decision processes. She proved to be highly cooperative and willing to participate fully in the study. The entire transcript of the Review and Planning Session for Instructor Two was analyzed using discourse and conversational analysis techniques. Instructor Four's comments and session transcripts were used to verify patterns and to corroborate the findings of the other analyses. Portions of her transcripts were analyzed for that purpose. While variation in the two sessions was detected, the dominant social- organizational and task features were present in both. Summary Letter. The summary letter, sent by the developer to the instructor at the conclusion of the CAP process, represented the only 42 routine documentation of the sessions. Each included the student comments organized according to the instructional topic they addressed and a list of the teacher's identified strengths and weaknesses. They also stated the specific plans which the instructor and developer formulated during the last session. These letters were made available to the researcher. They were used to cross check the instructor's statement of plans during the post-CAP interview and were combined with the interview and transcript data to determine the categories of instructional variables discussed during the session. Analysis and Interpretation The focus of the analysis was guided by the initial research questions and the more specific questions that'developed during the inquiry process. The twolmajor activities of analysis were the generation of qualitative description and inductive analysis. The first phase of the analysis consisted of describing the events and activities of the CAP process. The results were a description of the steps in the process, a series of four case studies of enactment, and a report of the results of the evaluation questionnaire and interview completed by each of the participating instructors. These descriptive accounts were produced by compiling all available data, preparing each case and evaluation record, and writing the narrative reports. The second part of the analysis and interpretation process involved more extensive inductive analysis of the Review and Planning Session. Because the faculty and student review sessions were largely concerned with eliciting descriptive accounts of the teaching event and the primary work of analysis and planning occurred during the last session of CAP, the 43 ultimate success of the consultation approach was hypothesized to rest with this final interaction. Thus, inductive analysis was used to reduce the discourse of a sample from the last session in order to discover how these tasks were successfully completed. The categories, patterns and structures used to describe and explain the session emerged from the data. More extensive analyses of discourse and conversation structures led to analyst constructed typologies. Using the approach advocated by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), a sociolinguistic category system was constructed to functionally analyze the discourse and to specify the dynamics of the task and social environments of the session. The construction of category systems was undertaken within the holistic framework of social interactionism and the context of the event enacted through the discourse. Thus, in this study, a category system was developed in order to functionally classify verbal utterances. The objective was to produce analytic description in which: the organizational scheme is developed from discovered classes and linkages suggested or mandated by the data. Considerable novelty in description is thereby achieved, and with some further development in the analytic process, substantive theory can be made evident (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973:10). The development of this category system proceeded according to the guidelines provided by Cuba (1978). The category system facilitated further conversational analysis (Schleghoff, 1972) which led to 'the identification of the central structures and constructs of the session. Conversational analysis involves a rigorous examination of discourse in order to discover regular patterns of interaction which predict and regulate social encounters. It is an ethnomethodological approach which emphasizes activities, rather than structures. When combined with the sociolinguistic analysis, both the structures and dynamics of consul- tation can be uncovered. This is because the beliefs, perceptions and 44 emotions of interactors are revealed in their speech. Further, the structure of tasks and social negotiations can be located in discourse. Using this ethnomethodological approach, it was determined that interactive work was accomplished through a set of socially constructed participant structures. The roles that each participant played in the enactment of the social and task dimensions of the process were also revealed. These analysis techniques are explained more fully in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA The purpose of this chapter is to present the analysis of the data with interpretation. The results will be presented in four parts: 1. A narrative overview of the CAP process; 2. A brief case study of each of four enactments of the CAP process; 3. The results of the participants' evaluations of their experiences; and 4. An in-depth analysis of the last session of the CAP process, including a description of the analysis framework and the findings: a. A framework for social interaction analysis b. Analysis results and interpretation for the two part micro- analysis 1. Discourse Analysis 2. Conversational Analysis Narrative Overview of the CAP Process Initial Contact and Interview The Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning process was initiated in one of two ways: at the request of the instructor or at the suggestion of the developer. In three of the cases considered in this study the instructors had been introduced to the process during a faculty orien- tation meeting. Later, when they received a phone call from the instructional developer offering to provide that service, they agreed to participate. In the case of the fourth instructor, she communicated her interest through a second staff member at the Learning and Evaluation Service who then requested that the instructional developer phone the 45 46 instructor with an offer of assistance. During these initial contacts, the instructional developer was able to schedule meetings with the instructor during which the needs and interests of the instructor were determined, the CAP process was explained, and a mutual decision about continuation was reached. During these brief meetings, usually lasting from thirty minutes to one hour, the instructional developer learned about the instructor's philosophy and concerns as well as collecting course materials to determine the purpose, structure and content of the course. This infor- mation permitted the instructional developer to observe the course with some knowledge of the intentions and objectives of the instructor. In all four cases, the instructors and developer agreed to engage in the CAP process. The class observation and faculty review session were scheduled at the close of the initial interview. Classroom Observation and Observational Notes The developer observed the class in order to gather information about the instructional process and the classroom event as the participants experienced it. Seated among the students, the developer began to appreciate the complexity of the situation as well as the beliefs, concerns, and unconscious behaviors of the students and instructor. Tentative judgments about the instructor's teaching style and the task environment were reached. Observations about the content, structure, and process of the course provided data for later analysis to determine the adequacy of the instructional system. Insights into the instructor's relationship with students and attitudes and beliefs about teaching provided guidelines to use in selecting and recommending teaching strate- gies. In addition to defining the context of the instructional process, 47 the observation led to questions and hypotheses about the class. The developer arrived early for the observation. She spoke informally with students, asking them about their general impressions of the course and their feelings about participating in the improvement process. Usually she was introduced by the instructor, then explained her purpose and answered questions before the class began. During the class, the developer sat among students toward the middle of the room. She made copious notes about the instructor and students. They served as records of the activities of the class, the circumstances surrounding each, and the accompanying verbal and non-verbal behaviors of participants. While the developer attempted to maintain an unbiased posture, her knowledge of the instructional system structured her observations and judgments. She chunked the class session into pre-class, warm-up, instruction, wrap-up, and post-class segments. She looked for features and cues during each segment and attended closely to transitions between activities. Her observations were filtered through the lens of her "ideal" instructional model. It colored the questions and hypotheses she formulated about the class and the teacher. They formed her perspective of the event and served as grist for many of the probes and queries addressed to students and the instructor during the later videotape review sessions. Following the class, a brief discussion with the instructor was held. These typically consisted of some general statements about the obser- vations and plans for the next step, videotaping the class. While the observational notes had yet to be analyzed to detect patterns of behavior, her few comments were intended to reassure the instructor and indicated that information would not be unnecessarily withheld. 48 Videotape of Class Session The instructor's permission to produce a videotape of the class session was secured during the initial contact with the developer. Assurances that this would be accomplished unobtrusively' were also provided at that time. Announcements of time and date for the taping were made to the entire class either before or after the first class observation. The use cH’ a lightweight, portable videocassette system permitted the session to be taped with a minimum of disturbance. Equipment was positioned at the back and side of the classroom prior to the beginning of class on the day of the taping. The camera was mounted on the tripod and the videotape recorder was placed on a nearby desk or chairu A.wide-angle view of the instructor and part of the class yielded the most informative record, since it captured their actions and reactiohs. An adequate black and white picture was produced under the natural and flourescent lighting conditions in each of the four classrooms. Taping was initiated a few minutes before the class began and was concluded just after the class ended. Student volunteers to review the tape were enlisted in several ways. Often volunteers arranged to attend a review session after the first observation. They also approached the developer after the taping was completed. The developer occasionally elicited the assistance of students seated near her during the observation or the taping. Finally, a card on which students could sign up for a review session was circulated through the class in two cases. Instructor Videotape Review Session The instructor videotape review session was a one-hour interview between the instructor and the developer conducted as they viewed a 49 videotape of the instructor's class. It was aimed at eliciting descriptive accounts of the classroom event, the intentions and motives guiding teacher behaviors, and an enumeration of issues relevant and meaningful to the instructor. Through an informal process of viewing and discussing the tape, the developer was able to gain insights into the instructor's perspective of the instructional process. This required the developer to become sensitized to the instructor and the interview situation. The key developer behaviors were displayed as active, empathetic listening and non-threatening questioning. Listening was intended to serve several purposes. First, by giving the instructor the first opportunity to talk, defensiveness was reduced. Once the instructor had voiced his reservations and disclaimers, the task of analysis began 'hi earnest. Second, in some cases the instructor automatically reacted to nuances of the video-image. Only after the initial surprise and adjustment was attention redirected to issues of performance and impact. In addition to these cathartic effects, a third reason for listening ‘was simply' to provide the instructor' with an attentive audience to whom he described his intentions and concerns about teaching. Questioning permitted the developer to clarify and probe instructor interpretations as well as to delimit concerns. Throughout the session, the instructor's account of the lesson was recorded as verbatiNIcommentary keyed to locations on the videotape by noting counter numbers displayed on the playback unit. Each session was opened with an explanation of the procedures to be followed. Typically these explanations. were brief, open-ended and calculated to transfer much of the control of the session to the instructor. They were followed by the instructor's descriptions of the 50 teaching activity, its purpose, and the thoughts and expectations which accompanied it. The descriptions were either spontaneously generated by the instructor or elicited by the developer whenever appreciable changes in teacher activity were detected on the monitor. During the session, the developer used questioning strategies to maintain the description process. Five distinct types of questions were used in the following ways: 1. Open-ended questions to stimulate descriptive responses; 2. Folow-up questions and probes to clarify meanings, intentions, and explanations; 3. Factual questions to establish context, such as background of students and teacher; 4. Factual questions intended to reveal gaps in the teaching- learning system or to test developer-generated hypotheses; 5. Suggestions and checks to secure permission to query students or identify instructor concerns to be communicated to students. Calculations of the frequencies of instructor talk and developer talk indicate that the instructors each held the floor proportionately longer than the developer in their respective review sessions. These calculations were based on length of turn at talk, measured from the first utterance to the final utterance during each turn.' Pauses within each turn were calculated as part of the turn, since they served to prolong the individual's control of the conversation by extending the length of turn. The instructors' talk accounted for 70%, 68%, 77% and 66% of the total talk during the review session. While a great deal cannot be concluded from these frequency measures, they do indicate that the instructors were provided reasonable opportunity to present their accounts of the teaching event on the videotape. Their average proportion of verbal participation was 70.25% in contrast to the developer's average verbal participation of 29.75% (Table 1). The directive and facilitative effects of the 51 developer's questions and comments suggested by the discourse are supported by these frequencies. They seem to confirm the developer's role as manager and facilitator of the process, but also indicate that the session was not dominated by her. At the close of each session, the developer asked for additional questions to be addressed to the students. The next steps in the process were reviewed and an appointment for the second faculty session was scheduled. Each instructor was assured that student comments generally proved to be constructive, as well as full of interesting surprises. The sessions concluded with an exchange of greetings and resumption of informal conversation. Student Videotape Review Session The student videotape review session was a one-hour interview between the developer and a panel of student volunteers from the class being reviewed. The intent of the meeting was to elicit from the students their perspective of the teaching event and responses to the questions posed by the instructor during an earlier session. The developer relied on notes from the Instructor Review Session to guide questioning, as well as using open-ended questions to stimulate descriptions, follow-up questions and probes to expand and clarify responses, and specific factual questions to determine which teacher behaviors and class features facilitated or impeded student learning. The number of students who attended these review sessions varied between two and twelve. They were volunteers who responded to a request for their cooperation during the observation and videotaping days of class. Attendance was higher when students were encouraged to participate by the instructor and reminded of the session by telephone call as well as 52 announcements in class. During the neeting, they were forthcoming in their responses and eager to influence the quality of teaching on campus. Their comments were often blunt, but generally constructive. They often expressed enthusiasm for the process and the instructor's initiative in undertaking it. Each session was opened by the developer with an explanation of the procedure and her expectations of the students. This was usually followed by a series of questions or comments from the students which ranged from evaluations of the state of college teaching to queries about the session. Much general information about the class was recorded in the developer's notes during that time. Following these early comments, the developer directed attention to the videotape and began noting student comments as they were made. She engaged in active listening while students talked. She also prompted students to contribute, soliciting many individual responses to determine whether there was disagreement or consensus in their assessments. When descriptions were not spontaneously provided, she asked questions. Throughout the session, humor and empathy were employed to establish a climate of openness and trust. Explanations of how instructors used student comments appealed to their sense of altruism and purpose. During the Student Review Sessions, the students' proportion of talk was found to be 81%, 62% 61%, and 58% for each of the four instructors (Table 2). The average proportion of student talk was 65.5%. This variation was not found to be systematic although it is interesting to note that the two lowest proportions occurred during the sessions with the most (12) and the least (2) students in attendance. It is likely that these differences can be explained in terms of the dynamics of the groups, with the number in attendance being an important factor. This would be consistent with the 53 Table l. Degree of Verbal Participation During Instructor Review Sessions. Instructor Developer Total Time in Time in Time in Minutes % Total Minutes % Total Minutes % Total IRS1 24.016 70 10.233 30 34.25 100 IRS2 32.866 68 15.666 32 48.53 100 IRS3 47.350 77 14.316 23 61.66 100 IRS4 27.850 66 14.400 34 42.30 100 XIRS 70.25 29.75 100 Table 2. Degree of Verbal Participation During Student Review Sessions Students Developer Total Time in Time in Time in Minutes % Total Minutes % Total Minutes % Total 5R51 37.78 81 8.93 19 46.71 100 5852 13.46 62 8.35 38 21.81 100 5R53 13.60 61 8.76 39 22.38 100 51254 14.28 68 10.25 42 24.53 100 i 65.5 34.5 100 SRS 54 literature which suggests that five is an optimal number for panel interviews (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). Perhaps this also suggests the importance of the developer's flexibility in varying the degree of verbal direction provided according to the needs of each student group. In this study, the proportion of verbal participation by the developer ranged from 19% to 42%. When one hour had passed, the developer brought the session to a close. She expressed appreciation for their expenditure of time and cooperation, students reciprocated the courtesy and parting remarks were exchanged. Usually several students would provide additional information to the developer about their reactions to the session or class. Often joking and friendly remarks were exchanged as well as offers to assist in reassembling the chairs or equipment with the developer. Review and PlanninggSession The Review and Planning Session involved a second session between the instructor and the instructional developer. During the one hour meeting, they selectively viewed the videotape of the class session for a second time. The developer emphasized those segments of the tape about which the instructor had expressed concern or the students had made comments. The primary activities of the developer were to report the student comments, offer observations and interpretations of the comments, highlight discrepencies between the students' and instructor's perspective of the event, and assist the instructor in deriving responsive plans based on the new information. She acted as reporter, facilitator and planning agent. The instructor attended to the information as it was presented and examined it through a reflective process which clarified problems and contributed to the generation of solutions. 55 At the close of the session, the instructor verbally sumarized strengths and weaknesses in the instructional system which were uncovered during the sessions. Specific plans for addressing these areas were also enumerated. Offers of additional assistance by the developer brought the session to conclusion. The categories of instructional variables which were discussed during this session are presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Those items which were identified as teacher strengths by the students and developer are indicated with an asterisk. The remaining categories are areas in which the instructors could improve. This categorization scheme indicates that organization, involvement, visual and verbal presentation, relationship with students, tests and readings were primary areas of discussion. It also documents that both strengths and weaknesses in teaching were addressed. While this is no indication of the relative weight or time apportioned to each area, a comparison of a number of topic areas shows a reasonable balance between treatment of strengths and weaknesses. For the three instructors whose Review and Planning Sessions were successfully audiotaped, the strength to weakness ratio is determined to be 8/10 for Instructor Two; 9/8 for Instructor Three; and 10/8 for Instructor Four. The proportional distribution of talk during this final session of the CAP process was very near equal for the instructor and developer in each calculable case (Table 6). Technical problems with the audiotape for the first instructor prevented any reliable measurement of frequencies in that case, but the other three instructors contributed 51%, 54% and 50% of the talk in their respective sessions. Their average of 51.6% compares with the developer's average of 48.3%. While only an analysis of the discourse produced during each of these sessions can provide a full indication (H’ the degree of cooperation and collaboration between the 56 Table 3. Categories of Instructional Variables Discussed During Review and Planning Session, Instructor 2. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS Previews class activities* Use of lecture notes* Uses redundancy Use of examples, models, analogies* Transitions between topics Matching student intellectual Logical development of content* levels Highlighting essential content* INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES Eliciting questions Wait time for questions Maintaining student attention* Discussion method Feedback to students VISUAL AND VERBAL PRESENTATIONS Enunciation and projection Writing on board, transparencies* Eye contact Handout materials* Non-verbal cues *Identified as instructor strengths 57 Table 4. Categories of Instructional Variables Discussed During Review and Planning Session, Instructor 3. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS Pacing Redundancy - overviews, summaries Emphasizing key points Use of examples* Use of objectives Match level of presentation with level of test questions INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES Use of humor* Providing practice opportunities - Avoiding jargon* homework, quizzes, study problems Questioning strategies* VISUAL AND VERBAL PRESENTATIONS Non-verbal messages* Model problem-solving process Use of overhead transparencies* RELATIONSHIP WITH STUDENTS Respect for students* Providing guidance* Student evaluations of teaching* *Identified as instructor strengths 58 Table 5. Categories of Instructional Variables Discussed During Review and Planning Session, Instructor 4. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS Goals of course Use of acronyms and abbreviations Logical and consistent organiza- Providing relevant information* tion Use of incidents as examples* Highlighting essential infor- Efficient use of time* mation* Facilitating note-taking with key words* RELATIONSHIP WITH STUDENTS Open, relaxed climate* Talks about important events in students' lives (nonacademic)* On first name basis (familiarity)* Gives insights into her life* VISUAL AND VERBAL PRESENTATION Use of visuals; transparencies? Maintaining eye contact Verbal projection and pacing TESTS AND READINGS Use of pre-test Comparing pre- and post-tests Level and amount of reading *Identified as instructor strengths. 59 Table 6. Degree of Verbal Participation During Review and Planning Sessions. Instructor Developer Total Time in Time in Time in Minutes % Total Minutes % Total Minutes % Total RPS1 N/A N/A N/A RPS2 26.33 51 24.86 49 51.20 100 RPS3 25.71 54 22.02 46 47.73 100 RPS4 18.73 50 18.50 50 37.23 100 XRPS 51.6 48.3 100 6O interactors, these quantitative measurements are evidence of shared floor time and nearly equivalent opportunity to control the discussions. Summary Letter The instructors' summary statements during the Review & Planning Session served as the primary content for the summary letter mailed to them at the conclusion of the CAP process. These letters specified strengths and weaknesses identified through the analysis process as well as detailing the plans jointly devised for addressing them. They were sent to the instructors as a record of the proceedings, to reinforce their learning, and for their personal or administrative use. Several indicated that they would include them 'hi their department file as evidence of concern with teaching effectiveness. Case Studies of Four Enactments of the CAP Process Instructor One Instructor One had taught in public school and at two universties before joining the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources as an assistant professor. His students were juniors and seniors contemplating careers in agricultural education. They'met twice each week for the class sessions and worked with partners during the weekly laboratory sessions. The instructor favored brief lectures and activities during the class sessions. He preferred to establish the conditions for discovery learning, rather than direct teaching whenever possible. The class observation and videotaping occurred without incident. The Faculty Review Session was held as scheduled in the developer's office. However, the discussion during that session was noticeably different from discussions with other instructors at the same stage of the 61 process. During the early part of the session, the instructor was very forthcoming in his commentary, recalling his thoughts and feelings during the class. The developer used probes and factual questions to determine the scope and pervasiveness of the conditions the instructor described. These often triggered more theoretical explanations by the instructor. He was particularly concerned with the use of strategies and techniques of teaching. Later, the developer assumed a larger role in the discussion by offering interpretations and suggestions. The instructor's responses were statements of theory or backchannel behaviors, such as "Hmm..." Instructor One's depersonalization of behaviors and non-committal responses were interpreted by the developer as a lack of readiness for the planning stage and probable information overload. "One thing that I've learned from doing this CAP is that the most important thing during the early sessions is to just listen. You have to let them get it out. It's critical that you don't start giving them ideas too early. They aren't ready and they just get information overload. There's so nmch infor- mation on that tape that they need to assimilate" (Developer Interview 10/19/81). An interview with the developer later in the study clarified the appro- priate role of the developer during the first review session. Reactions such as these prompted the developer to conclude that this first session should not be used to solve problems, but rather only to elicit the perspective of the instructor and to present an initial stimulus to their 'thinking' process. An interview with the instructor confirmed the impression of uneasiness and defensiveness created in the audiotapes of the session. When asked about the management of the session, he replied: "The experience itself is pretty threatening, but is seemed to be efficiently run." The developer regularly redirected the conversation to the specific behaviors (M1 the tape. The session concluded with an enumeration of 62 instructor concerns to be addressed to the students. Nine students volunteered for the Student Review Session. They met for nearly one and a half hours of lively discussion and reaction to the videotape. There was agreement regarding the instructor's dedication to teaching, concern for students, and mastery of the course content. Areas for improvement were specified as the communication of intent, expecta- tions, and major conclusions for each class activity. The Review and Planning Session led to several specific plans for sharpening the classroom presentations and communicating to students during transitions between topics and activities. These suggestions were summarized in the letter sent to the instructor by the developer. Instructor Two Instructor Two had taught at a university for one year before joining the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources as an assistant professor. Her classes were taught as a series of lectures with activi- ties during the first half of the quarter and as a series of student project presentations during the last half. Her students were junior and senior level majors from several departments within the college. She expressed her interest in the CAP process to the developer during a new faculty orientation meeting during the fall quarter. The developer recalled it in the following way. “She initially contacted me during the new faculty orientations where she listened to our presentation about the process. She initiated it by asking me for an opportunity to try it out. We talked during the meeting about how she was new to this level of teaching, having worked in other areas outside higher education. She indicated that teaching was very important to her, that she liked to vary her methods, and wanted to model for students what she wants them to do when they teach (Developer Interview 10/3/80). 63 The process itself proceeded smoothly from the initial contact to the final review session and summary letter. The meetings were marked by an openness to suggestions and interpretations. The instructor tended to express her reactions and thoughts during the process. The result was an exceedingly rich set of audiotape transcripts documenting her experience of the CAP process. Because the activites of joint problem solving and negotiation were quite openly visible during this session and the instructor was willing to participate, these transcripts were used for an in-depth analysis undertaken later in the study. Although six students volunteered to participate in the review session, only two actually attended it. The instructor later expressed disappointment in 'the low 'turnout and reported that several of ‘the students had confused the date and were dismayed over their mistake. The usual practice of phoning each student as a reminder of the session had been omitted because it had been scheduled for the next day. A second session for those students was not arranged. The major changes which were discussed by the students were the use of examples and discussion. Strategies for increasing student involve- ment and response rate to questions, as well as techniques for achieving smoother transitions between lecture points were outlined during the last session with the developer. The students' comments about rapport and organization emphasized these areas as teacher strengths. They were reported to the instructor during the last session, as well. The results of the micro-analysis of this session are reported in a later section of this chapter. 64 Instructor Three Instructor Three taught college students for 'four .years before joining the staff of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources as an assistant professor. At Michigan State University, he taught students in both two-year and four-year programs, as well as those at the graduate level. The CAP was conducted while he was teaching a two-year degree course. His lecture classes were supplemented by a separate lab course taken concurrently. After class observation, he was described by the developer: "...was able to take very complex concepts and present them in a very simple way. He seems to be talking to students rather than lecturing at them. He uses gestures, stands close to students, asks questions that involve students. His nonverbals are good. He has a good sense of humor. Students seem to perceive tfin1 as competent 'hi the subject matter. They made cements about how much they have been learning in class...He seems to interact well with students during the early 'warm-up.’ He kibitzes with them — There's some bantering going on between them. 'The whole set of behaviors changed when the lecture began. And the students became very respect- ful and listened" (Developer Interview 10/23/80). The instructor's own description of his teaching reinforced the developer's comments. The explained his style of interaction and its purpose: "...I like to interact with the class to sense what's going on. One thing is, of course, you find out if they're receiving what you're lecturing about. The second thing is you're keeping their interest in the topic..." I3 Faculty Review Session) He described his teaching as "giving the students a gut feel" for the concepts and his simplified patterns of explanation as helping them to "common sense their way through problems." Twelve students volunteered for the Student Review Session. Their comments revealed an excellent rapport and considerable respect for the instructor. Among their many positive comments,the students confirmed 65 the instructor's own suspicion that there were too few opportunities for practice following instruction. Even though the instructor was not surprised by this information, he was reluctant to create more work for himself by providing homework and practice exercises. During the Review and Planning Session, the videotape was replayed and the student comments were reported as they had occurred during the student viewing. The issue of practice was thoroughly discussed and numerous strategies for building more practice opportunities into the course were suggested by the developer. They settled on four approaches which could be accomplished during the lecture, as well as involving homework assignments. Schemes for reducing the administrative require- ments of the approaches were also discussed. The instructor described his understanding of their negotiated action plan during a later interview with the researcher. When asked, “Are there any specific changes you will be making?" he replied, "Specific changes. to address these students-—she suggested specific changes relevant to the nature of these students. I've begun to understand that I was teaching the way'I wanted to be taught. I've begun to understand that I'm in the minority. So now I concentrate more on: more repetition, sketching past, present and future perspectives, practice and homework, including more and frequent, smaller quizzes" (13 Interview 12/21/80). The instructor's comments were a bit surprising, since the discus- sion during the session didn't clearly indicate whether the instructor had actually been convinced of the importance of the practice element. At its close, reservations about the extra work it would entail were still being expressed. However, the instructor seemed quite convinced during the interview and showed some of the homework exercises to the researcher as evidence. The summary letter sent to the instructor by the developer included a 66 listing of the strengths and weaknesses identified by the students. It concluded with a brief re-statement of the strategies for providing students with more practice discussed during the last session. Instructor Four Instructor Four was an instructor who had worked as an Extension Agent for several years prior to joining the College of Human Ecology faculty. She taught several introductory courses each year and had a reputation among colleagues as a concerned teacher who was always willing to undertake teaching improvement activites. She learned about this study and the analysis process from a colleague who relayed the instructor's interest and enthusiasm back to the Learning and Evaluation Service staff. When the initial contact was made, Instructor Four agreed to participate. As she explained during the post-process interview: "I've always been interested in the work you do at the Learning and Evaluation Service and I've been curious about my teaching. I didn't feel like I could impose on you since everything was going pretty well in my classes. But, now that I know there's a study, I feel like I'm helping out, so it's okay" (I4 Interview 1/8/81). After the first. observation, the' consultant. was interviewed 'to document her impressions of the class. She spoke of Instructor Four's apparent strengths and weaknesses. She also indicated her own concerns and hypotheses about the instructor's teaching. Among the strengths were an open, relaxed, caring classroom environment. The instructor also used relevant examples and cued students in their note-taking. She was organized and straight-forward. The developer was concerned about the length of the stories told in class, the lack of an overview, and the lack of supportive data presented in conjunction with major conclusions. She explained that these needed to 67 be examined with the instructor and students. Other observations included a pacing pattern that might interfere with learning and a relatively low student attendance. The interview concluded with the developer's assessment of the instructor's probable receptiveness during the upcoming review sessions: "My hunch is that she'll be open and we'll be able to exchange a lot of information. She seems to be very open and confident“ (Developer Interview 11/19/81) The class session was videotaped and review sessions were conducted the next week. The developer's office was the site of the Instructor Review Session and the students met with the developer in a classroom in the same building. The interviews were concluded within the scheduled one hour time period and followed the established format. The final Review and Planning Session was characterized by more reporting than planning or problem-solving. The instructor's facility in the classroom had been confirmed by the students and inmrovement was determined to require only minor behavior changes. The developer's initial concern with the elementary level of the course was less satis- factorily resolved. This highlights an important limitation of the procedure. Neither the instructor nor the students were able to supply enough information to definitively determine the appropriate amount and level of course content. Since this is the purview of the department curriculum committee, the developer's strategy was to address it only in terms of the course readings and the entry level of students. She suggested that a pre-test would be a useful way to assess student backgrounds to determine if the course content was appropriately targetted. The instructor agreed to try it. A summary letter was sent to the instructor* documenting ‘their discussions and listing the specific plans they developed during the final session. 68 Instructor Evaluations of the CAP Experience Introduction Each of the four instructors who underwent the CAP experience and agreed to participate in this study'were asked to complete a fourteen item questionnaire about their experience. The questionnaires were adminis- tered during the following term in order to provide each respondent enough time to act on the suggestions made during the consultation sessions. They were intended to elicit the instructors' judgments about the effectiveness, relevance and efficiency of the approach. After the questionnaires were completed, each instructor was interviewed by the researcher for approximately one hour. They were asked to talk about the experience generally, then each item on the questionnaire was reviewed. The instructors were asked to explain why they responded as they did and to discuss any other factors which influenced their opinions and attitudes about the CAP process and its meaning to them. The results of the questionnaires are reported in Table 7. Results and Interpretation The first five items addressed the instructors' perceptions of the effectiveness of the CAP as a teaching improvement program. Three of the four respondents labelled the experience as very helpful in satisfying their purposes as participants. One respondent indicated that it was somewhat helpful. The second item asked for a judgment about the degree to which instructors' expectations were met during the CAP process. Three respon- dents indicated that all were met, while one indicated that some were met. This later response was based on Instructor Three's expectation of greater student involvement. 69 Item three asked the instructors how much they learned during the experience. All responded in the two positive categories. Three of them checked that they had learned some things, while one indicated that very much was learned. When asked if they were motivated to make changes in their teaching practices as a result of the CAP experience, all respondents indicated some motivation in that area. Item five asked the instructors to specify whether they had changed in their thinking about teaching. They responded in the mid ranges, with two indicating "much" change and two indicating that their thinking had changed "very little." The next three questions addressed the instructors' perceptions of the process, specifically whether they considered it to be an efficient use of their time. Responses show that three instrdctors considered it to be a "very efficient" use of time, while one checked "efficient." No responses were noted in the lower range. All instructors gave the process highest ratings in terms of the gains they made in proportion to the time they invested. When asked to indicate whether change was needed in the process in order to be effective and efficient, two indicated that "no changes" were needed while two suggested a "few minor changes." In their comments, the instructors recommended more scientific sampling procedures in collecting student comments. All four respondents judged the developer to be "highly competent" and rated her interpretations and suggestions highly, with three judging them as "very useful" and one specifying "useful" in the questionnaire. The last four items required the respondents to assess the relevance of the CAP process. Again their responses fell in the positive range. 70 Three ranked it as "very useful," while one indicated that it was "useful." All four respondents indicated that they would recommend the program to others as well as participating in it again themselves. Finally, three respondents indicated that they were planning to implement suggestions made during the process and one indicated that suggestions had already been implemented. Summary Generally, the four instructors rated the CAP experience as effec- tive in addressing their needs and as an efficient use of their time. Each expressed commitment to personal changes and indicated that they have independently encouraged their colleagues to participate as well. Their endorsement of the process is taken as ewidence of its relevance and usefulness to college instructors who are interested in instructional improvement. 71 A V hzmzmgmzA oh zm= A V mzoAp<>¢mmm¢ AeV mzoAA<>¢umu¢ A V AC: ASSAAzVng A V be: Aomemoea “tom sz3 Adm¢mmm¢ A V zoAA<>¢mmme AeV zoAA<>eumuz A V be: AdmAAzAEuo Axe: zhAz Aozo “tom :AVz .mm> haozhA: .mm» 3.550 3 Emgmoga $5 325.com... .8» 3:63 A V mmuuwm: A V Azemmz Aeu> Aoz AAV 338mm: AmV Saawm= >¢u> ~oucmpgmnxw mpg» gang ac» v—aoz Aswwmz no: A V mmwdmms A V Aaemma >¢m> he: AAV Saamma AmV Saammz >em> ~mcomammam3m use meowumuosacoucv m.u:aup=mcou mg» mew: Azemma go: A V EMASAgmz= A V Axuaxm Am“) he: A V hmuaxm >A¢Amuuommo m=_u:uoca= mm voEAmmu coon no: AucmpuAmwm A V 44¢ A< Ac: A V moppAA >¢m> A V “tom AeV =83: >em> Nucmam ppm: was mew» Lao» yoga pom» so» ku .muchLoaxw mega sage uocwom so» umcu «cacao 6:» can A V um: AzmAQAELuzA >¢u> A V uzAA Lo mm: AzwAuAEszA AAV mzAp Lo um: AzEAUAALm AmV AzuAuAEEm >¢m> ~uw~VAAua mam» as» we: ApucmpuAVGm go; .covcwao Lao» EA A V Ade A< Aoz ANV “AAAAA >mm> ANV :82: A V :82: >¢u> wmcmgummu uaoam mEAAEVgu Lao» Lo mcwgummu Lao» EV vmmcmgu no» m>mg guns so: A V SS< he A0: A V “SAAAS >¢m> AmV axon AAV =83: >¢w> ~mmumuuocn acpguumu Lao» we wsom mmcmgu ca .66» :0» cu toao>muos so; .a¢m> . AmV “sow AAV :82: >¢u> wmucmPLmaxm m_;u soc» mewsuoou Lao» uaoan :Lum_ so» vAu guas :6: A V Am: mew: wzoz A V A“: “an: 381 >xu> AAV A“: New: “sow AmV pm: New: SSE ~m=o_uoauwnxw Lao» Home mucmVLwaxm mg» EVE wagmwu was: ob A V Saaaou: Aoz A V Azeanz AAV 4:183“: A¢u> ~acoEAUAuLoa a mo mmmoacaa Lao» mcwzemVHom cm mucmALmaxm mmgu mo: Aswa—m; 3o: .mcmeccowummao anonymom op mmmcoammm Loauzguch we mupammm .A m—nm» 72 Micro-Analysis Introduction To describe and explain how the tasks of the Review and Planning Session were accomplished by the developer and instructor, a single session was analyzed in-depth. The Review and Planning Session was chosen for this purpose since it was the meeting in which the data was integrated and plans for teaching improvement completed. In contrast to the earlier sessions, participation by the developer and instructor was more nearly equal, since the problem solving and planning processes require them to interact cooperatively and to negotiate specific outcomes. The par- ticular session analyzed in this section was that of the second client. The audiotape of that session was of sufficiently high quality to permit repeated playback and the creation of a clear, accurate transcript. This, combined with the instructor's willingness to talk openly about her experience and to meet whenever the research process required, were the primary reasons for the selection of this particular sample for additional analysis. Microanalytic techniques of discourse and conversational analysis were used. These methods/are based on sociolinguistics and ethno- methodology. Both schools examine events holistically, as dynamic and interactive social interactions during whith task and social dimensions are jointly negotiated and accomplished. Thus, to understand the dynamics of the Review and Planning Session, a model of social interaction was constructed as ii framework for explaining the interaction between the developer and instructor. This social interaction framework is presented next. 73 Social Interaction Framework The Review and Planning Session can be analyzed as a social event in which the instructor and developer meet and interact in order to accom- plish specific tasks. They meet to view the videotape a second time, to sort through the information collected during earlier review sessions, and to develop plans based on it. Their central activities are talk and reasoning about teaching. Within these paramaters, their interaction is dynamic and variable. The task has a cognitive component in that it requires the participants to identify and resolve discrepencies in the instructor's and students' interpretations of the teaching event. It involves the integration of data from these multiple perspectives in order to expand or modify the instructor's implicit belief system and opera- tional model of teaching and learning. The task also has a social component since it occurs through interaction between two individuals and includes their joint formulation of teaching plans. to align future instruction with the newly enriched model of teaching and learning. The cognitive element of the session can be likened to the process of thinking or reflection as Dewey defined it: Thinking, in other words, is the intentional endeavor to discover specific connections between something which we do and the consequences which result, so that the two become continuous. Thought or reflection, as we have already seen virtually if not explicitly, is the discernment of the relation between what we try to do and what happens in consequence. No experience having a meaning is possible without some element of thought. (Dewey, 1944, p. 140) The value of an experience, Dewey contended, lies in the degree of reflection it involves. Based on this reasoning, the goal of the Review and Planning Session should be to stimulate reflection by the instructor, which will result in learning from the experience of the videotape review, 74 the student comments and the talk of the developer. As he explained, To learn from experience is to make a backward and forward connection between what we do to things and what we enjoy or suffer from things in consequence. Under such conditions, doing becomes a trying; an experiment with the world to find out what it is like; the undergoing becomes instruction -— discovery of the connection of things. (Dewey, 1944, p. 140) Dewey's description of learning from experience implies that the process of reflection is a critical element in the continued, independent learning of the instructor, for when the instructor begins to observe and seek relationship between action and consequence, each action becomes self-instruction. Thus, the instructor who learns to analyze his or her own teaching can continue to treat each classroom teaching event as a laboratory in which skills are perfected through "trying" and "experiment." The more visible element of the session is the social interaction component. The instructor and the developer meet, sit down together, and discuss comments and plans about instruction and teaching. In short, the two interactors engage in a conversation about teaching. However, as Gumperz (1981) has stated, Conversation is more than simply saying what one wants to say at any desired moment....Speaking has been shown to involve a negotiation process between conversationalists (p. 11). Speakers must attract the attention of the other and negotiate involvement. The topic of the conversation must be established. During the interaction, each person must continue to negotiate for space within the conversation. They must adapt their behaviors to synchronize their speech, timing and non-verbal communications. A major requirement if such communication is to occur, is the smooth regulation of the flow' of 75 interaction through language as reflected in turn taking, tying, asides and side sequences, openings and closings (Sacks, 1972; Sacks, Schlegloff & Jefferson, 1974). If this flow of talk is not smoothly regulated, then communication will break down and the conversation will lack coherence (Fredrickson, 1981, p. 308). To understand how verbal strategies are used to direct and regulate interactions, face-to-face communication can be conceptualized as a dynamic and interactive system. As a system, changes in one element influence all other elements within the system. The system seeks equili— brium and exerts force to maintain that balance once a steady state condition has been achieved. Thus, when dyadic communication is initiated, the interactors may modify their behaviors and accomodate to each other. As they negotiate the unspoken rules for the encounter and the purpose for which they are interacting, they attempt to establish equilibrium. Argyle (1969) described the importance and the nature: of this equilibrium. For anything approaching social interaction to occur there must be considerable amount of 'coordination', 'meshing', or 'synchronizing' of the two patterns of behavior (p. 199). At the social level, the conversers must resolve' questions of intimacy, dominance and role relationship which guide their behaviors throughout the conversation. Extralinguistic factors, such as the setting, the statuses of the participants, and the task they are performing, constrain the negotiations. These constraints are responsible for the syntagmatic patterning of conversations, such that talk is organized and connected in meaningful ways. However, within the limitations imposed by linguistic and extralin- guistic factors, there are options available to the speakers in the 76 paradigmatic domain. These options are sociolinguistic variants, or verbal forms which convey essentially the same message, but the choice of variant communicates social information to the listener. In order to produce speech which is intelligible and contextually meaningful, the language user must have the linguistic and social competence required to make choices in syntagmatic and paradigmatic domains. Such decisions are based on inferences and goals. Inferences represent the judgments about meanings of verbal messages and the expectations of the participants about the interaction. They permit the interactors to interpret verbal messages and formulate appro- priate responses; that is, responses which are topically coherent, matched to the preceeding utterance, and socially appropriate. These judgments are embedded in the discourse. They can be reconstructed by examining patterns of utterances and are primary indicators of the quality of the relationship which is negotiated between the interactors. It is important to note that this model of social interaction defines relationship as an evolving construct which changes in the course of prolonged communication and association. Thus, relationship involves both elements of social status and the social negotiations through which various facets of status and social identities are expressed. To explain how relationships are developed, sociologists distinguish between social status and role. Status refers to the rights and obligations which reside within a particular social position. Role refers to the dynamic aspect of status which is negotiated through interaction with others. The way in which one enacts the rights and obligations of their position has been called role-making (Cicourel, 1972). Thus, the conduct of social interaction is influenced both by the status of an individual, or the expectations and responsibilities they hold, and by the behavioral 77 options they choose in the process of meeting those rights and responsibilities. The negotiated character of role-making behavior can be understood if one examines the concepts of social identity and social gersona. Social identity has been defined by Goodenough (1969) as "that aspect of self which makes a difference in how one's rights and duties distribute to others." For each social identity, ainatched identity is available to the other interactor(s). A relationship is established when the participants in an interaction adopt compatible identities. If a matched identity is not adopted, the interaction is strained and social confusion results. This may occur at any moment during the interaction since individuals frequently adopt more than one identity in the course of social communi- cation. During a smooth interaction, the participants react to the verbal and non-verbal signals emitted by each individual and respond by adopting a social identity which matches the identity indicated by the signals. For example, an individual may interact as an employer, a teacher, or neighbor during a single conversation. The matched identities for that interaction would be employee, student, and neighbor. When the inter- action is strained, it is often due to the normative system operating for a participant which holds that the social identity or its matched pair are not appropriate to the setting or the participants. The process of selecting identities during an interaction is negotiated between the participants and can be described as role-making behavior. The composite of the several identities which are chosen during the interaction have been called the selector's social persona (Goodenough, 1969). The importance of goals during face-to-face interactions has been examined by Brown and Levinson (1978) in their treatment of strategic message construction. They define interaction as strategic in the sense 78 that there is a means-end relationship in the selection of verbal form. Speakers rationally choose verbal forms based on their personal verbal repertoire, their understanding of the situation, and their perceptions of the listener. The speaker may either consciously choose a particular option in a specific situation, or the decision to use a familiar, normally successful strategy may be so routinized as to be made at the subliminal level. Brown and Levinson (1978) explain the systematic character of interaction as evidence of user rationality and a desire to preserve fage. Rationality refers to the exercise of reasoning that a particular means will accomplish a desired end. Face is a concept derived from Goffman's (1967) work and refers to the dual desires to be unimpeded in the pursuit of goals and to hold the approval of others. Both rationality and face come into play during interaction because the speaker must choose a strategy which will serve as an effective means to communicate a message as well as achieving face-oriented ends. This process of selection is called practical reasoning. Through practical reasoning interactors usually choose words which will convey particular' messages without threatening their own desires (face) or the desires (face) of the hearer. Because it is in their interest to have their messages heard and acted upon, interactors normally guard against threats to face which might interfere with the communication. Goffman (1959) described how learned cultural routines maintain face during interactions. He examined the phenomenon of tact as a set of protective and defensive practices which facilitate the exchange of messages and the accomplishment of interactive work. Brown and Levinson extended Goffman's work with a cross-cultural analysis of politeness strategies as habitual verbalizations which are matched to complex 79 features of any situation. Included among these situation features are the relative power of the participants, their social distance, and the degree of imposition represented by the act itself. Depending on the distribution and weight of each factor, interactors may select positive- politeness or negative-politeness strategies. The authors describe these routines as linguistic "social accellerators" and "social brakes" which the conversants use to modify the direction of social interaction at any time (p. 236). During a conversation, each interactor carefully monitors verbal exchanges and intuitively notes any minute changes in social relationship implied by them. When the sense of equilibrium between the speakers is disturbed, they may move to regain a satisfactory balance through the selection of politeness strategies which reestablish an appropriate degree of social distance. In this same vein, Erickson explained how the success of interaction hinges on the "mutual perfor- mance" of the participants and the interdependence of their behaviors. As interactors, they are engaged in a sort of “ballroom dance, improvised in process, in which a stumble by one party causes the other party to stumble" (Erickson, _t._l,, 1973). Perhaps because strategies of persuasion are less subtle than politeness routines, Argyle's definition of interaction strategies as planned sequences intended to elicit some reaction, building upon listener's reactions earlier in the series, and enabling the performer to control the interaction, is more clearly exemplified in Cook-Gumperz's work. She analyzed the rational and goal-oriented elements of discourse in her treatment of language as a resource to accomplish social actions. Through a study of children's talk, persuasion and its features were identified. In her words 80 Persuasion is not letting up when the intent of a single speech act is misunderstood or does not have its intended effect, and continuing verbally to attempt to influence the actions of another without resort to direct action or verbal imperatives (Cook- Gumperz, 1981, p. 40). It was found to involve the use of several and varied verbal strategies to construct arguments and sway listeners. These strategies were marked by the qualities of indirectness and complexity. Our notion of indirectness rests not upon the speech act, but upon the social action of achieveing control over another's actions without direct confrontation through the use and choice of verbal strategy. Our notion of complexity, consists of being able to conduct a sequence of exchanges which build up to the desired goal -—- or achieve the goal through inter- change that is a dialogue (Cook-Gumperz, 1980, p. 37 . As the competent communicator will have noted through practical experience, the non-use of language can be equally strategic. Pauses may signal changes in turn at speaking, moments of thought, and points of emphasis. The meaning of silence can be determined only by examining it as it occurred within the context of the conversation. As Giglioli observed Although the form of silence is always the same, the function of a specific act of silence —— that is, its interpretation by and effect upon other people — will vary according to the social context in which it occurs (Giglioli, 1972, p. 69). Silence can be used strategically as a regulating mechanism or it may be an important part of the purpose or task of the interaction. These strategies, as well as the other interaction structures discussed in this model of social interaction, provide a framework for the analysis of the natural discourse of a single Review and Planning Session. Techniques for analyzing the discourse to locate patterns and explain the task and social dimensions of the interaction were used in this study. These include a discourse analysis system (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) 81 based in sociolinguistics and the conversational analysis framework (Goffman, 1957; Sacks, 1974) from ethnomethodology. From the analysis, a grounded theory of the interaction was generated and a descriptive model of the session was constructed. Discourse Analysis: Introduction Discourse analysis is a sociolinguistic analysis system for identi- fying the component parts of language and examining their social correlates (Schwartz & Jacobs, 1979). The approach attempts to document the relationship between the functions served by speech and the grammatical form and content of the discourse. This requires an accurate determination of the interpretations that the listeners and speakers assign to spoken words during the conversation. To do this the analyst must consider the linguistic context in which words are spoken as well as the extralinguistic setting of the conversation. Searle (1975)referred to this as determining the "utterer's meaning." This primary task of discourse analysis is accomplished by identifying various speech acts and the patterns they comprise within naturally occurring discourse. The speech act was specified by Searle (1975) as the smallest unit of meaningful verbal communication. Speech acts consist of words or phrases which communicate propositional content, or literal meanings. However, verbal utterances often convey messages which are much different from the propositional content of their constituent speech acts. To decipher their alternative meanings, the intention of the speaker in performing the utterance must be determined. For example, we know that questions are usually intended to elicit a reply from the bearer. This intended effect of the speech act is known as its illocutionary force. However, the same question posed to a large audience during a formal speech may more 82 accurately be interpreted as a rhetorical question meant to inform and, therefore, lacking illocutionary force. This illustrates how proposi- tional and illocutionary properties of speech acts must also be examined within the social context in which they are spoken. The context guides the listener in arriving at assumptions about the purpose of the inter- action and in forming expectations about the speaker's assumptions. These cognitive decisions influence the listener's choice among possible interpretations of the speech acts. When listeners and speakers make these decisions about interpretations, they are exercising conversational inference (Gumperz, 1977). The actions they take based on these inferences are demonstrations of their communicative competence. Discourse Analysis: Findings and Interpretations By examining the propositional, illocutionary and extralinguistic factors of the discourse, a thesarus of classes of speech acts performed during the Review and Planning Session was constructed. The following acts were included: Overview Statement: Realized by a general statement which precedes the reporting of evidence. Its function is to give the client an idea of the content of the conver- sation to follow, thereby reducing uncertainty and preparing the listener for the exchange. Metastatement: Realized by a statement about the discourse to follow. It differs from an overview statement in that it is about the process, rather than the content. Its function is to tell the listener where they are in the process or where they are geing. Marker: Realized by terms such as 'well', 'okay', 'so', 'now', 'alright', or 'let's see'. Its function is to mark boundaries in the discourse. Direct: Realized by a statement which focuses attention to a specific datum. Report: Acknowledge: Compare: Inform: Interpret: Suggest: Recommend: Comment: Elicit: Reply: Request: 83 Realized by a statement which is a direct or near direct re-statement of a student comment Inade during a review session. Its function is to provide information about the student's experience or perspective of the teaching event. Realized by a verbalization, such as 'yes', 'okay', 'uh huh'. Its function is to indicate that the previous statements have been understood. Realized by a statement which either' directly states or implies an examination of information or ideas being presented in light of other data, experience, knowledge or values. Its function is to support a judgment about the acceptability or validity of the information being presented. Realized by a statement which provides data which resides outside the observable data captured on videotape or in transcripts of student comments. Its function is to provide relevant information about the teaching event and the speaker's perspective. A statement which offers an explanation of deeper meanings residing within behavioral data or the impact these behaviors may have within the context of the teaching-learning event. Its function is to enrich the instructor's model of the event. Realized by a statement which proposes a teaching behavior for consideration or as desirable. Its function is to provide a hypothesis or potential solution which can be examined by the listener. Realized by a statement which endorses a particular teaching behavior as worthy' of acceptance or trial. It is offered as advice and without qualifiers. Realized by a statement which expands, explains, justifies or provides additional information subordinate to some earlier statement. A statement or question whose function is to request a response from the instructor (reply). A statement which is offered in response to an elicitation. Realized by a question or statement which functions as an opener for the offering of additional information by the participant. It is satisfied by an Inform act or the presentation of relevant information which lies outside the observable data collected by the consultant. Evaluate: Agree: Conclude: Summarize: Appraise: 84 Realized by a statement which refers back to a reply and functions to communicate a judgment about the adequacy or accuracy of that reply. It may include such words as 'good', 'right', 'yes', or 'okay'. Realized by 'yes' or 'okay' to communicate a shared conclusion or assessment of some information or fact. It indicates that the preceeding statement is true or acceptable. Realized by a statement or phrase. Its function is to complete an earlier statement or thought. Realized by a statement which represents a concise restatement or abstract of the preceeding discourse offered at the request of the developer. Its function is to provide a brief recapitulation of findings as the instructor understands them. Realized by a statement which provides an expert judgment of value or worth in reference to the content of a summarize speech act. Speech exchanges were specified by identifying patterns of speech acts within the discourse which combined to achieve specific tasks. The primary exchanges identified in this manner include the following: Boundary Exchanges; Problem-Finding: Problem-Assessment: Consist of verbal markers which accomplish frame or focus moves. In this analysis, the direct speech act is used to establish boundaries and to focus attention during topic phases. Other boundary speech acts included in the analysis system are metastatement, overview statement and conclude (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). These exchanges are preceeded by metastatement or direct speech acts and a report discourse act which is a direct or near-direct quotation of a student statement made during the videotape review session. It provides information about the student's experience or perspective of the teaching event” Problem-finding exchanges are characterized by' relatively' short developer utterances which are followed by pauses which permit the instructor to respond. These exchanges are usually initiated by the instructor with a compare speech act which suggests the rendering of some judgment about the previous utterances' plausibility, acceptability or importance. Often it includes references to past experience, knowledge, values or logic accomplished through inform and interpret speech acts. Solution-Finding: Solution-Assessment: Direct Feedback: Summarization: 85 These exchanges are usually initiated by the developer with a suggest discourse act which proposes a teaching behavior as a potential solution which can be examined by the instructor. It is also the means whereby the hypothesis implied by the suggestion can be tested in the classroom. These exchanges include recommend discourse acts which function as an endorsement of a particular teaching behavior offered without qualification. This act is usually committed only after tacit agreement regarding the problem statement has been reached between developer and instructor. These exchanges are usually initiated by the instructor and are) marked by the speech act, compare. They follow the solution-finding act suggest and precede recommend speech acts. They provide the instructor with an opportunity to render some judgment about the acceptability, plausibility, or appropriateness of the suggestions. They often include acts of inform which address issues of past experience, expectations, goals, and values as they relate to the proposed solutions. These exchanges are initiated by the developer through a report speech act which is a direct or near-direct quotation of a student comment not related to any specific segment of the videotaped lesson. They include instructor speech acts of acknowledgement, agreement, or' comment and are characterized by brief conversational turns and topic phases. These exchanges are most often initiated by the developer, although they may be made by either party during the session. They occur after the major portion of the tasks of the Review and Planning Session have been completed, usually after direct feedback exchanges. At the close of the session, they are elicited at the developer's reguest. They often include appraise as well as summarize speech acts. Boundary exchanges, first identified by Sinclair and Coulthard in their study of classroom discourse, signal the beginning or end of segments and stages in the discourse. They’were also used to indicate the initiation of new topic phases. During problem-finding exchanges, the student's interpretations of the teaching event were reported through verbatim comments keyed to specific behaviors on the tape. They were 86 offered for the instructor's consideration during this verbal sequence. One of the goals of the problem-finding exchange was the initiation of a response from the instructor. Ideally, the response was characterized by the identification of discrepencies between instructor and student inter- pretations of teaching behaviors and attempts to bring them into congruence. This class of utterances is called problem-assessment exchange ir1 this studyu The problem-assessment sequence provided the instructor with an opportunity to rebut, redefine or reject the earlier characterization of the teaching event. It often resulted in the addition of new information and additional discussion between the developer and instructor. Concrete, specific behavioral solutions to the teaching problem were communicated during solution-finding exchanges. Negotiations between developer and instructor occurred during the solution-finding and solution-assessment exchanges. During solution- assessment, each instructor weighed the instructor's suggestions in light of their objectives, experiences and values. The developer monitored these reactions carefully and responded with alternative suggestions or modifications. When tacit agreement seemed to have been reached, the developer recommended a solution. Direct feedback exchanges usually consisted of simple reporting which did not require action planning by the participants. They were most prominent during specific stages of the session which will be discussed in a later section. Summarization exchanges were general statements about the findings of the session. A full discourse analysis of a single Review and Planning Session using this system of speech acts and exchanges was completed as part of this study. The analyzed and charted discourse can be found in the Appendix. 87 Social Organizational Features The analysis of the discourse during the Review and Planning Session revealed a good deal about the social organizational structure of the session and the nature of the tasks accomplished during the session. Social organization features were identified by noting patterns within the discourse and chunking the session through a process called segmentation (Pike, 1967). Segments were characterized by the singu- larity of behaviors which occurred within them. Whenever a change in activity occurred in the interaction, one segment had ended and a new one had been initiated. Other indicators of segments are formal markers, usually linguistic expressions such as 'okay', or 'next', which signalled the beginning or end, and sanctioned features, which are the recognizable behaviors that occur during the segment but which are inappropriate proceeding or following that segment. Segmentation permitted the identification of naturally occurring stages in the Review and Planning Session. After the stages were specified, the behaviors during each stage could be enumerated without disturbing their contextual integrity (Figure 2). For example, the PRE-SESSION segment of the Review and Planning Session was characterized by lively talk about topics ranging far outside the nominal purpose of the meeting. An appreciable change in activity occurred when the developer completed the arrangement of equipment and notes and seated herself beside the instructor. Following a brief pause in the conversation, she made a metastatement which foreshadowed the activity to follow. 'This verbalization functioned as a formal marker that one segment was ending and another was about to begin. Talk during this transitional "juncture" (Sacks, et al., 1974) period focussed on procedures for accomplishing the purpose of the meeting. Behaviors which 88 PnE-SESSION ENTER EXIT EQUIPMENT SET UP POST GREETINGS SESSION 1 PARTING GENERAL REMARKS CONVERSATION I COURTESIES/ GENERAL CONVERSATION OPENING THE SESSION DIRECT CLOSING “firm” TI-IE SESSION OFFER OF OVERVIEW ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE REPORT FINAL POSITIVE SS SUMMATIVE COMMENT STATEMENT FOCUSSED DIRECT 11MB DIRECT ATTENTION FEEDBACK TO VIDEOTAPE/ SOLUTION RECYCLE PROBLEM ASSESSMENT FINDING SUMMATION EXCHANGES SgfigTION PROBLEM j DING ASSESSMENT ..... oooooooo ......... DIRECT ‘...... ........... ....... FEEDBACK Figure 2. Social-organizational features Of the Review and Planning Session 89 were appropriate during the FOCUSSED TIME segment Of the formal session were much different from the casual conversation which preceeded it. The developer assumed a directive posture by claiming topic control through reports Of student comments. Throughout this segment, she divided her attention between the television monitor, her notes, and the instructor. The instructor nO longer introduced conversational topics, but instead responded to initiations made by the developer and followed her lead in viewing the videotape. Each topic formed a phase within the focussed time segment. Four types Of activities occurred within the phases. Reporting formed problem- finding activity and was followed by problem-assessment activity initiated by the instructor. Solution-finding activity was most frequently initiated by a suggestion from the developer. Solution- assessment consisted Of an instructor reaction to the suggestion and any alternative suggestions from either party. The topic phase was concluded by a recommendation and any accompanying reactions to it. While the developer managed transitions between topic phases, the instructor was able to be assertive within each phase. Statements Of agreement or disagreement, as well as negotiations for redefinition or alternative solutions were accepted without penalty. The developer relinquished floor time during the topic phase and permitted brief asides from the instructor. The conclusion of focussed time was indicated by prolonged reporting accomplished by direct feedback exchanges which alternated between positive and negative student statements, encouraging instructor reaction after each, and ending with a positive comment. CLOSING THE SESSION was initiated by the developer with a marker, then a metastatement about the summary letter to follow the session. A verbal summarization Of the discussion was elicited from the instructor. 9O Leaving the final interpretation to the instructor transferred ownership to that individual. A general summary comment was made by the developer and concluding remarks were provided by the instructor. The developer's Offer Of additional service concluded the session. POST-SESSION was marked by an exchange of parting remarks, physical movement away from the developer's Office and the resumption Of talk about non-instructional matters. Often this time involved joking and informal collegial information exchanges between the instructor and developer. Nature of Task The task was shown to be one Of problem solving in which the developer played the primary and controlling role during problem-finding and solution-finding exchanges, while the instructor was central during problem-assessment and solution-assessment exchanges. The critical importance Of these assessments cannot be overemphasized for the success of the problem solving process during each topic phase was found tO hinge on the instructor's enactment of them. They represented the instructor's judgments and beliefs about the topic being discussed. In those phases which resulted in action plans, the instructor was provided the Oppor- tunity for assessment and the developer was able tOT monitor those reactions. When assessments did not occur, the participants were required to recycle through exchanges in order to complete the problem solving process. The process was found to Operate according to a set of ordinal rules, such that: 1. For each topic phase, the process proceeds in a linear fashion, from problem-finding to problem— assessment to solution-finding and solution- assessment. 2. When problem—assessment and solution-assessment occur as stated in rule one, the phase is brought to resolution. 91 3. When problem assessment or solution assessment are not enacted by the instructor, the process must recycle for resolution to occur. The task also involved the provision Of positive feedback tO the instructor, usually through direct feedback exchanges. However, feedback was also provided by the developer within assessment exchanges, usually in the form Of evaluate or comment speech acts. Finally, the task involved summations and appraisals accomplished primarily by the instructor, although they occurred at the request Of the developer. These activities were initiated only upon completion of the problem solving process for each topic phase. They signalled a shift to greater instructor dominance Of the session and its impending conclusion. Summary Through this examination Of the verbal discourse, information was revealed about how language was used to perform tasks and to structure the interaction. The dominant events Of the Review and Planning Session were identified by examining the analysis charts and chunking the session according to patterns in the discourse and shifts in activity. Using this analysis framework as a base, further ethnomethodological examinations Of the social interactive elements Of the session were undertaken. This conversational analysis is discussed next. Conversational Analysis: Introduction Conversational analysis is a framework for analyzing discourse which emphasizes the activity accomplished through discourse, rather than the structure Of discourse. It is based on ethnomethodology, which is concerned with descriptions Of social situations in order to explain how participants construct and maintain social reality through their 92 interactions. One Of the most important elements Of conversational analysis is that it builds on the finding that individuals deliberately display their awareness Of others through their behavior. Thus, an examination Of discourse can reveal the "point of view" Of the inter- actors. Rather than interviewing them later, the discourse permits the retrieval Of what people are aware Of during the conversational event. The ethnomethodological basis Of conversational analysis was originated by Harold Garfinkel (1967), whose sociological studies of practical reasoning explained how people make decisions in everyday life. By focusing on patterns and changes in the behaviors Of social inter- actors, he was able tO create holistic accounts which documented the meaning structures Of the participants, as well as the underlying rules, norms and definitions which permitted them to work interactively tO accomplish tasks. Using similar techniques, Sacks and Schleghoff (1974) studied the patterns within conversations which regulate and control the interaction process. They identified turn taking rules, openings and closings, and the elements of reciprocity and cooperation which account for routine, smooth conversation. Through such detailed and rigorous analyses, conversations have been shown to be jointly managed by the interactors, who initiate and maintain talk while accomplishing inter- actional tasks. Conversational Analysis: Findings and Interpretations TO facilitate further analysis of the task and social dimensions Of the Review and Planning Session, the framework provided through discourse analysis will be continued. The analysis in this next section will, therefore, address the activities Of the conversation as they occur within each topic phase. These 25 phases are summarized in Table 8. They 93 mep>pem EeAgeLe mecmpewemwe op mmAeEexe mewgeuez guegeemm uemgwo meAeEexm mEAm: cewuuemg acmeeum .wA memege Aegewpwmeeghg .NA SSHALg—Vmu .3 mew>Aem EeAgega pgeeeeg mgwepwem meee peepmwmgeu mgw>Aw eewupmgegp egeuueg .mA mgw>pom Empgoge mmeum mg» mewuuem zuw>wgue esegw .eA mcw>Aom EeAgeLe cewmmeemwe mmepo meegpes m>AeeeLepA< .mA xeceegeeem mgw>Aem Eepgege Amumeeeemem memem>ege eewpwmcegu egeuueg .NA geegemee Homewo egeuuep we zuwgeAu muemwege ageeeam .AA mew>Aem EeAgeLe mucmeeum mewgeumcez :ewuepgmmege egepumg .oA geegeemm pumgmo eemg we: .cmgeem ge_ueucemege egzuueg .m mcw>Aem EeAgeLe AmeAeee we em: mepesexm 3mm ooh uemEeeAe>me “emeeeo .w mee>pem Empgege egeeg :e mcmuwgz eweeE Aeemw> .A meucewgeexm Aegemgme mEAm: .m geegeeme peegwo ageaego .m m=A>Aem Eepgege meeAuesemm< mcewuepumexm geuueguch .e mueeEmeeeegee mgw>wo mcwmegge OAVAOeemcez mc_>Aem Eepgoce Ameewummec mcwma we?» awe: eueeeeeeeA meewumeee Eeegmmer .m eeVuuenege ee_e> Ageuego .N geegeeem ueegwo Sewagee AeVSeemmm ugmAAgmw: 3m_>mge .A mggeEem mgpmcegpm memmmggeez mmege eweep 4.me_eewge> AeeewueegumeA use memege emeee we ageesem .m epgeh 94 .eemmeemwe mcweg meweeu Aecewueegpmcw eegp gegpeg memege mg» we mceVpucee Aeeewuemge>gee mueuwecw mpmgeeemee .ezh LouuegumgA Lee gewmmmm mewegeAe use zmw>mm ee mwmerge Aegewpemge>gee co nememe eemgem Ige>eeu AeELemgA mgepmmem mg» meweeug .mN HeeuzeAAee gee umeeeemg .em mpcmeeum gee Aeeoz nememeg «seesaw cewue~wcemgo ugeeeem maceEpPEEeuH .mm mAeemw> ee>egeeA Ameee ugeumwmeeu Ammwuw>wuee cw Auwmgm>wo Ameewp_mgegh AmAAAm egezcewugmwegum ge_pe~weemgo Amepesexe Se prgeAU HAemAegeee eee eewuessemg .NN mcewueesem Lee umeeeegu .AN zue_ge> mmeee>wpemupe acmeeum Sewageu we emeOASeeg megeuemp we xucmeAu meue: co acmeemeee pez :eAHOmn -ege use :eVaewececm pcwucee we ememAzecg geegemmm uuegwo eegegeeeee Aegewmmmmoge magpugeemg eemcepegeg .om mgm>Aem EeAgeLe meme: Lecgemp geuez ceAmemeeu pceeeum .mA mggesmm mgumcmgpm memmeegeez mmege eweeh Ae.ueoeV .m eAeeA 95 include segments Of the conversation where problem solving or direct feedback was accomplished, as well as segments in which the participants talked about the conversation itself. A general pattern Of alternation between problem solving to resolve instructional weaknesses and direct feedback to identify instructor strengths is discernable. During the latter phases, as the conversation shifted tO periods Of summation and appraisal, the instructor's action plan was solidified. A fuller treatment Of results and interpretations of conversational analysis (Schleghoff & Sacks, 1973) are presented in the next section. The discourse for each phase will be presented, followed by a narrative description, analysis and interpretation. As major constructs unfold during the analysis, they will be identified and elaborated on charts. The findings Of the analysis will be presented in the commentary about each topic phase. They will also be summarized in the overview following the analysis and through the major conclusions reported in Chapter V. TOPIC PHASE 1:PREVIEW Transcript D: 1 Most Of what the students had to say here was in terms 2 Of the general presentation and I don't know that this 3 tape right now is helpful. Let us just see... Right 4 at the beginning here 5 They said, "I really like when she 6 tells us what we will be doing today and what is important 7 to take notes on. Analysis The Opening Of the formal session was signalled by the instructional developer with a statement about the talk to follow (1-3). In Sinclair and Coulthard's analysis scheme, it is a metastatement. It previews the information to follow, giving the instructor an idea Of what happened during the student session and what she will be discussing with the 96 developer. It also lets the instructor know that they will be looking at 'the videotape when the developer judges it to be appropriate. With "Let us,just see..." the developer invited the instructor to join her in the coming activity (3). ggp_g§ is a politeness strategy which conveys a sense of cooperation as well as issuing a small request to the instructor. It also functions as a boundary marker, indicating a transition into a new activity. "Right at the beginning..." focuses the instructor's attention on the videotape segment (3-4). TOPIC PHASE 2: ORATORY Transcript D: 8 You asked about the voice and they 9 said, yeah, at times it does drop and she does drop 10 her pitch Off at the end Of a sentence which makes 11 hearing a problem. I: 12 OK, I noticed on that tape that I was doing that. Analysis: ‘ While the instructor considered the behaviors replayed (N1 the monitor, the developer reported the comments made by the students. The first comment was a very positive one (6-7); the second one identified a problem with voice projection (8-11). The problem had been suspected by the instructor, who had asked the developer tO investigate it. The instructor agreed that her voice dropped Off at the end Of sentences, based on the evidence she Observed on the tape (12). The remedy for this problem was self evident and no further discussion Of it occurred. The developer continued to report comments made by the students. Again, she reported a positive aspect of the instructor's behavior (13- 15). It was followed with a remark that pointed out a problem area. ‘This pattern Of positive and negative comments was a deliberate strategy that the developer calls "sandwiching" (Developer Interview 12/21/81). 97 TOPIC PHASE 3: CLASSROOMgflUESTIONS Transcript: D: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I: 21 22 23 Is it helpful when you give an answer or ask for questions and they said, yeah, but usually there is not enough time. You know...one thing I noticed when you ask for questions is that...then you look down at your notes... so that might be a cue for questions in that it really is an appropriate time to ask questions. Then you might literally get away from your notes and walk closer to them. Usually nobody says anything. I've been getting in the habit Of letting that time get shorter and shorter, they hardly ever ask anything. Does anyone have questions on the...(feedback from mike)...so that means you are probably going to go right back into the lecture. And I said do you have any questions and they said yes, sometimes; why aren't you asking; well, sometimes we need time to think. They said, possibly if you were uncomfortable with that gap that you could write something on the board and say, " I'll give you a couple Of minutes tO think about it while I get this on the board." And then come back out. SO that might be one way.... A little later on in this (feedback from the mike). You could even say this is something... It dawned on me that I should ask them from the beginning Of the course. I should suggest to jot down any questions and bring them to class so that they could ask them at the beginning. Yeah, you could even say this is something you learned from the videotape review sessions, was that you weren't allowing enough time. SO you... Yeah. Sometimes it's nice for students to know that their input does have an impact. I've been wondering why they didn't ask anything. Because we don't cover —— the reading is complementary to the lecture. We don't cover it in class. They know that in the beginning. SO it struck me as Odd that they never have any questions about the readings. SO you might have to say, "Are there questions about the first reading, the second reading?" But, be specific. Yeah. Or about the assignment or last time's lecture. And allow time for each Of those and organize it. 98 D: 55 Or maybe if there was a part in last time's lecture —— ' 56 like Piaget's development theory —- did anyone have 57 questions about that? If you do, it even helps them 58 hone in more. “DO you have questions?" is very vague. 59 "DO you have questions about the assignment?" is a 60 little better, but it may still be a little vague. I: 61 It will also help them know what's important. 0: 62 Right. I: 63 If you ask them about specific things. Analysis With "You know (13-63), ...One thing I noticed..." the tone Of the developer changed from even-paced to slightly hesitant and tentative (15). With "you know" the developer shifted from reporting data and Offered her personal Observations and interpretations. From this information, she concluded that there might be some inconsistency between the instructor's verbal intentions and the message of her non-verbal behavior (15-18). Continuing her tentative manner with the qualifier 'might', the developer suggested a specific strategy to bring the instruc- tor's verbal and non-verbal behaviors into congruence (19-20). The rapidity with which the developer's discourse progressed from the presentation Of data to an interpretation and suggestion Of behavioral change was noted with surprise during the transcript analysis (13-20). The developer had very efficiently identified a problem and devised a solution for it. However, the lack of interplay between the two conver- sants removed any Opportunity for the instructor tO react to the information or to participate in the process Of defining the problem or its solution. In contrast to many other interactions during the session, this particular one was marked by uncharacteristically dominant behavior by the developer and the premature advancement Of a solution. This exchange was part Of a strategy ‘for determining how receptive the instructor was to new ideas and how much data would be required to 99 convince her that the problems were genuine and worthy Of correction. Her terms to describe it were "testing the waters" (Developer Interview 5/3/81). It's employment entailed a small risk which was further lessened by the tenative mood maintained with verbal hedges, 'might' and 'you know'. While this strategy provided information about instructor recep- tivity and information requirements, it also reduced instructor involvement and impeded the change process during that topic phase. The instructor spent her conversational turn considering the developer's early statements about classroom questions. Her *words indicate that she was thinking about the problem, but was not yet prepared to address its solution (21-23). As an experienced participant in the activities Of that college class, she held additional information about the phenomenon Of interest. She described how she assessed the students' comments: I was visualizing what happens in class when I ask for questions. That is an uncomfortable time -— when no one says anything. SO I jump right into the lecture. But, apparently they (the students) don't feel that way. .I've just been reading them that way. (I3 Interv1ew 2/16/81) In the next series Of verbalizations the developer was able to redirect by returning to the data as a foundation for the interpretations she drew from them (24-26). She left the hearer to conclude from the student quotation that the wait time following questions had been insuf- ficient. Judging that a convincing case had been made, the developer Offered another suggestion. It came in the form Of a student comment and contained three qualifiers that functioned to soften the student's presumptuousness, to establish its conditional status, and tO weaken its illocutionary force (29-31). The developer then modelled the strategy as she adopted the role of instructor in her next statement (31-32). She continued to insert verbal qualifiers, and reinforced them with "SO that 100 might be one way..." (33-35). In the context Of conversation, verbal qualifiers are used as a negative politeness strategy that Brown and Levinson (1978) call "hedge.“ Hedges communicate that there is no assumption that the hearer is willing tO do any Of the acts predicated Of her. The developer tacitly under- stands that tO ask the instructor to make a behavior change involves the commission of a face-threatening act. The instructor's negative face want —— her desire to be unimpeded in the pursuit Of personal goals -— will usually conflict with such a directive. By using qualifying terms such as 'might', 'could', or 'may', the developer is able to redress the instruc- tor's negative face. The skillful use of hedging permits the developer to be directive without threatening or alienating the instructor. The pervasiveness and function Of such strategies was demonstrated by the analysis reported in Table 9. The instructor broke into the conversation with another suggestion (26-39). As she explained: I remembered something right then. I get these ideas -— usually at the most inappropriate times. Then I forget them when I'm planning the lesson. I had thought previously of a solution and had never implemented it. (12 Interview 6/2/81). The developer agreed with her strategy and followed it with another very polite suggestion (40-42). She hedged with the qualifier, "could," and indicated that students should be told about the instructor's behavior changes and the part that students played in her decision to adopt them. The instructor responded with a flatly delivered "Yeah" (43). She acknowledged that she heard the suggestion, but not that she agreed with it. Rather than telling the developer that she disagreed, the norm Of politeness dictated that she avoid disagreement so she was noncommital in her response. Why did she reject the suggestion? 101 »emeems smmseA e meeeA »smEm»e»e eeee» Teasemse e sm»eem »sez meee m>A»emms e.smsemg eemsums A»em:ems smmseA e meeeA e» seA»esmeoee me mesme Am>som A»emeems AAeEe e meeeA eh EAg we um»ee_umse e»ee 6e 6e aAeeAeeAAAAz eA smsemg mEeeee »es eu Ammumg me: mmumg use AeseA»Ausee me: EAg Ae um»euAumse e»ee eu e» mAge\msAAAAz eA smsemg mseeee »es eu Ammumg me: .AAA>A»ee mg» sA smsemg use smgemee m»ee mus—usA AseAeeresA me me: .»:e gmeg mEee smg» us< .useeg mg» so eAg» »mm A mAAgz »A »eege gsAg» e» em»es»E we mAeeee e :e» m>Am AA.A. .Aee use useeg mg» so msAg»mEee m»»s3 uAeeu so» .eem »eg» g»Az mAge»seeEees: mse sex AA .NAgAeeem .uAee »mgp ..gsAg» e» mew» umms m3 emEA»mEee .AAmz. .AasAgee so» ».smse egg. ..emEA»mEee .em>. .uAee »mg» us< .AeseA»em=e »se m>eg so» ea. .uAee A .us< Ams=»emA mg» e»sA gmeg »gmAs on e» msAem »Agegese mge so» »eg» esemE »eg» em .AAeAsm»es mg» so eseA»em:e m>eg mseAse emeo. .msAg»>se gee sm>m »Auseg »eg» .sm»sege use sm»sege »mm mEA» »eg» msA»»mA me »Ageg mg» s» usA»»mm smmg m>.A .msAg»xse exee »ueges AAAeeea .Emg» e» smeeAe gAez use em»os see» Eese »eze »mm AAAe Ism»AA »gmAE so» smgh .eseA»emee gee e» mEA» m»eALeeseee se ».seA AAAems »A »eg» Emg» so» mam e mg »gmAE »eg» em .em»es Leex »e szeu geeA so» smg» »eg» eA eseA»em=e so» gee so» smgz umeA»es A msAg» mse .3esg ee> ..mEA» gmeesm »es eA msmg» AAAeee: »eg .gem>_ .uAee Amg» us< .wesoA» -emee see gee Le smzese se m>Am so» smgz Aewepmg »A eA. .»eg» msAeu ee: A »eg» mee» mg» se umm»»es A .xego ..EmAgose e msAsemg emgeE geAgz .musm»sme e Ae usm mg» »e wee ge»Ae smg eosu emeu mge use eesu emeu »» emEA» »e .gem>= .uAee xmg» use meAe> mg» »eege umgee =e> ..se em»os mge» e» »se»seeEA eA »eg: use »euo» msAeu mg AAA: m3 »egz e: eAAm» mge smgz »A mgAA AAAems A. .uAee »mg» .msmg msAssAmmg mg» »e »gmAs ... mme »eeu e: »mg .AemeAmg eA zes »gmAs mee» eAg» »eg» zesg ».seu A use seA»e»smemse Aesmsmm mg» me essm» sA eez msmg »ee 0» ueg e»smu:»e mg» »egz me »eez D o. H ANV AAV seA»es=g exam»es»m eemsm»AAee mee»eAue< Eese »eAseesesF »em»seeu smeeAm>mo ”essez AeseA>egmm me eAeers< .m mAneh 102 eeAANAOA .Aeo-eee AN seeees»eeA .AAA eseeeAues .eeALueees» AmAmAV seesA>mg A szesm Ag seA»e=s»esee mmeeems mAmm»es»e sA gesemems so umeeg emAmm»es»e we seA»eeAwAeeere umgeems smmg eeg »smEmmsme »Ame» sm»we »smAmAwwm use »emsAu mg A»em=ems 1mg smmseA e meeeA »ee msA -sm»emsg» mmew uAe>< smg »e umEAe e.»A »eg» emme »ee msAsm»emsg» mmew mg» we »eese» mg» meeg use »mmsAusA mg A»me msAeu sew see -ems so m>A»eE m»e»e AmsAsemE semAe mse AAse m»=gAs»»e e» mAgAeeeeEA »A mge: »smEmmsmeeAu uAe>< »emeems smmseA e meeew ow eseA»ee AeseA>egmg muA>ege A»em:ems smmseA e meeeA ow eemsums »eeg»A3 .AAueg useems se em Ammumg me: »emugse mg» mmsegu smsemg meeAeeAu Ae»sAg me: museums wwe ow Ae»AEEee-ses mm mmumg me: EAg we um»emAumse e»ee eu e» mAge\msAAsz ew smsemg mseeee »es eu Ammumg me: .UALAUeee an .Sem .AeeAeeesANAV useeme mg» .msAuems »esAw mg» »eege eseA»em:e Ase msmg» ms<. .Aee e» m>eg »gmAE :eA em no AAAV .emsAuems mg» »eege eseA»em=e Ase m>eg sm>m: Amg» »eg» uue ee ms gees»e »» em .msAssAmmg mg» sA »eg» zesg Amg» .eeeAm sA »A sm>ee ».seu m3 .ms:»mmA mg» e» Ase»smEmAeEou AoAV eA msAuemL mg» I- sm>ee ».seu m3 mezeemm .msAg»Ase gee ».suAu Amg» Ag: msAgmusez smmg m>.A .A .»eeeEA se m>eg emeu »eesA sAmg» »eg» zesg e» e»smu:»e sew mews e_»A emEA»mEem no AmV .gem> "A AwV ...:eA em .mEA» gmeegm msAzeAAe ».smsmz :eA »eg» eez .eseAeeme zmA>ms mee»emuA> mg» Eosw umsgemA :eA msAg»mEee eA eAg» Aee sm>m uAeee :eA .gem> no AAV .msAssAmmg mg» »e Emg» gee uAeem Amg» »eg» ee eeeAe e» Emg» msAsg use ese»»em=e Ase szeu »eu o» »emmmee uAeege A .meseee mg» we mswssAmmg mg» Eesw Emg» gee uAeege A »eg» me so umszeu »A A ...msAg»mEee e» eAg» Aee sm>m uAeee eeA .se AgV se»eA eA»»_A < .Aes 6:6 8g SEAAE »ege ee He AeV soA»msee «Amm»es»m eemsm»AAee mee»eAue< Eesw »eAseesegA Au.»soov .m m—gep 103 I probably would never say that (the suggestion). That would be a distracting cement to make. (12 Interv1ew 6/2/81) Why did she refrain from explaining her position to the developer? My philosophy about people's advice is that I weed through it and take what I think is necessary. I don't think it's necessary to tell people you're not going to use it (I2 Interview 6/2/81). The suggestion to share information about her own changes with students was not consistent with the instructor's concept of appropriate classroom talk. It was perceived as a "distracting comment," not relevant to the purpose Of college class sessions. When the suggestion did not fit her model of teaching, the instructor invoked her right Of refusal. However, the Tunmn Of courtesy between professionals dictated that her refusal be accomplished with nO undue loss Of face to either party. The developer followed the instructor's indirect refusal with an Off-record politeness strategy. The statement, "Sometimes it's nice for students to know that their input does have an impact," has a greatly reduced illocutionary force and functions to modify the direction Of the social interaction (44-48). Brown and Levinson (1978) call such a strategy a "social brake," used to regain social equilibrium when it is disturbed. With the minute change in social relationship implied by the developer's suggestion and the instructor's refusal, a disturbance had occurred. The developer was monitoring the verbal exchanges carefully and employed the Off-record strategy to re-establish an appropriate degree Of social distance. The instructor's unenthusiastic "Yeah" could indicate that the suggestion was perceived as inappropriate or as expensive to her face because it would impede goals or reduce respect. The developer's response indicated that she was determined to fulfill her Obligation tO make suggestions to the instructor, but that she would not commit a faux 104 pas by attempting to coerce another professional. Instead she Offered a rationale for the adoption Of her suggestion and employed language tO create a contextually ambiguous message. TO the listener interpreting the developer's statement, it is clear that she believes that students should be told. It is not clear that the instructor must do the telling. The instructor is permitted the Option of not interpreting the statement as a directive, but it is hoped that she will infer that it is aimed at her. This linguistic form of implicature was used here to reduce the proba- bility of commiting a face-threatening act while making a request which was clearly destined to be unenthusiastically received. When asked about her intentions in phrasing responses as she did, the developer confirmed this analysis. Her response indicated purposefulness and tacit under- standing Of the effects Of the discourse conventions she employed. It also portrayed instructors as thoughtful, rational, and seeking improvement. I make sure that I give them enough space to reflect on what's being said. Also, if they are given the intellectual room, they have an Opportunity to discover the connections themselves. If they do the discovering, it's a lot more acceptable then if I lay it on them (Developer Interview 5/28/81) The client's response was to change the subject (46-50, I2 Interview 6/2/81). She returned to the topic Of student questions and provided some additional information. The conditions surrounding the readings -— that they were complimentary and not discussed during class —— seemed likely to generate questions from students. She used the phrases, "I've been wondering..." and "It struck me as Odd..." to communicate inconclu- siveness. The tentative mood Of her language invited further explanation by the hearer. The developer responded with a suggestion, delivered in the now- familiar manner: preceeded by a threat-reducing hedge, focused on a 105 single, very specific behavior, and modeled by adopting the instructor's role (51-52). However, in her final statement, there was a shift. Rather than issuing a suggestion which could be accepted or rejected, her statement was a recommendation with unqualified illocutionary force (52). The linguistic form is on record (Brown & Levinson, 1978) since it directly addressed the instructor. This strategy is called pggly, without redress, since it makes nO accommodation for face (Brown 8. Levinson, 1978). The decision to use this form is made when the need for efficiency exceeds the need to maintain face or when the risk to face has been reduced through preceeding interaction. In this example, a tacit agreement about the appropriateness Of the suggestions and the developer's behavior in issuing them, was communicated by the instructor's act of re-introducing the topic. Therefore, the fact Of the problem was Openly established and a final solution statement was invited. The instructor responded with agreement and additional suggestions (53-54). The developer continued to model the recommended behavior and Offered more specific information about questioning strategies and the rationale for their use (55-60). The instructor replied with more information about the function of specific questions in the classroom (61). The developer interpreted her response as a demonstration Of understanding and confirmed it with an emphatic, "Right" (62). TO conclude the exchange, the instructor used a post-completor which referred back to her earlier thought (63). The two participants in this exchange Offered divergent interpre- tations Of it. While the developer described it as a classic "teaching exchange" (Developer Interview 5/28/81), the instructor denied that it could correctly be construed as teaching or instruction. Instead, she described it as "just throwing ideas around about how you might organize 106 it" (12 Interview 6/2/81). Teaching exchanges are three part interactions which were first identifed and described by Mehan and others (Mehan, et al., 1976). They consist Of an initiation-reply-evaluation sequence which functions as two coupled adjacency pairs and are said to occur only within a teaching- learning context. In the developer-instructor interaction, these functions are embedded within verbal utterances which lack the strong illocutionary force Of traditional questioning strategies employed by classroom teachers in teaching exchanges. Thus, the approach adopted by the developer may be described as an indirect teaching exchange in which the conditions for eliciting responses and Offering corrective feedback are established without requiring the participants to conform to stereo- typed interrogator-respondent behaviors. The result is that the partici- pants are able to play out the teaching-learning process without adopting an Obvious teacher-student matched identity pair. In addition to the considerable evidence that much Of the inter- actional work of the Review and Planning Session was accomplished through strategic use Of politeness, the developer was able to balance the social requirements Of the interaction with an equally energetic attention to the task requirements. The task Of exploring and analyzing sensitive areas of teaching behavior was not sacrificed to requirements Of courtesy. Instead, the developer interjected a considerable degree Of persuasion into the dialogue. As Cook—Gumperz (1981) has explained: Persuasion is not letting up when the intent Of a single speech act is misunderstood or does not have its intended effect, and continuing verbally to attempt to influence the actions Of another without resort to direct action or verbal imperative (p. 40). The discourse between the developer and the instructor exhibit a definite conformity to Cook-Gumperz's characterization Of persuasion in that: 107 ...One interesting feature Of persuasion is the need to use more than a single verbal strategy or utterance in order to persuade, verbal arguments must be constructed, and utterances must be multiple and most probably varied (p. 40). Persuasion is one of the few Options Open to the developer as a co- equal with the instructor within the university community. She holds no Official powers Of sanction or coercion. She enters the instructor's classroom by invitation, at best, or by extracted permission, at worst. As her primary tool, she uses persuasion to build a case for the problems she uncovers and to motivate the instructor toward the corrective action she advocates. TO be persuasive, the developer must exhibit the skill Of communicative complexity, that is, the ability to "conduct a sequence Of exchanges which build up to the desired goal — or achieve thegoal through interchange that is a dialogue" (Cook-Gumperz, 1981, p. 40). The discourse also demonstrates how the developer enacted her rights and Obligations within the negotiated process Of interaction. Ciroucel (1972) calls this process role-making, while Goodenough(1969) views the process as establishing a social persona. Role-making involves choosing behavioral Options which create and define one's role, as well as having it defined by others. TO Goodenough, this choice of Options reflects the identity that the interactor has selected. This choice Of Options and the adoption Of compatible identities is based on the individual's percep- tions and interpretations Of the purpose Of the interaction, the setting, their personal qualifications, and the identity assumed by the other. The combination Of several identities negotiated during any one interaction then forms the social persona while the behaviors themselves are part of role-making. 108 TOPIC PHASE 4: INSTRUCTOR EXPECTATIONS Transcript: D: 64 Also in this, when you went into the lecture you said, 65 "I assume you have read" and the students said, "That's 66 not a good assumption." But I don't know what that 67 means in terms Of what you could do. Does that mean 68 that you review whatever they're supposed to have read 69 or that when you assign it you say, ”We're going to 70 be lecturing and I'm going to assume..." I: 71 Yeah. I told them that at the beginning. I told them 72 that every day for the first couple weeks. It's very 73 clear on the very first day because I asked (T.A.*) "DO 74 you think I've made this clear enough?" And I went 75 on about the fact that it was complementary and I wasn't 76 going to gO through the readings in class and be sure 77 that they had read the readings for the day... D: 78 But some of them, this student said, "A lot Of students 79 wait until they've heard the lecture. Then they know 80 what's important and they'll gO back and read," so if 81 it's essential that they understand. Analysis: With the marker, "Also..." and the focusing statement, "...in this, when you went into the lecture...", the boundary for a new frame was established (64). The developer introduced the topic Of readings with a direct quotation from the student session. Again, she used a negative politeness strategy to reduce the illocutionary force Of the question put to the instructor. "But I don't know..." and "Does that mean..." hedges the question by suspending the condition that the instructor actually knows the answer to the question (66-67). The developer proposed a solution very tentatively and paused without completing that statement (67-70). When the pause Occurred, the instructor began her conversational turn with an acknowledgement indicating that the developer's utterances were heard and understood (71). She relayed her side Of the story using conversational implicature (71-77). This linguistic strategy permitted her to contradict the presumption by the developer that she should make 109 accomodations to students who do not complete assigned readings prior to lecture sessions. In her assertiveness, the instructor implied a face- threatening act without breaching etiquette to actually commit the act. The developer responded by reporting another comment Which articulated the students' perspective concerning assigned readings (78- 80). She concluded discussion on that topic with a Off-record hedge, "...sO if it's essential that they understand something...", which established the condition under which her suggestion would be relevant but left the instructor to determine whether that condition was present in the specific case under consideration (BO-81). The developer also employed an ellipsis, by leaving the face-threatening act incomplete. This strategy permitted the instructor to mentally complete the statement and accept the implied directive or to leave the statement unfinished and overlook the implication. TOPIC PHASE 5 AND 6: ORATORY Transcript: D: 81 Also, you asked 82 when you were talking to the blackboard, did that bother 83 them. One student said, "NO" and the other said "Yes". 84 Except one student said she sat in the front and she 85 said she had bad eyes. She also had trouble hearing. 86 They said very much they liked your personal experiences 87 when you told them what happened. "They stick in my 88 mind and make an impression." The developer closed discussion Of one topic and established the boundary for a new topic with the marker, "Also..." (81). The context for the comments which followed was provided with the reminder about the instructor's questions (81-82). The developer alternated between positive and negative comments, using the "sandwiching" technique, and advised continued use Of teaching practices which received good student 110 reviews (82-88). These exchanges were called direct feedback exchanges since their primary function was to provide information rather than initiating or contributing to the problem solving process. TOPIC PHASE 7: VISUAL MEDIA Transcript: D: 88 110 111 D: 112 I: 113 114 115 D: 116 117 118 I: 119 And also that, another technical thing was that they have trouble seeing the board even though you write huge. I could see it from where I was sitting, but they... The room is bad -— really bad. I went in there the other day and had (T.A.) write on the board. I've been convinced that...the angle is so wierd...how can they possibly see the board? And they tell me they can, but it's hard...the lighting is terrible. I don't know who designed that room. One thing you can get -—-and Stores probably has it -—- is this great big thick chalk that writes thicker. And also one Of the suggestions was that sometimes I think someone has been in the room before you and they erase the board. But it doesn't get completely erased... I hate to use overheads tOO much because they can get boring...I think I can redo them and make them more exciting...in terms Of visual attraction...give them the outlines Of lectures ahead Of time sO they can take notes on the outline. Have the key points, because if I'm going to put key points on the overhead I might just as well put them on the ditto and make thirty copies and then they can take notes on them... Um hmm. And then they won't be scribbling down the points... And they'll have them because I know that they were...the overhead and nobody was listening at all. Okay. That's real helpful. Even if you don't have time to get them typed and they're handwritten, then the same handwritten thing on the overhead. Yeah... 111 Analysis: With the developer's next statement and the instructor's response, the interactors reached a consensus and completed a problem-finding exchange. The instructor's series of phrases, punctuated by pauses and shifts between facts, judgment, question, and indictement Of the room designer, evidenced her assessment Of the parameters of the problem (92- 97). It also implied a conclusion that the problem was not easily solvable. The developer waited for the instructor tO conclude, but did not verbally acknowledge the content of her turn. Instead she Offered a specific suggestion which was based on her earlier characterization Of the problem, i.e., "they have trouble seeing the board“ (98-99). While the instructor's interpretation had eliminated the possibility Of an instructor-based remedy, the developer's interpretation had not. She softened her suggestion with a hedge and implied that it was not the only Option from which the instructor might choose a solution. She followed the first suggestion with a second one, which had been proposed by the students (100-103). The conversational turn was concluded with a negative politeness strategy intended to minimize the intrinsic seriousness of the preceeding acts. The danger Of the suggestions, as the developer perceived it, is encoded in her last sentence (103). An examination Of the linguistic and semantic characteristics reveal that the most threatening aspect was believed to be located in the weight Of imposition or pgpk that the instructor assigned to the suggested behaviors. The concept Of rank has been defined by Brown and Levinson (1976) as a judgment regarding the degree to which an act interferes with one's wants Of self-determination and approval. Rank is culturally and situationally determined and assigned to negative face-threatening acts according to 112 the expenditure Of 999g; (including information, expressions Of regard, face payments) and services (including time) that they require of an individual. Obtaining and using thick chalk and thoroughly erasing the board before class are described as "minor." "Just" is used to further delimit the extent of the problem and reduce the imposition the solution required. The instructor's next statements reveal that the negative politeness strategy was only partially successful (104-111). While it provided the instructor with an Opportunity tO avoid issuing an overt refusal, and therefore committing impoliteness, the suggestion was Obviously rejected in spite Of the minimizing strategy. The instructor's mental assessment of the proposed solution was later recalled in an interview: I thought it was a pain in the neck. I was thinking about all the paper work just to get a different kind Of chalk from Stores. I'd rather work with overheads because it's something I can have control over and can do myself.“ (12 Interview 6/2/81) The developer had been correct in her perception that the suggestion was assigned an unacceptable rank by the instructor, and was therefore rejected. The alternative to the developer's solution was not enthusi- astically embraced by the instructor, but judged preferable to paper work. The solution assessment exchange was described by the instructor as 'thinking out loud' (104-115). She considered the pros and cons Of transparencies and built a case for their expanded and improved utilization. The developer spoke little during this exchange, permitting the instructor to initiate and control the topic. She agreed with a background "um Tmmufl' When the instructor had concluded her turn, the developer evaluated her plan with a positive statement and followed up with a brief recommendation (116-118). The exchange was concluded by an acknowledgement from the instructor (119). 113 TOPIC PHASE 8: CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT Transcript: D: 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 The reason I turned this Off, I wanted to move this ahead because there was a place where you made an analogy and they said that was really helpful. SO I thought that it might be interesting to lOOk at. Right there they said, "That's a good interpretation." They took a few minutes to talk about it. (pause) Do you want to look at that again and take a few minutes to figure out what they were talking about? I'm not sure if I can...um...I'm not sure. It was the analogy about the visitors coming. I think one of the things you were talking about was that people are different. There's a lot Of variables. And then you talk about there being five. I think right there was an example. Then later on there was another. You say, "Whether you like it or not, people see things differently" and you were talking about women and men. They said that they were trying tO figure out, "Gee, what does that mean?“ Yeah. And they were wondering how men and women see things differently. Even though it seems Obvious to us that they're going to be looking for different things. SO there, I see it. Actually, it would have been better tO say, "There are quite a few variables that have a relationship, for example, age, sex...There are five that are really, really important." Right. Then later on when you talk about men and women... Just give them an example. It turns out, in the research that we've done on people who give really effective lectures, it seems that for every really major point they want to make, they give an example because people are trying to figure out an example... Umm. in their own mind. And if you give them an example, maybe they can then construct one Of their own. In fact, that's sort of one Of the rules of thumb that we use: if it's worthy Of being a main point, try tO give an example with it to support it. 114 I: 159 I try to do that. I guess I didn't think that those 160 were major enough points. But I will try to... Analysis: During topic phase eight, there was some confusion about expec- tations between the interactors. The phase was initiated by the developer with an explanation Of her intentions in moving the videotape ahead. She foreshadowed the event by commenting that the students thought it was helpful and she thought it was interesting (120-123). When she stated that the students had taken a few minutes to discuss it, she issued an indirect invitation for the instructor to comment (124-125). When the instructor did not begin her turn during the pause, the developer issued a direct invitation (126-127). The client replied that she was uncertain (128). The developer issued a re-direct, describing the event and reporting a second student comment (129-137). The client Offered acknow- ledgement, implying that she understood (138). However, during the audiotape review session, she said: I didn't know what she wanted to talk about. I never found out because I changed the subject. That analogy wasn't planned. I don't know why I used it. I don't always decide on these things ahead of time. (12 Interview 6/2/81) While the developer continued to explain the source Of the student's confusion, the instructor viewed the videotape (139-141). She critiqued her own presentation, identified a problem with 'it, and verbalized a strategy for its improvement (142-145-147). The developer evaluated her suggestion (146) and to add emphasis, directed attention to a second area in the same videotape segment. The developer cited past experience, elicited instructor agreement (148), and made a recommendation (154-158). The client considered the information, then expressed commitment to the recommendation (159-160). 115 Although the developer controlled this topic phase, the instructor re-defined the problem in a way which made sense to her. Apparently both interactors were addressing the same behaviors, but the developer assumed that examples were planned prior to the lecture while the instructor's later comments revealed that she made those decisions during the lecture. In spite Of misassumptions and confusion, both interactors worked to maintain the social interaction and to satisfy the task requirements. TOPIC PHASE 9: LECTURE PRESENTATION Transcript: D: 161 They also said, positively, that you don't read from 162 your notes. I: 163 DO a lot Of people do that? D: 164 Um hmm. Apparently, from what students say. And they're 165 boring. I: 166 People really do it? D: 167 Yeah. They also said you were close to your notes, 168 but probably weren't looking at them that much. I: 169 Yeah. I've gotten to using key words these days. A 170 concept, a few key words, then an example. If I read 171 it to them, it wouldn't make any sense. (Laughter) D: 172 But they said they felt like you relaxed more when 173 you started using examples. I: 174 Yeah...especially, because I use personal examples 175 (inaudible). The rest of the time, I know there is 176 certain information that has to be covered and I don't 177 want to miss any of the points. SO I'm concentrating 178 more. But, when I'm giving an example I'm not worried 179 about that. I'm not thinking about getting one, two, 180 three, four, five. 0: 181 Chuck Laughlin, before he left, showed me how he organizes 182 for his lectures and I've been trying it. I've always 183 used cards. He does like a storyboard and he'll have 184 each concept in a box, like three or four with the 185 supporting things. Then, if there's going to be a 186 major transition, he'll mark it in red or something 1g; like that. But it really is a very easy way Of following it. 116 I: 189 Yeah. I've been thinking Of doing that with one on 190 each page with big letters across the top for the concept. 191 Now that I've gotten away, I never read them, but I 192 used to write them out, then highlight, when I used 193 to be more nervous. Now I realize that you don't die 194 (inaudible). (Laughter) D: 195 Maybe you could include a key word and an example. I: 196 Yeah. Analysis: The next topic phase revealed an intertwining of the cognitive and social dimensions Of the process. The interactors proceeded through the problem solving series Of exchanges in a manner which was both regulated and thoughtful. The role Of the developer in establishing the conditions and moving the process through the stages Of problem solving are evident in the discourse. The instructor's primary task Of giving consideration to the information and formulating judgments about its accuracy, accepta- bility and usefulness, are also apparent. Finally the importance Of values and the mediating effect they exert over the process was demon- strated. TOPIC PHASE 10: LECTURE PRESENTATION Transcript: D: 197 SO, um, Okay. A little bit farther down they said, 198 "If income is not important, why is age?" They said 199 they weren't following. I: 200 They didn't ask me. I mean, I know the answer to that 201 question (pause). Because people do interrupt me 202 and ask all the time. It's not like there's a taboo 203 against that and I answer their questions. Because 204 age is important. Neither is important about gpp goes. 205 It's just that age tells you something about what they 206 do after they ggp there. And income doesn't tell you 207 anything about what they do when they get there... 0: 208 Now, that would even have been fun to ask them. "Now 209 why is" I: Analysis: 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 117 Yeah. And they could think about it. Because the only people who don't go to parks and recreation areas are below the poverty line. SO income tells you nothing. Not only does it tell you nothing about who goes, but it doesn't tell you anything about what they do when they get there. It doesn't differentiate among people at all, but age does. Because Older people prefer certain activities, are more concerned with facilities, are real concerned with safety, and you know, are looking for different things. The simple answer is they should say something. Yeah, um, I'm trying to think Of how... (Videotape playing) You know what I was thinking was right there where you paused at the end Of those five points. At these major transitions would be the time to ask, "Does anyone have any guestions about these five points?" And, if you wanted a response, get away from your notes. That's a good idea. And those types Of behaviors, like where you stand when you ask questions. If you want a response, what we typically find in our research, is when you're standing closest to your notes, the questions are usually rhetori- cal. And, if they're not rhetorical, if you really want an answer, you're not likely to get one because the students say, "We're still into business. This is still lecture." Hmm... But as soon as you get away from your notes and you ask a question, students perceive them as not being rhetorical. You know, so you are moving closer tO them, you're saying, "I'm getting farther from my source Of power and control; therefore, I'm more Open to you." Yeah. Okay. SO, if you think about that and consciously even do it until you set up that, that's a kind Of behavior that is an expectation for this class -— then you're all set. Makes sense (inaudible). This topic sequence (197-247) was characterized by long instructor turns during the problem assessment exchange and long developer turns 118 during the solution assessment stage. The developer introduced the topic with the characteristic student comments. The instructor turns were spent building a case in support of the content Of the class and her behavior during the teaching incident. During an audiotape review session, she explained why she reacted as she did (200-207, 210-220): I'm always surprised when these comments are made. These are the things that they could do something about right then. I'm surprised at their lack of responsibility. (I2 Audiotape Review Session 2/6/81) The developer opened the solution-finding exchange with the instructor's conclusion that the students should say' something, but followed it with a metastatement which suggested that her agreement was tentative and perhaps the incident deserved further analysis (221). After a closer Observation Of the videotape, she made a suggestion (227) and the developer began to build a case for the solution (228-235, 237-241). The developer concluded with a recommendation (137-241) which the instructor then evaluated (253). During an audiotape review session, the instructor explained her reaction: I remember that I thought, 'I guess I have tO do something about it.‘ I thought it was kind of strange. I was very surprised by that -— especially remembering how I was as a student. I learned something about their expectations. (I2 Audiotape Review Session 2/6/81) To determine how the social dynamics Of the process were structured tO evoke thoughtful activity by the instructor required further analysis. The evidence available for consideration included the developer's description Of her intent and the discourse. The comments by the developer throughout the many interviews conducted with her repeatedly confirmed her activities as purposeful and intended to invoke the instruc- tor's involvement in the analysis process as well as in the action 119 planning. One Of the most telling remarks was the following: I make sure that I give them enough space to reflect on what's being said. Also, if they are given the intellectual room, they have an Opportunity to discover the connections themselves. If they dO the discovering, it's a lot more acceptable than if I lay it on them. (Developer Interview 5/28/81) Further evidence may be found in the developer's behaviors during the transitions to each assessent exchange (197-199, 221). First, she initiated the problem assessment by posing the problem as a perplexing situation. "They said they weren't following..." was delivered with paralinguistic characteristics which clearly communicated tentativeness, uncertainty, and thoughtfulness. The pace was slow and hesitant. The dynamic created there was one Of inviting a response which would satisfy the uncertainty and match the thoughtfulness. In the second example, the developer set the tone by verbalizing her thought processes. At that point 'hi the discourse, the instructor's conclusion could easily have ended discussion Of that topic. Instead, the developer demonstrated how additional information could be gleaned from the videotape and employed to generate a constructive solution. Her analysis Of the behaviors served to elaborate an alternative hypothesis which expanded the realm Of possible explanation. The instructor's "simple answer," to let the responsibility rest with the students, would maintain the status quo. The developer's reformation Of the problem made improvement possible. Dewey's (1944) description Of learning from experience parallels the events embodied in this topic phase (with the addition Of an attitudinal/values component). Dewey contended that experience involves the active element Of doing a behavior with the passive element Of undergoing its consequences. In order for the action Of doing to be valuable as an experience, it must be consciously connected with the 120 consequences which follow it. In his words: To learn from experience is to make a backward and forward connection between what we do to things and what we enjoy or suffer from things in consequence. Under such conditions, doing becomes a trying; an experiment with the world to find out what it is like; the undergoing becomes instruction -— discovery Of the connection Of things (p. 140). The quality of the experience is determined by the proportion Of reflection found in them. When one moves beyond associating a single outcome with a particular event, the quality is enhanced and the experience becomes reflective. He describes a reflective experience in the following manner: In other cases, we push our Observations farther. We analyze to see just what lies between so as to bind together cause and effect, activity and consequence. This extension Of our insight makes foresight more accurate and comprehensive. The action which rests simply upon the trial and error method is at the mercy Of circumstances; they may change so that the act performed does not operate in the way it is expected to. But if we know in detail upon what the result depends, we can lOOk to see whether the required conditions are there. The method extends our practical control. For if some Of the conditions are missing we may, if we know what the needed antecedents for an effect are, set to work supplying them; or, if they are such as to produce undesirable effects as well, we may eliminate some Of the superfluous causes and economize effects (p. 145). TO foster reflective experience, the developer promoted the three prerequisite conditions for reflection. First, she introduced a desire to determine the significance Of some act. Dewey called this the stimulus Of thinking. There must be something going on which is incomplete or unfinished. The teaching act may be defined as incomplete or unfinished until it is determined whether learning has followed it. The meaning of the act, then, lies in how it turns out. When one thinks about teaching in Dewey's terms, thinking becomes the intentional endeavor tO discover specific connections between something which we dO and the 121 consequences which result, so that the two become continuous (Dewey, 1944, p. 140). Second, the instructor was encouraged to associate herself with the outcome Of the teaching act. Dewey calls this a "sympathetic identifi- cation Of our own destiny...with the outcome Of the course Of events." Third, the Object was to reach a conclusion, specifically a behavioral solution, which would bring the instructor's intentions and actions into congruence. Dewey's description Of the components of a reflective experience describe the character Of the problem solving process as it was enacted in the Review and Planning Session. They include: 1. perplexity due to the fact that the situation is incomplete and its full character has not been determined 2. conjectural anticipation-tentative interpretation of the given elements attributing to them a tendency to effect certain consequences 3. a careful survey Of all attainable consideration which will define and clarify the problem in hand 4. a consequent elaboration Of the tentative hypothesis to make it more precise and were consistent, because Of squaring with a wider range Of facts 5. taking one stand upon the projected hypothesis as a plan Of action which is applied to the existing state Of affairs; doing something overtly to being about the anticipated result, thereby testing the hypothesis. Table 10 illustrates how each condition was enacted through discourse. TO uncover the decisions which led the instructor to that conclusion, her comments made during an audiotape review session were charted with the discourse. From them, the types Of information relevant at each point were identified. Using this method, the probable thinking process Of the instructor was reconstructed (See Table 11). Upon hearing the developer's statement about student confusion, the instructor reacted with surprise. Her initial response was based on 1) 122 useg »e EmAgese AwwseAm e» I mzoAhu>g=m emesmeeme -see »umwwm e» Amsmusm» sAmg» use e»smEmAm sm>Am we seA»e»msesm»sw m>A»e»sm» I zkoAAxmgegue eseA»em=m Ase m>eg mseAse emooe .gee e» mew» mg» mg uAeez eseA»weses» genes memg» »< .e»sAee m>Aw meeg» we usm mg» »e umeeee eeA msmgz msmg» »gmAs eez msAgsAg» eez A »egz zesg =e> AmswAeAe mee»emuA>V .mswg»msee Aee uAeege Amg» ew smzese mAeEAe mge .emswg» »smsmwwAu sew msAgeeA mse .3esg :eA use .A»mwee g»w3 umssmesee Aems mse .emw»wAAeew g»A3 umssmusem mseE mse .emw»w>A»ue sAe»gmm smwmse mAeeme LmuAe meeemmm .emeu mme »eg .AAe »e mAeeme msose m»eA»smsmwwAu ».semeu »A .msmg» »mm Amg» smgz eu Amg» »egz »eege mswg»Ase :eA AAm» ».semeu »w »eg .emem egz »eege msAg»es :eA AAm» »A emeu AAse »ez .msAg»es :eA eAAm» mEemsA em .msAA A»Lm>ee zeAmg mse eemse sew»emsmms use egsee e» em ».seu egz mAeeme AAse mg» meeeemm .»w »eege gswg» uAeee Amg» us< .gem> =....ew Ag: zez= .Emg» gee e» sew smmg m>eg sm>m uAeez »eg» .3ez ....msmg» »mm Amg» smgz eu Awmw »egz »eege msAg»Ase :eA AAm» ».semeu meeusw us< .msmg» »m Amg» sm»we eu Amg» »egz »eege msAg»mEee eeA eAAm» mme »eg» »een e.»A .emem mmm.»:ege »se»seeEA ew smg»wmz .»se» -seesw ew mme meeeemm .eseA»em=e sAmg» smzese A use »eg» »esAeme eege» e e.msmg» mgAA »es e.»A .mEA» mg» AAe gee use me »eessm»sA eu mAeeme mezeumm .AmeeeeV I soA»em=e »eg» e» smzese mg» zesg A .sems A .mE gee ».suwu Amgp .mswzeAAow ».smsmz Amg» uAee Amg» ewmme ew Ag: .»se»seesw »es ew mseesw eAe .eAee Ame» ezoe segesew »Ag eA»»AA < .Aego .23 .ee D .. H D eseASeeAweg see eeASAeeoe mee»eAu=< we »eAseesesh .soA»mmAwmg sew eseA»Ausoo msAgeAAge»em s» meseemewo mg» we eAeAAes< .oA mAgew 123 .mosmwsmoxm use msAgsAg» so meoexm AeemAV e.Am3mo so umeeme ewemg»oeAg mg» msw»em» we esemE e ee m»e»e osA»eAxm ego 6» ueAAsee - zeAeos so zsgs e»oew AesoA»Auue wo »gmAA sA Aosm»eAesoo use serAomse uue o» I mAmNIAOQAI u>AHegeg we ueAg e e.eeeo .»eg» as See 36A AA»e= »_ ou sm>m AAeeowoesoo use »eg» »oege gsAg» eoA ww .oe .Aego .eee> =.:oA o» smeo msoE E.A .msowmsmg» AAos»soo use smzoe wo moseoe As Eosw smg»sew msA»»mo E.A= .msAAee ms.=oA .Emg» o» smevo msA>oE mse :oA oe .zosg =o> .AeoAso»mgg msAmg »os ee Emg» m>wmosme e»smuo»e .sow»em:o e gee :oA use em»os sooA Eosw Aeze »mm :oA ee sooe ee »om ....EEI =.ms=»omA AAw»e eA eAgH .eemsAeeg o»sA AAA»e ms.m3= .Aee e»smu=»e mg» meeeomg mso »mo o» AAmgAA »os ms.:oA .smzese se »sez AAAems ooA wA .AeoAso»mgs »os ms.Amg» ww .us< .AeoAso»mgs AAAeoe: mse esoA»emeo mg» .em»os sooA o» »emevo msAuse»e ms.=oA smgz eA .gosemems .=:V sA usAw AAAeo -AeA» m3 »egz .mesoeems e »sez :oA wA .esoA»em=o gee :oA smgz use»e :oA msmgz mgAA .esoA>egmg we emeA» meeg» us< .emuw uoom e e.»egw .em»os sooA Eosw Aeze »mm .mesoeems e eageez 36A e. .ee< .eegere e>Ae meeg» Seoee Ae.eeooV .. H C3 C3 eevooeAweg Lee eerAeeoo mee»oAue< wo »oALoesesH Au.eeoeV .eA eAge» 124 information about the students perspective Of the event, and 2) her values and expectations Of students. It was followed by’a rational comparison Of the new information with previous knowledge and experience. This included three types Of information: 1. the instructor's perspective Of the event 2. the instructor's collective experiences as a teacher 3. the instructor's recollections Of her behaviors as a student. She used the information to render judgments about the accuracy, generalizability and appropriateness Of the students' comment and concluded that the students were not meeting their responsibility to communicate their confusion to her as it occurs. The developer was able to show the instructor that the problem could be reduced if she would assume a larger share of the responsibility by maintaining Open communication in the classroom. She did this by building a case with additional information. This included: 1. the behavioral facts captured on videotape; 2. the students' interpretations as documented by research; 3. the developer's interpretations based on the behavioral facts and student interpretations. The final decision is accept or reject the developer's suggestion was reached by balancing the additional information against the weight of her values and desires. The rational/emotional character of her final judgment are expressed in these types Of information: 1. the instructor's standards for academic courses 2. the instructor's expectations for the students 3. the instructor's personal style and desire to change. This evidence suggests that while learning through experience and thinking Often occurs in private, further insights are possible when the classroom event can be technologically re-created, new information is 125 smwmse mAeome smqu meeeomm .emou moe »eg .AAe »e onome msoEe m»eA»sm -mewAu ».semeu »A .msmg» »mm Amg» smgz ou Amg» »egz »soge mswg»Ase :oA AAm» ».semeu »A »:g .emoo og: »eoge mswg»os :oA AAm» »» emeu AAso »oz .msAg»os :eA eAAm» mEoosA om .msAA A»sm>oe mg» zoAmg mge eemse soA»emsoms use egsee o» oo ».seu ogz mAeome AAso mg» meoeomm .»A »eoge gewgg eAeoo Ame» eeg .gee> eeA Ag: 3oz= .Emg» gee o» sew smmg "SeaAAo =.»:mfi:»m 8 mo meg A Sex :0 Emmoa mu AmomA »om mge »o morommme AS Autoomm .mmcmx stmoo mruxrueroo o mceu kw II Aemumm» mu gouge meuxemsom e.ee we A6 eeeeeeee eeeee Tome to mu »u kw uterusem»mw :u um»mm&m»ru E.N .Bmsmmmog »ogs _ko mou»mmmmsmm As wxo mmvo eeee “sage geee meegeeee e.e m>eg sm>m quoz »eg» .3oz u»se»A:esou ....msmg» »mo Amg» smgz ou Amg» »egz »ooge oswg»Ase :oA AAm» ».semeu mEoosA us< .msmg» »mo Amg» sm»we ou Amg» »egz »eoge oswg»mEoe eoA eAAm» moe »eg» »een e.»A .emoo.mmm »eoge »se»serw eA smg»Amz .»se»serA eA mme meoeomm .esoA»em=o sAmg» smzese A use »eg» »esAeoe ooge» e e.msmg» mgAA »os e.»A ms...» mg» :e gee use 259: Ism»sA ou onome meoeomm .AmeeeeV Isow»em:a »eg» 0» gmzese mg» zOEWIMIII. .eeee A .ee gee ».eeAu Ame» "geeAAo .mswzoAAow ».smsmz Amg» uwee Amgw ewmoe ew Ag: .»se»serA »os ew mEoo -EA wA= .eAee Amg» ezoe segosew »Ag eesee .eoeeee eeg eeeou e.~= =.eeeeeg newcommms %0 «08A Sums» »o emmwegexm E.H .»xoeo mcugemsom Ow wmxom Amg» »eg» mmrug» mg» mes mmm§& .mmeos med e.»A.AmEsOO memg» toes emmuemmxm emoSAo ELM: mA»»wA < .Aego .Ee .om "»se»A:esou Hzmozhm < m< mmoA>Ah mggou m.mopu=mhmzA ewze>e es» so e>AAoesegeE e.ge»o=m»ezA mzoAA m.mo osmwmzA mpzmzzou zA ommmmmexm hzm>m IA no u>Ahumommme .mhzmaahm uAee eez »egz mmmzouon mo HoAmumzm ewzezzeo zoAhAom EmAgose mswsoo eemoose soA»omAwmg e.so»oos»esA we eez .AA mAgeA 126 .Aee e»smu=»e mg» meeeomg mso »mm o» AAmgAA »os mg.eoA .smzese se »se: AAAems ooA wA .AeoAso»mgs »os ms.Amg» ww .us< .Aeowso»mgs AAAeoee mse esow»em:o mg» .em»os LooA o» »emevo mswuse»e ms.:oA smgz ew .gosemems see sA usAw AAAeoweA» m3 »egz .mesoee Tms e »sez :oA wA .esow»em=o gee :oA smgz use»e soA msmgz mgwA .esoA A ..mroweo»omm8m memg» »xoeo mrug» ImEOm Boredom N .»rmwxem 8 mo mes N Sex mewAngmEma AAABAO Immmm «»eg» me emmwsuexm Ammo mos A .mm:o&»m we Baum mos »u »gmxoxe N .»w »xoeo meme» ImEOm 0% 0» once A mmmxm A: ->egmg wo emeA» meeg» us< "»se»A:esou .emuw uoom e e.»egh H»smAS .em»os sooA Eosw Aeze »mo .mesoeems e um»sez ooA ww us< ewe»swoe m>Aw memg» »ooge esoA» -emeo Ase m>eg mseAse emoo= .gee o» mew» mg» mg quoz esoA»Aeses» genes memg» »< .e»swoo m>ww meeg» we usm mg» »e umeoee :oA msmgz msmg» »gmAs eez mswgsAg» eez A »egz zesg oo> AuswAeAe mee»omuw>V ....3og we gswg» o» mswAs» E.A .E: .gem> u»se»A:esou .mswg»mEoe Aee uAeoge Amg» ew gmzese mAeEAe mgh .emsAg» »smsmwwwu sow mswgooA mse .3osg :oA use .A»mwee g»A3 umssmosoo Aemg mge .emw»AAAoew g»wz umssmo -soo msoE mse .emA»A>w»oe swe»smo Ae.geooV ”Seeon qum zo ommahoAhumumo uwee eez »eg3 ummnouon no hoAmumzwmosme ooA .gem> u»se»A:esou .».smgm3 Amg» uwee eoA gowgz sw »sAoe.e eez »w mgAez =.gem>= .uwee Ame» ees .Aesee cw ewes» AAe eoA msmz= .Emg» umgee A .»w o» »eoE -Ae ms.mz gsAg» A .so sm»eA mA»»AA < .AmAgAuoeswV mesme emgez u»smon .»me AAe ms.:oA smg» --eeer ewg» sow sow»e»omoxm se ew »eg» Low>egmg we usAg e e.»eg» .»eg» on »me ooA Aw»s= »w ou sm>m AAeevoesoo use »eg» »eoge gswg» eoA ww .om H»se»A:esou .Aego .eeow ”»eeAAo =.:oA o» smeo msos E.A .msow -msmg» AAos»soo use smzoe wo mosooe As Eosw smg»sew msw»»mm E.A= .mswAee ms.=oA .Emg» o» smevo msw>oe mse :oA ee .3osg :o> .Aeowso»mgs mswmg »os ee Emg» m>wmosme e»smu:»e .soA»em:o e gee :oA use em»os sooA Eosw Aeze »mo :oA ee sooe ee »em ”»se»A:esou ...EEE: H»smwAu =.ms=»omA AAw»e ew ewgw .eemsweog o»sA AAA»e ms.m3= Au.»souV u»se»A=esou =.mmmAmo:u 9mm 0» 5mg» goon AAus »eg» qmmmAm mg» exogmxmeg» memu»mm:m meugmm mmmx ~.kw .mmvoo Ice mew»»mm »mumma mm&&= :.mm:m£m m» »283 A &m&»mg3 use mmmAm mg» %m mtmu»m»mmm8m As 0» emme mge »UAE mama 150m A .mo onogm mmmAm mg» geeee A see mge eees ee ewe Amg».ku mmm wee mmsmmemem AS ka mmruge memg» mmrxma A: uwzhm g m.mo uzmhmzA mme04m>mo mzh Am amazoomth z AH<2mouzA achuamhmzA mzh zAIAAz szoA mm zoAHmo uwee eez »eg3 mmmaouon mo hoAmumzw»omeegme e.so»oos»esA mg» Eosw sow»essowsA m .so»oeg»esw o» sow»eEsowsw zmzN .Aom\e~\AA 3mw>sm»sA-mAV soweeme 3mw>ms mee»oAu:e sm»eA mswseu umAAeoms em mwzmzzoo zoAHw»emms mg» Eosw msoE ssemg ”A AmV ....sm»wo onome »eg .»e gooA o» »emso mg.Amg» emuw msweoAm>mu mosw»sou sersm»xm mosesm»»: I- m>w»Aeoe e sm»wo meoeomm .gem> ”a AAV emuw msweoAm>mu sw »eweee .szo Amswuse»esmus= AeAeer sersm»xm mosesm»»= swmg» ou use wwo om Emg» m>eg us< ”A AmV .sm>m .msAg» eeosm AAeEe e mg uAeoo ewg» us< .....»w mooA»wso o» mswom msmz :oA w» 3oz .mso eA msmz. .Aee »gme ooA ow Eewsegome .emso m>w»emms use m>w»weoo .use mosmsmgoo Aeero» swe»swez osAA» ee soA»osousoo me: emuAAe so egeesmo»oge mge» sm>m so no AmV mswuse»e -smus: AeAeewu Amswsems mosesm»»: eeow>mse m>Aw mosesm»»: Aeow»eAAAm .3oge use emmg seo m2 »ege ”A AoV .eAmuoE LAee mesooemgusow»em:o »Leo sAee usoome »smuo»e mEoe m>eg AA.=oA .gmoosg» Aew»wsA so on zoAAow g»A3 ons mswswego mgo>sA om e»smu:»e we oeosm eAg» sm»w< no AmV sAee Aosmoenue .mg quoge »w AA»oexm »egz useog smzeseusow»emoo m»mAeEoo smzes< mg» so umge»mge »eow A .mE g»w3 »oz ”A ANV onL A»woosewoms msAgo>sw A... :oA »egz we »e gooA uAeoo Ag »smEm>Ao>sA m»egmsmw sow»emeo »omswu e moeeA Amg» »eg» eAmuoE Ase m>eg :oA uwo no AAV sow»osoe EeAsegomz ow»ew=msonAoom mee»owuo< Eosw »ewsoesesw sow»esmeooo AesoA»eegm>sou we eweAAes< .NA mAgew 136 e»smEm»e»e e.so»o=s»esA e»smEm»e»e e.smeoAm>mo A o ow\AN\o_ .ommummm AN go»u:g»esA .AAA moe»owu:< .»owgmesewh »swoe e msAsAerxm so msw»esmsosm mg AAA: gmgemee »eg» m»eowusA Aog»soo goko use oweo» msoeee Asoweeeoewu mg» m»mAeEou sse» osw»mAeEoo msowmg emeoer mgoE o3» »eemA »e mg AAA: msmg» »eg» gmsm»ewA EgowsA »smEm»e»e mg:»o:g»e-mge eAmAA AAA: smgemse See» mmumAzosg g»w3 .»eoggm»sA gmggee sow»mAeEoosA ....Awew »eog»wz ms.Ame» use .eAem memg» we meow .usezsow -»gmwes»e use mAeEwe .AeowmoA mg 6» gems e.»A »eg» eee »eALsmeAg e e: zesu ooA »eg» zesg oo> ,»wgngm se ou o» mswom ms_:oA smgz ou ooA »eg» mswg» »esww mg» e.»eg» meoeomg Esmeos mg» Eogw Emg» »mo eoA AAgegoge ....eoA ww .wwo emEes gwmg» goo» :oA ww so .Emg» me: o» serewEsme gAmg» »mm o» m>eg uAeoz AAgegoge :oA .e»smue»e me: ».seu :oA .uAeoo :oA wA .»w g»w3 uses: mse »eg» emswg» memg» AAe »oo msemAw see Amg» »eg» "A AAAV sow»eseAexm smAAsem sow»mAesoo mse Amg» »gese zog use »A g»»3 uses: AoAV mquosoo use mosA»sou use sowesm»xm mosegm»»: e.»egz mme Amg» meoeomm .»gmwg ”g AmV sow»osow Eewsegomz ow»ewemsAAo_oom mee»oAue< Eosw »oALoesegw Au.»souV .NA mAgew 137 this section required more subtle inferences. The judgments that the participants made about when they would start or stop talking, whether they would fill in implied information and how they attended to speakership and listenership signals are known as conversational inference (Gumperz, 1981). Throughout this section, the participants read and respected speakership and listenership signals -—- yielding to each other for turns and topic control and cooperating in the generation and explanation Of solutions. Howard Schwartz and Jerry Jacobs could have been summarizing this conversation between the developer and the instructor when they wrote the following description of projectible utterances: One way to show another person you 'know his mind,‘ and thus display intimacy, is to listen to him until what he is saying becomes'projectable' -— until you think you know what he is going tO say. At that point, you reply to what he would have said, had you let him finish. Insofar as not just anyone could have anticipated him like that, you show him, in a small way, how well you know his mind. (Schwartz & Jacobs, 1979, p. 351). - The entire topic phase demonstrates the skill dimension Of social performance described as "smoothness and meshing" by Argyle An essential part Of social performance appears to be the ability to establish and sustain a smooth and easy pattern Of interaction...Such meshing involves rapid accommodation to the timing and emotional state Of the other (Argyle, 1969, p. 327-328). and the skill dimension Of interaction control: TO be effective in most social situations it is essential to be able to control the social inter- action. This does not always mean being the 'dominant' person in the ordinary sense, but keeping the initiative, and exercizing influence over the relationship, the emotional tone, and the content of interaction (Argyle, 1969, p. 328). 138 TOPIC PHASE 12: LECTURE TRANSITION Transcript: D: 317 318 I: 319 D: 320 321 322 I: 323 D: 324 325 326 327 328 329 I: 330 D: 331 332 333 334 335 337 I: 338 D: 339 340 341 I: 342 D: 343 344 345 I: 346 D: 347 I: 348 349 350 D: 351 352 353 SO, here we go. We can look at this one. Okay. What was it about this time? You said, I'll start a sentence, then stop and start over. Does that bother them? SO I asked them about that because it also was a transition. Right. SO I wanted to see what they had to say. They had a bunch to say here. Um. "Was the transition clear?" And one said, "I thought it was rough." Um. They weren't quite sure that they were going into another part. One said, "The thing I noticed was either too much information or that it didn't blend well." DO you have an example Of that? I don't understand. They said, "Sometimes it just feels like you've got so much information." And you know, you said this was where you were going to give them this quickie overview. But there were so many points, they said they didn't always see where the points all fit together. They weren't following the big picture. They seemed disjointed. In the part on children? Not the part that's coming, but the part that was just passed, where you said, "I'm going to give the sociology Of..." Yeah. They weren't quite sure how all those parts all fit together which might mean, at the beginning, if you're going to get into this, you give them an overview. The broader picture. "Here is what we're going to cover." That's what would help. That's where them having a outline would help because it would be all outlined and they could follow it point by point in the outline. But even with or without that, people still need to get that information in another way. Because even with an outline, they may not see how those points... 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 139 Fit together. Fit together. SO you might have to say, "Now, here's how all these are going to fit together." Okay. And then we're going to take them apart. But, then, as you come to each one, you have to make that little transition. "So far, we've talked about blah, blah, blah and now we're going on to —-and they relate to- gether." SO you keep making little loops, then you have a chain with links that tie it. Was this a general problem or particularly just a problem in that bit before the sociology Of natural resources? They spoke Of it in general that, "One thing I notice is there's either tOO much information or the topics don't blend well together." SO it didn't sound like it was just this, but I didn't ask them. Well, occasionally, because Of the way the class is set up, we have to cover two totally different topics in one class period. SO, they don't blend together at all. I mean, we have to cover the topics Of goals and Objectives and families in parks in one class period. I don't even pretend to try to make those seem related. NO, so then at those times you might say, "These do not go together." But, the ones that do. They go together in terms Of the overall picture, but one doesn't flow into the other at all. And that overall picture —- that would be an interesting way Of thinking about the course. What's the overall picture or the blueprint for this? We did that at the beginning. I set up a model. Every- thing we've been doing fits into that. The whole course is organized around the message, the receiver, and all those steps in between. And every time we deal with another one Of those steps I put the model back up and come back to the fact... Oh, that's good. That now we're dealing with the receivers. We've dealt with the message, we've dealt with the media, and now we're dealing with receivers. That's excellent. SO, they should have that picture in their minds. We've done it enough times (inaudible). 140 D: 396 And you're afraid that you'll bore some people to death, 397 but... I: 398 I keep saying it over and over. D: 399 Or you could turn it around and ask them, "Now we're 400 going tO be doing this. Where does it fit in the model?" 401 SO you don't have to say it again, and see if they 402 do have that picture in their minds. Analysis: Topic phase twelve demonstrated how failure to reach consensus about the nature Of the problem during the problem finding and assessment exchanges delayed resolution and necessitated a recycle through the exchanges. The general problem, that there was need for greater redun- dancy and explanation Of the relationships between specific topics and the overall conceptual framework of the course, was revealed during the first cycle. However, the scope Of the problem and the approaches already under the instructor's employ were not evident until the second cycle. These facts reduced the usefulness of the discussion and the suggestions which occurred during the first cycle. They highlight the ordinality inherent in the topic phases, since each exchange must be enacted within a specific sequence; as well as its consensual requirement, since the lack Of agreement obliged the participants to repeat the discussion in order to resolve the problem. During the first cycle, the problem was discussed (328-333; 335-341) and an interpretation was issued (347-348) by the developer. This was the first indication that the phase would likely require an additional cycle, since prior phases ending in successful resolution were marked by assess- ment exchanges initiated by the instructor, although the developer frequently made contributions thereafter. NO consensus was reached before the developer launched into a prescription, using a hedge (might) and conditional (if...) clause (348-349). The developer proposed the use 141 Of an overview, a suggestion that the instructor misunderstood. She interpreted the developer's term "overview" as synonymous with "outline," and explained how a printed guideline would reduce the problem (352-354). The developer corrected her, stating that the students needed verbal explanations throughout the class to summarize Old topics and introduce new ones (355-357; 362-369). The cycle was re-initiated and a problem finding exchange Opened with the instructor's next question about the pervasiveness Of the problem (368-369). Through discussion, it was revealed that the instructor used a communication model as the guiding theme for the course and a visual representation Of it provided redundancy and structure (368-392; 394- 396). While the strategy received high praise from the developer (393; 397), she also identified an important factor in the developer's failure to adequately invoke that redundancy. The instructor's words, “I keep saying it over and over," and the paralinguistic qualities Of her delivery communicated the instructor's distaste for such repetition. The developer recognized the instructor's 'feelings 'hi her: comment, "And you're afraid that you'll bore some people to death, but..." Feffer has identified this ability to simultaneously consider one's own point of view and that Of others as a critical prerequisite for social interaction (Feffer & Gourevitch, 1960). Argyle described the typical use Of this skill as an aspect Of all interaction: ' Even to speak to another person involves considering what he can understand and is interested in (p. 190). In this case, the developer expressed empathy with the instructor by cognitively assuming her role and generating an alternative strategy intended to eliminate her Objections to the proposed solution (403-406). This topic phase confirmed that exchanges within each topic phase have ordinal properties. It revealed that the ommission Of an exchange 142 when proceeding from problem-finding to resolution required the repeti- tion of the series before resolution could be attained. It also demon- strated how the developer used her ability to cognitively assume the role Of the instructor in order tO express empathy. Throughout this encounter, the developer also used the instructional technique Of modeling to demonstrate how the instructor might implement the suggestions being made. She developed a scenario Of a classroom event and stated the specific, concrete behaviors which she should enact as an instructor in that situation. G.H. Mead (1934) refers to such behavior as "taking the role Of the other" and identifies it as a critical skill for social competence» Where interactors take the role Of the other in a cognitive sense, they are able to see the encounter from the point of view Of the other person. This enables the speaker to predict, with some degree Of accuracy, the probable response Of the listener. Without this ability, the speaker must take greater risks each time he speaks since he cannot know whether his words will Offend the listener or cause the interaction to be concluded prema- turely. Feffer and Gourevitch have also suggested that in order to engage in effective social interaction a person should be able to consider simultaneously his own point Of view and that Of others. As they explained Even to speak to another person involves considering what he can understand and is interested in. There is a difference between taking the role Of another as a detatched onlooker and identifying with his standpoint (Feffer & Gourevitch, 1960, p. 400-401). In this encounter, the developer went beyond role taking to also share the feelings Of the instructor. This ability to display empathy toward the instructor has previously been identified as an important skill for instructional developers (Savage, 1974). 143 TOPIC PHASE 13: ALTERNATIVE METHODS Transcript: D: 402 Um. Just a little 403 later on here, you talk about education and enterainment. I: 404 Um hmm. D: 405 And you just brought it up. And time-wise, I know 406 you didn't have time to deal with it, but they said 407 that it was something that would have been interesting 408 to take a few minutes and talk about. I: 409 And discuss. Yeah, and I agree very much with them, 410 too. There's just a couple Of other topics, tOO. D: 411 Uh huh. I: 412 That I'd like to be able to get intO more. I'm going 413 to restructure the course a little bit so that we have 414 more time for that kind Of thing. There's other issues 415 we've come up with at other times -— the (inaudible). For 416 example, the issue Of artifacts, the issue that people 417 learn more when they can talk and get involved. But, 418 what do you do when it's (inaudible)? (Chuckle) Analysis: Topic phase thirteen involved a cursory treatment Of a student recommendation for more class discussions. Both the developer and instructor agreed that it was a good idea, but that time limitations would probably prevent the instructor from using it. The instructor expressed plans to restructure the course tO include more student involvement. The discourse suggested that those plans would not take effect during the current term, however. This phase demonstrated that both parties recog- nized the limitations Of time and the requirements for planning that many changes represented. They did not attempt to implement extensive altera- tions in the course. Instead, they identified a number Of potential sites for improvement and chose those which were feasible within realistic time and resource constraints. Major changes were discussed and set aside for future terms. 144 TOPIC PHASE 14: GROUP ACTIVITY Transcript: D: 419 420 I: 421 D: 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 I: 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 D: 438 I: 439 441 442 D: 443 444 445 I: 446 D: 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 I: 457 459 460 461 Um, Okay. Then also this little (Inaudible). You said, "Close your eyes." Um hmm. They said, "Boy, that just didn't work." They said it was hard for them to close their eyes and think Of kids that age. They said it would be easier if you said, "Think back to when you were that age, or younger, or you've had brothers and sisters who were in that age. Can you remember anything?" And, also they said that asking them to close their eyes, they felt kind Of sill doing it. That's funny. That's a peculiarity Of that group because when I do that exercise at the Grand Canyon with the people, it really works. And that's one Of the things that has been commented on in the evaluation forms, because it puts them in the right mind frame. "Close your eyes and think about kids. What pops into your mind?" They really like that. It gets them oriented. That's... Yeah. I'm wondering if it's college students. Yeah, rather than people in the profession. Because the other people are professionals in the field. In fact, I did this one course for maintenance workers-—— all these Old guys. Still, they... I'm wondering, that kind Of came fast. That was with your transition. You started something, then you started something else. Yeah. If it was set up, so you might say, “Let's take a minute now; we're going to reflect on kids. Why don't you close your eyes so you can envision it better. And sO you don't get any distractions. Can you get a mental image? What is it like? What do you see them doing? How do you see them using their time? Are they running?“ Then stop talking and let them create their own picture. Um, Okay. Another comment right there was, "Oops, see, we jumped right back into the lecture. And she didn't ask us what we saw." Yeah. But that's the point, just to get them into the right frame Of mind —- thinking about kids. I don't want to talk about what they saw because then I have to spend the rest Of the time hearing. It doesn't serve any purpose. I've tried it a couple Of times 462 498 500 501 502 503 504 145 and it doesn't serve any purpose. What happens is they get in arguments with each other because some people there know more about kids than others. It doesn't work well. It really disrupts the flow Of the whole thing. And... I can see that. Yeah, you see them --the Objective is just tO get them to think about (inaudible), to orient their mind toward that one group rather than -—5 In fact, I'm not particularly interested in what they saw. Yeah. Maybe then at the beginning if you set the stage for that. YOU know. "It's hard to think back, but if you close your eyes... It wasn't an oversight. And the other thing I want is to set the stage better because I don't want them to think about when they were kids because they have been looking at that and coming out later and thinking about that. I want them to picture kids. The kids The kids they pass on the street, the kids that they run intO from day-tO-day basis. That is what I want them to picture is kids now in their life, not when they were kids. That is the whole difference. They are not because 20 years ago is gone forever, while dealing with kids is now, so. That makes sense. I am just trying to think Of how you might do that so they are not expecting them to... I'll have tO think about it. TO outline even better what we're doing, but I still don't want to destroy the usefulness of that. Then right after this They think a lot Of things that they don't enjoy that as a group they are very tight, they don't enjoy letting loose very much. Because I had to do a couple -— well, we did a communications theory and did a couple Of exercises where we get involved with each other and they were real... Well, if you think about it, college classrooms, they are not used to that, they are used to someone who is just talking at them. They are used to being anonymous. Okay, in a new situation they lose their anonymity and I can remember back, you know, when I went to class, I preferred just to sit and take notes and remain anonymous. 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 146 You know, I was just thinking that at the beginning of the course or some point in the course, that it might be interesting just to point that out to them. You know, like what it is like from a college student perspective, but what you are going to be dealing with, groups, who when you are in the field working, who are coming with different expectations. And part Of what we are going to do in this course is model some of the things that you might want to do with those groups. And so you are going to have to play two roles. In one sense you are going to be a college student and with another sense you are going to have to... I'd like to have you see how you can orchestrate some Of these things. SO that again their expectations for the course are different in that this is part Of their learning experiences is to partake in these situa- tions and. And tO loosen up, because, yes, then they deal with people in their grade. That is probably why when I do a deal with park rangers, they are not so uptight. You know, they are more conservative people, but when they are at the Grand Canyon it is not like they are going to college; they are going tO a workshop and there are probably other rangers from all over the country and it is a much looser. They really get into things a whole lot more that they enjoy a lot Of the exercises and stuff a whole lot more than this group appears tO. Another thing that I was thinking and I haven't Observed this, but do you tend to get in early? Oh yes, and I sat with them all the time. So you can chat with them. I chat with them all Of the time. I get in there at least 20 minutes before and that gives them. See, I answer a lot Of their questions then and more and more Of them are coming in early. They know I am there and they —— and I answer a lot Of questions at that time. I come in and I put things on the board or I get organized or I just chat with them at that time. You see, that is one Of the things that when you give a walk or a talk, you know, that is one Of the things that you do is you get there early so that you can just chat with the people. And get to know your group. Get to know your group a little better and establish some rapport. That should help break down that. 147 I: 551 I think for some Of the others that it is just —— and 552 I really believe, you know, think that if you sat in 553 there long enough and -— some Of those guys in there 554 are just having a hell Of a hard time. They would much 555 prefer me to be the teaching assistant and not tO be 556 the lecturer and they are having a hard time. There 557 is a couple Of them that —— I don't know how to help 558 them because they are, they just don't know what to 559 do. I'm getting used to it, but see, being in forestry 560 and in the College Of Ag, some Of them have probably 561 never had a woman professor throughout their entire 562 college career. 0: 563 Or at least not in their major. I: 564 That's right. And they just are real surprised or they 565 probably had it in humanities and stuff, and they didn't 566 expect to take a course in natural resources and get 567 a lady professor. And they are really —— but see I don't 568 think I can help them, I think that is their problem 569 they have to break down. You know, all I can do is 570 make the learning situation as easy as possible for them. 0: 571 And model a very competent professor. I: 572 Well, you see, they have a way Of dealing with women. 573 Okay, and they know they can't deal with me that way 574 and so they don't know how to deal with me. Because 575 a couple of them will come into my Office and talk about 576 their projects, you know. And I'll lOOk up and they 577 will be looking at me and I think OOh. And it is like 578 they don't, I mean, they have a standardized way for 579 dealing with women and they can't... D: 580 How do I deal with this one? I: 581 That's right. It is not operative in this situation. Analysis: Topic phase 14 was a more explicit demonstration Of the decision processes used by the instructor tO arrive at judgments about problems and solutions. The instructor spoke Of the similarity between her discourse during topic phase 14 and her thoughts during topic phase 11 during an audiotape review session: I verbalized the process there. That's my thinking out loud (12 Interview 6/2/81). The topic phase was Opened by the developer's presentation Of the problem (419-420; 422-429) and the instructor's reaction (430-437). The 148 initial surprised reaction was followed by an examination Of variables within the situation and a generation Of hypotheses (438; 443-445) to explain the problem. The instructor was not entirely satisfied that differences between the college audience and park ranger audiences accounted for the unenthusiastic reception that the class activity had received (439-442). She was more clearly dissatisfied with the impli- cations regarding the purpose Of the activity embedded in the developer's suggested remedy (447-456). She made her Objections known (457-466; 468- 471) as she explained her goals and past experiences with the activity. Her statements are emphatic, with stress given to particular words, and a tone of impatience. The developer expressed understanding and acknow- ledgement following the instructor turns (467; 472) and posed a solution which was a less specific statement Of her earlier suggestion (472-474). The instructor accepted the suggestion in her next turn (475-476) by stating that she wanted to set the stage better, but it seemed to be forgotten in the remainder Of the turn as she returned to a restatement and elaboration Of her goals (476-485). She explained her reaction during the audiotape review session: I'm dragging my feet because I want them to think in a certain way. Maybe change the ity_1_e_, but not the content. Her suggestions struck me as getting at a 'TUEHEEENtally different point than I wanted so that's why I argued with her (I2 Audiotape Review Session 6/2/81) The developer acknowledged the instructor's explanation, then attempted to generate specific examples Of the solution (486-487). The instructor, still preoccupied with the purpose Of the activity, stated her position regarding the value Of the activity (499-501). The instructor's response seemed to recind permission for the developer tOTmake suggestions and to imply that her suggestions posed a threat to the integrity Of the activity (488-490). Following this apparent dismissal Of her efforts, the 149 developer dropped the discussion and attempted to introduce a new topic (491). However, the instructor had not finished with the preceeding topic. She began to hypothesize about the group (492-494). She considered the frequency and pervasiveness of the problem (494-497). The developer responded with information about the typical experience Of students in a college classroom (498-500). The client compared the added information with her own experiences as student (501-504). When the instructor accepted the characterization, the developer cautiously forwarded another suggestion (504-521). The instructor continued to consider the information in light of her knowledge and experience as a teacher (522-531). She spent the next six turns examining the developer's implied hypothesis (532-533) that increased rapport and knowledge Of the students would precipitate greater cooperation and communication during class periods. While the instructor agreed with the validity Of suggestion (548-549) she also advanced an alternative explanation based on difficulties she had experienced with a sub-group within the class (551-562). The developer demonstrated that she was listening (563), made a rational, constructive recommendation, and let the issue drop (571). From the developer's perspective, the problem had been dealt with adequately. After she had clarified her position, the instructor was prepared to consider the Objective facts and. to render judgments. They reached consensus regarding the issue Of behavior expectations, although the instructor's final remarks indicated that she continued to be uncom- fortable with those held by a sub-group Of students within the class. This phase demonstrated the instructor's strategy' for reaching judgments about problems and solutions. It also revealed the importance Of consensus Of problem definition before advancing to the solution 150 exchanges. Treatment Of content by the developer was shown to represent a breach of the normative rules of conduct (Garfinkel, 1963, p. 190) and the instructor was permitted to directly contradict the developer's interpre- tations in that area. This phase also illustrated how conversation can break down and be recovered, how the instructor can exert control within the topic phase, and how the interactors can work together to define problems and generate solutions within the constraints Of the specific teaching-learning situation. TOPIC PHASE 15: LECTURE TRANSITION Transcript: D: 582 The next part just when you talked about the historical 583 background, they weren't quite sure how that fit. I 584 thought that it tended to make a lot of sense. I: 585 It was, well, it was the introduction; I mean, the 586 introductory setting is the background. SO that is 587 interesting. 0: 588 Maybe again it's working on that transition Of... I: 589 That is how the book is laid out. 0: 590 Is, yes... I: 591 Exactly how the book is laid out and we never read it. 592 We never had any trouble with the book. The book is 593 in its third printing and Gary and I both give workshops 594 all over the country on it. And we use this identical 595 approach that I used there with starting to getting 596 them to think about kids and man, then moving into the 597 historical perspective and this is the first - -this 598 is real interesting. 0: 599 You know what I am thinking, it could be just the transi- 600 tional sentences into, you know, thinking about kids. 601 Now that you have in your mind a picture Of kids today, 602 kids who weren't always that way. I mean, kids have been 603 the same but the context in which you were a kid is 604 different. 151 I: 605 Yeah, I think I said that. Didn't I say that? That 606 we have the concept of childhood today that we have 607 now is not the same as it was; it hasn't always been 608 that way. I thought I said that. However, it may be 609 that I'm sO used to giving this that I didn't say that. 610 Let's lOOk at that. (Videotape-to check it out.) 0: 611 Now this right here when you are going to do something 612 like that, even moving the papers, might break the mood 613 you are trying to create. 1: 614 Yes, I thought that when I did that later, the first 615 time I saw this tape, it would be better to come around 616 to the front and just lean on the desk and talk to them 617 that way rather than to stand behind the podium. D: 618 Yes, moving Of the papers, it's a transitional cue. 619 You know, it is a cue that things are going to change, 620 but it might —- I think you are right, just leaning out 621 in front and sort of setting that mood, the tone Of 622 voice in learning what they want. Because you can lose 623 people on transitions. 624 My sense Of what happened is that it's still quite a 625 formal setting, you know, they are thinking about it 626 even though you want them to sit and relax and think 627 the trend, you know, it was, still had that formal air 628 about it. And it sounded like when you started, like 619 it was a lecture --which is fine. But, if you want 630 to help people make that transition, it might just take 631 another sentence or two there in terms Of, you know, 632 we all have in our mind the picture, or you have-—— even 633 making it more personal, you have a picture in your 634 mind Of what childhood is like and it is pretty collective 635 for what we know and then go into the history. Going 636 from the personal ypg_because you see, just have them 637 do a real personal experience so take them from that 638 from personal experience I: 639 What I should really do is... (laughter) Analysis: Topic phase 15 addressed a problem which stemmed from the instructor's assumptions about the similarities between college students and park rangers as audiences and learners. It was also found to involve inconsistencies between the instructor's verbal and non-verbal behaviors during the transitional shift between lecture topics. The instructor was given time to assess the problem Of student confusion over a part Of the 152 presentation. She compared their comments to her past experiences as a teacher and reacted with interest (585-587). The developer proposed a tentative hypothesis and they reviewed the teacher's behaviors on the videotape (599-604). The instructor agreed with the developer's sugges- tions (605-610) which were then followed by firmer recommendations (618- 638). A comment made by the instructor during a later review session with the researcher may indicate that the develOper's continued emphasis on the importance Of audience variation was fully accepted during topic phase fifteen. She summarized the discusssion with one sentence: This made me think about the differences in the groups because much Of this comes from the training packages for the rangers (I2 Interview 6/2/81). TOPIC PHASE 16: SUMMAZATION EXCHANGE Transcript: D: 640 YOU know, what I think is coming out of this is that 641 the content and the examples and everything you have 642 are really sound or just seeing the techniques and transi- 643 tions. I: 644 The techniques and transitions. 0: 645 ... and it is just those 646 little transitions that those transitions are where 647 we know in social interaction...we can lose people. 648 It is like, you know, you take them to a park trip and 649 if they aren't following you visually you lose people 650 along the way. I mean, they go Off onto another trail 651 and how dO I get them from one spot to another and still 652 keep them with me. Analysis: Following topic phase 15, the developer opened a brief summarization exchange with the instructor. During the exchange, judgments about Observed instructor strengths and weaknesses were disclosed. The inter- actors agreed that basic teaching practices were sound, that specific techniques needed work, and that transitions between lecture points were 153 important areas for the instructor to emphasize. The exchange served as a signal that the task Of the session was being accomplished and a check to determine whether both parties were reaching similar conclusions. TOPIC PHASE 17: TRANSITIONAL PHASE Transcript: D: 652 And then there is another transition 653 down here and they said that one was real clear. DO 654 you want to see that one? I: 655 Which one was it? I might be able tO remember. 0: 656 I don't remember which one it was. (Videotape playing) 657 They didn't have anything to say about that other than that 658 you start that transition. I: 659 Can you see why I don't use overheads? D: 660 I can see why she doesn't use them tOO much. I: 661 I got to do something about those, in terms Of for this 662 class. Analysis: During topic phase 17, problem solving did not occur. The developer and instructor re-oriented themselves to the process after the change in focus represented by the summarization exchange. They Observed a segment Of videotape where a transition was enacted by the instructor. The instructor commented about her use of transparencies and the need to work on them. This was the topic of an earlier series of exchanges and was not pursued further during phase 17. 154 TOPIC PHASE 18: STUDENT REACTION Transcript: D: 0: Analysis: 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 YOU had asked something about were there any reactions to that information. You know we had talked about charting it or charting it once or something and their comment was it was just a quick overview even though it was like the cover, we knew it would be in the readings. Did you have any suggestions and they said, going to keep up the examples, as many as you can as they (inaudible) in a natural setting, so all Of those stages development you know... Right where I gave examples. Yeah, and they said that was really excellent and specifi- cally when you get examples Of in the park setting. Boy that it is hard. That is easy, but the hardest thing for me in this class has been avoiding that because I've got forestry, wildlife people and these other people. SO I try and give examples Of that without worrying, not only about park settings but about game refuges Or hunters -— because a lot of these guys are wildlifers, who'll be dealing with hunters, especially in game refuges where there are those types Of settings. And the foresters would be dealing with a whole kind Of recreation that it is not a park goes as you might think Of a park goes. SO the hardest thing this term —- it would be easy and I can just give park examples -—-I can give park examples up the kazoo, but I puzzle before every lecture and try to think of more diverse examples to meet the needs of at class. You know where you might gO to get some Of those is next time you go to a forestry convention or something... Oh, I have them, I can think Of them, but they just don't come as readily to me on the tip Of the tongue. And, in fact, I have to work. Instead Of, you know during my lecture I'll think, "Oh, I'll give these three examples about..."Now, I think back, come up with an example that is for the more diverse audience, so I wish I could just give park examples. It would be so easy. But you did give a lot in there. Topic phase 18 began with a direct feedback exchange (662-665) and included discussion about the use Of examples, triggered by the feedback. The instructor defined the problem (624-678) informed the developer Of the 155 difficulties inherent in providing examples for a heterogeneous student group (677-683) and proposed her own solution (684-688). The developer encouraged her with her final remark (694). TOPIC PHASE 19: STUDENT CONFUSION Transcript: D: 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 I: 710 711 712 D: 713 714 715 716 717 I: 718 719 720 721 D: 722 723 I: 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 Now, let's see --there was a difference. You started to tell a story in there and your whole delivery style changed, and they said "When she says it is simple and straight forward, you know, what is that?" "That was a good example in there." You were presenting it, I don't remember specifically where it was. My notes aren't that good, but look ahead, I can remember. DO you want to lOOk ahead at that to see what it was? "When she said that it is simple and straight forward, but then...but I don't know if it is that simple and straight forward." Because it is simple and straight forward! It appears simple and straight forward and it is, although most people don't think Of it. That is why. You know, sometimes they'll say that to people...talking about presenting or what effective presenters do, and I'll say you're going to just -— when we are all done —- I hope you say that this is so simple, it is sO logical, it is intuitive. I know. That is what I am trying to get across to them. And the reason I present things is because they're not Obvious that they are simple and straight forward. If I don't present in class it's because I know they can read it themselves. I see what you mean. I think that whenever... (Videotape playing) That might have been a question I asked them. Yeah, I know, whenever I say "This is very simple and straight forward," I know almost all the time it appears to be a simple and straight forward point to you, but sometimes I think, like this material I'm presenting, they must be sitting there thinking "God, this is just common sense." But, in my experience in workig with park rangers and interpreters and people who actually work out at parks, it never occurs to them that it may seem simple and straight forward to us here in the classroom talking about it. But in my experience, boy, those people don't think about it at all. D: 735 I: 736 737 D: 738 739 740 741 742 743 I: 744 745 746 747 D: 748 749 I: 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 I: 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 D: 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 Analysis: 156 That would be excellent to point out to them, then. But I am sure that I say that. I mean, I said that many, many times this term. And also, what seems to be so simple and straight forward when you hear it and you are sitting in the class, versus when you get out and go to apply it and given that situation, it is easy to forget it. SO, it is not only other people who do things and don't use this information; you might not even. Also, I think that, you know, I have a general idea Of who was here and, see I know a couple Of people who have been teachers, Ok, and to them this stuff is, you know, ho hum, but for all these forestry guys... These people were really...they may have been teaching, but they were all very positive. But that is another problem with this class. There is such a mix and some people there who have been camp counselors and had a lot Of experience with kids or with particular groups and others that don't. Like the guy that said to me after discussing the movie, he said, "You've got to have an authority figure." You know, gees. Oh no, what are they talking about. You know, when something is what you are saying the concepts, in concept this is simple and straight forward, but in practice it is not. You know, sometimes even giving an example Of when you've blown it. I know better and this is what I did or I know better and I still did this. SO even though I know the concept and you know. And we can sit here and both say that seems logical and it is not really logical. And I think I, well maybe I didn't do it that time, but I usually am sure that when I say something it is simple and straight forward, I say that because I'm worried that they think it is too simple tO be presented in class and the reason I'm presenting it is because everybody blows it all the time. Then the most powerful thing you are doing would be giving examples. Especially, what they said, that the examples are when you make your point, and a personal example is the most powerful kind Of example, especially since you have high credibility as an expert. It is one where "Here, look what I did and I even know better. I'm even teaching it and I did this," You know, boy. Topic phase 19 was primarily concerned with a misunderstanding 157 between the instructor and the students stemming from the instructor's description Of a section Of lecture as "simple and straight-forward." The students wondered if it really was that simple and were confused or uncomfortable with the description. Several turns at talk were required before the problem was clarified and both interactors reached a working consensus (722). They discussed the source of confusion and the instructor explained her intent during her third turn (724-734). The developer's first suggestion was that the instructor provide that same explanation to the students (737). The instructor replied that she had explained herself (736-737). The developer did not respond to her specific statement, instead she expanded the instructor's explanation (738-754). This functioned to direct the discussion to specific remedies, rather than speculations about past actions. The instructor continued the discussion in the same vein during her next turn (744-747). The developer reported that the student reviewers were not critical, but positive during the session (748-749). This served to prevent the rejection Of the information based on the attribution Of negative motives to the students. The instructor's next turn revealed some frustration with the diversity of the class and the perceptions Of some of the students (750-756). The developer then spent her turn correcting the instructor. She explained that the students' confusion was with concepts. While the developer's points are not entirely clear to an outside reader Of the discourse, the instructor seemed to understand. Her next turn was a further explanation Of her intent and a concession that she may have been unclear in the particular case. The topic was concluded by a third suggestion from the developer (772-773). The same strategy was advocated and the turn was ended with a specific enactment Of it. The final form was one Of recommendation (778-779). 158 TOPIC PHASE 20: STUDENT REMARKS Transcript: D: 778 General 779 comments, you are going to love this one. She dresses 780 well and is so well organized. I: 781 She dresses well. Oh, I guess that --that is funny 782 you should bring that up. We were just talking about 783 that the other day over a beer. And I was asking my 784 fellow faculty members, my male faculty colleagues 785 they don't get that and they never dO. And I get it 786 consistently on evaluation forms all the time. I once 787 had a comment about runs in my stockings on my evaluation 788 form. I couldn't believe it, but the guys never get 789 that. They never get that. D: 790 That is why I said you are going to love it. I: 791 You could slop in here, you could slop in there wearing 792 holes in their sweaters and the --oh, okay, go on. D: 793 But what they were making the comparison to was that 794 you're organized in your appearance and you are also 795 organized in your presentations. SO they said it gives 796 a very consistant atmosphere. Your appearance and the 797 class are both very well thought out. But they still 798 wouldn't say that about a male. I: 799 Never, never. 0: 800 NO, but they were making it that at least there is a 801 consistency, "She's one Of the foremost in her field. 802 Could maybe work on enunciation projection." I: 803 Yeah, I noticed that that day; I didn't know I was slushing 804 a lot, and I don't usually do that. I noticed though 805 that I was slushing my words and... D: 806 Perhaps getting away from her notes more. Presentations 807 are not always fluent, but yet she knew it. She has 808 the potential to be one Of the best teachers at MSU. I: 809 That is nice. 0: 810 Isn't that nice? I: 811 It gives me incentive to work on it. D: 812 Well, also when you hear this you get the feeling that 813 students are really attending the class. I: 814 And not sleeping through my class, at least not one 815 person has fallen asleep through the entire quarter, 159 816 not one. And that's a long hour and twenty minutes 817 in the late afternoon. 0: 818 There is a lot Of variety. I: 819 Well, that is good. Analysis: The developer brought the focussed time to conclusion with a series of direct feedback exchanges (779-819). These consisted Of reports and discussions of student comments which were independent Of the videotaped class session. The developer described her strategies for accomplishing this as "sandwiching" and "ending on a positive note" (Developer Interview 12/21/80). Thus, comments which referred to weak areas were “sandwiched" between comments emphasizing strengths. The final comment was a positive one (807-808) which elicited a statement Of committment from the instructor (811) and was followed by encouraging words from the developer (812-813; 818). TOPIC PHASE 21: REQUEST FOR SUMMATION Transcript: D: 820 What I'll do is I will send you a, you know, as I said, 821 on the summary letter. But I didn't take notes while 822 we were going through this. If you could summarize 823 what, from what we just talked about and all Of the 824 things we talked about before, what this means, you 825 know, what you would say the summary of all this was. 826 What do you think the --you know, I've got to stop - 827 I always call you (Instructor's first name) in class. I: 828 They call me (first name) too, and I don't care about that. 829 The only time it bothers me is when everybody else gets 830 called Dr. X and I get called (first name). However, I prefer 831 to have the students call me by my first name. You 832 know, I don't know what teaching genetics is like, but 833 teaching interpretation I feel that it is a give and... 834 and I am trying to help them become better interpreters. 835 It is a real skill-oriented kind Of thing and you are 836 not dispensing information. You are trying to give 837 them some Skills that they can use to gO out and do 838 these things. 160 D: 839 And it is interpersonal what you are teaching, are inter- 840 personal skills and you have to model it. I: 841 That is right. Analysis: A transition from the discussion Of student comments to the closing Of the session was accomplished with a netastatement by the developer (820-821). She described the next step in the CAP process, then introduced the closing summary sequence with a request for a personal summarization by the instructor (822-825). Before the instructor responded, the conversation was re-directed by a brief aside which made reference to the formal role that the instructor holds (826-827). In her response to the aside, the instructor spoke about her personal philosophy of teaching (828-838). She explained how she seeks to enact her role by involving students and demonstrating the skills they must acquire. The developer's response summarized the instructor's position and appended it with a recommendation which was consistent with the instruc- tor's aims and therefore, based (n1 a tacit agreement between the two speakers (839-840). SUMMARY PHASE 22: SUMMARY AND APPRAISAL Transcript: D: 842 Well then, what would say, out Of the sessions we talked 843 about, what things may have been the highlights for 844 you or what it means to you? I: 845 Well, I have gotten some really good ideas for, not 846 organization that I can work, because my lectures are 847 highly organized, that is not the problem. Places 848 that I think that I am giving examples from examples 849 that are not, it's this thing Of being simple and straight 850 forward. I know that it is best to give examples, but 851 there are points that I think need examples and 852 I am not doing that. And this whole issue Of transition -—- 853 I have to think about that. And of trying to reorganize 854 it so that there is a little bit more diversity in terms 855 Of little bit more discussion which is a time problem, 856 D: 857 858 I: 859 860 861 862 864 865 D: 866 867 I: 868 869 870 871 872 873 D: 874 I: 875 876 877 878 D: 879 880 881 I: 882 883 884 885 886 887 D: 888 889 890 I: 891 892 Analysis The 161 but I just need to. I know that is always a thing that throws me the most too. But some Of the non-verbal behaviors, like why they don't ask questions. That has been really important too, because I try and be real open sO that they will ask questions that will be a low risk situation, but they are not asking them. This non-verbal thing that I am behind the podium too much -—-I need to get away from that. And I think also looking down when you ask a question. You're aware Of where you're going next. Right, standing behind the podium. See, I could come out and sit on that table and lean on it much, much better, much more informal...I did see (T.A.) down at the elevator. If he was so Opposed to my being hired, why is he my teaching assistant? Boy, we had a real discussion. That is good to clarify. I feel a lot better and the working relationship has improved immensely...I don't do well in confrontations Of that kind. I would rather avoid it and sO that was real hard. But you know it's much better now. I think that is a female type of - -especially when you have to deal with a male who works under you. It's a little tricky. I think over the major things. The little things I guess I would say, the little things about having Pat help me redo my overheads so they are more interesting and just the little things that will make it better or more organized, run more smoothly. What you get are these transitions, those kinds Of things. It seems to me that you said organization is excellent. And you really do have a lot Of variety Of things you have people do in the class. It is just all Of these little things that would make it better, that would make it smoother. consultant returned to the. task Of summarization by reestab- lishing a boundary with "Well, then..." and restating the request for an instructor summary statement (842-844). With that, the floor' was 162 surrendered to the instructor. The instructor's response was both factual and evaluative. She judged the quality Of the suggestions they had discussed and specified her own teaching strengths and weaknesses. She reported areas where discrepencies between her intent and her actions occurred and indicated behaviors which would bring them into congruence (845-856). TOPIC PHASE 23: COMMITMENT PHASE Transcript: D: 893 Because what I heard from the students, I think that 894 the rapport is gOOd-- that they respect you and feel 895 comfortable, and that is one of the hardest things. 896 In fact, I have Often said, if I had to work with someone, 897 I would much rather work with someone who needed to 898 improve the fine tuning, the organization, rather than 899 someone who has no rapport with the students. That 900 is a hard one to. I: 901 The thing is, well, my philosophy is that you could 902 continually get better. SO once I go through all of 903 these things and try and work them out, there is still 904 going to always be things you can dO better. But, I'm 905 just glad to know that they feel that I have a rapport, 906 because that is real important to me. That is one of 907 the most important things I think to me as a teacher 908 is to feel that rapport. I want them to understand 909 that that is how I feel about education. And I know 910 it is hard because they are so used to so many other 911 people who don't feel that way about education —— that 912 it's such an authoritarian... D: 913 Yeah, and I think you model that well. I: 914 SO I am glad that they feel that way. 0: 915 The rest seems to be just a matter of, you know —— I: 916 Little things... 163 TOPIC PHASE 24: OFFER OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Transcript, D: 917 If you do some other time like next term or spring term, 918 if you want any more feedback, either have, you know, 919 we can just come in and sit in on it or talk to some 920 more students. I: 921 What I might have you do is come and sit down when I 922 do this lecture next time. Would you mind that? D: 923 NO. I: 924 And see, because I think that would make the most sense 925 rather than different lectures to sit through this one 926 again. D: 927 Sure, give me a call. I: 928 In plenty of time. 929 But then you could sit through this one again and then 930 we could just talk about whether I'm making these transi- 931 tions better or whether you thought that this, you know, 932 or whether I still need more work. That would be gOOd. D: 933 Oh no, I would be very happy to dO that. Did I give 934 you a copy Of an example Of a feedback form you can 935 use with the students? I: 936 Yes, it was with the packet Of stuff for orientation. 0: 937 Because you might be interested to use that for a general 938 form but also like in a week or so, if you worked on 939 transitions or you worked on examples, put that on the 940 back. Are the transitions between topic to topic and 941 topics clear? Just to see if they have noticed that. Analysis: They proceeded from statements Of agreement and reinforcement to more general statements about the areas Of proficiency and effectiveness in the instructor's classroom teaching (888-890). The developer encouraged the instructor to continue improving by emphasizing her substantial achievements in developing student respect and rapport (893- 894). The instructor's next turn was spent in appraising the>meaning of the CAP experience to her. She related the findings and suggestions tO her 164 philosophy Of teaching and values about education (901-912). The developer's role during this exchange was to support and encourage (913, 915). The formal session was brought to a close with the final Offer Of assistance (917-920) and some forms for continued self-review by the instructor (929-930; 934-936). TOPIC PHASE 25: ENDING THE SESSION Transcript: (Look at cartoon) 1: 942 That's so crass (laughter) you are not allowed to do anything 943 in this park that's dirty, messy, nasty or fun. NO, 944 but it is so perfect because when was it, Wednesday 945 afternoon, I was in Eaton County Parks and I gave a 946 workshop to the naturalists and to the director Of Eaton 947 County Parks and Recreation and a bunch Of their guys 948 that do the signing. We had a good time. I had my 949 little slide collection which is about three times as 950 big as the one I showed you and we really -—-I felt 951 good after that because they were really going "Oh, 952 we do that; yeah, I see why we shouldn't do that." It 953 was a real positive kind Of thing. You know, it was 954 worth the trip. 0: 955 Because when you gO in and you've got some information 956 from different areas and they have been doing it, they 957 can't see anything wrong with it. Analysis: After the session had ended, the participants joked informally about a cartoon that the developer gave to the instructor (942-955; 955-957). It reminded the instructor Of a recent workshop experience with local naturalists. With its recounting, the interactors completed their role transition to colleagues of equal status. The audiotape record Of the conversation ended when they walked out of the Office and exchanged parting remarks. 165 Summary In this chapter, a narrative overview Of the CAP process was presented, brief case studies Of four enactments were reported, the results Of the participant's evaluations were summarized and an in depth analysis of the last session as a social interaction was reported. In Chapter V, the findings from these analyses are summarized in the form of a descriptive overview Of the CAP process. They are accompanied by conclusions, recommendations and implications which were drawn from them. Finally, the limitations Of the study are discussed and suggestions for further research presented. 166 CHAPTER V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Findings Of the Study Broad Research Questions This study set out to explore and describe the dynamics Of college teaching improvement consultation by examining the interactions which occurred during the enactment of the CAP process. TO accomplish this, an inductive research approach which was both interactive and iterative was employed. Through the inquiry and analysis, a series of broad, inter- mediate, and more specific questions were posed and solved. The broad questions addressed the nature and structure Of the CAP process. They were: 1. What are the elements Of the CAP process? 2. What are the stages? 3. When do they occur? 4 . What are the participants' assessments Of the process? 5. In what ways does the process address teacher strengths? TheSe broad questions were answered through narrative descriptions Of the CAP process reported in Chapter IV. A summary Of these findings about its nature and structure is presented in the descriptive overview that follows. Descriptive Overview of the CAP Process The Collaborative Analysis and Action Planning (CAP) Process has been described as a seven step teaching improvement intervention using the 166 ’ 167 consultation approach. It is grounded in behavioral data captured on a videotape of the classroom event and based on interpretations from the multiple perspectives Of the students ahd instructor who enacted the event and the consultant as an instructional expert and outside Observer. From these interpretations, action plans emphasizing instructor strengths and weaknesses are jointly derived by the instructor and consultant. The stages and activities which comprise the CAP process occur in the following order: 1. Initial Contact and Interview. Instructor and developer discuss the instructor's concerns, the course content and structure, the CAP process and its potential to address those issues. Scheduling for class Observation and videotaping are arranged. 2. Class Observation. The developer Observes the classroom instruction, produces a set Of Observational notes and solicits student volunteers to review the videotape. 3. Classroom Videotape. A videotape Of an actual class session is made with the instructor as the point Of focus. Additional solicitation Of student reviewers may occur. 4. Instructor Review Session. During this session the instructor is interviewed concerning the behaviors exhibited on the videotape and the intentions and beliefs which motivated the instructor during the class session. Other instructor concerns are identified at that time. 5. Student Review Session. Several student volunteers meet with the developer to view the videotape, to describe their perspective Of the class session, to respond to questions asked by the instructor during his or her review session, and to determine the impact Of the instructor's behaviors on the students' learning. From these descriptions idstructor strengths and weaknesses are identified. Developer notes are made as a record Of the students' comments. 6. Instructor Review and Planning Session. The instructor and ~ developer review parts Of the videotape which were identified as significant by the instructor or students and compare the comments that the students made with the instructor's perceptions Of these segments. Instructor strengths are specified by the developer through direct reports Of student comments and personal Observations. Together, the instructor and developer engage in action planning, a problem solving process in which the interactors engage in a discourse about the problems and solutions, stimulated by the student comments and videotape record Of the classroom event. Through collaboration and negotiation, specific teacher behavior changes are agreed 168 upon. The instructor summarizes the action plan. and the developer Offers follow-up assistance to conclude the session. 7. Summary Letter. The developer sends a letter to the instructor listing strengths, weaknesses, and action plans as they were specified during the final session. This serves as a record Of the CAP experience. The instructors who participated in this study completed a fourteen item questionnaire and were interviewed to determine their assessments Of the CAP process. They judged it to be an effective means Of addressing instructional concerns and an efficient use of their time. Each indicated a personal commitment to change arising from the experience and indicated their endorsements of the process by recommending it to colleagues. From this it can be concluded that the approach is helpful tO college instructors who are interested in improving their teaching. Intermediate and Specific Research Questions In addition to the five broad research questions addressed above, this study was also concerned with a set of intermediate and specific research questions. The intermediate questions were intended to elucidate features of the task and social dynamics Of the consultations. They were: 1. What are the categories Of instructional variables addressed during the process? 2. In what sense is the process collaborative? 3. How is the CAP process jointly enacted by the participants? 4. What are the dynamics Of the process? 5. How does the planning process occur? 169 The more specific questions addressed the strategic elements Of the interaction. They asked: 1. How is the developer able to engage the instructor in joint problem solving? 2. In what ways is the instructor involved in analysis and planning? 3. How is commitment generated by the developer? 4. Are there specific skills and strategies employed by the developer? The intermediate and specific questions required further analysis for resolution. They examined the interaction at progressively deeper levels, with the intermediate questions locating major components Of the task and social dimensions, and the specific questions dealing with strategic elements withing CAP components. Because the intermediate and specific questions are very closely interrelated, they are answered below in a collective manner in a narrative summary Of the dynamics Of the CAP process. The Dynamics Of the CAP Process As a social interaction, the Review and Planning Session was a negotiated and mutually constructed communication between the instructor and developer. As such, it was a process which was both dynamic and variable. 'The knowledge, experiences, attitudes and expectations that the interactors brought to the event influenced how they behaved and interpreted the behavior Of the other. The results were the creation of situationally relevant participation structures and the accomplishment of tasks in a situationally unique way. Thus, the preceeding description Of the CAP process Only demonstrated the complexities Of the interaction as they occurred in a single case. Any future enactments Of the CAP will 170 necessarily differ from this portrayal according to the experiences and meaning systems that each participant brings to them, as well as in the manner in which those factors are socially expressed. The preceeding description is further limited in that it comprises a two-dimensional portrayal Of a multidimensional, dynamic encounter. By freezing the dynamic for closer examination, some Of these complexities were identified and examined. It is likely that others were overlooked. However, certain fixed features of the CAP process and social requirements of the consultation event will necessarily structure these encounters making some generalized description Of the process possible. ‘The ambiguities found to exist within and between the enactments, chronociled in this study and likely to exist in future enactments, can be expected to arise from the choices Of behavioral Options made by the interactors in meeting the task and social requirements Of the event. Thus, while the nature Of the CAP will always be improvisational, it can be better understood and future enactments facilitated by examination of the social and task environments which are synergystically combined through the interactive dynamics to activate cognitive-social-interactive problem solving. During the CAP process sessions, the instructor and developer were required to satisfy the demands Of both the problem solving process and social interaction in order to successfully achieve their goals. The requirements Of problem solving were found to involve negotiations within a rule governed and bounded domain. That is, for each topic phase, the problem solving process had a sequential or ordinal structure. Within these fixed paramaters, there was room fOr interactional maneuvering. Instructor beliefs and values were found to be Of critical importance in this maneuvering, especially in the negotiations surrounding the decision 171 to adopt or reject improvement suggestions. An examination Of the reflectivegprocess which was partially revealed in the discourse about these decision points suggested that cognitive reasoning was mediated by these affective concerns and values. Because, as symbolic interactionists tell us, language has the capacity to represent our thoughts and ideas, the production Of discourse contributed to the mental sorting and shifting which comprised the cognitive work of the instructor. Through the introduction and discussion about information from the multiple perspectives of the students, instructor, and developer, the interactors created an expanded model Of the teaching-learning process. This new model represented a changed understanding which expanded the vista of alternative behavioral Options. for the instructor's consideration. Such discussions involved the treatment Of instructional variables ranging from organizational factors and course readings to the use Of involvement strategies and instructional media. Rapport with students was a primary topic of concern, while the area Of specific course content was not accessible to the developer. In the enactment, the instructor and developer negotiated for space within the conversation and for influence over the problem solving process. They collaborated in reaching acceptable definitions Of problems and solutions as they moved from problem finding and assessment to solutions and their assessment. Plans were jointly formulated by both interactors during the final session. At its conclusion, the instructor expressed commitment to behavior change through final summarizations Of the action plan Offered in response tO the developer's request. Although the enactment of the process required the participation Of both parties, the developer assumed primary responsibility for guiding their progress through each stage and during transitions between topic 172 phases. In order to initiate and maintain instructor involvement in ways which were constructive and satisfying to both parties, she was required to select appropriate communication forms from her repertoire. It is because spoken language has the properties Of performative content and illocutionary force that the developer was able to use it in this strategic fashion. Her selections influenced the nature and quality Of the relationship which evolved between the conversational partners. The specific verbal Options she chose were charted (Table 13) to demonstrate how the process was strategically managed and her Obligations as teaching improvement specialist were fulfilled. They represent a series Of communication strategies which facilitated and controlled the joint processes of problem solving and interaction. In her capacity as change agent and advocate of various teaching practices, she employed persuasive tactics. Although the developer exerted this strong guiding influence, a relationship Of cooperation and collaboration was also constructed and maintained through their talking and listening behaviors. TO maintain equilibrium during the interaction, the developer used politeness strategies as social accellerators and social brakes when the discourse shifted between topics and the participants' emotional states changed. Listening made cooperation and moments Of reflection possible. Both listening and talking contributed to empathy and rapport, which can be viewed as products Of the interaction as well as manifestations Of the participants' emotional capacities. Ericksen and Shultz (1981) made this point eloquently in their recent work on counseling encounters when they stated: In our analysis, empathy and rapport are seen as part Of an interactional ecosystem; as residing within the structure and process Of communication face-tO-face, as well as inside the individual, engaged in communication (Chapter 2, p. 13). 173 m»ewseogeee ee EmAgose we sow»e»mgogm»sw gmeem» Amswsm»ewA m>w»oe me: AEmAgoge »mgesm»swms so m»e»emg e» go»o=g»esw »AEsms EmAgoge so »smEmmsme »woe» sweu eEmAgogo we Aoesoooe use mose> -mAms sow meeo e quom .go»o:g»esw o» mAgAumgo »eoE oswsmme sow»eEgowsw we meA» mg» meeegosm Asow»eEsowsw gogemems use Aew»smwgmexm .esow»e»mgegm»sw uue Ae»eu g»wz swmmm eweAAese sw sse» smge» eeg so»o=g»esA sm»we AAso e»eu sw eeAgesoA»eAmg »eo »swoe Aegsesms gmeoAm>mu o» uue use m»eewow»se o» go»m:s»esw »wsgme AeweAAese .esow»eAgeemu .e»goeog» msANAAegsm> Ag eemoose AgAeosw AmuoE Aemeeee me: mswgoem» wo muoE Agm>ooewu AvoEm »msegm»sw use »oemg o» A»wso»soeoo »esAw gAe» o» so»oes»esw »AEgme memeoeo me: »egww so»o:g»esw m>ww »smEEoo »smuo»e m>w»emms »soemg um>Aoe mg o» moeew meoe ----4uawesaeev'puv Euppugg waquJd---- ssmosoo umwww»smuwugo»oeg»esw msweemguue e»eu »smemge A»smEEoo »smu:»e m>w»weoe »soemg m»es m>w»weoe so sAmmm emw»swe»smose go»o=g»esw umeemgexm Ase o» gemem Asoweeme »smu:»e we AseEEee Aegmsmm meoe »sms Aemsoumoose mswsweAexm »smEm»e»ee»mE meeeA Im>Ao>sw m»eAumEEw m»esmsmu A»Ageuone gAe» AAeEe use emsA»mmgm mmsegoxm gewAge»em use »emgg» moeumg 2.: umeoooe seremm mg» mswsmeo soweemmumse zoAAmg mg» oswgoo gmeoAm>mo Ag uonAeEm emAmm»eg»m .mA mpgep 174 mgoeeemg AmAeoe AAeEe wo esow»emmoee mquosA Aeg»osms»e so»oos»esw sw umosmuA>m ee emeemooee mNAeegeEA emosmsmwmge so»o=g»es» m»euoEEoooe Ammsego o» »smE -»AEEoo so»o=g»esw umeemgexm »eog»A3 e»wwge oweo» »wsgme Ae»oe gommee »omswusw use emmumg gmoogg» e»oe mswsm»emsg» moew eemsumg AAeeowms wo »gowg e.so»oog»es_ swe»swez mNAAese o» so»o:s»esw »esoge Aeemooge soA»e»msegm»sA use eweAAese Amuoz gosog me: Amoowsgom» oswgowzusee gmoogg» e»eu m>w»eoms use m>A»Aeoe smm3»mg moseAeg sow m>As»e Asereme »eegoeogg» gow>egmg so»oes»esw m»ewgeoseee mswusemmg emeu »Asm Am»ewgeogeee smgz mew» soko uAmAA AsoA»oesm»sw eooosw»soo »wEsme o» moee AosAsm»ewA m>A»oe me: AA»wseuone use Ag»eeEm AeAeer gvqu auawafivunw seaOOJd---- 9163 Am>mA AAwge e.go»o=s»esw o» m»euoEEoooe me»sweg»esoo o» usooems use m»eewoA»se AeoAgesmoe Eoogeeer msweoe use ons so»o=g»esA mew»eoue Ag egow>egmg AmuoE Asow»oAgoemu mquosA AeEgm» Aegow>egmg .koAomoe mswee esow»eusmEEooms mge: ----I-—9 Aesgow mAew»A:EV A»wxmAeEoo use eems»omswusA mswee esow»:Aoe meesge Aem>A»esgm»Ae meoe use »emooe Aesow»eusmEEoomg »omswu msweeeA msowmg sew»oe umeoeoge wo mswA we mose»omooe »AowAm Ae»smEm»e»e »omswu msowmg eEgow gommee »omgAusw use emmumg me: AAAm>w»e»sm» esoA»emmm=e AeA»AsA mge: guawesassv'puv Euppupg uoygnzog sow»oe mueseoosu sowosmoo uwo>< AosmwowwweeuwAme so» Toeg»esw usezo» m>oz »smEm>Ao>sA swe»swez so»osg»esw mg» Ag mAge>mAgoe use m>w» Toes»esoo mse gowgz esoA»ere »smemgs soweeoesme me: Aesow» -eusmEEoomg oswgee mgowmg sow»=Aoe wo »smEmmgme »woe» sAew zoAAwmpsme Aesow»wuue gmwwo Ageeemoms ee »eEoge Amswsm»ewA m>A»oe sw mmemsm Asoweeme wo sow»e~wgeEEoe »AowAu eg»msmg»e mNAseEEee go »goemg meowsgom» mswgowzusee mswe: e»smEEoo »smu:»e mswswesms »soomg Ag»sm-mg m»e»wAAoeg soweemm-»eoe eouzoAAow AAeEA so»o:s»esw Ag ewgegmszo use »smE»wEEoo m»egmsmw soweemm m»es m>w»Aeoe e so usm mg» msweoAu AAm»mAeEoo »goemg zoAhLm>o H N ------------------------------------------------------------------ ..— ...mngmeOe e. eng Ame sm>m uV=OO 30» .AmgAE mgw EoLw goegumme eAgw s. so Lowe. m_wwAV < ...Amx mco mg wgmAE wmgw Om .woo goeg mEOO smgw us< :.uLmOg mgw :0 eng wmm _ mVAg: w. woogm stgw Ow emwosAE wo m_o:Oo m :OA m>Am ...-s Ame usm uceoggom_g mgw so mngmeOe mwAcr uVoou 30A wmgw emu wmgw gw_: OAngLOwEOOso mcmz :OA w. AVgAeeOo .uAme Amgw .gEAgw ow mEVw mom: or emEAmeOe .__m3 AmsAgem :OA w.smLe Ag: AemEAwOEOe .eOA uVme Amgw usm esOVwemoa Ase m>eg 56» 6e uVee Amew ee< .ocewoo. mew owe. gong wsoAL om ow msAom AAgegOLe mcm :OA esmmE wmgw 0e...Amg_E EOLw gumgumme...mgw so esOVwemoo m>eg mseAse emoo no .mg—gwAsm gem sm>m A_ung Amgw .LewLOse eee LewL6ee woo as.» wesw oEAwwo_ we nges egw e. msAwwmm smmg m>.A .mngwAse eAOe AuogOs A__m:e: “A .smgw Ow LmeOAO g_e3 use emwOs LooA EOLw Amxm wow A__mmeV_ wgmAE :OA smgw .esOVwemoo gem Ow mEAw mwmALoOLeom co m. AVAOOL wV wegw s. esOAwemoo LOw moo m mg wgmAE wegw 0e...emwOs L:OA we sxou goo. :OA smgw...wmgw eA esOAwemoo LOw gee oOA smg: umUAwOs _ msAgw mso...:Osx :OA .mEAw gmoOsm wOs eV mcmgw AAVOoeo wag .gmmA .uAme Amgw use esOVwemoe Low gem LO wsmEmOs:Ossm se m>Vm :OA smg: Aowe_mg m. w. no .wesw ee_6e me: _ weew oeew weew :6 eoOVwoe _ .go 1. :.Em_gOLe m msVmeg emgeE gOAg: mOsmwsme m wO usm mgw we wwo goon ng ooLu emou mge use oOLu emOu wV emEAw we .gmmA: .uAme A use mOVos mgw w:Oge umgee no» :.so emwOs mgmw Ow wsewLOoEV e. wegx use Amuow msAOu mg AAA: m3 wmgz e: e_.mw eee ewe; og__ >__eec _e .eVee Amg» ...mng mEVEEmeg mgw we wngm ....mme weou e: wmg ..owe_mg eA 30s wngL meow eng wegw :Osg w.sOu _ use soVwewsmemLe AmLmsmm mgw wo eEme sA em: mng Ame ow ueg ewsmuowe mgw weg: wO weoz no mm mm Nn Am on 0N oN AN oN mN cN nN NN AN ON a. w. A. o. n. v. n. S! —NM¢U\NOI\QO\O emmoww wowsmgoxm ewo< gummqw memga UVQOA mamwoguo< soLw wQALoeseLk eEAS sOAeemm msVssmgo usm 3mA>mm wo eVmAAOs< meLSOUer 194. Aceusoom AOe_<"ngLezV mEmLm " .uAee 30A meowomV mgw OwsA wsm: :OA smg: .eng sV OeA< "o co .IIII mroOcoo m .emsAgw OAwAOmee wSOge Emgw gem :OA w. u. no . ewe=_e>m A .wee_s no me . Am . ».sos A .weewcerA e.wegz geeg eegw EAeg ee_e ...: w. u. on A “ .mome> OwaA. e mg __Awe Ame w. wag .mewmg mewVV an . m e. " :wwsmEcmAeem mgw woOge esOVwemoo m>eg :OA on: .mLOE.sA msOg mm .A eoew ea_ee eo>e w. .oe 56> w. Aweew weoge eeo_weo=e he mweer>m " m>eg msOAsm uVu II ALOmgw wsmEoOAO>mu e.wmmme mg__ on Awemmmom " II mcowomV e.mEAw wee. s. wLmo m we: mLng w. mgAmE Lo no mm . u .w. m~VsemLO use meng we gomm LOw mEVw :OAAm us< em >Aomm AmmLm< “ .mcowOOA e.mEAw wee. LO wsmEsmAeem mgw w:Ogm Lo .gOOA “A mm . _ onV_m AusmEEOumm " .UVwAOOQe mg .wom swmsVummL usoome mgw .mg—uemc weLAw mgw Nm Awemmmom . woOge esOAwemoo mngw mL<= .Ame Ow m>eg wgmAE :OA om “o .m . _ “ .emsVuemL mgw woOgm esOAwemoo Ase m>eg Lmsms on A see» weew eeo ee es goeewe w. 6e .oe_ee.oeg ogw e. me . wegw :Osg Amg» .eem_o s. w. Lm>OO w.sOu m3 .mcowom_ me " mgw Ow AmesmEOVQEOO eA msAummL mgw II Lm>oo w.sou m: he " meoeomm ELOwsA AmLeoEoo " .msAgwAsm gem w.suAu Amgw Ag: msALmusO: smmg m>.. u. om A “ .wumoEV se m>eg emOu woes. me wsmseoo " LAmgw wegw 30sg Ow ewsmuowe LOw mUVs e.wA emEVmeOm no we wsmeemmee< " n eo_we_oe ooeo_:oego< A .eeo> u. no . " ...:OA Om .mEVw gm:Osm msVzo__m Nu " w.smLm: :OA wegw em: .esOAeeme :mA>mL moewomuV> mgw EOLw Av wemEEOo Ammcm< . umsLeOV :OA msAgmeOe e. eng Ame sm>m uV=Oo 20A .gmm> no ou . . A .oe_ee.oog mew we on . emgw gee ugooo Amgw wegw Oe eeeAO Ow smgw msALg use an “ esOAwemoe Ase s30u wOu Ow wemmmoe u_oOge _ .meL:OO mgw wo An wemmmom AELOwsV " msVsstmg mgw EOLw Emgw gem u.oOge _ wmgw me so umszmu w. u. on emmewm emmsmgoxm ewo< gummom memgm maowOVuo< EOLw waALoesme mng OAoow 1995 " emEAmeOe wegw em: esOAwemmmoe mgw wO mso Oe_m us< oo. oEVuEVL . .LogOsz eowVL; wesw g_ego gOAEw o_g weeLo e.gw e. om IsOVw:VOm wemmmom “ 11 w. eeg AVgegOLe emLme usm II wmm seo :OA msAgw mso no mo . m .eooL weew eoeoLeee 6:: eoeg w.eoe he . _ .o_g_LLow e. oEVweo__ osw ... uLeg e.w_ wag .eeo eo A Aegw me ..ew Aoew ee< weeeoe mew woe >_e_eeoa Aesw eo n sec 30g... uLVO: Oe e. OAmse mgw...wegw umosA>sOu co wngeemee< " smmg m>._ .uLeOg mgw :0 meL: ngu ueg use Aeu ngwo no IEmAgoLa mLeoEOQ AwsmEEoo . mgw mngw s. wsmr A .ueg AAVOOL II umg e. EOOL mgw "A No oEVeEVL A A TeeVgoLs ATV wLoeos A ....Aogw wag .oEwaAe eeg _ aces; eoLw w. _o ALmusaom AOeA< "ngLezV mEeLw " mme uVoOU _ .mmog mwAL: oOA gm30gw sm>m uLmOg mgw om _ msAmme mAgooLw m>eg Amgw wmgw em: .msAgw AmUAsgomw an "1111 ngwOsm .wmgw OeAO us< :.sOVeemLeEV se mgeE ucm ucAE mm guegeooL A e we e. gOVwe wee»: .eoeoeeee wee: eeew e_ow sow eeg: he womLVo A+V wLOomm " emusmALmoxm .esoeLmo L:OA umgAV Amgw gone ALm> uVme Amgw cm .1111 .msVmeg OAgooLw ueg Oe_m mgm .emwm ueg ueg mge uAOe m» “ mge use wsOLw mgw s_ wee mge uAme wsmuowe mco womuxm em goegummw " m .semws uVOe ngwo mgw use :02: .uVme wsmuowe mso .Emgw no wuoLAe wLoeos " Legwog wegw uVe .uLeOggoe_g esw ow e:.g.ew 6L0: eoVA see; me ALeusaom Aoe_< "ngLezV mEeLw .IIII umgee :OA .Oe_< .usmweLmuso Amgw wmgw _o_wsmemm e.w_ Am " wV Oe .ummL use goeg om AALAmgw usm wsmeooEA e.wmg3 om meemesA " 30sg Amgw smgh .mLowom. mgw umeg m>.>mgw .Awso w_m3 0A utoeoe A eweouewe we we. <= .uVee weoeewe eVEw .eogw we mace wee no ew _ A ....wee mew Lew eoEVeeoL mew ueoc eeg Acew wegw Aw “ mLoe mg use eeeVO s. emsAuemL mgw gmoong om ow msVOm on " w.seex V use ALewsmEOAQEOO em: wA wmgw woew mgw woogm :0 ms . wcmx _ us< :wgm30sm Lem—o eAgw mumE m>._ gsAgw 30> «A " co: .sgoe umgee _ meoeomg Aeu weLVw ALm> mgw so Lem_u ms wsmEeemee< ELOws_ “ ALm> e.w_ .egmm3 m_oooo weLAw mgw Low Amu ALm>m wegw NA IEOVgOLm Ammum_30sxo< u Eng uVOw A .msAEstmg mgw we wmgw Emgw uAOw _ .gOOA ”A AA _ “ =...mEeeee ow msVom 5.. use msVLowum. mg on " Ow msAom mL.mx= .Ame :OA w. smAeem :OA cmg: wmgw LO on u e uemL m>eg Ow umeOoooe mL.Amgw Lm>mwmg3 :m_>mL 20A wmgw mo wemoomm . some wegw emoo .Ou quOO :OA weg: wo eEme e. esmmE Am msVusAw Awemmmom AAIV wLOomm " wmgw wmg: :Osg w.sou A wow :.so_on=mem uoom m we: we IEngoLo A...cmg:V e:OOL “ e.wegw: .uVme ewsmuowe mgw use suemL m>eg :OA mEoeee A: no emmmwm emmemguxw ewm< gummnm memgm memwOAuo< EOLw wawuoesmL» msAg u_sow 1965 m_oomo wegw me: woOgm ms.g_mw mLm: oOA mmngw mgw wO msO . . . AwOmLVuImm " gsAgw . .msAEOO eLOwVeA> mgw w:Ogm Amo.esm mgw em: w. no . A.omm " .mLoe wOs E.....E:...smu _ w. mLoe wOs E._ u. . " ww30gm mc.g_mw mLms Amgw wmg: woo mLomAw Ow wVOAAw " mmwosAE :mw e mgew usm eVemm wegw we goo. Ow wee: :OA ms.us_w “ Oo AmeoeoV .w. woOge g.ew Ow emwos.E 3mw m gOOw Amg» IEOAgOLo AwLOomm " :.sO.wemeomes. uoom m e.wegw: .uAOe Amgw mngw wgm.m . “ A.so moewV . e A .we goo. ow oe_weoLowe_ on weoVE w. weew . wgo36gw _ 6e ._=we_og >__eoc e6: weew eAee Anew uee “womLAQ " AmOAOEe so mums :OA mng: mom_o m em: mngw meomomg ummgm ALeusoOm wsmEOwewemwmz " e.gw mSOE ow umwse: _ .wwO e.gw umsLow _ sOemmL mgw no . Qua-0:00 "IIII ....P-DQ* "— . . " .ummng>O mgw so mEAgw smwwVLzusmg meme mgw usmeeoomm " smgw .smwwALxusmg mL.Amgw usm umeAw Emgw wmm Ow OEVw Amweo.m>w AmmLm< " m>eg w.:Ou :OA w. sm>m ..owo.mg .mmL e.wmgh .Aego . u .__m we msAsmwe._ em: AuOgOs usm ummng>O " mgw...mme Amgw :Osg . meomomg emgw m>eg ...Amgw us< wsmeeoo “ ....ewEAOo mgw s:Ou ms..gg.LUe mg w.soz Amgw smgw us< u. _ mmLm< “ .65: E... 5 A A . ....Emgw so emwOs mgew seo Amgw smgw use eOAQOO “ AwLAgw mgeE usm owwAu mgw :0 smgw woo ..mz em weow " wgmAE . ummng>O mgw so ews.Oo Amg woo Ow msAOm 5.. w. " meomomg .meVOo Amg mgw m>mI .ms..w:o mgw co emwOs mgmw . seO Amgw oe mEAw wo uemgm emLowom. wO ems..woo mgw " emgw m>.m...so.womewe .m:e.> wO mELOw s....ms.w.uxm wsmEeemee< " mLOE Emgw mgeE use Emgw OumL emu . gsAgw A ....msVLOg IsoVw:.Om mLeoeoo AwsmEEOQ “ wmm smO Amgw meomumg guns 0e eummng>o mm: ow mwmg . A. . " .eoEAgw Lee_e weee oLe o " A_mwm.eEOO wmm w.semOu w. wom .uL eng ....umemLm u use oOA mLmeg EOOL mgw s. smmg eMOg mgw meeLm Amgw emmowm emmomguxm ewu< gummmm memgm g msomeom gc.g+ _ UVQOP o Pro—E; 50.: w .Leecesw mg.g on. 0N. mN. AN. 0N. mN. «N. nN. NN. .N. ON. 9.. w.. A.. 0.. m.— e.. n.. N.. ... 0.. mo. mo. so. mo. no. we. ee_ me. .e. 1937 3.6282 EOLw ummL w.s0u :OA wegw .A.m>.w.e0o .u.me 0e.m Amgw no ....Ow ALw ...: . wom .ewsVOe gm30sm LOAOE mLm: meegw weew ge_sw w.ee_e _ eeoeo _ .wesw 6e 6w wcw _ u. .w. wLOoooe 0w w. cw.) m.omem so m>.m 0w ALw .ws.0e s.eE m ms.mg wo Angox eLw. w. "mm: m: wegw gEogw wo em.oL mgw wO mso wO wLOe e.wmgw .womw s. .sxo L.mgw wO mso wooLwesOO smgw seO Amgw mgAeE .m.eEexm sm emgw m>.m :OA w. us< .us.E s30 L.mgw s. no ...-:3 "— ...m.omem so woo mLom.w 0w ms.ALw mLm m.oomo meomomg m.omem cm m>.m Amgw .mgeE Ow wsmz Amgw ws.0o LOAmE A..mmL ALm>m LOw wegw eEmme w. .emLowOm. m>.wumwwm A_.emL m>.m 0g: m.oomo c0 msOu m>.mr wmgw gOmeemL mgw s. .woo esLaw w. no .m.omem so Emgw m>.m weou u. :.wsewL0oE. A._emL .A..emL mLe wegw m>.w mLe mngw ....xme .mme .m_oEexm LOw .e.ges0.wm.mL e m>eg wegw em.ge.Lm> 30w 0 mw.oo mLe mngw: .Aee Ow meweg smog m>eg u_eoz w. .>_.e=wu< .w. ooe _ .ocogw 6e A. .ems.gw wsmmew.u Low ms.g00. mg 0w ms.0m mL.Amgw wegw e: Ow moo.>g0 eemme w. gmong sm>m .A.wsmmew.u ems.gw mme smeox use :02 :0g ms.Lmuc03 0L0: Amgw us< no .eeow ”_ :wsmmE wmgw emou wmg: .mmo: .woo mLomAw Ow ms.ALw mLm: Amgw wegw u.me Amgw .smE use smEO: woogm msAg.ew mLmz 30A usm =A.w:mwmww.t eoe.sw mee m_eoee .woe Lo w. mg.. :0. .ocwocxg Axum mngw wgm.L gs.gw . .m>.w ms.mg mngw.m.omem cm em: .ongw ”sage g_ew new take A:.t98m . ALmusaom A0e.< "meLsz 0.:me no FIII wsmEeemee< “ Iso.w:.0m mmLm< “ A . . . . . usmEEOOmm “ Ameemes. " .0 mmum.30sgo< “ . . - . . . . . - ELows. n . >_soe . w_o__m “wooc_e . Amwmo.m>m " ....smeoz use smE woOge g.mw :OA smgz 00 Lowe. smgw .wgm.m no . oe.ee.s . Is0.w:.0m " wsmEeemee< wemmmom “ IEm.g0Lm Amweo.m>w n>.omm " . — . . . w.o..w “ — mmum.30:g0< " A . - . . . A " 30> .ngwOsm em: mngw :0 mem. w.U..w . " segw ue< .eo_ge_Le> wo wo_ e e emmmwm emmsegoxw ew0< gummom memgm 0.00» weecew..u eLe .0. 00. on. on. pm. on. mm. cm. mm. Nm. .m. on. ac. me. he. me. me. «e. me. Ne. .v. cc. on. mm. 1953 ELOwc. ELOwc. ELOwc. «OOLm< >w.LO_o quanm O.O w.:OO 30> szw Ou..OOL _ :Oz .m30>LOc OLOE on Ow no. uwma _ gag: wgm._cm_c cagw .wao sagw ow_Lx ow vow: «a. . w3n .Ech OOOL LO>Oc . .>O3O :Owwom O>.. szw :02 .o. .waOO:OO mgw Low an Ozw mmOLOO mLowwO. m.n cw.x OmOa :OOO co. so ago ;w_z wogw m=.ou Lo mc_xc_;w coma o>._ .goo> “_ om. .w. on. mc.30..0w wo >O3 >mOO >LO> O m. >..OOL w. w3m .szw Ox.. no. mc.szsOm LO OOL :. w. xLOE ...Oc .:0.w.chLw LOsOE no. O on Ow mc.om m.oLO:w w. .cOzh .mmc.:w m:.wLOaa3m mm. ch cw.) L3Ow LO OOsz Ox.. .XOn O c. wacocoo :OOO «a. O>Oc ...05 ago OLOOO>Lme O ox.. moon or .mOLOO vow: nu. m>O3.O O>.. .w. m:.>Lw coon Os.. cO mOL3w00. m.z LOw No. mO~.:OmLO Oz 30; O5 OO305m .wwO. Oz OLOwOn .c..:m3O. x03go ”o .o. .O>.w .L3Ow .OOsz om. .ozw .mso me.wwom waooo mc_xc.zw woe 2.. .wogw +303» 35. OO.LLO: ch 5.. O.aEOxo cO mc.>.m 2.. :O:: .w3m .OLOE cs. mc.wOLw:OO:OO 2.. Om .mwc.Oa Ozw wO >cO mm.e 0w ch3 sh. w.:OO . OcO OOLO>OO On Ow m0; szw :O.wOELOwc. c.OwLOO cu. m. OLO:w gocx . .Oe.w ng .0 meL Oz» ..O.n.O3Oc.. ms. mO.aEOxo .OcOmLOa Om: _ Om3Ooon .>..O.OOQOO...:OO> u. vs. .mO.aEOxO mc.m3 vowLme 30> n>. Caz: oLos uoxu_¢L =o> ox__ w_o. >ogw o.nm >ogw wam “a ~>_ .Lowcm3O.. .Omcom >cO OxOE w.:u.303 w. .EOzw 0w w. .s. .O.aEOXO cO cch .mcLoz >Ox 3Ow O .waoocou on. 050$» u. 00— .;uae wocw socw we mc_xoo_ w.coch >_nmnoLa wan no. .goo> no we. Ow. on >__OoL o_aoom 3. we. .mc.Lon mo. .>Om mchO3wm chx SOL. .>.chLOaa< .56: E: cm. 0 w 2+ 03 O.aooa Lo wo. O on u. no. OOOL . w. ELOLc. «OOLm< < .m>OO OmOzw mOLO: >Ox mc.m3 Ow cowwom O>.. o .+. wLanm "ELOLc. .mOch L3O> Ow Om0.0 OLO) 30> O.Om Om.O >ng OO.m< me3com ELOwc. OL.>Ozw Oc< wm03com p momme mochzoxm mw0< zOOoaw OmOzm 0.30h .moch L30> No. w .LomcuL. oc.. 199 A OcO>cO mOOo: .me Ow Oe.w ng On v.30: m:0.w.chLw LOaOE can A Omocw w< .mw:.0a O>.w Om05w .0 Oco Ozw wO Oom30a 30> nNN A OLOc: OLocw wcm.L mOz mc.xc.cw mOz . sz: zocx 30> NNN . .mommam A .m=_>o_a oaowoov.>. «wOLaLOwc. A nonvo.30cxo< A ....zoz .o xc_;+ ow mc.>L+ E._ .2: .smO» .o .NN . A .mc.szEOO >Om o- A 3.3Ocm >ch m. Loxch O_as.m Ozw .mmc.cw w:OLO.w.O LO. o.~ . m:.xoo. OLO .socx 30> OcO .>wOwOm :w.3 OmaLmocoo .OOL OLO m_~ A .mO.w...0Ow cw.: OOOLoucoo OLOE OLO .mo.w.>.w0O c.OwLOO h.N A LOwOLa O.aooa LOO.O Om3O0Om .mOOO OmO w3n ...O wO o.~ A O.aooa chEO owO.chLOww.O w.:moov w. .OLO;w wOm >Ozw n.~ A can: co >o;+ .mg: waoao mc_cw>co 30> __o+ w.=moon w. ¢.~ . +3. .moom oz: waoao m=.c+o= 30> ..ow w. moot >_co .oz n_N A .mc.:w0c 30> m..Ow 0200c. Om .O:.. >wLO>Oa Ozw 30.0p OLO N.N OO3.0:OQ A mOOLO cO.wOOLOOL OcO meOa Ow Om w.cOO Oz: O.aOOa >.:O ..N «ELowc. .OOLm< A Ozw Om3Ooom .w. w3OnO xc.cw v.300 >ch Oc< .zOO> ". o.~ . mc_u=_L A gm. >5. oow IcO.w3.Om wmomm3m .wcwssoo A :023 .Ech me Ow c3w cOOp O>Oz cO>O v.30: chw .302 no new . A ....oLo;w wom >o;w can: as >o;+ was: wzonm m=_zw>cn pom A 30> ..Ow w.:mOOO OEOO:. Oc< .Omew wOm Onw LO.O on now A >o;w was; +aoao m=.;woeom =o> m__ow one wogw was“ m.w. now A .mOOm Oz: w3OnO chwLOaE. m. Lozw.oz .chwLOaE. m. omO vow . Om30oom .m:O.me3a L.Ozw LOtch . OcO chw wmc.OmO now A OOnOw O m.OLO;w O... wO: m.w. .OE.w ch ..O me OcO NON wCOEmmOmm< A OE wa3LLowc. 0O OAOOOQ Om30oom ..Om30a. I cO.me3u .ON IEO_nOLa OLOaEOQ «ELOwc. A o. chw Ow Lmych ch :ch . .cOOe . .OE me w.cO.O >ch u. com . mc.O:.m .1. wLOaOm A .mc.30..0w w.cOLoz >ch oo. IEO.QOL¢ ....::OO LchLOw w.n O.ww.. <. m300m A O.Om >Ozw =~OmO m. >23 .chwLOaE. ch m. mecca. w.= mo. >LOOc30m .>Ox0 .53 .m "LOxLOz. OEOLu Aotuv .0.0m >ch axon mewLOw w.n O.ww.. < .>OxO .23 .Ow no ha. _ omuo_.o=xo< A .gno> ”_ Om. _ . wmomm3m A .O_aEOXO :O OcO OLO: >Ox O Ou3.0c. v.300 30> on>Oz no no. . A o .Lo+;m=n. ..o_n.u=oc_. co. momme mochcoxm mwu< LOOqu OmOzm Omuwo.v3< EOLw wm.LOchLh Oc.. 0.a0w 200 .c30u mLowc300 oo. OLO >LOuc30m m300m ..O >ch .co.me3c LOaOE wxoc L30> 0w ch3 eccw . xOOnuOOm nowO3.O>w .22: .Ooom mOx szw Ow =.LOO.0 >LO> mOx w. .cOO>= L025 2+. tong .28 >9: 9:. ...msucmww... =9. 9.2... .59: .5me _ om .O.a2Oxo :O Ow Occuw.:m 30> Om .mc.vcowwO w.:OLOx >Ozw OO>.OOOLQ 30> .cOO> _. .w.:OLO: .wcmemwmeOwOS >ch O.Om 30> 20.5: :. w:.On O mO: w. OO>O2 .::OO>= quOaOm .u.Om >ch Oc< =~OLOc 2. OOc3w ..O 30> 0L03= .Ech .....co LOwO_ O.ww.. <. “m300u OOme . .w. Ow wm02.O OL.O: x:.;w . .co LowO. O.ww._ < >LOvc3om OO3_ucoo «OwO3.O>m null ..O.n.O3O:.. Oncom mOsz u. .wOm ..O OL.3O> cOLw In mmO_u m.cw LO. :O.wOw0OnxO cO m. szw Lo_>mzwn we u=_x o m.wocw .wogw 2: wow 30> __w== w. OsceEOOOm 0O :O>O >.m30.0m:00 OcO szw w3OaO xc.zw 30> w. .Ow no OOLm< .>Oxo .cOO> u. o. =.3O> 0w :an OLOE 2.. .OLOwOLch ..OLchO OcO Lozon wO O0L3Om >2 20L. szwLOw mc.wwOm 2..= .m:.>Om OL.3O> .2ch 0w LOmO.O mc.>02 OLO 30> Om .:O:x 30> ..OO.LOwO;L mc.on ch OO 2ch O>.O0LOQ mwcmu3wm .cO.me3v O me wOLaLowc. 30> ucO wowO: L30> 20L. >O3O wwm 30> mO :OOm mO w3m no Omuo.zo:xu< ....22: n. =.OL3w0O. ...wm m. m.cw .mmO:.m3n Owc. ...wm OL.O:= .>Om mwzovawm ch OmsOOOn Oco wow Ow >.Ox._ ch OL.3O> .Lozch :O chx >_.OOL 30> w. ..O0.LOwO:L ch OL.>Ozw w. .u:< ..O0.LOchL >__O3m3 OLO ch.me3c Ozw .mOch L30> Ow memO.u mc.O:me OL.30> can: m. .zoLOOmOL L30 :. Oc.w >..O0.n>w O: szx .OmcoamoL O chz 30> w. .m:0.me3c me 30> :Ocz wOLnLOwc_ ucme 30> OLmzz Ox.. .mLo.>O:OO wO m0a>w Ochw uc< no wcmummOmm< Ico.w3.0m OOLm< .OOO. coca O m.chh n. .moch L30> 20Lw >O3O wom .OchamOL O OOch: 30> w. .cc< :www=.0a O>.. OmOzw wsonO mco.me33 >cO O>Oz mOmme J u mwo< zuowam mmOcm Oan0.03< 20Lw wa.L0chLh 0.302 th omN va 2.: 201 A .On v.30;m w. OON eLo.=_ A >_womxo was; uLoop mgw co awnowoxm wmaw . .me ;w_: woz .. «on . mc.uc.u A ....3O> chx _ON |c0.w3.0m me3oom .wmomm3m A wO wO x00. v.300 >ch chw m.OO02 >cO O>Oz 30> v.0 no CON _ A .. .Om owN A .>O3>cO .OOm szw zm..a2000O >..OOL w.:0O 30> cOnw .OOan OON A o:.. wwo. won w.coo >¢gw ._ .w. Ono. w.coc >o;w .. ham . ...Ozz .O.Om . OcO .=.:O.wO2LO.:. m.cw ..O O>Og Ow OsOc OON A .mgwg .o_om a; can :.m.;w .o ..O; .o u.. wom =o> ._ mmN A ...ox= .u.om _ use .o_n.usoc.. u.om wmaw _ uc< .w=.La «ON A .cOOE . .mOLO: O..Om wm3a mOx w. OcO wc.La O.ww.. nON . >c.w m.:w ..O OO: OLOzw .LO>OwO:: .meO: O>.O .mxoo: NON A x.m me.w ch mmO.O c. coon :O>O w.cmO: O: O«... m.w. .ON A .>.Ow02OL cO>O w.c0.0 w. nu ch m.w. OcO 2.; Ow xOOn w. OON A o>_m can .o_n_v=n=_. w. o>_m u.:ou _ om .o_n_u=o=_. aww A >.LOO c. m.c OOcL3w >3m Oco .w.n.ch cO wO wc.LnO3.n ONN . O w30 >O. O. on 0w 2Ozw ch3 . ..O Oc< .OO Ow 2Onw >>N 2LOwc. A chr . wO;: w30 OL3m.w 0w O2.w OOz w.:O>Oc >ch ...O: ". O>N . A ....mmc_zw wmovLo; ogw .0 uco wmsw m. 202w ow nwu A O>.wOOL0 mc.On .w3m :.O>.wOOL0 mc.On L30> c. Om.0Lox0 :O OBN A .. m. m.:w: .mc.>Om OL.30> oc< .zm30sz Om Ow 0:0 020m nhN ch2mmOmm< wmomm3m A coo: wm3w 0:: OcO O>.wOOL0 >LO> wO: OLO 0:3 wOnw Ox.. N>N u20.nOLm nwOLnLowc. A mchO3wm OLO OLOzw .xc.cw . .m. >cc3w m.wO:3 xO:x 30> no .NN . A .Lowsmso.. =.>uu=n own A .wOO NN3m: .>Om O.3OO . w. :.w:O: 30> szx >.w0Oxo OON . 02 ..Ow Ow 30> chz . ...03: .mOOm OcO O2 0w 3: O2OO OON A O: .LOxO2o.n30Lw .OOL O m.O: .m3O.xOcnO >..OOL m.O: NON A .uwom c. On wm32 Oz .OLocw c. >3m O20 m.OLO;w eccw Oc< OON A ..O.O.O3Oc.. mm0.0aOz wm3a OLO 202w wO O.q300 < .OO 0w mON A 2ch ch: . waz I: OOOw ch 2. O3.n 2.. ..w:3 I: m02.w VON _ >cO2 Om w. OOc.O.axo O>.. In wm3n . wozw wco2cm.mmO MON A O.a2.m O :03m m.w. OcO OcmeLOOc3 w.cOO wm3a 205w wO NON A oeom vc< .c.omm eozw :w.: w. Lo>o om ago. no; >__oc_. .ON . . Oc< .chEcm.mmO w.n.sz m.:w LO>O OcO LO>O Ocom CON mc.Oc.m OLOasoo A O>.. Om3OOOn mc.wOme3Lw Om mOy .>OOmL3;w .xOO: me. omN :2O.nOLm .2Lowc. A m.zw In 2Ozw .0 O20m .Om3Oa. .m:.meLOwc. m.chw “. OmN momme momszoxm mw0< :OOOOW OmOzm OOOw0.03< 20Lw wqwuochL» O:.. o.an 202’ _ 38. 55.0.. A .wsz “. nNn . . A ....cO.w.chLw O OO: Om.O w. Om3OOOO chw NNm m:.uc.m . w3OnO 2Osw OOme . Om ~2ch LchOn wOnw mOoo .LO>O .Nn |2O.nOLm wLanm A wLme OcO anm :ch .OocOchm O wLme .... .0.0m 30> no ONn _ . wmo=aom .mo.m< A ~02.w m.;w waonn w. we: was; .>nxo .. o_n .N. .Oco m.cw wO x00. cOO O3. wOOL.o A .Oco m.zw wO x00. O.n .OO O: OLO; .mw. LOxLOz $nun :OO O: .om O; OLO: .Om ..O>O. owOLOcOO >..OOL O wO >.n >Lmu==om .sLo.c_ A mc.wnLoqo .womn_¢ .o x=_;w 30> ._ ....wm oL.>c;w ...o: .o O_n . A ..o_n_u=oc_. wngw m>=m a.__u_.x van >meoLoL ...». w:ozw.x n_n A o..>o;w .m>=m amogw .0 meow ..o_a_u=nc_. e_n A .aLoxLo. w;m_ume o_ge_m ..oo.mo_ m.w_ .wc_Lam=_n n_n . O :OLO Ow m:.0m OL.3O> chw sch 30> .w.n.gxo :O N.n A On Ow mc.om OL.3O> cOzz 0O 30> szw m:.zw me.w Onw ..n ch2200 v. m.szw Om3O0On 23Om32 Ozw 20Lw 2ch wow 30> >.nOnOLa .. o.n _ A ....30> w. .wwo mO2Oc L.Ozw xoow 30> w. Lo .2Ozw Om: 0w Oon A c0.mm.2LOa L.ch wOm Ow O>On v.30: >.OOOOLQ 30> ..mchO3wm men A Om: w.cOo 30> .O.3OO 30> w. .w. cw.: chLz OLO chw son memm3m A mm:.zw Omch ..O w3O OL3m.w :OO >ch chw OLO >Ozw wLO2m Oon .2Lowc. “OwO3.O>m A :0: van w. cw.) chL3 m.wO;: OOm >ch OmsOoom .wzm.m no non _ OO3.0cOo A .mO>.wOmOc ch 20Lw OLO2 :LOO. .. con . . mc_vc.L . ....cow.o o.aooa wan .wn .00. non 1:0.w3.0m 2LOOc. “OOLm< A Ow wOOLm OL.>Ozw u O>.w.m0a O cOwwO OO3O0Om .cOO> .0 Non _ _ OO3.O:00 A .czO L.ch 0O OcO wwo om 202w O>Oz Oc< ”. .on . A .:O>O .m:.nw a3OLm ..O2m O On com A u_=oo m.;w uc< =...w. Oac.w.Lo ow mc.om oLo: =o> .. oau A 302 .OcO m. OLO:= .>Om wzm.2 30> Om .mOcO O>.wOmOc OON memm3m A OcO O>.w.m0a .OcO mOO..m LO OzaOLmOcha Owa cO>O Lo no >ON . OO3.Ocoo A .:Ocm OcO aOox cOO O3 waw .. OON . A .m.OOO2 chO3wm O20m mON memm3m A O>Oc ...3O> .zm3Osz Om mchO3wm wO a3OLm m.zw LOw*< no OON mOmme mOmszoxm mw0< coooqw OmOcm Oan0.03< 20Lw wa.LOchLh Oc.. 0.q02 203 . A . ....mw:.Oa Om0:w :0: OOO w0: >O2 >O:w .O:..w30 :O :w.3 nun A :O>O Om3OOOm .>Ox LO:w0:O :. :O.wO2LO.:. wO:w wOm Nmn 2LOw:_ “OwO3.O>w A Ow OOO: ...wm O.aOOq .wO:w w305w.3 LO :w.3 :O>O w3m no .mn _ A .oc._w:o cgw c. w:_oa .n wc_on w. ;o__o. u_:oo .mgw ucn can A OOc..w30 ..O On v.30: w. Om3OOOn a.O: v.30: O:..w3O Ovn OwO3.O>m A :O m:.>O: 2O:w OLOnx m.wO:w .a.O: v.30: wO:3 m.wO:w .. wen . memm3w A =.LO>OO Ow m:.om OL.O3 szr m. OLOI: no hen _ . OO3.0:OO A .OL3w0.a LOOOOLO Och ”. Ovn . A .3O.>LO>O :O 2O:w O>.m 30> .m.:w Owc. wOm 0w m:.om men A OL.3O> w. .m:.::.mOn Ozw wO .:OO2 w:m.2 :0.:r LO:womow «en O:O2200Om .wOLQLOw:. A w.w ..O meOa Om0:w ..O :0: OL3O Ow.3: w.:OLO3 >ng no nvn m=_u=.L A I:O.w3_0m OmOO.:O:x0< A .zOO> “. an . A :.....o .en A >mO.O.00m Ozw O>.m Ow m:.Om 2..: .O.Om 30> OLOcr .OOmmOn ovn woo..o _ wmsq mo: wacw wLma ng was .m=_sou m.wa:w wLO. ogw woz .o onn wcmumOOmm< A N. |2O.OOLO :O.wO0.w.LO.0 LOw xm< A chLu..:o :0 wLOa ch :. .. Onn _ . . .umw:_owm_u wnn A OOEOOm >ch .OL3w0.a m.n Ozw m:.30..0w w.:OLO: >Ozw Onn A .Lmzwwmow w_. ..O mwc_oa mgw oLOg; mom m>nx_o w.cu.u >ccw man A O.Om >ch .mw:.0: >:O2 Om OLO: OLO:w w3m .30.>LO>O vnn . O.x0.3a m.:w 2O:w O>.m Ow m:.om OLO: 30> OLOzz mOx mnn A m.;w u.om =o> .xocx =o> uc< =.co.wneLo.c_ :03: ca wnn wooL_o .wLoaom A wom o>.=o> a... m_oo. wmaw w. mme_woeom= .u_om >ogw .o _nn _ :O.wOo.w.LO.0 Low xm< m .OcmeLOOc3 w.:OO _ wszw .0 O.a2OxO :O O>Oc 30> 0o .. onn . A :...O: O:O.O w.:0.0 w. wO:w LO :O.wO2LOw:. :032 ONn A oow Locw_o mm: nou.woc _ m=_;w ngg .u_nm oco .wLOQ Own . LO:wO:O Owc. m:.om OLO: >O:w chw OL3m Ow.3a w.:OLO3 >Nn A .mcw .e: =.;m=oL mm: w. wcmaogw _= .u.um aco u=< Own A :NLOO.0 :O.w.m:OLw Ozw mOz: .2: .OLO: >Om Ow :0:3n O mNn .u. wLOaO¢ “w:O2OwmeOsz P OO: >Ozw .>Om Ow OO: >ch szz OOm Ow OOchz . Om no eNn mOmme mochzoxm mw0< :OOqu OmOza OOOw0.03< 20Lw wq.L0m:OLw O:.. 0.:02 ZCMQ . . A OmL300 O.O:3 Ozw .chw Owc. mw.w m:.OO :OOO O5.O3 m:.:w can 2LOw:. A u>LO>m ..OOOE O a3 wOm . .m:.::.mOn ch wO wocw O.O O: .. non . A Nm.:w Low w:.LaO3.n ng L0 OL3w0.a Non me3OOm A ..OLO>O ch m.wO:: .OOL3OO ng w3OnO m:.x:.:w wO >O3 .On .w:O22oo A m:.meLOw:. :O On v.303 wncw u: OL3w0.a ..OLO>O wozw O:< no can . A ...o wn Lagwo ogw owc. 30.. w.=moou 0:0 awn 2L0w:. A w3n .OL3wo.a ..OLO>O ch wO m2LOw :. LOszmOw cm >ch .. Ohm . m=.u=.L A .ou wogw moco ogw .wsm ...Onwomow om woe wwn |:O.w3.0w wmomm3m “OOOO.3O:x0< A 0O OmO:h= .>Om w:m.2 30> mO2.w OmO:w wO :ng OO .02 no Own . . A .quO.OL 2OOm OmO:w OxO2 Ow >Lw Ow o:OwOLa :O>O w.:OO . mun . .OO.LOa mmO.0 O:0 :. meOa :. mo...2Ow OcO mO>.w0OanO OcO Own A m.OOm wO m0.aow ch LO>OO Ow O>O: O3 .cOO2 . ...O wO nsn A LOszmOw O:O.O w.:OO >O:w .Om .OO.LO: mmO.O O:O :. Nsn A m0.a0w chLOwO.O >..Ow0w 03w LO>OO Ow O>Oc O3 .a3 wOm .hn OLOasoo n2LOwc. A m. mmO.0 Ozw >O3 Ozw wO Om3O0OO .>..O:O.mOoOO ...O: u. own . A .sozw xmn w.=u.u . wan .m..w wmaw no: w. can A N. O... O:3Om w.:0.0 w. Om :.LO:wOmOw ..O3 O:O.n w.:OO OOn . m0.a0w ch LO :O.wO2LOw:. :032 OOw LO:w.O m.OLO:w m. >On wOLaLOwc. quOnOm A O0.w0: . m:.:w O:o: .chw .OLOcom :. w. wO Oanm >O:w no OOn . . wcmemmOmm< A ~mO0L3OmOL .OL3wO: wO >mO.O.OOm Ozw OLOwOO w.n wO:w :. mOn a2O.nOLa :O.wO0.w.LO.0 LOw xm< A 2O.nOLa O wm3s >.LO.30.wLOa LO 2O.OOLa .OLOcom O m.:w mOz .. «On . A .w. o.w wogw mxc.. .w.: c.o:o a m>eg men A 30> :O:w .mOOO. O.ww.. m:.xO2 aOOx 30> Om NOn . .LchomOw OwO.OL >Onw OcO II 0w :0 m:.om OL.O3 30: OcO :O.n .On A .zO.n .:O.n w3OnO OOx.Ow O>.O3 .LOw Om .:O.w.m:OLw OOn A O.ww.. wO:w OxO2 0w O>O: 30> .Oco :OOO 0w O200 30> mO own memm3m A .:O:w .w3m .wLOaO 2O:w Owa Ow m:.Om OL.O3 :Ozw O:< no man . OmOO.3O:x0< A .>Oxo ". Nan _ _ A =.Lo.wwmow w.. ow mc.om OLO amazw ..o :0: can memm3m A m.OLO: .302: .>Om Ow O>Oc w:m.2 30> Om .LO:wOmOw w.m no man _ OO3.0:00 AHA .LoszmOw w.. u. can momme mOmcnnuxm mw0< :OOOaw OmOzm OOOwO.O3< 20Lw wn.L0m:OLh O:.4 u.:ow 205 w:O2mmOmm< u:O.w3.Om mO3mm. LO:wO m.OLO:w .m:.:w wO u:.x chw LO. O2.w OLOE v.v m:.v:_u O:O2200Om O>Oc O3 chw Om w.n O.ww.. O OmL3OO ch OL3w03meOL Ow n.v -:o_w=_om .sLo.:_ m=.om E._ .oLoe owe. won ow O_nn on ow o... v._ wngw ". ~_¢ Ova.3O:x0< .53: c: "o ..v w:O2mmOmm< .OOw .m0.aow LchO wo O_n300 O wm3fi m.OLO:H .OOw o.v |2O.oOLa OOLm< .OO3.O:Oo .2Ozw :w.3 :032 >LO> OOLmO _ ch .:OO> .mm30m.3 O:< .. ace .w3OnO x.Ow O:O mOw3:.2 3O. O Owa 0w woe m:.meLOw:. :OOO O>O: v.303 wccw m:.:wO20m mO3 w. woe m=_u:.L memmsm .wLoaom wmzw c.0m >ozw wan .w. cw.x .Omu ow oe.w o>mc w.:u_u 30> co. :2O.nOLm .wco2owmeOsz 30:x . .Ow.3|02.w Oc< .93 w. wzm3OLn wmsw 30> Oc< no nov 2.5.55.2 n. .25. .5 n. 3.. O wm3s. wOOL.o "O300u ..23 LOxLO: .O2OLu .w:O2:.OwLow:O Oco :O.wOO3OO w3nO v..Ow 30> .OLO: :O LOwO. nee tun: O.ww.. O wm3n .2: .mO:.2 L.O:w :. OL3w0.a wO:w O>O: On Nov >O:w w. OOm OcO .:.OmO w. >Om ow O>Oc w.:OO 30> Om .ov ....88 2w 5 w: w. 88 89... .25 9:8 3 ow 93% 8.. >LOO:30m .memm3w OL.O3 3oz= .2O:w me ucO u:3OLO w. :L3w v.300 30> Lo no man OOLm< .LO>O O:O LO>O w. m:.>Om aoox _ u. mom N. wcmsmmOmm< ....w3n hon |:O.w3.0m .>:wOa2m. w:O2200 .chOO Ow O.aOOn O20m OLOO ...30> chw O.OLwO OL.30> O:< no Oon ..O_O.O3O:.. mO2.w :m3O:O w. O:OO man OO3.0:00 O>.O3 .mu:.2 L.O:w :. OL3wu.a Ozw O>O: O_3O:m >O:w .Om .. van owO3_O>w .w:O__OOXO m.wO:w no non .mLO>.OOOL :w.3 mc..OOO OL.O3 Nam 30: OcO .O.OO2 ch :w.3 w.OOO O>.O3 .OmmeOE ch :w.3 .On 2Lowc. w.OOu O>.Oz .mLO>.O0OL O:w :w.3 m:_.OOO OL.O3 30: szw u. can $9.9m. 68m Ewe: ...o a mom ....wOOw ch ow xuOn O200 OcO :3 Own _ xuOn .OOOE ch w3: _ maowm Omenw .0 O:O LO:w0:O cw.3 Own A .OOu O3 O2.w >LO>O Oc< .:OO3wOn :. manm Omenw ..O Own A ccO .LO>.OOOL ch .OmOmmOE ch O:3OLO OO~.:OmLO m. mmn momme 4 u mw0< :OOOQW OmOcm OanO.O3< 20Lw wa.L0m:OLh O:.. 0.30w 2065 m:.::.. 'co.w=.om mooLm< A .2OO» .. ace m .om.o ac.;wo20m me. . OowLme 30> :Ozw .m:.:wO20m OowLme 30> .:O.w.m:OLw L30> wee mwOLaLOwc. A :w.3 mO3 szw .mew O2OO wO O:.x szw .m:.LOO:O3 2.. .o nee . . A ....mcw ....wm .m>=m u.o macaw ..O NO. . an mLOxLO3 OO:O:Ow:.O2 LOO OmL3OO O:O m.:w v.3 . .wOOw .ve A :. .O.O.w Ozw :. m.O:O.mmOwOLa OLO 0.000a LO:wO ng ovv mocOaxm umOOLm<. A Om3000m .:O.mmOwOLq Ozw :. O.aOOa :O:w LO:wOL .cOO> .. One . wOLaLOwc. «OmOO.3O:xO< m .mw:OO3wm OmO..00 m.w. w. m:.LOO:O3 2.. .200> no Omc . “ ooooW-+0£.—. F“? A .uowco.Lo eczw mwmm w. .wngw o... >..OOL >ng =~u=.e one . L30> 0w:. maoa wncx .mu.x w30nO x:.:w OcO mO>O L30> mnv A OmO_o= .O2OLO O:.2 wzm.L ch :. 2O:w mw3a w. Om3O0On One A .m2LO. :O.wO3.O>O Ozw :. :0 va:O2200 :OOO mO: szw nnc A mm=.;w cgw .o 0:0 m.wncw u=< .me03 >..OoL w. .o_aow. NO. w:m2mmOmm< _ ch :w.3 :O>:Oo OcOLo ch wO Om.OLOxO wO:w OO . :Og3 .nv :2O.o0Lm 2LOw:. .OLOQEOQ A Om3O0OO Q3OLm wO:w wO >w.LO..30Oa O O.szh .>::3w O.szh .. one — . A .w. mc.ou >...m .o a... w.o. m~e . >O:w .mO>O L.O:w Om0.0 Ow 2O:w m:.me wO:w 0.0m >Ozw ONO A Om.O .O:< :Nm:.:w>:O LOOEOEOL 30> :Oo .OmO szw :. hNe A OLO3 0:3 OLme.m OcO mLozwoLn OO: O5.3O> LO .LOmc3O> ONO A LO .OmO wO:w OLO3 30> :O:3 Ow xOOn x:.:w= .O.Om 30> ONO A .. Lo.moo on 3.30: w. u.mm .mnw .omn wngw mu.x .o «we . x:.:w OcO mO>O L.O:w Om0.0 Ow 2O:w LOw OLO: mO3 w. an .-. wLoaom A u.nm .mgw =.xLo: w.=u.u was. wnzw .>omr .u.nm .mg» "a «we mc.cc.. A v. ueo.noLa mono..ocxu< A 4:5; a: u. .N. . ....m.:w :. Om.O :ch. m300u A :.mO>O L30> OmO.o: .0.0m ONO >LOO:3Om .>OxO .2: "LOxLOz. O2OL. A 30> ..O.O.O3O:.. O.ww.. m.:w OO.O :ch .>OxO .2: Ho o.¢ .111! A .O.x03:o. w.O.n.O3O:.. m.w. :O:3 0O 30> 0O sz3 O.¢ A .w3m .OO>.O>:. wOm OcO :03Ow :Oo >O:w :O:3 OL02 :LOO. >.e A O.qOOa wO:w O3mm. Ozw .mwOOw.wLO .0 O3mm. Ozw .0.020xO O.e A n. LOO ..O.O.O3O:.. ch us mO2.w LOsz wO :w.3 :3 O200 O3 n.v momme mOmmvgoxw mw0< :OOOQO OmOcm OOOwO.O3< 20Lw wO.LOm:OLw O:.4 0.:ow 207' .mg: was .o... L.o:w c..mmq.mc.x m. msto.. ow smgw NOO w:O3 . wO:3 m. szN .m.mOn >OO|OwI>OO 20L. Ow:. :3L .OO >O:w wO:w mu.x O:w .wOOme Ozw :O mmOa >O:w wO.; O:N OOO .mo.x O:N .OO.x OL3wO.a 0w 2O:w w:O3 . .wO:w w3OOO ONO m=.xc.;w Oco LOwO. wao m=.eou new wngw we m=.xoo. coon ONO O>O: >O:w Om3O0On mu.x OLO3 >Onw :O:3 w3OO x:.:w Ow NNO 2O:w w:O3 w.:OO . Om3OuOn LowwOO Omme Ozw wOm ow m. ONO 2LOw:. w:O3 . m:.:w LO:wO ch O:< .w:m.mLO>O :O w.:mO3 w. .. nNO ....mO>O L30> OmO.O 30> w. ONO wmommsm was .xomp 32.2w ow OLO: m.w.= .3o:x 30> .wozw Lo. nNO .OOOO.3O:xO< OOme Ozw wOm 30> w. m:.::.mOO ch wO :O:w On>Oz .zOO> no NNO .3Om >O:w ch3 :. OmeOLOwc. >.LO.30.wLOa wO: .NO 2.. .wOOw :. .uu :O:w LOszL a3OLm Oco chw OLO3Ow ONO 3:.2 L.O:w w:O.LO Ow ..O.O.O3O:.. w30nO x:.:w Ow 2O:w OOO 5.0.:. won ow wmaw m. o>.woo~ao Ozw .. emcw omm 30> .zoo> .. OOO OmOO.3O:x0< .chw OOO :Oo . no NOO ...O=< .mg..w o.ozx mgw OOO ..O 3O.w ch mwa3Lm.O >..OOL w. ...O3 xLO3 w.:mOOO OOO w. .mLchO :O:w mO.x w3OnO OL02 30:3 OLO:w O.aOOa OOO O20m Om3000n LO:w0 :OOO :w.3 mw:O23mLO :. wOm >O:w nOO . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . A m. w:OaaO: wO:3 .OmOaL3a >:O O>LOm w.:mOOO w. OcO NOO . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . mO2.w wO O.a300 O w. OO.Lw O>.. .OmOaL3a >:O O>LOm .OO w.:mOOO w. .m:.LOO: O2.w Ozw w0 meL ch w:Oam Ow O>O: . OOO OLOQEOO :ch Om3OOOn 3Om >O:w ch3 w3OOO x.Ow Ow w:O3 w.:Ou OOO w:O2mmOmm< u2L3... . .mv.x w3OnO m:.x:.:w I: O:.2 wO O2OLw w:O.L Onw OOO .co.w=.om .omuo.xocxo< O. owe. smgw woo ow wmaw .wc.og mgw m.wo:w wam ..OO» .. NmO 3.3Om O3 ch3 m3 me w.:0.0 OOO Ocm O:< .OL3w0O. Ozw Ow:. xOOo wzm.L OO323fi O3 .OOm an .maOO: .mO3 OLOzw w:O.L w:O2200 LOsz:< .>OxO .2: OmO .OL3w0.a :30 L.O:w OwOOLO 2O:w wO. OcO m:.x.Ow gown :O:N an ch.::3L >O:w OL< NO2.w L.O:w m:.m3 2O:w OOO 30> 0O 3O: NmO .m=.ou sasw wow 30> on was: .0... w. m. was: wommee. .mO .Ow:O2 O wOm 30> :Oo .m:O.wOOme.O >:O wOm w.:OO 30> Om OmO O:< .LOwwOn w. :O.m.>:O :OO 30> Om mO>O L30> Om0.0 OOO wLOaOm 30> w.:OO >:3 .mv.x :O wOO.wOL Ow m:.0m OL.O3 .30: OOO .memm3m A» Ow3:.2 O Owa O.wOO: .>Om w:m.2 30> Om .a3 wOm mO3 w. w. no NOO mOmme momOOcoxm mw0< :OOOOm OmOzm OanO.O3< EOLO wq.L0m:OLN 0:.3 0.aON 2053 . A 1: 0w O>O: Ow m:.0m OLO 30> Omcom LO:wO:O :w.3 OcO O.n A w:OO3wm OOO..00 O On Ow m:.om OLO 30> Om:Om O:O :. m.n . .mO.OL 03w >O_a 0w O>O: Ow m:.0m OLO 30> Om O:< .ma3OLm O.m A Om0:w :w.3 0O Ow w:O3 wzm.2 30> wO:w Ow:.:w ch wO n.n A O20m .OOO2 m. OmL3OO m.:w :. 0O Ow m:.Om OLO O3 wO:3 N.m A wO wLOa Oc< .m:O.wOwoOaxO w:OLOww.O :w.3 m:.200 OLO ..m . 0:3 .m:.xLO3 O.O.w ch :. OLO 30> :O:3 .O:3 ma30Lm O.m A .zw.3 m:._OOO On 0w m:.0m OLO 30> wO:3 +39 .O>.w0OamLOa OOO A w:OO3wm OOO..00 O 20Lw Ox.. m. w. wO:3 Ov... .3O:x 30> OOO A .eazw ow wao wecw wc.oa ow wesw m=.wmeLewc. en wgm.e won m:.u:.m memm3m . w. wO:w .OmL300 ch :. w:.On O20m LO OmL300 Onw wO OOO neo.w:.om .wcesowewmewoz m mc.cc.mee ogw we wezw m:.xc.cw weaw me: . .3ocx 30> .3 non m .m302>:O:O :.O2OL OcO mowO: Owa OcO w.m OOO . 0w wm3w OOLLOwOLa . .mm0.0 Ow w:O3 . :O:3 .30:x 30> non OLOQEOO A .xOOn LO32O2OL :OO . OcO >w.2>:O:O L.O:w OOO. >O:w Non .OO3.0:Oo A :O.wO3w.m 3O: O :. .>OxO .m302>:O:O m:.On Ow OOO: OLO >O:N .. .Om _ m .2O:w Ow m:.x.Ow wm3q m. OOO . 0:3 O:OO2Om Ow OOO: OLO >O:w .chw Ow OOO: wO: OLO OOO wOLaLOwc. A >O:w .OEOOLOOO.0 OmO..00 .w. w3OOO x:.:w 30> w. ...O3 "O OOO . A ... .OOL OLO3 >O:w NOO A O. O:O LO:wO :0OO :w.3 OO>.O>:. woo O3 OLO:3 mOm.0LoxO OOO A wO O.a300 O O.O OcO >LOOzw m:O.wO0.:32200 O O.O O3 mOO A ...O3 nu O.a300 O OO Ow OO: . Om3O0Om .2032 >LO> OOOO. OOO w:O2mmOmm< A m:.wwO. >Os:O w.:OO >Ozw .w:m.w >LO> OLO >Ozw.n3OLm O OO an .eo.eoLa 3.0.2. .wceseoo . weew .owce w.=oO >o;w we.w emc.zw .o wo. e 32.2w .egw .. NOO ....e.ew Lew.e wzm.L cecw. "oseLL A wowL.o A ...e.gw Low.e wcm.L emew .a .mO . A .szw wO mmO:.3wOm3 ch OOO eLo.e. A .omeou ow wee: w.eou ...wm . wan .me.ou eL.e3 wen: nee uw:O2OwmeOsz A LOwwOa :O>O O:..w30 ow...w. w3OnO x:.:w Ow O>O: .... .. OOO _ wOLaLOwc. A ....Ow 2O:w m:.w0OaxO wO: OLO >ch on chw 0O w:m.2 30> NOO .OOOO.3O:x0< A 30: wO x:.:w Ow m:.>Lw wm3fi 2O . .Ow:Om mOxO2 szw no OOO _ . A .0e .30: e. wO.. .w.: me..eeu ewe . O..:3 .LO>OLOw Ocom m. OOO OLOO> ON Om3000n wO: OLO OOO A >O:N .O0:OLOww.O O_0:3 Ozw m. wO:N .mu.x OLO3.NmmH. OOO momme mom:O:0xm mw0< :OOOOm OmOcm OmmwO.O3< 20Lw wn.L0m:OLN O:.3 0.30N 209 m .wLOOOOL O20m OOO OO3.0:00 A :m..nmeO OcO LOwwOn O.ww.. O a30LO L30> 30:3 0w wOO .. OOO . O:O2200Om A .a30Lm L30> 30:x Ow wOO O:< "O NOO . A 6:8. 2: e... A :w.3 wO:0 wm3n :O0 30> wO:w Om >.LOO OLOzw wOO 30> m. OOO A on =O> wegw mm=.ew Osw .0 ego m. wezw .3oex 30> .x.ew OOO A O L0 x.O3 O O>.O 30> :Oc3 szw Ow:.:w Ozw wO O:0 m. OOO . wegw .eem sow .oe.w wegw we sozw :w.3 wego wmaw . Lo NOO A OO~.:OOLO wOO . L0 OLOOO ch :0 Ow:.:w w3a . OcO :. O200 . .OO A .O2.w szw wO m:0.me3O w0 w0. O LO3ch . OcO I: >ch OOO A OcO OLO:w 2O . 30:3 >O:N .>.LOO :. O:.200 OLO 2Ozw wO OOO _ OL02 OcO OL02 OcO :O:w m:0.me3O L.O:w wO wO. O LO3O:O OOO wcoemmOmm< A . .OOO .2O:w mO>.O wO:w OcO OLOwOO mOw3:.2 ON meO. wO NOO I:O.w3.0m 2L0.:. A OLO:w :. wOO . .O2.w Ozw wO ..O 2O:w :w.3 wO:0 . ". OOO . wmommem m .emgw =w.3 wego ceo 30> 0m .o mnm . 2L0.:_ A .O2.w ch ..O 2O:w :w.3 wOm . ocO .mO> :O ". OOO . A .>.Leo e. woo ow ecew 30> 0O wen .w.;w One meecom m ee>meno w.co>e: . ace m=.x=.gw me: . wegw m=.:w Loewoc< no Nnm O. m .Ow OLOOaaO O3OLO m.:w :Ozw OL02 wO. 0.0:3 O ww3wm OcO .OO . mOm.0LOXO ch w0 w0. O >OO:O >ch chw OL02 wO. O.O:3 O OOO A mm:.:w Ow:. wOO >..OOL >O:N .LOmOO. :032 O m. w. OcO ONO A >Lw:300 Ozw LO>O ..O 20Lw OLOchL LO:w0 >.nOnOLa OLO OLO:w ONO A OcO accmeO3 O Ow m:.OO OLO >ch «OOO..00 Ow m:.0m NNO . OLO >O:w Ox.. wO: m. w. :0>:Oo OcOLO ch wO OLO >O:w ONO A :O:3 w3n .O.a0Oa O>.wO>LOm:00 OL02 OLO >O:w .30:x 30> ONO A .w:m.wa3 0m wO: OLO >ch .mLOchL xLOa :w.3 .OOO O OO ONO OLOQEOO A . :O:3 >:3 >.OOOOLa m. chN .OOOLO L.O:w :. 0.0000 ONO .OOLO< .OO3.0:00 A :w.3 .OOO >O:w :O:w .mO> .Om3O0OO .a3 :OOOO. 0w Oc< .. NNO _ A one mco.w .Nm A uO3w.m Omocw :. OwaLOa 0w m. mO0:O.LOQXO O:.:LOO. L.O:w ONO . wO wLOa m. m.:w wO:w :. w:OLOww.O OLO OmL300 ch LOw O.O A m:0.wOw0OaxO L.O:w :.OOO szw 0w .mO:.:w OOO:w wO O.O A Oe0m OwOmeO:0L0 :O0 30> 30; OOO 30> O>O: 0w Ox.. O.. N.O Ommme mom:O:0xm mw0< :OOOOw OmOcm OnOwO.O3< 20Lw wO.L0m:OLN O:.. O.OON 21() m:.uc.L LEO.n0Lm Ochnoxm w:O2200 A O. I>LOO:3OO wL0aom .wOOL.O A .O0.L0wm.n Onw w30nO OO3.Ow 30> :On3 wm3q wLOa wXO: OnN "O NOO .-Iun OO3.0:OO «owO3.0>w A .:0.wO3w.m m.:w :. O>.wOLOa0 wO: m. w. .w:O.L O.wOnN .. .OO _ . OOOO.30:30< A woco m.:w cw.3 .eOO . 0O 3o: .0 OOO . A ....w.:O0 >O:w OcO :O203 :w.3 O:..OOO ONO A Low >O3 OON.OLOO:me O O>O: >Onw .:OO2 . .w.:OO >Ozw ONO A O3.. m. w. O:< .300 3:.nw . OcO O2 wO O:.3OO. on ...3 NNO . >Onw O:O 33 300. .... O:< .30:3 30> .mwOOHOLa L.Onw ONO A w3OnO 3_Ow OcO O0.ww0 >2 Ow:. O200 ...3 2Onw wO O.O:OO O ONO A Om3O0OO .O2 cw.3 .OOO Ow 30: 30:3 w.:OO >Onw 0m OOO ONO w:O2mmOmm< 2LOw:. A >O3 wOnw O2 nw.3 .OOO w.:O0 >Onw 30:3 >Onw OcO .>O3o ONO I2O.nOLO «w:O2200 A .:O203 :w.3 Oc..OOO wO >O3 O O>O: >Onw .OOm 30> ...O3 .. NNO O¢.O:.O . 1:0.w3.0m O:O2200O¢ A .LOmmOwOLa wcowOa200 >LO> O .OO02 Oc< "O .NO . A .2Onw LOw O.n.mm0a mO >mOO mO :O.wO3w.m O:.:LOO. Onw O3O2 ONO A O. OO :O0 . ..O .3O:3 30> .:3OO 3OOLn 0w O>O: >Onw OOO A .so.eoLa L.o.w m. weew 32.2w . .eezw ..O; gee . 32.5w OOO A w.:0O . OOO w3n In >..OOL OLO >Onw Oc< .LOOOOwOLO >OO. O NOO AO. wOO OcO mO0L3OmOL .OL3wO: :. OmL300 O O3Ow Ow wOOOxO OOO . w.=0.0 >ecw ace ...:ww use mo.w.=ee=z e. w. we; >.eeeoLe new 2L0wc. .OOLO< A >O:w LO II OOO.LOL3O .OOL OLO wm3a >O:w O:< .wnO.L O.wOnh .. OOO . w:O2200 m .LOOOE L.Onw :. wO: meO. wO LO uO OOO . A .LOOLOO OOO..00 NOO A OL.w:O L.Onw w3OnO3Oan LOmmOwOLa :O203 O OO: LO>O: .OO . >.nOn0La O>O: 2Onw wO O20m .O< wO OOO._Oo Onw :. OcO OOO A >meOL0w :. O:.On .OOm w3n .w. Ow OOm3 O:.wwOO 2.. .OO OOO A 0w wOn3 30:3 w.:0O wm3fi >Onw .OLO >ch OO3000n 2Onw OOO A ..O; ow 3o; 3oz. w.cou . .. wenw :Ozw .0 e.e=ou e m. Nmm . OLOnN .O2.w OLO: O O:.>O: OLO >Onw OcO LOL3wOO. Onw OOO A On 0w wO: OcO w:me.mOO O:.:0OOw Onw On 0w O2 LOwOLa OOO A £032 0.303 >O3» .O2.w OLO: O wO ..O: O O:.>O: wm3q OLO OOO A OLOnw :. m>3O Om0:w wO O20m In OcO :O30:O Oco. OLOnw OOO w:O2mmOmm< 2L0w:. A :. wOm 30> w. wOnw 3:.nw .30:3 30> .O>O..On >..OOL . NOO |2O.nOLO nw:O2200 A OcO nu wm3a m. w. wOnw mLO:wO Onw wO O20m Low 3:.nw . ”. .OO . wOLaLOwc. A .wOnw c303 3OOLn O.O: O.3O:m wO:N no OOO mOmme mOmOOnoxm mw0< :0OOOW OmOnm OOOw0.03< 20Lw wqwuom:OLN O:.n 0.QON 211 A .OwOOLO 0w O:.>Lw OLO 30> O.O A O002 O:w 3OOLn w:O.2 .OLOOOQ O:w O:.>02 :O>O .wO:w O3.. N.O wOLaLOwc. A m:.:wO20m 0O 0w O:.0O OLO 30> :O:3 OLO: w:O.L w.:w 302 .o ..O . A ..wao w. guano ow . eaewooO.>. . . A .wO:w wO 300. O.wOn 0.0 . .we:w >em w.:u.u _ wecw w.:w mc.>.m ow now: om 2.. wecw moo A on >ee w. .Le>ozoz .we:w o.em . wcmaocw . .>e3 we:w moo A :OOn m>O3.O w.:mO: w. .mO3 w. mO O2Om O:w wO: m. 30: NOO w:O2mmOmm< OLOOEOO A O>O: O3 wO:w >OO0w OOO:O..:0 wO waO0:00 O:w O>O: O3 OOO .co.w=.om .OeLa< A wezw .wegw >em . w.=o.o .we:w O.em . 3:.zw . .:ee> .. moo . A .w:OLOww.O OOO . m. v.3 O OLO3 30> :0.:3 :. waw:00 O:w w3n O2Om O:w OOO A :OOn O>O: OO.3 .:OO2 _ .>O3 wO:w «>O3.O w.:OLO3 0:3 mO.3 NOO A O. .>OO0w mO.3 wO OL3w0.a O O:.2 L30> :. O>O: 30> wO:w 3oz .OO O:.O:.O meOO3m A .OO.3 w30nO O:.3:.:w .30:3 30> .0w:. mOocOwcom .O:0.w OOO 1:0.w3.0m uwOLaLOwc. A n.m:OLw O:w wm3w On v.300 w. .O:.3:.:w 2O . wO:3 30:3 30> “O OOO . A .O:.meLOw:. .OOL m. OOO A w.:w .. weL.. O:w m. w.:w nee O>.w0eemLo: .eu.Lowe.: Non A O:w Ow:. O:.>02 :O:w .:O2 OcO OO.3 w30nO 3:.:w 0w 2O:w OOO . O:.wwOO 0w O:.wLme :w.3 OLO:w OOm3 . wO:w :0OOLOOO OOO A .O0.w:OO. w.:w Om3 O3 O:< .w. :0 >Lw:300 O:w LO>0 ..O OOO A ma0:m3L03 O>.O :wOn . OcO >LOo OcO O:.w:.La OL.:w mw. :. OOO w:OemmOmm< w:O2200 A m. 300n O:N .300n O:w :w.3 O.n3OLw >:O OO: LO>O: O3 NOO :2O.nOLm .2L0w:_ A .w. OOOL LO>O: O3 OcO w3O O.O. m. 300n O:w 30: >.w0Oxw u. .OO . OOOO.30:30< A ....mO> .O. "O OOO . . 2L0w:. A .w30 O.O. m. 300n O:w 30: m. wOnN .. OOO . wOLOLOw:_ A .....0 :0.w.m:OLw wO:w :0 O:.3LO3 m.w. :.OOO On>Oz no OOO . A .mc.wmoLewc. wmm w:O2200 A m. wO:w Om .O:30LO30On O:w :. m:.wwOm >L0w03OOLwc. OOO .ELowc. A O:w .:OO2 . “:O.w03OOLwc. O:w mO3 w. ...O3 .mO3 w. u. OOO . A .emcem .o wo. e axes ow noucow w. we:w w:m=o:w OOO A . .w.w wO:w 30: OL3m Ow.3O w.:OLO3 >O:w .O:3OLO30On OOO mOmme mOchzoxm mw0< :0OOOO OOO:O OOOwO.O3< 20Lw wO.L0m:OLN O:.n 0.:ow 212 me.u=.. u20.nOLm OcO a.Lw 3LOQ O 0w 20:w O3Ow 30> .30:3 30> .03.. m. w. OOO Ochnuxm .O.OOOO OOO. :O0 03...:O.w0OLOw:. .O.00m :. 30:3 O3 NOO I>LOO:30O OLO:3 OLO m:0.w.m:OLw Om0:w wO:w w:0.w.m:OLw O.ww.. OOO 2L0w:. Om0:w wm3fi m. w. OcO... uO OOO O. OOLO< .m:0.w.m:OLw OcO mO3O.::0Ow O:N .. OOO .m:0.w OOO |.m:OLw OcO m03O.::00w O:w O:.OOm wm3m L0 O:3OO >..OOL OLO NOO Ochnoxm Om.OLOa< O>O: 30> O:.:w>LO>O O:O m0.a20x0 O:w OcO w:Ow:00 O:w .OO [>LO223O .=...30:3 30>: .O2OLO. LO3LO2 wO:w m. w.:w .0 w30 O:.200 m. 3:.:w . wO:3 .30:3 30> .0 OOO memmem ..owzmae3. ....m. on >..eOL c.3ozm _ wegx ". ono .00:O.LOaxO .O:0mLOa 20Lw OOO wO:w 20L. 20:w O3Ow Om 00:0.L0nx0 .O:0mLOa .OOL O OO NOO 20:w O>O: wm3m .OOO 30> OO3000n 30> .O:OmLOO O:w 20Lw OOO O:.OO .>L0wm.: O:w Ow:. 0O :O:w O:O 30:3 O3 wO:3 Low OOO O>.w00..00 >wwOLQ m. w. OcO 03.. m. OOO:O..:0 wO:3 wo O:.2 OOO L30> :. OL3w0.a O O>O: 30> ..O:0mLOa OL02 w. O:.302 OOO :O>O I: O>O: 30> L0 .OL3w0.a O:w O:.2 L30 :. O>O: ..O O3 NOO .30:3 30> .wO m2LOw :. OLO:w 03w LO 00:0wc0m LO:w0:O .OO Oxew ween wcm.e w. .:o.w.m=eLw wecw axes e..oo: ..O: ow one w:O3 30> w. .w3O .O:.w m. :0.:3 It OL3w00. O mO3 w. ONO O3.. .OOwLme 30> :O:3 03.. OOO:30m w. O:< .w. w30nO ONO L.O .O2Lo. wO:w OO: ...wm .mO3 w. .30:3 30> .OcOLw O:w NNO 3:.:w OcO XO.OL OcO w.w 0w 20:w w:O3 30> :O30:w :O>O ONO w. w30nO m:.3:.:w OLO >O:w .30:3 30> .m:.ww0m .O2L0w ONO 2Lowc. O Ow.3u ...wm m.w. wO:w m. OO:OOOO: wO:3 wo Ochm >2 ONO .m:0.w.m:OLw :0 O.OOOO ONO OOO. :O0 30> Om3O00O .w:O3 >O:w wO:3 O:_:LOO. :. 00.O> NNO .0 Ocow O:w .O002 wO:w O:.ww0m wO wLOO OcO w:OLw :. .NO weo mc.cee. weew .w;m.. oLe 30> 3a.;w _ .. wcm.e w. wan owe Ocoeeouom “wOLnLOw:_ .OO:O:0 0w O:.0O OLO Ow:.:w wO:w O30 O m. w. .30:3 30> O.O .OOLO< .030 .O:0.w.m:OLw O m.w. .mLOaOa O:w wo m:.>02 .OO» "O O.O .23.O0a O:w O:.:On ucme 0w :O:w LO:wOL >O3 wO:w N.O 20:w 0w 3_Ow O:O 3mOO O:w :0 :OO. wm3m OcO w:OLw O:w 0w 0.0 2L0wc. O:3OLO 0200 Ow LOwwOn On v.303 w. .Oan w.:w 3Om . 02.w O.O .OOLO< O. me.. O:w .LOwO. wO:w 0.0 . :O:3 wO:w w:m30:w _ .mO> .. 0.0 mOOme J u mw0< :OOOOO mO:m OOOw0.O3< 20Lw wa.L0m:OLN 0:.3 O.OON 2113 0.00P . . 2L0w:. A .O.a00a LO:wO 0w0:w OcO 0.0000 Ow..O..3 .>meOLOw wOO O>.. NNO w:02mm0mm< «OLOasoo A Om3O00n wO:w O:.O.O>O :OOn OO: OO0.0 w.:w :. 02 Low O:.:w ONO :20.nOLO uw:o22oo A meOLO: O:w w3n .>mOO m. wO:w .OLO: m. wO:w >0O ”. ONO . O:.O:.m A .O:.ww0m 3LOa O:w :. wO m0.a2OxO wOO 30> :O:3 >..O0.w ONO :20.n0LO wL0a0m “>.a0m A n.w.0Oam OcO w:0..00x0 >..OOL mO3 wO:w O.Om >O:w OcO .:OO> ”O ONO . w.0..m A .mO.n2x0 O>Om . OLO:3 w:O.m .. NNO A . ....30:3 30> .NO A w:02a0.O>OO mOmme Om0:w wO ..O OO .O:.wwOm .OL3wO: O :. ONO A .O.n.O30:.. >O:w mO :O0 30> mO >:O2 mO .mO.a2OXO O:w O3 OOOx OOO A Ow O:.OO .0.0m >O:w OcO w:0.wm0OO3m >:O O>O: 30> O.O OOO . O. .mO:.OO0L O:w :. on O.303 w. 30:3 03 .LO>00 O:w O3.. NOO 30OnOOOm A mO3 w. :O3O:w :O>O 3O.>LO>0 30.3O O wm3q mO3 w. mO3 OOO quOL.O A w:02200 L.O:w OcO O:.:w020m L0 00:0 w. O:.wLO:0 L0 w. OOO OO:O:0xm .+. wLOaOm A O:.wLO:0 w30nO O03.Ow OO: 03 30:3 30> .:0.wO2L0w:. wO:w 0w OOO 1>LO0:30O .w0OL.o A w:0.w0OOL >:O OLO:w OLO3 w30nO O:.:wO20m O03OO OO: 30> no OOO - II." A .eme.o NOO meOO3m A w.:w Low wO m2L0w :. .Om0:w w30nO O:.:w020m 0O Ow wOO . u. .OO . OO.m< >.aOm A .:032 00w 20:w Om: w.:mOOO O:w >:3 OOm :O0 . .0 OOO _ . w.0..m A .OOOO:LO>O Om: w.:OO . >:3 OOO 30> :Oo .. OOO . A .co.w.mceLw wezw wLewm =o> Ono wLOaOm A wO:w :O:w LO:wO wO:w w30nO >Om 0w O:.:w>:O O>O: w.:0.0 >O:N NOO _ m .O:.>O.a OquOOO.>. . A .mO3 w. 0:0 :0.:3 LOn2020L w.:OO _ "O OOO . . >.qem A .LoneoeeL ow o.ne ee wgm.e . .w. me: eco :0.:3 .. mac . A N. NO:0 wO:w 00m Ow w:O3 30> OOO w.0..m .wLOaOO A 00 .LOO.0 .OOL mO3 0:0 wO:w O.Om >O:w O:O OLO: :30O OOO .:...:O:w OcO: .OEOLO. L03LO2 Attun :O.w.m:OLw LO:wO:O m. OLO:w :O:w O:< .02 :w.3 2O:w OOO3 NOO . ...wm OcO LO:wO:O 0w woam 0:0 20Lw 20:w wOO . 0O 3O: OcO .OO A ..OLw LO:wO:O Ow:0 wOO 0O >O:w .:O02 . .>O3 O:w O:0.0 OOO A O.OOOQ OOO. 30> >..O3m.> 30> O:.3O..Ow w.:OLO >O:w w. OOO mOmme mOchnoxm mw0< :OOOOO OOO:O OOOwO.O3< 20Lw wq_L0m:OLN 0:.3 214' . w:O22OO A O:.3.Ow...O_a00q 0w wO:w >Om ...>O:w m02.w020m .30:3 30> ”O O.N . A ...... e. we: .w. .o 0......w {.8 282. N: A wwo... ..m.5..w.e .m. w. ....e Beta. w..m.e..wm ....e 22...? .... 2L0w:. A OLOOOOO w. .OLO3L0w w:0.0me OcO O.O2.m m. w. Om3000O .. O.N _ A .OLO3L0w w:0.0me ccO O.O2.m wO:w m. OON A w. w. 30:3 w.:OO . w3n...O:w w3n .OLO3L0w w:O.Ome OON A OcO O.O2.m m. w. wO:w O.Om O:w :O:3 NmO3 w. wO:3 00m NON A Ow wO:w wO OOO:O 300. 0w w:O3 30> OO .L0n2020L :OO OON . . .28.; 38. t... .38 wecw :52 e39. .... .me: w. now A OLO:3 >..O0.w.OOOm LOn202OL w.:OO . .w. O:.w:OmOLa OLO3 OON A 30>...OLO:w :. O.OEOXO OOOO.O OO3 wO:w .wO:w m. wO:3 OON O:.O:.u me3OOm a.-. wL0q0m A 30:3 30> .OLO3LOw w:0.0me OcO O.O2.m m.w. m>Om O:m :O:3 NON |2O.nOLm ..OOm m.wO. .m300m. wOOL.O . O. 0.0m 30> OcO .OOO:O:0 O.>wm >LO>..OO 0.0:3 L30> O:O .ON OO:O:0xm :...3Oz= .OEOLO. LO3LO2 A OLO:w :. >L0wm O ..Ow Ow OOwLme 30> .00:OLOww.O O OO3 OON I>LOO:3OO OO3.0:00 Alluu OLO:w In 00m O.wO. .302 .OLO:w :. wO. O O>.O O.O 30> w3O "O OOO . A .>mOO On On O.3O3 w. .mO.a2Ox0 3LOa O>.O wm3m O.300 . :w.3 OOO A _ 0m .00:O.O3O OmLO>.O OL02 O:w LOw m. wO:w O.O2Ox0 NOO A :O :w.3 a3 0200 .300n 3:.:w . .302:...w3OnO mO.a2Ox0 OOO A 8...... emef 2,3 .... ...o. ......f .... 338. 3.. 9.2.... no... . 30:3 30> .wO OOowmc. .3L03 Ow O>O: . .w0Ow :. .O:< OOO w:O2mmOmm< OLOOEOQ A .O3O:0w O:w wO a.w O:w :0 02 Ow >..OO0L mO O200 w.:OO OOO uco.w=.om .eLo.=. A wmaa >O:w wan .:O:w .o 3:.:w :eo . .so:w e>e: . .:o .. NOO . O:.O:.O A ....O:.:w020m L0 :0.w:O>:00 >meOL0w O 0w 0O 30> O2.w wXO: .OO I:O.w3.0m meOO3m A m. Om0:w wO 020m wOO 0w 0O w:O.2 30> OLO:3 30:3 30> "O OOO . . A .mmO.0 wO:w wO OOO . OOOO: O:w wOOE 0w OO.O2OxO OmLO>.O OL02 wO 3:.:w 0w >Lw OOO A OcO OL3w00. >LO>O OL0w0n O.-3a . w3n .OONO3 O:w a3 NOO A m0.a2OxO 3LOO O>.O :00 . u- mO.a2Ox0 3LOO O>.O wm3q :O0 . OOO A O:O >mOO On v.303 w. 1| 2LOw m.:w O:.:w meOLO: O:w Om OOO A .mOOO 3LOa O wO 3:.:w w:O.2 30> OO OOOO 3LOO O wO: m. w. OOO . O. wO:w :O.wOOL0OL wO O:.3 0.0:3 O :w.3 O:..OOO 0n O.303 OOO A mLmeOLOw O:w O:< .OO:.ww0m wO mOa>w Om0:w OLO OLO:w OLO:3 NOO A OOO3wOL O2OO :. >..O.00am0 .OLOw:3: :w.3 O:..OOO On ...0:3 .OO . .mLOw..O..3 OLO m>3O OOO:w wO wO. O Om3O00n In mLow:3: L0 OOO A mOO3wOL OEOO w30nO w3n mO:.wwOm 3LOO w30nO >.:0 wO: ONO A .O:.>LLO3 w30:w.3 wO:w wO m0.a2Ox0 Os.O OcO >Lw . Om ONO mOOme OOO:O:0xm mw0< :OOOOw OmOnm OOOw0.O3< 20Lw wOALom:OLh 0:.3 0.OON 2155 _ 2L0w:. A OOO. .OLOcOO O O>O: . .30:3 30> .wO:w 3:.:w . .Om.< .. OON . A .:O>O wO: w:O.2 OON A 30> .:0.wO2L0w:. w.:w Om3 w.:OO OcO O:.:w 0O 0:3 NON A O.OOOO LO:wO >.:O wO: m. w. .OO .w. wOOLOw 0w >mOO m. w. .ON A .:O.wO3w.m wO:w :O>.O OcO w. >.aaO 0w 0O OcO w30 wOO 30> :O:3 OON . m3mLO> .mm0.0 O:w :. O:.ww.m OLO 30> O:O w. LOO: 30> :O:3 OON wOLaLowc. m OLO3L0w w:0.0me OcO O.O2.m Om On 0w m2OOm wO:3 .O0.0 O:< "O OON . w:OsmmOmm< A .2LOw w.:w m02.w >:O2 .>:O2 NON I:O.w3.0m 2L0w:. A wO:w O.Om . .:OOE . .wO:w >Om . wO:w OL3m 2O . w3O .. OON 9.33.: . ....o.w...om weemmam m ...e..w ....e..w ow w8 3:8 ow wee. .85 8 38.. we: a an. . A ...e we w. wage 3:.:w w.:oO 289. O2. . OO0:w .>On .00:O.L0ax0 >2 :. w3O .w. w30nO O:.3.0w OON A 200LOOO.0 O:w :. OLO: m3 0w OLO3LOw w:0.0me OcO O.O2.m 200m NON A >O2 w. wO:w 2O:w 0w OL3000 LO>O: w. .m3LOa O w30 3L03 .ON A >..O3w0O 0:3 O.OOOO OcO OLOwOLaLOwc. OcO mLochL 3LOO OON . O. :w.3 O:.3L03 :. 00:0.L0ax0 >2 :. .w3O :.Om:Om :02200 ONN A 5..., m. w.:w 68.. 9.25.: 89: m...ww.m 2. was. >O:w ONN A .9258... .... .etewe... w.:w 8... .35.: . 8:288 RN A w3n .30> 0w w:.0a OLO3L0w w:0.0me OcO 0.02.m O On Ow ONN w:OsmmOmm< OLOQEOQ . OLOOOQO w. 02.w O:w ..O wm02.O 30:3 . .:OLO3LOw w:0.0me ONN I20.nOLO «2L0wc. A OcO O.O2.m >LO> m. w.:N: >Om . L0>0:O:3 .30:3 . .:OO> .. ONN . w:02200 m .20:w OO3OO . :O.wm03c O :OOn O>O: w:O.2 wO:w ONN . A .O:.>O.a OanOOO.>O . OOOO.30:30< m ....LO>O:O:3 wO:w 3:.:w . .:OO2 30> wO:3 OOm . "O NNN . A .mO>.Om20:w w. OOOL :O0 >O:w 30:3 . OO3000n mm0.0 :. .NN A w:OmOLa w.:OO . .OLO3LOw w:0.0me ocO O.O2.m OLO >O:w ONN A wO:w m30.>n0 2L0w:. . nu wO: OL.>O:w Om3O00n m. mO:.:w w:OmOLO . :OmOOL O:w OcO O.N .OOOO.3O:30< A 20:w 0w mmOLOO wOO 0w O:.>Lw 2O . wO:3 m. wO:N .30:3 . .. O.N . . A .O>.w.3w:. m. w. N.N . ..eoao. 8 m. w. 6.2.3 8 m. w.:w we..w >8 8> 2.0.. _ O... A 0:0O ..O OLO O3 :O:3 tn wO:w 0w O:.OO OL.30> >Om .... O.N A. OcO .OO OLOchmOLa O>.wOOOwO wO:3 LO O:.w:OmOLO w30nO O.N mOmme moch:0xm mw0< :0OOOWI‘OOO:O OOOw0.O3< 20Lw wq.L0m:OLN 0:.3 0.OON 216 . A ON .OON.:OOLO ..O3 Om m. OcO ..O3 OON Au'ul mOmmOLO O:w .O:O w.:w O>0. 0w O:.0O OLO 30> .Ow:O2200 ONN . .OLO:OO .>0n .30:3 30> :.m.:w 0.0 . OcO w. O:.:0OOw :O>O ONN A 2.. .LOwwOn 30:3 :O>O . OcO 0.0 . wO:3 300. .OLOi: NNN A OLO:3 O:O m. w. .wLOOxO :O OO >w...n.OOL0 :O.: O>O: 30> ONN OO2O:0xm A 00:.m >..O.00Om0 .O.a2Ox0 wO 0:.3 .3wLO30n wm02 O:w m. ONN 30OnOOOm quL.o . O.O2Ox0 .O:0mLOa O OcO .w:.0a L30> 03O2 30> :O:3 OLO OO.O2OXO ONN OO:O:0xm wLOQOm «wOOL.O A O:w wO:w .O.Om >O:w wO:3 .>..0.000mm .OO.O2Ox0 m:.>.O ONN I>LOO:30O .O:O22000m A on O.303 O:.OO OLO 30> O:.:w .3OLO3OO wO02 O:w :O:N no NNN _ Am. .Lew2m2e3. .02.w .22 A O:w ..O w. m30.n >O0n>LO>O Om3O00n m. w. O:.w:OmOLn ONN A 2.. :OmOOL O:w OcO mmO.0 :. OOchmOLa On 0w O.O2.m 00w OON A m. w. 32.2w .02w we2w O0.LL03 2.. 0m2e002 we2w .em . OON A .OLO3LOw w:0.0me OcO O.O2.m m. w. O:.:w020m >Om . :O:3 NON . wO:w OL3m 2O >..O3m3 . w3n .O2.w wO:w w. 00 w.:0.0 . OON 2.0.2. A 02>e2 ..03 .. 32.2w . O22 ..e0.m0. >..e0L w02 m. w. O20 OON .003.0:OO A .O0.OO. mEOOm wO:w >Om :wOn OcO OLO: w.m :O0 O3 O:< .. OON . A .30:3 30> OcO wa00:00 O:w 30:3 . :O3O:w :O>O OON A 0O .w.:w 0.0 ...wm . O:O LOwwOn 30:3 . L0 0.0 . wO:3 NON A m. w.:w O:O LOww0n 30:3 . .w. :3O.n O>.30> :O:3 wO .ON . O.O2Ox0 :O O:.>.O :O>O m02.w020m .30:3 30> .wO: m. w. OON A 00.w0OLO 2. w3n .OLO3LOw w:0.0me OcO O.O2.m m. w.:w OON A wa00200 :. .mwOOocoo O:w O:.>Om OLO 30> wO:3 m. O:.:w020m OON memO3m A :O:3 .30:3 30> .w30nO O:.3.Ow >O:w OLO wO:3 .0: :O .o NON . A .moom .302. OOw A 20> 2.0L3m.. >w.L02w=e 2e 0>e2 0w wom e>.=0>2 .O.em 02 OON A .O.>02 O:w O:.mm30m.0 LowwO O2 Ow 0.0m wO:w >:O O:w OON . 03.3 .w.:OO wO:w OLO:wO OcO ma30LO LO.30.wLOO :w.3 OON A LO OO.3 :w.3 00:0.LOax0 wO wO. O OO: OcO OL0.Om:300 NON A q2O0 :OOn O>O: 0:3 OLO:w O.OOOO 020m OcO x.2 O :03m m. .ON 2L0w2. A OLO:2 .mmO.0 w.:w :w.3 2O.n0La LO:wO:O m. wO:w w3O .. OON . A .0>.w.m02 >L0> ..e 0.03 >02w wan OOw w:02200 A .O:.:0OOw :OOn O>O: >O2 >O:w...>._OOL OLO3 0.0000 OOO:N .O OON . A ....m>3O >LwOOLOw OOO:w ..O Low w3n .23: 0: .30:3 NON A 30> .m. ww3wm w.:w 20:w 0w OcO .30 .OLO:0OOw :OOn O>O: OON A 0:3 O.OOOO wO O.O300 O 30:3 . 00m .OcO OLO: mO3 0:3 w0 OON mOmme mOm:O:0xm mw0< :OOOaw OmO:O OOOw0.O3< 20Lw wn.L0m:OLh 0:.3 0.QON 217 >.nOm 111 .w. :0 3LO3 0w O>.w:00:. o2 mO>.O w. n. ..O w.0..m .00.: wO:w w.:m. ”O 0.0 w:O2200 .00.: m. wO:N .. OOO .w. wL02om .pmz we mLo2ueow woo: o2w .0 020 on 0w .O_.2ow02 02w mow 30On000. .1. wLOOOm mO: O:m .w. m30:3 O:m wO> w3n .w:O3.. O m>O3_O wO: OLO NOO IwOOL.O .3 wLOOOm w:0.wOwcomOLn. .OLO: wOwO: L30 20L. >O3O m:.ww0m mOO:LOn. 5 OOO ....OcO mOL03 >2 O:.:m3.m mO3 . wO:w OOO 2m202w u00.w02 _ .we2w 02 >..e2m2 w.202 _ O2o .wo. e O00 OLOa2oo .OOLO< m:_:m3.m mO3 _ 30:3 w.:O.O _ .>OO wO:w wO:w O00.w0: . .:OO> .. OOO .1. wLoaom .:0.w00O0La :O.wO.0:3:O :0 3LO3 On>02 v.3oo NOO 30OnOOOO .+. wLOQOm .O.O.. LO: :. wm02OLo. O:w .0 0:0 m.O:O .>0:me.m:OO .OO 1w00L.O OO3.0:00 O m. OLO:w me0. w0 wO:w w. O:.3O2 OL03 >O:w w3n .02 HO OOO OOLO< .LO>O: .L0>Oz .. OON 6.02 e 20% $5 >ee w.22.=0.. O2 ...wm >o2w wam .w20 w2m=02w ..o3 >Lo> 2w00 oLe woe.0 ho. O:w OcO 00:OLOOOOO L30> .OLO:am02wO w:me.m:00 >LO> O OON O>.m w. 0.0m >O:w Om .m:O.wOw:OwOLn L30> :. OON.:OOL0 OON w:02200 0m_O OLO 30> OcO OucOLOOOOO L30> :. OON.:OOLO OL.30> OON .wOLaLOw:_ wO:w mO3 Ow :Om.LOa200 O:w O:.3O2 OLO3 >O:w wO:3 w3O .O OON me3OOm .:O OO .>O30 .:0 11 >O:w OcO OLOwOO3m L.O:w :. m0.0: NON .w2O2200 O:.LOO3 OLO:w :. a0.m 0.300 30> .OLO: :. O0.m O.300 30> .. .ON OOOO.3O:30< .w. O>O. 0w O:.0O OLO 30> 0.0m . >:3 m. wO:k no OON .wO:w wOO LO>O: >O:w .wO:w OON wOO LO>O: m>3m O:w w3n .w. O>O..On w.:O.300 . .2L0. OON :O.wO3.O>O >2 :0 mm:.300wm >2 :. m:3L w30nO w:02200 O OO: NON 00:0 _ .02.w O:w ..O m2LO. :O.wO3.O>O :0 >.w:owm.m:00 OON w. wo..v _ .22 .8 L902 >02. Be we2w wom :28 >2: 3. .mO3OOO..00 >w_30O. O.O2 >2 .mLOn202 >w.300. 30..O. OON >2 O:.3mO mO3 . O:< .LOOn O LO>0 >OO LO:wO O:w wO:w OON w:022oo w30nO O:.3.Ow wm3m OLO3 03 .a3 wO:w m:.Ln O.3o:m 30> NON .OOOO_30:30< >::3. m. wO:w 11 wO:w mmO3m . .:O ...O3 mOmmOLO O:m .. .ON mOmme A u mw0< :OOOOO OOO:O OOOw0.03< 20L. wn.L0m:OLh 0:.n O.OON 2123 m N30> Ow 0:OO2 w. wO:3 LO 30> OOO OO:O:0xm me3001 . NN L0. 0w:O..:O.: O:w :OOn O>O: >02 0O:.:w wO:3 .w30nO OOO 1>LO0:30O .:O:w ..O3 .02OLO. L03LO2 m 0O3.0w O3 0:0.0000 O:w .0 w30 .>O0 30> 0.303 wO:3 .:O:w ..O: "O NOO .1111 002m< A .w2m.L 0. we2w .. .OO . 0:022000m A .w. .0002 Ow O>O: 30> 0:O 0...30 .O:00LOO OOO .w:02200 A 1LOw:. 0:O .O:.:0O0w OLO 30> wO:3 .O:00LOQLOw:. m. w. 0:< no OOO . m .0m2.2w 0002w 0mm . O0 0:O w30 0O 0w 003 :O0 >O:w wO:w 0...30 0200 20:w NOO A O>.O 0w O:.>Lw OLO 30> .:0.wO2LO.:. O:.0:000.0 wO: OOO A 0.0 20> 02e m2.2. .0 02.. 00.20.L0-_..30 .002 e 0. w. mn0 . .0L0wOLaLOw:. LOwwOn 02000: 20:w O.O: 0w O:.>Lw 2O . 0:O OOO A ...0:O O>.O O 0. w. wO:w .OO. . :O.wOwOLaLOwc. m:.:OOOw OOO A w3n .03.. 0. 00.wO:OO O:.:0OOw wO:3 30:3 w.:00 . .30:3 NOO A 30> .02O: w0L.. >2 >n 02 ..O0 0w:003w0 O:w O>O: 0w .OO . L0.OL: . .LO>03OI ..02O: w0L... 00..O0 wOO . 0:O x .LO 00..OO OOO A 0wOO 00.0 >00n>LO>0 :O:3 0. 02 0L0:w0n w. 02.w >.:O 0:O ONO 2L0.:_ A .wO:w w30nO OLOO w.:00 . 0:O .OOw .02O: w0L... 02 ..O0 >O:k “. ONO . A .000.0 :. 0:O .02O: w0L... 30> ..O0 m>O3.O . NNO . 1- 20.0 0. wom 03.. .3022 20> -1 02. 32.2. 20> 02 +023 0N0 A .003 0.:w ..O .0 >LO2230 O:w >O0 0.303 30> wO:3 .30:3 ONO A .N 20> .02e02 0.2w .023 .0L0.02 w202e 003.0. 03 0m2.2. ONO A O:w .0 ..O 0:O w30nO 0O3.Ow w03O O3 wO:3 20L. .wO:3 ONO w:02200 . O~.LO2230 0.300 30> .. .m.:w :O3OL:w O:.0O OLO3 O3 NNO OO:O:0xw .w00300m A 0..:3 00w0: O3Ow w.:0.0 . w3O .LOwwO. >LO2230 O:w :0 .NO 1>LO0:30O «w:OEOwmeOsz A .0.O0 . 0O .30:3 30> .O 30> 0:00 ...3 . 0. O0 .... wO:3 “O ONO .1111 0.02.e>m A .0000 0. we2w ...03 .. 0.0 3000000.. A 1w00L.o .+. w:02200 A .>wO.LO> .0 wO. O 0. OLO:P ”O 0.0 . A .:OO:L0w.O OwO. O:w :. N.O A 00w3:.2 >w:03w 0:O L30: Oco. O 0.wO:w 0:< .0:O wO: O.O A .LOwLO30 OL.w:O O:w :O3OL:w aOO.0O :O..O. 0O: :OmLOa O.O w:02200 A 0:0 0: w0O0. wO .000.0 >2 :O30L:w O:.OO0.0 wO: 0:< .. O.O . A .00O.0 O:w O:.0:OwwO >..OOL OLO 0w:003w0 O.O .+. w20220011A1 we2. m2..00. 0:. .00 20> 0.2w L002 20> 2023 00.0 ...03 .o N.O OOOOwO 00m:O:0xw 0w0< :OOOOO 00O:m OOOwO.03< 20L. wO.LOm:OLh 0:.3 0.0ow 21S? _ . . A .30: .0..0: :032 0... 30:. 30> .3O .0.0: .00. 0.0 . 003 .O:. 00 0:0 .. 0.0>O .0:.0. 0.303 . .0:.x .O:. .0 ..O A 0:0..0.:0..:00 :. ..03 00 ..:00 ....>.00:022. 00>0.32. O.O 2.0.:. A 00: :.:0:0..O.0. m:.x.03 0:. 0:0 .0..0: .0. O .00. . u. m.O . 0.02.0>0 m .>...0.0 0. 0000 0. .02. .2 0.0 . A .:0.00300.0 nsO A .00. 0 0O: 03 .>0O ..:0.0.000 m:.:000. >2 0: 0. >:3 N.O . .00..: m:.0: >2 0. 0000000 00 003 0: .. ..0.0>0.0 0:. ..O 2.0.:. A .O :300 .0.0.00. 0.0 .....02.0.:. 0.02 :032 ..0..0: o>O 0m:0:0xw ..00mm3m A :032 .:032 .. :0 :00. 0:0 0.:0. .O:. :0 ..0 0:0 .30 OOO 1>.O223m .00.m< A 0200 0.300 . .000 .23.00a 0:. 0:.:0: m:.0:0.0 ..:m.m u. OOO . A ..x0: m:.00 0..30> 0.0:3 .0 0.030 0..30> >OO .00mm3m A .:0..0033 0 .00 30> :0:3 :300 m:.x00. 00.0 x:.:. . 0:< no OOO . _ _ ..O:. 20.. OOO A >O3O .00 0. 000: _ 11 :032 00. 23.00: 0:. 0:.:0: 20 _ «OO A .02. 02.2. .02.0>-202 0.2. .202. 02.200 .02 0.0 >02. 000 A .0: .:0..O3..0 .0.. 30. O 0: ...3 .0:. 0:0..0030 .00 NOO A ...3 >0:. .0:. 00 :0:0 .00. 0: 0:0 >.. . 003000: .00. .OO 0m:0:0xw _ .:O..0:2. >..O0. :00: 00: .0:. .0:0..0030 x00 ..:00 OOO 1>.0223m 0N..0223m A >0:. >:3 0:.. .0.0.>O:0: .O:.0>1:0: 0:. .0 0200 .3O 0. OOO _ . A NN .00. OOO .202200 _ .002 0:. 02 030.:. .O:. m:.:. 0 0>03.0 0. .O:. 30:: . no hmO . . A .0. 0002 .02. . .22 000 _ .e0_20.2 05.. 0 0. 20.2: .20.00200.0 0.0: ..2 0...._ .0 000 A 02.0. :. >..0.0>.0 0.02 ..: 0..... O 0. 0.0:. .O:. 00 .. 0:O A 00.200.00. 0. 02.>.. .0 022 ..02. .2020 22.2. 0. 0>02 _ 000 A 11 :0...0:O.. .0 0300. 0.0:3 0.:. 0:< ..O:. 0:.00 .0: 20 . NOO . 0:O 00.:20x0 000: x:.:. . .O:. 0.:.0: 0.0 0.0:. .mO A .3: .00.:20x0 0>.m 0. .00: 0. .. .O:. 30:: . .0.O3.0. OOO A .20.0..0 020 0.22.0 02.02 .0 02.2. 0.2. 0... ..02 0.0 .02. 000 A 00.:20x0 20.. 00.:20x0 m:.>.m 20 . .O:. x:.:. . .O:. OvO . 0000.. .20.:0.: 0:. .0: 0. .O:. .00~.:Om.0 >.:m.: hVO 00:0:0xm 0~..0223m A 0.0 00.3.00. >2 003000: .x.03 :00 . .O:. :0..O~.:0m.0 ovO 1>.0223m .0:0:00m A .0: ..0. 0000. 000m >..00. 0200 :0..0m 050: . ...03 u. va 00mO.m 00w:0:0xm 0.0< :000aw 000:. 0.0.0.03< 20.. .m..00:0.. 0:.: 0.00.. 220 00.0.00< ...03 .O:. .0002 30> x:.:. . 0:0 .:00» no n.m ....:O..0...0:.30 :0 :030 0... N_o .02. -1 20..00200 .2020 >02 .02. .00. ..200 02. 0.2002 __0 .0:.0 >:02 00 0. 0003 00 0.0 >0:. 003000: 0.0: 0. .. 0.0 30:. _ 0:< .:0..00300 .30:0 .00. . 30: 0. .O:. .O:. moo 0:0.0.00:3 0. 20:. .:03 _ ...0000. .0:. .00. 0. 0. OOO .0:000. 0 00 02 0. x:.:. . 0m:.:. .:0..002. .002 0:. woo .0 0:0 0. .0:. .02 0. .:O..002_ .00. 0. .0:. 003000: woo ...0000. 0 0>0: _ .0:. .00. >0:. .0:. 30:: o. 00.m .030 new 2.. ..3m ..0..0: 00 :00 30> 0m:.:. 0: 0>03.0 0. m:.0m com ....0 0. 0.02. ..20 ..02. ..03 020 >.. 020 002.2. 0002. 80 .0 ..O :m30.:. om . 00:0 Om ..0..0: .00 >..03:..:00 NOO 2.0.:. 0.300 30> .O:. 0. >:0000_.:0 >2 ...03 .0. m:.:. 0:. 0. .oo .00. 0:0 0.0: O 0. com .0:. .0.:003.0 0:. :..3 ..0000. 0: 00: 0:3 0:00200 OOO :0:. .0:.0. .:0..0~.:0m.0 0:. .m:.:3. 0:.. 0:. 0>0.02. OOO 0. 00000: 0:3 0:00200 :..3 ..03 .0:.0. :032 0.303 _ .OO .0200200 2..; ..02 0. 002 _ .. .0.00 20..0 0>02 _ ..00. 2. 000 .00:.:. .000.0: 0:. .0 0:0 0. .0:. 0:0 .0.:0..0.200 moO x00:000. .:02200 MN .00. 0:0 30> .00000. >0:. .0:. 11 000@ 0. ..0000. 0:. 00m 1.00..o “00.0.00< .0:. x:.:. . .0.:003.0 0:. 20.. 0.00: _ .0:3 003000m no an ..0:.0020 .. 0x02 0.303 .0:. ..0..0: .. NmO 003.0:00 0.02 0.303 .0:. 0m:.... 0..... 000:. .0 ..0 .030 0. .. "_ .OO .000.0 0:. 2. 00 0.0000 0>0: OOO x00:000. 30> mm:.:. .0 >.0..0> .0 .0. 0 0>0: 00 >..00. 30> 0:< OOO 1.00..o 00.0.00< ..:0..00x0 0. :0..ON.:00.0 0.00 30> .0:. 02 0. 02000 .. no OOO _ .0w:.:. .0 00:.x 000:. .0:0...0:0.. 000:. 0.0 .0m 30> .OO A .0:: .>_:.0020 0.02 :3. .00~.:Om.o 0.02 .0 .0..0: .. OOO A 0.05 ...: .02. 002.2. 0..... 02. .02. 020 02..00.0.2. 000 _ 0.02 0.0 >0:. 00 0000:.0>0 >2 000. 02 0.0: 0OO A .00 m:.>0: .30:0 0m:.:. 0..... 0:. .>00 0.303 _ 00030 nOO 00..0223m A . 0m:.:. 0..... 0:. .00:.:. .0.02 0:. .0>0 x:.:. . ". NOO . A .>20... 0...._ 0 .00 .:02200 A 0... .30> .0023 0x.o3 0:3 0.02 0 :..3 .000 o. O>O: OOO .2.0.:. A 30> :0:3 >._0.00000 11 .0 00>. 0.020. 0 0. .0:. x:.:. _ no 0.0 00m0.m 4 0 0.0< :0000m 000:0 000.0.03< 20.. .0..00:0.. 0:.: 0.00. 221 .:00..00 O .0 200.. . _ A .1111 ..O:. 000..0: 0>O: >0:. .. 000 0. .030 ..00.0 00.00. .00 A 020 0.20. 0. 0.20. 2002.02 020...020.. 02. 0.< .2002 000 A 0:. 0:0 .0:. .30 .00.020x0 :0 002.03 30> .0 0:0...0:O.. onm A :0 002.03 30> .. .00 .0 2003 O :. 02.. 00.0 .3: 2.0. Ono .:02200 . .0.0:0m 0 .0. .O:. 003 0. 00.00.0.:. 0: .:m.2 30> 003000O no .na . _ >.00: A .:0..0.:0..0 .0. ..3.0 .0 .02000 0:. :..3 003 .. .00» u. onm . _ . .0.:003.0 0:. :..3 003 mno A :00 30> 2.0. 200:000. 0 .0 0.020x0 :0 .0 >000 O 30> «no ..0... .2.0.2. A 02.0 . 0.0 ..02. 00 0. >2202 ..0> 02 0.202 _ .02 2o .0 000 . A .0000 0: 0.303 .0:. .2.03 0.02 000: ....0 . .0:.0:3 .0 Nno A .0022 20> .0.2. .02. .20202. 20> .02.022 .0 .0..02 020.. .00 A 1.0:0.. 000:. 0:.202 2.. .0:.0:3 .30:0 2.0. .030 0.300 03 onm .003000 ..000030 A :0:. 0:0 :.000 0:0 0.:. :m30.:. ..0 0.300 30> :0:. .3O 0N0 .2280 A .02.. .0 2.20.2 2. .. 0N0 _ >.00m A ...00 0 02 0>.m .0.30 .0 .N0 _ A .2.000 0N0 A 0:0 0.:. :m30.:. ..0 0. 00.3.00. .:0.0...0 :0:. .0:.0. mNo 003.0:00 A 00:00 .002 0:. 0202 0.303 .0:. 2:.:. . 003000: .000 0:< u. 0N0 . >.00a A .02 no nNa . ..0..w A ..O:. 0:.2 30> 0.303 .02.. .x0: 0.3.00. 0.:. 00 NNO “>.00m A . :0:3 :300 ..0 0:0 0200 0. 00 30> 0>O: .:m.2 _ .0:: 0. .No . A .0.:003.0 0.02 0N0 :0.0000 A 0200 0. 2.0. .0 .. :0 :. ..0 0:0 :. 0200 .030 :00 03 0.0 0:. 0m:0:0Xm A .30:2 30> .0>O: .0:..0 .200:000. 0.02 >:O .:03 30> .. O.o m:.00.o 1>.O0:30O ..0..m A «N .2.0. 0:..00 .0 2.0. .x0: 02.. 02.. .0:.0 0200 00 30> ._ no ..0 111111 . 002.0200 A.... ....002.2. 0....2 n. 0.0 . _ 0N..0223m A 11 30:2 30> ..0 .0..02 0 .030 0: 0. 02000 .00. 0:. "O 0.0 _ .202200 A .>02 .02. .00. >02. .02. 00.0 20 _ 00 H_ 0.0 0000.0 00m:0:0xm 0.0< :000mw 000:0 000.0.03< 20.. .0..00:O.. 0:.: 0.20. 222! . . . A1111 ... :..3 w:0.3 m:.0.>:0 000 ..:00 000 A >00. ... m:.00 2000 0>00 >00. 0:0 000.0 .:0.0...0 20.. 000 A :0..02.0.:. 0200 .00 0>.30> 0:0 :. om 30> :0:3 0030000 no 000 . A .2... 02. 2..02 000 A 003 .. .3022 30> .m:.0. .0 02.2 0>...000 .00. 0 003 n00 A ._ 2..02. 00 ..20.0020 0: .23 000 _ .200. ..02. 00 02 ~00 . .00: m:.0m >..00. 0.03 >00. 0030000 .00. .0..0 000m .00 A ..0. . .11 >..00. 03 0:0 30> 003000 . 0:0 00. 00 0.0 000 A mm 00 002.. 00.0. .3000 0. :0.:3 :0..00..00 00..0 0..... 000 A 22 002 _ .02.. 0000 0 002 03 .02.20.0 02. 00 .02. 002 . 0>3m ..00. .0 00:30 0 0:0 :0..00.000 0:0 02.00 >.::oo .00 A 20.0w .0 .0.00..0 02. 0. 0:0 0.0..0.3.0: 0:. 0. 00:02.03 000 A 0 0>0m . 0:0 02.00 >.:3oo :0.0w :_ 003 _ .:00:.0..0 mvm :o.000m . >0000:003 ... 003 :0:3 0030000 .00..00 00 0. .. .30 000 1.000 0m:000Xm A .02 .:3. .0 >.00: .>0002 .>...0 0..0:. 2.00 0.0. :. n00 111111 1>.00:3om 2.0. __020 A1111 0:.2.>:0 00 0. 0030._0 .0: 0.0 30>...000.0 00 0..00. .. N00 00m0.m 00m0000xm 0.0< 00000w 00000 000.0.03< 20.. .0..00:0.. 0:.; BIBLIOGRAPHY 223 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, O.N. & Clark, R.J. Microteaching: Its rationale. High School Journal, 1967, 51, 75-79. Allen, D. & Ryan, K. Microteaching. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Archer, J. Undergraduates as paraprofessional leaders of interpersonal communication skills training groups using an integrated IPR (Inter- personal Process Recall) videotape feedback/affect simulation training model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972,_§g, (9-A), 4932-4933. Ardener, E. Social anthropology and language. New York: Tavistock Publications, 1971. Argyle, M. Social interaction. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969. Astin, A.w., Comstock, C., Epperson, D.C., Greeley, A.M., Katz, J. & Kauffman, J.F. Facultygdevelopment in a time of retrenchment. The Group for Human Development in Higher Education and Change Magazine, 1974. Axelrod, J. The university teacher as artist. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1973. Bailey, K.G. Self-confrontation and self-concept change in group psycho- therapy. ’Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia Univer- sity, 1968. Barnhart, S.A. The effects of the locus of an ideal behavioral model and videotape self-confrontation upon self-concept and group behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, §l_(10-A), 5552. Becker, H., Geer, B., & Hughes, E.G. Making the Grade. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968. Bellack, A.A., Kliebard, H.M., Hyman, R.T., Smith Jr., F.L. The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 1966. Bergin, A.E. Some implications of psychotherapy research for thera- peutic practice. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 11 (4), 235-246. 224 Bergman, D.V. Counseling method and client responses. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15 (3), 216-224. Berliner, D.C. Changing academic learning time: Clinical interven- tions in four classrooms. Paper presented to the American Educa- tional Research Association, March 1978. Berquist, w.H. & Phillips, S.R. Components of an effective faculty development program. Journal of Higher Education, 1975, 46, 177- 211. Bloom, B.A. The thought process of students in discussion. In J. French (Ed.), Accent on teachigg. New York: Harper, 1954. Borg, w.R. & Gall, M.D. Educational research: An introduction. New York: David McKay, Co., 1971. Bradley, B.E. An experimental study of the effectiveness of the video- recorder in teaching a basic speech course. The Speech Teacher, 1970, 19 (3), 161-167. Bratton, B. The instructional development specialist as consultant. Journal of Instructional Development, 1979, g (2), 2-8. Braucht, G.N. Immediate effects of self-confrontation on the self- concept. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 85 (1 Pt. 1), 95-101. Braunstein, D.N., Klein, G.A., & Pachla, M. Feedback expectancy and shifts in student ratings of college faculty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58, 254-258. Brophy, J. & Good, T. Teacher25tudent relationships: Causes and conse- guences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974. Brophy, J. & Good, T. Teachers' communication of differential expecta- tions for childrens' classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 365-374. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Stra- tegies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Brown, R. Psycholinguistics: Selected papers. New York: The Free Press, 1970. Brunswick, E. Perception and the rgpresentative design of psychological experiments (2nd Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956. 225 Burris, R.N. Seminars, workshops, and consultation services for faculty. In Stanford E. Ericksen, Support for teaching at major universities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, Fall 1979. Bush, R.N. & Allen, O.N. Microteaching: Controlled practice in the training of teachers. In J.M. Cooper and T. Straud (Eds.), Microteaching: A description. Stanford, California: Stanford University, 1967. Centra, J.A. Determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1979. Centra, J.A. Faculty development practices in U.S. colleges and univer— sities (PR-76-30). Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1976. Centra, J.A. The effectiveness of student feedback in modifying college instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65, 395-401. Centra, J.A. & Rock, D. College environments and student academic achievement. American Educational Research, 1971, 8 (4), 623-634. Cicourel, A. Basic and normative rules in the negotiation of status and role. In David Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: The Free Press, 1972. Clark, C.M. A new question for research on teaching. Educational Research Quarterly, 1978-79, 3 (4), 53-58. Clark, C.M. & Yinger, R.J. Research on teacher thinking. Research Series #12. East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, 1978. Coffman, N.E. Determining students' concepts of effective teaching from their ratings of instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1954, 45, 277—285. Cogan, M.L. Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1973. Cook-Gumperz, J. Persuasive talk - the social organization of childrens' talk. In Judith Green and Cynthia Nallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Nonwood: Ablex Publishing Co., 1981. Cooper, C.R. An ethnographic study of the dynamics of the instructional process in a college classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Cooper, C.R. Getting inside the instructional process: Adiagnosticpro- cess for improving college instruction. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communication and Technology Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado, April 23, 1980. 226 Cooper, H.M. Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 1979, 49 (3), 389-410. Cooper, H.M., Burger, J., & Seymour, G. Classroom context and student ability as influences on teacher personal and success expectations. American Educational Research Journal, 1979, lg (2), 189-196. Cooper, N.E. Videotape replay feedback in learning selected gross motor skills. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 30 (9-A), 3775-3776. Davies, I.K. Some aspects of a theory of advice: The management of an instructional developer-client relationship. Instructional Science, 1975, g, 351-373. Davis, R.H. Special funds for the improvement of instruction. In S.C. Ericksen (Ed.), Support for teaching at major universities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, 1979. Denzin, N.K. The logic of naturalistic inquiry. In N.K. Denzin (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Denzin, N.K. The research act (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Dewey, J. Democragy and education. New York: The Free Press, 1944. Ericksen, S.C. Providing information. In S.C. Ericksen (ed.), Support for teaching at major universities. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, 1979. Erickson, F. Mere ethnography: Some problems in its use in educational proactice. Occasional Paper #15. East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, March 1979. Erickson, F. & Shultz, J. Talkipg to the man: Social interaction in counseling interviews. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Erickson, F., Shultz, J., Dolan, C., Pariser, D., & Erder, M. Final report of project #MH 18230, MH 21460, Inter-ethnic relations in urban institutional settings. Submitted to the Center for Studies of Metropolitan Studies, National Institute of Mental Health, 1973. Evertson, C., Brophy, J., & Good, T. Communication of teacher expecta- tions. Report No. 92, Austin, Texas: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, 1973. Feffer, M. & Gourevitch, V. Cognitive aspects of role-taking in children. Journal of Personality, 1960, 28. Fenstermacher, G.D. A philosophical consideration of research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, Q. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock, 1978. 227 Frederiksen, C.H. Inference in pre-school childrens' conversations - a cognitive perspective. In Judith Green & Cynthia Nallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Co., 1981. Fuller, F.F. Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, l969,_§, 207-226. Fuller, F.F. & Baker, J.P. Counseling teachers using video feedback of their teaching behavior. Austin, Texas: The Research and Develop- ment Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin, 1970. Fuller, F.F., Bown, G.H., Newlove, E.N., & Brown, 6.6. Personal assess— ment feedback counseling for teachers. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, 1973. Fuller, F.F. & Manning, B.A. Self-confrontation reviewed: A conceptuali- zation for video playback in teacher education, Review of Educational Research, 1973, 43 (4), 469-528. Fuller, F.F., Parsons, J.S., & Naskins, J. Concerns of teachers: Research and reconceptualization. Austin, Texas: Universtiy of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, 1973. Gaff, J. Toward faculty renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. Gagne, R.M. The conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970. Gage, N.L. The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press, 1977. Gallessich, J. Training the school psychologist for consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 1974, 1g, 138-149. Garfinkel, H. A conception of, and experiments with, trust as a condi- tion of stable actions. In O.J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction. New York: Ronald Press, 1963. Garfinkel, H. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,41967. Giglioli, P.P. Language and social context. New York: Penguin Books, 1972. Goffman, E. Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Goffman, E. Interaction ritual. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1967. Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959. 228 Goldhammer, R. Clinical supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Goodenough, W.H. Rethinking "status" and "role": Toward a general model of the cultural organization of social relationships. In Stephen A. Tyler (Ed.), Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1969. Goody, E.N. Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. London: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Gorden, R.L. Interviewing: Strategies, technigues, and tactics (3rd ed). Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press, 1980. Guba, E.G. Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. CSE Monggraph Series in Evaluation. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1978. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. Effective evaluation: Improving the useful- ness of evalution results through responsive and naturalistic gpproaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1981. Gumperz, J.J. Conversational inference and classroom learning. In Judith Green & Cynthia Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1981. Gumperz, J.J. Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In 28th Annual Roundtable: Monograph Series onLanguagerand Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1977. Haney, J., Lange, P., & Barson, J. The heuristic dimension of instruc- tional development. AV Communication Review, 1968, 16, Harnischfeger, A. & Wiley, D.C. Conceptual issues in models of school learning. Curriculum Studies, 1978, 19 (3). Havelock, R. The change agents' guide to innovation in education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology, 1973. Harvey, D.J., Hunt, D.E., & Schroder, H.M. Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1961. Hedges, L.E. The feasibility of gsing videotape techniqges in.pre- service teacher education in:ggriculture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1970. Hildebrand, M., Wilson, R.C., & Dienst, E.R. Evaluating university teaching. Berkeley, California: Center for Research and Develop- ment in Higher Education, 1971. Hodgson, T.F. The general and primary factors in student evaluation of teaching ability. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1958. 229 Hopkins, D.W. The effectiveness of videotgpe as an instructional medium in the teaching of salesmanship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1969. Isaacson, L.E. Career information in counseling and teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971. Jick, T.D. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, 24. Johnson, D. The effects of videotaped self confrontation, focus, and subject appropriateness for playback on realism about self and others. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1974. Johnson, G.R. Enhancing community/junior college professors' question- ing strategies and interaction with students. Community/Junior College Researcthuarterly, 1977, 2, 47-54. Kagan, N. Issues in encounter. The Counseling Psychologist, 1970,-2 (2), 43-49. Kagan, N. & Krathwohl, D.R. Studies in human interaction: inter- personal process recall stimulated by videotape. Final Report, DE 7-32-0410-270. East Lansing: Michigan State University, December 1967 (ERIC ED 017 946). Kidorf, I.W. A note on the use of a tape recording during the therapy session. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1963, 13 2 , 211-213. Krajewski, R.J. Clinical supervision: To facilitate teacher self- improvement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1976, g (2), 58-66. Krasner, L. The psychotherapist as a social reinforcement machine. In H.H. Strupp & L. Luborski (Eds.), Research in psychotherapy (Volume II). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1962. Lauroesch, W.P., Pereira, P.D., & Ryan, K.A. The use of student feed- back in teacher training. Final Report, Project No. 8-E-115. Chicago: University of Chicago, June 1969 (ERIC ED 035-588). Levinson, J.L. & Menges, R.J. Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Evanston, Illinois: The Center for the Teaching Professions, December 1979. Lopes, L.M. Problem solving in a human relationship: The interactional accomplishment of a "zone of proximal development“ during therapy. (Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cogni- tion Center for Human Information Processing, University of Califor- nia, San Diego, January 1981, 3(1). 230 Mann, R.D., Arnold, S.M., Binder, J.L., Cytrynbaum, S., Newman, B.M., Ringwald, B.E., Ringwald, J.W., & Rosenwein, R. The college classroom: Conflict, change and learning. New York: John Wiley & Sons;’1970. May, R. The meaning of anxiety. New York: Ronald Press, 1950. McKeachie, W.J., & Lin, Y.G. Do discrepancies between student ratings, teaching expectations, and teacher ideals result in changes in teacher behavior? Final Report to the National Institute of Educa- tion (Grant No. NE-G-00-3-0110) March 1975. Mead, G.H. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Mehan, H., Cazden, C., Fisher, S. & Maroules, N. The social organization of classroom lessons. A technical report submitted to the Ford Foundation, 1976. Melnik, M.A. & Sheehan, D.S. Clinical supervision elements: The clinic to improve university teaching. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1976, 9 (2), 67-76. Mendoza, 5., Good, J., & Brophy, J. Who talks in junior high classrooms? Report Series No. 68. Austin, Texas: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, 1972. Nadel, S.F. The theory of social structure. Glencoe, Ill: The Free Press, 1957. Neilsen, G. Studies on self confrontation. Cleveland: Howard Allen, Inc., 1965. Pambookiam, H.S. Discrepancy between instructor and student evaluations of instruction: Effects of instruction. Instructional Science, 1976, 5, 63-75. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publicatons,*1980. Perlberg, A., Bar-0n, E., Levin, R., Bar-Yam, M., Lewy, A., & Etrog, A. Modification of teaching behavior through the combined use of microteaching techniques with the Teching Diagnostic System TDS. Instructional Science, 1974, 3, 177-200. Perlberg, A. & O'Bryant, D.C. The use of videotape recording and microteaching techniques to improve instruction on the higher education level. Urbana, 111: University of Illinos, August 1968 (ERIC Report ED023-314). Perlberg, A., Peri, J.N., Weinred, M., Nitzan, E., Shimron, J. & O'Bryant, D. Studies on the use of videotape recordings and micro- teaching techniques to improve university teaching. Paper presented at meetings of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1971. 231 Perrott, E. Microteaching in higher education: Research, development and practice. Society for Research into Higher Education, Ltd. Guilford, Surrey: University of Surrey, 1977. Perry, R.P., Leventhal, L., & Abrami, D.C. An observational learning procedure for improving university instruction. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Conference for Improving University Teaching, London, 1979. Pike, K. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton and Company, 1967. Pilon, D.H. & Berquist, W.H. Consultation in higher education. Washing- ton, D.C.: The Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges, 1979. Price, R.D. A description of the verbal behavior of selected instruc— tional developers in their initial conference with new clients: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. Rist, R.C. 0n the relations among educational research paradigms: From disdain to detente. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 1977, 8, (2). Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. Communication of innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1971. Rotem, A. The effects of feedback from students to unversity instructors: An experimental study. Research in Higher Education, 1978, 9, 303- 318. Rutt, D.P. An investigation of the consultation styles of instructional developers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1979. Sacks, H. An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Sacks, H. An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: The Free Press, 1972. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 1974, 59 (4). Savage, A.L. Increasing empathetic capabilities of instructional developers: Evaluation of a three-phase instructional strategy. Audiovisual Communication Review, 1974. gg. Schatzman, L. & Strauss, A. Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1974. 232 Schein, E.H. Process consultation. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Schleghoff, E.A. Sequencing in conversation openings. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in socio-linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks,H. Notes on a conversational practice: Formu— lating place. In David Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in interaction. New York: The Free Press, 1972. Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H. Opening up closings. Semiotica, 1973. 8, Schmuck, R.A. Self-confrontation of teachers. Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, March 1971 (ERIC ED 004-221). Schumacher, A.S., Wright, J.M., & Weisin, A.E. The self as a source of anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, §2_(l), 30-34. Schwartz, H. & Jacobs, J. Qualitative sociology: A method to the madness. New York: The Free Press, 1979. Searle, J. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1975. Shavelson, R.J., Caldwell, J., & Izu, T. Teachers' sensitivity to the reliability of information in making pedagogical decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 1977, 4 (2), 82-97. Shulman, L.S. & Elstein, A.S. Studies in problem solving, judgment, and decision making: Implications for educational research. In F.N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of research in education. Itasca, Ill: F.E. Peacock, 1975, 3, 3-42. Silber, K.H. Organizational and personnel management structures needed for the successful implementation of instructional development in educational institutions. Unpublished manuscript. Governors State University, 1975. Sinclair, J.McH. & Coulthard, R.M. Toward an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Skinner, B.F. The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Speier, M. Some conversational problems for interactional analysis. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: The Free Press, 1972. 233 Speisman, J.C. Depth of interpretation and verbal resistance in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959, 23 (2), 93-99. Steward, M.S. & Steward, D.S. Teacher, teach yourself. Audiovisual Instruction, 1970, lg, 26-27. Stewart, N.R., Winborn, 8.8., Burks, H.M., Johnson, R.R., & Engelkes, J.R. Systematic counseling. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, 1978. Stoller, F.H. Group psychotherapy on television: An innovation with hospitalized patients. American Psychologist, 1967, 22_(2), 158- 162. Stoller, F.H. Use of videotape (focused feedback) in group counseling and group therapy. Journal of Research and Development in Educa- tion, 1968, l (2), 30-44. Sudnow, D. (Ed.) Studies in social interaction. New York: The Free Press, 1972. Truax, C.B. Reinforcement and nonreinforcement in Rogerian psycho- therapy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 21, 1-9. Turney, C., Clift, J.C., Dunkin, M.J., & Traill, R.D. Microteaching: Research, theory and practice. Sydney, Australia: Sydney Univer- sity Press, 1973. Vinsonhaler, J.F., Wagner, C.S., & Elstein, A.S. The inquiry theory: An information processing approach to clinical problem solving. Research Series #1. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching, 1977. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press, 1978. Walz, G.R. & Johnston, J.A. Counselors look at themsevles on videotape. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 1963, 19 (3), 232-236. Wilson, S. The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 41 (1), 245-275. Wilson, R. & Gaff, J.G. College professors and their impact on students. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975. Winder, C.L., Ahmen, F.Z., Bandura, A., & Rau, L.C. Dependency of patients, psychotherapists' responses, and aspects of psychotherapy. Journal of Counselinngychology, 1962, gg, 129-134. Wood, L. & Wilson, R.C. Teachers with impact. The Research Reporter, 1972, 1-4 (University of California, Berkeley). 234 Yelon, S.L. & Weinstein, G.L. A teacher's world: Psychology in the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977. Yenawine, G.P. A comparison of audiotape and videotape playback of counselor trainee counseling sessions on individual and group experience in the counseling practicum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston University School of Education, 1969. Young, 0.8. The effectiveness of self instruction in teacher education using modeling and videotape feedback. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1968. Zaltman, G., Florio, D.H. & Sikorski, L.A. Dynamic educational change. New York: The Free Press, 1977. Zimbardo, P. & Ebbesen, E.B. Influencing attitudes and changing behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.