LISTENING AND RELATED VARIABLES

Thesis for {he Deqme of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSE“
Mary Sprueil
19.62

TH ESIE

M

 

1““ - ~—~—-—\

ishigm Mate ,
Ufiivewity l

/

 

 

 

. ——v-v—-'--fi..q——.vv.- 4

 

\\\\\§\‘\\ W

1312

til“

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

 

W k

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

 

 

4—3—— your record. FINES W‘iH
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped be1ow.

«El 1} 5

IWQNU¥{§}é§g§99

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
LISTENING AND RELATED VARIABLES
by Mary Spruell

The purpose of this study is to attempt to determine
the relationship between each pair of the following variables:
picture listening test scores, story listening test scores,
discrimination test scores, intelligence scores, achievement
scores, and teacher ratings of listening scores.

The subjects for this study were 278 elementary school
children in grades one through six. The picture listening
scores, the story listening scores and the discrimination
scores had been previously collected by Elsie M. Edwards,
the Department of Speech, Michigan State University in con—
nection with a listening research project. The intelligence
and the achievement scores were gathered from the subjects'
cumulative school folders. This investigator obtained each
teacher's ratings of listening ability of her students
during an individual rating period.

The findings of this study indicate that there are re-
lationships between certain pairs of the six test variables
although the standard errors of these relationships are‘
probably high. The same relationship for the variables

does not appear to be consistent for the different grades.

Mary Spruell
The variables that show high and low correlations are differ-
ent for some of the grades. A ceiling effect was observed
on several of the tests, especially in the upper elementary
grades.

The conclusions which were drawn from this study sug-
gest that further revision of the picture listening, the
story listening, and the discrimination tests, constructed
by Dr. Edwards, might be done in an attempt to eliminate
the observed ceiling effect. Teacher rating of listening
ability scores tended to have the lowest degree of corre-

lation with all of the other six variables.

Approved: _f( , \ (.1 '

gyirecfior

 

. .
y . )
«. ' ‘ 3 . '\\ ‘

 

’5 // 7m .7

LISTENING AND RELATED VARIABLES

by

Mary Spruell

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
‘ for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

College of Communication Arts, Department of Speech

1962

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.

Introduction. .
Statement of Problem and Purpose of
Study. .

Hypothesis

Importance of Study

Definition of Terms .

Organization of the Thesis

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Listening and Reading.

Listening and Achievement

Listening and Intelligence

Listening Tests. . .

Teaching Listening. . . .

Listening and Teacher Awareness

Listening and Visual Components

Listening and Environment, Sex and
Chronological Age. . . . . . . .
Intelligence Tests. . . . . . . .

Achievement Tests .

III. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND TESTING PROCEDURES
Subjects
Materials. . . . . . . .
Procedure. . . . . . . . . .
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results
Discussion

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
Conclusions .
Implications for Future Study .
BIBLIOGRAPHY. .
APPENDICES

ii

Page

}_J

KOKO \O NU‘IUUUORD

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

Listening is one of the oldest, most used and one of
the most important elements of the interpersonal communi-
cation process.l Wendell Johnson as cited by Anderson says:

As the world grows more ominously voluble by the hour,
the words we hurl at each other are no more confusing .
and maddening or clarifying and calming than our habits
of listening permit them to be. Until they reach our
ears they are mere sound waves, gentle breezes harmless
as a baby's breath. It is through the alchemy of
listening that they become transformed into the para-
lyzing and confulsant toxins of distrust and hate or
the beneficent potions of good will and intelligence.2

Of necessity listening is the chief mode of learning in the
early school years during which children are learning to
read. Throughout the primary grades they find listening

a far better way than reading to gain information.3

 

lRalph G. Nichols and Leonard A. Stevens, Are You
Listening? (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1957).

 

2Harold A. Anderson, "Needed Research in Listening,"
Elementary English, 29 (April, 1952), p. 215

 

3Althea Beery, "Interrelationships Between Listening
and Other Language Arts Areas,” Elementary English, 31
(March, 1954), pp. 164-172.

 

Statement of Problem and Purpose of Study

 

This study is an outgrowth of a research project that
was carried out by several members of the Department of
Speech at Michigan State University in the fall of 1961, in
which attempts were made to determine the relationship
between listening ability and discrimination ability of

elementary school subjects.1

The problem from which this
study arose is the apparent lack of research information
about listening and its related variables. The purpose of
this study is to attempt to determine the relationship
between each pair of the following sets of scores:
listening picture scores, listening story scores, discrim—
ination scores, intelligence scores, achievement scores,
and teacher ratings of listening scores. The scores were
achieved by elementary school subjects in grades one
through six. It is hoped that answers to the following
questions can in part be obtained: (1) Is there a rela-
tionship between pairs of the six test variables, as mea-
sured in grades one through six? (2) For what paired

variables is the relationship the highest? (3) For what

paired variables is the relationship the lowest?

 

1Elsie M. Edwards and Herbert J. Oyer, "The Rela-
tionship Between Listening Ability and Sound Distrimination
of Elementary School Children,” Paper presented to the
American Speech and Hearing Association Convention, Chicago,
Illinois, November 7, 1961.

Hypothesis

 

To answer the above questions the following hypothesis
has been proposed:
1. There is a relationship between certain pairs
of the six test variables.
The results of the study will be analyzed to determine
with which of the paired variables the relationship seems
to be geneally high and with which they appear to have a low

relationship.

Importance of Study

 

In the year 1930, Paul T. Rankin, who was supervising
director of research and adjustment for Detroit Public
Schools, reported on the relative amount of time devoted to
listening as compared to the other language arts. He
selected twenty-one adults of different occupations and
asked them to record, every fifteen minutes, the distri—
bution of time spent talking, reading, writing, and
listening. This survey was carried on for approximately
two months.1

Rankin found that seventy per cent of his subjects'
working day was spent in verbal communication. He also
learned that of all their verbal communication time the

twenty-one adults spent an average of nine per cent in

 

1Paul T. Rankin, "The Im ortance of Listening
Ability," English Journal, 17 October, 1928), pp. 623-630.

 

1;

writing, sixteen per cent in reading, thirty per cent in
talking, and forty-five per cent in listening.1

From this study, Rankin showed that we use almost
three times as much time listening as reading and yet a
survey in the Detroit Schools by Rankin showed that reading
was receiving fifty—two per cent of the emphasis in class-
room instruction and listening was only receiving eight
per cent.2

In a more recent study, Miriam E. Wilt found that
with 530 children at the elementary school level, the
median daily listening time was one hundred and fifty-eight
minutes. The children spent about two and one-half hours
of the five hour school day in listening.3

In 1952 Anderson prepared an exhaustive bibliography
of articles, monographs, and theses in the field of
listening. The total is no more than one hundred and
seventy-five titles. Of these about fifty may be loosely
classified as research.11L

The Knower Index of Graduate Theses in Speech indi—

cates well the steadiness, but noticeable lack of research

 

lIbid. 2Ibld.

3Miriam E. Wilt, ”A Study of Teacher Awareness of
Listening As a Factor in Elementary Education," Journal
of Educational Research, A3 (April, 1950), pp. 626-636.

uAnderson, op. cit., pp. 215-224.

5

in listening. During the last ten years, the Knower Index
has reported a yearly average of eight graduate studies in
listening.1

This paucity of research in the field has hampered
progress in the understanding and the teaching of listening.
It is hoped that some insight into the understanding of
listening and its relationship to other variables might be

gained through a statistical analysis of the scores ob—

tained in this study.

Definition of Terms

 

For the purpose of this study, the terms used are

defined in the following manner:

Picture listening test.—-This measurement was one

 

collected for a research project by the Department of
Speech at Michigan State University in the fall of 1961.2
The first part of the test was composed of twelve rows of
animal pictures, three in each row. An oral stimulus was
given in which the subjects were instructed to mark one
picture in the row with a certain type of mark, e.g., a
circle around the cat, a cross on the goat, a line at the
bottom of the cow, etc. The second part of the test was
composed of twelve rows of pictures, three in each row,

for which a corresponding sound had been recorded. The

 

lFranklin H. Knower, ”Graduate Theses-~An Index of
Graduate Work in Speech," Speech Monographs (carried
annually in one of the issues.

2Edwards, op. cit.

 

6
subjects were instructed to put a mark on the picture of
the one that makes the recorded sound, e.g., put a circle
around the one that makes the sound (ringing of a bell),
put a line under the one that makes the sound (running of

water), etc.

Story listening test.—-This measurement was another

 

one collected for the listening research project at
Michigan State University. The story used was "How Bertha
Giraffe Lost Her Voice" by Katherine Nuttey, taken from

the Grade Teacher, June, 1943.1 After hearing the recorded

 

story, the subjects were to answer fifteen questions. They
were instructed to mark an X on the one picture in a set of
three that answered the question, e.g., Where was Bertha
resting? (picture of giraffe under a tree), What did

Bertha hear in the top of the tree? (picture of a bird),

etc.

Discrimination test.-—This test score was obtained

 

for the study carried out at Michigan State University in
the fall of 1961.2 The test was patterned after the speech
sound discrimination test originally developed by Travis
and Rasmus. Each pictured word pair had a phonetic re-

striction imposed so that only one phoneme could be varied

 

7
in a pair, e.g., pie-pie; pie-tie; and tie—tie, coat—goat;
goat-goat; coat-coat, etc. There were thirty—two rows,
three sets in a row, presented to the subjects, and they

were asked to check the picture of the spoken pair.

Teacher rating score of listening ability.-—A seven

 

point rating scale was given to the teacher by the inves—
tigator on which appeared the names of his students. The
teacher was instructed to estimate the listening ability

of her students.

Intelligence score.--The score, from a test designed

 

to show the relative mental capacity of a person, was
collected from the subjects' school cumulative folder.

Only scores from group tests were used.

Achievement score.--A test for measuring an individ—

 

ual's progress in the mastery of subjects to be learned.
The test is administered according to grade placement level
and is expressed in terms of grade level achievement. This

score was obtained from the subjects' cumulative folder.

Hearing.--Implies that there is a reaction to sound.
It does not necessarily mean that any interpretation is

made.

Auding.-—Don Brown who coined the word as a substitute

for listening defines this new term as "the process of

8
hearing, listening to, recognizing, and interpreting spoken

symbols.”l

Organization of the Thesis

Chapter I has contained the statement of the problem
which led to this study. It has included an introduction
to the topic and a statement of the problem. The hypothesis
to be considered has been put forth, the importance of the
study was discussed, and definitions of terms which will be
used throughout the study were presented.

Chapter II will contain a review of the literature
available on this topic.

Chapter III will consist of a discussion of the sub—
jects, the method of gathering scores, and the criteria for
the elimination of subjects.

Chapter IV will consist of a discussion of the results
of the study.

Chapter V will contain a summary and the conclusions

of the study.

 

1
John G. Caffrey, "Auding," Review of Educational
Research, 25 (April, 1955), pp. 121-138.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Listening and Reading

 

Most of the research concerning the relationship of
listening ability to other language skills has centered
around its effect on reading ability.1 From much of the
research has come conflicting results. According to one
summary, correlations between reading and listening com-
prehension are from .60 to .82.2 Brown and Carlsen as
cited in Keller, found only small correlations between
their test of listening comprehension and tests of reading
comprehension. They concluded that the skills are in no
way identical.3 Caffrey reports from his own Grade V data,
coefficients ranging from .51 to .56 for auding and reading

correlations.

 

1Berry, 0 . cit.

2National Conference on Research in English, Inter—
relationships Among the Language Arts (National Council
Teachers of English Bulletin, 195A), pp. 1-42.

 

 

3Paul w. Keller, "Major Findings in Listening in the
Past Ten Years," JOurnal of Communication, 10 (August, 195L),

pp. 29-38.

 

“Caffrey, o . cit.

10

The improvement in reading cannot be assumed to result
in the improvement in listening. In fact listening ability
which exceeds reading comprehension among primary pupils,
becomes less efficient as reading skill increases.1
Stromer supports this belief and found that while it was
possible to improve listening comprehension through training
in listening, it did not seem possible to increase reading
comprehension through training in listening.2

Iver Moe, as cited by Toussaint, studied the prog-
nostic value that auding tests have for readin . He found
that in the first grade a single test of auding ability in
the fall predicted reading performance in March as well as,
or better than, either of two reading readiness tests or
an intelligence test. His findings for second and third
graders were inconclusive.3

Owen, as cited by Toussaint, tested the predictable
value of listening tests at the primary level. His

findings show that with children from grades two, three,

and four, reading expectancy can be predicted more

 

lChester W. Harris (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational
Research (New York: MacMillian Company, 1960), pp. 309-310.

 

2Walter F. Stromer, "An Investigation Into Some of
the Relationships Between Reading, Listenin , and Intelli-
gence," Speech Monographs, 21 (August, 1954 , pp. 159—160.

3Isabelle H. Toussaint, ”A Classified Summary of
Listening, 1950-1959," Journal of Communication, 10
(September, 1960), pp. 125-134.

 

ll
accurately by combined measures of reading and listening
than by using a single measure of intelligence or listening.
Spache as cited by Caffrey suggested that measures of
auding ability mark ceilings for reading ability.1
Schonell as cited by Berry reports a study in which
he rates weakness in auditory discrimination of speech
sounds as one of the most important and most frequently
occurring causal factors in poor reading.2
Paul Keller reports that,
work done in the fifties has seemed to support con-
vincingly the assumption that listening is a
phenomenon clearly separable from reading. The
impact of the finding [cited, to be sure, from only
part of the studies available] appears to be to
establish a clear-cut profile of listening as a

complex of skills separable from those involved in
reading.

Listening and Achievement

 

N. F. Stump found the coefficient with oral examin-
ation and mental ability is nearly four times as large as
with the written examination: r = 0.74 and r = 0.20,
respectively. Since there is a much higher relationship
between scores in the oral examination and mental ability,
he concluded, at least tentatively that the oral examin-
ation is somewhat superior in telling the true story of

ii

achievement.

 

lCaffrey, op. cit. 2Beery, op. cit.

3Keller, op. cit., pp. 30—31.

4N. F. Stump, "Oral Versus Printed Methods in the
Presentation of the True—False Examination,” Journal of
Educational Research, 18 (December, 1928), pp. A23-424.

 

l2

Keller indicated that scholastic aptitude as a corre-
lation of listening at this stage of research appears to be
a "moot matter." In support of this belief, Keller cites
the following studies: Brown and Carlsen see a moderate
correlation between listening comprehension and scholastic
success; John A. Haberland finds little agreement between
listening test results and academic ratings; and Paul I.
McClendon reports a positive correlation between listening
comprehension and scholastic aptitude. Keller offers the
lack of uniformity in their respective definitions of
"scholastic aptitude” asia possible explanation to these

seeming contradictions.l

Listening and Intelligence

 

There is a need for research to ascertain the rela-
tionship between listening competence and intelligence and
between listening and school achievement. Anderson believes
the few studies which have been done have minor findings as
’compared with the importance of the questions.2

Rankin as cited by Caffrey reported a correlation of
.56 between scores of three hundred elementary school
children on auding and the Detroit Intelligence Test.
Caffrey further reported Dow's auding-intelligence corre-
lation of .44 and Hall's correlation of the same factors at
.48. Caffrey himself reported an auding—intelligence

correlation of .58.3

 

lKeller, op. cit., p. 34. 2Anderson, op. cit.
3Caffrey, op. cit.

13

Althea Berry reports two more studies in her article
in which the correlation range between intelligence and
listening is r = .27 reported by Knower, Phillip and
Koeppel to r = .56 from a study by Arthur W. Hellman.l

Stromer in his investigation of listening defined
good listeners as those who ranked below the fifteenth
percentile. He then reported that the good listeners
were found to have significantly higher mean scores on the
following aspects of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence
Scale: full scale, total verbal, total performance,
information, vocabulary, similarities, arithmetic, picture
completion,and block design. He reported no significant
differences between the scores of the good and poor
listeners on the following aspects of the Wechsler-Bellevue

Intelligence Scale: comprehension, digit span, picture

arrangement, object assembly, and digit symbol.2

Listening Tests

 

Anderson contends that one immediate reason for the
lag in research with listening is that no test of listening
ability has been available.3 Recently a number of experi-

menters have succeeded in developing tests of listening

 

lBerry, op. cit.

2Stromer, op. cit., p. 160.

3Anderson, op. cit.

14
comprehension possessing encouragingly high degrees of
reliability and validity. Keller contends that most
significantly, perhaps has been the standardization and
continued use and refinement of two such tests: The Brown-
Carlsen Listening Comprehension Test and the test developed
by the Educational Testing Service (Princeton, New Jersey,
1951). The Brown—Carlsen Test has become a part of the
World Book Company's ”Evaluation and Adjustment Series."
Perfect reliability is not claimed for the test, but satis-
factory correlations with several tests of mental maturity,
intelligence, verbal skills, and mental ability appear to
confirm its usefulness. Norms are established for grades
nine through college freshmen. Another differently con-
structed listening test is the one produced by the Educa-
tional Testing Service as part of its "Sequential Tests of
Educational Progress.” The latter test differs from the
former not only in content but also in its provision of
forms, each with its own norms for grades four through

college sophomore.l

Teaching Listening

 

Good listening requires an enormous amount of energy
as listening concentration is greater than the concentration
required during any other form of personal communication.

According to Nichols and Stevens, this concentration is

 

lKeller, op. cit., pp. 31-32.

15

caused by the fact that we think much faster than someone
talks. Our brains deal with words at a lightening pace;
about five hundred words per minute, but when listening
the brain must think at an extremely slow pace; the average
person speaks at about the rate of one hundred and twenty-
five words per minute. It is what one does with this spare
time that holds the key to concentration in listening.1

Nichols and Stevens list the four following mental
processes that good listeners use theirspeze thinking time
for:
The listener thinks ahead of the talker,
The listener weighs the verbal evidence used
by the talker to support his points,

Periodically he reviews the talk,
He listens between the lines.

PU) [DH

Concentration upon the processes will improve the listening
ability and it will leave little time for one to attend to
mental tangents leading off into the world of distraction.
Nichols and Stevens when asked "What do you do to
teach listening?” offer the following answer to the ques-
tion:
When teaching students to listen, we first motivate
them by increasing their awareness of the values
obtainable through the auditory channels of learning;

then we build experignce in the habits that make for
effective listening.

lNichols, op. cit.

2Ibid.

3Ralph G. Nichols and Leonard A. Stevens "You Don‘t
Know How to Listen," Colliers, 132 (July, 1953), pp. 18-19.

16

After the operation of a listening program at the
University of Minnesota, Nichols reported in Colliers
that the effectiveness of the training is proven by an
average gain of twenty-five per cent in the listening
proficiency of the groups. Assuming that the untrained
efficiency level is as he reports it, a twenty-five per
cent efficiency level, the average trained listener is
operating at a fifty per cent efficiency level.l

Two studies cited by Keller have further evidence
that training can make a significant difference in lis-
tening comprehension. In the first, Arthur W. Hellman
demonstrated a gain in listening ability that was signifi-
cant beyond the one per cent level of statistical confi-
dence for college freshmen after their being subjected
to six weekly training lessons of only about twenty
minutes each. The other study by Edward Pratt confirmed
these findings when he subjected forty classes of sixth
grade students to a series of training sessions. The ex—
perimental classes showed a gain of listening comprehension
statistically significant beyond the one per cent level.
Pratt's results suggested that the listening instruction
imposed on the subjects was effective regardless of

varying levels of intelligence.2

 

llbid.

2Keller, 0 . cit., p. 33.

17

Listening and Teacher Awareness

 

Wilt carried out a study designed to find out how
much children are supposed to listen3whether teachers are
aware of how much they expect children to listen;and last
to determine whether teachers are sensitive to the needs of
all the children in an oral language situation rather than
only to the needs of those who are doing the speaking or
reading. The summary of the data is reported below:

1. Teachers estimate that children learned by
listening 74.3 minutes; observation showed
they listen 158 minutes;

2. Children are expected to spend more time in
listening then any other single activity in
the elementary school according to the timed
observations;

3. Teachers are unaware of the amount of time
they expect children to listen;

4. Seventy and one—half per cent of the teachers
considered the needs of the speaker or the
oral reader to be more important than those
of the listener;

5. Teacher was being listened to fifty—four per
cent of the listening time, children heard
only thirty—one per cent of the time.1

Listening and Visual Components
Keller discusses two studies, one by Edward Kramer
and the other by John J. O‘Neill, which reveal statisti-
cally significant advantage favoring the speaker who is
present over the one who is not visible. O‘Neill's study

attempts to discover to what extent individuals with

normal hearing make use of lip-reading cues to gain

 

lWilt, op. cit.

18

information as they listen. O'Neill concludes that the use

of lip-reading cues was appreciable.l

Caffrey cites a study by Gauger which reports that a
speaker's use of gestures improved high school students

auding and that auding scores were higher when the speaker

was visible.2

Toussaint cites several studies which have suggested,

that it is not always important that the material be
well organized, or spoken fluently but it is important
that the speaker be seen and that the material of his
speech be of high quality. Who the speaker is and how
well he is liked also carry weight with the listener.3

Listening and Environment, Sex
and Chronological Age

 

Hall as discussed in Caffrey reports a correlation of
.36 between auding scores of fifth grade children and
ratings of their fathers' occupations}1L Nichols and
Stevens report the following research result: "good
listening in children is related to occupations of parents,
that is, rural children tend to be better listeners than

urban children.”5

 

lKeller, op. cit., p. 35.
2Caffrey, op. cit.

3Ibid.

4 .
Toussaint, op. cit., pp. 126-127.

5Nichols, Are You Listening?, 0 . cit.

 

19

Both Nichols and Caffrey as cited by Caffrey report
a sex difference in auding ability in favor of boys. The
male superiority was not very great but was quite consis-
tently noted and did not appear to be a function of item
content or of age or mental ability.

Karraker and Caffrey as reported in Caffrey note
little relation between auding ability and chronological
age for high school students but there was a slight step-

wise increase in auding skill at each grade level.

Intelligence Tests

 

The Science Research Associates Primary Mental

 

.Abilities Test.--The Primary Mental Abilities test forms

 

insed were (a) for ages five to seven, Grades Kindergarten
tflqrough two, and (b) elementary; ages seven to eleven,
C}l?ades three through six. The tests were developed by L.
IL. Thurstone and Thelma Gwinn Thurstone, Science Research
Ilsssociates.
The following information was given by Normal
Iflrenderiksen and Albert K. Kurtz when the tests were re-

‘Vtieavved for the Fifth Mental Measurement Yearbook:l

 

Reliability: The reliabilities reported in the five-
53€?\f€an.age group technical supplement are split-half reli—
ablLlities, even for the highly speeded perceptual speed

t3EEES'tL. The reliabilities range from .77 for verbal meaning
\

lOscar Krisen Buros (ed.), The Fifth Mental Measure-

g%§;3:L1E£$ Yearbook (Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press,
59 r, pp. 708-717.

 

 

20
to .96 for perceptual speed. The reliabilities reported for
the 7-11 level tests are based on Kuder—Richardson Formula
20. The correlations range from .79 to .95.

Validity: Validity data of various sorts are presented
in the three manuals. Correlations with intelligence tests
such as the Stanford-Binet and Kuhlmann-Anderson are high.

At the 5—7 levels single tests such as those for verbal and
reasoning ability correlate as high as .75 with Binet I.Q.’s
with multiple correlations in the .80’s. Correlations with
reading readiness tests are above .50. At the 7-11 age level
the correlations with I.Q's are slightly lower. High corre—
lations with arithmetic and reading are reported with this
level.

Over-all Evaluation: This is not an excellent test
laattery but is a good one. It is objective, easy to admin—
:Lster and has high face validity. It correlates fairly well
urith achievement test scores and some high score grades; it
cicpes not correlate with vocational training ratings or with

c3c>llege graduates. The chief defect is that there are so

ifeaur studies of its predictive value.

The Metropolitan Readiness Tests.--The Metropolitan
Fieeeakdiness Test has two alternate forms—-R and S. The test
“’Elfs reviewed by Eric R. Gardner, Associate Professor of Edu~
C353-13110n Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, in the Epppph

§g§322£1;al Measurements Yearbook.l

\

n1 lOscar Krisen Buros (ed.), The Fourth Mental Measure—

jrggliilés Yearbook (Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press,
53) , pp. 604—606.

 

21

Reliability: The median reliability coefficients
(Pearson r's between two forms administered a few days apart)
of six determinations, based on groups of from 90 to 273 of
beginning first grade pupils are provided for each subtest
for the sum of scores on Tests 1—4 (reading readiness),
and for total score. The reported reliability of tests 1-4
is .83; of Number Tests, .84; and of the total score, .89.
The corresponding standard errors of measurement are 3.7,
1.9, and 4.6.

Validity: Face validity is claimed for the test, and
some statistical data are presented as evidence of validity.
In a study involving 487 cases, all of the forty-four pupils
rated as "Superior” on the tests administered in September,
1948, were found to be above the national norm in average
"reading achievement," and all but one above the norm in
Numbers when tested in February, 1949, on the appropriate
tests of Primary I Battery of the Metropolitan Achievement
Tests.

Over-all Evaluation: From the technical point of
view, the Metropolitan Readiness Tests are among the super-

ior readiness tests available.

Achievement Tests

 

Stanford Achievement Test.~-The 1953 revised Stanford

 

Achievement Test was reviewed by L. L. Gage, Professor of

Education, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois in the

22
Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook.l
Reliability: Each manual presents split-half reli—
ability coefficients corrected by the Spearman-Brown
formula for each subject and each grade level for which a
given battery is intended. Each of these is based on
about 240 pupils drawn at random from 34 school systems.
With these are presented the means, standard deviations
and standard errors of measurement. The fifty-two reli-
ability coefficients range from .66 to .96 with a median
value of approximately .88. All but nine of the reli-
ability coefficients are .85 or higher.
Validity: The claim for validity of the tests is
based on the "content of the typical elementary school cur-

riculum, in addition to extensive experimentation prior to

publication.”

First Reader and Second Reader Achievement Test for
Alice and Jerry Basic Reading Program.—-This test is pub-
lished by the Row-Peterson Company. Neither reliability

nor validity coefficients were obtainable.2

 

1Euros, The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook, pp,
cit., pp.75—80.

 

2Interview with Professor in the Department of Edu-
cation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

CHAPTER III

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Subjects

Elementary school children in grades one through six
were subjects in this study. There were fifty-four first
graders, forty-eight second graders, twenty-eight third
graders, thirty-three fourth graders, sixty-eight fifth
graders, and forty-seven sixth graders. All of the subjects
were enrolled in a public school in the Lansing area.
Those students for whom scores on all six variables, as de-
fined in Chapter I, were unobtainable, were eliminated from
the study.

The fourteen teachers, whose classes were involved in
the listening research project in the fall of 1961, com—

pleted the teacher ratings of listening on the subjects.

Materials

 

The raw listening and discrimination scores obtained
in the earlier investigation were utilized. Edwards
collected scores through use of the picture listening test,
the story listening test, and the discrimination test de-

fined in Chapter I.

23

24
A Listening Ability Scale for teacher ratings was
devised by the writer and used to gather teacher rated
scores for each of the subjects. The scale used zero as
the cell for average listening ability with three points
above and three points below the average cell. The scale

appears in Appendix B.

Procedure

 

1. Collecting the Listening and Discrimination

 

Scores.——The writer had access to the scored forms used in
the previously mentioned study. The data gathering proce-
dure for the listening research project is quoted in
Appendix A. The scored forms were separated first by grade
and then according to each of the teachers within the grade.
The names of each subject and his raw score for the picture
listening test, the story listening test, and the discrimin-
ation test were recorded on a Raw Data Sheet. The same Raw
Data Sheet also contained the scores achieved by each sub-
ject on the other three variables, i.e., the intelligence
score, the achievement score, and the teacher rating of
listening ability score.

2. Collecting the Intelligence and Achievement

 

Scores.—-The school administration granted the writer per-
mission to have access to the students’ cumulative folders,
providing the identity of the subjects was destroyed. The
raw scores that were recorded therein were used, providing

the same test measurement had been used for each subject

25
in that grade, e.g., The Primary Mental Abilities Test was
used for most of the fifth grade subjects. Only those sub-
jects whose scores were computed from this group test were
used. The same procedure was followed with regard to the
achievement score.

3. Collecting the Teacher-Rated Listening Ability

 

Scores.—-The writer attended a teachers' meeting at the
public schoOl at which time the teachers were given an
explanation of the experiment.

Arrangements with the principal were made that enabled
the investigator to see each teacher, individually, as her
class came for its library period. Upon arrival, the
teacher was given an instruction sheet to read. Another
brief explanation of the study was given and instructions
regarding the use of the "Listening Ability” rating sheet
were included. The ”Talk to the Teachers Meeting” is
presented in Appendix C. As the teachers were seen individ-
ually for the fifteen minute rating period, they were asked

to read the ”Instructions” found in Appendix D.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results
The test results were tabulated and subjected to a
statistical treatment. It was the desire of the writer
to determine the relationship between each pair of the six

variables employed in the study.

Bivariate Frequency Distribution.--A Bivariate Fre-

 

quency Distribution was plotted from the raw data for each
pair of the variables and is presented in Appendix F. The
coding of the variables that appears on Appendix F and
other Appendices is shown in Appendix E. The raw scores
were grouped into intervals to keep the rows and columns

as close to fifteen as possible. The cells contain values
from one to six. Each of the numbers within a cell is an
expression of the number of subjects who achieved corre—
sponding scores on the variables represented by the rows
and columns. An inspection of the Bivariate Frequency
Distributions indicated that most of the variables were

not linearly related. Therefore the correlation ratio (eta)
was selected for the analysis rather than Product Moment r.
The data on the Bivariate Frequency Distribution were coded

and analyzed in the Michigan State University Computer
26

27
Laboratory. Further analyses were done by the investigator

with a desk calculator to obtain eta coefficients.

Curvilinear Correlation.--The correlation ratio, eta,

 

is the variance due to the difference between column-means
taken as a ratio to the total variance in the bivariate

frequency distribution. The formula employed was:1

E2 = Between-groups sums of squares
Total sum of squares

 

The correlation ratios that were obtained can be found on

each of the Bivariate Frequency Distributions in Appendix F.

Correlation—Ratio Matrix.——A Correlation—Ratio Matrix

 

using the eta scores is plotted for each grade and is pre-
sented in Appendix G, Table 1 through Table 6. The Matrix
was plotted by taking the eta score from the Bivariate Fre-
quency Distributions and placing it with the same variables
that appeared on the Bivariate Frequency Distribution. The
coded variables are listed on the left side and on the top

of the matrix.

Discussion

 

Eta correlations were computed on the six variables
employed in this study and are reported in Appendix F on
the Bivariate Frequency Distributions. Upon close obser-

vation of the Bivariate Frequency Distributions it becomes

 

1Virginia L. Senders, Measurement and Statistics
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 237.

 

28
apparent that the subjects in the upper grades are grouped
at the top limit on several of the tests. This ceiling
effect is very evident in grade five and six on the pic-
ture listening test, on the discrimination test and on the
story listening test. The Bivariate Frequency Distribution
sheets were included because it was felt that an inspection
of the raw data would yield more information than that ob-
tained from the correlation ratio. The ceiling effect as
shown on the Bivariate Frequency Distributions resulted in
data that are not readily amenable to statistical analyses.
Many of the correlations appear to be spuriously high. The
Bivariate Frequency Distributions (Appendix F) show that a
radically deviated score is often responsible for the high
correlation. The deviant subject's score may have been
caused by the presence of an unknown factor such as hearing
loss, emotional disturbance, etc. Since the school year had
ended it was not possible to obtain further information on
individual subjects.

The results tend to lend support to the hypothesis
stated in Chapter I: There is a relationship between cer-
tain pairs of the six variables. The correlations between
each pair of the six variables for each grade are presented
in Appendix G. The eta correlations between each pair of
variables are grouped as Moderate, .50 to .75; Low, .25 to
.49, and Non predictive, .00 to .24 and are presented as

Table 7 in Appendix H. Green explains that the correlation

29
has the following rough significance when the group is
large--300 or more. For small groups the correlations are
in general less significant.1
.50 to .75 These coefficients are not high enough
to make good individual predictions,
because many who are below average on
one test will be above average on the
other. The extremes of the group are
predicted fairly well. Coefficients
are useful for indicating group trends.
.25 to .49 These coefficients are too low for in—
dividual use, but they roughly indicate
group trends, and can be used to supple-
ment other kinds of predictions.

.00 to .25 These coefficients are often not signifi-
cantly different from zero.

The following pairs of the variables appear to show
a relationship:

The picture listening score and the intelligence
scores show a correlation in grades one and two. This is
to be expected as the picture listening test appears to be
quite similar to the Primary Mental Abilities test.

Achievement and intelligence scores show the highest
degree of correlation in grades four and five. The scores
were obtained through the use of standardized tests and a
linear relationship appears to be present between the two
variables. This same correlation would be expected in
grade six but because of the spuriously high correlation of
two other sets of variables it appears to have the third
highest correlation, even though it too is a moderate corre—

lation.

 

1Edward B. Green, Measurement of Human Behavior (New
York: Odyssey Press, 1952), p. 49.

 

30

The lowest correlation determined in five of the six
grades involved the teacher rating of listening score with
either the picture listening test score or the story lis-
tening test score. In grades one, four, and six, the lowest
correlation was between teacher rating of listening ability
score and the the story listening test score. In grades
three and five the lowest correlation exists between teacher
rating of listening ability score and the picture listening
test score. Grade two shows the lowest correlation between
the teacher rating of listening ability score and the dis—
crimination test score. There are no high or low relation—
ships evidenced throughout all of the grades.

In considering the correlations stated it is important
to be aware of the ceiling effect that has been demonstrated.
The information obtained by a careful inspection of the
Bivariate Frequency Distributions (Appendix F) is more
valid than the correlation ratios, which were derived from
them. Another fact that should be remembered is that the
number of subjects for any analysis is no greater than sixty—
eight. The standard errors of eta in this study would,
therefore, be fairly large and the correlations would be
subject to change on repeated investigation. The eta co—
efficients stated should be thought of as only roughly esti-

mated values for the population sampled.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summar

Listening is one of the oldest, most used and one
of the most important elements of the interpersonal com—
munication process. Research has shown that people tend
to spend approximately forty—five per cent of their working
day in listening. Children in the primary grades use
listening as the chief mode of learning and continue to
spend more time in listening than in any other single
activity in the elementary school program.

The purpose of this study has been an attempt to
determine the relationship between each pair of the
following six sets of variables: the picture listening
test scores, the story listening test scores, the discrim—
ination test scores, intelligence scores, achievement
scores, and teacher ratings of listening ability scores.
Attention was given to the variables with the highest and
the lowest degree of correlation.

The importance of this study centers around the
possibilities of gaining insight into the relationship of

listening and related variables in the elementary school.

31

32

A review of the literature concerning listening indi-
cated that compared to the importance of the subject, there
exists a paucity of research. At best a great amount of
even this research yields conflicting results. Research
must be continued in an attempt to clarify the current
trends and in order to gain an understanding of listening's
relationship to other variables.

The subjects for this study were 278 elementary school
children in grades one through six, enrolled in a public
school in the Lansing area. The subjects had previously
been involved in a listening research project. The sub-
jects for whom scores on all six variables were unobtainable
were eliminated from the study.

The findings of this study indicate that there is a
relationship between certain pairs of the six test variables.
The same relationship for the variables does not appear to
be consistent for the different grades. The variables that
show high and low correlations are different for some of
the grades. A ceiling effect is observable on several of

the tests, especially in the upper elementary grades.

Conclusions

 

1. Revision of the picture listening test, the story
listening test, and the discrimination tests would be bene~
ficial as an attempt to eliminate the grouping of subjects

at the upper limit of the tests.

33

2. There is not a correlation between any set of
variables that is consistent for all grades, but this may
be due in part to the large standard error of eta.

3. Teacher ratings of listening scores as compared
to all the six variables appears to have the over-all

lowest correlation and non predictive value.

Implications for Future Study

 

It would be interesting to know if the Brown-Carlsen
Listening Test, as reviewed in Chapter II, or the listening
test developed by the Educational Testing Service of New
Jersey, also reviewed in Chapter II, evidenced a ceiling
effect during the developmental stages. Could the ceiling
effect still be a problem of the test? The following ques—
tions might be set forth for future study:

1. Would the introduction of another variable, such
as white noise, help to eliminate the ceiling effect on the
story listening test,iflmapicture listening test, and the
discrimination test?

2. Might a relationship exist between teacher ratings
of listening ability and teacher ratings of general behavior

in the classroom?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

American Education Research Association. ”Listening,"
Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by
Chester W. Harris. Third edition. New York:
MacMillian Company, 1960.

 

 

Buros, Oscar Krisen (ed.). The Fifth Mental Measurements
Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press,
1959.

The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook. High-
land Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1953.

 

Green, Edward B. Measurements of Human Behavior. New
York: The Odyssey Press, 1952.

 

Nichols, Ralph G. and Stevens, Leonard A. Are You
Listening? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1957.

Russell, David H. and Russell, Elizabeth R. Listening
Aids Through the Grades. New York: Bureau of Pub-
lications, Teachers College, Columbia University,

1959-

 

 

 

Senders, Virginia L. Measurement and Statistics. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1958}

 

Periodicals

 

Anderson, Harold A. ”Needed Research in Listening,”
Elementary English,24 (April, 1952), pp. 215-224.

 

Barbe, Walter and Meyer, Robert. "Developing Listening
Ability in Children,” Elementary English, 31 (Feb-
ruary, 1954), p. 82.

 

Beery, Althea. "Interrelationships Between Listening and
Other Language Arts Areas,” Elementary English, 31
(March, 1954), pp. 164—172.

 

34

35

Caffrey, John G. "Auding," Review of Educational Research,
25 (April, 1955), pp. 121-138.

 

Hampleman, Richard. ”Comparison of Listening and Reading
Comprehension Ability of Fourth and Sixth Grade
Pupils," Elementary English, 35 (January, 1958), p. 49.

 

Keller, Paul W. "Major Findings in Listening in the Past
Ten Years," Journal of Communication, 10 (March,

1960), pp. 29—38.

 

Knower, Franklin H. ”Graduate Theses——An Index of Graduate
Work in Speech,” Speech Monographs (carried annually
in one of the issues).

 

Nichols, Ralph. ”Factors in Listening Comprehension,”
Speech Monographs, 15 (No. 2, 1948), pp. 154-163.

 

Nichols, Ralph and Stevens, Leonard A. "You Don‘t Know
How to Listen,” Colliers, 132 (July, 1953), pp. 16-19.

Rankin, Paul T. ”The Importance of Listening Ability,”
English Journal, 17 (October, 1928), pp. 623-630.

 

Stromer, Walter F. "An Investigation Into Some of the Rela-
tionships Between Reading, Listenin , and Intelligence,‘
Speech Monographs, 21 (August, 1954 , pp. 159—160.

1

 

Stump, N. F. "Oral Versus Printed Method in the Presen—
tation of the True—False Examination,” Journal of
Educational Research, 18 (December, 1928), pp. 423-
424.

 

 

Toussaint, Isabelle H. ”A Classified Summary of Listening:
1950-1959,” Journal of Communication, 10 (September,
1960), pp. 125-134.

 

Wilt, Miriam E. "A Study of Teacher Awareness of Listening
As a Factor in Elementary Education,” Journal of Edu-
cational Research, 43 (April, 1950), pp. 625—636.

 

 

Reports

National Conference on Research in English. Interrelation—
ships Among the Language Arts. National Council
Teachers of English Bulletin, 1954.

 

 

36

Unpublished Material

 

Edwards, Elsie M. and Oyer, Herbert J. ”The Relationship
Between Listening Ability and Sound Discrimination
of Elementary School Children." Paper presented to

the American Speech and Hearing Association Conven-
tion, Chicago, Illinois, November, 1961.

APPENDICES

37

APPENDIX A
PROCEDURE EMPLOYED IN THE EARLIER RESEARCH PROJECT

The need for determining the relationship between
active listening ability and auditory discrimination has
been apparent for several years. An attempt was made to
construct a set of objective group tests to answer this
demand. The items in the tests were selected to be used
over a range of abilities from grade one to grade six in
the elementary schools. The tests were set up so that
children might respond to the test stimuli through multiple
choice pictures in order to eliminate any possibility of
failure because of reading difficulties.

All tests were tape recorded under favorable listening
conditions and the additional tapes were dubbed from the
original. Definite directions were given on the recording,
however, a short explanation was prepared to be given to
each group before testing in order to orient the children
and to get them set for a favorable attitude toward lis—
tening.

Each item in the listening, part one, was different in
stimulus and response so that children could not follow a
set pattern of marking. The first item in each group was a
direct stimulus to mark the picture with a certain type of
mark such as a cross, a circle, a line through, a line above
or below the picture. The second item was to put one of
these marks on the picture of the thing that made the
recorded sounds, e.g., a barking dog or a familiar enviorn-
mental sounds superimposed on white noise. Each presented
a little more difficult listening situation.

The second part of the test was a recorded story l'How
Bertha Giraffe Lost Her Voice,” by Katherine E. Nuttey,
taken from the Grade Teacher, June, 1943. This story ap—
pealed to children from the first through the sixth grade
in a pilot study carried out prior to the present study.

The excellent cooperation of the administrative and
teaching staff made it possible to test 375 children at the
same time two afternoons, thus eliminating the time of day
effect on the testing.

Sound pressure level readings were made in each room
before testing. Testing conditions were favorable with a
sound pressure level range of ambient noises which was be—
tween 54-56 db on a 0 scale reading. An intoned [a] was
recorded on each tape and permitted the investigators to
calibrate the level of the stimuli at 70 db.

38

 

39

The tests appeared to have a face validity on the
small scale pilot study. Further study may determine the
need to change a few test items, particularly in the
auditory discrimination test. It appears that the tests
have measured the active listening ability of elementary
school children in a more efficient manner than the auditory
discrimination for sounds.

Teacher:

APPENDIX B

LISTENING ABILITY

Room:

 

 

Listening Ability

 

 

 

+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

APPENDIX C

TALK TO THE TEACHERS MEETING

This study is a follow-up of the experiment that you
took part in last fall here at the school. As you will re-
call, the experiment was done by Dr. Edwards and her

methods
to find
test of
ability
At that
tests.

class from Michigan State University. They attempted
the listening ability of students through a listening
pictures and a story. They tested the discrimination
of the students through a discrimination picture test.
time the staff allotted time in the afternoon for the

In this follow—up experiment, we are asking the four—
teen teachers whose classes were involved in the original
experiment to donate fifteen minutes of their time for a
further evaluation of listening. This time will be ar—
ranged during your classes' library period during the week
of May 7, 1962. As your class comes to the Library, Mr.

Chapman,

principal, has requested that I see you then in the

room next to his office.

The information I will be seeking at the time of my
visit is your estimation of the child's listening ability.
By his listening ability is meant listening within these

limits:

1. Large group situations,
2. Small group situations,
3. Playground situations,
4. Interaction with other children.

When someone attempts to stimulate him in the above situ—

ations,

how does he respond? Do you have to call him once

or several times before he responds? And so forth.
During my fifteen minute visit with you I will give
you a sheet like this (see Appendix B) which will have each

of your
average

students' names typed on it. The zero marks the
listening ability with three points above and three

points below it.

I will give you more information about the sheet at
the time of my visit.

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

41

APPENDIX D

INSTRUCTIONS

This Listening Ability Scale (Appendix B) has all of
your students' names on it and I would like for you to
rate, as objectively as possible, their listening ability.
As you may recall last Thursday, I explained that by lis—
tening ability I meant listening within these limits:

Large group situations,

Small group situations,
Playground situations,
Interaction with other children.

fiUURDI—J

When someone attempts to stimulate him in the above situ—
ations, how does he respond? Do you have to call him once
or several times before he responds? And so forth.

And now a brief look at the scale. The zero marks
the average listening ability and there are three points
above and three points below the average mark. If a stu-
dent is better than an average listener, how much better?
One plus, two plus, etc. If he is a poor listener, how
much below the average is he? Minus one, minus two, etc.

I would like to ask that you try to use the full
width of the scale in doing this task.

Again, thank you.

42

APPENDIX E

'CODING OF THE VARIABLES

The six variables will appear coded as follows on
the Bivariate Frequency Distributions (Appendix F), on
the Correlation—Ratio Matrix (Appendix G), and on the
Degree of Relationship Between Paired Variables (Appen-
dix H):

1. Listening picture test: LP

2. Listening story test: LS
3. Discrimination test: D
4. Teacher rating of

listing ability: TR
5. Intelligence score: I
6. Achievement: A

43

 

 

 

 

QH

 

 

 

 

F0

 

 

F!

 

 

 

 

.4 F! a: ‘H In

 

Ni

rfl

 

 

 

 

 

11.131.11.31

 

 

 

H

"W“

 

H

«a

 

u

an

 

 

ea

 

mi,

 

 

H

is.
lit."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hnuunmuovoapdm COHpmHohpoo

H.uoU8hU

"mCESHoo
huflfiflflflfifl

Hflamzom

"ZOHBDQHMBmHQ NOZWDGMME mB<Hm¢>Hm

. ha. *3 u.. y .1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.n m

a d [1H 64.

m

a A .n «a

a in. m A a

w J a

H mm

IN L." w .n 3

A H a a N S

N d A A a an

d N H a a."

A w A a

a A A u a.

d a a mm

a

A . _ AM

AdditalldlfldijfllwwuflfifduJflwIHHmHMduTfllu
X R .3 .2. a. -3 3+ fl .3 2 on on an 3 - «A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm. Ascovofism dofloaoasoo H “moose H «mdssaoo ”Inseam. “zOHeDmHEmHn Mozmpdmmm me<.H.m§Hm

 

won-359A "HE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H m
a a a ea
a
m «a
a u a Q
m H in
.n m."
H a n a 3
W .n N 2”
a a u H 3
H H N H ma
- a w u N 8
w a m a
at M mm
mm
in . AM

k e. we . WI 1.. in. , u a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aw. "Ascovodpsm dodpodossoo H "moose E. sessions .3 “asom uzoEDmHmBmHn Nozmodmmm me<Hm§Hm
a Son..." flag

 

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A a
a a .a.
H
H H H «H
w M MH
. a w .2.
«n mH
n M .n «1
a J A d a
JH H m: H OH
H m H mH
N N H H ON
H N N HN
H N mm
s.
A _ .
AHHIJHrHuIHdquflrJJJWfiJIHdH in
an a . mu 3 an .NN , ON mH. 0H

 

and "Adamvodpdm doaudammhoo H . "momma a

 

umGESHOU a "950m "ZOHBDmHHmfiwHQ NOZMDGMWfl MB¢HM<>HQ
EUOIUM HHE

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HI-l

 

«Ni

.41

HHNH

 

 

 

PI PI N M M .

 

 

 

.IIHaH
a

 

 

H1

 

 

 

E.
Q.

 

3

H

“mm

"flunk

 

 

3

"El“

 

 

 

 

am

"mi

«a

nun.

%

[Hull

 

 

a“

nnwwuu
NH

[[ansnanaesrend

 

 

QH

 

nn.uAnpoV0necm doapcaoaaoo H "moose H "edesaoo mulgazom "ZOHBDmHmemHQ wozmbdmmm mesHm<>Hm
uluannsqxaannunanu

 

 

...;'I"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a a

m

.n o

p

H a m

H .n m

+ a 3

.n J .n .n L." dn
N m o H H a 2

a N m m m...“

.n w H 4n

n ma

m H N ca
AW!H|JWMHMWI&IHWH%HWIHHH%H

mm. 8 an mu 4N «N on m." 0H 4n

$33.93 03mm 20333.80 lulumowpw immofllumzom “zoEbmHmaqu wozmbammm 5352/3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H

m

H m

p

H H a

H H m

m S

H u H w H H H

f N N H n a H «H
a u H a a HH
H N H HH

, u H H
H H H H H 3
H a w1 H H.» «IMF—““3"
LII\\II

NH. "Amamv OHpm‘m COHpmHmcHeHoo H “mowhm flu 585300 a umxom "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ MOZMDQmmm E¢Hm¢>Hm

Ilia-595.03... n§_._

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H
H
HNH
I...
N
Fl
N

 

 

NHI-‘I
N

 

HL N: Hi .2 a
N
H
NI Hi
HJ

N u-Il

m.
N!

 

H

"unwoumlflwuflwauJ z. ddufldfilflflmfl%w%l4lflfiulfl|4flrmfl
258332.38 $333 8.332

HW. "Ampmq Odumm HHOHomeflcHOO H umvmhw H “mCEHHHOO flu. ”mkom "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ MOZMDGWE mB¢Hm<>Hm
an HHS;

 

 

H
N
m
a
m
0
fl
H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fi\ r4 In as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ymm

«n

 

Jan

 

 

 

‘3:# Ci :4 Fl U\ £3 ‘N

 

1

[null

 

 

fi4[c-IHNNMH

RN

Ill

ulmdl

"j

!

Infill

 

 

 

 

ON

a."

0H

4n

5- (D In .3 W\ (H :4

 

 

4N. "Adpmg 0.3mm. COHpmHmeHeHoo

ll

H "momma .— “was o E.
nil-HHLUMFHHH

DEERE“

"mBOm "ZOHBDmHmBWHQ NUZMDGMME MH<Hm<>Hm

 

 

 

 

 

 

dillllhl

 

 

If. Y I: infill; ¥ l I n

 

 

 

 

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«Hr-4m:
HHNNMH

H
u
m
a
m
o
p
rfiu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a
m
N
m
V flflnMHJmJWJuWIdlflmuwfluuflmflnnfl

mu 8 oH 3 4H

4N0 "Ampmv OHPMM COHPmecHLHOO H umvwhw .— lflnfidflhmh NH umzom "ZOHBDQHFHWHQ MOZHDGME B<H§>Hm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

2.21%

 

5H

 

«H

 

«N

 

H

 

N

0N

 

N

hm
mm

 

N
H—H’NH

 

"aqfluq

 

N
_ H
m
H

Jain

 

 

1d

 

 

R

.8

2.

 

g
«s

"W

 

 

 

 

ow

fl
am

 

 

Idlll

"mm"

 

 

[Halli
N:

{on

 

nu

 

 

 

R

an

QH

 

 

cu. " Amumv Odpmm. COHpmHmhLoo

H mvmflw H
ah

"mGEHHH

00

 

fun

H
NH

"mSOm "ZOHEDmHMBmHQ MOZMDGMMHE MB<H§>HM

HHE

 

Iv \JI

Nu 1!

Nil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H
H

N H w H H H

s H a + N N H1 H.
uflmflrwo mm "NH a AWJW AM A“, fill... Allin IHJ4~ Jim 1 w

III
II I l

mm. “Awumv oHpmm COHpmHmhhoo HH "mushw H 585500 1 “mzom "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ Mozambdmmm MB¢H§>Hm
unaliih “Ed.

 

daagsasedsamWaams Eggbsaa

H—‘l’l-II-{N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

whom

.Ar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MNNNN

 

“dun

anaaH

F4

 

 

 

 

dll

 

H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.IWIIIIII

 

 

H1
%

 

IIINII."

 

TIHFI

 

Hafiaaswfiwfifi“

 

 

NH. "Ampmg 25mm COHpmHmeroo .HHlumUMLw filumngoo a "mzom "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ Nozmbdmmm me<Hm<>Hm

gourd HHS—Inna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H W
0

H

H q

H m

H 0H

H N H H
N N «H

m a N H H H H
a 4 4H
a 0m u mH
n H H 0H
NH

QH

«H

H _ 8
H mm m HHHWI%%%HW%H m ‘% HHHILH

 

Ill.

0H. L003 030m 203200000 HH "000.8 a "025300 3 "030m "zoEDmHmemHm wozgammm E<H§>Hm
30:00.} HHE

 

 

S7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H
«H
NH
H
H
H

 

H fl

mm Hwfl no 0 t. H» mo Mm mm pm 3 mm. MN mm H H

5.03.03 0prm 5303200 HH "00000 H "02.5300 .— u030m "203035.qu H0zm8mmm ma<Hm<>Hm
ah H555:

 

 

n H

{-1

H

F!
“ngfiwfifiwfififib Mag} fifigggo‘mb-Lomam NH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o

 

o

0

[III

OH

 

 

 

2
E.

 

lflfl

N
4

 

«L.

\l’

H
4

H1 H1

 

 

||qu

4

 

 

 

 

mo

3

s4

8

H

 

"Hm

 

Hm

am

 

mm
Hm

 

Wu

H
“Eu

 

3

.HAHH

N
"d“

 

 

 

ma

«4

mm.

«@zawamamaaasanp:sqsmwwvwafi~1

~

 

 

aw. 20.909 OHpmm COprHmphoo HH $0me

gh ”E

.I NmHHEHHHOO h NmZOm NZOHBDmHmBmHQ NOZMDGMMM MB<Hm<>Hm

' U

 

S9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oth‘Om

 

 

 

NH

 

MH

 

 

on r4 .3 :4

 

Md—QNHHH

 

 

 

 

 

E.

 

 

an:

 

flu

Np

J“
.3

 

8

w@
no

 

 

I13!
8

4|
5

 

 

%
am

 

%
Hm

"all
3

 

 

nHuIHu
B

 

"1
N:

 

 

H

mm

 

 

 

awonAmvmg Odem

COHpmHmhhov HH NmUMLG

‘

NmQEHHHOU a NmBOm "ZOHBDmHmEmHQ WOZMDGME ME¢H§>HQ
gay-Oh Hug

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OsQFOI-n

 

0H

 

 

NH

 

 

 

mH

 

HNNH

HMHN

0H

 

pH

 

0H

 

 

H

oQH
mm

”an
S

 

“H"

no
no

 

 

[

 

No
Hp

 

 

9N
H»

QHII.

H

HJMWHH

 

 

mo

0

"Wu

nnmwuu

 

 

mm

mm

NW

 

a:

"Awwuj

"HAHN"
MN

 

 

H:

mm

MN
nu

 

 

 

NN
NH

IQHII.
HH

 

 

 

muonAmpmv 0Hpmm COHpmHthoo

HH «mvdefiu IHIIIIIINQEHHHOU a NmZOm NZOHBDmHEmHQ Mozmbdmmm E<Hm¢>Hm
3.9.0.5.! nag

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H
N
M m H N
n 4 m 0 H H 4|
4 m H w
H W N H 0
H H . H H1
uwmnflmfiuflflulnfimrllaflfiflfl%lle4ui N N
on 0N 0N .w NN 0N 0H 0H HH «H 0H 0 H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S”. 2003 0.30m :OHpmHmppoo HH "00.090 n "085500 5.. “030m "ZOHBDMHmamHQ MonDGmEH me¢Hm<>Hm
gas-DIM ”E

62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

0. .N

H

 

m

 

_ H

HQMMH

 

g
E.

 

 

 

HIHu

I-IHMMI-l

fl

 

 

NH.

.2.
mo.

 

no
3

 

a
no

 

H

No
8

 

 

«Nu
pm

“W

"Flown

 

 

"Mm

Hm

 

J

 

3

m:

 

H3
«4

 

"homamNH

 

w”

 

 

 

i398. Ollh ”3‘

“mm. 20.009 3.00m 8330.300 H 00000 4 "35300 E "030m "203035.39 Hozgammm 3.3553

 

 

n

all I M fr .l.n.a.

I

.Ihrr.

63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r-lI-I

H!
H!

 

 

 

61.1341
«L

HHNH
F‘!
H
HI
N
H
H

l|l

N . H

nlllllllllllul ““3
03 W 8 Na w 0 a W N
mm . a Q 2. MN 3 w m mm

mm. .NAMOQV. OHpmm GOHpmHmeHeHOO HH NmUmnw H NmHHEHHHOO a umzom NZOHBDmHmBmHQ NOZMDGME E<H§>Hm
Village-1n ”E

 

H
'fisomiztnN’H

H

Jugflflme N H m

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MH

 

a."

 

mH

 

0H

 

NH

 

QH

 

 

 

 

‘ H M H n

 

 

H
"wan

 

mm

wrdu

. a

July

“an“

 

 

 

 

 

0H"

n»

NN

HN

mo

3N

"W"

3

 

mm

J“

 

3

"gun

nflflfl

 

 

.2

mm.

W#

“M“ .

NH
8
HN
NN
MN
aw

 

 

 

 

«N

MN

NH

 

 

 

 

 

4m. NAMQQV. OHpmm GOHpmHmhhou WIHIINmHVMHU IHIINmHHEHHHoo lhlflllumzom NZOHBDmHmBmHQ MDZMDGHE E<Hm<>Hm
gnu-00.55” Hug

 

65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ma

 

9n

 

5”

 

m."

 

ma

 

H

 

 

Ni

 

a
Hfinauuu

 

 

 

 

 

W
J»
a, a
M» fl.

 

:. A
S

 

mo
mw

f

 

J?
G

 

8

No

 

 

«W
5

"IN".

I

 

HJW

 

 

mm

am _

Hm

 

LE1

 

WW6 "Ampuv. oapdm cedpmHmhhoo HH

3
m.—

 

fill

[

llldflll

 

 

3

mm.

 

"mcwmc dlumcasHoo .3 330m "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ Mogammm mafiESHm
goinim neg!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haawfiaaazanfimfi:3°~w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N a H
n a a
n V a , H H
n A u
H N H a
.n H
H .
a a mulllwflfldmuflmuwmmunmulflWullmflllm, _ a a Win,

 

 

82.3.flfi83 fifififi a m an

8. 233. 03mm 533330 HH 6936 .— "manage .3 330m "zoEbmHmamHQ Nozmbammm m9<Hm¢>Hm
files-win E

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fiflfififi“°°

 

 

 

 

H

 

 

 

JAIN:

 

“F

 

r4 H HIHEH

 

"NW.

“ml

 

Flam

 

 

 

. fl

 

“Hm"

 

 

«aha

 

 

 

OH

 

m

 

m

 

p

 

w

 

hm

 

 

 

WHNIWAQumq OHQ‘mm flOflpmethU WHIlumUwhw Imlumgdoo .MHluQSOm "ZOHBDNHFHWHQ NOEDGWE MB¢Hm<>Hm
soil—"aluolh Hug

 

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H

OH

 

S”

 

 

 

 

 

HHNNN

NMNHN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V

WIN."

"A“

 

 

"W

 

 

 

A

fififlaflfi

 

 

 

I!

 

$1339 0.3mm 5333.80 HH "madam E. ”38300 .3 "mzom “zOHBDmHmamHQ wozmgmmm mu<Hm<>Hm

 

toga-lulu Magi

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH

 

:1

 

f3 .

 

 

 

 

 

NNHH
H

win!

 

 

[dill]

“ml-INFO

 

NJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

J"

 

 

 

uN "A393 Ofipwm. COHUQHGLLOO HQmUMhU HF "mGESHOO a “950m "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ NUZMDGMMHE MB¢Hm¢>Hm

 

glib.l:n “a:

 

 

 

 

 

 

w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H
H
H

MNHNN

 

 

 

 

 

Jmfl

 

mm

mm

HIIMIH

 

 

 

 

nu

ma

aw

Inwflllllfinmu

mum

 

 

ON

".Wflulflj

a."

WW a

 

nllfllln

Hulda“

mun“

Hanansn'aa

 

 

 

 

3”

a."

«H

OH

 

 

15.0....— E

mm. 233 03mm 5338.80 anmwgw m 325300 mu 530m "2053233 mozmpammm mafimgHm

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j H a

EH

H HH
f « wH .

H u H H T

H H H H 3H

H a H H N H « mH

H H u H ‘ H 3
i$1flilflflflflfl4$ a H flfldflflflflflanflnflflufin

nHH mHH «H.— 8H 8H 8H 8 R a Hm 8 mm «a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39': Haas

H4. :33 ogmm 5333900 3:63.50 H ”maesHoo duluméom "ZOHSmHmBmHm wozmbdmmm mefimgHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NMNH

 

 

.n

 

 

 

 

[HAN

"all“

Hawlulflu

"WHIIJL

1m.”

Ififlu

 

 

 

 

 

«n

on

ow

mu

AN

"H“

H
JHvl

J"

 

 

 

Nu

HN
ON

a."

Iwfi

nuInHu"

H

:dn

“WQM—SMNH

 

 

 

 

3”

.HH

«H

OH

 

mm. "Adam? 35mm SoapmHmthou :HHHnmumcHw H mm%

a.

H00 lflHunmSOm "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ MOZMDGME MB<Hm<>Hm
Gllh Hug

 

)‘r.

.U‘

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"fl

 

 

 

4H
N

hoMAMNr-I

 

III-ll

 

 

 

{Lani
a

Illulmu

 

3

[III

 

NHH

Hindu

 

mo."

gun

 

W

 

 

00H

m3

 

$1,414..“ ...

"1.4"

 

a

"wan

 

i

"N”

 

Hm

J“

 

8

M.»

 

mo

Ju

 

 

Na

 

 

3.0!.h Hug

mm. 233 Spam 2033330 363% H 88:38 dumzom "zOHBDmHEmHm wozgammm mefimgHm

7h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n N u N n 4 Map A» «w
a H u H
mum mm m MS 8H 3” 8a m “I a 8 MW mam

$1233 03mm 532380 HHlnmnmac w 85.330 a umzom "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ wozmammm E<H§>Hm
via-oi. “Hag—m1

 

9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“

‘ ‘)ll> CzklI‘

7S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H

mafiaaasa‘a

 

 

 

 

fl

ONH

Hm

H

||\

‘I

 

"I541

 

SH

ma."

 

42H
NH."

 

a
mo."

 

no."
can

 

.n
mus

 

no."
OOH

 

xma
R

 

m

 

R
R

 

om
mm

 

8
Mo

 

.8

No.

 

 

 

Egg-Uh Hug

mm. 233 03mm 003300000 3600.5 H "005300 an 630m "ZOHBDmHmemHm wozmbammm me<Hm<>Hm

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ma

 

 

pH

 

ma

 

ma

 

 

 

 

 

r1 54 r! '4

 

H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dd“

J1

"in

fluWwfl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH

 

m

 

 

wwo.l.m.pm.v. ofipdm defipmdmhhoo HHH “momma

ma.“mqesaoo ma "030m "ZOHBDmHmHmHQ NOZMdemm ma<Hm<>Hm
uuflnmmmmwlflunnaimaq

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sn

 

ma

 

m."

 

 

 

.NN

 

 

 

HHHH
r-I
.aHNr-Iwu-Iu-Im
H
H

 

 

is 0‘ m m u. -_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mun.” $.03. 0.30m 063200000 4.360.000 EH00 “A “030m "zogbmHmequ wozgammm quHSSHm
. 32.3.3th Hag

 

Adlk-

‘.

.IH

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m."

 

o."

 

Sn

 

ma

 

 

 

 

NN

 

H

Rim-ad

HNan-I

mm

 

H

H

 

 

mm

an

mu

nu

ma

MN

.5

om

3

 

5”
EH

 

ma
5r

 

nu
NH

 

fin
on

 

 

 

 

[mm

 

RF

 

mu

 

mm

 

Mm

 

 

 

'5‘ Ollh HHE

 

m

8. :33. 93% 8328.80 H.835 a, $9558 unlumzom “289538qu wozmpammm mefififim

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5353 8 QRRVNRG 834331323 3%? R

mw

 

 

 

 

HrN N H

 

 

w.
.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

MN

 

Ha

 

a

 

m."

 

on

 

fin

 

0H

 

 

 

3%

mm. "Awpmv OHpmm GOHpmHmefiHOO HHH ”@0950 a "mEESHOO ‘ "m3om "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ Nozmbdmmh E<H§>Hm

wi.4|l.|l I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v H . . fl . m»

 

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RFIJINQNH

a
H

N V m... S w« In a a." 5 ma Q n
«n 3 3 fifiafifififi 2

 

 

$.23de 03mm 20328.80 an "mafia n 855:8 a "mzom "23335.qu wozmgmmm 2.3533
III—.3593. :0qu Hag

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gsmmma 3:32:32 22am

 

We

 

 

HF

 

HM”

 

a

l

 

h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m

 

WW

 

JNHNLMN

 

 

 

¥

 

H ;

 

dqmolnhmumv Odpmm coaumHmHLOOH—H nmUMLc uh ”mEESHOO 1 ”950m

39': Hug

” ZOHBDmH m8 WHQ M DZMDGMME mE..<H §>Hm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H

 

NI

 

 

 

 

3H

Jfimfl

Jaw"

 

 

ma."

in“

a
W

N

flu

Jain

dull“

 

 

 

 

 

a

mo."

00."

no."

.8a

 

.fll

“mm“

 

 

R

.8

j

 

"fl

 

 

 

 

am

mm

mm

«a

 

NMa 2.093 032mm coaumfimhhoo .Hflfinmvmpo LHH .....mESHoo .- 830m "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ NUZMdemm m9<HM<>Hm
vandal-0.3...." Hung

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N
H
[J]

 

1."

N

Ii

33H H1 N

maawswa sag-ma magznssigam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

man in

 

 

 

NH

 

H."

 

OH.

 

m

 

 

aw. "A0009 0.30m 20330300315005 3 "080300 1 "030m "zoEbmHEqu wozmbammm E<Hm<>Hm
a... flag

4'5“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H H 8

N H mm
H m H H R

w m 0 H Hm
N H N u H mm»

 

 

 

33331313333333!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on. A309 030m, 8330300 PH "000.30 .3 "080300 n “030m "oneDmHEmHm w0zmgmmm ma<Hm¢>Hm

 

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

Nmfl

Flu-IF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N
.n
N
w

 

In”

 

JHHNNH

 

 

N

 

”I

W1“?! 16

 

 

 

«.0: £309 0.302 203032200 pH ”00020 31822300 q "0302 "203032903 20220322 E2333
135390....» 38324

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H
H
N

 

 

MM
«1
as

m m 3
N W W .0 "mm" mm "H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om. 20.009 0.30m 203200000 >H "000.00 .— "080300 an 330m “zoEbmHmBmHQ Mofibammm E<H§>Hm
. 1313......|§: 01:...— Magma

 

! ‘vf

1’." J!

101.

 

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H 0H
H HH
H 00H
H
H H 0 fl
H 0 0 N H mH
0 v 0 a m . a n 0 0H
0 0. 0 JW H. Jm

 

 

 

 

3.00.000 0300 003030000 #000000 lulu: 00300 3 "0300 “203030903 002000000 EEEEm

ginwlfi HHS—Hg

‘.II

0..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MNHH

 

 

 

 

gsggsggsgm

 

a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"WW”

 

Ifll

"w

 

 

 

 

 

 

.fin

 

 

*uaqaaama

 

 

fiolmumv oapmm GOHpmamhhoo 5H "00005

mmumIGESII.HOD - "MBOm "ZOHBDMHmBmHQ NOZMDGME MB<Hm<>Hm
ghoul-h “HE

89

 

 

 

Fl
;~.
N

 

O\
N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r-INHr-I
H

 

«102 002902 232% 09:20:00

am

 

 

 

Fin-INF!
{R

 

 

 

lwlflflflfllflflw 00

”1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH £0.03 030% 003030000 #000000 a "08330 4 "0300 "203030.00qu 000sz00.000 me<Hm<>Hm
lgvllmim flag

 

 

 

H
‘0.
N

H
00000000000030.0000 00000000 52:0 23 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hc-IHr-it-IH
,4
H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H
SH ma...” 3 . a man so." mo." no." 3H mm R mm mm
a RF Nan SH mo." 8H 90H «OH OCH mm mm am am

am. £00.00 00300 003030000 #80000 H "000300 4 "0300 "200000000000 002000000 000000000
van-Hafiz HHE

 

 

 

 

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H

H
NHNHH

r-I

 

 

H
H
N

 

 

 

 

 

Iraswmmmgswsmssaaa 000008000

 

0.00.00

0 m .0 m 0 H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm. A003 0.0000 00000000000 00 "00000 0.0 “0000000 0 "0300 "2000000000000 0002000000 000000000
03030001... H5500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hl-lr-Ir-IN
H
N

 

 

 

 

 

300000aaafisfisaéasgsakaamaa 08000

_ H ‘ 0

 

0 .3 mm Nu Hm cu m." m." NH 0." ma 4H m."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 "AQva OHumm GOHPMHQMQOO >H "@6900 NH. "mGESHOD - umzom "ZOHBDQHMBWHQ MOZMDGME ME¢H§>HM
flfl?h Hug

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 00
0 H 00
. H T
. 0 T
H .0 0 0. .n 0 .n 7.0
H . H H .0 0 0 H T
H H. H .H . 0 a H H . H H a 0000
SH mmflnflmwa 8H SHHHJSIHJWIH 03.00 R. WJm H0.
0m 0P «AH alpha 8H .30 000 80 .00 a .00 00 R
.31." A0009 00.00.00 000000000000 #60000 10.000000 awwmzom "200900000530 000200000000 090Hm0>0m

 

0850:0010 H0305

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Qfifififlfi

 

 

 

 

 

H

m

m
Imut

 

gaHH

 

“Nu-1H

 

 

H
aIII-L

H
NH

 

 

H

CH

 

 

NH

 

 

Ill

 

H
IJHIJ

 

leH"

)2

 

 

 

 

 

 

'gOflOOIJm Hung

4m. "Ampmv OHpmm QOHpmHmcHhoo PH "momma EH “mQESHoo a “030m "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ MOZMdemm mB<Hm¢>Hm

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TH HLH

 

 

 

 

MHN-fi‘fl

 

j

H
*0

"0%"

 

 

 

 

Hal”

w

"w

 

 

 

uImIIHIlI

#

 

WjT‘OIAJMNH

 

 

 

 

 

dogfightlen Hug

3120.009 0000.0. 00000000000 5.180.000 E000 .flHluwzom "ZOHBDmHmBmHQ 06szde E¢Hm0>Hm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H “H

H :0

mH

0 0H

H 5H

mH

0 H . H «H

4 H ow

H H H 0 V H Hm

.H. u u H 00

4 w M 0H. H 0% H H H mm

00,; H W 0 H .0

"flamuwflfllnlflqflflwwnflnwfllflflflwflflflaw & 00 fluflflflflufl
. QHH :HH a SH 8H 8H 3H «OH OCH _ mm mm Am «m om

 

00. 20.000 0.0000 00000000000 001000000 0 00000000 0.0 "0200 "200000000000 002000000 000000000
180580....— neg

 

 

 

I , :1 .1”. .1.

 

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H H H
H «I

H H H n

H H H H H H H H

.H H N H H H H m

N H H . , H 0
H . H H H .u H:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIHHH ##Haa #H .H0'.H --wl.0H-In'0H 13H 00 R film.“ _H0¥
3.330 0302 81030300 800:0 a

. . . . . bammm 0.00.058000
u o 0 0.0.00 drum .90 H "mQESHoo .Hulbzom .ZOHBDmHmBmHQ Mozm
mm. :83 0300 0 H0 H 0 0 0 mai. 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>4-

.H.

HHN.

v ~

.7.:. ~

.— ~.~.u..

H

H

H

\a

.. .u 5k...\ ~ ~ .VJ...\ .— s..\

...N. N. a\ N

.u\—\\) \0\

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H

0

N
Y H
n

R'Sifilfi

 

 

”1|.“anqu
qHH

N

 

“flu

H

in

flu

 

 

 

a

NHH

N

“a“

 

w
lwaHl

 

nllnqlnnlu

 

 

 

 

OHH

8H

0 8H

48H

l

H

 

non

 

«OH

OCH

 

mm
mm

 

0m
8

 

[mml

"Nu"

 

 

am

. «m

ii

 

 

maonflwpmv OHDwm SOHpmHmhhoo IMHIumUmcHw H 2095.900 a "030m "ZOHBDmHmBMHQ $0753de MB¢H§>HQ
goovlh Hag...“

 

...h

n

-

”HI! ..

'Ii

..l I M... .4

-\_.H_-—-

:val-!'.l

L .

1‘ «H.

I I l!,. ii.l .

\

§

02>). HVH
‘

n
b

«(an H .~.\~+~ \

.—~L.Hu~.x

RA. r.. HZ...~ \ ~ .413; 57-h

u.\.-

-\

\

.lu—NN-

h

I‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H 0H
H 0H
H H .3
.H
H H H H 0H
.0 H H H 8
o n N n Hu
0 n a 00 Wu
0 g. H H T
H .H J?
0H .0H HH 0H «H

 

 

 

 

0H. 20.03. 0.330 :OHpmeeHnoo b

"woman a

 

“mnesHoo an ”0300 "ZOHBDmHmemH0_0ozmbammm 00000<>Hm
.uszaaggwlsfnnuammn

 

 

.0.

_._.u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m

HHNNN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HMNMNH

"Hm"

 

 

HM‘O—d’

NHHNIAN

 

 

..|._||l||l||

 

 

 

0Hu "A309 0330 003300.80 b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 H . w . mH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w. a a
u u H . . H

H 0 0H

m 0 .H H . H 3

H H H. .H u 0 08

u H n .0 0 00 H 0 .HN

H u 0.. 0N u .0 .H . H ... H ., .00

n H . ,4 H a a .H , . . 00

u. H H 0 a“

 

RH .ouH an oHH 3 8H 00H 00 mm on me E. Q. 8 8

fl. 20.000 0.300 203300.000 > 800.8 H "080300 «H "0300 "20000000003 002000000 00355.0
0.101031%... .01. «Has

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 .

 

 

.8

 

H mH

. 0H 0H
H H H H .H H

H 0H

0 0 H H H H
0 H H. H H H8

0 Wm a .H H...

.H .0. H H H H a“

m a o H H , Ha

.H H a

lwmuullHHIh 00 z 0. Jul»

 

 

 

NH. 133. 0.300 83300000 > "00000 0 "080300 NH "0300 ”200000000000 002000.000 003583

 

035050....— n35

 

 

 

V.‘ .1

 

 

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H . H H

0 0 «H

u H u H H H HH

H . a N H H H H 0H

m . H H H 0 H H .0 N H . 0H

00 H .H H H. a H H N H H 0H
HfiwflwJaflJdmmflHlmxflflflJflu 02 R Na 5 a 2. 2 5
RH 00H 00H 0HH 0 nHH 0 00H noH mm mm 0 8 0b 2. Q. 3 no

 

 

9.0 "A0009 OHQQm QOprHmchoo b "000ch H HmQESHoo a “m30m HZOHBDMHmfimHQ wozmbdmmm me<Hm<>Hm
3.09:...” HHBE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H H

0 0H
m . n . |Hl HIAH

0 . . H m 0 H 1 + 4H

.H H H H. Lu» «M H

H. 01 H W m 0 H IHH

. . H WW4nu4flJfiflufillfin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fl. A0000 0.30.0 00330200 > "00000 00 "080300 a “0300 "230030030 00203000 00000050
35089.0 fig

 

 

 

INJQJN

.

‘.|.-..§

.1 ~u.‘

.u‘>§.

‘

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 HH

. 0H

. m m H H H 0H

m , o .H m 2H

. m m H u N H H mH
0 MH 0 H . .oH
.mwnuwuflwuunudwunnmenuaHmwuunuHmuunumwnnuJuwuuauHmuunun

 

 

 

 

0H."A0000.0H000.:0H00H00000 0 "00000 .n “0:00H00.Hmfi“0300 "20H0000000H0 002000000 00<H00>Hm

 

‘lgolh “HE

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H
.H H u H H . 0, . H
H N H . 0 H . TH
n N N 0 0 w T . 3
H H . H . . 0H. m
.H . H . w

.‘ . .‘ M _ - ..
nunqwunnflwnflflwnnlqnnnflflnlwm u.
H0H a HH 8 .. 0H0. 2. .0 H0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

auding».

0

 

V ofipdm .HHOHumeHuoo H «00000 H HmHHEHHHoo uflrlumzom

équ ”E

HZOHBDmHmBmHQ NOZMDGME MB<Hm<>Hm

 

«

«L. v H

LL... H .22.“

~5-

u) r ~0<..--H

.~.1- 1 null

..---~

I\

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm

 

 

hm

 

 

mu

 

 

Hm.

 

JGNN

«H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h-fl-MH

 

N
N
H
o

 

 

2?

 

H

H
m
m
w

 

«nanb‘t

 

H .

 

 

3.; 20.03. 0300 003300000 0 "00000 E.“ “090300 a. "0200 "280005.003 002000000 meHngHm

Egan-fl Hag

108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H .0

mu

. 8

H H a

H . . H 00

H H H H a

H H H H . H 0H

H N a H H H o m a H H HH

H H .0. H H , H H H H . H «H.
Jmflmmmflflflnflgflflflmflfa “fig R «H e s 8 0. 2.. s
1.15.. 10.00 mm. . HHHfi 00H H0H PH H0 fl H0 2. n. 00 H0

 

Hm. 2.0.0.09 300m 003300.000 .0 “00.000 H "090300 a "0300

 

 

uiilflfiabldnflflflflfififi

HZOHBDmHmBmHQ.NOZMb®mmh ME<Hm¢>Hm

ll..3v....uu

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3349233 m #5349131.

 

 

 

 

 

HnfinflunoHu-IH

r-IHnNmr-Iafi
H
H

 

 

 

 

\l‘

N H H
, H m, n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH. 233 oflmm coflfloéoo > “883 mlaquHHoo q. £30m HZOHSmHmamHm wozmammm mafimgHm
33o]— flefis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«nan-I
NM
NnNu-I

 

 

 

 

H H N H
H
r!
H
amamgsss saga-aafififma

 

Ho

 

H
drip-laud
3“

 

 

"!

 

 

 

“ii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NJJ Gaby ogmm 2033330 IHIHmcmch alumcsgoo .lemzom HZOHBDmHmBmHQ wozmbdmmm mB<Hm<>Hm

genial-h ”E

 

ll."

 

 

 

 

 

 

H HJ
H!
F“

 

 

 

HNNHHJu-l

 

 

v-I
{amass-3g 942 Ma? rm»

 

 

H

Flu-II HHNNM
Fl
l-I

 

 

 

 

 

in Lm 1 Y H
“Hwflnwnmflnfiuwnflufi flamJuH H mm H“ mm m a m n

4&4"?qu oapmm. Goapmamhhoo b “mocha H 585900 - Hmzom “ZOHBDmHmBmHQ MOZMdemm mB<Hm¢>Hm
ngfiollh Hag

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.iIIIII- l

‘-n~\.1u-.

 

 

 

 

 

N

 

 

 

 

I-I

 

 

 

H“

 

NNNH

Hthfi—SHW

"W

amaaaassgAssakmaama

mm

 

 

Hi

 

u-ll

 

NI

 

H

“L

NI

 

qu

 

 

w

ill]!

.n
a

 

H.

mm .

J”

[hues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 "5303.2 SHHHHSHOU 532.5 mg H2238 4 Hmsom HonSmHmemHm Hozmpammm mafimsmm

 

39535014 “EH:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.n N mm.
an
H H N.
unl
.n .n mm
P
u n a H H mm
3
a m m H 3
Mr
H H u H H3

L
H H H H 1%
H H H m
H H H H mm
W mm
u an H w”
mm
H .H «m
J .3

H

.3
.n H mo
3
.n 3
H 2.
a H H , ‘ ‘ HM”
if H NIHHW Han dlqflfllmldfllfilldlnfl

 

41¢ ASEOHHSH HHoHHHHHoHHoo 453$ 4.3238 JJHmzom £89829qu wozmoafim gig/Hm
HHS-33...... flea:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.n

 

H
H
,4
N
H
N
n
H
pom—QMNH

N

H

H
Nu-lu-l

.n x N ,

fiflfll flqlfllJWflflLJflnlfilllnullelflfllJWflflfl
mu." «NH 3.3 and—”SH 33.3.." mm. mm am 3 8 no

.flaHAvaofldm 8328.80 filuwcfio EH8 InfiHmzom "2055253 wozmpammm 922:3
333-4.» fig

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H Hm

«N

H mu

.3

mu

ow

H E

H H an

H H H mm

. H H a H a on

.H mm H H n m H a n H Hm

w H H H H H. _ «H

444%Hflulfiuflwflifiwflflawuflfl%flwvlfl

muH «NH mHH .oHH HHH SH SH 3H H3 ,2: mm «a mo. 8 me

 

mo. Ampmvofldm qupmHmHHoo

 

 

ggoullh Hung

H> ,H.mU.m.Hw H .HmCESHOO n Hmzom HZOHBDMHmEmHQ Nozmbdmmm MB¢HM<>HQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HH
H HH

H

mm

H

- H H
H H HH

H H H H HH

H H H H H H OH

H H H m H H HH

H H H H H H H HHH

H. o .H H w» . H H u"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HH. HASHVOHHHE .HHo‘HHHHmcHHoo Hp 838 3 $5330 a $on HzOHepmHmemHm Ho‘zmbdmmm HBHHHSHHHH
viflafioln g

 

Ilvl.lll:lll,.,l.v uyur' I

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NJH-fimMH-S’HH

 

 

H

 

wm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dull

 

l

 

 

 

nn.

‘ HIHJ

 

 

an.

 

 

 

 

 

dnfiHHHHHfloHHHm coHHHHHmHHoo 61638 a 38:58 q Hmzom HonepmHEmHm wuzmsdmmm HHHHHEHHHH
- IIIIIIquHHIoIH HHBFEH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi

 

NI

 

 

 

HE

 

N HHHI

Hi

 

HanHjah

 

Hi HQ
238$33fi5flaafifl§fizfififi

 

N!

 

Hi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i , f

 

H;

 

H Hi

[I]

141

 

 

 

u

 

 

 

 

«NH. imamvofldm HHOHHHHHmHHoo Hp 2%me an 395500 4 $on 203859qu Mozmpammm meHngHm
135. w sound fig

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

dun:
pm

 

on

 

m:

 

3|
3

 

om
mm

 

4w.
Hm

 

dml
Ho

 

NHMHNNH

«o
mo

 

3
mo

 

M

om

 

HNHMMM

2.
ii
2.

 

3|
.3

 

 

 

 

 

Mal

,‘ma

 

%

 

 

on

 

HH

. H H

 

 

 

. .HH.

 

HH

 

AN

 

HH:

 

«N

 

 

 

 

gagqlh ENE

flflzfimvofldm 5338.80 Hp HHHHHHH n HHHHEHHHoo H Hmzom HonepmHmemHm Hozmpammm HHHHHSHHH

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HI
RaSBHHSRRfi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H!

as
Hm

 

H

W1
mm

 

HHH HHHHHHH, HHH wHH

 

 

 

 

60H

 

 

 

IWHRH PEIHFJ

 

NHH
3H

 

§§

HEM

 

mmH
HaH

8H

 

QM

 

R
Mm

 

 

am

3.

 

8
on

Noun“

 

 

Hm

 

 

 

fl. Amumvofidm 833988 H». .38ch H .H-H§:Hoo q Hmzom HzoEomHmHmB Hozmsammm HHHHHHSHH
3.5.. guru hag

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H

 

 

 

N

 

H

w
OH
MW”

 

 

 

 

%fiNr-IN

Hm...
"flank

H
H‘
Hm"

H

"W

 

 

 

 

III

a.

H.

AJWI

"Jul“

 

 

 

 

JHWWHIHH

 

%

0H
W

 

 

 

 

1% man. Olin “Hanna

Hm. HASHVoHHnHm .HHoHHHHmHHoo HHJHHHHH a .HHHHHBHoo fllumsom HzOHSmHmemHm Hozmbdmmm EHHHSHHH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H
OH
H
- H H HH
H H H HH
H H H:
H H H H mH
m. H. . m H. o H H. 3

 

H; H; W IHJIHWHHH. HHH HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om "Amumvofipdm COdeHocgoo HhumUMHu an. 355.500 an 5.30m HZOHEDMHmfimHQ Nozmbdmmm mBHquE/Hm
‘gfinoolfi nag

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H

OH

H

H H HH

H H H H «H

H H H HHH

H H H H H H mH

H n H H. H m H H n H H H 0H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

unafiJfinHfiJWflmnlfllraflurfimqgflusHflnwfllflJ 3 any...
MHHHHH HHH.qH.H.nHHOHHSH OHHoHR mm Hm 3.8 8

mm “Ampmvodu‘dm doapddmhmoo Hp .HmU,.m.Hw H ,HmSHBHoo a 530m HZOHBDMHmBmHQ Mozmbdmmm madH.m<>Hm
33h Hug

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH

 

 

$3

 

$2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

 

HN

 

«N

 

 

 

'r-IFIH

 

SfiG‘AMI—lflr‘l

 

 

 

 

 

"Jun". ..

ma

 

H...”

 

 

 

 

 

 

mu

 

 

H

 

 

 

wm. H.330HHHm :oHHHHméoo H— 338 3 H2538 .3 .320m HzoEpmHmHmHm Hozmsammm 5.43:3
~25»80IH g

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.n

 

.n

N

HHHHI-l

 

i

 

 

 

8

 

 

a

H

 

 

 

Hz.

 

j

 

 

.3.) Ho

 

 

 

 

 

HH

H

 

 

mm

 

Hm
.H.n

 

 

 

8. ".mpflofifl. 533.880 .Hmjumompu q‘ 38:38 ”Jansen HzoEHHmHmemHn Hozmbdmmm E<H§>Hm
£5. p. a: o_ 0...... flag:

126

 

 

 

m

 

0H

 

HH

 

-NH

 

MH

 

4....”

 

mH

 

0H

 

NH

 

QH

 

«H

 

 

 

 

H

H
H
H
H

H

 

H

Nunmwmu

“flu

 

 

.mHH

NNH

H

 

 

mHH

 

1|!

SH

1

 

H

H

 

 

Jan

 

MHH

oflH

 

84H,
SH

 

8%
H8...

 

SH]

 

HOH

H

v ,

cm

 

 

mm
mm

 

H

"ml

H

"lawn”

 

 

mm.

4“

ON
HN
NN
MN
dH

 

 

we

no

 

$412,330.33..cOHHHHmEoo Hp Hmompw H .5238 HA 333. "20552.”..qu Hozgammm E<H§>Hm
13:389.; HHE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NU‘JN

 

 

 

 

mM-fl'fl

 

J“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”WWIHHIWI. IHH owl filial“. H. H . H II

 

HQHHHHBQHHHH 83.28.80 H» 33.8 a 6:538 HA .Hmzom HonepmHmemHm 5%:de EHHHEEHH

 

wonfipnélm «HE

 

 

 

 

 

OH

 

:1

 

 

 

 

 

0H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNHM

 

m
H
H
h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ \O H M N

 

N
N

[III]

 

HNHH

Jun”

 

 

 

NH

"assaaams:

 

 

NHu HHHHBQHHHH HHOHHHHHEOO H» 88.3 H... H2538 HHH 330m "205529qu 52%de EHHHHSHHm

 

'39.... 03h ”E

APPENDIX G

Table l

CORRELATION-RATIO MATRIX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade I I A LP Ls TR
A ,__*
LP .35 .—-
LS .33 .-- .35
TR .31 .-- .2A .17
D 28 -- .33 26 24
Table 2

CORRELATION-RATIO MATRIX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade II I A LP LS TR
A .55
LP .54 .36
LS .36 .24 .35
TR .39 .33 .PA .17
D .17 .24 .20 .10 .17

 

 

*Achievement scores were not available for Grade I.

' 129

130

APPENDIX G-«Continued

 

Table 3

CORRELATION-RATIO MATRIX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade III I A LP LS TR

A .37

LP .35 .46

L3 .47 .24 .51
TR .39 .41 .22 .28

D .50 .24 .60 .55 .39

Table 4
CORRELATION-RATIO MATRIX
Grade IV I A LP LS TR-

A .59

LP .39 .48
L8 .40 .14 .54
TR 35 .35 .48 .10

D .48 .17 .28 .26 .22

 

131

APPENDIX G--Continued

 

Table 5

CORRELATION-RATIO MATRIX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade V I A LP LS TR
A .42
LP .24 .28
LS .30 .17 ' .17
TR .28 :.22 .10 .14
D 31 14 .17 .14 26
Table 6

CORRELATION-RATIO MATRIX

 

 

 

 

 

Grade VI I A LP LS TR
A .50 ‘
LP .54 .60
LS .57 .36 .55
TR .36 .22 .17 .10

 

 

APPENDIX H

Table 7

DEGREE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAIRED VARIABLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moderate Low Non Predictive
Grade .50 to .75 .25 to .49 .00 to .24
I I — LP LP — TR
I - LS D — TR
LP — LS LS - TR
D ~ LP
1 - TR
D - I
D - LS
II A - I I — TR A - D
I - LP A — L A - LS
I — LS LP - TR
LP - LS D - LP
A - TR D - I
D - TR
LS - TR
D - LS
III D — LP I - LS A - LS
D — LS A - LP A - D
LP — LS A — TR LP - TR
D - I D - TR
I - TR
A - I
I — LP
LS ~ TR
IV A - I D - I D — TR
LP - LS LP — TR A - D
LP - IS A - IS
I - LS LS — TR
I - LP
A — TR
I - TR
D - LP
D — LS
V A - I I - LP
D - I A - TR
I - LS D - LP
I — TR A - LS
A — LP LP - LS
D - TR A - D
D — LS
LS — TR
LP - TR

 

133

APPENDIX H--Continued

 

Table 7--Continued

 

 

 

 

Grade Moderate Low Non Predictive
.50 to .75 .25 to .49 .00 to .24
VI D - I A - LS A — TR
D - LP A — D LP — TR
A - LP I — TR D _ TR
I — LS LS — TR
D - LS
LP - LS
I — LP
A — I

 

 

 

 

 

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

 

31293010903122