Citation
Conversation as a way of knowing

Material Information

Title:
Conversation as a way of knowing
Creator:
Chandler, Susan Marie
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
217 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Conversation -- Study and teaching ( lcsh )
Conversation analysis ( lcsh )
Introspection ( lcsh )
Self-knowledge, Theory of ( lcsh )
Teachers -- In-service training -- United States ( lcsh )
Conversation analysis ( fast )
Conversation -- Study and teaching ( fast )
Introspection ( fast )
Self-knowledge, Theory of ( fast )
Teachers -- In-service training ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 190-217).
Thesis:
Educational leadership and innovation
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Susan Marie Chandler.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
45141347 ( OCLC )
ocm45141347
Classification:
LD1190.E3 2000d .C43 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CONVERSATION AS A WAY OF KNOWING
by
SUSAN MARIE CHANDLER
B.S., University of Cincinnati, 1982
M.A., University of Cincinnati, 1990
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
2000


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Susan Marie Chandler
has been approved


Chandler, Susan Marie (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Conversation as a Way of Knowing
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Elizabeth B. Kozleski
ABSTRACT
I began this qualitative research project with the assumption that reflective
practice is the best form of educational renewal for teachers. Thoughtful teachers
gather information, experiment, converse, create, and apply what they leam from
their reflective processes (Goodlad, 1999; Sirotnik, 1999). In this study, I learned
these processes with a group of five educators over a span of twenty-one weeks. I
wrote about this learning from the perspective of a participant, facilitator, and a
researcher in a reflective practice educator group. I described the phenomenon of
reflection by documenting, describing and analyzing domains and domain
characteristics that emerged from data gathered in group conversations, individual
conversations, and teacher heuristic tools. Although the selection of domains and
themes were emergent and evolutionary, I employed the reflective dimensions of
VanManen (1977). As the study unfolded, the conversations about pedagogical
issues moved recursively between our self and social reflections and dialectically
between the dimensions of technical, contextual, and critical reflection. I
hypothesized about what our findings mean in relationship to practice and how others
might venture into the development of similar kinds of practice conversations.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend
its publication. /j
Signed
Elizabeth B. Kozleski


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I thank my advisor, Elizabeth B. Kozleski, for her patience and diligent guidance
during my doctoral studies. I would also like to thank the National Institute for
Urban School Improvement for their ongoing support of my dissertation.


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1 MY LENS ON REFLECTIVE PRACTICE 2
Connecting Reflection to School Renewal........................... 7
Making Time for Reflection................................. 8
Defining Reflection....................................... 10
Linking Reflection to the Renewal of Teacher Practice............ 13
Collegiality.............................................. 14
Theoretical Frameworks........................................... 20
Types of Reflection....................................... 21
Dimensions of Reflection......................................... 30
Technical Reflection ..................................... 31
Contextual Reflection..................................... 32
Critical Reflection....................................... 34
Research on Reflective Practice.................................. 36
University Teacher Education Programs .................... 36
Action Research........................................... 38
Self-Reflection........................................... 41
Self-Reflective Stories................................... 42
v


I
Social Reflection......................................... 44
Summary of Research....................................... 47
Research Questions............................................... 49
Methodology............................................... 52
Limitations of the Study.................................. 53
Conclusion................................................ 53
2 DESIGN OF THE STUDY 55
Case Study....................................................... 57
Boundaries ............................................... 58
Researchers Experience and Role.......................... 59
Data Collection........................................... 62
Data Analysis............................................. 65
3 AN ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE 68
Conversationalists............................................... 69
Organizing the Evidence into Narrative .......................... 70
Why Educators Reflect............................................ 72
Self-Reflective Educators................................. 73
Interpretation of Self-Reflection......................... 76
Socially Reflective Educators............................. 76
Interpretation of Social Reflection....................... 79
The Recursive Process..................................... 80
Interpretation of the Recursive Process................... 82
What Are Catalysts and Constraints of Reflection?................ 82
Catalysts ................................................ 84
vi


Interpretation of Catalysts............................... 95
Constraints............................................... 97
Interpretation of Constraints............................ 110
The Content of the Reflective Conversations.................... Ill
Listening to Teachers Voices............................ 112
Contextualizing the Content of the Conversation.......... 114
Interpretation of the Content of the Conversations...... 116
The Meaningful Development of Our Conversations................ 117
Framing Social Meaning................................... 118
Interpretation of the Meaningful Development of Our Con-
versations .............................................. 131
Turning Conversation into Practice............................. 133
Involving Individual Passion............................. 134
Interpretation of Turning Conversation into Practice . 137
4 KEY CONSIDERATIONS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICE 140
Self and Social Reflection..................................... 142
Self and Social Reflection Hypothesis.................... 144
Technical, Contextual, and Critical...................... 144
Dimensional Hypothesis................................... 145
Sustaining Conversations....................................... 145
Sustaining Conversation Hypothesis....................... 146
Supporting Contexts............................................ 146
Supporting Contexts Hypothesis........................... 147
Development of a Personal and/or Collective Voice.............. 147
vii


Development of Voice Hypothesis................. 149
Transformative Action................................. 149
Transformative Action Hypothesis................ 150
Implications for Research............................. 150
APPENDIX
A HUMAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF RESEARCH STUDY 154
B FACILITATOR ORGANIZERS 155
C TEACHER HEURISTIC TOOL 175
D STUDENT HEURISTIC TOOL 177
E CRITERIA AND DEFINITIONS 179
viii


FIGURES
Figure
3.1 Common Dimensions of Schooling..........................115
4.1 Components of the Reflective Process.................... 141
ix


TABLES
Table
1.1 Characteristics of Technical Reflection .............................. 32
1.2 Characteristics of Contextual Reflection ............................. 33
1.3 Characteristics of Critical Reflection .............................. 35
2.1 Common Naturalistic Qualitative Features........................... 57
2.2 Data Analysis Grid.................................................... 65
x


A NOTE TO THE READER
This dissertation deviates from the conventional five-chapter dissertation
and was written in the first person because I wanted to develop a holistic story
that would have meaning and connections for other educators. I wanted to
capture and relate the tangle of purposes and unexpected twists and turns that
have to be interpreted to understand our groups endeavors in our reflective
conversations. I believe the story structure can help educators develop and refine
their ideas in their own contexts. Chapter 1, My Lens on Reflective Practice,
combines both the statement of the problem and a review of the literature
because my lens on reflective practice cannot be separated from how I linked
reflection to school renewal, theoretical frameworks, dimensions of reflection, and
the current research. Chapter 2, Design of the Study; Chapter 3, An Analysis of
the Evidence; and Chapter 4, Key Considerations of Reflective Practice tend to
follow the conventions of a traditional dissertation.
1


CHAPTER 1
MY LENS ON REFLECTIVE PRACTICE
I began, this research, project with the assumption that reflective practice is
the best form of educational renewal for teachers. I believe the art of reflection
encompasses the technical) contextual, and critical thoughts about pedagogical
practices, and the continuous change and renewal because of those reflections.
Thoughtful teachers inquire into their teaching and question their own learning
and that of their students. They gather information, experiment, dialogue,
create, and apply what they learn from their reflective processes (Goodlad, 1999;
Sirotnik, 1999; Zeichner, 1996). In this study, I learned these processes with a
group of teachers. I wrote about this learning from the perspective of a
participant, facilitator, and a researcher in a reflective practice educator group.
I also operated from some other assumptions that are valuable for the
reader to explore with me in order to understand this study. First, I approach
any learning from a social constructivist perspective; reflection is a manifestation
of that perspective. Teachers are active participants rather than passive
recipients in their learning process. Educators, like students, are not just vessels
into which knowledge can be poured; instead, they build their knowledge
through their past experiences, personal knowledge, and current issues in their


pedagogical practice.
Second, I believe that we ground our reflection in the contexts in which we
situate ourselves. In other words, we construct meaning around the contexts of
our lives and the issues we want to explore. For example, educators who want to
renew their instructional practices think about the social context of their
classroom, school, and community to make decisions. Reflection on the
situational context may be an unconscious or a conscious process. As educators,
when we consciously reflect about the context of our situations we are able to
identify and illuminate authentic alternatives to the social/cultural environment
in which we live.
Finally, I believe educators can be critical theorists; however, it seems we
infrequently examine our ever-present theories and those of our colleagues and
the institutions in which we situate ourselves. To participate in a critical
pedagogy, we need to examine the social and political issues that construct our
own voices. We need to critically engage in how our assumptions and beliefs
structure our ability to teach and to learn with others. To be engaged in critical
reflection, we consciously need to converse about how our practice is linked to
the historical, cultural, and moral principles of our society. Through critically
reflecting on our learning we become open to multiple views and perspectives
regarding how our pedagogical practices affect our students as well as ourselves.
Teachers daily reflective practices are different from the more formal
reflections of action research. Unlike inquiry that is performed and reported in
conjunction with, and by, university researchers, teachers reflective processes are
rarely reported to others (Hollingsworth, 1990). This may be because teachers do
not perceive that there is the time or the rewards for articulating their reflective
3


processes. As a result, reflection and the understandings that come from it are
undervalued. The need for reflective time may be the reason that many teachers
leave the profession to study at a university and also, consequently, may not
return (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Often, teachers feel they have to move
outside their classrooms to think about and articulate what they know, and to
receive professional validation for their knowledge. Once teachers discover the
freedom in being supported to reflect, write, and speak, they may not want to
return to the more oppressive environments that confine this creativity.
Schools reinforce the undervaluing of teachers as professionals by not
supporting the reflective process through time and resources (Sarason, 1998).
Therefore, the school community is ignorant of the rewards of learning from that
knowledge. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990, p. 2) contend that what is missing
from the knowledge base of teaching are the voices of the teachers themselves,
the questions teachers ask, the ways teachers use writing and intentional talk in
their work lives, and the interpretive frames teachers use to understand and
renew their own classroom practices. It is now historically apparent that we
cannot engage in teacher renewal unless teacher reflection is institutionalized
and teachers join in the dialogue (Cuban, 1998; Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthey,
1996; Myers, 1987). The educators with whom I reflected brought their personal
theories, beliefs, questions, and interpretive frames to our weekly conversations.
During this time we moved through the ambiguous process of trying to clearly
articulate our issues of interest and develop meaning together for future action.
The convictions I have about reflective practice, as a renewal process for
teaching, grew out of my own career as a classroom teacher, continual student,
and an educational consultant. In an effort to act on these convictions I
4


researched why educators would want to reflect on their practices. I had two
reasons for conducting this research. The first was a personal goal for my own
learning: I wanted to increase my understanding of reflection and how it impacts
practice. By participating, observing, organizing, facilitating, and transcribing
our weekly dialogues. I was able to improve my abilities as a researcher and
practitioner.
The second reason I conducted this research was political. I wanted our
social reflective conversations to be a step towards developing a voice for the
recognition of reflection as a renewal process that needs time and support. I
wanted the educators, and myself, to write research papers about how our
reflections and actions impacted our practice. Opportunities need to be provided
for teachers to voice their findings in educational research. They need to gain
acceptance and rewards for their work and to develop their ability to influence
policy in concert with others who traditionally control these roles.
When I first started thinking about this research project I asked the
educators if they would keep a journal and participate in an action research
oriented project. Their reply to me was they did not know how to journal, and
they did not know what they would do with their entries once they had
developed them. They emphasized the point that they were very stressed out
professionally and personally and that this reflective time could not be another
add-on. They agreed that they did not want to journal or participate in an
action research project, but they would like to participate in a socially reflective
conversation one time per week about their pedagogical practices.
At first this response troubled me. However, as I started reflecting on
these conversations I realized that these educators aspired to something more
5


intuitive and intellectual, rather than a science research project as explained
through much of the published research on classrooms (Foshay, 1998). Like me,
they needed to determine what was personally interesting in their practice so
they could create meaning and action in their pedagogical practice. Thus, in this
research effort, I consciously tried to create an environment in which they could
use their voices to freely question existing structures and theories and to form
personal frameworks for understanding (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldgerger, & Tarule,
1986). We, as educators, are more than capable of constructing and creating our
own knowledge, through the interaction of our intellect and passion, without an
imposed and formal research structure. I felt my responsibility was to facilitate
our group in constructing social knowledge so that we could create critical
meaning to inform our practice.
To support our reflective process I needed to ground reflection in the
interaction between personal narrative, school reform, and school renewal.
Kenneth Sirotnik (1999) considers the impact of the language of school reform
and school renewal on the everyday life of the classroom teacher. The language
of reform tends to focus on accountability, rewards, and punishments, while the
language of renewal tends to focus on rigorous self-examination, reflection, and
critical inquiry (Soder, 1999). The following section links reflective practice to
educational renewal.
6


Connecting Reflection to School Renewal
A concern in education today is that, historically, teachers have been little
valued as an important source of educational change (Llorens, 1994; Wagner,
1998). My circle of educator friends and acquaintances report that most of the
school or district change efforts in which they have participated are developed by
a single individual, the superintendent, principal, or a small committee. Whether
it is a new focus on students who display gifted tendencies, differentiated
instruction, or block scheduling there is rarely any discussion of the need for the
change or what the goals should be among teachers. A few people do all the
talking while the passive majority is expected to listen, understand, and perform
the prescripted change. What Sarason (1990) told us in the early seventies is
still true today-namely, that what we know about complex renewal and change
is ignored by reformers, either deliberately or through ignorance.
Teachers, who are the most actively engaged in the generation and
facilitation of knowledge, are the least recognized in the decisions that inform
the educational process. Educational reform supports voiceless teachers through
its trendy political policies, restricted professional development, and limited
funds (Sirotnik, 1999; Van Manen, 1991). The language of reform uses the
adages of things gone wrong that need to be corrected, fix-it prescriptions, and
corrective actions. The language emphasizes accountability, conformity, and
punishment; it says little about the individual or the human community
(Goodlad, 1999; Smith, 1998).
In contrast, Sirotnik (1999) discusses educational renewal as a process of
7


how teachers happenstance through serendipity, chance, and ongoing
interpretation rather than through anticipated outcomes along a predetermined
pathway. According to Gardner (1963), teachers renew their practice through
breaking out of ruts and patterns, carrying out an ongoing process of reflection,
and encompassing education as a life-long process. The language of renewal
supports teachers in renewing their practice and in developing the culture of
collaboration (Goodlad, 1999; Rudduck, 1989). It is language about growth and
nourishment of the self, responsibility, creativity, and reward.
Situating reflective practice in educational renewal suggests that the role of
teachers be reframed from accountable to responsible. It suggests that teachers
are morally obligated to create a nurturing learning environment for their
students as well as for themselves (Sarason, 1998). It also leads to questions of
how political and educational leaders are providing the resources, time, and
support for reflective practice to occur in schools. These supports require
long-term commitments to collaboration, inquiry, and reflection (Sarason, 1998).
Making Time for Reflection
Schools are simply not structured to provide professional teachers time to
ponder their work through reflective thought, let alone time during the workday
to make a personal phone call or run an errand. An eternal lament of teachers is
the lack of time to teach, plan, and collect their thoughts. The continuous
teaching, supervisory, and general care responsibilities of teachers have typically
resulted in nonstop workdays. As James Bauman (1996, p. 31) concludes, On
some days I am responsible for children beginning at 7:15 a.m. with
before-school hall and breakfast supervisory duty, and not ending until I am on
8


my way home at 5:45. I dont even drink coffee because there is no time to use
the bathroom.
Classrooms are fast-paced and unpredictable environments where teachers
must make hundreds of routine and spontaneous decisions each day (Zeichner &:
Liston, 1996). There are numerous constraints that increase the complexity of
this work, such as the high teacher-pupil ratio, pressure to cover a required and
broadly defined curriculum, and lack of time (Zeichner, 1999). Cautioning
against the solution of simply adding time for reflection to teachers work, Myers
(1987) has argued persuasively for the institutionalization of reflection by
making it an integral part of the profession. There must be a balance between
reflection and routine, and between thought and action (Dewey, 1933).
Recently, a few school districts have moved in this direction by
establishing new positions that combine teaching and research. For example, the
Pittsburgh public school system has created positions for researchers in
residence, who collect and manage data for the school principal and faculty
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Teacher consultants in the Philadelphia public
schools combine classroom teaching with teacher inquiry in the Philadelphia
Writing Project (Lytle, 1991). These efforts are part of a trend to differentiate
teachers roles in schools and capitalize on teacher expertise. It is not clear at
this time what the impact of innovations like these will be. It would be
unfortunate if they inadvertently buttressed the traditional association of
teachers gaining increased power and responsibility and then leaving the
classroom (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993).
There are a variety of arrangements that enable teachers to participate in
reflective practice; however, many of them are supported outside of the school
9


day. These arrangements do not support teachers reflecting on their daily
immediate issues to renew practice. Included in these arrangements are: reduced
loads, released time, paid overtime, and summer seminars or institutes in which
teachers can write about and reflect on their pedagogical practices. These
opportunities are exceptional and ad hoc, secured with special grants or
extraordinary efforts, and require departures from the typical day
(Darling-Hammond, 1995). If learner-centered and learning-centered schools are
to become the norm, policies must reconfigure the ways in which time in schools
is organized and how resources are spent. This will come about if schools realize
that there is a direct connection between teacher reflection and the quality of
curriculum, instruction, and human learning (Cocnran-Smith &: Lytle, 1993).
Defining Reflection
At the root of most conceptions of reflective practice is John Deweys
philosophical statement on reflective thinking. In How We Think: A
Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process,
Dewey (1933/1910, p. 9) defines reflective thought as the active, persistent, and
careful consideration of any belief or practice in the light of the reasons that
support it and the further consequences to which it leads. Reflective thought,
as distinguished from mental streams of thought, is an ordered sequence of ideas
that are consequences of one another. These reflective thoughts build collective
meaning towards understanding an issue in practice.
Much of the current interest in engaging in reflective practice comes from
Donald Schons (1983) work. He believes that there are some processes central
to professional artistry that cannot be taught or described through scientific
10


theory or techniques. Instead, teachers think about what they are doing, as they
are doing it, in a process he describes as reflection-in-action. Practitioners
attempt to frame and solve problems on the spot. The second process he
describes is reflection-on-action. Reflection-on-action occurs before a lesson
when teachers plan for and think about their pedagogy and after instruction
when they consider what occurred.
Max Van Manen (1977) has suggested a hierarchical model of levels of
reflection. He discusses three distinct levels of reflective practice that have been
seen as paralleling the growth of individual teachers from novice to master
teacher. The first level of reflection is concerned with the effective application of
skills and technical knowledge in the classroom. The second level of reflection
involves reflectng about the assumptions underlying specific classroom practices,
as well as the consequences of particular strategies and curricula. The third level
of reflection entails the questioning of the moral and ethical implications of
practice.
Reflection, according to Schon and Dewey, is the teachers engagement in a
process of inquiry concerning an issue of interest. Schon would further specify
that the reflective process involve an action occurring within the teaching
practice. The reflective teacher would first of all set or frame the problem and
then consider alternatives and consequences. Teachers reflective practice,
according to Van Manen, would take into consideration the varying degrees of
reflection that took place along with the action.
Despite these commonly cited references to reflective practice, a wide
range of interpretations still exist today (Day, 1993; Feiman-Nemser, 1990;
Sparks-Langer, 1992; Valli, 1992). There is confusion about what is meant by
11


the term reflective practice, and whether or not the idea of teachers as reflective
practitioners should be supported (Zeichner, 1999). The specific elements of
reflection vary from researcher to researcher, but most seem to agree that what
is centrally involved is a fundamental redefinition of rules, roles, responsibilities,
and relationships in schools (Schlechty, 1990). The reflective educator is
generally described as one who can rise above the limits of tradition, technique,
and authority to practice teaching in a manner that exhibits intuitive, creative,
and critical thought (Calderhead, 1989). This image stands in stark contrast to
the technical practitioner, who routinely exhibits behaviors associated with
specific learning outcomes (Copeland, Birmingham, DeLaCruz, & Lewin, 1993).
Describing the differences among teachers in terms of dichotomies, such as
technically reflective versus critically reflective teachers, traditional versus
progressive teachers, or teacher-centered versus learner-centered teachers, is not
a helpful concept if we are going to view the teacher as a whole person. Teachers
do not perceive themselves as belonging to any one category. They see
themselves as holding theories of practice that would locate them in several
categories simultaneously. Reflective teachers also do not reflect all of the time
about everything. A purely contemplative stance for teachers would not be
appropriate or possible (Zeichner, 1999). Without some routine and secure
assumptions they would be unable to act.
I am also concerned about competent practice, reflection-in-action,
reflection-on-action, and how the dimensions of reflection go beyond this basic
dichotomy. Reflection does not consist of a series of steps or procedures to be
used by teachers. Rather it is a holistic way of being a teacher, of meeting and
responding to issues and interests (Dewey, 1933). It is a process that involves
12


more than logical and rational problem-solving processes. Reflection involves
intuition, emotion, and passion, and it is not something that can be neatly
packaged as a set of techniques for teachers to use (Greene, 1986). In light of
these issues, this paper defines reflective educators as people who:
examine, frame, and experiment with the issues of interest in their
classroom practice;
are aware of and question the assumptions and values they bring to
teaching;
are attentive to the school and cultural contexts in which they teach;
take part in curriculum development and are involved in school change
efforts;
and take responsibility for their own professional development (Zeichner,
1996).
Linking Reflection to the Renewal of Teacher Practice
Dewey (1916, p. 408) wrote that the self is not ready-made, but
something in continuous formation through choice of action. If individuals were
interested in keeping at their work, even if their life were endangered, that would
be because they found themselves in that work. People who give up because of
threats or discomfort are people who choose security or comfort. They are
declaring their preference to be prudent and comfortable. Dewey (1916, p. 408)
stressed the fact that self and interest are two names for the same fact; the
kind and amount of interest actively taken in a thing reveals and measures the
quality of selfhood which exists. He believed that what we make of ourselves
depends on what we do in our lives. What we do with our lives cannot be
13


mechanical and routine; it must be conscious, interested, and committed. If it is
routine and mechanical, then one becomes a behaving human rather than a
reflective being engaged in ongoing action (Greene, 1991).
Self-reflection and social reflection must be present for educators to engage
in ongoing action. Reflection has to be explicitly linked to the relations,
interactions, and conversations educators have with one another. Reflecting in a
collegial environment supports teachers to make authentic, deliberative
educational decisions (Jacobs, 1995). For example, Barth (1990) argues that
collegial relationships among educators in a school are the basis for renewing,
energizing, and sustaining all other attempts at school renewal. Unless educators
talk with one another, observe one another, and help one another, very little will
change. The primary obstacle to teacher growth and development is the lack of
collegiality in schools (Pajak, 1992).
Collegiality
Acquiring sophisticated knowledge that is different from what teachers
experienced in their own education requires reflective learning opportunities that
are more powerful than reading about new pedagogical ideas (Ball & Cohen, in
press). Lieberman and Miller (1991, p. 186) have conducted numerous studies
that address the need to create professional learning that moves away from the
traditional in-service mode toward long-term, continuous learning in the context
of school and classroom with the support of colleagues. Teachers learn best by
doing, thinking, and reflecting; by collaborating with other school professionals;
by observing students and analyzing their work; and by sharing what they see
and think (Carini, 1986; Darling-Hammond, 1998). This type of learning cannot
14


occur in classrooms apart from knowledge about how to interpret practice.
Educational settings for teachers should provide ample opportunities for
reflection and conversation, research and inquiry, trying and testing, and
assessing the results of learning and teaching. The rub between theory and
practice (Miller k Silvemail, 1994) occurs most productively when interests arise
and are researched in the context of classrooms.
Teachers reflections and issues of interest emerge from discrepancies
between what is intended and what occurs (Schon, 1983). Initially these may be
experienced as a concern about a students progress, a classroom routine that is
floundering, conflict or tensions among students, or a desire to try out a new
approach. This questioning process is highly reflexive, immediate, and referenced
to practice and classroom contexts (Cochran-Smith ic Lytle, 1993; Schon, 1983).
For example, How do I engage my students to create authentic curricula?
How do students perceive their personal histories in the curricula? These
discrepancies about theory and practice should be authentic to teacher contexts
in order to support the renewal of teacher practice (Argyris k Schon, 1982).
Patricia Carini (1979, 1986) and her teacher colleagues at the Prospect
Center and School in Vermont have worked for two decades with teachers
around their discrepancies between theory and practice. The Prospect group has
developed a number of processes for documenting childrens learning in school
contacts; helping teachers to uncover and clarify their implicit assumptions
about teaching, learning, and schooling; and solving a variety of school-based
educational issues. The work of the Prospect group has influenced many teachers
to document and reflect on their classroom practices. Carini and her colleagues
use an oral inquiry process in which teachers jointly research their experiences by
15


examining particular issues, educational concepts, and data about the students.
The recursive process provides access to a variety of perspectives for issue posing
and solving. The teachers document these conversations so they can return to
their texts again to reflect and inquire about their knowledge and insights.
Three major processes structure the social reflection of the teachers who
convene for the purpose of exploring teachers and students learning: the
reflective conversation, the description of students and teachers work, and the
group review. In the reflective conversation the goal is to explore teachers
perspectives on their various meanings, images, and experiences (Carini, 1986)
in words that are central to understanding teaching and learning. For example,
a group might participate in a reflective conversation on retention, tracking, or
community. The outcome of the process for the group is a richer understanding
of the concept and the building of new understandings of what the educators
mean individually and as a group. In the description of students work, teachers
concentrate on the structures and meaning of the work from their own
perspectives and the perspectives of the students. The process is descriptive and
guards against premature interpretations. In the description of teachers work
they concentrate on research, or their own writings, and reflect on their own
perspectives, the context, and the social history of the topic. Teacher review
entails the group critiquing what they have developed and deciding to continue
the conversation or move on to another issue.
Collegial Conversation. Patricia Carinis (1979, 1986) work is an
example of how teachers can shift from individualistic relationships to collegial
relationships in order for them to reflect upon their practice (Little, 1989b).
Norms of collegiality, experimentation, and reflection support renewal more than
16


individual teachers participating in a program designed to implement a new
practice. Rosenholtz, Bassler, and Hoover-Dempsey (1986) examined teachers
willingness to learn and found that collegiality and instructional aptitude were
indicators of teachers successfully renewing their practice. In this study I
supported and observed the way in which we developed a collegial environment
so we could safely converse about our issues of interest in our practice. I used
the following models to frame the way in which we could construct a collegial
environment that would support our reflective process.
In their framework, Argyris (1974) and Argyris and Schon (1978) propose
that human beings hold theories of action that determine all deliberate behavior.
There are two kinds of theories: theories-in-use that must be inferred from
actual behavior and espoused theories that individuals can state explicitly.
Argyris and Schon (1982) call the theory-in-use Model I. Model I is a theory of
unilateral control over others. The action of the person is designed to maintain
four underlying values: achieving purposes, winning, suppressing negative
feelings, and being rational. The primary strategies to achieve the underlying
values are unilateral advocacy, controlling inquiry, and protection of the self.
The consequences of Model I include defensive interpersonal and group
relationships, limited learning, and decreased effectiveness.
Argyris and Schon propose an alternative theory-in-use, Model II, for
creating reflective learning systems. Model II is a theory of Joint control and
inquiry in which everyone is involved. The action of each person is designed to
maintain three underlying values: valid information, free and informed choice,
and internal commitment. The primary strategies to achieve the underlying
values are to combine advocacy and inquiry, to make reasoning explicit and
17


confrontable, and to encourage others to do the same. Consequences include an
increased capacity for learning how to improve strategies for achieving existing
goals and for choosing among competing norms, goals, and values.
Constructivists, including Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986),
describe a set of developmental stages of learning in women that are analogous to
Argyris and Schons Model I and Model II. For example, women who are silent
fit within the Model I framework in which the speakers intention is to hold back
rather than to share ideas. Individuals talk about experiences, but there is not
an attempt among them to join together to arrive at some new understanding.
Certain individuals may dominate the conversation for their own purposes.
Women who have discovered their personal story fit within the Model II
framework, in which the intention is to share ideas and develop a collective
meaning. This model requires careful listening and implies a mutually shared
agreement can be created so that emergent ideas can grow. Individuals reach
deep into their experiences and draw on their analytical abilities. The
conversation includes discourse and exploration, talking and listening, questions,
argument, speculation, and sharing. The individuals develop the capacity to
speak with and listen to others, while simultaneously speaking and listening to
their selves, which is the recursive process of self and social reflection.
Conversation and prior experiences are the foundation of Model II. For
example, through conversation and previous experience teachers tell and retell
stories as they relate to their practice. These stories are a way of making
connections with other teachers to develop meaning-making experiences.
Teachers support each other by exchanging stories that are contextually related.
Multiple stories may become typical as teachers develop in the Model II theory.
18


The stories that are shared have the potential to keep teachers from, being
captured by one single narrative and one dominant paradigm (Miller, 1990).
But what are the distinguishing features of a teachers story that make it a
tool for a Model II theory? The story, as a tool, is taken from personal
experience, explained in some detail, and told or written in story form. It is a
vehicle to communicate meaning and explore values and beliefs through
reflecting, discussing, and debating (Hobson, 1996). Reflection occurs in
response to a story. Take, for example, a story used by Jalongo and Isenberg
(1995), the Angel Brown Story.
Angel Brown was a first grader who was instructed by the teacher to
write her name on her paper. Angel came up to the teacher and said, But
teacher, I dont know how to write my name yet. The teacher thought for a
moment, then suggested cheerfully, Angel, I printed your name for you on
your crayon box. Just take it out of your desk and copy your name. Angel
seemed satisfied with this solution to her problem and returned to her desk.
She laboriously printed the letters on her paper with an oversized pencil, her
tongue turned up at the corner of her mouth as a visible sign of the effort.
She continued to write. Then she wrote some more. The teacher was
mystified by what could possibly be taking that long, so she walked over and
looked at her paper. It read, Angel Crayola Brown the Great American
Crayon.
At first when teachers hear this story, they may think it is humorous
because of the surprise element and the charm of an innocent child. It may
appear simple, but it is well suited to capture the complexities of practice. The
story can be interpreted in many different ways. It can be an example of
developmental^ appropriate language tasks, the role of teacher expectation, an
illustration of a childs drive to communicate, or as a metaphor for risk taking in
the learning process (Jalongo & Isenberg, 1995). For example, a team of
teachers may decide that this is an example of developmentally appropriate
19


language and view Angel as a literal interpretivist and, therefore, adjust the
instruction to fit her specific needs. Interpreting stories and narratives can open
teachers7 minds to multiple instructional methods that they can begin to explore
in their own practice (Miller, 1990).
Theoretical Frameworks
The everyday social life of teachers is comprised of the stories and
transactions they have within their school environment and are the basis of their
professional growth and education (Dewey, 1916). These interactions need to be
supported through reflection in order for teachers to have better, warranted, and
enlivening educational relationships (Westbrook, 1991). Dewey (1938) believed
that the mission of schools was to help all individuals develop into self-directing,
reflecting, and reasoning human beings; learning should be infused into a
teacher's daily life. Dewey (1904) emphasized the importance of teachers
reflecting on their practices and integrating their observations into their
emerging theories of teaching and learning. He urged educators to be both
consumers (students) and producers (teachers) of knowledge about teaching and
classroom life.
Renewing learning through reflective practice offers an opportunity for
teacher growth and development. Teacher development theory assumes that
growth toward a developed professional state (autonomous and self-directed) can
take place through reflection on the ordinary, day-to-day experience of working
with students in the classroom (Nuefeld & Grimmett, 1994). This assumption
20


elevates the activity of instruction to one that has the potential to educate
teachers, thereby changing and improving their practice. Self-reflection and
social reflection are processes teachers use to become aware of the beliefs and
assumptions underlying their own habits of practice. They then can then
examine the validity of those practices for accomplishing the goals they establish
for students (Kent, 1993). Examination of instruction and curriculum occurs
through reflection. The next section describes self and social reflection, and the
technical, contextual, and critical dimensions of reflective thinking.
Types of Reflection
Self-reflection and social reflection are thinking processes teachers utilize
to become aware of the ideologies that underlie their practice. Self-reflection is
not the same thing as social reflection, although they are part of the same
recursive process. Self-reflection occurs when individual teachers carefully
consider and meditate upon their thoughts. Self-reflective teachers access the
contents of their own mind independently of others.
From a Piagetian perspective, as teachers self-reflect they are constantly
interacting with their environment and are experiencing unbalance or
disequilibrium (Piaget, 1978). This, in turn, leads individual teachers to
assimilate or accommodate new information that eventually results in
equilibrium or the construction of new mental explanations of perceived reality.
Piaget's interactive theory asserts that teachers initiate their own growth and
development. Reflection grows out of this view of learning in which the
individual, through the thought process, is able to construct mental schemas
about experiences that explain and predict what is observed.
21


Schons (1983) and Piaget's (1972) research make a case for self-reflection,
as central to developing meaning and to clarifying ones understandings. They
suggest that the key to growth and development is the ability to reflect on ones
learning, to adapt behavior based on that reflection, and to develop a schema
that supports the new growth. Piagets cognitive interactive theory asserts that
an individuals development primarily involves self-initiation and generative
behaviors.
Social reflection, on the other hand, does not originate in the seif but
occurs in response to a persons critical engagement with another. According to
Vygotsky (1962), teachers socially reflect when they internalize external
dialogue. They develop meaning through the integration of internalized language
and conceptual thoughts. Vygotskys (1962) theory of learning suggests that
teachers meaning-making processes are intertwined within the cultured milieu in
which the teacher is situated.
The development of Piagets cognitive framework moves from the
individual to the social, while the development of Vygotskys cognitive
framework moves from the social to the individual. Self-reflection is an integral
concept of Piagets framework in that the individual engages in a unidirectional
thought process. Social reflection is an integral concept of Vygotskys framework
in that the individual engages in a social multi-directional contrastive response.
I view self and social reflection as recursive in the reflective process.
Social reflection is a process in which individual educators discuss their
current conceptualization of an issue of interest in their practice. This collective
dialogue results in new information and perspectives. The individual and group
juxtapositions often do not match, but they are recursive in reflective practice-
22


In order to make meaning of the group dialogue, teachers are compelled to
identify and examine their own underlying beliefs. Once individuals underlying
beliefs are articulated, those beliefs become open for social reflection, critique,
and transformation. Donna Qualley (1997, p. 9) relates a simple story that
delineates the two.
I had lived in Australia for five months, when one day I drove to the
lumberyard in Moe to purchase some molding and kitchen faucets. It was
just after New Years. When I arrived, I found the place closed, for the rest of
the month. I then drove to the hardware store, which had plumbing supplies,
but not the correct ones. The sales clerk said that he could order the taps,
but they would not arrive until the first of February, since most of their
suppliers were closed between Christmas and the end of January. I was
stunned. I couldnt understand why these businesses didnt stagger their
employees vacations over the year. Didnt they realize that if they kept their
businesses open, the company would make more money? The sales person
seemed to read my thoughts. He looked at me and shrugged. This isnt
America, mate, he said, were not all bloody capitalists here. But I
wasnt a capitalist, was I? Surely It was just good business to want to make
as much money as possible. At first I though these practices were part of the
laid-back, no worries mate shell be right attitude that seemed to dominate
Australian work philosophy. Even the high school had a twenty-minute recess
every morning and an hour break for lunch. During these breaks, while the
rest of the staff chatted and drank tea in the social room, I often took the
opportunity to grade a few more papers or to organize myself for my next
class. I learned later that my fellow teachers thought I was being rude or
showing off. Kissing-up they called this behavior. I called my behavior work
hard and you will succeed. As a new teacher, I couldnt keep up with
everything I thought I needed to do. But what seemed to me to be a normal
(and noble) way to compensate for my lack of experience was considered
aberrant behavior by my Australian colleagues. It had never occurred to me
that the work ethic that was so much a part of my own country was not a
universally ingrained truth. Nor had it occurred to me how much I actually
subscribed to it. But Australia had been (un)settled by convicts, not
Puritans. Australians did not see work as a direct route to goodness.
In her conclusion that Australian business practices were different (and in
her opinion not as sensible) as American business practices, she made a simple
23


self-reflection. She reflected on her current understanding of the work ethic and
applied it to the Australian situation without identifying or examining the
constructs or assumptions that had given rise to those beliefs. It was only when
she socially reflected with the sales person that she was compelled to examine
her own assumptions about the work ethic. When the sales person identified her
as an American and a capitalist, she became conscious of the implications of her
words.
This constructivist approach to change is based on the process of social
reflection. Everyone works to understand the issue, engages in conversation to
reach a higher level of meaning, shares in the responsibility for the renewal of
thought, and assesses their progress (Wagner, 1999). This approach builds a
richer and more elaborate understanding of a specific context and a richer
abstraction of its meaning. It helps to create a culture that values continuous
learning for all people.
Self-Reflection. Reflective practitioners, as autonomous self-directed
thinkers, are described as continually inquiring into their practice of instruction
(Lieberman, 1994). McLaughlin (1994) writes about self-reflection as arising
from the issues of the typical teachers classroom and day-to-day responsibilities.
The process is ongoing and embedded in current daily practice. Pedagogical
knowledge is constructed as the teacher self-reflects while engaged in the
everydayness of instruction. But the idea of self-reflection seems to be at odds
with the prevailing practice of schools. Schools traditionally function with
external controls such as teachers grading students and supervisors grading
teachers. Contrary to this practice teachers have demonstrated that
self-reflection is vital to learning and performance and leads to continued growth
24


over time (Schon, 1983).
Model of Self-Reflection. For personal construction of meaning,
Schons (1983) work on the reflective practitioner provides a comprehensive
structure. Drawing on the writings of Dewey, Schon discusses reflective practice
as reflection-in-action. First, for a practitioner to reflect-in-action they have to
have the prerequisite skill of knowing-in-action. Knowing-in-action is bringing
spontaneous routine responses to a situation of action. The knowing-in-action is
unconsciously and spontaneously delivered and works as long as the situation is
considered normal to the practitioner. Second, a routine response produces a
surprise that does not fit the practitioners category of knowing-in-action. Third,
a surprise leads the practitioner to reflect within the action. The reflection is in
some measure conscious, but it does not have to be verbal. The thoughts are
What is this? and How have I been thinking about it? Fourth, the
reflection-in-action is critical because it questions the assumptions of
knowing-in-action. The practitioner thinks critically about the situation and in
the process restructures strategies of action or ways of framing problems. Fifth,
this reflection is the impetus for on-the-spot experimentation. The practitioner
tries out new actions to explore the situation, to test understandings, and to
affirm or disaffirm the responses. Sixth, the practitioner reflects on the
reflection-in-action and produces a verbal description of it. Seventh, the
practitioner reflects on the resulting description. Reflection on the past
reflection-in-action may indirectly shape future actions. It begins a dialogue of
thinking and doing through which the practitioner becomes more skillful.
Schon has had a great impact on the efforts to develop reflective practice,
but his ideas have been criticized on several grounds. First, Schon has been
25


criticized for his lack of attention to the discursive or dialogical dimension of
teacher renewal (Day, 1993). He does not discuss how teachers and other
professionals can and do reflect together on a regular basis about their work.
Reflection, portrayed by Schon, can be a solitary process. The recent work on
reflective practice stresses the idea of reflection as a social practice that needs a
social forum for the discussion of ideas (Zeichner, 1999). Teacher renewal is
supported when ideas are made clear through dialogue with other teachers
(Solomon, 1987).
Another criticism of Schons work is that it focuses on reflection at the
level of the individual without sufficient attention to the social conditions that
frame and influence practice (Zeichner, 1999; Vygotsky, 1962). By focusing only
on self-reflection, educators can become submissive to the institutional
conditions and roles in which they find themselves (Scheffier, 1968). I believe
teachers should be supported to focus both internally and externally on their
pedagogy and their social conditions to renew their practice and improve the
contexts in which they are situated.
Social Reflection. All educators bring to the process of learning
personal schemas that have been formed by prior experiences, beliefs, values,
socio-culturai histories, and perceptions. Meaning and knowledge are
constructed when new experiences are encountered and mediated by social
reflection; learning takes place, as does teacher development. When actively
engaged in reflective dialogue, teachers become more complex in their thinking
about the world, more tolerant of diverse perspectives, and more flexible and
open toward new experiences (Lambert, 1995). Personal and professional
experiences require an interactive professional culture if teachers are to engage
26


with one another in the renewal process.
A key finding from cognitive psychology is that the process of learning is of
the utmost importance in the development of making meaning. The principles of
Perkins (Brandt, 1990) work on student intelligence seem transferable to the
realm of teacher intelligence. Perkins work builds on the notion of personal
schemas such as cognitive structures and world-views. He suggests that
individuals need to find ways to identify some of the basic assumptions
embedded in their peers personal schemas so that they can make connections
with those assumptions and beliefs. They need to encounter dissonance or
disequilibrium in order to help themselves accommodate new and contradictory
information into their current schema. Educators will continue to develop as
learners as they interact in the process of confrontation and reconstruction (Day,
1993).
Models of Social Reflection. Social reflection occurs when teachers
consciously converse about everyday issues (Argyris Sc Schon, 1996; Senge,
1990). In Argyris and Schons (1996) model of social reflection one teacher is
not helping the other to learn; instead, the focus is on the team restructuring to
acquire more knowledge, understanding, skill, or a different climate or culture
together. Understandings are stated and are enacted by the group, thereby
advancing their renewal efforts. The group constitutes a collective learning
system, a system that will function better or worse depending on how well its
structures address critical conditions of teacher and student learning (Salomon
& Perkins, 1998).
Similar to Argyris and Schons (1996) model, Zimmerman (1995) proposes
an additional set of structures to Schons self-reflective framework.
27


Zimmermans framework bridges self-reflection to social reflection through the
components of initiating, constructing, and closing activities. Initiating activities
foster a spirit of inquiry. They help educators come together to bridge the
meaning-making from their personal experience to a shared understanding in the
group. Constructing activities around the issues of interest support the
educators living with a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty. A more
complex understanding of how to work together develops from the chaos.
Teachers learn how to question assumptions, values, and beliefs. Closing
activities create communities of memory and commitment. Taking time to
summarize, finding patterns that connect, creating metaphors, generating new
questions, and committing to action are necessary for closure.
Another approach to social reflection as seen by Griffiths and Tann (1991)
relies on practitioners to make their personal theories explicit. They claim that
for reflection to occur public theories need to be translated into personal ones
and vise versa. They identify a five-level model of social reflection:
rapid reaction (instinctive and immediate; akin to reflection-in-action)
repair (habitual, pause for thought, fast on the spot; akin to
reflection-in-action)
review (time out to reassess, over hours or days; akin to
reflection-on-action)
research (systematic, sharply focused, over weeks or months; akin to
reflection-on-action)
retheorize and reformulate (long-term reflection-on-action informed by
public academic theories).
Carlsen (1988) also describes a social reflective process. She presents four
elements she believes are central to meaning-making interactions: the presence
28


of a holding environment, gathering of data or information, searching for
patterns and processes, and reinforcing new abilities to think about ones own
thinking. The gathering of data and the search for patterns are also at the core
of collaborative inquiry research conversations (Sagor, 1992).
An example containing all the aspects of the above models is a group of
12th grade English teachers who had been experimenting unsuccessfully with
ways to make advanced placement (AP) English accessible to non-honors
students and to more minority students (Cochran-Smith k Lytle, 1993). The
teacher candidates and clinical teachers were invited to watch a showing of
Stand and Deliver and to meet Jamie Escalante. The teachers reflected about
the AP process they had in place for students and decided to redesign the class
so that a wider range of students would be able to qualify and succeed in the
curriculum. Over the following year this group of English teachers constructed
and reconstructed the curriculum. Their reflections involved working with the
students to renegotiate the meaning of student ability, construct new routes to
textual understanding, and alter views about the knowers and knowing in
English classrooms.
My concern is that teachers have few opportunities to engage in the
reflective process, like the 12th grade English teachers, that would call forth
their ideas and successful experiences to enable them to make sense of their
world together. Nor do they experience supported encounters with discrepant
information about teaching and learning that are essential for moving toward
the renewal of practice. If teachers learn through the processes of knowledge
construction, conversation, and action, then the function of schools must be to
engage teachers in the processes that create the conditions for learning.
29


Reflective practices must be supported in such a way that these learning
processes provide support and momentum for teacher renewal.
Dimensions of Reflection
Max Van Manen (1977, 1995) claims that the practical use of educational
knowledge occurs in an increasingly reflective manner and suggests that there
are three levels of reflection. Van Manens hierarchy of reflective thought begins
with the technical level, in which educational techniques are applied to attain a
given end. Van Manen sees the next level, the contextual, as being a more
adequate way for teachers to make practical use of their own experiences in the
reality of their classrooms. For the highest level, critical reflection, Van Manen
looks to critical analysis and emancipation.
His model has been replicated by Lasley (1992), Grimmett, MacKinnon,
Erickson, and Riecken (1990), Sparks-Langer (1991), and Taggart and Wilson
(1998). The three levels of reflection build progressively from a basic general
premise of technical reflection to reflection epitomized by moral and ethical
issues that relate directly and indirectly to teaching practices. The three levels
show a growing sophistication of teachers1 schema from technical concepts and
rules to contextual and emancipatory thinking. I used Van Manens (1977, 1995)
reflective framework as a guide when I observed and listened to our group reflect
on our issues of interest in our practice.
I believe that we reflected within all three dimensions. I do not mean that
we needed to use all three dimensions of reflection with each practice issue
30


examined. I mean we needed to develop our schema within each dimension of
reflection so that we might draw on each, if needed, when conversing about our
issues. I view the development of a reflective schema as a recursive, dialectical,
and ontological process. It is recursive in that we consistently move back and
forth between self and social reflection. The process is dialectical in that we
renew our pedagogy through the continual conversation around our beliefs and
the issues of interest in our practice; that once resolved introduce new issues. It
is ontological in that we are always in the process of coming to understand our
own existence; it is through living that we understand ourselves.
Technical Reflection
Technical reflection is the first level of reflective thinking that encompasses
methodological problems and theory development (Van Manen, 1977, 1995).
Many novice teachers are thought to function at the technical level, because of
their lack of schema around educative problems. Teachers' reflective knowledge
at this level is derived from human experiences, pedagogy, content, and
methodology of education. The dominant concern is with the efficient and
effective application of educational knowledge for the purposes of attaining ends
that are accepted as given. At this level, neither the ends nor the context of the
classroom, school, community, and society are treated as issues. Teachers reflect
on meeting set outcomes, supporting a skill base through learning theory, and
making simple rational observations. The individual episodes of getting through
lessons and implementing instructional management approaches are some of the
building blocks in developing the professional repertoire needed to reflectively
handle non-routine issues. The outcomes of technical reflection are:
31


select and implement lessons to achieve objectives
acquire skills and technical knowledge
develop awareness of methodology
implement a preset lesson
link theory development to practice
identify relevant activities and objectives
Table 1.1 outlines the characteristics of teachers reflecting at the technical
level.
Table 1.1: Characteristics of Technical Reflection
1. Possesses the basic skills of teaching
2. Possesses the technical ability to convey knowledge
3. Models what has been seen before
4. Is primarily concerned with known ends of instruction
5. Focuses on activities which may or may not be part of a
coherent strategy moving toward an identified goal
6. Chooses from published alternatives such as a teachers
manual or curriculum guide
7. Uses well-tested patterns of educational practice
(Van Manen, 1977, 1991)_________________________________
Contextual Reflection
Contextual reflection is the second level of reflective thinking (Van Manen,
1977, 1995). Contextual reflection encompasses the pedagogical issues of theory
and practice. Teachers reflect on the underlying assumptions of classroom
practice and the consequences of implemented strategies. Issues stem from the
teachers analyzing their belief system, contextual situations, and practices based
on increased pedagogical knowledge and skills. At this level, every action is seen
32


as linked to particular value commitments, and the teacher considers the worth
of competing educational ends. The outcomes of contextual reflection are:
understanding concepts, contexts, and theoretical bases for practice
connecting the relevance of practice to student growth
establishing congruency between theory and practice
assessing implications and consequences of actions and beliefs
understanding personal and environmental interactions
Table 1.2 outlines the characteristics of teachers reflecting at the
contextual level.
Table 1.2: Characteristics of Contextual Reflection
1. Links to research and pedagogical principles
2. Problem-frames
3. Assesses causes and effects
4. Assesses consequences
5. Accepts responsibility
6. Raises new or related questions
7. Self-examines
8. Takes a proactive stance
9. Identifies and acts on perplexities encountered in teaching
10. Talks with in-depth description
11. Emphasizes problem-solving and critical thinking in students
12. Makes thoughtful choices from a number of competing,
and often equal objectives
13. Shows a commitment to continued personal growth
14. Is aware of and tolerant of individual differences in students
15. Willing to deal with controversial subjects
16. Links to other professions
(Van Manen, 1977, 1991)
33


Critical Reflection
Van Manens (1977, 1995) third and most abstract and complex level of
reflection is called critical reflection. He is not talking about critical (analytical)
thinking skills, which include analyzing, critiquing, judging, evaluating,
comparing and contrasting, and assessing (Sternberg, 1998). He is talking about
critical reflection that encompasses the questioning of moral and ethical issues
related directly and indirectly to teaching practices. Critical reflection is
comparable to the dialectical level of Grimmett et al. (1990) and Lasley (1992),
the social reconstructionist level of Liston and Zeichner (1991), and the
dialectical mode of Taggart and Wilson (1998). At this level the central
questions ask which educational goals, experiences, and activities lead toward
forms of life that are mediated by concerns for justice, equity, and fulfillment.
Teachers also question whether the current situation serves important student
needs and purposes. They view teaching and the surrounding contexts as
value-governed. The outcomes of critical reflection are:
analyzing the relation of knowledge systems and theories
examining underlying assumptions, norms, and rules
practicing introspection, open-mindedness, and intellectual responsibility
(Dewey, 1933)
questioning the moral and ethical issues of teaching
exploring knowledge and social consequences
cross-examining issues and practices
Table 1.3 outlines the characteristics of teachers reflecting at the critical
level.
34


Table 1.3: Characteristics of Critical Reflection
1. Links practice to social, ethical, moral principles
2. Is concerned about long-term ramifications of practice
3. Links practice to larger social issues and settings
4. Understands and acts on value applications
5. Implements a program of self-directed growth
6. Applies moral and ethical criteria to educational decisions
7. Assumes personal responsibility for teaching and learning
8. Provides moral and ethical leadership in school settings
9. Acts to resolve inconsistencies between belief, values,
and behavior
10. Experiments and takes risks while realizing the possibility
of loss
(Van Manen, 1977, 1991)___________________________________
Whether this proposed framework of reflective practice offers adequate
conceptions of teacher renewal as it occurs in classrooms, or of how it might
occur, is basically not assessed (Calderhead, 1989). It is difficult to gain a
precise conceptual grasp of what reflection is or how it impacts educators
renewing their practice. The only uniting theme in the discussions of reflective
practice is the general findings on the technical and contextual dimensions. Ideal
frameworks of reflection are offered, but little is known about how they might
operate in practice. The following section provides a literature review of how
reflection may or may not support teachers in hecoming more aware of
themselves and their environments in a way that changes their perceptions of
what is possible (Zeichner &c Liston, 1987).
35


Research on Reflective Practice
University Teacher Education Programs
Many of the recent studies of reflective practice are researched through
teacher education programs at universities. One example is CITE (Collaboration
for the Improvement of Teacher Education), part of a four-year undergraduate
program at Eastern Michigan University (Sparks-Langer, Simmons, Pasch,
Colton, & Starko, 1990). The evaluations of CITE have produced a heuristic
that assesses the reflective thinking of students through a short interview about
a recent teaching event (Simmons et al. 1989). The framework has seven levels:
(1) No description
(2) Simple lay person description
(3) Labeling of events with pedagogical concepts
(4) Explanation using only tradition or personal preference
(5) Explanation using pedagogical principles
(6) Explanation using pedagogical principles and context
(7) Explanation with ethical/moral considerations
The research team coded transcripts of sixteen students who were
interviewed about a teaching event and found that ten of them were functioning
at a contextual level (level 5) of reflection. The researchers believe only a few of
the students displayed ethical/moral thinking (level 7), because the program did
not have a critical-theorist orientation in the social foundation courses.
36


In another study of CITE, Grinberg (1989) contrasted a class of CITE
students with a similar group not enrolled in CITE. While both groups were
initially equal on their reflective thinking scores, the CITE students
subsequently achieved significantly higher ratings on their reflective thinking.
The courses with a guided field experience promoted greater reflection than did
the courses without the field experiences. The activities that promoted reflection
in both groups were journals and writing assignments that helped the students
to analyze, question, and reflect on the issues presented in the courses.
The mathematics department of the Stichting Opleiding Leraren (SOL), a
teachers' college in Utrecht, The Netherlands, has based its program on reflective
practice (Korthagen, 1988). In the program teacher candidates are taught an
action research model called ALACT: action, looking back on the action,
awareness of essential aspects, creating alternative methods of action, and trial.
An initial evaluation of the program was based primarily on a questionnaire,
which was sent to 116 former students of the mathematics department of the
SOL and to thirteen teacher candidates who were approaching graduation
(Korthagen, 1988). A categorization of these reports, by two independent
researchers, showed that more than 50 percent of the respondents had
experienced important learning in how to reflect and direct their own growth.
On the negative side, many teachers reported that they had been insufficiently
prepared for the student problems in discipline and motivation. They felt there
was a gap between teacher preparation and teaching practice.
Korthagen (1988) also did a follow-up study through interviews with eight
students who left the program after the first year and ten teacher candidates
who remained. He found that there was a clash of belief systems between the
37


philosophy of the program and the teacher candidates who dropped out. The
teacher candidates who dropped out felt there was a strong pressure to conform
to certain ways of learning, and these ways of learning were foreign to their ways
of learning. Korthagen found that this raised some doubt as to whether a
teacher education program based on reflective practice is equally suitable for all
teacher candidates.
Finally, Ross (1989) evaluated the effects of a course in Research on
Elementary Education as part of a teacher preparation program (PROTEACH).
The instructor of the course fostered reflection by helping students examine their
own socially constructed beliefs about schools and teaching. For example, she
required action research projects and theory-to-practice papers. She also used
research-based teaching techniques and critical discussions of those methods. To
assess the 134 teacher candidates reflective thinking, Ross assigned each of their
papers a level of reflection from 1 (low: description with little analysis of context
or multiple perspectives) to 3 (high: multiple perspectives with recognition of
the pervasive impact of teachers actions). Most of the papers were rated either a
1 or a 2. Ross (1989, p.29) interpreted these findings as part of a developmental
process, Perhaps, even though students demonstrated a low or moderate level
of reflection, the development of this knowledge is essential for future reflection.
Action Research
Professional Teachers. Action research (Elliot, 1985) can be a vehicle
for encouraging teachers to investigate issues of interest in their classroom and
to incorporate the results into their future teaching, hi this type of research,
teachers identify questions, collect data, create actions, and develop a plan
38


around the questions to be studied. One study, by Sardo-Brown (1995),
describes the action research undertaken by six classroom teachers, as a
requirement of a masters degree program. After completing their action
research studies they responded to an open-ended questionnaire. A myriad of
benefits were reported by the teachers as a result of their research, including the
following: an enhanced sense of professionalism; improved relationships with
parents, students, and administrators; and a greater understanding of why they
do what they do. The areas of frustration for these teachers included difficulty
finding time to collect and analyze data, time for reflection with other teachers,
permission to access school-wide data, and money for supplies. On-site support
groups for teams of teachers who conduct research were suggested for the future.
Only three of the six teachers reported that they would engage in action
research in the future.
At a small liberal arts college in southeastern Ohio, Bennet (1994)
analyzed practicing teachers attitudes and perceptions about two required
action research masters courses and a coordinated research project. She mailed
an open-ended questionnaire to 90 teachers (24 beginning teachers not enrolled
in a research course, 21 teachers who had completed one course, and 22 teachers
who were alumni) and did follow-up interviews with 21 of the participants. Most
of the beginning teachers gave brief descriptions of what they expected to gain;
however, they were tempered with skepticism toward research. The second
group of teachers, who had taken one research course, had mixed views of
research. The alumni group reported that completing research course work and
projects had resulted in more reflective thinking patterns, changes in
instructional decision-making, and changes in classroom practices. However, one
39


half of the alumni group reported that they would not conduct action research
in their classroom because they were too bogged down with paperwork and
meetings. The other half said they would participate in action research only if
they were given additional time and logistical support, including educational
journals, technological hardware and software, and networking opportunities.
Palmer (1995) also analyzed collaborative reflection and dialogue through
a two-week masters level class in which twenty-one experienced teachers from
three international schools participated. The data collected included teachers
journals, anecdotal records, interviews, and class products. The teachers
identified time as the major constraint of their action research projects dining
the course and semester. They also considered reflection, inquiry, and research as
competing interests in teaching and not as a part of it. Palmers findings indicate
that reflection, dialogue, and inquiry did facilitate the teachers collaborative
efforts towards identifying and resolving common issues in the their practices.
She suggests, with support, that teachers can work with university faculty to
support their own learning and strengthen the knowledge base of teaching.
Action research, in many cases, may seem to teachers to be another
external imposition created by the experts who believe this is the road to
improved teaching. Llorens (1994) has been involved in the National Science
Foundation (NSF) project Enhancing Teacher Professionalism through
Cooperative Curriculum Development in Mathematics" at the University of
Missouri, Columbia. The program is a collaborative project between the
university and 24 third- through fifth-grade teachers who, individually and
collaboratively, developed cooperative small-group lessons for five math content
standards. During the second year the teachers were asked to design and carry
40


out their own action research agenda, which was new to most teachers and not
the reason they joined the project. At the completion of the second year, and
after an action research conference at which all the participants presented their
research, Llorens found that none of the teachers became teacher-researchers.
However, she discovered that they became more reflective practitioners through
learning the processes of interviewing, observing, and participating in collegial
groups.
Self-Reflection
Teacher Candidates. In a study of teacher candidates who
participated in a reflective teacher education course in Holland, Korthagen
(1988) found that teacher candidates differed in their learning orientations.
Some, with an internal orientation, viewed learning to teach as a process of
self-guided discovery, and they could readily look upon their own practice
objectively and attempt to evaluate it against a set of criteria. Other teacher
candidates, with an external orientation, modeled their teaching behavior upon
others, and expected clear guidance from their mentors about how to teach. The
process of learning to teach was influenced by attitudes and the way they
thought about learning, which did not appear to be easily developed. Some of
the teacher candidates had great difficulty acquiring the detachment from their
own practice that would enable them to reflect upon it critically and objectively.
Professional Teachers. In an investigation of four junior high
mathematics teachers, Nicholas (1995) used observations and interviews to study
reflective practice. In his observations he found teachers used reflections in three
ways: to make instruction adjustments, conduct on-the-spot assessments of their
41


instruction, and make classroom management decisions. The role of reflection in
the interview sessions helped them to deal with more internal issues such as the
conflicted feelings they had about the lack of support from parents and school
board members. Nicholas observed that opportunities for self-reflection in the
classroom were rare because the participants did not know how to objectively
assess their instruction.
Self-Reflective Stories
Professional Teachers. Teachers' self- reflective stories explore the
meanings and interpretations they give to their everyday lives. These stories can
be a powerful force in heightening teachers awareness of their own professional
renewal. An example of this approach is Lamperts (1990, p. 59) three-year
study of her own teaching of fifth-grade math. Her interest was to make
knowing mathematics in the classroom more like knowing mathematics in the
discipline. She presented her research in terms of a story about learning and
knowing math in the social context of the classroom. She concluded, through
critical reflection of her own learning and that of her students, that there are
multiple views and perspectives to address when thinking about instruction and
curriculum. If teachers can keep alive reflective conversations that permit the
telling of stories and visions, then maybe future generations of teachers will
inherit a reflective community in which all members benefit (Kruse, 1997).
When Evans (1995) finished her doctoral studies and returned to teaching
a fifth-grade class, she found that she continued to engage in a tremendous
amount of self-reflection as she strove to understand the impact of her beliefs
and practices on her students. The focus of her reflections was on effective ways
42


to implement process writing in her classroom. She kept a journal and regularly
talked with a fellow teacher and parents as a means of analyzing how the
students were responding to the various modifications she made in an effort to
encourage them to write. She found that when she reflected on how her students
responded to particular practices she could more readily explore the wealth of
other instructional possibilities. As a result of her changes in practice, Evans
(1995, p. 270) states, Critical reflection allows us to reframe our past
understandings, rethink the assumptions underlying our understandings of a
problematic situation, and consider the possible responses available to us.
Teacher Educator. Teacher educators, like those they educate, are
practitioners; their roots and ongoing experiences are in the classroom. As with
teachers, it is expected, even assumed, that reflection will inform the practice of
teacher educators (Adler, 1993). Bullion-Mears (1993) conducted a self-reflective
study as she developed collaborative practices in her secondary curriculum
development and instruction methods class. She used a reflective journal to help
herself analyze instances in which her practice was consonant with her emerging
philosophy. Self-reflection supported her in magnifying and scrutinizing her
evolving beliefs about learning, how those beliefs were accomplished in a
classroom setting, and how she slowly succeeded in bringing those beliefs to
fruition. She found that she is no longer comfortable with the traditional way of
teaching and feels it is of the utmost importance to explore new models of
teaching and learning and to utilize reflection to investigate what happens in the
classroom.
43


Social Reflection
Teacher Candidates. Most researchers have found that it is relatively
easy to promote technical and contextual reflection through teacher education
programs. Hollingsworth (1990) conducted a longitudinal study to investigate
changes in the knowledge and beliefs of ten teachers about reading instruction
before, during, and after a five-year teacher education program. She hoped that
the program would help teachers shift attention away from technical concerns
with student activities and toward a greater interest in student learning. She
found little change in the students until the second or third year of teaching,
which she believes is when the scripts for the everyday management and
activities became automatic, allowing the teachers to focus on student outcomes.
Professional Teachers. Using the CITE framework in a study of
reflective thinking, through an inservice program, Pasch and his colleagues
(1990) investigated teachers who were studying the ideas of Madeline Hunter.
Interviews were conducted before training, after training but before coaching,
and after both training and coaching. There was no difference between the
pre-training and post-training reflective thinking scores. However, they found
that after coaching the scores of reflective thinking rose significantly. In
conclusion, they found coaching helps to promote reflective teaching.
The Teacher Development and Organizational Change project was
created and implemented by Campbell and Kirschner (1990), two
university-based educational researchers. They developed three teams that
consisted of two researchers paired with one first-grade teacher. The data
collected consisted of classroom observations, videotaping, informal
44


conversational interviews, and a journal. The researchers and teachers found
that for reflection to be an effective process for renewal it is necessary that:
Reflection needs to occur in a supportive group context rather than in
isolation.
Reflective activities include writing as well as conversations about
teaching.
Reflection draws on open-ended and non-judgmental questioning.
Researchers and practitioners best conduct reflection collaboratively,
rather than as a body of findings produced only by researchers.
Effective reflection among practitioners requires the participation of a
university-based researcher or staff developer.
The Humanities Education, Research, and Language Development
(HERALD) project (Schoenbach, 1994) also discovered that their teacher teams
found it a struggle to conduct team meetings without direct facilitation by
HERALD project staff. HERALD was a district-wide project that included ten
teams of teachers, seventy teachers in all, who received stipends for their
participation. The teachers engaged in weekly team meetings, weekly project
meetings, a three-day summer institute, and four Saturday retreats. The focus
of the project was on experiential, integrated, and inquiry-based student and
teacher learning. Reflection was a process in their mission to change classroom
practice to improve students' language skills. Through their observations and
interview data, the researchers found that the team meetings were deficient in
professional-level meeting skills. The norms of a collegial community seemed to
bump up against deeply ingrained and unconsciously held norms of teacher
privacy and autonomy. On a positive note, the researchers found that the
participating teachers experimented with teaching strategies, reflected on
45


successes and issues with colleagues, made use of outside supports to extend and
refine their innovations, and developed an attitude of inquiry.
Some teachers fear that they will be perceived as unprofessional and
incompetent if they ask questions and socially reflect about their practice. A
study by Hawkes (1997) found that teachers thought only very new teachers
should have problems and ask questions about their classrooms. Hawkes
analyzed how eight teachers utilized new telecommunication technologies as an
alternative way to reflect and collaborate with other teachers. He found, through
interviews, that teachers were more frequently engaged in networked dialogue
rather than face-to-face dialogue. Teachers reported that the anonymity of
dialogue on networked technologies offered them the safety to ask questions that
otherwise they were unwilling to ask. The teachers felt that the number of
diverse voices speaking about a single issue sustained the dialogue and
challenged their viewpoints in an unthreatening way.
In a study sponsored by the Center for Organization and Restructuring
Schools, Kruse (1997) investigated six teachers from three middle schools to gain
an understanding of their reflective experiences and how the process affected
their relationships with other teachers. The teachers participated in two 5-day
visits by a research team which collected data through interviews, classroom and
meeting observations, and school documents. Through cross-case analysis Kruse
found that what separated the teachers' reflective practice was their focus. Some
teachers appeared to be able to focus their reflections on one aspect of their
work and, consequently, reported a greater sense of efficacy in their work and
greater ownership in the classrooms. They sought out innovations and new
pedagogical forms of practice, for a specific purpose, from their colleagues. The
46


teachers who were less focused in their reflections concentrated on the enduring
dilemmas of their classroom practice such as student conduct, time
management, and school politics. They never resolved the issues that plagued
them and therefore struggled to maintain their self-esteem.
Summary of Research
In examining the literature and on reflection, I have reached five
conclusions. The first conclusion corroborates the work of Kruse (1997) in that
reflection upon practice is a fleeting trend for many researchers; they are looking
for a way to translate theory into practice rather than adopting reflection as a
critical component of the journey of a lifelong teacher. I have reached this
conclusion because many of the programs and research studies discussed above
have been successful in identifying methods, inquiry, and conversations that
promote technical and contextual reflection yet have had limited success in
promoting critical reflection. In spite of the progress of reflection as a renewal
process, researchers are not clear on how to best implement critically reflective
programs that support teacher reflection about political, ethical, and moral
values, beliefs, and attitudes (Calderhead, 1989; Sparks-Langer & Colton, 1991).
This may be because the concept of critical reflection was not developed from
the authentic voices of teachers, and therefore it is not rooted in their language
(McKeman, 1988). Or the researchers are technically and contextually oriented
themselves and are trying to produce certain patterns of professional
performance rather than change the reflective approach.
The second conclusion is that reflection is a promising process that is
essential for renewing teacher practice. Reflection may be the bridge between
47


theory and practice. Researchers do agree that reflection denotes the need to
relate thoughts about teaching to action in the classroom. This conclusion is
reached by listening to researchers who have returned to the classroom reflect on
their own process of opening themselves up to a variety of curriculum and
instructional methods that could inform their own practice in the classroom
(Evans, 1995; Lampert, 1995; Bullion-Mears, 1993).
The third conclusion is that teachers do not need a more structured action
research cycle. Instead, teachers need a deeper understanding of the assumptions
they have behind current practices (Elliot, 1985; Llorens, 1994). For example,
Kruse (1997) found that teachers who had a focus for their reflections displayed
a greater sense of efficacy in their work and more ownership in the classroom.
They sought out new practices and innovations for a specific purpose, just as the
researchers cited above, and returned to the classroom to study their own
reflective practice through self-reflective writing and stories. Teachers need to be
able to access different ways of thinking about how they do what they do.
Reflection and action are comprised of a series of possibilities that teachers can
undertake, and a structured linear cycle may inhibit the multiplicity of possible
responses.
The fourth conclusion is the contrast between the time and power privilege
bestowed on university researchers compared to public school teachers.
University researchers have more time to reflect upon their individual research
agendas, which is a source of power in itself. The majority of the authors of the
studies that I have cited are university researchers. Even if teachers do have the
opportunity to write their own stories it comes about primarily because they are
participating in a university program (Gitlin &: Russell, 1994). A reasonable
48


hypothesis is that teachers who write their personal stories represent a privileged
segment of an academic group. Until policymakers acknowledge the positive
consequences of providing teachers the time for reflective practice and inquiry,
teachers will remain at the whims of researchers who will provide the time and
the incentives.
The fifth conclusion is gender and grade level oriented. According to the
literature review, those who seem more apt to collaborate are female elementary
teachers. Males and high school teachers are almost absent from the literature
on reflective practice. The male high school teachers who did participate in
reflective collaboratives formed and reformed groups as they tested their
developing perspectives (Palmer, 1995). It may be that high school male
teachers choose not to participate in the research, or it may be that males use
the collaborative process and structure differently than females (Belenky, et al.,
1986; Gilligan, 1982).
Research Questions
Reflective practice has been defined and justified in numerous ways. On
closer examination, it is clear that the processes of renewing teacher curricula
and instruction are complex and, at present, inadequately conceptualized
(Calderhead, 1989). Although several frameworks of reflection (Carlsen, 1988;
Griffiths and Tann, 1991; Zimmerman, 1995) have been described for teacher
renewal, the purposes, the nature, the function, and the potential of reflection
have yet to be fully explored. In order to support reflection in schools, we need
49


to know what could be involved in the reflective process, what educators might
reflect about, and how that reflection may be incorporated into practice.
Studying reflection requires research questions that experiment with
ongoing, critical, reflective, and interpretive methods (Sirotnik, 1999). It
obligates questions that involve educators in understanding their own renewal
process. The questions in this study were not oriented to specific pre-identified
outcomes, but instead inquired into how, if at all, reflection and conversation
change over time, and how this process affects teachers instruction and
curricula. These questions approached the reflective process from a recursive,
dialectical, and ontological perspective.
In this study, I provided the opportunity for educators to use conscious
reflection as a means for understanding the relationship between their own
thoughts and their actions (Schon, 1987). The space was created because we
(the teachers and I) wanted to know more about how reflection supports the
renewal process. I believe that while educators must be introspective,
responsible, and rigorous in order to contribute to the reflective process, a clear
potential for reflective practice is realized through the collegial efforts of groups
of educators. Day (1993, p. 90) further clarifies the point that we do not know
how reflection leads to change. We do not know much about how teachers make
decisions based upon reflection or how to judge the quality of the decisions in
action." This may be because there is more research on teacher products than
on what it means to be a reflective teacher (Tripp, 1988).
Little has been done to systematically assess the effects of reflective
thinking. Some proponents of reflective thinking contend that assessment in any
quantifiable form is invalid (Ross, 1990) because the reflective thinking process is
50


incapable of being observed and because of the failure to agree on a definition of
reflective thinking (Hattan &c Smith, 1994). Sirotnik (1990 p. 608) argues that
individual programs and whole school assessment must include the processes of
rigorous and active self-examination, reflection, and critical inquiry. What is
clear is that the reflective process can be documented and the story of renewal
can be told. Educators thoughts cannot be observed, but their voices can be
heard and their meaning can be understood in context. In this study I did the
best possible job of relating the story of our groups reflective thoughts and
actions.
Based on the above discussion, the following research questions provided
the framework for this study. As with any nonnumerical study, the following
questions served as an initial framework contingent on how the study unfolded
(Miles, 1994; Parlett & Hamilton, 1976). The aim of this study was to enable me
to more thoroughly understand why and how educators reflect upon their issues
of interest, and how these reflections impact their pedagogical practices.
The questions that initially guided this study were:
Why do educators reflect upon their issues of interest in their practice ?
What forces stimulate or constrain the reflective process?
What is the content of the reflective conversations?
Does the reflective conversation develop in meaning over time?
Do the educators implement the ideas from the reflective process into
their practice?
These research questions were informed by literature on constructivism,
adult learning, reflection, and school renewal. A number of issues arising from
the literature that affect the process of reflection are: knowing why and how
51


educators are seeking change, understanding what that change means for
educators and students, providing a safe environment, and providing time for
reflective conversations with colleagues. The why of teacher change is initially
more important than how they will proceed with their reflective process. The
why discussions guide and motivate the collective efforts of the group, so that
they remain authentic and focused on the learners. Developing methods,
strategies, and techniques for action is an important part of the process;
however, action is secondary to the purpose of the change. The commitment to
renew teaching, learning, and schooling is embedded in the why of educators-
conversations (Darling-Hammond, 1995).
Methodology
This case study describes how four experienced middle school educators,
an administrator, and I met weekly to reflect on our issues of interest. The study
analyzed individual and group conversations and interactions that provided
opportunities for us to reflect upon our work. The social reflective process was
supported by twenty sixty-minute weekly group conversations. I also conducted
two individual conversations with each participant. The period of the study was
one school semester, January 1999 to June 1999.
The study was nonnumerical in nature, as it described in narrative form
why and how teachers used the process of reflective conversations to converse
about their issues of interest in their pedagogical practices (Bogdan & Biklen,
1982). Little is known about the shared reflections of experienced teachers
(Baily, 1992) and the structural and interactional arrangements that provide
opportunities for the process- This research provided an opportunity for us to
i
52


reflect upon our own beliefs and assumptions about our pedagogy in order to
analyze and renew our practice. This process yielded a greater understanding of
our personal beliefs and values about teaching.
Limitations of the Study
Case study research is subjective, and new thoughts and inquiry may be
produced more frequently than solutions to the previously generated research
questions. Studying the reflective practice of educators is time consuming and
complex because it is a recursive, dialectical, and ontological process. I needed
an extended period of time to analyze and understand the dynamics of our
conversations (Stake, 1995). Also, my personal understanding of the study may
not be fully understood by my readers (Phillips, 1990); however, my intent was
to create a narrative in which educators can develop their own meaning when
thinking about their own practice.
This story cannot be packaged and transferred from setting to setting.
However, we can learn from our groups' efforts and reflections, and we can share
these learnings with others. As Sirotnik (1999, p. 609) states, This is a building
of a heuristic understanding, developing and refining ideas that others can play
with and reconstruct in their own setting. In this story I tried to capture the
complexities, reflections, ambiguities, beliefs, and motives of a group of people
who made the commitment to renew their practice together.
Conclusion
Dewey was unmistakably a visionary of the teacher continuously pursuing
reflection in the course of the act of teaching (Schubert 8c Schubert, 1984, p.
53


12). Dewey (1929, p.74) states:
Each, day of teaching ought to enable a teacher to revise and better in
some respects the objectives aimed at in previous work. Education is a mode
of life, of action. It renders those who engage in the act more intelligent,
more thoughtful and more aware of what they are about.
If we take Dewey's notion of the school as life and apply it to teacher
renewal, then the challenge for educators and schools is to try to avoid the
formalism and the disconnection from life that Dewey saw as characteristic of
education (Proefriedt, 1994). The school is the locus of teachers learning;
therefore artificiality is not an issue; schools provide abundant real-life
situations. The task of educators is to reconstruct the life experience of the
classroom so that it can educate them as well as the students.
Again, the questions guiding this study:
Why do educators reflect upon their issues of interest in their practice ?
What forces stimulate or constrain the reflective process?
What is the content of the reflective conversations?
Does the reflective conversation develop in meaning over time?
Do the educators implement the ideas from the reflective process in to
their practice?
These questions are important to ask because researchers do not know how
reflection leads to change, how educators make decisions based on reflection, or
how to assess the quality of those decisions (Day, 1993). My purpose was to
gather and analyze our group information so that I could create a narrative
about how we used reflection as a process for renewing our practice. The
findings from this study will add to the reflective practice research base.
54


CHAPTER 2
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
This story is a case study of how four middle school teachers, an
administrator, and I reflected on our issues of interest. The review of the
literature reveals a general assumption that reflective practice in teacher renewal
is desirable. However, educational researchers, in collaboration with teacher
candidates and clinical teachers, conduct most of the research studies with little
guidance about how reflection can be supported and assessed in day-to-day
teaching (Copeland, 1993). I believe that the everydayness of teaching has the
power to renew teachers' practice through reflective conversations with
colleagues. I participated in weekly reflective conversations with a group of
educators to increase my knowledge, and theirs, about how the process of
reflection can renew our pedagogies. Nespor (1987) states that if we are
interested in why teachers do what they do, then we must pay attention to the
interests they pursue. I am telling our groups story of how we pursued our
individual and group interests to renew our practice.
The investigation of the construct of reflection demands a mode of inquiry
especially suited to capturing the idiosyncratic and personal ways teachers
approach their practice. The case study research paradigm provides an approach


to capturing the multiple ways educators view their world and their work. The
goal of this type of research is the discovery of subjective truths and knowledge,
as well as the examination of processes, motives, beliefs, and attitudes (Wolcott,
1990). Case study research is aimed at providing rich, thick descriptions and
multiple perspectives of a given situation (Smith, 1992). The reality of our
groups everyday experiences will be presented as multiple, constructed, and
holistic (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 37).
Dilthey (1979) explains that case study research tries to facilitate the
reader through the experience by conveying the authentic happenings in thick
description. This is no easy task, because human actions are occasionally caused
in ways that cannot be discovered. Complex events occur frequently with little
opportunity, time, or possibility for understanding the causes. The educators in
our group had already built up an intuitive knowledge of teaching that is
personal and subjective (Ramani, 1987): the context in which we exist is already
socially and historically complex. Case study research seeks to understand
human experience through everyday life events rather than through cause and
effect (Stake, 1995).
Lincoln and Guba describe the naturalistic human experience as based in
multiple and socially constructed views of reality. It is based upon holistic and
interactive understandings. There is a mutual shaping and intertwining of cause
and effect, and attention is paid to the role of assumptions in the views of the
researcher and the participants. Miles and Huberman (1994) and Wolcott (1982)
agree upon the common features of naturalistic qualitative research. Upon their
recommendation I implemented these features in this case study (Table 2.1).
56


Table 2.1: Common Naturalistic Qualitative Features
1. Qualitative research is conducted through an intense and/or
prolonged contact with a field or life situation.
2. The researchers role is to gain a holistic overview of
the context under study.
3. The researcher attempts to capture data on the perceptions of the
participants through a process of deep attentiveness and
empathetic understanding while suspending preconceptions.
4. Reading through the data the researcher may isolate themes that
can be reviewed with informants.
5. A main task is to explicate the ways people come to understand,
account for, take action, and manage day-to-day situations.
6. Interpretations are compelled by theoretical reasons or internal
consistency.
7. The researcher is the main measurement device.
8. Most analysis is done with words.
(Miles and Huberman, 1994: Wolcott, 1982)
Case Study
Case study, defined by Stake (1995, p. xi), is the study of the
particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity
within important circumstances. Specifically, instrumental case study
researches a question or a puzzlement that needs general understanding. In this
study of inquiry I emphasized the episodes within events, the sequentiality of
happenings in context, and the wholeness of the individuals (Yin, 1994). Within
this context, the research questions I had about reflective practice were the
dominant threads throughout our narrative (Stake, 1995).
57


Boundaries
Clearly, there are limits on a researchers resources of time, energy, and
ability to control data. Some qualitative researchers (Patton, 1980; Miles and
Huberman, 1994) have recommended creating boundaries as an initial task. The
trade-offs to be made in any study will shape the course of the study and the
kind of results obtained. In this study the research questions formed the first
boundary. The main research questions were:
Why do educators reflect upon their issues of interest in their practice ?
What forces stimulate or constrain the reflective process?
What is the content of the reflective conversations?
Does the reflective conversation develop in meaning over time?
Do the educators implement the ideas from the reflective process into
their practice?
The second boundary was the selection of the participants, who were
experienced middle school educators. The predominately white middle class
student population of the school was 1100 seventh- and eighth-grade learners.
The four teachers and the administrator were all female, except for one male
teacher. This team was selected on the recommendation of the administrator,
personal knowledge, and those volunteering to participate. As a group, we
discussed the purposes, goals, and procedures of the study.
The third boundary was time. The participants set a time limit of one
hour per week for reflection; that imposed a limit for conversation and how
in-depth we were able discuss an issue. Also, all the data in this study was
collected during the 1999 spring semester of the school year. This broader time
limit forced another boundary, this time on the readers perception, of where we
58


ended in the reflective process when the study was scheduled to stop. (We
reengaged in the process at the beginning of the 1999/2000 school year).
The final boundary was the method of data generation, analysis, and
reporting. Data were collected via group meetings, individual conversations, and
teacher and student heuristic tools. The labor intensiveness of this type of data
collection (Wolcott, 1994) demanded boundaries around the processing, coding,
and write-up of the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I transcribed and coded all
of the group and individual conversations; selected transcriptions were used for
the final report.
Researchers Experience and Role
When I thought about myself in regard to this study some thoughts about
my own education returned to me. Although research suggests that many
educators were good students for whom schooling was a positive experience
(Lindblad & Prieto, 1992), my own experience as a student was more distanced
and marginalized. For me, elementary and secondary school, and everything it
represented culturally-didactic pedagogies, irrelevant curriculum, religious
assemblies, organized games, and regimented uniforms (Hargreaves, 1995) was
not a place I wanted to spend my time. The school-based marginality I felt
created a strong desire in me to enter teaching and eventually help educate a
more critically thoughtful generation of teachers.
In considering my own biases in this study two salient points emerged. I
believe strongly that the current school culture does not support the idea of
reflective practice. The concept is thought of as esoteric, and that does not mesh
well with the calls for accountability, evaluation checklists, or popular models of
59


teacher effectiveness. Related to this is the problem of time and pacing in
schools; too much happens too fast for social reflectivity to occur. My
assumption is that reflection is an important component of teacher renewal, and
it must be supported in the everydayness of teaching.
However, as I think about my assumptions I feel it is important to my
readers that I reveal enough about myself so that they can make their own
conclusions about what I observed, what I did not report or missed, and what I
may have misunderstood (Peshkin, 1989). I did not enter the world of Deer
Creek Middle School primarily as a middle school teacher, but as a researcher
and an interpreter of the conversational world of five educators. I wanted to
listen to their voices and their educational issues, while at the same time not
wanting to impact their decisions about what to discuss. Nonetheless, I know
that my presence as a participant, facilitator, and researcher, and my past
experiences as a teacher and as an educational consultant, impacted our groups
actions and thoughts as we conversed about educational pedagogies (Peshkin,
1988).
As a participant, in the reflective group I voiced my opinions; as a
facilitator I developed organizers that constructed meaning around our previous
conversation; and as a researcher I transcripted, analyzed, and interpreted our
conversations. Another university or school educator exploring the same
conversational context may have found alternative roles and actions in their
quest for understanding reflective practice (Peshkin, 1993). Thus, my
background was a constraint as well as a catalyst in supporting my
understanding of our reflective conversations. At no time did I feel I was not
able to comprehend the dynamics of the relationships of the participants or the
60


dialogue of the conversations. I was an insider because I had developed a
relationship with these educators before this study took place, and I was a
previous middle school teacher. I was also an outsider because I was not a part
of their educational team on a daily basis.
I became very conscious of my identity as I involved myself more and more
with the reflective practice group (Peshkin, 1989). I strove to be consciously
aware of the differences and likenesses between the educators and myself in
which I was conversing and making meaning. I was also intentionally aware that
I was seeking to make meaning of our conversations through transposing a
theoretical framework on the conversations. I realize that there will remain
important issues in reflective conversations that I was unable to discover in the
brief time I was involved in the reflective group, and these issues could be
illuminated in further studies (Wolcott, 1994).
I played three major roles in the group, one as a group participant, one as
a facilitator, and one as a researcher/interpreter. When I began this study I had
an established rapport with the participants and administration. I was also
familiar with and had easy access to the school and the staff. Bogdan and Biklen
(1982) and Glesne and Peshkin (1992) warn against undertaking studies in
settings in which the researcher is intrinsically connected because their opinions
might become truth (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982, p. 57). While acknowledging this
possibility, I saw my relationship with the school as a positive way for me to
develop my understanding of my three roles (Geertz, 1973).
One of the most crucial roles I played in the group was the role of
interpreter and the gatherer of interpretations (Stake, 1995). I hold to the view
that nonnumerical knowledge is constructed rather than discovered (Guba &
61


Lincoln, 1982), so constructivism encouraged me to provide this narrative with
descriptive raw material for the readers own meaning making. Therefore, the
understandings reached by each reader of this study will be different to some
degree. The aim of my research was to construct one interpretation of why and
how educators reflect upon their issues of interest, and how this impacts their
everyday curricula and instruction.
Data Collection
The data collected were (a) my field notes, (b) group conversations, (c)
facilitator organizers, (d) individual conversations, (e) teacher heuristic tool, (f)
student heuristic tool, and (g) teacher artifacts.
(a) Researchers Field Notes. I drew on Emersons (1995) four
understandings of writing field notes:
(1) What is observed and ultimately treated as data or findings is
inseparable from the observational process.
(2) Special attention should be given to the indigenous meanings and
concerns of the people studied.
(3) Contemporaneously written field notes are an essential grounding and
resource for writing broader, more coherent accounts of others lives and
concerns.
(4) Documentation of the social and interactional processes that make up
peoples everyday lives and activities should be described in detail.
In the field notes T recorded all my observations of what happened in each
event. This consisted of general notes written down during or after the activity
or event itself, including informal discussions and phone calls. Later, that same
day I wrote up the general notes into a more detailed account. I used field notes
62


as Ely (1991, p. 69) has suggested, As the place where each qualitative
researcher faces the self as instrument through a personal dialogue about
moments of victory and disheartenment, hunches, feelings, insights, assumptions,
biases, and ongoing ideas about method.
(b) Group Conversations. Every week all the participants met as a
group to share thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions about our issues of interest in
our practice. I facilitated the group conversation. At the beginning of each
meeting we filled out the weekly Teacher Heuristic Tool and discussed concerns,
surprises, or developments from the previous conversation. We conversed about
specific issues of interest by exploring various meanings, images, and experiences
(Carini, 1986). During the conversation we built on each other's insights while
analyzing our own thoughts (Belenky et al., 1986). I transcribed the
conversation after each meeting and gave the educators a copy, so we could
revisit and reexamine our joint analyses. At the end of each meeting, we
summarized what was said and what we wanted to converse about the following
week (Zimmerman, 1995). So, generally, the content of the conversations was
decided by the emerging concerns of the group.
(c) Facilitator Organizers, I developed organizers (Appendix B) as
our conversations progressed to serve as a comprehension and historical tool. I
found that if I presented the group with an organizer of the last conversation we
could easily move back into the reflective process. If I did not present the group
with an organizer, it took us ten minutes to become present and to recall what
was said at the last meeting.
(d) Individual Conversations. I had an in-depth guided conversation
with each individual educator at the beginning of the study and at the end of
63


the study. Following the work of Gebhard (1985) I did not ask set questions in
the usual interview mode. I used the teacher heuristic tool (Appendix C) to
structure the conversation for a historical view of how the educator was
reflecting upon the group conversation, and how that conversation impacted his
or her practice in the classroom. I did not commit to a formal interview because
that is really a questionnaire with a voice attached. Briggs (1986) has pointed
out that the social circumstances of interviews are obstacles to the respondents
articulation of their understanding. I asked a general question to open the
conversation and let the remainder of the conversation take a shape of its own
(Lincoln & Guba, 1984; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Glesne &c Peshkin, 1992). The
general question was, How have the reflective conversations impacted your
individual practice in the classroom?
I also followed Spradleys (1979) three principles for interviewing. First, I
paraphrased to check for understanding. Second, I reminded the person that I
am interested in their point of view. Third, I avoided asking why questions,
because they call for a defense which brings the process away from description
and more into judgments. Holstein (1995, p. 11) presents similar advice. He
advocates for self-control so there is no interference with what the subject is
reporting. He states, The interviewer must shake off self-consciousness,
suppress personal opinion, and avoid stereotyping the respondent.
(e) Teacher Heuristic Tool. Our group colored in answers to nine
short questions before each weekly conversation (Appendix C). These questions
asked how the last reflective conversation impacted their philosophy,
preparation/planning, content, classroom management, and communication with
colleagues and students. Our group developed the heuristic tool to serve as a
64


placeholder for our conversations. I collected this information as another
measure of how reflection impacts and changes teacher practice. I also used the
tool as a guide for the individual conversations with me.
(f) Student Heuristic Tool. Our group also developed a student
heuristic tool (Appendix D) that the learners were to fill out at the beginning
and at the end of the study. I was going to use this information to triangulate
the student information with the group and individual conversations; however,
due to the Columbine tragedy we did not implement the student heuristic tool
at the end of the study.
Data Analysis
This study attempted to describe the phenomenon of reflection by
documenting, describing, and analyzing domains, domain characteristics, and
dilemmas that emerged from data gathered in group conversations, individual
conversations, and teacher heuristic tools. The data were analyzed using a
procedure of data reduction. The start of the data analysis was early, actually
with the first log notation (Ely, 1991). Prom that point I analyzed data on an
ongoing basis (Miles, 1994).
Most themes from this study were emergent and evolutionary; several
descriptive and research based studies provided some direction and conceptual
frameworks for inductive inquiry and analytical organization. I started with a
tentative start list of codes that guided me in the initial data reduction. These
codes were derived from an initial conceptual plan that was directed by the
reflective dimensions of Van Manen (1977). Van Manen's three types of
reflection, technical, contextual, and critical, are across the top of Table 2.2. The
65


four domains of school, suggested by Schwab (1969) and Vain and Taylor (1988),
are placed down the left side of the table: (a) teacher, (b) students, (c)
curriculum, and (d) context. These four domains of school were further
subdivided to provide a more precise description of data points. (See Appendix
E for the extended criteria and definitions that provided the content analysis for
the reflective dimensions in the domains of school). The framework was useful in
conceptualizing how our group progressed through the different dimensions of
reflection and the various domains of school.
Table 2.2: Data Analysis Grid
COMMON PLACES Techinical Contextual Critical
OF SCHOOLING______________Reflection Reflection Reflection
A. Teacher
A-l Survival
A-2 Growth
A-3 Mentors
A-4 Role
B. Students
B-l Management
B-2 Observations
B-3 Motivation
C. Curriculum.
C-l Teaching Style
C-2 Content
C-3 Tests & Evaluation
D. Context
D-l School
D-2 Social Issues
D-3 Parents & Community
Total
66


Descriptive Data. I employed, in part, an emergent interpretive design
in this study through the support of Van Manens (1977) dimensions of
reflection framework and Schwab's (1969) domains of school framework. I
conducted narrative analyses of emergent domains and domain characteristics of
the information gathered through individual and group conversations and an
educator heuristic tool. Our group constructed a weekly heuristic tool that
helped us to think about the extent of our self-reflections, the previous group
conversation, and the implementation of ideas into our pedagogies. A student
heuristic tool was also implemented to determine if any educator changes had
affected student learning; however, it was only distributed at the beginning of
the study. After the Columbine tragedy our group felt that collecting the
information from the student heuristic tool, given the local context of Deer
Creek, would not give us accurate information about the effects of our reflective
practice. I also used a supplementary method of tabulating the number of
occurrences of reflections (Table 2.2). Miles and Huberman (1984, p. 215)
declare that there are three good reasons to resort to numbers: to see rapidly
what you have in a large slice of data; to verify a hunch or hypothesis; and to
keep yourself analytically honest, protecting against bias. However, when the
study concluded I based my assertions on the narrative descriptions more than
on the frequencies of contingent happenings (Eisner, 1982; Eisner &: Peshkin,
1990; and Stake, 1995).
67


CHAPTER 3
AN ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE
This chapter introduces the
five educators with whom I reflected over
the course of a sixteen-week semester in the
spring of 1999, as well as the information I
collected over this span of time. The stories
that unfold across this chapter are intended
to reach a dual audience of teachers and
teacher educators. There were five questions
I attempted to answer in this study (see
research questions textbox). I have organized the analysis in the following way:
why teachers reflect, what is a catalyst or a constraint of reflection, what is the
content of the conversations, does meaning develop over time, and does
reflection directly impact pedagogical practice.
Question one, Why Teachers Reflect, describes teachers who are compelled
to develop greater meaning of their self-reflections through social reflection with
their colleagues. Question two, What are Catalysts and Constraints of
Reflection, analyzes the structures and conditions that support or hinder
Research Questions
1. Why Teachers Reflect
2. What are Catalysts
and Constraints of
Reflection
3. What is the Content of
the Conversations
4. Does Meaning Develop
Over Time
5. Does Reflection Directly
Impact Pedagogical
Practice


reflective conversations. Question three, What Is the Content of the
Conversations, examines which topics are included in the reflective
conversations. Question four, Does Meaning Develop Over Time, describes
educators raising, discussing, and making sense of the pedagogical issues that
are important to their practice. Question five, Does Reflection Directly Impact
Pedagogical Practice, examines the process of implementing the ideas and
concepts from the reflective conversation into instruction and curriculum.
Conversationalists
I will serve as the narrator of the stories that follow. The rest of the group
is comprised of four teachers and one administrator. Carla is a first year math
teacher in her mid-twenties. Last year she taught computer strategies to
seventh- and eighth- grade students in the technology lab. Laura is in her fourth
year of teaching language arts at the middle school level. She completed her
graduate studies at Boston University before moving to Colorado. Rob, the only
male in the group, has been teaching social studies at the middle school level for
four years. He formerly taught history at the high school and finished his
graduate work two years ago. Carolyn is in her twelfth year of teaching science
and is also a former high school teacher. She completed her graduate work at
the end of this study. This is their second year teaming together, except for
Carla who is new to the group this year. These teachers share the responsibility
of supporting 132 students in their learning. Linda was a classroom teacher for
16 years and is in her second year of being an administrator. The teachers asked
her to attend their team meetings and reflective conversations this year. The
69


special education teacher, Lesley, was a participant on the team, but she broke
her foot while skiing and took a personal leave for the rest of the year.
Organizing the Evidence into Narrative
I systematically transcribed our conversations and analyzed them during
this study. I thematically identified common issues that categorically fit into the
domains, and then into the specific characteristic of the domain (Mishler, 1986).
Doing both of these activities helped me consider the development of our
knowledge and to fuse it with the larger world of educational research. I tape
recorded our conversations, transcribed them, and distributed a copy to each
educator every time we met. As the study unfolded, the issues raised in the
transcripted conversations were more dimensionally connected than hierarchical,
and they took root in our everyday experiences. For instance, conversations
about instruction and curriculum issues moved recursively between our self and
social reflections and dialectically between the dimensions of technical,
contextual, and critical reflection.
I also transcribed and themed the individual conversations I had with the
educators at the beginning of the study and at the end of the study. I returned
the transcript to each interviewee for their review and comments. I employed
the weekly teacher heuristic tool as the guide in the interview/conversation, so
we could track individual thoughts about the group conversation and how these
thoughts impacted action in the classroom. The teachers had the learners fill out
the student heuristic tool at the beginning of the study so we could assess
70


whether there was any difference in classroom climate, behavior, communication,
and/or achievement due to the teams reflective practice. However, because of
the Columbine tragedy toward the end of the year we felt that the students were
in a state of anxiousness (e.g., police presence, strict discipline referrals, and
after school lockdown) and we would not obtain accurate results.
My commitment to the group was to develop a holistic sense of our
learning across the conversations and not within one domain or conversation
(Hollingsworth, 1994). I combined the transcripted conversations into a set of
stories or themes that represented our collective learning so our experience could
become a universal narrative that would have meaning and connections for other
educators (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Goswami &Stillman, 1987; Zeichner
Liston, 1987). By using narrative, unfortunately, I may have fallen into a trap:
Story is sometimes thought of as conveying fiction rather than fact. That is not
what I intended. What I wanted to capture and relate was the tangle of purposes
and unexpected twists and turns that had to be interpreted to understand our
endeavors in our reflective practice (Hollingsworth, 1994; Sirotnik, 1999). The
story structure helped me to build a heuristic understanding so that other
teachers could play with the ideas and reconstruct them in their own context
(Yin, 1994). By accumulating cases of understanding we can develop a
resource of examples from which teachers can learn (Sirotnik, 1999, p. 609).
I organized the evidence by the five research questions that I originally
posed because they helped me to organize a diverse and complex array of data.
The first two questions, for example, acknowledged the fact that reflection does
not just happen; rather, it is an active and rigorous enterprise that occurs when
certain motivational forces are operating. The second question helped me to
i
71


understand the various impediments and supports that teachers encounter in
their attempts to work with other educators to socially reflect upon their
practice. The third and fourth questions elicited an examination of what
teachers converse about when they reflect and how in-depth they discuss an
issue. Finally, the fifth question encouraged me to investigate how or if the
reflective process impacts curriculum and instruction. Collectively, I used the
five questions to create a composite view of reflection as it occurs in day-to-day
teaching contexts.
Why Educators Reflect
I have organized
the first question, why educators reflect,
into three main sections: self-reflective
educators, socially reflective educators,
and the recursive process (see why educators reflect textbox). In the first
section, self-reflective educators, I observed that we constructed pedagogical
knowledge from our self-reflections while engaged in the everydayness of our
instruction. In the second section, socially reflective educators, the evidence
revealed that the dialogic recursive process of self and social reflection supported
us in gaining a deeper understanding of our own and our colleagues
instructional pedagogies. In the last section, the recursive process, we discovered
that we developed a collective inquiry stance through our intertwined self and
social reflections and through the technical, contextual, and critical dimensions
Why Educators Reflect
1. Self-Reflective Educators
2. Socially Reflective Educators
3. The Recursive Process
72


the three sections is followed by an interpretation of the analysis. Overall, the
evidence in this section revealed that self-reflection and social reflection were
interdependent upon one another and, consequently, became a recursive process.
As this recursion became interwoven, the reflective conversations developed into
a more complex and tentative process.
Self-Reflective Educators
I grounded reflection in constructivist learning theory in order to develop
an understanding of why teachers would want to engage in reflective practice.
Constructivist learning theory is defined, in part, by the ability of teachers to
reflect on their learning to make meaning. A small set of principles cannot be
regularly applied to solve teachers issues in their pedagogies, since teaching is
imbued by a considerable amount of uncertainty. Therefore, they must attend to
their internal and external reflective processes in order to make meaning out of
their issues. Carla, a new math teacher, explained why she self-reflected to
understand an issue in her practice:
I regularly reflect on my math practice. Sometimes I feel sorry for my
first hour class, because I see what works for them, and then the next hour I
change. I am continually reflecting on my math classes about what works
and what does not. Since lama new math teacher the task of just getting
down what the standards are and what the curriculum is takes most of my
thoughts. My reflection is on what I do in math every day rather than the
discussion of how to integrate our content areas.
The meaning-making process in the self-reflective teacher is individualistic.
Teachers are led to higher levels of understanding and analytical capabilities
through restructuring their cognitive maps by engaging in tasks that challenge
their concepts and thinking processes (Schifter & Simon, 1992). Carla was
persistent in constructing her own meaning out of what she perceived to be
73


effective or ineffective math instruction (Clark & Peterson, 1986).
Carolyn, who is a science teacher, also participated in the dual process of
assimilation, fitting the new curricular ideas with the old curricular ideas, and
accommodation, changing the old mental organization of her science curriculum
to incorporate the new organization (Piaget, 1978). She noted how difficult the
process was:
This year my science standards include understanding common
property forms, interactions, and transformations of matter and energy.
That is what I teach. I know it sounds really weird, but it is so hard just
teaching these three concepts. I am used to going fast and quick, and
somebody put the brakes on and said, Go deep. It really scared me when I
first started doing this, because I didnt feel like I had the depth of
knowledge. I know how to teach, but I am a biologist and not a physical
scientist, and now I have to be one. So as far as my units I have to totally
redesign everything because this year was a giant quagmire. It didnt work
right, so I have to really spend a lot of time thinking and planning for next
year. I think the reflective group can help me out.
At this time Carolyn was in a state of disequilibration (Piaget, 1978). She
was using her previous instruction and curriculum to help her adapt to the new
science curriculum. She was trying to assimilate the new standards into her
established thinking pattern of science content. She believed the reflective group
could help her transition into accommodating her practice into the new
curriculum.
Laura, who is a language arts teacher, took new risks in applying her
expertise as an English teacher to science. She was stretching her ability to
understand the science content so that she could help the students, and herself,
to visualize the connections between science and reading, writing, listening, and
speaking. She spoke about how reflection supported her in taking risks:
I am trying a new unit. I stretched my ability by ending up teaching
74


science. I taught a science class. It gave me a heart attack, but I did it. And
I was so excited after, but I was really worried going into it. If I dont reflect
on these practices I am not going to change. Do you know what I mean?
Does that make sense?
Dewey (1904) emphasizes the importance of teachers' reflecting on their
practices and integrating their observations into their emerging theories of
teaching and learning. He urges educators to be both consumers (students) and
producers (teachers) of knowledge about teaching and classroom life. Laura was
in the process of thinking in diverse ways about her curriculum. She was an
active learner in constructing new meaning out of her language arts curriculum.
She felt the group could enhance her self-reflections about her content, and help
her create greater meaning in her curriculum and instructional pedagogies.
Rob, who is a history teacher, thought about how the process of reflection
was implemented in his classroom. He wondered if it is a process that is viable
in schools, not only for teachers, but for students as well. He talked about the
difficulty of giving students an extended time period to think about class
projects:
I am thinking about how quickly I do projects in my classroom. I say,
Heres a group project and youve got two days to do it. There is not time
to do all this thinking and philosophy, and they do need the time to sit there
and chat. Its a hard balance.
Linda, who is an administrator, wanted to know more about the process of
social reflection and how it impacted this team of teachers. She saw herself as a
facilitator and a support for their professional development and growth (Sagor,
1992). As she participated in our conversations she was developing her schema
for how to better support this team.
I think about what the teachers are doing and why they are doing it
and how that comes out into different management systems, like scheduling
75


and things like that. So as I listen to them talk about integration where I
will start reflecting is how is this team operating? What changes does this
team need? Where do they need to go next year? What can I do to facilitate
that? Supporting them doing a unit, or whatever, that is where I reflect. It
is not the integration per se.
Carla was reflecting about her everyday math practice while Carolyn was
in the process of accommodating her science practice into the new science
curriculum standards. Laura was taking new risks with her language arts
curriculum by experimenting with other content areas, while Rob was debating
the importance of reflective practice for history and how inquiry happens in his
classroom. Lastly, Linda was contemplating the importance of reflective practice
for this team, and the school, and how she could support it.
Interpretation of Self-Reflection
The theory of constructivism suggests that individuals create their own
new understandings, based upon the interaction of what they already know and
believe and the new phenomena with which they come into contact. Each
educator was constructing pedagogical knowledge from their self-reflections while
engaged in the everydayness of their instruction. As self-reflective practitioners
we were continually inquiring about and self-reflecting on our pedagogy. Because
we wanted to check our understanding of our self-reflections against others
knowledge, we brought our ideas to our colleagues for social reflection.
Socially Reflective Educators
Dewey points out that learning should not be separated from a teachers
daily life. We learn from the social environment in which we live; therefore,
76


knowledge and inquiry have to be developed as a group (Smith, 1998; Vygotsky,
1986). Carolyn defined why she wanted to socially reflect:
We actually talked about integration as a group. Before I would talk in
my head. But we had a conversation. We didn't have it hourly but we were
talking about it. We were moving towards it. Weve always wanted to
integrate, but we never discussed what it is and why we are going to do it.
Someone gets an idea and says, Oh yeah, I can do this, and you can do
that, and this is integrated, and here we go. And we would just go do it.
But we need to think it, plan it, and then move forward.
Schons (1983) concept of knowledge-in-use lacks the relational influences
on reflection, while Vygotskys (1978) research on learning suggests that
personally meaningful knowledge is socially constructed through shared
understandings. Laura, like Carolyn, believed the group conversation would
increase her ability to work in a thoughtful and meaningful manner. She had the
desire to develop a reflective praxis by meshing theory and practice through
reflective conversations. She explained:
I believe the conversations about integration will impact my practice. I
always want to do a better job or do more. You know I feel real strong about
constantly thinking about integration, talking about it, and when I see
articles I pull them out so we can talk and think about the theory and our
practice.
Rob felt social reflection was important to his instruction and curriculum,
but he was not clear if it would actually affect his practice. The team was also
not exactly sure where these conversations would lead us, but we felt that the
social context of our meetings would allow us to take the floor as experts in
developing meaning between the content areas. The relationships that were
already present between us were a factor in our ability to think in different ways
about the issues. Rob talked about the importance of reflective conversation:
These conversations make your mind think in different ways. It gets
77


down to why we axe doing everything we axe doing, and that is just an
interesting topic. But I think if we want to do it authentically and in a
meaningful way its going to take some time. At this point I dont know if it
will change anything or not. I would hope it will, because it is making you
think in different ways.
We were not sure what we were going to learn from these reflective
conversations, but we thought we could begin to understand what we knew
(Schlechty, 1989). We were not conscious of what we knew until we started
inquiring into our pedagogies. We believed that our answers resided in our
practice. Linda, an administrator, was participating in the reflective practice
group because she wanted to explore how the process supported the team in
their instruction and curriculum growth. She wanted to know if reflection was a
process that she should infuse into the school:
I am interested in finding out if talking about their practice makes
them stronger, more functional, and more effective. If we follow the process
of social reflection and we find, Yes, this has made us better. We feel better
about ourselves. It has given us more opportunities. If that is the case, then
I need to implement and facilitate that process someplace else. I am not as
interested in their conversation about the integration of their subject matter,
as I am interested in the reflective process.
Schunk (1991) contends that individuals develop knowledge, skills,
strategies, beliefs, and attitudes by observing and interacting with others. Carla
felt that she was developing meaning as she listened to and interacted with the
group:
I think of integration as I sit there and hear my team talk. I think of
ways I can integrate it for next year and I think that is valuable. I jot down
others ideas and my own, but for the most part I reflect on my math
instruction.
All of us sought to construct new meaning and knowledge with others. We
wanted to engage in an intellectual environment in which we could become more
78


complex in our thinking. We decided on a conversational process because it
allowed us to personally construct our individual meaning; that would eventually
lead to a whole group understanding (Wagner, 1999). For example, Carolyn,
Carla, and Laura wanted their team to be more focused on one issue instead of
hopping from one topic to the next. They felt if the team could focus on one
issue, their practice would become more complex and diverse. Rob wanted to
interact in a professional culture in which educators talk about why they do
what they do, while Linda thought that reflective practice had the possibility of
opening up opportunities for educators to develop their curriculum and
instruction. We all wanted to develop an educational community that focused on
the renewal and support of our pedagogical practice.
Interpretation of Social Reflection
We were primarily interested in developing social meaning around our
individual content areas and exploring how we could integrate them to improve
authentic teacher and student learning. Our group believed that we could
develop a comprehensive meaning of our own specific content areas, and create
connections to other content areas, through having conversations about the
integration of science, history, language arts, and math. Expounding upon
Piaget's theory, Vygotsky (1962) concludes that the internalization of external
conversation shapes the individuals development of meaning. We believed the
dialogic recursive process of teaching and learning, and self and social reflection,
would support us in gaining a deeper understanding of our disciplines.
79


The Recursive Process
We did not consciously decide to suspend or question our knowledge or to
slide between the dimensions of reflection. The process of questioning and
reflecting on our pedagogies came through our collegial conversations. We had
to risk a degree of not knowing in order to be able to recognize other ways and
dimensions of knowing (Hollingsworth, 1994). Otherwise, what we think we
know can possibly block us from what we can come to know.
In the following conversation we explored the questions we had about
integration. This conversation existed on multiple levels because each one of us
brought our own assumptions and values to the conversation. We moved
between the technical, contextual, and critical levels of reflection all at one time.
In the following conversation Carla thought on a more technical level, as we all
did about math, Laura was concerned about the context of the professionalism
of teaching and self-improvement, Rob moved the conversation to an inquiry
stance, and Carolyn was thinking about differentiation:
Laura: Til tell you why I gave you the articles, because I envision
integrating each of our content areas and thematically teaching. But the
conversation that has to take place prior to that is do people believe in
that? Is it too much work? Will it even fit with the way our standards and
curricula are written? And the piece we have struggled with forever is how
to get math integrated and still let Carla get the stuff covered that she
needs to get covered. (Laura is thinking about how her praxis is
contractually situated in the district, school, and with this particular team.)
Carla: I know there are ways we can do math. I have seen it done. (Carla
is relying on her technical skills to connect math to the other content
areas.)
Laura: So how do we get to that point? We are accomplishing wonderful
great things, but as professionals, dont we always want to try to grow
more, try new things, and take some risks and stuff like that? (Laura is
80


trying to mesh the professionalism of the teacher with mandated
standards.)
Rob: I think there is a bigger picture that we dont have the discussion
about: Is integration always good? How much integration do you want?
We dont talk about that, and that is where you need to start. (Rob is
moving the group to critically reflect about the implications of the concept
of integration on student and teachers.)
Laura: And do we even believe that its the best thing? I mean, I know we
all talk about the natural and unnatural ties. (Laura perceives the need to
converse about the critical consequences of curriculum.)
Carolyn: That might be a good place to begin because we are just doing
an integrated unit. Its science based. We could start there and ask, Is
this the type of integration we want? Maybe we need to have the
conversation of what is integration? And then do we believe in it? And
then if we believe in it, then we ask how does it work? (Carolyn is
situating the conversation within the context of an integrated unit they are
engaged with at this time.)
Carla: How do we implement it? It has to be relevant to the kids. (Carla
is supporting the conversation and bringing it back to authentic learning
for students.)
Carolyn: And the conversation around implementing it is, How do we
modify the curriculum to fit our population? Maybe there axe times we
want to do it all and maybe there are times we dont, because of the
students needs. (Carolyns statement has the possibility of pushing the
conversation into the critical dimension of reflection.)
In the above conversation our group was relying on our technical
knowledge of teaching and learning; however, we were also relying on our
relational ways of knowing in the context of our relationships. In order to think
about our praxis we need to be supported by relational knowing and codified
knowledge. Through our social reflective process we discussed what we believed
should be the content of our conversations, and that moved us to think about
others perspectives. For example, Rob encouraged Laura to think about the
consequences of integrating the curriculum instead of only thinking about what
81


the research promotes. In order to find ourselves in the conversation we had to
make meaning of the group dialogue, and that compelled us to examine our
underlying beliefs about an integrated curriculum.
Interpretation of the Recursive Process
All of us wanted to know how to renew our practices so we could more
effectively impact student learning. If the research findings and theories that
were taught in our undergraduate and graduate programs had been sufficient
knowledge to help us successfully teach all students, then we might have been
content, and this group may have never formed. However, reality is that we do
not have enough, or the right kinds of knowledge, to teach all the students in our
diverse classrooms (Dewey, 1929, 1957). We were developing a collective inquiry
stance through the different ways that we know and through the technical,
contextual, and critical dimensions of reflection. In order to support this inquiry
stance we needed to be able to suspend many of the certainties supplied to us by
our own education and the research knowledge base to ask new questions that
pertained to our situations. Through the process of engaging in self and socially
constructed knowledge and codified knowledge, we were beginning to create
community curricula.
What Are Catalysts and Constraints of Reflection?
In the first question, why educators reflect, we constructed pedagogical
knowledge from our self-reflections while engaged in the everydayness of our
82


instruction. While the process of self-reflection increased our knowledge of our
pedagogy, we found that we needed to develop social meaning around our
individual ideas by exploring the ideas of our colleagues. The process of social
reflection helped us to create a more in-depth meaning in our thoughts and our
pedagogical practice. We came to understand that the internalization of our
external conversation helped shape our development of meaning. We believed
the dialogic recursive process of teaching and learning, and self and social
reflection, supported us in gaining a
As I thought about how our
group self-reflected and socially
reflected to create meaning,
I wanted to analyze the catalysts
and constraints of the reflective
process. Therefore, I organized
the second question, what is a catalyst or a constraint of reflection, into two
main sections: catalysts and constraints. Under the catalysts section (see
catalysts textbox) I included an analysis of understanding self and others,
creating inclusionary conversations, and facilitating conversations. Under the
constraints section (see constraints textbox) I included an analysis of stress and
day-to-day-management. Each of the two main sections, catalysts and
constraints, are followed by an interpretation of the analysis.
eeper understanding of our disciplines.
Catalysts
1. Understanding Self and Others
2. Creating Inclusionary Conversations
3. Facilitating Conversations
Grounding the Conversations
Developing a Schema
Assimilating and
Accommodating Behaviors
83


In the first section,
catalysts, the evidence revealed
that reflection became a conscious
thought process as we uncovered
our assumptions, inclusively related
to our colleagues, and developed
our schemas for how to create
relational knowledge. In the second
section, constraints, the evidence
revealed that reflection became
an unconscious thought process,
without action, when we came into contact with traumatic stress and the
constant day-to-day management of teaching.
Constraints
1. Stress
Situating Our Context
Attending to Emotions
Monitoring the Emotional
Climate
Experiencing Lack of Control
Downshifting of Emotions
2. Day-to-Day Management
Scheduling Time for
Reflective Conversations
Participating in a Rigorous
Thought Process by
Becoming Present
Maintaining the Culture
of Isolation
Catalysts
In the catalysts
section (see catalysts textbox)
I included an analysis
of understanding self and
others, creating inclusionary
conversations, and facilitating
conversations. The first subsection of this section was devoted to understanding
self and others because we found that developing knowledge of ourselves, and
using that knowledge to relate to our colleagues, supported the diversity in our
learning. The second subsection was committed to understanding how we
Catalysts
1. Understanding Self and Others
2. Creating Inclusionary Conversations
3. Facilitating Conversations
Grounding the Conversations
Developing a Schema
Assimilating and
Accommadating Behaviors
84


created inclusionary conversations. We discovered that each individuals
participation was vital in the development of sharing our work, reflecting on the
meaning of our work, and producing action that would impact our pedagogies.
The last subsection analyzed the facilitation of our conversations. We found that
the more experience each individual had with facilitating the group
conversation, the more likely each one of us was to engage as the facilitator.
Catalyst; Understanding of Self and Others. To facilitate the
process of articulating positions and developing meaning many researchers
suggest that teachers require a dynamic understanding of their own self in
relationship to both their self and other individuals (Connelly k Clandinin, 1986;
Greene, 1979; Modelings, 1984; and Van Manen, 1990). If renewal is to happen,
it will require that we understand ourselves and be understood by others (Fullan
k Stiegelbauer, 1991). There is often an enormous amount of tension between
these two dimensions. On the one hand we have to become literate about our
histories, experiences, and the culture of our environment. On the other hand,
we also must transcend ourselves to understand others (Freire, 1973). Linda was
focused on how the group was developing relationships with one another:
They have a good balance on their team to make them think. They
have done a much better job of disagreeing with each other with no
animosity. That has come out of reflection. And getting teachers to the point
where you can question without them being defensive goes back to building
relationships.
Knowing through the self, and through relationships with others, is central
to collegiality and teaching. Carolyn also believed self-efficacy was imperative in
relational knowing:
I think another thing is self-efficacy. If people are not confident in what
they are doing they are not going to be discussing it with people. They have
85


to feel comfortable in their team and they have to be allowed for themselves
and their team to grow.
According to Bandura (1986) individuals tend to select courses of action
that hold positive outcomes. For example, individuals with higher self-efficacy
are more likely to select complex and challenging tasks than individuals with
lower self-efficacy. They are more likely to take risks, experiment, and be more
creative in their learning, thinking, and work. Self-efficacy is enhanced in a
social environment where the conversation is challenging and supportive (Smylie,
1995). In the following conversation Carolyn talked frankly about the difficulties
in her practice this year and what she envisioned for next year. The group
supported her in her thoughts:
Linda: What don't you think worked right in your practice this year?
Carolyn: My order and my pace. My pace is really bad. I get stuck with
the process. I am trying to teach the process instead of teaching the
process through skill. So that is what I have to go back to. I did not do
near enough lab because I got stuck. I think part of it was I was trying to
get my graphing unit together and spent a lot of time on that. I was
teaching graphing, but I wasn't teaching graphing using measurements and
labs.
Laura: Well, I think it is going to be interesting to see how much more we
integrate as you get more comfortable. We need you as an expert, because
it scares me. I dont know how to do it. But how do you make that
interesting for 8th graders?
Carolyn: More lab. The kids kept asking me, Why arent we using the
blowtorches? I mean it is an alcohol burner. All they axe doing is heating
things, but they want to use the blowtorches. So I have to do that. And
part of that is the management piece. How do I go back to managing 150
labs a week and what am I really doing? What am I really looking for? So
this really has made me think.
This conversation attempted to highlight the relational knowing that was
an important part of our groups learning how to socially reflect to renew our
86


practices. For example, Carolyn eloquently displayed an in-depth knowledge of
herself, as a teacher and a learner, and how she used this knowledge to create
conversations with others to support her own learning. We learned through the
support of ongoing conversation because of the insights into ourselves as a
creator and a learner of knowledge. The knowledge of ourselves, and how we
used that knowledge to relate to our colleagues, supported our willingness to
honor the diversity in our group. Because we engaged in self and social
reflection, we were coming to trust our own ability to construct pedagogical
knowledge. Buoyed by the trust in ourselves, we were able to take new risks
with our colleagues (Glesne, 1991).
Catalyst: Creating Inclusionary Conversations. My intention, and
our group intention, was to be inclusionary, not exclusionary, throughout our
conversations of how to integrate the content areas of science, math, language
arts, and history. If any one of us had felt isolated from the group conversation
we would have stopped contributing to the process. All of us needed to find
ourselves in the conversation so that we had the feeling of support, even when
we were disagreeing or floundering. The following conversation is an example of
our struggle with being inclusionary:
Rob: You guys all have the same idea about integration. (He is checking
out his perception of exclusion with the group.) This is really interesting,
because now I can see why it seems like I am battling people here. (Rob is
stating his frustration with the conversations.) (Laughter)
Carla: But I like yours. (Carla is attempting to include Rob.)
Laura: But this is very important. I did too.
Rob: I think mine fit your third one (pointing to Carolyns paper) better
than anything else. (Rob decides to align himself with Carolyn.)
It is well known that the typical professional culture of schools often works
87


against teachers articulating and raising difficult questions (Lytle, 1996). We
were determined to develop an inclusionary community that supported
everyones inquiry and knowledge. Even though we consciously made this
commitment, the struggle we encountered was evident in Robs statement that
he felt he was battling the group to get his thoughts included. After we had this
conversation we were more aware of how we were engaging, or disengaging, each
other. Each individuals participation was vital in the development of our
intellectual community, meaning the conditions necessary to reflect, share our
work, and produce curricula (Giroux, 1987).
Again, Rob made it clear why developing meaning together in an open
environment is important if colleagues are not to isolate one another, but to
understand one another:
I can be one to shut down real easy, too, if I had been really attacked
from the group. If they had said, Youre wrong, integration is the way to
go then I am not going to argue. I am one to say, Okay, whatever. And
then do it my own way. So I think the culture of the team is there. The
conversation has to be open. I really felt throughout the conversations that if
we decided integration is not good we would have gone that way. I really felt
that was there. And that feeling has to be there for people to reflect openly.
I know some other teams around that could not do that because there is not
the trust or the openness.
Rob was actively trying to include himself in the conversation even though
it was a struggle. The group was committed to inclusion in theory; however, in
reality we struggled with diverse ideas. Because of Robs struggle we consciously
forced ourselves to seriously consider and develop the different and
interconnected ideas of each individual. Eventually, we felt that we could
collaboratively solve the issues in our practice, choose the kinds of conversations
in which we wanted to be involved, and be supportive of varied views.
88


Catalyst: Facilitating Conversations.
I have organized the catalyst, facilitating
conversations, into three subsections: grounding the
conversation, developing a schema, and assimilating
and accommodating behaviors (see facilitating
conversations textbox). In the first subsection,
grounding the conversation, we found that the
conversation needed to be directed and bounded within the issue of integrating
the content disciplines. In the second subsection, developing a schema, we
discovered that the group needed to be supported to create a facilitative schema.
In the third subsection, assimilating and accommodating behaviors, evidence
showed that the group eventually accommodated new facilitative behaviors into
a changing schema for how to participate in reflective conversations.
Grounding the Conversation. One of the reasons the role of the
facilitator was important to our group was because we needed to have the
conversation grounded in the issue of integration while, at the same time, we
needed the support to create social meaning around the concept. I, as the
facilitator, tried to keep the conversation grounded in the issues and reflect back
to the group the meaning that we were developing. Linda felt that the role of
the facilitator was to keep the group immersed in the conversation and support
them to create deeper meaning around the issue, and her role, as an
administrator, was to reinforce the value of reflective practice:
Linda: You have been critical as a support- I think they need that
facilitator. My role is just being there. They need to think what they are
doing is important, and if I am there it makes it important. Do you know
what I mean? Without a facilitator and some guidance they will circle in
their reflection and stay in the box. They will reflect inside the box. An
Facilitating
Conversations
1. Grounding the
Conversation
2. Developing
a Schema
3. Assimilating and
Accommodating
Behaviors
89


example, Carol, reflects on her practice a lot. I think she is an excellent
teacher. However, she is very contained in a box, because the people that
she reflects with are in the same box. For her to think differently she needs
a facilitator just to help her think outside, and I think she has the ability
to do that. So reflecting with a facilitator or someone that is out there
would help her increase in her expertise. So that is what will happen to
this group. You will move them to a level to come out of the box. Or else
they will just bing, bing, bing around in the box.
In contrast to the quick-fix culture of school staff development, Linda was
talking about creating an ongoing venue that would be authentic and connected
to the issues in our practice (Wineburg k Grossman, 1998). If the use of
reflective conversation was going to be sustained and relational knowing was
going to support our diverse thoughts, then we needed regular feedback on the
effects of our socially reflective efforts (Guskey, 1995). It is well known that
successful actionand s are reinforcing, and likely to be repeated, and those that
are unsuccessful tend to be diminished (Huberman, 1992). Practices that are
new and unfamiliar will be accepted and retained if they are perceived to
increase our competence. It was my intent to support the group in feeling
successful through providing supportive feedback and direction. Laura talks
about how important it is to ground the conversation so unrelated issues do not
sidetrack us:
You end up bringing us back to the real fundamentals. Which is good,
because we jump in headfirst and then we sink or swim when we talk about
small units, large team dynamics, and the big picture. So I think what you
do is lend a focus to the discussion. You help us to figure out what we are
talking about and you remind us to make sure we all know what we are
talking about. That whole assumption thing is so difficult. You cant assume
anything.
In order to reflect back to the group the development of our meaning, I
had to create organizers (Appendix B) for the growth and consolidation of my
90


Full Text

PAGE 1

" $)"4$<2;> $)"4$<228 )"4?) &# ?." 6)

PAGE 2

?." #" 4 ) *' A*( B#$ '" .% 6 C'D

PAGE 3

4$+. ? $6), 4)E"A%# ".*' A*( '4 #&)F%) % # #$!$)$$"%" )+B$<222G($<222, "$ %#))%"-%( %#)$$ )# "#$#"*# ###)$) )$ # %#)"$") H+<2@@, "$)## ))"%" %$!$ "*%#% #))() "I *' A*(

PAGE 4

(")$*' A*($## #" %(( )##"

PAGE 5

4#% @ (# ; ?# <8 6(#%. <7 4#" <: %( >8 >< ? 78 7< 4! 7> 4 7: ). 70 )".# 70 7; :< -) :> )

PAGE 6

:: :@ K :2 #" => 6" =7 4 =7 >?B/?J== 4" =@ =; I! =2 ?4 0> ?" 0= 76J/H?40; 4) L 02 #*#)) @8 E" @> -) @7 @0 ") @0 @2 ). ;8 ). ;> E4"4M ;> 4" ;:

PAGE 7

4" 2= 4 2@ 4 <<8 4)4) 6#IH <<> 4!*#44) <<: 44) <<0 #?)4) <<@ ## <<; #?)4N ) <7< #4). <77 ))#). <7: #4). <7@ :AJ4?64H.44<:8 <:> /" <:: $4!$4 <:: ?/" <:= #4) <:= #4)/" <:0 #4! <:0 #4!/" <:@ ?).C4)H <:@ )

PAGE 8

?)H/" <:2 ) <:2 )/" <=8 <=8 ..?O /4/4..H64/?J<=: '46B9<== 44//46<@= ??/46<@@ 4??<@2 )

PAGE 9

! 7 <4?# <<= : <4). <:<

PAGE 10

" #$%! < <4 7> < >44! 77 < 744 7= > <4K) =@ > >?"B

PAGE 11

)))%%%)" %)# % #!% )#I)) ) )") %! 4<$"6).$ )% )%( %$%($$ 4>$?#"G47$" )G4:$A"4). %) &

PAGE 12

& #$$F%) % ) ,!$### $#% #&#&%# I "#$!$#$ $"%")+B$<222G ($<222G9$<220, "$% # %#) $$)# ) !%" $ "#))G ) )) # $($F) %(%#G$"(%# #!$(%#$

PAGE 13

## $)%#!%% ) %$%#! )%%! !$%% %(! $$"( !" $ %%"!% ")C) %%) "$)G%)$% &"!)-# %%) ##"$%! %) E"##% "% ## $%")% %'(!) $$" #" ##%)%) ##%##%) I") (&" F%$"$)"$I) "+/#%$<228, )%#)

PAGE 14

$# ) )"" )")"$&"$" +4-56"$<227, $")) (%"(%$ ))(%# ) #$%$($""% )))" )#" #)#+$<22;, $"#%# (%# 4-6"+<228$ >,%# (%##P))$ &($%"%#( %()$) %% 3%"% ##%* F#+4$<22;G$.$54"$ <220G"$<2;@, %%# $$&$)%(") ?#%)##"#" )## )))$% #$#%"%$$ )

PAGE 15

%"%% % # %#"% #Q%"#% '"#$)#$#*#$#$# %("# %)" % % ))%)#) #% %$"$%% ) )# "# %%()" "%%" E(#F( "%(F F "%"(%%F$ "(%%"%%" ) "*"%)" "") "#"%F F$"%(") )%(## /%)$# )*# =

PAGE 16

)$PF3! #+"$<22;, 6($ "%%"# "### $ $")%" )"&!# %(#+'("$4"$B##$5$ <2;0, E$$## %(%#$#$% ""% ##(%#% +!#'' )# %)$$% A(+<222,## %)"" ## "$%$$% ##%#-!$$ &"+$<222, %#() % R

PAGE 17

-''!./'!0%!./-'/-.1--%!'!2#% "$"$) )#+6$<22:GE#$ <22;, "& #%"))" #)$$$ E %%"#$ $(#"" #%## % (#%)F"!$$ # E+<228,") "-"$%%(%!%# #"$"## $%)"### (%#$#* )# "$)$ +($<222GH$<22<, ## ###%#$!-$ ) ##*"$"$ 3'41+!'/5 ")" +B$<222G$<22;, $(+<222,% S@

PAGE 18

%#"$$## ## %" #B+<207,$%# (#$"###$ #-# ##% %#)# +B$<222G($<2;2, ###% $"$)"$% #)%## ## "###) %)+$<22;, & %)#$$ ) & #-$&"$+$<22;, #('+!0!0%!./-' ") %(#)#$#%(" ( ($$# #$)"$#)"" %(" D'+<220$ 7<,$P "##@Q<= % -()""$# 6

PAGE 19

"%"=Q:= I)( 3 4-)% ("+9 6$<220, !" %($#-$)& "$(+9$<222, 4# #"#I%($" +<2;@,#)"*" (## % $%#+?%"$<277, "$%))" #%# !$ .#" $%#" +46"$<227, #%&". E#.F+6"$<22<, I*! %)(% % ")" ##%")# +46"$<227, )"# )G%)$" 2

PAGE 20

" # #'!+!'/4 #" % #Q $$)$% %## !$%# !"$&"" +?#-/$<22=, -#$#%"% #*% %* %&" $$#+4-5Q6"$<227, !0''!0%!./-' )D?%"I )(# /%E(Q )(#).$ ?%"+<277C<2<8$ 2,)#P)$$ "# &% 3)#$ ##$& & )#) #%# ###) ?I+<2;7,%( /) "## &

PAGE 21

"& $(%"#$" #$-. ) --%(##" %"% !H+<2@@,##) /))) ##%)) )%) ((%# ) ))#"#$ %&# ) &# $#?%"$I## &"# %" )))#%# )% )& I)$ #H$%()"## (#% ?")$% #!"+?"$<227G-$<228G (-6#$<22>GH$<22>, %" &&

PAGE 22

)$%) +9$<222, )"$#% "))$$$ +"$<228, ) #"%)$&$ "#!)$)$ #+4$<2;2, #( $%"!)% #+4$'#$?64*$56%$<227, ?##$ "))")$) #)$-)-$ %##)%% ))##"#" )#%) #" ) )"# ")% +9$<222, E "% $--$ --$%#" " %"#$# #+?%"$<277, )) &

PAGE 23

#-)# )) $$$#" (#&+B$<2;0, # $)%Q T!$$!% G T%&)"# #G T)!%"G T()))# G T("%)+9$ <220, '('!0%!./-'/-/1!!'!2#%-0!#.1! #./.! ?%"+<2<0$ :8;,%P"-$ ## 3)% (#%($)%#$% /1!+4!%!4 %( .%#) %" # ?%"+<2<0$ :8;, P%G ()"(#) &"%! 3/)%%() %%) E%%) <7

PAGE 24

G$$ $)# )#####+B$<22<, -## ## !"($ $))% # #)($) +D$<22=, !$'+<228,# ##%#$ #*#$#% (%$)$$)"% # "#%)( #"+.F($<22>, -%%!#%/7 &#(%#% !%&)# %#%##+'54$ 6+<22<$ <;0,) #P)%" -)%#-$#! %# 3" #$ /1'('8 #G"#%G ")#"*#%(G"#%" (+4$<2;0G?#-/$<22;, "# <: F

PAGE 25

(%#% #) )$&"$"##$ ### %" +5)$<22:,)"% I# %%%+$<2;7, "" !I#$ #$#$"% &##"!)$$ !+4-56"$<227G$<2;7, !$P/%##"M3 P/%)M3 "! %+#"5$<2;>, .4+<2@2$<2;0,#. 4H)%(%% %" .# )#I# G#)" #$#$ 4.1--%'5 )#)"%(.#" 4# &"%F"!" <=

PAGE 26

!#$$ !)))")# )# )" !#&(%## F% )!#II#Q ))$II%($ #)% ))#!I ))#$#$!+4$<2;0, %### !$ ##))$(#$ .-++'/79 ## #%#% )"# I%($ #%(% )) ) ## I%( "$%%#$% )$!$" )% #&#%"))# )) 4#4) .4I+<2@2$<2;0,%( !%)# +6$<2;2, #"$!$% <0

PAGE 27

)###% *$'$/)-?"+<2;0,!I %##"% "%# )%"%%)#) %") %#%"%%# )%) %($#"+<2@:,#"+<2@;, #) %(Q-))!" #"+<2;>,"-" ) # "#)Q)#$%#$##) #$# "#)"# ))"$#&"$ &)# $#$) #")"--$$ #)#" "D &"%)")) # "#)Q)$$ .-++/+!'/9 "#)"# ))"&"$(#! <@

PAGE 28

$# 4& "#%)#)#!# ####$#$) 4)$#'("$4"$B#$+<2;0,$ )##%# #"I !$%% %%(%(I( )(!$ #F#)%# 4)")% E%))"% %($%)) # &#" ###% ) !%" )!$(##$&$ #$$# ))" (%$%"(## )$%) 4)! !$#))! %"(# %)#-(#! "!##!" "")" <;

PAGE 29

)($# "#)#+$<228, '%##I"( "M"$$( !$!$%" )#!)# #$#$#+/$<220, ($!$""D## +<22=,$P#'%" 3 #'%%#%%" % #$P' $I(%%%"" 3# $##"$P#$"" ""! D("("" 3# %( "%)*$ #)# % % % ""%"(##$%() ( $P#4"'%B 4" 3 %"$""( $%! ""%" )"##($!$ I)$((# #+D#5#$<22=, !$ "!)" <2

PAGE 30

##)%#)$$F #) @"#! %+$<228, 1!!/.#% #+!2(4 )"" ")%) #%+?%"$<2<0, #)$%$ )#+E($<22<, ?%"+<27;,) %))-#$ #$##G# U" ?%"+<28:,*U ###)#### /# +,+,(%## %###)" #%) )" #%%)+-, (#"$"--"!%(# %+5B$<22:,

PAGE 31

))" $"##)# % "#% !)"##" +A$<227, # !$ $!$)(# 73!4-0!0%!./-' -(#* %# #$#" ) -%)" # -) %" .#)$-"" #%)!# &+.#$<2@;, $$) %)" &%!)" .#U)"%#% ) #%)%#% )$##$ !!%) ><

PAGE 32

I+<2;7,.#U+<2@>,(-$ )##"#I# ##("#%)"I #$)$) %#% .#I#))" )I)"))-#) ) $$# I##% # H"#("+<20>,$"%"*! # ")###*## # H"#("I+<20>,"### I#-(#%% % ).#I#)%() )$%)H"#("I#) %()) -# .#I%()## # #H"#("I%( )##-) )%)) %) ) #%) )# F!$"))

PAGE 33

(###$ "!%"# )I"# $$&$ ?K"+<22@$ 2," % ))$%") "#( % F%J E)$$ )%$%#$ ($ "%)"$ %%4D" % I%"I## "I))" ?I"*"( $"%("M "# /(## PI $$3$P%I" 3' %I$%M"%F#%( #% -($P%I#3 %(" )#%")" +'' ( ?#($% ($( "#%#*""! "%#%# %# ") ")P%( "% 3%$I(% )"## '% +,%""(!% )""# ) %(%"%"% )"# %" '+,")$ %(# %+ ,$ >7

PAGE 34

#%( %"#!# #) %"% "%%! %%( E $ % )# )"%($##) #)#$"% #$#+E#$<222, #! # ) # )$($"&# +6$<22:, 6#+<22:,%-# "I"--" ##" .## (%#-%## )"" '%)# "% !##)## 4") -)##% >:

PAGE 35

)+$<2;7, #$ I+<2;7,%())) ?%#%#?%"$) -$--") )&((%#-A%#--## (%#-"")%(# $ I#"(%#-$ % $)) # PEM3P/%)(#M3$ --& (%#-(" #%"# $ --! %!$#$ #00 + )4#00 + !$ --) )$ # --"" ## (###%( #))$ )*)# $ >=

PAGE 36

*()# %+?"$<227, /% ##%( $""$" %( ) +9$<222, % %##% +$<2;@, I%( ))% +9$<222GH"#("$<20>, '"#" -$) %")+$<20;, ) "!" ##"%) !%" ## )"!$$)$ -$ #(%# %%!" G#($) E)" ##)#$!(# %$))$! %%!+6$<22=, !&)##

PAGE 37

%% ("##)"#"# )(## .(I+'$<228,%(# # .(I%( #)%-)% /## )%"" I"( % &)%" %) "+?"$ <227, % "))""+#"V$<220G#$ <228, #"II+<220, #G$# &(%#$#$($ # #"#$" )#% #)# "$"%%#%% #+ 5.($<22;, #"II+<220,$9+<22=, I-)%( >@

PAGE 38

:++! +#';4 %(#-# #$#$#) #) &" "## #-(#!# # 4#) I)#%#"" !#%%(#) %&$)$ 4# )" (# *$#$#$##% &$#" "B+<22<, (! )) "")-)Q T+)G(--, T+$#$G( --, T)%+$)"G( --, T+"$"$)%(G( --, T*+#---" 4+<2;;,) )#-(#Q >;

PAGE 39

#)$##$# $#%(I% (# ## )&")+#$<22>, !#)# <>##%!#"% %"()+.,#"+46"$<227, %)%%# ?)D ."# %#%&" )%#"## ))%(#% ##"$% !#$)%(%(%# # ")%## )$(<>##$% !( %# "!% ##)#% % #(%# $)$$ ### >2

PAGE 40

)%"# )% +!'4-'4-0!0%!./-' !H+<2@@$<22=, (%##")## ) HI")## %)$%& #) H!)$!$# &%"(%! #)$$H (" /"6"+<22>,$B$A$ ($(+<228,$(-6#+<22<,$##E +<22;, )#)"# *" ""# ) %#%#< !"(# HI+<2@@$<22=, )%(#%)# )%% %% Q

PAGE 41

! %)% %#%$$%)# )%)))$$ # )%")( % % %##"#) G % #%%"# %!G#)#%) !.1'.#%!0%!./-' ))(# #")+H$<2@@$<22=, ")#)$ () U)(%# ))!$##"$$ #" % )(%## #) )$! $$"$" #$#(##"$ (#) )### ## #()#)" Q 7<

PAGE 42

T)F) T&((%# T)%#" T T(") T"))F) < <# %!!%9 < .")"(%# 7 % : "%(% = )%"" #")#%# 0 4)I # @ %+H$<2@@$<22<,WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW-'/!

PAGE 43

()$% # !Q T#$!$ T#)#% T##"%" T#& T#) < ># !) < >Q44! < 6(## > .7 : & = 0 %& @ -! ; () 2 !# <8 (%<< *-)#(# <> (##$ &F) <7 %#% <: %) <= E#%)F <0 6( +H$<2@@$<22<,WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW77

PAGE 44

/.#%!0%!./-' HI+<2@@$<22=,!) /(#+", (#($%"*#$&#$F##$)#$ ##$#+#$<22;, /(# &# ""# 4 )B +<228,6"+<22>,$ )69+<22<,$ ##E+<22;, ) &(%#$!$)% "F$&"$ &%) ")%##! )-#) Q T"*#(%#" T!#"#$$ T#$-$" +?%"$<277, T&## T!#(%#& T-!# < 7# ) 7:

PAGE 45

< 7Q44 < 6($$ > #7 6(## : ) = #-#% 0 @ "## ; .)# 2 )%$)$ ) <8 !((%*#" +H$<2@@$<22<,WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWE%()& %$%# $"+4$<2;2, # #%% %# "#) ##! %($(%%" +1/ %#))%% ""#% ))%"# %+9 6$<2;@, 7=

PAGE 46

!4!# .1-'!0%!./! #./.! '! 4/7!#.1! ).#/-' #+4 ")# #) !4+4 ),$-"# ##)"+(-6#$$.$ 4$5($<228, )4) )(##)% #)+ <2;2, %())Q +<, +>," +7,6#)%## +:,!#" +=,!### +0,!###! +@,!%C !%% )%#)%# !)+)=, )"% "C(#+)@,$# )70 S

PAGE 47

"4$B#+<2;2,4 %#4 E#% "&)(#$4 &")#"##)(# %#!# %! ) #%F%## "*$&$ ##6+6,$ U#$$#) +A#$<2;;, ## O$4Q$(#($ %$#)$ )#%"&$ %%<<0 6%%## +A#$<2;;, #*$"% $%=8 !#%%#% #)$""" ) %#%# A#+<2;;,%-"#)%%# %#" % /%"%

PAGE 48

"#% %%# %"#$%"#%#%" # A#% #)&" "$+<2;2,) "#+.4/, "#! %"# !$ &F"--#& <7:I)(#$# )<+%Q%"! ),7+#Q)%# ))I, % <> +<2;2$ >2,#) $P.$)#%) $)(%# 3 +$<2;=,) ##)# #$"$ "&$$$) 7;

PAGE 49

F & "$"-'%+<22=,$ ("!$ &I## # "-& %"$# %#QG)% $$G##%"" %" #"*$%$ -%$" #%%## "!"%## #$'+<22:, "*#I%& IF -&28+>:## $><%$>> %%,%-)%%>< ###)%"!#G %)$"%%(% #$%($!)% ##%( F)(#$# -(#$# /%)$ 72

PAGE 50

#"% "%##%%%( # "%" "%#)#$# F$#%%$%(# #%+! +<22=,"*)## %-%(I)%%"-! I F$$)%$ FF# "$&"$ ## .I# $#$&"I) %"#)# ##$%$%(%)"" %##(%## $"$" !"!%) )# 6+<22:,)) +,FP#.# 4)4?)1)" $4 #)F% )">:-#-#%$)" )"$))-#) ?#"%(#" :8 F

PAGE 51

%#$%%% "FF "$ % $6/%)$)")# %!# '' )%#$)#$## # !%0=!0%!./-' 4 "% )/$A# +<2;;,# $%$)%# -#)"$""(% F)")# $%!$#) $!#% #%"%"" ##$%") #"&# %%"F)" )#F# $+<22=,))%" ) ) %"Q(F$-:<

PAGE 52

$(# )%% #"( )%(%%F)" !%0=!0%!./!/!4 U-)! #"#))"") %##I%% % !6I+<228$ =2,-" "%#-# /%( P(%#((%# 3" %!# '' (%#! $# %#$ )%)% /1'(' ())) #)$"#% )"%+A$<22@, E)+<22=,# -#$## -) %)%" :>

PAGE 53

%# (F#" (%%"*#% %#) #% %% "!% #$) +<22=$ >@8,$P4% #$("## $) 3 $("$ G##! % $!$)$% +$<227, '-+<227,-) "))" ) )F "*%%%## -#"#*# ))##$%% #$%%"## #%%" #!% ##*)#% :7

PAGE 54

X 4 ))" "!# 3 #+49 /#% >&??@ #")# #(%## $#$)-"# #%%" %)%## #"#$ %)%)""# )$%# #4%(" )(#$#)#$.# +<228,)#%%"#/ )%%#$##$ ## %% -#-#)(# /%)$" #)(##" $"#)# P?)#*4#3F% "4A+<228,$% )"") %%-# )$)#$ AA

PAGE 55

))%$F )%"Q T)#! T))%#%) # T%--F#&# T)"$ "#"" T)#& )"-) /$$6##?) +/6?,F+$<22:,) ###%" /6?F /6?%-%F $)"$%) ##%("#$%("F #$-"$" F%!$#$&"# %# )U##( #) )%$#% -)#( #" #"#" )"" )$ #!%##$ :=

PAGE 56

%#$! )$)&" "%) "(&" ""/%(+<22@,#")"% )(& /%( "*%#*%# )%"% /$# )%$%&"##%(# --# "" #%(#"(& %"%%#( ))(### #)%#%" ""4#*# $A+<22@,)#!# #)!% % %=-" )"%#)%$ #)$ #-"A %U)% %($&"$#"%( #% "#)% ##$$# :0

PAGE 57

%%# )%!++#4 $ #$ "))# ##++# 7-0!4!# .1 !#$)) %(A+<22@, #"G"(# %""# F"# ) "#) )"#$&"$) !") # #% $%") #$$ )$$+4$<2;2G(-6#54$<22<, "%) )$## +A$<2;;, "!" )"# #) # %# "#% :@

PAGE 58

" # ## "#%) % -3!'' ))" % +)$<22=G6$<22=G'-$<227, $# ")+$<2;=G6$<22:, !$ A+<22@,%" #"%(% "#%)$F )$"% )#-)%# %"(#%"%" ($""" %%)# %)" )")) #$%% F" ))" )) "%%"" #)"#+B5Q$<22:, :;

PAGE 59

"%%)# ## "((%#) &)#)&"$ %%%%) ) ##) # )%$%" # ) #% ))#" )#)+.$<22=, "# $" )"+'("$ $ <2;0GB#$<2;>, !4!# .1B!4/-'4 )F%" !$%# !$$&"* +4$<2;2, #)%(+4$<2;;G B$<22
PAGE 60

(%%)))$%# $%" "#&&!% ##$$)$)+($<222, #&))#%% &"%$&%$$) #)$%I &))$ $#) "$)" #%% #+$<2;@, %% +,%(%% % )%)$ $#)$ )*### ?"+<227$ 28,P%(% %# E(%%( %F#&" 1" %)+$<2;;, 6"") (# )(#" &)+$<228,)(# =8

PAGE 61

#)# )(#+/ $<22:, (+<228 08;,# )#% #)-!$$&" E )"% I#)$) #! F#"#I)# ')$%#&) %(" %""$%# &)%(#%" +$<22:G.5/$<2@0, "% #"%"% $%## &"#"%Q TE"M TE)M TE))M T?)))#)M T?) M &%")$ #$$% # Q(%#%"% =<

PAGE 62

(##$#%# $)#)$)# ))%# %"#" %"%%) #))#$ ?)#$ #$&G %)$"# %#$#$#%"II )+?#-/$<22=, !/1-)-%-7 "%!$ #)+'4/ #/8 %(" "*)#)) %( )% "%"!"-%("#) %))% "% $D"<222D<222 "%$) %"%))) ##+'#5'($ <2;>, 6(%! +'"$<22>,#) -)" =>

PAGE 63

%##" "*% "## )# +/#/-'4-0/1!/)7 4"F)$%#&"" &")"# & "#)# !)$$# !"*" )+($<22=, $"#"" """+.$<228,G%)$"% )%)%#% /1'(' % "(### /%)$%#U$% %!# ''4 % ( >&???8 ,?@ $P# #$)##" %%# 3" !$$#$$)# %%# -'.%4-' ?%"%P(")""# #3+5$<2;:$ =7

PAGE 64

<>, ?%"+<2>2$ @:,Q $"##) F))%( $ %###$ #%%" %(?%"U" %$#") ?%"% +.$<22:, I#G "G)(! % #$&##"Q TE"M TE)M TE))M T?)))#)M T?) M &((%% #$%($ %&"+?"$<227, "% #"*#) %%%# 0')'4 "%) =:

PAGE 65

""%$ $ )% )#)% /%)$$% $% #%"--" #+4$<227, ))""# %%U#))% # %("))%# "(%#$$% %## +<2;@,% %"%"$%" ##I"%% )#% )#&" "#"%" "#)

PAGE 66

#%")%%%( #")"F)(%#$ %!$)$$+E$ <228, 4")#$( )#)+$<22>, #I)""!%P$$ 3+6 B$<2;=$ 7@, ?"+<2@2,!" #!")"##( "($" %") 4!)&"% "$$"# #")(%## F)+$<2;@,Q!%%!" ""! 4"( !#)"")# +($<22=, 6B! ")%" )# #%# $)% /+<22:,E+<2;>, #&) "+> <, =0

PAGE 67

> I# ))% !" 7 #) #%# : ##" )%% = (!%"$ $($#"--" 0 " @ P) 3 ; "%% +/$<22:QE$<2;>, #4!/)7 4"$"(+<22=$ !,$P" "!"#$ .-+' )" % 3"$" &**## "&"*%)$&" #!$%)+J$<22:, E !$&)% #)+($<22=, S

PAGE 68

"-')# !4 4"$I$#"$ &)+.$<2;8G /$<22:,)#( -""%" ( "& &%Q TE"M TE)M TE))M T?)))#)M T?) M "%$%% "% %<<88)-#-# %$! %$ (%#$)# #$% $#$" "% %(G)% -%% $"% #<222#" "$I$%% =;

PAGE 69

)%"% +E ####<222C>888", "%#$"$ # ?%)##$))$ )" +E$<22:,#$#$ %-+5/$<22:, #))G% !4!# .1! ;4<3! !'.!#')-%! E#"#"# "% ###" %#%#%)! +65.$<22>,$"%!% #* $""$)"# "-##$)$# $#*#$#+/#)$<22=,% %" -#" ##)" "## #"%"%# )#" ) #$ %%"$)($ C =2

PAGE 70

) # G)" %$ )""# /%)$("" )#""(% %)$%$% ")+.($<2;2, %? 4("$ )%) % )$% %#% $(% "$$$" !$#I #%)##+.($ <2;;, $)#)"G )#*#) )G$"*$ ) )"!# )!")) &#)+.($<227, $" (#%%"#" #)) %

PAGE 71

#) %) %"($% ) %% )"""))" %)#+.($<2;2, )" %(%" %%)#(## %"% %(#(#)## %() *% ))%) %)))#$ +E$<22:, "F#$#$ $C E#" % % %" '#'( +<2;>,B.(+<22>,%#(# #%" #+'#5'($<2;>$ =@, E(%## "$%"%)%" )"#"+B*$<2@7, "#% #+($<22=, )% (%#)+B5 0<

PAGE 72

6$<2;>,$)#))% )%I%#(# $ #""% # "%%" %$% )"" #/#-%%!./-' %+,"$+,#)$+, #*$+,))$+,$+, $+#, +,I %I+<22=, #%#Q +<,E)"# ) +>,#)## +7,4"%## %#$I) +:,?( I)"")) ")% ) #%%#)" )$# 6$ "%# 0>

PAGE 73

"+<22<$ 02,##$P%&) ## )"$$#$#$$ $## 3 +,B4) )"%( ##$$ #) ## #%%("/$ $))) E) "!#)#$#$! +4$<2;0, ?#)%U#% "*#%#+'(" $<2;0, )##)"$% )!F" #$% *%%%%%)%# %(+9$<22=, $#"$)% "### +,#* )#*+!', )#) #%#*)% ")() # %#*$(% %# +,)4) -#) %)##" 07

PAGE 74

" %#%(B+<2;=,(& )% +!4, ))%%% ##)$%) )% "&%) '##+<2;0, )%I # (#& ))(% +65B$<2;:G65B$<2;=GB5.($<22>, #&%$P/%)))" )M3 %"I+<2@2,)%# $ (# $ )% $)(#%"&$ "%#%" F# /+<22=$ <<,) / )-%%F # /$P)%(-$ $)"# 3 +,/ #% &%(")+!4, & (%))"$ C#$$#$% # #)) 0:

PAGE 75

) %# #))% +,/ #) +!?,%## %### %#))G%)$ 4#"% ?" "" #$#$"*#$$ ###)$) )$ %"*# "%"$" %#+"$<22<, ."* ##+$<22:, "%#)"G) )) %()&""#* % )# %)%" )H+<2@@, HU" $$!$$> > 0= F

PAGE 76

$##"%+<202,H"+<2;;,$ %Q+,$+,$+, $+,! % )) +! !)" ), %(% *#%### ) > >Q?"B !.1'.#%-'/!B% -7 -: "9/)!'/4 '-# '->) '-7) 9 .%+9 4-#" 4->4 4-75) ? 4! ??-> ?-7.54"

PAGE 77

?)? "$$#)# "#HI+<2@@, %(%U+<202,%( )"# ##)#) #%(" (!-$)# )$## %"# #G%)$%"## 4#"## $#)!? 4($%#)) "# +> >, /+<2;:$ ><=, #QP" %")#G)""G ("""$## 3/%)$% "") &##+$<2;>G5Q.($ <228G($<22=, 0@

PAGE 78

* K )%%) < E" !-%( > E4" 4 #<222$% ) 7 E4 4) : ?#?) ) = ??" %)& .## %"+ &!!, )#*"%#%"Q %"$%"$% )$#))$ "## K$E"$% )##-#% # K%$E4"4 $"*

PAGE 79

)) K$E4 4)$!%) ) K$?#?))$ #$#$(### K)$??" .##.$!# )) -'! 4#/-'#%4/4 %)% # 4" -% 6"## )-#-##" 6 "###) #')")#4 $" #$#) /"#"# #%(%"# 4"%"# # #%( "##$! 4%%#" #<7># 6% <0""# ( #))" 02

PAGE 80

$6"$%$( %(#()" #'E'/1!)!'.!'/-# #/! "")"*# "#" )-+#'48 +$<2;0, ?#)) (%#%#% )$$" )"% "$ )%"$ "()""! $) ))"% "%$ !$ ))% ##"" )%)% %("#)%C)$ %()##)% # $!''' "% S@8

PAGE 81

%%"$)$$ C)I) /%)$ 4#"%"%% !+ # $$$ (%,%% "#%) #)%) +/#%$<22:, ) )#! ))%)# +4"54$<228GB%5$<2;@G9 6$<2;@, '"#)$"$")Q "#)"# % E%%# !% ))+/#%$<22:G($<222, "# "%%! +J$<22:, '"#P#3%) !%+($<222$ 082, #*)")&#" "#*)!" %&$!$(%# FG$)#% )# & @<

PAGE 82

) %(%" &!% )%"%-" "$&#)#% ) 4)"$ )&)%"--" #! 17).#/4!0%!./ )#* E" &$%"$ < -) Q-) > ") 7 ). $")$ )+%"!!, $-)$)%## (%#-%##)"" $")$) )#) #'' #%#I '4/ ./-'#% ## $)$%) %))&"#% #$!$ @>

PAGE 83

%"" )$ ))-% $&"$) %)$))) !) !%0=!0%!./!).#/4 #)#") #%"%%##) 4)#"$$"" #(# #")I##$# "" $" !)(# 4$%$!%"Q #"" "" $%%($! # "#"%%( % %(F## %%%(" # "%)"" %# #-(#-)) #)#" ###)"###(# (#+5$<22>, 4% #%#%) @7

PAGE 84

))+4(5.$<2;0, 4"$%$ $#%%$ $###* %#*+.#$<2@;, % %Q ""# "$$#" % (%"%$F # ##&($ "($PB 3"% #$I( (%# (%%$#" $%) ")" #)"#"%#&# I%( #$)"(##! ()# 4"%&+.#$<2@;, %#)% %"#% (# ))# #% 6$%##$(%("# !# %#" $$ )*%#$%#$#$ (# (%(#(Q "#% """## @:

PAGE 85

# #)($ %!$%"%## I ### ?"(%%M ?(M ?%"+<28:,*U# ##)## ## /#+, +,(%## 6% (#)%" % )#%### #-$ #### $%"$#% % /%) $"$% /( "#)#!( FQ (#%&("F" "$ P/I#F"I)#%" 3 (#"$" I 6$%$%(% % % )#%+#$ <22>, )%)# % (%#%""# %#"$(# @=

PAGE 86

#( (#% %#%#ME# ME"#!"ME M##$%)$% # 4%#)""%4"% #% 6%(#%(%## "!#%$%%# )"%&" 6"$6%#) $$% '/! 3 !/#/-'-0!%0=!0%!./-' ")##)% %#$%""(% )%%%" %###(%#-% ##)"" -) %%"&#-###" %%(#-#I (%#$%## -.#%%7!0%!./!).#/4 ?%"#I E)%%)G$ @0 F

PAGE 87

(%#&"))#+$<22;GH"#("$ <2;0, 4"%"%"Q E"(## '%( '%) EU)"%% (# E%)#% EI)%"% #$%)%%"%## #"$P"$$" $#$%# 3%%F# '%($$)% I+<2;7,(%#--( $%H"#("I+<2@;,### "#(%#"# # 6$(4"$)#)% "%(## ))!"#"# )) !Q ))#%" %"%F J(%# "(##$(#$% %((" %$ %%" % !"%)%$% !#%%( )##% % "%%"(%" ())Q )("(%" # @@

PAGE 88

%%"%!#)"#%#$F # '(%%" #%"I##( I(% %#"# %%$(#" (%" E%%%%##) )$%#%#%%(% +"$<2;2, E%%%(%% 'G ## E) 6$$%#) #%!% #% %(%% Q #(#( #$$) %% %$PJ$ E ) #) 3$ )#F$ ) (+<22<,))(%#$($ #$$")##% 4 %)##% #Q (#"( ( %"#!"() F% I"%$" #%#(%#% E %##)%% @;

PAGE 89

!(# E) %")#G%)" %##+E#$<222, !$4"$ 4$6% #! $%!) % %(%"" %"$%6#)" #) E%)" %## '/! 3 !/#/-'-0-.#%!0%!./-' E%")## )!#%%#) # #)% ))#%$ $#)#) #$"$##$ !# .#U"$H"#("+<20>,*! ))I)# E) #)##$$ %### @2

PAGE 90

). E"&(%# % &# #####) E (#(%##*%" (%#+/#%$<22:, %$%%(% (%"(%%(% %#)%!&% # )!) #%)) E) %$!$) %#)4#)$% $6%! #-)$))&" $4"%(#Q 6Q"%"#)"$) ##"# )() M%(ME)%%" %M%)##%)% ##4#) #) +6(#%! !"$$% 4Q(%%"% ) +4 "#( 6Q%%#ME#% ##$$I%%"%"#% $"%#$(((M+6 ;8

PAGE 91

"#% Q(##%I) Q#%"#M/%#"%M EI($%" + )##" # 6Q%))I#M$(%% ( +6) )& 4"Q###%F# # I E($P "#%%M3"%) )%#M%)M %)$%(%%(M+4" #)%!#" ##% 4Q/%%M)( +4 #)##(# 4"Q)#$P/%% "M3"!% %"%I$ I +4"I"# ) )+!'4-' ))#%"# (%###G%)$%%"# %"(%#! ( !%"(%# (%# #)%%%) )$)( I) !$#6( &##"(#% 6&

PAGE 92

))% (###$! "## '/! 3 !/#/-'-0/1!!. 4! -.!44 % %%% )"# # %####P (%#3"$%#) $#")) /%)$"% )#$#((%#$ )+?%"$<2>2$<2=@, E%)#)&" #%"%(%#$ !$ &" %"" %P(%#3(%& ####" (%#(%#$%%## 1#/ !#/#%74/4#')-'4/ #'/4-0!0%!./-'H &$%"$%## (%#-%##)"" ;>

PAGE 93

E-$(%# ##"$%%)# )"!## -## ## E* !))# E) #)##$ $### #% #-" #$ %"*" ) $#* &$%"$% Q" "+ "!!,"#$ #")$#) +!!," "--"-# %$" $%"" #/#%74/4 < # > 4#"4) 7 #4) TB#4) T?)# T# #') ;7

PAGE 94

$ "$)) #%) $)" #$) % (%# $$) ) #$ %$%%% "--"## #/#%74/4 +"!!, # $#" )$# ) %)# %)#(%#)$ #(%##$)" # %#%% #/#%74/4 < # > 4#"4) 7 #4) TB#4) T?)# T# #') -'4/ #'/4 < T#4! T# T# 4 T!#6(4 T?%# > ?"--?"# T# )4) T.## #." '#. T#4 ;:

PAGE 95

") E))I %))#%($# #%($#%## "*) E !)%## )$("%## 4"Q# #)##" ##&"#% )+4" 4$<2;0G B$<2@2G#$<2;:GH$<228, %$ %&%)"+ #$<22<, % % %) $!$) $ %)+$<2@7, 6% %#%)#%Q ")#(( )F##%% ## %"&%#)#(# A%##$#%$ #"# 4")-"%) (%#Q (#-" % "#"###% ") ;=

PAGE 96

")%) #% #'+<2;0,) ) !$)%#-" ("!##()% %-" "("(($!$ )#$(#$%( -" )%)##)+"$ <22=, %#)4"((" "%)!" # #Q 6QEU"(%(#""M 4"Q"" "" #(% "## #( %)#( ##( (%%"# #"### % ###$%U#### 6QE$(###%% #"# E"!$ I(%% '%"( #;#M 4"Q (((#$PE"I%# %M3 "## #$"%% ) # /%#(##<=8 %(%"#ME"(#M "( )##(%#% #I#%"% 6,

PAGE 97

!$4"&""-(%# $$%(%# )%%# E# ##)#) (%# (%#)$%% (%##$%# )"# '%## $%%#%"## (%# '"")$%%(%( %#+B$<22<, 4"Q4#"4) "$ #$%"$!"$# )%#$$## $" "#) %%)# ))%#$)% %%### %#)! ##%#"Q QJ#")# +/(# !%# ,"#$ %%"(# + #%) ,+6#, 4Q'(" +4# 6Q')" Q("+#4"I, "# +#%4" %(%"%( ;@ Y <

PAGE 98

###&+6"$<220, E %)"" )"I&"(%# )#%" $##%%)I % ### % )%%%%%%###$###$ )I%)) "$#"$ %($+B!$<2;@, #$%")### )#$ Q %"$$"( # "$PJI%#$#%" #3### "$P("$%) 3 "%%" ( ) "#) %##%%)#%" % #" (% %)""#))# %## #%"G%)$ "%##%) 'I##%" )") ) )"$%% )")$() %%%))$)))% 66

PAGE 99

4"Q#4) )#*"$# )$Q## )$)#$# #)+# )!!, $ ##)$% )%## $)#$% )#) $##)$) %#)"%)) ##%)) B#4) %#%%) )##%$$% # $ $()#( ##%%)# 6 %(#) #$$ $%))Q 6QJ) (" "F# "(%" #$( ?"(% %ME#"% "! "%! #.%/#/' -'! 4#/-'4 < B# 4) > ?)# 7 # # ') ;2

PAGE 100

!$4$ (! /%)$)"!$ %! (" F($(" #% %! %% # J%))! "%F#$#$#! &(-!)$6% (####)% +E# B$<22;, ))%##(%#% ##)#$%#( ")+B("$<22=, %(% #$("$ +/$<22>, % '0#+%# %"!) %"## #)#)( 6( %#) (Q J##( E#$ %F%(%%%( $#"$# (%" J#%% (#"(%(%%% (# %# JI "# (#)#$ #'E! 4 +! "@ #%" 28

PAGE 101

%#$%)"")( # E)%%""(# ## E%(%%& )") +!#'' %)#)%%#)% ( ()##Q (")#"6 E "%)#"%( J#*")%$" ( ($( "$"%##)## (# (#%"% %"##% J)# # %"(###( ("$%%%%) E%"(%%% ?)# .#"#)" )#### !$#$)#$ #$ %#* (%# #)I%) #)$!# ))% !$4" ###" %##))Q E%%## % % E%% ($(%"$"%) %%%# %)) )%%" E(#(% 2<

PAGE 102

!# EU)" ##" E$ %" .#)(#* %($$#*$! %%#" %#+$<2;:, "$ #! )#I)% % '"+<22=, ##%" " ) 6%"#% "%#Q E (%"$ I(")=!! (%" '% )""%"(% "$%)I#%%%$%)I $%%%%" E%"$P$%I !%( 3%%I%" )$#$%%"#% #%%)+4( .$<2;0, 4") #))$%$ "%))# 6) #"**)$ !%# 2>

PAGE 103

) #I$###%$ "$"%)")#% '#%"%(#"% "## ##') ) # ##%!(# ##(# %#*+.#$<2@;, #(#"% # )"#%)!# & $$ )$#)"& 4"% #%%##) )(# "%(# )# #Q (#!"%$%% )( %%(%# #"$P/# %%%###M E((##((ME% ##M3($" $!# %)% ) E#("% %%(I%( EI!M )#$)#% #%)% )) E)(!% 27

PAGE 104

)"#%)(%#Q Q("$"% E"%# M Q((%%"#" + !" -')' )!%( Q%"#!%(M 4"Q(%#("# ##% 4Q4% +4%# ) 4"Q %% # E#$($ # +4")#( !# 6Q%!%($%")) $#$$&$ "(%$)I(%% !"$(($%%) F%"" E" %#ME%#%%M+6 (##!# Q)##$$(%" "%" ?I#F" '#( Q6I(#* 4"QE%-#M% $($ Q(( $ #%( 4"QE$($%""#(#" E)$%%" %)) ?%%( #M+4"##! Q 4"Q?(M 6Q$ ?A

PAGE 105

I 4"Q("$$($ .(( %%# +4"$ $# ))I"))%# #)) #%#%) #))%% %%%() !$ )$) )#%) )%) %$ !%#)) #$("%%%## '/! 3 !/#/-'-0#/#%74/4 H"#("I"!) %%"(% #% E$)"" )$%) )$ "F)) E#"%"%# #( 4"%#) )Q 4"Q"%## (#%"$# # 2=

PAGE 106

E*)"%(#$%## )"(# E(%%% # 1'(' %%(#%%(# '" %%(#$# )( % "" "# )))#$% $("$ #)+#),+B$<2;0, $ )"$)#) !<#+3%!8 ""4"# #!# /%)$%"% "*)#%"% %%%#* 20

PAGE 107

, < 4 +!!, "--"-# ) #!$# $# $!#( $%# "--"# )# ))$###" #$# 4G )#*$ $)Q #!$# $# $!#($%# +!!, $#!$% %%!#)") Q6"U+,(#&#)4#" $ #$)%# 2@ < #4! > # 7 #4 : !#6(4 = ?%# 4 < T#4! T# T# 4 T!#6(4 T?%# > ?"--?"# T# )4) T.## #." '#. T#4

PAGE 108

%#%) $#$% )%#(%# )$%% $!#($)%% (-)#$ %#)"" 6"$ $%#$%)%%# ) #4! !##" !#$#*#$%#$ )# "$# )F"##% ) /%)$!) "F$"!$ #")" #!%" ##$%"# %$6"$ D"(#%( ( )##" )# %#4/# ?4( %4$" )#$$C%#$ !$ %)% )#)#4 2;

PAGE 109

4I+<22:,$#I+<222,$"%I+<22=, )##$ #$!#($%# # )) )# # (%#%)# % E(%%%% #"$#$%(+E$ <228, /%)$#%" #%(%) E %)")%"% #)"# 6(%6"I Q EI# I !$(6"I ()$$ $"#% %"F(% $((#(( ($$%"$)#" ) (( # /%%" 6"I" %#)" ( %"$I))# % 6I%%% %# $% %%#)#)"% 6%%)Q 22

PAGE 110

E)#%6"## 6 (#6"U6" 6""#$ 6#$"#( $)#)$Z(" 3P%( 3PE(# 3PJI)%" 3 #4 6%) 6%##)#* )$.+).,#$)* $) )# ")#)!#" %#)%!% %Q 4"QE#%%I#$)# "###.% ) )""#M("$ #!%(%% B#$# ""%$ #( "##% -$"(#$I( ("$#$##D+,$% ))#D$% E ()$)""(#"%( ("M +4"(# #"%"##% )"" QJ 4"Q!$%(#%( E% #6.M%($ ("M 4Q(")#%( +4%"-# % 4"Q$( )" %D$(%% &

PAGE 111

# %"((% ##" E)#% $" % ((####$"#"I I( E%)# #$%"# EI) I%"*"M/% /%"# /("# /II(ME %)")%# "%"$#. #"()"# '#)) +4 4$<22:,$% #(%#) ) %% "#)$ #"%($## !$6 $4$ 4"("##.# E )"")#% $$) !#6(4 %6"I 4#"$#!# "!)%) "(# )C%(# -)#$%# )""+4$<22@, '4#"%% )#"##(#6"I# %)#Q &&

PAGE 112

6Q+%( ,FI"+# ", I" )I 4# D+,%" #" /%#)$ I## % FI QI("$6 4"Q6$"# J($% FI I(%D%#)$"(% "" 6QI /% I) 4"Q(%%)(6 D (#* %"# %I!%( "F"%"%( D$" "## "!%( ) I(%"%)$ 6QJ(%F("I %"#"( E%I M%""%% 4Q)I%%%%" +", FI" ) %(""$#% FI)%) I %" 6Q)%% E ) (%# E )?4(#%I(%" EI#"#)%I(% ( )# 4"QJ(%$%#"%(# A##+", % %# E$%"!M# # "I #)#" ### .))# #$%"( &

PAGE 113

#%!## E ##-(#(+#$ &???@8 % 4# E %# !# /1'(' "(+#$ &???@9 !%%$$#*$% %%%#$#% %"(")"#+B$ &??J@9 6 %")Q "))$") )%$4)" F "% "# $%4 $"$(#$" # "%( "( %""#% #%$#$")$ )"##% ")"I ("#F%"#$"%" ) ?%# %) +/$<2;7,$%%#) !$%#$ %#$(%:Q88$) % .#")$% # +D5$<2;=, %#%+454$<22:, %#)%%%!$%) )Q &*

PAGE 114

4"Q6("% .)%%# %" J( 6QI %##% %( ?"#"(("MI "%)$ %#### QI##% E($ 6 JF"%# 6Q(" J(%%"%(#%%# "%(#$P ##M3 6QE .%## % # (%) ( % )")" Q6$%#"M 6Q "%( $"# #%(# I# ))#"" ##F )## 4"Q6$"##(%#$% )"#)# '")"%%%" $%% +"%$<22@, E%"##$% %%"#)#G%)$ %)") !$6%### (($#" %)## ")"" %##$# E%)## <8:

PAGE 115

#%$)#%%% "" 4Q?"--"#WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW)#*$ "--"-#$ Q#) )$## #"#$ # $# ))$%%)"&*# ) $###"#$% )%()#"$ %)(( !# E$ )$%(# ) 6"$$# $)%% #%## #)4) % %"(# % (#"% )%%$# "$%# ##%) <8= ?"--?" # < # )4) > .# ## ."'# 7 # 4

PAGE 116

!"#$$( &+?$<227,$%%(%) #%## )%# % E)"&*# %%%%$ #*#+/#)$<22@, # #*%+ <22<, 4"$$ 6(#Q 4"QJ%#$"# #$("" %( $%#%) $%#%% Q ""%# ") ) "(%##)"--" #% E"$P("$I$ % %%%## 3 6Q( ($)F# %($%%(#"F) % (%% "##%%%%% # F%%( )%$ .###."'# E"%"%( +?(%$<22@,$ )" ""%# "--"#) $$#$##$ #%#$& <80

PAGE 117

##"+/#)$<22@GE"$<22:GE#5B$ <22;, "#%%!# !"%## )(%+B$<2;0, E )##!)% #$'##)+<227,) -(#"$)" $))" '%%() "Q Q%( E#$#$#% #!MI%%" %$ #-$(### "$P%% 3#%"$%) 6Q()"$)" D(%" #")%(# 6Q 6Q$#%%I#" %I#$%() 6QJ %() $%) (#!# /%)$%" %#%" +B$<2;0, #% %)#"( )"-#$%% <8@

PAGE 118

##%##%% ) 4"Q 4"Q(## E ( I '%)# (#"% %(#$%%(#$%%(#%( E-%I( # )"#&(" E) $# EU %% %##6" I#$$ #%" I(%%# # ##%"#) )G!$(#)$# I$# ""% ##G%)$ "%#$ #) /#%5(+<22<, )##)%)#$ "#$#"#(## )$ %)"(# )" #"() %#) !Q 6QEI$6M"##"%M 6QJ F"( F# <8;

PAGE 119

Q"!M 6QJ 6QIF# ""$%" %"F$" Q/)"(DM 6Q/)#" 4"Q?%%)-"M QJ$I-"$ # E% I("!")"( "%-$"$." #4 #"##%($#"& #$$ '.-++-' F("# )+$<2;;, 6#*# %)"% Q )")%%%" ($%"#$%" # )"$)"$)" D)( ($Z%##"##M3J(%$PE #"###%M3PE#"(#M3P/% ##M3PE%%%4#M3(#% "#(#! E"# -($"((F#""--" "#($$I %( &" % ")% <82 <

PAGE 120

$)%(%#" %" "%%) +9$<22>, )## # (%" )Q (%"#% #$"F%""$P$I#% 3 $%)#I"(%" )#%## %("$( "# %"#"$P$ ##""# B(#%"%#" 3"" %"%%"$ D $($"$PE) 3 '/! 3 !/#/-'-0-'4/ #'/4 4#""%)$&"$ (%) %"6"I#" 4$%)%% ) /%)$#" ""))"(#)$!$ %)+?$<22<, %#)% %"(%#"$$" (%# )#%! &&

PAGE 121

)##%"(%# %(%## (#!)%% # !"### )%( E%)%% %)%"%%% /%)$) #%$%$(# !(%#$)# %(%#$%#*#$$ !"#! 1!-'/!'/-0/1!!0%!./!-'! 4#/-'4 &$%"$% )(%#)$%%(%# #$ 2%%''!44 )"##(%# )# (%#$%! "( $""--" ##%##%# ## #$#%%" )%###)" &&&

PAGE 122

"--") /$"&$% )) )#* &$ ))$% Q#@ )!*#)+) )!!, $#@)$% %)"U#%" ))$)"#* # $!*# )$%)))# %%%%% "# %"" ))) #%#*%) )"")### "))#$"$## $ 4/!''/-!#.1! 4-.!4 $)%#) )%"%#G%" #% % ))$$" % && 1!-'/!'/-0 !0%!./!-'! 4#/-'4 < 6#@H > 4!*#4)

PAGE 123

%"#"%# ) %% $)%"(" %%$%$%"% +6$<22:, #%#) )"I#%") )$)"#* # #"%)F#$#$ %)) E) #)#)##$# +E"$<22:, E) "))"")" ?)##%) )%#### E"# %)!# 6 %%"$% ))## E%%### E)( E(# "$%)%% )"" #%%) "## E% # #$ <<7

PAGE 124

%(#(%### ) -'/!
PAGE 125

[<@\ B 4?# ] 7 \ <>; \ <=> \ [4 ]4! #7 \)# # )F%%)) +<2\,"--"#+<=\, $%# )+!'4-'4 4.1--%'8 %%() #+#7 <,#" )"# <<=

PAGE 126

# ##"%+<2@;,H"+<2;;,Q$ $$! '/! 3 !/#/-'-0/1!-'/!'/-0/1!-'! 4#/-'4 #%#*") )"")#+'#5 ($<2;8G?)$<2;:G$<2;>, )) # "--")% )$$ %(%#()### +'($<2;0G?(%5$<2;>, %%#% $%)" ###"$$)+.$<22;, /%)$)##% ))% E "##"%% (%#$"$)$##$$"%) # EG # $%#"# ")%# ##" #%%)$ )$%%") % (##"")$%(# #(($##%##%$ )#%+B!$<2;@, "% <<0

PAGE 127

(##")%")$ )##) 1!!#''0%!!%-3+!'/-0 -'! 4#/-'4 &$%))$ %%"## $"$##$ E %)! # E%%"--" +#(' % #) )%)%%)$) G%)$%%") $#%$%$)%# $)$) 4&"$"&$ %#))) #*& $# #$%Q #%$)#$#$ #&# #+# )) !, $ ##$% 1!!#''0%!!%-3+!'/ -0 -'! 4#/-'4 < H## T'#% T)# T# ?)#4 6## 4# # T4#K# 4# <<@

PAGE 128

'-I+<2;@,#") #-(#"*#-(# / "#%$)#$#$#$))# +))#"&, $#%$%)%# Q)### $)#$%#) +!#''4 %#)%#% $#$% ###!# "!##% $#&##$%) "(%%#%G%)$%## %#"(% %"" )))%& %&" # #)%%)"# #$$)## # /$%)")%) )## #+'-.#%!#'' '-+<2;@,)%#" ) +!#''=+#(' !# &&6

PAGE 129

$P"(%#$ "%(%#3+ <8<, 6#+<2;2," )! ) )$%%%%(# #(%## E %#### ) '-I%()%##)###Q #%$)#$#$#$))# )#%%(%%)## ) '#% '#%)#%# %# # ))#% ##G%)$#)#!) ))(% %)# &%$PEM3 #%##-$ %F* F )$"%"%# F !"$%# &## '"%%% ##%%#%$% <<2

PAGE 130

% /%)$%#)$% %%Q 4"QEF..( %F%# E%.. ($P"#%%M3%) M QE(%#%# %%M 6Q%( 4"Q..% 4Q#)( ") #I#" %#(#$% #Q)# .-++-' # #+E#$<222, ))# ###..G%)$% # )# ))(#( #) & %$P/%%%"(%M3E)" I!"#% +*%$<228, E(%) #)# E# %)#%#)Q &

PAGE 131

6Q'%%(#(## FM)""I Q)#/"$%"#$ % %%" 4"Q"%)#(& &(((# 6Q"%( & %)) Q)%& ") 6Q%%(# F((# Q##% #& #"$## "# #)#%# )%#)$)"$% +'$<22:G$<22>, & .-++-' ##$%%*#%) )% H"#("+<2@;,P* !) 3E%#%(%%# #$%)")%# 6$4"$6)# ")# 6!#$ 4"&$6 )## # $$) &&

PAGE 132

F #(&#%% %"*) #I E%# $$$# 6$4$ 4"$())%Q 6Q#%"$% (""#%"$ ##%$%## (( E##$% %" 4Q#%)"(## ) %#$&" #)#$## "# "##%## 4"Q#$$# .. "I"&# # )% %" I %%(# Q%%%##" P$(%%"%##% 3'$(## E#)))#$ %%##% )%+/($$ H($<22;, 4# )%$%)$##) #"!)+'5%$<22:, E)%"))% ))% %% #$# ) &

PAGE 133

##* %$)### ##+ #!!, $)# ##$)""##%#$% #!)##%#% $##$%) "##)$%# )%%F#" ?#$#()#) $$ &%$P"M3# )$%%#)" &#$$%(# +*%$<228, E%#%#%" %!# %# !#"!#$" #$)#%% % #"%#) "+*%$<228, ?)#46## ## )%"# # ##%!# #%! %!%% $$$$# # T?)#4 6## T4# # <>7

PAGE 134

/#+<2;@,#% ""#)#$"#%)" )"#% ##%! )"" $%#$%##) )+*%$<228, E#!)##% #% %%#)Q Q% #($ %(ME"# %$(#$ %$%##$( # (## 6Q6(..M 6Q%""..## Q%" (% 6Q)# ) # "% 6Q'(")#!$..% QI % E M4"#)!M Q!%"#"$($ !%)## # #%%#)% ###)"%" E%# ($$$$ #$%%"#) +.$<22;GB$<2;0, ))$6&I <>:

PAGE 135

#))%# %) #)%"# #%" %%#) ##+?"$<227GB$<2;:G6$<22=, 4## %)"## ####%) )!# +B$<2;7G"$<2;<, #%# ) #)$ %%#*#!(%#+/#)E#$<2;2, ) )"F# '"# #)$%#) #%%F#" #+/#)E#$<2;2, %#) (#Q Q(## (%%" # E##%%(") ) ?%)%F( +!',M$$% M 4"Q*I I(## #" # #%#$F% "&$(%$% )(# ((# 4(#!# ##$ 6QJ(%%"%# <>=

PAGE 136

% EI#% # QI#$% %""#F (") %"##"#( # 6Q(%$$$%( %%(%(#( $$$ ()%" (## E##"#"(%##% "! !$$4"$6# -(%#G%)$" #% #)%% $%% 4")#% #$" 6$ $)%#G%)$% %#!(# $$%%)" # )))(# #$"%()%%" #+6$!$5$<2;;, E%#)# #""(%#)#) (#% 4#K#4# %#&## <>0

PAGE 137

0 G!4/-'' #4#"# ) #)" % /%)$%) %*### % 4#))#--%$ #*#(%%$$"# #$%#$ %$%%"#) 0#+%# 8 ()% & %P?(%M3P?%(%M3# )#%)&"(# F%"# #"Q 4Q)!Q$$#$ "$#"$ 6Q4( "# $$"* #Q"(!"$"*# #$$M 4"Q)# 6Q(%#*%!$ #% 6Q"%%(## ))"%% +B$<2;0, D-.+<207$ <=<, <>@

PAGE 138

))#!$%$P)# & 3+<2;@,)) #I$#!$)# $##%! )# E)"#)% #%$%##%#"(%"# % !$%)## ## E(# %##+B$<2;0, )))))%""% %## #)$% %%)%## % )%%%))#Q 6Q6I#"%#(( "M Q")$%% #%%% !$") ##4)E$ #)$#$$ E "4)EMEM 4Q%#%# "" 4"Q""#!$#$ )# E" %")$)$"$ 6Q##)%" )$#*$ # 4(%%49 QJ(%%#M"*#$( %#$(#(# % #% )) <>;

PAGE 139

)"$%% "*#%## !$$4$4") %"%"*$"( I#) 6## %"% / #%##( E##%%% "# "%%))4 #" ##" $()# E #)))) )"#+"$<2;@G 9$<2;0, E&%% #%##Q 6QE$%%(#ME $%%( (M)")%I) ?4( 4"Q(#)% %# QE((#$%%""(I 6QJ(%$%)"%"7$:$ =(<=8 (%(%%$%(% $#$ $"(% /%")%<=8M <>2 ^

PAGE 140

4"QE)% E( (%% 6Q"%" JI) %**" J)" F $#%%# "" /%"" )%) )## +#$<2;:$<22>$ !), 6I(# #$#$#I%( #+<2;:,###*# P$$ $$")$ -%F $ #*"$$" #%"( )% ##$" $" 3 )"$#$%% #%#+*%$<228, !$4"6# %&#%"I ) E%"*# ")### #))%% /%)$%%P#*#% <78

PAGE 141

#%3+#$<22>$ <@:, %#)"#"%% *##Q 4QE(%F)"%# #%%# Q%""(%F)"M Q"###%# F$%(## 6QE%(##"$ )"#"# # Q#$(%#)"%% %)I( E)I#!($ P("$%M3(### # "#%I(%%% 4"QE$%)""%%(M QJ %"(%-%) )" 6I# #"%%#%## E )%*## #)"+'%5$<222, E ##$%% +B$<2;=, '") %$) %)#+B$<2;=, #?)4) #)# !# (# <7<

PAGE 142

(#$% 4+%# )"G U)+/#%$<22:, % ### $)##)% !#& B+<2;;,'("$ 4"$B#$+<2;0,)!(%# *)! ."#(%#"### #+H"#("$<2@;, "(##$ %#$% "IF# "( %F# %$#)%"6 ). #)%# %& )% )"##$$))" #"+5$<2;@G *%$<22<, %(#%) ##+/#%$<22:, 4&"$%) ")%) ) ## %)#$% "#))# <7>

PAGE 143

''-'! 4#/-''/#./.! $&$#))$ %#") %#%#(%# ##"4#"$## %%$%)"") E## %"(%#%# (%#%)# E% (%#))# % #%%$$%) % $"&$%%) )#*&$#)$ $))#) %" )$))#) $)#"%&) ($"%& E %)% %*"&#%!$% #! ### )$#! <77

PAGE 144

'-%''))#%#44-' %%% # &%PE( M3PE)#M3#% )#)# ) "%%# )" %)% # E ""D)%%!%# ##%#"Q 6QE###(&" %( 4"Q%(&"%(( ($#$# % )"" Q"&"%("%##% E "!)$%! # %"#%# 6Q?%)"ME) Q/%"##&"%(## M 6QE$"#(U%( ?(M QE%)(%( 6QE)#$$% %( ?#)%)% G%)$%!#) <7: F

PAGE 145

%"!#" E ##!"#&"%($% ) (" E%)# ##4)E .#"%&)($ "%& +<2@0$ >=,$P%% 3%) %%%") "--"#F$)$ $%+B$<2;0, E) )%## 64"( %Q 6Q)%"#%$" "$(%""###" ( E%#(( "$#%$%"( "$(# %# )(# 4"Q)))"( &"$(%! )#$)(%( U%($(! % $% .#)_) ?%") #)"#)) %#$%# # !$4" <7= ^ M

PAGE 146

)% *"&#%!$%# !+5$<2;@, / #)$#!$%(" #%)" +'("$ $<2;0, !Q %%%(##-I (#$($%%$## E"#MEME"(# MF P$I%(#$" 3P I%(#$" 1I("* # ))" ## $%##$%(#!"$ "(#4""$" (# (# ?%"I+<27:$ >@>,#4"I ###% !% !%#)##)+5$ <2;@, P#$3?%"%$P"#%"#% #)!%" (! E#$% "$"G# 16?%"I # )#%%" &#%##Q #"% ((# "!#" <70

PAGE 147

#)" '/! 3 !/#/-'-0 ''-'! 4#/-''/#./.! )"!G %)$"#% )#(#(%#)% C(%#(# /%)$F")% !%#"--"## E#% %$$ )# /%)$ )%)"%(# ) & E&$$"*$) %%(+$<227, &%" )%%($ 6%#Q 4# $ )%("% %) ")# JI%" "--" %#( E %%%)%) %) "(%%%")# E %% I(% "% )# $# % # <7@

PAGE 148

#A5'+<227,$%" (%$%$ .+<2@>,! .! $#$#)""!$ %$# .!"#"% !## (#") &###) %(#)"%# F"+A5'$<227G6$<2;0G$ <228, 4"()## "$Q E%%" )"# $$%$%$% ($ZE"(M1"#)# $"#%$ I( ""(" "$ "%"%) "%$I) ?I# I%" >888"(%% % I$" J(%$ ## ) %I(""$$ EI##"" #() E)% ####" **"# "# .!"*## #% $"$$$%+'("$<2;@, <7;

PAGE 149

#$#)) )" #% )#)! <72

PAGE 150

A $"*%# %#))( ?#"$%% )#"%# I## /%)$ ))# # )()% )% %# &"$)!$ #)")" )" ) %))$) (#)# #: <$4).$) )$)#

PAGE 151

K 33/'-'/!
PAGE 152

) #"" #: <%) /#))" )# /1'(' # $ #%(#"+65B$<2;=,# 0')'4 %(#""# #))G%)$ ")"" !%0#')-.#%!0%!./-' )" # (#a"OF_^#: < %%% #%%#(# %)%)*) )#$) )%(# )) $$$#" (#&+B$<2;0, ) %!$$!% $#$%#) <:>

PAGE 153

!%"+9$<220, '%$ 4"$6$() )#Q 4"QE)"%"$%$ $ E%( 6Q"%"$ %# 2%%' "$P8%" #M% 3#% )(%% %%( # #%#"% "($# "% (%#$%"% "(% Q(%##$% %(% (#### %#" (#( )"(%"#$("*# # E#*"#"%%" (#* %%# #$P%%# 3 #"U"))) %%! "--") $%((# ")"#" (%# $))F#-)# ))%"#$# #+?%"$<277, <:7

PAGE 154

!%0#')-.#%!0%!./-'73-/1!44 T%)) ##%### ## )#(% )#%)# )))) # $%%! # #)% ) #%### 4*#)(%#*% (%#%%(# %%%"% !.1'.#%8-'/!
PAGE 155

& +!'4-'#%73-/1!44 T%##)))% ("($!$ )#%%)% #"--")$ #)#$ ) E"% $!$ /%)$ "$))%" (%#%#$$ 4/#''-'! 4#/-'4 #: <"! ) !" E"#) ))) .") $#)) ))$" )$%# # 4) <:=

PAGE 156

#4)/" TB%)))) )### ##$)%#$" 6(%#) ##Q 4Q%)# % )##$%(#%)## 6Q)"# )) )%"%# ( %"" ($P$##( *" 3" ""# %" D"("$PE%$ "#$)# F!)M3A) '46#"(# ##F"(% #) %#!%46 4 #4! #: <##$% )%"(%# E! #4! <:0

PAGE 157

)#%%"(%## 33/'-'/!
PAGE 158

#*)$% $$! ### #)#& )##+B$ <2;0, +<2@7,)"" #$6$( I)( !Q 6QEI)) "I (%"%#)% B ( E) )$%# "() E%%()M ($#"## $($" E# #("%%# #) I IF%) &%""") (# ))$ )%)%" H"(#$#% $"#$#+.$<2;;, ")$%(%%)$$$ ($% /%)$($# #"$+.$<22;, E)%") (%#G$$%#%#)" H ")+H"#("$<20>, <:;

PAGE 159

#+5$<2;@, !!%-3+!'/-0-.!73-/1!44 T%)) $))$ !)) )"%(# % %))( %%#$%%#(# #"!% *+<22<,% #%(I(%#$(#$% "%) )" (%#$%"(")$ % )C#) %(%)" #'40+#/!./-' #: < ) #) $ )$!$))$#)" %)) /%)$% )%"$ <:2 ( G` )

PAGE 160

%#" )$)$#"% )%## #'40+#/!./-'73-/1!44 T%##)$ ))$!$ )))") #))%##%) % %)%$%)" -$%)" )"$)##% )##" $$%" "$%" )+?*$A$A$ .($<220, "% )# E))) #)###" +3%.#/-'40!4!# .1 ")#U"--" )## '## %(#(##$% )% $ % # <=8

PAGE 161

)%"#)% #" E# )%)) #% E)$ %)$!$ $##)#(% )$%%) )"## 4)%)"%%% E%)% #####%) %%# )$)!$)) ("$(%") #"##))% %"###% # "$(# $)# "--"!*" ")")$) (#!" ))$)!$) ) /%)$ ^ <=<

PAGE 162

"$)##)! E$%)$)(%#)$%% %## ( "$""$)") F"% ""#) )%"$ &%"(+, .-++'/7 )( #% /%# !$% .-++'/!4 #)"M?)#" !%### /%)$) %#%)) ) .-++'/!4 %%# )" <=>

PAGE 164

N

PAGE 165

4?/4 4H/ WWWWWWWO*, Ka%.] b)#.Q8+cdO ()**+,QM,87 -./ ))+,QMF4M-:-AQUH\eC> FQ 0 &12 # .#C KP &23245 +4E+%F 4? ?Q 67*8!%*9!: .I-Q-O ;& CH < = fQ?")!M/dK )"Q Q(JJJ 9 0MB3RM S8 fQF"QKKUO] ?"!F"M]J E+F"!MKJ+%&%,8UU ##"+,QWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWB ?#%C%Q .b)#IF)Q "+%))#F !!)"4?-/4Gb%)")"4?-/4Gb%! FG%"4?-/4)% &(GV%4?D4"F F HdM 3%9 ] ] ] 4?/4 )! )-! 4")-!G (. <0 4>(4 4)G)G ?)Q 8(9422(44 9 5 @C>
PAGE 166

N" :

PAGE 167

T#'# 7P8&??? >&@1#/4'/! #/-'H>0/1!%34) #2#3./ !@ >@172-%)'/! #/-'$!--)04/)!'/4H >*@172-%)'/! #/-''-/$!--)04/)!'/4H <=0

PAGE 168

-'/'+ # ( "4 4 # 4 <=@ <

PAGE 169

'/! #/-' (%%4#')'0+#/-'U 1!.-''!./-'4$!/2!!'.-'/!'/4-$-49 -3.K-'/!'/'/! #/-'U -2)-!4+7.-'/!'/#%'2/17.-'/!'/H !/1! !#'7 /-3.4/1#/.-%).-''!./H !/1! !/-3.4/1#/#%%.-'/!'/# !#4 # !'/! !4/!)'3 4'H !/1! !/1!+!4/1#/4/)!'/4# %#.('>#'E#/-'80 !')4138 !43-'4$%/7@H -'.!3/#%'/! #/-' # !.-'.!3/4>.1#'!8)!+-. #.781+#'!+-/-'8!/.9@ B!4/-' -2)-!4/14'.%)!04433-4!/!+!)#/!#') !
PAGE 170

H '/! #/-' !0%!./! #./.! ?. T'#$## E%# %($##"## # %""(#% #" # TE%(##(# TI## (#### F I#/") ## %$%I %" TE%$%%&(IIF(% T'(&" $")# $ )#P4# 3"%( & T%)) / !.% .%% 4$ $4## 4*-)% .-. "%() )##( &%# TI#!(# T%##%## <=2

PAGE 171

T((%"#% %#%% %((%"% )#)) E # "## TI#)( I( I%"#G TE(%( EI)# $%)# T"("( I$ TI)#%F TE(## T4#%)""%( # % %)"#"%( T%)%)(( #%%(## T 4(%%4 ( # "))( "( T'%"#%%" %##( T4"F# () F####$" #" ("# ("!# #)" T#F"%#$$$ )$#FF%) M)# ) # "% &,

PAGE 172

TJ#" J! JI## J J+#, T()"%)( E )"# E#($ # T' /1'( 4(%% ## %#M(% 4+%# %## I(% 4+%# ($%## T("#IF ###)%)( (#EE"##( / 6### /##$)%)( E )((%" '% ###$#%#(##$ ##%)( 9 T'#"" %4)E) '?% #%(% T(I"# T#!S T))#& $"%$" ) #( (%##% "(#!%(# #%"#M %(#<>%(# ') )"" T%) !/1'( # E(%!%(% "# &,&

PAGE 173

T#( E# E"#I##$I"$ I$I$I# I)"$ )"$)"# JI)#F" T(# T% F %%)##( %##("# E( %(#"#( #$###$ <;88I#"%# #$%# %4-.. ) 4"##( "#%#%%#M T/%"M"I%% %"# '%% ( T&&(((# TE#("(M ##( '($" %##% (%"( ("I)#"(# '$"(%$ "%)-%( """ TEI)# !/1'( %% F;#" (%"<:)"# ##"%$"%"#( $#$%" T""$#$%(## )")#) ##& "%#" ) E)# E)"$(#% $%#### &, I

PAGE 174

T(I##"$"# ( &# T"(%##&$ 4$%" %#%M(#%#(% )% T%%%(# F %# %%%# ") $($(%(# "# T%#F( "#F I(% "=)$%" ("F T.F#"!" 4## ME#M4/# ""# I(%%"" 4#I" T(%%!$ (( "("%%" T"%%$)(%% #"# .# %%## T%)#%()""( % '$$)%" ( '"II$"##) "$I##("( T'##%%4-..( ""%"F '%I (%"%)#%% (MI(" T"I#") J("# "##F") <07

PAGE 175

R I T"I#") "% )%)%% ## T(#$%%#%#$# %)(# E% I(%" #( E()"%" %" ")%I% ##F"%%" T(% F% %%(#% # %""# T%"")##$% % /%%#"I%"# )") I(%$ (" '#"# %#(M% ("# E( %"%(%$(#" "" T(### $!#)% !%4-.. %! "($%%"%" $()#) I%""" #%"%#%(#" E %(% )# T(I# I% %"I"("I%<8Q88%# J%)")"## I##(# "%"" /%"# )# #%"# ##" T%((#% '( ###( ( <0:

PAGE 176

#$"($"#$ ")" '"%(# #")%)%(##%# (! %(%# J I#"" (#%(## "# ""# I T"F%%( (## (%# $%# #)" %# % #%(# #(( E#% ## # (& T##$## ()$## )) T("#-$(" $#""I% )!$% ()# T(##( % "I"(%F >4. TF+#, T%F+F#, T4-#+#, T T" TI##F# %" <0=

PAGE 177

TI#% T##"#%%I ##% %"" I "!)""## "%"M T'"%#""%) (#-F ) # T""(%"# "###%% %## 'I(% "$$"" %" (%(" T4%"#M T #%)& % I% T ##% #& #" ## "#% #4)E '(%%(& !44!'/#% % I TI%%$ %($ #%%)#" # ( T4-..%%(#%( I(%%" TJ"# J# $ >44. T"#(%%# &,,

PAGE 178

"%"%#" T"%!# T"# %(#4 % %"(#%% #" "%(#$"% %!$!%( '%( ( %(% T"$%"$"($ ("$"(":$ %%)(=$%%(=$# )$($"%(M#(")" "I(($I(% %)( $#$"$I IF ")#$"( =# ")$$$#$ "(($)$" I"$"$"" (% $") (F%" "$% F#$%$#) '$%%## TE%$%%%( %)#(%%"%%% %%($%)#(%( I %%$#($%# %#))""$"#"(%% TJ$%(%% E($ ")$")) % %#M%%(#"M TE(""M T6(#%##) #$%F## #F T(%# <0@

PAGE 179

TEU)) J# # ") "%#(%% E"#%#% J(% E"#ME%() ( E%()!( T#%##( # %%#%)"$% # "##6I%# '%II(%% %I %)" MMM M M F"%# # (%# E %)#"$PJ(# J( #""I 3")I E")I" MI(%) E)U I( TE%("##" (#%(# ("%( # ("#) "%%%#" E(%% E (M TE%(%%)" "(% T%#"#(#( ("$ "$%(( (#( # %#"(#( %"#"" (%%( /% %" /%%")%)M("$% ## %$"#)".? %## %"# '") "##)"## %( %%#"# E"( &,6

PAGE 180

T)"##$")( T /1'(= ## $( "#"#)" ($%)#$"# #) V I( (#$ I# >+0@. >44. T(($$$ % T/%"""#M/% ) ";"#M TJ"# )"M V # #$/""$"% ""I)##)$ TJ$%(%% E($ ")$")) % %#ME%(#"M > A J T ("#( ###"# %##()# #% J##)#)" %" T4"# %) %$ ) <02 ^

PAGE 181

T## #%" "F% #-E%#" 6 ( "% 6 # # ( "%%" %%(##$# # %(##$#"$ #" ?. T/%("#M T')# F"!(## TE(#%(#( ( ("% TEI% "%I%"%MI%M E" T'-%"" %" "# %" 'I >. T# T?)%# T?")##") ##M T'%"")(%"( ##%#! J) (""## T%)#%))#M <@8 I

PAGE 182

TJ!#% /1'4 % J# /14 #&") ) E"M "%## T%#$"""" # T"(")% # %#(#" ## E II D4 E" ")$!$ ## %#(% # %(%%%#%# T?M?"#" I(% % TE#%# E% ) %%F(# ( E("("$ %$%""U %#"# T"'4 I%")) #)+'4/ #/! ")"# ("%( '%I#'4 EI#(# #( $###%"$ ")###") 4-+!/1' %!# '' #M T(#(%(%##" %) T"&$$'4? %%##"# /%% "()#" '4?M## "%"% ## "% # (%%$I(%&% <@< =

PAGE 183

#(#$ ) % T'"&#(#%# %#"###M# "M ? T'(%%""$ #$"("PE%%% )" 3###%*" #ME""(##M" )(%#&""" ##(4 T"#()# /## ?%" M()" B6C0!063! T%()%")$) %")"%") %%""(( #(%F-%!-%% %(#M T/%%#)##<0 "#4 T(%# %% %%%# %#% % ?%%#(-.. %%# T(% /1'(' #!" E )%%##!" 'I %"&I(%%4"#! ?%%( 4-+!/1' $%%"% (% T?# )!0'' I <@>

PAGE 184

!0%!./! #./.!'/! #/-'-0 .%# Q 4 # ?" B" Q 4' #"$$ #" 6##Q 6!! E)" () B 6$)$) 4!(#( ))&"# Q B)%% #" /"B) #$."$ 5"4 44Q E4 H4 .)# 4(# #% <@7

PAGE 185

.#%% ?(# &# # /)" 4#* 4 #* H #'#!U .?)"! 4"*"*) ?"*. B?#)4 -2U /) #" 4B. B !# '' 6 <@:

PAGE 186

N

PAGE 187

!#.1! 4/.--% ##"%( WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" #""" WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" #" 3 !3# #/-'K3%#''' WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" #"" WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" #"+%#," WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" #"#" WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" #"#%#" #"#%" WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" #Q <@0

PAGE 188

N

PAGE 189

/)!'/! 4/.--% 4%!%" < (%% +,%"+,+,) > (%%! +,%"+,+,) 7 (%%"# +,%"+,+,$I : #% +,%"+,+,I# = E" +,%"+,+,) 0 (%% +,J+,+, @ "(%% +,%"+,+,) ; "#"%( +,%"+,+,I# 2 %(#) +,%"+,4#+,4# % <8 #Q +,+,+, +,.C << ")"(#$$##$ +,J+, <> E%"("(%M &P6

PAGE 190

N

PAGE 191

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW-+#'!4. 3/!-'/!
PAGE 192

-+#' !4. 3/! -'/!
PAGE 193

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW-+#'!4. 3/!-'/!
PAGE 194

-+#' !4. 3/!-'/!
PAGE 195

4 -+#'!4. 3/!-'/!
PAGE 196

-+#' !4. 3/! -'/!
PAGE 197

-+#'!4. 3/!-'/!
PAGE 198

4! ? ?) 4!4 G/%# "M !!44-+!/1'Z#44W !4. $!4'4+3%!/! +4 !!43 -$%!+4 ')! 4/#')4/1!.-'4!G!'.!4-0 #./-'4 !'! #/!43-44$%!4-%/-'4 4.44!44.1--%3-%.!4#') .-'4!G!'.!4 ./!'4!!('.1#'!4 -)!4%!#)! 413 <#+'!4/1!')! %7' #44+3/-'48'+48#') %!4

PAGE 199

-+#' !4. 3/! -'/!
PAGE 200

4

PAGE 201

$ +<227, Q) 5 +2,>$<=2-<0@ $ 4 +<2;:, &(%# <7+=< =-<8 $ +<220, 4)Q# ## 4#$6Q)"4#. #"$4 $5$? +<2@:, ". Q D"-' #"$4 $5$? +<2@;, ## #$Q -E" #"$4 $5$? +<2;>, #$#$ D"-' #"$4 $5$? +<220, #*#Q"$ $ %J(Q-E" '$ 54"+<2;2, "(##Q ## D #)D / + ,$#%Q?#+ 7<<-7>;, /#$Q"' '"$A +<220,Q$A '"5? + ,$H## %J(Q4#)". '$? $54$? + ,$+, ?)#$)# Q%-" QD"-' '$ +<2;0, #Q #)" #%4$DQ.-/ '-$ +<2;@, 6#!# <2$ ;@-<8; <28

PAGE 202

'$ +<228, )#%Q$$ ( QD"-' '$D +<220, 4"&"M I### Q %4 $>2-70 '("$ $4"$' $B#$ $5$D +<2;0, EI%) (%#Q)$)$ %J(Q''( '$4 +<22:, .##Q E(MD?)$+<=,<$7:-7; '$4 +<22:, $$ #) ."#+>2,<+ 7-<>, '"$' +<22=, #%Q( "+ <<<-<7=, 6+ ,$%(#Q '## %J(Q4#. '"$6 +<220, Q# 6 '"+ ,$4#Q## #"5+ <->0, %J(Q4#. 4)&" '#$ 5'($ +<2;>, K)Q 'Q5' '"$ +<22=, (" + :7-07, 6+ ,$%(#Q '## %J(Q4#. '$ +<228, (%##)(Q)% ?)' 6+:@,=+ =8-=7, '##$4 +<2;0, 6#%(Q# )% 4#Q4#)". '("$6 +<2;@, E##) #" K)+<;< 0@-@0 <2<

PAGE 203

'($ +<2;0, ### $4QD"-'$ '"$D 5B$ +<2;0, )) 4 E(+ ,$/(#$7 + 7>;-7@=, % J(Q '%$ $54$D +<22:, B)"" A B"+ ,$4Q###)" + >>2->@8, 4#$Q.C''( '%$D $4$ ?#$. +<2;2$D"-", ## 7>-:> '%$D 6 5$4 +<222, U)Q/% )# !$HQ )4?) '#$? $5($? +<2;8, # ## $Q"$4 '$D +<2@;, 6 H"#("+/5H( ,$ ### 4#$Q. '$D +<227, UF")! <@+>, 0-<= '$D $5/$/ +<2;@, (#QU % %J(Q '-$ +<227, ?)# # .# #4Q4$4 '#$ +<227, #H"#(" / ?+ ,$4# #Q)"H"#(" %J(Q# '#$ $5#)$ $+<227, & D#"=H> =<-0< <2> S

PAGE 204

'$ $5%$/ +<22:, $$ Q #") D4QD )4 <:$><-=< 4$ 54$B +<22:, (#Q# .($4Q))6#. 4$ $5.$4 +<22@, )%%4 6, <<-<= 4$D +<2;2, )# # =+<< :7-=< 4$. $5."$D +<22=, #.# $+E(#.g;, E#?4Q ?# 4$ +<2;;, #-(# %J(Q 4$ $$ $.$. $4#$4 $5$ +<2;2, #(%#U(##Q !" D >0+:,$::2-=7< 4$. +<2@2, #)" B ($?Q?("B)$)"?( 4$. +<2;0, .U" '#$HQ. 4 4$6 +<228, Q# 'D <0+7,$>:2->=@ 4$D $54"$ +<2;;, )!" $!" .. #$%$6 4($4 $5.$. 6 +<2;0, U#$ 4 E(+ ,$/(#+ >==->20, %J(Q <27

PAGE 205

4($ +<2@=, )) %( ""+>,$2=-<>7 4$. +<22:, EM4) )) >7+@< <7->8 4-$ $56"$ +<227, -Q (%# %J(Q4#. 4#$6 / +<2;7, 4#)) / + ,$/("#" %J(QE" 4"$ 54$? D +<228, !) &" <2+:,$>-<7 4$E ? $'#$4 $?64*$ $56%$' +<227, )#Q%# # 2 7:@-7=2 4$B +<27>, ?% %J(Q 4$6 +<2;, ** .?A 02$7:<-7:: ?$ +<22<$, .&"Q .4%( $' ?$ +<227, #(#-" <<>< >;@-787 ?*$6 $A$4 $A$D $.($ +<220, 4Q6#) !% 'Q'. ?(%$B $5$ +<2;>, Q %J(Q/% ?#-/$6 +<2;;, ."+ ==-@@, 6+ ,$'# %J(Q 4#. <2: f

PAGE 206

?#-/ 6 +<22=, ."#+ <=@-<@=, 6+ ,$%(#Q'## %J(Q4#. ?#-/$6 +<22;, ## 6 ==+, 0-<< ?)")$H $5()$ +<2;7, )" )."#" <<+>< =8-@0 ?"$4 +<227, Q" ) 'D <2 ;7-27 6$ +<2;0, $ '#Q )". ?$6 +<2;;, #Q.%##"# U /))% =;+7< >;8-2; ?%"$D +<2<0, ?" %J(Q. ?%"$D +<2>2, %J(Q6) ?%"$D +<27:, %J(Q$'54 ?%"$D +<27;, ?" %J(Q ?%"$D +<2=@, / %J(Q6" ?%"$D +<207, %J(Q4 ?$D +<2@;, 4"#""" 'Q/( .$ ?"$E +<2@0, Q $/ + ,$E ?"$%# + <07-<0@ ?$ +<227$?, #%"Q$ ).?A >2;-78= <2=

PAGE 207

> ?)$% +<2;:, /% $AQ6# %( ?(%$ +<22@, ?(%! E(#$6# %J(Q 4#. ?%($ +<2=2, ?%) %J(Q4# $D +<2;=, #Q '#+ ,$"+ 00-@=, 6%Q $ $.$. $4"$ +<220, # $4QD"-' $ +<2;=, 6##%"(%# ;: "(""+ 2@-<<=, 4#Q )"4#. $ 5.($ +, +<228, K)&" % J(Q4#. *$ +<22<, U(%#Q) D4 >7+<,$<-<2 "$ +<22<, ?#&)Q4% 6Q $ $*$ $5%6 +<22=, E## 4#Q)"4#. #$J +<2;@, 6#"!# /(Q-A" )$A +<22=, ) 6## $>>0->@< <20

PAGE 208

)$4 $$ $$. $"$4 $5E$D +<2;@, Q)#" +E(#. <@8, E"$QE"4#4 E -$ +<228, Q )$ E / +,+ ,$/( + ><>->22, %J(Q $ +<22@, )) .# $4#$6$>:->; $B ? +<22:, # H + ,$#) + >7-:>, %J(Q4#. $E 5'$' +<22>, ###Q. '"M"Q)"%J(. $? +<2;;, % D 4) =+:, <@->2 "$ +<22;, 0>+>,$<8;-<<> $. +<2@7, %J(Q" $. +<2@:, .##" 6Q.# $. $$? +<2;@, 6"Q#%% E.$4QB%.#B $ $-'$4 $5'$' +<2;2, 6(# ) Q.# $ $ 5#$ +<22<, % # 4# %J(Q4#. <2@

PAGE 209

$ 5/#)$ +<22<, EU%##MQE(# #" Q.U $4#U +$<220, EQ # U % J(Q4#$4)" B$D +<207, -%Q)))" %J(Q/5% B$D B +<2;=< )Q.)# (## %J($ 4#Q4)" B*$4 +<2@7, ( 4B*+ ,$ %J(Q''( B$ $A#$ $5J)$. +<22=, D?# 6(+E(#.g0, E#?4Q ?#$ $ B#$4 +<2;>, )Q."#"%U ) 4#$Q/))". B$4 +<2;;, D ?) (6C "Q %J(Q4 B!$/ +<2;@, 6"Q#%% E.$4QB%.#B B$ 5$ +<22:, "U"Q K" E$<><-<:: B$' B 5$6 +<20@, )"#"Q #&) %J(Q?B" B$4 5.($ +<22>, '# &)Q %J(Q6# <2;

PAGE 210

B$E / +<2;;, UQ%# !" D >0+>, <7:-<:8 B#$4 $5B$ +<22<, 4###( -%( 6 :2+7< 02-@> B$? +<2;=, H$Q"#" %J(Q5 B$? +<22=, # %J(Q' B$D +<222, %$$% .? A+;8,;$=0;-=@8 B$D +<2;:, Q. %J(Q B%-/ B$D +<2;7, Q.! % J(QB%-/ B$ +<22<, #U) /#)5 + ,#)+ <<8-<><, %J(Q U4#. B%$? $5$. + +<2;@, #Q #"# .$/Q/ B$ +<2;0, .))Q # D4) >+<,0;-;< B$ +<22<, #Q&" 656 +,$)U28Q% $%$%)+ 7-<=, %J(Q4# B$ $5$ +<22<, $ 6 + + ,$'?#+H =$ ;>-<8@, B$. +<2;2, "U)% D 4)a <2->; <22

PAGE 211

B$. $5A$ +<22>, 4(%# $ B+ ,$)% E#$?4Q B$. $A$ $($B 6 $5($ D +<228, ) 4$E /$5 4 .#+ ,$##)Q" #+ >8-7;, %J(Q4#. B#$D +<2;2, )##(# U$#)" J$ B("$ +<22=, .)Q B("5/+ ,$.) Q%#5$+ <<:-<7<, %J(Q4# /($D $$? $5H($ +<22;, 4) QE"%M$>0+2,7<-70 /"$' +<2@@, % (+ ,$4 E 6Q'"/ /#)$ +<228, 4)#)Q#" <>##$ /#)$ +<22:, ##Q." #$. B5D +,$ )##"+ =>-@;. %J(Q 4#. /#)$ +<22=, ?)Q) B("5 /+ ,$.)Q% #5 %J(Q4#. /#)$ +<22@, Q%%"( $A .E(##$ /#)+ ,$#% (Q(###$ @2-;;

PAGE 212

/#)$ $5?%$ +<2;2, 4# )Q 4)))Q. # /#)$ $5?%$ +<228, .)Q 4)#"$)$# 0+7, >>@->:< /#)$ 5E#$ +<2;2, Q" ##"+ Q /#$/ 6 +<22=, #Q4-##" ) # +7,$>87-><: /$6 +<2;7, /$# %J(Q6# /)"$? +<2;2, ) !$AQ.". /$ $5$? +<22:, #Q + .87=:;@, '$K$Q /#$D +<2;@, /%##M6$?6Q 4 /%($ +<22@, "## )#$ $&" .# 4#Q6 /$? +<220, '##%Q##"F %#$B '$D $5? /+ ,$ ?# %$%D"Q6%$ /#%$ +<228, 4#)%#Q )###" 4#Q. 4# & I

PAGE 213

/#%$ +<228, Q "## #$'$ /#%$ +<22:, "Q 6) 0!+'4/ (" JQ4#. /$D 5B$D +<22=, ))% ')"/$4Q # /$ +<228, 6/ %J(Q??" /$ +<22>, )" /#)5 B + ,$#)+ <>><:>, %J(Q4#. /$? +<2@=, 4### E + ,$4*#Q+ ><@->70, '("$4Q 4 /$ +<2;:, A%#$#)# /+ ,$ #%%(%#+ <02-<2>, !$HQ )4?) #$? +<22@, % H + ,$4) '$.Q. D$ +<227, D#" =+<, <-<= D$ +<22=, 4##Q "$ D + ,$# #QJ(/ ($4Q4%.$ D$E 5$6 +<2;=, -)" ."#)%2>$:$=<>-=7< D#$ $5#$D +<22=, U $4Q D"-'

PAGE 214

D"$' $"$4 $%$' $5"$D +<2;2, % # 6 :@+7,$@8-@@ D"$' $5%$' +<2;;, )# ) %J(Q6# A#$? +<22>, .#%#-) $!''' )% 0:<>2-<02 A#$ +<2;>, ))#Q. ) 4#$Q/))". A$A 5$D +<228, ?)#Q "! .# $'$ A$D +<2@2, /% %J(Q. A$D $5$B +<22<, "# 6 :; <:-<0 A$4 $5'$6 +<227, 4# .$/Q.#+, A%$ +<2;:, Q#+7 /$OQB.#4" A#$ +<2;;, # ))# D 4+ U # 6Q. 7=-=8 A$ +<22@, ))"QH#U )%( D?)$+7<,<$:0-08 6$ +<22="C, # 6 >: >8->7 6$ +<228, E& %(%## D>@+<,$>2-0: >87

PAGE 215

6$ $54($4 +<228, !(%#!(# #QA*# <2+:< ><->7 6#$? +<228, )# D 4 5? 6##+ >:=->0;, % J(Q4#)". 6#$ D >&?6?@9')0%'!449 #$ Q-E" 6"$ D +<22>, .# D ?) <7+<, >:->2 6$. +<2;0, /))% =0 >=@>@@ 6)$D $5E#$ +<22<, %!# '' # %J(Q4#)". 6%$ 5*#$D +<2;0, &Q 'D#" +@,>$>>=->7; 6%$ $5*#$D +<2;;, %(M D *#+ ,$%(Q# + ;<-2;, A"$AQ)". 6$ $!$ $$ +<2;;, Q#" 6+ ,$'# % J(Q4#. 6$ +<22:, )Q4# B+ ,$D %J(Q4#. 6$ $5$6 +<22<, )Q##$ E 6#5 + ,$6#Q%.$%. %J(Q4#. 6$J 5B$ +<2;=, &" ')"/$4Q# 6$? 59$A +<228, )# ) D !#.1'9 <0+7,$>7=->=: >8:

PAGE 216

6$D +<2;<, %#*#+ ), E#$?4Q 6$D +<2;>, #"!QE( D <2 7>=-:8 6$D +<228, )"Q") I 4# 2<+:< =82-70 6$D E +<2;2, ?"I ) )."" <<+>, <0=<;= 6$D E +<2;2, ?"U ) )."" <<+>< <0=<;8 6$ +<22:, Q#)M "D2=+<,$7-<8 6$? +<2@=, Q#" 4#Q)" 4#. 6(-/"$ $/#$4 $($ $"$6 $?$4 $5 E$ +<2;@, 4#Q#() )$Q#6") ?)4 6"$ +<22<, 6)#"Q(#) 6# 7$<82-<7; 6"$ +<220, 1%"1Q6# &" %?4#$ @8$ 4++! 8 D"-'. ;=-20 $? +<2@7, ') %J(Q 4" $. +<2@=, 6# %J(Q.C?" >8=

PAGE 217

!$A $5#$ +<2@8, B#" %J(Q %$ +<2:7, ") ."#)% =8 7@8-720 A$D +<2;;, Q $)$"D 4 )+7,7 <@7->88 A$ $5D"$' +<2;8, ") .. #$'$ 6#$ E +<22:, #U ) B5D + ,$) ##"+ 7<-=<, %J(Q4#. $ +<2;;, 4"Q&) QD"-' "$ +<2;=, -Q/%"%# /%#44 ''+9 $ U 4# "$ +<2;@, *#&" K" E#.#F4"E#$2+7,$<-: *%$D +<228, #Q# ) "# QD"-' $ 5/$ ; <22:< K)"Q( % ($4Q#. $ +<22=, % B("5 /+ .)Q%#+ )-!, %J(Q4#. $D +<228, 4##) "$JQ )"%J(. >80

PAGE 218

$6 $5)$? 6 +<22:, EF#Q) )$6 ?#-/+ ,$. ?)Q?)#. %J(Q 4#. $ +<2@2, #!Q"(M/) )%+:2,$=-<2 $ +<2;0, )%#Q4!) 4#$ Q/)". $. $$. $$6 $6%$? $5$ +<2;;, Q F" $AQ'( $D $5'$? +<2;2, 4#%#QF (%#) D :7+=,$7:@-=0 "$/ +<2;2, .# $$$4 "$ +<2;7, 6#?)# Q##" 6 6 .# A%# / DQ $D +<2;@, # D 4 <2$7<@-7>; $D +<2;2, ."(# 6Q# )($D +<22:, Q(%( $ D + ,$?Q.#$$ + <-;, "$JQ)"%J(. $D $5B$. +<22:, "## B5D + ,$)##" %J(Q4#. #$ +<2;:, 4#Q '("Q)"4. >8@

PAGE 219

#$ +<22>, #Q) %J(Q4#. U6#$ +<22>, ###"(%# D :7+=, 770-:@ I6#$ +<227, ?)#"(%# Q)&) .. #$$B$ .F($ +<22>, )% 4 ? B + ,$ )+ <>0-<>;, !$HQ) 4?) .F$ +<22>, UQ4# )% 0>+7< 78@-77> .$. +<22;, #Q!# I QD"-'. .$ +<22=, 4)$#$&"Q %#!) .4#%D" %#QD .$ 5/$? +<2@0, )Q% "))# B B+ ,$) )% < <:8-<=@ .$ $ A#$D $B$D /$D $5/$ +<228, )#I(# ##$)$ .$ +<2;8, K)) ')"/$4Q# .$ +<227, 6## )Q)"# ."# >; >0=-@@ >8;

PAGE 220

.($ +<2;;, F)"-U% <8$<@->> .($ +<2;2, BU4Q% 4 4#Q)"4#. .($ +<227, #&) 7$>7->2 .$ +<22@, )) H + ,$4)Q#%% #+ <=:-<07, '$.Q. .#$D +<2@>, #" %J(Q'# A#. .#$D +<2@;, # 4#$Q/) )" .$? +<228, F)"F)"QF)&" 5 .(+ ,$K)&"+ <2-7@, %J(Q 4#. .$ 5$ +<2;;, %(+ >7=-=>, + ,$4" Q# ./#$66QE) .(%*$ $56$A +<2;2, )QU %( .1#'' 4#$ 28+:,$=@=-=2: .$E +<22:, /%Q% %J(Q4#. K"$? +<22@, #Q#!) &" .$/Q'"C4(.$ $D +<22:, Q & 'Q)"4 $ +<2;@, *# 6D+:<, >82

PAGE 221

$H $+<228, #%%## <2+@,$<8-<; $H +<22@, 4)#Q" H + ,$4)Q'#% #+ 7-<:, '$.Q. $H $5$. 6 +<22:, "# H + ,$#)Q# + <22-><0, %J(Q4#. $ +<22>, H%## 6 H+ ,$)Q4&+ <;@-<2@, "Q )"%J(. *$ +<2;2, U%(Q#* %J(Q6# *$ $'$ $5/)-?"$A +<2;0, #* # # >+>, 2<-<8: $? ? +<2;2, )#) D :8+>,$>>-78 $? ? +<228, .#) 4$E /$5 4 .#+ ,$## )Q"#+ 2@-<<;, %J(Q4#. $ 5'$' +<2;2, %( '$ 4QE% ($D +<2;2, #Q% /#)5? "+ ,$Q4) &+ <@;-<28, .Q $ 6 +<2;=, #)# K" &

PAGE 222

#$ +<22>, /%) !$ HQ)4?) #$ +<22>, # )Q .# $$4 $B $5.($? +<22;, )# ? .5 -F+ ,$)% E#$?4Q $ +<2;>, # 'Q"5' $ +<228, QD"-' $ +<22;, .6 QD"-' -'%$? +<22=, )! <<<+>,$<20->88 $D-.+<207, A $? $5$ +<22>, #U) ))%# # ;+>, <;@-<2@ "$. +<228< %"-" Q D"-' ($ +<22:, 4%# D ?)$+<=,<$>:->; $? +<2;7, ) %J(Q''( $? +<2;@, #) $4Q D"-' &&

PAGE 223

$E $5$ +<2;:$, #) %$6Q. # ($? / +<22<, -") ."#>0$>8@->7< %$D D +<202,Q## )% @;+<,$<->: #$. +<228, Q# #* %J(Q?"C4" $ +<220,$4#Q)#" %% 6 '"+ ,$4#Q## #" %J(Q4#. ($A +<222, (#% .?A +;8,;$=0;-=@8 $ +<22;, (### %J(Q 4#. $ +<2;>, 6# %Q # %J(Q4#'( "$ +<22=, #%(Q B("5 /+ ,$.)Q %#5+ 02-2<, %J(Q4#. "$D +<22=, U%(#Q4 )$ B("5 /+ ,$ .)Q%#5+ 02-2<, % J(Q4#. "$D $5B$ +<2;2, )Q ) D." :+:,$7:7-70< "$E +<2;@, U##"Q( H$Q?()". &

PAGE 224

$ +<222, E%#Q%) .?A+;8,;$=0;-=@8 $D +<2;@, %# !)% +<7,7$>0@-@: $ +<2@0, %J(Q'( (-6#$B +<22>, "4#)$$ ) 6 H+ ,$) "$JQ)"%J(. (-6#$B 54$ +<22<, "I )(# 6$$7@-:: (-6#$B $D .$ 4$ $5($ +<228, )##(#Q/%%MD $)-? "$D +<2@2, #)% %J(Q/$$5 E #$ +<222, 6#5"Q !$ HQ)4?) ($ +<22=, ($4Q# #$D +<2;2, ) )Q % M Q. # #$ D +<22;, )#! >@+7,<<->< "%$ +<22=, QU# -!$HQ)4?) "%$ +<22@$", #"## 6 =:$@=-@2 ><7

PAGE 225

##$B 5E$ +<22;, .#Q:: # ($4Q4%.$4 $? +<2;;, Q$-$ F 4#D <; 7<7-77> H$D +<22@, 4)Q !) H + ,$ 4)Q'#%%# '$ .Q. H$. +<2;2, ###Q%% # QD"-' H$6 5"$ +<2;@$, )Q . /4 /$O H$6 +<228, #Q# + .877@<>, %($EQ 64# H$6 +<22>, 6 H+ ,$)Q 4&+ !-!!), "QJ. H$D +<2;;, Q%##" 4#Q )"4#. H$ +<2@@, 6(#%"(%#%%"# 4&" 0+7< >8=->; H$ +<22<, )"##Q )"##(## 4 +>7,0$=8@-=70 H$4 $5E($H +<2@@, &(%# #" +7, 0@-2: H"#("$6 +<20>, ### 4#$Q ><:

PAGE 226

H"#("$6 +<2@;, 4#$Q/))" H"#("$6 +<2;0, ### 4#$Q E#$ +<22;, 4#)&"QU)U #")# .?A$$=<>-=<@ E($? 56$6 +<22=, 6##"Q" (#+<->@ 6 6$? E($? 9$D 4$ 6$ B$5. (+ ,$) %J(Q 4#. E"$. +<22:, #(Q## %J(Q4#. E$ +<2:@, #* %J(Q! )". E$ +<2@>, ? / E#5/ 6 B + ,$#"#" % J(Q4 E$E +<2;>, )##+,+ F, H)Q4"4$ )"'4 E($ +<22<, D ?%) ?" Q4 )". E"$ D +<22>, 6% Q '-A E$ +<2;;, 6# !Q''(% E$' $"$. $$6 +<2;2, # #Q&) ."DQ .. ./ <=<-<02 ><= <

PAGE 227

E#$$5B$. +<22;, 4#" ## .?A D" E$/ +<2;>, ?#"-$UU #"$%MU)%D."+@,<$@>;< E$/ +<228, E#&) %".($4Q# .4 E$/ +<22:, #&)Q?$"$ ($4Q# E$B +<22:, "Q# D )(+ ,$?Q.#$ $$+ <<-<2, "$JQ)"% J(. E$. + +<228, (# 6%J(Q J$ +<22:, 4"Q?#+> %" .($4Q# 9$A +<2;0, .#)Q))% #%)"-) D$@$=0=-=@= 9$A +<22>, 4##)## F+2>-<, 6#$#Q4 6# 9$A +<220, ) A 9$ ($5 6 B*+ ,$ 4) %J(Q4# 9$A 56$? +<2;@, # /))%=@ >7-:; &

PAGE 228

9$A 56$? +<220, )#Q % D"Q6%$ 9$? +<22=, #$6 6 )$ <8:-<>8, %J(Q4#. ><@