Citation
Effectiveness of a scaffolded approach for teaching students to design scientific inquiries

Material Information

Title:
Effectiveness of a scaffolded approach for teaching students to design scientific inquiries
Creator:
Gabel, Connie
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
402 leaves : illustrations ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Experimental design -- Study and teaching ( lcsh )
Science -- Methodology -- Study and teaching ( lcsh )
Science -- Experiments ( lcsh )
Science -- Study and teaching -- United States ( lcsh )
Experimental design -- Study and teaching ( fast )
Science -- Experiments ( fast )
Science -- Methodology -- Study and teaching ( fast )
Science -- Study and teaching ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 382-402).
Thesis:
Educational leadership and innovation
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Connie Gabel.

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:
47826653 ( OCLC )
ocm47826653
Classification:
LD1190.E3 2001d .G32 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
EFFECTIVENESS OF A SCAFFOLDED APPROACH
FOR TEACHING STUDENTS TO DESIGN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRIES
by
Connie Gabel
B.S., Magna Cum Laude with Distinction in Chemistry
James Madison University, 1969
M.A., Summa Cum Laude
University of Colorado, Boulder, 1984
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
2001


2001 bv Connie Gabel
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Connie Gabel
has been approved
by
Michael P. Marlow

buglas F. Dyckes
Date


Gabel, Connie (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Effectiveness of a Scaffolded Approach for
Teaching Students to Design Scientific Inquiries
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Michael P. Marlow
ABSTRACT
Teaching students to design their own science experiments has perplexed science
educators for over a hundred years. Throughout the years, a number of approaches
have been tried with little success. As the new millennium opens, current
curriculum reform efforts are stressing science inquiry and science for all students,
but methods for teaching science inquiry have remained elusive. Teaching science
inquiry is a complex process that requires students to perform multiple tasks well in
order for them to be able to conduct a meaningful scientific investigation. The
merging of knowledge gained from the field of educational psychology with
advancements made in pedagogy were found to be key factors in successfully
teaching students to design their own scientific inquiries. The findings from this
research study indicate that a scaffolded approach in all pedagogical aspects
contributes to a successful performance from the students in designing their own
scientific investigations. A schema using the following steps: question, prior
knowledge, design of experiment, gathering data, analysis, and conclusion was
found to be effective. Students also exhibited a gain in science inquiry skills and
maintained a positive attitude toward science. This method was successful with
both genders and both minority and non-minority students. A quasi-experimental
research design with three independent variables: teaching method, gender, and
ethnicity and three dependent variables: science inquiry skills, ability to design an
experiment, and attitude toward science was utilized in this research study.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed ~>c P*
Michael P. Marlow


DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my father for teaching me that common sense is of utmost
importance, and the validity of printed text must survive continuing challenges
foremost of which is the common sense challenge. The underlying premises of this
thesis were developed with a common sense approach to solving a century-old
dilemmahow to teach science inquiry to students.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Foremost, my thanks to the classroom teachers who supported me in this endeavor
and to the students who were part of this research. I also wish* to thank my
dissertation committee for their suggestions and patience. This doctorate would not
have been possible without the challenges presented by teachens and professors who
encouraged me to seek higher levels of knowledge and understanding. My family
withstood many trials and tribulations during the pursuit of my* doctorate and to
them I owe much thanks.


CONTENTS
Page
Figures..............................................................xii
Tables................................................................xv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................1
The General Problem.......................................3
Background of the Problem.................................4
Conceptual Framework......................................7
The Research Questions....................................9
Methodology..............................................11
Structure of the Thesis..................................13
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................14
Introduction.............................................17
Definition of Science Inquiry............................20
Science Inquiry in the Curriculum........................27
Historical Perspective.............................27
Inquiry in Curriculum Efforts in the 1990s.........32


Influence of Psychology on Science Inquiry....................38
Cognitive Science and Science Inquiry.........................44
Schema Theory..........................................46
Current Brain Research.................................52
Misconceptions.........................................56
Prior Knowledge........................................57
Meaningful Understanding...............................58
Scaffolding............................................61
Types of Science Inquiry......................................69
Confirmation, Structured, Verification Inquiries.......72
Guided Inquiry.........................................73
Open Inquiry...........................................74
Models of Scientific Inquiry..................................76
Methods for Teaching Inquiry..................................78
Laboratories...........................................79
Textbooks and Supplementary Materials..................87
Learning Groups........................................91
Technology for Inquiry.................................98
Emerging Changes and Challenges with Inquiry Learning........104
Role of the Teacher...................................105
Communicating Inquiry Findings........................106
viii


Challenges with Inquiry Learning...................107
Ethnicity..........................................110
Gender Equity......................................114
Assessing Inquiry Skills.................................I IS
Discussion................................................127
Conclusion................................................141
3. RESEARCH METHODS..............................................143
Introduction..............................................145
Research Design...........................................147
Subjects and Sampling Procedures..........................149
Independent Variables.....................................151
Dependent Variables.......................................159
Scoring Procedures........................................165
Data Collection Procedures................................165
Data Analyses Procedures..................................169
Summary...................................................171
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS.............................................172
Introduction..............................................174
Demographics..............................................175


Scaffolded Group Student Population...................175
Control Group Student Population......................177
Teacher Characteristics......................................178
Scoring Reliability..........................................179
Major Findings...............................................180
Research Question 1................................. 181
Research Question 2...................................192
Research Question 3...................................197
Research Question 4...................................201
Research Question 5...................................212
Research Question 6...................................213
Conclusion...................................................215
5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS....................................216
Introduction.................................................218
Inquiry Continuum............................................219
Scaffolding Method...........................................220
Research Study...............................................224
Research Conclusions.........................................226
Ability to Design an Experiment.......................226
Science Inquiry Skills Assessment.....................229
x


Attitude Toward Science.....................236
Linking Science Enquiry Steps...............239
Transfer of Learning........................247
Integration of Knowledge....................248
Contributing Factors........................253
Limitations of Research Findings..................266
Implications for Future Research..................271
APPENDIX.....................................................275
A. SCAFFOLDED CICHLID EXPERIMENTS......................277
B. SCIENCE INQUIRY SKILLS ASSESSMENT...................351
C. ABILITY TO DESIGN AN EXPERIMENT ASSESSMENT
AND SCORING RUBRIC..................................364
D. ATTITUDE TOWARD SCIENCE ASSESSMENT..................368
E. CONSENT FORM........................................372
F. RED DYE EXPERIMENT..................................374
REFERENCES...................................................381


FIGURES
Page
Figure
2.1 Brown's Representation of the Complex Features
of Design Experiments....................................................19
2.2 Lock's Representation of Investigations Related
to Teaching Style and Openness...........................................70
2.3 The Inquiry Cycle Model by Short and Armstrong..........................77
2.4 The Inquiry Cycle Model by White and Frederiksen........................77
2.5 Acre and Betancourt's Diagram of Emotional Effect Produced by
Level of Difficulty of a Task on Students at Different Skill Levels.....108
2.6 Linking Science Inquiry Skills.........................................133
2.7 Science Inquiry Model..................................................135
2.8 Inquiry Continuum......................................................137
2.9 Scaffolding Model for One Set of Science Inquiries.....................139
4.1 Pretest vs Posttest Mean Percentages
Designing an Experiment.................................................184
4.2 Typical Result from Student in Scaffolded Group Prior to Treatment.....186
4.3 Typical Result from Student in Control Group Pretest...................187
4.4 Average Posttest Result Scaffolded Group
Ability to Design an Experiment After Treatment.........................189
4.5 Average Posttest Result in Control Group


Ability to Design an Experiment......................................192
4.6 Minority Student's Design of Experiment After Treatment..............195
4.7 Non-minority Student's Design of Experiment After Treatment.........196
4.8 Experimental Design from Female Student
After Scaffolded Treatment...........................................199
4.9 Experimental Design from Male Student
After Scaffolded Treatment............................................200
4.10 Student Experiment After Three Scaffolded ELF Experiments..........203
4.11 Student Data Table from Second Set of Scaffolded Experiments.......207
4.12 Second Set of Scaffolded Experiments
Motion #3 Student Experiment........................................209
5.1 Inquiry Continuum.....................................................219
5.2 Model for Implementation of Scaffolded Inquiry Unit...................221
5.3 Conceptual Model for a Scaffolded Inquiry.............................223
5.4 Arce and Betancourt's Diagram of Emotion Effect Produced by Level
of Difficulty of a Task on Students at Different Skill Levels........236
5.5 Linking Science Inquiry Steps.........................................240
5.6 Control Group Experimental Design.....................................241
5.7 Scaffolded Group Experimental Design..................................242
5.8 Scaffolded Group, Student #2 Design of Experiment Step................245
5.9 Inclusion of Analysis and Conclusion Steps
Student Work from Scaffolded Group....................................246
5.10 Student Motion Experiment #4 Using Geometric Angles................249


!
i
5.11 Student Electronic Communication Example of Descriptive Details...251
5.12 Follow-up Student Electronic Communication
Second Example of Descriptive Details.............................251
5.13 Student's Creative Writing........................................252
5.14 Student Electronic Communication #1...............................260
5.15 Student Electronic Communication #2...............................260
5.16 Student Electronic Communication #3...............................260
5.17 Student Electronic Communication #4...............................260
5.18 Scaffolding as a Sequence of Steps in a Series
of Experiments in an Inquiry......................................264
5.19 Boxplot: Individual Scores on Posttest Designing an Experiment....267
5.20 Boxplot: Posttest Science Inquiry Skills..........................269
xiv


TABLES
Page
Table
2.1 Science as Inquiry Content Standards by Grade Level..................34
2.2 NSES Content Standards for Physical Science, Life
Science, and Earth/Space Science.....................................36
2.3 Laboratory Manual AnalysisPercent of Investigations..................88
2.4 Test of Enquiry Skills (TOES) Summary................................121
2.5 Performance of Process Skills Test (POPS)............................123
2.6 Summary of Science Inquiry Skills Test...............................125
2.7 Inquiry Designs......................................................138
3.1 2x2x2 Factorial Design, Fixed Effects, Completely
Crossed, Students Nested.............................................147
3.2 Summary of Skills Assessed in Various Tests..........................161
4.1 2x2x2 Factorial Design, Fixed Effects, Completely
Crossed, Students Nested.............................................181
4.2 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects, 2x2x2 Factorial Design,
Fixed Effects, Completely Crossed, Students Nested
Dependent Variable: Ability to Design an Experiment..................182
4.3 Means and Standard Deviations for Teaching Method Main Effect
Dependent Variable: Ability to Design an Experiment..................183
4.4 Pretest vs Posttest Mean Percentage Scaffolded and Control Groups....185
xv


I
4.5 Means and Standard Deviations for Minority vs Non-minority
Students in the Scaffolded Method, 2x2x2 Factorial Design,
Fixed Effects, Completely Crossed, Dependent Variable:
Ability to Design an Experiment........................................193
4.6 Gender Differences, Dependent Variable: Ability to Design an
Experiment, Scaffolded Group...........................................197
4.7 Attitude Toward Science...............................................212
5.1 Ethnicity and Gender Differences
Dependent Variable: Ability' to Design an Experiment...................228
5.2 Summary of Method Posttest Results
Science Inquiry Skills & Ability to Design Experiment..................235
5.3 Observation Tool for Presence of Science Inquiry Skills and Amount
of Scaffolding in Science Classrooms...................................273
xvi
i


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Page
The General Problem.......................................................3
Background of the Problem.................................................4
Conceptual Framework......................................................7
The Research Questions....................................................9
Methodology..............................................................11
Structure of the Thesis..................................................13
2


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Gemeral Problem
For over 100 years, the development of inquiry skills has been regarded as
one of the most essential objectives in sscience education, but evidence for the
opportunity to acquire such intellectual skills has been rare (Welch, Klopfer,
Aikenhead, & Robinson, 1981; Jungwixth & Dreyfus, 1990; Roth & Bowen, 1994),
and research data from studies attemptimg to teach science inquiry are not
encouraging (Jungwirth & Dreyfus, 1990; Roth & Bowen. 1994). In 1961, after the
creation of the National Science Foundation and many national efforts by scientists
and organizations, Schwab (1964) had tthis to say about the reasons for such a
widespread focus:
It is the need to maintain and support a mode of scientific enquiry which has
never before been so urgently required, so visible to the naked, public eye,
and understood so little by so fe=w. (p. 4)
Despite the previous efforts, forty years later science educators are still
trying to determine how to teach inquiny leading Hackett (1998) to note that inquiry
is difficult to carry out. Yet, inquiry is: one of the cornerstones of curriculum
reform efforts such as the National Science Education Standards (National Research
Council [NRC], 1996); and scientific investigation is the first benchmark stressed in


Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS],
1993) for understanding the nature of science. The American Association for the
Advancement of Science (1993) stresses the importance of all students gaining
science literacy; AAAS, therefore, recommends that students need to be actively
engaged in learning to view the world scientifically from the first day of school in
kindergarten.
In order to implement such recommendations, teachers need to know howto
teach inquiry skills. As was noted earlier, the difficulty of teaching inquiry skills to
students has baffled science educators for over a century; therefore, the challenge of
overcoming this problem is the subject of my thesis. In particular, I address issues
pertinent to the problem of teaching students to do scientific investigations from
both psychological and pedagogical viewpoints. I develop a model for teaching
students inquiry skills using a scaffolded approach and test the effectiveness of this
model in the classroom. Thus, this problem encompasses both science education
reform efforts and learning theory research endeavors, especially as they apply to
science.
Background of the Problem
Learning theories underlie any discussion of methods in science education.
In the 1960s, 1970s, and well into the 1980s, Piagets (1973) theory of cognitive
development was significant in both research and teaching. Two main areas of
4


focus were that learning occurred through the students interaction with the
environment, and that learning proceeded in sequential stages of cognitive
development characterized by concrete and abstract reasoning patterns (Piaget,
1973; Bybee & Robertson, 1992). Piaget and others also contend that knowledge is
constructed by individual learners making sense of new information in terms of
what is already known (Wells, 1994). The constructivist paradigm dominated
research in science education during the 1970s and 1980s (Fleer, 1992);
consequently, teaching and learning have been significantly influenced by
constructivism (Bliss, Askew, & Macrae, 1996). Attention is also focusing on
learning theories such as Vygotskys (1978) zone of proximal development that he
defined as:
the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers, (p. 86)
Direct application of Vygotskys zone of proximal development in the
classroom has been linked to scaffolding (Fleer, 1992; Bliss, Askew, & Macrae,
1996; Jonassen, 1996; Hobsbaum, Peters, & Sylva, 1996; Wood & Wood, 1996;
Benson, 1997). Research focusing on scaffolding is limited (Bliss, Askew, &
Macrae, 1996) and has not permeated science education research although there are
indicators that learning as a socially constructed process may offer insights into
childrens understandings of science concepts (Fleer, 1992). Bliss, Askew, and


Macrae (1996) attempted to introduce scaffolding into teachers1 classrooms; the
major findings from their research study indicated an absence of scaffolding in most
lessons. "Scaffolding could happen in school, but it is more difficult than we
initially imagined7 (Bliss, Askew, & Macrae, 1996, p. 59). Bliss, Askew, and
Macrae (1996) gave some possible reasons for lack of scaffolding. One of these
reasons is that perhaps joint activity is difficult to negotiate with a socially
constructed knowledge focus. They also found that dialogue and diagnosis are
much harder to implement than imagined. Additionally, there was a lack of domain
knowledge among teachers with three of the four teachers in the study expressing a
lack of confidence in teaching science. Bliss, Askew, and Macrae (1996)
concluded that perhaps this lack of knowledge causes teachers to have difficulty
interpreting pupils7 answers and responding appropriately. Therefore, scaffolding
was found to be difficult to implement.
A similar assessment accompanies science inquiry. Hackett (1998) stated
that inquiry approaches to learning and teaching are easy to talk about but difficult
to carry out (p. 35). Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, and Soloway (1997) used
project-based science that focuses on student-designed inquiries; and they noted that
students do not possess a deep understanding of either the content or process of the
inquiry. To overcome lack of skills, Germann, Aram, and Burke (1996) used a
scaffolded approach with integrated science process skills to help students connect
their current abilities and intended learning goal. Shepardson (1997) noted that:
6


for some students open-inquiry laboratories become no more than a physical
manipulation of materials. The challenge, then, for science educators is to
provide sufficient instructional support to ensure that all students engage in
thinking about the processes and content of open-inquiry laboratories.
(p. 43)
My research study investigates the effectiveness of instructional support to
help students conduct scientific inquiries by using a scaffolded approach.
Therefore, the purpose of the present research study is to investigate the
effectiveness of a method for overcoming a problem that perplexed science
education for the entire 20th centuryhow to teach students to do science inquiry.
Conceptual Framework
The focus of this study is to determine if a scaffolded approach is better than
methods currently being used by teachers for teaching middle school students to
design their own scientific inquiries. Jackson, Stratford, Krajcik, and Soloway
(1994) found that scaffolding strategies support learners in the active construction of
meaningful models. Authentic tasks which use real world problems and case-based
learning environments focusing on the construction of knowledge also facilitate
knowledge construction (Jonassen, 1994, 1996). This study, therefore, uses
authentic tasks with classroom aquariums containing endangered lake fish to
promote the construction of knowledge.
Windschiti and Andre (1998) found those individuals with more advanced
epistemological beliefs learned more using a constructivist approach, and
7


individuals with less advanced beliefs learned more using an objectivist approach.
Therefore, in this study, more emphasis is placed on an objectivist approach in the
beginning with constructivism gradually phasing in as student knowledge increases.
Vygotsky's (L978) theory of the zone of proximal development indicates that
there is a difference between what a student can do alone and with the help of a
teacher or more capable peer. My research builds on this theory by using a
scaffolded approach that gives maximum support to a student in the first experiment
in a set with this support gradually decreasing as the student moves through
experiments two, three, and four in the set. Additionally, there is more support for
a student designing experiment one in the first set of the experiments versus
experiment one in the third set.
Another learning theory, schema theory, implies that humans use
frameworks for organizing information in memory', and they try to understand the
new and unfamiliar by connecting to existing cognitive structures (Anderson, Spiro,
& .Anderson, 1978; Glaser, 1984, 1991; Gallini. 1989). This research study
incorporated the schema theory by using the same framework for every experiment.
That is, students first wrote a title and date for their experiments, and then they
followed these steps for each experiment: question, prior knowledge, design of
experiment, gather data, analyze data, and conclusion. Teachers and students
purposefully linked prior knowledge from previous experiments to the current
8


experiment. The schema delineating the steps was posted in each classroom in the
treatment group, and these same steps were referred to for each experiment.
Vygotsky (1978) and others emphasized the importance of the social
construction of knowledge. Their research findings (Vygotsky, 1978; Johnson &
Johnson, 1986; Slavin, 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 1997; Ahem-Rindell, 1998;
Schultz, 1999) indicate that co-operative groups promote higher levels of learning
than students working individually. Increase of critical thinking skills is also
associated with grouping students for learning. Research (Totten, Sills, Digby, &
Russ, 1991; Gokhale, 1995; Ahem-Rindell, 1998) results point to improvement of
critical thinking skills when students work in learning groups versus individually.
Therefore, this research utilized student learning groups. Small student groups
also provided opportunities for peer scaffolding.
The Research Questions
In this research study, the knowledge gained in previous studies (Anderson,
Spiro, & Anderson, 1978; Vygotsky, 1978; Glaser, 1984, 1991; Johnson & Johnson,
1986; Gallini, 1989; Slavin, 1991; Totten, Sills, Digby, & Russ, 1991; Fleer, 1992;
Gokhale, 1995; Bliss, Askew, & Macrae, 1996; Germann, Aram, & Burke, 1996;
Jonassen, 1996; Hobsbaum, Peters, & Sylva, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1997;
Wood & Wood, 1996; Benson, 1997; Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway,
1997; Shepardson, 1997; Ahem-Rindell, 1998; Hackett, 1998; Soloway, 1998;
9


Windschitl & Andre, 1998; & Schultz, 1999) is applied to the current study.
Middle school students using a scaffolded approach were compared on three
measures with their peers in a control group. The major independent variable is
teaching method; additional independent variables are gender and ethnicity. The
three dependent variables are science inquiry skills, ability to design an experiment,
and attitude toward science.
Scaffolding is used extensively in this research study. This research then
focuses on the effectiveness of guiding students from assisted performance to
independent performance, as defined by Vygotsky (1978), as they design
experiments using their classroom aquariums containing endangered lake fish (ELF)
from Lake Victoria, Africa. Students in the treatment group followed cichlids
experiments especially designed for this research study. (See Appendix A for the
experiments.) The control group had endangered lake fish in their classrooms and
utilized an inquiry approach based on the scientific method as determined by their
classroom teacher, but these classrooms did not use the scaffolded ELF
experiments.
Three assessments were used both as a pretest and a posttest. A traditional
multiple-choice test with one correct answer per question was used to measure
science inquiry skills. Student skills on ability to design an experiment were
measured using an assessment specifically designed for this purpose, and this
10


instalment is scored using a rubric. The third assessment measured attitude toward
science using a Likert scale. These instruments can be found in the Appendix.
The primary research questions are:
Do the students in the scaffolded group perform significantly better than
the control group on ability to design an experiment?
In the scaffolded group, is there a significant difference between
minority and non-minority students on ability to design an experiment?
In the scaffolded group, is there a significant difference between males
and females on ability to design an experiment?
Do students in the scaffolded group exhibit better science inquiry skills
after using the scaffolded treatment than before treatment?
Is there a significant difference in attitude toward science between
students in the scaffolded group and the control group after treatment?
Is the schema used in the scaffolded method retained by more students
than the schema used in the control group?
Methodology
This study utilizes a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. Three independent variables
and three dependent variables are being used in this study. The main independent
variable is teaching method, and the other two independent variables are gender and
ethnicity. This research study measures three dependent variables: science inquiry
11


skills, ability to design an experiment, and attitude toward science using instruments
designed for that purpose (See Appendix). A pretest and an identical posttest
assess students on these three dependent variables. Qualitative data were collected
over a two-year time period to provide triangulation.
The subjects of this study are students from two urban school districts in the
metropolitan area of a western state. A factorial, fixed effects design is used. The
students in this study are nested in method. Students in a teacher's class at Aspen
Valley* School, another teacher's classes at Riverside Middle School, and a
teacher's classes at Glacier View Middle School form the treatment group for this
project. Students in the control group attend Riverside Middle School and Glacier
View Middle School. These schools are logical choices because two of them,
Aspen Valley and Glacier View, were part of the pilot project. The control teachers
are participating in ELF science inquiries in their classrooms, and these classes are
good matches for both the demographic characteristics and the grade level. The
students in the control group are down the hall from the students in the scaffolded
group at both Glacier View Middle School and Riverside Middle School.
The data were statistically analyzed to answer the main research questions
given earlier. This experimental design has three main effects: teaching method,
* Pseudonyms have been used for the names of the schools and the teachers
throughout this thesis.


gender, and ethnicity and these interactions: teaching method x gender, teaching
method x ethnicity, gender x ethnicity, and teaching method x gender x ethnicity.
Other statistical methods used include dependent t-tests and repeated measures.
Qualitative research data provided additional triangulation.
Structure of the Thesis
This thesis is organized so that Chapter 1 introduces the general problem, the
background of the problem, the theoretical framework of the problem, and an
overview of the methodology. Chapter 2 is the review of the literature describing
research relevant to the problem, a historical perspective on science inquiry,
curriculum reform efforts. and learning theories pertaining to the problem being
investigated. Chapter 3 details the specifics of the methodology used to obtain the
research results in this study. The findings from this research are described in detail
in Chapter 4. Conclusions and implications for further research are included in
Chapter 5.
13


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
14


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Page
Introduction..............................................................17
Definition of Science Inquiry.............................................20
Science Inquiry in the Curriculum.........................................27
Historical Perspective.............................................27
Inquiry in Curriculum Efforts in the 1990s.........................32
Influence of Psychology on Science Inquiry................................38
Cognitive Science and Science Inquiry.....................................44
Schema Theory......................................................46
Current Brain Research.............................................52
Misconceptions.....................................................56
Prior Knowledge....................................................57
Meaningful Understanding...........................................58
Scaffolding........................................................61
Types of Science Inquiry..................................................69
15


Confirmation, Structured, Verification Inquiries.....................72
Guided Inquiry.......................................................73
Open Inquiry.........................................................74
Models of Scientific Inquiry...............................................76
Methods for Teaching Incquiry..............................................78
Laboratories.........................................................79
Textbooks and Supplementary Materials................................87
Learning Groups......................................................91
Technology for Inquiry............................................. 98
Emerging Changes and Challenges with Inquiry Learning.....................104
Role of the Teach er................................................105
Communicating Inquiry Findings......................................106
Challenges with Imquiry Learning....................................107
Ethnicity........_.................................................110
Gender Equity.......................................................114
Assessing Inquiry Skills.-................................................118
Discussion.............................................................. 127
Conclusion................................................................141
16


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
For over 100 years, the development of inquiry skills has been regarded as
one of the most essential objectives in science education, but evidence for the
opportunity to acquire such intellectual skills has been rare (Welch, Klopfer,
Aikenhead, & Robinson, 1981; Jungwirth & Dreyfus, 1990; Roth & Bowen, 1994),
and research data are not encouraging (Jungwirth & Dreyfus, 1990; Roth & Bowen,
1994). The current knowledge about howto promote science inquiry is limited
(Fradd & Lee, 1999) primarily because researchers have found that science inquiry
is resistant to analysis, and the development and application of science inquiry is a
complex problem (Germann, Aram, & Burke, 1996). Thus, few programs have
been able to encourage inquiry learning with student-designed experiments (Pizzini,
Shepardson, & Abell, 1991).
A number of techniques, such as laboratories, textbooks, small groups, and
more recently computers, have been tried. Using science laboratories to provide
students with insights into the scientific method proved difficult to achieve (Novak,
1988; Linn, 1997). For the most part, current science experiments in schools remain
cookbook activities designed to verify well-established principles and laws rather
17


than inquiry (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993; Germann, 1991). Textbooks and
supplemental materials contain few, if any, open inquiries (Pizzini, Shepardson, &
Abell, 1991). Even with the power of the Internet, science inquiries for classroom
use are limited (Bodzin, Cates, & Vollmer, 2001). The dominant teaching
techniques over the past decade: lecturing, student-student interactions, and small
group work (Roth & Bowen, 1994) have not achieved the desired outcome.
Therefore, even with new curricula and methods, better trained teachers, improved
facilities and equipment, and the power of the Internet, science educators are
frustrated and disappointed with the results of the development of inquiry skills as
an outcome of science instruction (Welch et al., 1981; Mergendoller, 1997; Bodzin
et al., 2001). Promoting student inquiry is difficult (Hammer, 1995), but developing
the thinking skills of scientists through avenues such as science inquiry is essential
according to major reform efforts and leading researchers (American Association
for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1993, 1998; Roth &
Roychoudhury, 1993; Roth & Bowen, 1994; National Research Council [NRC],
1996; Bodzin, Cates, & Vollmer, 2001; Fretz, Wu, Zhang, Krajcik, & Soloway,
2001; Gabbei, Bucher, & Chandler, 2001; Golan, Kyza, Reiser, & Edelson,
2001;Lumpe & Chambers, 2001; Pottenger, Young, Son, Shin, Lee, & Choi, 2001;
Roychoudhury, 2001). Therefore, the current goal is to teach all students to
exercise these skills in thinking scientifically about matters in everyday life (AAAS,
1989, 1993, 1998; NRC, 1996).
18


First, a look at what is involved in engineering a change in science inquiry
from a systems perspective provides an understanding of the complexities of putting
science inquiry into the classroom. Figure 2.1 illustrates Browns (1992, p. 142)
ideas concerning the complex features of the classroom. Brown (1992) refers to
Figure 2.1Brown's Representation of the Complex Features of Design
Experiments
DESIGN EXPERIMENT
herself as a design scientist in that she attempts to engineer innovative educational
environments and conduct experimental studies on those innovations. She takes a
systemic view of the classroom and notes that it is impossible to change one aspect
of the system without creating perturbations in others; likewise, it is difficult to
19


study any one aspect of the classroom independently from the other parts. She
classifies the role of the teachers and the students, the type of curriculum, the
technology, the classroom ethos, and similar features as inputs which contribute to
the working environment. She categorizes assessments and accountability as
outputs from the system. Classroom interventions function under certain constraints
in that effective interventions should transfer from the experimental classroom to
the average classroom. A critical tension, therefore, exists between contributing to a
theory of learning and contributing to practice. Incorporating science inquiry into
the classroom is therefore a complex process. But, first what is science inquiry?
The next section addresses that question.
Definition of Science Inquiry
Clarification of what is meant by inquiry will help to understand the topic
being discussed. Inquiry is the general process by which human beings seek
information or understanding. Science inquiry, in particular, is a systematic
investigation to uncover and describe relationships among objects and events, and
science inquiry is also concerned with the natural world and is guided by certain
assumptions and beliefs (Peterson, 1978; Kyle, 1980; Welch, et al., 1981). The
National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), a big proponent of science
inquiry, define science inquiry as the diverse ways in which scientists study the
natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their
20


work (p. 23). Traditionally science has been characterized as having a scientific
method with a set of associated scientific process skills (Peterson. 1978; Roth &
Bowen, 1994). Furthermore, these skills were thought to exist independently of
context and could be analyzed in terms of component skills that could be linked to
yield complex science research skills (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993). These skills
include observing, questioning, experimenting, comparing, inferring, generalizing,
communicating, and applying (Peterson, 1978).
Experts from various disciplines in science and science education who
worked to produce the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
Science for Ail Americans (AAAS, 1989) declared:
There simply is no fixed set of steps that scientists always follow, no one
path that leads them unerringly to scientific knowledge. There are, however,
certain features of science that give it a distinctive character as a mode of
inquiry, (p. 26)
Because there are no fixed steps that are always used in science, the
distinguished group of scientists and educators who developed the science literacy
construct for Project 2061 (AAAS, 1989) prefer to reference the distinctive
characteristics that encompass science inquiry rather than the unique categories that
have traditionally been used. These characteristics are:
Science demands evidence.
Science is a blend of logic and imagination.
Science explains and predicts.


Scientists try to identify and avoid bias.
Science is not authoritarian (p. 26-28).
Science inquiry has traditionally been divided into three categories: 1) the
general inquiry processes, 2) the nature of science inquiry, and 3) science process
skills (Welch et al., 1981). General inquiry entails asking questions, problem-
solving, use of evidence, reasoning, and decision-making (Kyle, 1980; Welch et al.,
1981). The nature of science inquiry comprises the epistemological realm.
Consequently, scientific knowledge is tentative and is affected by the processes used
in knowledge construction and the social and psychological context in which the
inquiry occurs along with assumptions about the natural world (Welch et al., 1981;
Lederman, 1986, 1992). The nature of science inquiry, for example, encompasses
an individual's beliefs concerning whether or not scientific knowledge is amoral,
tentative, empirically based, or a product of human creativity (Lederman, 1986,
1992). The science process skills include formulating hypotheses, controlling
variables, formulating models or theories, and making observations (Welch et al.,
1981; Hammer, 1995).
The nature of science has been emphasized since the early 1900s along with
the scientific method and the processes of science. In the early part of the century,
the objective concerning the nature of science was linked with an increased
emphasis on the scientific method, and in the 1960s it was connected to science
processes and inquiry, and currently it has been included as a critical component of
22
!


science literacy (Lederman, 1992). Over the years, there has been concern about the
inadequacy of students understanding of the nature of science; and in the 1960s,
curriculum was developed to improve students conceptions of the nature of
science; but when the desired results did not materialize, attention was turned to
improving teachers conceptions (Lederman, 1992). Stress on higher cognitive
understandings is strongly associated with changes in students conceptions of the
nature of science (Lederman, 1986). Lederman (1992) concludes that there are
differences among the science disciplines, but there is no singular preferred nature
of science especially since the nature of science is as tentative as science
knowledge.
Science knowledge accumulates over time. The use of evidence in science
validates claims made by scientists. Observations and measurements can be taken
in natural settings such as the forest, the atmosphere, the ocean, and outer space or
in laboratory settings such as the chemists lab bench. In making observations,
scientists use their own senses of sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste as well as
instruments such as microscopes, telescopes, and mass spectrometers, and
techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) which has been adapted to a
medical diagnostic technique known as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Smoot,
Smith, & Price, 1993). When possible, scientists control conditions, or variables,
precisely to obtain evidence, and by varying just one condition at a time, scientists
try to identify the effects of this one variable. If this is not possible, observations
23


are made over a sufficiently wide range of naturally occurring conditions and
scientists infer what the influence of the various factors may be (AAAS. 1989).
Although scientists use much creativity and imagination to construct
hypotheses and theories, ultimately they rely on logical reasoning to validate these.
Despite not always agreeing on conclusions reached, scientists tend to agree about
the principles of logical reasoning that connect the evidence with the conclusions
(AAAS, 1989). The process of formulating and testing hypotheses is a focus of
science. Some discoveries may be made unexpectedly or even by accident, but
knowledge and creative insight are required to interpret and explain such
discoveries. Even though one scientist may ignore aspects of data, another scientist
may use these same data for a new discovery. Therefore, scientists logically
explain observations and measurements through reasoning and consistency with
accepted scientific principles. In interpreting evidence and arriving at conclusions,
scientists try to be objective and avoid bias. Over time if someone comes up with
an improved explanation for a previous one, the new one takes the place of the old;
thus science is not authoritarian, but continually evolves.
In some earlier reforms, students were taught that scientists follow a
scientific method to solve problems. One version of this method included:
1) identifying the problem to be solved, 2) gathering evidence, 3) making a
hypothesis, 4) testing the hypothesis, 5) observing and recording, and 6) arriving at
a conclusion (Galembo, Perkins, 1974). Today, the emphasis has changed.
24


Successful problem-solving, such as in science inquiries, requires a solid body of
knowledge, and applying general problem-solving skills isolated from domain-
specific knowledge produces inefficient and probably unsuccessful results (Friedler,
Nachmias, & Linn, 1990). In addition to knowledge of the facts, an understanding
of the way in which the facts are presented produces more effective problem-solving
(Friedler et al., 1990). Therefore, students need to identify a problem within the
framework of an ongoing unit of science study (Ediger, 1998). Real-life problems
are messy and call for true problem solving skills, but in traditional science
classrooms, students rarely experience the source of the questions of inquiry, the
challenges, or the surprises of real life (Roth, 1992). Thus, problem-solving in
school might better be titled use of algorithms and plugging in information. An
essential component of a true problem, however, is finding it and framing it (Roth,
1992) and then using other science processes skills to conduct an inquiry and arrive
at a conclusion.
Recent research supports the use of one underlying construct for science
process skills (Roth, 1989) and shows a high correlation between integrated science
process skills and formal reasoning skills (Baird & Borich, 1987). Even though
formal reasoning originates from the educational psychology community and
integrated science process skills from the community of science educators, these
two traits have been found to correlate highly within individuals (Baird & Borich,
1987). Students who mastered the foundational skills of combinatorial reasoning,
25


conservation reasoning, and designing experiments were more likely to master
higher skills. (Baird & Borich, L987). Therefore, Baird and Borich (1987)
postulated that perhaps the traits of formal reasoning ability and integrated science
process skills actually represented the same construct.
Using instruments designed to assess formal reasoning ability and
instruments to measure integrated science process skills and then correlating the
results. Baird and Borich (1987) found that the correlations varied from 0.52 0.65.
Furthermore, factor analysis to check the loadings of the subfactors indicated an
overlap between them with shared variance ranging from 27% 38% (Baird &
Borich. 1987). Roth (1989) continued this line of research and found that major
loading existed for only one general factor.
Therefore, rather than being separate skills, the science process skills are
correlated among each other (Baird & Borich, 1987; Roth, 1989), and a multilevel
hierarchical model accompanied by confirmatory factor analysis indicates all of
these skills are related to one construct (Roth, 1989). Using open-ended inquiry
laboratories for students in eighth grade science and juniors and seniors in high
school physics (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993) resulted in the development of
higher-order process skills such as identifying variables, interpreting data,
hypothesizing, defining, and experimenting. Furthermore, these skills appear to
develop holistically without being explicitly taught. Based on this finding, perhaps
then a new direction is needed. But, first just how did science process skills
26


become incorporated into the curriculum? What preceded the prevailing ideas
about teaching science inquiry? The next section addresses these questions.
Science Inquiry in the Curriculum
Historical Perspective
[n the United States during the late 1800s, laboratories were part of science
(Linn, 1997); and students used inquiry skills to experiment with common physical
objects such as rocks, insects, and leaves (Mintzes & Wandersee. 1998). In 1862,
the Morrill Act established land grant colleges to use scientific knowledge for
solving agricultural and technological problems (Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998), and
this led to the use of the science laboratories to provide vocational skills (Linn,
1997). Charles Peirce also emphasized using ideas and theories in science for
practical purposes in a January 1878 article in Popular Science Monthly (Parker,
1993). In the 1890s, The Committee of Ten, chaired by scientist Charles W. Elliot
from Harvard, already advocated the replacing of book science with first-hand
experience involving natural phenomena (Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998). Also prior
to the turn of the last century, in 1889 and 1890, H. E. Armstrong detailed courses
of instruction for developing inquiry, observation, and reasoning skills, and his
book, The Teaching of Scientific Method and Other Papers on Education, was
published in 1903 (Armstrong, 1903). A few years later, John Dewey (1916), a
27


science teacher, wrote in the first edition of General Science Quarterly that the
methods of science involving problem solving through reflective thinking should be
the outcome of science teaching. Thus, for over 100 years science inquiry has been
advocated as a goal of science education.
However, in the early 1900s as in contemporary society, many individuals
thought activity-based, hands-on, process-oriented programs were the ends rather
than the means (Bybee, 1997). Nevertheless, under the influence of progressivists
such as Dewey, Hall, Thorndike, and Terman, society benefited as applications of
scientific knowledge to everyday life came into vogue (ECliebard, 1992; Mintzes &
Wandersee, 1998). Dewey also attempted to develop scientific habits of minds in
students with his child-centered curriculum (Shamos, 1996). During the 1930s,
process skills became another focus in school curriculum under the influence of the
Progressive Education Association and the establishment of the Committee on the
Function of Science in General Education of the Commission on Secondary School
Curriculum (Bybee, 1997). In 1947, James Conant proposed including science in
undergraduate education and encouraging students to learn by doing (Foshay, 1991),
but the public was not ready for his proposed reforms.
During the late 1800s and the early 1900s, the U.S. history of science
laboratories in classrooms can be classified as a separation period in which
educators and natural scientists worked separately (Linn, 1997). During this time
period, it was the natural scientists who designed the laboratories to illustrate
28
1
i


science principles with little attention paid to the learning aspects. Those who
researched learning employed mazes and similar techniques instead of the complex
classroom, and behavioral objectives identifying the desired outcomes were the
standard teaching approaches. However, the paths to achieving the objectives were
unspecified and also unknown (Linn, 1997). Tests often measured recall of
information and were poorly linked to the laboratories, and there=fore, research
studies on laboratories were contradictory and inconclusive. Laboratories continued
to remain a part of the science curriculum; but science teaching relied heavily on
lecture, discussions, and recitation with few laboratory experiences and only
occasional films (Bybee, 1997).
It was the launch of Sputnik in 1957 that intensified the focus on science
education, and the reform efforts of the 1960s began the strong ermphasis on inquiry
(Parker, 1993; Roth & Bowen, 1993). The launch of Sputnik accelerated reform
efforts already begun, generated public support for math and science, and increased
federal funding (Parker, 1993; Bybee, 1997). The curriculum reJtform efforts of the
1960s sought to replace traditional methods with new ones, but (developers of
science curricula of the 1960s appeared united in their belief thatt science inquiry is a
major function of the laboratory (Tamir & Lunetta, 1981). Muc=h money was spent
designing curriculum to provide students opportunities for inquir-y (Roth &
Roychoudhury, 1993). The curriculum developed during the 19C50s, such as the
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) for biology, Cheimical Education
29


Material Study (CHEM Study) in chemistry, Physical Science Study Committee
(PSSC) in physics, and Earth Science Curriculum Project (ESCP) in earth science,
tried to create laboratory experiences that presented problems for students of all
abilities to investigate. Psychology heavily influenced these efforts as scientists
were supported in curricular reform efforts by learning and developmental
psychologists such as Joseph Schwab and Jerome Bruner (Mintzes & Wandersee,
1998).
In these curriculum materials, the emphasis was on critical thinking and on
giving students an understanding of the nature of science, but they gave a false
impression of scientific inquiry because the inquiries were at the lowest level (Kyle,
1980). Tamir and Lunetta (1981) examined the major biology, chemistry, and
physics curriculum materials developed from the curriculum reform of the 1960s,
and their findings reveal that almost all of the investigations are highly structured.
In the curriculum of the 1960s, the students are seldom asked to formulate a
question to be investigated, to formulate a hypothesis to be tested, to predict
experimental results, to design their own experiments, to apply the experimental
technique, or to formulate a new question based on the results. In a meta-analysis of
research on the science curricula of this time period, Shymansky, Hedges, and
Woodworth (1990) concluded the reformed curricula were generally effective in
improving student performance on cognitive measures and improving attitudes
about science, and the new curricula were better than those they replaced. DeBoer
30


(1991) remarked that: "The impact was impressive. Never before had a single
curriculum initiative had such a wide-spread effect on science teaching in this
country." (p. 167) Inquiry, however, was not widely implemented, especially in
chemistry and physics (DeBoer, 1991), and where it was accomplished, it did not
survive the pressure of the current system (Bybee, 1997).
A crisis in pre-college mathematics, science, and technology education was
declared by the National Science Boards report entitled Todays Problems.
Tomorrows Crises (National Science Foundation, 1982). Terrel Bell, head of the
U.S. Department of Education appointed an eighteen-member National Commission
on Excellence in Education to study the situation. The Commissions ensuing
report, entitled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983),
shocked the nation with its declaration:
Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce,
industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by
competitors throughout the world, (p. 5)
The report recommended three years of science including teaching the methods of
scientific inquiry and reasoning. Although reforms were attempted, they had
limited success. In 1989, the President of the United States, George H. Bush,
grasped the reins of curriculum reform and steered the nation on a path of standards-
based education with a goal of having U.S. students first in the world in science and
mathematics by the year 2000 (Malcolm, 1993). Although this goal was not
31


attained by the year 2000, National Science Education Standards were written and
states answered the crisis call with their own standards.
Therefore, during the last 100 years, science reform efforts have continually
advocated practical, hands-on experiences retaining an emphasis on the basic
science disciplines of biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science. Science can
now be found at all levels of K-12 schooling with an emphasis on process skills and
little content at the elementary level or in many areas of the middle school science
curriculum. Additionally, a number of other changes occurred in education
including education for all instead of just the elite, student-centered instead of
teacher-centered, more practical experiences instead of theoretical, integrated
knowledge instead of multi-disciplines or single disciplines, and learning for
understanding instead of rote learning. This brings us to the current reform efforts
that began in the late 1980s.
Inquiry in Curriculum Efforts in the 1990s
Renewed interest in inquiry occurred in the late 1980s and 1990s with
science inquiry being stressed as a key component in curriculum reform efforts such
as the National Science Education Standards fNational Research Council, 1996),
Science for All Americans by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (1989), and the Scope, Sequence, and Coordination model endorsed by the
National Science Teachers Association (Aldridge, 1996).
32


Current research indicates that students learning is enhanced when they are
allowed to generate their own questions and problems, design solution strategies,
and share their findings with their peers (Roth & Bowen. 1994). This indication
helped drive the current curriculum reform efforts. One of the most significant
changes in how science is to be taught is the emphasis given to science inquiry in
the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (Bybee, 1997). The Standards
(NRC. 1996) state that:
Inquiry is central to science learning. When engaging in inquiry, students
describe objects and events, ask questions, construct explanations, test those
explanations against current scientific knowledge, and communicate their
ideas to others. They identify their assumptions, use critical and logical
thinking, and consider alternative explanations. In this way, students
actively develop their understanding of science by combining scientific
knowledge with reasoning and thinking skills, (p. 2)
Table 2.1 summarizes the content standards on science as inquiry by grade level
(NRC. 1996, p. 121-122, 143-145, 173-175).
Benchmarks have been set by Project 2061 (AAAS, 1993) for what students
should know about science inquiry by the end of grades 2, 5, 8, and 12. Therefore,
the age levels for which the benchmarks are targeted are divided differently than
NSES. Both Project 2061 and NSES emphasize conducting investigations, the use
of tools, and communicating findings to others. For grades 3-5, Project 2061
stresses detecting similarities and differences among things that the students collect
and examine in their simple investigations. Unlike NSES where 5th graders are
expected to begin learning to design and conduct experiments, Project 2061 cautions
jj


Table 2.1Science as Inquiry Content Standards by Grade Level
Grade Level Content Standard
K-4 Ask a question about objects, organisms, and events in the environment. Plan and conduct a simple investigation. Employ simple equipment and tools to gather data and extend the senses. Use data to construct a reasonable explanation. Communicate investigations and explanations. Develop understandings about scientific inquiry.
5-8 Identify questions that can be answered through scientific investigations. Design and conduct a scientific investigation. Use appropriate tools and techniques to gather, analyze, and interpret data. Develop descriptions, explanations, predictions, and models using evidence. Think critically and logically to make the relationships between evidence and explanations. Develop understandings about scientific inquiry.
{ 9-12 Identify questions and concepts that guide scientific investigations. Design and conduct scientific investigations. Use technology and mathematics to improve investigations and communications. Formulate and revise scientific explanations and models using logic and evidence. Recognize and analyze alternative explanations and models. Communicate and defend a scientific argument. Develop understandings about scientific inquiry.
that the design of carefully controlled experiments is beyond most students in the
middle grades (3rd-5th). Both introduce defining and controlling variables for
middle school, but NSES introduces this beginning concept in fifth grade and
34


Project 2061 does so in 6th grade. Both emphasize conducting investigations at the
high school level, and both stress that there is not just one scientific method and way
of conducting investigations. Thus the overall focus for both of these curricular
reforms efforts in the area of science inquiry is similar. The primary difference is
that the cornerstone for NSES is science inquiry; whereas, the cornerstone of Project
2061 is science literacy. This difference is major and will probably become a
divisive issue in curriculum development and classroom implementation.
For example, the nature of science is divided into three parts in Project 2061,
and these three form the first benchmarks for all grade levels in Project 2061. These
three parts are:
The scientific world view
Scientific inquiry
The scientific enterprise
The description of scientific inquiry in Project 2061 is similar to the view held by
NSES. Project 2061 (AAAS, 1993) recommends:
introducing student investigations that more closely approximate sound
science. Such investigations should become more ambitious and more
sophisticated. Before graduating from high school, students working
individually or in teams should design and carry out at least one major
investigation. They should frame the question, design the approach,
estimate the time and costs involved, calibrate the instruments, conduct
trial runs, write a report, and finally, respond to criticism, (p. 9)
35


Table 2.2NSES Content Standards for Physical Science,
Life Science, and Earth/Space Science
Content Area Level K-4 Level 5-8 Level 9-12
Physical Science Properties of objects and materials Position and motion of objects Light, heat, electricity, and magnetism Properties and changes in matter Motions and forces Transfer of energy Structure of atoms Structure and properties of matter Chemical reactions Motions and forces Conservation of energy and increase in disorder Interactions of energy and matter
Life Science Characteristics of organisms Life cycles of organisms Organisms and environments Structure and function in living cells Reproduction and heredity Regulation and behavior Populations and ecosystems Diversity and adaptations of organisms The cell Molecular basis of heredity Biological evolution Interdependence of organisms Matter, energy, and organization in living systems Behavior of organisms
Earth and Space Science Properties of earth materials Objects in the sky Changes in earth and sky Structure of the earth system Earths history Earth in the solar system Energy in the earth system Geochemical cycles Origin and evolution of the earth system Origin and evolution of the universe
The shift in emphasis from the processes of science to cognitive abilities and
the critical thinking associated with the development of scientific explanations
resulting from inquiries is another key difference between the current reforms and
36


past reforms (Bybee, 1997). In the vision presented in the NSES (NRC, 1996):
Inquiry is a step beyond "science as a process," in which students learn
skills, such as observation, inference, and experimentation. The new vision
includes the "processes of science" and requires that students combine
processes and scientific knowledge as they use scientific reasoning and
critical thinking to develop their understanding of science, (p. 105)
The NSES outline standards by grade levels for physical science, life science, earth
and space science, science and technology, science in personal and social
perspectives, and the history and nature of science. The content standards for
physical science, life science, and earth and space science are shown in Table 2.2
(NRC, 1996, p. 106-107).
Project 2061 (AAAS, 1993) emphasizes the same areas, but they are
arranged somewhat differently. The physical setting comprises: 1) the universe,
2) the earth, 3) processes that shape the earth, 4) structure of matter, 5) energy
transformations, 6) motion, and 7) forces of nature. The living environment
emphasizes the life science area and is composed of: 1) diversity of life, 2) heredity,
3) cells, 4) interdependence of life, 5) flow of matter and energy, and 6) evolution
of life. The human organism has separate benchmarks in Project 2061. They are:
1) human identity, 2) human development, 3) basic functions, 4) learning,
5) physical health, and 6) mental health. Project 2061 thus attempts to make the
demarcations between the science disciplines less pronounced. More Science-
Technology-Society issues are also represented in Project 2061 including issues on
37


political and economic systems, social conflict, social trade-off. and global
interdependence.
"Inquiry is the basis of scientific literacy, and thus an essential component
of school science programs" (Bybee, 1997, p. 111). Scientific literacy is a major
goal of both the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and of Project
2061 (AAAS, 1989, 1993, 1998). However, Eisenhart, Finkel and Marion (1996)
believe that the current reforms are too narrowly focused on key concepts and
conventional science practices. They recommend a broader involvement of diverse
people in science with more socially responsible science as the endpoint.
Influence of Psychology on Science Inquiry
As curriculum reform efforts progressed, parallel developments in
educational psychology heavily influenced science education. For example,
behaviorism and constructivism have shaped chemical education research, and
Herron and Nurrenbem (1999) summarized significant developments:
A shift in the dominant theory of learning from behaviorism to
constructivism has had a significant impact on chemical education research
over the past 50 years. The changes in chemical education research that
have emerged from these two perspectives seem dichotomous. Behaviorist-
based research attempted to narrow things down. It put learning under the
microscope in order to identify salient variables that could guarantee
improvement in performance. Constructivist-based research reverses that
focus, using a telescope to broaden the view of learning, (p. 1354)
Similar research trends have occurred in other science disciplines.
38


Certain psychologists had a strong influence on how science education
evolved. Piaget heavily influenced teaching approaches and curriculum. Piagets
developmental approaches to learning in children have had a significant impact on
learning in science. Piaget, a biologist, tried to explain the development of
intelligence in a child in a fashion similar to the development of a tadpole (Darling-
Hammond & Snyder, 1992). Piaget viewed intelligence as an adaptive feature of
humans that allowed them to deal effectively with the environment, and therefore,
intelligence was dynamic and changed as the organism gained experience and
matured (Piaget, 1973; Hergenhahn, 1982). Thus, the cognitive structures, not the
behavior, were the focus of his work (Olson, 1989) as he sought to explain how
mental structures developed over time in humans.
Piaget theorized that children grow through a series of distinct mental stages
representing different types of knowledge. Using a clinical method, Piaget
interviewed children to learn why some children could answer questions on
intelligence tests correctly and other could not. Piaget referred to the discrete,
sequential stages of intellectual development which he linked to biological
development and increases in complexity: 1) sensorimotor stage (birth-2yrs.),
2) pre-operational thinking (2-7 yrs.), 3) concrete operations (711 yrs.), and
4) formal operations (-1215 yrs.) (Piaget, 1973; Hergenhahn, 1982; Fox, 1993;
Notterman & Drewry, 1993; Clark, 1996). Concrete operations encompassed
thought process directed to real events; whereas, formal or abstract operations dealt
39


with hypothetical situations and signified logical, sophisticated thinking. The
developmental stages suggest that one level cannot be reached before prior
developmental levels and maturation have been attained. Therefore, limitations
exist on learning and behavior changes before that level of readiness has been
attained (Piaget, 1973; Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 1992).
Recently, much criticism has been directed at Piagets influence on science.
Research in the field of cognitive development of children questions the approach of
Piaget in defining parameters for concrete and abstract learning and logical
reasoning. Metz (1997) stresses that science educators cannot assume that
cognitive development is simply a function of age, and Brown (1990) links Piagets
cognitive developmental approach with weak information processing and weak
knowledge combinations in schools. According to Metz (1997), a complex
interaction of knowledge and developmental factors determine childrens
competence in scientific reasoning at different age levels, and childrens reasoning
appears to be both variable and dynamic. A widely-held view in science education
is that science is an abstract and difficult discipline that is accessible only to high-
achieving students over the age of 13 who are capable of the abstract, complex
reasoning processes needed to learn and to do science (White & Frederiksen, 1998).
Bmner (1960/1977, 1961, 1966) extended the developmental concepts of
Piaget and recommended a cognitive perspective to structuring subject matter for
understanding and relating to other things. He emphasized the importance of
40


discovery of knowledge through the active participation of the students in the
learning process, and his work on inductive reasoning and problem solving provided
the basis for the emphasis on discovery learning and conceptual schemes (Mintzes
& Wandersee, 1998). According to Bruner (1960/1977, 1961, 1966), discovery is a
matter of rearranging or transforming evidence in such a way that one is enabled to
go beyond the evidence so reassembled to additional new insights. If a child is left
to himself, the child will go about discovering things and through discovery
intellectual potency increases; rewards shift from extrinsic to intrinsic; memory
processing is aided, and techniques of discovery are learned (Bruner, 1961). Bruner
(1966) stressed that teachers need to try to encourage students to discover on their
own, but children need not discover all generalizations for themselves. However,
according to Bruner (1966), we want to give them opportunity to develop a decent
competence at discovery and a proper confidence in their ability to operate
independently. There is also a need for students to pause and review in order to
recognize the connections within what they have learnedthe internal discovery is
probably of highest value (Bruner, 1966). Bruner also emphasized that students
should develop intuitive and analytical skills of scientists and engage in scientific
inquiry (Bruner, 1960/1977). There is research support for the importance of
intuitive knowledge for discovery learning (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998).
Inquiry learning is also emphasized by both Schwab and Gagne. Schwab
stressed imparting the excitement of science, an appreciation for major concepts,
41


and methods of science imquiry (Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998). The open-ended
laboratory investigation vwas envisioned by Schwab as a means for asking questions,
making observations, recording data, and making conclusions. Many of the hands-
on activities in science cam be traced to early efforts by Schwab (Mintzes &
Wandersee, 1998) who believed students should be invited to identify unsolved
problems and discover Iiraritations of present knowledge (Schwab, 1964). Teaching
students to act like a scientist by mastering techniques and collecting data ignored
the importance of interpreting the data and making conclusions (Schwab, 1964)
Schwab (1964) strressed the importance of the public becoming perceptive
about science inquiry as ai type of investigation that proceeds through both
uncertainty and failure to produce new knowledge. Since this new knowledge
results from interpretation-), scientific knowledge is subject to change. He noted that
from colonial days, the elate, but not the masses, were taught systematic doubt,
uncertainty, and the value: of continuing inquiry. Schwab believed that science
inquiry should involve innovation, trial, and failure. Schwab (1964) insisted that
updating the course conte-nt would not suffice, but instead only a revolution in the
teaching and learning of science would achieve the desired results. He envisioned
science as both a process of verification and of discovery, but he defined discovery
(Schwab, 1964) as: "the construction of scientific knowledge by the interpretation of
data through use of conceptual principles of the enquiry." (p. 29)
42


Gagne also stressed inquiry, and his work on inquiry methods had a
substantial impact on science curriculum reform efforts. These efforts were
especially noticeable at the elementary level where AAASs ScienceA Process
Approach (SAPA) was devoted to teaching science process skills such as observing,
classifying, measuring, inferring, and predicting (Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998).
This curriculum was based on Gagnes hierarchy of learning levels theory that the
learning of complex skills depends upon the learning of a hierarchy of increasingly
more complex skills. Gagne identifies eight levels of learning which progress from
the simplest to the complex: l) signal learning, 2) stimulus-response, 3) chaining,
4) verbal association, 5) multiple discrimination, 6) concept learning, 7) principle
learning, and 8) problem solving (Clark, 1996). Signal learning includes
involuntary actions related to emotions, and chaining refers to a succession of
stimulus-response behaviors. Verbal association pertains to a series of words or
sentences with connections to previous learning, and multiple discrimination allows
the learner to make a number of responses to various stimuli. Concept learning
refers to the ability to make a response to a group of variables, and principle
learning involves making a response that included two or more concepts. Likewise,
with problem solving, two or more principles are applied. The greatest criticism of
Gagnes scheme was its failure to help children build frameworks of interrelated
science concepts. Consequently, science inquiry became a series of meaningless
hands-on activities (Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998).
43


Two other elementary science programs that stressed inquiry, the
Elementary Science Study (ESS) and the Science Curriculum Improvement Study
(SCIS), were heavily influenced by psychology. ESS and SCIS were loosely based
on the cognitive developmental approach of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget
(Duckworth, 1991; Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998) who emphasized the development
of conceptual knowledge. Novak (1988) claims that one problem with these
curricula is that experiments were designed to prove or disprove a hypothesis rather
than to construct new meaning.
Cognitive Science and Science Inquiry
During the past three decades, psychology in the field of learning has shifted
from a seventy-five year dominance by behaviorism toward cognitive functioning
(Novak, 1988). Current cognitive theory builds on some of the ideas from
behaviorism such as the practicing of basic skills until they become automatic which
is believed to free mental energies for more complex tasks (Darling-Hammond &
Snyder, 1992).
Currently, constructivism is emphasized in conjunction with inquiry-based
learning. According to constructivism, individuals construct meanings by forming
connections between new concepts and existing knowledge, and this approach helps
learners to internalize and reshape new information (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, 1999;
Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Perkins, 1999). The idea that humans construct their own
44


meanings goes back at least to the time of the Greeks and Romans, and this
principle was an underlying tenet of educators during the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries (Novak, 1988). Piaget is generally considered as a modem foundation
figure in constructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Phillips, 1995). Based on his
research, Piaget concluded that knowledge grows through individual construction by
the learner (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Additionally, research by both Ausubel and
Vygotsky is important in the development of constructivism (Bybee & Robertson,
1992). Bruner (1960/1977, 1961) also referred to the construction of knowledge
and stated that imbedding information in a cognitive structure that a person
constructs makes that material easier to retrieve. Scientific discovery learning,
which Bruner promoted, is highly self-directed and constructivist (de Jong and van
Joolingen, 1998). Also, Schwab (1964) emphasized the construction of scientific
knowledge through inquiry.
Much progress has been made in educational psychology, and current
theories build on previous work. The unique contribution of the latest work in
cognitive science is summarized by Darling-Hammond and Snyder (1992):
its sharpened focus on the process of thinking and the relationship between
mental processes and performances .. research within the cognitive science
orientation makes a conscious decision to study performanceand to study
it within a framework that acknowledges the roles of development, cognitive
structure, and behavioral change as an indicator of learning, (p. 55)
45


Schema Theory
One such framework is schema theory. Schema theory implies that humans
use frameworks for organizing information in memory, and they try to understand
the new and unfamiliar by connecting to existing cognitive structures. The term
schema is used to refer to a persons knowledge structure for a particular class of
concepts (Gallini, 1989). These mental structures incorporate general knowledge
and summarize that which is common to a large number of things or situations
(Anderson, Spiro, & Anderson, 1978; Glaser, 1984). A schema contains siots into
which specific information will fit; the information that matches the slots in the
schema is significant and is singled out (Anderson et al., 1978). A schema can be
thought of as a prototype of frequently experienced situations. Knowledge of these
prototype structures that describe problem situations is a form of knowledge that is
present in effective problem solvers and skilled learners (Glaser, 1984, 1991).
Information fitting the schema is more likely to be learned and remembered, and it
is possible that schemata support processes at work when information is retrieved
(Anderson et al., 1978). Research in this area by Anderson et al. (1978) confirms
that high-level schemata play a role in learning and remembering text information.
These authors' findings suggest the implication for education is that the schemata a
person possesses are a principal determiner of what will be learned from a text.
46


Extensive research and theory on human problem solving indicates that the
way students represent the information given in a science problem or in a text they
read depends upon the structure of their existing knowledge (Glaser, 1991). These
structures enable them to build a mental model to guide them in solving the
problem. As learning occurs, increasingly well-structured and qualitatively
different organizations of knowledge develop which allow students to solve
problems effectively.
Research on how experts and novices solve problems supports the schema
theory. At the beginning stages of problem-solving, the solver tries to understand
the problem by constructing an initial representation of the problem. The quality,
completeness, and coherence of this initial representation determines the efficiency
and accuracy of further thinking (Glaser, L984, 1991). The characteristics of the
representation of the problem are determined by the knowledge available to the
solver and the way in which this knowledge is organized.
Even in experiments where the reasoning is considered to be knowledge-
free. there is a difference between the reasoning skills of high and low scorers
(Schiano, Cooper, Glaser, & Zhang, 1989). Two experiments compared the
strategies of high and low scorers on standardized figural analogies. High scorers
categorized problems largely on the basis of well-constrained spatial
transformations by imposing a classification scheme, but low scorers sorted
according to perceptual similarities such as shape. High scorers tend to work
47


forward in a constructive fashion, and low scorers work backwards using a
response-elimination approach. These variances are similar to expert-novice
differences in other problem-solving domains.
In knowledge-based domains, high-aptitude individuals appear to be skillful
reasoners because of the level of their content knowledge as well as knowledge of
procedural constraints of a particular problem. This suggests that improvement in
skills of learning take place through using conceptual and procedural knowledge in
the context of specific knowledge domains (Glaser, 1984, 1991). The primary
differences between novices and experts are how they initially view the problem and
how they differ in knowledge and in knowledge organization. When novices
attempt to solve problems, their procedures are syntactic and specific; therefore,
they have difficulties transferring their skills to problems with a slight
transformation (Glaser, 1991). Whereas, the experts have acquired an organization
of knowledge that allows them to represent the problem using more generalizable
solution procedures (Glaser, 1991).
In research on electric circuits with fifth-graders (Baxter, Elder, & Glaser,
1996), a similar pattern was observed. The performance of these students during an
assessment of their knowledge of electrical circuits revealed critical differences
between those who think and reason well in this area and those who do not. These
differences occurred in the quality of explanations, adequacy of problem
representation, appropriateness of solution strategies, and frequency and flexibility
48


of self-monitoring. Competent students 1) provided coherent explanations based on
underlying principles rather than superficial features or single statements of fact,
2) generated a plan for a solution that was guided by adequate representation of the
problem situation and possible procedures and outcomes, 3) implemented solution
strategies that reflect relevant goals, and 4) monitored their actions and flexibly
adjusted their approach based on performance feedback.
Similarly, cognitive psychologists, in studying the problem solving of
experts and novices (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Peterson & Comeaux, 1987;
Finley, Lawrenz, & Heller. 1992; Bybee & Robertson, 1992; Jonassen, 1996), have
found that experts and novices differ in both their problem representation and their
subsequent approach to solution of the problem (Chi et al., 1981; Peterson &
Comeaux, 1987). This difference may be due to differences in the underlying
schemata (Peterson & Comeaux, 1987). Experts begin by classifying problems by
underlying principles, but novices deal with the surface issue of problems (Chi et
al., 1981). In chemistry and physics, successful problem solvers use a series of
different representations of the problem to help them construct a solution and
communicate it to others (Finley et al., 1992).
Also, experienced teachers recalled more classroom events and relied more
on procedural knowledge and principles in analyzing classroom events when
compared to novice teachers indicating, perhaps that experienced teachers have
better developed knowledge structures for classroom teaching (Peterson &
49


Comeaux. 1987). Likewise, expert physicians have a rich store of patients past
histories and diagnoses which they use to build illness scripts for use in diagnosing
new patients, and they use pathophysiological reasoning only when they encounter a
patient with symptoms not previously encountered (Jonassen. 1996).
Since medical students do not have this clinical knowledge base, computer
case-based learning helps them acquire knowledge from authentic, case-based
problems (Jonassen, 1996). Likewise, in college physics. Pushkin (1997) found that
introductory physics students are not accustomed to looking at the context of a
physics problem, nor are they accustomed to looking at the relationships between
physical variables. To help overcome these barriers, Pushkin emphasizes cognition
and schema development through the use of questions such as: How are you
connecting your concepts? How are you organizing your thinking? How are you
distinguishing the context of one problem from another? Which concept does your
thinking begin with? Likewise, success in development of understanding in
chemical bonding is linked to the increase in understanding of chemical concepts
and the competence and range in using them (Taber & Watts, 1997).
In a review of fifty years of research on problem solving, Helgeson (1994)
concluded that students can and do learn to use integrated science process skills, and
students are able to transfer the science process skills to new problems if they are
not too dissimilar from those with which they have had experience. Kyle (1980)
states that before a student engages in scientific inquiry, he must acquire a broad
50


and critical knowledge of the subject matter, and then through synthesis of this
acquired scientific knowledge, the ability to perform scientific inquiry is possible.
Abell (1999) asserts that the two parts of science, the products and the practices are
not separated from each other when scientists do science. The most effective
approach to teaching science appears to be the integration of science process skills
and science content over several weeks through the use of hands-on, inquiry
activities that concentrate on specific problem-solving skills. Students who receive
this kind of instruction tend to learn more science and to also develop more positive
attitudes toward science with more self-confidence in their abilities (Helgeson,
1994). This is supported by research on experts and novices.
An important area in scientific inquiry is organizing data and research
information. In order for students to make sense of their data, they need ways to
organize information. In an inquiry project with second grade (Short & Armstrong,
1993), webs, charts, diagrams, and graphs helped students to keep track of their
thinking and learning during experimentation and reading. Short and Armstrong
(1993) found if they did not support students in organizing their ideas and
information from inquiries, the children became lost in a sea of facts and ideas. To
be scientifically literate, students need to be able to decode and deconstruct these
forms of communication (Roth & Bowen, 1994).
51


Current Brain Research
In addition to schema theory, recent research on the brain reveals other
findings (D'Arcangelo, 2000; Given, 2000; Harpaz & Lefstein, 2000; Holloway,
2000; Jensen, 2000a, 2000b; Meyer & Rose, 2000; Walsh, 2000; Westwater &
Wolfe, 2000). The human brain cannot leam an unlimited amount of explicit
information (Jensen, 2000a, 2000b). The brain is designed to learn short bursts of
information, and then it needs time to process the information so that memory
formation can take place (Jensen, 2000b). In the brain, the hippocampus is
responsible for organizing, sorting, and processing incoming information before this
information is routed to various areas of the cortex for long-term memory (Jensen,
2000b). If the hippocampus is overloaded, then there is no new learning (Jensen,
2000b). The brain also needs time for myelination, or strengthening of its existing
neural pathways (Jensen, 2000b). According to Steven Petersen, professor of
neuropsychology, once the neurons make the connections then the brain surrounds
and insulates the nerve cells with myelin thus allowing the conduction to go much
faster (D'Arcangelo, 2000).
It appears that the wiring in the brain is very complicated (D'Arcangelo,
2000; Jensen, 2000a). Learning begins with a neuron, the basic unit of the nervous
system. The neuron is responsible for information processing which occurs through
the conversion of chemical signals to electrical signals. The neurons, or brain cells,
52


have projections called axons and dendrites. The axons connect with the dendrites
in the neurons. It is the axon that is responsible for conducting information in the
form of electrical stimulation and for transporting chemicals (Jensen, 2000a). The
brain cells send out information to other cells with the connections to the other cells
occurring at synapses. A brain cells receives connections from about a thousand
other cells and each cell connects to about one thousand other cells according to
neuropsychologist Dr. Steven Petersen (D'Arcangelo, 2000). Learning involves
groups or networks of neurons, and every time we learn, the electrochemical wiring
in our brain changes (Jensen, 2000a). These neural networks develop over time
through the process of making the connections, developing the right connections,
and strengthening the connections (Jensen, 2000a).
Therefore, processing in the brain is complicated, but parallel processes
allow the brain to quickly recognize complex information. Positron emission
tomography (PET) studies indicate that the recognition of the letter "A" in a text
involves the different processing areas for recognizing color, shape, orientation, and
location (Meyer & Rose, 2000). Since these processes occur simultaneously, they
are referred to as parallel processing. Repetition is also important for the brain to
learn. In essence, the brain learns from practice (Meyer & Rose, 2000). The neural
connections in the brain are strengthened by repetition, rest, and emotions (Jensen,
2000a). The learner has to be emotionally involved for effective learning even if the
learner views the situation as slightly stressful (D'Arcangelo, 2000). Additionally,
53


the brain likes a challenge of figuring out a pattern (Walsh, 2000). If there is no
challenge, then the brain finds it difficult to engage.
Learning involves five stages (Jensen, 2000a): preparation, acquisition,
elaboration, memory formation, and functional integration. The preparation stage
provides the framework for new learning while the acquisition stage results in
obtaining new information directly or indirectly. It is the elaboration stage that
encourages depth of understanding and the relationship of topics. Memory
formation then cements the learning so that it can be used, reinforced, and expanded
during the functional integration stage.
Other findings indicate that two chemicals in the brain are especially good as
natural motivators (Jensen, 2000b). These two chemicals are noradrenaline and
dopamine. Noradrenaline can be triggered through competitions, tough but
achievable deadlines, and public speaking. On the other hand, positive social
bonding can trigger dopamine. These two chemicals act as energizers to wake up
the body, increase energy levels, and improve information storage and retrieval.
Another motivator of learning is questioning (Harpaz & Lefstein, 2000).
Striving for a solution, or an acceptable answer, motivates learning, and authentic
questioning may be a source of energy for investigation. According to Harpaz and
Lefstein (2000):
Questioning involves an ability to transcend given information, an
understanding of knowledge, and a mental willingness to undermine and
rebuild existing knowledge structures and to set up the conceptual
54


framework in which to answer the question. Learning and teaching must
focus on questioning rather than on producing correct answers, (p. 55)
The basic characteristics of questioning (Harpaz & Lefs-tein, 2000) are: 1) creating
an atmosphere that both enables and encourages creativBty, 2) facilitating the
acquisition of knowledge in a way that will lead to understanding, 3) undermining
the learners' cognitive constructs to motivate learning, a_*nd 4) binding the knowledge
to questioning to show how knowledge is conceptually sand motivationally
determined by the questions.
Other findings reveal that the brain has multiple memory systems
(D'Arcangelo, 2000). Learning includes both explicit aind implicit memory. The
implicit memory is procedural memory involving skill ddevelopment while explicit
memory involves consciously remembering something. Procedural memory can be
reinforced by doing something over and over again (D1/Arcangelo, 2000) thus
reinforcing those pathways. In addition to the cognitive system, the brain has
emotional, physical learning, social, and reflective systesms (Given, 2000). Two of
the systems, the emotional and social systems, are the most insistent about having
their needs met (Given, 2000).
Frequent repetition of a procedure causes the bi~ain to store this information
for easy access (Holloway, 2000). Laboratory experiences only become effective if
the work is repeated frequently enough to become a procedure (Holloway, 2000).
55


AJso, the more background learners have in the subject, the faster they will absorb
and process the new information (Jensen, 2000a).
Misconceptions
Findings from research (Allen, 1997; Bybee & Robertson, 1992; Hammer,
1995) imply that misconceptions impede meaningful understanding. Novak (1988)
found that misconceptions in science can persist over ten years of schooling. In
various inquiries involving a light exhibit, Allen (1997) concludes that the inquiries
asking subjects to construct an explanation are less successful than other inquiries
on this same exhibit possibly because of misconceptions being unchallenged.
Hammer (1975) found many misconceptions in student thinking, but he concludes
that misleading statements and arguments are part of authentic inquiry. However,
one of the problems with misconceptions is that they anchor new learning, and
therefore, the misconception becomes more complicated (Novak, 1988). In
studying chemical bonding, Taber and Watts (1997) found that misconceptions
hindered construction of the conceptual framework for understanding this principle
in chemistry. Hoffman and Krajciks (1999) findings indicate that misconceptions
persist or are constructed by students utilizing on-line resources. However, in
computer simulations. Bma (1991) and Gorsky and Finegold (1992) found a
decrease in student misconceptions. Likewise, Windschitl and Andre (1998) found
a cardiovascular computer simulation using a constructivist inquiry approach
56


resulted in more conceptual change in commonly held misconceptions than an
objectivist approach.
Prior Knowledge
Prior knowledge also helps students conduct inquiries. Allens (1997)
findings indicate the best predictor of an understanding of shadows, as measured by
performance on a set of transfer questions, is the role of blocking of light in creating
the shadow prior to beginning the inquiry. In similar research in college chemistry
achievement, Novaks (1988) results show a strong correlation between
achievement in college chemistry and prior knowledge. Similarly in physics,
Hammers (1995) research reveals that students experimenting with motion brought
in knowledge from other situations to help them find solutions, and in biology,
students with an orienting question with a rationale to connect new concepts to prior
knowledge outperformed those without the question and those without a rationale
with the question (Osman & Hannafin, 1994). Germann (1991) stresses bridging
the gap between what students already know and what they are about to learn, and
in such research, Fleer (1992) found better understanding about scientific
experiences is possible by organizing the science experience so that children express
what they presently know prior to engaging in the science lesson.
Brain research also confirms the importance of prior knowledge. When new
information comes into the brain, the first thing the brain does is look for a
57


recognizable pattern or feature, and then it begins a search of the established neural
networks to find a place to fit the new information (Westwater & Wolfe, 2000). If
in this process, the brain can retrieve stored information that is similar to the new
information, it is easier to make sense of the new information (Westwater & Wolfe,
2000). The first step in making a connection is highly dependent upon prior
knowledge (Jensen, 2000a). If the input is familiar, then the existing connections
are strengthened, and through repetition the neural connections are strengthened to
form lasting memories (Jensen, 2000a).
Meaningful Understanding
Using prior knowledge and decreasing misconceptions help students to
acquire meaningful understanding. Acquiring meaningful understanding is deemed
important. Such a view is summarized by Hergenhahn (1982): "When what is
learned is understood instead of memorized, it can easily be applied to new
situations and it is retained for a very long time." (p. 403)
The learning of science depends upon students ability to comprehend and
communicate concepts and understandings (Fradd & Lee, 1999). Students need to
know both content and process (Layman, Ochoa, & Heikkinen, 1996), but they also
need a purpose. That is they need to know what they are learning, how they are
learning, and why they are learning (Short & Armstrong, 1993). Arons (1993)
believes that guided inquiries help students achieve deeper meaning and insights in
58


physics. Concrete operational thinkers benefit from a directed inquiry approach
which helps the students develop the background knowledge upon which the
problem, possible hypotheses, relevant variables, experimental design, and
conclusions depend (Germann, 1991). Employing this step-by-step directed inquiry
approach with use of previously developed background and process skills and
applying the skills and knowledge of one inquiry to the next allows concrete
operational thinkers to learn to use process skills. In an inquiry classroom, give and
take between the student and the teacher is central as the teacher helps students to
organize their experiences into patterns and to see relationships such that
understanding occurs (Hergenhahn, 1982). Roth and Bowen (1993) found that
student learning was meaningful when it was situated in the context of the student's
experiences. Brain research findings indicate that the strongest neural networks are
formed from actual, concrete experiences (Westwater& Wolfe, 2000).
Another way to achieve better understanding is by integrating other areas of
the curriculum with science inquiries. In an integration of literature and science
inquiry, Short and Armstrong (1993) found that books create an interest in a
particular topic, encourage a broad exploration of content, make connections to life
experiences, help students find focused questions to research, assist in searching for
facts and inquiry ideas, engage students in discussions, introduce new perspectives,
and allow students an opportunity to share ideas with others. Reading and writing
about birds during a inquiry allowed fourth-graders (Whitin & Whitin, 1996) to
59


experience meaningful learning; likewise integrating math and technology into an
inquiry on birds in second grade (Johnson, 1999) produced meaningful learning.
Finding similarities and differences is another way that students can achieve
better understanding. For example, in comparing ecosystems young elementary
children revised their understanding about the desert and came to realize that some
birds and animals are unique to the desert and that birds and animals have particular
needs for survival (Short & Armstrong, 1993).
Depth of understanding can also be increased through the construction of
meaningful knowledge (Taber & Watts, 1997). Jonassen (1994) stresses purposeful
knowledge construction occurs best in learning environments which provide for a
multiple representation of reality, avoid oversimplification of the instruction through
a representation of the real worlds natural complexity, and which are case-based,
real-world learning environments that support collaborative construction of
knowledge.
In order for constructivism to work, students need to learn concepts
relationally (Glynn, Yeany, & Britton, 1991) in a certain manner. That is, students
learn the concepts as organized networks of related information. Students perform
cognitive processes which construct relations among the parts of the concept. From
there, students construct relationships between that concept and other concepts.
Students need this framework on which to build their conceptual networks. Arce
and Betancourt (1997) found that students develop depth of understanding when
60


they design and conduct their own experiments. Fleer (1992) discovered that
meaningful understanding occurred in a study of flashlights because of the shared
understanding between teacher and child.
Scaffolding
Another way to approach bridging the gap between what students can and
cannot do is through scaffolding. The term scaffolding has been used since the
1300s and is defined as a temporary framework of platforms for workmen and their
materials (Benson, 1997). Scaffolding was first described in an educational setting
by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) for teaching reading. They describe how
scaffolding is a process enabling a child or a novice to solve a problem or carry out
a task that would be beyond the childs unassisted efforts. They also discuss the
importance of the social context in the learning process and suggest that scaffolding
through tutorial interactions involves construction of knowledge within this social
context (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).
Therefore, applications of scaffolding to education refer to providing support
for students to allow them to complete a task. In others words, scaffolding is like a
bridge used to build upon what students already know to arrive at something that
they do not know (Fleer, 1992; Jackson, Stratford, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1994;
Jonassen, 1996; Benson, 1997; Graves & Braaten, 1996; Graves & Avery, 1997;
Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997; Krajcik, Soloway, Blumenfeld, &
61


Marx, 1998). For example, in a project on a stream ecosystem (Jackson et al.,
1994), objects such as the stream, a golf course, and macroinvertebrates are
represented visually with digitized photographs and graphics. When students
examine the impact of phosphates on the stream ecosystem (Fertilizer on the golf
course is a source of phosphates in this stream ecosystem.), the computer software is
designed so that the students can first present an inquiry about the phosphates by
writing a sentence using the words increase and decrease. Therefore, the students
would write As stream phosphate increases, stream quality (as measured by
macroinvertebrate counts) decreases by less and less," and the computer software
converts this verbal representation into a graph. The conversion of the words to a
graphical representation thus enables a student, who has not learned to construct a
graph, to see what the words mean by using a tool frequently used by scientistsa
graph. As students understanding progresses, they can enter the quantitative data to
construct the graph.
Scaffolding is intended to be an enabler, or a support, for students; and by
identifying what information or skills a student lacks, a teacher can bridge the gap
with scaffolding to allow the student to achieve the new concept (Fleer, 1992;
Jackson et al., 1994; Jonassen, 1996; Benson, 1997; Graves & Avery, 1997; Marx et
al., 1997). In science, the teacher instructs and assists children based on their
understanding of scientific knowledge, and the teacher gradually releases
responsibility of the task over to the child (Fleer, 1992). This gradual release of
62


responsibility as competency increases is known as fading (Pressley, Hogan,
Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta, & Ettenberger, 1996; Wood & Wood, 1996).
Scaffolding has been linked to Vygotsky's (1978) theory of the zone of
proximal development (Fleer, 1992; Bliss, Askew, & Macrae, 1996; Jonassen, 1996;
Hobsbaum, Peters, & Sylva, 1996; Wood& Wood, 1996; Benson, 1997). Vygotsky
(1978) defines the zone of proximal development as:
the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers (p. 86).
Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) further define the scaffolding process by outlining
functions of tutoring in the learning process from their research findings. Within the
process of tutoring a child to complete a task these scaffolding functions were
identified as 1) recruitment of the child's interest in the task 2) reduction in degrees
of freedom, 3) direction maintenance, 4) marking critical features, 5) frustration
control, and 6) demonstration (Wood & Wood, 1996; Wood, Brunner, & Ross,
1976). Scaffolding reduces the size of the task so that the learner completes the sub-
components of the task that he can manage. Aiso, scaffolding involves keeping the
child motivated and oriented towards task-relevant goals. By highlighting critical
features of the task, the teacher ensures that the child will not overlook these
relevant aspects. By controlling the level of frustration, the teacher provides
63


security for the child so he is neither left to struggle with too complex a task nor
given too little initiative or involvement in the task.
Scaffolding has been used in a number of disciplines such as reading
(Hobsbaum, Peters, & Sylva, 1996; Graves & Braaten, 1996; Pressley, Hogan,
Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta, & Ettenberger, 1996), writing (Steiner & Moher,
1994), history (Graves & Avery, 1997), science (Jackson, Stratford, Krajcik, &
Soloway, 1994; Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997), and social studies
(Avery & Graves, 1997). Research focusing on scaffolding is limited (Bliss,
Askew, & Macrae, 1996; Pressley et al., 1996), and scaffolding has not been
pervasive in science education (Fleer, 1992; Bliss et al., 1996). The linking of
scaffolding and Vygotsky's (1978) work on socially constructed learning allows for
the direct application of Vygotsky's theory in classroom settings (Fleer, 1992), and
there are indicators that learning as a socially constructed process may offer insights
into childrens understanding of science concepts (Fleer, 1992; Hoffman & Krajcik,
1999).
Bliss et al. (1996) attempted to introduce scaffolding into teachers
classrooms, but the major findings from this research study indicate an absence of
scaffolding in most lessons. The researchers (Bliss et al., 1996) concluded that
perhaps joint activity is difficult to negotiate with a socially constructed knowledge
focus, and dialogue and diagnosis are much harder to implement than imagined.
They also found a lack of domain knowledge among teachers and concluded that
64


perhaps this lack of knowledge causes teachers to have difficulty interpreting
pupils answers and responding appropriately (Bliss et al., 1996; Pressley et al.,
1996). Hobsbaum et al. (1996) also concluded that scaffolding may not be useful in
understanding ordinary classroom teaching. Based on their research, Hobsbaum et
al. (1996) believe that scaffolding can take place only in one-on-one teaching
situations "because contingent responding requires a detailed understanding of the
learners history, the immediate task and the teaching strategies needed to move on
(p. 32).
Pressley et al. (1996) note that scaffolding is not common because
scaffolding demands much of the teacher and is inconsistent with values and
assumptions of conventional educators. Additionally, they found that there are
important inadequacies of scaffolding as a mechanism for instruction, potential
limitations in its general applicability to learning disabled students, and modest
empirical support for its effectiveness in promoting cognitive growth. Based on
their research, however, Pressley et al. (1996) conclude that scaffolding is part of
effective instruction, but that instruction fully supporting the development of student
thinking includes much more (p. 138).
The arguments presented by Pressley et al. (1996) are significant, but their
own research with literacy in first grade teachers classrooms indicates that
excellent teachers do scaffold; therefore, scaffolding is worth pursuing as an
effective teaching strategy. Research in this area may lead to successful methods
65


for training teachers how to scaffold competently. Pressley et al. (1996) also found
that students are more consistently on-task in excellent teachers' classrooms than the
typical classroom, and one reason Pressley and his fellow researchers give for this
on-task behavior is that excellent teachers provide more instructional scaffolding on
an as-needed basis than typical teachers (p. 144). They also acknowledge that there
has been little experimental analysis of scaffolding, and therefore, one could
conclude that there would be little empirical support for scaffolding because so few
studies have been conducted.
One of the arguments purported against scaffolding by Pressley et al.(1996)
is that only excellent teachers know how to effectively use scaffolding. Perhaps,
what is called for then is better teacher training through pre-service and inservice
programs. The following summarizes scaffolding techniques observed by Pressley
et al. (1996):
To scaffold effectively, teachers must know a great deal about the
curriculum in general and their students individually. They must understand
the problems their students are experiencing so well that they can generate a
variety of prompts that might stimulate students' thinking in appropriate
directions and away from misconceptions. This is especially challenging
because students knowledge of cognitive processes is not complete enough
to permit easy communications about thinking. It takes great energy and
commitment to acquire the knowledge needed to scaffold and to carry out
scaffolding across the school day (p. 140).
There are examples of successful scaffolding with social studies (Avery, &
Graves, 1997), writing (Steiner & Moher, 1994), history (Graves & Avery, 1997),
66


reading (Hobsbaum et al., 1996), science (Jackson, Stratford, Krajcik, & Soloway,
1994; Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997; Hoffman & Krajcik, 1999) and
special education (Graves & Braaten, 1996). For example, the Scaffolded Reading
Experience through pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading activities
provides a framework to assist students in understanding the main points of a
chapter and the significance of these main points, in illustrating the relevance of the
main points to students experiences, and in making accommodation for slower
readers (Avery & Graves, 1997; Graves & Avery, 1997).
Another program called Reading Recovery is a one-to-one intervention
applying Vygotsky's zone of proximal development for children having difficulty
reading (Hobsbaum et al.. 1996). With less skilled readers, the teacher works with
students in developing critical vocabulary and concepts and reads about half of an
article to them before asking them to read a section on their own (Graves & Braaten,
1996).
Computer software provides an environment that interprets and structures
students' storytelling intentions by scaffolding students' prior knowledge of story
structure and conventions (Steiner & Moher, 1994). Computer software also
supports students in writing stories by providing antecedent-consequent pair
templates to assist children in learning to write (Steiner & Moher, 1994).
There have been some successes with scaffolding in science. In a
multimedia/interactive videodisc science lesson for second graders, the group with
67


teacher scaffolding and comprehension monitoring had statistically higher scores
than the groups that had only the videodisc, only the scaffolding, or only the
comprehension monitoring (Nelson, Watson, Ching, & Barrow, 1996). Fleer
(1992) observed three teachers who used an interactive approach to teaching science
in kindergarten through third grade. Fleer (1992) found scaffolding present in only
one classroom; in this classroom the teacher carefully scaffolded childrens
understanding of electricity through structuring of the activity, modeling, and shared
responsibility for completing the circuitry necessary to construct a flashlight. This
same teacher also used a framework by drawing the childrens attention to the
various parts of the flashlight. Another science program, Model-It (Jackson,
Stratford. BCrajcik, & Soloway, 1994) contains scaffolding strategies to ground the
learner in prior knowledge and bridge the learner from novice to expert
understandings through the use of computer software.
Scaffolding is also beneficial with adults. An important purpose of the third
year of medical school is to bridge the gap between classroom-based, basic science
instruction and clinical applications. Medical students benefit from scaffolding in
making initial diagnoses, determining etiology, and making differential diagnoses
with the use of computer case-based learning environments (Jonassen, 1996).
Hackling and Fairbrother (1996) recommend a framework for guiding
students through scientific investigations. The framework consisting of these steps:
1) write an aim, 2) give a list of apparatus, 3) draw a diagram, 4) describe what you
68


did, 5) give the results, and 6) write a conclusion. A variable table with three
columns: 1) what I will keep the same (controlled variables), 2) what I will change
(independent variable), and 3) what I will measure (dependent variable) and
planning report sheets are scaffolding techniques to help guide students with
experiments (Hackling & Fairbrother, 1996).
Wood and Wood (1996) suggest that scaffolding can be used to engage a
childs interest in a task, establish and maintain an orientation towards task-relevant
goals, highlight critical features of a task that the child might overlook, and
demonstrate how to achieve goals and thus help to control the frustration level.
Controlling the frustration level that both teachers and students experience in
science inquiry is important. Viewing science inquiry as being comprised of
various components along a continuum is a step towards better understanding of
science inquiry. Also, moving a student from a more teacher-directed inquiry to a
student-directed inquiry supports a scaffolded approach. This next section discusses
science inquiry from that perspective.
Types of Science Inquiry
Investigations in science lie along a spectrum from open to closed depending
upon whether the students or the teacher makes the decisions regarding the
investigation (Abraham, 1982, Hackling & Fairbrother, 1996). In open
investigations, students make decision, but in closed investigations, teachers make
69


decisions. However, not all activities need to have the same degree of openness,
and the degree of openness depends upon the needs and past experience of the
students (Hackling & Fairbrother, 1996).
Lock (1990), however, refers to open-ended investigations as ones in which
there is more than one possible solution, and he categorizes investigations on two
intersecting axes: one representing the openness of the work and the other the
amount of teacher direction. Figure 2.2 shows Locks view of such a representation
Figure 2.2Locks Representation of Investigations Related to Teaching
Style and Openness
Studot-
70


(p. 66). Investigation A represents confirming a theory that had been presented to
students by the teacher, for example, to show that pure water boils at 100 C. In
investigation D, students could be asked to plan and carry out a series of
experiments to show that snow, ice, and steam are all the same substance.
Investigation B is a guided-discovery approach where the teacher poses a problem
and she knows the answer, but the students do not. Investigation E represents
teacher-directed work that is open-ended.
Students need some structure and organization in science inquiry (Kyle,
1980) and should progress from doing simple, easy investigations to more complex
ones (Hackling & Fairbrother, 1996). Some classify hands-on science activities by
structure. Highly structured activities provide detailed guidelines and procedures
for students to follow, but unstructured activities allow students freedom to make
their own decisions regarding the design and methods for an activity (Lumpe &
Oliver, 1991).
Lumpe and Oliver (1991) classify inquiry by the treatment of variables by
students. The three levels they use are: descriptive, correlational, and experimental.
Descriptive refers to the student describing or determining the status of what is
observed without establishing connections or causal relationships. At the
correlational level, students use data to determine connections, not causal
relationships, and variables are not manipulated. At the experimental level, a design
71


is incorporated in which variables are manipulated to infer cause and effect
relationships.
However, as a guide for evaluating curriculum materials, Tafoya, Sunal. &
Knecht (1980) classify inquiry into four levels: 1) confirmation, 2) structured-
inquiry, 3) guided-inquiry, and 4) open-inquiry. These levels delineate structure and
organization among different types of inquiries. At the confirmation level, students
follow a known, given procedure to verify concepts or principles. Structured-
inquiry gives the student a problem and a procedure to follow, but the student does
not know the results. Guided-inquiry presents the student with a problem to
investigate: whereas in open-inquiries, the students formulate the problem, the
procedure for collecting the data, interpreting the data, and making conclusions.
Other researchers use the term verification (Abraham, 1982; Lumpe & Oliver, 1991)
to refer to the activities in which the student knows the results of the activity prior to
conducting it. Thus, inquiry could be represented by a continuum with structured
inquiries on one end of the continuum, guided inquiries in the middle followed by
open inquiries on the other end. The following discussions indicate what
researchers deem critical attributes for each of these types of inquiries.
Confirmation. Structured. Verification Inquiries
Other researchers have used the Tafoya et al. (1980) method. Pizzini,
Shepardson, and Abell (1991) used this method of evaluation for junior high
72


textbooks. Their results indicate that significantly more confirmation level activities
were present than structured-inquiry level activities. Shepardson (1997) used inquiry
levels (Tafoya et al., 1980) to compare the thinking of students in confirmation
versus open-inquiry laboratories. He found no significant difference in the
frequency of student thinking processes across life science content with these two
approaches, but the nature of student thinking differed. The student thinking
processes exhibited in confirmation laboratories emphasized procedures and
techniques and making sense of and doing the laboratory; however, student thinking
in open-inquiry laboratories emphasized data analysis and making sense of results.
Student-student interactions also contributed more to student thinking in open-
inquiry laboratories, but teacher-student interactions promoted student thinking in
confirmation laboratories.
Guided Inquiry
Germann, Aram, and Burke (1996) note that guided inquiry is used when the
cognitive burden is too great for students who lack some of the inquiry skills, and
they also stress the importance of assisting students in developing background
experiences and knowledge needed to perform the inquiry. Arons (1993)
emphasizes the need for guiding students in physics inquiries; and Basaga, Geban,
and Tekkaya (1994) successfully utilized guided inquiry in biochemistry.
73


Providing suitable guidance is dependent upon a number of factors: the
context that has been set by the teacher, the vocabulary that has been used by the
text and the teacher, the way in which concepts have been developed and presented,
the nature of the test questions to which students are being exposed, and the level of
sophistication of the group of students. Arons (1993) gives two primary questions
which can be used to initially guide inquiry: What will happen if. .. ? and How do
we know .. ?
Dalton, Morocco, Tivnan, and Meads (1997) research findings indicate that
fourth-grade students with and without a learning disability (n = 33) are more
successful in developing science concepts and process skills in general education
classrooms when teachers guided the students in experimenting with electricity and
processing for meaning versus an activities-based, hands-on science curriculum
which did not. College biochemistry students who used a guided-inquiry approach
scored better on both a biochemistry achievement measure and science process
skills than students who used a traditional approach (Basaga et ah, 1994).
Open Inquiry
Open inquiries can span a wide-range of options from team inquiries in a
class (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993) to having individual students work with
scientists at a university (Whitman & Moon, 1993) to entire classes working as a
team on the same inquiry' (Whitin & Whitin, 1996). The planning component and
74


the problem solving nature of the task distinguish open investigations from other
types of laboratory work (Hackling & Fairbrother, 1996). Research findings on the
use of open-ended inquiries in physics for students in grades 8, 11, and 12 indicate
that both weak and strong students develop higher-order process skills such as
identifying variables, interpreting data, hypothesizing, defining, and experimenting
(Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993). Advantages cited for using open-ended inquiries
include allowing students to pursue questions that interest them within a given
content area and to seek answers to these questions through designing experiments
(Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993; Layman et al., 1996). This method works well for
students who are independent and self-directed (Whitman & Moon, 1993).
Disadvantages focus on the massive amount of independent student work that this
type of inquiry requires and the level of content knowledge and process skills
students need to be successful in open inquiries (Arce & Betancourt, 1997).
Open inquiry is qualitatively the same as that in which scientists engage
(Roth & Bowen, 1994). Open-inquiry should give students opportunities (Pizzini et
al., 1991) to:
Formulate and test hypotheses, through the testing of predictions.
Identify problems and solutions, and test the solutions.
Design procedures and analyze the process.
Formulate new questions based on the outcomes of the first two steps.
Analyze and discuss the assumptions underlying the activity.
75


Share and discuss predictions, procedures, products, and solutions.
Develop and consider alternative predictions, procedures, products, and
solutions.
Develop questions based on prior knowledge.
Link their own experiences to activities and science concepts and
principles. ( p. 120)
Models of Scientific Inquiry
Adaptations are being made to the traditional models of the scientific
method to see if researchers can find a better model to help students conduct science
inquiries. An example is The Inquiry Cycle (Figure 2.3) model by Short and
Armstrong (1993, p. 192) for use with second grade to indicate that there is a
continual movement back and forth among the different aspects of the inquiry
process versus a rigid sequence or hierarchy.
Another example is The Inquiry Cycle (Figure 2.4) by White and
Frederiksen (1998, p. 5) for teaching physics to middle school students with the
ThinkerTools Inquiry Curriculum. This model is based on a metacognitive view of
learning. In using this model, students first formulate a question, and then they
generate hypotheses related to the question. Next, they plan and carry out
76


Figure 2.3The Inquiry Cycle Model by Short and Armstrong
1st (wtlm inquiry
l
MflMtUf on atnttfiM
for inquiry
N
Oalloct t nq ldoau
Ml arftniiliq
rtmni diu
COLlUaantlag ultk
tlwr inquirers
k
I
inkloa uf
ililag !<
Imontlm idoaa
fersolly IK pun Holy
experiments using both computer and real-world models. Students then analyze
their data and summarize their findings in the form of scientific models and laws.
Figure 2.4The Inquiry Cycle Model by White and Frederiksen
THE INQUIRY CYCLE
Question
T
Predict
V
Apply j | Experiment
\ /
Model
77


Applying the model and law in various situations is the next step, and as students
perform this step, they reflect on how it could be improved. Thus, they form a new
question or refine the approach and start the inquiry' cycle again.
Hodson (1998) uses five stages as comprising the science inquiry method:
1) initiation, 2) design and planning, 3) performance, 4) interpretation, and
5) reporting and communicating. He defines initiation as generating interest and
commitment and finding a focus for the inquiry. Then students continue by
designing and planning inquiries to address the issues and questions generated in the
initiation stage. The next stages, performance of the inquiries and interpretation of
the results lead to the reporting and communicating stage. At each stage of the
inquiry', Hodson (1998) believes there are sub-phases where students plan what to
do and review the results.
Methods for Teaching Inquiry
Just twenty years ago, it was believed that not all students have the ability to
synthesize knowledge and perform scientific inquiry successfully, and only some
high school students would be capable of conducting scientific inquiries (Kyle,
1980). Today, acquiring inquiry' skills is a cornerstone of the National Science
Education Standards (NSES) (National Research Council, 1996), and teaching
science, including inquiry, to all students is a focus of current curriculum reform
efforts such as Project 2061 (AAAS,1989, 1993, 1998) and NSES. The research
78


discussed in this section describes findings regarding various methods used in
teaching inquiry and provides a foundation for current inquiry endeavors. Research
regarding laboratories, textbooks and supplemented materials, learning groups, and
technology comprise this section.
Findings from research on inquiries can help guide science educators in
future challenges. In research findings, results are not conclusive, but the trend is
that turning students loose with discovery learning and expecting them to reach
high-level conclusions does not work as well as guided-inquiry approaches with
scaffolding. These results are consistent across all age groups from elementary to
college. Research on textbooks and supplemental materials from earlier reform
efforts indicate that the inquiries that do exist in these materials are primarily at the
lowest level with mostly confirmatory inquiries. The teacher's ability in structuring
learning groups helps determine the successfulness of this method of instruction.
Results from technology-based inquiries are inconclusive with some studies finding
improvements in student learning, but others finding no difference, and some citing
difficulties in implementation.
Laboratories
Linn (1997) identifies three distinct periods in the history of the science
laboratory and its role in teaching the scientific method, or inquiry skills. In the
early 1900s, each group concerned with science education and learning worked in
79


isolation. With natural scientists designing the curriculum, educators teaching it,
psychologists studying the learner in non-classroom settings, and outcomes often
measuring recall of laboratory techniques, results were often contradictory and
inconclusive. From the period starting around 1950, there was more interaction as
natural scientists asked teachers to evaluate curriculum, and researchers began to
look at the complex learning process in the laboratory. Results from this research
helped to clarify the difficulties students faced in learning science. Consequently,
educational psychologists played a large role in developing curriculum in the 1960s
and beyond. The third period in history is characterized as a partnership where all
parties concerned with science education worked together. Research emphasized
cognitive processes, student misconceptions, construction of knowledge,
technological tools, and similar topics. During these periods in history, the science
laboratory has evolved from a place for vocational training and the training of future
scientists to todays focus on teaching all students about scientific methods. The
research studies below represent those from findings on the curriculum reforms of
the 1960s to present efforts. The first group of studies are on various curriculum
reforms, the second group discuss discovery approaches versus more structured
methods, and the third group reveal some findings about guided and open inquiries.
Curriculum Reform Studies. Elementary School Sciences Programs (ESSP),
an inquiry-based, hands-on program, was studied with 481 first graders by Barufaldi
and Swift (1980). Results from their research indicate that the program enhanced
80


students' listening skills, but there was no improvement on identification skills. In
this same study, recall-remember skills and interpretation n-evaluation-inference
improved for the students who were at or above the mea_n on the pretest. However,
for lower socioeconomic-level students, listening comprehension was not enhanced
by participation in this inquiry-based program.
The Intermediate Science Curriculum Study (ISCS), with a heavy focus on
inquiry' skills, was compared with traditional curriculum-, which used verification
activities and lab skills instead of inquiry development, to ascertain if ISCS
facilitated inquiry skills in students (Stallings & Snyder, 1977). The research was
conducted with 498 seventh-grade students with approximately half in each
treatment. A modified version of the TAB Science Test was used to measure
inquiry^ skills. The findings indicated no significant differences with the two
treatment methods. The researchers concluded that lack; of a reliable and valid
measure of inquiry skills was a problem. Additionally, the non-ISCS teachers
interacted with large groups and the ISCS with small groups, and consequently, the
ISCS teachers used fewer questions than the non-ISCS teachers. Therefore, these
variables may have been a factor for the lack of gain in test scores for the ISCS
students when compared to the non-ISCS students.
Petersons (1978) study consisted of 67 high school physics students over
nine weeks using Project Physics curriculum. The amount of scientific inquiry that
the students received differed over the nine weeks. Results indicated significant
81


findings for treatment method. Focused and specific training in science inquiry
improved results, and concrete experiences helped with some aspects of science
inquiry, but extra training in inquiry improved a variety of inquiry skills. The
overall findings indicate that the various inquiry skills are not equivalent processes
because they did not respond the same to the different types of treatment (Peterson,
1978).
Discovery Versus Structured Approaches. In a research study on discovery
learning, Klahr, Fay, and Dunbars (1993) results indicate that sixth graders
approached hypothesis formation, experimentation, and outcome interpretation in an
appropriate way. Most sixth graders and some third graders understood that they
were to produce evidence to be used to support an argument about a hypothesis.
They focused primarily on plausible hypotheses and had difficulty with implausible
hypotheses. The authors concluded that the children focused on the reasonableness
of individual statements rather than their collective consistency.
An empirical study by Babikian (1971) to determine the effectiveness of the
discovery, traditional laboratory, and expository methods was conducted with 216
eighth grade students. The findings indicate that the expository and laboratory
methods are significantly more effective than the discovery method for teaching
science concepts in eighth grade as measured by overall achievement, verbalization
of concepts, recognition of concepts, and application of concepts.
82


Spears and Zollmans (1977) research used two inquiry treatment groups in
general (primarily non-science majors) college physics classes. The first group used
a structured approach to confirm principles on gas laws presented in lecture; the
second group used a discovery approach with the same principles. The dependent
variable, the students understanding of science, was measured using the Science
Process Inventory. There were four sub-scale measurements: assumptions,
activities, nature of outcomes, and ethics/goals. The only significant finding
between the two treatment groups was on activities, and students in the structured
inquiry approach scored higher in this area. The researchers concluded the
difference was due to the structured inquiry groups being led through science
process skills many times, but the discovery group conducted the experiment in a
manner they chose. This latter group seldom hypothesized, predicted, or followed
steps of observation, model building, and testing. The researchers indicate that
discovery laboratories could provide useful experiences for students with prior
experience in the process of scientific experimentation.
Guided and Open Inquiries. Attitude is a significant determiner in fourth
through eighth grade students intentions to perform in science laboratories (Butler,
1999). In a partnership program with scientists (GLOBE) where students collect
scientific data to enhance the database about our globe and to provide authentic
science inquiries for students, student attitude was very positive (Means, 1998). In
the GLOBE program with 280 participating schools, a data sample revealed 93% of
83


the participating fourth grade students believed that the measurements they took
were important for scientists, but only 61% of seventh grade students held a similar
belief (Means, 1998). The activities which elementary students reported liking
about GLOBE included putting data on the computer, 81%; looking at satellite
pictures. 73%; taking measurements, 70%; looking at data collected by students in
other schools, 56%; and 55%, talking about weather, the earth, and water. The
percentages were lower for the middle and high school levels, but the relative
rankings were basically the same. The results of the GLOBE attitude measure for
the middle school level was lower than either the elementary level (93%) or the high
school level (76%). Therefore, the importance that students attribute to the inquiry
and positive student attitudes are factors in this study.
Germann, Aram, and Burkes (1996) research on designing experiments
with 364 seventh grade students indicate that explicit, incremental development of
science process skills regarding hypotheses formulation and variable identification
along with model examples may assist students in designing science experiments.
Their research also indicates that properly defining the question, identifying
variables, and formulating hypotheses are important steps in designing experiments.
Additionally, these researchers found that science teachers should stress the need for
controlled experiments, multiple trials, and clear and complete experimental
designs. In this research, a scaffolded, guided inquiry approach was used to heip
students with each step. For example, students were asked to identify variables, and
84


Full Text

PAGE 1

3>35??..3/ 3/@??@334 3@ & $#35%?3" A)"$;202 $35 )"3$&$;2:9 )"3?) (# ?." 5) =77;

PAGE 2

=77;"3@ #)

PAGE 3

?." #" 3@ ) ; +DC,E CCCCCC. % F*GH A' ?"' A ?

PAGE 4

@$3+. ? $5), ) #?#( ".. % &3 ##%!! )" #"$ )% %$ #("$ #(")) # ("!('% #)# ##'%##"#"% )##"%'"" ##%( # "## ##% )# #%#I($ '%#$#!$##$"$% ) !#("' )% %% #"-" (-! #%)I#$#$ ")I("'$"# !$%%*" "J #KL % >

PAGE 5

??3 "# $)"!))## %# "# %)%)#"M%(" N

PAGE 6

"#$%&'()*+))% $"'%) %% %O'" ## % )%#"% #'#)'%## "" %"#"O %'

PAGE 7

3 .# # P; !) 3/. ; ?3 ; @. 6 &'#. 9 3%' B 4 2 #" Q ;A = 5>F ;9 OB ?(" =7 ("3 =B /.) =B ("3;227 6= >

PAGE 8

."#"(" 6: 3#)(" 99 90 3& <= <0 .E%# ( B= @(" B6 (" B9 (" B0 #(" B: 5 B2 !'" :B 5#@ 2; #"(" 2: ##3#3#%("5# ;79 ;7< 3#("# ;70 )

PAGE 9

3#%("5# ;7B ;;7 @(" ;;9 #("' ;;: ? ;=B 3 ;9; 6 3//? ;96 ;9< ?# ;9B R#. ;92 > ;<; ?> ;<2 #. ;0< ?3. ;0< ?". ;02 ;B; 9 3/?@ ;B= ;B9 ?# ;B< P

PAGE 10

@. ;B< 3@. ;BB 3 ;B: #" ;B2 R# ;:7 4; ;:; 4= ;2= 46 ;2B 49 =7; 4< =;= 40 =;6 3 =;< < 335?.53 =;0 =;: ("3 =;2 # ==7 ==9 3 ==0 "?#! ==0 ("' ==2

PAGE 11

% =60 5'#(" =62 5# =9B #E%# =9: 3# =<6 5# =00 =B; ..?P =B< 35??33/5?P. =BB & 334SE55 6<; 3 &5S?@P. ?3@&3 609 ? ?F?33 60: 3 6B= ??SP. 6B9 3 6:; P

PAGE 12

@ .# # = ;&%J3! ?#! ;2 = =5'J)# #" B7 = 6("3""# BB = 9("3""F' BB = <&J?#." 5)?"'?'5) ;7: = 05'#("' ;66 = B(" ;6< = :("3 ;6B = 2#( ;62 9 ;.)..# ?##! ;:9 9 ="@. ;:0 9 6"3@. ;:B 9 9)#.@ "?#! ;:2 9 <)#.3@

PAGE 13

"?#! Q= 9 0"J?#! ;2< 9 B-"J?#! ;20 9 :!?# ;22 9 2!?# =77 9 ;7!5! =76 9 ;;?! =7B 9 ;=! T6! 2;4 < ;("3 U; < =(" ==; < 63(" ==6 < 9&J?#."5) ?"'?'5) =60 < <5'#(" =97 < 03@!?# =9; < B@!?# =9= < :@$T=?#! =9< < 2"3 F'@ =90 < ;7!T9#@# =92

PAGE 14

< ;;3!?)? =<; < ;=%-3 !?)? =<; < ;6J3)F# =<= < ;93T; =07 < ;<3T= =07 < ;03T6 =07 < ;B3T9 =07 < ;:#( !(" =09 < ;2&!I).?##! =0B < =7&!I.("' =02 !)

PAGE 15

&5 .# = ;("3"@5) 69 = =3."$5 $G 60 = 65""M.)# :: = 9("'+," ;=; = <..'+.., ;=6 = 0"("' ;=< = B("?# ;6: 6 ;=!=!=?#$!$3" 3$ ;9B 6 ="'> ;0; 9 ;=!=!=?#$!$3" 3$ ;:; 9 =&%-R$=!=!=?#$ !$3"3$ ?>I"?#! ;:= 9 6?)# ?>I"?#! ;:6 9 9.)..#3@ ;:<

PAGE 16

9 I "?#! 9 0@?$?>I"?# !$@ 9 B% < ;"@? ?>I"J?#! < =". ("'V"?#! < 6).("' #3 !)

PAGE 17

3/. ?3

PAGE 18

3/. ?3 .# @. 6 &'#. 9 3%' B 4 2 #" Q

PAGE 19

#-(".)/0 ?3 @. );77"$)("'# R)$) "('+F$E$ '$V$;2:;WA#%V?"$;227WV&%$;229,$ #(" ##+A#%V?"$;227WV&% ;229, ;20;$ "" #*$%+;209," %I ("% )#"($)'$"$ "X% + 9, ?)$"" "#%("#/'+;22:,(" S$("I W+ I3Y3Z$;220,W)#' N N

PAGE 20

.R=70;+)YZ$ ;226,# )+;226,## "W$$)" ###)%%"" '# $'%% ("' %$"#("' )"W$# )#R" $ #)# "###)% )# ("'#) $ #")$""" &'#. 5#" ;207$;2B7$%;2:7$.#[+;2B6,"#) )%## %

PAGE 21

%##[% )$#(##) )*"#+.#$ ;2B6W&"V$;22=, .#'%# ")'#% %"'%+F$;229, )# #;2B7;2:7+$;22=,W ("$##)#"" )+&$'%$V$;220, # #>"#'"[+;2B:,*!) I %))" )#)) #)## %$+ :0, ?>"#'"[*!) '#+$;22=W&$'%$V$ ;220WA$;220W/$.$V")$;220WFVF$;220W &$;22B, ##+&$'%$V $;220,# #""# [#+$;22=, &$'%$

PAGE 22

+;220,#;W \R#"# N ; ]^#$% "#B[+&$'%$V$;220$ <2, &$'%$ +;220,#)'# R)"#%" '%# "## # "$%' '%##%"!# '# &$'%$+;220, ''%#)" #B%#" $# % (" /'+;22:, U("##"' "1+ 6<, !$&$ER'$%"+;22B, R--#(W" # \(" )''$@$$&'+;220, W%#' ## +;22B,I I0

PAGE 23

-("" #$$ )## '#-(" + 96, "")#) ("# $")# ))#! =7"M%(" 3%' "#"# #%( A'$$ER'$%" +;229,##) # '%%#)#'%# '%#+A$;229$;220, "$$ '%(##' '%# F+;22:,)%) ##)$ B

PAGE 24

)%)#R) $"$R) ##%)#"#'%# >"#'"J+52B:,"*!) %%% """# #)!! %#"#)# !%$$ "$ ##!!) #"$"$ %'#*#"J$"" %"#!##)+$$ V $;2B:W@$;2:9$;22;W@ ;2:2, ""#%')"! $%!$" %!I($'%#$# !$#$"*$ "''%#)! 1

PAGE 25

! #% #$%! >"#'"+;2B:,* '%# #+>"#'"$;2B:WAV A$;2:0W)$;22;WAVA$;22BW-$;22:W *$;222,-)##)# %'#)" '#' %### +$$?#"$V $;22;W@'$;22"#'"$;2B:W@$;2:9$;22;WAVA$ ;2:0W@$;2:2W)$;22;W$$?#"$V$;22;W$;22=W @'$;22
PAGE 26

\FV$;22:WV*$;222," #% %# R) #W)#" )("'$"#!$ % #!)"" )## $">"#'"+;2B:,$"# !#(##'+5, 5'>$ #% !"#" +! ,##' *("" $5 % -%%(% ("' '"#!% #"#$ ;7 2 3 +

PAGE 27

# % #5' "(I _?##" #"#!D _#$#% "-""#!D _#$#% "#!D _?#!("' #D _#%% ##D _" #D #" "*=!=!=# ) )#" )#$%)# ")I(" ;;

PAGE 28

'$"#!$%# #+!, ) 4)% )%-")# R"% % $!# J >"O$J)$ J@>%# R #)@ >% #%$ >"@>%$%R 5($ ###) #% #@>%) %""*%( #) !#W#$ O.") # ;=

PAGE 29

#$"I#!#$# !"$#!"$#!#!" 4))# #*3;#$ '#$%'$ ))%#" 3=)%# )$)("$ $### )# 36#" # 39 3 3< N ;6

PAGE 30

3/.= 5>F ;9

PAGE 31

3/.= 5>F .# ;B ?(" =7 ("3 =B /.) =B ("3;227 6= ."#"(" 6: 3#)(" 99 90 3& <= <0 .E%#
PAGE 32

3$$>( @(" (" (" #(" 5 !'" :B 5#@ 2; #"(" 2: ##3#3#%("5# ;79 ;7< 3#("# ;70 3#%("5# ;7B ;;7 @(" ;;9 #("' ;;: ? ;=B 3 ;9; ;0

PAGE 33

3/.= 5>F );77"$)("'# R)$) "('+F$E$ '$V$;2:;WA#%V?"$;227WV&%$;229,$ ##+A#%V?"$;227WV&%$ ;229, '%#%(" +V5$;222,")(" "$)(" !+@$$V&'$;220, $%#) #("#%-#!+.**$ $V$;22;, ($$!'$#$ "$) #) %#))+)'$ ;2::W5$;22B, $! '')#)"%-% ;B

PAGE 34

("+V""$;226W@$;22;, !' %$"$(+.**$$V $;22;, )%%$( +&*$3$V>$=77;, # ()I#$-$ #%'+V&%$;229,)) $)%%$$) ($%$ %)("' +F $;2:;W#$;22BW&* $=77;, .#("+/$;22<,$)# '#'#)(" #R#+ )YZ$;2:2$;226$;22:WV ""$;226WV&%$;229W3Y3Z$ ;220W&*$3$V>$=77;W*$F$8#$ER'$V%"$ =77;W@$&$V3$=77;W@$3"*$$V$ =77;W5V3$=77;W.#$S#$$$5$V3$=77;W ""$=77;, $# !''#")""+$ ;2:2$;226$;22:W3$;220, ;:

PAGE 35

$'%))###(" "))#!# (" #= ;&%[+;22=$ ;9=, #! &%+;22=, #= ;M&%J3!?# ?@P. 3 G 3 "$--------------------3 5#" ##F'# ) & %## ." +, ##)) )!) ")%# "%#W'%$ ;2

PAGE 36

""" $"$ #"$$% %'#) #*" 3) ))! )# $$!%# "## #(" &$%("D !( ?(" 3%"("% # ("#"%#' # ("$$" )#)#R)$ ("%%#" +.$;2B:WE"$;2:7WF$ $;2:;, +3$;220,$# ("$(")%"%" %!)) 45 ;

PAGE 37

W%'+ =6, "*)# I%'+. ;2B:WV &%$;229, $'%#!" !"*'' "!'+V""$;226, )#$(#$!#$#$#$#*#$ #$"#+.$;2B:, W!)% %')[ +$;2:2,I "!%"%$ #"'%# $%)$ #)) ("$+ =0, &!%"$ ##%)" .R=70;+$;2:2,) ("(# )" I I_) _##$ 3 _! =; N

PAGE 38

W_"") _+ =0-=:, N("")#I;, #("$=,("$6, '+F $;2:;, @("'#($` )#$)$#$-'#+E"$;2:7WF $ 061078 $3("$'%#)" '%#"#!% ("#%%+F $;2:;W J5$;2:0$;22=, ("$!$ )J#%'%#$ )$"$)"+5$;2:0$ ;22=, '#"$# )$#$'#)+F $ ;2:;W/$;22<, *";277#% ""$ R)#%'% $;207% ("$" 44

PAGE 39

W"+5$;22=, )"$ ("[#W;207$ %))[ WW%*$% )#[+5$;22=, ##) ##"%#[ +5$;2:0, 5+;22=, #$# ") '%# '%#) ) )" )' #$$$ "#[ '#)$ %#$$$$% $$$ (#+,% #('%###+,+$ $V.$;226, F$$)$ ")$")"#R$ J"") $) \=6 \

PAGE 40

)"%#"# %)"+ ;2:2, #)"# "$"""##) ?%"##$# ##)% +$;2:2, ##" )"!")"$ '%#)#(! ) )#"#$ "%)" $#" !)##"% #))#$ "R)) )% )!)$%'W $")) $%#% ) )I ;,"#)$=,##)$6,'# "$9,#"$<,)##$0,)# +@$.'$;2B9, "$# =9

PAGE 41

-)#$($(" '%#$"##-)#''%#"+$ $V5$;227, '%#$# %"%)-)# + $;227, $"% %'##"+#$;22:, ")#'$ W$"!(("$ #$+$;22=, $-)# ##### $%)$##+$ ;22=,#'(") "# '+$;2:2,%#%# '#'+&V&$;2:B, )# ##"#"" #'"$ %)#"%)+&V&$ W;2:B, %'#$ \=< \ 3

PAGE 42

)#$##!%'" #' +&V&$52:B, $&&+;2:B, #"# '" ###" #'# &&+;2:B,)7 <=-7 0< $"'# )%%)##=Ba-6:a+&V & ;2:B, +;2:2,R #!"# $#'$' #+&V&$;2:BW$;2:2,$) """ '+$;2:2, #-(" ##R# "+V""$;226,) #-'"#)$#$ "*#$#$!# $' )"%#!"# &#$ % &$R%' =0

PAGE 43

DF)# #("D!( ("3 /.) Y#;:77$% +5$;22B,W("'!%" R'$$)+*VF ;22:, ;:0=$ ##'%# )###+*VF$;22:,$ ))'+5$ ;22B, 3.*# A";:B:."+.'$ ;226, ;:27$3$"3F /)$")#'%!))#+*VF$;22:, "$;::2;:27$/ # )#("$)$#'$ '$#.$% ;276+#$;276, %"$A?%"+;2;0,$

PAGE 44

$%@4" ))#)##)'# # $);77"(" )# /%)$";277""$") #)"-$-$-#% +&"$;22B, )$#) ?%"$/$'$$" '%#)"")#+3$;22=W*V F$;22:, ?%") %-+$;220, ?#;267$ .#)3 @3" 3+&"$;22B, ;29B$A3# ###"#+"$;22;,$ %" ?#;:77";277$ % %'"+5$;22B, ?# $%%# =:

PAGE 45

%# % #"*(! $)R)"#% # /%)$)#R)% '%+5$;22B, %"'$X$ %") 5 W#)" $$%%"!" +&"$;22B, %';2
PAGE 46

"+3/","$.""3 N 3 +.3,"$3.R+3.,$ "! )# ."#")" \%"#) "#A%A&+*VF$ ;22:, O 3 $%'# #)##$"#) 3 ("(%%)+E"$ \ \;2:7, 5+;2:;,!R#"$"$ R ");207$ N#))##" W;207$' 3 ()#$"$ R!$#%!$"! 3 ($%( -" \$"'"$/#$ \F%+;227,%#") 3 )##))# N 3 $%%" ?& \ R67

PAGE 47

+;22;,'I^%) )# )%-# ^+ ;0B,("$%)$%%"$" ""+?&$;22;,$%%$ ))"+&"$;22B, -#$$#"% "&["[. %[3+$;2:=, &$ ?#-3 !" 3[# $'I)+;2:6,$ '%I #$ "$$#)#)'" #%$+ <, "## ("# #%$" ;2:2$.$@#/ &$ #%#)# % ""=777+$;226, ##% 6; ; \

PAGE 48

""=777$%% N%%% $#;77"$)" )$-!# #"$"$"$ %)E-;=#%' ")" "$# #R$-$!$# '%#-#$# ## # #;2:7 ("3;227 %(";2:7;227% ("#'" 3$;220,$ ") +;2:2,$$($3" +#$;220, 6= b

PAGE 49

3[#%" %#%($##$ #%+V&% ;229, ) # #%##)(" +,+&"$;22B, +3 ;220,I ("# F###("$ R)$'($!$ !#'%#$ ""$# '#$)! %"$ )")#"# '%#%#'#'$+ =, = ;*(""#) +3 ;220$ ;=;-;==$;96-;9<$;B6-;B<, &')".R=70;+$;226,% '%(""#=$<$:$;= $ #)%'#)" &.R=70;*#)#$ $## # .R=70; ### !)# '%<# !###!$.R=70;

PAGE 50

= ;M("3"@5) @5);3 M E-9 '(R$#$) ) .)# "(#! 3)#! ?)#(" <-: "(%# )# ?#)# (#$"*$ ?)$!$$ #) '"#"' %)! ?)#(" 2-;= "(# )# ?#)# #"))# )!# #) #*"*)! 3# ?)#(" #"!" #+6-<, &##) $### 69

PAGE 51

.R=70;0# &*#)# #)$R%" #)# ) (" ("W%$.R =70;" R%" ))) !$).R=70;$ '#).R=70; I _%)% _(" (".R=70;)%" .R=70;+$;226,I #)#"! )# &###$%'# )"#"R )# "($#$ ))$$ $%$"$$+ 2,

PAGE 52

= =M3."$ 5$G 3 5)E-9 5)<-: 5)2-;= ." ; ; .R R 5#$$ "$ # # #" 3 3) #" #" 5 3 # 5" # # ) )# # ) ?)" # &#) # $#"$ #* )#" &) # R'" 3# '" [" #" @" #) #) ) #) '#%)! #('"% 60

PAGE 53

+&"$;22B, )+3$;220,I (""^$^% '$)$$! %) ^^( '%#"# '#)#$+ ;7<, "#)"$$ $#"$ )$" "$$%= = +3$;220$ ;70-;7B, .R=70;+$;226,*$" #%" "#I;,)$ =,$6,$9,$<,#" $0,$B, )#) *I;,)"$=,"$ 6,$9,$<,%#"$0,) #'.R=70; "I ;,"$=,)$6,$9,#$ <,"$0, .R=70;' % #"-".R=70;# 6B

PAGE 54

"$$# ^(""$ #^+&"$;22B$ ;;;, "R #+3$;220,.R =70;+$;2:2$;226$;22:, /%)$$'+;220, )%"'" ) "))) %" ."#"(" #$) "#")" !$ )))$ /+;222,*#)I "#) )# )<7" # )#%) &)%#% # ")# ) 3)-) $#)%#$+ ;6<9, ) 6:

PAGE 55

3"##% )) .#)"# .#[ )#)# # .#$#$!) #)+?#/V"$;22=, .#)%#) %)"%)$$ #%"###! +.#$;2B6W/#$;2:=, $#)$ )$%%'+$;2:2,#!% )) .#*#%## #"'%# #$.# )%%"%( #" .#$ (#)%'# )!"I;,#+-=" ,$ =,-'#+=-B" ,$6,+MBM;;" ,$ 9,+-;=M;<" ,+.#$;2B6W/#$;2:=W!$;226W V?%"$;226W3'$;220, 3 #)W%$ 62 ;

PAGE 56

%"##$'# )###) ))) $ !#)#) +.#$;2B6W?#-/V"$;22=, "$.#[ #))( .#### # *+;22B, #))"#$&%+;227,'.#[ #))%%'#%' '%# #*+;22B,$! '%#)[ ##)$[# )" %"-)% "#)#)#;6%$! #+FV'$;22:, &+;207G;2BB$;20;$;200,!) .##))#R ### /*

PAGE 57

)"'%##) #$%')#)#) )"#+* VF$;22:, #&+;207G;2BB$;20;$;200,$)" ###)%" #")%# $%#)###)" "W%!W" #$()"+&$;20;, & +;200,"#) %$)#*) /%)$ #&+;200,$%%#)") )"" )% #*%%")M)" "#)+&$;200, &* ))"'## ("+&$;207G;2BB, )'%#)"#+A#V)A#$;22:, ("#*"%@# % #!$R$ 9; R

PAGE 58

("+*VF$;22:, ")#)%)"%'#($ '#)$#$'# ")""%+*V F$;22:,%))") )'%#+%$;209, # '"#(## #'#+%$;209, %+;209,#) ("")## "%'%# %'%# N$'%#R# / "$$$%#"$ "$)#(" %) (")))$$ %+;209, #-%$") ##%) /) ))"$)" +%$;209,I^'%#" #(" ^+ =2, 9=

PAGE 59

@#("$%'(" % "")%[M. +.,%)#')#$ "#$#$#$#+*VF$;22:, %@#["#)" #!'#"#" !' @##)#%# !I,##$=,-$6,#$ 9,)$<,$0,#$B, #$:,)#+3'$;220, ## )"$# -) >% %)#$% ') 3# "'#)$ #))'#% 5'%$ %)#$% # @#[%%' 3("$("# -)+*VF$;22:, 96

PAGE 60

%"#("$ ""+,3)" +3,$%)"""#" 3%" #))%"#A.# +?'%$;22;W*VF$;22:,%*) '%# )'+;2::,% !%#))" %# 3#)(" ?#$"#"# ))-)"")%#)# +)'$;2::, 3#)" )#'"% )#!'+?#-/V "$;22=, 3"$)*R%("# #)$)#"# %%!#'%#$ *%+&'V&'$;226$;222W VF$;22BW.'$;222, % 99

PAGE 61

##'@'$ %"### +)'$;2::, .##" #)+&'V&'$;226W.$;22<, & $.#'%##%#)" +&'V&'$;226, "$" >"#'"))+&"V$ ;22=, &+;207G;2BB$;20;,'%# ##) ') )"#$ %&$#"-)+A#) A#$;22:, $%+;209,* '%##(" #"#"$ )%' (%' #)*"?#-/"+;22=,I '#% %#) '"M" %%''%#)$#) $)##$+ <<, 9<

PAGE 62

" %'" %'#*#"$"" %"#!##) ['%# +@$;2:2, #'%# *%## +$$V$;2B:W@$;2:9, %%W ##+ $;2B:, #"("! E%# "'%# ))'+@$;2:9$;22;, #'"$ %'%) + $;2B:, +;2B:, #-)"##! J### %%! 90

PAGE 63

I!)")# %"#)!" J!#'%#+@$;22;, #)# #$#"%-()" #*'%#)%%) )" %!)) ###-)#$) "# ("$ $" "'#+@$;2:9$;22;, "'%#) )%"%'%##* )!%#'%#%#'#% +$3$@$V8#$;2:2, %! ##%*## /# #*#"%"#$% # /#%' R9B

PAGE 64

%)$%%''%# )!-) -)# '%#-$#-)' )'%#%'%# ##) '#'##'%# !'%#+@$;2:9$;22;, %)!%"")% %"'%#'%##* F) )$"W$ ")#'%# +@$;22;, F$!)(#* '%#%##* +@$;22;, %-#+&!$$V@$ ;220,$%) # '%#) %%'%% ("!$(" I$#$("!" 9:

PAGE 65

-# 3;,)! "##$ =,#%#"( $6, #)#$9,!" R' "$#)"#$"#)# !)+3$)$V@$;2:;W.V3!$;2:BW "$5%*$V/ ;22=W&"V$;22=WA$;220,$) !) (+3 $;2:;W.V 3!$;2:B, ""# +.V3!$;2:B, !#""#" "#$)%+3 $;2:;, ""$) +" $;22=, $!) '%#"*#)% )#$!) )'%##+.V 92 3

PAGE 66

; 3! ;2:B, 5'%$!")[ #%"## %$""##"%" %")"+A ;220, )'%#$ -#('%#$+A$;220, 5'%$#" .'+;22B, ""'#! "$"'#% ") )$.'*# )#(I/%" #"D/%"#*#"'#D/%" ##!DF" '##%D5'%$)# #'# ##+VF$;22B, )%"")#$/#+;229, #'$ I'%" %%")! E"+;2:7, J##("$( <7 N +

PAGE 67

'%#R$#" ('%#$"(" +;222,%$ % ) ##' ))%'#-$(" )-)#' %) ')) %%-+/#$ ;229, "!) ("#*# '$"%" #* ("R%#+V#$ ;226,$%$$#$#'' '###!# # +;226,"#*# ($ "$ +V&%$;229, <;

PAGE 68

I3& "$) W#+?J#$=777W@)$=777W/*V5$=777W/%"$ =777WA$=777$=777W" $=777WF$=777WF%V F$=777, +A$=777$=777, # $" W'+A$=777, $ #*#$#$## )!#-"+A$ =777, )$%#+A$ =777, "$##!# %"+A$=777, #).$ "#"$' )%"%## +?J#$=777, %#)"+?J#$ =777WA$=777, 5##%$) #%# )## $$ ; N<= ; \

PAGE 69

)R! !% !# W#+A$=777, % #" ) # "#? ).+?J#$=777, 5#)) #%'$)"%$%# #+A$=777, %')) #'#$)##$ ##+A$=777, $#$ %('"#*! #"+.,#^^! ))##*#$$$ +"V$=777, "$" # $+" $=777, #"$$+A$ =777, ")))#) )%#"+?J#$=777, "$ <6 N

PAGE 70

'###+F$=777, #$## 5#)))#+A$=777,I$($ $"$# # )%'%#%(# #%"" # ## #$$! ### #%"# )+A$=777, % ###$# )$'# $) ### %#*%' "$#")$)#) )#(#+/*V5$=777, )#$%$)#$ (#"#")# #/* 5+=777,I 4#))"#)$ #'%#$%# !#'%# J<9

PAGE 71

%'%%( 5## (##%$+ <<, (#+/*V5$=777,I;,# #)&"$=,# ('%#%"%#$6,# J#))#$CO9,#'%# (#%%'%#")" "( #)"" +?J#$=777, 5#!" ""))#')%! "))"## ." "##))#+?;G#$=777, #%" #)"$ $"#$$)"+@)$=777, % "$"$)# +@)$=777, (K "+/%"$=777, 5"!") %'("#+/%"$=777, I<<

PAGE 72

$'#)R$"% N%+A$=777, R #+$;22BW&"V$;22=W/$ ;22<,"## )'+;2::, )"# )())##!$+;22B,( '#R!( N!"## /+;2B<,"'#$ ##(" /%)$ %"%#$ $+)'$;2::, W"##$F+;22B, %'# /ER'[+;222,# "*#/%)$ &+;22;,@'"#+;22=, 5'%$F+;22:, )#)(" I<0 R

PAGE 73

#" R) .E%# .'%#( [+;22B, ##%$" ($'### %##(" #" )$)'[+;2::,%#% )#"'%# ""$ /[+;22<,)!#%# '%#$#"$ %#(%% '%#%(% %(+V/$;229, @+;22;,## #%%"'%%"$ $+;22=,# !"#*#!! %""'%### &'%# F% $#'
PAGE 74

#*$# %'%+F%VF$=777, $)% $'%+F%VF$ =777, '##" '%#+A$=777, $!# #$## #+A$=777, ## #'%## (## (### )%*"/#+;2:=,I^F% *$"% )"# ^+ 976, #[" #+V5$;222, '%+5"$$V/''$;220,$" "'%%"#$%" #$%""#+V#$;226, +;226, )#()## <:

PAGE 75

" 3'(" %)'#'%#% $"$))$!#$ +@$;22;, "#-"-(" %)")'#' "#''%#("!% '' ("$#) '% #*! I#+/#$;2:=, &%+;226, I#%#%%!J &##%' $!+F%VF$=777, %")#"## %( # ("$#+;226,' $#!$' !$($# ("$##$%)$ %"% #%# #("%-#+FVF$;220, R<2 R

PAGE 76

!##W'%###" ("#+A$;222,## #%") # !$#""#" )#* () ))+V#$;226, ?## #'%#+VF$;22B, A+;229, '%##)%) "$))# %[!"$%-$ -%#)) '%# )%'$ "+@"$S" V&$;22;, $ #*%' #)%# $% %'%%' &+;22B,)#% 07

PAGE 77

"#%! +;22=,) ##"# #% # %"###%% ## # ;677"%'%' +&$;22B, #%# "F$&$+;2B0,## "% ##))" '%"[ !#### #))'%#% !+F$&$V$;2B0, $#)# %' %$#' #%"'%)# "'%+$;22=WA'$$ER'$V%"$;229W A$;220W&$;22BW@)V&$;220W@)V)"$;22BW !$&$ER'$V%"$;22BWER'$%"$&$V 0;

PAGE 78

!$;22:, !$R"+A' $ ;229,$R$#$) )"%#*## F !"+*# ,$% #("" %##% $ %%U$("+" ),"$[^% ))# )% #$% #$%%"#(""M # [##$"() # #$$W" "#%''$## %#%)%+$;22=W A' $;229WA$;220W&$;22BW@)V)"$;22BW! $;22B, $ #'%#$#" "')+$;22=, # 0=

PAGE 79

""'%#+."$/#$ F-?$$V#$;220WFVF$;220, #'>"#'"J+;2B:,"* !)+$;22=W&$'%$V$;220WA$;220W /$.$V")$;220WFVF$;220W&$;22B, >"#'" +;2B:,*!)I %))" )#)) #)## %+ :0, F$&$+;2B0,#"# ### F #'#% ;,J'$=,# $6,$9,'#$<, $0,+FVF$;220WF$&$V$ ;2B0, #*'` '# $#))'# )%'-)# &"### '$%)' ) &"#)$) 06

PAGE 80

"##%!' #))))' ## +/$.$V")$;220W@)V&$;220W."$/#$ F-?$$V#$;220,$%#+V$ ;229,$"+@)V)"$;22B,$+A'$$ER'$V %"$;229W!$&$ER'$V%"$;22B,$ +)"V@)$;22B, ##+&$ '%$V$;220W." $;220,$# ))+$;22=W& $;220, '# #>"#'"J+;2B:,%'"#% >"#'"J"#+$;22=,$ #""# [#+$;22=W/VER'$ ;222, & +;220,#[ $R#" # +& $;220, R)"#%"'%# $### "''%## c N

PAGE 81

''%#)"# [%#"+& $;220W." $ ;220, / +;220,#" #"# & / +;220,)#'"--# ]^##(# ["$'##)1 + 6=, ." +;220,# #%) ) "$" (#$ #"#$ )##)#% & $%)$." +;220,U# )$"#) '#1+ ;6:, #"." +;220,#$ %%"#[ !W$#%# )##" 0<

PAGE 82

#%" ." +;220, "-'!J "$."%#) -')!)# -"+ ;99, "'%# !"#$$ %#% ) ###"." +;220, "!'%%)"# .$ %##-)) # %#*#()"." +;220,I )"$'%# #)" !#%"# )"#J'# %" "## ['%##)# "'# '##" ('%#" #"+ ;97, !#%+)"$V @)$;22B,$%#+V$;229,$"+@)V)"$;22B,$ 99

PAGE 83

#+/ $;220,$+A'$$ER'$V%"$ W;229W!$&$ER'$V%"$;22BW/VER'$;222, +@)V&$;220, !$# !#-#$#-#$-#) )%'# #$#) [!$'#% +)"V@)$;22BW@)V)"$;22B, ##)"--) "#>"#'"J*!))#" #+/ ;220, F'$%'% )#)" '#%+@)V&$ ;220, 3%)) J"#"#J'%#" )+V$;229, 3% %#")#-( #%+V$;229, )%# G))#$#% W0B 3 O

PAGE 84

##"# #")$"#$" #+$F$3#$V&%$;220, +;22=,)%)# '### +;22=,#" W"[ #"##)"$#$ "#""# %'"%#[ )# #$-+A'$ ER'$V%"$;229,### '%##)! ##% #% "##%-$ # '##$##"$'## %-#)+A$;220, /'#+;220,%'## #)# %'#I ;,%$=,#)$6,%#$9,%" 91 ;

PAGE 85

$<,#)$0,% )% I;,%%'+),$=,%%# +),$6,%%+), ##(#% !+/'#V$;220, FF+;220,##### ['$%'-) #$##'#)'$ %)#) 3#)! (" >%#("# )#%# (" $)#-(" -(" (") "(" )### %'## )#+$;2:=W/'#V$;220, )#$'$)#$' 02

PAGE 86

/%)$))#$ #! +/'#V$;220, 5'+;227,$%)$-)#% $#*)#% #!I#%' #= =%5'[)% #= =M5'[)## @ !R 3>M/ B7

PAGE 87

+ 00, )##" "$!$%%;77d3 )#?$'" !%%$$ )#&#-)"% '%%$ )# -%'#*("+E"$ ;2:7,##$")#! +/'#V$;220, "-)" /#"))# %$)%' %###)"+5V )$;22;, 5)+;22;,"("")" )"I)$$! ?)##% )%# )$$ $) !)$# B;

PAGE 88

%) /%)$#)#$"$ V E+;2:7,"(")I;,$=,("$6,#-("$9,-(" ) #*#"( )$ N%'%$#))" ("#)%$ R '% @-("% )#I%-($$ #$#$'# )+$;2:=W5V)$;22;, )%'%)" # $(""% ($#(%" ( %#% "( 3 >( $)" +;2:7, .**$ $+;22;,)R# IB=

PAGE 89

N !' #")) %-(")) +;22B,(" )+" $;2:7,'# )-(" /# ("'#%% $'# '# !* ('##"W%)$'# -("*"'# -'#("$-'# @(" @$$&'+;220,#("% #)#%'("'$ "#)#'# !'%#(" +;226, *##"(W&#$@$ ''"+;229,"*#("" B6

PAGE 90

.)##I !"$)"" !$%"%))$ (%#!$) # +;226,#)%"( %"#("IF% D/% %'% D ?$$)$[+;22B,# -#%%#"+X66, )#'# %#!#%" ##))-$% 3#"%#-(" ") '%+&# $;229, (" (%-#( +V""$;226,)#)%'% )"+FV$;226,%'# ("J+FVF$;220, #

PAGE 91

)#'#)# ""%'+/'#V$;220, # -("#:$;;$;= %'#)#-' "#)$#$"*#$#$!# +V""$;226, )##-( %#(%#) '%(###! +V""$;226W5" $;220, %'% %-+FV$;226, ?)#)%' "("()'%#' (+V&$;22B, ("()"%## +V&%$;229, -("#)+.** $;22;,I _"$## _"$ _?#"* _%(% _"*"#)" B<

PAGE 92

_$$$ _?))$$$ _?)('%# _5'%!) + ;=7, (" # ( !("3"+#= 6," #+;226$ ;2=,%# )'#(" )#(" !("3"+#= 9,"F '+;22:$ <,#"% '("3 #))% # #$($" #"( !$"" B0

PAGE 93

#= 6M("3""# e#" I .#(!" : *#)O %(" # (" ;# ## #% ( '# )# # "" !#-% "* *#% # M("3""F' /4S3S35 4 BB

PAGE 94

"#%)!$ $"%) $"% (("J"# /+;22:,)##("I ;,$=,##$6,$9,$ <,## /## #(" ###((# # !#$( ### # ("J$/+;22:,)-%% )% #(" A%""#$%))" "*'%#(""$" #%#(+E"$ ;2:7, "$(#("J' +,+3$;220,$# $#("$ .R=70;+$;2:2$;226$;22:, B:

PAGE 95

###) #(")(") ##$!'$##$ #" #(# # #$)$ #%)"#!# #-)%'%#-("% # ##" # !' (!" %)%""( J"# ## #"-()%# )#$#$# 5 5+;22B," "#$("' ";277$#%#%' B2

PAGE 96

F##$#$ "#"#-#$ #"($%" ) #;2<7$% ')$# '!#" "# 3("$ "#"#)#;207 "*% %%'# #)$$'%#$ #$ ?#"$ ")))## "[# %# ;207 #) $#)") $#)##( 3 ".#+.,$ ("-$-#$%%9:;#"& %+;2:7, # \:7

PAGE 97

J#'$%)' "$-'-))%%)C /%)$ %-)$#% "("-# 3"+3,$%)" ("'$%% $%) )'(")$3 ("'+#V"$;2BB, % %92:)-#%!" )&% ("' ##%% 'W) ("'% "$-3 %##3%#$("$ 3%(-3 $ )")'#3 %-3 .[+;2B:,"0B#") %'#.R." (" ))%' # :;

PAGE 98

# #(" )$!% ("$!#("))"("' )#)("'() ""+.$ ;2B:, ?)"> ")" #$E$"$?[+;226,!# "$!$ %" !##" %)#" """"% ))" ""&'+;2B;,) )"$"$!"%%=;0 ## #!"" #"))"# ##"))$)* $#$ :=

PAGE 99

R 8[+;2BB,%("# #+"-R,#" # #%W #)"% )$[#$%# .)" %-I$ )$$G# "## %%#%)$ N("# %("### '"$)"#! #"*$$% )$#$# )")!% !! @( # ###[+&$ ;222, #%+@5&,% #) ($%)")+$;22:, @5&#%=:7#$)26a :6

PAGE 100

##)"' %$"0;a)# +$;22:, )%"'# @5&#$:;aW'# B6aW'#$B7aW'#" $<0aW<
PAGE 101

"$%#) 609 "$")# !# &%+;226,#%#% %!J! -("%0< ##$%V&%+;22<, #$)#$#$ %%'#!!($ %% ()" #$#"!# #) ) *#"#% !) @>'+;22:,"(" "$###""%B< # )%"## ($""$" )"#(G% :<

PAGE 102

F#+;222,# )#JR # R))#'$ ")#$' %#" R %!)#' $(%# ;207%"( "%%$"$#( F)"" (")"%$" ##-)'"% )$#$# $) ""(")"(""##( %(% @( (%%"()" ((" "(% %'"%) ))'#$%#" % 19

PAGE 103

!'" ))# (;<7#"$'"+;2B9, #%% /%)$## "#%)$% #')%% #' //'+;2B:,)) (""%=22#"#" %!# F)$)"$!% ##$) %%"! )# #"$%#% #%-! $# #"#" "#$##$#!" #)##$%!"#% ) F)$##$%!" )##$#!"#" $) ) :B

PAGE 104

5+;2:;,"*"# ;207 "R ##)#$ ") R# "*= 6 5 %##I#"$## !$##$"#% # #""3 "$.R."$"+&3,$." "3+.3,$#)= 6 "%'%! )%)' %( = 6M5""-.)# 3#" .3.R .) 3 3 3 3 ? 3 3 &3 S ?)5 = ; 0 ; 7 77 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 7 ?# = ;= 7= 2< B : B< ; ; ; ;9 7 @ ? 69 790 2 : B ;9 6 ;6 7;< 9;; 2 "M % =6 9 =9 < 9 6;B ; 0 <;= : ;; << 11

PAGE 105

#'"$*$$ !# .**$$+;22;,"[ +;2:7, )R#!' #" ))%-(")) #")$"$$ #$%#-(")) !'"#"* #)";," "$=,#)#$6,## )#$9, #))$<," % $")%" !'"#)"(" #+;226,#" #("##"!' (" "(";2<0;20<% ;2BB;2:< !'$(" "("%#" #%# :2

PAGE 106

("-;22:&#"I 3"3!+&3,Z%$5$ *$.'+;222,%$#"##"' )#% !"-)## !"B77;0 ###)$$ 3% #$:7)"# #)("-## "$+;226,"# "$[%" (%) '%# # A5%+;22:," !"#-R#"'%#$ ##"#("# ("%###" F J27

PAGE 107

R = N$#"# > \! !"$#"!;: :a )$"B =a)(" 600 R \" R"$ \"(%$"$( 3#-$(" %'% \%-$("#" "+;226, 3 '#" \#"%!"("# W# # R)) 5#@ R N3)##)## \%'#)"+>"#'"$;2B:WAVA$;2:0W)$;22;W WAVA$;22BW-$;22:W*$;222, R##)$6697 \##" \ +)$;22;, 5## 2;

PAGE 108

; %'# @'+;22<,)# ##"'#% )"$+$$?#"$V$;22;W$;22:,####)" "3"+;22:,+;22:,%'#")#'# '" 3)## %)#$#$-+)$ ;22;, 3)#%')#%)# ##))#+#%"V .$;22:W&$;22B, "#%##$ #!#)"+/#$ "$$E$V)$;229, %%#I %'#'#$ %'#'## "'#' 00 %##"# )# F%# %#)%)$## 2= N

PAGE 109

# #) # "*###""# (")[% ###)#+V&%$;226$;22+;222,% ("$)$")# !# %#"# %"''%% %# 26

PAGE 110

"##-("$ &%+;22<,"# \##%"#* \# ")?%" \%$'#'%#$%') R#"##% \[)#%#N"% \#[!+V&%$;226, \")##)R%#" \#$E"+;220,))"I J#$#$%$$ N@"$)#$ \ #$%#))# !"#L # $!$ ?% R" 3)## $###$#) E" ##% \#)# 3 A'$%$&#+;226, R N%%'#'# \29 \

PAGE 111

#-)####( %'#%'# ##! #)$' +;22<,%'#R$26a #))!$:Ba# G)!%) ("R#)#% $#$R )%#)#$)+;22;,0; )#$%) ##"#% )$ #-$"'$ )$--' $" )#)#+A VA$;2:0W)$;22;,%%## +)$;22;,$## %#%#)' $)#$$ +)$;22;, 2<

PAGE 112

)%### (" %'###-("" #$+;22B,%% '## '#% ## /-(" #$ ) ##'#(" /%)$%## +$;22B,$"<(%" '#%%"G ("#+$;22B, %) #'%## #"'#)" %+>V$;222, "% ##$F[+;222,# %#)") %#$"% #% (""% "%%%-'##$ 20 3

PAGE 113

N \""%"!## \ $!#%"%# ) $#("%)'# %#"##$5+;222, %#%# # ("%)##'#! NF%'#$ '%%"%"# % #% ("%)## 5+;222,$"I %"-### !")$%"# $"$$+ ;<, 5+;222,##"( !-$#!$! "%#(" *$#)" "#'#$##)# "#)%#)') R2B

PAGE 114

+AVA$;2:0W)$;22;, # # #"%)-'' #"+AVA$;22B, !$&$ ER' %"+;22B,# )%'#$! '#$%! $" %##$'## #") "$)+;22;,)# ""#'$%)# #-#)## $ '%("##)#$%)% )## ##$#%%'#$ ###%' #"(" #'##"(" 3)%$%"$# 2:

PAGE 115

! % )) #"-( ) 3)#$ )$ 3! !")"# ##%# )#")""R A#+;226, %!#$ &!+;22<,#)# "!%#"$($' +;226,%)%'#% #"$) )"! /%)$)%%"-% #%##$ ."+;2BB,)) ## +X:,%#)#$ -#"%(" ")IR$$$+, #!))# ) #("%$ 22

PAGE 116

!"$R# #"##+5V5$;222, W-&5 +&5,%"("# F +;226,!## "&5[ # #-%')#+#$;22<,$ &5("$"'# ### .%( % $# "#)"# #(! $$5+;227,-" ")'%;;7#-# #"# #$R$)"% ))%% #% %)'%# ) #$") # 5'%$B=
PAGE 117

%)% $%#%%# ##! !$&$ER'$%"+;22B,R-#(# '%% R)#($)#$$$# ")#(+-%, $"$)#)# # R) %( #")#!+ V&%$;229, "$ '("+F$;226WFV'$;22:, #)#" !( ') #"! "*#[ $)#("' )-"I($$!$$ ;7;

PAGE 118

" #" #$#B-2#" #;;-;=()%""% -% #) #%##) ? #"' )"!$"#* '"" )"## )#("#+VE$;22=, #)#$[("$ $"')+V*$;229W$;22;, %'R%$%)!(# %+F"V&"$;22B, 3?-[ ( #3?"(")+[&$;22B, /ER'+;222,!#[ #"##-'#)# F#)## %#-(""$#"$##"$ %)#" 054 R

PAGE 119

)#$$ $"# ##$%("# #! "## ")("#$ %# #"-##"-(" +34,#"$ W34#)("#") ##+-$$.$'$VA$ ;222, 34))"#)$$ "$!%) # >> )#"' ))-$ ;%)") )' +5V$;2:2, /%)$##' #"("-+5$;22=, "%##G))$ N$F$3#$&%+;220, ;76 3

PAGE 120

)##$##% ##(% ) $##"-( ) "'-(+&*$ 3$V>$=77;, "% ##"+$;22:W"$=77;, "$J '#)%#"+@$=777," ) ##3#3#%("5# 3# "("### )(" "#% #(" "#) ##(" $#("'#' ("'#) # \;79

PAGE 121

##%(" "$%!%'%#) F--))$%-) $)%'"+'V "$;2B:WV@#$;2:B, F(" +$;2:2$;226$;22:W3$;220,$)" %'%#$" # ("#)[ ("-#$ )))%##(" ("#-)+?Z)$;222, ("#+F $;2:;, #("(#[! '%#%"+V5$;222, %##+!$&$ ER'$V%"$;22B, % (#"+$;22=WA'$$ER'$V %"$;229$@$$V&'$;220W! $;22BW?$ $)$V$;22BW/$VER'$;222, [ ;7<

PAGE 122

""R+!$&$ ER'$V%"$;22B, 3#("# 3%(" 3 +3$;220,.R=70;+$;2:2$;226$;22:, ##% )#$!"$ #"#$""$% (+5$;222W5" $;220, ))#)%% )$$)%%"" )#"+$;22:, ##%# $%' '%#"+V&%$;22<, %#"# FFF%!$$# +!$&$ER'$V%"$;22B, [ )#" A J;70 7 N

PAGE 123

#$$## )%!%$$# +V&%$;226, 3#%("5# "#%("# "("$F$E$'$+;2:;, I,'$=, )%("#$6, ("")"#$ 9,#!) #$<,'%#($0, "( 5+;222,"## ("%)##'# ##$R +;22;,I,'%#) "")) #W=,#))#W 6,R'%#("# "W9,

PAGE 124

")'%#$ ("+V5$;222, ))#)" W$"!("+FV'$;22:, #) %"###!+?'% ;22;,#%-#+!$ &$ER'$V%"$;22BWFV'$;22:, -!)$ %#%! %""'"+V""$ #= 5 ;7:

PAGE 125

;226, 5'%%& +;22B,#) "*R) "!%J')%#= < #$##$ #$#*##'$ #$#"$+!$&$ER'$V %"$;22B, -!'#$ [)## %#' )#% )"#%)"%# #*#' )"# #("#)% (#$'#$#$)#' %)('##") #+@$=777, $ )"### @5&#+$;22:,)# %% "@5& )-W$ @5&#%% .)# ;72

PAGE 126

-#%# .# N-)$#$R)" # ##$90a #$R$' J##%+6Ba, ## %@5&$<7a W#)#%') R R+9
PAGE 127

%"-"$ %+@#$=777, $!%$0< #%%/# +/#'$=77;, 3"$"B< /$-###'+$;22:, R)" #"#("#+$;2::, /#%##$" )"+$;22:, ')" $")<77'=77##)"% )##+$;22:, ))) ""#$## )!%%/$$ +$;22:, #$#%% '6BW%%/$#67+A$ $*$F$VF$;22=, 3#$3$/$ )*#)#)$ $#"+%$;229, F$ ;;;

PAGE 128

%F)%-A)$)))$)"'+%$;229, $#" )$$# +%$;229, # %"%"##### ))+?#V#$=777, N##%)# $")" )#%-)'+%$;229, 3("$)-)#("' +%$;229, 3+A$$*$VF$;22=, "#.#$ '/#%) $"$G % #"% %/!"67$ #%6B#90#%) '+A$$*$VF$;22=, "" \ ;;=

PAGE 129

%"*$" '/+VA'$;2::, #$$ '##'%#+%$;229, ") $""$ %#!) +%$;229, % W%R"$%" $'% ")+%$;229, ## ")#+%$ ;229, 3)# "")$" ""() +%$;229, "$)" '%#)# +%$;229, ;;6

PAGE 130

$#")-#)+%$;229, +%#V&"$;220,)# )#I;,!'#$ =,-)$6,-)## (" ##+%#V&"$;220,$ +3$;220,%.R=70;+$;2:2$ ;226$;22:,W$* )'# )))# %##("-) #"#)+$;22:, @(" ";2B7$) )+EV ;229W.'$$V/#$;22
PAGE 131

+6Ba,'"$=a'#"$9a '" ##) #2#;6)#' +EV$;229,W"%#$##% +A $*$F$VF$;22=,%) ##+J)$;22:, 3D% "-;B-""* $""#+A$$*$VF$ ;22=,) /%)$!" %#%("$ %##R%% $""+V.'$;226, '"$##$ "+EV$;229W$;22:, '##" ##%"-"$#" )%"+ )"F$=777, )#$# $$-) )%+F#$;229W.'$$ V/#$;22
PAGE 132

-""5/"+;2:2,%# #$'""#$ %"#"+EV$ ;229, )##) @ $J-$$) )+EV$;229W%$;229, # %#$#J "R"")# +EV$;229,$)J#)% ##+EV$;229, ))$$# #$%" )"#+EV$;229, !)+%$;229WEV$;229W.' $;22<,$"'# "))" $(")$J) #+EV$;229, .) !#W$# #'+EV$ ;229, .J)" ;;0

PAGE 133

"+EV$;229, )#) (#%"% +.' $;22<, ### %%)" #+EV$;229W.' $;22<, #)##"%" %+.' $;22<, "# )%"###% $%$% #+EV$;229W.' $;22<, 3 %#%" +.'V$;2:0WE"$;2::, .#""#' $#" )#))) ##*'#+.' $;22<, "')# %-!*)#" +E$;229W.' $;22<,$# "+.' $;22<, $#J ;;B

PAGE 134

%)"#)+.' $;22<, "$J-)#))# %+.'V$;2:0, #("' )))%"# ("'%) #)#';2;0% '%#)#' ##(+?%V '"$;2:7, ("-;207 "'+?$5%*$V /#$;229, )"#$ .%#'" +?%V'"$;2:7, #% ("'$#+/$;22<, )%#""$? +;229, ("' )%% ("'% ;;:

PAGE 135

$$+;22=,# ("-)##""' % # )%;7$;;$;=##" "% #%"! "% "#%!# ## )$%) % ( R") #)# ## %%#)%%%"" W%)$"6Ba) !" #)# '### J)! %%%("' "$$VE+;2:7,$ (".$##) ;;2

PAGE 136

R("I$$#$ #$" !%(""( )"##(" .**$ $+;22;,(". R# "# (%"#) ))("' ? &$3$/R"+;226,)(" '#%)!' (#)#$# 8 #*#$## ) ;7776=" !)'## ("! '%#-%")## --" $ ("'+,+$;2B2,$# R("'R# ) ( %#'I "#'W!WW)#$ N 045

PAGE 137

#$WW#W #W#!W#* )# # (#W#' ##W#( '#' = 9* = M("'+," R' # 5"# ;7 !2 # .# ;7 )#$$ : 3 ;; @ ;7 3'# 3# ;7 ?#!;7 3#* 2 :B %#) ")-%SB#;;<:R90W S:R=<9R=<$S2-;7R ;==6B ""B% < 6G2 B%)= <'W": 0 =G2 B%)= 9W"2$B 7G2 B% ;=;

PAGE 138

A 3 \ \)= 7W";7$: =G2 B%) ; < -"7 B6 ""# 7 0;7 B2 %S0) %9
PAGE 139

%"!"%)# ..'+..,+V'"$ 52::,@#.' +.,+3 .$;2:0, ..!("I ,"#!($=,"#)$6,# "$9,##)#$<,##$0,# ##..%)-#'% )#!$)$#% '!) ..% ;$97=#!$)$# "%7 B<$=;-%2 :% )9 = 3)"%%! =
PAGE 140

..#G ) = <* ("'".. #.'+.," +?%V'"$;2:7,%)'( )#) .)" %%## #"$"#$# #)$#)#$# 60)"$ R)"#'"$"%% %B72 #B$2$;; %;: 22%)B 07 ""%7 :2#3[ #).2 = )'B;=# ) .+&$'"$VF$;2:<,%))) '#%) ###)!# ./%)) ;=9

PAGE 141

.#) 60-% 9<2#B-;= %#'% I"#)$"#$"#"$ #$!# "7 :0"2 <+@, B;< 2;G60W:$ ;2 9;G60W2$;2 92G60W;7-;=$=< =BG60 ..% #& %#"()% #%% = 0M"("' %.. . "#) ;! PP P "# PP P "# PP P P ?# P PP P P !#P PP P P "# !( P # P P P P 3V #* P 3 # P +P'R), ;=< 3

PAGE 142

= 0*'R) #'" %($'R)" (%"' ")'("'$ "#)$"# "$#$!# ")" ("' +;2:2,"*&&+;2:B, #"")"%. @5#'#+@5,W" '. # #"#'"% )$(%' #"+&V&$;2:2, #'#"#"% )$#"" #)+&V&$;2:BW$;2:2, #"#" "#" $# 049

PAGE 143

#$" +&V&$;2:B, ? !"#("! ;77-"-(("' #"'(" 3 # R% #W '%#W'()#"W# #W(#$'%#$'W" #(W)W #)) "$"W %)$%R $)%(") #%%"( %(" );:77";277$ ###+;276,?%" +;2;0,")+#$;22<,(" /%)$'))% ;=B R

PAGE 144

"+A#%V W?"$;227, )$ -#$ % %"+/$;222W*VF$;22:W5$ ;22BW.'$;226, J"$'# ;207* )#%"%%'# )"% %)% "#$)) "+$;222, '#(" (%# +V5$;2:;W"'"$/#$VF%$ ;227W.**$$V$;22;, R("#;2:7% &J;2:="[. %[3+$;2:=, W3![;2:6'I )+3! ;=: N \

PAGE 145

$;2:6, #"# ("# %%;2:2%# .@#/ &[#) '')#$# +3$;220,(" $#)%"# (" "% *$("#;:77% ###(#%" F #(")$% $$%I## (";:77$;207[$ #;227 $%R #(" #!"#(" ### ;:77"% "$%" +/$;222, #"##$;29
PAGE 146

@"$ A3$#+/$;222, # !R##% )"# 5 #"*:73=77$777% "+.' ;226,$B
PAGE 147

!##(" #%" +)'$;2::W$;22BW&"V$;22=W /$;22<,$!)"#"" F+;22B,"!" ")%-"))" #"[## "[#%" )!#%'#W #"[##$ !)$# [% !"%'"#W$ #%'%% #%'%## ##$$ [ $")))% !$)" #! $" ""#%) # #$# ;6;

PAGE 148

!%'%# #( "&+;22;,$@'"# +;22=,$F+;22:, # %(!$" '%#%'W" /ER'+;222, 5'%'%# !)#%+3$)$V@$;2:;W .V3!$;2:BW$3$@$V8#$;2:2W"$ 5%*$V/ ;22=WA$;220W&!$$V@$;220,## %'%# #'%#%$"#'%# ()+@$;22;W$;22=WV/$ ;229W/$;22
PAGE 149

+V""$;226WV&%$;226W/#$ ;229WA'$$ER'$V%"$;229,# ("' ("'"#$ '#'$$''' #= 0 .)"$)#)("'$ %)"#)'$#' )##-''+V ""$;226,!' #= 0M5'#("' #! +&$V&$;2:BW$;2:2, ("'"# 5'(## (" ;207%"#+?'%$;22;W*V F$;22:,$%!% -L

PAGE 150

#))"%# +)'$;2::, ?#("$#"# #)#)+)'$;2::, /%)$ #")+?#/V"$;22=, $# "#"%#)%' (%'"#")" ##(" '#% " %'#*#"$% !##)#+$$ V$;2B:I@$;2:9$;22;W@$;2:2, "" %"#("' ## "(# #%'%##) )"#-%# ))#+V&%$;226WV ""$;226WA'$ ER'$V%"$;229WA$ ;69

PAGE 151

;229WV&%$;22"#'"[+;2B:,"*! #= BM(" 4 3 .E%# "*? ?#! 3? ;6<

PAGE 152

R)+$;22=W&$'%$V$;220WA$;220W /$.$V")$;220WFVF$;220W&$;22B, #%)"'% ")[ # (""("# +V&%$;226WV""$;226WA'$$ ER'$V%"$;229WV&%$;22
PAGE 153

)$ )#%#("$( #$##$#(" #= :M("3 ?? ?("@("J("?)" 5'%$= B*"# ("# # ("%"("M ("% $% = B"$ )"" $"G= B ($ %("("$# -"("$-"(" ;6B

PAGE 154

= BM("?# ("J 4 ?# ? 3 ? 3 ? (" @ ("J G G (" ?)"G XX $%)$###" )$%)! $"$)()($ #("-(" #"(!' $ ("$%") (")%# %= B 5'#"$!)$'%#$ #$$) )#(" ;6:

PAGE 155

("$%'%# '%# R#"^ $^( ### %' %#= 2%# #= 2M#( ? # @ ?."? @ ."? "% ? %#)'% F $#%# ( $##% ;62

PAGE 156

# /%)$(#" L##' (# )# +&$'%$V$;220W."$/#$F-?$ $V#$;220,"## +& $;220, )# #$# )+." $;220, 3%# '#"+$;22=W & $;220W." $;220, '% #)"+." $;220, #) +;2:2,I %"))" $"R# $+ ;6, )+;2::2, !'I *#%!($ "!#$ #!$+ ;9, ;97 :

PAGE 157

'## )##("% 3 )"#"'(" %#"?#-/"+;22=, *)I &)% )## ?)%#)#)) #%)# )##%) ##)% # 3#) )!%'%) )$#%#-# #$#$+ <0, &"#)#$%)%( ##(" )%"$R)% (" /%)$"%$ ("!'$$ )#$(" %("(# ;9;

PAGE 158

(''-)% % ## %!"*$ )#%%)# (") #)#% #-)("%"-" ;9=

PAGE 159

3/.6 3//? ;96

PAGE 160

#A".)/B 3//? .# ;9< ?# ;9B R#. ;92 > ;<; ?> ;<2 #. ;0< ?3. ;0< ?". ;02 ;B; ;99

PAGE 161

#A".)/C 3//? "%# "$)#$"#! # "% #%)("' ( "%% %## R )#I )#I$"I"` )("'$"# !$% #!)"# )## "#! #(##'+5,5' >$ #% R!"#" +! N;9< \

PAGE 162

R ,#)#' $"*(" # 5!%# '$#%5R (I _?##" #"#!D _#$#% "-""#!D _#$#% "#!D _?#!("' #D _#%% ##D _" #D %#"W#% %"R# # %! )$)$ ;90

PAGE 163

$"% #) ?# "(-!$"# =!=!= # %6 ; )) #" )#$ )#" 6 ;M=!=!=?#$!$3"3 # @" -" -" 3 -" -" ;9B

PAGE 164

R)I("'$"#!$ ;%##+ !, ) R%##)" "#'R J %%#R*## '# # #R % "% #$")5 $ %"# ##) # $" # J%# # "$)$# F "$ %% % #) #% $% ; ;9:

PAGE 165

##%' #!#" %""*%(#) I#$#$" I#!#$#!"$#! "$#!#!" R#. R"677% % =!=!=$!$ "# J>"$J )$J@>% #R 3# )@>% #%$>"@>%$% R #5( $## #) "!")")% $"#W$ ;92

PAGE 166

"!"B:a 26a !#)%#) I#) R"%W @>%)#"# >")3 )"%"W)" "$@>%' #" @>%99 6a"$<;a ("G ) :Ba"$:: 6a("G ##)) %% %I>"$6;aW@>%$<;aW)$6;a #%#))% %%I>"$;0aW@>%$ 6;aW)$;0a ))# )#%I@>%$9;aW)$ ;Ba )#)%# %I@>%$=7aW)$;7a )##%I@>%$;=aW )$;7a )## ;<7

PAGE 167

%I@>%$="$)$ !#) Z ## A;)(%#'5' >$ #$ "#(" ## $ ## #% ##$ !%$#$ # > %#)*"I#$ "$ %#)$!)$" #"#% %' %%)" %'$-$/$ 3$) #W"%#)" %$G'%#" ;<;

PAGE 168

3) R("") #W$#)"# ")% "-"# #$"% % /%)$%#(" #" 3%)" # %# (# #*# '%#$("'$"'#"' !)#)-"!!$) !#)("# !% !$ ("#! ")" ###! ;<=

PAGE 169

#)!+!, ")#)###!% # )!$ (#() ($'%#$#! F$ )! $)%"" RW"%% ($'%#$#!$ ; 4 = .E%# 6 ?#! 9 @? < "*? 0 3 \;<6 3

PAGE 170

-DE)FG0 4I?( (D .E%#I) ( ?#! ,#($'') ((%% = ; A 9 =,%"()" 6,) ;<9 3

PAGE 171

-DG0E* 49 46 4= 4; +, "? FCCCCCC)4;W4=W 46W49 ;<< \

PAGE 172

3 6< f H5 =< 45 ;< 4L ) 05 < 7 &) ; 4;4=4649 4 3 4 ( ;<0

PAGE 173

&)M!T= 4IF(%'4T .E%#I!$4TCCC?#! ,('#!%% = 9 =,.'4TCCCCCCCC 6,%"()" 9,) "? FCCCCCC)4W4=W 46W49 Y&@Z ;
PAGE 174

3 4CCCCCCC%' 4CCCCCC &)M!T6 !"%)# %(( ?!% 4 .E%# ?#! @? "?+#, 3 &)M!T9 S%^&# ^'!" ) ""##)! F#%"#D 4 .E%# ?#! @? "?+#, 3 ;<:

PAGE 175

?> )"$)* ("'%#J"#!%"'## !#[) % #5' ("'+,%"# ("'+,+$;2B2,$. .'+..,+.#$$A$V'"$;2::,$ %.@5)9-;=+%,+$S#$ E &'$;22;W#VS#$;22:,+) ("'%#("' R#W:B%);$077 #0-;=%"7 00#0 ..'%"-%# #)!$)$#%);$977 # %)R -A )"'%% ##+, #")"%+2 :G=; ;<2

PAGE 176

)": B=G=;!#, ".. 0 : 3)"%"!W"% 7 B<#E-+&3-=7, )"%.@5)9-;=% I")%"!"%) #!W")"%"% #+$;2B2, "% #7 :=-7 27#$#.'+.," +?%V'"$;2:7,$%) '()#$#) .2 =$.) 'B;=#) .+&$'"$VF$;2:<,%))) '#$" 2 <%#B-;= 6 = *')" $%)" %#("')#!)W R#($##!%)$#$ W;07

PAGE 177

"*#$"*##$'# $("' ')#)" %")) ()(" % (%'"( ($) 6 =M"'>O %... "#) P P P P P "#P PP "# P PP P ?# PP PP PP !#PP PPP P "#! ( P P # P P P P 'P O 3V #* P P 3 # P OO ?-----P O" OO"#(

PAGE 178

%W$'# J( 5'%$#"" )#!#) %(##! # ("'B: $E#)"9 : )"("'% ")#!)%X )%$%)% # !I-)% J)##%%) )" !$!$ %$&#!)# ) %%% !#)" # $?##!$[" #!%%% !#)" +! 3,#! %# ;0= ;

PAGE 179

!I$($#!$ #$#!W%#) %) % #!%# ) %R# $"#!$# # "$%)677 #(""#W$" !$""*' %" !## %("%(;:$.$ #@9-;=% %/'+ S#$E$&'$;22;W#V S#$;22:, %% .# %("%# )" &#-( "$%'##% "% )" (% ;06

PAGE 180

# 5'%(" ."! %(" "%#)$ $#%# #$" %!%#)#W#) %= = )"%("$ %#)%" %)"%% "%%W") % ""$ 3J% "%7 B;W$ "%) )"%% /'+$S#$E$&'$;22;W#VS#$ ;22:,% )"%% %#".# #!"3(#%R "%#7 B2M7 :6# -%)-" ;09

PAGE 181

#. $$ $$%" %%# # "-((" '%#%#-$ %# $?##!$%#+!3, "%")#!$ "$"# 5'W$% '# %#%I;X)$=X"$ 6-$9X("$
PAGE 182

)" % %+!, 5"%* #" 5'%$" %%#)'%#W ) $("' $-("' % #" ["#!% #)" %# $$# #%#J %#)##" % #)JW("'$ ?##!$ % #)6<("-'=7 ?##!W% $%%###%#' ;00

PAGE 183

%#)!" "%' #"("' "%"($"%#) W%!""[ %%(^^" %^^%W%% JR#$ $%!# % "$%#)6< ?##!$## % .'%#%!#"" '% ?#!%! % #) %#)=7 $%" )"$%%%"#$ %$;< %%%#)$'-"% '# $ '5#% '

PAGE 184

!%!' %'#" $%#'# "## ) %%'")%'#% .%## ##" #%# #%#( #' #%% "+!,) ) %)$ #)! >%%$$'%# ##' *(" 4)%" %'$#$)#$#$$ ;0:

PAGE 185

)%$)$) % )%-" ?". "%)"% (% %#5' ." "%#)$ $#%#% # %#)%) # $"%!%#)# W#)%0 ;:9 !R !"R %%)# )" )+3>, ("' ) 5'%$$ #$# ?##!) ;02

PAGE 186

#?##!% ""!%% 3)"%#)% "!%"% %)J"#! ) %"%$-$/$ 3$)W%)$)% % =!=!< # $ "%%#W"-" =!=!= # "$ %)" %7 7<")# =!=!= #6 ; 5)[(" )#")%) #3< )") (%" ") F 7 7<$"%" ;B7

PAGE 187

"#W'%$ R "# -%# ( "%( #)## "$() # #(-!"=!=!= #$!$"% )"I#$#$" ")I("'$"# !$% "R! (W$ )% I)("' % )"#! )# 4)# R R;B; R

PAGE 188

3/.9 3/?@ ;B=

PAGE 189

#A".)/I /)B)"/#AJ%*%+B .# ;B9 ?# ;B< ;B< 3@. ;BB 3 ;B: #" ;B2 R# ;:7 4; ;:; 4= ;2= 46 ;2B 49 =7; 4< =;= 40 =;6 3 =;< ;B6

PAGE 190

#A".)/I /)B)"/#AJ%*%+B ") ### ( ##( %# R) #W)#" )("'$"#!$ % (I _?##" #"#!D _#$#% "-""#!D _#$#% "#!D I;B9 N 3

PAGE 191

_?#!("'W #D _%% ##D _" #D !#%? %%" %" "$#( ) %")I," )%)#)$=, $6,4))#" ?# @. ;09>"$@>%$ )# %" >"" >""$

PAGE 192

)3E-: >"# "$"W) J@>% # @>%#" $<;a("G$ "99a" "$" $-"$#"$ !-"#@>% $9:"$6% =9W$)") )%# ) ")"%::a ("# 20$) #$ $99"` 96"!` $20$:B2;a" $9B92W$ "( ;B0

PAGE 193

)# ;09#$09"$07"$;: -"$==-" $B0a "$:=<7 7a:=<7 7a 3@. @>%) # #@>%$ "$%""$-"$ !-" $# $09a"$;29=a$=0<:a J)% # $9;"$9=" $6-"$<-" # $2;$2;a"$99 9:a$9B<=a #;60%:=a# <7"$0=" $;6-"$;;-" $06B6 $90 6a <6 Ba# ;BB

PAGE 194

3 ##!# # 5#"# @>%!" R"% @>%$# $$$# .'#%) "$#))"$ "#%">" /J# J# >"$ .' A# "$#) J #%R#""$J # #$ E# )" #)" #)" E#% $) $ A$#%" # "$"@>%" R W;B: ; N

PAGE 195

$'# $#$ )#! #%#)#!! %!% "%# & #%#$%#% N !# &# #("J)#' &#%#%($' $%')%"%# "! ) #)%"$ )"%)"" #" ""$3J% "" 7 :< "" W("'#( W ;B2

PAGE 196

7 :: ?##!7 2; # "%% ")+3>, ." % #)$$#%% %# #$"% !#)# !R "#)% $I;9$;<$;B% ) !"% )#)" )% ")% )I("'$"#!$% )"#$#$ 3>%%( -) GR"% ;:7

PAGE 197

## )GR" % 4) )# (" % 4; ?##" #"#!D" 9 ;M=!=!=?# !$3"3$ # @ " -" -" 3 -" -" ;:;

PAGE 198

9 =M&%-R =!=!= ?# !$3"3$ ?>I"?#! ? ( # # ; 9;696 B ;6= < g7 77; 20 7 7 6 7 0 @ ; =0 < 7 7: 7 : # ; <67 < ; B 7 = # \ @ ; 69< 0 ; ; 7 6 "! @ ;7 : 7 79 7 2 # "! @ ; =:< ; 7 2 7 6 ;:= +

PAGE 199

"%%( 3>(! =!=!= #+9 ;, #+X;96,#"# +X;=B,"#! $" "#+X;6= I"?#! ?) 0< ; == 7 3 =: =a ;B ; $%%# +X;96,$0< ;a%)== 7aW ;:6

PAGE 200

#+X;=B,$=: = %);B ; #""#9 ; #9;M).> #M?##! 3 eI Nh 0< 7;7=?6797<707B7 # "#(# %##" #!#+X;6; 6WX;$=0:W g 77;,%%#"#! )%; 73>" 9 9*# ##"# #%=B : #=; 0# $# #0< ;#J#%=: = ;:9

PAGE 201

9 9M.)..# 3@ @ 3@ =B : =; 0 0< ; =: = 4)# ##!# #9 ="# #9 6"# W;:<

PAGE 202

#9 =M"@ M------------M---------------4*------------M5M ; @ ;:0

PAGE 203

#9 6M"3@ C 7 -------------
PAGE 204

%J!)" &!)" W# #$'" & '#'$#) %G! I) $($'%#$# "!)#%#'$ !"%! #9 9)## $'%#$#!% $W" '# #9 <" # $($## !$#)'%#$" #!$$# ;::

PAGE 205

JIIE"D8./B+ "*8)F" @@NOM"P OODL @DDD @K@@QRB H!)>iR>!j M Q"%J] NS'QT@UV@ A BPMS'PB@ CP#3-PDD$@@:M C !j' C7NL! WM.DX&M V ;:2

PAGE 206

#9 9+3 : !"# 3-; <----------------------=> ? @66666666 J>K $ "A666666666666666Q ;27

PAGE 207

#9 9+3 MM C>fFF H-------------------------------------------_--M -Q< ---_M M _4QJ -MO M_OJ ] e^ 67 Q B a M_O--K M -----------------CRVA35 UF C ;2;

PAGE 208

J8ITE"D8./#+ "*8)F HP @/ M ?AA5 % &' ((( (((((((( 4= #$#%" -""#!D "#%"-" "#!# ;2=

PAGE 209

"+X;7<,00 ;a%) =; ;W-"+X6:,$0= ;a% )=9 < $"` "##!$3> %"#""+X7 6WX;$=B7WX7 0, $3>#!"% #+X; BWX;$=B7WX7 =, 9 <* 9 I"?#! > ?) 00 ;a =; ; -" 0= ;a =9 < 4)) "-" #9 0!" [#!#9 B! -"[#! % % & %(I$($'%#$#!$$ ;26

PAGE 210

# '%#$) ")' %''W%-") R"%%#% ) "#!$ -" /%)# "%"##%# 5'%$ #) ) %"##% -"#) #-"# ) "J# %#%( '%#''+( (69, )$%)" N;29

PAGE 211

J8I9EBY*8)F" Z3$'K WWA= ) UW jG%-EF$$$ $M'PK MP QIMQ X
PAGE 212

J8I E%BY*8)F" (K[ Db0>Q"OO#) "KM3\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\K ;]$'[K P(;X'^I"Q\\\\\\\\\----------------------]OH>9biQ)RR>Q-5 Q ----------%F QGQ MMM A$ (LI 06R5 O i[ Ob ; O 9b R#A%&Obie ;20 A

PAGE 213

46 #$#% "#!D"# %"#! #+XB;,# 0: :%);2 0$#+M B=,0; 9%)=6 B 3># "-#+X 72WM;$=B7WX7 :,"# !$$#!# #+X; ;WX;$=B7WX7 6, 9 0 9 0M@? ?>I"?#!$@ @ ?) 0: : ;2 0 0; 9 =6 B 4)) %! "#! ;2B

PAGE 214

" #9 :%!# #9 2#! )" & #!$( [) &'%#% #)""$'# #'% &#! "$'# %#% "' #$ 0)"67 & %%'07$" "%) '#$%% "?3"%# $!$%)"$ #%)" ))## ;2:

PAGE 215

#9 :M!?# + $',VM`M *. /0 MTa"*M Ld9 3--------!" e-------#KK g">)>)" GOBHH 0DQS # 3H 3CCCCC; 6BC;O;S+ CAM5Q )HC 6Q< Q $ H Qg6 -------------------6---M-
PAGE 216

#9 2M!?# CC 5 5------------------------------12%3CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC" E &'( 4+!" 5 67 89:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 < O 6O ; 6Q GOL ; 7 455

PAGE 217

49 ?#!("' #D## %("' # X("'<2 0$ 00 9 $0 :# #$-%# +X6 7=$;6; X 776,%("' # /%)$#%" ##Q'%#("'% ##3>"+X; 2$)%"7 6 4)#% "J# !$) )%%' !)$%#% !!)$" ("'") !$ =7;

PAGE 218

%"#)!$"#% !% # ?#!$ "#%!! N &"!$"#% ()#!W $()(" '#($##!%)$ ##$##$"*#$ '# !$#!$#) %)"I &)M!T9 S%^&# ^'!" ) ""##)! F#%"#D 4 .E%# ?#! 454 R

PAGE 219

@? "?+#, 3 #9 ;7M!5! bH Q'>> JH> H-3>LbaG ((< A Z RO--------M G Z Q'giQ .Q 9TLE Qg2+9 G>L>)LGGGE ee ] .. Q->-j'Q M )/) %(( .L-bTOb$ GCQXL (= > ; ; ?@ 5 iFi JEOG,QG;eOee > ;Q A > ; =76

PAGE 220

J8I05H#7 -6QDGG) M4 EA45-#QG -)* RF#"MG6M R#-6G>>6-$ (0 5 ( +,-./ QA8QF3 =79

PAGE 221

J8I05H#7 f= 7# Q; O^bMRJ-M 0 >JQ +, M 1 23 M 4 >H f # _f ) _O 6.8 =7<

PAGE 222

J8I05H#7 GF)%5 $* B !*7(CCC #[QM D M "M/+8&!$;8;A$Q K.3GH iGM J!#9 ;7)("' 5! $""$() #') )"%" %" #!" !)%#9 ;; %#'% )) )" $%^^"0% %) # =70 N R \

PAGE 223

J8I00EB*BBB)F V9 SW[L E?5F"/*% > F% & 5 QE LfQL +PR V F/EVVN %6,& $57+ ;O)OH)L ) )A6TUQG =7B LbO

PAGE 224

!T6$%#)%% #9 ;=!! M!T6 !"%"#%%" ( # ?!% 4 .E%# ?#! @? "?+#, 3 ### $% # )#! I"$#%$ !$%# ? )" 3 W=7: ;

PAGE 225

J8I04EBBB)F GCB)F G>e B"( 6 #%8 =(7B 3\ 9 (\b7DY!! CDD#P6 LX(N; I<3@Q--B; Q. -GgHRi +H.? < $ I 3EQE k -RR->RR;, B ( D-# 9 CCCCCCCCCCCC,gg9f##---------+9:"; ;1 Q % --QV <-1 !&K-#JA GV M I 7M"0GB(WPMA E#4.d> < ,: g + 1='5<1&51<>?+.@A l CCCCCCCCC=72

PAGE 226

J8I04H#7 +V --A ,(5 _Q+ ,CCCCCCC" HG7 34") M---------G> -Q-------------------------B AQ-fe QJQ +] Q\5C R A----------M-------------------------------#C-XC:& ,>SAQ mO3SH @HB5(----------f------405

PAGE 227

J8I04H#7 @ ) '6 B< =DQi 9O 7 '$ +QA Q,+ G>\ "?LM@N<(
PAGE 228

\4< R %% ##D$ > #")#%% \# F $#[% \:B <$#J:0 0 F6 7 R5'$%"B< 7 R R$#B< 7) )## \6 9B<#$6 972 J# #%#"#+X \ 7 ;WX;$;:9WX7 :, ""%+X ; B67$X;$;:=$X7 =,9 B*## % 9 BM% :B < 3:0 0 =;=

PAGE 229

40 #D$ ##%'I %! 5 J%%" #" W#%#%# ##!I 4 .E%# ?#! @? "? 3 J#%# %#!I /" =;6

PAGE 230

. ) 3 [#%# !I /" 3 3 %"# ###K" #"%# #"%#$-%"%" # %) #" #+X ;09,$0=a ? %)#% $B;a '%$"$$=2a" #+X;9<,$0aL $<6a$% =;9

PAGE 231

#$%$"$96a 3("$#<=# % # $%%## %#W%;9 # 3 R#" )##( % "#%# #%# # %)"-" $ %# )% ## %"##("'" -W()%)# %'%#("' $ R##)" )##( =;<

PAGE 232

3/.< 335?.53 =;0

PAGE 233

N 3/.< 335?.53 .# =;: ("3 =;2 # ==7 ==9 3 ==0 "?#! ==0 ("' ==2 % =60 5'#(" =62 5# =9B #E%# =9: 3# =<6 5# =00 =B; =;B

PAGE 234

3/.< 335?.53 ##%!! )"+F$E$'$V $;2:;WA#%V?"$;227WV&%$;229,W ##%"-"$) # "$) 5) #'%##'% +V""$;226W@$;22;, ($% #%!$"$!'$ "+.**$$V$;22;, 5#$#%'$-) ##$)) +V&% ;229, %$ #("+$;2:2$;226$;22:W 3$;220,$#(") !$)#" =;:

PAGE 235

%(" 'R" )"#(" ("3 #%"##(" %' #%"$#(" #$'#$$ +%%(", ("$+%( %#(,$ #< ;$("3+#= :$ %%, ("3"(" -%("" %"("# #< ;M("3 ?? ?("@("("?)" =;2

PAGE 236

("%"## (" #(")" () (")# $%($ %'G%W%)"J$" "(") (" #*# ("J")" %(" *(( .%#("$) #))(%#)% # )## ("%# +#,)$$%) #" # Q(+@$=77;,W%#< = 3 445

PAGE 237

#< =M(" 5);-!# )''%# )% 5)=-# ) )''%# ## %'# 5)6-# "#) # %' #)$) #)#) )''%#$ 5)9-#" #! !#" ")## '# 440

PAGE 238

J8T488WD !##%"$$"$ 5)9 $#% #%$"#( %-'# )"-'#$") !)%%# )" %"* #%"I )#%"'# ")! ^^( '%#')!# %!$ !%"%#) !#W"! $#!") %$"$) $ ## '#! !$" %# $ 666

PAGE 239

\ \ #%"#% e$!%% %# #< 6("+@$=77;, I%"### ;("! ##("$ )!#W$ N#')# #< 6M3(" # !3#! % "$$"$#% (" $!# $#! ==6

PAGE 240

# 3("$#!$ J ;# !)))# )" %% ("%#' %" """# %' +@$;222W@$/$V$;222W@$%$ )$3'$VF$;222W@$=777W@$&'"$/$ $ C+ %$=777, # '$#%!# !"'# ("*#(-!#% ## #$ (% #' %%#% N==9

PAGE 241

! / (##'5'>$ #$"% #(" )! @ >%)## #$#) # # #% #%% _#$) #)# $#$# %! $)"J )" #%" (-!#)I #$#$" )I ("'$"#!$% ;"%#%%#" (I _?##" #"#!D 3 ==< O R

PAGE 242

_#$#% "-""#!D _#$#% "#!D _?#!("' #D _%% ##D _" #D 3 "?#! # #"#" #! # )"W'%$# *% #)## % % 449

PAGE 243

## "?# !$#J#0< 5$ #$#=: = $ #60 2# #"#I! #% #!"%#)### !#%# OL)## (" "$"#% %O"-""# !# $#) "-" #+%$;229W%#V&"$;220, "%$)## )%I-)## -"#"7 < #""# #-"" R ==B

PAGE 244

#!02 = #" 0: B $7 <$ #$%"-" #+%$ ;229W%#V&"$;220,%'#-)#%) #-$) < ;M"@? ?>W"?#! "G@.# "G 0: B -"G 02 = "G 06 9 -"G <0 9 3"G =2 = 3 -"G 60 ; 3 "G =< 9 3-"G 67 2 ==:

PAGE 245

F#$%-" ""# #)#=2 =60 ; #-"# $"")#=< 9$` "")#67 2 "# < ;# ("' )###'%# ("'-("'$#<2 0$ #00 9 $0 : ## ("' -W#( "#!%#% "" #% $)! '#-"*#("' $'% (! "( ==2

PAGE 246

%%%" !$49 ("'$' %#("#)#%I 9 F)$A'D R "R *R ) "#^^%"99 = #%^^" /%)$=0 B#)%^^$;2 9#)%^^ &^^^^!$ #(^^$^^$ ^^'!$$ %^^ 4;7#!J" %%#' '%#( )% "' #(I =67

PAGE 247

;7 %"-%%)D ; ; =0 = 7 9 =B 7 )%( 41 )4 = 49 =< U4I C J 4C 3 44 4 95 I1 C9 4I 04 7 A "=6 0$%^^ R"$07 0$^^%"#)) %(%"-%) /%)$27 2"%#( ###%))"-%IB= $%%%)(D$ %%"%(#W %"%%$" =6;

PAGE 248

" ((###) )(%R# % 4;B$;:$;2("* "%( (%I 4;B-;2% % !#)3) A AA" 3 & 6 <9 7 6 7 = : = <6 7 = 6=; ; "97 < 6; 7=: 7 B : 7 :7 6 7 7 ;7: 9 A 7 :; 6 = 69 <;= :;2 7 ;B : <: < &)2 :: 7 ;; 7 ;9 6 ;= < 2 6 ;= 6 BB = 9 6 = : ; 7 ; < ; 6 7 : ;< 7 9 <9 : < 6< : 9 6 < : < : 60 6 ;B FD 3& A &) ;: ?#%)-$%) #D &) A =6=

PAGE 249

;2 F#)D 3& A 4;B$B< :#% 4;:$0< <$BB 7 "4;2 ($ )$R" #"( 4=2($) #W#B< = 4=2I =2 )( A" "? # "A" =66

PAGE 250

& :7 % I5 H7 O 3 (##)$# ($##% (;7 ;:$;2 =2%("* ") (+;:$;2$ =2,$%## "('%# #("' D#+X; 2W; =:;WX7 ;0, ## ("J' -# %#"' /%)$ #### =69

PAGE 251

-("' # #00 9 #0= 2 6 <#)## *< = < =M". ("'V"?#! ("' a "?# 00 9 0< ; 3 0= 2=: = #=-$-"% %("' # -# +X6 7 ;6;$X7 776,%-% # #<2 000 9# 0 :# )%3>% 7 6% -" %()" =6<

PAGE 252

% %# #") ##$ "# #% #)"#%!$ )%-! $# ##%!#$) !) #)# !%")" #< 9M&J?#." 5)?"'?'5) ?35S &? =60 P

PAGE 253

#')""&+;22B,#< 9 +#= <$%, ")"'%') $"##)#) F #$'#$ ))! # '#)## )%)# )%#!$ $)%$)" #)! "%) $"$%!#! $")!$" "##%#!%' %)# %#!$" ""!# '$")% ""! #R +"'$%$ ,"! "# =6B

PAGE 254

"!+@ $=777,+!,! #%"% % #"!%" # #% ##!+&)T9, !$ '# ##% )"%# %)" #!%W$" '##%%"! %" JJ" )!% %"#"# #+.' $;22<,#) ##"%"% $")# % .` )#)" "$ -))"+E$;229$.' $ ;22<,$#" =6:

PAGE 255

("'$$02 7# "$06 :M< = #%# 5'#(" #!# $"'!% #< <$5'#("$"% ##! # #)(" %)%!+@ =777, J%I^#)()% #" ^ /%)$#" #""#! #%"#!$ ""$!%# # $# '%##!$%(" $#"'# =62 R

PAGE 256

J8TTE(K8BB 3I E%# @ ? 3 !!% "!%# #< 0 R!## R#)# R=97

PAGE 257

'#$'!"'%# # #< 0M3@!?# 5[ N>'O P 7O; <'3 ----------^ CI O B T O O > P ;W T DK =9;

PAGE 258

J8T EB+)F*8 4Q)4)Q3JLQ ? DLMFO 3Q F>-QV> Q_Hf3344>OA=3PH+ ?3Q@3PQ '&J J-Q@3 : Oi@>Q7bH(+fOV$ Q>43QC-33Oo$)HQk, %AJ[!Q>Q +%)$7Q-EQO: >R>J!Q$47>@ QJAF)H =9=

PAGE 259

J8T H#7 !3KF&M "75 .R -$J)bi=96

PAGE 260

:Q8HJ8T 7 "%I;,@# =, 0 '% 6,0% #" )J) 9,E)# %$)## <,%# J'!"#!% %)"'0 7 ) '"J!# 5'%$#! %!-!'$"-!% ## % ') !$"J#! )#< :)# TI## %% +A#,T=I #( ) =9 T6I#(=9 ) T9I5# (=9 ) /% ;7%"$;<%"%$=7%"6 #$' N=99 R

PAGE 261

J8T1EB+QBG4 *8)FB OO,!QQ)>J)!>@ 3!3 JJmJ)n-a )D86 HQi-HB#FLiVF .>OHg-PJ2%> >b.4-4QR)LN$ !"#$# %& '()*+#', -. #*/ fQL)#")FQL77Q7Q 1,5E Q)HKQ_i!)A >-5O>HHLQ Vk%Q)% HV>HQQ 4Q"HHFOP#-#QQ+3QH$ )F>QHQ 01 2 L3)-Q) H GQ 2 6 ; =9<

PAGE 262

$'# !) )#"#!' "")$" %% "! !#%"% #% #< 2" #$ #< 2M"3 F'@ )3A-5ARP# F------------------3fO>'FR>Q QM B 6> FR & 3 / ////////////////////////'P QQ6->F 4 g> ->>Q'%)# $ HD%QQQ-% Q)-) JP0QCCC=90

PAGE 263

5# ))#$(" !$###! '!)" #*%"$$#)"' % >"$ )$)%" #%' .' R5 5 ''%### !+@ $=777,I #5!$")" '## $ %*")## #!'"#%# %# $)## R$))% F)#%#$ ##'"%" # @>%$%%'% R $ 5%-"!% ?#$) W=9B

PAGE 264

#! %%J'%# !% R #E%# #'%#%%'# '%#%' ?#) !$ 5+@ $=777,I "%"#%" %!) )! #)%%" F% #)!$")%2:a %%# F%# )% # )$%%"$%%%# $ )% %""%")% % "#"%') )$")#"### ) %)'##" )%7 ; %#" "$%)#%" )%7 <%# #%# >"""$ #! ?#$ !%"(#27 # )!$%' =9:

PAGE 265

WJ8T05 >L9FV^E %'-/' /) 27(R ?Q fLbH KH HN-Q> cWDQ B [I H$>ER($ 7F %'4%R7)7 J! .'J### ($'%#$#! .'* !+@ $=777,%#! (#$% #<7d67d ( )#* # )""# #< ;7M!T9 #@# P!R) f!SF9 A_ 9ECQ( 4+ WT5 =92

PAGE 266

#$."#$)#" %"*##(" %#"" J%%' %" %" %%+A$=777, !% # %# %"%#!%# !%'%##)) #! @>%$ 5" %!+@ $=777W@$;222W@ $ ;222, @>%%%#' )#%"%#)$ #%%# '%#'% %J!%%#I #%-5!$ %# # "%!%"%# #%#'#%"#% "%# )"$")" #! ( =<7

PAGE 267

' @"%## %#' #< ;;!% 5J# #< ;= #< ;;M3 !?)? +!) ,, !) C! )!,D !+! !! ,!, #< ;=M%-3 !?)? + !!))!+D )) !,E,) )D!+D, +,A6" +)! F !4D! +G !"%J#@>% &#) )% '%#)! %#"%###"$% 5! #)" %#%" #< ;6 "$%"%%### =<;

PAGE 268

"$%)%## ## %)# %##'%# !") #< ;6MJ3)F# F%"$%%#' F%"# "" #'#"""R!# ")$$" %") "F '%%%% %"N J'%% $"''" % ''" ''R$ %) /%)$" !%"# # #" "'%'#'% !#"$" @$%'%'% N!#)%#' "%### "%# ## !"" $"'%"' '%%" '%#('"' '%%"''J %#%" "'#%""#)' #%"' 3"$"%"J'! /"" #$%5'>%." =<=

PAGE 269

3# # %"% % "$(# (%O #%$) $)(## # 5 # %)#% 5# %' '%#%!) %%!" %($$! %%") ( )"')## J)"O! -?5#?)#!I +RI4?#!, I%$_%%"%( =<6

PAGE 270

IE%#%%'%)$%# #(%D I?"%'#'D =I3D I/%#%D I IF%## I/%%""D+)) (#)) ,/%( D+%%() IF(DF!(D 6I.'%# I+)))'%# %( +") I%#('%#$%!D 9I?#! IF%#!D *!%# (#%#!+@ $ 4555 7_ $%"'#) =<9

PAGE 271

((")"R*# #)()%# $%(% %%%# (#%) !%# %#)G)"+)'$;2::, "$ )#%)#$ (#"#")#+/*V5$ =777, $(#( ## &"#%!$ #*%') +@"$S"$V&$;22;, #A+=777, "$" # J## )"# +F%VF$=777, $%"%!% ## "$%)! %' %#$) =<<

PAGE 272

#)+A$=777, F# %!%'$"')" "")'%#% !)+F%VF$=777, '%##)#%% '#$"+F%V F$=777, # #"%##% #!% ?# %#%'%$'"# # #)!#" #-)#" #$) #%'#!# !%#% "$#R"' )"! '"#%+@ $ 7_ =<0

PAGE 273

_ _$% _) _?)#'# _/#' _.! _3%# _)" _/#! #%$%#)' %# '% !$!$ ($) $ %!%## !#')%( '% %% %"!$"%%% '#(%$"# '!"# =
PAGE 274

( #$"%)"!% %( %#)#'#$ ##"" #) %)"$!%#%#%# ')"%"% 3%#%" "" $)"%'# %#'()"!# %'%#$" +@ $=777,I _%%'% _%'" _")% _'"G%' _)"!# # ##" "'"$ "% '#% =<:

PAGE 275

#%'" #% $%'%%# %%#' #" #$ %%## I"$% # ##% )#)'))##!" ) %"'W $%' )# 3("$%# #"%) !$% '# (" %! #))! #%%%## #< ;9-< ;B! % 3 =<2 G 3

PAGE 276

J8T0IEB)#G0 WD8FWKQ WDD8 GCWWFWD8F K8K8W K
PAGE 277

(( ")'$%$ ($%$ (6 !!% %"*"%$ #( #< ;0 !%%"*% #!$ #"%$ )!%% $"%! $## ) #< ;B$" % ##)%$ %$ # )") %! #R$ #< ;<$*!$ "*9;G= =0;

PAGE 278

( %"% #()% ( %'%# !$" )"## $!#$$ # "%($'%#$ "*$ ##!$%# #%%# !#$$# +@$;2:9$;22;W$3$@$V8#$ ;2:2,))#)!%!)%' %))) '%#))%"%'%# #*''#'+@$;2:9$;22;, # %"%##!$# $## =0=

PAGE 279

"$#) # )# "J'" )" ## #+A$=777, ) %$'"' % #+F%V F$=777, #$'" #$)"))## %#I ##"# "")% )#%!" # "# #< ;:#(%# #"!(" J"#$# $)"# #!W$# )! #" ##I!$##$ =06 N 3

PAGE 280

#$ $%#% $!#"W% %)$"# #< ;:M#( !(" ? /? "#% #( ##) %'#*# #-") %"%'" +"%'#,$%% % "))"%) =09

PAGE 281

%#)*#) #! $"%)"% &")##-"$ )' "" %'%#)#$") #!##( ")) R R"+F%VF$ =777, 5'#%)" "")'%#% # '# #$" $% ("$"W$ !")%'# +/%"$=777, #("!( '%# )# ##'%## "#"%)##"'" "##%( # =0<

PAGE 282

J"## ## %)# "$")) #)-##)#% ###) %#*$)$% R$)"$#+A$8, W5Q# ") %() 5)% ## 5))# "5)J(" >))( #"#! %R" %## "#! /%)L$%X7 7<$)% ; 7$%-R$)# R=00 R

PAGE 283

;6= <%g 77;$#R" !#%R## !+#< ;2," #< ;2M&!I). ?##! ;77e 3 %d0TC0C6 B# %##"# #$!"B7W=< $!"<7WB<$!":7 =0B

PAGE 284

%#%!"67W=< $!";7$B% ))(# ("' /%)$$%; 2<6 %X7 ;06$)#" ("'% J## 3> !#%R## !#< =7"$ %## ("'#R "3> $# "#"3> ("' /%)$ %3>%7 6W-% -#+X6 7$X 776, \=0: R

PAGE 285

J8T45E-F_.BBK !" # 09C B "% $% "J% # $"" )" "$"W $##*" =02

PAGE 286

#%#% #)"$"% # '% ") ) #G%#) +,$" /%)$#") '%$*) "")## # $[$ "$% )" '% #$ *"## #(##'5' >$ $ )" "$% #(") $#"$(#($ ##$ =B7

PAGE 287

"%" $ % ") ##! "% W#)) # )"-" %# # )% "# %#'( ## !# )) $% $)###" %#)'% 5'%$) "%# %# N=B; 3

PAGE 288

"# "%% I)$$)% ("%# "% %#' "?#!("' $##* %'# #"W $ "$) %" "%#I$ (#()#)#$ )## )##G!!#%" "$)$< 6$# #%)#$ =B=

PAGE 289

< 6M).("' #3 ("' '. # S ? @ @ ?)" 4 E%# ?# ? 3? "* ? @ 3 $ ) #("' !$# R$)! #!$#$$ %#! !$%"#) !W")#$$# )< 6% =B6

PAGE 290

!$("+#< ;, &$%"# %#%( "$ %#% %%# %% ( #%( $%"'## )" "$$ =B9

PAGE 291

..?P ; =B<

PAGE 292

3 ..?P .# ..?P 3! =BB ..?P& ("' -L<; ..?P3 "?#!V# 609 ..?P? % 60: ..?P 3
PAGE 293

..?P 35??33/5?P. =BB

PAGE 294

3! %#! '%#"#! # "#! )#'#' !#(! !)%-"!) !$#! "#! %! =B:

PAGE 295

.. ?##! S '!" %#) F("! F"'%#" )! F#!+, #"#" %%" "-## =B2

PAGE 296

B*88B)F .$W8 *8)F #* "e* # 415

PAGE 297

B)&%)E)//&/"(-)A"&/ )F& !_ ?( (D .$W8_ ) ( *8)F F% (#! (% %) $%# !)%%G %()I? ((D% ()%#! ( $$ )( $[%" )( '%# #)#( &% 410

PAGE 298

)$)( /% #%D ;,% # (%# ''# (#)+%,# ?) "=#-#( (%'$ '#)"#('% -# #( '#%-# -#( ''#%-# =,#(%## %(#* +,# ?)"=#-% ( ##*# =:=

PAGE 299

'#(' !"%-% *#( ---------------------------------R---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S%)9'#( # #(%# )''%# *"( %%# )"+%,( S% )#M(+(, =:6

PAGE 300

9,"R$%IU&)M 1% !%%M !_ ? ((D %%M .$W8_ ) ( %""%M *8)F_ F)( ('%#%I = 6 9 )";G=%%%"( F% ) #%7 %%%% F% ) #I =:9

PAGE 301

*-DG0 +, 4;4= 46 49 7 OG= 5 ;JG= = =JG= 6G= 9 9JG= < "*_ FCCCCCCCC)4;WCCCCCC4=WCCCCCCC46WCCCCCCCC49 )%4+,CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC =:<

PAGE 302

@#"* "# '# ##)% &) CT 0C5 g6 f L 8 4T ;< L 8 ) 6 05 T 7 ----------!0!4!C!I '#%" #_ Y5''"(%% %( ZF(C$"(CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 419

PAGE 303

B)&%)E)//&/"(-)A"&/ )FW F%)&)M! "!%"'R# )! "'# %#% % # DfDE 8F2 !#$)"# &)M!%$% ##'(4649 S#%( 5''"! F'#DF"D 5[#"%# -DE )FW 5[%(! F%%'%D !_ F(%%'4 \F"!D%"'%# =:B

PAGE 304

.$W8_ F'($ 4+,CCCCCCCCCCCCC#!R'!! #'( %"%#( %' *8)F_ *_ "*_ F'4$%CCCCCC)4;WCCCCCC4=W46$CCCCCCC49 )%4+, '#%" =::

PAGE 305

#_ Y5''( F%% %( ZF'4CCCCCC$ 4CCCCCC $%/'$'J, 'CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC=:2

PAGE 306

B)&%)E)//&/"(-)A"&/ ),.)/)%A/)) !) "%)#% (( F%""DF"D %(%"D ?!R'%!")# F#D I !_ .$W8_ *8)F_ *_ "*_ +# #_ f%_BW8-DE)FJK888F2 =27

PAGE 307

B)&%)E)//&/"(-)A"&/ ),.)/)%J&/ S)%##U&# 1' !") ""##) F#%"#D !_ .$W8_ *8)F_ *_ "*_ +#, #_ =2;

PAGE 308

B)'&E&&% ),.)/)%&%) !$) F%#! % #$% %Q%"( %%"!D$" !") !%% $%%"( "RA%!UM! 1 !%(#)% % '%#") !$&) !#) !_ 3D"$%%" %'#%(D =2=

PAGE 309

.$W8_ !'%#%^] %%(%%) 1 !$%"# %%"( /%% #!D/%%" F D5'""%# %#! *8)F_ ;,$(I> = $; $;> = $=$=> = 6$6> = $9$9 $<$< $0 '#(% '# 3"#" =26

PAGE 310

*_)FG0 ? ) 0 <> < 9> 9 6> 6 => = ;> 7 =,/)0' ))WY %) 8D %#[) N!Z f/8DW =29 ;

PAGE 311

F2 ") #)$%# %"'%)# S" )))""#) 6,/)%"%'< ) ) ") 9,%"%'# $)#$#) "))" "*_ "% # )6 %#)0$< $< $9 $9$6 #_ 5''"( F%% %( !I)R $"6 6 !('"%'($ (%"%) ( #)") %%'' =2< ;

PAGE 312

B)'&E&&% ),.)/)%'& 5'" F## ""##!%%" ( F %! /%%%(D![(#) % !_ /%%"(D F'%#")! #D!%%%#)% .$W8_ #! ## # !% $%')"#!# /% %#!D =20

PAGE 313

*8)F_ #%%'% %%'## F% "#'" '# $%%"'%' #%#% '## Df# DEK2 "*_ "% !I# )6 1L %#)0$ <>$<$ <1L $9 #_ 5''"( F%% %( !I) 6 1L $"6 1L 6 1L !('"%# ("%#%'#%$ (%"%) ( #)") %6 1L =2B

PAGE 314

YI!!%!% F% %)")#%%'% (%# !$%# %R$%#' R %)! )%)# +), Z =2:

PAGE 315

B)'&E&&% ),.)/)%A/)) '#'%%" F% !" #$##$ ## DfDE W82 #%G # /%"%("#D[( #)% !_ /%%"(#D .$W8_ *8)F_ =22

PAGE 316

"*_ F '# '#%)!-!+*, "-!+), #_ f%_BW88F/ K8F2 677

PAGE 317

B)'&E&&% ),.)/)%J&/ S)%##U&# 1' !") !!$ %$"' #R I !_ .$W8_ *8)F_ "*_ #_ 5%#)"!I #)M 3)M )M T50

PAGE 318

B)A/))E)".&/"&% ),.)/)%&%) 5)") %( )) %"#! !$%%%%)" ( /%%%(D!( #)% !_ /%%)("D ?")"'%#)% (DF'%#'% .$W8_ $ %( /%B%#!DF%%'%D %%'%!"%%) () $%%#! %%%))-" ;7=

PAGE 319

F%%)# $ %%## *8)F_ *_)D)FG0 ?" F5) +, F5) +, ? +, + ? +, =9 + ; = -b 5 )# 5 #' 676

PAGE 320

;,#'# %) $ "#' D =,#%)%!$ 8D 6,%# 3"'%D F%%)$" # 9,"%)%)( (%%R%+" %)" %) (,##"" Y"%( !Z ( 679

PAGE 321

%)(% ')(% )' "R <,$%)') ( "R A 0,%## #$ ??"+ $ 7 B,3'#%)#")#" :,%%)#?"; %)#?"= ?=9+ %?" =?"6 2,")"$)# % ) ;7,)#%#!# W N67< R N ;

PAGE 322

"*_ #%)#"CCCCCC =9$%)#"CCCCCCCC # "#%'% F%!-! +*,%)"-!+), # %% )M! IT -R A C 3 + G cEI ; 97 C C ; 3 T +" C6 54II1 4 A #_ 5''"( F% ( $)"#'W W%''%%%#( ");< R670 3 3

PAGE 323

"#$%%"() <%D 67B

PAGE 324

/M>. P.F %%!%)%")# (%"%)% !$%%)(% /%% %(D!(#)% !_ /%%)("% )%D .$W8_ "'%#)% (!% /%%#!DA'! # %%')(% ) *8)F_ !% #I)#(% N67: ;

PAGE 325

;,#'# %) $ "#' D =,#%)%!$ 8D 6,%# 3"'%D F%%)$" # 9,"%)%)( (%%##" "!""%) Y"%(! Z (%) (% )(%)' "R 3)(% <,$%)') ( "R %## 672 >

PAGE 326

#$ ??"+ $ 7 0,3'#%)#")#" B,%%)#?"; %)#?"= ?=9+ % ?"=?"6 :,")"$)# % 2,)#%#!# "?I#%)#"CCCCCC =9$%)#"CCCCCCCC #% F%!-!+*,%) "-!+),R'%! 3I5''"( F% ( $)"#'W %''%%%#( ") 6;7

PAGE 327

"9"#"$%%" ()<" "#D?'#)(D F"D 6;;

PAGE 328

B)A/))E)".&/"&% P./ ))#(%%% %)% F%[" /% "%(!D !_ .$W8_ *8)F_ "*_ # #_ f%_BW8FD-K8 F2 ;

PAGE 329

B)A/))E)".&/"&% ),.)/)%J&/ S)%##Q3' !"% ( !!$%$ "' !_ .$W8_ *8)F_ "*_ # #_ 6;6

PAGE 330

)" 6;9 ;

PAGE 331

! ; 4 = .E%# 6 ?#! 9 @? < "*? 0 3 ;<

PAGE 332

-D )FG0 !_* O .$W8_& D 6;0

PAGE 333

*8)F 07&8 QK KD WW = MM ---------------------------------------------------; 9 47/W D C7/ D N6;B

PAGE 334

?M&)T; H7 !0!4!C !I 5 4 0 04 4 44 C C(4 I I4 T 6;:

PAGE 335

"* '\\\\\\D !0:!4:\\\\\\\!C:\\\\\\ !I f-+2 # !\\\\\\

PAGE 336

&) 4;4=4649 4 6=7

PAGE 337

-D)FG4 !_' WK! H # .$W8_ FQ! G

PAGE 338

*8)F 07K8 )F&WW = ; -O 9 47.K!G\\\\\\\\ C7/W D I7/ D 6==

PAGE 339

"* '\\\\\\\D !0:!4: !C:! I f-+2 # !\\\\\\\W K!\\\\\\

PAGE 340

-D)FGC FW D 8W *F W T4I

PAGE 341

! .$W8 *8)F +* "*H 87 #

PAGE 342

-D)FGI gW`-8 B`KF D / 88D F' 8W8O I6=0

PAGE 343

! .$W8 *8)F +* "*H 87 # 6=B k

PAGE 344

E)FG0 !_AW O .$W8_ W *8)F_ 07&Q KWK8 _5Q 4 Q0Q0 Q4Q 4 QCQC[IQIQI QTQ T Q9 N6=: R ;

PAGE 345

47AD9 K&D D/ D C7ADWWK T K&D I7AD WK8W &D <=2

PAGE 346

E)FG0 * &D 9 T 7% C C 4 ,% 4 0 5 667

PAGE 347

"*_f WJF_ "CK 40IQ4Q00I QQ=IQ52 #_f'W W JF_ C"C KW K2

PAGE 348

E)F H !_AW O .$W8_ WW *8)F_ 07&Q KWK8 _5Q0IQ0Q00IQ4Q 40IQCQC0IQIQI0IQTQ T0IQ9 66=

PAGE 349

47AD9 KW&D D/ D C7ADWWK T0IKW &D I7AD WK8W0IW &D

PAGE 350

"*_f WJF_ "CW 4Q4Q0 QQ Q52 #_f'W W JF_ C"C KW 2 669 >

PAGE 351

E)FGC FW 8 WW ) 8 F *F W O

PAGE 352

: .$W8 *8)F +* "* # 660

PAGE 353

)FGI g`-8 B`K F D F / 88 DF '8W8O 66B

PAGE 354

! .$W8 *8)F +* "* # TC1

PAGE 355

)D)FG0 !_AWW D O .$W8_'W DWK 662

PAGE 356

*8)F_ 0JWW 4WD 8/ CWD / I#8 8WD 8 697

PAGE 357

)D)FG0 * (D H7 (D H7 J H7 J4I H7 0 4 ( "D8 ( 69;

PAGE 358

"*_&0Q WD8 84I QWD8 &4K8W #_"D8\\\WD 69=

PAGE 359

)M! $A 99 96 g? ; L L 9= f 97 62 =9 B= 7 9: / 696

PAGE 360

)D)FG4 !_AWW D WDWO .$W8_' D8\\\\\\W D 699

PAGE 361

*8)F_ 0JWW 4WD 8/ C#D W IWD / T#8 8WD 8 69< ; h

PAGE 362

"*_&0Q WD8 84I QWD8 &4fK8W2 #_"D8\\\WD WW DW L90

PAGE 363

)D)FGC FW WWDW D WW *F W 69B

PAGE 364

! .$W8 *8)F +* "*H 87 #

PAGE 365

)D)FGI g`-8 B`K F D W F / 88 DF '8W8O 692

PAGE 366

! .$W8 *8)F +* "* # 6<7

PAGE 367

..?P& 334SE55 6<;

PAGE 368

I("'+,%"# ("'+,+$;2B2,$. .'+..,+.#$$A$V'"$;2::,$ %.@5)9-;=+%,+$S#$ E$&'$;22;W#VS#$;22:,+) <<=

PAGE 369

("' 3%(% 4;-
PAGE 370

0 '%% % 6 < 6 < 6 < 3 B %"#%')!" ;= B ;= 9 ;= 9 ;= B 4:2#% )## #)"%# !, ?# 055 15 95 I5 45 I ZA= : F"D A" # A" 2 &#)$%"D A ? A" # 6<9

PAGE 371

4;7-;;!% !%%)( #%% )%( i41 4 49 -=< <4I 4C H 95 4 I1 C9 04 4I 7 / ;7 %"-%%)D ; ; =0 = 7 9 =B 7 ;; B=$%%%)(D 6 9 =< = =9 7 0 ;= '3%'%"%#! "% '%' 3%' % )"" %' 6<<

PAGE 372

;6 !%%#%=7" / % F"'D $#% %%$#% %%$%#% g5%%$%#% > .; .=.6.9 .< .# +, 6
PAGE 373

4;B-;2% %! #)3) / A 0 A A" #-:CT I5 C5 41 4T> C5 4C 400 I5T C05 415 1`] 51> 5C 55 051I 0 B< 51 0C 4C IT 041 065 0 1 T1T &) 61 15 005 0IC 04T> 6C 04C 4 0 IC CC 41 0T 0C 51 0T5 $ IT I1 CTC =T1 IC T1 T1 C9C ;B FD 3& A g5&) ;: ?#%)-$%)# D &) A ;2 Fi#)D 3& A =7 A%%%#("% F%#(#!D F%#(D F%#(D F%5#(%D CF%#(%D 6
PAGE 374

=; #%#% "" / ")$"/% #!D 3')% #"%# %"" 3" == A%%%' &# %% %' %%# F#A%%% # # % *% =6 %L F%# ##!D .00'';%%')#! %#%%#%#$%%#% %#D @;;" @>" &@@ &@@> 6<:

PAGE 375

4=<-=0%#! %'%%%$"%%% #%"### $[#67"###$ %# "###%#%"I ;7##%#)=<7#%"W ;7##%#)=<7#""W ;7##%#)=<7#%%" "##%#) % %'$"%###%%## / #)%I R#### %# F 7 ;7 FF ;; =< F#)D "%'####%# F"'####%# F-%"'####%# F%$"$%%'### %# =0 !%##)$% ##"#%# ##"#%# ##%#%# ###%#%" ###%#%%% =B %'%%%## F %(D #%# %%# #%' %# 6<2

PAGE 376

4=:=2#% #%% "?F##" & 1a> 07]M-M--------------M 4 M %\ UIWW =: % A"" A" )? =2 )( A" "? # "A" 3 607 \

PAGE 377

467-66!%I "# #%%"# "#* ) ")' # %"# )"%' # 67 F##!D "# 6; )!$%#% "# 6= (%#)! F"##D F*D ?D ?)D 66 F%#)+',"D 4 ) 60;

PAGE 378

69 !=7##%)%#'# ) !%=7# /#)% F' D )# '#) %$#) #$%#) d3, N?)## +, ?)# +, =7 P :7 07 97 N9767 <7 W=7 ;0 07 5C < 6 6< %! 5 <0=

PAGE 379

("' 3"# 3"" -/3) 3%( ; == = =6 6 =9 9 =< < =0 0 =B B =: : =2 7 67 ;7 6; ;; 6= ;= 66 ;6 69 ;9 6< ;< ;0 ;B ;: ;2 =7 =; 606

PAGE 380

..?P3 &5S?@P. V3@&3 T9I

PAGE 381

?##! S '!" %#) F("! F"'%#" )! F#!+, #"#" %%" "## 60<

PAGE 382

#?#! .. ... ; != 6 !9 "!< 4 4 4!= 4$'"6 4!9 4"!< .E%# .'%# .'%#!= .'%#$'!6 .'%#%!9 .'%#)"$#!< ?#! ?#!; ?#!= ?#$'#9 ?#$"'#0 ?#$: ?#)""!$;7 "$%% ; %= %6 600

PAGE 383

% .%$+ 5# !"%$$%$$ @ !"! 5"! 5!$" 3"!# #'# 60B

PAGE 384

..?P? ?F?33 60:

PAGE 385

I!## %("%(;:$.$ #@9-;=% %/'+$S# E$&'$;22;W#V S#$;22:, %% .# W602 R N

PAGE 386

3"# 3"" -/ +%,WCCCCCCCCCC3) Q#%%")% ; %"(" = "" %"(" 6 #")# %"(" 9 ) %"(" " " < "(")#%"( %"("" 0 )%'5 %"(" B "%" %"(" " : !# %"(" /D 2 )%-() %"(" ;7 #( %"(" ;; GG %"(" ;= &#% %"(" ;6 &#%' %"(" " " ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 6B7 ;

PAGE 387

;9 # %"(" ;< &#%" %"(" ;0 &#%' %"(" ;B &#%#)## %"(" ;: ) %"(" ;2 ;')#!!" #"# ?##G# " " # ) ) ) ) ) #"# =7 /)#!%!'!' #"#?##G###"# =; ;'#"##%!"#! ##%!! #"#?##G## == ;#"%!% #"#?# #G# =6 ;'% #"#?##G# =9 ")"# #"#?##G# =< '%'##! #"#?##G# =0 F"'!D # # # # #"# #"# #"# #"# #"# =B F"'!D =: 5#"! ; CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC4 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\B ;B;

PAGE 388

..?P 3 6B=

PAGE 389

3?/3 3 #5'+5,R% -3$ )#$$" %' R%))# #)5'>$ #)"$"% %'5R !%;, ($=,#)"))## )%)))#" R$#%'#))#R$# -#R$# %%'R$##)R #)#$#$$" )%#%"))R %)#E-;= ))55R$%" )G)#GG $% R))#5'> ;" J%R % %') )# '(5R$#$" (#R#%"# $3?)&#$B=7$676-<<0-=<<7 ))"$"% %" JCCCCCCCCCC?C----------------------.#CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC3%#))#$3@$" )? '%$J 6B6

PAGE 390

..?P ??SP. 6B9

PAGE 391

/*)F YIXXZ #)=0$""#% I5J#" WI")$")% )#G"!#/ I+# ," %")D I?%)(D!"'%"%" I' J)% IF%/D IF%#D +)# IF%'D I%%$%J# IF'D I'"!$'# II"J'#$%"#D /%"!%'#D W6B<

PAGE 392

IF# IF%/$#%$' I?%)#D IF#")# Y!"R" Z IY3"Z#%$%"( ## I5J')"J# )"'% /%"'#!!D F%!D IF '' /%"!D IF( I/%"##%J#"#D %"##!D I"% I"%"F"4; %(%%# ( IF#%#)" 67 IF%%(D I I# W$%'%% ")$%%"D 6B0

PAGE 393

I" I" IJ%"%J' IF I'$J%%" F"$#") D IS$ I$"#%# $#% "#(R' I5J'#! "% JR%#"!"#" '#%"J## I?% I'$%# IF#R I")#+%)%",$%' I%J#R% IFJ)!%R I5JR'% I/%%)D IFJ)M;G=# %*

PAGE 394

I5JR'R% IJ#"( # !%( S"## !%R$")"! IJ)# FJ'($"##(; 4 IFJ# I'%##4;% I5%"J"# "J# 4;$"%#"## 4; I.R'% %)R----I.R I.( I'"J'% I.%%/% I$%J%' IE# IJ%! IJ#W%! I#$%J'%%## I''%%"J"# I'$R%DD 6B:

PAGE 395

A R I/% \Y%%R($ Z I%$%J" I&RJ $%R#%" I I"%(""# N I") IF# I5J"% IF IY# ZF) IY'#V'Z$ I"J I5) I'% Y Z I" Y%%WW#( % Z IF"J"D I$#M IF#D ;B2

PAGE 396

W"$$#$$"% S) "!## IF%"%D&DD!D#DY Z IF) I5J%'-----I% IFJ%"#' Y%$#$ '! Z I"#'J' I'$"D Y( Z I'$%"%%"# IF% I"J I"J%" Y!M&)T9Z <:7

PAGE 397

3 6:;

PAGE 398

/)J)/)%#)B E +;222, F[("D [A 9<+;, 66-97 $ +;2:=, ))## A# ;2+=,$;<<-;0< -$ A +;22:, "8 ("-)## #'# A3## =:+6,$=76-=7B $. F $VF$ +;22B, 3) .?E $ B:+0,$999-992 #$& 3 + ,+;220, $($I%' # F#$?3I $ +;22B, #(")!! :;+0,$B;<-B69 )+, +;2:2, C F#$?3I ) +;226, &' %S'I!)". ) +;22:, & %S'I!)". )"F +=777, # (" 29+;,$=0-=B 6:= \

PAGE 399

$ 3 $$ A $$ 3 +;2B:, # A ;<;6, 966-997 $A $V&$ +;22B, -#! A3## G)! ;;9-;;: #$/ +;276, # 5I $ & +;226, @##(""" ." 6;+<, =B:-=:= %$ +;229, )" ? @ + ,$/'##+ <<:-" #'#" B;+=,$=<2-=02 &$F $V&$@ ? +;2:2, [U) ")" 1 B63050
PAGE 400

&!$@ +;22<, ## A#" 9+;, =;-=B &! @ $ ? $V@$ +;220, E%#-# ."# 6;+=,$;66-;97 &$& E +;22B, 3# #A :0+B, ;=0-;=B &$A $'%$ $V$ +;220, )##I #) !)% ==+;; 6B-0; &*$ $3$F $V>$> +=77;$, 3"#%(")I.") #$ 5$ &$ +;22;, .#) A3 5# B ;;9-;== &'$A @ $V&'$ +;226, #I ) >I) 3?) &'$ @ V&' A @ +;222, #) 5
PAGE 401

&$A 3 $'"$A $VF$E 3 +;2:<, ?)# 'I. A#A8=+=,$;02;BB &$ & +;222, %W## #) A# 60+9,$9<<9B6 &"$ F +;22B, )#" .$/I/ &" F V$F 3 +;22=, $" 3 '+ ,$"+ ;;BB-;;:2, % S'I 3$ / $)$. A $V@ +;2:;, 3#* ""!) 3#)$ <+<,$;=;-;<= 3'$A > +;220, #I") '$3I3%. 3"$E +;22:, #" A3 B<+9, 9B<-9B: 3$5 5 $V.$ A +;2:0$, )# #' .# # ? & $$3 $)$lV$. +;22B, ("I ## A#? 67+0, 0B7-0:9 ?R)$ +;222, %("-#I? %)-) Q 22+=,$B;-B0 ?J#$ +=777, /%)D)%) 5 <:+6,$0:-B; 6:<

PAGE 402

?#-/$5 $V"$A +;22=, 3 ("I F A'+ ,$/' + 9;-B:, %S'I ?&$@ +;22;, "I %S'I3#. A#$ V)A#$F +;22:, )"#% )%$ 0:+=,$;B2-=7; ?%"$A +;2;0, # @4"$;+;,$6-2 ?%$ @ V'"$A +;2:7, I#' 09+<, 07;-07: ?$ 5 $&$A $3$ $V/R"$ +;226, ) #"' A# 67+2,$ ;;=;-;;6; ?$ 5 $5%J*$ $V/#$ +;229, ? 5 @+ ,$/'# #+ 6::-99=, %S'I ?'%$ +;22;, %"-$"-%$)"IE#! /))% 0;+;, ;-=9 #$ +;22:, #(" +3? ) ?9=9;;=, $ $'$ $V$ +;220, 3# "I-! A$ 66+=,$=0;-=2< ^ #$ E $VS#$ +;22:, %' %3"$ I)"% #$ $V$3 F +;226, 5#"I ("J!' AN # 67+;,$0<-:6 6:0 R

PAGE 403

"$ $5%*$ $V/$. +;22=, M;227 B0+6,$=62-=<9 $ +;22=, "#-% '#"# $B0+9,$6B6-62B "$ F +;22;, ("I! 3 + ,$("+ :2-22, "$SI)" %S'. !$ +;226, ."#) 5I3 5 $ / $V5$ +;222, ;#("% )##'# =:+0,$;945 $& A +;2B2, ("'' >$I 35 *$ $F$/ E $8#$& / $ER'$A $V%"$ +=77;$, )###"# #$ 5$ $S $$ $V$. +;22=, .-)#("#"'##" A 3#$;;+6G9,$69B-6
PAGE 404

@$3 +=777$, "#" .) $F)#$53$ @$3 +=777$, 3## #(". #$%$5 @$3 $&'"$. $/$A $$5 $ %$ +=777$, 5'# ("$$ $$5 @$3 +;222$, ##("! )$F?)#$$ @$3 $/$A $V$5 +;222$, &#%' .$ &$ @$3 $%$ $)$ $3'$A $VF$ +;222$, 5'# $&$ @$? +;22<, 32 @ 3%+ /' )#)+ ;=6-;96, #$>I ) @$ $V.'$ +;2B9, ." %S'I3# @$A E +;2:2, -# ##"J# 3 & 3'$@ $V ." + ,$3#)#"I + =62-=0:, %S'I#-># @$. A +;22;, ?)#'#(" &#" <695=96-=9B @$. A $$ $V&'$@ +;220, "# #)-#' ##! A# 66+;, B2-22 6::

PAGE 405

@)$& E +=777, 5 <:+6;B=-B< @$ $E"*$ $$& A $V$? 3 +=77;$, # ')"%% #$ 5$ @#$ +=777, ?#M#" .? E :=;9J, 679-670 @$ +;2:9, '%# ."# 62+=, 26-;79 @$ +;22;, #%# # 5# ;+=, ;=2-;99 @"$ $S"$ / $V&$& E $ +;22;, "#"# /$ AI5% @'$ +;22< 3)5#3'# A#" B+;, @'"$. $V#$ +;22=, # [ A3 # ;; ;06-;B: @$& F $V>'$ +;22:, -%'("# "#"" A3## =:+=, ;72-;;= @)$ $V)"$. @ +;22B, #[#"J ::+6 ;69-;6: @)$ $V& +;220, #!I&# .)# 97+9;;02-;B6 /'$A +;22:, ("I& 0<+0, 6<6B /'#$ F $V$ F +;220, /# )# A 9=+9, =0-66 /$? +;22<, ("" 3# 6:2

PAGE 406

0CHC7I50IC5 /*$S $V5$ +=777, 3'# 5 <:+6, <9- +;229, A ::+;,$;<-=B 627

PAGE 407

A'$? $%$& A $V&#$3 +;226, ## ##-#" A # 67+<, 9:6-<7; A' 5 $$ A $ER' A V%"$ +;229, '#" ## )5# ) 9+6, =66-=
PAGE 408

? @+ ,$/'##+ <9=<I)3 ?) E"$F 3 $A +;2:7, %("(" %"##* A # ;B+=; ;=6-;67 5"$A F $ @ $V/''$/ +;220, ("#I*# %S'I3#! & 5$ @ +;2:0, ##) #[$ B7+;,$6-;2 5$ @ +;22=, [[ I)% A# =2+9,$66;-6<2 62=

PAGE 409

5$F / $*$& A $V.'$A +;222$, -##" # #$&$ 5$P#$V5$A ? +;222, ##) -#")I## %'# A# 60+B,$ :6B-:<: 5$ +;22B, "# A 2B;9, 97;-9;B 5$ $V/"$A +;2:2, @$$ ;:+:, ;B-;2 ==-=B 5$& 3 +;22=, )("-% )# 3# ;2+0, 9;-96 5$& 3 $V$ +;2:2, )RI ("A3 # 2;;, 6B-96 5'$ +;227, -$-)#)#IF% %%D)% B;+=<0, 06-B= 5$A +;222, #"("I !(") :+7 2-;: 5$ $V3 +=77;$, #J) ##-#% #$ 5$ 5$ $V)$A +;22;, ?&#" <6+0, 69<-69: $? +=777, #") =2+6, ;<-=9 626

PAGE 410

$ +;226$), .'I3## +@. 29-7;, F#$ ?3I @).# $? +;22;$, ?)("'I) *) ##$ 5'@)$F $? $V$& +;229, )("-#) A 97+9, 0<-B7 $ A $VE ? ? +;22=, /"I%' )%# A /" ;+;, =<-6B !$ F $&$. 3 $ER'$A $V%"$ +;22B, # R"A 2B+9, 69;-6<: $ $V'"$@ +;2::$, ?) '+..,# @)$ 3I3)" $& +;22:, #$#"$("#I!@5&# A #" B+;; 2B-;7< #$A +;22B, -#-" "A 2B;9, =2<-=2B *$E +;22B, !%#)) [ )% 0B+;,$;<;-;06 "$ $V$? / +=777, )#) 5 <:+6, 62-96 $ +;22;, F"DA3 5# B+=, 00-B9 629

PAGE 411

*$A A $VF$A / +;22:, ) #I))% A A *$A / F$VA ? )'+ ,$##I))% + =2-<:, ?#I. $ +;22B, ?("" A" 2+;, ;<-66 $ > $VA'$5 & +;2::, I' )" .$AI#) 3! +;2:6, 'I ) F#$?3I@).# 3 +;220, F#$?3I". +;2:=, "[$%[I &3# $$#" F#$?3I @) .# $3 $F$A $3#$A E V&% +;220, ## G))# A /" <+6G9, 6;B-69: R$ VA#$ +;226, !"#% "I5# A # D)-! :=;-:99 $A $V?%"$/ +;226, ."#"I. ) %S'I.. )'$A ? +;2::, 5## ;< BB-;7; [&$& +;22B, 3?-#'(" 3 ;6+6G9; ;=B-;69 62<

PAGE 412

$@ +;2:2, ) C5#V @+ ,$ "#"+ <;-:0 /$A 5% $ $V/$ A +;229, )(# '%## A$::+;,$<-; J)$3 S $F$ $V'%$A +;22:, #I F#$?3 3 .'$ +;226, #I&' ;B92-;227 3%$3I."#" +3 ?) ?60202<, .'$5 / $$5 A +;2:0, !-"I3" #DA : 567) 8 / 9 .' 5 / $$5 A $V/#$A +;22<, @(" & A V / A F#+ ,$)#+ ;:0-=;7, 3#I "" .' ? +;222, ) 5$
PAGE 413

.**$ 5 $$? $V$ E +;22;, (")R #)I# A # =:+=, ;;;-;=; .#$ $$ $A$ 5 $V'" +;2::, '+.., @)$3I3)" .#$ $S#$? & $$S $$S A $5 S $V3$? / +=77;$, #"#I.R. #$ 5$ ."$ $/# E $F-?$l$A $V#$ +;220, ##I# '# 5#?. +6,$;6:-;90 .'$? & +;22B, FDA3# # =6:-=9= 5 A $ .'$5 / +;226, 3I 3(() A # 67+2, ;7;B-;7=: #%"$> 3 $V.$ A +;22:, @'#I#-) '##(" 0<+:, ;: =; ^U #$ +;22<, ?) %S'I. $A F +;220, ###" )$ #I#5? F +;2:2, 3"")"I ( B6+0, 092-0<< $F +;22=, &###%I% #$$#"! 2=+0, 67B-6;B $F +;226, .-## L2B

PAGE 414

)"I" 26J, ;;6-;== F $V&%$@ +;226, )## )##:-("# A5# 6+=, ;0<-=79 $F $V&%$@ +;229, *!#: -(")I A# 6;+6,$=26-6;: $F V&%$@ +;22<, E%##I"$ $#:-("#" #) 3# ;6+;, B6-;=: $F $V""$ +;226, ) '! A# 67+=, ;=B;<= ""$ +=77; ("-# #$ 5$ '"$? ? +;2B9, 3))# (#" A # ;;+;,$0B-BB $? A $3$5 $@$ $V8#$/ 3 +;2:2, /#% !)I) *## /. =+9,$==<-=9: $ / +;222, 5'#%=;;"I3# =:+B,$9-;9 -$ $ $.$ $'$3 A $VA$5 5 +;222$, "#"#" .# #$&$ 62:

PAGE 415

*$ +;222$, )I## .# #$&$ %$A A +;209, #-(" A A %V. &%$#+ ;-;76, 3#$I/) )". #$A $A +;22<, 3[#! #"B2+<,$<6<-<<6 $ / +;220, "" 5 :=+6,$9992 $? +;22B, '# 2B+;, 6B-99 $E @ $V#$A +;226X, )#%("I## X%) 0+6,$;:6-;22 "'"$A $/#$5 > $VF%$@ +;227, ("-07[ AK# =B+=,$;=B-;99 -?#$3 $V#$A +=777, ## 0B+6, =:-6= )$ +;22;, #I#) # F#$?3I $3 $$ @ $V.$A +;226, 3" F)$/I $A $V8$? +;2BB, ^) "[# A # ;9+;, 66-6I: $? +;2::, #* # /))% <: ;66-;<6 622

PAGE 416

'$ $V"$A +;2B:, 3 I 33)3 33#$)"-3# #$ $V"$F +;2BB, (") 3-3"& A#$;9+;,$62-99 $E $V @ +;229, #"% ) A/" 6+=,$;B6-;2< "$ $$?lVE$. +;2:7, #("I :7$96-9: $E $VF$ +;22B, 3)#" .)" <:$;7-;2 $. $V5$> +;2:;, ("-'# "' 0<+<,$9BB-9:9 $. $S#$ $E$5 $V&'$ +;22;, % %3"$5I)"% $E V@#$A A +;2:B, F# DA3 ;2 <92-<07 $$l?#"$ $V$. +;22;, 3)#I # %S'I@ %# 5 F &"$ F +;220, #"I #)#" #%3$AI./ '$ 3 +;22<, ##("-#%-# & 9<+0, 9;=-9;0 >$ $V$3 F +;222, # A# 60+=,$;B2-;22 >"#'"$5 +;2B:, "I)#"# 977 ;

PAGE 417

3#I/))". F$. +=777, -# 5 <:+6, B0-B: F$F F CE$5 '$@ $V$A +;2:;, ("I" 0<+;,$66-<7 F$@ +;229, 3##%I3#(" I F#$A +;229, "I3" 5I# F%$ $VF$. 5 <:;6; 92-<= F$& S +;226, 'I3$#$ 3# ;7+;, ;-;77 F$& S $V' A +;22:, ("$#$#I '# 3# ;0+;, 6;;: F$? A $VF$. +;220, ("%%I" 5## B6+=; :=-:B F$ F $V +;226$G, &## @3" ;0+<; 9B-<7 F$ +;222$, )# #) +& =9, &#$I.? E F$ $V$ +;22:, # #I) # A 6<+=; ;9<-;07 F$? $&$A $V$@ +;2B0, #)# A3."#"."" ;B+=, :2-;77 97;

PAGE 418

F$? $VF$/ +;220, >"#'"$## !)%$ ==+;, <-;0 F#$& +;222$, )R )#$' .# #$&$ F"$ E $V&"$ +;22B, #"I # A$ 2B+9,$6:<-622 97=