Citation
The effect of dialog in the comprehensible input Spanish classroom

Material Information

Title:
The effect of dialog in the comprehensible input Spanish classroom
Creator:
Cox, Samantha Benson ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (59 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Spanish language -- Study and teaching (Secondary) ( lcsh )
Dialogue ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
This study compares the effect on speech production in a Spanish 2 high school classroom with two different teaching approaches. The control group of students was taught using TPRS over the course of two days, while the experimental group was taught with TPRS on the first day but then a COLA based dialog on the second day. Both groups improved enough from pre to post test to be statistically significant, but the experimental group gained an average of 1.6 more words than the control group. This study shows that both TRPS and COLA lead to increased speech production.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.) - University of Colorado Denver
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
Department of Modern Languages
Statement of Responsibility:
by Samantha Benson Cox.

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:
945932544 ( OCLC )
ocn945932544
Classification:
LD1193.L665 2015m C69 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE EFFECT OF DIALOG IN THE COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT SPANISH
CLASSROOM
by
SAMANTHA BENSON COX
B.A., Skidmore College, 1999
M.A., University of Delaware, 2007
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Spanish
2015


This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by
Samantha Benson Cox
has been approved for the
Spanish Program
by
Alyssa Martoccio, Chair
Devin Jenkins
Sally Nathenson-Mejia
November 20, 2015
11


Cox, Samantha Benson (M.A., Spanish)
The Effect of Dialog in the Comprehensible Input Spanish Classroom
Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Alyssa Martoccio
ABSTRACT
This study compares the effect on speech production in a Spanish 2 high school
classroom with two different teaching approaches. The control group of students was
taught using TPRS over the course of two days, while the experimental group was
taught with TPRS on the first day but then a COLA based dialog on the second day.
Both groups improved enough from pre to post test to be statistically significant, but the
experimental group gained an average of 1.6 more words than the control group. This
study shows that both TRPS and COLA lead to increased speech production.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Alyssa Martoccio


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study has received COMIRB approval under protocol number 15-0652
IV


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION..............................1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW.........................3
III. RESEARCH QUESTION........................15
IV. METHODOLOGY..............................17
V. TASKS....................................18
VI. RESULTS..................................24
VII. DISCUSSION...............................30
VIII. LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH...........................32
IX. CONCLUSION...............................34
REFERENCES................................36
APPENDIX..................................39
v.


CHAPTERI
INTRODUCTION
There has been a huge shift in many foreign language classrooms as of late. In
classrooms around the country and especially in Colorado, gone are the days of verb
charts and explicit grammar instruction and in its place is a focus on communication.
Denver Public Schools require the use of TPRS (Teaching Proficiency Through Reading
and Storytelling) and Jefferson County School District, (before recent budget cuts)
offered teacher training in both TPRS and its newer upgrade, COLA, both of which will
be explained in depth later.
More and more, teachers are moving away from looking at grammar out of
context to instead seeing it as a part of a students overall proficiency. American Council
of Foreign Language Teaching has developed Performance Assessment Guidelines
(ACFTL.org) that put language learners on a spectrum from Novice low to Superior.
In keeping with the overall trend of moving toward a focus on communication, this rubric
describes what students are able to do in a language, in terms of how they use and
understand language.
Within ACTFL, the focus of language acquisition is broken down into the
categories of vocabulary, function and structure, comprehensibility, and comprehension.
This shift is marked in a movement away from the way many adults learned a second
language, including first being presented with grammar charts before even seeing the
structure in context towards a focus on communication and what learners should actually
be able to do in the language. What are being commonly referred to as best practices in
the world language classroom state that fill in the blank and testing discrete grammar
points is ineffective, as asserted in the Colorado Department of Education Position
1


Statement on World Languages as published on the Jeffco Schoology World Language
Teachers Group (2015).
2


CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Stephen Krashen has taken a pioneering role in this movement away from
teaching discrete grammar points and moving toward exclusively relying on
comprehensible input to teach. Krashen originally defined comprehensible input as i +
1, meaning that acquisition occurs when the language being provided to the learner is
mostly comprehensible, or just a little above his or her current level (Krashen 1981). In
Remarks on Language Acquisition and Literacy (Krashen 2014), Krashen states:
Language and literacy can be acquired or can be learned. Acquisition occurs
subconsciously: While it is happening, you are not aware it is happening, and after it has
happened, the knowledge is represented subconsciously in your brain. In contrast,
learning is conscious; it is knowing about the language. When we talk about rules
and grammar we are usually talking about learning (Krashen 1).
Krashen goes on to state: This is not to say that grammar teaching is bad and
must be forbidden: The point is that it is limited: Only a small part of the grammatical
system of any language can be consciously learned, it takes time and effort to retrieve
grammatical rules from our memory and apply them, and this can only happen when we
are thinking about formal correctness. These severe conditions are met on grammar tests,
and it is here where [sic] see clear evidence of the use of consciously learned rules
(Krashen 2). However, what Krashen takes for granted is not accepted by all second
language acquisition researchers; there is a lack of evidence confirming an actual
distinction between the language learning and acquisition that Krashen stresses.
3


More recent research instead focuses on the difference between implicit and explicit
instruction. In Explicit and Implicit Second Language Training Differentially Affect the
Achievement of Native-Like Brain Patterns, the researchers examined two different
types of instruction: implicit and explicit to show how learning types affect adult
learners: [RJecent evidence suggests that adult learners of a foreign language can come
to rely on native-like language brain mechanisms (Morgan-Short, Steinhauer, Sanz, and
Ullman 2012). What they called explicit instruction sought to mimic a traditional
classroom setting with teaching rules about grammar, while what they referred to as
implicit sought to imitate an immersion experience. What they found was that while both
groups could perform equally well on a computer game that measured their command of
an artificial language called Brocanto2, what was different were the brain mechanisms
used. Only the implicitly instructed participants had brain activation similar to that of a
native speaker.
The relevance of explicit and implicit instruction to the current study is that TPRS
seeks to instruct implicitly, and the above research maintains that this is beneficial to
students.
Moving back to Krashen, he does acknowledge the need for explicit
understanding of rules in certain cases. Consciously learned rules are also of some help
in editing, the final stage of the composing process (Krashen 2). However, Krashen goes
on to state that [a]n important corollary of the Comprehension Hypothesis is that we do
not acquire language when we produce it, only when we understand it. The ability to
speak is the result of language acquisition, not the cause (Krashen 2). Therefore,
4


Krashen denies any benefits of output itself with regard to improving language
acquisition.
However, also in this arena what Krashen takes to be a given is not considered
absolute by other researchers in the field of second language acquisition. In From Input
to Output: A Teachers Guide to Second Language Acquisition (2003), Bill VanPatten
devotes a chapter to the role of output. He dismisses the idea that it has no role by stating
that: The position that output plays no role is equally problematic. Scholars working in
the area of interaction... have offered some evidence that speaking promotes negotiation
of meaning (68). Van Patten argues that the act of communicating improves the learning
process.
Van Patten does not, however, advocate traditional drilling either. He explains, It
is important, however, to note that we are not talking about learners practicing a form or
structure in their output; we are talking about learners coming to the awareness that they
need a form or structure because of their output (VanPatten 69). VanPatten points out
that outputs role is to help the speaker become aware of his or her gaps in language
production ability and then to notice and perhaps evoke the desired missing language in
another speaker through conversation. He goes on to say that pattern practice became
ingrained in peoples belief systems about how languages are learned because of
behaviorism and its language equivalent: audiolingualism (VanPatten 82). So neither
Krashen nor VanPatten is in favor of language drilling since output of language comes
from comprehensible input and there is an order of acquisition with which to contend.
However, VanPatten does see a role of output and that is to point out to the speaker gaps
in his current ability.
5


Another major part of Krashens Input Hypothesis is the affective filter, which
Krashen defines as any kind of anxiety or stress that a language learner feels, and which
he states will negatively impact the learners acquisition of a second language as a filter
will arise that prevents acquisition from entering (1987). Krashen goes on to claim that
forcing students to produce output can make them uncomfortable and cites a study that
claims that speaking in front of peers is the main cause of student anxiety (Young in
Krashen 1998). These results suggest that it is pushed output, having to utilize
structures they have not yet acquired, under demanding conditions, that students find
uncomfortable (Krashen 1998). Herein lies the biggest difference between Krashen and
VanPatten: While VanPatten views pushed output as positive and attributes it with
improving student learning, Krashen views it as a negative, blaming it for student stress
and in turn reducing language acquisition.
One must also consider that just because speakers may use output to actively test
their hypotheses about the structure of a language, there is no guarantee that listeners will
intervene or give an indication of the accuracy of the speakers hypotheses, as found in
one study where more than a third of what the authors deemed hypothesis testing
episodes or chances to test out a theory of the language did not produce related feedback
from the other person, a native speaker (Shehadeh 2002). This creates even more doubt in
terms of the value of output because if no one is responding then the testing seems futile.
Teaching Methods
Second language teaching has gone through waves and trends throughout the
years. Some of these are relevant to this study. The audio-lingual method was developed
in the first half of the twentieth century and had its roots in B.F. Skinners development
6


of behaviorism with its emphasis on learning through repetition (VanPatten 2). This led
to the creation of dialogs and students reciting and memorizing dialogs, still in effect to
some extent in certain methods and products today. This becomes relevant when we look
at COLA.
Another method relevant to the current study is Total Physical Response (TPR), a
method first published in 1977 by a professor James Asher (Asher 1983). This method
recognized the role of listening in language learning and also sought to incorporate the
way first languages are learned in the teaching of a second language. The teacher goes
through a list of commands with students who do the action they are commanded to do
without speaking. For example, typical commands might be sit down, stand up,
walk to the door, etc. While using this method in his classroom, Blaine Ray, who was
at the time a classroom teacher, developed the method that has been called TPR
Storytelling or what is known by some today as TPRS, Teaching Proficiency Through
Reading and Storytelling. Heavily influenced by ideas from Stephen Krashens
Comprehensible Input hypothesis, TPRS seeks to give comprehensible input in a low
stress environment where the affective filter is low. While Blaine Ray is the pioneer of
this method and has been leading workshops since its inception, there have been
variations along the way and this method is still evolving.
In Fluency Through TPR Storytelling: Achieving Real Language Acquisition in
School, Blaine Ray and Contee Seely (1997) (18-19) outline the steps in the following
way:
1. Establish Meaning. This is the part where the target vocabulary is clarified. Ray
advocates writing the direct translation of vocabulary words on the board and
even leaving them up for students to see so there is no ambiguity.
7


2. Ask a story. Ray advocates having students create their own story by calling out
answers as the teacher asks details about the story. Hence, each story is original
for each class period since the details are unique to that class. He stresses that the
story must take place in three locations and the problem is always resolved in the
third location. This is because having the same problem in three locations allows
for more repetition and thus, more comprehensible input. As details of the story
are uncovered and invented by the teacher and the students, students in the
classroom act out the story. By demonstrating exactly what the teacher is saying,
this step seeks to ensure near perfect comprehension. Students are not just hearing
their invented story with the target vocabulary that they understand from seeing
the translation; they also see actors enacting the story.
3. Reading. In the next step, the teacher shows students a written version of a similar
story that students read and directly translate.
One important skill to understand in TPRS is the skill of circling. This is
practiced for a substantial portion of time if one takes a TPRS skills workshop because it
is considered to be of utmost importance in order to be a successful TPRS teacher.
During a story, questions involving the new or target vocabulary are asked in a specific
way. So for any statement, i.e. The boy lives in Panama, the teacher can repeat the
statement and ask if its yes or no, or the teacher can say the boy lives in New York, yes
or no? and have the class correct her. Then the teacher asks questions about each part of
the sentence: subject, verb, adverbs and or objects. So the teacher can ask Does the boy
or Sally live in Panama? and then progress to Who lives in Panama and Where does
John live? It is not necessary to do each kind of question for every new part of the story,
but enough questions are asked to ensure that students comprehend enough so that the
majority are calling out the correct answer to the questions.
Another TPRS teacher and workshop presenter is Susie Gross. She has referred to
TPRS as immersion lite and emphasizes that it aims to teach students in the same way
they learned their first language: focusing on communication with little emphasis on
8


forced speech or practicing the language. She teaches that when students are ready the
language production will come.
Gross has made some of her own contributions to the method. She does follow
the TPRS sequence described above, but she adds an additional step she refers to as PQA
(susangrosstprs.com), or personalized questions and answers. In this step, when going
over the questions, the teacher spends ample time also asking questions to the class
having to do with each vocabulary item. So if the target vocabulary word is cat, the
teacher asks the classroom, Who has a cat? The teacher then proceeds to continue to
ask follow up questions to that student. The idea is that personalizing or making it
about the students leads to higher student engagement and therefore more learning.
Gross also advocates the use of some written output, such has having the whole
class write a story together. One of the criticisms leveled at TRPS is that it overly focuses
on third person singular sentence construction, since most stories are indeed written that
way. One of the ways Gross overcomes this is by then changing the perspective of the
story. For example, the story can be changed into first person singular and rewritten as a
whole class writing activity.
While Ray used original stories, created on the spot, about students in the class in
order to increase student engagement, later writers and teachers and even Ray himself
have created ready-made stories that can be used with any class. Examples of such
publications are Carols Gaabs Cuentame series as well as Jaylen Waltmans Jaylen
Waltmans Complete Lesson Plans series (Gaab 2008 and Waltman 2010 ). Having the
stories already created can remove some of the pressure on the teacher to be creative and
9


allows teachers to know which stories work well with students. Also, students can
purchase stories or share their own creations with other teachers.
The latest development in this input based way of teaching is another born of the
needs of a classroom teacher trying to effectively teach her students. Gaye Jenkins,
teacher and professor, founded COLA (Context-based Optimized Language Acquisition)
when she found herself in the situation of wanting to help monolingual English speakers
communicate with Spanish speaking students and needed the method to be quick, direct,
and allow teachers to communicate meaningfully in as little time as possible. While she
never intended her method to be used in secondary education, at least two districts in
Colorado such as Jefferson County School District and Denver Public Schools, are
adapting COLA and offering trainings in this method. With striking similarities to TPRS
storytelling, it has been referred to as the next step in TPRS or TPRS 2.0. It differs in
several key areas from TPRS: the steps used, the vocabulary instruction, and the use of
dialogue. Its steps require more repetition in that COLA dictates that students act out the
story twice, then the teacher acts it out, then the students act it out in small groups, and
then the instructor physically walks through the story again and asks questions about the
exact same story. The second difference is that when students are gesturing the
vocabulary, they say the word as they gesture. This is a stark contrast to they will speak
when they are ready in TPRS. The third and largest difference between COLA and
TPRS is the introduction of dialogues that somewhat resemble the audio-lingual method.
In a phone interview with COLA founder Dr. Gaye Jenkins, she responded that
the dialogs were introduced because they work. She also attributed to them giving
students the ability to manipulate language spontaneously (Jenkins 2015). This is
10


curious because the students are sticking to a script that was pre-written, albeit by
themselves. It is a leap to generalize that because they enacted written dialogues that they
will in the future be able to apply the grammar in another context. This leap warrants
further investigation.
The COLA method never allows students to spontaneously create details of the
story but always uses a prewritten story that features target grammar and vocabulary. It
also very specifically outlines that the teacher should retell the same story at least three
times, only asking questions about the story on the final time, with no student actors but
just the teacher walking through the movements of the story to ensure that students have
understood. It also emphasizes the use of movement within the story as the movements
that go along with the story are thought to anchor memory.
This method takes TPRS and adds some additional steps, such as always having
students reenact the stories several times and always draw it. The steps to storytelling are
expanded and it is more of a formula where the method requires that the teacher do each
step in a certain sequence. While TPRS teaches that students will speak when they are
ready in the way a child acquires his native language by first listening and then speaks
after several years, COLA dialogues encourage the practice of output.
As outlined in COLA, the teacher performs the dialogue for the students, twice,
being sure to make movements to support the meaning of what is happening. Then
students read the dialogue in partners to clear up any misunderstandings. Next, students
create their own, original dialogues in pairs which they then perform twice for the rest of
the class. The first time, they may use their notes but not the second time. The idea is not
11


that they must memorize but they are being encouraged to have an authentic exchange of
language. The rest of the class listens and is then asked comprehension questions.
One teaching method that is based largely on Krashens principle of comprehensible
input is called TPRS or Teaching Proficiency Through Reading and Storytelling. This
method was used in the current study along with a similar method, called COLA, also
explained below. There are various academic studies regarding TPRS, but none to date
using COLA. Most of the TPRS studies, but not all, have found that students who learned
using TPRS outperformed or at least performed similarly to traditional grammar
instructed students.
One journal, The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (UFLT),
devotes itself to exploring and promoting best practices in teaching using comprehensible
input. In one of its publications, Kelly Varguezs 2007 study Traditional and TPR
Storytelling Instruction in the Beginning High School Spanish Classroom selected
Spanish teachers from several states and with students of varying socioeconomic
backgrounds. She then divided teachers into two categories: more input based and more
traditional grammar based instruction. Her study found that in reading and listening as
measured by the State of New Yorks Language Proficiency exam, the input (TPRS)
based students made much larger gains than the students in the traditional classroom,
even when taking into account socioeconomic status and one class with an inexperienced
teacher.
In another study published in UFLT, Joseph Dziedzic also compared TPRS with
traditional instruction in A Comparison of TPRS and Traditional Instruction, both with
SSR (2012). He found that between two groups of students, the TPRS instructed
12


students considerably outperformed the control group of grammar instructed students in
output (both writing and speaking) but gains were comparable between groups for
listening and reading. He wasnt surprised by the TRPS outperforming the traditionally
instructed students but was surprised that the reading and listening scores were similar.
He notes that the addition of sustained silent reading could have narrowed the gap by
essentially bringing up the control group in reading and listening.
Jean Oliver studied TPRS in a classroom setting with beginning level college
students (2012). Her study compared four traditional/grammar classes to two TPRS
classes. Their performance was measured on a traditional grammar, fill in the blank, and
reading test that included no speaking or listening. The TPRS instructed students
outperformed the grammar instructed students by 3 percentage points, which was
statistically significant.
In another study of adult learners, Lauren Braunstein measured attitudes towards
TPRS by adult ESL learners (2006). She found that while they all expected and said that
they preferred traditional grammar instruction like worksheets, when they actually rated
their feelings and attitudes about TPRS, they rated themselves as happy and interested.
This study was interesting because it showed that students may bring to the classroom
certain expectations about how to learn that can actually hinder their openness to
different teaching methods from which they could benefit.
In another TPRS study, Melissa Perna (2007) did not find statistically significant
differences among TPRS, traditional, and instruction related to students perceived
strengths (she taught them according to their learning preference) but did find that the
latter group performed the best.
13


Spangler (2009) and Beal (2011) also found that TPRS equaled or outperformed
another method. Bustamante (2009) found that TPRS outperformed grammar instruction
and also correlated with increased attendance.
In another study, Brittany Melendrez (2007) wanted to determine whether
gesturing, a key element in COLA as explained above, aided in vocabulary instruction
and found the majority of her students to be kinesthetic learners and that students who
gestured the vocabulary did 15% better than those who didnt on a vocabulary test.
On her website, Karen Lichtman from Northern Illinois University cites other
research as well regarding TPRS effectiveness. Including several masters theses along
with doctoral dissertations, she found four studies with positive results for TPRS that did
not compare this method to another, ten studies where TPRS outperformed another
method, seven studies where TPRS equaled another method in its effectiveness, and three
where another method outperformed TPRS(http://forlangs.niu.edu/~klichtman/tprs.html).
While past research has almost exclusively compared TRPS to grammar
instruction (with TPRS students most often doing better), until this current study there
has been no comparison of varieties of TPRS. With so many variations, when studies cite
TPRS as a method, they arent specifying exactly what steps or variations they are
using. This is the first study to specifically compare a difference between traditional
TPRS and one of its newest versions.
14


CHAPTER III
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Previous research has generally shown TPRS to be as effective as or more
effective than other methods, according to the research of Beal (2011), Bustamante
(2009), Garczynski (2003), Oliver (2012), Pema (2007), Spangler (2009), and Watson
(2009).
The current study is important because it looks at TPRS as a changing and
growing method and seeks to compare small differences (the addition of dialogues) that
have been added in its evolution since it was first created by Blaine Ray. Also, many of
the previous studies dont precisely define their use of TPRS but rely on teachers calling
themselves TPRS teachers. The current study also has the advantage that the teacher is an
experienced classroom teacher with years of TPRS experience and has attended at least
nine TPRS training workshops.
While there are many directions for future TPRS research regarding its
developments and nuances, the current study seeks to tackle the most obvious and the
largest difference between TPRS and COLA: the use of dialogues.
The following research questions led this study:
1. Is there a measurable gain from pre test to post test for students who do write and
perform their own original dialogues as compared to those who only act out stories that
they didnt create?
2. Does either the control group or the experimental group improve significantly from pre
to post test?
15


3. How satisfied are students with the method?
16


CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
The subjects were from three different sections of Spanish 2 at Lakewood High
School, a public secondary school in Jefferson County, Colorado. Two sections were the
instructed or experimental group and one was the control group. The experimental group
started out as 57 students and the control group started as 27 students. However, certain
students were eliminated from the study. These were students who opted out (5 students)
or missed any day of the two days of class or the pre or post-test (27). Also, one student
was eliminated from the study because his pre and post test decreased significantly from
59 words to 29 words, which clearly did not demonstrate a loss of learning over two days
of class. When asked what had happened, he explained that he was just really tired that
day. The remaining participants in the study consisted of 35 students in the experimental
group and 17 in the control group. These students were all enrolled in Spanish 2, most
having either taken Spanish 1 in middle school or freshmen year. The ages ranged from
15-19, with freshmen through seniors but mostly sophomores, and students were mostly
native English speakers with two students having been also exposed to Spanish since
birth but fall under the category of passive bilinguals since they understand much more
than they can speak.
17


CHAPTER V
TASKS
Picture Description (Pre Test and Post Test)
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
Students were shown the attached illustration (See Appendix D) of a chaotic
classroom. They were taken out into the hall where they were instructed how to record
themselves on a website called Vocaroo. They then were told to Say everything they can
about the picture. They were reassured that it was just a pre test and since they hadnt
learned the vocabulary, they were not expected to know it. They were also informed on
the consent form and again reassured in class that their performance in no way would
affect their grade in the class.
Vocabulary Instruction
Students in both the control and instructed groups were taught 20 new vocabulary
words (see Appendix H) using gestures created by the teacher. They repeated the words
and gestures until they were able do the gestures without the teacher leading and giving
an example. These are key words taken from the Realidades 2 text book Chapter 1 A.
Students then were asked to write in the English word and draw a picture for each word.
Story
For both groups, the teacher read the story (see Appendix E) to the class as three
student volunteers served as actors playing the part of the teacher, the principal, and the
student. The story, designed to be humorous, was about a student who calls out and
doesnt raise his hand until he is finally taped to a chair. The rest of the class watched and
18


answered comprehension check questions. This was repeated. Then the teacher asked
questions again about the story without the student actors. Then, the entire class stood up
around the room in groups of three that they had selected. Each group of three had a
teacher, principal, and student, and each group went through the actions of the story once
again as the teacher read the story aloud once again.
Dialog
This is where the differentiated treatment began. The experimental group watched
the teacher act out the dialog between a teacher and student reading both parts (see
Appendix F). Next, in partners, students read through the dialog in Spanish and then
again with roles switched (i.e. whoever read the part of the teacher then became the
student). Then they were instructed to create an original dialog using the teachers story
as a model. They were given time to practice reading through it and told to incorporate
some movement when they read it. Next, each group performed their dialog for the entire
class two times; the second time they were not allowed to use their written dialog for
reference. The teacher asked the rest of the class comprehension questions. During this
time, the control group spent the same amount of time enacting another story and going
through the above storytelling steps again.
Attitude Survey
Both groups of students were given a survey that asked them how much they liked
the story activities as well as the dialog on a scale of 1-10, one being they strongly
disliked the activity in question and 10 being they strong liked the activity. They were
also allowed to write something open-ended. (See Table 2).
19


Sessions
Day by Day Tasks
TPRS COLA
Day 1 Pre test with word count. Pre test with word count.
Day 2 1. Gestured new vocabulary 2. Followed steps for COLA storytelling with story 1. 3. Students draw the story in 6 pictures based on teacher reading six sentences. 4. Students retell the story to a partner based on their pictures. 5. Teacher reads story while students follow along with their own copy. 6. Students are called on at random to translate a few sentences from story into English. 1. Gestured new vocabulary 2. Followed steps for COLA storytelling with story 1. 3. Students draw the story in 6 pictures based on teacher reading six sentences. 4. Students retell the story to a partner based on their pictures. 5. Teacher reads story while students follow along with their own copy. 6. Students are called on at random to translate a few sentences from story into English.
Day 3 1. Followed steps for leading a dialog. 2. Teacher performs the dialog twice. 3.Students read the dialog to each other in pairs. 4. Students has 12 minutes to create an original dialog based on the teacher example. 5. Students practice their dialog and then perform it twice for the class. The first time they may use their written script but not the second time. 6. The teacher asks the rest of the class comprehension questions in Spanish regarding the actions of the dialogs. 1. Followed steps for COLA storytelling with story 1. 2. Students draw the story in 6 pictures based on teacher reading six sentences. 3. Students retell the story to a partner based on their pictures. 4. Teacher reads story while students follow along with their own copy. 5. Students are called on at random to translate a few sentences from story into English.
Day 4 Post test with word count. Post test with word count.
The pretest was administered to three students at a time in the hallway. Students
were shown a picture of a disorganized classroom (Figure 1) and told to say whatever
they can about it in Spanish. Their voices were recorded on a website called Vocaroo,
20


and then the teacher went through each recording and personally counted the number of
words spoken.
On the first day of the research, all three classes were taught the new vocabulary
by gestures which they repeated as they said the words. This is taken from COLA as
opposed to TPRS in that Rays version of gesturing does not have students repeat the
words but just do the gesture in response to the teachers vocal prompt.
Next, students were told the story from the TPRS companion book to the
Realidades 2 textbook. Three student volunteers played the role of teacher, student, and
principal as the actual classroom teacher told the story to the class. The teacher asked
circling questions to ensure comprehension and measured comprehension by all
students by whether the majority were calling out the correct answers. Then the students
employed whole class acting, whereby the teacher read the story aloud for the third
time with students in groups of three and each student demonstrated continued
comprehension by simultaneously enacting the story in his or her role.
Next, students were read six sentences from the story out of chronological order
and drew the story without writing any words. Then students used their pictures as a
guide to tell the story to a partner. The teacher ensured that this could be completed by
calling on students at random to again tell the story based on their pictures.
Next came the step of reading. The teacher read the story to the students again,
but this time students had a copy of the story and followed along, allowing them to
connect the sounds with the actual words. These steps were all completed during a 90
minute block period of class. The entire process lasted for four 90 minute block periods:
the first day was the pretest; the second day was the story and vocabulary instruction,
21


which was the same for both classes; the third day, explained below, was when the
different instruction took place. The fourth and final day was the post test, which
followed the identical procedure as the pretest, with students being shown the picture and
told to say as much as they could about the picture.
On day 3, the treatment day, all classes (control and treatment) did a quick
translation of the reading of the first story from the first day. Then, the control group was
told another, similar story that they then acted out and read that used the same vocabulary
but in the context of another story (see Appendix G). It is important to note that the
control group was still receiving comprehensible input with related vocabulary on the
treatment day. They were, however, not making up their own original stories (which is an
activity they do at times but not that day to really isolate the effects of the dialogs).
In the test groups, the teacher presented a dialog to the class and then followed
COLA steps: the teacher acted it out twice and then had students read it to each other in
partners. Then students had about ten minutes to create their own original dialogs that are
like the teachers but original. Students then performed their dialogs for the rest of the
class twice. The first time they could use their notes but the second time they could not.
The idea was not to memorize what was written word for word but to react spontaneously
to what was practiced. The reason it is performed twice is so that the speakers get a
chance to really feel comfortable and also for the audience to practice their
comprehension. The teacher then asks questions in the target language about the original
dialogs to keep the class engaged. Both control and experimental groups spent the same
amount of time on this step.
22


After day 3, which was either another story for the control group or a dialog for
the experimental group, all students completed the post test, which consisted of the same
pictures from the pretest. Students were again asked to speak about the pictures out in the
hallway and say as much as they can. Next, an attitude survey was administered to all
classes to measure attitudes toward dialogs and stories in which students were asked to
rate their like or dislike of each and to explain their answers. This survey was conducted
immediately following the post test.
Analysis
Words uttered in English were not counted toward the word count, nor were
entirely invented Spanish words like pencilo to mean pencil. The words count allowed
for repeated use of one word, such as boy if it seemed to mimic the repetitiveness that
often is part of normal speech. However, if a student repeated a word consecutively, for
example, the boy... .boy the utterance counted only as one word. In addition, if a
student corrected himself (i.e. The boy, no the girl), only the correction was counted.
No partial word count credit was given.
23


CHAPTER VI
RESULTS
Descriptive results: On the pretest, the control group said an average of 29 words
and the instructed group said an average of 37.7 words. On the posttest, average words
were 37.9 and 44.9 respectively. In both the control group and the experimental groups,
students improved in the sense that they could say more words in Spanish about the
picture after the instruction than before. On average, the control group gained 7.3 words
after their treatment, while the experimental group gained 8.9. On the whole, the
experimental group could say 1.6 more words after 90 minutes of the treatment, as
compared to the control group.
Inferential results: To determine whether the two groups were statistically
significantly similar on the pretest, a t-test was run on pretest scores for both groups. For
the pretest, no significant difference was found on the oral picture description task
between the control and instructed groups on the t-test, t(50) = 1.430, p = .435. For the
posttest, no significant difference was found either between the two groups, t(50) = .824,
p = .360.
Because of this lack of difference on the posttest, a 2 X 2, group by time repeated
measures ANOVA was run, to determine whether each group improved over time.
Results indicated a statistically significant main effect for Time, F(l, 50) = 13.089, p
24


<.01. The group X time interaction was not significant, indicating that both groups
improved the same over time.
Statistical Results
T test pretest
Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
PretestScores 1.00 18 38.5000 25.92353 6.11023
2.00 34 29.0294 20.86825 3.57888
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. 95% Confidence
(2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
tailed Differenc Differenc Difference
F Siq. t df ) e e Lower Upper
PretestScore Equal
s variance s assumed .62 1 .43 5 1.43 0 50 .159 9.47059 6.62083 3.8277 5 22.7689 2
Equal variance s not assumed 1.33 7 28.91 2 .192 9.47059 7.08119 5.0139 9 23.9551 7
T-test Post test
Group Statistics
Group | N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
25


Post testScores 1.00 18 44.3333 32.94202 7.76451
2.00 34 37.9118 22.87299 3.92269
Independent Samples
Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances
Sig.
df
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
(2-
tailed
Mean
Differenc
e
Std. Error
Differenc
e
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
PosttestScore Equal
s variance
s
assumed
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
.85
2
.36
0
.82
4
.73
8
50
.414
6.42157
7.79027
-9.22565
25.91
6
.467
6.42157
8.69914
11.4626
0
22.0687
9
24.3057
4
Repeated Measures ANOVA
Descriptive Statistics
Group Mean Std. Deviation N
PretestScores 1.00 38.5000 25.92353 18
2.00 29.0294 20.86825 34
26


Total 32.3077 22.94541 52
PosttestScores 1.00 44.3333 32.94202 18
2.00 37.9118 22.87299 34
Total 40.1346 26.64143 52
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean Partial Eta
Source Squares df Square F Siq. Squared
Time Sphericity Assumed 1274.322 1 1274.322 13.089 .001 .207
Greenhouse- Geisser 1274.322 1.000 1274.322 13.089 .001 .207
Huynh-Feldt 1274.322 1.000 1274.322 13.089 .001 .207
Lower-bound 1274.322 1.000 1274.322 13.089 .001 .207
Time Group Sphericity Assumed 54.706 1 54.706 .562 .457 .011
Greenhouse- Geisser 54.706 1.000 54.706 .562 .457 .011
Huynh-Feldt 54.706 1.000 54.706 .562 .457 .011
Lower-bound 54.706 1.000 54.706 .562 .457 .011
Error(Time) Sphericity Assumed 4868.015 50 97.360
Greenhouse- Geisser 4868.015 50.000 97.360
Huynh-Feldt 4868.015 50.000 97.360
Lower-bound 4868.015 50.000 97.360
Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta
Source Time of Squares df Square F Siq. Squared
Time Level 2 vs. Level 1 2548.644 1 2548.644 13.089 .001 .207
27


Time Level 2 vs. Group Level 1 109.413 1 109.413 .562 .457 .011
Error(Time) Level 2 vs. Level 1 9736.029 50 194.721
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Siq. Partial Eta Squared
Intercept 66003.034 1 66003.034 116.530 .000 .700
Group 743.111 1 743.111 1.312 .257 .026
Error 28320.096 50 566.402
28


Results of satisfaction survey: Students were asked to rate how much they
enjoyed both activities (stories and dialogs) on a scale from one to ten. One meant they
strongly disliked the said activity and ten meant they liked it a lot. Five meant they had
neutral feelings about it, neither liking nor disliking it. The experimental groups averaged
5.1 on dialogs and 6.5 on stories while the control group averaged 3 on dialogs and 5.2 on
stories. That is to say that the experimental group enjoyed both activities more.
In both the control group and the experimental groups, students improved in the
sense that they could say more words in Spanish about the picture after the instruction
than before. On average, the control group gained 7.3 words after their treatment. The
experimental group gained 8.9 words on average or 1.6 words more after 90 minutes of
the treatment.
Initially, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant
and at the end of the study, the two groups were even more similar to each other. To
answer the previous research questions, (1) there was no measurable gain for students
who created dialogs as compared to students who only acted out and heard two stories.
However, (2) both groups did improve to an extent that was statistically significant.
29


CHAPTER VII
DISCUSSION
Perhaps the most interesting conclusion of this study is one taken for granted by
the researcher; that storytelling as a method has statistically significant gains for students.
One must keep in mind that these students only had 3 hours of instruction between the
pre-test and post-test, and this was enough for their speech output to increase
significantly. Also, while the difference between the gains made by the control group and
the experimental group was not statistically significant, it was still measurable at a micro
level. The difference in instruction between the control group and the experimental group
was only 90 minutes, yet the experimental group could speak an average of two words
more after the treatment.
This follows the same pattern as the previous research mentioned above, where
researchers have found that TPRS at least matches other methods of instruction or
outperforms it (Beal 2011, Bustamante 2009, Garczynski 2003, Oliver 2012, Perna 2007,
Spangler 2009, Watson, 2009). However, most of the previous studies use traditional
tests as measures of gains whereas this study uses speech production as a measure of
progress. Most of these previous studies also compared TPRS to traditional instruction,
rather than comparing subjects pretest scores to their posttest scores to determine
whether they had improved over time. The current study, importantly, found that the
learners did improve significantly over time as compared to their pretest scores, in both
groups. This study, then, strengthens the evidence found in the previous studies that
TPRS is an effective teaching method.
30


One important question that arises from the lack of difference between the TPRS
group and the COLA group is why did they have equal gains? One possible answer is that
the dialogues give the same kind of comprehensible input as stories. This lack of
difference between the groups also occurred despite the fact that the students liked the
dialogs more. One thing to keep in mind is that as Shehadeh (2002) found, the fact that
students are interacting doesnt guarantee that they are receiving useful feedback around
what they are saying. Also, the students in the control group had done dialogues before,
so they had been exposed to speaking. They didnt speak this particular time, which could
help explain the similarity between the two groups since it was not the results of a longer
term pattern of one group not speaking.
In addition, it is important to note that both methods were somewhat effective in
increasing student speech production. After two days of instruction, all students were able
to say more than before. The fact that students in the experimental group spoke about two
more words is not enough on its own to hypothesize that this number will continue to
grow exponentially more than the control group over time.
31


CHAPTER VIII
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Further research is clearly in order in several spheres. First, there is a need for
more published studies showing that TPRS dramatically increases gains for all students,
not just those who do not take well to direct grammar instruction.
It would be interesting to see the difference in gains over an entire semester or
year. If 90 minutes of different instruction can produce an average of two more words, it
would be interesting to see how much progress could be made over the course of a much
more extended time frame.
Furthermore, the study only measures speech production which is only one
modality. It would be interesting to measure writing, listening comprehension, and
reading as well.
Also, students were not given a time limit for the speaking pre and post tests;
perhaps it would be useful to use a timer and give them a total of two minutes in order to
measure actual speaking ability and not just some measure of how talkative someone is.
Also, there were some glitches with the technology around the use of Vocaroo and also
with noise levels while recording in the hallway. The next study would perhaps benefit if
students practiced using the technology to record themselves before the actual testing
day.
In addition, this study did not have a delayed post test. It would be interesting to
test students again at the end of a semester to see if they are still able to use the new
vocabulary and if they have retained the words over time.
32


Since TPRS has been shown by the numerous studies mentioned here to be
effective as a method, it is time to start examining specific facets and newer variations to
create the most effective version of TPRS to best help students acquire a second
language. Another variable to consider is the use of students creating their own stories. It
would be useful to measure the extent to which that contributes or does not contribute to
language acquisition.
33


CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSION
As noted throughout this paper, TPRS and COLA are being widely used (if not
mandated) in Colorado among language teachers. This is with good reason, since so
many recent studies cite its effectiveness and show that it outperforms traditional
grammar instruction (see past research and discussion sections). It would also be useful to
compare TPRS to other, newer, better regarded methods than direct grammar instruction,
declared out by ACTFL and Colorado Department of Education itself, along with the
school districts that are mandating and encouraging the adoption of storytelling.
Now that TPRS has become a buzz word (whether loved or loathed), it is time to
carefully define our terms. Is it fair to consider someone a TPRS-type teacher if he or she
has never attended a single workshop? TPRS has evolved and continues to evolve in the
days since it was first created by Blaine Ray with its pink elephants having teachers
spontaneously ask stories. It now includes prewritten materials that can either be tried
and true to elicit student interest or could potentially be less engaging since they dont
involve specific students in the class.
It is time to dissect and deconstruct this method known as TPRS to see the science
behind its magic. Which elements are expendable and which are fundamental to student
success? Does having students rewrite the story in first person overcome the third person
pitfall of stories? Just how much do dialogues enhance language acquisition, and what is
the exact role of motivation? Do students perceived learning styles influence their
willingness to participate and by extension to learn?
34


With future research, storytelling can be streamlined to potentially create the most
effective language instruction ever used, revolutionizing the field and second language
instruction.
35


REFERENCES
Alley, David and Denise Overfield. An Analysis of the Teaching Proficiency Through
Reading and Storytelling (TPRS) Method. Dimension 2008 South Carolina. Ed.
Cherry, Maurice C. and Carol Wilkerson. Roswell, GA. SCOLT, 2008. Print.
Asher, James J. Learning Another Language Through Actions. Los Gatos, California:
Sky Oaks Productions, Inc., 1983.
Beal, K.D. The correlates of storytelling from the Teaching Proficiency through Reading
and Storytelling (TPRS) method of foreign language instruction on anxiety,
continued enrollment and academic success in middle and high school students.
Diss. University of Kansas, 2011.
Braunstein, L. Adult ESL learners' attitudes towards movement (TPR) and drama (TPR
Storytelling) in the classroom. CATESOL. (2006) 18:1, 7-20.
Boyles, Peggy; Met, Myrian; Sayers, Richard; Wargin, Carol. Realidades 2. Boston,
Massachusetts: Pearson, 2011.
Bustamante, Maria Carolina. Measuring the Effectiveness of a TPRS Pilot Couse in
Spanish at the 100 College Level. Thesis. University of Nebraska at Kearney,
2009.
Dziedzic, Joseph. A Comparison of TPRS and Traditional Instruction, both with SSR.
The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 7.2 (2012): 4-6. Print.
Gaab, Carol. Cuentame Mucho. Chandler, AZ: TPRS Publishing, 2006.
Garczynski, M. Teaching proficiency through reading and storytelling: Are TPRS
students more fluent in second language acqidsition than audio lingual students?
Thesis. Chapman University, 2003.
Iiflt.com. International Journal of Foreign LanguageTeaching. Web. 22 October 2015.
Jenkins, Gaye. Personal interview. 12 October 2015.
Krashen, Stephen. Comprehensible Output? System 26 (1998): 175-182. Print.
Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1982. Print.
Krashen, Stephen. Second Language Acquistion: Theory, Applications, and Some
Conjectures. Mexico: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Print.
36


Melendrez, Brittany. The Impact of Gesturing on Vocabulary Acquisition. Thesis.
Michigan State University, 2001.
Morgan-Short, Kara; Setinhauer, Karsten; Sanz, Cristina; Ullman, Michael T. Explicit
and Implicit Second Language Training Differentially Affect the Achievement
of Native-like Brain Activation Patterns Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
2012 Apr; 24(4): 933-947. Electronic.
Oliver, J.S. Investigating Storytelling Methods in a Beginning-Level College Class. The
Language Educator. February 2012: 54-56
Perna, M. Effects of Total Physical Response Storytelling versus traditional, versus initial
instruction with primary-, reinforced by secondary-perceptual strengths on the
vocabulary- and grammar-Italian-language achievement test scores, and the
attitudes of ninth and tenth graders. New York: St. Johns University, 2007.
Diss.
Ray, Blaine, and Contee Seely. Fluency Through TPR Storytelling: Achieving Real
Lanuage Acquisition in School. Pismo Beach: Blaine and Seely, 1997.
www.susansrosslprs.com Web. 22 October 2015.
Shehadeh, Ali. Learner Ouput, Hypothesis Testing, and Internalizing Linguistic
Knowledge. System 32 (2003): 155-171. Print.
Spangler, D.E. Effects of two foreign language methodologies, communicative language
teaching and teaching proficiency through reading and storytelling, on
beginning-level students' achievement, fluency, and anxiety. Thesis. 2009.
VanPatten, Bill. From Input to Output: A Teachers Guide to Second Language
Acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
Varguez, Kelly. Traditional and TPR Storytelling Instruction in the Beginning High
School Spanish Classroom. The International Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching. 5.1 (2009): 2-5. Print.
Waltman, Jalen. Jalen Waltmans Complete Lesson Plans. Colorado Springs: Jalen
Waltman, 2010. Print.
Watson, B. A comparison of TPRS and traditional foreign language instruction at the
high school level I' International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5:1
(Summer), (2009):21-24
www.actfl.ors The American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Web. 21
October 2015.
37


www.sascuigrosslprs.com Web. 22 October 2015.
http://forla.ngs. niu. edii-klichtman/tprs. htrnl W eb. 17 November 2015.
38


Appendix A: Tables
Number of Words Students Spoke on Pre and Post Test
Students pre and post test speaking total number of words Before After
1 90 84
2 34 23
3 25 25
4 22 33
5 37 53
6 81 110
7 56 57
8 29 35
9 19 41
10 44 54
11 50 61
12 11 17
13 19 14
14 19 24
15 36 50
16 56 41
17 34 26
18 9 8
19 24 22
20 33 62
21 4 18
22 3 8
24 20 37
25 17 31
39


26 40 75
27 37 35
28 9 19
29 8 22
30 30 42
31 8 12
32 20 46
33 6 31
34 7 17
Word Count before and After Treatment
Control Group Experimental Group
Average number before Average number after Average number before Average number after
37.6 44.9 29 37.9
Increase 7.3 Increase 8.9
40


Table 2: Student Satisfaction with Activities
Control Group Class Satisfaction with Activities
Student Dialogs Acting
1 4 4
2 1 1
3 6 7
4 3 9
5 5 8
6 0 4
7 4 4
8 4 4
9 0 10
10 0 10
11 5 7
12 5 4
13 5 8
14 0 0
15 3 3
16 1 2
17 4 3
18 6 9
19 3 5
20 4 2
21 3 4
22 3 4
23 0 7
Average: 3 5.173913
Experimental Class Satisfaction
with Activities
Student Dialog Acting
1 5 8
2 6 10
41


3 5 10
4 3 2
5 6 6
6 6 6
7 2 5
8 5 10
9 8 10
10 1 5
11 7 8
12 5 5
13 3 4
14 5 5
15 8 2
16 8 2
17 5 7
18 4 7
19 7 7
18 0 3
19 5 3
20 6 6
21 6 7
22 4 6
23 4 5
24 4 6
Averages: 4.923077 5.961538


u>
Raality Language COLA STEPS
(HAND OUT DICCIONAMO- NO PENCILS' EVES ON MB)
ENCOUftAft 5~njDENT5TQ6ESTUfiE AND REPf AT J.
1. Instructor soys new word with gesture
2. Clarify meaning in English one tine |
3. Say words no gestures I
4. Introduce no more than 2 new words before
recycling
5. Give 2 words together (try to make sense)
6t Eyes closed: 1 word, tier 2 together
ASSESS THROUGHOUT ENTIRE PROCESS!^
1. GESTURING
2. DICTIONAW
STOftyTELLINS TIMELINE (I)
1. Set scene spotaily with volunteers
2 Same volunteers act out story twice as
instructor tells it
3. Inst-uctor reenacts story with spatid
clues
4. Students act out story (small groups),
changing roles as instructor tells story
each time
5. Instructor acts outagair., asking guest ons
3. ACT OUT STORy | 4. DRAW 5. TELL STORV
1. Partners tell something about each
a ternate box
2. Can use dictionary for pronunciation help
first time if needed
3. Change partners up to 3 times
4. Give more detoil each time through
3MPREHENSIBLEINPUTA- COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT / COMPREHENSIBLE OUWT
>
-o
-a
CD
3
Q-
*'
w
o
o
r
>
t/3
o
3
CD
3
CfQ
H
3
£L
3'
CD
REPRODUCTION ORQLOTaTION [n DHOLE OR (N PART,
IS STRICTER PROHIBITED
Copyright 0 2010 by Giyi R. Mins. E( 0. St Molly P Sthictlr Allnjlw rcttrtcc


Appendix C: COLA Dialog Steps
REALITY LANGUAGE COLA RESOURCES
LEADING A DIALOG ACTIVITY STEPS:
1. First: Demo dialog (before handing out wntten form)
- Teacher will either demo a dialog alone playing all roles, or can use team teacher, or possibly an advanced
student to act out dialog.
Dramatize new vocabulary to give students the best chance of 'getting It' in context.
- Make sure spaces and movement between each are distinct throughout dialog demo.
- Act out twice
- Questurize the dialog at this point to make sure your students got the gist remember they haven't really
'worked' ihe vocab yet.
2. Next: Work on written comprehension and pronunciation
Hand out written dialog
Students follow along as Teacher reads dialog first
Clarify any vocabulary students are unsure of.
- Echo read dialog (maybe not all of it), pronunciation drill (break down long sentences into doable parts
for repeating)
If time, lake parts, putting emotion into it (Teacher models each part so students can mimic the emotion
instead of having to produce it on their own)
3. Next: Small Group Dialog activities (if time)
Teacher groups students according to dialog parts: practice reading out loud in small groups the written
dialog parts; then change roles, (if time).
Same groups create new dialog. Explain and put major points on board:
- 'Break into pairs to create a new dialog based on template."
* EX: You need 1 guy or gal 1 teacher + police officer + problem + spaces for persons, locations, and
actions." (modify this to match your given dialog)
Include greetings and goodbyes."
- Each person write their own copy of dialog to save time."
- KISS!!! Keep it simple, silly. You will be sharing this In front of the class without your papers so dont
make the dialog too long or complicated."
- "Use specific target vocab only + what vocab youve done in stories so far. NO dictionaries and no
previously learned language outside of this class unless it s a cognate!!!
- "You have_____minutes to write fire dialog and_minutes to practice it before we start the
presentations. Have fun!M
4. Dialog Presentations:
- Select groups act dialog out twice each at least] (once with written copies if need be, next time without)
Remind audience that its their job to actively listen to the performances, since they'll be the ones on the
spot' to answer questions about what they just watched.
5. Instructor Questures dialogs:
Focus on vocabulary, not names of characters
Be sure to elicit new target vocab & sequence questures as student presenters did
REPRODUCTION OR QUOTATION. IN H HOl.T OR IN PART.
IXSTRIcn.V FKOl 44


Appendix D: Figures
45


Appedix E: Student and Parent Permission Forms to Participate in Study
I,_________________________, give permission to Samantha Cox, Spanish teacher at Lakewood
(please print parent name)
High school, to collect data about my child_________________in her study Effect of Dialog
(please print student name)
in the Comprehensible Input Based Spanish Classroom for her masters thesis in Spanish at CU,
to be conducted during the fall semester of the 2015-2016 school year. Research shows that
exposing students to input (written and auditory) increases their comprehension, but there
is a gap in research about the effect of practicing speech on spontaneous speech
production. Ms. Cox wants to compare two groups of students: those who just hear and
gesture and act out vocabulary compared to those who also create and perform dialogs.
The only data to be collected is how many words students can speak in Spanish at the
beginning of a three week unit compared to the end. I understand that my students name
will not be used or saved and that the purpose is to help this teacher see which teaching
practices are most beneficial regarding speaking. Participating or not participating will in
no way affect the students grade, but students will be required to participate in all
classroom activities whether they are in the study or not. Students may withdraw at any
time from the study. Results will in no way be tied to students names and will be
published in Ms. Coxs thesis paper and possibly other publications in the future such as
professional journals or educational books or publications. If you have any questions or
concerns about the study, please feel free to email sbenson@jeffco.kl2.co.us
Please write yes or no on the line to grant or deny participation and sign and date.
Thank you.
46


I,_________________________, give permission to Samantha Cox, Spanish teacher at Lakewood
(please print student name)
High school, to collect data about me in her study Effect of Dialog
in the Comprehensible Input Based Spanish Classroom for her masters thesis in Spanish at CU,
to be conducted during the fall semester of the 2015-2016 school year. Research shows that
exposing students to input (written and auditory) increases their comprehension, but there
is a gap in research about the effect of practicing speech on spontaneous speech
production. Ms. Cox wants to compare two groups of students: those who just hear and
gesture and act out vocabulary compared to those who also create and perform dialogs.
The only data to be collected is how many words students can speak in Spanish at the
beginning of a three week unit compared to the end. I understand that my name will not
be used or saved and that the purpose is to help this teacher see which teaching practices
are most beneficial regarding speaking. Participating or not participating will in no way
affect my grade, but I will be required to participate in all classroom activities whether I
am in the study or not. I may withdraw at any time from the study. Results will in no
way be tied to my name and will be published in Ms. Coxs thesis paper and possibly
other publications in the future such as professional journals or educational books or
publications. For any questions or concerns please feel free to contact Ms. Cox at
sbenson@jeffco.kl2.co.us
Please write yes or no on the line to grant or deny participation and sign and date.
Thank you.
yes or no date student signature
47


Appendix F: The 3 Steps of TPR Storytelling
OT3
C/3
CL
<3->
it
_§ ^
1 i
i "i
Ljll
il 11
Mu!
9 3 ^ S s
1 S' II -S
i. 1 ^ s n §
a. 5 | I 11 i
ts a l|- s s 6- j
Ip -S.-S
,M I g JS 1 3!
" § is g -
-1 -8 "J
f.
fl
1 1
i a ^
f si
ill
5> s
Is I
-g -§|
1 § 1
- 11
i !l
It If
| |;i'| 1
1 J- -2 S I
Hut
6'. .
i s
55 C
-i'r
.3 -.S
fl
.§ | -3 a ^
1 l|Il f ^ -m 1 2"§ 5 -s -a
|g|_i|i.l i|J|f.l| f|l
s a. a
fill
IIS
J
i
sir
I f1!
s ^ m z
3 s
n
p.s-E
i g J
! 1 -a
till-
ilir
i g
-a :
si
11-
-% Si
i s g
Jj §. Jl
H % Z
~2 -* I
; -3 -3
ti.
Appendix G: Story for Both Groups
rnoiu^uvr *r
Personalised mini-situation
LI: (la clase) I Tay un ehico inteligente
tn la clase dc quimica. Con testa algunas
prt*guntas. Contesta algunas preguntas sin
levcuatar la mano. HI maestro no esta c ontcnto
porque e-1 chico siempre contesta preguntas sin
levantar la mano. El chico so levanta y camina
por la clase. No se sienta en t> 1 awiento.
L2: (la oficina) El chico y el maestro van a la
oficina do 1* directora y discuten lo qxie so
prohibe en la clase. Se prohlbc levantarse y
caminar durante la clase- Se prohfbe contestar
preguntas sna levantar la mano.
LX: (la clase) "El maestro y el chico regresan a la
clase. El nraestro empiexa a hablar otra vez, pero
el cltico interrumpe. Contesta otra pregunta sin
levantar lea mano.
L2: (la oficina) El maestro y ol chico caminan
otra vos*: a la oficina do la directora. Discuten
otra vez lo que so prohfbe en la clase. Discuten
una solucion. El chico tienc una solucidn. lrae
cinla adhesiva do la oficina a la clase.
LI: (la clase) Regresan a la clase. El chico no
contesta ninguria pregunta porque so pone cinta
adhesiva en la boca. lampoco camina por la
clase porque pone cinta adhesiva en el asiento
tambi^n. Asf que el maestro puede hablar sirv
48


Appendix H: Dialog for Experimental Group
Espanol 2 Capitulo 1A Dialogo
Profesora: Buenos dias. Soy la profesora Gomez.
Juan: Buenos dias. Me llamo Juan.
Profesora: Bienvenido. Hay que seguir las reglas de la clase. Se prolilbe ir al armario durante las
clases.
Juan: Profesora, me permite Ud. ir al armario ahora?
Profesora: No lfay que entregar la tarea a tiempo.
Juan: Profesora, no tengo mi tarea.
s
Profesora: Hay que prestar atencion tambien. Hay que pedir ayuda.
Juan: (Duerme)
Profesora: Vamos a tener un ano dificil!
49


Appendix I: Story for the Control Group
I-----------
Situation B
f ---------------------------
Personalized mini-situation
LI: (la casa) Hay una chica que siempre tiene el
dormitorio sucio. Hay que respetar las reglas de
la casa y limpiar su dormitorio. La chica sabe las
reglas, pero nunca las respeta porque no las
entiende. Su mama le dice: "Hay que pedir
ayuda si no entiendes". Cada dia la mama
repite las reglas, pero la chica nunca entiende.
La mama decide que tienen que resolver el
problema.
L2: (la tienda) Las dos van a una tienda a
comprar [name-brand cleaning supply].
LI: (la casa) Regresan a casa con [name-brand
cleaning supply], pero la chica todavia no limpia
su dormitorio. La mama no sabe por que nunca
limpia el dormitorio.
L3: (la escuela especial) La mama conoce una
escuela especial. Por fin la mama y la chica van
a la escuela especial. La chica tiene que entender
las reglas. Se las explican en la escuela.
LI: (la casa) La chica regresa a casa y limpia su
dormitorio. Ahora la chica entiende las reglas.
Las entiende porque los maestros en la escuela
se las explican mejor que la mama. La mama
esta contenta.
50


Appendix J: Picture Dictionary for Both Groups
Capitulo 1A vocabulario
Nombre__________________

aprender de memoria dar un discurso contestar discutir

hacer una pregunta el informe pedir ayuda sacar una buena nota

la palabra a tiempo entregar llegar tarde

prestar atencion la regia respectar se prohfbe
51



el armario el asiento el carnet de identidad las tijeras
52


Appendix K


'*i7.
y
COLORADO DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION
201 last A\rmn.* 1 Vnvrr, ColorvKtn K02KV17VM
wvvw.ede stare co us
Robert K. Hammond
OiKVMTmsjnnei of Education
Keith Owen, Ph D.
Deputy Commissioner
Position Statement on World Languages Standards-Based Teaching,
Learning and Assessment
Colorado Content Collaborative in World Languages
The Colorado Academic Standards in World Languages call for a shift in language learning and assessment.
They are benchmarked with proficiency ranges rather than grade levels given the fact that students in our
state have different entry points into the learning of another language.
Our world languages standards are communicative and proficiency-based in nature, with culture embedded
throughout. In a standards-based World Language classroom:
Teachers
use the target language at least 90% of the time.
provide opportunities for learners to acquire language in meaningful, real-world contexts.
use authentic sources to facilitate the understanding of cultural products, practices and perspectives.
Learners
use the target language to perform real world tasks.
demonstrate growth in their communicative proficiency through formative and summative performance
assessments.
acquire higher levels of proficiency for college and career readiness in programs that start in elementary
school and allow for uninterrupted study through high school.
Appropriate learner assessments are performance-based and must be aligned with the three modes of
communication (interpretive-listening and reading; interpersonal-speaking and writing; and presentational-
speaking and writing). They are focused on what learners can actually do with the language. Therefore,
discrete measurements of isolated skills, such as grammar points, vocabulary knowledge and cultural facts
are NOT ACCEPTABLE measures of student proficiency.
World Languages teachers acknowledge the value of the use of student growth measures in assessing
educator effectiveness. Effective implementation of a performance-based assessment process will provide
meaningful support for Colorado World Languages educators, their students and their schools.
Sources:
Colorado Academic Standards in World Languages:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/coworldlanguages/statestandards
ACTFL Position Statement Languages as a Core Component of Education for All Students:
http://www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/languages-core-comDonent-education-all-students
Teacher Effectiveness for Language Learning (TELL) Project Feedback tool:
http://www.tellproiect.com/
February 20X4
I
53


Appendix L
How much do you like when we do dialogs?
0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(not at all) (it's OK) (love it!)
Please explain:
How much do you like when we do stories with student actors?
0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(not at all) (it's OK) (love it!)
Please explain:
How much do you like when we do dialogs?
0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(not at all) (it's OK) (love itl)
Please explain:
How much do you like when we do stories with student actors?
0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(not at all) (it's OK) (love it!)
Please explain:
54


Full Text

PAGE 1

nrrr nr n nnrnrr n !"### n$%&'( )*)+,,n'.&&&/''''. )0/ '('.)/)'0. ('. $%&'( )$1)') (/ ( $' ('.2/$'&('.!( )&'(n'& 1)$&. +,"3

PAGE 2

.&'.&&('.)&'(n'&! ))$'.)$&$4 .)&$)11%('. 1)$&.!) n &&))'00.) %$5$$& ) r)'.$&$67) r%+,+,"3

PAGE 3

4))$'.)$&$8n1)$&.9.((0'() !$'.1.$& $1/'1 )$&. )&& .&&0'n&&&')$'(&&n &&))' 00 .&&'/01)&'.((0'$&10.1/0'$ $)1)$&.+.!.&0. 0 )&&*'.'*(($'')0.$!)11)0.& .0$' !/1(&'/$'&*)& ')/!.'/&$!%'.0/&('*)&*. '.41$') !/1*)& ')/!.'*'.$'.(&')/''.$)n )&) !$'.&0$) '.!/1&1%$/!.(1'1&''&'' &')'&'0) &!$(0)$'/''. 41$') !/1!)$)$)%)!(":* &'.)$'.0$' !/1.& &'/&.*&'.)''.)$n )'$0)& &10.1/0'$ .()$0$'$'('.&)&')0'))11% 0$'&1/ 0)'$ n11%;n &&))'00

PAGE 4

nrrr .&&'/.)&0%)11%) /$1' 0 $/"36,:3+ %

PAGE 5

rnnr n rr<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<" n=><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
PAGE 6

"r nn ..)&$)./!&.('$)$(!$ )$!/) !0 )&&&)&( )'$ 0 )&&&)/$'.0/$')$&10) $ )!$)'.)&(% 0.)'&)$41 0'!))$&'/0'$)$$'& 1 )0&)(0/&$0/$0)'$ $%/ 00. &2/'./&(8)0 .$!(0$0./!.)$! )$'' $!9)$5((&$/$'0. &' 0'8(0$'/!'0/'&9 ((')0.')$$!$'.)$'&$* /1!)n'.(*.0.* 41 )$$1'. )' )$')0.&)%$!)*)( $ !)'!))/'( 0$'4''$&')&$!')&)1)'()&'/$' E&%) 1(0$0n0)$/$0 (!$)$!/)!)0.$!.)&% 1() $0n&&&&$'/ $& 8n!9'.)'1/' )$!/)! )$&$)&10'/ (Fr%0 *G'F/1G $1$!*'.'.%) '$(%$!'*) )(0/&$0/$0)'$'.&/0 &0&*.)'&'/$'&)) '$) )$!/)! $'&(.*'./&)$ /$&')$ )$!/)! >'.$n'.(0/&( )$!/)!)02/&'$& $*$$''. 0)'!&(%0)/ )(/$0'$)$&'/0'/0 1.$& ')$01.$&$ .&&.('&)$)%$')*)('.*) )$)/ '& )$)&0$ )$!/)!$0 /$!(&'$!1&$'*'.!) )0.)'&(%$&$!'. &'/0'/$0$'4''*)&)(0/&$0/$0)' $)$*.)' )$&&./ )0'/) ) '$'. )$!/)!>.)')$!0 $ (')&F&'1)0'0&$ '.* )$!/)!0 )&&G&')''.)'( $'. )$)$'&'$!&0'!)) 1$'&&$((0'%)&)&&'$'. ) 1)'$'(/0)'$&'$

PAGE 7

+')'$'$> )$!/)!&)&1/ &.$'.5 ((00. !> )$!/)! )0.&E/18+,"39

PAGE 8

?r rrrr '1.$B)&.$.)&')$)1$$! $'. &%$')*)( ')0.$!&0'!))1$'&)$%$!'*) 40 /&% $!$ F01.$& $1/'G'')0.B)&.$!$) ($01.$& $1/')&H ")$$!'.)')02/&'$00/&*.$'. )$!/)! $!1%''. )$& &' 01.$& 7/&') '' )%.& .0/$' % 8B)&.$"#C"9$ F)&$)$!/)!n02/&'$)$')0G8B) &.$+,"D9B)&.$&')'&; F)$!/)!)$ ')00)$I)02/E0)$ I )$EIn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

PAGE 9

D0$'&)0.$&')(0/&&$'.(( $0'*$1 0')$41 0' $&'/0'$$F41 0')$1 0'0$)$!/ )!)$$!(($') n((0''. n0.%$'(r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

PAGE 10

3B)&.$$&)$$('&(/'1/''& (*'. !)'1%$! )$!/)! )02/&'$*%) &$'.&)$)*.)'B)&.$')&' )!%$&$'0$& )& /''.&)0.&$'.( (&0$ )$!/)!)02/&'$$F$1/' '/'1/';n)0.E&/'0$)$!/)!n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

PAGE 11

:n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

PAGE 12

-(.)%&*'.'&1.)&&$ )$$!'./! .1''$8=)$)''$+9.& ''.0)'$() !&)$&'/$'&0'$!)$ M$!) !&&' $((0'' &4'$'$0')$'.&)$1/0'&') .&0& %)$'*.$* )'nn$'.'. %)$'''.0/$'&'/& ') .&0) &1$&89) '.(&'1/ &.$"#--)1(&&5)& n&.8n&."#C?9.&'. 0!$M'. ( &'$$!$ )$!/)! )$ $!)$) &&/!.''$01)''. *)(&' )$!/)!&) )$$'.')0.$!( )&0$ )$!/)!.')0.!& './!.) &'(0)$&*'.&'/$'&*.'. )0'$'.)F0)$G' *'./'&1)$!4)1 '10) 0)$&! .'F&'*$GF&')$/1G F*) ''.G'0>. /&$!'.&'.$ .&0 )&& )$)*.*)& )''.')0 )&&')0.% 1'.'. '.)'.)&$0) '' $!*.)'&$*$&'))& F)0.$!(0$0./!. )$!)$'' $!G)% $( /$0 )&('1.$B)&.$E& 1.$& $1/'.1'.&&&&'!% 01.$& $1/'$) &'&&$%$$'*.'.)((0'%( '& *>. )$)&'.1$( '.&'.)$.)&$ )$!*&.1&&$0' &$01'$'..)%$ %))'$&) $!'.*))$'.&'.&&' % %$! $F /$0./!.'' $!;n0.%$!) )$!/)!n02/&'$$ 0. G )$))$$' 8"##-98"C6"# 9/' $'.&'1&$'.( *$! *); &') &.)$$!.&&'.1)'*.'.')! '%0)/ )&0 )() )%0)'&*'$!'.0'')$& )'$(%0)/ )*&$'.))$ %$ )%$!'./1(&'/$'&'&&'. &$)!/'

PAGE 13

C+ n&)&'))%0)'&.)%$!&'/$'&0)'' .*$&'0) $!/' )$&*&)&'.')0.)&&') &)/''.&' $0)0.&'&!$) ()0.0 )&&1&$0'.') &)/$2/ ''.)'0 )&&&'&&&'.)''. &'/&'')1 )0$'. 0)'$&)$'.1 &) *)&& %$'. '. 0)'$.&&0)/&.)%$!'.&)1 $'. 0)'$&) *& (1''$)$'./&01.$& $1/'n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r*A& $NG)$.)%'.0 )&&00'..$'.' )0.)&&2/&'$&)/')0.1)'( '.&$'$0;&/70'%)%&)$70'& '.')0.0)$)&F&'. ) %$)$))NG)$'.$1!&&'F>. %&$)$))G)$F>.& 5.$ %NG'&$'$0&&)')0.$( 2/&'$(%$*1)'('.&' /'$/!.2/&'$&))&'$&/'.)'&'/ $'&01.$$/!.&'.)''. )7')0) $!/''.00')$&*''. 2/&'$& n$'.')0.)$*&.11&$'&/& &&..)&(' )&F&$ 'G)$1.)&M&'.)'') &'')0.&'/$'&$'.&)*) '. )$'.(&' )$!/)!;(0/&$!$0 /$0)'$*'. '' 1.)&&$

PAGE 14

#(0&10.F1)0'0$!G'. )$!/)!.') 0.&'.)'*.$&'/$'&))'. )$!/)!1/0'$* 0 &&.)&)&(.*$0$'/'$&''. '..&( '.&2/$0&0)%/'&.)&)$ )'$) &'1&.(&')&@n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

PAGE 15

",) *&')0.&'$**.0.&'&** *' .&'/$'&n &&'/$'&0)$ 1/0.)&&'&&.)'.*$0)'$&*'. '.')0.& )'&'% 1$'$'.&$1/' )&*)(')0.$!&)$'.$('. $&()0 )&&')0.'$!'((0'% ')0..&'/$'&)5$$& ')0.)$1(&&(/$n8$'4'6)& 1'M)$!/)!n02/&'$9 *.$&.(/$.& ($'.&'/)'$(*)$'$! '. 1$ $!/) $! &.&1)& 0/$0)'*'.1)$&.&1)$!&'/$'&)$$ '.'.'2/00' )$) *')0.&'0/$0)')$$!(/ $) & '' ')&1&& >. &. $%$'$.'.'/&$&0$) /0)'$)' )&''*&'0'&$ )&/0.)&5((&$/$'0. &'0') $$%/ 00. &) ))1'$!n)$(($!')$$!&$'.&'. >'.&'$!& )'&' &'' $!'.)&$(')&'.$4'& '1$+,'((&$ &%) ))&(;'.&'1&/&'.% 0)/ )$&'/0'$)$'./&( ) !/'&&'1&2/1''$$'.)' n0')'&'.)'&'/$'&)0'/''. &''*0'.$'.')0.)0'&'/''.$'. &'/$'&)0''/'$&) !/1&)$ '.$'.$&'/0'1.&0) *) &'./!.'.&' )!)$)$)&&2/&'$&)/''. 4)0'&)&'.&0$(($0&'.)'*. $&'/$'&)!&'/$!'. %0)/ )'.&)'.*)&'.!&'/.& &)&')0$')&''F'.* &1) *.$'.))G$.'.)$ )!&' (($0'*$n)$ &'.$'/0'$() !/&'.)'&*.)' & '.)/6 $!/) '. $)1.$$'%**'.n(/$)5 $$&&.&1$'.)' '.) !&*$'/00)/&F'.*G .) &)''/'''.!%$! &'/$'&'.F) '')$1/ )' )$!/)!&1$') $/& G85$$&+,"39.&&

PAGE 16

""0//&0)/&'.&'/$'&)&'0$!')&0 1''.)'*)&16*''$) '.& %&'&) )1'!$) M'.)'0)/& '.$)0'*''$) !/&'.)''. $'.(/'/) ')11 '.!))$ )$'.0$'4'.& )1*))$'& (/'.$%&'!)'$ .n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n) !/&$0/)!'.1 )0'0(/'1/' n&/' $$n'.')0.1(&'.) !/('.&'/$'&'*0 $!&/')%$'&'&/11''.)$$! (*.)'&.)11$$!.$ &'/$'&)'.) !/$1)'$&'0 )/1 )$&/$&')$$!&r4'&'/$'& 0)''.*$!$) ) !/&$1)&*.0. '.'.$1('*0('.&'( '.0 )&&.(&'''.)/&'.$'& /'$''.&0$'.)&$'

PAGE 17

"+'.)''./&'M/''.)$!$0/)! '.)%)$)/'.$'040.)$!( )$!/)!.&'('.0 )&& &'$&)$&'.$ )&01.$&$2/&'$& $')0.$!'.'.)'&)& )! $B)&. $E&1$01 (01.$& $1/'&0) )0.$!(0$0./! .)$!)$'' $!.& '.*)&/&$'.0/$'&'/) $!*'.)& )'.0) n) & 41 )$ *.)%)/&)0)0&'/& !)$!/'$$')' /&$!n&'('.&'/&/'$') .)%(/$'.)'&'/$'&*. )$ /&$!/'1()' )&'1(& ) '')'$) F!))G $&'/0'&'/$'& $7/$) .$'$)'$) 5/$) (!$ )$!/)!)0.$!859 %'&'& ('41 $!)$1'$!&'1)0 '0&$')0.$!/&$!01.$& $1/'$$('&1/ 0)'$&B =)!/ME& +,,-&'/F)'$) )$ '' $!$&'/0'$$'.!$$$!!.0. 1)$&. )&&G& 0' 1)$&.')0.&(&%) &')'&)$*'.&'/ $'&(%)$!&00$0 )0!/$&.'.$%')0.&$''*0)' !&;$1/')&)$ F')'$) G!)))&$&'/0'$&'/ (/$'.)'$)$!)$ &'$$!)& )&/'.')'(r*AE&)$!/)!(0 $04)'.$1/'89 )&&'/$'&)/0. )!!)$&'.)$'.&'/ $'&$'.F')'$) G0 )&& %$*.$')$!$')00/$'&00$0&')'/& )$$0 )&&*'.)$$41$0 ')0. $)$'.&'/1/ &.$55&1.MM 0) &01)*'. ')'$) $&'/0'$$Fn1)&$()$ )'$) $&'/0'$'.*'. G8+,"+9(/$'.)''*$'*!/1&(&' /$'&'.$&'/0'

PAGE 18

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

PAGE 19

"D1)$! 8+,,#9)$) 8+,""9) &(/$'.)' 2/) /'1( )$'.'./&'))$'8+,,#9(/$'.)' /'1(!))$&'/0'$ )$) &0 )'*'.$0)&)''$)$0 $)$'.&'/'')$ $M8+,,-9*)$' ''$*.'. !&'/$!) $'$n)&41 )$)% )$%0)/ )$&'/0'$ )$(/$'.)7'(.&'/$'&'$&' .'0 )$&)$'.)'&'/$'&*. !&'/'.%0)/ )"3Q'''.)$'.&* .$E'$)%0)/ )'&' $.*&'B)$0.')$(r'.$ $ &$%&'0'&'. &)0.)&* !)$!E((0'%$&&$0 /$!&%) )&'&E'.&&) $! *'.0') &&')'$&&.(/$(/&'/& *'.1&'%&/ '&('.)' $'01)'.&'.')$'.'$&'/&*. /'1()$'. '.&%$&'/&*.2/) )$'. '.$'&((0'%$&&)$'. *.)$'.'./'1(8.''1;PP( ) $!&$//PR 0.')$P'1&.' 9 >. 1)&'&)0..)&) &'40 /&% 01) '!)) $&'/0'$8*'.&'/$'&&'('$$! ''9/$' '.&0/$'&'/'. .)&$$01)&$(%)'&(>'.& )$%))'$&*.$&'/&0' FG)&)'.'.)$E'&10($!4)0' *.)'&'1&%))'$&'.) /&$!.&&'.(&'&'/'&10(0) 01 ))(($0'*$')'$) )$$('&$*&'%&$&

PAGE 20

"3r rr"r n %/&&)0..)&!$) &.*$')& ((0'%)& ((0'%'.)$'.'.&)00$!''.& )0.() 8+,""9/&'))$' 8+,,#9)0M$&8+,,?9 %8+,"+9$)8+ ,,-91)$! 8+,,#9)$>)'&$ 8+,,#9 .0/$'&'/&1')$'0)/&' &)' )&)0.)$!$!)$ !*$!'.)$&&'01)&) (($0 &8'.)'$() !/&9'.)' .)%$)$'&% /'$&$0'*)&(&' 0)' )$)n &)$( '.1%/&&'/&$E'10& ($'./ &(/' $')0.&0) $! '.& %&')0.&.0/$'&'/) &.) &'.)%)$')!'.)''.')0.&)$ 41$00 )&&')0.*'.)&(4 1$0)$.)&)''$)' )&' $$')$$!*&.1&>. '.))$0'$&((/'/ &)0.!)$!'& % 1$'&)$$/)$0&'.0/$'&'/&&' ')0 '.&'%/&)$'. )!&'(($0'*$)$n;'./& () !/& .( *$!&)0.2/&'$& '.&&'/;"&'.))&/) !)$(1'&''1&' '&'(&'/$'&*.*')$ 1('.*$!$) ) !/&)&01)' '.&*.$ )0'/'&'&'.)' '.$E'0)'N+&'.'.0$' !/1'.41$') !/11%&!$(0)$' (1 '1&''&'N

PAGE 21

":?*&)'&()&'/$'&*'.'.'.N

PAGE 22

"-r rnn n# $%&!.&/70'&*('.(($'&0'$&( 1)$&.+)')*!. 0. )1/ 0&0$)&0. $5((&$/$ )*&0'$&*'. $&'/0'41$') !/1)$$*)&'.0 $' !/1.41$') !/1 &')'/')&3-&'/$'&)$'.0$' !/1&' )')&+-&'/$'&*%0')$ &'/$'&* $)'('.&'/.&* &'/$'&*.1'/'83&'/$'&9 &&)$)('.'*)&(0 )&&'.1 1&'6'&'8+-9n &$&'/$' *)& $)'('.&'/0)/&.&1)$1 &''&'0)&&!$(0)$' ( 3#*&'+#*&*.0.0 ) $'$&' )') &&( )$$!%'*)& (0 )&&>.$)&*.)'.).)11$.41 )$ '.)'.*)&7/&') ''.)' ).)$$!1)'01)$'&$'.&'/0$&& '(?3&'/$'&$'.41$') !/1)$"-$'.0$' !/1.&&'/$'&* ) $ $1)$&.+&' .)%$!'.')$1)$&."$ &0. ( &.$).)!&)$!( "36"#*'.(&.$'./!.&$&/'&' &1 .&)$&'/$'&*&' $)'%$! &.&1)&*'.'*&'/$'&.)%$! $) &41&'1)$&.&$0 './'() /$'.0)'!(1)&&% $! /) &&$0'./$&')$/0. '.)$'.0)$&1)

PAGE 23

"C r $'!'()'! !!* rn" '/$'&*&.*$'.)'')0. /&')'$8 n11$49()0.)'0 0 )&&.*')$/'$''..) *. '.*$&'/0'.*'0 '.& %&$)*&'0) =0).'.$* 'F)%'.$!'.0)$ )/''.10'/G.*)&&/'.)''*)& 7/&')1'&')$&$0'..)$E' )$'.%0)/ )'.*$'410'' $*'.*) &$($ '.0$&$'()$)!)$)&&/$0 )&&'.)' '.1()$0$$*)*/ )((0''.!)$'.0 )&& %$+',!'$'/$'&$'.'.0$' )$$&'/0'!/1& *')/!.'+,$*%0)/ ) *&8&n11$49/&$!!&'/&0)''. ')0..1)''.*& )$!&'/&/$' '.*) '.!&'/&* './''.')0. )$!)$!%$! )$4)1 .&)*&')$('.) )&+'4'.)1'"n '/$'&'.$*)&'*'$'.$! &.* )$)*)10'/()0.* ','.!/1&'.')0.)'.&'8&n1 1$49''.0 )&&)&'. &'/$'% /$'&&%)&)0'&1 )$!'.1) '('.')0.'.1$01) )$'. &'/$'.&'&!$'.//&*)&) /')&'/$'*.0) &/')$ &$E')&.&.)$/$' .&($) ')1' )0.).&'('.0 )&&*)'0.)$

PAGE 24

"#)$&*01.$&$0.02/&'$&.&*)& 1)'.$'.')0.)& 2/&'$&)!)$)/''.&'*'./''.&'/$' )0'&.$'.$'0 )&&&'/1 )/$'.$!/1&('.'.)''..)& 0')0.!/1('..)) ')0.1$01) )$&'/$')$)0.!/1*$ ''./!.'.)0'$&('.&'$0 )!)$)&'.')0.)'.&') /$0)!) $ +.&&*.'.(($')'')'$'!)$ .41$') !/1*)'0. '.')0.)0'/''.) !'*$)')0.)$ &'/$')$!'.1)'&8& n11$49r4'$1)'$&&'/$'&)'./ !.'.) !$1)$&.)$'.$ )!)$*'. &&*'0.8*.%)'.1) '('.')0.'.$0)'. &'/$'9.$'.*$&'/0''0)')$ !$) ) !/&$!'.')0.E&&' )&) .*!%$''1)0'0)$ !'./!.')$' '$01)' &%$'*.$'.)'r4')0.!/11 ('.) !('.$' 0 )&&'*'&J'.&0$''.*$') *'/&'.*''$) !( ($0.')0.)&'.&'('.0 )&& 01.$&$2/&'$&/$!'.& ''.0$' !/1&1$''.&))/$'(' $)0'$!)$'.&')$!$! './!.'.)%&'' $!&'1&)!)$ $ $'-,'.!/1&(&'/$'&*!%$)&/%'.)')& '..*/0.'. '.&')0'%'&)&* )&'.) !$)&0) ("6",$$!'.&'$! & '.)0'%'$2/&'$)$",$!'. &'$! '.)0'%'.* ) &) *'*'&'.$!1$6$8) +9

PAGE 25

+,!!!)))&&n )"'&'*'.*0/$''&'*'.* 0/$' )+"&'/$*%0)/ ) + *&'1&(n&'' $!*'.&'"?'/$'&)*'.&'$: 10'/&)&$')0.)$! &4&$'$0&D'/$'&' '.&'') 1)'$)&$'.10'/& 3)0.)&&'*. &'/$'&( *) $!*'.'.*$01:'/$'&)0) $)')$'')$& )')(*&$'$0&(&'$'$! &. "&'/$*%0)/ )+ *&'1&(n&'' $!*'.&'"?'/$'&)*'.&'$: 10'/&)&$')0. )$!&4&$'$0&D'/$'&' '.&'') 1)'$)&$'.10'/& 3)0.)&&'*. &'/$'&( *) $!*'.'.*$01:'/$'&)0) $)')$'')$& )')(*&$'$0&(&'$'$! &. )?" *&'1&( )$!) ) !+)0.1(&'.) !'*0?'/$'&)'.) !')0.'.$1)&D'/$'&.)&"+$/'&'0)')$!$) ) !)&$'.')0.4)1 3'/$'&1)0'0'.) !)$'.$1(''*0('.0 )&&.(&'''.)/&'.*''$&01'/'$''.&0$':.')0.)&&'.&'('.0 )&&01.$&$2/&'$&$1)$&.!)$!'.)0'$&('.) !& *&'1&(n&'' $!*'.&'"+'/$'&)*'.&'$: 10'/&)&$')0. )$!&4&$'$0&?'/$'&' '.&'') 1)'$)&$'.10'/& D)0.)&&'*. &'/$'&( *) $!*'.'.*$013'/$'&)0) $)')$'')$& )')(*&$'$0&(&'$'$! &. )D&''&'*'.*0/$'&''&'*'.* 0/$' .1'&'*)&)$&'''.&'/$'&)') '$'..) *)'/$'& *&.*$)10'/()&!)$M0 )&&8 !/"9)$' 'F&)*.)'% '.0)$)/''$1)$&.G.%0&* 0$)*&'0) =0)

PAGE 26

+")$'.$'.')0.*$''./!.)0.0$!)$ 1&$) 0/$''.$/( *&&1$ $'.(&')('.&)0.) '.0 )&&& *')/!.''.$*%0)/ ) !&'/&*.0.'.1)')&'.&)'.* &.&&')$(n)& 11&'$'.)')E&%&$(!&'/$! &$'.)%&'/$'&1)''. *&/'7/&''.!&'/$&1$&''.' )0.E&%0) 11' r4'&'/$'&*' '.&'('.0 1)$$''. ) )&+'4'.&'/$'% /$'&1 ) '. (')0.&'/$')$ 1$01) )&'.)0'/) 0 )&&')0.' '. &'''.0 )&&.')0.)& F00 $!G2/&'$&'$&/01.$&$)$ )&/01.$&$) &'/$'&*.'.'.)7'*0) $!/'' .00')$&*&.$'.&'/$'& 1 F*. 0 )&&)0'$!G*.'.')0. )'.&') /('.'. '*'.&'/$'&$!/1&('.)$)0.&'/ $'$&')'0$'$/ 01.$&$&/ ')$/& $)0'$!'.&' $.&. r4'&'/$'&*)&4&$'$0&('.&' /'(0.$ !0) )$*'.&'*'./'*'$!)$*&.$ &'/$'&/&'.10'/&)&) !/'' '.&'')1)'$.')0. $&/'.)''.&0/ 01 0) $!$&'/$'&)')$')!)$' '.&' )&$'.10'/& r4'0)'.&'1()$!.')0.)'. &'''.&'/$'&)!)$ /''.&'&'/$'&.))01('.&')$ ( *) $!) *$!'.' 0$$0''.&/$&*'.'.)0'/) *&.&&' 1&*) 01 '/$!)#, $/' 01(0 )&&.$'10&& ) &'((/#,$/' 01&; '.(&')*)&'.1'&'J'.&0$)*)&' .&')$%0)/ )$&'/0'$

PAGE 27

++*.0.*)&'.&)('.0 )&&&J'.'.) 41 )$ **)&*.$'. (($'$&'/0'$'1 )0.(/'.)$( $) )*)&'.1&''&'*.0. ( *'.$'0) 10/)&'.1'&'* '.&'/$'&$!&.*$'.10'/)$ '&))&/0.)&'.0/ )/''.10'/ $)?'.')'$')) 0 )&&&80$' ) $')'$'9)2/0 ')$& )'$('.)$!('.(&'&'( '.(&').$'.0$' !/1*)& )$'.& )&''.)''.'.$)0'/ ')$)'.)'/&'.&)%0)/ ) /'$'.0$'4'()$'.&'8&n11$4 9'&1')$''$''.)''. 0$' !/1*)&&' 0%$!01.$& $ 1/'*'. )'%0)/ )$'. ')'$').*.*%$')$!/1'. *$!$) &'&8*.0.&)$ )0'%''.)''&/'$''.)')') & )''.((0'&('.) !&9 $'.'&'!/1&'.')0.1&$')) ''.0 )&&)$'.$( FnG&'1&;'.')0.)0''/''*0)$'. $.)&'/$'&)'')0.'.$ 1)'$&.$&'/$'&.))/''$$/'&'0 )''.*$!$) ) !&'.)') F '.')0.E&G/'!$) '/$'&'.$1 ('.) !&('.&'('. 0 )&&'*0.(&'''.0/ /&'.$ '&/''.&0$''.0/ $' .)*)&$''M*.)'*)&*''$* (*/'')0'&1$')$/& '*.)'*)&1)0'0.)&$'&1(' *0&&'.)''.&1)&!') 0.)$0') ( 0(') )$) &('. )/$0'1)0'0'. 01.$&$.')0.'.$)&&2/&'$&$' .')!' )$!/)!)/''.!$) ) !&'1'.0 )&&$!)!'.0$' )$ 41$') !/1&&1$''.&) )/$'('$'.&&'1

PAGE 28

+?n(')?*.0.*)&'.)$'.&'('. 0$' !/1)) !( '.41$') !/1) &'/$'&01 ''. 1&''&'*.0.0$&&'('.&) 10'/&('.1'&''/$'&*)!)$)& '&1))/''.10'/&/'$'. .) *))$F&))&/0.)&'.0)$Gr4')$)'' '/&/%*)&)$&'') 0 )&&&')&/)'''/&'*)) !&)$&' &$*.0.&'/$'&*)&' )''. & ()0.)$'41 )$' .)$&*&.&&/%*)&0$/0' )' ( *$!'.1&''&' +,!!>&/''$$! &.*$'0/$''*)'. *0/$'$* $' $%$'1)$&.*& F1$0 G' )$1$0 .*&0/$') (1)'/&($*&/0.)&FG('& '0'.1''%$&&'.)' ('$&1)'($) &10.*%()&'/ $'1)')*0$&0/'% ( 4)1 F'.
PAGE 29

+D r r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nr=n*)&/$''$*.'.)0.! /11%%' &/ '&$0)')&')'&'0) &!$(0)$')$ ((0'(8"3,9S"?,C#1

PAGE 30

+3T,".!/1'$')0'$*)&$'&!$(0 )$'$0)'$!'.)''.!/1& 1%'.&)%'')'&'0) &/ '&'&'1'&' nn n rnr rn rr r !" #r$ %n&r' $ (nn r)rr$%n&r'$n + r $ + ,) rn& n $$ r $$ ./$ 0rn&$r1 $$ !2 3 rr %n& nn n4 ) %n& nn r n4 ) 6'&'&''&' nn n rnr rn

PAGE 31

+: rrr r !" #r$ %n&r' $ (nn r)rr$%n&r'$n + r $ + ,) rn& n $$ r $$ ./$ 0rn&$r1 $$ !2 3 rrr %n& nn n4 ) %n& nn r n4 ) nr nnnn n rnr rr

PAGE 32

+#rn& rrr #rn& n!n"#$% n56378 #'000 4$ %n $ n %n + nrn&rn %n #4 1r' 64 1) 9'1)*&r !2): #4; 1r' 64 1) 9'1)*&r !2): ,#41r' 64 1) 9'1)*&r !2): n!n"#$& n56378 #4 #'0004 $%n $ n %n + nrn&rn %n n ' ( ( )

PAGE 33

+C #4; !& !& ,#4!& !& *+"#$% n56378 #n$4(nn:&56n+ #'0004$ %n $ n%n + nrn&rn %n 0rr

PAGE 34

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

PAGE 35

?,r n .)1&'.&'$'&'$!0$0 /&$('.&&'/ &$')$(!)$' '.&)0.J'.)'&'' $!)&)'..)&& ')'&'0) &!$(0)$'!)$&(&'/$'& $/&'1$$'.)''.&&'/$'&$ .) ?./&($&'/0'$'*$'. 16'&')$1&'6'&')$'.&*)&$/!.('. &10./'1/''$0)& &!$(0)$' n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

PAGE 36

?"$1')$'2/&'$'.)')&&('. )0( (($0'*$'. !/1)$'.n!/1&*.'..)%2/) !)$&N$1&& )$&*&'.)' '.) !/&!%'.&)$(01.$& $1/')&&'&.& )0( (($0'*$'.!/1&) &00/&1' '.()0''.)''.&'/$'& '. ) !&$'.$!'1$$&'.)')& ..).8+,,+9(/$'.()0''.)' &'/$'&)$')0'$!&$E'!/))$''.)''. )0%$!/&(/ ()0)/$ *.)''.)&)$!n &'.&'/$'&$'.0$ !/1.)$) !/&( &'..)$41&'&1)$!.$E'& 1)'.&1)'0/ )'*.0.0/ 141 )$'.& )''*$'.'*!/1& &$0'*)&$''.&/ '&() $! '1)''$($!/1$'&1)$! $)'$'&1')$''$''.)''.'. &*&*.)'((0'%$ $0)&$!&'/$'&10.1/0'$n(''*) &($&'/0'$) &'/$'&*) '&)'.)$(.()0''.)'&'/$'&$ '.41$') !/1&1)/''* *&&$'$/!.$'&*$'.1'.&M '.)''.&$/* 0$'$/' !*41$$') '.)$'.0$' !/1%

PAGE 37

?+r nrnnrrr /'.&)0.&0 ) $$&%) &1. &&''.&)$( 1/ &.&'/&&.*$!'.)'))'0) $0)&&!)$&() &'/$'& $'7/&''.&*.$'')* '0'!) )$&'/0'$ '*/ $'&'$!'&'.(($0$!) $&%)$$'&&' )(#,$/'&((($'$&'/0'$0)$1 /0)$)%)!('**&' */ $'&'$!'&.*/0.1!&&0/ )%'.0/&()/0. 4'$'() /'.'.&'/$ )&/&&10.1/0' $*.0.&$ $ ) ''*/ $'&'$!')&/*'$ &'$$!01.$&$)$ )$!)&* n &&'/$'&*$'!%$)' '('. &1)$!1)$1&''&'&J 1.)1&'*/ /&(/ '/&)')$!% '.)'') ('*$/'&$' )&/)0'/) &1)$!) ')$$'7/&'& )&/(.*') )'%&$& n &'.*&! '0.&*'.'.'0.$ )/$'./&(=0))$) & *'.$& % &*. 0$!$'..) *) .$4'&'/*/ 1.)1&$('( &'/$'&1)0'0/&$!'.'0.$ !'0' .& %&('.)0'/) '&'$! ) $)'$'.&&'/$'.)%) )1&' '&''*/ $'&'$!' '&'&'/$'&)!)$)''.$()&&''& ('.)&' ) '/&'.$* %0)/ ))$('..)%')$'.*&%

PAGE 38

??$0.)&$&.*$'.$//&&'/& $'$.' ((0'%)&)'.'&''&')'4)$$ !&10(0()0'&)$$*%))'$&' 0)''.&'((0'%%&$('&'. 1&'/$'&)02/)&0$ )$!/)!n$'.%)) '0$&&'./& (&'/$'&0)'$!'.*$&'&' */ /&(/ ')&/'.4'$''*.0.'.)' 0$'/'&&$'0$'/'' )$!/)!)02/&'$

PAGE 39

?Dr. nn n&$''./!./''.&1)1)$n) $!* /&8($' )$)'9$ ))$! )$!/)!')0.&.& &*'.!)&$&$0& )$0$'&'/&0''&((0'%$&&)$&.* '.)''/'1(&')'$) !))$&'/0'$8&1)&'&)0.)$&0/&& $&0'$&9'*/ ) &/&(/ 01)''.$*''!)'. &'.)$0'!))$&'/0'$ 0 )F/'Gn)$ )1)'$'( /0)'$'& () $!*'.'. &0. &'0'&'.)'))$)'$!)$$0/)!$! '.)1'$(&'' $! r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

PAGE 40

?3>'.(/'/&)0.&'' $!0)$&') $ '1'$') 0)''.&' ((0'% )$!/)!$&'/0'$%/&% /' $M$!'.( )$&0$ )$!/)! $&'/0'$

PAGE 41

?:rrrr n )%)$$&%( Fn$n$) &&( '.)0.$!(0$0./!. )$!)$'' $!89'.G nn r .)/0)$) > &$&* n +,,C$' n&.5)&5 rr &)'&) ($); )&/0'$&$0"#C? ) B r r r!" rr r &&$%&'(B)$&)&+,"" )/$&'$Fn/ )$&U)'''/&'*) &%$'89)$))8 '' $!9$'.0 )&&G #$ 8+,,:9"C;"-6+, &!!J')$J)&0.)J>)!$ ) &'$ )&&)0./&''&;)&$+,"" /&'))$'))) $) %r#&r '(nn& .&&$%&'(r)&))'B)$ +,,# MM05&1.Fn1)&$()$)' $) $&'/0'$'.*'.G )*r+r 8+,"+9;D6:$' ))) r%r .)$ nV;/ &.$!+,,: )0M$& 'r rrr.r rrr/ .&&.)1)$$%&'+,,? )0 $'$)'$) 5/$) (!$)$!/)!)0.$! >++0'+,"3 5$$&)&$) $'%*"+0'+,"3 B)&.$'1.$F1.$& /'1/'NG +:8"##C9;"-36"C+$' B)&.$'1.$ 'r.r 4(; !)$&&"#C+$' B)&.$'1.$ r.r-"''" 0r 40;)!$%&'&&+,"?$'

PAGE 42

?$M'')$ )'1r23r.r .&& 0.!)$')'$%&'+,," !)$6.'B))J'$.)/B)&'$J)$M& '$)J )$0.) F41 0' )$1 0'0$)$!/)!)$$!(($') n((0''.n0.%$' (r)'%6 )$n0'%)'$)''$&G *r&4r +,"+n1J+D8D9;#??W#D0'$0 %5F$%&'!)'$!'' $!'.&$ )!$$$!6% )&& r#r G/)+,"+;3D63: $) #'& r"&r r5'6"36 ''r &3r66)6r& r r*A;'5.$E&$%&'+,,&& ) )$)$$' +rr-& r.r &)0.; )$)$ "##555r' >++0'+,"3 ..).n F)$/1/'1'.&&&'$! )$$'$) M$!$!/&'0 B$* !G ?+8+,,?9;"336"-"$' 1)$! #5r" r&r 'r 36&r7&"r" .&&+,,# =)$)''$ +)'r$r'r-81r r .r r*A;0)*6 +,,?$' =)!/MB F)'$) )$'' $! $&'/0'$$'.!$$$!!. 0. 1)$&. )&&G )*r+r 3"8+,,#9;+63$' >) ')$5) $ *98' )1$!&;5) $ >) ')$+,",$' >)'&$Fn01)&$()$')'$) ( !$ )$!/)!$&'/0'$)''. .!.&0. % G )*r+r 3;" 8/98+,,#9;+"6+D 555 .n0)$/$0 ('.)0.$!(!$) $!/)!&>+" 0'+,"3

PAGE 43

?C 555r' >++0'+,"3 '-::rr:;<:' >"-r%+,"3

PAGE 44

?#n11$4n;) & r/(>&'/$'&1$)$&'&' n rnnnn

PAGE 45

D, nnn n n n n !" ##!$ %$ !$ &' &'(!$

PAGE 46

D" %)*n*'+,'n*'+,' *n-' # # % . # $ / / ( 0 # # # ( # # $ 0 .0 .0 0 .0 .. / .% / # / ( .# 0 0 ./ ." % # .( $ .$ / %0 # % %. # %% # % 0 ) /!. $. *'+,' *n-' / ( % .0

PAGE 47

D+ / .0 # % / " " % / ( / .0 $ ( .0 .0 / .. ( .% / / # .# / / ./ ( % ." ( % / .( # .$ .( 0 .$ / %0 " %. %% # % # / %# # ) #!$%0 /!$"./(

PAGE 48

D? n11$4;n'' $! $

PAGE 49

DDn11$4;n) !'1&

PAGE 50

D3n11$4;!/&

PAGE 51

D:n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

PAGE 52

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

PAGE 53

DCn11$4;.?'1&('' $! n11$4;'('./1&

PAGE 54

D#n11$4;) !(41$') /1

PAGE 55

3, n11$4;'('.$' /1

PAGE 56

3" n11$45;0'/0'$)('./1&nr n nr r nrn r n n r n rn r

PAGE 57

3+ n n rnn n

PAGE 58

3?n11$4B

PAGE 59

3Dn11$4