| Author |
Post |
|
|
|
|
Adah,
I teach pre-service elementary teachers. The text we’re using (Settlage & Southerland, 1998) advocates the 5E learning cycle and has several chapters devoted to that process as well as inquiry. I try to integrate the essential features of inquiry with the 5E learning model as my students write inquiry lesson plans and practice teach their lessons.
The hardest part for my students is to have the children engage in an investigation initially. It is so different from the other subjects they’re learning to teach. It’s hard for my students to understand that children can think and make discoveries and come up with explanations without the teacher telling them. My students can tell me what the 5Es are and describe what happens in each, but when it comes to applying it, many of them can’t get away from telling students what they are going to find out before they explore.
In Florida (where I work now), at least in Miami-Dade County Schools, there is use of the 5E format. In Ohio (where I spent most of my life and professional career), the model lessons online from the Ohio Department of Education website are standards-based – they incorporate and inquiry-based approach, but not specifically 5Es.
Like The Scientific Method, the 5Es serve a purpose in helping teachers identify a format to help them teach by inquiry which for most is foreign to them because they themselves have never experienced an inquiry-based science class.
Although I know form my personal experience at both The University of Akron (Ohio) and Florida International University, there is work going on to establish undergraduate science courses (in Arts & Sciences) that teach science using the inquiry approach. I believe this is also developing at Ohio State and Miami University (Ohio). It’s a slow process though.
I think until pre-service teachers and teachers themselves can experience learning science by inquiry, it’s going to be difficult for them to understand why children can learn that way so well.
Anyone know of other universities that are incorporating the concept of teaching inquiry-based science courses in their undergraduate curriculum?
Kathy Sparrow
PS Thanks for your collections. You have a couple resources that I haven't explored.
I attached my personal collection I developed for 5Es.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adah,
I loved the way you started this topic - reflecting historically. After my third year of teaching in 1975 I realized my students were doing great, but I was going on pure intuition. I got acquainted with Piaget, Bruner and Bloom - quickly. That is constructivist thinking without using the word as a capital C. The big debate in science education at the time was whether to focus science teaching on process skills or content knowledge and the big curricula at the time working this out were Science: A Process Approach (SAPA), Elementary Science Study (ESS) and Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS). SCIS and ESS were the most balanced and would be described now as inquiry, constructivist learning. SCIS used a 3E learning cycle and by 1980 Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) showcased the 5E learning cycle and has been using it since. As a longtime practitioner I feel only the language has changed. I am sorry we so rarely teach in terms of science process skills (see http://www.narst.org/publications/research/skill.cfm) As for whether we should 5E or not, BSCS cites some nice research and I included the BSCS document.
So, how can we keep focused on the important issues of teaching science and pass this knowledge along without getting hung up on the 'language du jour' which can obscure key elements of what we have learned?
|
|
|
|
|
|
In regard to the question about undergraduate science programs that take an inquiry-based approach, I would like to introduce the Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) program. The model, as they say, applies the science of learning to the learning of science and engages students in tackling meaningful, real world questions. The core content knowledge is taught through complex, capacious civic issues.
This past summer I had the pleasure of attending the annual Summer Institute along with colleagues from mathematics and science and my university is currently in the process of developing additional undergraduate courses that follow the SENCER approach. Several examples of existing courses are available on the website. I look forward to having even more of our teacher candidates enrolled in these courses and watching how it influences their approach to teaching at the K-12 level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adah,
I am curious why the teachers you work with only use the 5E model for their science lessons. I've seen it used, quite effectively, with every subject. It takes creativity to do it but it can be done. As a matter of fact, the first time I ever saw the 5E model explained, it was during a language arts lesson on poetry.
On the other hand, although I've only been trained as a constructivist teacher, sometimes I wonder if we take it too far. There is something to be said for classical methods - especially in language and mathematics. Students come to me in middle grades having been taught math exclusively with constructivist methods - no rote memorization required - and they cannot perform basic mental calculations. This prevents me from truly incorporating STEM objectives because I simply don't have time to go back and teach them fourth grade math. Vocabulary is a nightmare, even when several words share a common root. I took Latin in school and know first-hand the value of it - it has made me a better student and a better teacher. Even though I remember despising rote memorization in school, I now see the benefit of it and it frustrates me that we have strayed from some of the classical subjects and methods. I would love to see a blending of the two.
Thanks,
Kendra
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kendra,
You wrote [color=blue]
On the other hand, although I've only been trained as a constructivist teacher, sometimes I wonder if we take it too far. There is something to be said for classical methods - especially in language and mathematics. Students come to me in middle grades having been taught math exclusively with constructivist methods - no rote memorization required - and they cannot perform basic mental calculations. [/color]
This complaint has been applied to the inquiry method (although we may have agreed that, essentially, they are the same). However, I feel that, again, we lost something in the translation. The flaw in the (science) process approach of Science: A Process Approach(SAPA)was that it concentrated so much on developing process skills that the students didn't have a content base sufficient to support the more advanced process skills - they were being asked to step out over thin air.
Integration, we concluded, was essential. It isn't one or the other; it is a thoughtful blending. True inquiry or constructivism isn't abandoning the students to whatever they want to do. Guiding and scaffolding the process is essential and sometimes the scaffolding is with content. When I was a Math and Science Department Chair, we grappled with this balance. One guiding principle we recognized was "If I give information and it shuts down investigation and curiosity, I shouldn't give it. If I give information and that information opens up investigation and curiosity, I can provide it - if I must to support the learning process. (But let's see if I can get there by asking provoking questions first.)" The 5E Learning Cycle embraces the balance and provides a tool to ensure the balance of learning process and content.
It seems that seeing inquiry/constructivism as a dichotomy - doing inquiry forbids a lecture/discussion - makes it more difficult for students to do inquiry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don said:
Now, how do we help teachers who see inquiry/constructivism as a dichotomy - either I do lecture or I stand back and let them figure it out - to embrace the balance as the real meaning of inquiry/constructivism?
My response:
Since the Federal initiative is to have national education standards for all schools in America, I think we can take them to the standards for science. They are addressed as two separate elements: content standards and process skill standards. You can't have one without the other. Every lesson should show the meshing of the two. Each time the teacher should ask, 'Which process(es) skill(s) will be used to learn a specific concept?'
My university has a lesson plan format that is a revised form of Madeline Hunter's frame. I revised it slightly to incorporate the 5 E model. It is not a perfect fit, but it helps preservice teachers to see how Hunter's anticipatory set is not much different from the Engage in the 5 E model, etc. One has to remember that just like in the Hunter model, a single lesson or part of a lesson on any given day may not be able to accommodate all aspects of any model.
By purposefully planning to embed the processes with the content, teachers can better see how the two compliment each other in making for meaningful, engaging learning experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally love the 5 E's plan. It helps me with adding variety in activities AND with pacing my lessons, which is especially important for block scheduling. When trying to plan 90 minutes and keep students engaged in lessons, this model has saved me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
Funny you should ask...I am using the 5E learning cycle to in my action research project this year. I will be presenting my project and results this summer at Montana State University, prior to graduating with my Masters of Science in Science Eduction degree. My title: IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT, INTEREST, AND MOTIVATION IN SCIENCE THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 5E LEARNING CYCLE IN THE MIDDLE GRADES OF AN URBAN SCHOOL.
Here is what I have discovered so far:
First, I love using the 5E learning cycle in teaching - and I agree, it can be used across many different content areas, and not just for science. I also agree that it should not be strickly formatted to fit a perfect engage-explore-explain-elaborate-evaluate cycle. I often float back and forth between explore and explain and even between explain and elaborate. Perhaps the stage of greatest importance...although an argument could be made they are all of equal importance...is the engage. I truly believe that students need to buy into the "why do I need or want to learn this" before they will... I often refer back to the engage through out a lesson to help them maintain their enthusiaism for the topic.
In surveying my students, I have noted an increase in student in science and an increase in students motivation within the labs/activities - more students on task doing what they are suppose to be doing when they are suppose to be doing it, and more students asking higher level questions during lab/activity time. I have also noted an increase in student interesting pursuing a caree in science. However, I have also noted a decrease in student confidence in science. I am hoping to begin to see an increase as we continue to use the 5E learning cycle, but it appears that the students are out of their "comfort zone" in learning, as many indicated on the survey that they would like to do more work out of the text book. I have tried including more textbook work in the "explain" stage, and hopefully that will enable a higher confidence in science during the next survey. (Students are surveyed every 6 weeks.)
Finally, I strongly agree that it is very difficult not to "teach" the content prior to allowing the students to discover it during the explore stage. I am also working at trying to find more student-centered "explain" activities, such as foldables. Any suggestions?
I will be teaching force and motion for the first time soon after we come back from winter break. I have explored the Learning Center for 5E lessons on force and motion, and other topics. What a tremendous resource!! I will keep the group posted on my results, as I gather them....
Sue
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any research stating whether the 5 E model works better than other teaching
methods. Our district focuses on 26 best practices which doesn't follow this model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LeRoy,
I participated in an all day PD at the NSTA National Conference in Philly last year presented by the Biological Science Curriculum Study or BSCS, since they are no longer focused just on the biological sciences. Here is a link to their home page: http://www.bscs.org/ and here is a link to their research thread: http://www.bscs.org/researchevaluation/index.html
Rodger Bybee and others have conducted extensive research into the 5E model. Here is are links to two of their reports: http://www.bscs.org/pdf/5EExecutive%20Summary.pdf
and http://www.bscs.org/pdf/5EFull%20Report.pdf
And here is a link to a comparative study between the effectiveness of the 5E model and other more common teaching strategies: http://www.bscs.org/pdf/re/BSCS%20Comparative%20Study%20of%205E-Based%20and%20Commonplace%20Materials%20&%20Teaching.pdf
If the article links are not working, these are all located within the BSCS homepage. Click on "Research and Evaluation," scroll over "Research and Evaluation" on the left side until the sidebar menu opens and select "Data About Our Programs." From there select "The BSCS 5E Instructional Model" and you will be able to find the links to view the reports.
I have also completed a literature review on using the 5E model to improve student academic performance and interest in science through the 5E model for my capstone project - which I am presenting this summer at Montana State University in fulfillment of the requirements for my MSSE degree.
If you are attending the National Conference this year, I would highly recommend the PD opportunities and workshops presented by the BSCS group. The all day PD is well worth the money, and the other workshops are equally amazing in how they help you "see" and "experience" how to teach science in an inquiry-manner.
I can also post additional resources on the 5E model, if you are interested. However, the articles on the BSCS website are great introduction to the 5E and the research that supports its use.
Sue
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sue, thank you so much for sharing your resources and active research on the 5Es. Knowing that the research is purporting this as an effective teaching method and knowing where to find this research is very helpful. If a constructivist teacher is in a district that doesn't use inquiry-based or constructivist teaching strategies, it is great to have the research ready to share. LeRoy, thank you for asking that question! Yes, Sue, I would love any additional resources that you have on the 5E model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have attached my literature review on the 5E Learning Cycle. Please keep in mind, it is a "work in progress." I do not present the paper until May to be reviewed, and I do not make my formal presentation until July for consideration for graduation from Montana State University with a MSSE degree. Please feel free to review the resources I have used for the paper. I will be adding more, as I further develop the paper.
I will also post my 5E collection from the learning center. However, it has become quite large, and I am considering modifying it to cover specific content areas and/or pedagogy.
I am still working at developing my "5E skills," and I have found it very difficult at times to maintain the cycle of "explore" prior to "explain." I find it too easy to "explain" something first, and I need to remind myself to encourage the students to explore and "struggle to understand - without becoming frustrated" before offering them an explanation. And then there is the whole "there is never enough time" thing - the 5E learning cycle does take more time, but the students really "get" the content information and skills and retain more when I teach using the 5Es.
Sue
5E Learning Cycle Collection
(24 items)
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my belief that each day should start with an engage element, even if it is brief. Often this can be accomplished by revisiting a KWL or other artifact that was produced in the prior day. My question is, should the 5E model be approached in a linear sequence or can it be nonlinear?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Angelica,
Your question is, should the 5E model be approached in a linear sequence or can it be nonlinear?"
I truly believe it can be nonlinear. I think that we often move back and forth between the stages. I remember from the classroom often returning to the engage and explore stage. I think we need to reengage our students every class in the science before returning to wherever we are in the content Explain or Elaborate. I also think students do more observations than just once and I think that is part of the Explore.
You know I am no expert I am just going by my experience and the reading I do. Please chime in either supporting me or sharing with the group. This type of discourse will move our own learning forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
At a recent Texas A&M faculty collaborative, we were introduced to Understanding by Design. http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Design-Expanded-Grant-Wiggins/dp/0131950843/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297039250&sr=1-1
Has anyone used this model? I would be interested in your thoughts and reflections
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pam,
I’ve used the Understanding By Design model. This model was advocated by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). The sample lessons on the ODE website that support and are aligned with the Ohio Standards incorporate this format. I used it in workshops with the Akron science teachers.
I still use it in my pre-service class along with the 5Es. I have my students answer these three questions before they write a lesson plan, as a result of my lesson: 1. What do I want my students to know and be able to do? [What is the concept I’m trying to teach?] 2. How will I know if they know it? [How will I assess them?] 3. How am I going to get there? [What activities, strategies, etc., will I use?]
If you can write an assessment of what you want your students to know, then you can customize your lesson to accommodate it. I attached an article that was in Science Scope a few years ago on Backward Design.
Angelika and Kathy, regarding the 5Es. Yes, I agree that the 5E Learning Cycle is a format, but it is not necessarily linear—that’s why it’s called a learning cycle. I attached an article—it’s on concept development—but it describes how one goes back and forth among the 5Es in teaching a concept.
Kathy
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't get the articles to attach the first time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Pam and Everyone! I just wanted to mention that there is another discussion thread that has a lot of information shared already about UbD at: 'The Learning Cycle - - 5E or UBD?'
Thank you, Sue, for the extensive bibliography providing background research links for the 5E method of teaching science concepts. I also found Don's information put out by BSCS to be very informative (The BSCS 5E Instructional Model Origins Effectiveness, and Application'.
One of the things I struggled with when I was first introduced to the 5E's, was how to go from practically no inquiry in my teaching (I am ashamed to admit) to open-ended inquiry. I eventually discovered that there are several ways to approach inquiry instruction. I found two articles particularly helpful to me. One is not available in the NSTA Learning Center so I have attached it here (Defining Inquiry, Feb. 2002 article in The Science Teacher). The other one is Simplifying Inquiry Instruction.
I really found it helpful when I learned about these 4 categories of inquiry. It allowed me to see that sometimes, one type of inquiry is more logical than another for a specific concept that needs to be learned. It is one way to look at the 5 E’s so that you can use that model as a “thinking routine” to plan out your lesson and determine in advance how open-ended you want the inquiry to be.
Carolyn
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
It seems a consensus the 5E model is versatile and can be molded to include other learning models, such as learning by design. Kathy, I really enjoyed the article you posted about the Backward approach to inquiry. The article had a very informative table outlining problems and solutions for bringing formative assessment into classrooms during inquiry-based learning activities.
Thank You,
Angie
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was at an RTI professional development today, and within this workshop I realized another benefit to using the 5E learning cycle.
I do not use the 5E in a linear model or format - I use the 5E model to address student needs in learning. In other words, I will continue with an explain or explore until I am confident the students have a firm understanding of the basic concepts before moving onto the elaborate. However, it seems as if I am always leaving a few students "behind" - they are still not quite getting it, even though most of the class is ready to go on.
So, in consideration of using the 5E learning cycle along with the RTI model...I am considering using exit slips to determine student comprehension of a concept within the explore/explain cycle. Students that demonstrate they are ready to move on, will be assigned a more independent elaborate activity to enhance their understanding of the content material or skill. Students that still require additional support will participate in another explore/explain cycle to help them gain the necessary understandings.
It is my thought that it doesn't make sense to move a student into an elaborate phase before they are ready....and if they do not get to an elaborate phase, at least they are getting the base information or skill. I am excited to put my "plan" into action... Thoughts? Suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
One more thought.... Here are my concerns: Am I taking on more work by running two or more lessons within one class period? How do I address the "why aren't we doing that too?" questions? And how do I maintain classroom management with several different activities all going on at one time in my classes of 30+ students? Does anyone have experience using stations or a similar format with large class sizes? Suggestions? Input?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sue-I have done something similar in an upper elementary classroom-maybe could be modified as I think you teach middle school(?). I would design a menu full of choice based learning activities that students could work on when they had mastered basic concepts ( I used this in math mostly but did use it in science as well). All the choices were things that could be done independently or in a small group (if students followed the rules-not disruptive and on task). Then I could work with other students who extra support. I would always have a "work day" at some point so that all students could work on choice menu activities (including the ones who were working with me), so all students would have that common expereince and could share with each other. The hardest part was keeping up with all the students who were working idependently. I would have to take time for them to get together and reflect on what they did because I think the "making sense" piece is so important. It was a lot to juggle, but once students are in the routine and knew the expectations, it became a lot more streamlined.
I am excited to hear how things go in your classroom and what you ultimately choose to do. I admit I don't know much about RTI(I had to google it:). Your passion and excitement for teaching are contagious!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just recently attended the web seminar last week "What is Inquiry? Inquiring Minds Want to Know.", May 12, 2011. The presenter was Art Eisenkraft who has been a proponent of the 7E Learning Cycle. In this seminar, he gave an excellent and very thoughtful presentation on how to use inquiry and how to include more inquiry in science lessons. He also identified the 7 Es as the participants worked through inquiry lessons. I thought it was an excellent seminar, especially for teachers who are using inquiry in their lessons. The seminar is archived:
http://learningcenter.nsta.org/products/web_seminar_archive_sponsor.aspx?page=NSTA
Kathy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kathy wrote, 'I just recently attended the web seminar last week 'What is Inquiry? Inquiring Minds Want to Know.', May 12, 2011.'
Hi Kathy and thread readers,
I had the chance to attend the web seminar as well. Dr. Eisenkraft offers a great demonstration of the 7E model by modifying the pendulum lab many of us teach in a typical physics course. I've linked to another example of the 7E model at work in a chemistry classroom. It is called Artist as Chemist. I use the 7E approach in my chemistry class and find it very engaging for my students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings Ms. Stock,
True the 5E Model existed years ago and continues, but recently I heard of the 7E Model and I will delve into it.
To me Science goes beyond 5E Model since all the Science fields Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Environmental Science are all intertwined together and can not be separated. One can not help referring to Physics or Chemistry when teaching a concept in Biology.
Many Thanks
MOGHRABI
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Adah,
I had been hunting and hunting for the 7E journal article, when I noticed you had posted it earlier on this thread. Thank you! I want my preservice teachers to compare the 5E, 6E, and 7E models side-by-side.
Carolyn
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we've compared "E models," we found that some of the extra Es seem to be further divisions of the existing 5. Like the specific technology E which could be addressed in Explore, Explain or Elaborate depending on the type of technology being used. Regarding UBD my limited read is that it incorporates the things that good teachers do anyway in a general format, but doesn't seem to have a specifically inquiry based purpose. The idea behind the Learning Cycle (yes, I'm that old) and the "E models" is to provide a format to specifically plan for inquiry as a support to encourage teachers to incorporate more inquiry. I need to do additional reading about UBD though. The other thing to remember is that 5E was originally designed for secondary science teachers who have a more developed sense of inquiry due to lab research experiences. My elementary preservice students have developed the conception that "Hands on Equals Inquiry" through their other courses. By the time they get to me, it is ingrained which makes it difficult to accommodate the difference in teacher power/control as part of inquiry. It is difficult to determine what types of formats are most helpful for learning the skill of lesson planning (which in reality is a mental act more than a written one) and at what point users are ready and comfortable enough to make adjustments as necessary as, I believe Adah or Kathy said, Engage Explore Engage Explore Explain, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading this thread reminds me of the recent web seminar called What is Inquiry? Inquiring Minds Want to Know presented by Arthur Eisenkraft. In the seminar Arthur describes his reasoning for moving from the 5E model to the 7 E model. Then he showed the participants how they had engaged in the 7 E model as part of the inquiry experience he provded for participants. He walks us through the steps and then he makes the classroom connection.
The Pendulum Lab as 7E
• Engage – the longitude story
• Elicit – how does the grandfather clockwork
• Explore – investigate pendulum
• Explain– students compare data, graphs, predictions– Teacher helps with equation
• Elaborate– How do you measurethe length?
• Extend– The leaky pendulum
• Evaluate– Elicit, engage, explore,explain,elaborate,extend– AND a report, test,
quiz
The two that were new for me were Elicit and then Extend. I definitely like the Elicit.I am still trying to figure out how Extend is different from Elaborate.
How does this process compare with what you are doing? Does it make sense for you and your students?
BTW, I highly recommend you go directly to the web seminar archives and listen to this if you were not able to attend in person.
Kathy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back a bit in this thread, Don mentioned that some students taught exclusively in a constructivist format lack basic skills. I agree and I am also strongly committed to a constructivist approach. So what to do? When it comes to the EXPLAIN part of the lesson, I weave together student contributions to the issue and hand, summarize "the story so far" and frequently interject a strong component of direct explicit instruction.
Direct explicit instruction is a teacher centered approach that is typically most effective in developing basic or isolated skills. It is very effective in building confidence and self efficacy in problem solving. There are many math and science skills for which direct explicit instruction is the most effective approach. DEI provides a formatted step by step approach to problem solving where the student is checked for mastery of each individual step in the process. It is literally the only way I get through balancing equations and stoichiometry. I am always a bit amused when I hear students softly repeating the step of a process or see my graphic organized redrawn on exam papers.
Pam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Pam and other thread readers,
I just reviewed a couple of interesting journal articles that addressed different aspects of what you were mentioning, Pam.
One article was called Weaving in the Story of Science by Allison Kirchoff (The Science Teacher, March 2008).
The other used a slightly different learning cycle model where a DE (discrepant event) was at the forefront of the lesson on inertia. The journal article is called Tried and True: Newton's First Law - A Learning Cycle Approach by Deborah McCarthy (Science Scope, February 2006). I highly recommend both articles for new ideas in how to teach inquiry science.
Carolyn
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time to celebrate ~ my graduate paper on the 5E model has been accepted by both my advisor and science reader. I am confident additional changes (hopefully small) will need to be made before or after my formal presentation, but for now I am enjoying a sense of accomplishment. So if you happen to be in Bozeman, Montana on June 29 between 8-9am, please feel free to stop by to see my capstone presentation. I am hoping to actually implement a modified 5E learning cycle into my presentation….suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
One method I try to incorporate in every "explain" is to have the students "reflect" upon their notes. For example, when the students took notes on force, speed and work, they were required to further explain the key terms using examples from the explore labs the students had experienced. Helping students develop strong connections between their explorations and explanations is key to running an effective 5E unit/lesson plan. Any other suggestions or strategies to strengthen the connections between the explore and explain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adah asks, 'How has the 5E method of instruction effected your teaching?'
I LOVE the model! My students are so much more engaged when I use this format to design lessons.
I reviewed an interesting article that used the 5 E model to launch an open inquiry for 5th and 6th graders. The March 2011 journal article was called: Which Paper Towel is Best?
This article combined both the 5 E strategy for lesson planning with directions to help teachers use a student-led, open inquiry investigation. For teachers wishing to get their feet wet in trying out open inquiry, this article might be a non=threatening, easy-to-follow path. Anyone else have resources that can be shared with our preservice teachers? For many novice teachers, the 5 E model and open inquiry are foreign elements and a bit daunting.
Carolyn
|
|