Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Selfexplanations - How Students Study PDF

    Uploaded by

    Carolina Novac
    17 views20 pages

    Original Title

    Selfexplanations_how students study.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    17 views20 pages

    Selfexplanations - How Students Study PDF

    Uploaded by

    Carolina Novac

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 20
    sie 99 Self-Explonations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems MICHELENE TH. Ci MIRIAM BASSOK Learn Reser and Deslopment Comer ‘hsburgh PA MATTHEW W. Lewis The Rand Corporation [PETER REIMANN Unie of Freers RoBeRT GLASER Larnng Reser and Developmen Corer sdemeyocre Amaclansucaantvdinemagtasee se topes ten {earnings constructive process in which a student convers words and ex amples generated by a teacher or presented na et, towable sil, sch 2 solving problems. This proces of conversion exsentily form of son Struine se nstuction Simon, 179). Although the esearch on te ay of god teching (suchas that which attempts fo deni the characeatit fof good Socratic lar, Collins & Stevens, 1982}, ewes esearch on the ‘uty of» good text eich a that which manialatesthe quai of labore tins, Reder& Anderson, 180) ray be informative imately, arin ress fmt learning kl thai the students therelves bing to beara they ean “The goal of thisresearch isto understand thestodent' contibaton ing. partulr, we examine how students ian via et explanations. “Some ofthe best problem-solving research has concentrated on the con- version of already encoded knowledge into smooth, fas, skilful problem solving Thisconvesion process dominate, or example, AndESon's theory fof shl acqiston (Anderson, 187). thal theory, the procetsf conver Som is achitved by using general weak methods whieh an conver delraive Inowledge ito domsinsestc procedore vn the mechanism of co ‘Gon Th, i Anderson's theory, raesomed thatthe effort ul rose ies In the conversion ofthe declarative knowledge into the produ non, fig whereas the encoding of the decaraiv knolede ake toe 8 Strlguforward string in una form our xperine i any domain, eng incon Sas motteo avec baa ocd ne send ‘tov tnowee nour ye.) We concur withthe common assumption that earning a sil an be ge erally viewed ar encotng of instrcton (nthe form of delctive kno fu) followed by procedualation of some Kind. However, out research {oust oa the encoding of iasevton, because or leading conjecture ‘hat how well inliduas earn to slve problems ede largely to he “coe ‘letenes with which they have encoded the stration, rather thaa the [Xficeny wth whieh they can conver the encoded Istruclons ino a sil ‘Anderon (1997) also alluded to the iniiance ofthe encoded represen. ‘on when he suppstd tha, weak probtensoing maths fie analy ca beach more ete "hey opt on atch epsetton of he Kredi (5. 208) Since ou work focuses onthe elation between the completeness ofthe representation ofthe knowledge that students aque a hey read from a {ex and problem solving, we expect tht thi feltonship canbe revealed [yexaminng enna ferences We conjecture ha differences students list salve problems may arse from dfeences in the was they Ur- ‘esand and learn fom et ncudig the worked-out solution example) ‘Ths, nstead of investigating onl the problem-solving dies toes encounter, we examine, ination, the diicuis stadents night have i understanding the worket-out soltion examples in the text, prior tslvng problems ‘Alinough we view the examination of learner eiffereces a metodo- logical may by which we can study the relation betwen the Knowledge en faved and the kil of solving problems, we are aso ilrestd in lar itferences from the point of view of tying to understand the aequstion of teenie (Chi, late, & Farr, 198). Whe i takes fone pvods of study tnd practic before ane ean Become an expt In any dom shart tensive pratce and study ia necessary but not suiient conn for tecoming an expert. Thus examining how students ifr the way they lear new materials may ao shed let om the pacts of shill acon that determine whether an individual wl owl ot achiev expert, "We chose to Tocus on students lerrng ofthe work-out examples, based on theoretical, empiri, a well as isretiona reasons, Theo cally, theres some conteovers in there concerning how generac ions are induced from examples, See Dieterich & Michal, 1983, fora review othe At ieraure, and Murphy & Medi, 1985, for review ofthe Pycholoial hierture) Thee are two views, Theories based on im Tany-sased approach aim tha generations are developed by inducing 21 priniple from mulple examples. Such + principe would embody the (Seti Features shared by all the exampes.On the oer han, theres based onan expanationased approach (Lewis, 985; Mitchel), Kele,& Kedar-Cabell, 1986 clan tat generalization can be aban Irn singe fora few examples. This can be done by consrsting an explanation (or ‘roof thatthe enample Ian instantiation of» previoly given ovine. ‘Although many theories, including Anderson's ACT, can only generalize from mull examples, there i empire evidence 10 show that student ‘am often generalize fom asingle example (ho & Anderson, 1983; Kirs ‘Boral, 1986. However, what tc i |. How stdens construct explanations fom thir domnin knowledge in lozer to prove that the example ean instanceof principe, 2, What isthe nature of ese explanation; 3. The lationship between the depres of undertanding they have of the domain knowiedge and the explanations constricted; 44 The nature of ther domain understanding ater intantating the ex ample, ‘Thats, exlaaton-ased theres asume that in understanding an example and geserasing rom a det mst aeady have complete ndersanding ‘ofthe domain theory. Whether or no hii trac ean ope uestion, Out ‘Stady should provide evidence on the eeditiity ofthe theoretic! sump. tion underlying am explaaton-bsed theory that complete understanding ‘ofthe domain theory s necessary in ede Lo contract explanations, Thus, ‘vo theoreti! issues are inolied her. First san generation of the Brinciple ccsur wih a few vesis mulpe examples? Second, is complete ‘derstanding ofthe domain theory neessary inorder to constuc expe ‘ations? Our empirical work should shed some light on how generalizations an emerge fom lesaing few exemple, “here aera inthe empirical and instructions erate as well out leaning rom examples, Epil evden sexing to accom late showing the importance of examples in learing. Rede, Charney, ahd “Morgan (1885) for example, found thatthe mot effective manne for structing students how to sea personal computer are the which contain ‘amples. LeFevre and Diton (1986 found that stants stalls peter to te the example information and nore the write instruction whe ear ing a procedural task. Piroll and Anderson (985) also fund that 18 of thei 19 novices relied on analogies fo example in the ery sags of ern Ingo propram ecutsion Beside there nboratony ning’, Vn (1988) ko provided indirect esdence that examples ae emportn in reer cl "oom faring, He fund tat 85 ofthe sptemate ers in aint, ‘alleced from several thousand students, could be explained a dering from some typeof example driven lenny proces. ‘On the other hand although both stents and isructonal materials rely heally on worked-ont examples aa instrument fr learning, the lahorsory research which det examine the foe of exampeslaions ‘on problem solving found that students who have dled erampler en {Snot sive problems that rele avery sight deviation from te example Solution Eyton & Haman, 192; Reed Dempster & Enger 1985 Sele ‘Cooper, 1988). The dscrepancy between those sues which show tat Sudents perform beter fom text materials that cota example, and ‘owe studies which show tat students often fail to generalize fom exam ‘les, may be cused bythe dearest which stents understand the samples Provided. Generally inthe empirical sues cited, no auestent is made bout how wel students understood the examples, Ar Pell nd Anerson (0945) noted, although most ofthe stdents wrote ew programs by aalony {oesample programs the success depended on how well te studets under sHood why the examples worke. ‘We propre ha stdets ear an understand an example vi them ‘os they sive while syng i. We hypobese tat such ei-explanaons ae important and necessary lagey because examples typical contain & Sequence of userpcsted actions, Son (1979, p 2), for example, noted ‘Geer pking textbooks ne mich oven elie he a ‘truths oF of are ttn syn sang spat whe hse es ty be ual insta proble. The action the productos wee a ‘seroma nthe domain ofthe exo sei oo sys, they are no reconnected wi the candi that sald evoke en, Wie can provide a concrete example ofthe inadeqsacy of worksd-ot examples by taking one example fom the fifth chapter of pis txt (GHatny a Resi, 1981), ar shown in Figure 1. We san sohe lack of spe Eetcation of the exit contions under which the stows shouldbe ene ‘thy one should "consider the aot athe junction of the tre strings fo be {he body." This is ere! pee of Information because pie hat t {is foeton (as opposed to the Blok), he sum of he forces zero. Sach lack of speciation of the exp conditons for action sre throughout ‘heexame n Statement 6 how does the sider Know hat FF a Fe stealth forces acting on the body, and tha there ate wo other? Statement ‘isessenly a restatement of Newtons Fit nw, ut equ chaiing several Inerencestgeter, and trasating them into an eauaton e+ ‘because the body isa res ihre are a extemal forces, therefor them of he ores on the ody mst gal 2to)- Statement sol anexpane shy are the aes choren a och? Ie lea hat the solution sep tin an {rampleare pot exp about the condons ner whieh the acton spp Tn order to learn with understanding, stdent neds o overcome thei compltenerof an example by deeing conclusions and taking inferences ftom the presented information (Wictlgen, 197). To do s, 4 sadent seeds Lo provide explanations ether overtly or covery for why a partlae ‘tion taken. Only then wil the radon be able spoy the aed prox ‘sluretonomisomoephic problems tat do nota exactly the contons {tthe espe sluton, Thus, we sees tha good student "understand “anexamplesoltio and wilsoceed in generlrng bose he ose make ‘comtiou effort oascetin the conditions ofaplcton ofthe slo Steps beyond whats expt stated. Todo so the stent mst "expla how the example iasaniates the principe wich emp. is ifct 1o define what “understanding” spent in the content of learning from examples. Operationally, ou study was designed to shes Ainderstanding with thre eave 1. Solon to omombi problems 2, Solutions for ar raster problems; 3 planation generated whe stodyng exampks, “The weakest method to detec understanding (efit meat) isto observe how successfully students solve very similar problems, since very sma problems ean often by solved by a simple syatace mapping af the example Procedure to the to.besolved problem. The second metod is sei se ‘ents can successful use the rncpe involved inthe example in adiTerent land more complex problem (lar tans), Because such problems prevent ‘0 ie cape ge at by fans 4: Conor ha kot he anton hate eg be ha os 4: Tbs ramon ent under te acon hehe er own Fy, 4 Roppre woe gen the mogns fone a tase aco. SNES fe eps fe sar? etait EcGrsckerasee a aa EES tue amt to OEE augeenynmemnerteytrnn ‘Fm andes a 70H and ees New York 1k hoy Sore a by Sin ey Sonat poms ‘stents from being able to sve then via ayntactic mapping. However, ova certain extent, stdying far transfer reveals only that understanding ‘sits ad alloms one osc what conditions faite The method which permits the most ect assesment of understanding ‘ofan example ft eine the explict explanations that nodes provide ‘hile studying Epinning ia mechanism of study tat allows students to Inf and expcae the conditons and consequences of exch proce tp inthe examples wells apply the pnlples and defation of concep Jusiy them. We posaate that explanations an reveal stoden” ner. Standing y showing whether ont they Know 1. The condidons of appiation ofthe actions 2. The conseaences of actions 53, ‘The reationtip of stone to goals 4 The relaloasip of goals and ations to natural laws and othr pra pes “This atte focuses primarily on the anys ofthe explanations nthe atl provedre ed, wetted student to over expan 12 esses what they understand, after reading every line of 4 worked tample Often they ade wo comments at all However, when they id Beerate a comment, his technique allowed us io yoke the explaation 10 Thestatement linea the example so that we could interpre he protest nore ely METHOD Sebjecs “Ten students (S males an $ females) were sled from responses to ace ‘ot advertisement. Eight of them were working cowards bachelor’ deers, ‘nit varying major. Two ofthe en sdens Rad atonal post-race {tuning tn pyehology, None ofthe students ad taken» olege phys akough al of them (tet one) had taken highschool ply, wih ferential performance (ported grade) in that course. We intention. Aly ehowe tedets witha range fabs in erm Of sade point average fd SAT scotes, so that he could examine learner diferencs. Stents ‘ere pai for thee paripation. Inthis arte we focus on how stdens study thee worked-ou examples of ‘robes dealing with the application of Newton's laws of motion and on ‘hw ths initia! leering relate fo thet ssoegbent problem olin, Hom ‘er, slnce the televant chapter demands subamive background jer ‘mater, he study of examples andthe problem-solving ats ate eibelded ‘within fonitainal study in which students nou laboratory staded New tonian meshanss, Stodents etoed the new material ina way they would normally do wen studying on their om. Inter of the amount of tne ‘devoted Yo sodyng, the ae of self-pacng, and thew of sade bie, suchas highighting significant parts he ext orerending. The aborsory Terning fered from the may students would typical len on the ow in that ll the learning took pce inthe laboratory (without ar estar) and that student gave talcaloed protocols while studying examples sd Solving problems. The student pent between #29 hours fo complet the Study, spread over several weeks. Figure 2 preceis a iagram summarizing the experimental procedure forthe we sty. Bally the study om Sted of two major phaser knowledge aquisition spb olin. Daring the fst pat ofthe knowledgeacqison pha, abject stad the necessary Baskeound subject mater, covering he topics of mest ‘ment, vectors and motion none dimension. These matras recovered in the at thee chapters af Haliday and Resick (198). The fourth caper fon "Motion na Plane” was omited been dd ot have adits bearing ‘nearing Chapter 5, she target caper on "Palle Dynamics” Deion ‘sr this Kind, a6 well as designing of guesions and problems, were made ‘ter conrltations ith phot, For each of the tree backround chapter, students rend through and stud the chapter. They weterequesed to record on 2 separate sheet of pe any questions whi arose ving thet stay. Each ehaper lio con- falned ante to stop and et the experimenter in arder to ea verbal eo. tocolof one worked-out example. Thisexecse was meant mail 5 practice In ghing protocol, When the students lived they were ea tobe tested ‘nthe atrial i thechaper, they nailed the experimenter, ahd were thet reaued to produce corec answers toast of derive, guaiatve and ‘quantatve questions, ven in tha ode. Declarative qustios wee de ‘Senet avn he recat of cial facts from each chapter, for example, “Whar se ditference between asclar and vector?” Someot these qs tions came rom the terbook and some were despned by te esperimeters ‘The quaave questions were desiged tosses reasoning and inferences shout the concepts in each ofthe chapes without reference to quails, for erage, “Can an object have am casteard velocity while epeiencng westward aceeraion?” The majority ofthese problems were taken rom The teubook, and several were generated by the experimenters The aan tative questone nesed procedural ils forquanative protien sling, for example, "Two bodies bein fe fall om fsa he same height, 1.0 seayart How long afer the rst body bins all il the two ods be 1D meters apart" Al ofthe quantitative problems came from tose Pre soled in the ent atthe end ofthe chapters = se a ieee 2A sox dsng nie a he After solving each problem st, students rere the problems othe x= periente for rading. If no erors mere made, they proceeded to the net Set of questions If an eror war nade, the vertone were ered fr cor reaion The incorrect anwers were identifi and students wee referred to ‘hore secon of the text which addsered ese questions, For tneoree ‘antaive quertions the correc final answer was lo provided, analogous {0 the common practice of looking up the answer i the back of he book. ‘Students then nlempted to cocet he salutons and rested hf trading hee were xl ror on the vcond ty, stdents mee proied ‘ithe workedot slstion forthe incorset answers Students then saded {he worked-out Solution, nd fei had een emoved, were asked one ‘heir answers and/or to reproduce the coret solution fram memory. IT ser these two tes the answer wae il nearest the experimenter xpaed ‘the worked-ot soit and the student ad to eprodice Ths the fs. twee chapers, consisting ofthe background subject mater, were sud ‘un all the stents could eorety solve ast of deat, qualitative ‘a quantitative prosems evant fo each chap, ‘Dring the second pat of the hnowldge soisition phase, students stud the trae chapter on “Panicle Dynamis” (Halday, & Remick, {Chapter 3, 1981), Studying the age chapter proceeded exactly as for he other chapters, encept tat siden wee requrd to ansner coves he felevant deiartive tnd qualitative questions before studying the thee ‘worked ou examples, Ths was done ore tha the dete had aegdred {he relevant declarative knowledge from the text. (The quantitative prob: Teme for Chapter $ were no solved uot the second phae ofthe sly.) “These of examples was the major focs ofthe knowledge acqulstion phase sudentssadied tne worked-ut example, een direst fom he {ext (See Figure! foran example of oe ofthe worked-ot soltions Exch ‘sample solution represented a "19pe"of problem. There were hee pe: String, intned plane and pole probes. (Se Figure 3.) Stade talked ‘ut lod while studying the examples, and ther protocols were ape lem. The fst set consisted af 12 "somorphic problems.” wih 4 prolese corresponding to each "ype f exams ee the ead ares in the prob. lemslving phase of Figure 2). These problems nee designed tov In thee dere of smarty tothe worked-ou examples studied inthe previous Das. Fgute 4 shows one set of fomorphs covtespondig tothe eng “The second second of sven “chapter” problem, which were prod- Jems taken det fom the end ofthe age chapter. ners orcteria for somoephibm to example problems, thes problems can be considered ‘Mar tanster problems Stidets solved bo ets of peblens while giving te rom fandom Pc p77) Way a Rw, 8, Ho So atte Sw Dv by i ey Soe pnt sa em oe etme pe 9 “say edo wpm W008 1 2) ue do Buu ange sa sido spss est Hap poy 6ume 6 HONG ‘Aunts pe6ueug 0 ow woo am te 6 op wooo ‘toy Gabuey 6 pad won eu. peop oa seu 09 eu outa 988 nn By 808 tal-loud protocol, and no feedback war provided. Only he probe solving protocol of heirs sto hee isomorgh problems have teen a lyzed fortis atic RESULTS As nica, his article will report onthe sil of he ale ofthe pro tocol taken while students study the example soltons peed fo the tart chapter, as well as thease of how they te the examples in the pyoblemscving protocol ofthe womorphic problems the wo shaded Howes In Figte 2. Indvidal ferences wil be eported by eonatng the per Formanc of "Good and "Poor students Fhse two groups were delned post ho, using thl problem soting succes onthe 12 somone and {he 7 chapter problems In scoring the problems atime spe were not onsite as rors and partial softions were ceded proportionally. Al Droblems recived te seme weigh 20th! the maximum sere fr the io [orphic problems mas IZ and he maximum coe forthe chapter problems tra 7. (All coring, Menifcation and clasifeaton of protocols were pe Forma by wo ade, wih mean interrater flay acon al te onlys ranging ffom 86te-bi%.) One aden di 0 poly (he eter generated {ny protocols nor was he able to solve any problem) tha he ws minated from the analyses. This left ise student We analyzed the rel othe {oprcoring fou an btton-scoring four suadent, and omit the data of the "Midale” student There were hat four stadents im each troup. The ‘mean sucess of the Go students was 82% (26% for the omorphic pro lems and 68% forthe chapter problems). The mean mcs ofthe Pars ens was 46% (62% for the semorpic and 30% Tor the ehaper problem). [LEARNING FROM EXAMPLES: STUDYING PROTOCOLS. ‘Amount of Protocols Generaed: Units of Analyses (Oar est analysis began with avery gross count ofthe amount of rocco! lines students provided wile stdyng the example solo. A ie of pro toca any statement tat nots ft seadig ofan svar ines no fy conversation cared on mth he experimenter tha does at refer tthe fubject mater of the example (Le, "Do you ave a alto hat can er”). Tes ako nota eppone to the experimenter’ segue to speak NSE a hepa tate emai oni on 1a Yaga gt lh Armin ol fl ener Wie hing nora Sig mere ohm tm ae Te mb eset vege pr sen pr ean as louder Table 1 ia anseript of one student's protocol studying the exan Ble solution as shown fn Figure I) 9 which we esiged a ie number to ‘a pause boundaries, Line numbers were asigned to statements correspond: Ing more orks to pases. Ths exams snow tal of 1D ies Nae that heente we are not necetaril sng sentence boundaries a line Bo Insert between diferent acts, suchas reading. " Table 2 (op pane) shows the average numberof ins generated per ex ampleby the Good and Poor student 8 wel asthe average amount o ime took them o study an example. These differences re contrasted with the sverage number of ptocal ies gneate and the amount of time aken 19 selve an somorphie problem (bottom pana). The Good students generated ‘couidevably greater number of protocol nes than the Poor stages (142 Ties v.21 Kins, (6)=1.97, <8). These protocol generating Stee necesaily fed the Good students to spend more ime on each example 8 ‘ell (UD sve 7.4 min, 16) =216, p=). ‘Werule oat the pont that Goad sindets re ply reac or figent, thus producing more protect statements, sinc, in conta the ‘umber ot tine they geneated wile ses prob x aproximall the ame atthe Poor stadt (v.12 lines per problem, ee Tale 2, bottom ane) This sugges that he stents pnerted as many ine of poets 1 they deemed necesary i order to lear the example, Likes the fat ‘hat the Good stents took mae ine studying each example sot than "he Poor stants (3 min v8.7.4 mi) alo elects te choke Co spend ‘more time on each rare rather tana tendency odwell uanecenarly on {he examples, snc the amount of ine they pen song each omephie ‘problem about he same asthe ie pent bythe Poor sade (138 gin S183 mn). “The assumption we make that protocol sateen are generated ome Snowiedge or inference i being processed or enstuced in memory, mo siterent than assumptions made with veterence fo ober yer of dependent measures For eampl, the estomary assumption undering verbal pro {ovol analyses is that the prclem slr isang what he tang about ‘or dumping the content ei or ber working memory (Newell & Simon, 1972). Thus longer protocols simpy eter toa renter dene of rrocesin. ‘Sinai nreserch win eye movement ooo the assumption tht the stents processing the locaton at which he o she i ating (Just & Carpenter, 197) Thy lange isations imply that the stadet sending ror time procesing that location. Therefore, we view the rete smount {of protocols produced bythe Good students ara natural conequence of ‘ating to understand the solution example beter, ater than the pos Diy that they are more arcuate and nt tight be calmed tht the ean that Good student earned more is jist that they spent more time studying. Homever, ths snot very deep ex Plsvation, but merely reatement ofthe corrlon. The important ques tin s what he Good students whe hey were sting. Ar wil seen ‘ory thee are such lage ualtative difeencs in what aden id ‘nile sadyng examples thatthe simple, shallow, exlantionthat stud Ing twice as tong mates on eum twie at mech quite impnusbe be casei cannot expla he ther ferences a student" learning behaviors ‘Although we claim that Inger protects do not necessarily imply vr bosty using lines as uit of anal doesnot seem adequate for capone ‘tha going on. That, a analysis al the evel finest fie {o characterize te nature of thee comment, Iad many ines sem 0 tele toa ingle de, and thus we futher collaeed te lines ito unit ex Dressing singe idea, For example, the 13 protocol ns in Table 1 have bee ecoded into 7 "idea (Statement I-VI. The boundaries were placed ‘on the basis of aitfereat des, which are often separate by poses or ferent sort of actives inclading reading o experimenters interjstons, ‘Using thie ort of parsing, we Sen Table 2 (idle panel that God st ens" protocols have been rsced from 142 ines t31.9 ens and Poor Studens" protocols remained roughly the sme (ht iy 173 eas v6. 21 lines Tha, ina ease me are penalizing the Good sens for ben atic late. Wha the dtantaly shows thatthe Good stent often dwell quite i oma single exer Benne thy rele tht they do ot undestd ior they want to provides more complete explanation (st net ection) 1 the ideas are jst hare to expat succinctly, Even with th uit of the Good students generate asigncaly greater numberof ese than the Poor students (59 vs. 18, 16)= 1.98, p08), Henceforth all talyses wil be Basel onthe numberof lea states Kinds of teas Generate Am idea statement canbe clasifed into thee types. (See Figure $ fora ‘brekdown of al the lasiteatons the dacueed) We reserve the fem xplonaion to refer ony to those Weas which say somthing vbstantve shout the physics dsesied inthe example statement The flowing cot ‘ment would be consiered an explanation Ummm, hs woud make sea, suse he conned by sing Ihe sig’ goin 10 be rece the cart ing Yo be mond, th ‘sefoce of he inn in be deemed Other examples can he sen in Table 1 Aiden ie coniered to bea monitoring statements refers to wats of ompeeasion For example, remark such se eam se now how hey i va ang ou wth Poi Would be considered monitoring statements, "A third eategory tae sevecl ore yes fies, mostly paraphras- Ing, mathematieal elaborations, and metatatepcatements Paraphrasing ‘would be comments that ether restate what the example ie std or put Jnto worés what s shown pltorial For example stent who Fad the ame ine i eae lhe fre ating 0 he ods. reprion ) Femey”_ Peper) Faia” Panis temo a rm 2 (ot 2 ms ® u fad then remarked that, Thee ono mor forces ‘ould be paraphrasing. Paraphrasing into words what wat depicted inthe

    You might also like