Integration of Instructional Design and Information Technology
Education 5103
Cape Breton University
Personal Reflection Paper
Deborah Walker
Winter 2014
Introduction
As part of the requirement for the Diploma in Educational Technology, I enrolled in EDUC 5103 Integration of Instructional Design and Information Technology. The weekly units were organized as follows:
Weeks 1-2 Learning Theories in the Context of Software Integration/Information Technology
Week 3 Learning Theories - Mindtools and Cognitive Flexibility Theory
Week 4 Comparing the Theories of Mindtools and Cognitive Flexibilty
Week 5 How Learning Theory affects software Integration and Instructional Design
Week 6 Introduction to Instructional Design Concepts
Week 7 ID Model Components Part 1
Week 8 ID Model Components Part 2
Week 9 Inspection and critique of a particular Information Technology Instructional Design model
Week 10 Group Assignment
Week 11 The Future of ID in Instructional Technology
Weeks 12 and 13 Preparing and Submitting Papers
This is my last course towards the diploma of educational technology. I am currently taking my research course as well so this term is very busy. However, I am keeping my eyes on the prize (convocation is in May) and I take one day at a time. I cannot believe how much I have learned during this process. The experiences I have had made me learn by doing, and problem solving. I do not profess to know it all, but my level of competency has increased immensely. The challenge I face is the limitations around me in the school system. To be brutally honest, our school system is at a critical point. Budget cuts, challenging class compositions, increased workload demands with decreased supports and lack of infrastructure and resources to support technology integration often leads me frustrated. During this course I have often said , if I wasn't so determined to integrate technology I would have given up long ago. I am hopeful change will come. I hope to see a day when I have a celling mounted LCD projector and a screen. I hope to see a day when every student can use a computer in the computer lab. I hope to see a day when technicians are able to become instructors/facilitators not just computer janitors.
For thirteen weeks compulsory readings were assigned and we were asked to respond to questions and post them to the forum. We were required to respond to the responses of others and engage in dialogue concerning the assigned topic. I found this to be a very worthwhile experience because I do not often get to explore and discuss educational issues with colleagues and relate how these topics work within classrooms in the current world. The readings and discussions provided me an opportunity to be introspective as to whether or not theory actually played a role in my classroom practices and , if so what theories were my instructional methods embedded in. To be able to read the theory and reflect and compare it to my own experiences in the classroom has proved to be a valuable experience for me .So many educators like me are so busy teaching that we sometimes lose sight of what we are actually doing and why. As educators, we have little time to reflect upon and share with others our practices relating to learning theory, instructional design and informational technology. This course has provided me with such an opportunity.
The final assignment in Education 5103 is a reflection paper that asks us to review our learning and the ideas and issues related to the course. In my personal reflections, I will reflect on my experience in this course and consider the following four guiding questions :
1. What have I done in this course?
2. What have I learned in this course?
3. What changes in perspectives have I experienced as a result of this course?
4. What does it all mean to me now?
Weeks 1-2 Learning Theories in the Context of Software Integration/Information Technology
During the first two weeks of the course, we reviewed the learning theories of behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Even though I had reviewed these theories before, I discovered that I didn't really have a firm grasp of each one. I found a good websites to help me sort out my confusions
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
http://www.learning-theories.com/
http://www.edudemic.com/a-simple-guide-to-4-complex-learning-theories/
Through the readings, websites and online discussions, I gained some understanding and clarification of the differences between each learning theory. I also was asked to consider how I use these learning theories in my classroom. Through self reflection I discovered that I tend to use the cognitive and behaviouristic learning theories in my classroom more than constructivism. This is not to say however that it is never used, I am saying it is used less that the other theories. I am saying this out of the need to explain why constructivism isn't the theory of choice in my classroom.I almost feel like I should apologize as I feel that constructivism is pegged as a better theory to produce better learners.
So I have asked myself why this would be? I consider myself a teacher who stays current and has pride in my teaching that even though I am an older teacher on staff I brush up on best practices. So I began to examine more closely what I do in my classroom and what learning theory it exemplifies. As far as classroom management goes, I feel it is purely behavioristic. I display the rules in the classroom along with a board that monitors student behavior with green ,yellow and red cards. Green is great, yellow is for caution and red means stop. I also award students with "Walker Points" when they have a great class or when I see kids doing random acts of kindness. When they accumulate 20 points they get a free choice time during the day when they can get activities/games off the shelf to play. I also make good news phone calls home. All of these routines are aimed at modifying and or reinforcing behaviour. According the website http://www.edudemic.com/a-simple-guide-to-4-complex-learning-theories/ ,learning occurs when observable behaviour occurs. My behaviour chart reflects who has learned classroom expectations and who is struggling.
.
According to Magliaro et al. (2005), direct instruction is rooted in behaviourism. Furthermore, the authors claim that direct instruction is not a lecture approach; rather it is an approach which uses modelling, reinforcement, feedback and successive approximations. If I am honest, I use direct instruction a lot in mathematics, reading and writing . This is an approach that is suggested in the best practices for writing. The following graphic explains quite nicely what this looks like in my classroom.
As I reflect on these learning theories ,I believe that no one learning theory should drive all instructional approaches. I do believe that teaching should be determined by the needs and learning styles of the students in my class. It is only by getting to know my students that I can consider instructional approached to take to optimize their learning.
Week 3 Learning Theories - Mindtools and Cognitive Flexibility Theory
As I read the article, Computers as Mind tools by Jonassen et al. (1998) I learned what the authors consider to be mind tools. Jonassen et al. (1998) described a mind tool as a computer application that acts as a cognitive tool for engaging and enhancing multiple forms of thinking in learners. The authors referred to these applications as "cognitive amplification tools". It is not surprising then, that mind tools represent a constructivist use of technology.
When I first began to integrate technology in my classroom, I used applications mainly for direct instruction .I looked for applications for my grade four students to practice and review rote skills. As I progressed in integrating technology, I began to empower my students to use more constructivist applications such as Inspiration, Power Point and Microsoft word which is used to engage in the process of writing. These applications are used to create and share representations of what students know. I am beginning to realize that the more I am learning, the more constructivist activities or opportunities I am providing for my students.
In the past I have felt a bit "behind the times" in my instructional approaches when reading articles such as Deeper Learning: Defining Twenty-First Century Literacy by Alder (2013). In this article, Alder says that being literate in the 21st century requires students to gain proficiency with tools of technology ,develop relationships with others and confront and solve problems collaboratively and cross-culturally, manage, analyze, and synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous information ,create, critique, analyze, and evaluate multimedia texts . Although this is a tall order, I do understand the importance of always pushing forward with the way I use and integrate technology in my classroom.
But, pushing forward has its problems in a school system that lacks resources, and technological infrastructure. The obsession with Gradebook, standardized assessments and outcome based education also tends to restrict some innovation and creativity. Issues surrounding time and accountability do not always support creative, higher level learning activities.
We also read an article Spiro et al.’s article Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext. I have to admit I found the article quite heavy to understand so I searched out other articles and videos to help me better understand the concepts. From the website, http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/cognitive-flexibility.html, I learned that the principles of cognitive flexibility are the following :
1. Ways of thinking. Creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making and learning
2. Ways of working. Communication and collaboration
3. Tools for working. Information and communications technology (ICT) and information literacy
4. Skills for living in the world. Citizenship, life and career, and personal and social responsibility
I think that the cognitive flexibility theory is a timely learning theories because the principles of the theory address the need to prepare students for 21 century skills that are needed in a knowledge based world. According to the website, http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/what-are-21st-century-skills/ , 250 researchers from across 60 institutions worldwide categorized 21st-century skills internationally into four broad categories:
1. Ways of thinking. Creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making and learning
2. Ways of working. Communication and collaboration
3. Tools for working. Information and communications technology (ICT) and information literacy
4. Skills for living in the world. Citizenship, life and career, and personal and social responsibility
It seems the cognitive flexibility theory of learning is just what the education system needs to focus on in order to prepare students to enter and be productive members in a knowledge based economies.
The graphic below is a representation of the principles of the cognitive flexibility learning theory.
So how do I begin to turn the Titanic around in my classroom? I think that the answer is by small steps. Like me, my students are not used to being asked to think critically or to apply their learning. Recently in science, students performed an experiment and were asked to read, consider and answer questions that applied their learning. They all sat there, looking with blank stares at me, waiting for me to answer the questions. I told them to get into groups to discuss their thoughts and through this they came back with some ideas relating to the questions. In a directed instruction embedded classroom, it will take time to change not only my approach but also to get the students to think outside the box. In a 21st century classroom, I cannot afford to spoon feed anymore.
When I first began to integrate technology in my classroom, I used applications mainly for direct instruction .I looked for applications for my grade four students to practice and review rote skills. As I progressed in integrating technology, I began to empower my students to use more constructivist applications such as Inspiration, Power Point and Microsoft word which is used to engage in the process of writing. These applications are used to create and share representations of what students know. I am beginning to realize that the more I am learning, the more constructivist activities or opportunities I am providing for my students.
In the past I have felt a bit "behind the times" in my instructional approaches when reading articles such as Deeper Learning: Defining Twenty-First Century Literacy by Alder (2013). In this article, Alder says that being literate in the 21st century requires students to gain proficiency with tools of technology ,develop relationships with others and confront and solve problems collaboratively and cross-culturally, manage, analyze, and synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous information ,create, critique, analyze, and evaluate multimedia texts . Although this is a tall order, I do understand the importance of always pushing forward with the way I use and integrate technology in my classroom.
But, pushing forward has its problems in a school system that lacks resources, and technological infrastructure. The obsession with Gradebook, standardized assessments and outcome based education also tends to restrict some innovation and creativity. Issues surrounding time and accountability do not always support creative, higher level learning activities.
We also read an article Spiro et al.’s article Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext. I have to admit I found the article quite heavy to understand so I searched out other articles and videos to help me better understand the concepts. From the website, http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/cognitive-flexibility.html, I learned that the principles of cognitive flexibility are the following :
1. Ways of thinking. Creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making and learning
2. Ways of working. Communication and collaboration
3. Tools for working. Information and communications technology (ICT) and information literacy
4. Skills for living in the world. Citizenship, life and career, and personal and social responsibility
I think that the cognitive flexibility theory is a timely learning theories because the principles of the theory address the need to prepare students for 21 century skills that are needed in a knowledge based world. According to the website, http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/what-are-21st-century-skills/ , 250 researchers from across 60 institutions worldwide categorized 21st-century skills internationally into four broad categories:
1. Ways of thinking. Creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making and learning
2. Ways of working. Communication and collaboration
3. Tools for working. Information and communications technology (ICT) and information literacy
4. Skills for living in the world. Citizenship, life and career, and personal and social responsibility
It seems the cognitive flexibility theory of learning is just what the education system needs to focus on in order to prepare students to enter and be productive members in a knowledge based economies.
The graphic below is a representation of the principles of the cognitive flexibility learning theory.
So how do I begin to turn the Titanic around in my classroom? I think that the answer is by small steps. Like me, my students are not used to being asked to think critically or to apply their learning. Recently in science, students performed an experiment and were asked to read, consider and answer questions that applied their learning. They all sat there, looking with blank stares at me, waiting for me to answer the questions. I told them to get into groups to discuss their thoughts and through this they came back with some ideas relating to the questions. In a directed instruction embedded classroom, it will take time to change not only my approach but also to get the students to think outside the box. In a 21st century classroom, I cannot afford to spoon feed anymore.
Week 4 - Comparing the Theories of Mindtools and Cognitive Flexibilty
This week we were asked to think about how the concepts of mindtools and cognitive flexibility can be tied together. We were also asked to think about whether these theories are compatible or whether we are talking about different ideas.
At first glance these two theories seem to go hand in hand. I think that the concept of mindtools is a means to achieve cognitive flexibility. In return, however, I think developing cognitive flexibility enables the learner to use the mindtools at a more complex and involved level. This relationship to me seems to be cyclical. I don't think that these two theories are the same although they both have similar roots in constructivism. Both theories call for learning activities to provide multiple representations of content. Both also emphasize knowledge construction over knowledge transmission. However, cognitive flexibility theory specifically requires an emphasis on
“ ….the ability to spontaneously restructure one's knowledge, in many ways, in adaptive response to radically changing situational demands”. Spiro & Jehng (1990, p. 165)
It seems to me that the cognitive flexibility theory places more emphasis on learners using and applying knowledge to "ill- structured domains" than the mindtool theory.
This assignment made me contemplate the importance of carefully choosing technology applications for student learning. I do not want to ever limit the possibilities or a cap on student learning. Choosing technological applications such as Mind tools would help students not only represent what they are learning but also to think critically about what they are learning. I have used PowerPoint as a way for students to represent what they have learned but I wonder if they are thinking critically about what they have learned. Are they comparing, analyzing and restructuring their knowledge? At the very least ,I believe they are learning new ideas about certain concepts but the whole point on using mindtools is to engage in analytical thinking. Perhaps I need to rethink how I am using PowerPoint. Perhaps I need to restructure my assignments away from a show and tell approach. Using PowerPoint to show how two concepts are the same and how they are different would provide students with an opportunity to think more deeply about each concept. The cognitive processes needed from show and tell to compare and contrast are much more complex and require higher level thinking skills.
This
week we were asked to look at types of software and compare and contrast these
to learning theories. I found the questions this week extremely difficult to
answer. It took me forever to get my thoughts organized and I think I figured
out why. I have come to the realization that I am a product of a cognitivist
education which is characterized by an input and output system. Teachers or
instructors gave me information and instructed me and I demonstrated with great
aptitude the ability to demonstrate what I was told/taught/shown. I have grown accustomed to right or wrong,
cut and dry answers. So in answering these questions of compare and contrast,
with no black and white, straight forward answers, I have discovered that I am
worried about being wrong. I am always thinking about the correctness of my
answers and how will “wrong answers affect my mark” (behaviourism at its finest).
It is not that I do not have ideas about the relationship that software
applications may or may not have with some learning theories but I kept panicking
thinking, “Well, it could be this, or it could be that”.….I kept fretting over
getting the right answer. I finally came to the conclusion that I needed
to read or research what I could and then develop my own ideas and reflect upon
them. There is no completely right or wrong answer here, it is in our own
interpretation. If my interpretation isn’t mainstream then it means that I am
at a different level of knowing or figuring it out. Through reluctantly,
sharing my “possible all wrong “ideas with others and receiving feedback from
my peers, I will develop different insights into these questions and thus
adjusting my knowledge as I go. This is certainly constructivism in action. I
have to stop worrying about being wrong and trust in the process of
constructing new knowledge. One question does remain though. As a learner, will
I assessed on my responses that may be out in left field or will I be assessed
on how I proceed in my learning through constructivism? Only time will tell.
This image explains nicely the difference between how I was previously educated and the different ,constructivist learning that I am presently engaged in.
This next cartoon, represents my feelings of anxiety as I go from a mainly cognitivist rooted educational experience to one rooted in constructivism.
Week 6 Introduction to Instructional Design Concepts
This week we were asked to examine instructional development models for three different orientations: classroom, product and system in the Gustafson Branch article . Examining these models helped me to begin to understand what instructional design is. I am learning that I have been doing instructional design for years without realizing it. I do not do a lot of the front end tasks such as choosing curricular outcomes, but I do take the prescribed outcomes and plan units of study examine the best methods of instruction. When I can find materials to match what I am trying to achieve, I use them but I also create my own materials to suit the needs of individuals. Gustafson and Branch(1997) noted that the amount of tryout and revision of these instructional designs is not consistent. I do not really agree with that. I feel teachers are always reflecting and trying to do things better based on previous experience gained through the implementation of these instructional designs. Educators are always adjusting practices based on success with students.
The system orientation of instructional design reminded me of the department of education. and has also helped me to understand instructional design. I see the experts developing curriculum( very cognitively) with outcomes ,scope and sequences and suggestions for assessment. Programs are then given to consultants to bring to the board to run as perhaps say, a pilot program. Feedback is given back to the developers to make tweaks to their design. If the feedback is favourable, the pilot becomes a recommended program within the school system.
I really enjoyed reading and commenting this week on Dick's comments,"“There is, in the best of situations, a blending of the analysis and evaluation of the objectivist approach with the simulation and individualized progress of constructivists approaches(p.62)
I think Dick is saying that the optimal learning paradigm would be when students learn in a constructivist way but that this learning can also be measured and assessed in some way. This is what is needed in today’s educational system. We are an outcome based education system, trying to morph into more of a constructivist one, but we have growing pains. Assessment and accountability weigh heavy on educator’s minds and it is my opinion that these issues pull us back to providing students with a cognitivist education. I agree with Dick that the best solution is to blend the approaches but I suggest that most educators need guidance on how to do this. The system needs to change before educators will and teachers need to be supported in this shift. Who will do this? What needs to change? There are many unanswered questions about how the objectivists approach will fit in with the constructivist approach. First of all, what do we do about standardized assessments if our curriculum isn't standardized but individualized ? How do outcomes fit in and weigh in ? We need to have open conversations about this.
Here is a video I watched to better understand instructional design.
This week we were asked to examine instructional development models for three different orientations: classroom, product and system in the Gustafson Branch article . Examining these models helped me to begin to understand what instructional design is. I am learning that I have been doing instructional design for years without realizing it. I do not do a lot of the front end tasks such as choosing curricular outcomes, but I do take the prescribed outcomes and plan units of study examine the best methods of instruction. When I can find materials to match what I am trying to achieve, I use them but I also create my own materials to suit the needs of individuals. Gustafson and Branch(1997) noted that the amount of tryout and revision of these instructional designs is not consistent. I do not really agree with that. I feel teachers are always reflecting and trying to do things better based on previous experience gained through the implementation of these instructional designs. Educators are always adjusting practices based on success with students.
The system orientation of instructional design reminded me of the department of education. and has also helped me to understand instructional design. I see the experts developing curriculum( very cognitively) with outcomes ,scope and sequences and suggestions for assessment. Programs are then given to consultants to bring to the board to run as perhaps say, a pilot program. Feedback is given back to the developers to make tweaks to their design. If the feedback is favourable, the pilot becomes a recommended program within the school system.
I really enjoyed reading and commenting this week on Dick's comments,"“There is, in the best of situations, a blending of the analysis and evaluation of the objectivist approach with the simulation and individualized progress of constructivists approaches(p.62)
I think Dick is saying that the optimal learning paradigm would be when students learn in a constructivist way but that this learning can also be measured and assessed in some way. This is what is needed in today’s educational system. We are an outcome based education system, trying to morph into more of a constructivist one, but we have growing pains. Assessment and accountability weigh heavy on educator’s minds and it is my opinion that these issues pull us back to providing students with a cognitivist education. I agree with Dick that the best solution is to blend the approaches but I suggest that most educators need guidance on how to do this. The system needs to change before educators will and teachers need to be supported in this shift. Who will do this? What needs to change? There are many unanswered questions about how the objectivists approach will fit in with the constructivist approach. First of all, what do we do about standardized assessments if our curriculum isn't standardized but individualized ? How do outcomes fit in and weigh in ? We need to have open conversations about this.
Here is a video I watched to better understand instructional design.
Allison Rossett - Why we need instructional design more than ever : Learning Technologies 2013
Excellent video and its down to earth!
Weeks 7 and 8 Instructional Design Models
During these two weeks we were asked to examine various models of instructional designs. We were then asked to name what we thought were the most essential components of an instructional design. I named eleven essential components that I thought were important to instruction. While this may seem excessive, it made me realize how involved the teaching process is. I have been teaching for 24 years now and I can honestly say that I really haven't given any thought to the term ID. But on the other hand I have certainly considered each component of instructional design on a daily basis.
During the summer I always consider the outcomes I need to teach the following year. Next I have a look in Tienet to find reports on my future students? What are their capabilities? What are their needs? Next I look at what steps I need to create to get the learners to the end goal. What are my materials, resources and methods technology I will use? I also guided practice with a gradual release of responsibility to lead the students towards the goals. I next evaluate and offer feedback to the students about their progress. I also use the assessment to inform my instruction . I have also come to the conclusion that my instruction is based on the Dick and Carey model of instructional design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJYZ2ii2DN0
Week 9: Inspection and critique of a particular Information Technology Instructional Design model
This week we were asked to read about a particular ID model called the NTeQ model. As I read through "Teacher as Designer", I associated this model with enabling constructivism within the classroom through the integration of technology. I found the model to be clear and concise. I thought the progression of the model was quite apparent so that would benefit new and seasoned teachers alike.
The more I thought about this model, the more I questioned the design of the Walker's Group model. Our ID model is an adapted model based on Koole's instructional design model (2009) for mobile learning. Our model seems to be more complex than the NTeQ model , less linear and its components take time to digest. As well, the progression of our model is not apparent. I think that I will bring these concern to the Walker group in the next Webx meeting. One of my favourite sayings in life has been "Keep it Simple". If our model is too complex, the usability and practicality of the model will be reduced.I think we may have to tweak the design. When I was first presented with the model, I was not sure what each section meant. It wasn't until I read the literature behind it that I could figure out what each section was about . I think that most people will not want to use this model if they cannot understand it without having to read the research.
I have uploaded two models here. The NTeQ model, and
the Koole model(2009) .
Koole's Model of Mobile learning(2009)
Week 10 Group Assignment and Draft Models
This week each group was asked to post the draft models for their instructional designs. I must say that I was most impressed with the creativity and thought that was put into each model. When I first considered this assignment , I wondered how we would ever construct a model such as the ones we had studied . However, drawing upon our conversations in Moodle , applying what we had learned through our readings , research and videos we were able to work collaboratively to develop our models. The models range in diversity from simple and concise to more nonlinear and complex. Each model reflects the importance of technology as tools to reach a goal.
Well done EDUC 5103 !
This visual is a representation of the process we went through designing our draft models.
This visual is a representation of the process we went through designing our draft models.
Week 11 The Future Of ID in Instructional Technology
Week eleven was the last week devoted to class discussions
and exploration of topics and ideas relevant to the use of technology in an
educational environment. The articles for this week dealt with the
topic of Assessment and Evaluation and how the two are related. The
questions posed for this week made us consider how we, as teachers, can
effectively assess and evaluate constructive and non-constructive outcomes.
I think teachers need to focus
on presenting authentic and real world activities and opportunities through technology
for students to achieve the outcomes . All else will fall in line as far as
test results go. I also realized that before this course I had some questions
as to how I would assess constructivist activities for each student when
typically, projects and methods could be so varied. I believe constructivism
allows for students to get a more tailor made education where assessment
includes such components of self evaluation, portfolios, rubrics etc. I
found the following resources to help me more fully understand assessment in a
constructivist classroom. Zane(2009) encouraged educators to collect multiple marks, offer different modes of assessment over time and give students the opportunity to select familiar assessment contexts and/or topics that match their experiences and personal situations to assess constructivist activities. I think this is an excellent idea to take multiple snapshots (assessments) to get a clearer picture of the child`s progress. One snapshot assessments do not always capture the true essence of what a learner actually knows and the skills they possess.
I watched the following videos to help me better understand assessment in constructivist classrooms.
These last two weeks have been spent getting our revision paper wrapped up and submitted and also completing my Reflection Blog. During this course I have been very fortunate to be in a group of such hard working and dedicated individuals from whom I have learned so much. Initially, the topic of ID was unnerving because it was so abstract to me and my experiences. However, discussions on Moodle helped me to realize most participants were in the same situation so we learned and explored together. Other participants helped me to consider ideas that I would have never considered or thought about on my own. It is in this that the educational richness of discussions lie.
I also realized how uncomfortable I was with constructivism both as a teacher and as a student. As a teacher I was confused with how to implement and assess constructivist practices. Technology is a means with how to implement such practices and I have since learned ways to assess students through a variety of assessment methods making education more tailor made to individual student.
As a student, I was very uncomfortable with being asked to think constructively. I wanted to have the "right" answer to questions that called for divergent thinking. However, I have learned that even though my responses may have been different than some other students, I considered their responses
and contrasted them to mine. As a result , I had opportunities to consider different views and I adjusted my thinking in response. I learned. This type of learning was continually talked and read about throughout this course and I got to experience it first hand. I am now more comfortable with constuctivist learning because the world did not end because I didn't get the "right " answer. The important thing is that I learned through considering readings , thoughts , and experiences of others. This experience was quite liberating, breaking from the realm of cognitivism into a more constructivist process. This course was a great experience !
Thank you!
|
|
