Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices

Mr.K.Sinivasamoorthi AP (Selection Grade I )/ECE Ms.D.Manoranjitham AP/ECE Erode Sen !nthar En ineerin Colle e" #h!d!$athi % &'

A(S#)AC# Ed!cators" researchers" and $olic* ma+ers have advocated st!dent involvement ,or some time as an essential as$ect o, meanin ,!l learnin . In the $ast t-ent* *ears en ineerin ed!cators have im$lemented several means o, .etter en a in their !nder rad!ate st!dents" incl!din active and coo$erative learnin " learnin comm!nities" service learnin " coo$erative ed!cation" in/!ir* and $ro.lem%.ased learnin " and team $rojects. #his $a$er ,oc!ses on classroom%.ased $eda o ies o, en a ement" $artic!larl* coo$erative and $ro.lem%.ased learnin . It incl!des a .rie, histor*" theoretical roots" research s!$$ort" s!mmar* o, $ractices" and s! estions ,or redesi nin en ineerin classes and $ro rams to incl!de more st!dent en a ement. #he $a$er also la*s o!t the research ahead ,or advancin $eda o ies aimed at more ,!ll* enhancin st!dents0 involvement in their learnin . Ke*-ords1 cooperative learning, problem-based learning, student engagement I2#)3D4C#I32 #3 #5E PEDAG3GIES36E2GAGEM E2# Russ Edgerton introduced the term pedagogies of engagement in his 2 ! Education White Paper "!#, in $hich he reflected on the pro%ects on higher education funded b& the Pe$ Charitable 'rusts( )e $rote: 'hroughout the $hole enterprise, the core issue, in m& vie$, is the mode of teaching and learning that is practiced( *earning +about, things does not enable students to ac-uire the abilities and understanding the& $ill need for the t$ent& first centur&( .e need ne$ pedagogies of engagement that $ill turn out the /inds of resourceful, engaged $or/ers and citi0ens that 1merica no$ re-uires( Prior to Edgerton,s paper, the $idel& I. distributed and influential publication called The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education "2# stressed pedagogies of engagement in concept( 'hree of the principles spea/ directl& to pedagogies of engagement, namel&, that good practice encourages student-facult& contact, cooperation among students, and active learning( 2ore recentl&, the pro%ect titled 'he 3ational 4urve& of 4tudent Engagement 5344E6 "7# deepens our understanding of ho$ students perceive classroom-based learning, in all its forms, as an element in the bigger issue of student engagement in their college education(

'he 344E pro%ect conceives that student engagement is not %ust a single course in a student,s academic career, but rather a pattern of his or her involvement in a variet& of activities( 1s such, 344E findings are a valuable assessment tool for colleges and universities to trac/ ho$ successful their academic practices are in engaging their student bodies( 'he 344E pro%ect is grounded in the proposition that student engagement, the fre-uenc& $ith $hich students participate in activities that represent effective educational practice, is a meaningful pro8& for collegiate -ualit& and, therefore, b& e8tension, -ualit& of education( 'he annual surve& of freshmen and seniors as/s students ho$ often the& have, for e8ample, participated in pro%ects that re-uired integrating ideas or information from various sources, used e-mail to communicate $ith an instructor, as/ed -uestions in class or contributed to class discussions, received prompt feedbac/ from facult& on their academic performance, participated in communit&- based pro%ects, or tutored or taught other students( 4tudent responses are organi0ed around five benchmar/s: !( Level of academic challenge: 4chools encourage achievement b& setting high e8pectations and emphasi0ing importance of student effort( 2( Active and collaborative learning: 4tudents learn more $hen intensel& involved in educational process and are encouraged to appl& their /no$ledge in man& situations( 7( Student-facult interaction: 4tudents able to learn from e8perts and facult& serve as role models and mentors(

9( Enriching educational e!periences: *earning opportunities inside and outside classroom 5diversit&, technolog&, collaboration, internships, communit& service, capstones6 enhance learning( :( Supportive campus environment: 4tudents are motivated and satisfied at schools that activel& promote learning and stimulate social interaction( 1stin,s "9# large-scale correlational stud& of $hat matters in college 5involving 2;, <9 students at 7 = baccalaureate-granting institutions6 found that t$o environmental factors $ere b& far the most predictive of positive change in college students, academic development, personal development, and satisfaction( 'hese t$o factors> interaction among students and interaction bet$een facult& and students>carried b& far the largest $eights and affected more general education outcomes than an& other environmental variables studied, including the curriculum content factors( 'his result indicates that ho$ students approach their general education and ho$ the facult& actuall& deliver the curriculum is more important than the formal curriculum, that is, the content, collection, and se-uence of courses( 'he assessment stud& b& *ight ":, <# of )arvard students indicates that one of the crucial factors in the educational development of the undergraduate is the degree to $hich the student is activel& engaged or involved in the undergraduate e8perience? this is consistent $ith 1stin,s $or/ "9#( 1stin and *ight,s research studies suggest that curricular planning efforts $ill reap much greater pa&offs in terms of student outcomes if more emphasis is

placed on pedagog& and other features of the deliver s stem, as $ell as on the broader interpersonal and institutional conte8t in $hich learning ta/es place( Pascarella and 'eren0ini,s summar& of t$ent& &ears of research on the impact college has on student development further supports the importance of student engagement: Perhaps the strongest conclusion that can be made is the least surprising( 4impl& put, the greater the student,s involvement or engagement in academic $or/ or in the academic e8perience of college, the greater his or her level of /no$ledge ac-uisition and general cognitive development@ Af the level of involvement $ere totall& determined b& individual student motivation, interest, and abilit&, the above conclusion $ould be uninteresting as $ell as unsurprising( )o$ever, a substantial amount of evidence indicates that there are instructional and programmatic interventions that not onl& increase a student,s active engagement in learning and academic $or/ but also enhance /no$ledge ac-uisition and some dimensions of both cognitive and ps&chosocial change ";#( 2acgregor, Cooper, 4mith, and Robinson "B# provided a s&nthesis of intervie$s conducted $ith fort&-eight individuals teaching undergraduate classes across the Cnited 4tates $ho are infusing their large classes $ith small-group activities, or are $or/ing e8plicitl& to create student communities $ithin large classes( 'he facult& $ho $ere intervie$ed are $or/ing $ith classes of more than ! students, and some are teaching substantiall& larger classes, in the 7: to < student range( 'he facult& practicing smallgroup learning in large classes

provided e8tensive empirical and theoretical rationale for their practices( 'heir reasons clustered in the follo$ing categories: !( promoting cognitive elaboration? 2( enhancing critical thin/ing? 7( providing feedbac/? 9( promoting social and emotional development? :( appreciating diversit&? and <( reducing student attrition( Edgerton, in the aforementioned $hite paper, goes on to cite four strands of pedagogical reform that are moving in the same broad direction: problembased learning, collaborative learning, service learning, and undergraduate research( 'his paper loo/s at a class of pedagogies of engagement, namel&, those that are classroombased( II. A2 37E)7IE8 'o teach is to engage students in learning( 'his -uote, from Education for "udgment b& Christensen et al( "=#, captures the essence of the state of the art and practice of pedagogies of engagement( 'his paper, is that engaging students in learning is principall& the responsibilit& of the teacher, $ho becomes less an imparter of /no$ledge and more a designer and facilitator of learning e8periences and opportunities( An other $ords, the real challenge in college teaching is not covering the material for the students? it,s uncovering the material $ith the students( Consider the most common model of the classroom-based teaching and learning process used in engineering education in the past fift& &ears 5and ma&be currentl&D6( the information passes from the notes of the professor to the notes

of the students $ithout passing through the mind of either one( 1n alternative to the pour it in model is the /eep it flo$ing around model( 'he model of teaching and learning represented emphasi0es that the simultaneous presence of interdependence and accountabilit& are essential to learning, and their presence is at the heart of a studentengaged instructional approach( .ithin cooperative activities individuals see/ outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group members( Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students $or/ together to ma8imi0e their o$n and each others, learning "! #( Carefull& structured cooperative learning involves people $or/ing in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that involve both positive interdependence 5all members must cooperate to complete the tas/6 and individual and group accountabilit 5each member individuall& as $ell as all members collectivel& accountable for the $or/ of the group6( 1stin reported that !9 percent of engineering facult& and 2; percent of all facult& said the& used cooperative learning in most or all of their classes( 1 common -uestion is, .hat is the difference bet$een cooperative and collaborative learningD Both pedagogies are aimed at marshalling peer group influence to focus on intellectual and substantive concerns ( 'heir primar& difference is that cooperative learning re-uires carefull& structured individual accountabilit&, $hile collaborative

does not( 3umerous authors, such as Bar/le&, Cross, and 2a%or , use the term collaborative learning to refer to predominantl& cooperative learning research and practice( 'o tr& to minimi0e confusion, $e $ill use the term cooperative learning throughout the current paper( Problem-based learning 5PB*6 is the learning that results from the process of $or/ing to$ard the understanding or resolution of aproblem( 'he problem is encountered first in the learning process ( Barro$s identified si8 core features of PB*: E *earning is student-centered( E *earning occurs in small student groups( E 'eachers are facilitators or guides( E Problems are the organi0ing focus and stimulus for learning( E Problems are the vehicle for the development of clinical problemsolving s/ills( E 3e$ information is ac-uired through self-directed learning( 'he class si0es are in the range thirt& to fift&, $ith one or t$o instructors( 'he students concurrentl& ta/e conventional courses( Pro%ect-based learning, $hich focuses on a pro%ect and t&picall& a deliverable in the form of a report or presentation, $as emphasi0ed in a recent publication on pro%ectFproblem-based learningat 1alborg Cniversit& in Genmar/ 5all ma%ors6, 2aastricht Cniversit& in 2aastricht , 'he 3etherlands 5$hich implemented the 2c2aster PB* model in medicine in !=;96, and at universities in 1ustralia( 'here is an e8cellent summar& of these programs in PB* #nsight( 1 comparison of problem-based and pro%ect-based learning is available in 2ills and 'reagust ( Pro%ect-based

learning, $hich is often the basis for the senior design courses in undergraduate engineering curriculum in the Cnited 4tates, $ill not be further discussed in this paper? the reader is referred to the $or/ of G&m et al( *est the reader thin/ that the model of the teaching-learning process, consider the long and rich histor& of the practical use of pedagogies of engagement, especiall& classroombased practices such as cooperative learning and problem-based learning( 'housands of &ears ago the Talmud stated that to understand the Talmud, one must have a learning partner( Confucius is t&picall& credited $ith the Chinese proverb 'ell me and A forget? sho$ me and A remember? involve meand A understand( 5)o$ever, Edgerton "!# and others attribute the *a/ota 4iou8 Andians6( 'he Roman philosopher, 4eneca, advocated cooperative learning through such statements as, Hui Gocet Giscet 5$hen &ou teach, &ou learn t$ice6( I( 1mos Comenius 5!:=2J!<;=6 believed that students $ould benefit both b& teaching and b& being taught b& other students( An the late !; s, I( *ancaster and 1( Bell made e8tensive use of cooperative learning groups in England and Andia, and the idea $as brought to the 1merica $hen a *ancastrian school $as opened in 3e$ Kor/ Cit& in !B < ( III. C9ASS)33MIMP9EME2#A#I32 Lf the three /e& aspects of cooperative learning and problem based learning>theor&, research, and practice>the practice piece is the least developed and probabl& the most difficult( 'he classroom practices involved $ith cooperative learning and

problem-based learning are comple8 to both design and implement, as $ell as to manage during the term( 'he 34M Moundation Coalition has activel& focused on implementing active and cooperative learning for several &ears, including developing print materials, an e8tensive .eb site, and a CG-RL2 to support implementation(7 An spite of these implementation efforts and man& others, cooperative learning and problem-based learning are not $idel& practiced in engineering classrooms( Part of the reason ma& be not onl& the difficult& of designing, implementing, and managing such a program, but also that most facult& did not e8perience an& form of cooperative or problem based learning during their undergraduate 5or graduate6 education( )o$ever, that the use of these pedagogies $ill continue to e8pand, not onl& because the& are the& effective, but also because there are man& $a&s to implement them in engineering( An this section $e highlight some $ell-developed and honed practices( Anformal cooperative learning groups 5often referred to as active learning6, formal cooperative learning groups, and cooperative base groups are the most commonl& implemented b& engineering facult&( Each provides opportunities for students to be intellectuall& active and personall& interactive both in and outside the classroom( Anformal cooperative learning is commonl& used in predominatel& lecture classes and is described onl& briefl&( Mormal cooperative learning can be used in content intensive classes $here the master& of conceptual or procedural material is essential? ho$ever, man& facult& find

it easier to start in recitation or laborator& sections or design pro%ect courses( Base groups are long-term cooperative learning groups $hose principal responsibilit& is to provide support and encouragement for all their members? that is, to ensure that each member gets the help he or she needs to be successful in the course and in college( A. Im$lementin In,ormal Coo$erative (Active) 9earnin Anformal cooperative learning consists of having students $or/ together to achieve a %oint learning goal in temporar&, ad-hoc groups that last from a fe$ minutes to one class period ( Anformal cooperative learning groups also ensure that misconceptions, incorrect understanding, and gaps in understanding are identified and corrected, and that learning e8periences are personali0ed( An one instance of informal cooperative learning students are as/ed ever& ten to fifteen minutes to discuss $hat the& are learning Brea/ing up lectures $ith short cooperative processing times results in slightl& less lecture time, but reengages the students( Guring lecturing and direct teaching, the instructor ensures that students do the intellectual $or/ of organi0ing material, e8plaining it, summari0ing it, and integrating it into e8isting conceptual net$or/s( Common informal cooperative learning techni-ues include focused discussions before and after the lecture 5boo/ends6 and interspersing turn-to-&our-partner discussions throughout the lecture( 1s facult& gain familiarit& $ith realtime assessment and informal

cooperative learning, the& often modif& the format( Mor e8ample, if most students choose the correct ans$er to a concept -uestion, the instructor might as/ students to reflect on the underl&ing rationale for their ans$er and to turn to their neighbor to discuss it( Af most students choose an incorrect ans$er to a concept -uestion, the instructor might tr& to e8plain it again, perhaps in a different $a&( Af the ans$ers to the concept -uestion are a mi8ture of correct and incorrect, the instructor might as/ students to turn to their neighbor, compare ans$ers, and see if the& can reach agreement on an ans$er( 'he importance of facult& engaging students in introductor& courses, using procedures such as those summari0ed above, is stressed b& 4e&mour,s research: 'he greatest single challenge to 42E' pedagogical reform remains the problem of $hether and ho$ large classes can be infused $ith more active and interactive learning methods( (. Im$lementin 6ormal Coo$erative 9earnin Gro!$s Mormal cooperative learning groups are more structured than informal cooperative learning groups, are given more comple8 tas/s, and t&picall& sta& together longer( Mrom these characteristics $e can distill five essential elements to successful implementation of formal cooperative learning groups: positive interdependence, facetoface promotive interaction, individual accountabilit&Fpersonal responsibilit&, team$or/ s/ills, and group processing(

1) Positive interdependence: 'he heart of cooperative learning is positive interdependence( 4tudents must believe the& are lin/ed $ith others in a $a& that one cannot succeed unless the other members of the group succeed and vice versa( An other $ords, students must perceive that the& sin/ or s$im together( An formal cooperative learning groups, positive interdependence ma& b& structured b& as/ing group members to 5!6 agree on an ans$er for the group 5group product-goal interdependence6, 526 ma/e sure each member can e8plain the groups, ans$er 5learning goal interdependence6, and 576 fulfill assigned role responsibilities 5role interdependence6( Lther $a&s of structuring shared grade 5re$ard interdependence6, shared resources 5resource interdependence6, or a division of labor 5tas/ interdependence6( 2) Face-to-face promotive interaction: Lnce a professor establishes positive interdependence, he or she must ensure that students interact to help each other accomplish the tas/ and promote each other,s success( 4tudents are e8pected to e8plain orall& to each other ho$ to solve problems, discuss $ith each other the nature of the concepts and strategies being learned, teach their /no$ledge to classmates, e8plain to each other the connections bet$een present and past learning, and help, encourage, and support each other,s efforts to learn( 4ilent students are uninvolved students $ho are certainl& not contributing to the learning of others and ma& not be contributing to their o$n learning( 3) Individual accountability/personal responsibility: Lne purpose of

cooperative learning groups is to ma/e each member a stronger individual in his or her o$n right( 4tudents learn together so the& can subse-uentl& perform better as individuals( 'o ensure that each member is strengthened, students are held individuall& accountable to do their share of the $or/( 'he performance of each individual student is assessed and the results given bac/ to the individual and perhaps to the group( 'he group needs to /no$ $ho needs more assistance in completing the assignment, and group members need to /no$ the& cannot hitchhi/e on the $or/ of others( Common $a&s to structure individual accountabilit& include giving individual e8ams, using self-and peer-assessment, and randoml& calling on individual students to report on their group,s efforts( 4) Team or! s!ills: Contributing to the success of a cooperative effort re-uires team$or/ s/ills, including s/ills in leadership, decision ma/ing, trust building, communication, and conflict management( 'hese s/ills have to be taught %ust as purposefull& and precisel& as academic s/ills( 2an& students have no prior e8perience $or/ing cooperativel& in learning situations and and therefore lac/ the needed team$or/ s/ills to doing so effectivel&( Macult& often introduce and emphasi0e team$or/ s/ills b& assigning differentiated roles to each group member( Mor e8ample, students learn about documenting group $or/ b& serving as the tas/ recorder, developing strateg& and monitoring ho$ the group is $or/ing b& serving as process recorder, providing direction to the group b& serving as coordinator, and ensuring that ever&one in the group understands

and can e8plain b& serving as the chec/er( ") #roup processin$: Professors need to ensure that members of each cooperative learning group discuss ho$ $ell the& are achieving their goals and maintaining effective $or/ing relationships( Nroups need to describe $hat member actions are helpful and unhelpful and ma/e decisions about $hat to continue or change( 4uch processing enables learning groups to focus on group maintenance, facilitates the learning of collaborative s/ills, ensures that members receive feedbac/ on their participation, and reminds students to practice collaborative s/ills consistentl&( 4ome of the /e&s to successful processing are allo$ing sufficient time for it to ta/e place, ma/ing it specific rather than vague, maintaining student involvement in processing, reminding students to use their team$or/ s/ills during processing, and ensuring that clear e8pectations as to the purpose of processing have been communicated( 1 common procedure for group processing is to as/ each group to list at least three things the group did $ell and at least one thing that could be improved( 'he five essential elements of a $ell-structured formal cooperative learning group presented above are nearl& identical to those of highperformance teams in business and industr& as identified b& Oat0enbach and 4mith: 1 team is a small number of people $ith complementar s$ills $ho are committed to a common purpose, performance goals% and approach for $hich the& hold themselves mutuall accountable( 2an& facult& $ho believe the& are using cooperative learning are, in fact,

missing its essence( 'here is a crucial difference bet$een simpl& putting students in groups to learn and in structuring cooperation among students( Cooperation is not having students sit at the same table to tal/ $ith each other as the& do their individual assignments( Cooperation is not assigning a report to a group of students $here one student does all the $or/ and the others put their names on the product as $ell( Cooperation is not having students do a tas/ individuall& $ith instructions that the ones $ho finish first are to help the slo$er students( Cooperation is more than being ph&sicall& near other students, discussing material $ith other students, helping other students, or sharing material among students, although each of these is important in cooperative learning( Before choosing and implementing a formal cooperative learning strateg&, several conditions should be evaluated to determine $hether or not it is the best approach for the situation: sufficient time should be available for students to $or/ in groups both inside and outside the classroom? the tas/ should be comple8 enough to $arrant a formal group? and the instructor,s goals should include the development of s/ills that have been sho$n to be affected positivel& b& cooperative learning, such as critical thin/ing, higher-level reasoning, and team$or/ s/ills( Getailed aspects of the instructor,s role in structuring formal cooperative learning groups are described in "9!# and include 5!6 specif&ing the ob%ectives for the lesson, 526 ma/ing a number of instructional decisions, e(g(, group si0e, method of assigning students to groups, 576 e8plaining the tas/ and the positive interdependence,

596 monitoring students, learning and intervening $ithin the groups to provide tas/ assistance or to increase students, team$or/ s/ills, and 5:6 evaluating students, learning and helping students process ho$ $ell their group functioned C. Im$lementin Coo$erative (ase Gro!$s Cooperative base groups are longterm, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups $ith stable membership $hose primar& responsibilit& is to provide each student $ith the support, encouragement, and assistance needed to ma/e academic progress( Base groups personali0e the $or/ re-uired and the course learning e8periences( 'he& sta& the same during the entire course and possibl& longer( 2embers of base groups should e8change e-mail addresses andFor phone numbers and information about schedules, as the& ma& $ish to meet outside of class( .hen students have successes, insights, -uestions, or concerns the& $ish to discuss, the& can contact other members of their base group( Base groups t&picall& manage the dail& paper$or/ of the course using group folders or .eb-based discussion groups( Base groups are used b& man& engineering facult& in undergraduate courses and programs, in part because of their effectiveness and because the& are eas& to implement( 'he& are also commonl& used in professional school graduate programs( An this conte8t the& are usuall& referred to as cohort groups : five to si8 students $ho sta& together during the duration of their graduate program(

D. Im$lementin Pro.lem%(ased 9earnin Problem-based learning is a natural techni-ue to use in engineering because it models the $a& most engineers $or/ in practice( 1 t&pical format for problem-based cooperative learning is sho$n in Migure :( 'he format illustrates the professor,s role in a formal cooperative learning lesson and sho$s ho$ the five essential elements of a $ell-structured cooperative lesson are incorporated "9!, BB#( 7I. C32C94SI321 #5I2KI2G (IG A2D #5I2KI2G DI66E)E2#9: 1s facult& teaching particular courses and as members of facult& teams $ho create and maintain engineering programs, to consider not onl& the content and topics that ma/e up an engineering degree but also ho$ students engage $ith these materials( At is also a call for us to e8plicitl& consider ho$ students engage in their college e8perience in both formal and informal $a&s( An carr&ing out stage !, facult& consider to $hat e8tent an idea, topic, or process: E represents a big idea or has enduring value be&ond the classroom? E resides at the heart of the discipline? E re-uires uncoverage? and E offers potential for engaging students( At is important that $hen seniors graduate the& have developed s/ills in tal/ing through material $ith peers, listening $ith real s/ill, /no$ing ho$ to build trust in a $or/ing relationship, and providing leadership to group efforts( Af facult& provide their students $ith training and practice in the social s/ills re-uired to $or/ cooperativel& $ith others, the& $ill

have the satisfaction of /no$ing the& have helped prepare students for a $orld $here the& $ill need to coordinate their efforts $ith others on the %ob, s/illfull& balance personal relationships, and be contributing members of their communities and societ&( )E6E)E2CES "!# Edgerton, R(, Education White Paper, 2 !, http:&&'''( pe'undergradforum( org&'p)(html( "2# Chic/ering, 1(.(, and Namson, P(M(, 4even Principles for Nood Practice in )igher Education, American Association for *igher Education +ulletin, Qol( 7=, !=B;, pp( 7J;( "7# ,ational Surve of Student Engagement: The -ollege Student .eport>2 7 1nnual Report, Bloomington, And(: Center for Postsecondar& Research, Andiana Cniversit&, 2 7( "9# 1stin, 1(, What /atters in -ollege0 1our -ritical 2ears .evisited, 4an Mrancisco, Cal(: Iosse&-Bass, !==7( ":# *ight, R(I(, The *arvard Assessment Seminars: Second .eport, Cambridge, 2ass(: )arvard Cniversit&, !==2( "<# *ight, R(I(, /a$ing the /ost of -ollege, Cambridge, 2ass(: )arvard Cniversit& Press, 2 !( ";# Pascarella, E('(, and 'eren0ini, P('(, *o' -ollege Affects Students: 1inding and #nsights from T'ent 2ears of .esearch, 4an Mrancisco, Cal(: Iosse&-Bass, !==!( "B# 2acNregor, I(, Cooper, I(, 4mith(, O(, and Robinson, P(, eds(, 4trategies for Energi0ing *arge Classes: Mrom 4mall Nroups to *earning Communities, ,e' 3irections for Teaching and Learning, B!( Iosse&Bass, 2 (

"=# Christensen, C(R(, Narvin, G(1(, and 4$eet, 1(, Education for "udgment: The Artistr of 3iscussion Leadership, Cambridge, 2ass(: )arvard Business 4chool, !==!( "! # 4mith, O(1(, Iohnson, G(.(, and Iohnson, R('(, 4tructuring *earning Noals to 2eet the Noals of Engineering Education, Engineering Education, Qol( ;2, 3o( 7, !=B!, pp( 22!J22<(