ÐÏࡱá > þÿ 6 8 þÿÿÿ 1 2 3 4 5 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á o@ ð¿ m bjbj
p
p ð˜ o o i¥ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ˆ l l l
v ‚ ‚ ‚ d æ Žî Žî Žî ° >ï T ’ï T æ 1% j òò ü îô îô îô îô îô îô îô °$ ²$ ²$ ²$ ²$ ²$ ²$ $ ›& R í( & Ö$ ‚ ”ú îô îô ”ú ”ú Ö$ ‚ ‚ îô îô ë$ ”ú ‚ îô ‚ îô °$ ”ú °$ B B ª | ‚ ‚ d îô æò àê”æÅ Žî þ @ Œ œ % 0 1% ž Æ * à * $ d æ æ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ * ‚ d 8 îô : (ö à ÷ ´ ¼÷ Ø îô îô îô Ö$ Ö$ æ æ ¤s Š{ s ð æ æ Š{ Less may be more: Rethinking adult literacy volunteer tutor training
Alisa Belzer Rutgers University
Graduate School of Education
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
(732) 932-7496, extension 8234
(732) 932-7552 (fax)
belzera@rci.rutgers.edu
ACCEPTED for Publication: Journal of Literacy Research Abstract
The study reported here analyzed the relationship between volunteer tutor training and reading instruction in four adult literacy programs. The data focuses on tutors’ choices of reading materials and strategies for assisting in the development of comprehension and word identification skills. The author finds that the training did not always transfer to practice, and it did not always deal effectively with the complex topic of teaching reading to struggling adult learners. She suggests that one implication might be that less initial training and more ongoing “just in time” training based on the specific needs and strengths of students and tutors working together on improving reading may be a more efficient use of resources than those traditionally expended on pre-service training.
Less is more:
Volunteer training and adult literacy instruction
Learners who enter adult basic education programs are sometimes referred to as “second chance” learners. Others have coined this (re)entry into formal education as the “last gamble” (Mezirow, et al., 1975). Because these adults are often the products of poor schooling, limited or no schooling, poverty, racism, family dysfunction or a host of other challenges that can impede learning, some would argue that both terms are misused. For many, entrance in adult literacy programs is actually a “first chance.” Regardless of which chance it is, these adults often make valiant efforts to improve their personal, financial and family prospects, while increasing their potential to function effectively as citizens and workers,. These efforts should be returned, on the part of practitioners, with the best instruction possible. Yet, we know very little about what goes on in volunteer-based one-to-one instruction, a common format in programs for developing adult readers.
Since the 1960s when federal funding for adult basic education (ABE) was first legislated, some programs have been staffed, in part or exclusively, by paid instructors (sometimes, but not necessarily, by teachers certified in some area of K-12 education). However, volunteer tutors in the field pre-date this development and continue to play an extremely significant instructional role. Nationally, 48% of the instructional staff in programs that receive federal funding is volunteer (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, 1999). When literacy councils and community-based organizations that do not receive federal funding are also included in the count, it is evident that volunteer tutors are the majority of ABE instructors, although no exact figures are available. Volunteers are frequently used as tutors working one-to-one with adult learners. Based on a survey of state directors of adult basic education (43 states and the District of Columbia responded), 18 states (41%) reported that volunteer tutors function primarily as one-to-one general instructors who teach a variety of content areas (e.g., reading, writing, and math) to their students, one state (2%) reported that they function primarily as one-to-one instructors in a particular content area , 19 states (43%) reported that they primarily function as some combination of one-to-one general, one-to-one specialized instructors, as classroom assistants, and/or as “other” (e.g., serving on advisory committees and community boards, classroom teachers, facilitators of small groups and clerical support), no states reported that these volunteers function primarily as classroom assistants, and six states (14%) reported that they function in all of the above capacities ADDIN EN.CITE Belzer20023963396Belzer, A.2002Conceptualizing tutor training: A national report on tutor training in adult basic education.American Educational Research Association (Adult Literacy SIG)New Orleans, LA.(Belzer, 2002). Despite the indication that they play a key role in instructing adult literacy learners, there is little research on the nature of these teaching and learning transactions and what the shaping factors are which influence them in volunteer-based adult basic education.
The use of volunteers in adult literacy programs offers many benefits. First and foremost, this instructional approach comes at a low cost. It also offers flexible scheduling for students and the potential for an individualized instructional format. Despite these positive features, critiques of volunteer tutoring of adults are easily made. For example, one might argue that it is an injustice that those who experienced the most difficulty learning to read (for whatever reason) are matched with the least experienced, least trained (unless they are teachers who volunteer), and potentially least committed (programs typically ask volunteers to make six month commitment) practitioners in the field. This is amplified by the fact that it is typically the lowest level adult literacy learners who are most likely to be taught by volunteers ADDIN EN.CITE Sandlin20054037403Sandlin, J.St. Clair, R.2005Volunteers in adult literacy educationComing, J.Garner, B.Smith, C.Review of adult learning and literacyMahwah, NJErlbaum5125-154(Sandlin & St. Clair, 2005); those who read at a higher level are frequently placed in classes with paid (and presumably better trained) teachers.
Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages of a volunteer instructional staff, the reality for now is that many adult learners will encounter volunteers as instructors. Given the importance of this “second chance,” “last gamble,” or just important effort on the part of learners, the training that tutors receive in preparation for their instructional roles is of great importance. Most programs that utilize volunteer tutors require completion of pre-service training (and many provide some in-service supports as well). There is no one instructional method taught in tutor trainings around the country (although the existence of large national literacy organizations with local affiliates who adopt their training methods means that a great number of tutors receive one of two, relatively, standardized training models). Rather, tutor trainings vary according to program philosophies. Now merged with Literacy Volunteers of American (LVA) as ProLiteracy America, Laubach Literacy of American (LLA), a national non-profit organization with 1,000 local literacy affiliates, required participation in a twelve-hour training. Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA) developed a 12-15 hour training which all tutors volunteering in one of its over 375 affiliated programs are required to complete. Although many volunteer-based programs are affiliated with either the former LLA or LVA, some programs and states have developed their own volunteer trainings.
A search of the ERIC and doctoral dissertation data base indicates that very little research has been done in the area of tutor training that is either qualitative and descriptive or evaluative ADDIN EN.CITE Sandlin20054037403Sandlin, J.St. Clair, R.2005Volunteers in adult literacy educationComing, J.Garner, B.Smith, C.Review of adult learning and literacyMahwah, NJErlbaum5125-154(Sandlin & St. Clair, 2005). One study that has been done focused on tutors who volunteer for Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA) affiliated programs. It found that their efforts have a positive social and economic benefit (AT Kearney, 1999). However, we know almost nothing empirically about either the conditions that bring about such benefits in LVA programs, or the range and variation that exists across other kinds of programs nationally that may or may not yield similar outcomes. We also do not know about the benefits of participation related to the acquisition of specific academic skills. In almost every way, it is clear that there is a dearth of information about volunteer-based one-to-one instruction in adult literacy education.
Ultimately, the most important question in this arena is one about the relationship between what programs do--with regard to tutor training, the instructional materials they make available, the instructional strategies they encourage--and learner outcomes. However, an important intermediary question focuses on the relationship between the program tutor training and what students and tutors actually do together during instructional sessions. While the outcomes question is related to identifying appropriate “interventions” which can then be tested experimentally, the latter question looks inside the “black box” of teaching and learning to get a better understanding of the conditions that occur during actual instruction which may influence outcomes for learners. The data reported here, a portion of a larger study that looks at program contexts and adult literacy volunteer-based one-to-one instruction along a number of dimensions, focuses in particular on the messages about teaching reading that are conveyed in tutor training and what actually happens between tutors and students with regard to reading instruction in practice. Specifically, the data addresses the question, “What is the relationship between volunteer training for reading instruction and what volunteer tutors and their students actually do when they work together?” The data analyzed here gives a picture of both the nature of transfer between training and practice, and significant gaps in tutor knowledge due to gaps in training that may be impeding student progress. Through its analysis of four contrasting programs’ tutor training and the specific instructional work of three pairs of tutors and students in each program, this study has significant implications for rethinking volunteer training, and eventually for improving learner outcomes.
Literature Review
Ilsely ADDIN EN.CITE Ilsley19903591359Ilsley, P. J.1990Enhancing the volunteer experienceSan FranciscoJossey-Bass(1990)suggests that many programs assume that tutors need a highly structured training program in order to function as effective instructors, but this assumption has not actually been explored. Pomerance ADDIN EN.CITE Pomerance19903702370Pomerance, A.H.1990Volunteers tutoring adults: The construction of literacy by tutor-student pairsPhiladelphia, PAUniversity of PennsylvaniaDoctoral dissertation(1990) is one of the few researchers who has taken up this question by doing an in-depth examination of tutor-student instruction in one program. In particular, she looked at the relationship between tutor beliefs and tutor practices. While her analysis was informed by a description of tutor training, it did not look directly at its role in instruction. However, she found a mismatch between tutor beliefs about literacy and adult learning and their actual practice.
During the late 80s and 90s, a popular genre of adult literacy research emerged which used case descriptions of adults learning in one-to-one tutoring situations ADDIN EN.CITE Forester19984130413Forester, A. D.1998Learning to read and write at 26Journal of Reading317604-613Jenkins19954140414Jenkins, C.1995Reflective practice: Blurring the boundariesAdult Basic Education5263-81Greenberg1997/19984120412Greenberg, D.1997/1998Betsy: Lessons learned from working with an adult nonreaderJournal of adolescent and adult literacy414252-261Purcell-Gates19934070407Purcell-Gates, V.1993I ain't never read my own words beforeJournal of Reading373210-219Meyer19914080408Meyer, V.1991Case study--Norman: Literate at Age 44Journal of Reading35138-42Rigg19854090409Rigg, P.1985Petra: Learning to read at 45Journal of Education1671129-39Sharpe19824100410Sharpe, C.Ganschow, L.1982Teaching and adult to read: A case studyJournal of developmental and remedial education5322-23, 26(Forester, 1998; Greenberg, 1997/1998; Jenkins, 1995; V. Meyer, 1991; Purcell-Gates, 1993; Rigg, 1985; Sharpe & Ganschow, 1982). These descriptive studies typically demonstrated a particular instructional approach, or made assertions about the nature of adult learning or adult literacy learners. The researchers in almost every case were the tutors--reading experts and university-based researchers. Therefore, training was not an issue with regard to practice. Additionally, none of them compared cases. Their usefulness in addressing questions about tutor training and adult literacy instruction is limited at best.
Some of the other research on one-on-one tutoring has focused largely on relational issues ADDIN EN.CITE Lysaker20033693369Lysaker, J.2003The relational qualities of more and less successful tutoring pairs.National Reading ConferenceScottsdale, AZPomerance19903702370Pomerance, A.H.1990Volunteers tutoring adults: The construction of literacy by tutor-student pairsPhiladelphia, PAUniversity of PennsylvaniaDoctoral dissertationLysaker20033693369Lysaker, J.2003The relational qualities of more and less successful tutoring pairs.National Reading ConferenceScottsdale, AZ(Lysaker, 2003; Pomerance, 1990) and interaction between tutors and learners. Here the focus of study is on moment to moment dialogue patterns between tutors and learners ADDIN EN.CITE Graesser19953550355Graesser, A. C.Person, N. K.Magliano, J.P.1995Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoringApplied cognitive psychology96495-522December 1995Chi19963660366Chi, M.T.H.1996Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoringApplied cognitive psychology10533-549Cromleyn.d.3683368Cromley, J.G.Azeved, R.n.d.Instructional cognitive, and motivational moves of expert and novice tutors in reading24th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society(Chi, 1996; Cromley & Azeved, n.d.; Graesser, Person, & Magliano, 1995), and the cognitive and emotional opportunities these afford, or issues of culture and power between volunteers and those they serve ADDIN EN.CITE Pomerance19903702370Pomerance, A.H.1990Volunteers tutoring adults: The construction of literacy by tutor-student pairsPhiladelphia, PAUniversity of PennsylvaniaDoctoral dissertationZiegahn19993710371Ziegahn, L.Hinchman, K.A.1999Liberation or reproduction: Exploring meaning in college students' adult literacy tutoringInternational journal of qualitative studies in education12185-101(Pomerance, 1990; Ziegahn & Hinchman, 1999). The latter often problematize the role of the tutor by examining the ways in which power, control and knowledge are held, used, and distributed within the dyad. Much of the literature on volunteers in general, and volunteer tutors in particular, focuses on what they learn rather than the benefits accrued by clients/learners ADDIN EN.CITE Ziegahn19993710371Ziegahn, L.Hinchman, K.A.1999Liberation or reproduction: Exploring meaning in college students' adult literacy tutoringInternational journal of qualitative studies in education12185-101Ilsley19903591359Ilsley, P. J.1990Enhancing the volunteer experienceSan FranciscoJossey-Bass(Ilsley, 1990; Ziegahn & Hinchman, 1999). In these cases, and in contrast to analyses of their power in tutoring relationships, volunteers are positioned as learners or as participants in a market exchange between themselves and the organization for whom they work rather than the clients they serve.
Current research interest in tutoring has been spurred on by the America Reads initiative and other volunteer-based efforts to help children read at grade level. This work identifies effective tutoring practices ADDIN EN.CITE Wasik19982090209Wasik, Barbara1998Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successful practicesReading Teacher517562-570April 1998Juel19962140214Juel, C.1996What makes literacy tutoring effective?Reading Research Quarterly313268-289Baker20002120212Baker, S.Gersten, R.Keating, T2000When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal trainingReading Research Quarterly354494-519Wasik19982950295Wasik, Barbara1998Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A reviewReading Research Quarterly335266-292July/August/Septemper 1998Fitzgerald20012130213Fitzgerald, J.2001Can minimally trained college student volunteers help young at-risk children to read better?Reading Research Quarterly36128-47Baker20002120212Baker, S.Gersten, R.Keating, T2000When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal trainingReading Research Quarterly354494-519(Baker, Gersten, & Keating, 2000; Fitzgerald, 2001; Juel, 1996; Wasik, 1998a, 1998b), or compares models ADDIN EN.CITE Morrow20014057405Morrow, L.M.Woo, D. G.2001The effects of an America Reads work study tutoring program on reading achievement of young children.Morrow, L.M.Woo, D. G.Tutoring programs for struggling readersNew YorkGuilford117-139(Morrow & Woo, 2001). Most discuss the outcomes of various approaches with regard to children’s reading scores and grade level achievement. Although some of these studies briefly describe tutor training, none document what tutors actually do while they tutor. Therefore there is little information on the relationship between tutoring training and reading achievement ADDIN EN.CITE Baker20002120212Baker, S.Gersten, R.Keating, T2000When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal trainingReading Research Quarterly354494-519(Baker et al., 2000). While there are many similarities among the models described in this research, their application to adult literacy learners is difficult to ascertain because the tutoring context is so different. For example, many of these models are school-based and are meant to supplement classroom instruction. They are designed to bring children up to the average level of their grade level peers; adult literacy volunteers do not typically work within these kinds of structures or supports which could assist them in their work.
Sandlin and St. Clair ADDIN EN.CITE Sandlin20054037403Sandlin, J.St. Clair, R.2005Volunteers in adult literacy educationComing, J.Garner, B.Smith, C.Review of adult learning and literacyMahwah, NJErlbaum5125-154(2005) provide a helpful synthesis of the little research that has been done on the quality of instruction when volunteers tutor adult literacy learners. While largely dated, this research suggests their motivation to help is beyond doubt. Even those who tutor for a relatively short time do so because they want to make a difference in learners’ lives. However, questions about tutors’ efficacy surface frequently, and typically revolve around the adequacy of training ADDIN EN.CITE Ceprano19952110211Ceprano, M. A.1995Strategies and practices of individuals who tutor adult illiterates voluntarilyJournal of adolescent and adult literacy39156-64September 1995Meyer19853980398Meyer, V1985The adult literacy initiative in the U.S.: A concern and a challengeJournal of Reading28706-708Kazemek198812012Kazemek, F.1988Necessary changes: Professional involvement in adult literacy programsHarvard Educational Review584pp. 464-487(Ceprano, 1995; Kazemek, 1988; V Meyer, 1985). Although conducted under highly artificial circumstances with predetermined categories of “best practices,” Ceprano ADDIN EN.CITE Ceprano19952110211Ceprano, M. A.1995Strategies and practices of individuals who tutor adult illiterates voluntarilyJournal of adolescent and adult literacy39156-64September 1995(1995) argued that volunteers often fall short in selecting appropriate materials, responding to reading errors, and developing comprehension strategies. She does not provide evidence to suggest that professional staff are any more effective than volunteers; Bell, et al. ADDIN EN.CITE Bell20043990399Bell, S.M.Ziegler, M.McCallum, R.S.2004What adult educators know compared with what they say they know about providing research-based reading instructionJournal of adolescent and adult literacy477542-563(2004), in fact, suggest that many paid teachers lack both training and expertise in evidence-based reading instruction. However, Ceprano’s research clearly suggests that the volunteer sector is failing to reach its potentiality. She implicates tutor training in her analysis. Others also suggest that training is the both the culprit and the potential answer to the problematic practice of volunteer tutors. The findings discussed below begin to address this premise.
Research Methods
Selecting Research Sites
Site selection was purposeful, seeking maximum diversity (as evidenced by tutor training, for example) in the identification of four ABE programs. It drew on both the researcher’s knowledge of specific programs and program types, and her professional network’s ability to connect her with programs likely to participate in the study. For the purposes of the particular research question geographical diversity was not an important consideration; three of the four programs are in close proximity to the researcher.
Now merged as ProLiteracy America, member programs from the Laubach Literacy of America (LLA) and Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA), the two largest national volunteer-based literacy programs were obvious candidates. These two organizations represent the bulk of literacy programs nationally and the majority of tutors are trained by affiliates of these two organizations. Historically, LLA has had a sub-skills orientation to reading instruction. LVA has more holisitic, socio-cultural, and constructivist approach to literacy learning (integrated instruction of language skills, meaning based, and contextualized reading and writing instruction). Although the two organizations had merged when the data for this study were collected, their former member organizations were still conducting their own distinct tutor training based on their previous affiliations. A local affiliate of each organization was nominated for participation in the study by regional leaders who had a good knowledge of the programs in their areas. They were asked to identify well functioning and representative examples of LLA and LVA affiliates. The two programs that were identified and agreed to participate are the Polkville Literacy Council (PLC) which is a Laubach affiliated program in a small city, and Essex County Literacy Volunteers which is an LVA program serving a large and diverse county of small cities and suburban neighborhoods; both are in Middle-Atlantic states.
Two other programs were also recruited to participate in the study. The Center for Lifelong Learning (CLL) was selected for its unique approach to preparing volunteers and students to work together. In recognition that its instructional approach may be unfamiliar to tutors and students, and in hopes of more successfully getting learning pairs to use it, the program introduces both partners to new concepts in its “student-tutor orientation” (STO), rather than using a traditional tutor training. It brings new students and tutors together for an extensive orientation to the instructional strategies and philosophies which the program advocates. These include building instruction explicitly around student goals, and having a meaning making approach to reading and writing. CLL is a community based organization serving neighborhoods throughout a large city in a Middle-Atlantic state. The researcher had worked at this program previously and was involved in developing the STO. She took this opportunity to return to the program as an opportunity to learn more about this unique innovation.
The fourth program, Lincoln County Library Literacy (LCLL) is located in a small city in a rural area of a large Midwestern state. Funded entirely by the county’s library system, the program is unique in its effort to integrate the National Institute for Literacy’s Equipped for the Future (EFF) content standards into every aspect of its program including tutor pre- and in-service training. It was the only example of a tutor-based program doing so that could be located. It also has a unique training format. Unlike the other three programs, LCLL offers only a brief orientation to potential tutors before asking them to make a volunteer commitment. There is no formal training. If volunteers decide to tutor after the orientation, they meet one-to-one with program staff after being matched with a student and prior to the first meeting. This session is meant to provide pre-service instructional information for tutors that is tailored to the specific needs of the students with whom they will work (See Table 1).
Understanding the Programs
As a way of gaining a detailed understanding of the four programs, three data collection strategies were employed. The researcher was a participant/observer for a complete series of tutor training or orientation sessions at each of the four focal programs. All documents distributed at trainings were collected. Although tutor training is the primary avenue through which volunteer tutors come to understand a program’s philosophy and approach to reading and writing instruction, this data was supplemented by interviews with key staff at each program (e.g., program coordinator, tutor trainer, executive director); additional program materials were collected at this time.
Recruiting Participants
Three tutor-student pairs from each program were selected to participate in this study. The main criterion for selection was that they had been working together for at least three months so that their commitment to participating in the program and a routine for working together were both well established. The original intent was that these pairs be selected at random to avoid program staff selecting individuals whom they felt best exemplify their program’s philosophy. However, in one program the coordinator asked for volunteers from among a group present for tutoring on a specific night. In another program, one pair was selected at random and two others volunteered to participate after hearing about the study. Although not selected for their diversity, the students and tutors represent a range of ages, occupations, school experiences and races/ethnicity (See Table 3).
Documenting Tutoring Sessions
In an effort to learn what actually goes on during tutoring sessions without being intrusive and minimize the researcher effect on the teaching-learning transaction, the tutors and students were asked to act as data collectors to document what they actually do when they are working together (they received an honorarium for their help). Each pair was sent a portable audio recorder, four audio tapes, batteries, and a self-addressed and postage paid return box, along with very explicit instructions. Student-tutor pairs were asked to audiotape three sequential sessions of their work together and then mail back the cassettes. Every pair did so, but three tapes from two pairs were inaudible. One pair subsequently recorded an additional session. In 37 sessions were audio-taped and returned for analysis, 34 were usable for analysis. These audiotapes served as “observations” of the student-tutors’ work together. Three sessions was a reasonable quantity for understanding the typical ways that each pair had of working together without having to worry much about learners or tutors dropping out of the program before the data were collected. The tapes were transcribed for data analysis purposes.
Interviewing Participants
Following transcription of tapes, eleven of the twelve students and tutors were each interviewed separately (one pair was not available for interviews) using an interview guide. The purpose of the interview was to gather background information (e.g., employment, educational level, reasons for participating in the program), and to ask questions that emerged from a preliminary reading of session transcripts. In addition, the interviews provided an opportunity to ask questions about the connections between students’ and tutors’ educational background, the tutor training, and the instructional work that goes on with the pair. Telephone interviews were conducted to complete these interviews.
Data analysis, as in all qualitative research, involved the sorting, coding and searching of the data for themes and patterns of response and behavior as a way to develop findings and assertions about them. For the purposes of this article, the program staff interview and tutor training observations were used to develop categories of distinctive program features related to program size, staffing training focus and format, matching procedures, in-service support, and instructional materials and advocated approaches to reading instruction. Transcripts of tutoring sessions were analyzed to uncover general activities, instructional materials, student word level difficulties, and tutor strategies in supporting learners reading aloud. Categories were named by attempting to give the most descriptive label possible to similar kinds of data. Based on this “constant comparative” ADDIN EN.CITE Glaser19672511251Glaser, B.G.Strauss, A.L.1967The discovery of grounded theoryChicagoAldine(Glaser & Strauss, 1967) method of data analysis, the findings discussed below emerged.
Limitations
The data collection strategies created some limitations on the applicability of the findings. The small sample size means that the findings are suggestive rather than generalizable. They are, however, useful in highlighting the importance of examining and rethinking tutor training, but can only outline some of the possible strengths of tutor training and volunteer practices, while identifying only some of their challenges. Data on the tutors and students who participated in the study are limited. Not all programs participating in the study use standardized tests to assess learners, so grade level equivalencies were not uniformly available. Also interview questions were limited by the timing of when they were asked. Because interviews occurred after just a preliminary reading of the session transcripts and were primarily designed to understand key influences on practice, they lacked a certain specificity that might have occurred after more detailed analysis of the transcripts had been completed. For example, questions about why and how tutors decided to respond to learners’ specific reading needs in the ways that they did only emerged after later analysis of the data. Despite these limitations, the data are richly suggestive of the importance of focusing on tutor training in volunteer adult literacy programs.
The four programs: What makes them different?
Capturing the distinctions in tutor training among the four programs is difficult because they covered many of the same topics. Yet, they often did so with greatly different levels of emphasis. For example, CLL and PLC both covered the topic of phonics. However, in the first instance, the tutor trainer simply gave a one sentence explanation of “the theory of phonics.” The main activity for this topic was reading a humorous poem which pokes fun at the irregular pronunciation of the English language. He concluded by warning that phonetic analysis “is hard because there are many exceptions…Working on sounds is okay, but it’s important to keep in mind that it’s a difficult method.” At the PLC, volunteers were introduced to the concept of reading as meaning making as they were at CLL, but spent extended time discussing phonics rules and instructional materials that support phonics instruction. Much of one three hour training session was devoted to the topic. The trainer explained, “it can be a little tedious so bear with us, but it can be very valuable to your student particularly if they need help with vowel sounds.” There were several key topics that every program touched on, to a greater or lesser extent. These included the importance of focusing on learner goals, the distinctive qualities of an adult learner along with some specifics about the adult learners who come to the program, and the Language Experience Approach (learner dictated and composed texts used for reading instruction). The three programs that have an extended training all covered teaching phonics, word patterns, and sight words. In addition one or two programs also covered the following topics: why some adults don’t learn to read, the reading process, comprehension, using authentic texts, strategies for oral reading. Some topics not covered by any of the programs were selecting reading materials at an appropriate instructional level, helping learners develop strategies for reading unfamiliar words and strategies for comprehension, increasing fluency, and using technology for instruction.
Only LCLL explicitly articulated a definition of literacy. The other three did not discuss the roles of literacy in our culture. Rather, their emphasis was on describing and demonstrating activities and materials for improving reading without articulating the broad purpose for doing so, or the ways in which definitions of literacy might influence aspects of instruction ADDIN EN.CITE Lytle198998198Lytle, S.Wolfe, M.1989Adult literacy education: Program evaluation and learner assessmentERIC document reproduction serviceInformation seriesColumbusERIC clearinghouse on adult, career, and vocational education, the Ohio State University338(Lytle & Wolfe, 1989). All four programs used some discourse indicating a commitment to authentic literacy activities (e.g., reading as making meaning, writing as a process) but, again with vast differences in emphasis on concepts and strategies congruent with this instructional approach. Similarly there were considerable differences in suggested instructional formats for helping adults improve their reading—from scripted lessons in programmed workbooks to learner-centered and generative, goal oriented activities. To be more specific, a brief description of each of the four programs’ training content focused specifically on teaching adults to read follows (See Table 2).
LCLL
This program tries to instill in their volunteers an understanding of a very broad definition of literacy which goes beyond reading to include “communicating and making decisions and thinking and knowing where you need to go for information…It’s just a big messy picture and it’s for a person’s personal growth,” explained the program’s director. Specifically, the trainer stated that literacy refers to “a person’s ability to use skills and knowledge in order to fulfill their responsibilities and meet their goals as workers, family members, and community members.” Based on this definition, the program has attempted to integrate into all aspects of instruction the National Institute for Literacy’s content standards, Equipped for the Future ADDIN EN.CITE Stein200045410454Stein, S.2000Equipped for the future Content standards: What adults need to know and be able to do in the 21st centuryWashington, D.C.National Institute for Literacy(Stein, 2000). The reading standard, “read with understanding” encompasses the ability to “determine the reading purpose, select reading strategies appropriate to the purpose, monitor comprehension and adjust reading strategies, analyze the information and reflect on its underlying meaning, and integrate it with prior knowledge to address reading purpose” (p. 25).
At the orientation, the trainer did not discuss any specifics regarding reading instruction. The program coordinator directs tutors to specific activities, relevant materials and needed skills in a one-on-one meeting before they are matched with their students. In an interview about the program, the coordinator explained their general approach to reading instruction by stating that they try to teach reading based on student goals. They give each of their tutors a handbook called LitStart: Strategies for adult literacy and ESL tutors The program recommends this in particular because they see it as giving guidance on teaching a variety of reading and writing strategies that can be applied to any goal related reading material. The program staff believes that this enables tutors to “choose the topic or context based on students’ needs and interests and apply strategies (e.g., comprehension and word identification) that are appropriate using what they know already to build on.” They suggest that tutors working with low level writers use the Language Experience Approach (LEA) with their students.
By way of the initial orientation and post-match meeting, the program seems to focus on the importance of responding to learners’ goals and reading as a meaning-making and purposeful activity. It does almost nothing to train tutors to use any specific techniques for teaching reading. The program conveys its concept of literacy, provides materials, and leaves the rest to the volunteer tutors.
ECLV
At this program, perhaps in lieu of a definition, the trainer stated that literacy demands in our modern society are increasing, especially with regard to employment. She stated that she sees literacy as improving day to day functioning and also mentioned the EFF standards. She referred briefly to the “four language acquisition skills” which she listed as listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and explained that “each skill reinforces the other.”
The training for teaching reading is based to some extent on the LVA tutor handbook, Tutor. In an interview the trainer explained that program does not have a set curriculum for the tutors to use; they are encouraged to build instruction around real life materials based on learners’ goals. During the training she suggested that tutors should aim for “relevance” in their selection of materials and exhorted the volunteers-in-training, “You better have them doing…You have them be the doers.” The major reading topics covered in the training were the Language Experience Approach (as a student generated reading practice text that is of high interest and simple to read), phonics and word patterns, for which Tutor provides scripted lessons. It also has informational lists, sight words, and suggests teaching ways to use the context to identify unknown words. While the trainer urged the tutors not to spend more than 10-15 minutes a session on phonics, she enthusiastically endorsed teaching word patterns “because if they catch on, they have so many words to add to their vocabulary.” Although the trainer mentioned two ways for students and tutors to read together during tutoring sessions, modeled reading and reading together, these techniques were not demonstrated and were breezed over quickly. It was suggested that tutors should assign homework so that students can “do a little bit every day,” but no specifics on what kind of homework should be assigned were discussed. Because this program simultaneously trains tutors to work with literacy students and English language learners, strategies for teaching reading instruction seemed crowded out by these sometimes competing agendas.
Overall, the training emphasized the importance of teaching word patterns and using the Language Experience Approach. While not workbook driven, it seemed to suggest the importance of exercises and instructional techniques more than actual reading. This training could be characterized as eclectic.
PLC
A poster at the first training session invites volunteers to “Come with us to Literacyland” According to the accompanying visual, reading, thinking, listening, speaking, writing, and understanding are all destinations in this land. One of the trainers defined reading as getting meaning from the printed word. She explained that this process is divided into four parts: (1) decoding which can be achieved by using the context, phonics, sight memory, sentence structure or the dictionary; (2) comprehension where the “guiding question” is what does it mean? (3) evaluation which means that reading is reacting based on the guiding question of what do I think about it; and (4) action or the guiding question, what shall I do? The trainer explained that the program tries to build all four of these skills into instruction from the very beginning.
However, much of the focus on teaching reading and writing at this program is devoted to introducing and training tutors in the use of programmed, graded, instructional materials. The trainers described them as all having a phonics approach. Although most of the materials are geared toward phonics instruction, the trainers acknowledge that “it doesn’t work for everyone” but offered little as an alternative. In significant detail, the tutors were introduced to the Laubach Way to Reading (LWR) skills books, as well as the Voyager Series (produced by the same publisher, New Readers Press) which the trainers described as a better series than LWR because it integrates the development of word recognition skills with reading comprehension. They also said that this series is more interesting for adult learners. Although both of these series come with very detailed teacher guides, the volunteers were given extensive explanations and ample time to practice executing lessons from them. As a trainer said, “We’re going to show you exactly how to teach this.” The training also introduced volunteers to a locally produced text called Reading and Spelling via Phonics (RSVP), which teaches vowels sounds in great detail. In addition, volunteer tutors were introduced to a technique for teaching sight words, the language experience approach, comprehension, and strategies for increasing fluency. However, each of these topics was given scant attention in comparison to time spent on how to use the workbooks.
PLC’s training is oriented strongly towards phonics-based instruction and the use of graded instructional materials. If they adhere to the program’s emphasis on these rather prescriptive materials, tutors need not make complex decisions about teaching reading. They can function simply as guides through the materials.
CLL
This program’s training did not define literacy, but did describe the reading process as making meaning. As one trainer said, “This is what you’re going to help learners to do--help the learner make meanings…We’re training tutors to create a situation of learning by doing based on their [the students’] own goals…It’s about creating a situation where people can practice something in a comfortable situation”
This orientation toward reading was exemplified by a training that focused primarily on teaching strategies for getting students to actually read authentic (i.e., not written for instructional purposes) texts which relate to the their goals and purposes for improving their literacy skills. Tutors were admonished to use any text for instructional purposes, regardless of level, that a student has a true interest in working on. To this end, five different strategies for reading texts were discussed and demonstrated: tutor reads aloud to student, echo reading, duet reading, oral assisted reading and silent reading. Should a student get stuck on a word during oral assisted reading, tutors were told to supply the word, make a note of the difficulty, and then teach to the difficulty in a separate word study activity. “Do the reading first, then work on words. If you work on every word when it comes up, you might lose the meaning,” advised a trainer. Given this meaning making emphasis, not surprisingly comprehension was described to tutors as a central challenge of reading; before, during and after reading comprehension activities were demonstrated. Trainers also suggested that struggling readers can use four word identification strategies that enable them to read more fluently: context, sounds (phonics), sight words, and syllabification. A trainer told the volunteers, “It’s good to know these. Pass them on to students because this will help them increase fluency. Getting stuck frequently is going to be frustrating, effect getting the meaning, and can cause people to stop [reading].”
Unlike the structured and scripted phonics instruction advocated at ECLV and PLC, this program gave it short shrift. After briefly mentioning using knowledge of sound symbol relationships as one of four possible strategies for dealing with word level difficulty, the trainer said, “Working on sounds is okay, but it’s important to keep in mind that it’s a difficult method. That’s why it’s wise to know the other methods to fall back on.” Like the other programs, this training included a unit on Language Experience Approach.
This program emphasized goal oriented, meaning-driven instruction. Although specific approaches to teaching reading were discussed in the training, little attention was given to how to do direct instruction on coping with word level difficulties. Because no instructional materials are specified, tutors are expected to create teaching and learning opportunities soley in response to student interests.
What Students and Tutors Actually Do Together
Volunteer tutors in these four programs receive similar, yet distinctive messages about how to implement their job of helping adult struggling readers improve their skills. From a more or less scripted academic approach to a learner centered approach that encourages tutors to help students learn by doing (using authentic, goal responsive reading texts), and from a literacy for life to a literacy for jobs lens for focusing instruction, tutors across these four programs learn about a wide range of instructional strategies and encounter important variation in ideas about adult learners, materials, and appropriate activities. However, without carefully looking at what tutors and students actually do, there is no way to know what the relationship is between volunteer training and instruction. In what ways does volunteer training actually evidence itself in instruction? Nor can we get a clear picture of the gaps in knowledge that may be created when many topics are covered in a limited (and short) amount of time. The following section describes reading instruction among the three student-tutor pairs and across the four programs by focusing on three aspects of their work together: materials selection, comprehension, and word recognition. Each of these aspects will be discussed with regard to transfer from training to practice, as well as the gaps in knowledge they evidence. Although there are other important aspects of reading instruction (and adult basic education more generally), these are perhaps some of the most accessible for study to the outside observer, and are certainly key to improving reading skill.
Materials
One helpful indicator of how tutors understand, retain, and act on what they have heard in training is to analyze the materials they selected and how they used them. Based on the training, for example, pairs from LCLL and CLL might be expected to read from functional materials, trade books and other authentic texts selected on the basis of learner goals and interests. PLC pairs would certainly be expected to use workbooks. In fact, tutors and students used a range of materials during their tutoring sessions. Most pairs (9 out of 12) spent some time reading some sort of authentic, connected prose text. These included novels (written for children, young adults, and adults), high interest/low-vocabulary non-fiction written for adults, newspapers, magazine articles, and the bible. Only two pairs, both from CLL, used authentic functional materials (an application and a recipe), but both did so only briefly, not as part of their instructional routine. Among all the pairs, the reading materials were generally, but not always, chosen by the tutor. However, even when acting alone, the tutor almost always had a purposeful reason for the selection related to the interests and needs of the student. For example, one tutor reports, “He was interested in hunting and fishing and we were trying articles out of those kinds of magazines. I thought it would hold his interest.” Another explained her choice of texts, “We were together a year. I think he did improve in that year. I think that the best thing that I did for him is I found a book that he really enjoyed. He kept reading and couldn’t put it down. That was a good thing for him because he saw he could read a book and enjoy it.” Although emphasis was put on doing “real” reading in only one of the program’s training sessions (CLL), this activity cut broadly across pairs in all four programs.
While the choice of reading texts was often driven by the tutors’ understanding of the importance of making selections based their students’ needs and interests, they sometimes lacked an understanding of how to select texts that were at an appropriate instructional level. Readability is a disputed concept ADDIN EN.CITE Bailin20014550455Bailin, A.Grafstein, A.2001The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critiqueLanguage and Communication213285-301(Bailin & Grafstein, 2001), and identifying what makes a text readable and appropriate for instructional purposes (i.e., not too easy and not too hard) is not necessarily a formulaic, simple task. Yet, none of the tutor trainings gave any indication at all to volunteers of how to select texts that would be challenging and would promote learning, yet not too frustrating. This informational gap was made apparent by the fact that 6 pairs read materials that that seemed to be unsuitable for instruction; one was too easy, the other five were too difficult.
When the training placed a strong emphasis on programmed instructional materials as it did at PLC, two out of the three pairs also used workbooks or worksheets, but so too did five other pairs (1 from LCLL, and 2 each from ECLV and CLL). In other words, the choice of materials did not seem strongly linked to what tutors were introduced to in training. They did not seem to need specific guidance for them to decide to use authentic texts for teaching, nor did they need to be told to use prescriptive materials for them to make that choice. Why tutors chose to use or not use workbooks was not explored in the interviews. However, one tutor from PLC explained that she decided to go beyond the workbooks and include reading a novel in her sessions as a way “to add a little spice.” There was little apparent connection between the reading level or goals of the students and whether they used authentic texts or workbooks.
Not surprisingly, with so much use of authentic connected texts (and workbooks with texts of a paragraph or longer length), almost every student (10 out of 12) spent some time actually reading during tutoring sessions. In every case, this was done aloud with the tutor listening and correcting or helping when the student got stuck; this strategy was called oral assisted reading in tutor trainings. In doing this, students were not only developing reading fluency, they were practicing word recognition and word attack skills in the context of actual reading (this will be looked at in more detail below). None of the students ever read silently during tutoring sessions, although one did so extensively at home and a few others did so to a lesser extent outside their sessions. No other oral reading strategies were used, although three of the four programs made some mention of other (less familiar) ways of supporting students’ oral reading (e.g., echo and duet reading). CLL, in particular, spent time on these strategies and gave tutors an opportunity to try out each one. In three cases (two from PLC and one from ECLV), the tutors took turns reading aloud with their students, although this was not a strategy discussed in any of the trainings. In other words, strategies for oral reading were nearly unvarying among the pairs, despite alternatives being discussed in some trainings.
It is difficult to detect any clear pattern of materials use that could be attributed to the tutor training that volunteers participated in. There was no one thing that was covered in a program’s tutor training that all tutors from a program did or did not do. Similarly there are some things that almost all pairs did, regardless of what they were exposed to in training. This finding seems to indicate that once students and tutors start working together, their training might not always play a strong shaping role in the work that they do together.
Comprehension
Although the idea of reading as a meaning making activity was discussed in all of the trainings, only CLL spent significant time exploring the topic of comprehension during the tutor training. However, the content was geared toward demonstrating specific comprehension related concepts such as the important role that prior knowledge plays in comprehension, or that comprehension can fail even when decoding is adequate. Tutors also heard about the importance of discussing texts before, during and after reading. None of the trainings talked about the importance of explicitly teaching comprehension strategies. This gap was reflected in the limited ways in which all 12 pairs dealt with the challenge of developing comprehension. Only 6 out of 12 pairs engaged in any kind of comprehension work. Two of those were simply following the cues of the workbooks they were using, but did not apply this type of instruction to actual reading activities. None of the tutors from CLL, where the importance of working on comprehension is explicitly discussed in training, did so. When comprehension work did occur, in general, it involved the tutor asking literal recall questions. The questions functioned as more of a check on comprehension than as a tool for teaching comprehension strategies. No tutor ever discussed a comprehension strategy that students could or should try, or that they typically use in their own reading.
The data on comprehension work among the student-tutor pairs indicate that there may likely be a failure to make the transfer from training to actual instruction, even when the topic is discussed. Perhaps more significantly, the data indicate that with no substantive emphasis on comprehension training, many tutors will not instinctively know that they should work on it, much less how to best improve this important skill.
Word Recognition
Another helpful indicator of the impact of tutor training on volunteers is to analyze how they assist students in developing word recognition strategies and what they do when students encounter unfamiliar words in their reading. All three of the programs with extended tutor training instructed tutors to teach common sight words and key words in students’ lives using flash cards. They each discussed, to a greater or lesser extent, the importance of teaching phonics and word family clusters. CLL did tell tutors that there are different strategies (using context, sight word recognition, phonics, and syllabification) for reading unfamiliar words “that will work for different people at different times.” The trainer suggested that tutors “pass these on to your students because this will help them increase fluency.” CLL explicitly discussed what to do when a student either did not attempt a difficult word or said an incorrect word while reading. At this program, the trainer told volunteers that they should supply the word to maintain meaning, and study it after the student finished reading. Yet, none of them truly helped tutors put it all together to help them understand specifically what word recognition strategies to teach, under what circumstances, when and how. At PLC tutors could presumably use the workbooks to guide instruction in this regard, but these materials can not assist them when they were reading other texts. All of the tutors seemed to need to rely largely on their own instincts when it came to this aspect of reading instruction. This seems confirmed by the fact that when asked what stood out for them about the training, not one tutor focused on specific instructional strategies for teaching reading. Patterns of assistance within individual tutors did not correspond clearly to the tutor training in which they had participated. In other words, tutors from the same program did not respond to their students’ word level difficulties in similar ways.
Four pairs worked on word recognition skills in isolation, typically this work had no connection to word level difficulties encountered in the text. Although only one-third of the pairs did this, they did it extensively. Just one pair worked systematically on phonics. Some tutors mentioned phonics rules in the midst of work on sight word recognition (e.g., using flash cards) or during reading when students got stuck on a word, but these were rare occurrences. Interestingly, given PLC’s explicit emphasis on phonics instruction, none of the pairs from that program did any kind of phonics oriented word study. Not surprisingly, neither did pairs at LCLL since it was not discussed with tutors. Two pairs each from ECLV and CLL (where this was explicitly discouraged) did isolated word study activities. Only one of these pairs, from ECLV, focused their word study on words that had given the student difficulty during reading. Three pairs worked on vocabulary development. In each case vocabulary words came from texts that students were reading during the tutoring sessions.
When it came to instances of word recognition difficulty while actually reading texts (as opposed to doing exercises and skill development tasks), eleven of the student participants either could not read, or read incorrectly and did not self-correct without tutor intervention anywhere from a low of 16 words to a high of 97 words during one tutoring session. The range depended on the difficulty of the text relative to the student’s reading ability, and the amount of time actually spent reading (the twelfth student had only two word level difficulties and was therefore dropped out of the analysis for this part of the findings). At these instances, tutors were confronted with having to make instructional choices about how to respond both in the moment during reading, and after the reading was completed. These decisions are relatively complex. Based on analyses of tutor training, and the actions tutors took during the sessions with students, the tutors were not necessarily prepared to make them.
Of the 787 tutor assists, tutors across all programs simply supplied the word 561 times (71% of the time); this was the most frequent response to difficulty by all but one tutor. While some research affirms this approach, other studies indicate that supplying the word may instill a sense of learned helplessness in struggling readers and does not encourage them to develop strategies to systematically identify difficult words. However, there was no indication in the data that students were discouraged from continuing to try to attempt difficult words by tutors frequently supplying words. The average percentage of times a student made any kind of attempt to decode a difficult word was 82% (as opposed to simply waiting for the tutor to supply it). Of the four cases where the tutors most often supplied the word, one student made the fewest attempts at decoding word level difficulties (44% of the time), two others attempted these words slightly above the average (86% and 83%); the fourth did so somewhat below the average (73%). In other words, supplying the word did not seem necessarily to be implicated in whether a struggling reader would try to read the next difficult word.
Insert Table 4
One of the biggest word supply tutors came from CLL where tutors were instructed to do this, but so too did the tutor who supplied the words least often.
In addition to supplying the whole word, tutors also frequently supplied some smaller part of a word--the first one or two syllables, or simply the initial phoneme. However, they also encouraged learners to figure out the word about 29% of the time. Here they provided phonological clues by encouraging students to sound out the difficult word, focusing on a particular orthographical feature of the word, reminding them of the word pattern the difficult word relates to, or doing a mini-word study (about 20% of the time) at the point of the difficulty. In other cases, tutors gave meaning-based clues, for example, by defining the word (8% of the time). They also used other strategies such as spelling the word (22%), encouraging the student to spell the word out (2%), or simply signaling that the student had read the word incorrectly (35%). Most tutors depended heavily on only one strategy. Orthographic clues and signaling students that they had misread a word were the two strategies that nearly every tutor used at least once; giving a definition of the word, spelling the word out, and signaling a misreading were the strategies that individual tutors depended on most heavily.
This strong reliance on a narrow set of strategies seems to indicate that the tutors use them almost regardless of the nature of the word, the nature of the difficulty, or the nature of the text. The fact that the “success rate” (the rate at which the student was able to read the word after the tutor’s first intervention) in cases when the tutor did not simply supply the word was relatively low, from 21% to 76%, seems to suggest that the strategies were also quite insensitive to the strengths of the learners and the nature of the word. Simply put, the tutors were not very effective at helping learners identify the word. Just as telling as what tutors did, is what they did not do. For example, the tutors never encouraged learners to re-read, read ahead, or look for familiar small words within larger words as a way of identifying difficult words. These are all strategies commonly suggested for struggling readers, but were not discussed in any tutor training.
These data seem to suggest that, when it comes to word recognition and word attack strategies, tutors are not necessarily responding to the specific needs of their learners. Instead, they have one or two helping approaches that they repeatedly tend toward. Not only do these seem somewhat insensitive to the needs of the learners, but are also not well informed by research on reading development and instruction. The problem here does not seem to be so much a failure of transfer from training to practice, but an indication of key information that the trainings did not cover. Given these gaps in training at all four programs, this deficit in volunteer tutor knowledge is not unsurprising. Except in rare cases, volunteer tutors with minimal training can not be expected to do what they have not been taught.
Discussion
The Relationship Between Training and Instruction
Analyses of the volunteer tutors’ use of reading materials, comprehension, and word attack/word recognition instruction does not indicate that there is a clear pattern of similarity in approaches to reading instruction among volunteer tutors within the same program. Little about the training they participated in seems to predict what materials and activities tutors and students will use, or how tutors will help students when they get stuck on words. There are probably a number of mediating factors, including educational attainment and attitudes toward school for both tutors and students, and the reading level, goals and interests of students, which make drawing a straight line between tutor training, and tutor practice difficult. However, given the significant commitment of time and resources devoted to training by programs and volunteers, it would seem a reasonable hope and expectation that more specifics from the experience of tutor training would “rub off.” The fact that tutors from the same program did not show strong similarities in the areas analyzed seems to suggest that the training they received was not as effective as might be hoped.
In fact, of the eleven tutors interviewed, only two (not from the same program) discussed ideas from the trainings that related to reading instruction which they had retained and found to be important influences on their practice. One did so in only a very general way when she said, “A lot of stuff they talked about, I try to incorporate. Like writing, I try to do every time.” Another noted that she relied heavily on the programmed instructional materials she learned about during training “because I felt I had no idea how to teach someone who already knows how to read [i.e., who is not a beginning reader].” When tutors were asked what the most important influence was on their tutoring, none of them said it was the tutor training. However, at least one important idea from training was expressed over and over by the tutors--that the learners should play an important role in shaping their own learning experiences. The tutors expressed their understanding of the idea that they are in partnership with another adult who is capable of making decisions about his/her learning, and that the student’s goals and interests should be an important guide in their work together. Indeed, most tutors said their students were their most important influence on their instruction. As one tutor said, “I basically let him set the pace…That’s the part of the training that they really emphasized. Let the learner set the agenda.” Tutors explained that they tried to let their students set the pace and select materials and activities because they had learned in training that, as one tutor stated, “it’s kind of the person’s session” and had been reminded that the students are adults who can and should make decisions about their own learning. “They told us not to talk down to them like children,” explained another tutor.
Tutors also gave a range of responses which indicated that many factors other than their volunteer training had influenced the decisions and choices they made as they worked with their students. Some explicitly stated that they could not use the information communicated in training because it did not fit their students’ instructional needs. For example, a tutor from ECLV said, “It wasn’t helpful to me with my student.” Another said, “Some of the tutor training came in handy, but I felt that he was a little bit higher than what they were training you for.” Others did not necessarily supply a reason why the training had taken a back seat to other ideas, but made clear that their own experiences as learners, their professional training as teachers, their own creativity and willingness to engage in “trial and error”, or their parents were resources from which they frequently drew and which played a key role in influencing their practice.
It is probable that, given the short training time and the amount of information programs try to cover, even if they implemented everything they learned in training, they would still be under-prepared to work as effectively as possible with their students. Reading instruction for struggling learners is a complex task. It probably can neither be “teacher-proofed” by prescribing scripted instructional materials, nor is it likely to be grasped in a relatively few short hours of training. Given that the data indicate a relatively low transfer from training to practice, this seems to indicate that it might be important to rethink what can and can not be accomplished in pre-service volunteer tutor training, and how best to support tutor effectiveness in other ways.
Implications for Volunteer Tutor Training
The data analyzed for this study can not tell us about tutor effectiveness or best practices. However, they do tell an important story about tutor training effectiveness. If effectiveness is judged by fidelity between training and practice and implementation of sound reading instruction strategies, none of the training models examined here is particularly effective. When they begin working with their students, tutors seem to rely on a variety of instincts, resources, and strategies regardless of the training they received. It is possible that they sometimes need to do this because the training does not fit the needs of their students. In fact, it would be nearly impossible in a short time frame to create trainings that truly address the range of needs and challenges that students present to tutors. Programs probably have little choice but to “pitch” training toward students within a narrow, average range of skills by presenting a generic set of activities and ideas that may or may not apply to specific students. It is also true to say that the four programs did little, if anything, to help volunteers understand what might be involved in adapting information in the training to what they might encounter in the reality of working with a particular student. One solution to this challenge is for training sessions to explicitly assist tutors in making the transition from the general information they acquire in training to the specific needs, interests, and abilities of their students. It is probably very hard to get volunteers to be able to do this after training is completed. A more pragmatic solution might be to match students and tutors during the training process, as CLL does. In this way tutors could relate what they are learning to what they know about an actual student, try things out, and ask questions based on this very concrete experience. Unfortunately, the logistics of matching students and tutors during this pre-service period often stymies the intent of this effort at CLL; none of the pairs involved in this study had been matched with their students during their training.
Another challenge which programs that use volunteers face is very limited time for training. It is likely that a few short hours of tutor training is simply inadequate to the task of getting novices to adopt the instructional strategies advocated by trainings (compare the number of hours of volunteer training to cover a wide range of topics in addition to reading instruction to the number of course hours that reading specialists spend in graduate school). Yet, the time and commitment of volunteers and the resources of programs makes offering longer trainings unrealistic.
A third obstacle identified by training experts in industry ADDIN EN.CITE Globerson20014240424Globerson, S.Korman, A.2001The use of just-in-time training in a project environmentInternational Journal of Project Management195279-285 [electronic version](Globerson & Korman, 2001) is that training is not necessarily retained over time, especially if it is not immediately used. If there is lag time of just one month between training completion and beginning instruction, as much as 40% of knowledge gained (making the large assumption that it is actually gained) during training may be lost. Even if there is little or no lag time, skills and knowledge acquired during training may not be needed immediately. Knowledge loss can be 90% after six months if it is not used ADDIN EN.CITE Globerson20014240424Globerson, S.Korman, A.2001The use of just-in-time training in a project environmentInternational Journal of Project Management195279-285 [electronic version](Globerson & Korman, 2001). Most of the tutors were matched with their students very quickly. However, given their students’ needs and interests not everything that is presented in training is immediately relevant, they may not need to use some of it until much later. This lag time between learning about and needing to use some idea, strategy, or material increases the likelihood that it will have been forgotten when needed.
It seems likely that a lack of fit between tutor training and actual learners, the impossibility of covering everything a literacy instructor should know to meet the needs of their students in the nine, twelve, or even 20 hours of training commonly required of volunteers, and simply forgetting are indicated by the data and by the reality of tutor-based programs. On the one hand, by trying to cover many topics (albeit briefly), almost no one’s specific needs are addressed. On the other hand, it seems unrealistic to ask volunteers to participate in the numbers of hours it would potentially take to train them adequately.
In reality, despite the fact that the strategies which tutors employ frequently do not match the training they receive, and that there are obvious instructional gaps in their approaches to teaching reading, the learners in this study generally feel that they are making significant progress. For example, one student said, “I advanced pretty good with [my tutor]—she’s great.” Another said, “Oh, if you’d have seen me ten years ago, it’s a big difference. I couldn’t spell 20 dollars. Today with going through it and learning how to pronounce it, it’s helped me a lot.” Other descriptions of volunteer-based programs make similar claims ADDIN EN.CITE Jones19914000400Jones, K.1991The rocky road from frustration to fulfillment: The saga of a volunteerConnections: A journal of adult literacy462-64Waite198340110401Waite, P.1983The role of volunteers in adult literacy programsSyracuse, NYLaubach Literacy Action240 294Kawulich19894020402Kawulich, B.B.1989Using and retaining volunteers in adult literacy programsAdult Literacy and Basic Education13152-55Waite198340110401Waite, P.1983The role of volunteers in adult literacy programsSyracuse, NYLaubach Literacy Action240 294(Jones, 1991; Kawulich, 1989; Waite, 1983). It must also be acknowledged, however, that tutor-based volunteer instruction does not meet the needs of many others. A significant number of adults never even begin the process, many drop out after a few hours, and still others fail to progress despite their best efforts and their tutors’ best intentions. This, combined with the data presented here indicates significant challenges to improving practice in the one-to-one volunteer sector of the field, and focuses attention on the potential of volunteer training to adequately prepare tutors to respond to the instructional needs of the learners with whom they work.
What then is the answer? The data indicate what tutor training can accomplish well. The training can consistently convey a few broad and important ideas that are relatively easy to grasp such as the nature of adult learning, the importance of focusing on learner goals, and involving students in making decisions about materials, pace, and activities. Tutor training can also be used effectively to orient volunteers to program staff, and logistics such as keeping attendance records and attaining instructional materials. What clearly does not come across well are many of the technical aspects of teaching adults to read and write. In response, most volunteers rely on strategies that seem to come naturally from a reservoir of experiences that they have acquired throughout their lives. These may or may not be helpful to the learner.
A potentially useful approach to addressing these problems of volunteer tutor training is to explore other adult instructional theories that could be utilized. In the process of analyzing data for this study, it became clear that the samples of tutors’ and students’ work together revealed substantive and rich information about learners’ and tutors’ needs for help and support. For example, analyzing word level difficulties of learners reading aloud indicated clear instructional needs as well as strengths. Studying the strategies that tutors implemented “in the trenches” when students encountered these word level difficulties illustrated what instructional approaches they were using effectively and which would strengthen their potential to help their students. This suggests that a professional or more highly trained staff member (in most programs the position is usually called tutor coordinator) could similarly collect and analyze this type of information about student-tutor pairs and then provide ongoing support to them that could be strongly rooted in just what was needed--tailored to both the students’ and tutors’ strengths and challenges. For example, tutors and students may need feedback on choosing texts at an appropriate level of difficulty, how to use a range of strategies to identify unknown words, and ways to systematically focus on specific comprehension and word analysis strategies. It seems far more likely that tutors would implement suggested instructional strategies that are tailored to their situation than those that they learn about it in the abstract, before they meet their students, and that may or may not fit their students’ needs. Additionally, this sort of tailoring draws on the expertise and knowledge of a trained and experienced staff person, rather than counting on being able to stuff enough skills into a volunteer with limited time for training such that she or he could make highly sophisticated observations and instructional decisions about his/her learner.
This approach, referred to here as “less is more” training builds on a cognitive apprenticeship model ADDIN EN.CITE Brandt19933747374Brandt, B.L.Farmer, J.A.Buckmaster, A.1993Cognitive apprenticeship approach to helping adults learnD.D. FlanneryApplying cognitive learning theory to adult learning. New Directions for Adult and continuing Education, no. 59San Francisco, CAJossey-Bass69-78(Brandt, Farmer, & Buckmaster, 1993) in which an expert (program staff person) can scaffold and coach the novice (in this case the volunteer tutor) into learning. This highly situated type of learning is an answer to concerns that education by abstraction, the norm in volunteer tutor training, is of little use ADDIN EN.CITE Merriam19991821182Merriam, S.Caffarella, R.1999Learning in adulthood: A complete guideSan FranciscoJossey-Bass(Merriam & Caffarella, 1999), and removes much of the challenge of helping volunteers figure out how to tailor general information about teaching reading to adults to the specific needs of their individual learner. Drawing on workplace learning models, this sort of in-service training is “just-in-time” because it focuses on specific skill needs and does not depend on inference or generalization, but encourages learning through practical application ADDIN EN.CITE Beckett20023730373Beckett, D.Agashae, Z.Oliver, V2002Just-in-time training: Techne meets phronesisJournal of workplace learning147/8332-339(Beckett, Agashae, & Oliver, 2002) and scaffolded support.
Just-in-time training not only seems to address some of the difficulties of transferring knowledge from the abstract to the concrete, but also the limited time typically allotted for training volunteers. It is programmatically practical as well. Program staff (and volunteers) can devote significantly less time to initial training. The primary focus of an abbreviated training would be to provide a brief orientation to the program, to get across general, easy to understand ideas that relate to any situation volunteers are likely to encounter, and procedural information such as how to access materials and support. In turn, program and staff resources could be shifted to supporting volunteers during their in-service work. It seems logical to assume that such a shift in resources could positively influence learner outcomes, although such a conclusion awaits empirical research.
Volunteer-based one-on-one instruction has been a mainstay of adult literacy education for over forty years. Yet, little research has been done involving this instructional approach. Although small scale, the findings reported here indicate that tutor training, one of the most important ways that volunteers are oriented to the task of improving adults’ reading skills, may be falling far short of its intended goals. Rather than get mired in debates about best practices among a range of tutor training approaches, the data here indicate that it may be more useful to completely rethink the training model by investing less upfront and shifting these resources to more intensive on-the job support and development. It seems clear that we owe both the adult learners and the volunteers an effort to support their efforts in the best way possible. Less is more initial training, and just-in-time in service training might help us do so.
References
ADDIN EN.REFLIST Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language and Communication, 21(3), 285-301.
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 494-519.
Beckett, D., Agashae, Z., & Oliver, V. (2002). Just-in-time training: Techne meets phronesis. Journal of workplace learning, 14(7/8), 332-339.
Bell, S. M., Ziegler, M., & McCallum, R. S. (2004). What adult educators know compared with what they say they know about providing research-based reading instruction. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 47(7), 542-563.
Belzer, A. (2002). Conceptualizing tutor training: A national report on tutor training in adult basic education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (Adult Literacy SIG), New Orleans, LA.
Brandt, B. L., Farmer, J. A., & Buckmaster, A. (1993). Cognitive apprenticeship approach to helping adults learn. In D. D. Flannery (Ed.), Applying cognitive learning theory to adult learning. New Directions for Adult and continuing Education, no. 59 (pp. 69-78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ceprano, M. A. (1995). Strategies and practices of individuals who tutor adult illiterates voluntarily. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 39(1), 56-64.
Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied cognitive psychology, 10, 533-549.
Cromley, J. G., & Azeved, R. (n.d.). Instructional cognitive, and motivational moves of expert and novice tutors in reading. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained college student volunteers help young at-risk children to read better? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 28-47.
Forester, A. D. (1998). Learning to read and write at 26. Journal of Reading, 31(7), 604-613.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Globerson, S., & Korman, A. (2001). The use of just-in-time training in a project environment. International Journal of Project Management, 19(5), 279-285 [electronic version].
Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied cognitive psychology, 9(6), 495-522.
Greenberg, D. (1997/1998). Betsy: Lessons learned from working with an adult nonreader. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 41(4), 252-261.
Ilsley, P. J. (1990). Enhancing the volunteer experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jenkins, C. (1995). Reflective practice: Blurring the boundaries. Adult Basic Education, 5(2), 63-81.
Jones, K. (1991). The rocky road from frustration to fulfillment: The saga of a volunteer. Connections: A journal of adult literacy, 4, 62-64.
Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 268-289.
Kawulich, B. B. (1989). Using and retaining volunteers in adult literacy programs. Adult Literacy and Basic Education, 13(1), 52-55.
Kazemek, F. (1988). Necessary changes: Professional involvement in adult literacy programs. Harvard Educational Review, 58(4), pp. 464-487.
Lysaker, J. (2003). The relational qualities of more and less successful tutoring pairs. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
Lytle, S., & Wolfe, M. (1989). Adult literacy education: Program evaluation and learner assessment (Vol. 338). Columbus: ERIC clearinghouse on adult, career, and vocational education, the Ohio State University.
Merriam, S., & Caffarella, R. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A complete guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, V. (1985). The adult literacy initiative in the U.S.: A concern and a challenge. Journal of Reading, 28, 706-708.
Meyer, V. (1991). Case study--Norman: Literate at Age 44. Journal of Reading, 35(1), 38-42.
Morrow, L. M., & Woo, D. G. (2001). The effects of an America Reads work study tutoring program on reading achievement of young children. In L. M. Morrow & D. G. Woo (Eds.), Tutoring programs for struggling readers (pp. 117-139). New York: Guilford.
Pomerance, A. H. (1990). Volunteers tutoring adults: The construction of literacy by tutor-student pairs. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1993). I ain't never read my own words before. Journal of Reading, 37(3), 210-219.
Rigg, P. (1985). Petra: Learning to read at 45. Journal of Education, 167(1), 129-139.
Sandlin, J., & St. Clair, R. (2005). Volunteers in adult literacy education. In J. Coming, B. Garner & C. Smith (Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy (Vol. 5, pp. 125-154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sharpe, C., & Ganschow, L. (1982). Teaching and adult to read: A case study. Journal of developmental and remedial education, 5(3), 22-23, 26.
Stein, S. (2000). Equipped for the future Content standards: What adults need to know and be able to do in the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy.
Waite, P. (1983). The role of volunteers in adult literacy programs (No. 240 294). Syracuse, NY: Laubach Literacy Action.
Wasik, B. (1998a). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successful practices. Reading Teacher, 51(7), 562-570.
Wasik, B. (1998b). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(5), 266-292.
Ziegahn, L., & Hinchman, K. A. (1999). Liberation or reproduction: Exploring meaning in college students' adult literacy tutoring. International journal of qualitative studies in education, 12(1), 85-101.
Table 1: Program Training Features
LCLLECLVPLCCLLProgram Size (students)68 active, 182 total; 123 active90 active40 active, 65 totalTraining Hours2.5 hours orienttaion, 1-1 ½ hrs one-to-one (post match)20 hours (5 sessions)15 hours (5 sessions; 4 + 1 4-5 weeks later)9 hours (3 sessions)
Training FocusOrientationESL & BL (0-4)BL (0-4)BL (3-6)
Matching ProcedureAfter orientationAfter training and final examAfter 4th sessionAfter 1st session
Primary Training
MaterialsFunctional
Strategies handbookTutor handbook
Hand-outs
Challenger Series
Real life materialsVoyager Series
Laubach Way To Read
Reading & Spelling via Phonics
Focus on PhonicsTutor handbook
Goal oriented functional materials
Table 2: Program Training Topics
Training Topics
LCLLECLVPLCCLLLearner Goals((((Adult learning((((Student perspective((student testimonial)((Case descriptions used as examples)( (role play student)((students participate)Lang. Exp. (LEA)(((Phonics(((Sight words(((Word patterns(((Why low literacy((Rdg process((Writing((Good tutor((Comprehension((Authentic material((Oral reading(((Learning styles((EFF((Lrning log/portfol(ESL activities(First meeting(LWTR/Voyager (how to use)(Problem solving(Definition of Literacy(Lesson Planning((Avail. Materials(((Sensitivity exper.((
(= Topic is covered extensively
(= Topic is covered briefly
Table 3: Student and Tutor Participant Data
Students
ProgramStudentAgeOccupationEducationGenderRaceGrade levelPLCStudent 137Selling on ebay collectiblesHigh schoolMaleCaucasian12thPLCStudent 254House cleaner9th
FemaleCaucasian10.2PLCStudent 332UnemployedHigh schoolFemaleAfrican American3.3LCLLStudent 431School bus dispatcherHigh SchoolMaleCaucasianNot avail.LCLLStudent 558Truck stop janitor7th
MaleCaucasianNot avail.LCLLStudent 672Retired (construction superintendent)10th
MaleCaucasianNot avail.
ECLVStudent 750School custodian12th
MaleCaucasianNot avail.ECLVStudent 840Unemployed9th
FemaleCaribbean
AmericanNot avail.ECLVStudent 944Service manager11th
MaleCaucasianNot avail.CLLStudent 1058Retired6th
MaleAfrican American0.0CLLStudent 11FemaleAfrican American2.5CLLStudent 1250Unemployed6th, stayed in school until age 18MaleAfrican American2.3
Tutors
ProgramTutorAgeOccupationEducationGenderRace
PLCTutor
173Retired insurance regulatorBAMaleCaucasianPLCTutor
234Corporate communications BAFemaleCaucasianPLCTutor
353Retired militaryMastersFemaleAfrican American LCLLTutor
434Pharmacist, but home with kidsBSFemaleWhiteLCLLTutor
560Retired teacher2 Bas, MSFemaleCaucasianLCLLTutor
629Biological researcherMSFemaleCaucasianECLVTutor
755-65Retired (administrative asst.)MAFemaleCaucasianECLVTutor
865MarketingBA, MBAFemaleCaucasianECLVTutor
947Remedial reading teacher (for adults)BA (elementary ed.)FemaleCaucasianCLLTutor
1024Housing counselorBAFemaleAfrican AmericanCLLTutor
11???MaleAfrican AmericanCLLTutor 1223Graduate studentBSFemaleIndian subcontinent Table 4: Tutor assistance strategies when students encountered word level difficulty
Supplies all/part of word Phonetic clues MeaningOther
Prog.Pair# word difficultiesSWFSSSFTSIPSIOOCWFWSDEF/MRSPSSIOPRNSIGSuccess
ratePLC#115414151111492%#2211#376421211421462%LCLL#4351411311576%#51131112#6674814111273%LVMC#73255151211322%#8472415621843%#9186211967%CLL#10113611672141837%#111009910%#1229101242141421%
SW-supplies word SIO-says “sound it out”; DEF/MR-defines or gives meaning related clue SIG-Signals error
FS-supplies first syllable OC-provides orthographic clue SP-spells part or all of word
SS-supplies second syllable WF- reminds of word family SSIO-tells student to spell it out
FTS-supplies first two syllables WS-conducts word study PRN- corrects pronunciation
IP-supplies initial phoneme
In some cases, tutors offered more than one kind of assistance before student retried the word.
Success rate denotes the rate at which the tutor strategy enabled the student to read the word correctly on the subsequent try (excluding instances when the tutor simply supplied the word).
Appendix 1: Tutor interview questions
What made you decide you wanted to tutor?
Can you give me a history of your work together (how long together, how has it gone in general, etc.?)
How would you describe a typical tutoring session? How did you arrive at this particular format?
Ask about any particular aspects of the tutoring sessions (from recorded sessions) that need clarification.
What do you think has been the most important influence on how you work with your student?
What else has influenced your work together?
What’s your biggest challenge as a tutor?
What’s going particularly well?
9. What stands out for you as some of the most important ideas that were communicated to you during tutor training?
What did you think of these ideas before you began tutoring?
What do you think of them now?
Appendix 2: Learner interview questions
What do you and your tutor usually do during your tutoring sessions?
Which activities do you especially like or find helpful in your tutoring sessions? Why?
Which activities do you especially dislike or find unhelpful in your tutoring sessions? Why?
In what way, if any, are you involved in deciding what you will work on during your tutoring sessions?
What is going especially well in your tutoring sessions? In what ways do you notice yourself making progress?
What is a big challenge for you? What do you wish was going better?
Tell me a little bit about previous experiences you’ve had with school.
How far did you go in school?
How did it go for you in school?
Why did you leave school?
What do you remember about how teachers taught you how to read when you were in school?
. 7 = F G H 6 7 @
f
h
L [ ^ m n Ÿ ¡ ž © ± ¼ ¼ Ð D T a b N O ] ^ ¼ ½ k l ‡ ˆ |' }' +* ,* G* H* 3 3 G4 H4 Y4 øîøîøîêåÝêÖêÖêÖêÊÁÊÁºê³ê³ê¬ê¬ê¤ê¤ê¤ê¤ê¤ê¤ê¤ê¤ê¤êœê‘‰ h4* h4H 5hJ h4H CJ aJ h4H CJ aJ j h4H U h\_V h4H h9 h4H hr)ñ h4H h4H 5CJ aJ hr)ñ h4H 5CJ aJ h“:y h4H hÍ] h4H 6 h4H 6h4H h€Dª h4H 5CJ
h4H 5CJ 4 G H h … — ° Ï ä ü ý þ ÿ 7 @ [ \ ] ^ n ¡ ÷ ÷ ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ê ê ê ê å à Û Û Î ¾ ¾ ¹ gd4H „ „ dð ]„ ^„ gd4H „ „ ]„ ^„ gd4H gd4H gd4H gd4H gd4H dð gd4H dð gd4H i k l þþþ ¡ m m ! º& - H4 Z4 „: GH ?^ ir êƒ ûƒ „ † ß‹ - 1” M” õ–
— ƒš ¡š XŸ rŸ .¢ ö í è í í í à è í í í í à è è í í í è è è è è è è è $a$gd4H gd4H „Ð`„Ðgd4H „ ^„ gd4H Y4 Z4 a4 b4 ã5 ä5 ê5 ë5 ²6 ³6 «8 ¬8 ²8 ³8 ƒ: „: &; '; ÕE ÖE UF VF ¢H £H ¥M ¦M ÆM ÇM SN TN S ‘S ØS ÙS ^T _T 6X 7X bX cX ®Y ¯Y ] ] 8] 9] _ _ ži Ÿi ói ôi j
j ¸l ¹l Íl Îl -n .n Hp Ip ]p ^p r ‚r @u Au Gu Hu w w | | J| K| Â| Ã| À~ Á~ Ç~ È~ Ó Ô ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ êƒ úöîöîöîöîöîöîöæöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîöîö h4* h4H 5j h4H Uh4H h4H 5 Xêƒ úƒ ûƒ „ „ „ 1” ?” C” J” K” M” ô– õ– — — ƒš Žš ™š Ÿš ¡š XŸ fŸ rŸ £¥ ¤¥ %§ &§ >§ ?§ § ‹§ Ŭ Ƭ ô¬ õ¬ ¤¶ ¥¶ J¹ K¹ `¹ a¹ ÷» ü» è¾ é¾ µÀ ¶À ÃÀ ÄÀ ( )Â Ä ÷íãÛã×ãÐãÐã×ÈÐã׾оÐ×Ðã׶׶׶×Ðׯ¥›×¶×¶×¶×‘×¶×¶×¶×‰× h¸· h4H >*hÕ h4H 56 hcDÄ h4H 5\ hY F h4H 5\ hA h4H j h4H Uh?= h4H 56 hÅ h4H 6 h4H 56 h4H hv|Ó h4H 5hv|Ó h4H 56 hæA. h4H 5\ hæA. h4H 5 4.¢ § ‹§ Ƭ õ¬ .µ ÷» ü» ) „Æ È È âÉ ŠÐ ·Ñ »Ñ Õ ýÚ >Ü BÜ àÝ .ä Aæ Öç è lî vî Îõ ö ñ ñ é ñ ö ö ö ö ñ ö ñ ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ñ ö ö ö é ñ ñ ñ $a$gd4H gd4H „Ð`„Ðgd4H Ä Ä Ä FÄ È È 7Ê =Ê «Ì ±Ì ·Ñ »Ñ åÖ ÷Ö ûÖ × &× …Ù Ù ÚÙ ÛÙ >Ü BÜ Öç è lî uî vî ÷ ÷ Ûø Üø öø ÷ø ±þ Áþ T a b ¥
¶
* 3 C ² ¸ É À. úòúîäîúîúîäîÜÔîÌîúîÅîäîÀî§î§î§î îŒî…î…î~î~î hh h4H hw, h4H h‚ h4H 56 h0é h4H 56 hÐÇ h4H j h4H U h4H 56 h³v© h4H 56 h4H 5 hc3Ô h4H hDà h4H 6hÐRK h4H 6hc3Ô h4H 6hÅ7Ý h4H 56 h4H h¸X h4H 6 h4H 6 1Îõ
û °þ ( T b û ¥
¶
‡ Æ ¹ d" s" # ¾' + À. Ë. ý. 3 ³: l> qA ›A ìI 2L T ú ñ ú ñ ú ú ú ú ú ñ ñ ñ é ú ñ ñ ñ é ú ú ñ ñ ñ ú ñ ñ ñ $a$gd4H „Ð`„Ðgd4H gd4H À. Ë. ý. þ. qA “A ›A 2L mL nL oL aN bN |N }N lP mP _R `R zR {R |R Y
Y F_ G_ q_ r_ æa ça ‚m ƒm Jp Kp op pp …q †q s s 8s 9s ãt ät Áv Âv äv åv &~ '~ 2~ 3~ E~ F~ ³~ Ñ~ ‚
€ .€ æ€ 3 ‘ …‚ úðúìåðìÞìÖìÖìÖÞËÞËÞËÞìÖìÖìÖìÄìÖìÖìÖìÖìÖìÖìÖìÖìÖì½ì²«²ì£ì£ì£ì£ì£ì hMt‡ h4H 6 h¥NÔ h4H j h¥NÔ h4H U h9Y h4H hª3» h4H j h2lÎ h4H Uj h4H U h2lÎ h4H h4H 56 h4H h9Y h4H 56 h4H 5 @T ŠV ça 5e m þv xz &~ '~ 2~ ß~ ® >€ ú #ƒ à L„ … ´… † m† ‡ ʇ ]ˆ ³ˆ ‰ ú ñ ú ñ ñ ñ ñ ì ç ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß dð gd4H gd4H gd4H „Ð`„Ðgd4H gd4H …‚ õ‚ ‹ƒ ·ƒ !„ A„ q„ È„ Š… ¨… î… † :† Z† ̆ û† ‡ ¼‡ #ˆ Oˆ sˆ •ˆ öˆ ‰ v‰ ¢‰ ä‰ Š cŠ ‰Š òŠ ‹ 6‹ z‹ Þ‹ "Œ ¹Œ ጠX n ´ Ê „Ž ¬Ž éŽ : Î ä # <  ç b‘ ”‘ ¶‘ ’ g’ ˜’ ,“ ?“ ““ ±“ C” €” ” Ž” ¾” Ò” Þ” é” ê” -• /• 0• 2• C• O• e• r• Е Õ• – – V– ÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷ó÷óèóáØÒØáóáóáóáóáóáóá
h4H aJ h?d² h4H aJ h?d² h4H j h¥NÔ h4H Uh4H hMt‡ h4H 6 S‰ «‰ Š •Š "‹ ¿‹ “Œ ÿŒ y Ö ÐŽ Œ ò J ‘ ¤‘ U’ Ï’ M“ ¿“ ” ” ” ‘” ’” “” ”” ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ç ç ç ç ç „ „ dð ^„ `„ gd4H dð gd4H ”” •” –” —” ˜” ¼” ½” ¾” ¿” Ä” É” Í” Ñ” ï ï ï ï ï ï ï à à à à à $dð $If a$gdºl „ „ dð ^„ `„ gd4H Ñ” Ò” ê” • • • *• S G ; ; ; ; dð $If gdºl dð $If gdºl ¬ kd $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿ³YŒ ü$ K
K
K
K
L
Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö *• +• :• s• ‰• ¶• Ë• Ì• Í• S G G G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd¿ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿ³YŒ ü$ K
K
K
K
L
Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö Í• Ε Ý• é• ø• –
– – S G G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd~ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿ³YŒ ü$ K
K
K
K
L
Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö – – – 1– O– a– s– t– u– S G G G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd= $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿ³YŒ ü$ K
K
K
K
L
Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö V– X– h– j– É– Ó– Ô– Ú– Û– ï– ö– ÷– ý– þ– — — — 4— F— y— — Ï— З Ñ— Ò— Ó— Ô— Õ— Ö— ç— è— é— ê— ë— ì— í— î— ø— ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ?˜ A˜ B˜ M˜ U˜ W˜ X˜ `˜ m˜ ‚˜ ƒ˜ „˜ …˜ †˜ ‡˜ ’˜ “˜ ”˜ •˜ –˜ —˜ ¦˜ §˜ ¨˜ ©˜ ÷ð÷ðèãßØðèãßØèßÑãÉð߸¸±¸¸¸¸¸Â߸Â߸Âß±Â߸Â߸¸¸±¸±¸¸ j ¡ðh4H j iðhé h4H hé h4H hË h4H 6 hË h4H hÞf– h4H h4H h4H 6hÞf– h4H 6 h?d² h4H h?d² h4H H* Fu– v– ‡– ‘– œ– °– ¿– É– Û– S G G G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdü $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿ³YŒ ü$ K
K
K
K
L
Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö Û– ï– þ– — 5— F— U— x— y— ó ó ó ó ó ó ó G ¬ kd» $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿ³YŒ ü$ K
K
K
K
L
Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö dð $If gdºl y— z— — — ®— ³— ¸— ¼— À— ú ú ò æ æ æ æ æ dð $If gdºl $a$gd4H gd4H À— Á— Ï— Ñ— Ó— Õ— ×— S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdz $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ×— Ø— ç— é— ë— í— ï— S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdQ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ï— ð— ˜ ˜ A˜ W˜ o˜ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd( $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö o˜ p˜ ˜ ‚˜ „˜ †˜ ˆ˜ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdÿ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ˆ˜ ‰˜ ‘˜ ’˜ ”˜ –˜ ˜˜ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdÖ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ˜˜ ™˜ ¥˜ ¦˜ ¨˜ ª˜ ¬˜ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ©˜ ª˜ «˜ ˜ º˜ ¼˜ ½˜ ¾˜ ¿˜ À˜ Á˜ ǘ Ó˜ Ö˜ ט ؘ Ù˜ é˜ ê˜ ë˜ ì˜ ø˜ ù˜ ú˜ û˜ ™
™ ™
™ ™ ™ !™ "™ 8™ 9™ ;™ <™ L™ M™ N™ O™ P™ Q™ d™ e™ f™ g™ n™ o™ p™ q™ ‹™ Œ™ ž™ Ÿ™ ²™ ³™ Ù Й Ó™ Ô™ é™ ê™ í™ š š š
š š š š š š !š 1š 3š 4š 5š 6š 7š 8š :š Lš Oš Pš Qš Rš Tš Uš ùïùëùäùäùäùëùäùïùïùïùäùïùïùïùäùïùïùïùäùäùïùïùïùïùäùïùïùïùëùïùïùëùïùëùïùïùëùäùïùäùëùïùïùë j ¡ðh4H h4H j iðhé h4H hé h4H X¬˜ ˜ »˜ ¼˜ ¾˜ À˜ ˜ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd„ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ˜ Ø Ô˜ Õ˜ Ö˜ ؘ Ú˜ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd[
$$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö Ú˜ Û˜ ç˜ è˜ é˜ ë˜ í˜ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd2 $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö í˜ î˜ ö˜ ÷˜ ø˜ ú˜ ü˜ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ü˜ ý˜ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdà $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ !™ #™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd·
$$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö #™ $™ 7™ 8™ :™ ;™ =™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdŽ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö =™ >™ K™ L™ N™ P™ R™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kde $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö R™ S™ c™ d™ f™ h™ i™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd< $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö i™ j™ n™ p™ r™ s™ t™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö t™ u™ ˆ™ ‰™ Š™ ‹™ ™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdê $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ™ Ž™ ™ ž™ ™ ¡™ ¢™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdÁ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ¢™ £™ ±™ ²™ ´™ µ™ ¶™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd˜ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ¶™ ·™ Ñ™ Ò™ Ó™ Õ™ Ö™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdo $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö Ö™ ×™ ç™ è™ é™ ë™ ì™ S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdF $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö ì™ í™ š š š š š S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö š
š š š š š š S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdô $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö š !š 2š 3š 5š 7š 9š S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kdË $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö 9š :š Mš Nš Oš Qš Sš S G G G G G dð $If gdºl ¬ kd¢ $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö Sš Tš Uš uš ‘š ¿š Èš S N F A N A gd4H dð gdºl gd4H ¬ kdy $$If –l Ö Ör ”ÿod¤ ü$ „ W õ @ X Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö
l aö Uš Vš uš vš š ‘š ¿š Çš Èš К ך › y› {› ’› “› Oœ Qœ ¨œ ªœ íœ ïœ * , x z ² ´ ž ž dž kž sž xž ž žž Ÿž š¡ ›¡ a¢ v¢ ª¢ ¶¢ ôìåáÚÖÑÉÁÑÁÖ¹Ö¯Ö§Ö§ÖŸÖŸÖŸÖ—Ö—ÖÑÑÑÖ‡Ö|Öt h4H CJ aJ h$ h4H CJ aJ hˆ? h4H 5h#d h4H 5hJ&Z h4H H*hc3 h4H H*h=Zø h4H H*j h4H 0J UhI7Ž h4H H*hÐvZ h4H 5hÖ"§ h4H 5 h4H 5h4H h4H h4H hºl j ¡ðh4H hºl h4H 6 j iðhºl h4H 6 *Èš К Øš Üš çš ñš øš ýš › ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ›
› ì kdP $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö
› › › › 8› D› I› S› X› ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl X› Y› ì kd3 $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö Y› ]› g› j› x› |› }› „› Ž› ”› ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ”› •› ì kd $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö •› ™› £› ¦› ±› ½› Ä› Õ› Ù› ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl Ù› Ú› ì kdù $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö Ú› ß› é› ì› œ œ œ œ (œ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl (œ )œ ì kdÜ $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö )œ .œ 8œ ;œ Nœ Rœ Sœ Xœ bœ mœ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl mœ nœ ì kd¿ $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö nœ sœ }œ €œ ¦œ «œ ¬œ ±œ »œ Æœ Çœ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl
Çœ Èœ ì kd¢ $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö Èœ Íœ ל Úœ ëœ ðœ ñœ öœ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ì kd… $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ) - . 5 ? H S ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl
S T ì kdh! $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö T Y c f v { | ‹ – ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl – — ì kdK" $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö — › ¦ © ± µ ¶ » Ì Ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl Ð Ñ ì kd.# $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö Ñ Õ à á â ã ê û ÿ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ÿ ž ì kd$ $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ž ž ž ž ž @ž Ež Vž Zž ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl Zž [ž ì kdô$ $$If –l Ö Ö´ ”ÿ4™ F<\' þ# Ñ 0 e Ã Ë ×
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö [ž \ž ]ž ^ž _ž `ž až bž cž dž kž sž yž }ž ˆž ’ž ™ž žž Ÿž ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï à à à à à à à à $dð $If a$gdºl „ „ dð ^„ `„ gd4H Ÿž ž ¤ž % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kd×% $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ¤ž ªž ¬ž ¯ž Ëž Ξ Óž Ýž ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl Ýž Þž âž % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kd¤& $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö âž éž ëž îž Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl Ÿ Ÿ !Ÿ % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kdq' $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö !Ÿ (Ÿ *Ÿ -Ÿ >Ÿ FŸ MŸ _Ÿ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl _Ÿ `Ÿ eŸ % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kd>( $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö eŸ kŸ mŸ pŸ Ÿ ’Ÿ ™Ÿ ŸŸ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ŸŸ Ÿ ¥Ÿ % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kd ) $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ¥Ÿ «Ÿ Ÿ °Ÿ ÀŸ ÊŸ ÑŸ ÛŸ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ÛŸ ÜŸ ០% $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kdØ) $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö áŸ èŸ êŸ íŸ
ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kd¥* $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö # % + J M T ^ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ^ _ d % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kdr+ $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö d j l o y ˆ ’ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ’ “ ˜ % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kd?, $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ˜ Ÿ ¡ ¤ Ê Þ å ï ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ï ð ô % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kd - $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ô û þ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ .¡ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl .¡ /¡ 3¡ % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kdÙ- $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö 3¡ :¡ =¡ ?¡ A¡ C¡ H¡ Y¡ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl Y¡ Z¡ ^¡ % $dð $If a$gdºl Ù kd¦. $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ^¡ g¡ j¡ {¡ ~¡ …¡ ™¡ ð ð ð ð ð ð $dð $If a$gdºl ™¡ š¡ ›¡ % „ „ dð ^„ `„ gd4H Ù kds/ $$If –l Ö Öž ”ÿÆë
š8C ü$ 2 % ¤ ž ¹
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ›¡ ñ¡ ò¡ ¢ 8¢ M¢ S¢ T¢ ú î ß ß î Ì î $„Ôûdð $If ^„Ôûa$gdºl $dð $If a$gdºl dð $If gdºl gd4H T¢ U¢ V¢ \¢ a¢ 8 0 $ $ dð $If gdºl dð gd4H Æ kd@0 $$If –l Ö Öˆ ”ÿÀˆ È(4Ø6 „ ¨ È
@ @ Ð
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ öD76ö ö Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Ö ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö a¢ v¢ y¢ |¢ ¢ ƒ¢ †¢ Š¢ ¢ ¢ “¢ š¢ ¢ ¢¢ ¦¢ ª¢ ²¢ ·¢ ¸¢ ¼¢ ¿¢ â Ç¢ É¢ Ê¢ Ì¢ ΢ ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó î ó ß ß ß ß ß ß ß $dð $If a$gdºl Ffm3 dð $If gdºl ¶¢ ·¢ T¤ f¤ j¤ o¤ ~¤ €¤ ¤ Ž¤ ’¤ ˜¤ «¤ ¤ ¾¤ ¿¤ ä ̤ Ú¤ ú¤ ¥ 5¥ 8¥ D¥ O¥ P¥ r¥ ”¥ —¥ ¥ ª¥ ¬¥ °¥ º¥ Ç¥ È¥ Ë¥ Ô¥ 㥠§ § § j l m õñèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèÜèñÕñÑñ hºl hC'ü h4H h ¼ h4H 6CJ aJ h4H 6CJ aJ h4H hÐz% h4H CJ aJ ,΢ Т Ñ¢ Ò¢ Ô¢ Õ¢ Ö¢ ×¢ Ø¢ Ú¢ Þ¢ ߢ à¢ ã¢ å¢ ç¢ è¢ é¢ ê¢ ë¢ ì¢ î¢ ï¢ ð¢ ñ¢ ò¢ ó¢ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ë ß ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð dð $If gdºl Ff9 $dð $If a$gdºl ó¢ ô¢ õ¢ ö¢ ÷¢ ø¢ û¢ þ¢ £ £ £ £ £ £ £
£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ #£ ð ð ð ë ß ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð Ú ß ð FfjD dð $If gdºl Ff·> $dð $If a$gdºl #£ &£ )£ +£ -£ .£ /£ 0£ 2£ 3£ 5£ 6£ 7£ 8£ 9£ <£ @£ A£ B£ E£ I£ M£ N£ O£ P£ Q£ R£ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ë ß ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð dð $If gdºl FfJ $dð $If a$gdºl R£ S£ T£ U£ V£ W£ X£ Y£ [£ \£ ]£ ^£ a£ d£ g£ i£ j£ l£ m£ n£ p£ q£ r£ s£ u£ v£ w£ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ë ß ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð dð $If gdºl Ff´O $dð $If a$gdºl w£ z£ ~£ £ „£ ‡£ Š£ Œ£ Ž£ £ ‘£ ’£ “£ •£ –£ —£ ™£ ›£ £ ž£ ¡£ ¥£ ¦£ §£ ª£ £ ð ð ë ß ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð Ú ß ð ð Ff [ dð $If gdºl FfgU $dð $If a$gdºl £ °£ ²£ ³£ ´£ µ£ ·£ ¹£ º£ ¼£ ¾£ ¿£ À£ Á£ ã Ç£ È£ É£ Ì£ Ï£ Ñ£ Ò£ Ó£ Ô£ Õ£ Ö£ Ø£ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ë ß ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð dð $If gdºl Ff±` $dð $If a$gdºl Ø£ Ù£ Û£ Ü£ Þ£ ߣ à£ â£ æ£ ç£ ë£ ï£ ó£ ö£ ø£ ù£ ú£ ü£ ý£ ÿ£ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ë ß ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð dð $If gdºl Ffdf $dð $If a$gdºl ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ !¤ "¤ #¤ $¤ %¤ &¤ '¤ (¤ *¤ -¤ .¤ /¤ 3¤ 6¤ 9¤ ð ë ß ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð Ú ß ð ð ð Ff®q dð $If gdºl Ff l $dð $If a$gdºl 9¤ ;¤ <¤ =¤ ?¤ @¤ B¤ D¤ E¤ G¤ I¤ K¤ L¤ N¤ R¤ S¤ T¤ ¿¤ ¥ s¥ È¥ ä¥ å¥ E¦ § ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ë ã × × × × × × × × „ dð `„ gd4H dð gd4H FfSw $dð $If a$gdºl § § § ,§ V§ ½§ ¨ ‹¨ æ¨ © =© ]© Ñ© ª -ª .ª Wª œª õª S« ú ñ é Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü Ì ¿ ¿ ² ñ ¥ ¥ ¥
& F dð *$ gd4H
„hdð *$ ^„hgd4H
& F dð *$ gd4H „Є˜þdð ^„Ð`„˜þgd4H
& F dð *$ gd4H $ a$ gd4H „ `„ gd4H gd4H S« º« )¬ n¬ ¶¬ Ô¬ õ¬ g h i j k l m ò ò ò ò æ æ æ æ á á Ü Ú Ú á gd4H gd4H „ dð ^„ gd4H
& F dð *$ gd4H + 0&P 1h P °Ð/ °à=!° "° # $ %° $ &P 1h °Ð/ °à=!° "° # $ %° $ &P 1h °Ð/ °à=!° "° # $ %° $ &P 1h °Ð/ °à=!° "° # $ %° - &P 1h 0:pºl °à= °Ð/!° "° # $ %° 1h °Ð/ °à=!°"°# $ %° ½ $$If – !v h5Ö o5Ö°5Ö¦5Ö35Öp#v o#v°#v¦#v3#vp:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö K
5ÖL
4Ö ½ $$If – !v h5Ö o5Ö°5Ö¦5Ö35Öp#v o#v°#v¦#v3#vp:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö K
5ÖL
4Ö ½ $$If – !v h5Ö o5Ö°5Ö¦5Ö35Öp#v o#v°#v¦#v3#vp:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö K
5ÖL
4Ö ½ $$If – !v h5Ö o5Ö°5Ö¦5Ö35Öp#v o#v°#v¦#v3#vp:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö K
5ÖL
4Ö ½ $$If – !v h5Ö o5Ö°5Ö¦5Ö35Öp#v o#v°#v¦#v3#vp:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö K
5ÖL
4Ö ½ $$If – !v h5Ö o5Ö°5Ö¦5Ö35Öp#v o#v°#v¦#v3#vp:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö K
5ÖL
4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö Õ $$If – !v h5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX#v „#vW#võ#v@#vX:V –l Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö 5Ö „5ÖW5Öõ5Ö@5ÖX4Ö á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×á $$If – !v h5Ö p5Ö05Öe5Ö5Öö5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×#v p#v0#ve#v#vö#v #vË#v×:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö Ñ5Ö05Öe5Ö5ÖÃ5Ö 5ÖË5Ö×Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ë $$If – !v h5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹#v 2#v%#v¤#v #vž#v #v¹:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö 25Ö%5Ö¤5Ö 5Öž5Ö 5Ö¹Ú $$If – !v h5Ö „5Ö¨ 5ÖÈ
5Ö@ 5Ö@ 5ÖÐ#v „#v¨ #vÈ
#v@ #vÐ:V –l
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ öD76ö 5Ö „5Ö¨ 5ÖÈ
5Ö@ 5ÖÐO$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkd 1 $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 … … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö O$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ RkdÁ6 $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 … ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö O$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkdf< $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 …ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ]$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkd B $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 …ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö O$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkd¾G $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 … ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö O$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ RkdcM $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 …ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ]$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ RkdS $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 …ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö O$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkd»X $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 … ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö O$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkd`^ $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 …ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö ]$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkdd $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 …ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö O$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkd¸i $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 … ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö O$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkd]o $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 …ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö O$$If – !v h5Ö 5Ö…5Öä5Öª5Öm5Öm5ÖÍ5ÖM5Ö ½5Ö
š5Ö
«5Ö «5Ö
V5Ö
n5Ö5Öì5ÖŸ5ÖÓ#v #v…#vä#vª#vm#vÍ#vM#v ½#v
š#v
«#v
V#v
n#v#vì#vŸ#vÓ:V –l
t àö 6ö 5Ö …5Öä5Ö5Öq5ÖÏ5ÖQ5Ö ¿5Ö
5Ö
®5Ö
V5Ö
r5Ö5Öî5Ö¡5ÖÓ/Ö ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö
ÿ /Ö ÿ /Ö ÿ Rkdu $$If –l Ö Ö”ÿ#¨Œ 6 £Ý*ç, × -%›'®*š-90 3 …ÿÿÿÿ … ä q q Ï Q ¿ ® ® V r î ¡ Ó
t àÖ0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ö 6ö ö ÖHÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÖH ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ4Ö 4Ö
l aö œ J `ñÿ J 4H N o r m a l dà *$ CJ _HaJ mH sH tH J ` ò J 4H H e a d i n g 1 $$$@& a$ \^J aJ P ` ò P 4H H e a d i n g 2 $$$@&a$ 6\]^J aJ F ` ò F 4H H e a d i n g 3 $$@& 6\^J aJ J ` ò J 4H H e a d i n g 4 $$„Ð@&^„Ð
6\aJ L ` L 4H H e a d i n g 5 $$$@&a$
;\]aJ P ` P 4H H e a d i n g 9 $$$$*$ @&a$ ;^J aJ D A@òÿ¡ D D e f a u l t P a r a g r a p h F o n t R i@óÿ³ R T a b l e N o r m a l ö 4Ö
l 4Ö aö ( k@ôÿÁ ( N o L i s t 6 B` ò 6 4H B o d y T e x t
„Ð`„Ð T >` T 4H T i t l e $„ „ ¤€ @& ]„ ^„ a$ KH \^J aJ < þo < 4H A u t h o r L i s t $$a$ 6 þo "6 4H
A b s t r a c t T e x t L R` 2L 4H B o d y T e x t I n d e n t 2 „h¤x ^„h 4 ` B4 4H H e a d e r
Æ À!$ B d`¢ QB 4H
H T M L K e y b o a r d CJ OJ QJ aJ . )`¢ a. 4H P a g e N u m b e r @ þo @ 4H
T a b l e H e a d i n g $$ 6 : þo r: 4H T a b l e N u m b e r $$ @ þo ’@ 4H
R e f e r e n c e s „Є0ý^„Ð`„0ý 4 ` ¢4 4H F o o t e r
Æ àÀ! D C` ²D 4H B o d y T e x t I n d e n t
„Ð^„Ð 8 T` Â8 4H
B l o c k T e x t
„Ð^„Ð j š`³ Ój 4H
T a b l e G r i d 7 :V Ö0 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ H ` âH 4H
F o o t n o t e T e x t dð *$ CJ aJ @ &`¢ ñ@ 4H F o o t n o t e R e f e r e n c e H* ’“ m¥ 7 ^ 'v ›™ Ÿ m¥
˜ ÿÿÿÿ
-˜ ÿÿÿÿ
S˜ ÿÿÿÿ
y˜ ÿÿÿÿ
Ÿ˜ ÿÿÿÿ
Θ ÿÿÿÿ G H h … — ° Ï ä ü ý þ ÿ 7 @ [ \ ] ^ n ¡ m m º % H, Z, „2 G@ ?V ij ê{ û{ | ~ ߃ -ˆ 1Œ MŒ õŽ
ƒ’ ¡’ X— r— .š Ÿ ‹Ÿ Ƥ õ¤ . ÷³ ü³ )º „¾ À À âÁ ŠÈ ·É »É Í ýÒ >Ô BÔ àÕ .Ü AÞ Öß à læ væ Îí
ó °ö (ü Tþ bþ û ¥ ¶ ‡
Æ ¹ d s ¾ # À& Ë& ý& + ³2 l6 q9 ›9 ìA 2D L ŠN çY 5] e þn xr &v 'v 2v ßv ®w >x y úy #{ Ã{ L| } ´} ~ m~ Ê ]€ ³€ « ‚ •‚ "ƒ ¿ƒ “„ ÿ„ y… Ö… І Œ‡ ò‡ Jˆ ‰ ¤‰ UŠ ÏŠ M‹ ¿‹ Œ Œ Œ ‘Œ ’Œ “Œ ”Œ •Œ –Œ —Œ ˜Œ ¼Œ ½Œ ¾Œ ¿Œ ÄŒ ÉŒ ÍŒ ÑŒ ÒŒ êŒ * + : s ‰ ¶ Ë Ì Í Î Ý é ø Ž
Ž Ž Ž Ž 1Ž OŽ aŽ sŽ tŽ uŽ vŽ ‡Ž ‘Ž œŽ °Ž ¿Ž ÉŽ ÛŽ ïŽ þŽ 5 F U x y z ® ³ ¸ ¼ À Á Ï Ñ Ó Õ × Ø ç é ë í ï ð A W o p ‚ „ † ˆ ‰ ‘ ’ ” – ˜ ™ ¥ ¦ ¨ ª ¬ » ¼ ¾ À Â Ã Ô Õ Ö Ø Ú Û ç è é ë í î ö ÷ ø ú ü ý ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ !‘ #‘ $‘ 7‘ 8‘ :‘ ;‘ =‘ >‘ K‘ L‘ N‘ P‘ R‘ S‘ c‘ d‘ f‘ h‘ i‘ j‘ n‘ p‘ r‘ s‘ t‘ u‘ ˆ‘ ‰‘ Š‘ ‹‘ ‘ Ž‘ ‘ ž‘ ‘ ¡‘ ¢‘ £‘ ±‘ ²‘ ´‘ µ‘ ¶‘ ·‘ Ñ‘ Ò‘ Ó‘ Õ‘ Ö‘ ב ç‘ è‘ é‘ ë‘ ì‘ í‘ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ !’ 2’ 3’ 5’ 7’ 9’ :’ M’ N’ O’ Q’ S’ T’ U’ u’ ‘’ ¿’ È’ Ð’ Ø’ Ü’ ç’ ñ’ ø’ ý’ “
“ “ “ “ 8“ D“ I“ S“ X“ Y“ ]“ g“ j“ x“ |“ }“ „“ Ž“ ”“ •“ ™“ £“ ¦“ ±“ ½“ Ä“ Õ“ Ù“ Ú“ ß“ é“ ì“ ” ” ” ” (” )” .” 8” ;” N” R” S” X” b” m” n” s” }” €” ¦” «” ¬” ±” »” Æ” Ç” È” Í” ×” Ú” ë” ð” ñ” ö” • • • • • • )• -• .• 5• ?• H• S• T• Y• c• f• v• {• |• • ‹• –• —• ›• ¦• ©• ±• µ• ¶• »• Ì• Е Ñ• Õ• à• á• â• ã• ê• û• ÿ• – – – – – @– E– V– Z– [– \– ]– ^– _– `– a– b– c– d– k– s– y– }– ˆ– ’– ™– ž– Ÿ– – ¤– ª– ¬– ¯– Ë– Ζ Ó– Ý– Þ– â– é– ë– î– — — — — — !— (— *— -— >— F— M— _— `— e— k— m— p— — ’— ™— Ÿ— — ¥— «— — °— À— Ê— Ñ— Û— Ü— á— è— ê— í— ˜ ˜
˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ #˜ %˜ +˜ J˜ M˜ T˜ ^˜ _˜ d˜ j˜ l˜ o˜ y˜ ˜ ˆ˜ ’˜ “˜ ˜˜ Ÿ˜ ¡˜ ¤˜ ʘ Þ˜ å˜ ï˜ ð˜ ô˜ û˜ þ˜ ™ ™ ™ ™ .™ /™ 3™ :™ =™ ?™ A™ C™ H™ Y™ Z™ ^™ g™ j™ {™ ~™ …™ ™™ š™ ›™ ñ™ ò™ š 8š Mš Sš Tš Uš Vš \š aš vš yš |š š ƒš †š Šš š š “š šš š ¢š ¦š ªš ²š ·š ¸š ¼š ¿š Ú Çš Éš Êš Ìš Κ К Ñš Òš Ôš Õš Öš ך Øš Úš Þš ßš àš ãš åš çš èš éš êš ëš ìš îš ïš ðš ñš òš óš ôš õš öš ÷š øš ûš þš › › › › › › ›
› › › › › › › › › › #› &› )› +› -› .› /› 0› 2› 3› 5› 6› 7› 8› 9› <› @› A› B› E› I› M› N› O› P› Q› R› S› T› U› V› W› X› Y› [› \› ]› ^› a› d› g› i› j› l› m› n› p› q› r› s› u› v› w› z› ~› › „› ‡› Š› Œ› Ž› › ‘› ’› “› •› –› —› ™› ›› › ž› ¡› ¥› ¦› §› ª› › °› ²› ³› ´› µ› ·› ¹› º› ¼› ¾› ¿› À› Á› Û Ç› È› É› Ì› Ï› Ñ› Ò› Ó› Ô› Õ› Ö› Ø› Ù› Û› Ü› Þ› ß› à› â› æ› ç› ë› ï› ó› ö› ø› ù› ú› ü› ý› ÿ› œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ !œ "œ #œ $œ %œ &œ 'œ (œ *œ -œ .œ /œ 3œ 6œ 9œ ;œ <œ =œ ?œ @œ Bœ Dœ Eœ Gœ Iœ Kœ Lœ Nœ Rœ Sœ Tœ ¿œ s È ä å Ež Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ,Ÿ VŸ ½Ÿ ‹ æ ¡ =¡ ]¡ Ñ¡ ¢ -¢ .¢ W¢ œ¢ õ¢ S£ º£ )¤ n¤ ¶¤ Ô¤ õ¤ ¥ g¥ h¥ i¥ j¥ k¥ n¥ 0 € € € 0 € € € ˜ 0 €G € ˜ 0 €G ˜ 0 €G ˜ 0 €G ˜ 0 €G ˜ 0 €G ˜ 0 €G ˜ 0 €G ˜ 0 €G ˜ 0 €G ˜ 0 €G 0 € € ˜ 0 €7 ˜ 0 €7 ˜ 0 €7 0 € € 0 € € 0 € € ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n ˜ 0 €n 0 € € ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v ˜ 0 € € ˜ 0 € € ˜ 0 € € € ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v © 0 €'v ™ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v ˜ 0 €'v 0 € € ˜ 0 €Éž ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž ˜ 0 €Éž ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜ 0 €Éž € ˜@ 0 €© €˜@ 0 €© ˜@ 0 €© €˜@ 0 €© ˜@ 0 €© €˜ 0 € € ˜@ !0 € € € 0 ; }<0 à › G H h … — ° Ï ä ü ý þ ÿ 7 @ [ \ ] ^ n ¡ m m º % H, Z, „2 G@ ?V ij ê{ û{ | ~ ߃ -ˆ 1Œ MŒ õŽ
ƒ’ ¡’ X— r— .š Ÿ ‹Ÿ Ƥ õ¤ . ÷³ ü³ )º „¾ À À âÁ ŠÈ ·É »É Í ýÒ >Ô BÔ àÕ .Ü AÞ Öß à læ væ Îí
ó °ö (ü Tþ bþ û ¥ ¶ ‡
Æ ¹ d s ¾ # À& Ë& ý& + ³2 l6 q9 ›9 ìA 2D L ŠN çY 5] e þn xr &v 'v 2v ßv ®w >x y úy #{ Ã{ L| } ´} ~ m~ Ê ]€ ³€ « ‚ •‚ "ƒ ¿ƒ “„ ÿ„ y… Ö… І Œ‡ ò‡ Jˆ ‰ ¤‰ UŠ ÏŠ M‹ ¿‹ Œ Œ Œ ‘Œ ’Œ “Œ ”Œ •Œ –Œ —Œ ˜Œ ¼Œ ½Œ ¾Œ ¿Œ ÄŒ ÉŒ ÍŒ ÑŒ ÒŒ êŒ * + : s ‰ ¶ Ë Ì Í Î Ý é ø Ž
Ž Ž Ž Ž 1Ž OŽ aŽ sŽ tŽ uŽ vŽ ‡Ž ‘Ž œŽ °Ž ¿Ž ÉŽ ÛŽ ïŽ þŽ 5 F U x y z ® ³ ¸ ¼ À Á Ï Ñ Ó Õ × Ø ç é ë í ï ð A W o p ‚ „ † ˆ ‰ ‘ ’ ” – ˜ ™ ¥ ¦ ¨ ª ¬ » ¼ ¾ À Â Ã Ô Õ Ö Ø Ú Û ç è é ë í î ö ÷ ø ú ü ý ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ !‘ #‘ $‘ 7‘ 8‘ :‘ ;‘ =‘ >‘ K‘ L‘ N‘ P‘ R‘ S‘ c‘ d‘ f‘ h‘ i‘ j‘ n‘ p‘ r‘ s‘ t‘ u‘ ˆ‘ ‰‘ Š‘ ‹‘ ‘ Ž‘ ‘ ž‘ ‘ ¡‘ ¢‘ £‘ ±‘ ²‘ ´‘ µ‘ ¶‘ ·‘ Ñ‘ Ò‘ Ó‘ Õ‘ Ö‘ ב ç‘ è‘ é‘ ë‘ ì‘ í‘ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ !’ 2’ 3’ 5’ 7’ 9’ :’ M’ N’ O’ Q’ S’ T’ ‘’ ¿’ È’ Ð’ Ø’ Ü’ ç’ ñ’ ø’ ý’ “
“ “ “ “ 8“ D“ I“ S“ X“ Y“ ]“ g“ j“ x“ |“ }“ „“ Ž“ ”“ •“ ™“ £“ ¦“ ±“ ½“ Ä“ Õ“ Ù“ Ú“ ß“ é“ ì“ ” ” ” ” (” )” .” 8” ;” N” R” S” X” b” m” n” s” }” €” ¦” «” ¬” ±” »” Æ” Ç” È” Í” ×” Ú” ë” ð” ñ” ö” • • • • • • )• -• .• 5• ?• H• S• T• Y• c• f• v• {• |• • ‹• –• —• ›• ¦• ©• ±• µ• ¶• »• Ì• Е Ñ• Õ• à• á• â• ã• ê• û• ÿ• – – – – – @– E– V– Z– [– \– ]– ^– _– `– a– b– c– d– k– s– y– }– ˆ– ’– ™– ž– Ÿ– – ¤– ª– ¬– ¯– Ë– Ζ Ó– Ý– Þ– â– é– ë– î– — — — — — !— (— *— -— >— F— M— _— `— e— k— m— p— — ’— ™— Ÿ— — ¥— «— — °— À— Ê— Ñ— Û— Ü— á— è— ê— í— ˜ ˜
˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ #˜ %˜ +˜ J˜ M˜ T˜ ^˜ _˜ d˜ j˜ l˜ o˜ y˜ ˜ ˆ˜ ’˜ “˜ ˜˜ Ÿ˜ ¡˜ ¤˜ ʘ Þ˜ å˜ ï˜ ð˜ ô˜ û˜ þ˜ ™ ™ ™ ™ .™ /™ 3™ :™ =™ ?™ A™ C™ H™ Y™ Z™ ^™ g™ j™ {™ ~™ …™ ™™ š™ ›™ ñ™ ò™ š 8š Mš Sš Tš Uš Vš \š aš vš yš |š š ƒš †š Šš š š “š šš š ¢š ¦š ªš ²š ·š ¸š ¼š ¿š Ú Çš Éš Êš Ìš Κ К Ñš Òš Ôš Õš Öš ך Øš Úš Þš ßš àš ãš åš çš èš éš êš ëš ìš îš ïš ðš ñš òš óš ôš õš öš ÷š øš ûš þš › › › › › › ›
› › › › › › › › › › #› &› )› +› -› .› /› 0› 2› 3› 5› 6› 7› 8› 9› <› @› A› B› E› I› M› N› O› P› Q› R› S› T› U› V› W› X› Y› [› \› ]› ^› a› d› g› i› j› l› m› n› p› q› r› s› u› v› w› z› ~› › „› ‡› Š› Œ› Ž› › ‘› ’› “› •› –› —› ™› ›› › ž› ¡› ¥› ¦› §› ª› › °› ²› ³› ´› µ› ·› ¹› º› ¼› ¾› ¿› À› Á› Û Ç› È› É› Ì› Ï› Ñ› Ò› Ó› Ô› Õ› Ö› Ø› Ù› Û› Ü› Þ› ß› à› â› æ› ç› ë› ï› ó› ö› ø› ù› ú› ü› ý› ÿ› œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ !œ "œ #œ $œ %œ &œ 'œ (œ *œ -œ .œ /œ 3œ 6œ 9œ ;œ <œ =œ ?œ @œ Bœ Dœ Eœ Gœ Iœ Kœ Lœ Nœ Rœ Sœ Tœ ¿œ s È ä å Ež Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ,Ÿ VŸ ½Ÿ ‹ æ ¡ =¡ ]¡ Ñ¡ ¢ -¢ .¢ W¢ œ¢ õ¢ S£ º£ )¤ n¤ ¶¤ Ô¤ õ¤ ¥ g¥ h¥ n¥
@ 0 € € €
@ 0 € € €š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€š@ 0 €Á
€
@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € €
@ 0 € € €
@ 0 € €
@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € Ø ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € Ø ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € Ø ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € Ø ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € Ø ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € Ø ’@ 0 € € ’@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € €’@ 0 € € €’@ 0 € € š@ 0 €¯ €
@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € €š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ š@ 0 € € €š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € Ø «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ š@ 0 € € €š@ 0 € € €š@ 0 € € Ø «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € £@ 0 € € X £@ 0 € € X £@ 0 € € X £@ 0 € € X £@ 0 € € X £@ 0 € € X £@ 0 € € X £@ 0 € € X “@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ š@ 0 €I~ €š@ 0 € € «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ š@ 0 € € €«@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X «@ 0 € € X ›@ 0 € € \ š@ 0 € € €š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 €I~ €
@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € € š@ 0 € €
0 › # ä1ý Y4 êƒ Ä À. …‚ V– ©˜ Uš ¶¢ m × Û Ü Þ à â é ó @ ¡ .¢ Îõ T ‰ ”” Ñ” *• Í• – u– Û– y— À— ×— ï— o˜ ˆ˜ ˜˜ ¬˜ ˜ Ú˜ í˜ ü˜ ™ #™ =™ R™ i™ t™ ™ ¢™ ¶™ Ö™ ì™ š š 9š Sš Èš ›
› X› Y› ”› •› Ù› Ú› (œ )œ mœ nœ Çœ Èœ S T – — Ð Ñ ÿ ž Zž [ž Ÿž ¤ž Ýž âž Ÿ !Ÿ _Ÿ eŸ ŸŸ ¥Ÿ ÛŸ ០^ d ’ ˜ ï ô .¡ 3¡ Y¡ ^¡ ™¡ ›¡ T¢ a¢ ΢ ó¢ #£ R£ w£ £ Ø£ ¤ 9¤ § S« m Ø Ú Ý ß á ã ä å æ ç è ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? A B C D E F G H I J K l Ù a N ] ¼ k ‡ | +" G" a, ã- ê- ². «0 ²0 &3 Õ= U> ¢@ ¥E ÆE SF K ØK ^L 6P bP ®Q U 8U W ža óa b ¸d Íd -f Hh ]h j @m Gm o t Jt Ât Àv Çv Ów z z £ %Ÿ >Ÿ ¤® J± `± è¶ µ¸ ø ï Ûð öð nD aF |F lH _J zJ Q FW qW ‚e Jh oh …i k 8k ãl Án än 2v Ev Œ m¥ Qÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•ŒQÿ•Œÿÿ 2 N Ds 3 N ¬ 4 N D>s 5 N dSo 6 N „s 7 N „o 8 N $So 9 N äRo : N p ; N Dp < N „p = N Ô®! > N ¯! ? N T¯! @ N |" A N ü" B N ×p C N Dlp D N Älp E N „lp F N L" G N $B" H H N U ] h h q … … — — ¦ ª Æw Æw þŽ þŽ 5• — — Ç— n¥
M T \ g g p w w – – ¤ ¨ ¯ ¯ Êw Êw >• Å— É— É— n¥
> *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
€PostalCode €9
*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€State €h *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City0€http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags:
*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€Street €; *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€address €= *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType €= *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName €V *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place €http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/
X _ º Å Z, `, ¨. ±. 1> 5> F> N> §E ®E ¶E ¿E K ¤K §K K ¯K ²K µK ½K ÉK ÑK 8P AP IP PP SP [P wP ƒP U U U &U )U 1U §a ®a Óa ×a ßa äa t %t -t 4t ºt Át ”z z +~ 6~ ð ù Õ‚ Þ‚ 4 A ¼ ¼ Ê Ê ®ß ³ß Ýð ãð æð ïð cF lF oF uF aJ jJ mJ sJ UW ]W ^h hh 'k 1k Ìn Ón ên ôn Fv Lv Tv ]v êv ñv »w Âw õw ûw x x z $z { { #{ *{ ü{ | L| S| ^| d| j| m| m~ v~ ~~ „~ & @ H ]€ c€ ¦€ ¬€ « ¯ ‚ ‚ •‚ œ‚ "ƒ )ƒ ¢„ ¬„ ò„ ø„ І Ù† ¨‡ ‡ ò‡ ö‡ "‰ *‰ ÏŠ ÔŠ M‹ R‹ ¿‹ Æ‹ ΋ Ö‹ D O Û Þ u‘ {‘ €‘ ‡‘ F’ K’ &“ *“ Vš Zš i¥ n¥ V ^ V# ¬# Ú% Ý% ÿ*
+ € *€ É‹ ׋ ݨ ߨ ±Ä ¹Ä ÁÖ ÊÖ Ù Ù 1Ù 5Ù ¤ò ®ò ü &ü / 6 æ é ·" ½" Ü& ã& ØK èK Fv iv ßv w ‚w w ®w Üw >x qx æx y 3y ‘y úy 0z Jz jz lz ºz ¼z { :{ Š{ ‹{ Â{ Ã{ Ø{ Ù{ | L| p| | ‰| Š} ³} ~ 9~ :~ [~ m~ ~ ‘~ Ë~ Ì~ W É Ê ä #€ \€ s€ –€ ä ‚ (‚ b‚ •‚ ¨‚ 6ƒ zƒ ¿ƒ ݃ “„ ¸„ ÿ„ … y… Š… ;‡ ‹‡ Œ‡ ¥‡ ¨‡ ³‡ Jˆ nˆ oˆ –ˆ —ˆ þˆ ‰ 6‰ b‰ £‰ ¶‰ !Š ⊠+‹ ,‹ L‹ “‹ ¾‹ ¿‹ å‹ CŒ ŒŒ i¥ n¥ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 h¥ n¥ i¥ n¥ ÿÿ G r a d u a t e S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n €ÿÿÿÂ#/È ¾Œ ¿Œ ÄŒ ÉŒ ÍŒ ÑŒ ÒŒ êŒ * + : s ‰ ¶ Í Î Ý é ø Ž Ž Ž Ž 1Ž OŽ aŽ uŽ vŽ ‘Ž °Ž ïŽ F x y ® ³ ¸ ¼ À Á Ï Ñ Ó Õ × Ø ç é ë í ï ð A W o p ‚ „ † ˆ ‰ ‘ ’ ” – ˜ ™ ¥ ¦ ¨ ª ¬ » ¼ ¾ À Â Ã Ô Õ Ö Ø Ú Û ç è é ë í î ö ÷ ø ú ü ý ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ !‘ #‘ $‘ 7‘ 8‘ :‘ ;‘ =‘ >‘ K‘ L‘ N‘ P‘ R‘ S‘ c‘ d‘ f‘ h‘ i‘ j‘ n‘ p‘ r‘ s‘ t‘ u‘ ˆ‘ ‰‘ Š‘ ‹‘ ‘ Ž‘ ‘ ž‘ ‘ ¡‘ ¢‘ £‘ ±‘ ²‘ ´‘ µ‘ ¶‘ ·‘ Ñ‘ Ò‘ Ó‘ Õ‘ Ö‘ ב ç‘ è‘ é‘ ë‘ ì‘ í‘ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ !’ 2’ 3’ 5’ 7’ 9’ :’ M’ N’ O’ Q’ S’ T’ È’ Ð’ Ø’ Ü’ ç’ ñ’ ø’ ý’ “
“ “ “ “ 8“ D“ I“ S“ X“ Y“ ]“ g“ j“ x“ }“ „“ Ž“ ”“ •“ ™“ £“ ¦“ ±“ ½“ Ä“ Õ“ Ù“ Ú“ ß“ é“ ì“ ” ” ” ” (” )” .” 8” ;” N” S” X” b” m” n” s” }” €” ¦” ¬” ±” »” Ç” È” Í” ×” Ú” ë” ñ” ö” • • • • • • )• .• 5• H• S• T• Y• c• f• v• |• • ‹• –• —• ›• ¦• ©• ±• ¶• »• Ì• Е Ñ• Õ• à• á• â• ã• ê• û• ÿ• – – – – – @– E– V– Z– [– k– s– y– }– ˆ– ’– ™– Ÿ– – ¤– ¬– ¯– Ë– Ζ Ó– Ý– Þ– â– ë– î– — — — — — !— *— -— >— F— M— _— `— e— m— p— — ’— ™— Ÿ— — ¥— — °— À— Ê— Ñ— Û— Ü— á— ê— í— ˜ ˜
˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ %˜ +˜ J˜ M˜ T˜ ^˜ _˜ d˜ l˜ o˜ y˜ ˜ ˆ˜ ’˜ “˜ ˜˜ ¡˜ ¤˜ ʘ Þ˜ å˜ ï˜ ð˜ ô˜ þ˜ ™ ™ ™ ™ .™ /™ 3™ =™ ?™ A™ C™ H™ Y™ Z™ ^™ g™ j™ {™ ~™ …™ ™™ š™ ñ™ ò™ š 8š Mš Sš Tš Uš Vš \š aš vš yš |š š ƒš †š Šš š š “š šš š ¢š ¦š ªš ·š ¸š ¼š ¿š Ú Çš Éš Êš Ìš Κ К Ñš Òš Ôš Õš Öš ך Øš Úš Þš ßš àš ãš åš çš èš éš êš ëš ìš îš ïš ðš ñš òš óš ôš õš öš ÷š øš ûš þš › › › › › › ›
› › › › › › › › › › #› &› )› +› -› .› /› 0› 2› 3› 5› 6› 7› 8› 9› <› @› A› B› E› I› M› N› O› P› Q› R› S› T› U› V› W› X› Y› [› \› ]› ^› a› d› g› i› j› l› m› n› p› q› r› s› u› v› w› z› ~› › „› ‡› Š› Œ› Ž› › ‘› ’› “› •› –› —› ™› ›› › ž› ¡› ¥› ¦› §› ª› › °› ²› ³› ´› µ› ·› ¹› º› ¼› ¾› ¿› À› Á› Û Ç› È› É› Ì› Ï› Ñ› Ò› Ó› Ô› Õ› Ö› Ø› Ù› Û› Ü› Þ› ß› à› â› æ› ç› ë› ï› ó› ö› ø› ù› ú› ü› ý› ÿ› œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ !œ "œ #œ $œ %œ &œ 'œ (œ *œ -œ .œ /œ 3œ 6œ 9œ ;œ <œ =œ ?œ @œ Bœ Dœ Eœ Gœ Iœ Kœ Lœ Nœ Rœ Sœ n¥ ž ž ž ž ž – ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž – ÿ@€ ]’ ]’ ôÜ… ]’ ]’ m¥ @ ÿÿ U n k n o w n ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ G ‡z € ÿ T i m e s N e w R o m a n 5 € S y m b o l 3& ‡z € ÿ A r i a l 7ô € M a r l e t t ; € W i n g d i n g s ?5 ‡z € ÿ C o u r i e r N e w " qˆ ðÐ h yR›†R›† å> „f × ü å> „f × ü ! ð ´ ´ 4 ’¤ ’¤ 3ƒq ð H ðÿ ? ä ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿô"d ÿÿ F L e s s m a y b e m o r e : R e t h i n k i n g a d u l t l i t e r a c y v o l u n t e e r t u t o r t r a i n i n g G r a d u a t e S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n G r a d u a t e S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n $ þÿ à…ŸòùOh«‘ +'³Ù0 Ü ˜ è ô ( 4 H p |
˜ ¤
° ¼ Ä Ì Ô ä G Less may be more: Rethinking adult literacy volunteer tutor training u ess Graduate School of Education ad rad rad Normal.dot h Graduate School of Education ad 1 ad Microsoft Word 10.0 @ ÒIk @ †¦ æÅ@ ž³æÅ å> „f þÿ ÕÍÕœ.“— +,ù®0 @ h p Œ ” œ ¤ ¬ ´ ¼ Ä
Ì ä Rutgers University ü × ’¤ {
G Less may be more: Rethinking adult literacy volunteer tutor training Title
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ € ‚ ƒ „ … † ‡ ˆ ‰ Š ‹ Œ Ž ‘ ’ “ ” • – — ˜ ™ š › œ ž Ÿ ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L þÿÿÿN O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ € ‚ ƒ „ … † ‡ ˆ ‰ Š þÿÿÿŒ Ž ‘ ’ “ ” • – — ˜ ™ š › œ ž Ÿ ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ
þÿÿÿ" # $ % & ' ( þÿÿÿ* + , - . / 0 þÿÿÿýÿÿÿýÿÿÿýÿÿÿýÿÿÿýÿÿÿ7 þÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿR o o t E n t r y ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ À F €:”æÅ9 € D a t a
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ M §z 1 T a b l e ÿÿÿÿ ‹ 7* W o r d D o c u m e n t ÿÿÿÿ ð˜ S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n ( ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ! D o c u m e n t S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n 8 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ) C o m p O b j ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ j ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ þÿ
ÿÿÿÿ À F Microsoft Word Document
MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 ô9²q