<%BANNER%>

An Exploration of Preservice Teachers' Experiences in an Online Writing Partnership

Baldwin Library of Historical Literature for Children at the University of Florida National Endowment for the Humanities ICDL CCLC UFSPEC
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021956/00001

Material Information

Title: An Exploration of Preservice Teachers' Experiences in an Online Writing Partnership
Physical Description: 1 online resource (245 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: online, practicum, preservice, teaching, writing
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of four preservice teachers and one practicing teacher in an Online Writing Partnership with high-school students dual-enrolled in a community college, and to examine what these experiences revealed about preservice teachers? beliefs about teaching, writing instruction, and the use of technology for instructional purposes. The following questions guided this study: 1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the teaching profession have in a distance, online partnership with secondary writers? 2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers? views of teaching and specifically teaching writing? 3. What influences on the partnership or on the participants appear to exist from experience with and attitude toward technology? In what way did these attitudes affect the partnership/participants? 4. What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership? For the study, the researcher conducted extensive interviews (both formal and informal), collected documentary data from both the graduate students and their high-school partners, and kept a detailed research journal. The questions of the study are addressed in the results and presented as individual case studies of the five participants; an across-case analysis addresses the questions again, using the contextual threads identified by the participants for question four of the study as a lens for further examination. Each of the five graduate students experienced the Online Writing Partnership in ways that reflected their individual experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about online technologies, education in general, and writing instruction in particular. Each individual case was unique; however, there were significant similarities across cases, providing for a view of context from which all participants can draw in creating and interpreting meaning. Looking at the individual cases collectively, those aspects of context deemed salient by the participants of the Online Writing Partnership were: their perception of social presence between partners, their understanding of the relationships between teachers and students, their sense of the role and authority of a teacher, and their preconceived expectations of classrooms processes.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Townsend, Jane S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021956:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021956/00001

Material Information

Title: An Exploration of Preservice Teachers' Experiences in an Online Writing Partnership
Physical Description: 1 online resource (245 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: online, practicum, preservice, teaching, writing
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of four preservice teachers and one practicing teacher in an Online Writing Partnership with high-school students dual-enrolled in a community college, and to examine what these experiences revealed about preservice teachers? beliefs about teaching, writing instruction, and the use of technology for instructional purposes. The following questions guided this study: 1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the teaching profession have in a distance, online partnership with secondary writers? 2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers? views of teaching and specifically teaching writing? 3. What influences on the partnership or on the participants appear to exist from experience with and attitude toward technology? In what way did these attitudes affect the partnership/participants? 4. What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership? For the study, the researcher conducted extensive interviews (both formal and informal), collected documentary data from both the graduate students and their high-school partners, and kept a detailed research journal. The questions of the study are addressed in the results and presented as individual case studies of the five participants; an across-case analysis addresses the questions again, using the contextual threads identified by the participants for question four of the study as a lens for further examination. Each of the five graduate students experienced the Online Writing Partnership in ways that reflected their individual experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about online technologies, education in general, and writing instruction in particular. Each individual case was unique; however, there were significant similarities across cases, providing for a view of context from which all participants can draw in creating and interpreting meaning. Looking at the individual cases collectively, those aspects of context deemed salient by the participants of the Online Writing Partnership were: their perception of social presence between partners, their understanding of the relationships between teachers and students, their sense of the role and authority of a teacher, and their preconceived expectations of classrooms processes.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Townsend, Jane S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021956:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110217_AAAAAG INGEST_TIME 2011-02-17T07:21:52Z PACKAGE UFE0021956_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 8680 DFID F20110217_AAAGJO ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_129thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
016f79aea53deaaffd14b32b29e6c45c
SHA-1
01a3962ebdad99849ed60822c47a468ff4ddddf0
2107 F20110217_AAAHGH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_189.txt
225ead9ce89a790bccd4d163284f8ba6
cdd80a268f1c21e96e698d98fb53fab15cc1441f
2196 F20110217_AAAGWZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_085.txt
a08c18bf397e343da9c485d2add30097
e4c5a7a445de2b0ea199d469d1e3b6517b8b5f0c
1948 F20110217_AAAHTS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_010thm.jpg
dd8ab8eb61faf4dca7f7958eb54f4cbf
644a9a3edbfd952bbce0db9ff0ae7d7f5b5332a8
33816 F20110217_AAAFMU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_022.QC.jpg
bc3cabf1d56b005444a17a8da9df809d
b9edb0c906eb95313c6bf72a1bcb5c01d5714e24
2008 F20110217_AAAGJP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_094.txt
59d2fcd68bd708d91c427226ca0809ba
f9cd3cc8bad10fa06bf75f7946c7c4c9ff786bca
2052 F20110217_AAAHGI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_194.txt
616dd253b1af598d7f90812ef7c634bc
c30e5a532ba46cfd6f5f98ae9e4de24d07a910ce
3589 F20110217_AAAHTT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_011thm.jpg
01b32a175213dd75e2a979e96f003b21
9e061154aa299daf21fefb110beb31c5ecf73cbd
127020 F20110217_AAAFMV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_112.jp2
767fe1086edbfe1a4205bf525ec91692
d8629160663c776879bbbe70e05eb6a00f597f7e
2021 F20110217_AAAHGJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_202.txt
d6371b2e87c7468fb60689ae41dc1b04
dd3f25ca4808c538a4c488bea66b293445f0b924
6767 F20110217_AAAHTU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_019thm.jpg
d5b5ec6583c80de953d21213a43638c8
078f92d9c9091698efdd16fe9f2717ec2c72dbb7
107946 F20110217_AAAFMW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_021.jp2
d4fba7ce954bdca6fe3821c174bb5458
a089939231b4f843f5c54bf98edd5635af9cf096
109055 F20110217_AAAGJQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_156.jpg
fa12b04060db6b64424257e666bcbc97
475c67a9e794c41a9cf1969a54bf22c0ca9df2b6
2057 F20110217_AAAHGK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_203.txt
9f80291c8babba1d83c6665ee49fd6dc
2a5dafe84316de0a30e497f5cf2b14891aa86c68
8279 F20110217_AAAHTV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_020thm.jpg
59e275634ddb53a9fb2902242cb323eb
91bfb30b435a10322930690908e1af8d3374a1b7
1970 F20110217_AAAFMX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_046.txt
9618192b6a9a4f5aa772b94fe0e22554
ff3ab5a4b6f94d3c5f8f1de7ab2e8d49780f0d75
103914 F20110217_AAAGJR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_196.jpg
217f7fdef32bff1cd2a161a369915b80
811810293275460cf39b733f1e4e40a33e648964
2013 F20110217_AAAHGL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_207.txt
664a349533ad46a401961c92f29eca17
5f428ae6938a3a32384503f08b9ac9eaa0863b52
8474 F20110217_AAAHTW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_022thm.jpg
995a151ac1096b00f841265a28ad0f31
94a34b633e962b815741764b79331e9d44fe148d
7814 F20110217_AAAFMY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_056thm.jpg
caee61ca4bdff0676b0d9c29e6d1b982
8b2eba71209cd404bc5c2708c0a5ab570033262d
30347 F20110217_AAAGJS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_125.QC.jpg
9c8070c31bbead6e4878c0f82841a145
aeacdcfa74c18dca680b4fad20f5a943e823fe45
8323 F20110217_AAAHTX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_033thm.jpg
95638bf19ffd29bb4b3a9b4024aa7a12
dec63f085f53206dfa7870f33ca5920f162d3b29
123336 F20110217_AAAFMZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_103.jp2
81864be81e471a8ed31a79d1deba8d4e
c7e2ed6d5fef3be1799eea6af006dc22fd2cdc04
1925 F20110217_AAAGJT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_060.txt
d6acd7a83142e1b9b190146df737b385
d4d2db290401685c24ad5056522104ec64cfe389
2081 F20110217_AAAHGM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_209.txt
4fc68fc5e31744e902050409e8b99774
4692c22e55a9228a40d3001407cc9960abe2d1ce
8398 F20110217_AAAHTY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_037thm.jpg
6710883ddf88ff92a03b66b96f28ac9e
616e75d7773b518305364223e7c83657cafd56e3
8047 F20110217_AAAGJU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_211thm.jpg
21a600d7e9a298d32b31f228c537087a
5c92483d7f7a7b12a9a5ac9bba9cfe6275233b76
2090 F20110217_AAAHGN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_214.txt
6e1790be903495c54e128f2700125bd4
150d5da76dc2e8bdc186f43c38432bc1f72710bc
1053954 F20110217_AAAGJV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_157.tif
78ea535789d4361e17231835edef586c
91022b8160504f22504473a3ae56bd5b6f72c7af
1975 F20110217_AAAHGO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_215.txt
f9bc85d845ca30fdfae7ac04ae415edb
b65f91889367525762f2e979ce26b4697616194a
8156 F20110217_AAAHTZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_039thm.jpg
118e8b36ffd18de3dd2ab3e9c0088065
001dd3edf0774d35ef1b7e28582c8fa316e1006c
2030 F20110217_AAAGJW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_049.txt
45ba8b6655caaf099df1c92f4ac808a3
c4b51533f67ff8ded47bce7615360910ac25470f
2171 F20110217_AAAHGP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_217.txt
2a33f3bd718fe5823c948a667f3a0d56
deb9277ead18768faf4822d92869707b92601bbc
36178 F20110217_AAAGJX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_235.QC.jpg
353b2e7fbc3480ff28bc6ba4daa98f34
2db526ad50669f47d6b3453d8d11469906c4388c
2009 F20110217_AAAHGQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_219.txt
9bfd2e63ad0d611ee29e1655b341baaf
fc7c3d48f3d9f10172637a9c51e00437c32c922f
116696 F20110217_AAAGJY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_156.jp2
4a8e80dcf01ead8c07e87dc739d22fdc
350859ad64ae9297b585ed8c39cb41be2591a6a3
1950 F20110217_AAAHGR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_222.txt
2b6ad0da096b6a5421f5345b7b5a975a
2f4662356721f3d728d927d08579e0f94e1c336c
8387 F20110217_AAAGJZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_170thm.jpg
8448c9e57a5122bdd57f5259088cece0
4055132719d8c85ce80d521802c9921cbacede3a
2100 F20110217_AAAHGS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_224.txt
b48173efebf5dee47f7737ef97c129bd
99579d35d47cbc862c999b651ee9b0b277bb655f
1977 F20110217_AAAHGT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_225.txt
7fa2fd56fec40bd28b54682081473fc0
808c51cf16afad5d1d2bb06bd6fd9d39765b647c
236 F20110217_AAAHGU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_226.txt
eb5a484705237f325350164f828ca493
532483e9eab1d68396f46f7bad9cfdd905f94279
489 F20110217_AAAFSA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_010.txt
61b400a5a75311d5de3f1aceea789be3
2ad2c510d452503b3905452117160034399f8f9d
943 F20110217_AAAHGV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_230.txt
8c713d57c4eb8328136c9ca50880dcbe
795334247b291fa3aa9c5ed93b71850eca1523f4
2545 F20110217_AAAFSB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_100.txt
a496ed1d116288b44b3f97167905d358
639b5df1549db32828d74d1546ab311b2e63128d
1737 F20110217_AAAHGW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_231.txt
b718c02fceeea72c4026a747edec1b50
9f2261a99b204ddce43dc51489b9ad6d4099e24f
8261 F20110217_AAAFSC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_164thm.jpg
a09752a1614da4a33c56ddfefcba664f
3984ac10504454a27d161a10da109f8be8c23c4e
1466 F20110217_AAAHGX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_233.txt
3d3ecb3782200703dff82c5490dad517
b2d0e3fed59629186cb5a81f4df80a5f880f373a
F20110217_AAAFSD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_075.tif
945a0d7c093fce26baa439e5ba4eed08
1c8f06ea51d447c454e5e909dbfdf05e22662174
2544 F20110217_AAAHGY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_234.txt
613832434a63903a96a97c74ecc242af
9d95812d76c76ad59cb36abab2d64571be3657ce
50784 F20110217_AAAFSE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_210.pro
4c638a69889097a989ee04ff89c0145f
66b5c2953d58a397021933c4970620eaf5fdb0ad
2841 F20110217_AAAHGZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_235.txt
898ba0a62d1c18006b6017e4f4f3bd2f
9c42475155d98af56bcf0551169acbb641704895
25271604 F20110217_AAAFSF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_007.tif
93024ed368386b84063ce3dcc566fd75
d814c11568941e0d71a14942fdc1717ee91cbf2a
29442 F20110217_AAAFSG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_007.QC.jpg
a8faeff6a03bd36ec853e27aeb97d991
53494bb94a7b9bff881b172da28f5f23ecdaeff9
2614 F20110217_AAAFSH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_112.txt
027081767cf02ace6967dfd58a5545bc
ca542165d895e1a68656cce22282a1e51fe419da
F20110217_AAAGPA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_087.tif
4b1d3bb35987e2898326d85f877dfc6c
e3768b199b70bd07bdd47777e992faf4b51d5d2e
65305 F20110217_AAAFSI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_232.jpg
860fa661ed517cde9f477f200558151b
eb532f4cf13115582ddd26b9caf83a3a67f5c90d
30955 F20110217_AAAGPB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_120.QC.jpg
f6df3d1d3752270664578e29ae5cbe8f
9a799fcbf9af03d6c1d469f7c8e9a11aa4ab5069
55214 F20110217_AAAFSJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_170.pro
b9a530b6de66a853cb45f6258798e896
61c22b847c28cc0b36b9fc66e70b78498ae6eee4
F20110217_AAAGPC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_034.tif
9f0635ca8ab1b9ad536dc5abfc0c85db
de8bd41d04fd7ef5f39ccddafbc8ba34c2c339fe
52343 F20110217_AAAFSK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_194.pro
77eb6edde2da8a5dd91c114df64ac43b
3b9d77ba618f74808c205b6e0effe053f83cd0ff
59282 F20110217_AAAGPD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_143.pro
8ae39c342f74e44a396d55718ad90102
d975e0f4c1212202e0b53e3a1ad78c94400d7cc1
48326 F20110217_AAAFSL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_245.jpg
7a6ff9435efa116ee3bb450a01a0ebba
6e7a940459d857718085800f58ac96139ad0c31e
2213 F20110217_AAAGPE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_159.txt
3bfbfaab4f5811e8be958ef3093a4e51
2974cfcf6c90a86a01e9c2c1affc4ee0b1f24fea
2758 F20110217_AAAFSM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_190.txt
bb0c09ba7c55013098982e12804f83b0
7c8aad803502d0d88c43d3d00201a45d9d2b92f9
F20110217_AAAGPF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_158.tif
d00dfd05e63a0c106612ea7af3506e31
5e20248eee8a7f3224d10faf83e776d1263e4bbc
26090 F20110217_AAAFSN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_001.jpg
07a27864dd41b7409473bc0ac9cdd005
1abe09f0336ad6bcb6f9ed5759c3259deb0c1fa5
88322 F20110217_AAAGPG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_052.jpg
9cd441ba2222ede64fe72b1cb0d8df8c
eac4b3dd8661909519a5fafab209a0e93cf7c8fe
33194 F20110217_AAAHMA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_083.QC.jpg
cedb2c1a3b9ce7b5fb1a67b4ce298031
2ba204795491d511bf100626039ea8f3dcbcd845
1995 F20110217_AAAFSO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_210.txt
3e569e66c67629b19ee40f14718f1af7
959282551f81a1c879d298d1fde2dea5af038ec0
8281 F20110217_AAAGPH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_225thm.jpg
b6f28a911af04ea3389bdce1fd711f82
1d12739ef65eb868bd6c15a7ebf58be369d95267
35059 F20110217_AAAHMB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_084.QC.jpg
8457bf648f9f04d1d8d8a7bfd61922a1
c6f5303ca880ad2772f2f9b18801839c7b95c490
59111 F20110217_AAAFSP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_169.pro
4242a323ac53724cb816a68f41eb0ee0
da5006ff0d6716442c008a3e79ebb826bae3dc3b
1938 F20110217_AAAGPI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_213.txt
6085f18d12af984d07ec40999d392b61
d82ac4be3a8bb6497f31874cccffc62050d9e577
32298 F20110217_AAAHMC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_085.QC.jpg
b4aed334fb3b5f017098bae630d483c1
167e3b085d7709bd120e58804eefb9f4e063fc8a
48067 F20110217_AAAFSQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_089.pro
f95137fa5fd40bd0253aa90934cbc01a
459902f49aa6cd802bcbb3ec9cb85cba20e593a2
117048 F20110217_AAAGPJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_149.jpg
198f8c9e75bcccb815dcf9c025340571
091530d0ee4ffef97a40b932e1cc742475b72c40
100907 F20110217_AAAHMD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_087.jpg
fc7fc033007b41527bf04266f187ccec
7829febda15a4209da89f63c854556fca4d97396
63426 F20110217_AAAFSR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_117.pro
baae52b2820366e3424cd303aa70d413
4d4dac0be799a880a5e28d8900916813ce1ce9ae
1983 F20110217_AAAGPK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_063.txt
67d3f1b6d2268f14a8909e7c57ad0459
eda9d5ae322775de0b7b20db6a8b1263088c4bcc
110913 F20110217_AAAHME nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_088.jpg
22ac4bec346dadfb5b0c3d978e3b44ee
a89c42d12478b5fbd0506b0e61ff10a840d7882f
1368 F20110217_AAAGCA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_175.txt
0ff1945d99e1900d146935730816ea1c
f180af97b568053506a44bf0119bcd7a67c9abd7
116788 F20110217_AAAFSS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_161.jp2
e54ac88ca11f0e58e84e04ae9f745786
5c527632fce51117e04bd4f869cb3a94211a883d
34301 F20110217_AAAGPL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_209.QC.jpg
82516922e1e724daac61354427779716
918d0b6d8d5282ea7767173d442aa6aba00f2cd4
33407 F20110217_AAAHMF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_090.QC.jpg
ac584b1f6117c31361c160c74031ca7a
bab9d77ccb43827aacf5490522340ba265507f32
99984 F20110217_AAAGCB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_201.jpg
235b253779cea8f7f5e1df5b43c16ebd
7e77f7cfb4ec407559fcfde4402d266e3ea4f0b8
54470 F20110217_AAAFST nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_113.pro
fce82664fea7df0c23269e3c07fd8ac2
3545142b10697d9eb4a13ec9f459c7fc4087544e
54090 F20110217_AAAGPM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_083.pro
63906fd5ce0700ee012e04572f5d06a3
4b2b158b8d82170cc053f2f584f7249186ee2043
35182 F20110217_AAAHMG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_096.QC.jpg
d73588d15cefd6caf7b71c1a77d5d881
462395fe4118c4ae4357155506a58633ed92c5fc
1051962 F20110217_AAAGCC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_007.jp2
1e62bf354e6b48cff089dbaf3631eac8
d3a32c250e4554c7ca56c3d0c916c0586d3fa728
F20110217_AAAFSU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_123.tif
4f7db466aa0212ae260cd7dba6751885
4ce640ec6dadc6862f1e800c00a7ac2ea063acca
10355 F20110217_AAAGPN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_010.pro
f2e691dc753fa5ba9c42a1cd4c6fa755
365dc1cdab601ed0f861ca7e0352b82076a81fa9
112967 F20110217_AAAHMH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_097.jpg
9b5d7fffd2cc2c7005565572b48c0c9b
4b7e4743a1ccd50ccc9db421aec51a033c242f47
8391 F20110217_AAAGCD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_119thm.jpg
2032a20006a6121da358b6912d6051b0
ce885664ed02c8b604f1d9b0f1a940644628cfb8
61459 F20110217_AAAFSV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_129.pro
308fe2b1b43828e8bbde4ca64d85be94
6fb43e708c5be7e20e4fea155e947281d6c744a6
100612 F20110217_AAAGPO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_039.jpg
a7db95a57d219116b9b4c2d31a92fc2f
c0a6ca88d7b37d74d8dcb9154e3a2be28adc6f89
35363 F20110217_AAAHMI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_097.QC.jpg
0107f1fd62a41d3499e9b6bacf3eb2eb
5e0f4f66d0904a7aa397532831c48632bdfd128c
51775 F20110217_AAAGCE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_037.pro
10a4046c32e0d9e3b462fb099c077338
6940366e849f1d559e1be486ffda846721bb7daf
96267 F20110217_AAAFSW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_038.jpg
63c16c103f134e1cf1645df6e873f22d
96dcf06de2f161fa2581bb1d4951f02135da635f
33002 F20110217_AAAGPP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_072.QC.jpg
266c3871e7316cbed2c178d9cf18ae11
a45a8e2b720f2f453abcc06a246acd6c4d47c874
33842 F20110217_AAAHMJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_099.QC.jpg
22d39b56e0c7095b34ed52ba4c0bb385
3043469321e6d22d4c1b1e433c2bc0142bab869e
8499 F20110217_AAAGCF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_138thm.jpg
fc9f45332df3aad5da9c22780ed8c1fd
8f5c6ae761ee5ba58b77c8e36f2c6b97c60fd492
51403 F20110217_AAAFSX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_202.pro
cc258cbc4f6057b93f99d49185dff8df
3595908106b9e489c4b6f2e69e63e5b9aa185f52
32995 F20110217_AAAGPQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_155.QC.jpg
8aa9df73f90a261c4c11ca0d71b29628
4fbb36383af67b89db77c2cc3f399fbc6fc56999
33915 F20110217_AAAHMK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_101.QC.jpg
4017a988d5641566e016f9cea1687710
2c5e639bb3dcd2dba81c8b171fefe756be241f59
50779 F20110217_AAAGCG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_036.pro
6431979a59952bebbc015c9a7f25b1e0
d0ed24d281e6770bc122f41e4adc21ebb4ea002a
8518 F20110217_AAAFSY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_023thm.jpg
ef5bb247cd353e8a507448eacfb3dade
56cc7f53e6368bd44eaeb7eda704fbb32f3a8b74
111461 F20110217_AAAGPR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_099.jp2
06996271f47b59881765966b06be4139
bc190950df3f48c5462cadf821025ccab2181d7d
114293 F20110217_AAAHML nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_103.jpg
85f8e5b9ea764106e0a988b0e5df667f
ff55a19f0d3ecb112beb073203095fbb9b5476a8
1973 F20110217_AAAGCH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_197.txt
1927034f84b2ab9111aa29e7793f124d
831fb20da6e9e9dececdd813e8720b0490fbc923
8192 F20110217_AAAFSZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_242thm.jpg
909cf5f454acb48aceaf0f7ba93cb73b
fda7a0faff9240620383737dd988655551511365
99282 F20110217_AAAGPS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_035.jpg
aa99fea7b461e3e06ad3f7d60dd776cd
203c7d37c2e9d33bb6c02d265bae7304639bc8cf
34439 F20110217_AAAHMM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_103.QC.jpg
9e43a12869f7a6211a7c83cdd0164f7b
f64ed32e63796ccbfd69073c3f90d828b9781273
49788 F20110217_AAAGCI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_058.pro
d1928bf36e5534ec8099fa44a923b16f
0b457dcdc68a0529b32c908b7bdba5e181a6d8f4
85978 F20110217_AAAGPT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_019.jpg
4727cc5a01ae931ac59039315321ab00
34f8b35f633a6ae37f01e3129d0596cae95b9a97
112977 F20110217_AAAHMN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_104.jpg
109561b9fb09ccd60df769cb4b678e49
0ebc2b535d001a4ea1822dc8b0786c20d4e04198
106256 F20110217_AAAGPU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_020.jp2
f886d9d2736d4e8ca2572331dc57185d
206174f87338604a31eefafd857da42b211e0b6c
33139 F20110217_AAAHMO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_107.QC.jpg
f84dc48d72bcfebdf74019c368f0e24a
d5e8adf8ce27d37c1e6a669bf26c4854b37c1ac0
2205 F20110217_AAAGCJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_080.txt
390865ab6526567b0f9749a8a94b8d9e
e5febe5dca14bedc05bd78472c9991980b2d3897
34942 F20110217_AAAGPV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_104.QC.jpg
8c6dd5fc1ee4f0d14e935f4349c5e058
d35a899628055def638851e679aa1b7df9bb3cf3
31445 F20110217_AAAHMP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_109.QC.jpg
7cb468876aba71e4784d7eac7e30ee4f
b05379351919cfcf00d8175a1fd2d89e29586f30
1986 F20110217_AAAGCK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_035.txt
9bcef46bc3ee1d564707bff758551c6d
a3cf46ce6b2a6f5f29e18f700a43443f9a2676c0
95862 F20110217_AAAHMQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_110.jpg
1dc0a2506446fe7d06fce1293ed7f5f9
cf3034c55dfd8b46f5a81c3d1f12f1c31bcfabb8
47942 F20110217_AAAGCL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_180.pro
1a45ea4772700859cc79c4db7957ee5e
b604a4f30b90efa9c70de01403ab157e50021107
8471 F20110217_AAAGPW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_057thm.jpg
a48d14b2afe3174b519b3144da5192f7
7b65610ab9e39de5dd348e6c43ed5f946d317185
108044 F20110217_AAAHMR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_113.jpg
6ae693bb99d42806f0790e3c5b5bfbcb
33708cedf3ca41e62836fc57883afbd549684453
2682 F20110217_AAAGCM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_102.txt
cc0a0b573c0a0c7239b656fe00027267
afadf484b80bb1f0f8e1d46db3e7d43dfd0528e3
6025 F20110217_AAAGPX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_005thm.jpg
74744933445b3b26a7c7587276e43939
30dc011fb93ff60927eb645ee0f0c42facff0e1e
F20110217_AAAGCN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_065.tif
4cb99952ed8da0845eec33f014998ec3
8488e2a352ecfabd62f44c53f99168687cd63222
2078 F20110217_AAAGPY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_220.txt
e6ca410fbb65003dc6de7f5c842d18cb
0d1accb43349b48c09e3cc28d5306584df648bfb
33855 F20110217_AAAHMS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_113.QC.jpg
d7936b01b87a510e140693d2fc352ee1
1f6c2dc333a9678f5e29121c2fb9b2beda07b715
8435 F20110217_AAAGCO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_104thm.jpg
7463bb44dee4032f90dc4dba14cebe61
4b8f0eacd36fc6fb9a3df78fe540199af702ee96
35588 F20110217_AAAGPZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_013.pro
ab4afec547ee9cfe89b20758fd7cc441
d0e83102c13f05310bcfee359848a104adbc539b
136877 F20110217_AAAHMT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_114.jpg
efbedf2cbf737e64adfcda0d3a463842
eeea3a96ef1f18eca98786ed4f5c4686e082819c
F20110217_AAAGCP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_089.tif
af70a31e6d865167af3eca70f8965934
e069c7143a1d6382e2c4eb7d38cac1a481d34a77
34506 F20110217_AAAHMU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_115.QC.jpg
ec0c1d7f696235e5c750f8e443d45a2f
683867a24916c505bf2ddb5ecb2190dbdcaccd36
46315 F20110217_AAAFYA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_121.pro
98730415d8899999768062c14600ce69
7d4f8a0b2674575bea7887f62a73989d4ebe8d94
73249 F20110217_AAAGCQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_236.jpg
31005c27c7e5d3a6f6440031ea2ba2d8
a987a05190a1a72e8c39bc3dc2719fde83f44781
129364 F20110217_AAAHMV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_116.jpg
64caceee2177b690c600e4d6b11561df
bc74ae718bd4eac11aca33ec1ad5c2ab40c6d48c
108066 F20110217_AAAFYB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_023.jpg
4b38ee0f4d9276dac7346babd8c212f0
f7cccbab90a7afe88cfc1f5f3cdf6766829fc0d5
33565 F20110217_AAAGCR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_066.QC.jpg
4189cb2fe1d9ee366930f89d20b747c3
90ed15f2a809578a6e7a3f95bcdb377ecf0dc54f
119905 F20110217_AAAHMW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_118.jpg
a2e5121c508cd8dda9cf20f0eae8a7aa
eae52291d643c35894bbbe0c842fa50f0c71c551
107199 F20110217_AAAFYC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_083.jpg
bcb50d83649c98fd6f7917284d747e45
8238ad29f59ef3d685262ea56bcd973cb7e173a6
121316 F20110217_AAAGCS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_242.jp2
204d4fdd577a94bfaa9dcb3760c39262
dd90368dce318d7b3641696e4763cd2b617b1acd
36013 F20110217_AAAHMX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_118.QC.jpg
27988e64c3c9e2c568f84f14c7a7fb5b
8d9fb325beb13ff38cc303d942520627a2e3b58f
82763 F20110217_AAAFYD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_012.jp2
ca335b8362e79ccfc0708ad4427a7ad5
8e19ec71b741dde197cba64a3c31bb81759902ae
111049 F20110217_AAAGCT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_203.jp2
25622851d673903fd140ed519d1c41f4
f70348caceb7f9a07d616c5efb1393b26d3af679
36171 F20110217_AAAHMY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_119.QC.jpg
69f30a3c1e0897fb2ca1418ec792fd2a
3073982d2758a66cb254472f8952f0a0d2df47b5
48282 F20110217_AAAFYE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_038.pro
d551feeaa40681b430a9df3f66df5e2a
299449d3e37562249f968b92d7a9a376c5a80543
106652 F20110217_AAAGCU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_078.jp2
8cdb1f64e39f283659082374698e923a
21d83305894686f5705ceb127c94de898e9494cf
97354 F20110217_AAAHMZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_120.jpg
de7a2cb7262d202d47ae4800087ddb7c
cfce489403d31e79e1647f86f028176b4cd07ac4
1191 F20110217_AAAFYF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_002.QC.jpg
64731d643b548f1b1e25f0a4b4bc9bb1
9c9690a130c892e40cea8065be588d63a9371329
7092 F20110217_AAAGCV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_053thm.jpg
8cf7c33e3f5c744769fff8b7fa0e7c36
0846b28dfcfe94721b02a8646f9669f76c680cd6
102536 F20110217_AAAFYG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_162.jpg
f7e9d1b01925f22b71a864f5bcc803af
23e41ba3d400cfbbb682f0c12e99fa7c5bd0402a
31214 F20110217_AAAGCW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_198.QC.jpg
71e002531b152d1b5020064660ec72d8
e6619a03299127c67bf8055f384f4b02dda9356d
1956 F20110217_AAAFYH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_221.txt
0acaf9997f964be5869709d4970e853f
faca027a81ae1c64d0157e2fc9d656f4263dfda1
151953 F20110217_AAAGCX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_142.jp2
793984ebfd3f3d702d850afcf3112d5f
c77fe61107ebf7e64c54b6f8a7705b55095a4d1f
38055 F20110217_AAAGVA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_114.QC.jpg
2f0d940131137e3e3578f27168e65a35
feca2d514b972bdb928163596626064b6477a81c
8101 F20110217_AAAFYI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_051thm.jpg
bc5a5c94166140d3927c3a2b93b829ed
a5b0f82301bbd3ecd0dec7d504d4c552be77d295
2518 F20110217_AAAGCY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_131.txt
49ea34be8606ae39a84a5ed989dddec4
ba3d9dc4e882a19cf95d86a47f4b08e298adf9a2
100889 F20110217_AAAGVB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_072.jpg
f719d1aef5abe7f94c7841f362e119aa
7e98c99a63ef7efc323783c767e1be67c68f59e8
141574 F20110217_AAAFYJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_140.jp2
c124abca726bf669de5c05c0b461464b
c5f2f42dbacb7bae8cd91b66bb5a8ca0e768b19b
52271 F20110217_AAAGCZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_162.pro
68278214f58b527460f901a3d162696a
16cfc98a5870e12cb789c06cdb3b0a74dd45e694
113341 F20110217_AAAGVC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_113.jp2
56b4c4ac02098b5bb77bdc289ad2a6cb
7e78ee05d1377524e98842813e314dab1647bf65
32888 F20110217_AAAFYK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_087.QC.jpg
bac6addc50f91cc22dd6e99716a10e43
7ea6df49b050377bf0372a8d23ed9583137a4446
F20110217_AAAGVD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_022.tif
c1e60ae7b24c547aac573cf97ca6874c
fcbb5476d1dda80075330bae8d89da3bdf244b3b
8510 F20110217_AAAFYL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_221thm.jpg
99d4c08830184f5ec68d8edb6d0a268b
8bc97d96ebc45f703e718696b7ec18b348610cea
34166 F20110217_AAAGVE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_204.QC.jpg
d9ce22b2d090cf120231c6641835f001
9c0c4509df6ad42f03595bd45830d963bf347642
34937 F20110217_AAAFLA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_191.jp2
553fb77529b3046e49e96320f62fd0fd
4a14688621827e33518296b0ee82f88ac33674b7
F20110217_AAAFYM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_056.tif
ac0f6320b458906ac2638313679a1796
928ba59daa99e53b087cd5019ba47ffe402422ad
2242 F20110217_AAAGVF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_088.txt
a83f9f6e72265100f3b835e8fc8d2aea
d89a127facb3f37ef0513604888d80b98f214e98
2231 F20110217_AAAFLB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_156.txt
f7c71acf655e13ebac439eaa69268a1d
005b794de67f10d9ab0d02ff00dfe8a9f381b11f
50125 F20110217_AAAFYN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_094.pro
0b767e9fbfae7003bf82d72c1d190307
4549254541974d33f8d868a571d772fdb86e3857
23899 F20110217_AAAGVG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_074.QC.jpg
878c8db681f75011bfeaf1cea8360824
c4a50baa3435041fe90aafab263792a7667fa483
51820 F20110217_AAAFLC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_042.pro
76e66b49ba40d2470eeb16687c7184d3
a1a0079052fac7d206b5bff38aa7a078f0905114
8237 F20110217_AAAFYO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_059thm.jpg
0c514e0b805066f7bece7a4b6019a4d4
9c51e90cb4bb299b1a4dccb5d5dc1e85f7bbc0b2
8276 F20110217_AAAGVH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_122thm.jpg
c06a8d9b0c2f7dddfa33222318fd8812
0533ac6475d52efc2c1cd386bc46c0d475b0b464
115062 F20110217_AAAHSA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_148.jp2
fda6cdd77dde82ae91dc211899ecd9fe
dda02baabedeba4ba0876ec191a3efc9ac484b1b
58331 F20110217_AAAFLD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_141.pro
e2ca64c66a1a6b3742a10a7e314a008d
d0456e2a17fae73a9c1c74b60aaaece89263e117
105595 F20110217_AAAFYP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_043.jpg
384323c926b8f3e57863ea97ce32898d
8e2cd50e1a2ce7d931ff210cd6a07700c610bcb9
79747 F20110217_AAAGVI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_012.jpg
69e5864f483cf5bf5a5e509e9e114cb0
78aef71bedb6c5ca6365f1977a288b598ddbf315
124693 F20110217_AAAHSB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_149.jp2
10221b49eccfacd1908196a1883e4a60
c7afabbc9d0e9d7ab3161eb3c47a5676899eb8da
30386 F20110217_AAAFLE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_167.QC.jpg
5748b2cec1532c78b14c50b4a8ef7e72
6a6abe5aee142ca90e897c7eca10109b0734e71f
33797 F20110217_AAAFYQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_146.QC.jpg
ccc2cdc5008b3899fc7b535603b71722
355e8ec741f2a3e71a7e79eae97995123f262dd7
7845 F20110217_AAAGVJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_089thm.jpg
395a24c16c9d0af08a688fc354c0d63a
73bf2c1fe6cfaf407e0a73ba53b6a111284e0355
93272 F20110217_AAAHSC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_154.jp2
28791beb14103ddcc3550d427179d612
37771592a13819a126c2f59d690995f113586621
1965 F20110217_AAAFLF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_167.txt
c37cda4c0ef1e3b4a9c5130b788a9407
1306c256d272cc8d490b575b97d4e3263a369dbf
2180 F20110217_AAAFYR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_241.txt
3c74860d53ae8ce25adc9017b32569c2
1378b8e6b86f0d3e8bb02ab2e72d2da2339ccda3
F20110217_AAAGVK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_170.tif
98d24b119e5eb63596a90d836e77668a
c63ba72387c7ab3576deefc96587c10484a334a9
109371 F20110217_AAAHSD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_155.jp2
a313964cce6a2873b40dc9ff62d3f6c9
09391beb9dbeaf2cdaf027a222b66e1e6e64f550
56759 F20110217_AAAFLG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_104.pro
eb3d24da7e3a2be1213565869e183596
fa69bb2de6844ea30fa6c7a13faeafa3a605c8ef
100496 F20110217_AAAGIA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_058.jpg
cdde5cba6c24899c57d67ec8ea70ce94
11cf217002f77cf45d4bc84d8ba15e0fa133079d
F20110217_AAAFYS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_232.tif
eeb02e338ca295650f503e0e34eaf283
acdb2323b54b8861acd518b81ec9be31b1667354
F20110217_AAAGVL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_025thm.jpg
f03d658f8da098798aafe9a0bb737380
0a3df8068677f4ef1156b3666abeaebad14cc4bc
107870 F20110217_AAAHSE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_163.jp2
bed7fbb6a4825212bfe508fe9593a8fd
dfeff3779a9ecb955dcad7097d17488e96bb3db9
F20110217_AAAFLH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_231.tif
9edd7cb75cb9a8404bedc455c1d93e12
dd066ca4ca41f61e4b547c8bc8ee70131768340a
7407 F20110217_AAAGIB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_154thm.jpg
24cf3a3d3e44f4ecc5b7f606de16d4d4
bbd06292e311af3a7fb971dc462a7af2dd6ea18e
F20110217_AAAFYT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_196.tif
01f738aad517740920efc66a923b6ba2
7d43605e7c34f0bcd39ceab4a91261c28844ff03
111330 F20110217_AAAGVM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_159.jpg
72bba25163cda7a67ce3114cf7b8f7a5
8056bf218ad94c60ae7121c85689254d82ef92b2
104778 F20110217_AAAHSF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_165.jp2
6d6af2599e1f7858d2fac1038876d682
e000d23f540fbc62869dc06ce36541eecf051692
36290 F20110217_AAAFLI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_236.pro
eb902935689dc38af2dd1cf0633adfe9
587968e3091f4d6fd505a455538a4d8d9932be6a
112310 F20110217_AAAGIC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_028.jp2
a1a0f6bd799cee9169d0f64644e1d5e4
4c021246e47b9d2b39404e45e4464d6c7d905df0
2091 F20110217_AAAFYU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_099.txt
1f8ad619f73c5693d66c70da6410f5c3
fe4b63cf5a7e26aed4ee05bca4f49a302b288ae5
110935 F20110217_AAAGVN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_037.jp2
31c9bca9df85efd2ea6bb14a90a98412
76f673c7e6423ef152d7b65b8df78d7b05bef86e
104054 F20110217_AAAHSG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_166.jp2
bbec2dc4cbc583c5357944d28683028a
db4c9ed546e0f64b877fe9597f21a874ac3763d9
101216 F20110217_AAAFLJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_029.jpg
cf75c98b10d816a6a471250879176399
86cc6821be1b84c4880462cbf84c2505c2006611
33566 F20110217_AAAGID nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_191.jpg
0323ae49af29975a252e73d5e61c8da4
b85ea051bedfc3a04560e5c54d05e5388979c64f
113909 F20110217_AAAFYV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_174.jp2
9fd1b0dccf5196c0b4380c69da75b8ed
40f765b4a5994e0c9b3605ee9122c5da7bfcd058
2226 F20110217_AAAGVO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_191thm.jpg
c746dcff7ff66ec507498c2b1c8662d3
b89db63ba20f669063ebcaa319b28e88b2f8548a
100222 F20110217_AAAHSH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_167.jp2
adc8ef9fe3d72670281051977c1c27c9
ab4936449d732cb07c75210afcc0a9f069987cab
F20110217_AAAFLK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_054.tif
e51bfcb9430f7d3972806cce869b75ab
4eda722babc53159c690a7c47f72fd8625b913da
4122 F20110217_AAAGIE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_231thm.jpg
54a49a66b743441265ec83d1681c1bd5
0c6197500db02f90db61f531d9f282bdacafed09
8053 F20110217_AAAFYW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_157thm.jpg
4d30e3c87bc3f72a4d113569334ef956
869a7d8182f041b21aa3aa117f360081e12fccf1
F20110217_AAAGVP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_085.tif
aab5e4c9fcb06096c4afa04f5295f15d
a33c4a07d6edb6b533db961f18ef52b316fe6bff
109430 F20110217_AAAHSI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_176.jp2
93d6a21dd4bbc8ee65e6a9e5de75449a
b83faaa07a47dc096aaa2ef7a4e441fdf40f455d
1923 F20110217_AAAFLL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_165.txt
01143cc9173b816a598d31014c4e96f5
ecf5d54735284e0318eb7b15319797452ede9c77
F20110217_AAAGIF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_226.tif
3b4c687ee0a7dfcb00c9e3fce3bdf0fb
4d432b256b27c17c14f03ce663c765a96e79e3dd
8608 F20110217_AAAFYX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_067thm.jpg
8fae2214cc0af81c58ded4a5a40dfcfa
325c091dec35621152f8903b7e3ca8544fa6a4a8
2269 F20110217_AAAGVQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_146.txt
627f6137916338af71c4ea4451652f58
3ca892cda58f07ce26c314ea9096fcbabbf8906c
108578 F20110217_AAAHSJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_177.jp2
8dcac1b044dab02126352186a352a672
72dd9b9cb25226039e57fa888c2e6318e1fa6fd4
2186 F20110217_AAAFLM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_170.txt
37af3b931524c655252cbd7964c7dc12
cff3ab9e8ee0f35199c1ec32934b410fbe99c82a
110432 F20110217_AAAGIG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_151.jp2
a6608c1f7ef7304ade6ef3b5b2259c63
18291c41b4fabe19287f07d41262af449d55d52b
8439 F20110217_AAAFYY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_204thm.jpg
e29c0c07333dfcb436050de0cf1d2139
3e360b8e7ed1ea3f5f2a6f435093c9c19a2807e3
50578 F20110217_AAAGVR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_087.pro
b17453e194bb3f17abe23ce3d9eb834f
997cc1358b5f71e7dccdde2dae23c026ed75427e
102475 F20110217_AAAHSK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_180.jp2
a15cf20f9c13bb28c92fd76ddd5699aa
fdf2158cd42d3d23e0c37b489dbc668ccbc943a6
68838 F20110217_AAAFLN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_064.pro
cdf2a5014ec94f0ed1909d51cb5706da
521c89825d5579eaca37025425a7789f455c87a1
6516 F20110217_AAAGIH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_074thm.jpg
1011b8c93a6b6232d78d9176d4e70133
456fd46e2e731dd0a40186dc24736f77f76f4635
F20110217_AAAFYZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_180.tif
638540445584bd22fe8c2c2a1ea59de0
c6634258a5beafedb8159b980ccaa74547a92348
2229 F20110217_AAAHFA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_082.txt
ced213b3a4d29dc061d75f99d910d8e0
82b5a036b3f00158e851535ff5436927518e9897
F20110217_AAAGVS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_191.tif
04b3ae3f4ad71c5f0711fd58126789fe
cc5a1887771912f4f4618f891e5ac6e3bd964313
108189 F20110217_AAAHSL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_181.jp2
ebfabe1273b9e38f38b83a239a995389
cfe7d082e9d74fcd2843307b5789da2f5de57f01
123024 F20110217_AAAFLO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_084.jpg
f6ceee3e0a5c0d03a5f3e24619889f9e
87849a6bef358bd661dec3e90b36d848e708c097
1987 F20110217_AAAGII nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_160.txt
a06316712a0a8932ecdef5e8beb0c295
2e3258c013fe87fc5aa6390932e97ba0f1a3476a
2316 F20110217_AAAHFB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_090.txt
f80f821d308e6010e95b18978a94c7f1
2b784345b633cbc94f34719e3f24bc3efda4cd93
F20110217_AAAGVT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_172.tif
705eae9c4c0ab4a9536fdb009c5384a9
5708b603b989693cc71f91b4edc0426dd9c7fd02
114935 F20110217_AAAHSM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_183.jp2
e9b95639a96c29fff942d06f14861ff0
902f66e92e0409cd7d2830df8df9c7bfb7edfecf
F20110217_AAAFLP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_040.txt
60f3d41d86e877b3b85c61269b9423a1
5f61cd4a549b6ccef67eba3cb8c4864ca3882771
2295 F20110217_AAAGIJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_243.txt
e843f3b888afae774078c48b6b5d7a96
c509bd1a72dc3b08e3658230531fd1383e14f4a3
1868 F20110217_AAAHFC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_091.txt
31350fce68c15fd04142dc0bcf943ffb
cbe7652eedf8e7b71fd1caaf10039ff4c4490451
1960 F20110217_AAAGVU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_157.txt
2698ac28d5e68ba5c87fc69673cba960
99bfc0b541dbe2d174918102cd87fbe3e383c51b
117674 F20110217_AAAHSN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_184.jp2
b358631ef44f3c035814b086c75245ca
c28daec8e18b8f70929f93a0489588134df3346c
117332 F20110217_AAAFLQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_088.jp2
14dbe81da50ef44ce1ae85bee990c782
515bc4dbf22937e7cc6bc3bd4213142e0f927586
1958 F20110217_AAAGIK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_032.txt
d32c188ee16e6a310af801c44833a101
af7a62c85d1b057a0da3e5f53120cd45e1374423
F20110217_AAAHFD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_092.txt
1e8275fe7ac62383bd06fc51fb8ebc72
6c126551785a16cb20adf145d5d8811736890254
101744 F20110217_AAAGVV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_036.jpg
00892a563e4039e7b2f2bbe160fdbb68
d79d8519ad6e9624f48bdb02edb70c8f72c16d4e
109429 F20110217_AAAHSO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_187.jp2
1ab4f52502fc8ea2dbc788401e30d53b
a91a40491a3a8d344bcb070d04497aa2f1a8a09c
8212 F20110217_AAAFLR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_241thm.jpg
25ffc55e9d06c5f66f944f85a8b16a8c
b5eb575e2acf4a320a6b692a996b9cdc6845cdd4
8375 F20110217_AAAGIL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_015thm.jpg
d25f2782fcec5970d483f875c4bc4921
c646304c40b94b7ed2776e76aaaeead4ac107e3c
F20110217_AAAHFE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_093.txt
6e7455c263252e8f7ff7b7a1a5520240
e1f5d59556e77b270075c6460136d0b98e0509bb
F20110217_AAAGVW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_035.tif
ccdffe0e50ac5fba88349488c4359be0
37312479175d61d59dd6f2181316cf0a0676c405
94855 F20110217_AAAHSP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_192.jp2
5b8069e09bb8e8c360d129418240b6e6
4a45727e02306955ee9df1c8b2c1eba7395e5173
2929 F20110217_AAAFLS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_086.txt
1f79bb26e262cf90b2493864b48d84e0
f199c6eb7f680a7f1f9066887e177f95442f4b47
83931 F20110217_AAAGIM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_004.jpg
df34e288f4a585ef3a6029f89590fc3f
3cfdb9506df0539a85c2f060367e564bdd411f3b
2218 F20110217_AAAHFF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_096.txt
f7d3916b0e112962fb0cc5c32940c869
39ee8bf629a31f2730cd5e0d88f3cbaba290f6a8
2067 F20110217_AAAGVX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_164.txt
ad75224447e5f47bf58f6618373a332d
0f599cf1e0572a1a51a0390cc85b9a97e38665e3
103417 F20110217_AAAHSQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_193.jp2
1a7adcf11fd11b0fd4b71b0c511f4248
500807f397946d1f1347a2969f5d42c4a1268ac4
1976 F20110217_AAAGIN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_047.txt
000ece6007bad65af13dea67f4bc94ac
8a41836de9857c6bbae77961a9d4f9534dee7892
2456 F20110217_AAAHFG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_105.txt
fa593ad12ea6072c367af1a120eed519
0169e71f3d055e814233cd1c13f3a0fe9f0a027c
101094 F20110217_AAAGVY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_056.jp2
ce3949ef3f918c09ce74e834a83be2cd
5b667b088c87aa447e019a28f2b9dcd56b63160f
112224 F20110217_AAAHSR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_194.jp2
7838a8943fb8c4a8871629e9b1e358f2
4178e9dc49889d50fa5815590d3177c32d2c633a
2007 F20110217_AAAFLT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_030.txt
51e19c243b6c1c89ec2a4eba1b8df5e0
7b7a9d8660fd96d763424e4e8dc997ded4e5adb5
32972 F20110217_AAAGIO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_069.QC.jpg
7897337719a8d545e0d7e892b9965981
8e67631ac7d6b453c21243838d738b4d68ca844c
1946 F20110217_AAAHFH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_108.txt
84046590a8cc281a423ac832e6406f0e
6af419512441971da1104e61bea704d861c0becd
31867 F20110217_AAAGVZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_197.QC.jpg
eafbf77567b12d3a13bb9a336f17475a
dc42bc7b726bd42a2c554705fe49b3dad2899cd5
111214 F20110217_AAAHSS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_196.jp2
3f9f43e06fe39924efa4fb3c833e14aa
0e144dfe76aba3940b367b96a2fa2bf7a34152a6
49401 F20110217_AAAFLU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_125.pro
5f2ab455763f753a1e1d0eb434a1e8aa
9617138746d6a6982a7b6c0c691cfdb2da3834e3
2077 F20110217_AAAHFI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_109.txt
120ab6db993c97b15c2afe65f2e92093
0baca375e9e3158697bc029da1f22c1799f7e29a
103419 F20110217_AAAHST nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_199.jp2
9728d1e0e12c74778366b8cde6502628
2424b34afda1d2a31196611625121937bd32fac9
105126 F20110217_AAAFLV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_068.jp2
39eb78b831233ed04a816a563888c10b
3a2740c3f1dcd09eda3311b12b4ca2a06f7d740c
96054 F20110217_AAAGIP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_050.jpg
a2d8b066cb02103ff7351b41a5d38efe
1e55281eaf3a1f24764c446e1430af9cf61d4f6c
3022 F20110217_AAAHFJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_114.txt
3c4617de8787618cf1c3c4e3b298ea1f
47babc02239b0708a85b8a6f8d1d33b46b886e29
110589 F20110217_AAAHSU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_200.jp2
87f8057a8afc13116b01d5efd92abcae
d1fdc1303ef8b2794119043ac04c7ae2e808e9b7
68995 F20110217_AAAFLW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_232.jp2
8b6a3216e0daf2a9db1c628734fe9946
e9055c84613fdcf7126fd3db66040f4a9649a709
F20110217_AAAGIQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_067.tif
6decaece16338c739b170bde5384e71b
f43c0e2c8e9c58f67ec5f1043e25350b17aad992
F20110217_AAAHFK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_116.txt
2b8e16fac163fbed6b676512f9091429
6260c136cfbeddfb185e047b5d4ce64de933b14d
109636 F20110217_AAAHSV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_207.jp2
81d548cd5dadbbcb5a1d7f5c81223a4c
2dd92a979d4765e8352a1230a7686a8b965fbf95
F20110217_AAAFLX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_126.tif
03879166cf5f6ed0310e4cef932523b3
a8a1ff4adfe8a7b72ad63c1515b2aa1832c68302
35172 F20110217_AAAGIR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_005.pro
66ec90e0cd30743fc389015933482aea
4a74bc013fa4faa4561652761a2d9a296f9837fe
108881 F20110217_AAAHSW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_208.jp2
fbd9ee9a33a611265f3f6755dfc9d308
87c2040fb57561cad89ffa0a16f535db2a33ff2b
8239 F20110217_AAAFLY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_101thm.jpg
58e66085ca114f72317f0382e9ab7981
108cb2b90f30bc2ec634d9cd8480c3e2ef374d3b
109882 F20110217_AAAGIS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_204.jp2
ae2eaefcf3a54cba93ff02e26d542497
5c4df2e95d2e926595093d85ab18cf896a99be62
2103 F20110217_AAAHFL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_124.txt
4c9974ad3138101aa4e3cb763b07b682
c8c63d8c9c0c39acb54ca0b7eeb34425a81a4eaf
110575 F20110217_AAAHSX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_211.jp2
f4267894dad5de79fd8ad2000a08f64e
53bf0b3b06321921723335019250af95be759f5a
106245 F20110217_AAAFLZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_213.jp2
07cbec96980546212fe04f86f51f3d94
30f8356782ac2d2d5d3933fc62e00a37f03688b9
8396 F20110217_AAAGIT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_086thm.jpg
dba2986120de3ab29ab439088b8a1866
1b3ce6be43cbc5d8571c30f5eb3ff09c3ae1624d
2730 F20110217_AAAHFM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_126.txt
e8936f822d89e200646d33fe9ac2e2df
62ec7a1a839d1f2fe191270b48d4ae0e73669777
13598 F20110217_AAAGIU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_230.QC.jpg
7dd0499a475f104f0d5e51c652c69106
198f008c0691c93786e7c130424215ea53212800
2189 F20110217_AAAHFN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_127.txt
92e89bc1e98f219eb8843d76e523cc16
4c98f3979a2a77fe70fb9e143a3905c6cf21e63b
107394 F20110217_AAAHSY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_215.jp2
8add7aa4fbe3df46348b80a6b3c0789c
8f7eb957ee6833d0a488b2665721375d9d0b7d12
51668 F20110217_AAAGIV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_177.pro
47c167b6036dc94f5a6f44c2b9564ffb
3f09724bb7058b5d563b0a35f7757d7d7c2d4078
2706 F20110217_AAAHFO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_128.txt
6f816cad30e4d6cd09119f3409ed170a
fb5f094f990e9c68bfee57147f90100936c1378f
112008 F20110217_AAAHSZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_216.jp2
a736d44fefb95ae7bba6ed55170fbb84
5b4eee0f6f686ff6d248d78db06cc6fdc2492e93
8340 F20110217_AAAGIW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_151thm.jpg
ec93f1004f61efa09bb406d3bfad42bd
74747b358c6bb48e0405b67baef47e2aa2e0f7a5
2451 F20110217_AAAHFP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_129.txt
7b1404ba6fe8f61f6ad3bdfeaf2eeb34
440b7e3abdd152f33ca54f40b63b8765daa1ed05
113196 F20110217_AAAGIX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_168.jp2
8a6d703b4a22688b89aab1fe5f2c74c7
f33d346f392de16202ca29912cd70215d78b4d27
2193 F20110217_AAAHFQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_134.txt
06f75dd68a87e688936f44882289ef2c
974905858e4373c6c841e175209bf21972c6f3d2
112272 F20110217_AAAGIY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_124.jp2
7ace3e25a311be928796bf62c76a94a4
8dd9eb958312fe05460aadf62ad07a5c5b8f801d
2123 F20110217_AAAHFR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_135.txt
78f54410a15b1adcd3421dc99f747def
8934e360df62296c0d64cd3833d4849ffdeb7d97
115608 F20110217_AAAGIZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_143.jpg
6b3548ae730f0b588a70cd5ac5a46b85
48ccae081e238773e0b733d91b9331b11e028a65
2250 F20110217_AAAHFS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_136.txt
8b35d48fd808efa0a13a1972d4d79ea6
ea02e025099336d9339daf8f7d935c0896b5d861
1881 F20110217_AAAHFT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_137.txt
6bf5a098e4a3995029a9edd9a660047b
36e47ff00f635283665556602cf9681ead945aa0
3218 F20110217_AAAHFU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_142.txt
f6ed6d258b659de9dd6152a944667ced
2e84bbf47791bd806ef416fb337782f61e3596f3
F20110217_AAAFRA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_011.tif
a0a697e7f84490ffdccb1d3a9d490a2c
dce0e62fcced8a86eded4d705a908b839fc134b4
2411 F20110217_AAAHFV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_143.txt
edfe1ab4baef077b6a91601ab38c6445
b5763535322bdcd6a6765ecadd6013cfbd0c6c61
50328 F20110217_AAAFRB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_160.pro
70f28c07e871cc6b544cb8c3e759aefe
2c0583e7e50f936c051c43564aafa597f0788bf8
2454 F20110217_AAAHFW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_149.txt
d46585d169cd5ef437fdc5a64ea18b67
a948b36af970a36e2ab971389befa28474dbae8f
89920 F20110217_AAAFRC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_054.jp2
efc826811157e44869f73251cb87d62b
ce935d0b4af81130c920b532a55b823cf7d28409
1985 F20110217_AAAHFX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_152.txt
b87c3ac78d583065a4fb9b094003045f
12ccdc704bf08f9f89a75ecad8e31480399fce8e
118706 F20110217_AAAFRD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_139.jp2
22bfa7e76cea95648a42ea7342fab05f
bdf7d349dc24aa07cb853c3cafe2bdbd261be6cc
1786 F20110217_AAAHFY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_154.txt
6f30f7180494db3d630a40f71ac598d2
6b1641d0ee97a4fc05d72fe864424d4b65c967e1
101424 F20110217_AAAFRE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_181.jpg
42543f52845aac68a583c9ef8cbfa1c4
1005040803b1af8d5c88655950576e49e30d849f
1996 F20110217_AAAHFZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_155.txt
95d2f287e1faf2ceb010f69560193bf0
2c45a9184a3f4769176e7d8f6be3079fcb3129e1
F20110217_AAAFRF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_070.tif
157e6382b0dbe1d7faf11976c734a875
29afefa38dd32d129724307405783e2799acb4b6
26828 F20110217_AAAFRG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_062.QC.jpg
9f2b0378d19ac7782e722b4d5832ec7d
5fe3a91ec5f12cf8e5a055fd68d943a5c796a198
7952 F20110217_AAAFRH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_038thm.jpg
bfa4f688f770de024f63a3723bfb9bf0
5255eb63ced8d75213618fd40009fac6a9061b75
32988 F20110217_AAAGOA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_205.QC.jpg
764f9762d4d509d912987c1bb2462de6
afd33550f16c981153145c2c68ed6fa18c85d810
2000 F20110217_AAAFRI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_216.txt
06b577010a1bd94d75730ee2d6de2b55
43ba32ae3931b4b2dad8d118880507cbb9eea311
91586 F20110217_AAAGOB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_137.jpg
c06f13cebb2162e90511769d45f22a8d
0043dd045434b13ea5b1d037bad8db3ccd3b1189
35466 F20110217_AAAFRJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_129.QC.jpg
e0591996a8c63085bfc891766b65e41c
2f57cbd1790d60cced53a7a9f17fa75656f6e621
F20110217_AAAGOC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_097.tif
2b09181b05bcf9a3411812b4f7957eda
124a57d4aa88dd20cb5687e32d0e06308dff2c7b
102113 F20110217_AAAFRK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_107.jpg
d19a0e52ef370a5263caa5946e88a43b
51c257037c5927bef451aa32a66b4a24c903e381
52678 F20110217_AAAGOD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_168.pro
2b92011caf953d41d3d557eb103e975e
0c45499ec9a88d63fd3e0fbab995e5db0b813e1a
111987 F20110217_AAAFRL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_239.jpg
860b53dc7d38b6dfca796791c5ff5dc9
c510c0a2f805136c487a7041efc9d38fa95b3102
1866 F20110217_AAAGOE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_050.txt
6f09b5c99ea409cf1fcd01c6d365d30e
b9ed3a6b9d0fb0f73a29a28e09975f866d9d1587
55070 F20110217_AAAFRM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_127.pro
01208ebaacf8363623a73dbe8a89ce0c
4f85a64f5e0bf4cef0f96c9926e1f6ad54cec43b
8420 F20110217_AAAGOF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_048thm.jpg
132a63e24179cd554f897bf429a5d2ac
2923409a8b2f96abbd3c54815ed129c181efc35a
2707 F20110217_AAAFRN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_145.txt
a3dfd1acc65dd7378dc5a74b4059c78a
7f7527eeaec7ec22353af172309ee7d36cc9c1bb
309049 F20110217_AAAGOG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_010.jp2
63fe71adbde0b3a2205661fccb2532a8
ff4f57a0e8944443dd679feefd19c9cd2be5beb6
33904 F20110217_AAAHLA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_027.QC.jpg
0bb612cfa92e1aa6522bfbe0c433e66c
70c3d470a47567c4f7d260a0d594c84882739084
F20110217_AAAFRO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_179.tif
3429e9270e460b54f6353317aa83f4b8
a759f1d604df5470656343bc3a276491e346b22e
34263 F20110217_AAAGOH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_203.QC.jpg
d80a0f4850c760d372e04b2b9e1c9a77
4bf242f3c32b1b37304a9c0cdea6d47813382f82
34464 F20110217_AAAHLB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_031.QC.jpg
f2502dba1242d891305c503163672d31
f47c46e71eb269718f1d8c3d173a6fd84f33a571
7410 F20110217_AAAFRP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_137thm.jpg
689299ad8008f0a41cbd45f3c2573b80
d6761ec7a4fbaa9b3a45b993c8b9423a2accfad6
8337 F20110217_AAAGOI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_079thm.jpg
4af828f4bfdaf1fd85cd34eb646d660e
5e4eabd7f639a164fe6a3e5d08c8f4bfd861f7ba
106176 F20110217_AAAHLC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_033.jpg
f53c5afbd1087bc0859813842277b5db
322f2e9bd653e70c5cc6d1260cfee22201ab8dd9
1412 F20110217_AAAFRQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_005.txt
f5d7727515f8a9ca44fbf5e678497e4a
072d0f81aa3b94bddc0d10464068bc8a4adb426e
F20110217_AAAGOJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_166.tif
10a52c6e7871a3e0bf7d57d26a31d738
935b4c12edffc7caf1b06351e6934f6499c3ff48
32725 F20110217_AAAHLD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_035.QC.jpg
cfa57c9b33c8e71ef4ee274b24906c1f
71c8e2c1a2338ca79665a33a8baa249bdf87f087
108698 F20110217_AAAFRR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_069.jp2
acc93ec83ce9e4d82457fce8f37872ad
12d1359e44e2b4d84ed36d0a9c90b98a5e2a10b0
34684 F20110217_AAAGOK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_061.QC.jpg
9640fa2acfc2668a16b71f7fa7d2b29f
6911483c8b5aaeb4f3d7ba383bb885008e7c72ae
31388 F20110217_AAAHLE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_038.QC.jpg
fee55c4b7ce5c395a95f5d13b801b7de
8edce3bad7de6345987cd9e4aa43c998413be92f
54910 F20110217_AAAGBA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_134.pro
5c2bfa08030a86751c479e973ff74627
2f8e96b800c9b7586cb47de5bddd36523f6e925f
55423 F20110217_AAAFRS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_081.pro
e3ed855be77aa16996cf5d490d72e380
6c8490d9afd4498ff8c4591983ab180251d147cc
7528 F20110217_AAAGOL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_014thm.jpg
ad1894ef0b7a5ecac09c30d70ce8acb6
e3ca8e5e274db7b76492ea354994bf2712b9c449
99921 F20110217_AAAHLF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_040.jpg
f99494a8b14c16e683593a74c589c494
698e4efecd6e2392578118ecc400b68c4657e594
35205 F20110217_AAAGBB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_183.QC.jpg
1ff01ed71a474f21cda6526dec86f081
5be9a632b75167a52442a267b1fca49ac51462c4
98259 F20110217_AAAFRT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_197.jpg
6bcd5cd5da4869e6aacabfb84860243c
a753faa90a655dd3f986e841311bbac319c10a50
F20110217_AAAGOM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_019.tif
8e4d881e73b0ed8d3e5ec38a94e96168
edf8859e4d5fc1834de18897dd1318e6ce918576
32899 F20110217_AAAHLG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_040.QC.jpg
e3f192548354d35146a4ee5895810833
f884b868d98848f7f8c78632b9a7934765fe2520
F20110217_AAAGBC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_058.tif
25c6cd77768a8cd88826677a50a9721b
bdd3d4ba8314bf4f4326e7221991394b4adb9887
7047 F20110217_AAAFRU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_009.QC.jpg
8da53910f74d461d65d6b69c91f8a6eb
71f0eaa3f179ca17fb47ee9d6ef5b713699e6ffb
F20110217_AAAGON nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_055.tif
3187e60ac2595125e0a2fe89fa83abd5
4a6d551b38247afcc427fd8636de4d088b518c4c
102235 F20110217_AAAHLH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_041.jpg
cad8899e17d3ebb9977da2db190fcb8a
123a5e221ec02ad2d85a39b0619800008389a899
108732 F20110217_AAAGBD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_217.jpg
aeaad65180897e8865abe4c6072a0e8d
5b36c8b366cb7b168380bb2005e55b04b8429cfb
F20110217_AAAFRV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_062.tif
2c361cbb8a66e0aa55e25f782135c33b
c1df4ad1372426ec06aaf2e8f6f4dee9f3385778
F20110217_AAAGOO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_185.QC.jpg
fc6b98a83cc3ad303611ece51927c83a
1928900b988a816f7bae1fdcd7e1d10711570ba9
104454 F20110217_AAAHLI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_042.jpg
2bd608114ced1012941cc8e93e0c45cd
665670ceb0f445a33961462e8884012fa2c6a4aa
8166 F20110217_AAAGBE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_078thm.jpg
978d3ffadad410821e30a9b5c76f8470
fe3743f2ff1a2ea6f1419eee00ef1c4d3709e621
40833 F20110217_AAAFRW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_231.pro
c7c48057875efcacf38dbf71ce338894
b8e72eea973d48313707bee898c79ccfc1466b99
36665 F20110217_AAAGOP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_111.QC.jpg
f5446cff45ee534b3c479e4676462ffd
e59ba7018e67d8fb82dd74ce1af7c69cbab73cf1
33252 F20110217_AAAHLJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_044.QC.jpg
ae0321b6cb95f55432e57fb23a430250
758a6d147b8f54bc71d5617ae5e9dfc685e17394
103075 F20110217_AAAGBF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_218.jpg
1af1793984754f96a127e24a65ce5180
4d524e59230cb932782329e822f245b6e67b57a7
F20110217_AAAFRX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_230.tif
72388d92db14396695ba39bd84d649b2
e453731def116f05c692992cefddc3a6f34a2fcc
F20110217_AAAGOQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_025.tif
39649c40ae580213f33c5ca86850d8e9
e670302b41dd090105cd2a1eb1fc3c0bc91d09a1
102569 F20110217_AAAHLK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_045.jpg
1cbc70905bb80c672053edafbbe9c0c0
5ce16b3fba12e59a7e5b4cdbf0f59f5e33ce28f0
103843 F20110217_AAAGBG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_028.jpg
e1f8482ed66ecf8cf7a5c4f8d2939a5c
370124bff2bbebf451ffdb49c63d0be321b329b8
8487 F20110217_AAAFRY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_215thm.jpg
0e927e11a6a8c063a4bb4cc29de96dff
d138a57c7d3a7237a08f059b4c04528f83198fb1
8686 F20110217_AAAGOR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_149thm.jpg
c1d30668690724be084fad88c39d52b7
8ee03259edfc6c60f4a9c09c1cb74ee43a8d47bb
101410 F20110217_AAAHLL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_046.jpg
56370aa78c3ab074a66ff8003d74a598
8397bd7df9a2f9b290f963c3738fc845c0330265
33302 F20110217_AAAGBH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_037.QC.jpg
c13a3c857954f99698c011e2711617a9
5123f3ee49337216f44bc1319d6d747aabf93533
112449 F20110217_AAAGOS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_025.jp2
e8fa3676cf83e21519e48d26f6e33b2c
8f4ddda98d3bca8a113c92d0ed7f7d9d3a067342
33944 F20110217_AAAHLM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_049.QC.jpg
ce89689faa0430026e9411037a224300
327ee55dfa584966262229581a1a45ad6709d170
47111 F20110217_AAAFRZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_167.pro
a173192bce8374c2944ddf4df01de75b
936aa47e4b2775b9b3353f853775b52b8212b7a1
109689 F20110217_AAAGOT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_186.jp2
e0bf3453b997517c053d77ebef1cad2f
63fd373996666e8e84e14ea3e7011b4c221315d8
30662 F20110217_AAAHLN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_055.QC.jpg
c94cab01953b37b737d1512b83035dad
d6ae1c731dd8d3d24ab11c9ffe30722b848e02ec
99334 F20110217_AAAGBI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_034.jpg
749eebe1049676b4c12e05208aa74f5a
e7713c89e5c4258f6533770bdca0ae7d457193fe
33792 F20110217_AAAGOU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_194.QC.jpg
39f86ce3d6b22447a35426ce21819e7e
42a58457fe9336393e7aea40874de7a8a1ce6210
97343 F20110217_AAAHLO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_056.jpg
5a2fe6b771840d5d4f9f81525722214b
c6e6377ff39aef4b338cbdad1f990dc2fed6ec34
53186 F20110217_AAAGBJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_241.pro
bebb9e6190115e4463f48717488448e9
7f28388233f28caa869f12950cbbd11beb548c66
97144 F20110217_AAAHLP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_060.jpg
b8ce2b19f74e422c33244fa6cf2a6c3b
d8bb4e79e467ea91dd266a9efb4e811caecb2ae4
2036 F20110217_AAAGBK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_037.txt
f23353cc51bde88967648fe6c732b8cc
56b9952f6d6ac08e26d8a98235213797c9fa80f3
2080 F20110217_AAAGOV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_065.txt
8cbd436d58cc214850969d113a3cb760
472535255bdb000f8d97940dee6a758cb099d8e5
32003 F20110217_AAAHLQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_060.QC.jpg
c3483f25af158be97b79d0c8ed244551
ff4aa3bbe8f5311e60dd8b6aa51cad5f4b2dc909
F20110217_AAAGBL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_167.tif
6fba5ddee27453534ebdad87d0d4434a
e90261e127afc92e9f52799af0adde794af2a84e
1051928 F20110217_AAAGOW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_008.jp2
7f3676f2a3ae84473d25618976024dee
bd384e26503ca38938389cb425f1b4247e3c7997
48460 F20110217_AAAGBM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_020.pro
372b51471291db1b20b9b60c60c3e7e9
d8fa45e070857b42ac60e8ac8e966cf83400fe10
35306 F20110217_AAAGOX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_098.QC.jpg
11346e93816d756b8d72292e58dc4d4c
40e9a0b7ac0e652e3a065c4c0f92db90430a0f11
92251 F20110217_AAAHLR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_062.jpg
a5f4c575afe7cb4963e7f5a647fe4a49
b160d317fd73cecd207e99e32f323755ce16ef51
F20110217_AAAGBN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_106.tif
a0e6b5d6ca50d6174a1f8cbfdadc398d
74a67952e7ef89186a982dd71a665130ac5ad3ec
53699 F20110217_AAAGOY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_224.pro
9e0c6a3dbc3d647a57dea51874f2df9e
1ba08ba1dcb5accd689e6fd451ea3209d8404ee4
100331 F20110217_AAAHLS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_063.jpg
44231ea4d7ca790af031ef7a6eea360e
ad4a934ccb12ec8a55b64440b3b99a97d8ebefbe
107336 F20110217_AAAGBO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_040.jp2
375f019e252ed2d2931b973d1d87c1cd
be2533085ecbdb1c22845873bec564344407f16b
F20110217_AAAGOZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_140.tif
d8b51dfa6365a37589ddb930b1d06ebc
6a6f772727acc26eaccc77d85666cd6c132db112
101109 F20110217_AAAHLT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_066.jpg
29bf30586caeda387783ec325508ce72
da0e66898322a6716c029a50b80b5a82102bdf77
96741 F20110217_AAAGBP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_198.jpg
0f8c7252c8f8cdf880a76789e6d8d7b2
066884ffa4b668b122c35ca362832f8813f1cce5
33814 F20110217_AAAHLU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_067.QC.jpg
3e3bb089ce532214c12c4b17b7776a0d
26994b32af899a50538847581af916ea7a519d23
2491 F20110217_AAAFXA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_098.txt
dc27a6b49252ae57bd24ac1e32a16359
bbc5a7e2874f3253ee5fb03dfbe50612429ddfbe
34005 F20110217_AAAGBQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_151.QC.jpg
0c21040be16def7a1a175a7810651786
c485380f5e4ef9807bac12288d8fc3b53b997292
75548 F20110217_AAAHLV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_074.jpg
e6b44598aea2806b74a0e02385188144
199fd03f2944c8099e435ad4cef33fda17542e53
2040 F20110217_AAAFXB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_186.txt
1ec4aa2b2a047f9e15cad67cdd49fa8c
212b27db90e7f1068fa008d6e978c15277f14f02
65411 F20110217_AAAGBR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_119.pro
030fdf09ea9d11cd3bdc461c4d3bf666
8a5191647dc4934a8a212d2b755e0c8fc185e89c
87741 F20110217_AAAHLW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_075.jpg
a189de59920076c9510b4161fcf08306
2b5d5c6fb2c842ac951b8e19031bc8fd03dca3ce
7936 F20110217_AAAFXC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_158thm.jpg
d980beeae928d508b7f10b02b478881d
256cd625ff246553030746c0d495fb0ae7bba37d
114422 F20110217_AAAGBS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_033.jp2
2400a0f6cb167f89d67ada2e9b628f21
ddded6c4bdf612a4fe13472fd20eef165fe750a3
103929 F20110217_AAAHLX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_079.jpg
90789833f146966be81fd08d41f5d477
9f5084e335e1e95177271bae93f1a130fe873e91
49732 F20110217_AAAFXD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_245.jp2
5c700c289deca0eb35b12060b668e938
372c98048b8a7b6699661a1bf1523d984182f3cd
32411 F20110217_AAAGBT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_068.QC.jpg
92c90a64aa4fc654b1304cc19945fab9
c08169467257df154e77689d54404257491b0424
109848 F20110217_AAAHLY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_082.jpg
f33d957ed5510290ba8f2d0fe18ccb12
472e1ff6968a7705106b2093cf812902c8832fde
2112 F20110217_AAAFXE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_123.txt
6f18c2d6cced2849e87c6cd940924e48
c7b63c9c9460f082170f87043abfa3145abe1ca6
916 F20110217_AAAGBU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_245.txt
46e6f36806e7cde7108031408e3a6bc1
5acaf14c65e11d86e97381658e2c1057dfdb6a99
35039 F20110217_AAAHLZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_082.QC.jpg
4b74b3d28b99a1f7c9c500517ea3252b
aa01846e18cd7184248da64a588f5fa673610a49
113606 F20110217_AAAFXF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_240.jpg
a081250f768007a4c6703fe30485c534
80706aa25c314f927104045195084d8b4407861a
114174 F20110217_AAAGBV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_169.jpg
895af70aa9b5fcfa90216707d4aab8c8
c8be601492168eef89e12062bbc1391a4d9473a3
F20110217_AAAFXG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_181.tif
d3aaee4cf2675c8154b6e2776248a78c
d48650e3197625e7c314a3add8a52d031b50f13a
F20110217_AAAGBW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_211.tif
7931d7f047272c647f0394011cb5d14c
0a589b26a2f0e584201c94e2539da23e1a29a9e7
8214 F20110217_AAAFXH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_127thm.jpg
500a16ccbc9bc9cfd5abff41dd5ce3fa
8fab5c25345a6fc1b9c616bbe2e15b02acfe4c96
31683 F20110217_AAAGBX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_050.QC.jpg
e47e000c29e0a5b6ab64a81bc79728c5
f50e781800fb0ce1cbce3df1a77ac8b73ba8d2dc
100525 F20110217_AAAGUA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_163.jpg
8fa8281c4277c323e0d7766c4a83eab1
566b39beee1b0970a9f25ef0ae6652fcbdb165e5
148964 F20110217_AAAFXI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_142.jpg
d8b16ee7c9fb63d572a2aa7371130a85
073a5066086a4ebd04b2dc0658d3ff4d3d008bad
8580 F20110217_AAAGBY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_153thm.jpg
1e3b75a2ab5a7bfc417f63c8938eb738
d3656b74d3f3706ee1e3af74a12da7b14641c667
F20110217_AAAGUB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_081.tif
486f2b9b2d2315f2e51cf1330c814dd4
db84d290ba611cb8af26cd957bc826d5a2a18f64
51834 F20110217_AAAFXJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_049.pro
d0aca62b6b249744e7d9fcdc1a688d89
5ac6898b7b3769af8b827b22b4d8a77352f9953c
119750 F20110217_AAAGBZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_129.jpg
6ab43030bd9d7d812addf2b2ce18f91e
33a0f22a19213309daeed4e58db54a21aecb09d7
F20110217_AAAGUC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_240.tif
ea59a083cfa53820d2e1689cb7ee041c
43321d42c5e82261bc434fa64ebbfa6186c3b9fc
7958 F20110217_AAAFXK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_106thm.jpg
330c328576a3f5e914863ea6aea70478
203ca77444f3cdb0fd7b56e978f5a875e631e912
2049 F20110217_AAAGUD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_196.txt
39171f6725bafae89d4cc7aa2cff0950
3b6e5e14cf97b1a86db22cc7d49f6ff3da420fc3
16978 F20110217_AAAFKA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_227.QC.jpg
e5ee5c0c13c91bf6c957bd8f4396e573
d46b47bd295a395510ef729a4850f96c28f35107
F20110217_AAAFXL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_229.tif
31b217543e9ac37bd696830aba28d10f
690bfbe9a55a5027a64b7a902283d0d15b42c0a0
30839 F20110217_AAAGUE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_157.QC.jpg
4af6c6eedf1daab269c97654aaf04cf3
f69cafa5fcd88d33e4997d82f2aa8cb050338c59
2219 F20110217_AAAFKB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_177.txt
c1c56e5a9f387e53a4dd09150ba078d9
9c64027af54610ff8fb1a972603740f2a33d9e35
63113 F20110217_AAAFXM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_093.pro
eea593a7a695ebb56c9d5e3b457ac22f
cda28db4129921ae9b80006da54f6dba3f923523
F20110217_AAAGUF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_227.tif
1750f1cc1c8b66dd7a0a23efc4fc0fd3
092995342d850f26619befa34a50d8bef8cff7b7
F20110217_AAAFKC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_079.tif
d11825570758ce35892322d45dadca8b
919867663491956f3f3697d406c5e9c0375c9a3e
2065 F20110217_AAAFXN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_031.txt
4d6c4143bf16c19dd2a05b19f4438908
4ec6cdbc0f49ee843e5af5e5ae58f6702939a381
33014 F20110217_AAAGUG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_063.QC.jpg
4c9807f403cc4e16d0c035aaac352430
f74b07c26c713daef19816bfb5ea6faab304d93f
121289 F20110217_AAAFKD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_112.jpg
c9c552a6d0a842e9066e6435a53239ab
6dda0845410804207a572b4d48b45bffa3fb9371
1783 F20110217_AAAFXO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_052.txt
21bc788a8f4729673859516d8e981cb8
567d3e868f10cb22276495b999a83643d51757e6
109448 F20110217_AAAGUH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_210.jp2
fd3f494e612976e3257b8597f21f0677
ec55a986278123333703a3a12982e230d7b5673e
107157 F20110217_AAAHRA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_070.jp2
1127af3f1b8bbf3cc1161385e5a327c2
367bf11f2ef54242b47d2a16e0f78a885953ddf0
F20110217_AAAFKE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_205.tif
8049cd7a14f9be6ae0b4d04a879db27e
f28e7b26cd944850c57f4f34aa79f291c2feff1b
F20110217_AAAFXP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_108.tif
f6463c0a6c689de6871159b817de0436
ed3aca50883fe2ea846fca90c0e767772fbee681
F20110217_AAAGUI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_026.txt
90f6112be5619d8ec74a04184dbcbb2e
6c2e6ac7a98091222c8a57fe50ed3da951ca47c8
109426 F20110217_AAAHRB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_073.jp2
9c3ac854e765385bb8666dc1c41edd97
3b7bfa1df69337c4cee57b1e2e048d15ce816eac
731 F20110217_AAAFKF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_191.txt
bd9d7b74a8321d525b9440c980678838
fafdb28db02d96d00bc9e8d335543587715ca488
F20110217_AAAFXQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_023.tif
2ea516b67d3e230daf4181e685091cbd
cb9f6822ca6403a96700fbf083f56ec76b8e0421
1270 F20110217_AAAGUJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_226thm.jpg
b66912679cbc03623918347e00ef6d64
8f89b82b7694356192a6d81f725be68a13eb568d
93396 F20110217_AAAHRC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_075.jp2
fc416c46f7e437c36df5fab742b448d4
62487471a89171f8ea0d62d00c556e75916e58cf
33365 F20110217_AAAFKG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_223.QC.jpg
67f5ead88a6077d9538272bfef6e192a
e9304cb46b1c739c702c99de427181623184a708
487 F20110217_AAAFXR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_228.txt
f1ca98d8a4ef2752b358f7a663a0dc85
6d6e4ba0d0f5c0e0519026616299a4011022a89f
106316 F20110217_AAAGUK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_106.jpg
2171beb7d3e9c5e79efb19a53ae0d5a3
fcf14e7c2e7426af128054de7991d4c335b4781f
105754 F20110217_AAAHRD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_076.jp2
524ca564b09c54d0862ae4e0a507eedb
f4c325a0d71a5b25cd6e8d607e869a1c575df12c
2342 F20110217_AAAGHA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_139.txt
1949b3a79bef685a04e2cc024d7cd1ba
234ecb38f6cd1428d58b2a67da41b633159dba34
F20110217_AAAFXS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_132.tif
b0d34b0cdfa164c726bb5012daf168be
bc188e4ca3473d6bfae526c0322c11e90d31cc20
8336 F20110217_AAAGUL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_112thm.jpg
8b6d6e9376a9e1136c1cabab881f5b0d
898dbc31bb81beecb8196ef849a8cacb8538105c
116230 F20110217_AAAHRE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_081.jp2
e61bd5064d50facd30e690749eb83abf
042d8b219927b695a57030e3e5f84bf96c2e6fd3
33382 F20110217_AAAFKH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_080.QC.jpg
c2cb8e0a1e0f608b383c0bada87899d4
1d488867dfb3335450e99c8ff0f38bd3e29c5659
8464 F20110217_AAAGHB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_103thm.jpg
59e0d6da12ffb59f31c6a1f076d1bda3
e807dd456ce807be0f511c1c666ad494dc3ce228
32442 F20110217_AAAFXT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_213.QC.jpg
648d02d48fac8aead0005a94e85127d7
f44c7362bd62fb68e5af253359a7842a29ea3b8b
56202 F20110217_AAAGUM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_243.pro
73929d4da595012981f2a5edca62bc4c
1c3b78678833024d9043f068372863971f1ad886
111910 F20110217_AAAHRF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_085.jp2
f1e3e19f644b100204542de98be799bc
73e4b56733dc65cc915f5d4c301d0652e7ed1602
1830 F20110217_AAAFKI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_121.txt
2d5951c07bf0ed3d50df578e4a4e017d
8eb04c083914fa1f35b57e1e6de24cdd0c3f07b5
2153 F20110217_AAAGHC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_083.txt
32eab9380aa23d376bdbac9d3604c3e2
0261af944de6d8cdb3e2a516ef4f30d056dfaabd
57776 F20110217_AAAFXU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_115.pro
03f489c72a1c94748386c2cc153014b2
542c755317f47b9d8e3c00df9afe70a668da8c1e
46102 F20110217_AAAGUN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_178.pro
a07ffb45b3256aa2a399f60b2851c362
6f9eb31f68307491dd299f9936e63b361d0d018a
104465 F20110217_AAAHRG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_089.jp2
38a66c997765a194fa7e84e1963bf9a4
16c6d19fdc07839d8ee37c904dd11730aa1728f9
F20110217_AAAFKJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_210.tif
a00d7666e31c35225b605c210e770fdf
caa16c977004d879e93dc6c124994e120af4fbf5
32957 F20110217_AAAGHD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_212.QC.jpg
19ff877bc798cf4a337efdcb447bf07b
3ef98651f1f7630a720d238e7004129600da084f
126064 F20110217_AAAFXV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_102.jpg
fba8917b3a8936b239aa8837f3880ec9
341ac5cad8fda2578db64b67b6fe2b58945f094d
F20110217_AAAGUO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_243.tif
22eecefe5a6fb551f3165abfe4af27c0
3971514cba77f1eb7c3405e911ce7642e7fa14e9
118263 F20110217_AAAHRH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_090.jp2
65e613579cc276c72fab856c21be3b8c
4d6e41a429ebf0ce5f84f5e29de27b63a178829b
50728 F20110217_AAAFKK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_187.pro
e58a008a235a43514d00ce79fc9599f4
a1f3d7b3e4010b76a4a867c9c3af8f9a21fa9f86
F20110217_AAAGHE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_066.txt
46bd94f88fbe350f4b72d0a967823463
f3e0c4dfb4afe44d50f8588bf0470a04437f899e
33090 F20110217_AAAFXW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_208.QC.jpg
2570e1fb947161a411c09b526e14054f
f8fa2a6fe02bd5e6ce6f728bf9a84dd3b58d8912
130378 F20110217_AAAGUP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_111.jpg
1ba72ecc604de5d6645b03c96bbe4908
97f1d0b52af541fbdbc8a13fa7ceab062d6f11d3
117990 F20110217_AAAHRI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_104.jp2
b6682c56d8bbaff7669528fd1748f647
74fa7578d3aba3763518f225a2f56c5d30087d8a
33405 F20110217_AAAFKL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_046.QC.jpg
504f78d3a0d0f42a37792b0a8b1ca2bc
4cac6cf12e69f86f25161b3956c49566ada1f870
1051947 F20110217_AAAGHF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_077.jp2
19a5432c48e62ba3a3c875078fddeae5
698e58495e0112edcd3029c0b758134ce1fc3d5e
48360 F20110217_AAAFXX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_108.pro
6c96643111a9edd587f05d5022270420
4b9da85d60db143b29c9a3726cf3883c51dff6e7
58921 F20110217_AAAGUQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_173.pro
43ca39638a7c4ff97fc0539470181164
8afc5bb797cffc53f0cb4b9ba688bfece5c756e4
107106 F20110217_AAAHRJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_109.jp2
8c5fa8b3f0906c8a11d31b110a00d571
451ac5d1ae50004a9ad35d60c280571280510221
8117 F20110217_AAAFKM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_201thm.jpg
5967dfdb629a8f6a8e5ccac9afa6f881
d14d6126748713785759ade22a2b0fc07c667d1b
52773 F20110217_AAAGHG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_016.pro
a54ceac9ad2bb40a6b347166043afed1
cc5c9f1df790d905b1774d2848883ae2913e415d
8262 F20110217_AAAFXY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_180thm.jpg
3dbe12327499e25aa2b312c13092c5c6
9806e8b950e62ba4f66a0a019eebbbaabc3b8d9f
113734 F20110217_AAAGUR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_027.jp2
234b8a799e6d54a9cd4dd724ae050510
eb7f647683f7d039b8329197f63905dc3412497d
104665 F20110217_AAAHRK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_110.jp2
6eeec7a04b00e0135716858743634c8b
bde4b3c0befa5c158d1b1c430848a907eca8678a
3575 F20110217_AAAFKN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_018thm.jpg
3bedb9253904b2f5c202120f95e5a8ec
d33a1a20896c273775096e4e6d49ce4bf63216d3
8449 F20110217_AAAGHH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_187thm.jpg
86edea0028426cf268241dd33e43bbdb
85a7ff95f0e0ca17ecc44d4e037d62d07f9581ac
54812 F20110217_AAAFXZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_106.pro
13d9450023486ae575c7ad380d77f9ec
0d6151765604f713f899f2d6ca98e0c05ea3b440
F20110217_AAAHEA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_245.tif
86b217faaabfb8a59797dc9207cea6ba
ab6091869233cdda9964ea663aa92449047971e3
F20110217_AAAGUS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_044.txt
a368cfc9ce394b7277b70e31aad42457
9496dbf3bf59ad5b73b9bb79464473c95c662657
126607 F20110217_AAAHRL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_117.jp2
5188790021604929f7834ebae962d16a
05609da66b1f628e3ec8175c00974e5c0277154c
50837 F20110217_AAAFKO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_072.pro
c023df8c5f1dec5e82b3bee329edee61
ebfa8e54b45b1fe267990f61b0075ca66f5b26d3
F20110217_AAAGHI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_036thm.jpg
487ab8a116dadc9c1f23ed5661a39b09
b9d56df53cae009faf7e88cc3666f2d679d7306c
466 F20110217_AAAHEB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_001.txt
ee0fd229b5dc70a0c57ec65cc6f10424
8be731cbeed4f85338867637d3244599f9e049a7
F20110217_AAAGUT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_131.tif
4a3133e4f2a41ba2671011c7cee7a305
ebd494cc06bd3747d52dc754d42b813f7e7ade68
125929 F20110217_AAAHRM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_118.jp2
947b0604898991a8ce59d4e0cf19627e
401c2b41bfc611c1fd92b9d5f6f530af2aecacae
111678 F20110217_AAAFKP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_022.jp2
de75a118037c822f434a36f649e358ec
7af53b5c4916fc7aee44adee7181a84d2e63a080
F20110217_AAAGHJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_118.tif
08c43b22b04990e26e29b27b84993ac2
0dc0cff0b0c3a064ad29d6fe706d7659eef24a5d
1642 F20110217_AAAHEC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_004.txt
c66c7c2b523e5edbf95998a4cc399ffe
e785238d7e449bfd933f8ca94093b2be0dc40083
50568 F20110217_AAAGUU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_155.pro
ef291917c6d21bc910cab7c5ba584957
78f4b2fd00a6d4016dc7d35438532a9faabac456
130438 F20110217_AAAHRN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_119.jp2
a4b815aed9161d8edeb3b5d4aa54ac73
73e5765f7e1c3627ed3a8ad7101062542cd75e3d
8361 F20110217_AAAFKQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_134thm.jpg
b3e953d351cc831b239a14b1ddcf0ffd
abf8f036ed4252e310f0310e9f2954f6187190de
31762 F20110217_AAAGHK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_059.QC.jpg
f4dd49d0cbef67a357844f11761a7db9
bb03f4f030b86ded554392611e845d69506e7837
3433 F20110217_AAAHED nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_006.txt
c40f8a448dd721f29ab4860e09d270dc
3585218ef911da808fd92d3543f1328580f33302
1999 F20110217_AAAGUV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_205.txt
a2c27a9136d738010a0c05c5c18bf612
1c20a4cef43962b6a1bcfe369a5b427fe535b491
102528 F20110217_AAAHRO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_120.jp2
8fa4ea3e5ba4da292682d690fd863380
d5f85b91207010b6f66f37576209e2b97c5f127a
34150 F20110217_AAAFKR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_211.QC.jpg
ab2370f93336e961d09cdda22a6f85db
ccaefe895e6e888626312fc54c7b464f7edbb6db
36054 F20110217_AAAGHL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_136.QC.jpg
320dee2e3e35e286a7c227b3aff1d4a5
749d0c608c91b7083a8ae353ca147b176f3cb386
4805 F20110217_AAAHEE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_007.txt
fca4a74ffd99f97c7205d6e7cc8a7d87
b28d35c9a1f876b9b106075c86b783648d8665ce
8972 F20110217_AAAGUW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_064thm.jpg
5e783ea190f5e53e4a45a823a1256068
f8e09f524ffa82ada52e865220507907ae6eae23
111640 F20110217_AAAHRP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_122.jp2
b47b1a81650e2e795002cde68f97dd04
4f86043d699ed05739e6e2d7633a95b99ef90eb4
9037 F20110217_AAAGHM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_191.QC.jpg
d78b6debc03c5d2985224d136b45257d
976d2bb456f5fb57da1d7bce16d24face51140df
4183 F20110217_AAAHEF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_008.txt
5b5da4c942d326893a189c364fb54bd7
d6331dc28ada45fa77c22cabb33d9f28790fb857
46964 F20110217_AAAGUX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_056.pro
9a88c0e913397f6124d6ce073c6f0c9a
8f36cf8a503495bb90f63e1b6cc892535cedfb4b
131047 F20110217_AAAHRQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_126.jp2
c411e930d3995a2326fbf7fae0fd7b7e
3f3f718ba7df8309c08240eecbaeb1d6017463f3
30929 F20110217_AAAFKS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_199.QC.jpg
6a2fee267287e3244945c398c64140b7
2be34860f460e3aa231dea8336e5d00b372f1b31
97593 F20110217_AAAGHN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_068.jpg
382a620bde21ad536891cc608e19b3d9
72ca39242e151ea73a61a642f336c2ce4a6d1497
1103 F20110217_AAAHEG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_011.txt
09b94db97d4e35f812013014f3b07db5
da08ffb7dc4927f771b23ae4e5c9be5750acad5d
33121 F20110217_AAAGUY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_071.QC.jpg
823a2184727b8910283bc1bd8e2ec8fe
9062f5d6a0831fb0164dda57a445d39ea01435e5
124725 F20110217_AAAHRR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_129.jp2
1a45c2d4f396b77820e27b23efc296f8
f19e195a1ef8bcd1ffd3026d68c6ce5f885a3127
2014 F20110217_AAAFKT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_150.txt
da576adf327def8dc035238316848913
cff8476daebd0bb5bbe5b846a8a5b035b194a137
1703 F20110217_AAAHEH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_012.txt
a61e3f589a2c5fe513c1d5cfbfb97957
3a46605273437324be3bee6878d13d4fb4662822
1988 F20110217_AAAGUZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_163.txt
bc4c9d76af4c79bf071c05bd602bfb12
3e1065257d2ddbc27a318bb5997969e32e3f4124
117695 F20110217_AAAHRS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_130.jp2
d41641f7d69623362129b8792b1effad
4bc385933e34e895130c6e021b64849cf2bf2294
1951 F20110217_AAAFKU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_188.txt
09b3bb3d2fa414399e6ab534939fd135
d41eeac71b8eb1c9447c3ad7d472ddc4333e1fc7
33012 F20110217_AAAGHO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_124.QC.jpg
0fb6b165069aa63af257e6d11a03a0a0
a75a43a133043a223fd5fe3d68eee887a91066b6
2017 F20110217_AAAHEI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_015.txt
139cfc15f71ed40673bc7c0981061618
02fa99de59751e02053ca84b3c95bcf18f0547e2
121672 F20110217_AAAHRT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_131.jp2
462f4fd2f9876102e387706980dd2776
5077dd3cdac2b2b634905bf74aef61025ce665e9
101113 F20110217_AAAFKV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_208.jpg
ba84b1e9c1e76c3470d23df26857b022
f9cc5f3bfc8eec94e7a0a2ed1aeedc6216d60a1b
34110 F20110217_AAAGHP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_008.QC.jpg
34753f785951db165cd77376670cc8e0
c4d25f70f4d7b8a6932ed10daabb3ea8a99f15af
824 F20110217_AAAHEJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_018.txt
487e75b8bf067b53b187bd8bc7deb08f
b1eade227b5c99029b5012b965980cbf47823f76
125623 F20110217_AAAHRU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_133.jp2
eaf7eb04afe459d85ac22ddc1e9eece3
792453ccaf4ed1ffa3370951480987bdfbb01505
11338 F20110217_AAAFKW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_009.pro
a477292b2c59b73ac10dfb8ebfdfc39e
5ad9f2be4eee98473b5c34b66d289b4fd3701a4a
111094 F20110217_AAAGHQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_139.jpg
c551ac8068b6a3f06ae47fa981444e44
75afc3efd003cccd7c493a440df845fb57077953
98301 F20110217_AAAHRV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_137.jp2
d7099911607cdcc80efdc302c229050c
61ead403e7cb73c6b14c56554784aa7dcadece54
57346 F20110217_AAAFKX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_139.pro
939005d88f0f5c622eaaa06efae50f13
7811d8f5da9701bb2c3cff2bdb1c15ae27d7f85e
57968 F20110217_AAAGHR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_153.pro
737c567a54d3e38877a3e18070a4cd4a
f1692d5134c30df6c5f8a92eba5957023da9eb1b
1759 F20110217_AAAHEK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_019.txt
ce18affddf7a7db4172596e1300b3cdf
fca153288b7a2f8bc9482e26273e9390962be92b
119144 F20110217_AAAHRW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_141.jp2
135b966b90ded64d33c1ddf3ded0bfa4
2a72f6ff89e0d6a9922d6ea97cde8897c6bd2394
104184 F20110217_AAAFKY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_017.jpg
72bca7822ecb5ec19b1f318f09bf2659
c55bf4439d2dfe61f0ebd96b5928c152c08e680d
8322 F20110217_AAAGHS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_068thm.jpg
1fb858335e80273aa421c4c583823939
86c0bd8eeef30988fa625d8e2af4f2d947865703
2066 F20110217_AAAHEL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_023.txt
3ac4e7bb7851d71822215eac8d27e32f
4c3fbf80c45ce9bc18c26c5eaa358d747751a1b0
F20110217_AAAFKZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_110.txt
34cb3e2b37fdb9d494631152718e41b5
b1ccf9bf205226f1e94090216e84f2c6bb2dfaaa
55301 F20110217_AAAGHT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_080.pro
4d83e9955d0301ae6280c4358ee62f38
ad7aaacdbcca1d39ac39b6bb60df00bcfd53f09b
F20110217_AAAHEM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_024.txt
2d81dfc59e824c632775607ceb06a5a3
16a7047951821b48b8ece205b79f542d3894aeaa
119639 F20110217_AAAHRX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_144.jp2
697af285c8c2557fc96786860e2e152d
a4c2882ab98fe9f3fb28335b52e03a7d27413f91
32537 F20110217_AAAGHU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_215.QC.jpg
2d8647b76c108cb82177390006cdbd2c
b7474537b377eefbd837b9979a8e1c2964678c65
F20110217_AAAHEN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_027.txt
a7ab86fa0c21f25559a7303812750050
5d40fe00d1c8fc552432ae475630bf35ec7b1b61
131158 F20110217_AAAHRY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_145.jp2
23ddb1bf03798395279d151698720a62
c1f3fc6b9572df1cb08cbccb5d4c58ce32d1bdbb
108820 F20110217_AAAGHV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_205.jp2
aba9b75f63cf8c1ff4656f188943a8ed
d74b7eb6fbb651a9f3c7b8e8b9cdfd87ef2e0820
2047 F20110217_AAAHEO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_028.txt
807bfe8279736c11a25d8df0ccd79bac
7a523d889bef95c63064d522de7afe216ef7699a
116273 F20110217_AAAHRZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_146.jp2
d80a55bcde94549a0b235f385df64b1e
7d37ee42a0b0d924de63a28a99df5c172bf6ef21
8090 F20110217_AAAGHW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_193thm.jpg
0a7289a181411ff2f51d1088d3a7364a
4b0c87e48530b7d2b91105f5d24d5334f858b4f1
2092 F20110217_AAAHEP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_033.txt
a086e67e21c112ab0f32b3ca3cf99630
45096d3b19da356a7110c76ffa17b04dfe3e64bc
1885 F20110217_AAAGHX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_199.txt
3401b04ed14abf328b0404da3c6acdf2
2d555991254c94c5c852cf1be747b2809f6be021
1903 F20110217_AAAHEQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_038.txt
a1dac880ef1098a548a1b27c4421cb8e
d885ccccd0f1189805ccee76ac3b8ebd891b5b21
106796 F20110217_AAAGHY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_035.jp2
1b8e112c39586fecf92c9680e00b452f
814cf46f33d48d2a513aa200cd854c6347452da2
2117 F20110217_AAAHER nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_053.txt
17ae9278d38e4be3460234d54ba1aee6
9a89fcc418a8e2f660ef76dc7d3dcb736c294403
33337 F20110217_AAAGHZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_138.QC.jpg
88df589bdb79321b897ff86152442769
8a1fe194eefbb0d6f298273b22d158d3ecac3bc5
1961 F20110217_AAAHES nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_058.txt
1833bda61a896cd8e730bab60bc1d93a
29e33e24f2d9e4579a275d63bf3ef992a70af134
2046 F20110217_AAAHET nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_072.txt
0a516a52c1cef244169b01eed9527e1b
872ef2575ff0cbcb8272446a3d67a299fec0fc55
1558 F20110217_AAAHEU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_074.txt
d8f99a9f359ed4c5145b4465e0112133
e9166b67dc0be088c4bf516d954da9cd6888e849
104119 F20110217_AAAFQA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_157.jp2
b9b6e32ad8a3c86ed528d106e4c7955f
55c6f3eeb99495aed7de39af7fd6c78b2d6ca203
1799 F20110217_AAAHEV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_075.txt
f5a386ce461c7185f637f3d2939d447d
835aad5959be49593dfe416989d2a19de105630f
106900 F20110217_AAAFQB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_095.jpg
1231c908518705796bb58fb0fb156fe6
31098467d2d291f5c0796cf38328379b0e8df043
2918 F20110217_AAAHEW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_077.txt
e76d562e786a46028f4ef82b30d927a5
9329efc2242a83136176b5b79a3931a1b3f06349
82321 F20110217_AAAFQC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_006.pro
591950be42bef2f3db1945070281a44f
85a52e2e2cbc3e4d1233ece799134dde79566ad6
F20110217_AAAHEX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_078.txt
5e4a86c223037c923acc57b54dbf6c93
0342ce8cc20bfa64d1423ba283635018454c89ba
2142 F20110217_AAAFQD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_122.txt
4e3dcfbf3ae0665ad57c48695ccef5c2
ea8b007aecc7c1e2ca7a4eae3158b1535fa6cb4d
2139 F20110217_AAAHEY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_079.txt
f59dccbd924b31a0a033694c0d3a52b4
96cb766549d3d128a48994398bb388bf3a3a2c3e
57385 F20110217_AAAFQE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_240.pro
281a67c280e1bc334f3808163c0457e1
7be8c5a65959ad678d06429377c5e101ec07af3d
2210 F20110217_AAAHEZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_081.txt
a1f53f16f77d4991346e1094d8395677
f4c7a1352f9747bf37e2b1389fa81aa86b0e5ab8
101297 F20110217_AAAFQF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_053.jpg
c061f8b58c481b640244e9630557b92d
669c3cbd72b99ca64ee1678b1b7e4e00f93e17bc
104363 F20110217_AAAFQG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_108.jp2
200906313851b1b708897dab6a1dc77a
f26aa3f22766aeaf2545b9bd2699ddf57ae6775d
32908 F20110217_AAAGNA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_210.QC.jpg
6d97899a73a826be582dd913b43769b3
ec20f879d6357c1e4f089981b0378edaea38c607
109023 F20110217_AAAFQH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_134.jpg
631b1e1a10e745a506e548db2ad3141a
fc69b7fe017d88c510c7ccbac12f9cb59ad7e355
1892 F20110217_AAAGNB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_089.txt
4007348f48daf3d3a9edbea72c7e1212
3f382e70aa793420048e3f2ad77da85f8db38074
27334 F20110217_AAAFQI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_054.QC.jpg
f811b51238139b35fa5cc986b2d48016
9892b7cd2dcbf08838a778453e80f401905cfc62
F20110217_AAAGNC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_208.tif
3a011961a07cff158aba7459f15f50d6
523a56c2e09ce8720b235783bfc48e625a66b5a9
49270 F20110217_AAAFQJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_213.pro
9a0b15b5561c953acd621f89bd930abd
8f8ee005b7152bcee4f78e521a998dbf8eb9ac7c
33439 F20110217_AAAGND nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_094.QC.jpg
d4baa55899279c8cc10b7c2833b17d9d
a70d246bd2f5a1f227d601b0363a67f885def77b
136942 F20110217_AAAFQK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_235.jpg
53e36eeddc263c7867ff73409d276381
0eb11612a31e62c82a8ce6839a4ac67f16c23843
142652 F20110217_AAAGNE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_114.jp2
b6b657a137128ebae34c03ffbf1e2907
3dd933b6eb15317b4b9161c52f0c630f984c4da3
F20110217_AAAFQL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_036.txt
4f4dd498af2dc015db62ff930355d40a
251bd4afd52e426ad403b2a8e9bf450b16461ece
31852 F20110217_AAAGNF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_166.QC.jpg
41fcd432dd9d41013dac88af7b59f773
5c265d6701f1d9f300985c18943950ebc23fcbff
107146 F20110217_AAAFQM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_182.jpg
92d14f5ecadb01bf717f6eed565a725f
ae5d6f63b9409648bab78485e6d5d2e5b331ec3b
8369 F20110217_AAAGNG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_196thm.jpg
79eeecdf5fd2c3daeea99a5394335c8e
b4fc79e4c4fad4e2be228e34ce121a6a9d6734db
108535 F20110217_AAAFQN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_183.jpg
339db29b3ab3657c6ac8291970777aa5
82b6d14159f4fa7685b3f35c72459499ee581817
115845 F20110217_AAAGNH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_082.jp2
edffc53796d2fd6d668bda63321a7599
6bdba76e0cd770a6ea6a10724f96f7c615ad8252
49641 F20110217_AAAHKA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_221.pro
9915d2d3602d5575811492f28f55bf54
205a42bd8f6e164a859c635797b79a2d09d3adb5
104977 F20110217_AAAFQO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_168.jpg
1e83f405add1c3332d66b7eb17a7664a
ee2d2ef37197a0939be80459852f463b4d72da60
8376 F20110217_AAAGNI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_124thm.jpg
c44334c8d1b72bdafff767ce523f1304
4b901c41d646f5f9c08028cfc89002a5ab042730
39400 F20110217_AAAHKB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_227.pro
2d0798b94088481eabba8e6a19065177
5db75c1ca9d8e336c04d557f5f9279ba39e901ed
101110 F20110217_AAAFQP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_185.jpg
9e737357aeaf37e37d9d51aa3dc25a27
0cb54d2bd6ce47f60a11cc6f76a23a87f6e67b4b
9711 F20110217_AAAHKC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_228.pro
bfcd723c2434f32820ff742149a37fe0
ea4b7d564cea922e0be5b2d9057d374cbed77dfe
F20110217_AAAFQQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_197.tif
4b2b2cd38b0560cadd4a00088aa512e8
d5073a97a8c0a6bc1bf1abc81dea203facda2cf0
33229 F20110217_AAAGNJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_079.QC.jpg
41a0d045aad6a1512f3cc689e3f54c71
69c6bd7e04bdd34ae569e8db580506d80c6e4774
65738 F20110217_AAAHKD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_234.pro
9cb1b6a407d88bb9f1b0867f8e66aded
490b6cd8d814ea45ff1e86d6e2852f7e1a5f84c7
100953 F20110217_AAAFQR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_094.jpg
2327f4273f26c244abfaa564bb34530a
ed0d23ffa7d2eac5b956f0fd32c90b5fc31b06d7
50520 F20110217_AAAGNK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_092.pro
cd6749c8b0fa301d83d46389fa258fa7
0754bf97ad6e1202cd1527a30cebdc907c2f8335
55981 F20110217_AAAHKE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_242.pro
2b0935842e02bf4d8eb2433951a3da9c
e89a4510b27c9931939e86e8181c050af7246e02
8584 F20110217_AAAGAA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_128thm.jpg
12bc21741e6c83c59214a9030ad7d8b7
949b7865b2c368b57202df7f69a6de4d2137d7b2
F20110217_AAAFQS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_222.tif
9799608b3b1b7e60bf1360c868cc6022
27e6e45b311dae9d57e72ff51b059b27fc793044
51076 F20110217_AAAGNL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_216.pro
a0e199ce580c254f848eba9b3725e248
8baf76e3509d9e450284994276025878a4bf244a
17298 F20110217_AAAHKF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_244.pro
81702d07e7483aab1f80a347bb34f851
e660ddf4002737973c17d9f6fef0219eec400278
8429 F20110217_AAAGAB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_183thm.jpg
e3255ecdf6052dfb47d08d21ffe482b5
6a4dff05ec4d98c6ec341ff77438e555ea285a90
F20110217_AAAFQT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_107.txt
cbb858b9c13454a0f80b899f39c23df0
ecb5a12cff00fffd49bdca42811428597574441c
131270 F20110217_AAAGNM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_116.jp2
a5d5500c30cf85643cde4fbf641ed2aa
d421b4b1cb05c86f142b3c7fc96c3ba01bdd7885
21848 F20110217_AAAHKG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_245.pro
427f6bd08386f92b12668f239d5b14a4
c92a5aba2bb1445e2f6ae53ee39c20391337ebf6
33646 F20110217_AAAGAC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_131.QC.jpg
d12a24a0a7d743eec5c1a757ddbbe49a
ea4d7d5e041a9e3bea6c28c70cb54c7e6b08f691
F20110217_AAAFQU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_164.tif
46ed65a6a92942b216d6eda23ae9dac7
e0163cd9a284e819ee2cdd4db9c5e122a8fb6c13
135149 F20110217_AAAGNN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_140.jpg
78193b45e961ce517226a8b9fcde33eb
488ee99edbadbd47488b82ba09fba142ccceee0f
8404 F20110217_AAAHKH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_001.QC.jpg
a92687bffefb5153f83d5a9b9aac7d09
7c5eca66eb45f9558df55ce9917baa1a37b6d4e2
103881 F20110217_AAAGAD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_022.jpg
c2550dce218b298d5217065223e633d1
bc3ab53b16a39f81147bbf0633c451d96ca7da5b
49718 F20110217_AAAFQV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_201.pro
7f7dc6e6d2a9af72ee9d6c446e75b0b3
5d3be1b156203207380288ae6f745e400b062994
101563 F20110217_AAAGNO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_021.jpg
f402b40fc9f60aca419b3160c02ecba9
eb810dc81e94dcfe410664de4fb4294fcd416354
4334 F20110217_AAAHKI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_002.jpg
55a7c21f52e5e9477d708134959bf574
d8f152f737bf5fa3e1542268848be76e7510a543
8427 F20110217_AAAGAE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_030thm.jpg
35056038e51df1b27b05c238e8ebbe15
b8cdbe99accb9c10e8983ed8ca190db1879c6fce
2027 F20110217_AAAFQW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_071.txt
27e95c38599790494b9a1540945fc901
091a8f0eb53dd877c32cdb4bb1b77a234477ed05
F20110217_AAAGNP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_070.QC.jpg
a8d933b2db31cb3e917d9220aa0c5ca1
30ad11580fd02238bfeceaf5d1c238d8bbd017c8
F20110217_AAAHKJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_003.QC.jpg
a0ffb438e2a36bdf1d1557a7fd985abd
5d78d1fde949f796046caf13c9ed03cb339f7e01
105353 F20110217_AAAGAF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_057.jpg
bf8c714b00133abda0801e0874839519
64af394e599b6e1103bdc3e1182c629ce1858d28
52191 F20110217_AAAFQX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_200.pro
235703d8dcaed99101052531d536be64
cfb1976973ba9800cbe2df1331543642604d671c
51435 F20110217_AAAGNQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_189.pro
bc2ec03e8e9ee311daeb7c51d75c574b
d6c031a22deea233dd343e72f8ddf6658bfb7db2
72887 F20110217_AAAHKK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_005.jpg
d3f4953d005075699c364f43e9f43e20
48c1db0d3e5395dc93130d21d1f9068f658d5e92
30436 F20110217_AAAGAG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_121.QC.jpg
a86b6000ad30549799ab60f2ba2f571f
15f4a3452c75c968765cf7d9be6137e4b1d3430b
103411 F20110217_AAAGNR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_211.jpg
4591be1714d8634d7858b6f13c325079
85e1eaadd7e27f2164a93aab12163edb0ad601f6
100529 F20110217_AAAHKL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_006.jpg
83884afe95df43bcb5e118b48305d126
d8e9caeae48c4fb9ebce58cd9f88c7a78d3fcd92
107535 F20110217_AAAFQY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_085.jpg
8aa6098458232858c408c68298da1ae1
0466e05ffe6fe7b2781f8f6c4a07025b0989201e
F20110217_AAAGNS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_103.tif
9150aed500482d60ed908f1f32109fa3
6e157bd6d283146db82e3af852540897f380da3a
139903 F20110217_AAAHKM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_007.jpg
88b3ddabc3b67897e139f9519fb1a176
31551779fa796b30f1b3f24e3a0ab730ef315ab2
72159 F20110217_AAAGAH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_013.jpg
7a0c242c28e9d1fb9a3a4d739f5a944f
eadea95172174314e6f8d7cc94eff6d0309ea26f
F20110217_AAAFQZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_041.txt
7a3e3218202c7ceb73e5dd1882f9a2e6
f0488a286e6a1f090c8b2a212b6561c7c8068962
106282 F20110217_AAAGNT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_241.jpg
ff21b69b3d3703db1a95eb2d6a5b546d
9afa0f3e518efadf0c3acbb4119c53b63300ad60
145979 F20110217_AAAHKN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_008.jpg
18899db63dbfc5307fcaa0a29c06cb7f
eb6a7f68bded981c016be6fcb88d2fbef41f00d1
125739 F20110217_AAAGAI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_119.jpg
1fd429bcc3439dffd134d8b484fcd2e6
c07fe2e14c9441a4e7e36a92d8b478e60e5111a0
23035 F20110217_AAAHKO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_009.jpg
715108ba3fd84ab4273f7b5b35298603
238990988f6402e988b37dd993b7be4d08f95861
102408 F20110217_AAAGAJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_155.jpg
5d9882c0ee9cf9f47caf6dd3229c7c30
eccee3a51254c441be71d24fffebf456897334cb
121908 F20110217_AAAGNU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_117.jpg
11661902be9b30bf487bb3d362bd4bdd
d2fb5f2cb1b1778eedcd87b124f1e7900d6e877f
19916 F20110217_AAAHKP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_010.jpg
aede064179280d73b2dc63618969e90c
4e69819ccbd32240393b2fda08561397eb82c803
102736 F20110217_AAAGAK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_024.jpg
9dcdc7b7efa80417c85a04baec1b2ed9
ba3abd2daed0d4392299505019d69529b5077151
4798 F20110217_AAAGNV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_226.QC.jpg
0ac2ce1df4a51a46ce06e9154d422b74
683b72632f7349d2a2d65ea4be42e5a656cb7338
24725 F20110217_AAAGAL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_001.jp2
c2f78f78f704338ae87813b4c91d2ae3
00e253f9111944e193e3e4f3667ac815b05589b7
F20110217_AAAGNW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_173.QC.jpg
635ca201ccf9aaaf023d8cf6b6324ca0
b32577f8f30b7f1a90993963ff3044e664501e9a
14201 F20110217_AAAHKQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_011.QC.jpg
50cf8a3d56ec63ffae0a1cc0e6719846
5d2a7213289b02fc576184cf1b0fd4a5518bec4d
8585 F20110217_AAAGAM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_202thm.jpg
38603604fded17760453b6de39ec6ac4
39034a366133b1e3a2ea03d92c0e65687dffd23b
100079 F20110217_AAAGNX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_078.jpg
852cbeee2e8995152dd9a77e7707305a
a216b6044527cbc7732f92b2043894294b75b58b
23826 F20110217_AAAHKR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_013.QC.jpg
3999d547f4b3d927953e343366d0f65b
2114e617e12b621653cc9343bd30381553fe6d3a
56447 F20110217_AAAGAN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_161.pro
b88fbadbbb21a6d1c41112acdfecf260
306ad015d07443c1651ac3f0699a8a986cdea7bc
8269 F20110217_AAAGNY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_060thm.jpg
1bbed06ac69b92e97d0995d1f0c40fbf
6e3cbe83c53f6ef64418701dabbb4829be976a7e
102739 F20110217_AAAHKS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_015.jpg
a4096d6a3a44eca53ba317b822586f86
8c2b673350b9d327569aed6a1c6b20eeb63892fa
32334 F20110217_AAAGAO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_076.QC.jpg
311f17db218ba7d1640f73a336f888ad
f42602799ad089e93be857ddea68d9d39593738c
102817 F20110217_AAAGNZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_207.jpg
4998b58a695a3ce01193158cdd068ecf
51a5f6c867f98573e53f4e5488caf1a31b9421dd
33396 F20110217_AAAHKT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_015.QC.jpg
a7266a00ab8e0a4d8b97f81fd9b2a1d4
fed881f69af85050bec9a415ac617dd3a8c2677c
F20110217_AAAGAP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_061.tif
3e37cfa456e1fbe6f352e4e0bae516e6
0d7b69439bac65d26e1f9434fcb0be9401f61599
43982 F20110217_AAAHKU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_018.jpg
5c4fcbd2059960e6a8b5e71efd770176
d9cb8d52c3e0d5096c7c1df0ce6f7ba8b218f314
49135 F20110217_AAAFWA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_188.pro
861f00e1698366045cdad2c38a093c74
c5db1d67ee58572e3d02ebc2687ece7b74adf06e
99819 F20110217_AAAGAQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_157.jpg
2276da344be9f11f1d8050b93ff4fd02
0a4294b4b32c4f816d753c96993f6fd8b2089f25
32517 F20110217_AAAHKV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_021.QC.jpg
63660eaa7491b0ca1553aa5f18749c4c
d6b7fa154aba625d9bbc5bb13db335349be04a5b
8468 F20110217_AAAFWB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_160thm.jpg
73e1693e5a2272ddf65ac048a71d0d99
9cef1fdc9470404dee6b19c75179e905a6949f9f
7946 F20110217_AAAGAR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_188thm.jpg
1091ae053473ef4b5a50501d70b90c22
111a58bc5432be0dd5aa3d579c439f797e5a337e
35492 F20110217_AAAHKW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_023.QC.jpg
30785c8b25bc9d2d52950db6679d3dbc
2181ff5fb496ad96c6137a4d5546e9a12524f845
41584 F20110217_AAAFWC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_244.jp2
88d85cf7ee1ffbabaca7ae3625e05d67
ac917cadc3f6237d1be043f5190f51f6ca0a897e
99649 F20110217_AAAGAS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_213.jpg
31ac65019746eac53155d06ef92de895
134edc7f712002fde0107b2d096718ca6f1260d2
105769 F20110217_AAAHKX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_025.jpg
6d05a235124633c76dbcc57b75ded31b
4dfceeeaac7ec891fae254cad8881eebb12b4a22
F20110217_AAAFWD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_207.tif
95eda39a2664c20f9d23c4106cd7dbd8
665293cb025b96377546448cb897338efb66d286
34149 F20110217_AAAGAT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_160.QC.jpg
0fc64eb0e3fc939c0f85a8145ac90301
4c3f3c6dcc9026c0b477e35945787c83a71ebda8
34088 F20110217_AAAHKY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_025.QC.jpg
77c49851af89d6af260f91e6e686fc13
d25049a3c5f79945fd6ed10886e77745a4e45462
102911 F20110217_AAAFWE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_037.jpg
3c38d9a360d76fe7205b1c37ce9bae38
88813bb659324ed8663fcdb06de672b8aa0f2ad8
F20110217_AAAGAU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_139.tif
fcfeebf3707386d487125b83b43ad69f
8bf046cd2b1cad5ee931cd7fa2f841e8d5c0a991
102051 F20110217_AAAHKZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_026.jpg
91d32bb7f24b2cd65af7296c8cc6f7c6
c47d04b3037b827dd251a10e73f94d68a684a55d
F20110217_AAAFWF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_127.tif
8c40910a552371c0f92027777810514d
15e43618c6dd437c6d024bbc34ebc33f7dd343d8
100274 F20110217_AAAGAV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_008.pro
5ae65e4682488fa9e504c21451dc2471
dde303e06fdd736310589f55eb8886c4db5e0e5f
8174 F20110217_AAAFWG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_239thm.jpg
dfa382ae76c6f51baefb32ed62e20dad
373d8221301925ce9171c17eb149313af6511bc0
124002 F20110217_AAAGAW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_132.jp2
31bbbe398c5482259b154d5dbcd9469d
579e06557ea5df2bd459389708ef4e131d6adc72
51823 F20110217_AAAFWH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_027.pro
871dc698e49ca6d97005cc20ec83d227
f72d64789571dbf61a91f5643081100cd62e3646
2615 F20110217_AAAGAX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_084.txt
98a81e8e3ecefd1412208c18b5e1e034
34d6d26a7722103b311fdedfac98234d47945416
F20110217_AAAGTA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_024.tif
1a22f4f1e71fda94027e0321d3eddbf1
99b161d85975ff1e1f583ff7772a7a7babf2f122
111801 F20110217_AAAFWI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_079.jp2
04b2a2714145b268def3b9a4b9e2cede
7daef06e614174a3b03a985743e8c0209066a7ad
7439 F20110217_AAAGAY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_178thm.jpg
91939184d178f30916d5fd3a3a447214
1acdf90808e03585f9702e5ef6a3a420cde4eb7a
7679 F20110217_AAAGTB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_199thm.jpg
c6d4bbf34190f883d7fce55470894985
041febc6d90a848dd23f1e7e55380dbc1076fd46
110856 F20110217_AAAFWJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_161.jpg
29b0ab1ea68717898ce67b878d4e60eb
a03d69dd14d3f156300150ed6b463aaf06abfd3d
121115 F20110217_AAAGAZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_115.jp2
6d82800ea73c6ef0952d9fa8721e5b5f
f8dc6a7764599c826cdbd647a7fc8cd8caf532ff
126241 F20110217_AAAGTC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_098.jp2
3858d158cd4c0c28338a49050b3d53bd
f16ca410303bc99c5c9ab791a53f424e8e603630
51120 F20110217_AAAFWK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_211.pro
f5e4ca6d344123488da73a07136d211f
5779f10539ebb546767ae0f15db018519f5afac8
110211 F20110217_AAAGTD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_015.jp2
92d4a69946db3ae75c9ae5e32f829417
ddde4e9b1db75fdcd01e49bb114c3a929bb95a64
F20110217_AAAFJA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_105.tif
fcb4b3f1fd718e2f5282ec66659e2e5f
063451fa715d794453e8a703e329ce39aa6c75cb
F20110217_AAAFWL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_057.QC.jpg
ced12008ea82660e5bb7595c60cdeb75
46e73a4e4775e8ff50839818d4e626f3bec9805e
F20110217_AAAGTE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_153.tif
adf24fc16565aa009954ddddb2e0cad8
4d0e77d632f5de1b379bf2b8245324142f0fe5da
2925 F20110217_AAAFJB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_140.txt
715645a3b1888f6883070cdb40ad3e17
955b880dc61e135058948391ba5378b5ef15606e
106753 F20110217_AAAFWM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_185.jp2
7e5f7c60d9f5aa0f3545c14e9bb29ed5
c903e6323b41a6afaf10236078b83164d5a83d1d
7938 F20110217_AAAGTF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_108thm.jpg
7a16ed1318d5d4e0f13ae329c31289a9
9d0197ae2ea32d9c4f610b6eeb8c7a574737d0d7
8432 F20110217_AAAFJC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_146thm.jpg
ac52e14892a40adc2b8671c37effa4cc
c852d0259854b84bc4c0bff2c1dbfe417380de53
8363 F20110217_AAAFWN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_195thm.jpg
915983b9f1897d73ab188334966333cd
62ea6b0171592bd16bd987e156f83dae6586e7ba
108605 F20110217_AAAGTG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_080.jpg
269bf9a97d0998e26c8c143e0c5f40cd
e57ce1c7ab2673b3183754bb524457bbd5aad309
5289 F20110217_AAAHQA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_002.jp2
9a5ad366ff28da960bbc60d13a70b9d0
d9995bee2371e49a9b4390f11d6af8cc1b94320f
95815 F20110217_AAAFJD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_091.jpg
7cc38064d9392d87477e449520fd6eef
24a34069e2251ec2325caca5ac451648370c22d0
F20110217_AAAFWO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_173.tif
0f03d02c3826f1f607fd3aa553b1b67b
6623524c7943a7093d42c6c8c57f20ada3d16808
103926 F20110217_AAAGTH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_050.jp2
ab2528e9e2e9668cebe49ffa8dfc2b96
86d02a34640710a4da2f906de593f264aee35dcb
88834 F20110217_AAAHQB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_004.jp2
c0d0a24990235460534ddd355e5719be
b9840e127b2f9682816cd3021b14e1e3925316e1
1904 F20110217_AAAFJE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_166.txt
d6d19c05bf39d67e227531bf1401c4bb
97b39cf887ded8fdb86494f3ff362b8bd50a336b
8561 F20110217_AAAFWP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_098thm.jpg
145171c1612fa548dd34b763ec27fa17
e885ad6bf19cb2b5be88b2840fd41aff782c3237
F20110217_AAAGTI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_195.tif
bc2013592dea5e59652c5daa2a8be72a
27006c13a53f27d86d275850fe5cc98b41c68ae8
78081 F20110217_AAAHQC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_005.jp2
97adb4e47562f02c2da0d7ed783dc742
9cdf3d3f6b49d27fa3a80298931d1b050f90a236
99369 F20110217_AAAFJF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_030.jpg
bff159603f1f94505e433c843f2de35f
2965a19b147f79c328a0f8a6e5dfdc030e5d184c
68722 F20110217_AAAFWQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_111.pro
1c2111fa4f6afcecd67621f059ae83db
0a8fc204b7bc8aa21164de7f776b35ec717a2b78
35078 F20110217_AAAGTJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_144.QC.jpg
23fe602408a20ebcd6be5d4677882fb3
97b3e80ef7deba0a4399bacdd6a39e2d896f7255
78815 F20110217_AAAHQD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_013.jp2
a520d7af3c46eefa17ce117f793aeea7
52de58c5f52bb97beb8d475f4bf2a8af03b0aae9
53160 F20110217_AAAFJG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_214.pro
908ceb2b8fa24fe913e160010f25a44a
d44167a78629326716f57cf6e0d2efad851d716f
52634 F20110217_AAAFWR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_043.pro
139bae9c430f6273dac4c342caa1a339
0a05259711bd786aa1c9a0d8679787db658ed93b
36423 F20110217_AAAGTK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_093.QC.jpg
712988f8cc76027ab1ef924c20ccb7b2
5222d74f8d6a9f20946206c26c5a22a683302bf8
113274 F20110217_AAAHQE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_016.jp2
13bb7a247bbb32132868a44cd5039a2d
cdf5887bcd35eba01bb4d88afea43c10a07d4480
111150 F20110217_AAAFJH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_067.jp2
a93ccc6ce6c0e0dae7a59eb738d9084b
f2073fe308c0003e1dd65502c903d8da5a780fa8
114200 F20110217_AAAGGA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_115.jpg
5265125282d12b026a7ee0550818bda4
86280c5bce9df57cc8f3ecae69228b1ee0a9508f
36824 F20110217_AAAFWS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_128.QC.jpg
1c37d76407a881443b8819bbaf59b98a
da7df01005768518a6ba56f182e87537f63f5e2e
1890 F20110217_AAAGTL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_120.txt
ff8faeed487b1de20535ba3c161bb08f
5de699cead03cc9bd62cfa506546c837afa18b6f
111992 F20110217_AAAHQF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_017.jp2
43da8669ed1078b8cee032921d04d9d6
bd6afda57f7328b1cb0119e8370b2baed15a483d
132930 F20110217_AAAFJI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_086.jpg
b0d18f28b5f7c1c8653e5b1e9f7b4973
fae4c920c9c9d6a0c1eea52d22defbab9c6ded61
8026 F20110217_AAAGGB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_035thm.jpg
53ff91113c4a786f3176ad9013d8c2ea
83a8bd3497f2c118e44bbe70fe62fa2895fc2835
8104 F20110217_AAAFWT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_152thm.jpg
b54c9f0bae1949b5ea41d62d6feefcf1
499766c7507732db55d8548839f07c7935a5d1f2
F20110217_AAAGTM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_073.jpg
a3564aa0d0f52d1d06026d03ab25d712
1b85296bad9230ea4a5099d95bd3ef0303396173
89311 F20110217_AAAHQG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_019.jp2
99edafbe687743f6dcb92b3085e5b426
7390adb782a8731ec559848b59b8ff2373095a00
113743 F20110217_AAAFJJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_195.jp2
862d87df10e5cc43bd7702ce33e45f24
a2d58e7a00c3f07b1287fdcb7391ff1e5a8b67ff
F20110217_AAAGGC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_239.pro
52739bf92f70e7d3711acfef4ca582cc
0c7b7b78ebca3ffdffaf9cda68368bf5e1a8b40f
F20110217_AAAFWU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_225.tif
f7fc79a75ea64e52c1bdf82642ed3f1c
fc6ada877e67f60d497a5434f976fbb5a497b8c0
122038 F20110217_AAAGTN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_239.jp2
d0e76dffd72cda87616a31978b295ad7
63e8b6ba145664c22c75a4016e2635b9f811d3ed
110513 F20110217_AAAHQH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_024.jp2
466a6bb7f295567198469dfe7524751c
2f7e47b31179d3195036201d6ea00794c77b73d0
109603 F20110217_AAAFJK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_077.jpg
eb3483645c92ddd48bc6507572d99200
3f73eb84e1225d21a0511cf2c000dd89177a95c5
7662 F20110217_AAAGGD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_177thm.jpg
00b2128103a1ffa3353f7f4a004e39ee
716196354c1cf754355fbb9f6db220139ecddbe5
125361 F20110217_AAAFWV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_240.jp2
a587b671a2db350a4952e033a5887487
fd471d10412b02aae0f166d750722425a80ca58b
108296 F20110217_AAAGTO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_094.jp2
ae2d7818c0848c0719c7cd6794702e30
1831809b6a4f236ec5c75f2aca4a566a015cd809
110380 F20110217_AAAHQI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_026.jp2
05bf36a859c603385b8ec39d49589e1a
90eac5f2bed7f8a9141239953e13abf6eea74849
2781 F20110217_AAAFJL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_111.txt
b5a14cefc6e9b8de36c23095f3c37d28
6404c03f9d4a135fd93c090567fba2358990708c
F20110217_AAAGGE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_151.tif
c6c5a4060f17ade7029de4e63501fe1b
839826b9c2f294fd50740627c7b54e4023353e66
13744 F20110217_AAAFWW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_226.jp2
f8da967751ef65e932503819fdb1bb24
cf7810542f380438a7574099bdd86797c4886561
41928 F20110217_AAAGTP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_019.pro
898c1fb9f6d4a232edcb8f51b4bb6575
f3892f3d15b4fa293e6627642cb3437cbd70c6a9
108519 F20110217_AAAHQJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_029.jp2
0944b00f036e5d9e57f1e8c302c6213c
41f0aaf624022726441a99c7140bc172bc800b73
33743 F20110217_AAAFJM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_196.QC.jpg
f81d7a665e930216730e9cf82d42823e
7715192a73ea73e69000843f56bd59f574d2a8b8
34799 F20110217_AAAGGF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_170.QC.jpg
32c7228b5e621f64b12163da4d2e3ba0
012dcacd98aa19309d48bab91f2d93929347a676
8309 F20110217_AAAFWX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_162thm.jpg
8d102b6a1eb2d641a6793b5d1874e52e
767b5dcdca629781711a59a3fc26b3cbfbbe6f60
5855 F20110217_AAAGTQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_012thm.jpg
2c9fb0edd3e9e1e28cea23e6152d1f71
62085aa7ee7905938fe5baf4c2522cde8d20f1d6
107453 F20110217_AAAHQK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_030.jp2
d426aa9eb157a2547506e6875af09e45
40f88aa2b2bf9607522a4bcb4d0139257ef860d9
116134 F20110217_AAAFJN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_096.jp2
161c2a254b37bc2eca2c248b66e9b197
e0a758632950374104c972aee52746697aa5d2e8
111051 F20110217_AAAGGG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_061.jp2
3b1a74b1366527b117a7980fdc825aa1
a5f2495acee05f5788f1048db25319bb48276055
F20110217_AAAFWY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_155.tif
a7c75acadc9a405245e267bfc7cc7167
a0bf925d4575e6a869fab4e7f2d30932b9c1f1c1
F20110217_AAAGTR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_239.tif
1874a6f2d54384ea72d00d361cb65011
0ee34af9ecc75f49f423d2f39b2e4e53eac4254e
1874 F20110217_AAAFJO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_193.txt
574f9467227af2b4dbbacb7adf833267
057a89d14dbb5a55758792982292b783e9088e6e
86736 F20110217_AAAGGH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_154.jpg
65a166c65d091a313dd0428f200afc5c
aa5a259981f9e7eeca0c75de3fb167a099cd3ddc
F20110217_AAAFWZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_039.txt
0860b900fe3fc1bd51baaa6aedb5a22c
593d5304a5d24b3fcc8f6a0a115486ca83bb6440
F20110217_AAAHDA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_154.tif
e287ff51c918b1e6b51297874e90ebae
ccac8777cc60c25e81c2be0d45fcadf4b3d42ccf
2029 F20110217_AAAGTS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_048.txt
af59d120b1cc8b1d55cf6b0af3cb9144
e3e2144ed288ad6b70067b60419478215608e043
105797 F20110217_AAAHQL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_038.jp2
64e96afd336c7a8f6e3d311ff3c493db
18b4a576cadb4ebd2b3b090445456b444e246b61
F20110217_AAAFJP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_049.tif
71654d2e1d6390eac2e8d13025ac4e5c
31a31b4ce5a458742956261e584a6ae8e0d9083d
50295 F20110217_AAAGGI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_215.pro
157520465430b1b9d113ce5c6c3c2e35
91a1240570ce2c785214a76912dcc63105d51550
F20110217_AAAHDB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_160.tif
3b5eda5a28fa11990aa2221d50760a2f
c7592838aabe3b6b6f63eea7c09fee9a60b232db
8255 F20110217_AAAGTT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_076thm.jpg
8562e760e2ce3f0ac09cf12490ed9183
87516f15ab442fef18a7d89a7017af492ddd1547
109111 F20110217_AAAHQM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_041.jp2
fd470ebb74ca554448d16655b31669d8
27471e51641707227aff50ed0d1f95ec585d7b6f
34296 F20110217_AAAFJQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_168.QC.jpg
34df834302acefdbad9e85922c4ba505
accb5404ad0a3f7349da644e5565ba9d450e3677
1979 F20110217_AAAGGJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_059.txt
2d2415e157792f464379380cb69cb86f
4ba300ca0682f8979a659dd2644ad7740e0d2292
F20110217_AAAHDC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_162.tif
c3a497c67145dfaf93b2cc3ccffccc4b
fd6b0b2b5d8c5bf17d537ddfaf0c25512f031068
8560 F20110217_AAAGTU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_148thm.jpg
e485ebc40e8ee3ccff8b23bf2e201749
e76b279b38d763f2af6c35ed81ad33d77948640a
111839 F20110217_AAAHQN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_042.jp2
cd76ebbe971188a675ca99afa8370374
5564750bdeadb3f6a4f47792decbd5cafaf48050
104659 F20110217_AAAGGK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_158.jp2
d2602800dcb2905d7a55caafaceaa75f
dcf248dda736a35bf6bf417d6dfe3224783ce8a1
F20110217_AAAHDD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_163.tif
f1b3c2007a36c801d9788c2c05db6608
a632b1e77ed1bb5c063e68d62211d95a522bce5b
110765 F20110217_AAAGTV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_172.jp2
1083c62d30465cc667d5eac343e07bc9
205420d438ab25ebd6273d6202d9c2c36eade4ed
112379 F20110217_AAAHQO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_043.jp2
40cd94bea7e59a98201222dc83bdaf6d
e7af513cf8d98a1d7c0228b98e1ab43c0b646999
F20110217_AAAFJR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_060.tif
ffcd1604ee20c6c8295b91d86f1c75fa
20d68309a62b6861bc7ad839b04fdd6c857e8d35
94529 F20110217_AAAGGL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_055.jpg
15f4753977814a7625fd06076944fd4b
72f94a2496fe6ab923618790737465fac338d6ce
F20110217_AAAHDE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_174.tif
279f82bd205a12dcb51602b71e66758e
062874ba465a123a571412e25384655a81684604
F20110217_AAAGTW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_186.tif
7051ad800d30b80da359d4987eece7ae
3f55c5f639bb642aeed8a144e4bce52ab027a619
111651 F20110217_AAAHQP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_044.jp2
eb244e4b0e1afbc14ada81ebaac8da06
bb674314a1c651484b4269eb2380986f61bcd86c
543103 F20110217_AAAGGM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_227.jp2
b8c13f2aed1ac54d57ce5837039b0333
777910ed8261ff1af9796b2951ec18252d406fe6
F20110217_AAAHDF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_178.tif
477b5161535dbcdc94330df322a17b7d
b9406f0bde5a0a7e450d4e06a6f5826668b8a8a6
2465 F20110217_AAAGTX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_118.txt
787558eb399cc22de07c25407406d4c6
7f9fad726b056399db3e70ad92741b75ee3f7f9d
110607 F20110217_AAAHQQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_045.jp2
a60f0c98c16a1d15671470cc6afa5eb8
1207cb927bd02c6d071b532cf8179ab1d26093c8
105031 F20110217_AAAFJS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_122.jpg
4dac23516fd0de7dfd1562a2060a33ae
50bf2004b05fb357657ebb2907b5a83d28e35697
F20110217_AAAHDG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_183.tif
dac6d5cd74c3131eb54749411a4529fd
18edf19ef2c564b5318a3b5191bb390fcc7f6660
32342 F20110217_AAAGTY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_095.QC.jpg
75569b1761f65e1dbccda0e68d737099
f89e70ada98eaa78b6b8364dd1d41d587996c66e
109000 F20110217_AAAHQR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_046.jp2
f6448f9a2ccbd3de18328a29a34052a6
8fbd1a7a1f1fc27ff452873a3af3c87b03ea4555
F20110217_AAAFJT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_142.tif
f40cb6704d341ae4a8da66f0dae25b99
768df76446347a84e3d3e3b7fd54bfbf4850f0c7
2291 F20110217_AAAGGN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_144.txt
8fbbf49e414e9a95f308ae5c0780f5fd
c3ce0bc1c66e5a7e97bfdfcb5fecaeff5c1dc370
F20110217_AAAHDH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_184.tif
dee19f7c02442c441f4536d687d28fe9
3fc4b09e77918c35ea38b804f1887545a326e4dd
35273 F20110217_AAAGTZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_081.QC.jpg
d7a79942d412cc379967ba01e763666a
b6d840d31954256ae8527c2931b9cd834555aa5a
107445 F20110217_AAAHQS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_047.jp2
dc6f6f2de00f829b4824ddaaf40a02fd
0e6e5875f4a1668fc8fc42f9c41e73c9d4f67261
F20110217_AAAFJU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_177.tif
b75f184f0ec431650799ac58a6033d07
2a9ba14faae4aeb974867109c7e400500899f4df
104488 F20110217_AAAGGO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_197.jp2
43167e80fa2bd24604281a318e4a5d46
d1f279ab2a3ddd210357d8ac621d8723a48332eb
F20110217_AAAHDI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_185.tif
2300ad054e71f3a2056e62b9c7b95400
7a56a9e3772667e2995da8534f754ca04c6cd480
112534 F20110217_AAAHQT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_049.jp2
e308bd9fdda21850be5405358d4261e0
f867c2b49376ec97146d57597e72d1aca67cde4e
2266 F20110217_AAAFJV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_104.txt
ea34ca16f7deb9b03a371f85261ddafb
f3e28a9c90f355544211191a05ddaa104d8cfced
34962 F20110217_AAAGGP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_153.QC.jpg
cb8c780c501847ed8e7de128b4560632
0d4de6b139bc93d5ca66d14a74000bc6d5a75563
108047 F20110217_AAAHQU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_053.jp2
f73026b19f53d9cb55a5259c0d6a5f63
0b473ab7343e734ada3710cf1064003ca34d096a
7197 F20110217_AAAFJW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_192thm.jpg
c1d0468b6bcb17ec1163ab072b71b63b
11842ac76172d12a17e9343650821a49ff059d8f
97081 F20110217_AAAGGQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_166.jpg
09398886654b27c215b8002782f15133
c87e359c2bc292501021c77196f9ca73bf8584e9
F20110217_AAAHDJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_189.tif
c79367568bc63c02938a6432e3c51a0c
bf04f76ab70ab37a9dd8ad5a10032179de43518f
110946 F20110217_AAAHQV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_057.jp2
277f0c5ad3c79beda9fea5ccfb1e4305
7a7568c5768f2d06feb9e833900b5a0810f4cfb8
33219 F20110217_AAAFJX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_187.QC.jpg
50d30f928d930dfc52fcb056c4797335
390dff49ae16c273afe3a8c9d3a0e402360d7368
F20110217_AAAGGR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_047.tif
69c27448aa593de659b6398c1c63c41d
2e4f88804b9099418b5b36ee0a5464ac467581c3
F20110217_AAAHDK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_199.tif
e8c47aa299d9cdffc8c84e601ca839cb
36463cd976c63761c144df0e9fbc03dbefe98b6e
52840 F20110217_AAAFJY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_123.pro
7a51383392373daadb8cddf76dae119c
332b05b3da8031e9ebd094db5d1a5a81435699be
F20110217_AAAGGS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_001.tif
619f00891ae49faa44e8a3ff246ccb30
b43963622404ed0191dd6f47a227d2e1de22bf9e
F20110217_AAAHDL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_200.tif
4d026050c5ae47a018d63ae64632761f
7d1cbc953021ad9b57d839f295a52a681338f474
104440 F20110217_AAAHQW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_060.jp2
c1c2b64865743d30c1d636b2a1809250
6c9f2b61a76a9a01dc24302952a1c37c47810c60
100160 F20110217_AAAFJZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_055.jp2
f4b8cdd55bc7169fa5a6f1e4e7a0a0c9
30bfd911b79e26edb9ce52751478a793b4af3934
1955 F20110217_AAAGGT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_180.txt
3bc87cb1f171e31a30cc22a22ff48d40
9dab60ac042879131e5377402b405d7a35538a0c
F20110217_AAAHDM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_201.tif
f9fe16be3bc503ceae78626bbf11bcda
e575ec53403f8fb2bcce3d273639af8c667db1cc
95941 F20110217_AAAHQX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_062.jp2
e26175e29bc598c1b94b2715c338b3aa
7e17dd919865d434857de416eb93d228aae1c6af
56465 F20110217_AAAGGU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_229.pro
4423f6197eb40eac7dfe12cc2e82da60
64b8cf2d9d9d3c97aefff0677d335f35c91d24f0
F20110217_AAAHDN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_203.tif
2d03210f75ccd35e5686d7d5d0ef9fc9
85950ad1d211594b360a91ef2cc6320123ee2294
108650 F20110217_AAAHQY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_063.jp2
97881c715717fafc60e949278ba563a8
9a2097f956c36821af215efd7451fe6d6d53d193
8629 F20110217_AAAGGV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_174thm.jpg
78393f058b3af22c4c10f531602cb6fd
4650f8821201b92ac9f8925945574a6c8d95c62c
F20110217_AAAHDO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_204.tif
a6adac9cccffb036f1243b6b189dfd5d
7a21843cbafb8f981ec245e28fb45a7196f3e9e8
1051937 F20110217_AAAHQZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_064.jp2
b2dfad8391f5919789f819a2679757bd
8b29581ba376f2aac01b051696621a87c88b957a
82094 F20110217_AAAGGW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_074.jp2
40b3c81f90eca51bef5e5349d962b52d
1d949032028a87527f32aac9bb0d872f1a8b25fd
F20110217_AAAHDP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_213.tif
15cc69264cfb66c9c6ea92ff94083c98
4db93b01494200e731fb504ab0ab4bfc6e407340
52875 F20110217_AAAGGX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_195.pro
cd4bd3d4eb8fbd823a62f3708b74f767
0244dd16faaaca53e7f036db753940721d948d1a
F20110217_AAAGZA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_244.txt
54532b7d3098843ce7abb61019c38195
eb9e80e3f345050bfd46b5e44569033450bc7877
F20110217_AAAHDQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_214.tif
a4408fc71c4c3fb6224677e336ccc84e
d795d574dfdd748fca85e5856aba5db83d2aaf2f
8075 F20110217_AAAGGY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_047thm.jpg
a2da680b8433ef6378f63431e8328c6c
dd468aba82602d1f5f66c779d2c7be9b5acf53be
2337 F20110217_AAAGZB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_115.txt
d2463cb4b6c95b8f96dcff7c9083edf3
47fe9017d303e1b4d644e709fa1a3c9fb0256cac
F20110217_AAAHDR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_215.tif
e2fd08c5632bfda3b577453c9a345f8d
21e70ee8a295d699b8d2aaa089f66ba74b2599e1
105104 F20110217_AAAGGZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_031.jpg
d87ca1393fb3ef6853b47e4224969886
96ee62d1fd9cb24b87721446316ca185563f539f
108454 F20110217_AAAGZC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_058.jp2
ab500b061cd47ee355ec226cb08185e2
4469a6c70697348c1ed3d443dcac44af31ffeb7d
F20110217_AAAHDS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_216.tif
3f34e3291f0a8761a7ee69c50d006034
7a3354e64eb46caf3edd8d1d59948970418659a7
F20110217_AAAGZD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_016.txt
47ea4b39e88d735d7342056e1cbf746f
85f81c1a6099327278f4880a741543ded596987a
F20110217_AAAHDT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_224.tif
1ac62c12d0b4cf7e71c78e380975e1d6
f0de9f5d1e7adf3753e4b97f804573208eef78d9
53153 F20110217_AAAGZE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_151.pro
8382c355fa9c6e206ac4216ce5e8b908
53e8cdf217ce9dac2a561b9967b818a5f8af3a1f
F20110217_AAAHDU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_233.tif
a307267ea5e3b0fb946d498b3f98b091
0e923cf9b55b39ecc956e22998bc442d4fc4d318
34677 F20110217_AAAFPA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_065.QC.jpg
c8d8d19a2e0623dee9a65fd3592ccba7
85fbfd7cd130e0321e58252671913a0972501fbf
102671 F20110217_AAAGZF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_091.jp2
1ac33f82d0d229d04bf88b88692b6c02
18a7612add9df3813eda06b60246995571c6b6cc
F20110217_AAAHDV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_236.tif
e313207e40b86c2897769f1248083cf4
6237ad40a48742a638c6b8fef73caead25cc2e0a
4660 F20110217_AAAFPB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_237thm.jpg
b255235821cd55a299154b15de6636f8
50078cb0690c6b88e6379f242c6cf2eb85c6fd1f
F20110217_AAAGZG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_188.tif
3d32cb76e370e2933831c37c78ed322d
85bca86ed4c67ffe31b054ad6b8a058f2f5263c4
F20110217_AAAHDW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_238.tif
5d3c0c233b4ec015d3fdbb51705b7056
d13795269135852155e9a2b5aa46c6168d4e4b47
62000 F20110217_AAAFPC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_131.pro
4006746763d864dbf1ea6f7520a5e600
8e64155cc3d70d3512af69ca9ff0badf541fc63e
8482 F20110217_AAAHWA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_223thm.jpg
322640dc7e659ac365325af1b415f375
8eb48ada07de3bf41fdef57f23f0f4b6e1a8b5c7
67016 F20110217_AAAGZH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_145.pro
e0ace16dd3b368d0dca7d8957350e5c5
7d44eadbd01f5fc60cdd21d68a6d7ca2a6bdef66
F20110217_AAAHDX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_241.tif
028d87509f584d0f3aa8a83c2c2f4a0a
a7287e4f566335d4a6ed6f6b93a5d96582817a5f
2311 F20110217_AAAFPD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_097.txt
bb4f6490ca6851832f87654fc57258f1
9090e86196bb5fe61c7a7f127c20ff5c97f515fb
8517 F20110217_AAAHWB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_224thm.jpg
799e605f9c70e924ff5b93bc4e167df3
56a0365d1fd8f90ebb17f792f98aaef67c9fd082
34496 F20110217_AAAGZI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_130.QC.jpg
b402dfebae21cc9e29da2ac5bf5be40b
7c70aaf62be18226a77c1b76091d95bcefe489b6
F20110217_AAAHDY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_242.tif
1ae02ad6f107779577dbbfb572c56d65
dd482a0b9aaeaf1227ae11b8e5613e942a75d398
950040 F20110217_AAAFPE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_011.jp2
a6c9b9f8becbcea551871a51ff419b9d
4a02dfbe4bf4e06d02a12dff10c7907cdbb6ca66
1709 F20110217_AAAHWC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_228thm.jpg
b8a865fce6c01174f53d0e0b078df6f5
12b9d59cfb649b80b5c792093b5471343960900c
7660 F20110217_AAAGZJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_206thm.jpg
f6b3bebb232ba477fac307b03ba5a069
5da99e1f6403a90adc88e6d59ebc39fa310b4ea5
F20110217_AAAHDZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_244.tif
dfe58781ce39e3c3a18637adc1af4318
70516dcb1e80ebf9a8781a505f3ca4541f56e4ab
2099 F20110217_AAAFPF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_017.txt
6d2793ee87a7f8da875f821e0da9d286
aaed8369f6124e9efa133b701945a8fe2f115e81
5763 F20110217_AAAHWD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_229thm.jpg
a31376bbed3f1639770d22dd832e1fec
0adf56f7c5b38833cc087fb4ba405a101fe7f493
F20110217_AAAGZK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_164.jpg
c48e3ebd37534b17bdf504711ecf9878
13d6e6a7844cedae9e194ca139eee3cb0465731c
121815 F20110217_AAAFPG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_169.jp2
194ecef976d944f26761c78d54bba3dd
0f721b4de650320cad6e99e9cc62a378cfc3b3c7
5100 F20110217_AAAHWE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_232thm.jpg
2554cf7d8abfcca75db867960d1cf91e
aa19b2cf1bdee7faf3ccc161aae2e8824a6d6e81
34311 F20110217_AAAGMA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_112.QC.jpg
56325f32beba1b28b8e649043d63f63f
e3857628fa5a0c66ec6ce0361b8ff5ada32da927
1990 F20110217_AAAGZL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_223.txt
90c1883c245283464c407d453e91652c
4cb28dc636f6eed2db95b319f35d3b90d9c87e59
F20110217_AAAFPH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_171.txt
6ec15b48329285c574348c5bad4396e0
446eef01136b1b2ba93e70449fbd89fcc585cdf9
8645 F20110217_AAAHWF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_243thm.jpg
c28df26d74c4f233d652ef7f1ca0c149
ba56bdef4efdc847996f6606d66e238cde6b22ed
8527 F20110217_AAAGMB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_217thm.jpg
f725d06e6ec8df252aea9e647119c5ba
dc8f7bd84b232d3b7896fe0c9da660457682b5aa
F20110217_AAAGZM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_193.tif
fa2cbe9a81693a003e287b3e4f29de24
8035a59f0b0bcf9b385b2eba76fdbb21bee1f810
103498 F20110217_AAAFPI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_172.jpg
5093ae463cf756e20e9016ff85611468
a10df395ccacc8ffe030cd5d446b83af26e9727c
3136 F20110217_AAAHWG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_244thm.jpg
60c40896beff7a4db71fdb3d1535fac9
98d94c143ac882d2ea03854dc08c0aa4c6cbc41a
8338 F20110217_AAAGMC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_133thm.jpg
2a3a0a47659ea2abc9a468eb29e4b443
96931220c315fe0184c7e5fe68119cc3e30710fe
1967 F20110217_AAAGZN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_158.txt
4b3b1f21ae1b0141826fddb4563ad087
2fe9dee602057400c5994bc328ddf03d51a58a64
126949 F20110217_AAAFPJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_126.jpg
2ede56bf7d0b5e94830a80d243d81784
fbda8e40ab2d4d9c817b244a3e1ded8a43772221
4117 F20110217_AAAHWH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_245thm.jpg
008a2ac5a2c37297d7906d7e0cd74252
a471d53b4bf79753a774d7289195496c1a2b8f57
F20110217_AAAGMD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_240thm.jpg
0ff39dc2b63c9408a4ae2c5dbfedaa9f
718f8822102ea067bc0e61249d9a531725c4fbfe
71830 F20110217_AAAGZO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_086.pro
39497cc50c2140983a21985912760585
aae59c1d2d19ae332a49518db7cbc595ec7597cd
F20110217_AAAFPK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_091.tif
6923b9a20842380924ed43527d23856c
9dbd90c9f8818ff25503e6a53efbf6603afc8279
300965 F20110217_AAAHWI UFE0021956_00001.mets FULL
b2d172bc30bae3c6a9021405eecf0fe8
f378d6dfaf50e0eb3df52b768b8a7cb213a6be08
32178 F20110217_AAAGME nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_106.QC.jpg
8fc076aa10bf5a5f2b9060a7a2fa5246
e23c322fe24a4db0a5c97618dcaabd85aa3d8be2
F20110217_AAAGZP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_209.tif
8819e9363dd55972f71a00f04d59bb5e
e635519cc5e323fc21e0d131dede2e50fbfd91e9
8116 F20110217_AAAFPL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_081thm.jpg
71073826e24bbe0881a106878ee12b58
47dbaa643bd8b2d268fe5aa752bc5e6298238d93
33235 F20110217_AAAGMF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_024.QC.jpg
13c7b63e9bd6097036d80b4241f886c9
4baa3374f4a143f3ee346fd5f24ae245bf12ffd8
99443 F20110217_AAAGZQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_020.jpg
6be53decc1b7ad93b8b8c383ecdad55e
176febadd8002c3769c954fe8c7ccbfb2774ec3a
114367 F20110217_AAAFPM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_184.jpg
b1ace8ad86f093db8c51986cd62fa5c7
6872d8a8103cee60d5d212d39820a9ddef615698
51910 F20110217_AAAGMG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_067.pro
48bdbe09210ed1d137ecea91e8dc8b9b
f043a5b1036c8dda01bcdd44127cb26a15e3850d
35108 F20110217_AAAGZR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_016.QC.jpg
749dd3414ea65d6f5db35db44e041742
c2e1783f6d388cf9b9d67b8af2f72bb6dee7f709
F20110217_AAAFPN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_169thm.jpg
3f160b1da0f01e3ae53d916d22b11337
1199c7534a988584ed28427cf32f70ecf136ecae
8976 F20110217_AAAGMH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_142thm.jpg
7ece58f7b8509d346fb6e1248037212d
9f129016e11594fb8c211297484ab031ed6e2c4f
43487 F20110217_AAAHJA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_154.pro
ad4b6fa35b79479fdccbe466802d89de
9bf2a11a45a8ec30913a715be1d970100c35ad8a
105878 F20110217_AAAGZS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_092.jp2
7e14b86d91aa14cf507c7f0a04f26f4f
529c722caaa14ba966b10c49594361685b92a41c
99997 F20110217_AAAFPO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_047.jpg
34431896a2828214ad270826938e2f90
28bba5876e549b76027b177c10ad631865abd304
F20110217_AAAGMI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_208thm.jpg
f3a982f6e669d15e634fbde03e31f937
5e4dedc2eeb172e16a333201fbb91d30255eba30
56004 F20110217_AAAHJB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_156.pro
fb59801fdc99e462ffce6d1988e57fdd
852e2b78f20af4a9838a1ecf568d344bed74b4e4
35173 F20110217_AAAGZT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_174.QC.jpg
0a73173e2ad72e1f3b0a8645aa9939d0
042dfea4a485c7a7a2becf38b1b5d89a6ebf314f
436 F20110217_AAAFPP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_009.txt
bc1771b3c41484c55a727caee0834cc3
1fce23fc65ebf48e4cd569b68a2cd78b6b508855
115577 F20110217_AAAGMJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_159.jp2
e64c8303338bc4590d39013522fe32bc
0ae4518d50f25a821e9ed714808dfda71f0e8d17
49293 F20110217_AAAHJC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_158.pro
1323cd91d1d58c6d578e7472bf764342
1cc5f336efc41c0cf2f98d83f84c99543abb771e
50847 F20110217_AAAGZU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_223.pro
52b8939c349c68a0678930e3aa25d55c
04842d57bddb1e59b86ba7acd50fdfd25e456849
31928 F20110217_AAAFPQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_034.QC.jpg
cb7fae40cf642aafd81a1b75d264aa92
51f5185199bdb533d3e5a00f0a79d6f566233c62
F20110217_AAAGMK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_119.tif
28cab9b9b8817e91f600051b443debef
73584ad3991d2d4b3acd635e26465c5bbfb24201
52696 F20110217_AAAHJD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_164.pro
b8b125fe5ebc19ecd8a62d97ef2fa33d
056c92cde1979c1f6df4016ef7f268341add9a51
34413 F20110217_AAAGZV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_220.QC.jpg
347df975f7cc0026f50e23b1f4ce4b8d
0e6e6b716232439f417e7f75a4bb7c0bd99751b5
7942 F20110217_AAAFPR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_072thm.jpg
9acdd821f3b550e980e8720183e809ad
0efedd9322529caff6761a82b2359332717512e8
50782 F20110217_AAAGML nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_107.pro
d2cbb0a7fbcc4fa38c3c5c7a12ba9db3
c1745b992f455dc15ba088668b0c4ecf31550196
51975 F20110217_AAAHJE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_171.pro
877451d7f96564f975a79366991d6b8f
423b180848e28f4685a1d0e83fa5c585ba3c6e32
34463 F20110217_AAAGZW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_161.QC.jpg
63e4def203eda5c2e20d177fa563ab6f
bcbfe26dcd3dae61626eedc88bd7fc56b0521cf8
42329 F20110217_AAAFPS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_054.pro
7234d1424034f2241921e7b73b7b3629
8f95d8e458ce78d5e30bdf9d31943312fe03f258
118473 F20110217_AAAGMM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_136.jp2
7b30850210662fa01c80e574ef8e2d5d
366da919576a2567a51cb19d28fb927b22a8c029
52367 F20110217_AAAHJF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_172.pro
d36e41c4d88336ebdc3aa699da89188a
229a0c678c9c850c1ef0b6474d099c1ecab4099b
F20110217_AAAGZX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_003.jp2
8ea497130c1a70e2bec23efd2d3c64d5
770e86bb3c54ee702c3e6080b7e15471b26e393a
F20110217_AAAFPT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_147.tif
45698428355d7dc9cda9b131ebae4988
688540e28927424894f346c660a117890cfbd773
F20110217_AAAGMN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_020.tif
dd818ec0a03d583b0ef8fed86cc562e5
9b0c8cd2ebfda15ad23c736893ae06e7a5583c52
50216 F20110217_AAAHJG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_176.pro
0f3705b9edb3d641b3c091ac94c31732
4dbaff88a3078e4d91c0e5f44ac2a6089638c99a
33137 F20110217_AAAGZY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_179.QC.jpg
96007c22f0b815ed5f4dddceaa5010e2
2213353244e692d6eb47a40854ca34a332bd05fa
F20110217_AAAFPU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_012.tif
4e3bf160ab4019bed23511672bc9945e
973033e9511a87d44c7197163518314893e3dc38
130383 F20110217_AAAGMO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_128.jp2
0f16ee31244aab112f09ef9db35f1e55
88f6f1f22e439840fee59f538e49823116e77c09
53652 F20110217_AAAHJH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_182.pro
99f99e6bfae7a1d55614042028520f86
c3d7e290f903e7d104518f49645532921552196e
8656 F20110217_AAAGZZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_220thm.jpg
bcc048b595170b5a7382d9b46449caca
9340c8e117abf4c21637ce5464dc93a3b98990bb
F20110217_AAAFPV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_145.tif
c40098a0c180538a53630b0bdaf0d784
945d5f909e25122451bf5465dc657df58b225aff
113003 F20110217_AAAGMP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_095.jp2
79143d7ff2aa920f4e5854cd82ac19d1
ea501d91155df415e56cc71f8e934a37f7090d2d
54080 F20110217_AAAHJI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_183.pro
3e2403cff2f9d799d83d7bfe339acc40
72896e854be8cb821122dfbd524a2de77a1e0505
23169 F20110217_AAAFPW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_012.QC.jpg
a928729abc53368dd8e826519b2d360e
b6a2390451ba5adf17f96afd869fc54be8225dd1
8300 F20110217_AAAGMQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_130thm.jpg
00f66f50a1e34a952d1f72ba0efa4bb8
7aa5f71ebf7e6e36a8c1b691ff95e4c650202cb4
58148 F20110217_AAAHJJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_184.pro
8c6e1e4bd0610b7961ea049e096cd047
4a7372704048e66d44ab8f26f573a925313ed2aa
84814 F20110217_AAAGMR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_054.jpg
f361b62967be0c085123c1ccad93224a
7747c090d2326cf456f187a9ca936490581b2adf
50058 F20110217_AAAHJK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_185.pro
f724a284807a113ada337cef3d30eedc
38e38cb1d27f30c2cc38e3e2a6f10bdc9f777e2e
101582 F20110217_AAAFPX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_125.jp2
68a2d34fb3b3c6da165ecdd2b21c96cd
f16a18a0f50116594acf75a7170007361bca727e
128646 F20110217_AAAGMS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_093.jp2
98dc84b7df1d465b4fbf5a8ccc9626b8
c3042ddf65577f6493b6fca2a067b86c39e8c8f3
15638 F20110217_AAAHJL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_191.pro
cb259f446ef39b1c924f79a8c6ef8be5
dda6c193b1166dc042937afaf438d9f614ee23da
6825 F20110217_AAAFPY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_062thm.jpg
ced1d2bc238a06202e6a8d990a1c147d
4242deefc9d4b675188b49365b306181c8a9c108
47299 F20110217_AAAHJM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_193.pro
49e14e0249b7d783645c4a28d8b52131
ef7afe5b34fa193c4013995d101b308899a7ee84
103935 F20110217_AAAFPZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_044.jpg
6a2eff66309ca02f7ceca0663f7576c8
6584da0cb194ee1e96ddfa8d30bd187baead9aac
106712 F20110217_AAAGMT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_214.jpg
46ae9183e567445a912be1cf0409d737
d8a87687dca882b628f73eba2b14e595374ae7b9
52081 F20110217_AAAHJN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_196.pro
ebb6411eab7591ae7925047752697e9f
4092631a0de04c4279299cb561133c8a3ec59156
49320 F20110217_AAAHJO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_197.pro
4b189f1d838540147d96aa28aeb76de1
8facf2a8c5521ff5777e26525900ab828b5807f6
34770 F20110217_AAAGMU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_148.QC.jpg
bcbe08a913c84a054a2df148ab45228d
12095aa47ba80848f6f93629ad548ad7372fa227
F20110217_AAAGMV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_022.txt
127ed5aadc23e6957c8e0c4b93856958
ee71014f830355c8705455a7f951d3dcfc4d304d
47935 F20110217_AAAHJP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_198.pro
f369edd31ba05b53f7c2fb34c6121133
05fabf73c7bb3902bcbc39b9c77a2f01fc133f15
47790 F20110217_AAAGMW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_199.pro
8df924434aaf7ea0b2a078790f5711b4
702cfa15a5785012fdbe4f3233d47e202c163550
51332 F20110217_AAAHJQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_204.pro
9ccd42aa7147fc6a9d5f60b02c0ee010
dd990d3302e9e7a761671a15cf2c3ff56f3f782b
33768 F20110217_AAAGMX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_042.QC.jpg
b1502379f0ef3c9d0a70a36f922bd02b
f9d564cbf4c18f183ab1db0424017cfa8bc0ace1
50765 F20110217_AAAHJR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_205.pro
8f7b108139c4e39f82d8c9e0002232f4
b8a8a535b5300810d21c679b604143c3834ebe17
120709 F20110217_AAAGMY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_100.jpg
7b105aa19e7fb91c67a6a95dc8e5c99c
9d8a8b3ed987237893b93f3d46796c37a8e169ef
44282 F20110217_AAAHJS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_206.pro
f84c9bb4d50110583b8d4089ac092eeb
b0ab6628f9e88851dbdfc0f51375c90ca853f2bf
107647 F20110217_AAAGMZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_107.jp2
c973dfd8ff20e2e3d7b03db405ec8189
8370ab670a77f80431e494015d07faf2b9f30373
50417 F20110217_AAAHJT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_208.pro
c9e930054e045957a88b7641d8c220f4
7d56555c979a86349c447924f37e5b92c54506e9
53111 F20110217_AAAHJU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_209.pro
ac73f8ae5a9fd062a2772398ec5ec2ca
101c21cb4c512901da061da945738133692843ec
F20110217_AAAFVA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_149.tif
cd578e757ebf0fdf5c9805088efbcebf
6176e392132fa58b4bb307cf68b80fed0b646522
50635 F20110217_AAAHJV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_212.pro
f743a30466b7060d590f1f79373220fe
57021bf103232b8fafc7ccb6fd0ab3a06d196c58
50234 F20110217_AAAFVB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_076.pro
26ccd1cf7abebb0dd9f4da7b6ad16818
626e4fb4ecabfa6425528fbcf7e4b340e64c814e
54721 F20110217_AAAHJW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_217.pro
b20fd94ca3cc490c99e398c3f740ac7b
b1d05e0d5e634fa31bc7b253eef7e73721635bb8
33676 F20110217_AAAFVC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_171.QC.jpg
eb540b68b433be8f32c2ad0b40f31781
0aeca064cb969d6a5a8fd306f010fe02c52c08d7
50945 F20110217_AAAHJX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_218.pro
ee9249ddb4ee434057b8a160ceccc3b6
457feeb126db1a69eb3e4fd90595ce0a18587b0b
1601 F20110217_AAAFVD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_227.txt
57c6151452c8474e7166f7919376193f
6b3cfd39987abbe6cc475bb41bdd4ca8e14be23b
50993 F20110217_AAAHJY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_219.pro
b8f8402a0961709b5c00b76dba270e2f
30f7053df926b2ad423137593abb14ce66dbd621
7799 F20110217_AAAFVE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_120thm.jpg
b07caee36299af40f4b04aea4d2b574f
ef5b38acd1179969d2c69bcf67b6d29ffd04bfa9
53119 F20110217_AAAHJZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_220.pro
18c3644a3c119912658fc0762fcaddb5
82d2b1ac56cf5d7d07469168fcbbc6e9958187fc
2102 F20110217_AAAFVF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_147.txt
fe473cc17b2ee83821027e62033f2272
918544b00610c9a690d294fa4b7c922b1b2866dd
2044 F20110217_AAAFVG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_067.txt
fe16a513ee35bc5fb5a17a993b4a52a0
02af193f859a0a50055d047e5c640ae949a40c53
98927 F20110217_AAAFVH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_076.jpg
9c41a0783a13b5bfac2d65ff41081dfc
fc021cdebcf3674b50508d832608e3bde3ad7926
31664 F20110217_AAAGSA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_089.QC.jpg
292d7e98426ee7b1a1be29085d865eed
ea2beb7fcf967d41bdc81f89d40d59140110f9d5
F20110217_AAAFVI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_032.tif
8c7d0ca252a4050c80cfcab988d27ab4
935543ca1a3a866292d3577e743b97540ad8e420
34509 F20110217_AAAGSB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_043.QC.jpg
345d6ffa073922aadc7b28b753fce1d9
465738db71efb5761029b5898fc5e9ab7a1b79d1
8459 F20110217_AAAFVJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_031thm.jpg
8916084d435ee270d8230c86a941fe6a
3f88ad04ef1cd2fba75cf1e1b78c8f92d7db2562
30192 F20110217_AAAGSC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_110.QC.jpg
7659d37eafa4d3ba83a672c40abce6a6
800d15bab1a5a524c0182248de89ddc28fb973ca
F20110217_AAAFVK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_141.tif
26198faa736cfeff4cbcaafb187dcfda
c59cd62cb8f0e011ac897ba1e58423d3dd6b375a
123694 F20110217_AAAGSD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_243.jp2
f039bee12e54cf869723874755713d6e
ddd48bbe71b7befba58ce8ba1c6fd8b006efe135
102193 F20110217_AAAFVL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_071.jpg
8567a6a45bff387542b6b88f091f4f6e
0ede6744c29f64176ee507f08be13857b42be9da
7640 F20110217_AAAGSE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_008thm.jpg
65fd54d919a6fffbfeec947bad7cd1a1
7b5abf5c490f268982531ded7b38e2ebba21adbf
49383 F20110217_AAAFVM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_032.pro
3f45f8339d2801dabce240cea50990da
fd3f49e97b3601e51a5e2f4ea880c3f34bcb04a8
29540 F20110217_AAAGSF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_137.QC.jpg
1c74378babcc9f8715a813fd7ed65f7e
5dab02f4f38feee0c6e765a32a1bc70a1cae7dca
7992 F20110217_AAAFVN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_135thm.jpg
97ffa75b158eb87610ad370d3936a3b4
62c6bd672f5aab44147c6fa97f117b72079942d0
52174 F20110217_AAAGSG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_044.pro
be28dab73fe150a137f2aa40ccac2456
efae9ea1fe8043f4b45d90b7f9488c55d0d8e217
101811 F20110217_AAAHPA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_210.jpg
eb08d9fe3ae9942d18c16406a8090a83
10780a23810369d6d6f8b7c9a3daa399311718a5
F20110217_AAAFVO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_174.txt
6b07083df634c2a7c50e79deaa27f203
e86f004df6db8f85297d305f2bc76e9f9a5b6a80
107702 F20110217_AAAGSH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_147.jp2
d84825e763bd6dc1188e40c62ccfabd0
53ce20928ac7ecbdd598c8ea197c0e08f28dec0f
34723 F20110217_AAAHPB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_214.QC.jpg
96dab7ca40c1d6d468ecfc903ca93bdb
167f7445ac3446468ef7c1b60dda187a1aa00501
32959 F20110217_AAAFVP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_073.QC.jpg
9b39b3548a2d3fd120d88d57ff163c94
bc5db136c1f9b33822b61a0856157b0a41fd958d
6005 F20110217_AAAGSI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_236thm.jpg
732a5ac7fdad73616b595e39da75409a
a453cce28d072acfb51c28dc6b3bb1d6a0740790
32771 F20110217_AAAHPC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_219.QC.jpg
d4d0203e56afa40c86d63414ff02a76e
dea37051bcfb0d6500dac6c165dd6ab7174372ef
F20110217_AAAFIF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_208.txt
3cb80453b35b81222dcf15ea73fc2168
8f59ad9adc74aee266b33c7adadb3e4070c33821
114582 F20110217_AAAFVQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_170.jp2
5ddd1242952a65716bf4f65a92c98cf7
840ea97b9fa25ead253be89de7d732f7637cfff3
F20110217_AAAGSJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_083.tif
e982d7095c43378a5e2245a3240baaee
fd556c80e94c8a724a6d6d6a035a6e7d95b0617f
106389 F20110217_AAAHPD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_220.jpg
3b87176449200b5e9edde2a23d6e6fa8
ed3efbc0c9106ad4e7f44c68647de1f5e7beaf53
F20110217_AAAFIG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_005.tif
13bfc1705e9aa685a1d9c1d9dc34bd50
23f4e0807525427225ccfda600522607ced7e118
2492 F20110217_AAAFVR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_132.txt
2dc926302ad11095d1ea093289865e54
c614ffc51f8f0555642c58fb827deff3ef7211d5
63417 F20110217_AAAGSK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_100.pro
2b6235fa623e34bda46dfb4d96f856ad
e8dfa6a07491c9902b091a1465dbe9cd4dbe3ecc
99794 F20110217_AAAHPE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_221.jpg
dfd5eac6253f75d67841eec780e2682c
f1b8f50d03cd0a3152eb42a66b97be49be51dc30
52859 F20110217_AAAFIH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_135.pro
73efd182c76aafd1af342e5dfb56d733
1d68af2dfc7949c804b2310bbfd908ba01f933c8
113158 F20110217_AAAGFA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_080.jp2
84a0e74309a3ed21c00a4eb02540ab03
2c00b9570ca46e48bb4e0c016cba2e4efe0260e2
7964 F20110217_AAAFVS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_034thm.jpg
c44a6336f9286a53aa81720f9af4aac5
94c348c9fc55f07b54404e1bf16fb59ea737ce3b
2015 F20110217_AAAGSL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_076.txt
8505a8310918b59597218c344a2bec12
67ae546e2c691405b2a2767ba8cd443b4f302482
32816 F20110217_AAAHPF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_221.QC.jpg
22e67ce729bc44f16e3628cfddeb9ee9
89988a526155f4f2402f5e1ae865e2d405777ffe
110821 F20110217_AAAFII nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_096.jpg
1afe30c73d80d5cf8f7c7854c03ef0a0
13ec8dd135b153736d53f831d0d8900ec4adf23a
34819 F20110217_AAAGFB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_064.QC.jpg
7c045b59e6e2826e440ec1946d0575b1
4eed895db0351da3ab96f4cc6bcc0b81c72c959e
30123 F20110217_AAAFVT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_234.QC.jpg
b47ccaac32616b4a98d24e8bb592028a
a1221a0ec7923f2bc30bbc8300b8cc81873f9f12
F20110217_AAAGSM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_168.txt
cb47beac7d193bb17f8f4552a886e361
96036f07d45549078a044f69aa4f6c9904d662b7
31737 F20110217_AAAHPG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_222.QC.jpg
b76f6a4d64d847b2d5266eb73ac329da
2c07031433b64e954de7c86470e9b274e9a5cb53
F20110217_AAAFIJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_165.tif
06be6d692a7dd32d5db932267afaaae5
88ee7fdec071c5001844d39bdb99452d9567863c
61309 F20110217_AAAGFC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_118.pro
526a277dd874764d5deb00df8a2132db
b7e766285eaa2140348442ff0879a90b4156cde2
F20110217_AAAFVU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_159thm.jpg
636c1505042e5042c16481bd8110709e
18c616e716d682663ca5661095c2d6cf15bdb4de
46260 F20110217_AAAGSN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_018.jp2
1fc91fbad281d2f0b94c7dda486110c3
68e9d0f679533a4f35a5a05e0f1e9007a32902a6
34786 F20110217_AAAHPH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_224.QC.jpg
70959f335dffd901bf04ff8bf8040ab4
94e1c7d349688b77c1aec1dfe05260b5c86d72cf
33977 F20110217_AAAFIK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_026.QC.jpg
f4a490ca7332e45a352b5ba093c24fa5
26a58766a48f06d763ceb0fcc0c5fbdc5a3e9098
F20110217_AAAGFD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_077.tif
bdab9fed61d51c49325a7d27c850e7a8
5395d7a24d5318ffda988c41a18be0e23e764799
2233 F20110217_AAAFVV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_148.txt
631d650a5561fba9cab9b776eba1d852
ae81485720a22ee6ca13266817bdf92510cf78d1
8422 F20110217_AAAGSO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_186thm.jpg
a2fe9ed28c95c2059364a974b85dd9aa
f0b631b683e553d1e778bd5b85ccf140a4494643
101447 F20110217_AAAHPI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_225.jpg
6eecde277c2c19e90b82e8fce4291379
81e2cfedf357bb1f2322a55db27849c340dd651d
35144 F20110217_AAAFIL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_088.QC.jpg
8e33aa1165275655759ac72fc923aa9e
7ab17184697cdd30731502211047ee1fe9f38944
1894 F20110217_AAAGFE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_198.txt
b2bc2143b63af1175e237d8a44f78794
4efe0131be3b96aed176eefeea83e1f7ecb8f902
32731 F20110217_AAAFVW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_051.QC.jpg
7342552206f3925739a63a46ada33862
e1104087756c385d63005f85c7de62afeaa62926
33568 F20110217_AAAGSP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_045.QC.jpg
547d1babbc82d80bd5f0d6911febcbe2
d027c3c4b2a2feebf4d398e85b268bd433f4399d
32617 F20110217_AAAHPJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_225.QC.jpg
964b0ff31aca7232bfd98eb4e58e34f6
6bd9385d164193e83e308846a34ca1d147263e3c
32582 F20110217_AAAFIM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_180.QC.jpg
da19755d1003a0eaa8cc951524e89fa2
8b2da732f0d735d017a5eb3f8c14d53ffb0c8cc1
F20110217_AAAGFF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_106.txt
fbbc3d2ac291fb15869093e5b02faffa
0078ca1da1470a7fa69ce8b3523a6276bbcf5429
49167 F20110217_AAAFVX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_066.pro
9db0513cdd86f9bfe1b262f64344ff1b
8e44f0383c746f49c7a1712be35ab2a58f44b718
2167 F20110217_AAAGSQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_113.txt
ea65f061422d8e47f6ed95a4e1b2f90a
afd9cb1a1fe70aca43f33e782ea9363dfba53563
55801 F20110217_AAAHPK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_227.jpg
862f52d941755d451010e289d6957d73
c4e7a65124ef22db0c3d00089225f0d94ac806e6
2137 F20110217_AAAFIN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_151.txt
4a9e35e39dfd61c187e15cfacf741e97
25c22a3ae0858ecc6630a6fa2319509426e1a784
100011 F20110217_AAAGFG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_152.jpg
ed63e50c13b02d37ddfc65fb803e5399
e89c48ecb5e00ea5c3f8484382f857ee93dece40
8414 F20110217_AAAFVY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_077thm.jpg
bbaec3ab9b6f857132f3acbdf1215ade
a416d0617541bd0d63dcacc609b4045cc69248c8
64383 F20110217_AAAGSR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_084.pro
91b6fe77aeff5844b76adabc52013c37
340e59c1896d765b050a281cf028af0e8b84510f
18698 F20110217_AAAHPL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_228.jpg
894f50065cc5c64274eb804e9688081f
a4c1508e18ace8b2b6c0cea80c72440b328ee2ee
2646 F20110217_AAAFIO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_119.txt
31d0acbb91ba654dafa0faf49122c044
3ab1fda2ae6d8b6ac51c585886da4a40edbd0940
106139 F20110217_AAAGFH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_209.jpg
c3822307dc168f8d01ec8e92bef0c3e8
cb78d1368d49bd1cf01d8723c4ecf058fcd41a91
118548 F20110217_AAAFVZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_097.jp2
c61bde11aaa4f41c88969e5ad7c4f0f4
0b7b1706dcfcb4a57742d5ededd9f324a501ba40
F20110217_AAAHCA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_068.tif
d0d0b587f36df0a7c2623ebaaf888577
e24b4a661ad2eb094a638d0860ca4a10b070b62b
103302 F20110217_AAAGSS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_048.jpg
73e93dc33b637c54b36f9ffa2dd3fe6b
6b466282162feff67cacd6aaedb41db1fe753e96
5509 F20110217_AAAHPM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_228.QC.jpg
92398e44502145d1238f3a474c9b62f5
30a35ce939e257d8e0a1d577cbf937e4a8d0ec7d
F20110217_AAAFIP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_063.tif
d7282257ece8ba177ad3cbb3b57bdb8a
7d9579d34aa97dd9b736dd5e67d2ff1ae2f3bbce
105756 F20110217_AAAGFI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_016.jpg
b5554eaaa87069efb29130455f91634b
54a30d078b1b2a722224454a1cad03ced6dd7e51
F20110217_AAAHCB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_073.tif
62941000862b6cfdb7ab2bc7fb69ee68
fcdc55434bc5daf8b9395ed65c18a575e0ed21a4
F20110217_AAAGST nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_024thm.jpg
e434d59c74bd68951954cb9b7d9a76d0
330ccb9c2a80b006cbfbb7d172be18d051cc5a97
46962 F20110217_AAAHPN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_230.jpg
45a316c406cfcb22a6483d040b00ac70
f3ee1e454185f901a484d47a1511d093cb05c7c2
31988 F20110217_AAAGFJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_047.QC.jpg
4f9bb7fdf83a8e2e57ba97154d6376a9
5c21899bc4db5978af7d8f52e33efb6980a5e923
F20110217_AAAHCC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_080.tif
a0df868b8de43f714969e3dcf12a3996
e770662dc84e4096b4553ef2ef2373b2c0644f03
2032 F20110217_AAAGSU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_073.txt
520ba164e6f1f16b548d156fa9587dec
86adba29d4c494d23e889a9ee3c1ba208038fe52
19682 F20110217_AAAHPO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_232.QC.jpg
c5992a97cc54f08517e11d98502295d0
97b898669d4d429e0b9bef838c27db044acd7402
105908 F20110217_AAAFIQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_032.jp2
25227f227056b7826db1a5872f67d5d7
f842eca12a0b0b615bc50f8637dbaf454bb3618d
923224 F20110217_AAAGFK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_229.jp2
5a99b6c6651f4545e6e7b0e24db386ce
a1a52a560acf206abbc6a8fe166f659ad37321e0
F20110217_AAAHCD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_084.tif
e0ef902c661950964d3417ce3d8b328e
bde2a2e56ae8307d2890096adeec1b02ff032862
115237 F20110217_AAAGSV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_217.jp2
10160fd41a7945eeb0611eaaba3a3519
f40ba5ae200ac9bf7ecdf360d629fc071670bb76
114804 F20110217_AAAHPP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_234.jpg
cf46fdf3f6272c26d736f7251279f81f
72668dae684994eb397f94bc72d492f6b0aa922c
113450 F20110217_AAAFIR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_182.jp2
2afcb8e1176007d669c13ac87760cf6c
dde882eb9d1f759c200bf64b87454574d81a36a8
49936 F20110217_AAAGFL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_233.jpg
9f9ef66dc4643313c07d4e6414f32da0
fadcb3b3ce29212b88842f9cd819783b814348a9
F20110217_AAAHCE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_090.tif
d9bee4ee4e8b6e809eadcdff66cb682b
138a03a38c9c8d066b4c7ca7d32cdd4ccfa0e4d6
1968 F20110217_AAAGSW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_051.txt
455cf630fabb9ca616ae2fe01530f5fc
e961b8a4a38e845f3e56deae53aeb7c915be5cb8
54889 F20110217_AAAHPQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_237.jpg
5f174ae3d98f7d4fa7be5c3a8d5e983a
eb3e6894a42aa50cb39bc550f8b55fd59a5394d1
F20110217_AAAFIS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_083.jp2
1c8835a81f2e6a37fc2c30936a7e0ee2
b1b2a60516ec1847070209323931ea0dcc0e34f9
F20110217_AAAHCF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_093.tif
70b787a67110d155408bc2979e5644c2
70050f7a7d70f5374663dc09c919a051a4cf1d03
104976 F20110217_AAAGSX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_203.jpg
7df57e4261c726ccbb95f06e440006ae
33bf4fa04b4e0688b8575397e0c508267a699780
17931 F20110217_AAAHPR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_237.QC.jpg
6e2eafcd988f009480a98d915c1346f9
71de4ecf5372d9b43ada13ba47608f5eb260de12
43894 F20110217_AAAFIT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_192.pro
18db7ddc30e0e29078e292d442c978cd
9adacae89e3d5a2d024d7e633b74f7cc8831187f
106293 F20110217_AAAGFM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_201.jp2
a7852f5dd66d979c49d8514fa1e8e867
513c0f73282f4021853523d9bb9e287736864273
F20110217_AAAHCG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_094.tif
cd8b5c4598db87f378b030d3cd681fbd
04d36b91d1c616fc8fbdd7d69902df1feba9e949
F20110217_AAAGSY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_113.tif
f1ac0070b92afd647e74ca528480d0b7
30bd85335c20c902652c4e4ebaef2eb69d2d06d1
28144 F20110217_AAAHPS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_238.QC.jpg
d87ad3839d6ae2c93fa7659fcff1a08d
f57c114850d27294f7b8a75c5956b4bbb9706840
52338 F20110217_AAAFIU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_079.pro
74e5ff5afbfe091c0360ffb832b57370
6b10fecc13522ac389633806d32a86a4015daf39
48724 F20110217_AAAGFN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_237.pro
f3fe4e538a4b1411d30b327ae38cd996
b89fc32872c2140a238b4bb89dffdb653eaad984
F20110217_AAAHCH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_096.tif
67abc0b8b2fb5cc5b5571a79ccc43b76
dce07280124da7b2e110b89df100df6625171237
32314 F20110217_AAAHPT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_239.QC.jpg
4a6b3282fa157281c15525f19ddd4387
c9cde7afbf08116618cbcbde2969fc86a945337b
F20110217_AAAFIV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_042.tif
0e5b6df3006f84f249c14945f81780f4
aa745d1580a59bff3b8b7e9b243f026a3adb8417
32222 F20110217_AAAGFO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_163.QC.jpg
e6b8a164a923cdb0d4cf64e786930333
7cc584feb68e2d87417c75d144290bdb147e4665
104082 F20110217_AAAGSZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_189.jpg
07f36a3c3a507d566227ddf5df5dfe80
e1f63d6b56461aaf677befa67441a746b600cec7
32198 F20110217_AAAHPU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_240.QC.jpg
bea1941c627c415d7d9797190615789c
3eabd42255dce5327e02281cbaf934f4296cbdfe
48008 F20110217_AAAFIW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_238.pro
fc81103e4c5d02358e4095bea30e0eb9
9dcafcfe9c0a19b8383142d5ab8e156442829827
2019 F20110217_AAAGFP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_211.txt
2a831e94a42c64bd3b6e0607ff9d2d73
81f7f1d4694eb6c64f122a4e99753a7f884073c1
F20110217_AAAHCI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_100.tif
1e3e95b49e03a6e698fa801d7101c3a6
3fbe11e54549330bd1c0170da3a2cdd7570b4aa5
F20110217_AAAFIX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_217.tif
7cf11b29a515c25779cabeb4ec74c28b
93ff661316096034babd77f5bbe0b7f481a4a876
F20110217_AAAGFQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_186.QC.jpg
ca8116e48d639286631098e5c778159e
b208015c7ad273801616d6c24939e0e320a61406
F20110217_AAAHCJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_102.tif
2a0940b1e37163a32cd26102d173b387
433746d423b4852da8691a3ebc12feb3b6ef7992
31279 F20110217_AAAHPV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_241.QC.jpg
912f9ee022d43b31bd03424550dd1408
39528146b1739073039573782352509cc229c3ea
119832 F20110217_AAAFIY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_143.jp2
c5fefdc581aef82b88b7a330cf67faa1
7fa6fc0c8de931993b0b8e4847d7422f40083faa
32558 F20110217_AAAGFR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_152.QC.jpg
2e680c4e5c6d333f35d12066a6d81d4b
8e19c746aa8f57749fe5f7ff794153b3fee88812
F20110217_AAAHCK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_104.tif
53253b37637dfdefb2ef5e6b0bb3bd22
75f31348162f1e59971fecf33a08fad166311cd8
F20110217_AAAFIZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_187.tif
ac96c0f6ad859b9820176a165b9b6cd1
505574cdf50be6bac00e706f0283a0418dbf0b9a
37351 F20110217_AAAGFS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_086.QC.jpg
e30d7f2da2f7b9ff7b28ebaa589a1b5a
8508881a3143177608cc23055b57cab9c355f33b
F20110217_AAAHCL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_107.tif
d12b67343942f90308335173cff0d592
0d7990b9f912783b15173e7e45347df20c090fa0
31520 F20110217_AAAHPW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_242.QC.jpg
062bdbf12c27eeadbc8cbf5f24274d17
23e32f5da8cd5dc1d4226d10ea778543a74f4c11
58132 F20110217_AAAGFT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_097.pro
2903a4603d96ef8835bebdf8b4413e5a
e86522d820fcd728e5ec5fab36bb070caa5296e9
F20110217_AAAHCM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_109.tif
5e0cc6b490491ef5845b1979a25dcd08
ea0aa2d4ddbba44edb2ee3fb888ea3ac53691f28
113330 F20110217_AAAHPX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_243.jpg
2e784c7daab13de3dd0057100a28fa56
2eb10775a6d5fab9111169c22fe522d198b639c6
8066 F20110217_AAAGFU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_017thm.jpg
62f64c028701f139ed1990b04f25f370
d6c71aefddf5e13e8390de8549e5eac60f63e9be
F20110217_AAAHCN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_110.tif
551d7958b887003b90ab7df7455947e1
e400aa2353f223f08788d3fe27f99ed86e95ab39
33036 F20110217_AAAHPY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_243.QC.jpg
13ff8afaec157dd6993308b1c5e30a57
e564552c8867a5b6824fce438c1db27b8bb2895e
7707 F20110217_AAAGFV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_110thm.jpg
719803e4f62fa8938f737e3069599191
93c9194917ec67221b9f2c7ca53e5f8acbeaf2dc
F20110217_AAAHCO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_111.tif
066d6592520d3f5703491c91b1730688
28b605a6062c5d90894c8c7e5117914e2ef71276
15895 F20110217_AAAHPZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_245.QC.jpg
d18076bc6b69e1839ca0899a0eaad703
40b1b50ad0f14125225dd66d1745db8c893d26a1
53176 F20110217_AAAGFW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_065.pro
7cf28a360c2859e35f73edcb0d54d4cf
311375e871bf75a9bf07e2b86666711e01af42ed
F20110217_AAAHCP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_112.tif
1b9d45296c3fc48a43b914b0fe7dd000
6f11bb3adb0b11a8c4c1d104c4e64fdf05730889
97046 F20110217_AAAGFX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_193.jpg
e669b9164148bad21aae0aac9ea3804c
b9fec2a062ed91c7d68c9b13b69e44c1c685a27c
31050 F20110217_AAAGYA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_108.QC.jpg
f3d0cfeb46cc7794a742b20efcc318e1
4736eb038b5cef781ea703c396826e17e82e37d5
F20110217_AAAHCQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_114.tif
e266f7974517dcedba9f2a4419b8cafe
4ca11067adeb565e91974f3c6eb357ab47f517a8
8301 F20110217_AAAGFY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_207thm.jpg
d501eaa9ba6ee9b87f694e35bb2e10ad
825dae1ff50896dddcd6e12fd77052cd7a1e61c9
F20110217_AAAGYB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_220.tif
032e370f21c9c1415cf11f998f3edd57
c21ab4ac4a8f9289ad552a1016e79b7c32c6db7b
F20110217_AAAHCR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_115.tif
7a1bf02c6408f5fb10702ae7776895fb
2a30eda8efcefe003a298231581d0474dc8c3381
F20110217_AAAGFZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_039.tif
5ff03270cb69cc8696c780d8c027d138
2d2eb588229b475be9841258f6e2dbcc7e94106e
110236 F20110217_AAAGYC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_036.jp2
e46dc6046c51ede6d9aea877bde60c36
cb8412b1afb31ba8dac0b43bf826eed5394fbb55
F20110217_AAAHCS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_120.tif
eec662f001457058aa362e428dbfa6f0
7e8035be830d1235218617adb0f9b71c76a714db
101551 F20110217_AAAGYD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_223.jpg
16366dbec50de1ee1142409d5f0750bf
23f4977ed957356abb0df30a3e0d65f7afdf3cc0
F20110217_AAAHCT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_121.tif
f52cac886fd15aa08542ee42ae4f2965
a17fce549bd64edfabca8ab3119c117a07640791
1280 F20110217_AAAGYE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_232.txt
b43de816a82611343218f2cb8d9258be
ee031abda7ac60331e0c3fadc30036fb21039c73
F20110217_AAAHCU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_124.tif
b3d2f2c3a57f68364d534d6085b20883
8840e734f1d2a2c7932470609d7a664a9c8fdf2d
7723 F20110217_AAAFOA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_095thm.jpg
b36063211413bd1043b10b41e8eaee2f
8970ab6fd6ba2266530547dfd479dca4052076e2
F20110217_AAAGYF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_169.tif
572086a0188277683f48fdca28336a4a
3ad3aeee3ea0611eb849cece58f005a63d5fba2b
F20110217_AAAHCV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_125.tif
7a807a10a6c5c24595f4f8321affda68
2c8345f431e14129739909b8b2e79b77cec65b3f
35787 F20110217_AAAFOB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_102.QC.jpg
0c0bfe4c6f834fc52d28fc65ee6f59a1
56a7683f8a95d53912e18d329bd9429eae89c227
F20110217_AAAGYG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_017.tif
fe6780f8ddc7acffbe1dff7ca9e89a0e
9201e1e99c53fcaf37afef2fec328e76e9f4584e
F20110217_AAAHCW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_130.tif
faf1a88b8595871571880fb755fa2abb
01dab7db50345640d80fa1270743d4716790fb6e
110834 F20110217_AAAFOC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_136.jpg
8355b0af5b545227ec9e8be91f2abc89
6cd37e30f7aa701f5bf167355ae6c4ab522047bc
121947 F20110217_AAAGYH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_093.jpg
65c2851e92f38f485f1c44dead3876a5
2f1185576319b030435b2df438c3c2b6ae2f77a0
F20110217_AAAHCX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_134.tif
bba494fbf20560c786daef465d36f449
b48964798d52270f842e186362aa12e8ec25283d
7840 F20110217_AAAHVA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_121thm.jpg
4e287ebdf6c941aa36af437616024209
17f06d85e7deea6e22b9c6d9445eb8d782a6a6fe
8541 F20110217_AAAFOD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_111thm.jpg
f37411ff2b13922307ad53e255c3ebf0
f7fcafc9c5b7fec1f3a3ce2f1153adc3566e25aa
2104 F20110217_AAAGYI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_182.txt
0c357f31ec51b122d5acc8071da2d871
325fbaa04fb3d5b9aef3a3e268443ba5f49b15ec
F20110217_AAAHCY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_143.tif
c7e271d0f539cf2b868d86b2bc57d6aa
348242e36309204e21fcf7156c48201f3c085681
F20110217_AAAHVB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_123thm.jpg
57c7c5437fa813c9ba0ccf226cb52d5c
4cbf25e829ec8b78bbb9de5ee3909a89cdf86245
50064 F20110217_AAAFOE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_181.pro
b6810a7382e33adb5f707d8802522915
d5e862e7c9ea9292624e9f41dada527985241c4b
28027 F20110217_AAAGYJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_154.QC.jpg
6a48fe67ad054533b1a150757e52bfa6
8f36547b9f29efbd04a4707cc25dc2aa3bbb1434
F20110217_AAAHCZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_148.tif
a3b95c7dc5735010204a2d86eeb9230e
444517240e6ddabb5c503d54db34324fa0df77e1
8779 F20110217_AAAHVC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_126thm.jpg
7a7e83fd71e46b6baecfbeba61d4af98
bac4426f5c2693dec8a5ee3db13ff22e32343e47
1756 F20110217_AAAFOF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_206.txt
1bc71cef8613a035b7ee82dcafedadc6
4701c702f5f865431934c60cde8e90fea33f5327
28616 F20110217_AAAGYK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_053.QC.jpg
e1ea3702f122aee2b844c2b3d6ebcc0d
d0f1d107f462b9d2a5e63581c5fcbe9fd72b3bdf
8437 F20110217_AAAHVD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_132thm.jpg
9f7e4fa5745be3cc655525ee05e936de
e347fdc23e0de843a7769244283a2cc5cc5c31d4
F20110217_AAAFOG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_181.txt
e49448c6b825803ae98c71c581294835
3c85ad70c207cbf1d009def8e6b2b4fa8f9c877a
8530 F20110217_AAAGLA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_083thm.jpg
e5d41f4f9be9bb923e2df2a618b7234b
ed975b4b3bd084df162a239c29e7f168a06259e9
56244 F20110217_AAAGYL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_130.pro
e537182ab7a923713b388141186f3d85
18ffc98cff3efe53095eff76d7de723dbe9e3fd6
7901 F20110217_AAAHVE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_139thm.jpg
388ab145275444dd4752988563befd01
c200c4af1e5303d7cc883a88f0c28678c7579819
F20110217_AAAFOH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_054.txt
bfa3dc993a8e7de550d6d1b753242e02
83bd1d611c5d3a1f307421652984fdf39c8edbc8
F20110217_AAAGLB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_071.tif
879898b2db1d5e6d937b4898ee2dd748
e1b786cd78a4d937b18a454f9a3f907113cadd5a
98082 F20110217_AAAGYM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_158.jpg
579d15e26311ed456cfaceea76f1fdeb
8b6ee48f3f57b94acdc5d7c760f9af5699187a54
F20110217_AAAHVF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_141thm.jpg
311cd0c40db1f10f7dc70065dd6fe74f
54117fea039514fe59681eb9ef80a63e6eb5584a
8342 F20110217_AAAFOI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_032thm.jpg
9bec2e13ca0c783996171df4d8837b39
571c3c7e9d24775b0ced107104d50cd05c6e998a
33344 F20110217_AAAGLC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_218.QC.jpg
e5e574d47b16630ef7f233d2f178b69a
4d4a768d5de9e0ee368d182ced22702753dab8a5
49901 F20110217_AAAGYN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_047.pro
7beda783b4dc9d392a1a0a14f0ff1176
34a9327142a5e920bfe69da95bdeb5f09de77550
8493 F20110217_AAAHVG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_143thm.jpg
71dbe2b3f782529cb4946e38617dc4a9
0357910703459935b27d1fb24dbde5655afac4cd
F20110217_AAAFOJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_146.tif
2dca0b64b296c62199baf3a811d221d4
99fcb32171ffc13df19b10d94b439b285122afff
115055 F20110217_AAAGLD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_173.jpg
136eba148072c5c485b3f3f4091b97e2
d1ed84e3ac6483f701aed5e8ea4fdb7cf49c72ae
32667 F20110217_AAAGYO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_139.QC.jpg
2ed364946255a10a2716b08d01348a1b
0cc4fb1641c78a7f2de5533aa118e72539cc286c
8448 F20110217_AAAHVH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_144thm.jpg
cea5d26e0b7d3e8ad509522153038bba
5aea18e525769bf3bb74521c3f236d204e920a36
106849 F20110217_AAAFOK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_225.jp2
56b02ef70b3d33eb2dfe0998c64b89e3
9e14daea26e78ca9326343e251a0d6df09c4c062
7496 F20110217_AAAGLE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_238thm.jpg
beee7d1dfd2c97fae37602b85bad27b8
c3661d1d9de3aa0aa1192d150174f399c729baf3
106416 F20110217_AAAGYP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_224.jpg
0caa273ec87c3410044f8e9d2a2d3e17
216a4cd2dc4971a3e1f83b2275593325265289c5
8350 F20110217_AAAHVI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_145thm.jpg
f223d07066fa3667ffd79669115a8dda
b71f43e2112dbac1984410ff5cc0ccc3948a4607
36044 F20110217_AAAFOL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_117.QC.jpg
3d7eaea51b1cd2d60ea7267bf7fd65d0
5a2b796f19c42a3945cf1c22e44f8a27c3172e36
1964 F20110217_AAAGLF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_070.txt
59d8593539bd075185d32fa7042b34cb
a4356019742ac03d72c40f7535a4c16dac1e31f0
7796 F20110217_AAAGYQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_189thm.jpg
fe4ebca0e4390c542b2fc7ba3fddb021
dd3e3f12e1940edb01f989c2004b2ad381579989
7878 F20110217_AAAHVJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_147thm.jpg
8a3287722508d1b0dae1372331ca9b8f
885d308581f5fc29388a4e52ce8058cd99803589
8519 F20110217_AAAFOM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_105thm.jpg
765bd2358b1efd8172d0f5696ebd7707
bb895484e66499c850ea24acd87e5e06615d9c83
31598 F20110217_AAAGLG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_158.QC.jpg
f238d21a0a7abd59bd886505d6d5c142
0ab0c9ad521129e1118ce019a8a3ed84a50371ce
55869 F20110217_AAAGYR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_159.pro
8f903bcf49dbaa14924b7fa00313d880
a7ac98496e749e18494c86f155c220c08b0eb489
8339 F20110217_AAAHVK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_150thm.jpg
ca23115cf392467fbd2f2ed15e38e87c
4c33a7573452df6df868937a5494ad3d6cbffe3c
119255 F20110217_AAAFON nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_098.jpg
715b972dd65853d06a4d069e15f80d77
8ec6869b1fbd7d5803800daaedd974ad4e8123f7
F20110217_AAAGLH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_202.tif
8f9c563c23942373e13c2befb06d7320
3015cfedb3a97f9479e56a30b07833bbef29fc40
48912 F20110217_AAAHIA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_068.pro
02fa7c29138990b098ab22489d56f687
599c7b452f2a8e363b7ca1a9414868422dafe8e7
113725 F20110217_AAAGYS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_023.jp2
733967df9a71d1304b4b6e08f95cb4f7
56b1c782f8d0aa59e65ef9a15b0b0c72f14cca28
7865 F20110217_AAAHVL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_155thm.jpg
5dcfa8ebc539d460a8c826fb0be0afef
d03c5c8668dd06ad9b4231a1a838e8472ccea89b
47290 F20110217_AAAFOO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_091.pro
8248ab97213c98ec37e3c1e4fd72374d
c5811817c970a8c3b9c42a022e101daa050ee6d2
106549 F20110217_AAAGLI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_124.jpg
839bf22588196adecf334da128189262
5d817a5596d8649c7be9f257460b570834dd6c2d
49941 F20110217_AAAHIB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_070.pro
9b9e1ddb26026235ed038053f49e9459
19e60429ec7ab016f1e1e7fb1cf49098b23db931
F20110217_AAAGYT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_064.tif
d15acd8b5cd6d4440ff0e49a455fcbb0
f78471e3861aefe690e2f2654088b22d234b7afb
F20110217_AAAHVM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_161thm.jpg
c7891a9907a497a7bbc572086583d757
ccd0b44785abc4ca16b1334cd5f8e36ea6a549e7
49451 F20110217_AAAFOP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_222.pro
cf1fab18ff1973bcc7fed7ff6f6aacd2
3be18435c7eb209a3579579086a6e41ed4502ee1
7732 F20110217_AAAHVN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_166thm.jpg
c33544317ef2ce8164aee7f1fa76f768
4a3976bb36fe3481a31736887bdff1b88f67611b
8399 F20110217_AAAGLJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_156thm.jpg
e6d160903a56da925ca0183a7a0c8613
363c4bd77ed3c0fbd259effd54676d8ddbfd666c
50835 F20110217_AAAHIC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_071.pro
ba5fd766bf758d9a4166102ea75e8b2c
c60c526ba35e0f8bbdae87b0214e8527d20c925c
8142 F20110217_AAAGYU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_085thm.jpg
dd36fdf7a5b7cbe37e973d8e27743e49
60389af606186658adadc6c0e580454ef30480f2
8308 F20110217_AAAFOQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_040thm.jpg
72d8d1954b9810cc75d8aba99e7fcda1
1b758c5ddb159c16905cec5990be007a70cc0708
8251 F20110217_AAAHVO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_171thm.jpg
29b5cd4857deafddddb7bb147783cf4d
dd61babc4e70017d86fb1f98d36404c0651cb20d
F20110217_AAAGLK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_072.tif
77664d97699b1a70d78a88f267dbc1e9
fb11ca0317d86e253c00c8d324eff40eeee6e24a
36543 F20110217_AAAHID nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_074.pro
b0f8a4a8c9deafcbdf040e179ba7b9be
b06a50c0d28712fd469d01a5a4a5a33820a9b84e
F20110217_AAAGYV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_036.tif
3e3cc598837e43878adbece334dda774
a3823b7a5ba18b6bef79bf996021617d3d1b672f
8225 F20110217_AAAFOR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_028thm.jpg
e56b48b52ef778ab3e3b0f445740e330
9148da2a1b9b26397a8cb6402fa04fb1abe5ea3b
8663 F20110217_AAAHVP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_172thm.jpg
6d697de4f6986ddaeb14933ad2976cef
ae4ee579656e804f2d00ef1494802751147d773a
F20110217_AAAGLL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_218.tif
53bc38e9ddb1a95e2407ded1c5aab684
4b2e96f369fe29d41c54d662a78f11b0453d961f
65767 F20110217_AAAHIE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_077.pro
dbfd5944eefb4d23d3a6875f3291572b
117723222961559301f94109b456ab243d193822
F20110217_AAAGYW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_098.tif
4105bae17108e378212c656ba357ecfc
295d8cbf654881d7fb6948fe2bea6f54e4508d4d
103351 F20110217_AAAFOS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_171.jpg
2c580cab9c3f76f5b36e1ff33dfaa8dc
c71986d922406f8a51ae374b6ebdc48993edf264
8497 F20110217_AAAHVQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_173thm.jpg
0f0b0fcc1e98fb604b9a8509bb12ddf2
a932650f7485d2a44b0c7098f671218ad4b3e387
35024 F20110217_AAAGLM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_100.QC.jpg
7fe813b31ff1e721bbadbdb488c74efc
2a792cf2c56cd587bf5755b6a9f11a690e559874
56384 F20110217_AAAHIF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_088.pro
a3746d5303386ed9bac39bc915771e83
225e69f81060fc54a0ff29e749497400ec22f1b4
32712 F20110217_AAAGYX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_233.pro
e8ba1ecba938b87cb8f61460fe36a235
e16afddd0a9854ef11daf50ee3b44b646e500af3
111941 F20110217_AAAFOT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_123.jp2
9f786a809d9bfd46a4a75c2f160e2a4c
fc4e7446c0d82746b6858ab5f4ea8bdecf9f24c6
8188 F20110217_AAAHVR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_176thm.jpg
1d56d6ee973e78eae02f90c7fddd4ec2
9c05c6d645f01335fdf51760957d141c134b9fb0
99770 F20110217_AAAGLN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_121.jp2
608a4b2bc0b71c0d2f892a5aff518164
eff501f23c178c3ffd0969521dc36074ff2691c8
56847 F20110217_AAAHIG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_090.pro
551e509f2d7d2d0d6e0f793ce1fc5945
2c080fbb311bb0d0a3e4446f474c5f4a275a563c
32246 F20110217_AAAGYY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_078.QC.jpg
75113c5badc81f382c8e730c58333d92
450389e4ccb57c9e3bbba2766354b1a6fbee1b21
F20110217_AAAFOU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_133.tif
83d7cc808e02b9f9aef91528aef4f1d0
bef742871ad461391cfa6277609077eabc7549ee
8065 F20110217_AAAHVS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_181thm.jpg
a683a98a654db4d9851d47db18b41166
73cb5cd6b3d53b5eaa2826bac0858e2d4dc21b55
61726 F20110217_AAAGLO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_133.pro
cd6ac549e0131afcf70e556e934d60c2
1725332483f93b00ca9b128b3f0acdbfac96fc0f
54329 F20110217_AAAHIH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_095.pro
f89840ee3dbefbfcf2eda7db1ce013e3
05dd3da2568f9eab3c3a168052f518765ddf961e
101460 F20110217_AAAGYZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_069.jpg
bc3cca449e1eae51f2dd2a84273dccc9
55f3df74088d94929b880d031f9fc34af4ca51d9
2561 F20110217_AAAFOV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_003.pro
e5e0b3b1d2e9a4468cee221158d90000
6b9679303ca9633810df45580c65c745e8ddcf07
8627 F20110217_AAAHVT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_182thm.jpg
1a4c617d3f2d063d628a02a80ab7f6c3
0180628551affc76f068126efb13e4b688035552
114989 F20110217_AAAGLP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_127.jp2
e951c2216ba5254fc8fba095cd93b436
e9c6b3b2129720f5d0a54189451792f493f5ba15
55995 F20110217_AAAHII nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_096.pro
752c4a852c5edf82a761a9b9d97bffbd
912f7a9e1946c7ccd977e50d73c6e661e5dec791
8441 F20110217_AAAHVU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_194thm.jpg
a166978d79e548f420e96254f995f8e0
40b8d5ab2afaa6e1928903ce511c0f483df8ba6e
36432 F20110217_AAAGLQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_116.QC.jpg
2e2971efef6987fd5256238ae6297732
e14706fd9853e92549af3148a0d68286b766683a
65885 F20110217_AAAHIJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_102.pro
6eccf5314c477db57397bf43e9f8d25c
e5173463b90466e7a5be37bb7f3c8157729629d0
94484 F20110217_AAAFOW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_014.jp2
2b7b765ae5dd8e128f5c6a75aea14613
7c4ce1add17731e8a13e26790bd4efec34a5ab63
8587 F20110217_AAAHVV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_203thm.jpg
ee955929104202a91964e53ba11bd4b0
5707145954eb00e883bf3f8d5ca6d226ff459249
109410 F20110217_AAAGLR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_189.jp2
8d932be8beac4dfe2f0c0df239d3eb0e
87c8c1e21104a5ef31ef7de4625a4dab20bc66f1
58580 F20110217_AAAHIK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_103.pro
40f2920a0de2134efa4e7c53050acd65
96564e7e2b6412fc1cb2b8fa3f73af04c5594e34
61985 F20110217_AAAFOX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_098.pro
71c2944816e6d8d0054ebd18239faba0
f6e56a2f41c0cf26dd888eb0a950b51f6bb58878
8388 F20110217_AAAHVW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_205thm.jpg
8bcc8c8570ad66d07962bc113817c625
4aa9fb44cb3864783704ab326af04baa2907cd59
60806 F20110217_AAAHIL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_105.pro
1b756b836b405179a5cd31327f2737bc
783605a797d1454f6d66692fbbb306d2e6edb368
8366 F20110217_AAAFOY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_029thm.jpg
66a4e78b18aaa48e475dbe57c748fdb1
105f2be579c2b6ed1b93dfeac383d841df516a09
8400 F20110217_AAAHVX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_212thm.jpg
e25ff162c29a160721d0fe7ccb0df431
8f645ca8f6aedd9c3a99b919d5904981c2a43413
123534 F20110217_AAAGLS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_105.jp2
c75b8b05e04b1d0a6fd246f7cce3aeab
8148e23f2f8187bdfdb38e2b4cfef1ef16f31ae3
51362 F20110217_AAAHIM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_109.pro
cbe347cc56da3c9b743ab67cbc195cb6
c4464772a5ccaa224a63aecbd7e3ef1f2dc0a6a7
8395 F20110217_AAAFOZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_113thm.jpg
b89400a89b58894e6a207edc84f633f6
5ef3e8ee04a2053bd5bb5e3c29288e017d6d6ee9
8626 F20110217_AAAHVY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_214thm.jpg
2d46049cf4c561b2c34bce9d04455f17
96ed3a64c9efaf9c26666826c4f520f64ef1bc1b
32487 F20110217_AAAGLT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_029.QC.jpg
accde41cb68c1c76199d00fee8eca5c2
159f3cd074c0fcea82762853f934860d39acf526
74565 F20110217_AAAHIN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_114.pro
a47c9d9737104e672b01880c4d188a03
a4e296f7ddffd6052915bb8c72f27cd1653be0f7
8009 F20110217_AAAHVZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_222thm.jpg
c9c7d7fb42cabfa35b50789e89d8869c
5bf7e581adc759bdb06c4dfefb3266a5b2c40d16
2256 F20110217_AAAGLU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_130.txt
22f0c576afa30af442434e7fa1cb6698
ef72e7f6b1ffb2ae3069d86c9b6b1aa4f9130da7
2293 F20110217_AAAGLV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_153.txt
a973ba80f8fd6fa8fc877be9a3a8871b
1ae35a7b14646c50fb562772ae12df8b8ea75205
67788 F20110217_AAAHIO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_116.pro
4aadef936574d0537a76b8538c97658f
95d4a376df464b932e937240d5438f87a873a1e1
30667 F20110217_AAAGLW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_091.QC.jpg
cae57e14b189f3b50f8670b4cafd9f16
b5add1009ad99f735974e72237ab69793f6ee8bf
47545 F20110217_AAAHIP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_120.pro
e02100ba56a4aa9b93a30b75c72007ea
c7077b450e400869037262b34f0a8f38217029c7
28353 F20110217_AAAGLX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_175.pro
11c014dffa9c94aae168b0eb3028ec5a
9015bcef8fd118c1876aaea69ed6a4e0c36f9ab5
53500 F20110217_AAAHIQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_122.pro
9c2e6689d3161f1c915ae38a263030bd
985828087c68d1b9a0a4acd38ee2901468d76782
8505 F20110217_AAAGLY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_140thm.jpg
a1c5f0feb869e7958152f6039af7973a
b45ffcd164a2c31a629aa36fa0d267d5831b4963
52722 F20110217_AAAHIR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_124.pro
ea65081c270f958850b726b72a500ef2
acf993c99be30a7d274372201e8ec7101e412566
F20110217_AAAGLZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_216.QC.jpg
7b3df04fbe6fb40787c963a1d5c7a9ab
c44320043dff73d7cc4a051436f45170a6535fee
67132 F20110217_AAAHIS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_126.pro
c56c17c1ac0e7542b3c1ba2a986eed38
838c1d133ccaa76efb153ff0616a058c55e02157
66576 F20110217_AAAHIT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_128.pro
45f208b064cc3a007e9cbc4db3a75bde
9fb2ca1e81d8b22a03e0f4edd9f2936453959da0
56615 F20110217_AAAHIU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_136.pro
1fb800f004d4173eec9febae996a8e88
afdcbdf32688c1cacd3107ca6b6a59349990fb56
27609 F20110217_AAAFUA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_019.QC.jpg
86e69da92af5253474ba224bd4a84b80
8c86e021819d22021a02ee1084be8ac25c916e62
50790 F20110217_AAAHIV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_138.pro
32fb70a4fc1ad7b889f237a0755602f2
7d5aa88765ebb70b2c72ea29268a558d340f7d9d
105460 F20110217_AAAFUB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_188.jp2
d3e51c33c30d26b7f31219ed8273c066
a520f63dd90675b90bdc5f8dabd2b1b8501fd353
71902 F20110217_AAAHIW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_140.pro
8e44a931c6ec667a8d2551102f7150d9
b179d53a85fa592721f5a477a7d4c10b04991a91
114049 F20110217_AAAFUC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_220.jp2
af625bed6a0abbfe605221084e649a3e
eb45577e616f3a30c57d6056700e71379994f643
57925 F20110217_AAAHIX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_144.pro
19afd9e0a464af3355e6b50b3cee36a2
30e3dda563fda9f11effdc666eb0550710401c70
7751 F20110217_AAAFUD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_091thm.jpg
d1d207aa37fe1a709cb9f626d2eb968b
a6cd25cdd184b67d019dd8af1f01477797264958
55878 F20110217_AAAHIY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_148.pro
fb368bcb6d1ae9b576c456c7de376c35
7caf2d957da3539cfd93f2ed706c6964b24209e3
106903 F20110217_AAAFUE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_179.jp2
18a365ed2ac69da063f09a3e36238cdb
8d0f7cb2b14d1f9fd96aeb3e51203661ed7e29ac
50430 F20110217_AAAHIZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_152.pro
78e8621cd00194f4abe5f83f2b33a912
70241383f97fe623f9bd9e133015493ab0fcb6bb
F20110217_AAAFUF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_212.jp2
f95d4d397ea5a927d32249a328224820
6269759edbdaef103415a9adc6f9017772d0f502
817 F20110217_AAAFUG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_003thm.jpg
093727dc0bb2a239c92ff2b10a21bfc5
7e6e6b6541687a3a3d3356218605913ef5ccbba1
107390 F20110217_AAAFUH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_039.jp2
67f62fd269af2c2f543463530fac766a
bd2834b9d611639ed0a36448fa86693659c72364
F20110217_AAAGRA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_117.tif
1c503f8f6ea0312359d17fcc8e4f6888
9fa4b60277d82f830b375d2f12d9edb71baae50d
32400 F20110217_AAAFUI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_147.QC.jpg
3f2a65b2b17c12ddb4eb33117a80709f
1b14dfd205924da84c2aec6a845ce1750ddf1a5a
1133 F20110217_AAAGRB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_002.pro
7e537ff1c43a08f59f961ce9b93a67af
534489aa3b50a322220a076ea878f881d0559c3e
52641 F20110217_AAAFUJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_023.pro
daaf6db3ed12aa08a2fd55c48b08c955
444e036b28b672258966afa7792f6cbeda1a93bc
F20110217_AAAGRC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_002.tif
6b530dfd3b35803eebc207580b701c6e
b7c002771c42b8b776ab945998534f250854c887
F20110217_AAAFUK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_063.pro
c60a6200b436aa79e76e9e7819cc4766
f7b45677ce654ef025d359fcbe631b12b4a020c8
F20110217_AAAGRD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_087thm.jpg
fc6146c10156178ad00efc8917b33d18
835de8a6b5fa26c86961152c40e27f8fac32f8ed
114110 F20110217_AAAFUL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_214.jp2
f2313992a015f0e49e8d80314f3106b4
1a898a8f0c6413367b6143278d90d8ce38623751
110961 F20110217_AAAGRE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_242.jpg
3e9661ffe0f5c64ec39b2003692ffd30
db38527a49a847fb9fda81fb911fc3637dce50a6
F20110217_AAAFUM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_185.txt
9f10609a2a6beb1cfc638fb1ff5dbda2
3c2f6518c0f167a975b6376abfe6ba3e50f69327
24673 F20110217_AAAGRF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_005.QC.jpg
bc21d463085381c1cc2e0dda7e290612
61d1237b845b6240926c3e6d572556ec0b539da3
106432 F20110217_AAAFUN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_034.jp2
5bdfd0ffbf4d86db8157f08582da86a8
18617660c3ea4be4f17a8e0983ad5ac2277baec9
F20110217_AAAGRG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_198.tif
54f19b50fac382cb49fcf21d29d9e3f0
62a736dba279bf86a17ca2b3ecb7cf2267ba6657
63087 F20110217_AAAHOA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_175.jpg
63f3971320efc6c26c14f57bb2500150
5b8fc810e099bdb3df1d7c846c4840806708a4e6
F20110217_AAAFUO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_080thm.jpg
963225acc62c408c60154930ea79a11a
8ac0cd19b1f77b3a091cbe167cd5548dd632c403
111822 F20110217_AAAGRH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_101.jp2
84dfedf9e4a4a4758b66dde0e914c409
e30867ace770d615de0e91da3db5f8db3381fba9
21497 F20110217_AAAHOB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_175.QC.jpg
fb96d1cc530a2cda3df898066fd0ede1
3b0a682135190e67cf4d2ce6d66ca13979868895
7756 F20110217_AAAFUP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_190thm.jpg
4663b0e533bef8ed01514427e6157fe2
ad2ff760405a7cfd8edd38fec76f85b93730f946
50079 F20110217_AAAGRI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_078.pro
b99d0694276e32d7190a44012c1e07f1
16322a1a90234d09b517fee92f2fe982d549fdd0
F20110217_AAAHOC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_176.QC.jpg
4482d555f2d0ea619c6f74feee1b4f49
a9777d409cc20368a23522bcad6cff9aaadcb049
8227 F20110217_AAAFUQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_165thm.jpg
55b291ba53ecc3eec4ad92d545be3af5
d4dbba588b0114746af2efa3f2f62725d98912ad
F20110217_AAAGRJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_175.tif
4345922b0365976e9c1698c51f775602
b15a01e9e24afee0e186dfa62fab3232744d864d
102053 F20110217_AAAHOD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_177.jpg
571ff378756975f25ee5f96425c4dc3c
f1a21131da61ccf4f91817d9a323f1380a7a65bc
8167 F20110217_AAAFUR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_168thm.jpg
36e37be72f660d79573f2498f5655e0c
f96ec2f025689eb99d7fcf8fc81f0573490f294f
104716 F20110217_AAAGRK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_027.jpg
2660969ae3d9f4fa3889259e4c19d72b
849453bdddc3d2a0a8a12689763252ed505d91a4
31309 F20110217_AAAHOE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_177.QC.jpg
580c3e9dd8ae5fc7c8abc96625b96caa
f1e51ed646574fba4ee77d2d160ea7e5793336c9
39301 F20110217_AAAGEA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_142.QC.jpg
dc15933c91597353f6a118daa0c56751
c377ebf652623faee71f845de22e5ce42a0eb5a2
F20110217_AAAFUS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_051.tif
e3e6ca5b94f2ddaead4f9186dae063d8
f80e9ca2daade2822485d3e8670b0e740ab89c3c
8349 F20110217_AAAGRL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_179thm.jpg
b22de1b839b50d06140e3bc6f6ebc0f4
fea788f8252064459d48153c8ccae810a051452e
30254 F20110217_AAAHOF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_178.QC.jpg
8e0b9911b558bda4a9887b44b8f393d4
f4b272287905e8681f13e828ebdd0ede65e82925
F20110217_AAAGEB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_135.tif
56f8dc505c5a52e51d058ad67051be08
dddb752075320af2b32a72bb595bc5fb91e19037
F20110217_AAAFUT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_152.tif
02f75be02750656738631c5011728237
65fd0c9d0a8f82582a646c4e07ead1205971757a
8602 F20110217_AAAGRM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_096thm.jpg
33f773771572c60644452b4f4c2ebd12
f2d062b6b58efffd6606111ca7a9aa01d0916af9
97539 F20110217_AAAHOG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_180.jpg
9f960ba3b995ad4d569e61188ed44417
b8648f1793659bd1b43a162ed901d6660f0706e7
8298 F20110217_AAAGEC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_021thm.jpg
7c040b2d5817f92435ada9834ea120bf
12f94ffeb5e77d5e32211d6c41975cb71c0b2a6d
54546 F20110217_AAAFUU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_085.pro
776e3fd7af7fe5645df10ad3179e2cdf
a918f1acc8632b10cb0fed37ca23a30c7b12d57a
13538 F20110217_AAAGRN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_018.QC.jpg
01ae8b6db260a74a1fcb0c145b677803
2fae493f441b897eaa8d6784a5b963ba1465912c
32376 F20110217_AAAHOH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_181.QC.jpg
cefe7f98fea4d8df7a678694766ab69c
09c3cb685e9682aaf80c8a817f12a05aa12583e8
110086 F20110217_AAAGED nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_202.jp2
6946d259742936b2f919c249a1d1114d
3aed8b60eebe8fe13f7fe62bd61c9eba248b55f3
50287 F20110217_AAAFUV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_026.pro
19352420f6a092fa5ade71210a6180e2
fe763abbbe90f4c414828fb3ce5040a55daa8ea1
27414 F20110217_AAAGRO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_004.QC.jpg
45ed08642b0d0d469ebb07cb4c9b29b6
5a10fd45464487208f5fd480e931e6fc82a20a14
100845 F20110217_AAAHOI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_186.jpg
feedbb33448a580dd3c84a0de6ea49ba
8e40a32faef658e036e2dee2c3b00e31b3756c75
F20110217_AAAGEE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_073thm.jpg
14277f998a6c483b2ae1ea8374b31b1e
b6e99e1e0248e5b6c815a90a8e176fdbe392cf68
107569 F20110217_AAAFUW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_065.jpg
06b49bb5ec038ffa26f136faf20a0710
f22c68932d84d253a7b8594de3999dd9709d2665
135016 F20110217_AAAGRP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_102.jp2
88fd1c36c463fc981e733ad0b7027afc
e3fb921837454880e813acf20a6e41fb83866506
102636 F20110217_AAAHOJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_187.jpg
5f5591f78919e6bfbba05d8f2e736ac7
14cc45111193eb8a5ef92033b170c02641ea8155
127452 F20110217_AAAGEF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_100.jp2
ed127ebb549a387eab8f00364f16ce85
4be7331996db94d7d77b7954c5cedfb72ae0d847
F20110217_AAAFUX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_223.tif
cd2cc645b3213c9b3d43773501996062
0a3ac32ba8b4d9fcefd477f7cb9bfa45a1af919a
32551 F20110217_AAAGRQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_030.QC.jpg
19c5020a1efdb0c41e14fe6f31ab969b
efae0cd6bf98502fda4e9ed0cb4565389887f14a
98258 F20110217_AAAHOK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_188.jpg
9fbf6d9d6aaa88ebed17bc3a8fbf374b
883e56c671ecfa4aab787f5fb612de3f26e566bf
7913 F20110217_AAAGEG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_184thm.jpg
42ecfb2d69ce28d27518142278dcd410
ee2633642492e5028f5d86666ac8468befe79d7e
F20110217_AAAFUY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_228.tif
8819f63186b207571c16ef56b3c1ea71
ad56b6b5b3b4c9c29bd3476d333c13747db62242
108239 F20110217_AAAGRR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_160.jp2
51739e6164af93e5258e9386085fd1da
7e3712fdcd44fb93c9f2d01544e526f16cb2dc91
31578 F20110217_AAAHOL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_188.QC.jpg
a49474917267fba6ed73009066d64937
6c850251a0615729d5c382f16493fd7f6ff9825a
121649 F20110217_AAAGEH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_153.jp2
f2fd9922d4916a8ad9b8e7e76b1300d6
7d437a01b0a5546018a470a3f9d9ad315fb3eb7c
8296 F20110217_AAAFUZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_094thm.jpg
ecef7e3086a4a7f96334270188b7901f
a397dcee63ed0e6aa4c7853e68e7724424605259
F20110217_AAAHBA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_059.tif
62a9e5ae69a8b1aa672cc2e58c3d8eb1
c4f758bfcd0b68ec99fcf3dbeb07c14963db1e75
34890 F20110217_AAAGRS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_033.QC.jpg
a2de5f1c5938031a9d9b2d46e3f7ec4c
95dc27834e894f31ce9370e2dcdaa33def22a955
31373 F20110217_AAAHOM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_189.QC.jpg
c1dae48e94e5b05ec0cac191a9fc9fc1
fbe388c7903cc5bb13850b0faa35cd0c0aea6de4
31706 F20110217_AAAGEI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_165.QC.jpg
6241a36218f51085d3b84e5b4f51922a
1253ed7672f812c6a1a6fc6d0f4ebee21475c606
29261 F20110217_AAAHBB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_206.QC.jpg
6ffa40a2e4099d3cc83a53770944068e
3c242d279e2f10bd223a8397ca90f36694e129bd
60154 F20110217_AAAGRT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_190.pro
081532e0f5a991d04013f86061554e03
dc83d6919af3a89bb17e1e748bba6743b0ddc7d0
31350 F20110217_AAAHON nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_190.QC.jpg
1e63983ce652f1e442c04c77d3925f92
46005723b02ad20c167eabd0e60162ea916c3115
33255 F20110217_AAAGEJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_202.QC.jpg
e518d418d6f7c87b1bce2a23d43af4e4
d8460183a5fa6445985535c05a25472983dcc94f
101215 F20110217_AAAHBC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_109.jpg
0afbd8dcd5d360c36130a14fae8f637c
3186653a8609fbb1f5efd45380cfa777be9160d5
2011 F20110217_AAAGRU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_045.txt
d25cdf0ae06071e8c9d189fab72034a5
533a4d33fb1776cbab06b70027c482a7424be025
28907 F20110217_AAAHOO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_192.QC.jpg
ccd962b50844cbdc8769051631ece522
55440f0cdacfd244b00bf57cd0025507489bbe44
8246 F20110217_AAAGEK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_210thm.jpg
4d0f5b3053111d76bd173d5608a64c53
33b627b3367388f1253e7f34b9fd05c58f050665
414416 F20110217_AAAHBD UFE0021956_00001.xml
4b5e956e93ce1189a9500dca3c214cb4
4f047f8990e7b8e9cda24c2389ad959ffd5e9cac
7965 F20110217_AAAGRV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_197thm.jpg
606c3e90de872fbad37042379f0a4566
3bd2532c783a3a09522aa236ce36217eff0f3b14
31395 F20110217_AAAHOP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_193.QC.jpg
7847d7805daf70f33bec7dfee50af614
2cb88ba76fc38dcda13dc6290593c51595800fab
52022 F20110217_AAAGRW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_147.pro
36e9d572add36f9ddf65f672a3378952
b2f57f272345de3b92cf09b75da301967f20371a
104829 F20110217_AAAHOQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_194.jpg
680d73512ea09e0f432426034efce4fd
82ee3582e00c38fd62ec44ac748334e6bdff9450
53199 F20110217_AAAGEL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_174.pro
6c1e1f7168ac02b951360127733309fb
7d68ad0b7c485f8ca758f9328d63fd9d88f2212b
F20110217_AAAGRX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_122.tif
5e4a692674419340868441a2b9528238
331f2d16d398f95c323357621dee5ba278d29aa9
35022 F20110217_AAAHOR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_195.QC.jpg
38b8aec37fd6cded593baf9a4d952c22
45466fb7a45614bba28663da8f8c567cac50c8ab
100675 F20110217_AAAGEM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_051.jpg
8a15e9a0e6dfbd3c3e33850b270dace3
f58f90a051c7a59a9f9ec3308c568f0c170fa16f
F20110217_AAAHBG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_004.tif
c12c9fb382c2824f4ce59b3dee442056
82009a11dc2457024819cdeaf33f2bf801f9a498
95637 F20110217_AAAHOS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_199.jpg
1aaa92f89b654e3e54bb769935da4568
8420af3ee91f270a92c5135a82c01967d7bcbab2
51101 F20110217_AAAGEN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_150.pro
6652044ecd8d64c2a0d949e8dde8c081
501b0ae2b23e4d4ef4e1da185f95371a30903621
F20110217_AAAGRY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_092.tif
e7154e7386faacefd4682e75ebed4d70
ae200f689bf7e35bbaf2d2f83523fd857cf8e05c
105897 F20110217_AAAHOT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_200.jpg
24391c2910460cd2b1cdbf636691eb79
857c9a7a6999e3f8a3179df5deddbd5a007ac073
120687 F20110217_AAAGEO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_132.jpg
bb87bf556e9d39154bd617d94b6c49a8
1d9fa145f7656da40cb8888c4c8137e6d9f8eece
F20110217_AAAHBH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_006.tif
f5fc2f5e64f484e75256746ffe5f859f
9e6921596c84dde81a5ca0218c742b5b8293d705
152 F20110217_AAAGRZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_003.txt
70a1fafde54a044e65efd9c55ddaf5ea
80f57629927c39b7c5a91a4874a38ef2b78c162a
8196 F20110217_AAAGEP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_200thm.jpg
d25b16f9f3affbc36fcf52686134e009
36077d6669ad7bb9a0466c9069b64e5b236a5040
F20110217_AAAHBI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_008.tif
6bb590cde935f1693223915f1d74333e
2643ccc7e4261264a7c3bd2dc0cdb25f8687d870
34038 F20110217_AAAHOU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_200.QC.jpg
2f009824b90764dde48e5974e724e207
4e563996604428b1cf1a2441bcfae0cd1b527855
48950 F20110217_AAAGEQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_157.pro
b76841bc3ec2e03f7172d1c06938a2a0
a2db948e23897f334e509aefdb575d14ac6557c0
F20110217_AAAHBJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_010.tif
ef0b4860779f25690e82effc580a262f
c8a62c15243b7922ec95a2734f6d51919bdd3239
32085 F20110217_AAAHOV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_201.QC.jpg
9f2e07b2144b31155c42be6157936485
32ccbe8f54dad30c98fbe446da569f22966365fe
F20110217_AAAGER nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_046.tif
6fcdad89f3078b89798de3dcf3afd4bf
0f35821844b5980dfe20c8374bae7671b0f26b2a
F20110217_AAAHBK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_013.tif
c49daf958fcdc87e9ec3c9e09cf5292b
bdc539353beef5612772a49e1cf8a4f7ef89f1d9
103519 F20110217_AAAHOW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_202.jpg
df6b2ec1fa37d126532b4d226b27dac7
f7a8ba9c5265f6b66a21b158395173d8b6d1a929
15876 F20110217_AAAGES nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_233.QC.jpg
6e9f407adf34155661543ee889ce4539
a1b579f113945258c4b81b05be5e38790513f90c
F20110217_AAAHBL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_014.tif
70829bfe28ebc26556eb78046f4b9b26
6ecab0567d0cfa9df9d995606779e1bc1982452c
102558 F20110217_AAAHOX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_205.jpg
d06ff5e2cc2cc45688e6112bf64cf158
647988a4cc632085c5688eb18e6ffaeebeced9d3
22413 F20110217_AAAGET nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_006.QC.jpg
ee994151a1b0798ea9c92588ef1488d1
08e366728e9b4152d4c9a8a67421ef1049a02f3e
F20110217_AAAHBM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_015.tif
0588b59ab59650bcf548d20a6565cc36
0d11f653fd46cc464ff591e0f9d4f43d4d90890c
90899 F20110217_AAAHOY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_206.jpg
42a78179072be0445bb8fff532554b99
618665875d7386e2c179d503b4faeec52427f694
88891 F20110217_AAAGEU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_014.jpg
418954ad40e31ff251f14c2e68c8daa5
0695b918af791371e9eedbc928b59302554904f4
F20110217_AAAHBN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_016.tif
7643da5741c46d5648ed026c98a97fe3
465a3decaa72bcabee86cca16750ac87c6b6123f
33593 F20110217_AAAHOZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_207.QC.jpg
135f8b2c545e8f9e19f5d96cd4821fcb
245b38f92ebf8bdad495bb68812178c11c91b967
113917 F20110217_AAAGEV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_209.jp2
1883aebd6b6a6de9a660ce702e0a87ed
05d4b63835fb93a2b08f3055cc6d5b205beb9373
F20110217_AAAHBO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_018.tif
8647bc21e8b76ba5413f1a901549212a
cdf4aabf058cbba355b8ef51861e261685264f0d
F20110217_AAAGEW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_128.tif
ce60f337e7fb19c199d5a153e46d4fcd
35b9aafe20e1f125873a06daa22a22c2af026a56
F20110217_AAAHBP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_021.tif
21a9bcdf4ff659aa424ee452037dc220
3aa5a0465a3d43fd0ab4dd38356499412d730605
8027 F20110217_AAAGEX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_198thm.jpg
5505ff539951fd56a8a66615a400a1b4
1a6d25048716dea5477ee39b4441d24bf276983c
1051984 F20110217_AAAGXA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_234.jp2
407b53b0d45f1493e61f9af3ab485a7b
4fa94c1ad83b8d03765db23f8e22588fb992496b
F20110217_AAAHBQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_031.tif
454dcd2709f24b57a3f6c979ab27a3b5
23c0ffca106fd5a38e91125cc1ef78eb1d7bd565
117684 F20110217_AAAGEY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_007.pro
3ffe184263af29462e43c4be5dd730a9
f96c8cdde43caf45ff10d1149f9d4b1f9f7706b6
32975 F20110217_AAAGXB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_135.QC.jpg
5405ea0cf09ddef3adda44027ee3416f
b58a2797571f7f24a19fc081bb7548094b904c2f
F20110217_AAAHBR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_033.tif
7f700f3d6f91485fe17b676bf186d0d5
cccd4907e4c7f89f3e96933957246abaa2d9026a
31320 F20110217_AAAGEZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_020.QC.jpg
73d0a3b198faf2c23f91e85786c5936d
b3e461b46a4c7a34be12cdbc7338356900d8ff70
104513 F20110217_AAAGXC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_135.jpg
1810092256cb089dabc72dc314f28065
637ff2a2365e482f1ccce3d0f84d7ca0cb4c0315
F20110217_AAAHBS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_037.tif
b26fb7d85546c35b3e117ef7d4e4fa50
7a7602e2bf4bd8cf537d5769f618850369b7e0c9
128097 F20110217_AAAGXD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_128.jpg
5cc4fc49338886673e73dc2e3c58daeb
f97205b2f4ee428cb27a3d4f8d960c5bb1954c11
F20110217_AAAHBT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_040.tif
d5879f7fa5dbffa9cf4e5f5cfa16c233
0e041729c065f790cf8fc2479bb64774f12064bf
3615 F20110217_AAAGXE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_230thm.jpg
062b9bf85cc9b25fce9014e5b8011e15
bbf50dcdf36d2891c4c55c5736158b2d9d415aff
F20110217_AAAHBU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_041.tif
62f0e5f299e5c2653179d8229550878a
fb0402952b48f90dd4a41a2e5980f39aa0a78f47
105058 F20110217_AAAFNA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_049.jpg
8985d5b5dc65fcf8f3c00d33539a01e5
11b1dbf62be2d9d49600a6babf855be9521ebb0d
8402 F20110217_AAAGXF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_219thm.jpg
6aa169783badf4982729819b5fce563d
d9b32354816ffa7f0e7d1a07cc09b12216d7197d
F20110217_AAAHBV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_043.tif
2fb3d0de76bdf391f9c2b515837b9868
a016cf295434987d4a50ea15de963f47624579d5
7671 F20110217_AAAFNB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_003.jpg
210d2b3d07d14f5c4b0225d7c548b2df
2a47232d4c43098100d49979c9afcb981d254fad
107138 F20110217_AAAGXG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_138.jp2
f2175929c5f478b84f0c96f9215b0d3d
bf74bad15ec51cf2ac52346fda3f418331fdb1dc
F20110217_AAAHBW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_044.tif
9ab3c2ee3e9395afb5721851349c1b3c
408f564060d430b1bdfe909d0e5e27bc379244be
50239 F20110217_AAAFNC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_059.pro
5397caaa9d9f1ead86f391e1a8619ade
4d992ee16bfccadb151451c2004fdce0ff4feac5
101101 F20110217_AAAGXH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_212.jpg
6c430e20ee05ce361a0144864c9888fb
3670b092f77e50e035ce026e57a2cfaf05e42951
F20110217_AAAHBX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_048.tif
d57491f2b187f4a3eb7e393b114e8d88
5d8d4c14f66e2e1233d8a28d0759477fbf7230a9
8330 F20110217_AAAHUA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_041thm.jpg
85e4d6ccaa66113107f0153f012eac8c
7f2e722793c3ef0fc8a6784881e3e009c13be24a
37460 F20110217_AAAFND nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_140.QC.jpg
f04fb77f1fb53aee97fa4b1da0d299c7
72a65681cc13dfa27652fa2b08a8605af0059f24
F20110217_AAAGXI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_150.tif
fc628d1dbb63ba08169e848be422f3d6
01bc2e2d12163e6e92b99f5b6ed0e672a9654caa
F20110217_AAAHBY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_052.tif
50a0cfcfaa457f3f7636bf2766d1d66f
cf6595fa54a8e8707885d66c37528980855303b7
8327 F20110217_AAAHUB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_042thm.jpg
e46987440d0f0798aba1abab34a6fa12
9f4abeaa9c8df76deb39df9eb23166d92fcb42fd
105839 F20110217_AAAFNE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_099.jpg
dffed6a0d2d84d90304816a28722c025
72bedba9e093e168128db39aa04007cd306b267d
8061 F20110217_AAAGXJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_213thm.jpg
3a98e6e14258f70ea18e16880f47389a
4758cd7a80693a7398b91a7868f99875fb8ca3b5
F20110217_AAAHBZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_053.tif
7d8af6fe02bb3084bdef7b329e8033c4
518586dacecbc72a067328e9b8f8e17e9ab96565
F20110217_AAAHUC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_043thm.jpg
d045aa04d65cee22eec66b5fd936bd7d
2e4e02d3a94dd185f28f4c61cf3242fbcc1111ba
F20110217_AAAFNF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_074.tif
f227f514aafc87175e9700c07a966cf3
cec5dd8ef79212708d7f51665d29c2bdbbc3e707
33354 F20110217_AAAGXK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_036.QC.jpg
8c512018a8189bc201b990da3a5a8a7f
027d62b56168c51ec6fef42f221d9b992923ae8e
8528 F20110217_AAAHUD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_044thm.jpg
334784a082e29a5ebf3b31f0738d2129
fa87ae05db3b4429eeb2cb1046c467d65617d2ff
F20110217_AAAFNG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_237.tif
c9b71cbb33d84590820647296e5b14c4
b385f5f6c98a3044a4ddead8b8e8ee2a58a1b4f7
101773 F20110217_AAAGKA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_219.jpg
c12689096d5ad09a284c4ab7768bfd02
3b5cd580db278f4f8e29e54a37d918ac95d2ea81
105532 F20110217_AAAGXL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_123.jpg
540fc2b77bb69828e4d0922b4ecbf3f8
eefa2c7c4ad575df1b31a5d55c6c7c2377873349
8249 F20110217_AAAHUE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_045thm.jpg
85c5fe26b6a30f51e6437377c6e04576
ab4cf04ae2d9432343584a119411eafab4c05164
7900 F20110217_AAAFNH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_066thm.jpg
5acf9809dcdb3090f7f693955a9005a5
75e7c014e964ea0c47f8289b0ffd54a93236618c
31511 F20110217_AAAGKB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_077.QC.jpg
0dad2c6d0129eae6a04e90175141470d
10e2f06da193babb444b02d4d6d891c7c21884b5
34286 F20110217_AAAGXM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_123.QC.jpg
172afa20ef56e06af179ce11546a4970
ed1de5661ebbd269421411e1374d8876b97fc382
8348 F20110217_AAAHUF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_046thm.jpg
f1a567efbdfe5645bb84ea5f87dcae27
152f9154979a02eccc38fe574951a554335b01b8
8306 F20110217_AAAFNI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_185thm.jpg
962c9bf6d286ad5db28010ea5c581008
dc701f687a476888b27c930bbfb344f622e42ea3
107562 F20110217_AAAGKC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_087.jp2
32b8444f30d37dbbb9edbf23e2240fb1
bb20e3d8bbf6ae54404a0d37246953b359d554e9
50321 F20110217_AAAGXN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_225.pro
c617d16d9dd0dd4790c663b1ef7f9e82
e53a3f83865cb0d1ec012996b6f265b75c6096a1
7781 F20110217_AAAHUG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_050thm.jpg
74c6fdf7348c792dbd0a3d7617d91423
ff6540cc3028ba33d15cd86f1bfb376cfe05b368
F20110217_AAAFNJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_137.tif
cfd240f4e7aafa8a336d8317df07bb44
05521d383c454a684c47f50f09f8a2667c00a773
48216 F20110217_AAAGKD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_166.pro
d6e0c473c4ee6671baafe3b495395423
5a3bfe55a51160bc55e33a8facd7c8809c6ee63a
F20110217_AAAGXO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_176.tif
fa469078e062723772108ae4e7dd607d
b60c459942c61aa2377eb97c212b3dbb5f66509b
7033 F20110217_AAAHUH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_054thm.jpg
d2e46817650509ccad9f21c09a3021e0
9e092d1eecfae8221de00eff35cb8387be155e3a
95835 F20110217_AAAFNK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_108.jpg
865c90c513142d3f915f9ec2cae504bc
1cb5c0d21b8d68c1d3b88a79812b854b15c22400
98643 F20110217_AAAGKE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_222.jpg
16390eee53d24735d4e58ee9b506dcb4
21a13d857d0b117346b3922fa84f7e88169c450f
F20110217_AAAGXP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_026.tif
34d448043597df7fb745f39fc07bcfcf
3190dc289db50ff803268c34c40a03c5ee728a74
F20110217_AAAHUI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_061thm.jpg
ac015ae710416459d473620098475d1a
f1784680ec2f17bc380d15b52eea609675bed5ae
F20110217_AAAFNL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_168.tif
957ee2dcd3176141ff50df8fba00a803
d3e4371d4578d73e5500a6e3197c17d93af01bdc
79095 F20110217_AAAGKF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_142.pro
abe7c0d0d42ab11a24ea71f049efe471
3eff1a64e9ff6d53bc004bc587385e04ad8dcdb1
F20110217_AAAGXQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_027.tif
327cbc7a4b16bcd293e33a038e3f4038
5ff8a435543f40e251ced6f2ee15c585ed1a121c
7968 F20110217_AAAHUJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_063thm.jpg
d87e09e8d92f87d67f31f38f7566b37a
2e2eb40c36cbee96d65f8e6684c500264f1d942d
8288 F20110217_AAAFNM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_049thm.jpg
d23ab977a1a179516ac3b410af8e6af8
d812086891604b63dedbde52ebbe8e4e3a22a1ba
24542 F20110217_AAAGKG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_230.pro
3386a7a19bc7668a752598ee14ad81fd
4027928641d25cf83816ba4a3005ffea3ebbee74
55997 F20110217_AAAGXR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_082.pro
3eff9b5a68f5fe133e2717d6ebee9f88
6735b45b7c141827e481e0845d389aa5f55eae3e
8446 F20110217_AAAHUK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_071thm.jpg
fc11aa2427b292b213200f996377f86f
9e7b538bd7f402395c55543285cbc63142b30493
34831 F20110217_AAAFNN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_217.QC.jpg
6e4c941710c0dbd178117152749ea5a9
be7dd7e7b9d46758a23ac19ca4c310997143e9e1
35616 F20110217_AAAGKH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_145.QC.jpg
0046a2ad3c2e50df70823111b07b5bdc
448ba36ab80402b5cc56faaeba7dbe71f3701fea
2496 F20110217_AAAHHA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_237.txt
0c16eba9cb5847a52ccf43b11b43386e
3ab549b9f1339adc59716cb6b13ffb86d9c0d0c2
F20110217_AAAGXS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_138.tif
64d1f3208ad96423383f03dc37dffff4
4cea7d3a6e617502ba979ac8c23079fb8a60f7b3
8620 F20110217_AAAHUL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_088thm.jpg
40395cbdcebc6dc2ab211893998444ce
dc9f827420f0c883409a3764822c07e32139e7f4
8329 F20110217_AAAFNO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_216thm.jpg
cb362c9b426c25a4b21d2ef98ce80055
8c747710322b4fca1e311543bd1919f7abf2c15c
2113 F20110217_AAAGKI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_101.txt
87c3d41d78ed93e1ecd6a54cf0bf33a5
b2aee2a0ebd4ba55615d5449a7df39b9b79200ba
1980 F20110217_AAAHHB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_238.txt
3a1e2614bb9135a8db0a6f4145ae005e
4e30c44b24697215f3e1b724a8940fa081513e6d
F20110217_AAAGXT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_056.txt
78c4b95f3adb15539e8306f88ea78bdd
5e8d6678a50b339e4c7b13d99d2f2ba796bd9d4a
8049 F20110217_AAAHUM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_090thm.jpg
cbb16c2242327360fc2fa8d923dc4800
8424fb26d67195f7a3ed441386f137df4ffa313a
F20110217_AAAFNP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_003.tif
aea36291cca841eb8d77996adfef7988
bbeaf3f28c4bcccf63d3e7a657a6568711d48a40
1899730 F20110217_AAAGKJ nail_d_NoRestriction.pdf
febfe07f67cc81cb1f17975cc95f248e
1c7082540f569ad5c884723a009eed5f4f6baa92
F20110217_AAAHHC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_239.txt
0009c295d9d127e51be4da61b030dc1a
62bdffa536e88126123fe53abfb0b3ad48bf660d
115176 F20110217_AAAGXU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_134.jp2
33df78a943da08c0f8b1a7f21c3c41c3
360920e19280c9d75ecadc2984ab83ee32c21639
7897 F20110217_AAAHUN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_092thm.jpg
f736055a0c4212e626cfea983ebaca5d
68b3f2e4764c1e1e604952299787b302e7fd5ba3
F20110217_AAAFNQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_034.txt
55a3f6b3aff2d34f1b9be83a8d72e1ee
8342eaf799d92920e4f4eb41655048543e1e64ad
52151 F20110217_AAAGKK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_099.pro
2f16ed00113353c373db54bea18210be
5f7bd45c6cc3c3573a73e39b26c3d715d8bd91f5
8606 F20110217_AAAHHD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_001.pro
31a271894d82958d6730a1615b84c2fb
3f3598d3c50019fcb63ba52a821b3992d317ff14
F20110217_AAAGXV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_009.tif
ca24a22b6a0586287dd7cd1d46a8e298
0080751967e687543ceb00a7dc54b51d9a2d14e6
F20110217_AAAHUO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_093thm.jpg
3e4215afd92dc287f043a849b404c80b
9d74278cc5a07818d71fd40c33116654d0faf1fe
F20110217_AAAFNR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_067.jpg
19d117a93a6fe927b7441c0457685a3f
2f039827980791e0f01700b6ce4c2db0a0415a35
103608 F20110217_AAAGKL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_198.jp2
bef448b1524c9d197c6e88c0371d3780
096d70e2ef99ae03cbb80dcc682edf1770fa664c
40358 F20110217_AAAHHE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_004.pro
106ee933c793f885d070992e52079e83
5421df5298d8fa57c7352377448b77115d40d868
2365 F20110217_AAAGXW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_103.txt
7dddca666806442cd126124089e485e7
077cf09e455c8109cdd6ccbeb255b79911add04f
8630 F20110217_AAAHUP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_097thm.jpg
d316a2a1a4cae9db98107b6433b60565
aa711f6ce16fdde750776a4341208310d637b2ac
8533 F20110217_AAAFNS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_016thm.jpg
42d215ecf7edf2d06ea41e6f3fc15ce2
ef6068caea2fd59e7534c810e8d3bb7087077cec
F20110217_AAAGKM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_043.txt
de6cbe45746c51152c9ee59b912fc3f5
5de3006592522a4e9176612ddc4edc9b5ca5bfea
26076 F20110217_AAAHHF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_011.pro
5c5629e75e5997d3d35af458d3d67a11
2c41dadc2e8179bd5bdc51a0879cbd242cb2655b
F20110217_AAAGXX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_057.tif
d38b32b1a4b896129a27ea3001deed58
cadeb9712db731317ef7b01537c7038ebeaf201d
F20110217_AAAHUQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_099thm.jpg
f1d68a35c0fa681060e1d88a5d0cbebe
989541df67db82627bb1a810287bb8d08037cf79
1992 F20110217_AAAFNT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_212.txt
be866287b57e408ac55d22a895e3ecea
930346f6a80417cdd0d36d2ead28ab0ce418dc3c
104647 F20110217_AAAGKN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_216.jpg
6a8f2aa0589d29ca59ddb87e9cb5ded3
d6d7cd5e519cc1095c9c6b0e1e156329e581881c
37718 F20110217_AAAHHG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_012.pro
323ea2c464da449808384c9cd0515670
ae8b153ef24c0d934ed7adccc15436454be4bec0
32241 F20110217_AAAGXY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_017.QC.jpg
3968d1fc971c37b5d10d7bfe180ddafb
a27defa8de39356cea85716bb80cd663bb3f4631
F20110217_AAAHUR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_100thm.jpg
f4092fd27273c1cd3f94e3388e3edd33
fbeacd775faab2f245e9b1ab035c16c6d9f2b95d
52627 F20110217_AAAFNU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_203.pro
b623af4852dffa2219b602560520fe34
2b9be9a61b5fd63b7c0fd5a1fc2ab1a36524e880
105682 F20110217_AAAGKO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_195.jpg
13ed3d2cfb1abbbbf6b01886a560d148
7b0fd78028fe9ce36fb05c8db8aff0fd684f7d51
50378 F20110217_AAAHHH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_015.pro
2d5b095e80d13aedb39c64dc63010f70
dbcb33f7862ccfa06c746cee8566e112a4217d18
4896 F20110217_AAAGXZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_226.pro
45deb38079bdd06b3d0cd35c710ff13f
13a497895c9cf3558efac88964d7f3b4d77a4b61
8215 F20110217_AAAHUS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_102thm.jpg
aed20eb6db35c3463c213069a5ae2b76
ca316e8ac0b3e13774a60ec2cdaa5c0eea126b67
5896 F20110217_AAAGKP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_013thm.jpg
1043f3601a011cece377b86ab83a4516
111f54eac8376f31e78f640c73d6612d51425d3d
51937 F20110217_AAAHHI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_017.pro
1491dd3c7f206b90f5e71c046ce4bd8c
65cbea29976a6d5d6e0ddf576976aacf1b17e521
8371 F20110217_AAAHUT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_107thm.jpg
a74d54b63845253d88776dfdfd1ddcec
46a351b7d6623cfb1af767ad148f91a25e7ad229
8248 F20110217_AAAFNV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_058thm.jpg
6983838826c62048db7151fdbe024804
cb99a5cb8469a7046fad285afebd6d355d57486b
34697 F20110217_AAAGKQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_048.QC.jpg
01e5261d569bd2eb2eace8f1551ce144
a90303016f1f428ceac7a4e5ddbee560da507a2b
50224 F20110217_AAAHHJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_021.pro
4884e0f0467ad12214edeb76836796ba
602544ba1aaedf62cbc83e8400da52d05d7237d5
7636 F20110217_AAAHUU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_109thm.jpg
0612222969b82c1b32b813eebd0145b0
a836449c886875b536cbfb0859ff3f973a2f7f5c
6941 F20110217_AAAFNW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_007thm.jpg
0d65b0f3f3133ff24b6ac8b19f39a92b
e1532316a3c1b64f0d3785b9fa49455bf607a398
51676 F20110217_AAAHHK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_022.pro
1bad50f0ea48bfd66c19b79f7665177e
bad4d130ed160e7b14f62d10bfb6f6e21b22860f
8879 F20110217_AAAHUV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_114thm.jpg
3aeb2f0cd56c060cae1ee824a6b87d59
9e7b76b5508a3c96299df735d1485dbec627a011
8491 F20110217_AAAFNX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_082thm.jpg
d74343df66b83cabe16531c6ac6c7036
d70754d6ed36c51a2d37daf6342e809195a7627c
7242 F20110217_AAAGKR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_234thm.jpg
1bc5bde04034ef88fab4bc45e93ab862
874e7ae8460f707f3ff2e563bd1a068543a4c3d7
50829 F20110217_AAAHHL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_024.pro
9a959ce779430665d52367c5af0a395b
6ecec6a267df588461d31600d5512a5a054b67df
8596 F20110217_AAAHUW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_115thm.jpg
e257f933ad5be469e896496080f05d46
167a1baf5eba90cd3cca9b22ec875b89bbc4df12
99 F20110217_AAAFNY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_002.txt
24a0a26d92e2bc4417eace6a1ec62698
6b310ebf3517b4f6b53de66b9f594dd4467ce111
F20110217_AAAGKS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_234.tif
a4534cc7db1e242a14dd67987ff702c7
2b5be0734d217e72775743415513e147373de3f3
52293 F20110217_AAAHHM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_028.pro
13a354bd2460df77016de2b81580011f
bb20cd74fca55719ee29e25c14e678c4b4d1cbb1
8788 F20110217_AAAHUX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_116thm.jpg
412803df4284872b8e516accb408e4e2
a68fcc4190559ddf30f1512133e8a88620618c23
F20110217_AAAFNZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_161.tif
011632a93d5421bc4f7469ff022b16f3
cc12b4100fb365e84af5e48b10e6d2f79afbb638
12950 F20110217_AAAGKT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_226.jpg
a99b87f2e33b907a07afe1f74feeb40d
3cc02b4d9913186ea287ee98cbb29501f936cba0
F20110217_AAAHUY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_117thm.jpg
d069752b4c59f6c390e5a075ce6cbcc4
53456a9cb9fa0d98c085eef0331203399aa4e536
F20110217_AAAGKU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_038.tif
f4c329d3c1a2b93b3b8250ede02ab2d4
473ec0a77130836f11efd33fb3522f33f67ca1cf
50104 F20110217_AAAHHN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_029.pro
a6096884f7348075f2f1a135739fc3e4
df2deb7fe684baebea29cf816c9bb46cbe2a5b15
8538 F20110217_AAAHUZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_118thm.jpg
b2b3ab0dfe68510b412fb3f6f2a9f956
38d161277901ef8887f3696d801bc537aaac4118
50427 F20110217_AAAGKV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_179.pro
0e8ce6522059c93955ffcc277ee4f94e
371c5db6d552c8f542bf458dd7d02dec7ba5cc00
53270 F20110217_AAAHHO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_033.pro
4fe08557a2a9f849a061ad337e03d679
87fa903c4f2b7651476614fd057ff86534865a5c
8360 F20110217_AAAGKW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_084thm.jpg
208557ae53e3e7e784a9e9b3e9e55ccd
639c6ff1fafdf88f1a217dda1714e3d0f28492c1
48922 F20110217_AAAHHP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_034.pro
aa388b19eb8d1dda7df50d74416162a2
5392837e53826259f0960a8ec13f5e9e54e11cd6
8170 F20110217_AAAGKX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_070thm.jpg
4b6c263222192f4a8c04dfdfce8000e9
b4a74f8e31aa438dce5420b5531a710900d15d35
49466 F20110217_AAAHHQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_040.pro
46c8dcc6405635134a616623ddbe7744
20bf9125f5a10914ae5216b44a44096f915f7120
F20110217_AAAGKY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_192.tif
a829877ca954e4a4ed90d8059e951c66
90d91aeb5df258fe4b30d1a875e7a1c4b09a1b79
51089 F20110217_AAAHHR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_041.pro
120b3b340e2379c37990476a8cca3f40
ee46e96326f2fe76b0180d64e6d10e02308575d0
8569 F20110217_AAAGKZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_069thm.jpg
91411af0d86a12a2a9da99a4750b7914
a52094824dc757ffa811a2a0eba3ba48055ebe7b
50416 F20110217_AAAHHS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_045.pro
c06a6066ae7fd30b17604369f795a900
b531dc58f56cea64dad845adea3e9a8bf14b4f1e
51662 F20110217_AAAHHT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_048.pro
5799951276c2561559d84f9ba0135a2d
926a7af3f9fc9346916bafcabc24b5be07ea76c9
48982 F20110217_AAAHHU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_051.pro
a291dc2644fcad2bdd21929c2c75834e
fca18d3f9b3be99cffd0cf983e2093571fcf32bc
4255 F20110217_AAAFTA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_233thm.jpg
508f474c56ef697ddcb6ffb06532048b
6cfaac9f46cf064b06e14c20a85adfd899b2532a
43686 F20110217_AAAHHV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_052.pro
97b5ae81a6a2756e36c5b5f2961ae0f6
913d46ff172c22294bbcc8f73446454dabf5b0f1
29576 F20110217_AAAFTB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_052.QC.jpg
863e2d5a347dfc747b558fd734af918c
4ff96733454d74e68b2be23b186f97a1e12d9d75
51252 F20110217_AAAHHW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_053.pro
59d32c66daed510bd1cca3275e1f13b2
efb036c20f47046cc7993380e0f3f26ad5d5214b
61878 F20110217_AAAFTC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_132.pro
d163c0f0650fd0ee8c1770358dd42699
c39ba416b80ed7ef106e8cdbbd9ca329838e43a5
51741 F20110217_AAAHHX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_057.pro
0c50e8b2db2469c1a5df5cd3a6225701
8751cbe9e838713bf62637607a5176db4c733062
2132 F20110217_AAAFTD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_183.txt
4ea2e4ec1d6fb7de47c1ae82769787c8
50bc7e37422e948a00b175e6897bbb0720b53315
48002 F20110217_AAAHHY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_060.pro
9479cb83ec3a4bea7f64d8f19aa33d9f
86010718e591750559eeaf0a8d7fb53b04937986
28753 F20110217_AAAFTE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_014.QC.jpg
79f8c2550be182ebea1f9a8499dfc4fb
2b321ac663abff16a72568989fc2bff8a98c85b7
45242 F20110217_AAAHHZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_062.pro
58618bcb9f029d8404116fba4e506f24
8acfbe3c8d27e7d837d3b7a9b7d5d8e85e824c6d
7658 F20110217_AAAFTF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_055thm.jpg
7bf06e3626e34876f555466836f24be1
3cd05307c96b4aa8c98a7398aa0aa2ed485692ad
35502 F20110217_AAAFTG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_182.QC.jpg
36d094bc35e0d38b7ef6bf9de6b97f47
ccaa07962438e88e33a7cbf1ee2c585b5fd3dcc3
2062 F20110217_AAAFTH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_061.txt
f13eeb9de2e927ee006b87bd0fceed09
c93dd6f100cb8d2abb519e2b0230d5359b1abc7b
2341 F20110217_AAAGQA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_141.txt
3415b0f8fd8dc2f48ee746b3440968ea
178ca85d0d0e5d2762599fbf4c1e1615dd5797ff
F20110217_AAAFTI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_026thm.jpg
b19752fa1267d68e1be25e5b82dacd30
de6719e1b601a485e283bad1f7fdd21ddf774848
2002 F20110217_AAAGQB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_187.txt
ff3c86772309b6f1278ca3ef9ce38f07
a227bcb4085423e42a19c99fc71ec25c2940d77c
32412 F20110217_AAAFTJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_039.QC.jpg
66eafb96240ced1f04e6673e8ea4178a
49aef1af8557711826379a867081a39aa605aa03
142072 F20110217_AAAGQC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_086.jp2
37ee537181352486d59f6f15e918e6e9
b7f6c5f9101470a38b25ab994c6d11319ca70084
43387 F20110217_AAAFTK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_075.pro
d18697fb606c6218ce2dddd50fa67936
ed280a45e5d2ea5c5376ae938045541ecbbdcf1f
60896 F20110217_AAAGQD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_149.pro
6ae27bcbb5d6017fb4978a08b6d52424
16c6f0eb80938d8809650355f511c5a8a0a73b48
2003 F20110217_AAAFTL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_218.txt
f4fbd59422bb34700b9de0d20b4c9f29
c4cfb89bec71f347a6d8800d84e8bae6db066747
56499 F20110217_AAAGQE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_146.pro
b9d1d27e1b670596bfb8e326f7e0d26f
f4716bbae43638505c7164fe8569e4df7889ccc8
111140 F20110217_AAAFTM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_162.jp2
412419d04ec706bf2c22a464c1be0811
b2661b1784a9877da87cc9f126ef3721c4a339b5
F20110217_AAAGQF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_028.tif
d18fd7bb4ab6db020df3fd735fad75f7
f6a6062264fb1560bc2fb2d746bd31a0f4bca844
52337 F20110217_AAAFTN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_061.pro
be2d1cb9ecc00d0200407c56dd2f4120
efa154859107929b5ad00a631b5dc8cf3bac3c4e
1974 F20110217_AAAGQG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_029.txt
4663995141be4dd81db2fea09a51728b
c772cb285dced058e6bfe46fa03b413e94d59297
32292 F20110217_AAAHNA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_122.QC.jpg
8204571799f03e4ffbf9635f004bc8f5
fdb5c00243f79e875b21f82acc64485b3ac8930b
F20110217_AAAFTO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_129.tif
2424f3ce9a9bb88f15064af8c7f0b686
061ca95e8d656d5215f45684e0f41c43c13d99f7
90049 F20110217_AAAGQH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_229.jpg
ff8ee2c74728fc8e62bd8f61533025de
f95129ec605f3587bae1d991030b49dad5a20462
96606 F20110217_AAAHNB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_125.jpg
89944cb43881d62cce9361ae46f70226
0386cc65d85b012585c3d6e7d3093e793866b441
F20110217_AAAFTP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_086.tif
ba1bb7f1095b6946e8775aa7c71cc9ef
8755d03803344111eadf20974409cfa92314e338
1898 F20110217_AAAGQI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_062.txt
5302e229e04f76a8d7a154d841f044b3
d1e7421bc60de43b856d5923f1781fb91b5bcfeb
36604 F20110217_AAAHNC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_126.QC.jpg
600989bbbc30c4bba10a27de84b7ecb7
6b3fbda24a87d2b78164eb55100246aa7bf7f9c7
2500 F20110217_AAAFTQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_133.txt
19db5ab117d8ea7a600d269ee6129431
d9040d605b0630d06d2d50d09b659426336ad055
101675 F20110217_AAAGQJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_176.jpg
566052cdbe169cf9f5904a22eb7dfdfd
2648b3a701a428a286a6dc4870262f8b9ae5eda4
108612 F20110217_AAAHND nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_127.jpg
359f5b79cef163344ac671b1ff8babe8
767794aba4dca9776648562ef881a6e1d158aff4
108767 F20110217_AAAFTR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_170.jpg
01b69339134c8f9862c70ae24fbf2ce6
5315b1ca99dd35083a6a568023dda4d0d892d188
48668 F20110217_AAAGQK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_165.pro
57074b357eafa422c1c1f3b1892b7d21
a4779806b5613d6435eb5fd4b4a947f1a0b39420
34197 F20110217_AAAHNE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_127.QC.jpg
6a6f038c34583fbbdbc37872665c866b
d87a3500c59e78fa76a1bef1171dbc2cfb154ce7
34318 F20110217_AAAGDA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_028.QC.jpg
a426fe7013b26ecffe80ba0a9f70625e
f5c35e91c747c0412477d9ab5e93c68973d67387
51916 F20110217_AAAFTS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_011.jpg
0150969034c637a90144d7cb0c8b0ccf
4ed8074f4a9145d3bd9532193c6375e0a4205a5d
50801 F20110217_AAAGQL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_030.pro
485232d0df8e8cb9db61e45a06b48535
3d9e8ed3fe013c6fc6b8d42998a379257b412bf1
F20110217_AAAHNF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_130.jpg
fd2b01de5bfdeb6a17ef684230db8d90
4e5af137b9c4d2b8bada14f8e64d45a57be8232c
31168 F20110217_AAAGDB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_092.QC.jpg
239fa8a1a2b6eab2127c7be63e8f9124
e01d29520cc43adf47075a4bded601e7ed19d9f2
1448 F20110217_AAAFTT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_236.txt
ef632e6a71cbdafdd6a5680464502ba5
f44a41c0324090f6d1555e4b6779249c5963454e
105782 F20110217_AAAGQM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_066.jp2
2226ac6d606091800d034808ca3645c3
7264fea7b588153de5bf19eac0ce3f0ab063ec57
F20110217_AAAHNG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_132.QC.jpg
4d2ca3898afcc6c82cd296007cf4f1e8
d9e355fcf6d3834a76db62d5808008b0182be980
8592 F20110217_AAAGDC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_065thm.jpg
50fd9f6b739be59b69ee85532dd5163b
aa99a23d9858e7ea63588101b61558d8bf22ca1f
F20110217_AAAFTU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_069.tif
6dd2d7ee4746c42512dd459a29e6adf1
a02d027ec20cb7e586bacc96dc9d47c6eacae6c1
F20110217_AAAGQN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_159.tif
db7af1b48fc8a23c72bfd53e25e64c0f
68ee5b10360cd473e775249d99fadb43569fe317
118241 F20110217_AAAHNH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_133.jpg
75b254ec54c83f4aab16d91427e58866
2e84f26f121dbf2c31b93a8bce4e41723ead0629
94480 F20110217_AAAGDD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_121.jpg
dc449c160771659c281ee111a570dfbc
acd428421d101d77d078bfeb183f1e19e8fc2322
52572 F20110217_AAAFTV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_031.pro
afa58ead039bd8604d0acc3c13a7f7c0
ec46cac92703f6d2fe185db7185e520c1ae9f2f6
92546 F20110217_AAAGQO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_178.jpg
49ad00b8c23f48ba443b9e22dcb4f5f0
d3be84116bb89c0abe05e86f7998bf240e6174aa
35132 F20110217_AAAHNI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_133.QC.jpg
a4676deac542aaeaf11ed85d805e6f7b
3fdd38574fff4c2c65004aa2f870f19ae3400ca7
99000 F20110217_AAAGDE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_070.jpg
dfbe6f92e7b4c8e7937cff3ebc2f7cff
5555e9e4279686cd8526e365845631a9bebd1418
2045 F20110217_AAAFTW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_025.txt
b5d148bbb562f9b2de5c806a0845fa95
09c4d26cf921007a0729bfab10802db42c6f6449
112092 F20110217_AAAGQP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_031.jp2
6cc5eddc2dbb7aa3e8fe41c81d83c85b
3bba5b6c994a547af8d9b83fbfd75a4ae4a536df
33585 F20110217_AAAHNJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_134.QC.jpg
05a01c480508d2b84f6ce91af26966d1
2ad083f6d724e6774569026b8cf1544da5fa1d9b
104572 F20110217_AAAGDF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_204.jpg
2b6a5b1eb3a8c75a90ba4441fa8252dc
a0293f5f351f4ccda194f9b8f1bff75123531b21
F20110217_AAAFTX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_144.tif
95fc6bd322f0b43b5061d4a61c50f56b
8784ef04484254f82d7bc096c932154ee43e849e
F20110217_AAAGQQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_029.tif
0dc2e927ee9f432fad6485941edc7d46
2c932f3089967cb57e6baf952b81eed6af65d7b0
114505 F20110217_AAAHNK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_141.jpg
bc735c642c188fc78e0130fb6de4829a
a83f3be32c6a7631734bc126614ce7b27cb92f8c
F20110217_AAAGDG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_221.tif
cd72913207253b69e95f5ae95f87028e
a2af9867d003cbf60cef1efac25325ba3e987c03
F20110217_AAAFTY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_201.txt
bd34cdcaae37d7e99ff34becc2496a18
0d25aba0b85a65529bbfdfd34dc78cd395942ff5
108124 F20110217_AAAGQR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_150.jp2
464c80712bfe9441e5207596a176464e
410b81caeb3092841b5207cc53194c021760f8d6
35783 F20110217_AAAHNL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_141.QC.jpg
aa84110668a04ddc06179469b129e71e
e9d411e3e888e4a2d2a9735ce55b852c47bd3985
106896 F20110217_AAAGDH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_152.jp2
7f3d2623a5c9ed870c82d70934da1e5a
af868cbc8399e987a4f48112d5d6b4524266268a
3252 F20110217_AAAFTZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_064.txt
bbb1a14b61ec8e71949be3b7e265ee82
567f396df02b62c8df5d8e1c9812318b7fbb2f6b
11500 F20110217_AAAHAA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_244.QC.jpg
f552c150e53169768fa63b6fefa58607
dec05df24b28ebd5c59ec4f79fb75e9420fbb720
F20110217_AAAGQS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_138.txt
cc55f648980e6650ce92e72e5185f28d
7ee20295affc19576ca6589611d80db2c58428dc
114011 F20110217_AAAHNM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_144.jpg
682685a3db0016cc85917622488226bc
149a3496a6597c7cbfe40e3227cc4c30f3fc1686
99641 F20110217_AAAGDI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_059.jpg
4bebe76b7fcdd640c22102fbc5154263
2bef91ba64e739335ad74374c525fc6aa2a3a2e5
F20110217_AAAHAB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_194.tif
7dbc4764c2af9ffaa674f75e71fceaf0
c02dffa1b84b2a952ffd5fac48098be89138dea2
7005 F20110217_AAAGQT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_075thm.jpg
bee24df03d3663f06b5d8436df1b47df
cc6042cc74eab0d1174467664df2e6e9d5e9b803
110185 F20110217_AAAHNN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_146.jpg
d49076279af2d4905b0dedf8c5a228a6
d1947b38859769751399d79bb2ec3dcf79d7e0da
23856 F20110217_AAAGDJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_229.QC.jpg
c8bae573048487c9fc1f20bf21f69ef3
1f4aec6fbf67787b1f7eddaa2fd1b0a9a45a9c09
96314 F20110217_AAAHAC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_052.jp2
4374ec41196d150130b2ffe6fb242dc0
e2622de31ba2d0268d77f95a6930a508b7a782b5
6236 F20110217_AAAGQU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_010.QC.jpg
234c8069a96396f790280ab0c3f44c12
a3cbd1927a22e138805bb422dc13da148d371f4e
102844 F20110217_AAAHNO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_147.jpg
80cad4e95e50ff96ba6e39e091806555
a3fef5fa0af13cf9472915aa5949dce0af0a2275
F20110217_AAAHAD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_076.tif
c4a86a4ccb9198adddb7dcbb920ca68b
43188fdc3c0e5c653fbe00a7cc511ce6ccfd67fb
49475 F20110217_AAAGQV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_035.pro
c600208a6910a90601ef1c579ea617b2
e80708768396633b9d0ddc92fda98a93e97381a7
35822 F20110217_AAAHNP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_149.QC.jpg
fbfb39ef593ab48062b45891157a3527
957831f5b310c13df5826bca0ed2bb049b1191f4
F20110217_AAAGDK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_235.tif
0f24670266a2665df57c91d3ce63cd66
7e746072b863632d0c1d7e5d0ee740e70a3f7165
F20110217_AAAHAE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_101.tif
e605109a894d50997ff147723cea8dd8
c9672b20f33611d88a6d78cb489fdb7058738f3b
101809 F20110217_AAAGQW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_179.jpg
d4c6463c5143e63b527fe29bf4bb723d
1b3372a09b57b03bbf1e587c4ce73546749d32ab
101762 F20110217_AAAHNQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_150.jpg
f7ceacab10e2a8245a3469f246b85b40
3ac006625a15477b518ac51f0d2ede14fd462c0c
93826 F20110217_AAAGDL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_167.jpg
488e0210e05800346c72a8c652040b3a
ffdae6fc26669479d6eca12699ae071ece66624f
7905 F20110217_AAAHAF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_167thm.jpg
2641da2e2d3b4367d22d5b5f36fd434a
9b93abfdb054b693caeaf322a3ec7562bdaf8686
33803 F20110217_AAAHNR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_150.QC.jpg
c6fd9d6ac43ddf1c6963330bc4efb0d6
3461add2f8a1137a112888d65a7322ee98902f42
118962 F20110217_AAAGDM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_173.jp2
40873deadabb9fdfdd5cd63ca8162634
013dc33cab1f412dbb4bb4836ae657d5ce1dc831
72638 F20110217_AAAGQX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_235.pro
8ae84cefc35d7b52e0f7446583db15ec
2419902ead3dfd6b05da9b17087d7368bee40fa9
35458 F20110217_AAAHNS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_156.QC.jpg
b028e69c2ce39ddc87457e4cea5c3c04
bf26403a09bef567f8f3a3dd0152c53a0727dcce
23295 F20110217_AAAGDN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_236.QC.jpg
48df6846ce694a4f95e5935e60ce32d3
fa66cc3a784a7a334d50b315c9bb779909d910fa
F20110217_AAAHAG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_204.txt
41e961775c2e13e014f2a1e4f0bdb945
0d239fa96baf998662d54eb65d4effa517bbc99a
112592 F20110217_AAAGQY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_164.jp2
451ff0ce64351d928eb8893c8e06124d
e9f0a4a7797bae3131f5f4524bec8b2bce9a6317
125861 F20110217_AAAGDO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_145.jpg
666865ed3bc5dd615a6aee8762fbc75d
4ba1b1a4e0c26e672fde7a7be2772209371a1404
118328 F20110217_AAAHAH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_131.jpg
89108e3ff63868f5ab3491185f2c918e
1687462d11fdeb71f4bc78d4c4d676f60241d5e1
F20110217_AAAGQZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_206.tif
b1232f59aa29e4e53dea0e09424bae20
f1ddfe1b6fd621bfe5d9db58e8853aaeb88c3fc4
35071 F20110217_AAAHNT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_159.QC.jpg
7ddb29c175105b1e3f90fe211e3bb131
087cd074b759abd605a4aeddaa524c595fbb4eba
109921 F20110217_AAAFZA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_171.jp2
d48eeb7df209fb1da7a270a0f4ae4af8
f3a005656b6b27d5985961418ba196041163dc2a
96783 F20110217_AAAGDP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_206.jp2
77097b5493d4e9b1b7337d9da378d4fb
05d5c7969179a5be91b19babcacb4ba4721d3b91
111462 F20110217_AAAHAI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_048.jp2
765c2b352e032113cda072c43bfc7f62
a4f0d06eac8fd371ac3560796bb390e55611b875
103874 F20110217_AAAHNU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_160.jpg
c1c3ec33b18ad1eb50dfff7a797255b9
99e7615a6199ba54c0af28eec8a51db2a75266fe
107108 F20110217_AAAGDQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_072.jp2
1a13397f716db543bdd13e4de8f8b08e
8b075d04fae8efe3f7214e6da40cb8c211fc6732
97999 F20110217_AAAHAJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_032.jpg
01d209c74fb3b3542663880d93c8f7ef
1672d78f6b98cd30ef7019655d512949b96594c6
33240 F20110217_AAAHNV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_162.QC.jpg
5e7c836a61b11b4046349754f96dcfaa
f95503ccb4378f9d3f5f3e1ed250ee64505f40aa
50456 F20110217_AAAFZB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_163.pro
ac9abe8e8e6d2c61da4741f3514239c2
dfcd5f0354ad8158ed745af49884a9cf5d70123e
109797 F20110217_AAAGDR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_135.jp2
b4829625e10297aa6805b46081f57bd8
7db27c7b471a26a92201deb6be8ecc0e1813de96
123356 F20110217_AAAHAK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_190.jp2
26e75819af7efad874ba42a9f145c716
8e6b8164361128b51dc39089d63fa15a8087ed49
35067 F20110217_AAAHNW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_164.QC.jpg
55ff206ebb6978619edf89d661d9473c
f273a19f53ce765a4403b9a465b0db7c0222ed9d
50290 F20110217_AAAFZC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_039.pro
3fad1438364d8df167eff137a0bc350d
391e39e3e2bc9e09ec783eb9037b49ef807c3f41
F20110217_AAAGDS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_182.tif
6987c076c5e9eb68227521a275353ee1
4866cddcec172b580cb7a58ed26848f9ac1d87b0
F20110217_AAAHAL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_156.tif
6e6eca9b7448abd83e7dfb08ebcdbbe7
75a78bd885de239851da94e0b1559745f85feaba
36412 F20110217_AAAHNX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_169.QC.jpg
1d9dfcff427e0afe0219f7aef0ed06bf
cd99062bc18f76ede79a4a8c438df370d2d3bb7c
8614 F20110217_AAAFZD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_209thm.jpg
609471250db216bff706045a73cb8e71
419801c600c14ac9e800aa2b0098344afad26e4e
F20110217_AAAGDT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_219.tif
10cabb334d8d0e00754a5b595f549654
ab56a3e49f5952d8f86e997f4e0720084288ab7e
2042 F20110217_AAAHAM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_042.txt
d55a8db284bf50c0b85a7ca9b1b627bf
a024a05003737c3b5f0495bf23ba356dc59e341a
33804 F20110217_AAAHNY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_172.QC.jpg
f45563cf0be943f8f8f5416e8948e51f
dc1bc1a19d6b68bbc9d4426b68d40cdb1d09a9c6
2071 F20110217_AAAFZE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_162.txt
1e5542c7f8140425b0c1e9b601ecff25
59b2ea80825b09e3285f66e8cada0daf18ab2ea9
F20110217_AAAGDU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_078.tif
d5b75c21b3d6d474c82e3ce7a25eeb6a
c5f70f6bb5f54634337c5fcf9ff07ef18630b982
F20110217_AAAHAN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_195.txt
c5fd994778bb01146a70b3e506efc909
95204b64e9b5326fc6c093a734fc4e502ac940af
107039 F20110217_AAAHNZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_174.jpg
94f8c5b1b0e2085ea1594b8ab595896c
5a2bc4229362b10ea6b29b88bc89c8f1f6b1d232
F20110217_AAAFZF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_171.tif
446bd84c26167d73e55b7c7919596675
fec711d07149db387111c0090822320222c6f268
1425 F20110217_AAAGDV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_013.txt
318f40d2ff0d2f294682624f94f211c3
0e8d9bbf54666259167d2e14a549febdb707cea4
F20110217_AAAHAO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_050.tif
22be1b99131ba32f530941afa3fe66c8
fc084d83b14959bba93a9d4a1721c053e8f7f3b3
2299 F20110217_AAAFZG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_242.txt
09b704edd0e541f82822c2a843ea20d7
88ae53a5f70d390c70b25e8b0c1642b1fdbb9f9f
111530 F20110217_AAAGDW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_153.jpg
fd7cf075c6359be79955f7a98871ebe4
7559d13bbb67614ca1c1ffc0327121691bf4845d
50338 F20110217_AAAHAP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_110.pro
5e65164bec0ad223ad26e3f62ddf3036
8bc160544ae78e5e61a31144e78a0242bd36878f
39432 F20110217_AAAFZH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_244.jpg
a0ac2e42f79b9e2ba4896bd25a6b7373
c2a6acc1f901fa6de033537d5c59aaf0d150c671
F20110217_AAAGDX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_082.tif
1eee79c015f3ad055743e531596ba8d6
6eabd964739a43cb68001ce7f43633ff0091272b
7565 F20110217_AAAGWA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_125thm.jpg
b2f40e38d8cfd9962b806839f53fdd9d
9f5bb6e05a5dd3732075a69c5f7dbad8370da967
100630 F20110217_AAAHAQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_138.jpg
94c967c3f50e395fc6fd7cb20c50532b
b8c88d5afba330a6f30ae0a932c94a46c6d700d8
F20110217_AAAFZI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_212.tif
a7b8100a641c429568edc8787d44b498
c3842e562a5e6ee3137923e5d046bebeed7c047e
109517 F20110217_AAAGDY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_148.jpg
fb6095744ecb209acfa6bd1c56da6c27
4cbc9082b1486875a2b75b214214370b7c8ae312
43279 F20110217_AAAGWB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_014.pro
0e8935351dd03b1c2447738bc4ae951d
a4856ff699921f512584960b615bca60f9a3a04e
2340 F20110217_AAAHAR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_184.txt
064415d247632e0de042d1fa949ae04c
171755fae43831b3200560076c97ef67f2bb1670
33573 F20110217_AAAFZJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_058.QC.jpg
994ae7a0cfff01952a04753be809e7f9
603087ca10e9081d3e7a2e2a425697df943fd49b
51086 F20110217_AAAGDZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_186.pro
4cde566fe8785ad336f92c9809310a5f
f4a35b44831ae9ec2410cbeb551273ceac254bfc
8265 F20110217_AAAGWC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_163thm.jpg
e6510de3e3dbcca3ffb0ec642076c647
55f3673a34b318eb7aea5a7eeec308cfa7531606
4724 F20110217_AAAHAS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_227thm.jpg
d7c4c2014b9cd4b69408a795f7e33c36
de398ba5477ad5f5aab4279200de7f5080ec13a7
111458 F20110217_AAAFZK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_090.jpg
0f385e0e7128d2ec9f1e86e52b5565e4
ad9f1fbf689207e132e086a75dadac0e84902e61
45952 F20110217_AAAGWD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_137.pro
3b96700869034531f263973d206742fd
d8a0acf7cb9fb168bbc481374a1979cf22803a37
107977 F20110217_AAAHAT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_081.jpg
62ea93a11e5e8e226934ac7a7e299a6f
68e27000ce9c39c8f7452827a1c1f7434eef561b
33829 F20110217_AAAFZL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_143.QC.jpg
528930c94fe1de15b74960ff9c2fcef5
da635783f5d38c7682de1d075a2fa1be93a0f2fc
51642 F20110217_AAAGWE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_073.pro
0930232cbbd802bc7ac2cac40b788448
908f400e9255658c655b32be798cba01a2d8f240
8121 F20110217_AAAHAU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_235thm.jpg
10a0d2631cf3b420d927a3a0e0223e06
e8d4578fec7d17cd95e19593356ed103a0458cfc
96380 F20110217_AAAFMA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_238.jpg
6fb0d43bc99dc8c9ddba8ee5389fadd4
36015791be125e8d00ada549cc0706b0dd4b41d4
8401 F20110217_AAAFZM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_218thm.jpg
6112cacff89b7a61bf8093175b8ae294
86aea7476ce8dce46726b3a1a11eae31a98533e9
2582 F20110217_AAAGWF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_117.txt
d527aee4d378e1d0612784ef59ca8785
37e7ed4eeb5da3f96f12a5ca72aabc14593fe0c5
1051980 F20110217_AAAHAV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_006.jp2
2fa9b3a9297d06525b0a3bc75db7e201
b1ab014988f7a708805ec6ccb0b100902fc3c69a
99068 F20110217_AAAFMB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_092.jpg
465c651917107c158a861000bdd15fe1
e9d88416bafb9d158d237ca81c7435de3e372972
96076 F20110217_AAAFZN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_089.jpg
eee3b28ad65ecb927c989e392eff05a5
646a42f29e8924bbc27354d246b93c22df5df6c1
129066 F20110217_AAAGWG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_084.jp2
07ade5d68ea45d951ba13369592d0572
3e0fe1d8615c00d2f526156e62657a9d57ce3d22
8632 F20110217_AAAHAW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_027thm.jpg
0fbd58887edffa76c43796e92d23c6c8
41f5f5519abf9fe634089fdf868477551dc2cb6a
1831 F20110217_AAAFMC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_055.txt
56871b2d3ed014adec886c81b1690769
19b5051afe77ff108ad4bd463bae3f985b8225e9
F20110217_AAAFZO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_088.tif
5da016d192d411c4afeb8d6318e38adf
e581784b555ea9c4dd5cb2654b98bd477b4e35ae
8494 F20110217_AAAGWH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_136thm.jpg
023c00ad14454532fa094242b65c40cb
6994c8f26574c48a7ad771b0dd31450b39fc11ce
50514 F20110217_AAAHAX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_069.pro
a53a5502fed29c941e8c1d2e2800a35a
418bc5cfa72c2fe34a02daf40ec603fdae87d317
108613 F20110217_AAAHTA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_218.jp2
7b3ee3d3c5cf88090aaa0ba2ee837c64
a4a332c9a1b4a7bf2f52bb42106863876e665c5a
33501 F20110217_AAAFMD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_184.QC.jpg
1c2a8fc7d929f3cfc75d84a9fe0af08b
927f5cb8077ed0363fb443b0490a734afeb238fb
F20110217_AAAFZP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_116.tif
70a2dd7e46afa2d85649714dc15e5a40
5cdff825770b6dc3a1fe81ede02ec5888688054d
105972 F20110217_AAAGWI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_151.jpg
648492a3ead0cc6ffdf92d396a512e37
7dc11dfc54660faedbe33858cbe4c34627a5a0e7
F20110217_AAAHAY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_125.txt
cb0a02c500f6a2de117e4b670cf31f84
1a04d755bcaaf4cb38ecb37fafb14d80dd6ba97a
109631 F20110217_AAAHTB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_219.jp2
ade15de420d5ce292523c6a124248670
e917cc1ed187181e2e363c9b847cf569b3edd0c6
104191 F20110217_AAAFME nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_061.jpg
b07c592974147255dad8165835911c83
a1a105360cebc3fd6ab6132ec2a5e2bb15cb4b0a
111713 F20110217_AAAFZQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_065.jp2
84e4c95ca6ae440346d5525af8f9a87e
b66375df8a5664cfd132e797c4923960e8426e01
31468 F20110217_AAAGWJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_032.QC.jpg
704b5daf35298ab4748f0b0a0842d1b1
1cb6e43ee7d1c0f924be236d08408601fcd7c7f4
100026 F20110217_AAAHAZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_215.jpg
34dc93e96b3c29c31044becc74247dfc
4add878dea440d040460e83173815c36fab538d5
106816 F20110217_AAAHTC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_221.jp2
12f4a273a5910681897e7e01e45460b4
4c68ca0282b72408f52382ab07ad5128ed2fc9c3
1911 F20110217_AAAFMF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_020.txt
314409c235a83b9656db8daed4dd4c45
fe70af36b3f9f293b370b4705fa01e5adf8cc514
107778 F20110217_AAAFZR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_051.jp2
d8d837ebbaa7c933d018bcab7eec83a5
4b43008cee3d7d7d0b6bd4430abd05b23b624b9f
28540 F20110217_AAAGWK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_075.QC.jpg
874324fcc1cf40784d44be2f7a323c6c
4068ba4492495b40534d5b46a885b19df8c83f3b
107100 F20110217_AAAHTD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_222.jp2
e9060c9b3f799657b20e0c889830d97e
50b56a0cb2e01ccf1d7e063059df062e6b6d3a55
113600 F20110217_AAAFMG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_106.jp2
f798ed9fc2804e19cef09bc1f75fb35c
ff6580ef51fe34a754f4136e5b583c5fd61ffb84
109490 F20110217_AAAGJA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_071.jp2
1b0e85cc87d5610883a048b6fd43bac5
74a1625633e829c4b9989b9ed92e9772d04a35df
51979 F20110217_AAAFZS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_025.pro
4e98ab01aed03a886467581270e48e99
32f67acf9f48c5c42b6ec7cf2d5d9a555fc19936
1926 F20110217_AAAGWL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_068.txt
f95af10fe4590e59d0c5d600085594b2
d28a139d7189bb97539ff528b7fc2dff6dcd6430
114833 F20110217_AAAHTE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_224.jp2
4bd7ee1b768206c1231619b3df2d359a
fb7403e287265c282f0720b1702e0b617afb81a9
F20110217_AAAFMH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_099.tif
ce54f1c5ee7061fa09b31919f363a717
1bd399703f1a547fbf82f071827d6a8aaf077e66
2353 F20110217_AAAGJB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_240.txt
3bceca3004bd49ed18dbb294b0fbe6c4
77a058f6f406f037efb8263342b6ef9b71309d6f
89522 F20110217_AAAFZT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_192.jpg
71b77fc002d86f095bc9bc243df2dc1a
fe1730b86189d5f937ac934907a672ccf763c957
F20110217_AAAGWM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_045.tif
2b76c584e2b6c18dadf59da054ee6eb2
26fdb16a6490a021142d1646b9d3c09df856961d
154352 F20110217_AAAHTF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_228.jp2
ad481bfb113c507d55488a2cfed952ba
20a933dd18d40275b3aa020a99eb66faacccf2b3
110051 F20110217_AAAFMI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_190.jpg
112137e16dbfc499ae145a127100dcf5
78c0b980b472da53d82f4471d14543940d222431
49938 F20110217_AAAGJC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_046.pro
41d83de9673fb966c529cc08a7fc916a
2dca9c4df708e3483785c6eaf6905e1b1eabefc4
F20110217_AAAFZU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_066.tif
82f345af8717bee2f0cfb52bac6ee981
4837971071f7ab4197cb5b7bcca0313ea864a11c
8169 F20110217_AAAGWN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_131thm.jpg
cfbc2cb1a7153234b752757aa7e22567
f8c9ed37a8136f670b3f15ec9b6946544df8aede
462283 F20110217_AAAHTG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_230.jp2
cc70298c595e740aa9133cbdac70c33d
f6fc7467bf7992d98f2f6c25cd029acf49a37a8e
F20110217_AAAFMJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_021.txt
58d7aaafb854335a3e4d6d8b9e8fe7b9
3098fffe19b916a890f94127f7dcb8a85b81ae2a
35157 F20110217_AAAGJD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_105.QC.jpg
6b89fd36402bf2c7d8b67e315e0f9ad3
3120da9c2843f9e227f7a7c181b3b6f202889a6f
660039 F20110217_AAAFZV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_175.jp2
f5205b7ec83332b39ddacebe3957a81d
a5e1f9e99f5873f52b50082e032a2006223a9ae2
2138 F20110217_AAAGWO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_229.txt
31afa79c0d13e1e9f78b13fd9ddfd38d
7ffabc1b8421fa02f94b3ac3b155e56124667cab
558454 F20110217_AAAHTH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_231.jp2
08d483e0da1b4d1ddc3a527ff854b074
b9f96b2a4a85808df26d1951070ce1e4863270ec
20351 F20110217_AAAFMK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_018.pro
51ed2a02698fb7a6b4d5b713b9aa89fe
6b88e871ee960df84e6c8169d3577fce0301cd0a
98138 F20110217_AAAGJE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_165.jpg
fca8cd31313eb751fe9e7858da41c303
7bb47f7a7cfd284dc668bdc1f9255fedf6f4fe65
118952 F20110217_AAAFZW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_105.jpg
2becd877476df02f2eea66d2b744fb82
43e924dd957793c38643614b2fa4fbbb2d9b316a
31653 F20110217_AAAGWP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_056.QC.jpg
294e374f8da30ec1af12ef8c11668780
b388f9ad72c5425a8760f1a2401e5ad42904ef8c
479664 F20110217_AAAHTI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_233.jp2
f5ec58d581779e6eff12523443dfbbcc
eb4bcb08eaf317006ca48cfaeb36263dcc1237ab
63973 F20110217_AAAFML nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_112.pro
5ee620844db5e8c0d1a3c59902f97744
7a914321ffe2b823c9d4aaf03cc6858be114fba4
55861 F20110217_AAAGJF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_231.jpg
6b8be817e7e290551cd430595286ca02
c6ce328d0773282a92bbba2cdd0643acbf8061a9
107333 F20110217_AAAFZX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_059.jp2
b6a74d8b723084a7a5bddd3bdc6218ac
ff178798a7e469903e43ff80c095afb5b60d01c6
51155 F20110217_AAAGWQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_207.pro
dbcda3436ee830fd3882cf3c4e62c71e
d6c0b0cc0f735935cd99d5a33d4a0f7a6286f4ad
141016 F20110217_AAAHTJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_235.jp2
b07b23dcc03239706d5c70223340e50d
6c023cca51c937c52f0ea8a929b6986c68ae1b4c
352496 F20110217_AAAFMM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_009.jp2
76e9aa660b42ec50560aa1b1bcf351b1
ce44f9429b18aad9a176384a7a05f3436557a9b1
1787 F20110217_AAAGJG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_014.txt
2b9cde92608f8258f3a687252e4ac0c4
fe78fc2eba4636677bca5bce1eca618dede07eff
F20110217_AAAFZY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_136.tif
6f42463122a2a7c067d6bbc55328291a
7f0a10ae811ca6486057ac17e4c68a12dd2baeaf
106211 F20110217_AAAGWR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_101.jpg
ed18b249663e90738a77ae59e8cd6e37
724f6dd76b29fcac8b46e2ff658bb45b32b91401
77064 F20110217_AAAHTK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_236.jp2
51f28d7a595e7689fd7130b42129bdea
2b30e627d433f2f65dd40c5f7f3ff557e47f64e9
46176 F20110217_AAAFMN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_055.pro
405e454351472374e7ea979e42fdadc6
3551132929fe18ad4f57b0439a62f985c6b49a6a
F20110217_AAAGJH nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_030.tif
251fe2572112b9aeb2273b50b3cdf74f
17ab74032053dfce696f2d033d5489dcb1641b23
1838 F20110217_AAAFZZ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_192.txt
83acaa19c053b3f12706fc6d2620ec9c
3a66935625ef0125bf65c939a0db84ea9417e2ca
2264 F20110217_AAAHGA nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_161.txt
f2eab2365a1ae2dc5a3f9dd18c4af47b
45a16c23ffbf11b751f28ce8c1db5d8e45fa95f8
6171 F20110217_AAAGWS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_175thm.jpg
7f4b0dbd20d4983f2c0a122a71ed6473
8b8a162a9d1e07515ad6fc5f25f7ffa03a5b0527
521455 F20110217_AAAHTL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_237.jp2
93db8ffc562ba944ecf250c4a8414389
2ba69eaae2133e2c0d073a4f2f560b02bdd6b062
F20110217_AAAFMO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_057.txt
8400fea80e9aeed1e419bcb966bac20e
ef17d5186d5cddccdf5c53c88b544d0bc2e03b05
98911 F20110217_AAAGJI nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_178.jp2
eb3f47726b414739cb60f7ac8649cb25
8ab3995c0e81ced55fe0b7553cdce08b8e8b3547
2369 F20110217_AAAHGB nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_169.txt
22901b41b740413b6fc73cd48879ce0e
c0edd4f58e73388b78e25234941be678be2e0c76
2006 F20110217_AAAGWT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_069.txt
bbbb3dfd4860b1f444652042993975da
0ba99755a2a21d83c265912f8ee8fb97a4dcdc47
106053 F20110217_AAAHTM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_238.jp2
5d1518eb7f6ca435c7f8ea9b6d1914a9
977ace350d79f1971c9ac66de786687889ab6116
F20110217_AAAFMP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_190.tif
330a9c71a9b9a5b067d9784bb85ccbe7
09693df38cc38efa36c3cea02c3260a98ec2041f
F20110217_AAAGJJ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_095.tif
cb85e23773442cfb4d7bd2ece65f7e6d
81f7c8fe7cb518fb7cfc630a685d58e5d23e8230
2059 F20110217_AAAHGC nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_172.txt
81c078a86e06476ae36f8a3aeef53786
b25db4d6bb8ae8a1ac8f21a1bb4dd95d17c3b9b1
52767 F20110217_AAAGWU nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_101.pro
5323804a080805203031330b1c59adf1
0a7edac186196e7ae0b2c62bd69a4fda65281ac0
118992 F20110217_AAAHTN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_241.jp2
082b9e691a383df246f74612d91468fd
86c17afd4b91be80a0dcf1f8bca05da3eee48eec
F20110217_AAAFMQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_087.txt
a09f47730e3d53c050e3c554354b6999
34c97d9b0b66642501d81741dff83eae7feac758
16505 F20110217_AAAGJK nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_231.QC.jpg
9e94f6970d200e8df6101d3cce846854
f7a419c1265238710acea15a9cb1355ff1bc5037
2354 F20110217_AAAHGD nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_173.txt
a8f358d765acf7a2761d8a1f89bec5ce
c46061c87521f6ea6f11a90c7b7436470fe269c5
112199 F20110217_AAAGWV nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_064.jpg
63888958087c11350e6747e0d4a213c8
234f8384287b18a932d2241c6d6282938282cf00
2221 F20110217_AAAHTO nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_001thm.jpg
f7e8a46c50365dec49c8df764b215b77
f397379e29f7fdbf24414e486b975cca52d7879e
7561 F20110217_AAAFMR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_052thm.jpg
a996ee1923cf5b90dd8bf8273d8575d1
7f2e9e5ce652bd56179076b1b8630f07ba18a566
33142 F20110217_AAAGJL nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_041.QC.jpg
21131278ca86137643d112eb09a1f5a9
82ad2e537967956c7331cb419c0918da32c92e9c
F20110217_AAAHGE nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_176.txt
f937a8d7e41f19a2f5dbd057a1c9e3a1
d15f71bff15e900cbe514a1b6394bf86fc3ed595
47130 F20110217_AAAGWW nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_050.pro
dfefe1dec6a6ef161225e593b5477af9
07c536af3bfba117849a51a4c5dd7bdfe73395b6
505 F20110217_AAAHTP nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_002thm.jpg
098a4dcc63a72cb025f4d432cc36e857
8f4eda548438fb5ab71255a9f2c4550de23252cb
111256 F20110217_AAAFMS nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_223.jp2
5f43e74b528f249f7877f5eba2fba3d3
ab8103700266dc18e066953445b2842ad3b6b469
F20110217_AAAGJM nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_200.txt
6b94d00fad6c5cf390f27514330a86dc
c61954efe92ebfc38ce2cc525f60a481dd21b2cb
1835 F20110217_AAAHGF nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_178.txt
90222aeb0f354f4dcc130ccf7f504030
c192dee74267af7c2a54656b39e6fa90649fd50e
5474 F20110217_AAAGWX nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_006thm.jpg
7dd4c9de87b0eb6ab64abe5503cc1474
6deca038ef2ded4075b23d4819057ba1d574eb3a
6933 F20110217_AAAHTQ nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_004thm.jpg
363e373a527dff38870ac72e83527a42
de490471efb68aa934915f3160dded9548509f6c
137387 F20110217_AAAFMT nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_111.jp2
7b5354043a2511e244f1cd9caae0fc38
e6737fbc67fe8fe20ebca2f41fa1967ccebd6899
30584 F20110217_AAAGJN nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_232.pro
eb354354abc36def1ea3c1cfdf3fce2a
178f17a1336f2cd8a20c7fbc0652080211b62222
1998 F20110217_AAAHGG nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_179.txt
4731cb63453004b942423bb85589345f
8c9eaf124ea2f073f1b5b577fb34873cd348e391
2195 F20110217_AAAGWY nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_095.txt
5d781e2f932e98396591816b35efe850
539205bcfc3cecc07246b5ab874be6266f8bf4f2
F20110217_AAAHTR nail_d_NoRestriction_Page_009thm.jpg
fb3f18e5ae630ce2ad20237025959a79
553847f6c7a6bc7312934a26a11ed25c214b982c














AN EXPLORATION OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS' EXPERIENCES IN AN
ONLINE WRITING PARTNERSHIP
















By

DANIEL ALLAN NAIL, JR.


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2008

































2008 by Daniel Allan Nail, Jr.

































To Elizabeth R. Nail, and in memory of William A. Nail, Sr. for their love and support.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am fortunate to have so many people in my life to provide support and friendship

during my work on this dissertation. My greatest debt is owed to my wife Cheryl; her

love, steadfast support, and confidence carries me through everything, this dissertation

included. This document is a testament to her patience and caring as much as anything.

My family has lived this degree program with me. My parents, Dan Nail and Diane

Parsons; my sister, Erin Berryman; and my grandmother, Elizabeth Nail, showed great

patience regarding canceled visits home and long spans without phone calls. When I was

around, they listened to my gripes and offered welcomed advice. Never once did they

snicker when I swore I would finish in just one more semester. I thank them for

everything.

Dr. Jane S. Townsend changed my thinking about writing during my master's

work, and further transformed these thoughts during my doctoral work. As my

committee chair, she guided me with care and consideration, honesty and good humor,

and reminded me to breathe every once in awhile. Her suggestions throughout this

process were invaluable, and if there is worth in this study, she has a claim to it. I cannot

imagine doing this with anyone else at the helm, and I thank her.

Taking classes with Dr. Barbara Pace opened my eyes to ways of thinking about

education and the students we teach that I might never have thought of. Her enthusiasm

for technology was a shared interest and provided many opportunities for fruitful









discussion. Working with Dr. Pace in the Proteach program led me to a greater

appreciation of her talents as an educator and helped be become better as a result.

When I first applied to graduate school for a master's degree in education, Dr. Greg

Ulmer agreed to write a letter of recommendation for me, saying he felt I had shown an

ability for graduate work. I do not know that I agreed with him at the time but I have

never forgotten that vote of confidence, nor have I forgotten how transformative was his

class during my English studies. I am grateful that he has continued to support my

academic pursuits.

Dr. Richard Ferdig provided an avenue of scholarly insight into the world of

educational technology, allowed me to spar with him over issues likely more semantic

than substantive (however important I felt they were at the time), and encouraged me to

explore developing issues of writing "space."

Finally, more thanks than I can give are owed to my mentor, Dr. Robert Wright.

From his advisement when I was an undergraduate considering teaching, to his constant

smile and gentle (but profound) guidance both in education and in life, he has been a

blessing to me in ways few others have or will. I am grateful for the care he has taken

with me, the inspiration he has always provided, and most importantly for his friends















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................. .................. ..... ....

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ xi

ABSTRACT .............. ..................... .......... .............. xii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

State ent of the P problem ............................................................................. ........ 2
Scope and Significance of the Study ........................................ ........................ 3
Questions of the Study .................. ................................... ................ .4

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................... .............. 6

L language and L earning ............................................................... ........................ 6
Language Development.................... .. .. ............................. 6
Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development............... ..................10
Preservice T teacher E ducation..................................................................................13
K now ledge and Com petency......................................... .......................... 13
Issues Affecting Knowledge Transfer.....................................................15
Expertise and the Organization of Knowledge..................................................18
Theory and Practice in Practicum Experiences .............................................20
W ritin g ..............................................................................................2 2
W writing as P process .............................. ........................ .. ...... .... ..... ...... 23
W writing as a Social A ct............................ ................ .................. ............. 25
Teacher R response to W riting........................................................... ............... 27
D efin in g R esp o n se ..................................................................... .. .................. 2 7
Teachers' Responses to Students' W writing ........................................................ 29
R e v isio n .................................................... ................ 3 0
Im portance of C context ............................................................... ......32
D defining C context .................................................. ........ .. ........ ..33
O nline C ontext..................................................... 35
T ran sp aren cy ............................................................36
Social presence .................................... .......................... ......... 37
W writing "space" .............................................. ............ .. ............. 37









Qualitative Research M ethods........................................................ ............. 38
S u m m a ry ......................................................................................................3 9

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 4 1

Study D esign and R ationale................................................ ............................ 41
Setting and P participants ........................................... .................. ............... 43
D description of Setting ............................................. .... ..... ........ .... 43
English teacher preparation program ................................. ............... 43
High-school dual-enrollment program ...............................................44
Participant Selection .................. .......................... .. .. .... .. ........ .... 45
D ata C collection M ethods ........................................ .............................................47
Subject Interview s ............................................... ........ .. ............ 48
H igh-school Student Interview s ........................................ ....... ............... 50
D ocum entary Evidence ............................................... ............................ 50
Stu d ent w ritin g .............................................................................. 5 1
Em ail correspondence ............................................................................ 52
Participants' reflective writing ................ .............................................53
D ata A analysis Procedures ............................ ................................................. 53
TAMS, Computer Software for Qualitative Data..................................... 53
A analysis of Interview s ................................................. .. .. .. .. ........ .... 55
A analysis of docum ents ............................................... ............................. 57
Authenticity and Internal Consistency.................................... ........................ 58
R research er B ias ................................................................59
S u m m a ry ......................................................................................................6 1

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................6 2

A M metaphor .............................................................................................................63
K ate ................................... ................................................................................... 6 6
Kate's Experiences in the Partnership ...............................................................67
Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing .................................................72
Technology as a Means to an End ........................................................... 76
Partnership as Flawed Success ................................ ...............79
L ib b y ................................................................................................... 8 1
Experiences in the Partnership .................................................82
Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing ............... ...............86
Technology as a Legitimate if Flawed Alternative ..........................................90
Partnership as an Opportunity to Grow, Learn......................... ............... 92
C la ire ............................. ........................................................................................9 5
Experiences in the Partnership .................................................96
Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing .................................................100
Technology and Indifference.............................................................104
Partnership as Microcosm of an Existential Crisis..................................... 107
N ik k i ................ ...... ............................................................................1 10
E experiences in the Partnership ....................................................................... 111
Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing............................116









Technology as Efficient, Inevitable................ ..... ...............121
Partnership as an Opportunity to Inspire, Motivate ................ ...................123
Ju liet.............................. .... ............................................................................ . .12 4
Experiences in the Partnership ............................................... ............... 125
Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing.........................................131
Technology and Obstacles............................................. 134
Partnership as a Transform ative Experience .....................................................137
A cross C ase A analysis of R results ......................................................... ...................138
What Were the Experiences of the Study Participants? .................................. 141
Experiences and social presence ..................................... ............... ..142
Experiences and relationships ............................................................... 145
High-school students' experiences in the Online Writing Partnership ......147
Experiences and role/authority............... .............................................. 149
Experiences and expectations of the physical classroom ...........................151
What do these Experiences Reveal about these Prospective Teachers' Beliefs
about Teachers and Teaching W writing? ................................. .................154
B eliefs and social presence ............................................. ............... 155
B eliefs and relationships ........................................ ......... ............... 156
B eliefs and role/authority ............................ .......................................... 158
Emphasis on types of response given in the Online Writing Partnership ..161
Beliefs and classroom writing instruction....................................164
What Influences did Participant Attitudes toward Technology have on the
Experiences of the Online Writing Partnership? ........................... ........166
Attitudes toward technology and social presence ................................. 167
Attitudes toward technology and relationships .......................................169
Attitudes toward technology and role/authority...............................171
Attitudes toward technology and expectations of the classroom .............172
Sum m ary ............. ...................................... ........ ..... ..... ......... 176

5 D ISCU SSION ........ .. ...... ............................ ........ ................ .......... ... 179

Sum m ary of the R esults......... ................. ................... ................... ............... 179
L im stations of R esults.......... ............................................ .. .............. .... .... ... .. 182
Discussion of Results ............. ...................................... ...... ........ 184
W hat it M eans to be a Teacher ........... ............ .... ..... ................... 187
Developing Working Relationships with Students........................... .........191
Understanding W writing as a Process................................. ............ ............. 198
H ow Teachers Teach W riting....................................... ......................... 203
Implications for Future Research ..... .................... ...............211

APPENDIX

A C O N SE N T F O R M S ........................................................................ ...................2 14

B SAMPLE INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ...................................... ............... 219

C SAMPLE CODED INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT............. ........... ...............221









D SAMPLE NOTES FROM RESEARCH JOURNAL .............. ...............222

E SAMPLE OF INTER-RATER CODED TRANSCRIPT.......................................224

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ........................................................................ ....................225

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................... ...........................................232
















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1. Study questions with corresponding data sources ............................................... 49

4-1. A comparison summary of data across cases. ................................... ..................... 64

4-2. Categories of response type with descriptions. ............................... ......... ...... 164















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1 Example of Microsoft Word Comment Card function, with 'pop-up' comments
to the right, with corresponding place indicators connected to the student text
w ith dotted lines. ...................................................................... 51

4-1 Continuum of experiences reflecting participants' overall attitude toward the
O nline W writing Partnership. ............................................ ........................... 141

4-2 Continuum of teaching philosophies reflecting participants' stated and implied
beliefs during the Online W writing Partnership. ................... ................... .......... 154

4-3 Percentage of emphasis on response type ................................... .................162

4-4 Continuum reflecting participants' overall attitude toward technology as
revealed through Online W writing Partnership. ............................... ......... ...... 167















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

AN EXPLORATION OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS' EXPERIENCES IN AN
ONLINE WRITING PARTNERSHIP

By

Daniel Allan Nail, Jr.

May 2008

Chair: Jane S. Townsend
Major: Curriculum and Instruction

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of four preservice teachers

and one practicing teacher in an Online Writing Partnership with high-school students

dual-enrolled in a community college, and to examine what these experiences revealed

about preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching, writing instruction, and the use of

technology for instructional purposes. The following questions guided this study:

1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the
teaching profession have in a distance, online partnership with secondary writers?

2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers' views of
teaching and specifically teaching writing?

3. What influences on the partnership or on the participants appear to exist from
experience with and attitude toward technology? In what way did these attitudes
affect the partnership/participants?

4. What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English
teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership?









For the study, the researcher conducted extensive interviews (both formal and

informal), collected documentary data from both the graduate students and their high-

school partners, and kept a detailed research journal. The questions of the study are

addressed in the results and presented as individual case studies of the five participants;

an across-case analysis addresses the questions again, using the contextual threads

identified by the participants for question four of the study as a lens for further

examination.

Each of the five graduate students experienced the Online Writing Partnership in

ways that reflected their individual experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about online

technologies, education in general, and writing instruction in particular. Each individual

case was unique; however, there were significant similarities across cases, providing for a

view of context from which all participants can draw in creating and interpreting

meaning. Looking at the individual cases collectively, those aspects of context deemed

salient by the participants of the Online Writing Partnership were: their perception of

social presence between partners, their understanding of the relationships between

teachers and students, their sense of the role and authority of a teacher, and their

preconceived expectations of classrooms processes.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

When I first entered my teacher preparation program, a group of friends and I

would meet once a week to drink beer, talk freely, and generally enjoy each other's

company. We met at a local Irish pub because the pub served cheap food, and we were

invariably hungry and broke. It did not hurt that the pub was close to the university we

all attended while we pursued graduate degrees in education; we met on Wednesday

evenings after class, and often walked over from campus. Our agenda for these meetings

was always what we were reading, what we wanted to read, novels, magazines,

anything-it was not uncommon for each of us to have pen and paper in pocket, in case a

recommendation was made to further weigh down our bedside tables. The discussions

that insued were sometimes loud, always passionate, and motivated not only by our love

for literature, but also by our love for talking about literature.

In the mythology of my progression and development as a teacher, I like to think

there was one night when I had a sudden wondering about how I could encourage my

own students to pursue the discussion of their own reading with the fervor and need that

each in my group felt. In reality, it was likely a wondering that developed over time. But

it seemed to me that somehow, there had to be something I could do to help my ninth

graders engage in reading and be motivated to do so naturally, similar to my Wednesday

night outings.

Eventually, the problem of student-motivated literature discussions was addressed

by my implementing an online bulletin-board system as part of my curriculum. After









some time and many small (and not so small) adjustments, my students took my initial

idea and ran with it, pursuing discussions of their own design beyond my most optimistic

expectations. While gratified at the outcome, I was not satisfied. I found myself

wondering about the very success my students had achieved, how they had managed to

develop a community of learning outside (and largely independent) of our physical

classroom. What was it about this online environment that seemed to encourage learning

in ways that complemented and enhanced what my students were doing in class?

When I left teaching to continue my education, this wondering found new ways of

expression. My focus shifted from wondering about teaching literature to helping future

teachers prepare to teach, and specifically to teach writing. I wanted to know how online,

virtual environments could assist in preparing future teachers of English for the

classroom. So many educational opportunities were moving to online environments, but

rather than replace traditional teacher education, I wondered how online learning might

enhance traditional teacher preparation programs.

Statement of the Problem

As the Internet has become more and more ubiquitous, it has become difficult to

believe that email, the World Wide Web, and various other computer technologies have

been around a scant fifteen years. Even public schools, which have historically been

behind the curve of early adopters of developing technologies, are increasingly connected

to the Internet. The nature of education is beginning to change, as more and more

courses and entire degree programs are moving from the brick and mortar schoolrooms to

the virtual spaces of distance, online education.

There has been much research conducted regarding the nature of online

technologies (Hawisher & Selfe, 2000; Murray, 1997) and the varied applications of









these technologies in education (Bromley & Apple, 1998; Cole, 2000). Additionally,

there have been some explorations into the nature of context in online environments

(Bolter, 2001; Bolter & Grusin, 1999; Landow, 1992; Turkle, 1995). However, there is a

marked dearth of studies that focus on the use of online communication technologies by

pre-service teachers as a means of facilitating practicum experiences with the teaching of

writing. I believe the Partnership at the heart of this study represents a unique and

effective contribution to the development of future teachers and that exploring this

particular case can shed light on the learning of future teachers in other practicum

experiences. A number of reports have pointed to the division that exists in the minds of

teachers between the theory of the university classroom and the practice of the secondary

school, and to the difficulty of bridging this divide. The Online Writing Partnership,

which paired graduate students in English education with dual-enrolled high-school

juniors for the purpose of providing mentoring in writing, represents one such approach

to this problem that has experienced success in this area, and study of this particular

instance can provide insight into ways to address what has been identified as a common

problem for teacher preparation programs.

Scope and Significance of the Study

This study is a case study of five women enrolled in a writing methods course as

part of a graduate level teacher education program in English Education. As part of the

writing methods course, these women were assigned a high-school student to mentor

online in writing, exchanging drafts with feedback via email. Over a span often weeks,

the graduate students provided feedback to multiple drafts of two separate writing

assignments. In researching this particular process, I conducted multiple in-depth

interviews with each of the five study participants; these interviews were audio taped and









transcribed verbatim by me. I also collected documentary data from both the graduate

students (emails, reflective writings, feedback given to their high-school partners) and the

high-school student partners (emails, drafts of writing assignments). As part of and

during the data collection process, I kept detailed notes in a research journal.

My findings in this study, although specific to this particular instance, have

implications for teacher education. Most significantly, online practicum experiences can

provide opportunities not only for authentic use of educational theory but also allow for

more and varied occasions of applying theory to practice. Moreover, this application can

be guided by the experience of a knowledgeable other, without the myriad concerns (e.g.

taking attendance, grading papers) that demand the pre-service teacher's attention in

traditional, field-based practicum environments. Additionally, online experiences such as

the Online Writing Partnership can provide valuable opportunities for reflection on

beliefs about teaching and teaching writing that are often formed prior to entering a

teacher preparation program (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999).

Questions of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of five graduate students'

in an online writing partnership and to explore what beliefs those experiences revealed.

To guide my research, I designed the following questions:

1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the
teaching profession have in a distance, online partnership with secondary writers?

2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers' views of
teaching and specifically of teaching writing?

3. What influences on the partnership or on the participants appear to exist from
experiences with and attitudes toward technology? In what way did these attitudes
affect the partnership/participants?









4. What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English
teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership?


The first question provided a way to examine the online partnership from the

perspectives of those participating in the partnership. The second question looked at the

experiences of the five study participants through the lens of belief about teaching,

writing, and writing instruction. The third question required me to look at prior beliefs

about technology and how those beliefs might have impacted the experiences of the

graduate students during the partnership. The final question provided the opportunity to

explore the nature of online environments and the impact these contexts might have on

teacher education.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This study looks at an online partnership between pairs of students, one student

from a graduate-level, teacher education program and one from a college dual-

enrollment, high-school program. This partnership gave future English teachers the

opportunity to work with developing writers like the ones they would work with both

later in their internships and moreover in their careers as professional educators. In this

chapter, I will begin by looking at literature pertaining to learning, followed by literature

dealing specifically with teacher learning. Research and theory related to learning is of

primary importance for this review of literature for the light it sheds on the movement

from novice to expert, both in the practice of writing and in the practice of teaching

writing. I will also review literature concerning writing and theory related to the teaching

of writing. Next, I examine research on and theory of context in general and online

contexts in particular. I conclude this chapter with a summary of literature on the

methodology used in this study.

Language and Learning

Language Development

In this study I employ a social constructivist view of learning. Social

constructivism is poststructuralist in its view of learning and development and as such

rejects an empirical view of knowledge, wherein what can be known is limited to what

can be verified by observation. For the social constructivist, knowledge and meaning do

not exist externally outside of the individual. Instead, meaning is constructed by an









individual within the context of a particular culture (Bruner, 1986; Ong, 1982;

Smagorinsky, 2001). Rarely do we formulate an understanding of the world in isolation;

rather, our knowledge of the world is most frequently "mediated through negotiation with

others" (Frank Smith, quoted in Bruner, 1986, p. 261). This mediation is accomplished

primarily through our use of tools and signs (Vygotsky, 1978a), with language serving as

a central tool.

Language is our primary means of representing the world; it is both a socially

constructed tool with which we organize our personal understanding of the world

(Holquist, 1990; Ong, 1982; Smagorinsky, 2001) and the tool with which we construct

meaning through negotiation with others (Bruner, 1986; Cheyne & Tarulli, 1999;

Holquist, 1990). Bruner (1986) notes that language is our primary tool for "referring,"

wherein language "uses cues to the context in which utterances are being made and

triggers presupposition that situate the referent" (p. 63). In other words, language allows

us to interact with others by relying on shared and jointly constructed meaning; language

provides the primary medium by which we are able to communicate and, thus, to learn

(Lindfors, 1991).

Bakhtin's (1986) concept of utterance as a unit of speech communication provides

significant insight for this study. Most of the communication between the selected

participant pairs occurs using variants of written language such as emails, papers, and

comments on those papers. Often, teachers and students alike view writing as a product

(Dyson & Freedman, 2003; Flower & Hayes, 1994) and do not view this form of

language use in the same way they view traditional, oral speech. To be sure, there are

significant contextual differences between written and oral speech (see Kress, 2003; Ong,









1982). However, as Bakhtin notes, we do not communicate through the exchange of

sentences, but rather through the exchange of utterances (1986). Each piece of writing-

with all its contextual elements, including the writer's speech will, or purpose in

speaking, and the reader's assumptions about that speech will-constitute one utterance,

one link in a chain of communication.

Bakhtin's differentiation between sentence and utterance, where a sentence has no

implicit meaning at all, unless as part of a whole utterance, is fundamentally

constructivist in nature because through utterances, meaning is created by a convergence

of contextual features selected by the speaker as part of his/her speech will. Language in

use is social. Vygotsky's view of language, like all higher psychological processes, is

also fundamentally social in nature: "When we speak of a process, 'external' means

'social.' Any higher mental function was external because it was social at some point

before becoming an internal, truly mental function..." (Vygotsky, 1981, quoted in

Cheyne & Tarulli, 1999, p. 9). For Vygotsky, what makes human learning unique is its

presumption of a particular social nature that leads to development in keeping with the

expectations of intellectual life within a culture (Vygotsky, 1978a). This social aspect is

manifested in the dialogic nature of language, wherein each speech act, or utterance,

consists in part of the presumed response of an other (Bakhtin, 1986; Holquist, 1990).

No matter if an utterance is a single word rejoinder to a command, a complex and artistic

written utterance such as a novel, or an informal greeting in the form of an email or

instant message, each speech act is a whole utterance whose completeness includes the

presumption of response, whether immediate or delayed, in the form of another utterance,

or in influencing the other's actions.









Some learning occurs as part of the natural development of most children, such as

language acquisition itself (Lindfors, 1991). This type of learning is in large part outside

the scope of this study. However, learning and development are not separate phenomena;

learning is a kind of development. At a certain point development and learning converge

and learning becomes more deliberate, especially in the context of schooling. The

internalization that occurs when the mediation of human action with tools moves from

the interpersonal to the intrapersonal is an indicator of psychological growth, of learning

(Palincsar, 1998; Smagorinsky, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978a), and is accomplished primarily

through the use of language (Vygotsky, 1978a) and the organizational structures that

language provides (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Lindfors, 1991, 1999), such as

the core concepts that experts in specific disciplines or areas develop to guide their

thinking about problems. For example, the expert jazz guitarist knows that when a solo is

called for in a song, s/he needs to know only the key in which the song is played. The

guitarist understands because of the organization of her/his knowledge of music theory

that certain notes and chords are called for, while others are not. By reading a tablature

transcription of a solo, the novice guitarist can also play a solo in a jazz piece; she can

read the notes on the page but does not necessarily know how they relate to chords or key

signature. The same is true for theories in other disciplines, such as education. These

organizational structures, these theories, are not rigid and uniform; rather, they are both

individually specific and at the same time bound to the process of cultural development

(Kress, 2003; Ong, 1982).

Smagorinsky (1995) notes that in any theory of development there is a sense of

telos, an assumption that development through learning constitutes a move toward a









positive, appropriate end. This is especially true in education, where competency in

various areas is a primary goal (Bransford et al., 1999). However, any subjective terms

such as "positive" and "appropriate" connote a meaning that can only be culturally

determined. Any such theory, then, might be "grounded in unexamined cultural

assumptions" (Smagorinsky, 1995, p. 194). Even if those assumptions are examined by a

learner, either individually or as part of a community of discourse, it is impossible to

escape completely the cultural assumptions that shape the construction of meaning

(Phillips & Burbules, 2000). In English education, for example, the debate over

"standard" English and the role of dialect in the classroom has led to researchers and

teachers alike looking at the cultural assumptions that lead to certain languages being

imbued with power, others denied power, and the costs of both to students (see for

example, Christensen, 1990; Clayton, 1996; Delpit, 1988, 1998; Egan-Robertson, 1998).

The very tools we use to negotiate meaning with others, most notably language, are born

of a particular culture. Bakhtin (1986) argues that even the choice of how one will

engage in speech (the selection of a particular type of utterance, or speech genre) is

indicative of a multitude of contextual (and cultural) considerations. The importance to

this study of viewing language and its forms as culturally bound are evident when

considering the varying levels of competency in writing and other instances of language

use, not only between the university students and their high-school partners but also

between the university participants themselves and the ways their language competencies

affected the relationships among and between partners.

Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development

From an early age, everyone constructs a theory of the world which forms the

"basis of all perception and understanding" (Smith, 1997, p. 65) and determines how we









act toward new information (Lindfors, 1991). When we encounter new information, it

either conforms to our theory and we assimilate that information, or it does not conform

and we are faced with a need to make sense of this new development, to accommodate

this new information by restructuring our theory (Lindfors, 1991, 1999; Palincsar, 1998).

In a sense, we are required to reconstruct our theory of the world in light of new

information that conflicts with our previous understanding. Sometimes, we require help

in assimilating new information. This study looks at the ways selected preservice

teachers assist high-school students in their writing and also how these preservice

teachers assimilate new information about the nature of teaching and the roles teachers

play in assisting learning.

For this study, I looked at participants enrolled in a master's level teacher

education program. Studies show that students entering these types of programs often

have already formed concepts of what teaching is and the role teachers plays in student

learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Moore, 2003). Often, these beliefs about teaching

and teachers do not reflect what research has shown about how students learn and the

most effective ways of teaching for student learning. However, the traditional notion of

teacher as one who assists in the development of competencies in students is common

and mirrors to some degree Vygotsky's (1978a) mentoring relationships. According to

Vygotsky (1978a), there is a gap between a learner's actual developmental level (what a

learner can do independently) and the learner's potential developmental level (what a

learner can accomplish with the assistance of a more knowledgeable peer, teacher, or

other form of tutor). The gap between these levels is the Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD). The ZPD is of importance to this study of online partnerships in particular, as









studies show that communication technologies can assist teachers in bridging the gap

between actual and potential development, placing the ZPD within the context of the

online environment. Additionally, knowledge of the ZPD and the mentor/teacher's role

in it can shed light on the role this partnership plays in bridging the actual and potential

development of the university students' competencies in teaching.

Vygotsky's theory of development is helpful in understanding how learners

develop understanding with the help of others, but what Vygotsky does not describe in

detail is the nature of the work that falls to the tutor when assisting a learner within the

ZPD. Bruner et al (Wood & Wood, 1996) suggest the metaphor of scaffolding, wherein

tutors seek to build onto what students already are independently capable of doing (actual

developmental level) by performing various critical functions such as providing focus

and performing demonstrations, to name a few. These activities in turn "scaffold" the

gap and help students develop further additional independent processes.

Every learner has his/her own ZPD; while Vygotsky (1978a) primarily used

examples from early childhood learning and development, students of all ages continue to

learn and continue to require the assistance of others in moving toward their potential

development (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Lindfors, 1999; Palincsar, 1998; Samaras &

Gismondi, 1998). Moreover, simply moving to independent competence does not mean a

learner is capable of being the tutor to someone else. Bruner (1986) notes, in a follow-up

study of the tutoring process, that children who are taught a certain skill and then asked to

assist another in learning that skill, are not able to gradually relinquish responsibility of

completion to the learner they are assisting. Teaching is not so easy, and Bruner's

follow-up study suggests the particular importance of scaffolding and the ZPD in relation









to contexts of teaching and learning how to teach. In the next section, I look at literature

relating specifically to learning in the field of teacher education.

Preservice Teacher Education

Learning to teach, especially learning to teach in a specific subject area discipline such as

English, can often resemble a two-headed beast. Preservice teachers must not only

acquire competence in the content area they are to teach, but also must become

competent in pedagogical theory as well and then somehow synthesize the two. In

addition to the traditional, academic approach to the study of education, preservice

teachers must, often simultaneously through practicum experiences, internships, and

methods classes, learn how and when to apply the knowledge they have acquired.

Because this study focuses on the experiences of preservice teachers in both an academic

setting and practicum setting occurring simultaneously, I will be looking at literature

related to preservice teacher education and in particular in the following areas:

knowledge and competency, factors affecting the transfer of knowledge to practice, and

the role of field experiences in preservice teacher education.

Knowledge and Competency

Student teachers learn a certain body of knowledge, "generated through research

on teaching" (Bransford et al., 1999), that is required of effective classroom teachers,

what educational researchers call epistemicc knowledge" (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999;

Moore, 2003). Studies have shown that when teachers lack this pedagogical knowledge,

they also lack the ability to engage students in the content of their teaching (Wilson,

Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002) But learning to teach is not merely accumulating

knowledge. Participation in educational discourse communities is necessary to allow

learning to move from isolated to contextually situated (Graham & Thornley, 2000).









Student teachers need to interact inside the communities they are seeking to join, while at

the same time being guided through deliberate, reflective processes regarding their own

emerging and transforming beliefs and behaviors (Samaras & Gismondi, 1998).

While knowledge acquisition is the first step toward competency, it is assuredly

not the last. It is one thing to memorize facts and otherwise acquire knowledge and

another to be able to apply that knowledge in settings different from the one in which it

was learned. This ability to apply knowledge in unique settings is referred to as transfer

and results in a learner's body of knowledge becoming "conditionalized," meaning that

knowledge is organized in such a way that it is responsive to situational cues that signal

what knowledge is relevant and when it is needed (Bransford, 1999; Moore, 2003). I will

discuss issues affecting transfer in more detail later in this section.

Another aspect of interest concerning knowledge and learning, not only to teacher

education in general but to this study in particular, is the perceived disconnect between

the theoretical base of knowledge that is presented in teacher education coursework and

the learning that occurs from experiences in the field. Very often, student teachers

identify these as "separate realms," with theory coming from the realm of universities and

education researchers and practical knowledge coming from field experiences and from

mentor teachers in the field (Graham & Thomley, 2000; Moore, 2003; Putnam & Borko,

2000; Wilson et al., 2002). Field experiences are consistently remembered by teachers

not only as the most valuable part of teacher preparation programs but as largely

disconnected from coursework (Burant & Kirby, 2002; Samaras & Gismondi, 1998).

Research suggests that when preservice teachers see these two realms as

disconnected, and when there is insufficient help bridging this gap between realms,









preservice teachers are likely to fall back on previous conceptions of teachers and

teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Moore, 2003; Wilson et al., 2002). What is the

cause of this disconnect, however? This same research suggests that the gap that student

teachers and practicing teachers see between the academic training and field training is

owed in part to the sense that "teaching is doing," that assisting others in learning is not

something that occurs in theory but in actual practice. Studies have also suggested that

because student teachers have spent so long in the academic community, exposed to

teaching in practice, they feel (perhaps subconsciously) as if a type of apprenticeship has

already been served (Borg, 2004; Phelps, 1989). This disconnect between the two realms

of teacher education is of particular importance to my study, as the partnership under

investigation takes place in some sense "in the field" (albeit in a non-traditional,

emerging context), at the same time that it is part of a traditional university methods

course.

Issues Affecting Knowledge Transfer

In the present study, preservice teachers were asked to mentor a high-school

student in writing via communication technologies. Part of the preservice teachers' task

was to act as a guide, helping to initiate high-school students into the community of

writing of which the preservice teachers were already competent members. To do this,

they had to view the educative situation, determine the characteristics of that situation

and how those characteristics related to their own beliefs about teaching and the role of

the teacher in addition to their ongoing acquisition of knowledge about the theories of

pedagogy and then apply these beliefs to that situation. In other words, the online

practicum was asking the preservice teachers to reflect about what they were learning in

the realm of the university setting and apply that knowledge to the mentorship they had









been assigned to do. To provide a theoretical base and to better understand the processes

involved with participation in this partnership, I will review the literature related to

knowledge transfer and how learners move from novice to expert. I begin by looking at a

number of factors that are necessary for knowledge transfer to take place and knowledge

to become conditionalized.

Perhaps one of the most common misconceptions of learning is that it consists

primarily of knowledge transmitted to the learner either by an instructor or through

educational materials. Some learning can occur in this manner, if the listener or reader is

alert, receptive, and curious (Lindfors, 1991). However, for learning to affect beliefs and

actions, that knowledge must find some way from an abstract, isolated concept in the

student's mind to become part of that student's beliefs about the world. Knowledge must

be transferred to belief and practice. Korthagen (1999) identifies three factors affecting

knowledge transfer that are of particular interest to this study. They are: prior

knowledge, felt sense of need by way of an immediate problem or past experience, and

the nature of relevant knowledge to a task.

In all forms of learning, prior experience and understanding play hugely

significant roles. In teacher education this is especially true, perhaps more so than in

other professional programs. By the time a student has reached a teacher preparation

program, that student has spent a minimum twelve years observing and experiencing

teaching first hand. Research has shown that this experience shapes in very real ways

beliefs about good teachers and teaching, beginning as early as second grade and possibly

before formal schooling even begins. Students of education bring with them conceptions

of teaching that they have been forming for more than a decade. The challenge for









teacher education is the integration of research-generated theory into already existing

beliefs that will then be applied to real contexts and students.

Another potential problem, or area of interest, is the fact that all learners need to

have some sense of the relevance of what they are learning to some situation that will

come up later in their lives. If theory does not relate directly to a concern that a student

teacher has, or does not address a problem the student teacher has faced, then there is no

immediate relevance sufficient to provide clarity of purpose and motivation for study.

There needs to be a reason to learn and those reasons, if transfer is going to occur, cannot

come on faith alone.

However, learning in relevant contexts, while helpful in promoting transfer, does

not guarantee transfer. When placed in an authentic setting, student teachers often

become overwhelmed with the daily routines of teaching (Moore 2003), such as taking

attendance, monitoring student behavior, and managing the paper load. Often student

teachers and teachers alike do not have the opportunity to reflect on situations that arise

and how learned theory might be applied to those situations. Knowledge must not only

be learned, it must be relevant to a situation and "conditionalized" to certain

circumstances (Bransford et al., 1999) in order to be fluently recalled.

Another factor that greatly affects the transfer of knowledge is the nature of the

knowledge itself and the ease with which it can be accessed. Not only is it important what

theories teachers learn, it is important how they organize their understanding of that

learning. Teachers often rely on immediate solutions to concrete situations that arise in

the course of a day. Rarely is there time, in the immediacy of the classroom, to stop and

reflect on which theories are relevant to a particular situation (Burant & Kirby, 2002;









Darling-Hammond, 2000; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). Rather, teachers react

instinctually to the situation as a whole. If knowledge has not been organized in the

preservice teacher's mind in such a way that it can be recalled according to a particular

situation's cues, then that knowledge is of little use (Bransford et al., 1999).

Expertise and the Organization of Knowledge

The current study looks at an online partnership designed in part to give

experience to preservice teachers seeking to develop expertise in the teaching of writing.

Looking at how knowledge is organized in those who have expertise in a field offers

insight into the ways these selected participants may have been beginning to organize the

theories about teaching taught in university coursework and how they began to apply that

knowledge to a mentoring process.

Those who have expertise in a particular field do not have to stop and think about

what they know in a given situation. Instead, they are able to recognize features of a

situation as being indicative of and requiring certain knowledge (Bransford et al., 1999;

Carter, 1990). Additionally, they have fluency in their ability to recall and apply

knowledge. This is due in part to an expert's ability to notice things about a particular

context that a novice would not and comes not only from the vast amount of content

knowledge they possess about their field, but also from the large amounts of time spent in

situations that require those particular knowledge sets. For example, all of the selected

participants in this study were undergraduate English majors. By and large, the

participants have expertise within the field of literature studies, in part because they have

read not only a great quantity of literature and related theory, but have developed

competencies that allow them to automatically and without conscious reflection apply

various theories of literary meaning to their reading, evaluate the quality of books as









either "serious reading" as opposed to "beach reading," or draw forth any number of

evaluative techniques that would not be available to novice readers lacking their specific

areas of expertise.

Part of the automaticity of this interaction with text is because, as graduates with

an English degree, students do not really look at reading and interpreting a text as a

process that they go through. Instead the reading of a text, the recognition of symbolic

elements in that text as well as the decoding of letters and words on the pages of the

book, is seen as elements of a whole that is reading. The act of reading for an English

major likely is a gestalt, defined by Korthagen et al (1999) in the context of educational

theory as "the dynamic and holistic unity of needs, feelings, values, meanings and

behavioral inclinations triggered by an immediate situation" (p. 9).

Teachers, regardless of their level of expertise, view teaching situations as whole

experiences, rather than as a collection of contextual elements suggesting the selection of

certain theories over others in order for learning to take place (Bransford et al., 1999;

Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). Teaching is an active profession and teachers are

constantly acting within the role of educator; rarely do they have the time (much less the

inclination) to stop and reflect on which theory of education is most pertinent to the

situation at hand and how that theory might be implemented. Rather, they must react to a

situation viewed holistically, recognizing automatically the cues that direct their recall of

relevant knowledge.

As mentioned earlier, in order for knowledge to transfer to practice, it must be

organized in such a way that knowledge becomes "conditionalized," or stored in the

learner's mind so that, when conditions are recognized, the cues allow for fluent recall of









applicable knowledge (Bransford et al., 1999; Smagorinsky & Whiting, 1995).

Korthagen et al (1999) draws on the work of Gestalt psychologists, calling teachers'

holistic view of situations "gestalts." In order for new learning to be incorporated into

teachers' practice, they must reflect upon their gestalts. This reflection can lead to

schema formation. Reflection within the schema level, when teachers begin to make

connections between various schematic relationships, can lead to theory formation.

When teachers reflect on their held theories of learning and learners, these theories

gradually become incorporated into new gestalts. Within teacher education especially,

preservice teachers usually benefit from guided assistance through the reflection process.

A preservice teacher's initial gestalt can be viewed as his/her actual development level

(Vygotsky, 1978a). With assistance from a knowledgeable other in a situated context

(Lave & Wenger, 1991), such as a university professor, novice teachers can begin to

work toward gestalt transformation and, ultimately, expertise.

Theory and Practice in Practicum Experiences

In the example of a student of English literature, perhaps in part because it is an

academic discipline, literature studies facilitate the type of learning that takes place in

classrooms; students can be guided through the process of analyzing literature because

the mentor, or knowledgeable other, is often with them through the entire process.

Literature study is predominantly academic and thus thrives in the academy. Teaching,

however, takes place in schools; learning to teach does not always lend itself to having

both the preservice teacher and university professor in the same context at all times.

In teaching, authentic experiences are thought to occur largely in schools and it is

not as easy to model the act of teaching and then give over a classroom of students for

practice. This is where the traditional employment of internships come into play









(Smagorinsky & Whiting, 1995). Even though tradition holds that theory is presented in

the university classroom and later applied in practice in the internship classroom, often

with little continuing, practical connection between the two, it is common for students to

fall back on previously held beliefs about the nature of teaching and teachers, which often

is at odds with progressive theories of education most frequently proposed in university-

based teacher preparation programs.

Virtually all teacher education programs incorporate some form of internship

experience (Smagorinsky & Whiting, 1995; Wilson et al., 2002), where anywhere

between nine weeks and sixteen weeks are spent by the preservice teacher in some form

of apprenticeship to a practicing, mentor teacher. Likewise, many programs incorporate

shorter, interspersed practicum experiences before the internship to provide preservice

teachers with opportunities to "try out" some of the pedagogical theory they have been

learning in class. However, merely learning theory and then being given time to practice

it are not enough to develop competency in teaching (Graham & Thomley, 2000). All

learners have a Zone of Proximal Development; there is a limit to what student teachers

are able to do on their own. In this study, the selected participants were all college

graduates and had demonstrated an ability to succeed in traditional classroom

environments. This traditional, academic competency represents their actual

developmental level, in that they do not have to be guided through the process of

acquiring information about, in this case in particular, writing. What preservice teachers

do need assistance with exists in the realm of their individual, pedagogical potential

development level. In other words, there is a similarity between the children in Bruner's









follow-up study and the participants in the present study: the participants know how to

write; they do not know how to teach writing to others.

Preservice teachers require a knowledgeable other who can assist them in moving

forward in their competencies related to implementing the theoretical into the practical

(Graham & Thornley, 2000; Samaras & Gismondi, 1998). For preservice teachers, the

gap between theoretical understanding of pedagogy and the ability to implement effective

practice based on that theory is their Zone of Proximal Development. Practicum

experiences, as well as internships, can exist within that zone, and require a

knowledgeable other, a mentor, to assist in a reflective progression through that zone. In

this study, the gap of special interest existed between the participants' competence in

writing and their developing abilities in teaching others to write. I turn next to literature

about the writing process and approaches to teaching writing.

Writing

Writing is a complex and multifaceted discipline; while writing resembles in many

ways spoken language, it is fundamentally different-unlike spoken language, writing

evolves through a recursive process. Writing can also have the appearance of paradox,

for while writing often seems to be an exercise undertaken individually, writing as a

cognitive process always presumes an "other." All of these-the complexity, the seeming

contradictory nature of the "space" where writing occurs-can create difficulties for

veteran and novice teachers of writing alike, especially when writing moves from the

confines of the classroom to those of online environments. For this study, there are three

aspects in the literature about writing that warrant particular attention: the process of

writing and the recursive nature of that process, the social nature of the writing act, and









teachers' responses to students' writing. These aspects are to a degree not separable from

each other and often overlap and inform the others.

Writing as Process

Writing, like any other complex activity, is a process (Farnan & Dahl, 2003), and

many if not all teachers of writing have come to internalize some notion of writing as a

process into their teaching (Faigley, 1994). Problems arise for students when process is

over-generalized and codified into a series of rigid rules and procedures, which are then

used as criteria for evaluation. Often this codification occurs when writing is viewed as

product-oriented. For example, Flower and Hayes (1994) explore a common example of

a metaphor for thinking about writing, that of discovery. In the discovery view of the

writing process is the presumption of a product waiting to be found in some already

extant form. This notion of process is contrary to what Kress (2003) calls the "semiotic

work" of language and writing; rather than "finding" meaning through composing,

meaning is created through the very act of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1994; Kress, 2003;

Reither, 1994).

Instead of prescribing a series of linear steps to be followed to reach a predefined

end product, a view of writing as a process suggests a number of stages that best

represent the recursive work of writing. These stages are broad enough to be generalized,

yet still allow for the differences of individual writers as they recursively move through

these stages. Emig (1994) notes that most views of the writing process mirror (with

occasional adjustments or modifications) the stages set forth by Graham Wallas in his

typology of creative thought (cited in Emig, 1994). Wallas' stages begin with

preparation, wherein the writer begins to think about the problem of the writing task

itself. Whether or not preparation includes actual drafting or takes place fully in the









writer's head does not lessen the importance of this first stage (Vygotsky, 1986).

Preparation is followed by incubation, when the writer thinks about the task at hand. Perl

(1994) writes about a "felt sense," wherein the writer focuses inwardly to "non-

verbalized perceptions." She calls the process of attending to this felt sense

"retrospective structuring" that forms an arch between incubation and the next stage of

Emig and Wallas' typology, illumination. The final stage is verification that in the case

of writing could include the revision process.

Because these stages seemingly fit within the "usual organizational structure of the

school" (Dyson & Freedman, 2003), that is, they appear to be a set of procedures to

follow, a common reaction to this and other process typologies is to incorporate them into

curricula as "instructions" for writing (Dyson & Freedman, 2003; Faigley, 1994). As

Emig (1994) notes, what starts as a useful way to view the writing process often is

reduced to a rigid set of criteria for creating and evaluating writing, wherein process is

understood as a prescriptive rather than descriptive tool for viewing writing.

Researchers (Dyson & Freedman, 2003; Faigley, 1994; Faman & Dahl, 2003;

1994) caution against this view of process, arguing that writing does not always follow a

straight line of development, but instead will "return to substrands of the overall process,

or subroutines" (Perl, 1994). Recursiveness, according to Perl (1994), is a unique feature

of the writing process that "implies that there is a forward-moving action that exists by

virtue of a backward-moving action." In other words, writing cannot be looked at as

occurring in a linear sequence. Even as a writer moves forward in his/her writing, part of

that "moving forward" involves re-reading what had previously been written; this

interaction of reader and text then informs the writing that follows, and the cycle repeats.









This process in its essence is not an individually-isolated one and in the context of the

classroom becomes decidedly social. While we as writers often view the process of

writing as solitary, and certainly at times it feels solitary, the mental processes involved

in writing keep us from isolation (Bakhtin, 1986; Holquist, 1990). We must interact with

others as we write in the Bakhtinian sense; that presumed interaction is how we order our

ideas.

Writing as a Social Act

Bleich (1989) notes that all forms of language, by definition, rely on social factors

for meaning; language, and therefore writing, can only be understood through the lens of

a society. Likewise, language acts (of which writing is one) have multiple aspects,

including purpose, expression, participants, and context (Lindfors, 1999). By using a

language, we are acknowledging (however subconsciously) the systems of that language

(Bakhtin, 1986). Researchers have suggested that rather than focusing on writing in the

traditional, decontextualized sense, it is necessary to study and understand the variety of

communities in which writing takes place (Faigley, 1994; Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995;

Heath, 1983; Ivani, 2004; Reither, 1994).

Faigley (1994) and Reither (1994) state that it is important to study the contexts of

writing as necessary components of the composing process. In their view, the contexts of

writing are at least partially self-generative. Writing cannot be separated from the

"social-rhetorical situations" where writing occurs; moreover, writing not only happens

within contexts, it "creates and constitutes its own contexts" through its very use

(Reither, 1994). Because of this inextricable link between writing and context, the

difference between successful and unsuccessful writers exists in part due to the









unsuccessful writer's lacking sufficient familiarity with the context in which s/he is

writing (Berthoff, 1994; Flower & Hayes, 1994; Reither, 1994).

Murray (1994) argues for the social nature of writing by illustrating how, when we

read another's writing, we must understand it as it relates to particular contexts. Writing,

as an interactive process, places the writer and the reader in each other's roles

simultaneously, requiring the writer to understand not just what is being written, but how

it is construed within the context of a particular community of discourse (Ivani, 2004).

Therefore, merely knowing the facts of the subject is insufficient for writing about that

subject- one must not only know how to participate within the discourse community but

also actively identify as a member of a "socially meaningful group" (Gee, 1999).

Not everyone sees writing as social. Teachers may see writing as intensely private

and be disinclined to engage students in aspects of writing other than the conventional

(grammar use, appropriate vocabulary, etc.). Writing, however, is inherently social.

Certainly the projectivee structuring," what Perl (1994) defines as adherence to the rules

of a particular writing discourse, is an aspect of writing that invites teachers to engage

socially with their students. The teacher is the "knowledgeable other" in Vygotsky's

Zone of Proximal Development (cited in Lindfors, 1999) who helps "initiate" students

(Murray, 1989), modeling how they participate within a writing discourse and assisting

students as they move toward their own participation. There is also the "retrospective

structuring" of writing, defined by Perl as the recursive process unique to each writer.

The retrospective structuring by its nature seems private, untouchable, but is just as

influenced by the context of the writing as any other aspect of the writing process. For









students, the teacher is inextricably part of this context and the teacher's responses to

students' writing inevitably influence the learner's development.

Teacher Response to Writing

Defining Response

Response is not something that comes only after instruction; rather, response can

be an integral thread in the "teaching-learning interaction" (Freedman, Greenleaf, &

Sperling, 1987). Researchers contend that response is most often considered within the

confines of written remarks by teachers, either in the margins or at the end of a submitted

text (Dyson & Freedman, 2003; Freedman et al., 1987). Response is not limited to written

comments, however, and can occur in a formal conference or informally between classes,

in writing, or through oral interactions with students (C. M. Anson, 1989; Freedman et

al., 1987; Onore, 1989; Warnock, 1989). Response can come at any time during the

writing process, even in the discussion of what topic a student will write about (Freedman

et al., 1987).

Often, the theory of response to writing is different than the practice of response.

Teachers frequently view responding to writing and editing student papers as the same

thing; for that matter, so do students, if only because that is what they are used to (Langer

& Applebee, 1987). One study of writing teachers' practices looked at the frequency of

"editing" comments (comments that sought to correct some "rule" of writing) versus the

frequency of "praise" comments, where the comments were intended to encourage what

was seen as "good" writing. Of the thousands of comments given during this study,

ninety-seven percent were "editing" comments (Langer & Applebee, 1987).

Correcting errors can be part of response to be sure, but it is not the entirety of

response helpful to student writers. This study has at its center a partnership designed to









foster social engagement between prospective teachers and developing writers. In the

partnership, which forms the focus of the current study, emphasis was placed on response

to writing that was not primarily corrective. One goal of the partnership was to focus the

interaction of two (and sometimes three) people on a writing task, to help improve a piece

of writing, not to evaluate it. As such, an expanded view of teacher response is helpful.

Freedman (1987) defines response as "collective problem solving." Defined in such

a way, response to writing can be more accurately viewed as it was intended by the

partnership. Flower and Hayes (1994) argue that the best writing stems from the need to

solve problems identified by the writer. This view of response includes the teacher in this

problem-solving view of writing and clarifies the social aspect of writing. For example,

in presenting students with the assignment to write an argument for an issue of

importance, teachers present students with a problem that must be solved largely by the

student, who must determine an issue that they consider important and write an argument

in defense of their view. The teacher, however, is not divorced from the writing process

simply because the student determines the specific issue on which to write. Rather,

teacher response contributes to the student's understanding in a number of ways, such as

pointing out issues of clarity in the structure of the argument and providing an alternate

view of the issue, to name a few. Response becomes part of the writing process; writing

then is "jointly accomplished teaching and learning" where "[b]oth the teacher and

learner negotiate the parts they play" (Freedman et al., 1987, p. 9). This definition

highlights the social nature not only of response, but also the social aspect of writing and

more closely represents the stated intent of the writing partnership in this study.









Teachers' Responses to Students' Writing

Response to student writing is a difficult notion for many teachers because it

requires the teacher to wear two "hats" simultaneously: that of the helpful guide and also

of the authoritative representative of the field of "proper" writing (Anson, 1989).

Students likewise find response to writing difficult to grapple with; many students

perceive response to a final draft of a paper as more valuable than response during the

process of writing itself (Daiker, 1989). As a result, this view often has the effect of

removing what is viewed as the real benefit of response, joint discovery and problem

solving (Freedman et al., 1987).

Similarly, the way teachers are taught, not only in methods courses, but

particularly in college literature courses, influences greatly the way they approach student

texts (Anson, 1989; Emig, 1994; Phelps, 1989; Reither, 1994). Murray (1989), drawing

on Rosenblatt's (1978) reader response theory, states that much of what teachers expect

from a text reflects "not only their mental and physical characteristics, but their culture,

their experiences with the world, and their experiences with the world of texts as well"

(p. 73). These expectations result in teachers reading students' texts "from the

perspective of their own academic training and experiences with writing papers" (p. 77),

experiences which typically are one-shot critical essays, graded and evaluated when they

are turned in and rarely revisited with the aim of improving writing.

Because such academic experiences can have a profound impact on teachers'

approaches to student writing, and because this study deals with participants who are

graduate students with undergraduate degrees in English who are prospective English

teachers, looking at how students in college literature courses approach texts (both

writing and reading) is important. Anson (1989) delineates a progression of "ways of









knowing" that is particularly relevant. They are: the dualist, who sees a text in black and

white with only one possible reading; the relativist, who sees that all readings are correct

and therefore none of them are; and the confident relativist, who understands that there

are multiple ways of approaching a text and multiple possible meanings, delimited by the

parameters of what constitutes valid readings (Rosenblatt, 1978). Although this

taxonomy represents a progression, Anson acknowledges that not all students move

beyond any given level. This is true even of graduate level students in teacher

preparation programs and can have a profound effect on their assistance with students'

developing abilities in writing. A teacher reading a student's paper is reading a text; how

they define and approach texts in general will likewise determine their role in the joint

production of that text in the classroom.

Revision

A discussion of revision is warranted here, because revision is "a central and

important part of writing" (Fitzgerald, 1987), and because the partnership at the center of

this study was developed to provide high-school students assistance in the ongoing

process of revision and to provide experience to prospective teachers in providing that

assistance. For most teachers, the closest they come to affecting the revision of a

student's writing is in providing response to that writing, if they provide any response at

all; ultimately the student decides what depth of revision, if any, occurs (Beach, 1976).

Revision is "a sequence of changes in a composition-changes that are initiated by

cues and occur continually throughout the writing of a work" (Sommers, 1980). Revision

is inextricably linked to writing because it is part of the interaction between writer and

text as s/he moves recursively through the writing process. However, like response,

revision in classroom practice is often different from revision as practiced by experienced









writers (Sommers, 1980). Also like response, revision is often shaped not only by past

experiences with writing, but also by the writer's conception of revision (Beach, 1976).

Sommers (1980) and Fitzgerald (1987) show in their research that student writers often

look at their revising efforts as attending to matters of form. Typically, student writers

approach revision of writing as if the core meaning is already present and it is a matter of

"moving words around" for the sake of clarity of meaning and/or the polishing of writing

style (Sommers, 1980). Experienced writers, on the other hand, view revision much as

Perl (1994) envisions the recursive nature of writing itself, as a process that is ongoing

from the moment writing begins (Fitzgerald, 1987; Perl, 1994; Sommers, 1980). They

view the revision process as the creation of meaning rather than the clarification of that

meaning (Beach, 1976; Sommers, 1980).

Teachers, if they are to model the approach to writing found in experienced,

successful writers, must approach their responses to student writing in ways designed to

engage students in the process of reflecting on their own writing. The goal of writing

instruction, competency in writing in a variety of contexts, requires students to view

revision not as a final step before assessment and grading, but as a recursive part of the

writing itself. Within the context of the classroom, this orientation can be especially

difficult to achieve, as the nature of schooling is regimented and divided, and many (if

not most) tasks are viewed in light of the end product results. Revision becomes mere

proofreading, both in the student's eyes and at times in the eyes of the teacher.

Elements of the classroom context play a large role in revision of students' writing,

such as the time allowed for work on assignments, how much time is available in a class

overall, the physical conditions of composing (whether on computers or with pen and









paper), and the number of student writers demanding the attention of one teacher, to

name just a few. When the mentoring of writing "goes online," as in the partnership at

the center of this study, the contexts change, but are still critical to understanding the

processes of writing and the teaching of writing.

Importance of Context

This study examined the experiences of selected participants within a particular

online context. No experience occurs within a vacuum (Kress, 2003; Smagorinsky, 2001,

2002) and every experience incorporates aspects of the participant's past and current

understandings (Kress, 2003) both implicitly and explicitly (Dey & Abowd, 1999;

Gwizdka, 2000). For Vygotsky (1978b), the most significant moment in intellectual

development occurs when speech and practical activity converge. This convergence can

be described as speech in context and "produces new relations with the environment,"

noting that "every thought tends to connect something with something else, to establish a

relation between things" (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 218). Dourish (2004) defines context itself

as a "relational property," suggesting a strong connection between thought, intellectual

development, and context. That is, context is not merely a set of quantifiable factors such

as place and time, but includes the interaction of the individual with and within these

factors.

Context is particularly important to issues of language and learning. Discussing the

movement of thought to speech, Vygotsky (1986) notes that every thought is a

generalization and word meanings are dynamic and dependent on context. Kress (2003)

states that no language act (communication) is neutral; neither are any of the modes for

representing communication. Rather, communication is dependent largely on the context

of its mode of representation. Every time an individual word is uttered, according to









Kress, the speaker fills it with meaning consisting of every experience with the concept

that that word signifies; each utterance is therefore unique and dependent on context

(Bakhtin, 1986; Kress, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986).

Defining Context

The term "context" is one with which most are familiar but are unable to define

precisely. Common approaches to defining context are attempted by listing examples of

elements of a particular context or by selecting synonyms such as "conditions," "factors,"

or "environments" (Dey & Abowd, 1999). Neither of these approaches gets a researcher

any closer to understanding what exactly context is. Context is understood in general

terms as having "relevance to the matter at hand" (Dourish, 2004), that "gives meaning to

something else" (Schmidt, Beigl, & Gellersen, 1999). Dey and Abowd (1999) note that

this "sense" of context is insufficient and that in order to make the most of context in

research settings, a better understanding of its defining characteristics is important. In

other words, in order to study context, it is necessary to be able to recognize it, or at least

know where to look.

Context as a concept is important when considering the interaction between human

and computer (Dey & Abowd, 1999). When studying the effects of context in online

communities, it is important to have a definition that identifies important, common

features indicative of all contexts. Often contextual features of communication go

unnoticed in human to human interaction (Dourish, 2004), becoming noticeable only

when the ability to use these contextual features is no longer there (Lindfors, 1999), as

can be the case when using online communication technologies.

First, context is unique to a particular situation and resists objective categorization

(Dey & Abowd, 1999; Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995; Lindfors, 1999; Schmidt et al.,









1999). Second, context is both internal and external to the individual and is either

implicitly or explicitly manifested (Gwizdka, 2000). Third, context is "dynamic"

(Dourish, 2004) and is constantly negotiated (Cullen, 1998; Dourish, 2004; Lindfors,

1999) by participants in a particular situation. There are other ways, suggested by

Lindfors (1999), to approach context than by attempts at definition.

Many of the past attempts at defining context for the purposes of applying it to

human-computer interactions have roots in the theoretical philosophies of positivism

(Dourish, 2004), wherein all aspects of context were such that they could be objectively

observed in a controlled setting. The assumption was that contextual features were

stable, predictable, and generally applicable. According to Dourish, this assumption is

only in part true. More important are the aspects of context that are unique to any

particular situation and the fact that there are many more aspects of context that are

subjective and particular not only to an instance but also to an individual. Rather than

looking at context as a set of facts to be determined independently, Dourish positions

context as a "relational property" between the user and his/her environment.

Lindfors (1999) acknowledges the difficulty of defining context and suggests that,

rather than defining the term, "probing" context in relation to particular events is instead

more useful (p. 216). Drawing on the work of Cole (1996), she elucidates two

interrelated notions of context. First, there is the notion of "surround"; second is the

notion of "weave" (1999).

The surround notion of context includes those aspects of context relevant to the

nature of the task in which the individual is participating. In educational settings this

surround is typically (but not always) the classroom (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995;









Lindfors, 1999). Lindfors notes that although metaphorically we might look at the

surround as being the immediate environment of the individual, the boundaries of this

environment are not impenetrable. Indeed, during any experience, the individual brings

with him/her all previous knowledge, experiences, and beliefs, which in turn

contextualizee utterances and interaction events" (p. 218). Other researchers suggest this

notion of surround context when discussing the concept of "community of practice"

(Derry & Steinkuehler, 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991), which includes "social

relationships, physical and temporal contexts, symbolic and material resources (such as

tools), and historical change" (Derry & Steinkuehler, 2003).

The weave notion of context referred to by Lindfors suggests the "definition" of

context given by Dourish; that context, while having elements of "things," is primarily a

"relational property" (2004) between activities and objects and is actively constructed. In

other words, context is created through the "weaving" of all of the various threads (such

as those included earlier in communities of practice) available to the individual and from

the individuals inhabiting any particular context (Derry & Steinkuehler, 2003; Dourish,

2004; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lindfors, 1999).

Online Context

Because the context of special interest to this study was online, further discussion

regarding specific possible threads of context in the particular world of cyberspace is

warranted. First is the notion of context as it relates to writing and in particular to the

notion of writing as a mode of communication. Vygotsky (1986) sees written speech as

"lacking situational and expressive supports" and notes that communication in writing

must be achieved through the choice and combination of words. This observation does

not suggest that writing lacks context but merely that the context for writing is different









from other modes, and for written communication to be successful there is the

requirement of what Kress and others (Kress, 2003; Smagorinsky, 2001, 2002) refer to as

a translation between modes. Online communication represents what some have called a

"revolution," one which is ongoing and in which the translation from modes of printing

to those of electronic forms of writing are negotiated (Bolter, 2001; Ong, 1982).

Transparency

An important thread of context for online experiences is the notion of

transparency. Transparency refers to the ability of a particular mode of communication

to be invisible to/unnoticed by the user (Bolter, 2001; Ong, 1982). Transparency evolves

through time as the relation between mode and medium become "nearly

invisible...through the naturalizing effects of long-standing convention" (Kress, 2003).

The more transparent the medium the more "natural" it seems to the user and the less

likely it would be that the technology of writing would distract from the communicative

functions it seeks to facilitate. Considering the aspect of transparency in online methods

of communication is of particular importance because online modes of communication

have not yet achieved the degree of transparency that other, similar modes of

communication have. Writing on a computer screen shares the same sense of

transparency as writing with a typewriter or even writing free hand on paper. Where

online communication differs is in its potential for more dynamic uses. Online modes of

communication are governed by spatial relations as well as temporal (Kress, 2003) and

are characterized as being more "flexible and immediate" (Bolter, 2001). This flexibility

can lessen transparency and create what some researchers call "hypermediacy" (Bolter,

2001; Bolter & Grusin, 1999; Landow, 1992) which suggests that part of the nature

(context) of this emerging mode of communication is the attention drawn to the medium









itself. In other words, part of the context of online communication is that it can be

sometimes transparent and sometimes hypermediated (Bolter, 2001).

Social presence

What is not completely "natural" for tasks mediated by computers is interaction

between participants who are not physically present. Another salient contextual thread for

online contexts, especially when considering the level of satisfaction of an individual

with experiences in online contexts, is that of social presence. Each person within an

online context experiences a level of social presence, defined as one's awareness of

another in a mediated environment, and the quality of relationship that manifests as a

result of that awareness (Delfino & Manca, 2006; Leh, 2001; Richardson & Swan, 2003;

Tu, 2000).

Social presence is not limited to online contexts (Delfino & Manca, 2006; Tu,

2000) and can be developed and strengthened in any context where there is personal

interaction. Social presence is of particular importance to computer-mediated

educational experiences; while there may be high levels of transparency regarding the

medium and user task, it is difficult to make the absence of another transparent. Higher

levels of social presence positively influences online interaction (Tu & Mclsaac, 2002),

and social presence is essential for establishing collaborative learning environments

(Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003).

Writing "space"

As the modes of communication transform, so do the "economies" of those modes

(Bolter, 2001; Kress, 2003; Ong, 1982). Each mode of writing, specifically electronic

modes, although not exclusively, has its own intricate economy defined by Bolter as a

"dynamic relationship among materials, techniques, genres, and cultural attitudes and









uses" (2001). Part of the economy of writing is constituted by the actual/virtual space in

which the writing occurs; according to Bolter and others (Bolter, 2001; Kress, 2003; Ong,

1982), that space is in a constant process of"remediation," (Bolter, 2001; Bolter &

Grusin, 1999) wherein one medium gradually reforms and/or replaces an older one.

Kress (2003) uses the metaphor of time to represent the mode of writing as a form

of communication, where words are placed temporally in sequence, one after another.

For Kress, the emerging "space" of online and electronic modes of writing is visualized

through a spatial representation, where words are still temporally sequential, but are also

juxtaposed with images and other media to form a multimodal space for communication

to occur. Kress' temporal metaphors for conceptualizing the context in which writing

takes place is helpful in understanding the complexity and evolving nature of

communication contexts within the realm of"cyberspace," and especially the challenges

presented to preservice English teachers' notions of educational context and the teaching

of writing.

Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative research methods are forms of inquiry that enable better

understandings of the meaning of social phenomenon (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam,

1998; Stake, 1978), with the philosophical assumption that meaning is constructed by

participants and context. Context is a defining characteristic of meaning, inseparable

from a particular phenomenon, and can only be studied holistically (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). Any study that looks at particular social phenomena warrants the use of

qualitative research methods.

Case studies are "intensive descriptions and analyses of a singular unit or

bounded \lvei '" (Merriam, 1998), the aim of which is to illuminate the meaning of a









phenomenon as it is socially constructed. Case studies, and qualitative research in

general, emphasize meaning as constructed by participants and their contexts (Dyson &

Genishi, 2005). More precisely, case studies emphasize the processes of meaning

construction (Merriam, 1998). This study examines the phenomenon of an online writing

partnership in order to explore the contexts of a unique case, a singular unit, within a

teacher preparation program. In this study, I am particularly interested in the threads of

the partnership's context, such as the communications technology used to facilitate

writing instruction, and the meaning that is created by the participants as they prepare to

become teachers.

Dyson & Genishi (2005) state that case studies do not attempt to present meaning

context-free for greater generalization. Rather, case studies, including this one, are

interested precisely in context itself. Case studies are particularly well suited when the

goal of a study is to explore the "messy complexity" (Dyson & Genishi, 2005) of human

experience; this complexity requires holistic descriptions that take into account the

unique features of a particular phenomenon, in order to accomplish what Lincoln and

Guba (1985) consider to be the primary purpose of qualitative research: the greater

understanding of complex phenomena by readers of the study.

Summary

In the process of composing this review of literature, the following major ideas

have emerged:

1. Meaning is socially constructed and contextually dependent.

2. Language, our primary tool for negotiating meaning, is both individually specific
and culturally bound.









3. Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development is not limited to viewing early
childhood development but can also provide insight into the development of
teaching competencies.

4. For students in preservice teacher education programs, there is a perceived
disconnect between academic course work and experience in field placements,
creating a gap between knowledge of practice and knowledge in practice.

5. In order for pedagogical knowledge to transfer to practice there must be relevant,
prior knowledge, a felt sense of need on the part of the learner, and the availability
of a knowledgeable other to assist in application of knowledge to a specific
situation.

6. Writing is a recursive, social process that simultaneously takes place within
contexts and creates its own contexts.

7. Teachers' approaches to teaching writing often mirror their own education and are
often at odds with the notion that writing is a process rather than a product.

8. Teachers of writing often limit their feedback to student writing to issues of
grammar and mechanics if they provide feedback at all.

9. Context is a critical factor when examining meaning.

10. Regarding online environments, it is more useful to view context as a "relational
property" between users and their environment.

11. Drawing on the work of Michael Cole, Judith Lindfors views context as being
twofold: context both surrounds participants in an event, and is woven by those
participating in the event.

12. In all writing "spaces," or contexts, transparency is an important thread, particularly
in the emerging space of online, electronic writing.

13. Qualitative research methods are appropriate in studies that seek to understand the
meaning of a social phenomenon.

14. Case studies emphasize the processes of meaning construction.

15. Case studies are particularly well suited for exploring human experience and
holistically presenting the complexity of these experiences.















CHAPTER 3
METHODS

In this study I examined the experiences of four preservice teachers and one

practicing teacher in an online writing partnership, to examine the contextual features

identified by the participants as salient during the mentoring experiences, and to see how

those experiences contribute to a broader understanding of how preservice teachers

preparing to enter the field envision their role in the teaching of writing. The purpose of

this chapter is to describe the research setting and participants in this study. Additionally,

I describe the process of selecting the setting and participants, as well as the collection of

data sources and my method of analysis. Finally, I discuss the issues of internal validity

and the consistency of the study results.

Study Design and Rationale

Finding a site to examine the phenomenon of online writing instruction was a

difficult task. I sought out a number of potential sites, including programs in distance

learning offered through a major research institution and a public, virtual high school.

Neither avenue proved fruitful, with the former operating primarily through traditional

means of distributing instruction at a distance (course materials were distributed via

postal service), and the later being reluctant to open their program to possible critique.

At a large research institution in the southeast, there had been an online partnership

program in place for two years. This partnership was developed for use in a course on

language and composition by myself and the professor of that course, and paired high-









school students dual-enrolled in a local community college with master's level graduate

students enrolled in the language and composition course. This partnership had two

primary purposes: a) to provide feedback to young, developing writers, and b) to provide

opportunities for future writing teachers to practice giving feedback and being a mentor

to a student in his/her writing. I chose this partnership as the setting for this study because

it included the use of communication technologies in teaching, represented a developing

method of preparing future English teachers to teach writing, and provided authentic

teaching opportunities incorporated in an in-class practicum, all of which are areas of

teaching and teacher development that hold great interest to me.

Ultimately, my research interests center around educational technology and teacher

preparation, and the best choice for the study that I wanted to conduct existed in the

partnership that I had helped to establish. Because of my relationship with the professor

of the language and composition course that "hosted" the online partnership, and because

of my involvement in designing the partnership itself, I was able to gain the access

necessary to examine the phenomenon of online writing partnerships and of online

teaching and learning opportunities.

Finally, because at the time of this study the Online Partnership was in its third year

of existence, this study design was ideal for my desire to observe the real experiences of

participants in a bounded instance, where the core activity (the actual, online partnering

of future teachers and secondary students for the purposes of providing tutoring in

writing) was established and supported by two years of prior use.









Setting and Participants

Description of Setting

In a grounded approach to research in education, the ideal situation for a researcher

is to immerse him/herself in the site of study (Hutchinson, 1997). Because the

phenomenon that I wanted to study occurred in a virtual setting, immersion in the

traditional sense was problematic. The partnership was on one hand a dialogic

relationship between two partners, mediated by technologies that operate in "virtual"

spaces but allow the connections[] between differences" (Holquist, 1990) that are

endemic in all dialog. On the other hand, the experiences within this phenomenon of an

online writing partnership dealt directly with the medium itself and the frustrations

inherent in negotiating new and developing technologies. The "writing space" (Bolter,

2001; Bolter & Grusin, 1999) of the two partners was virtual, and it was not an area that I

could be physically present in.

For contextual purposes, there were two "physical" sites that, along with their

corresponding programs, provided the background to this study. One was a teacher

preparation program at a major research institution in the southeast United States; the

other was a high-school dual-enrollment program at a local community college. It is

important to note that neither of these programs were the object of study. Rather, it was

the purpose of this study to examine the online partnership that provided the dialogic

connection between the two (Bakhtin, 1986).

English teacher preparation program

This study focused on graduate students who volunteered to participate and were

enrolled in a course on teaching language and composition. The majority of students

enrolled in this course were preparing to become English teachers; however, some









students, including one of this study's participants, were enrolled in other programs. All

the graduate students, as a part of the curriculum for this course, were paired with high-

school students who were "dual enrolled" on the campus of a local community college,

for the purpose of mentoring the high-school student in her/his writing. The Online

Writing Partnership was an assignment in the language and composition class, but the

vast majority of the work of the partnership took place outside of the physical classroom

through the use of email, chat rooms, and online bulletin boards. The online partnership

continued for approximately ten weeks.

High-school dual-enrollment program

At the time of this study, the community college was celebrating thirty years of

hosting an on-campus dual-enrollment program for high-school students. This program

differed from most dual-enrollment programs. Rather than attending select college

classes while remaining on their home high schools' campuses, these students were

completely immersed in the life of the college. While they maintained ties with their

"home" high schools, during their junior and/or senior years these students attended

classes exclusively on the community college campus. Because not all student progress

at the same speed, or in the same subject areas, the community college employs full time

faculty who teach high-school requisites to complete the graduation requirements of the

dual enrolled students. For this study, I looked exclusively at eleventh-grade students

enrolled in a high school-level writing course and who had been paired with graduate

students in the language and composition course at the university.

The High School Dual Enrollment program (HSDE) reflects the diversity of the

area. Students in this program come from a variety of backgrounds, both ethnic and

economical. Busing and free and reduced lunch are provided for students. Tuition is









free, and textbooks and lab fees are provided as part of the State's obligation to public

school students. While the HSDE program does have an admissions process and not

every applicant is accepted, students enrolled in the program have a diverse range of

abilities and skills.

Participant Selection

At the beginning of the semester, after the graduate students had been given a

chance to acclimate to their new situation, I came to the language and composition course

to introduce the partnership and answer questions about what they could expect during

the semester in regards to both the partnership and the technology involved. In the weeks

leading up to the beginning of the semester, I had worked on setting up a variety of online

technologies in order to facilitate communication between the graduate students and

high-school students, and planning out the logistics of such communication. I understood

that email would be a vital aspect of communication as the method for exchanging drafts

of papers between participants. Because email is asynchronous and does not have the

immediacy that I suspected the graduate students would desire in working with

developing writers, I established a web page featuring multiple chat rooms where

participants could "meet up" and talk about the partnership in synchronous, real-time

discussions. Although discussion would be limited to typed communication, I anticipated

that the chat-rooms might provide some of the immediacy of communication that would

be missing from email-only dialog. The online bulletin boards I set up were also

designed to provide a "space" where participants, both graduate and high-school, could

discuss issues in a group setting.

During this first visit, I focused on establishing the outlines of the online

partnership. Ultimately this partnership had value to the course beyond my research









interests, and my involvement was established regardless of my presence as an

investigator. As a part of introducing the partnership and the rationale behind it, I led the

students in a brainstorming exercise to develop an idea of how they felt they could

benefit from this experience. Many of the students in the class saw the partnership as an

opportunity to "practice" giving response to student writers, but many also mentioned the

benefit of experiencing interactions with students similar to those the graduate students

anticipated teaching in the coming years.

When it came time to pair high-school students with graduate students, I allowed

the high-school students to express their preference in the process. The graduate students

had written letters of introduction, and I presented these letters to the high-school

students to read. Each high-school student used Post-Its notes to indicate their top three

choices, and I was able to assign partners chosen among the top two in each instance.

After giving the high-school students their graduate partners' email addresses with

instructions to send along their own letter of introduction, the online writing partnership

was underway.

After the partnership had progressed for a few weeks, I made a return visit to the

graduate class. By this time the writing partners had exchanged one paper; the graduate

students provided response and the high-school students had submitted their revised, final

version to their English teacher. I delivered these revised papers to the graduate students,

and sought to clarify and further troubleshoot any technical problems they had

experienced. At this time I informed the graduate students that I was interested in

examining their experiences in this partnership, and asked those who were willing to

volunteer. I gave every student in the language and composition course a volunteer form









approved by the university's Institutional Review Board (see Appendix A) that included

in detail what I wanted to look at and what would be involved for anyone who

volunteered to participate.

On the high-school end of the equation, I proceeded in a similar way: the high-

school students had been given both a volunteer participation form and parental

permission form, approved by my University's Institutional Review Board, allowing

them to participate in the study if they chose to do so (see Appendix A). There were a

possible six graduate participants available with a willing high-school partner. One

graduate student soon became unavailable, and I decided to study all of the remaining

five.

Of the five participants in this study, four were enrolled as master's level graduate

students in the teacher preparation program. The remaining participant was a classroom

teacher enrolled in a specialized Literacy and the Arts graduate program and was taking

the language and composition course as part of her program of study. The participants

ranged in age from twenty-two to twenty-seven years at the time of the study and had had

widely varying experiences involving education outside of their respective programs. All

of the participants were Caucasian and female. (See results chapter for more elaborate

descriptions of each participant.)

Data Collection Methods

In qualitative studies, facts and values are viewed as inextricably mixed (J. K.

Smith, 1983) and require "diverse 'slices of data"' (Merriam, 1998) to provide thick, rich

data sets for a thorough understanding of bounded instances. I collected data by

conducting a series of interviews with each of the five participants, beginning in

September of 2004 and concluding in March of 2005; collecting student and participant









artifacts; and conducting interviews with ancillary participants in the study, primarily the

high-school partners. I conducted four semiformal, taped interviews with each

participant, as well as numerous informal, non-recorded interviews. I collected reflective

writing by the participants, high-school student papers with embedded feedback, and

email correspondence between the participants and their partners. I also kept journal

containing my thoughts and experiences throughout the study. Each data source provided

insight to the questions that were guiding this study; these sources and the questions they

address are represented in Table 3-1.

Subject Interviews

A few weeks after the start of the semester, I conducted the first of four interviews

with those graduate students selected to be participants in the study. The interviews were

semiformal in design, with a written protocol (see Appendix B) for all participants but

that also allowed me to explore topics as they arose. I kept the tone of the sessions

informal, at times meeting in coffee houses and book shops, in order to put the

participants at ease. I felt this approach would take pressure off both parties and minimize

the feeling of being "analyzed" that I feared might limit the participants' responses.

The first round of interviews served as an introduction not only to the study, but

also to the participants themselves. These interviews explored the backgrounds of the

participants. I also wanted to gauge attitudes toward the various "realms" of the study,

such as the attitudes and beliefs about technology, teaching, and writing instruction.

As the first audio taped interviews were being completed, I began to make and

analyze the transcripts in order to shape the questions I would ask in the next interview

(Merriam, 1998). I noticed commonalities across the selected participants, and applied

those commonalities to follow- up questions and questions relating back to the









Table 3-1. Study questions with corresponding data sources
Study Questions Primary Data Sources Secondary Data Sources
What kinds of experiences do Interviews with study Journal
prospective English teachers participants Email correspondence
preparing for the teaching Reflection papers with high-school partner
profession have in distance, Journal
online partnerships with
secondary writers?

What do these experiences Interviews Interviews with
reveal about these Reflection papers ancillary participants
prospective teachers' views Journal
of teaching and specifically
teaching writing?

What influences on the Interviews Email correspondence
partnership or on the Reflection papers with high-school partner
participants appear to exist Feedback on student writing Interviews
from experience with and
attitude toward technology?
In what way did these
attitudes affect the
partnership/participants?

What contextual threads Interviews Interviews with
appeared most salient to these Reflection papers ancillary participants
prospective English teachers Journal
in the success (or lack
thereof) of this online
partnership?



experience of the online partnership. For example, early in the process of conducting the

first interviews, I noticed that all five participants exhibited surprise at what they

perceived as a low-level of writing ability in the high-school students. Therefore in the

second interview session I asked the graduate participants what their expectations for

student writing had been coming into this online experience, and how those expectations


compared to the actual writing.









During each interview, I conducted numerous member checks (Lincoln & Guba,

1985) by summarizing the "themes" that had arisen, such as the disappointment with the

quality of writing by their partners. I asked if these themes accurately reflected their

thoughts on particular issues, or if these summaries were accurate summaries of their

answers. Where we differed, I asked them to clarify their answers, and to expand upon

those answers when possible.

High-school Student Interviews

The focus of this research was not on the experiences of the high-school partners,

but because their perspective could provide valuable insight and triangulation to the data

collected through interviews with the five participants, interviews were conducted with

all of the online partners of the study's participants. These high-school students were

interviewed once on the campus of the community college at a time and location

convenient to the students involved, using a semi-structured interview protocol.

Documentary Evidence

During the online partnership, various documents were created by both groups of

student participants. Some of these documents were created separately by each group of

students in their respective sites-the graduate students wrote reflection papers as

required by the course they were enrolled in, the high-school students wrote the initial

drafts of the papers on which they would ultimately receive feedback. Other documents

were jointly created in the process of paper feedback and revision. I collected all of these

documents for analysis and incorporated them into the picture that developed as I

examined the phenomenon of the online writing partnership. These data sources included

two separate papers, along with multiple revisions of those papers, written by the high-

school students that formed the center of the online partnership, email correspondence










between the partners, and reflective writing done by the five participants in this study as a

requirement of the language and composition course.

Student writing

The essays written by the high-school students served as one medium for

establishing a relationship with the graduate student participants. These papers were

originally electronic in nature, written on Microsoft's Word computer program and

submitted between partners via email. To facilitate the feedback process, early in the

semester I provided a workshop in using the "comment card" function included in

Microsoft Word. Using comment card, the graduate student participants were able to

embed, or place directly into the document, their thoughts, comments, and suggestions

for their partner's writing (see Figure 3-1). In establishing the online partnership, both the

professor and myself encouraged the graduate students not to act as editors; mechanical

and grammatical errors in the writing should be noted when they distracted from the

being stop you from what you could become Comment. I I.e.n ih r.rre n..l I .,
,uiemCnin Ini,.- i i inwririt nil rd. ii
Once I had done the Avatar experience I had learned the skill to take my self out eo.:..i '. 1,k lb.:.. ..-, ,,.r,,
C ln,,d*T n-.:, inl ir i th i b ir,n,nn in.1
mn i d. r i l.r ro rl n l s ri. n
of a situation and "mind the edges" or to look at my self from out side or like a person nc, ra rr....-rl, r. ,-r, ,R -.,
ah,: readjihl. ri lpi r r' d In. i lr n ,
.Iassm hiil I am kitring mr irlicnL% In krir
watching me. was able to see my self and what was doing. Then able torealize what to ,~, t r,, i. ,.I, i rri. r: in1
rmad r T r ni ri ', n 1"I I r I ,- ni r r 1
do in a situation and how to deal with what was dealt to meb 1 realized that I have no
Comment Now you have switched purpose
boundaries in what 1 am doing and in what I can do in my life. [The first time that I did again..it now eads like a testimonial for
Avatar was the summer of 2002. I had become very judgmental, with junior high and my r r" 4l .
Figure 3-1 Example of Microsoft Word Comment Card function, with 'pop-up'
comments to the right, with corresponding place indicators connected to the
student text with dotted lines.

clarity and flow of the writing, but should not be the sole focus of the graduate students'

attention. Rather, part of their focus should be on engaging their partners in dialog

about writing, for the benefit of the papers at hand and for writing in general.

Theproposed purpose of these comments was to engage the high-school students in a









dialog about their writing, to provide another "set of eyes" with which to view the writing

and to give the high-school students an audience that would in turn provide guidance in

their writing. These comments then would show up as highlighted sections on the

computer document, and "pop up" when the computer's cursor was placed on top of that

section, revealing the embedded comment of the graduate student. To collect this

documentary evidence, I printed from the electronic format a physical copy, including the

embedded notations (placed marginally for printing) at their original location in the text

(see figure 3.1). These documents provided valuable insight into the process of the

partnership itself and the developing relationships between partners, as well as a source

of triangulation for the analysis of other data sets.

Email correspondence

Email was intended, as part of the Online Partnership, to be the primary form of

communication to transmit the writing of the dual enrollment student to their graduate

partner; it was not intended to be the only form. I had participated in the online writing

partnership for two years prior to this study, and one of the elements of the previous

partnerships that had been negatively critiqued by the future teachers was the lack of real-

time interaction between graduate and high-school students. For this study, I had

established an online "chat," which would allow partners to meet online in a synchronous

environment, meaning they could "chat" in real time by typing on a computer and having

their words sent immediately to each other. Chat rooms have an immediacy that is not

present in email, but chats require more coordination between partners (in setting up

times to participate in chats) in order to provide this immediacy. It was my intention that

the chat rooms would provide the missing social presence that had marked the previous

two iterations of the online partnership. In practice, however, email became the near-









exclusive form of contact of any kind, be it sending papers or otherwise. Although I ran

a workshop early in the semester to show how to make use of the chat rooms, both

graduate and high-school students had difficulties employing the technology involved,

coordinating times to "meet" online, and/or finding the motivation to do either.

Email was used for a variety of purposes during the partnership. Microsoft Word

documents were created by the high-school students and attached to emails, which were

then sent to their partners. Copies of these emails were also sent to me and I received all

email correspondence connected to the papers themselves. I also received a copy of the

paper on its return from the graduate students, including all imbedded comments, as part

of my role in the online writing partnership itself. Additionally, any time there was a

problem or issues with the partnership, I was the contact person via email. These emails

were also collected for use with this study.

Participants' reflective writing

As a required culminating assignment for the course, the participants were asked

to write a reflection paper describing their experiences in the course and highlighting in

particular those elements that were major features of the course's design. These elements

included two practicum experiences in area classrooms as well as the online writing

partnership itself. I collected copies of these reflection papers for their insight and for

purposes of establishing internal consistency.

Data Analysis Procedures

TAMS, Computer Software for Qualitative Data

According to its creator Matthew Weinstein, TAMS Analyzer is "an open source

qualitative package for the analysis of textual themes" (Weinstein, 2002). In other words,

it is a computer program that assists in the analysis of digital forms of collected data. In









addition, TAMS provides a powerful set of tools that allow for the manipulation of data

results and the organization of data into accessible, useful forms.

In certain ways, TAMS Analyzer works like most word processors-there is the

ability to enter text and format it according to need. Where TAMS Analyzer differs from

conventional word processors is in the types of formatting it allows. TAMS stands for

"Text Analysis Mark-up System," and this program allowed me to embed in the data

themselves codes that helped to identify meaningful units within a particular document.

Once all the documents had been coded, TAMS Analyzer assisted me in searching

through multiple documents for particular information relevant to a specific question; in

doing complicated searches for themes appearing in multiple documents across multiple

participants; and to collate information into usable and useful groupings.

Using computers to sort qualitative data has implications in qualitative research.

Because the computer and software used in data analysis constitute additional levels of

mediation (Bolter, 2001) it is important to consider the ways in which computer assisted

analysis affects that analysis. Software of any stripe is limited in that any functions

included by the programmer are assumed to be the functions that will be needed by the

average user; the same is true for qualitative analysis software. If the creator of a

particular program does not see the need for a particular function, then this function may

not be available with that software and this can color what analysis is done with a given

data set (Merriam, 1998). As Ong (1982) has suggested, the nature of the tool affects the

nature of the task. To account for the possibility of the software influencing the way in

which I analyzed my data, I made sure I was as aware as possible of the limitations of

TAMS Analyzer and considered the "by hand" method of everything I did on my









computer, to see if there was anything that was limiting me in my ability to see what my

data had to show. When this proved to be the case, or when I found the parameters of the

software influencing my approach to the data, I followed the suggestions of Merriam

(1998) and worked with my data by hand. An example of this happened early in the

analysis process.

As I was first looking at the newly transcribed first interviews, I noticed that

devising new codes while using TAMS to read through the documents was cumbersome

and broke the natural flow of interacting with the text. I found myself looking for ways

of "stretching" the codes I had already created, or forcing bits of data into categories

when they should have been given a separate and unique code. It did not take long for

me to realize that this process was not going to work, so I printed out all of the interview

transcripts, placed them in individual folders according to participant and put pencil to

paper. I rid myself of the distraction of the computer interface and I was able to move at a

more natural pace. As a result, the initial analysis of the transcript data and most of the

collected artifact data was done by hand. Only afterward was the data transferred to

TAMS Analyzer, which facilitated further analysis.

Analysis of Interviews

As soon as possible after each interview, I transcribed the audio taped sessions into

Microsoft Word documents. As I transcribed, I began to look for patterns in the

information contained in the interview protocols, such as similarities in the ways the

participants answered questions, or how certain answers reflected particular beliefs, and

applied these patterns to the protocols for the next round of interviews in accordance with

the grounded-theory approach (Hutchinson, 1997). I continually made notes on these









emerging patterns, which would formulate the eventual "codes" used for analysis after all

of the interviews had been conducted (Hutchinson, 1997; Merriam, 1998).

The emergence of patterns in my data was one of the most exciting aspects of this

study. Because the online partnership was designed to provide prospective teachers with

an opportunity to perform tasks traditionally included within the role of "teacher," but in

a setting that was not a part of the traditional context of that role, I suspected that part of

the information gathered through interviews would be about the technology itself. This

was the case, and one early example of an emerging pattern was of negative attitudes

toward technology, especially when technology was perceived to be "replacing" human

interaction:

I do not think that teachers should rely on online feedback when they communicate
with students, but that it should be combined with classroom instruction.

In my initial analysis, this comment was coded as a "belief' as it clearly expressed

a belief held by the participant about teachers. There were many statements of belief in

the interview data and in subsequent analyses I refined the code for this statement to

include "belief about teaching," and finally "belief about teaching and the role of

technology integration in instruction." I coded this particular example as

beliefs>teaching>technology in TAMS Analyzer (for an example of a coded transcript,

see Appendix C).

As all four interview sets were conducted and transcribed, I imported each

transcript into the TAMS Analyzer program and began the coding process. Typing new

"codes" into TAMS Analyzer is not difficult, but as I discussed earlier, I found that it

interfered with the natural flow of reading through and looking at emerging themes in my

data, so I decided to print out each protocol and make my first coding "pass" by hand. As









I read through each transcript, I made marginal notations recognizing emerging themes

and patterns, assigning codes that fit Lincoln and Guba's (1985) criteria of being both

heuristic and "interpretable in the absence of any additional information" (Merriam,

1998).

Analysis of documents

The process of analysis for the documents collected in this study was much like

that of the interview analysis. In the instances where I did not have an electronic copy of

the particular document, such as the reflection papers written by the participants, I used

ReadIris, a commercial Optical Character Recognition (OCR) computer program, to scan

the text into my computer, which I then imported into TAMS Analyzer. Once the

document was in TAMS, I analyzed the content of that document exactly as I analyzed

the content of the transcribed interview protocols.

I analyzed the reflective writing documents after the analysis of most of the

interviews, as these documents were not available until after the second (and for two

participants, after the third) interviews. Therefore, some of the codes used in the

reflection papers were the same as those used in the interview protocols. However, there

were some fundamental differences in the reflection papers as data sources and the

interview sources. Primary among the differences was that of audience. In the

interviews, the participants were speaking directly to me. I was very clear as to the

purpose of the interviews and what I was interesting in looking at in the study. The

reflection papers also had a different purpose. The professor of the language and

composition course assigned the reflection papers as a part of the overall course

curriculum, and the purpose in writing was not to provide me, the researcher, with insight

into the participants' experiences in the online writing partnership. In fact, much of the









reflection papers' focus was on aspects of the course other than the partnership. For this

data set, they had a different audience and purpose. My analysis of these documents had

to consider that there could be different levels of candidness in addressing the online

partnership. Indeed, there were some instances where the participants' attitudes toward

and experiences with the partnership were expressed differently than in the interviews. In

these instances, new codes were needed. For the remainder of the documents, such as

student papers and emails, I incorporated them into data sets as they came to me. The

majority of these secondary sources (see Table 3-1) were used as contextual data and for

the purposes of triangulation.

Authenticity and Internal Consistency

"Validity" and "reliability" are terms commonly associated with quantitative

research. For all research, however, there is the need for the study to be plausible, to be

authentic and internally consistent. There are a number of strategies that can be used to

ensure that a researcher has done everything he or she can to safeguard that authenticity

and consistency. I used four basic strategies provided by Merriam (1998): triangulation,

member checks, peer examination, and examining my own biases as researcher.

The main data source for this study of participants' self-reported experiences was

comprised of interviews of the five participants. Triangulation of the participants'

perceptions of events and their reflections on experiences within the online partnership

was accomplished with the documentary data sets, such as the essays written by their

high-school partners (with embedded comments from the graduate students), that

reflected actual feedback and participation within a teacher/student relationship. In this

way each of my guiding questions was addressed by at least two separate sources of data

(see Table 3-1).









Because of the number of conducted interviews and the opportunity to do member

checks on patterns and themes as they emerged in conversations, I was able to check the

reliability of my analysis by talking to my subjects about what I had observed from their

statements, asking if they felt my analysis accurately reflected their experiences and

perceptions, and receiving qualifying information when necessary.

I enlisted the aid of fellow doctoral students in order to provide inter-rater

reliability. In particular, a doctoral student familiar with this study was given

representative transcripts of all interviews of one of the participants in this study, along

with the parameters I used in determining codes for analysis. He was instructed to read

through the protocols and provide his own analysis of the data using the same criteria and

we met to discuss and look at the two separate analyses. Each analysis proved strikingly

similar, with over three-quarters of the code sets overlapping and almost a quarter bearing

similar if not identical wording.

Researcher Bias

Nearly a decade ago, I completed the very program in which four of the five

participants in this study were enrolled. The completion of this program contributes in no

small part to my self-identity and is a part of my life that I am proud of, not only in

having completed the degree and become a classroom teacher of English, but also in my

natural affinity and pride in my alma mater.

Additionally, in the years prior to this study, I participated as a doctoral student on

the instructional side of the program and was vested not only in the success of my

students at that time, but in the success of the program itself. There were multiple levels

to which I was personally invested in the setting of this study. Primarily among these

was my work in helping to design and implement the online partnership. In the first year









of the online writing partnership, I helped to establish the logistics of pairing high-school

and graduate students for the purpose writing mentorships. At that time, the high-school

students involved were from the same program at the same community college as in this

study. Later, I was employed by the community college in the high-school dual-

enrollment program, and the high-school students in subsequent partnerships were my

own.

In order to account for the issue of bias that naturally arises in any researcher, but

especially in my case as an alumni of and former graduate assistant in one aspect of the

study setting, and as the instructor of the high-school students involved in the partnership,

I took steps to address the issue of bias. Primary among these steps was the keeping of a

reflection journal, where I recorded my thoughts about myriad elements of the data

collection and analysis process. This journal provided a number of benefits. First, it

proved an invaluable tool in the constant and recursive nature of the grounded theory

approach of this study. Toward researcher bias, it "kept me honest" in the sense that in

writing about my feelings concerning various aspects of the study as it progressed, it

drew my attention toward those areas that might affect my ability to look honestly at a

particular data set and helped me to recognize those areas of my understanding that were

influenced by the role of teacher and/or alumni in me, rather than one of an investigator.

Although the focus of the study was on the phenomenon of the Online Writing

Partnership itself, and specifically through the experiences of five graduate student

participants, I understood that there could be the appearance of a conflict of interest. My

focus in this study was never on the high-school students that I taught and were involved

in this study, so for the purpose of interviewing the high-school participants, I enlisted the









aid of a fellow doctoral student, who conducted the interviews using the protocols I had

designed. As a colleague in both doctoral programs and the high-school dual-enrollment

program, this doctoral candidate was familiar with the study proposal and was able to

interview the students in a satisfactory manner.

Summary

I conducted qualitative case studies in order to explore research questions regarding the

experiences of five master's level graduate students in an Online Writing Partnership.

The participants were enrolled in a language and composition course and were paired via

online means with a dual enrolled high-school student at a local community college. To

explore the research questions I:

Conducted semiformal and informal interviews with the five participants;

Collected documentary data from a variety of sources, including emails, reflective
writings, and student papers;

Observed selected participants in internship classrooms;

Arranged for semiformal interviews with participants' high-school partners;

Conducted semiformal interviews with persons ancillary to the study but involved
in the participants' university programs.

Authenticity of the study was aided by data triangulation and member checks, while

the internal consistency of my analysis was enhanced through inter-rater reliability

checks and through an awareness of and attention to researcher bias.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of four preservice teachers

and one practicing teacher in an Online Writing Partnership, and to see how those

experiences contribute to a broader understanding of how preservice teachers preparing

to enter the field envision their role in the teaching of writing, as well as to explore the

influence/experiences of an online context on their learning. This partnership paired

graduate education students with high-school juniors for the purpose of helping to

develop the high-school students' writing, while at the same time providing opportunities

for those enrolled in a graduate-level language arts methods class to begin to apply theory

and pedagogy in an authentic, if virtual, setting.

The assignment of the Online Writing Partnership was for each graduate student

to act as a writing mentor to a high-school student. There were few "written-in-stone"

requirements of the assignment, other than to help the high-school students improve in

her/his writing. At minimum, the graduate students were expected to provide written

feedback to drafts of three papers sent to them by their high-school partner and generally

to attempt to establish the kind of rapport they felt would be helpful in writing

instruction.

The primary focus of this study is to look at the context of an online learning

environment and to examine how the participants constructed meaning through the

partnership as it related to the teaching of writing. As discussed in Chapter 2, context has

two interrelated aspects that are important for looking at any phenomenon and









particularly this one. First is the "surround" context, which in this case includes

primarily the participants themselves and the online environment in which they were

operating; second is the "weave" context, or the relational property between the

individual threads of context that is actively constructed by the individuals involved

along with their assorted histories and previous experiences teaching and learning.

A Metaphor

To better illustrate the context of this partnership, imagine that you hold in two

hands a piece of cloth. From arms' length the cloth has the appearance of unity, of a

single, whole object with particular attributes. There is a great deal you can tell

superficially about a single piece of cloth, such as the color you see, the texture you feel,

perhaps even a distinguishing smell. However, on closer inspection you can tell that the

cloth, while having the appearance of a single object, is made up of a multitude of

interwoven parts. By pulling the cloth toward your eyes you can see a criss-crossing of

threads that form the fabric before you. Each of these threads, while part of the whole,

has characteristics of its own. Looking at the edge of the fabric, you can even see that

those threads could come loose, separating from the whole.

Pulling at one of the threads, you can see more elements that illuminate just how

the cloth is constructed. You might note just how many threads there are on average in

any given inch, how they are woven together, or that each thread is slightly different in

hue, giving the cloth as a whole the impression of a single, particular color. Remove one

thread completely from the cloth, and upon very close inspection you notice that even

that smaller piece of the fabric is the result of many, smaller fibers twisted together. With

the naked eye alone, you can see the complexity of a "simple," everyday item.










Table 4-1. A comparison summary of data across cases.


Experiences
during
partnership


Libby
Offered an
opportunity to
reflect on how
to work with
high-school
writers;
learned to
view revision
as part of
teaching
philosophy


Claire
Qualified to
help as
someone
"trained in
writing;"
partnership a
good
opportunity to
gain practical
experience


Nikki
Excited to
inspire
partner as
someone
"known for
their
writing";
frustrated by
partner's lack
of motivation


Juliet
Nervous
about
"catching"
grammar as a
non-English
major; reader
approach to
partner's
writing;
listening
stance


Kate
Approached as
a student rather
than teacher;
no sense of
relationship
with partner;
partnership not
a priority;
tension with
partner


Writing as a
product-
generating
process;
writing as self-
discovery;
response as
direction for
revision/editing

Tech. useful in
conjunction
with
conventional
approaches







Student-teacher
relationship
paramount;
transparency of
technology;
immediacy of
communication


Beliefs
about
teaching
writing







Attitudes
toward
technology









Contextual
threads
related to
success of
partnership


Comfort level
with theory
relating to
task; sense of
identity within
relationships


Writing
ability as
inspiration;
expertise in
form/function
of writing;
personality of
teacher


Prior
experience in
pre-K
classroom;
accessibility
of technology;
ability to
connect to
writing.


In presenting the findings from this study, I use this metaphor of a piece of cloth

and the threads that form the whole to provide organization for a very messy human


Too much Difficulty Teacher as Elements of
pressure to envisioning expert, teaching
"get it right"; self as expert, authority; writing are
desire to "be teacher; teaching same
there" as uncomfortable writing is regardless of
support as an largely age/grade;
mechanism authority inspiration writing as
figure in storytelling
writing

Very Love/hate Distance Can be
comfortable relationship teaching as overwhelming
with comm.. with inevitable; in large
tech. in computers; harder to quantities;
social/familial proud of inspire accessibility
contexts; ability to developing is important
trouble-shoot writers when
not
physically
present


Ability to
communicate
clearly;
distance as a
benefit;
immediacy
was absent;
relationship
adequate









endeavor, to paraphrase Dyson and Genishi (2005). This metaphor stems largely from

Lindfors' (1991) own metaphoric notions of context, discussed in chapter 2, of

"surround" and "weave." Ultimately my interest is in the cloth as a whole, and how

online partnerships may contribute to our understanding of how the teaching of writing

can be approached through communication technologies that are part of the threads that

hold the piece together. But understanding the whole requires examining not only the

subsequent parts, but also how those parts fit together; a handful of threads by themselves

do not constitute cloth. They must be put together, constructed, and the act of

construction is as much a part of the whole as the threads themselves.

The first part of this chapter presents the threads of this metaphoric cloth. Each

participant, like threads in woven fabric, had her own unique existence within the

partnership at the heart of this study, and so I present first those threads individually as

rich, thick descriptions of each of the participants' experiences working with high-school

writers through verbatim interviews and other documentary evidence, such as reflective

writings and emails. These descriptions constitute the threads of the fabric, which

together form the "surround" aspect of context; each individual participant "thread" in

this study brought with them a unique set of experiences and beliefs, summarized in

Table 4-1, which surrounded them and influenced how they would experience the

partnership.

The second part of this chapter presents a view the fabric itself, consisting of

those aspects of the cloth held in common by its constituent threads and the ways in

which they are woven together and relate to each other to form a picture of this particular

experience that was at once individual (each participant engaged in the activity of the









partnership individually) and collective (the assignment was part of a class they

participated in together), and occurred in cyberspace.

Both sections one and two address the following research questions:

1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the
teaching profession have in a distance, online partnership with secondary writers?

2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers' views of
teaching and specifically teaching writing?

3. What influences on the partnership or on the participants appear to exist from
experience with and attitude toward technology? In what way did these attitudes
affect the partnership/participants?

4. What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English
teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership?

Part one of this chapter addresses these questions as they relate to each participant

in the study. Each thread follows the order of questions given above. Part two addresses

the case of the online partnership as a whole, also in the order given above.

Kate

Of all the students enrolled in the class that made up the pool of participants in this

study, Kate was one member I had hoped would participate. At the beginning of the

semester, I entered the classroom prepared to talk about the partnership, explain how it

was intended to work, and answer questions that any of the students might have. Kate,

from the outset, had many questions. In my research journal I noted my doubts that she

would in fact agree to be a participant in my study, because many of her questions

seemed tinged with doubt as to the efficacy of the Online Writing Partnership. The

professor of the language and composition methods course and I, along with another

doctoral student, established the Online Writing Partnership a few years earlier with the

goal of providing both sets of students (graduate-level preservice teachers on one end and









high-school students on the other) an opportunity to receive help with their respective

learning. The high-school students would get an additional set of "eyes" to read and

respond to their writing as it was developing, and the preservice teachers would

experience in a limited way what it was like to work with a student writer while they

learned about the teaching of writing.

Kate spoke to me briefly outside of class when my presentation was over. She

had more questions, mainly about the nature of my work with students in the high-school

dual-enrollment program that formed one end of the partnership. I was glad to talk to

her, still hoping that she might be someone willing to explore with me the nature of

mentoring writers online. When I finally had a chance to look through the collected

release forms I had handed out that night, I was happy to see her name on the list to

participate; I thought she would make an especially thoughtful participant

Kate's Experiences in the Partnership

Kate and I met for our first interview shortly after the partnership began in earnest.

Kate sat across from me at a conference table, at ease and personable, as she would for

most of the sessions when we met to talk. My initial impressions were of a person who

was comfortable with who she was, sure of what she was doing. It came as a surprise

when her first comments regarding the partnership were about the intimidation she felt.

I was pretty intimidated by the idea of limiting my critique to language [in the
online, virtual context] because to me, um, critiquing writing is, it's kind of ironic,
but it's so much more than the words. And you can...critiquing writing has so
much...it's the way you deliver the critique and the way it comes across face-to-face
and your general relationship with the student and so I was really kinda intimidated
by the idea of limiting myself to the words on the page and finding, "how am I
going to do this?" ...My frame of mind going into it was "wow, this is going to be
really hard, but a good exercise for me in this thing."









During this initial visit, I felt that overall Kate was having a positive experience in

the partnership. By the time of our next meeting, her experiences with the partnership

had changed. Enough time had passed in the process of the partnership that she had been

able to form opinions as to the success of the partnership itself, or to the lack thereof. As

she had anticipated, it was difficult for Kate to get past the grammatical and mechanical

aspects of her partner's writing:

When my student emailed me her drafts, I found myself at a loss and unable to
provide constructive feedback because the errors that filled her paper required a
back-to-the-basics approach to writing.

Moreover, she was frustrated with the partnership in general, and her partner

specifically. Largely this was due to what Kate felt was the lack of opportunity for a

relationship to develop. Email was the primary way Kate and her partner were

communicating, and even that was limited. For Kate, there needed to be some element of

real-time communication, rather than the back and forth of emailed messages punctuated

by substantial blocks of time without communicating. I wondered about her apparent

dissatisfaction. I asked about her use of the other technologies made available through

the partnership, in particular the chat rooms, which allowed for real time conversation.

Her response was that she did not use them. In fact, while she acknowledged that the

other available technologies would have been useful and would have made for a better

experience, she did not feel that her obligations to the assignment of the partnership

warranted the use of these other technologies:

... it wasn't set up, it wasn't easy to [use] and there really wasn't any need, like I
felt like what I needed to do for the [assignment], my requirement was taken care
just by putting the comments and there wasn't really anything to discuss...

By the time of our third interview, these beliefs and frustrations concerning the

partnership were pronounced. By her own admission, she had done nothing beyond what









she saw as the minimum required for the assignment, and at the same time had become

increasingly frustrated at her felt lack of success in "getting through" to her partner in

regard to her partner's writing. Kate seemed aware of this contradiction to a degree, and

acknowledged that there was a disconnect between the amount of emphasis placed in her

methods course on the partnership, and the amount of time that she actually spent on the

partnership itself. Kate was very blunt in her assessment of how much effort she felt

compelled to give in mentoring her student writer:

We had so much to do last semester that this seemed like such a small part of it, yet
there was such an emphasis put on it, in the class? Like, respond to your
experience. In terms that we actually spent on it, there wasn't much to respond to.
Most of us were like, "I can write a five page essay if you want, on this experience,
but I'm writing an essay about thirty minutes of my life."

There was a point during this interview when I felt my own defensiveness rising. I

noted in my research journal that "she's rather passive aggressive in her critiques. [It's

clear that] she's using this [interview] as an opportunity to voice her disapproval."

However, Kate always strove for balance and was never critical of the partnership

without being reflective. For each problem she identified in the partnership, whether it

related to how she viewed her participation in it or how it was structured, she considered

the lessons learned at the time, and how those lessons fit into her understanding of what

she would need to do as a teacher. For example, in reflecting on all the practicum

experiences she had during the semester, Kate framed her discussion in terms of how the

writing activities she had observed might have been affected, both negatively and

positively, through the inclusion of an online element.

Part of Kate's frustration with the partnership stemmed from her belief that

relationships formed the core of educational practice. Kate simply did not feel she had a

relationship with her partner in any real sense:









Throughout the online partnership, I found myself very limited, in that not only did
I not have a role in this scenario, I did not have a relationship with the student.
Since writing can be so personal, it is imperative that the teacher considers other
factors like mood, attitude, personal situation, and the interest level of the student
when commenting on student writing.

Relationships were obviously important to Kate, but she did little to try and

establish one with her student. In her reflection paper after the partnership was complete,

Kate discussed the paucity of communication between her and her partner, admitting that

she "wanted to write to her [her partner] more," but did not do so, stating in her

interviews that she did not feel compelled to do more than was required of her, because

of the relatively low level of "work product" required by the assignment. Kate seemed to

grasp what she needed to do as a writing coach, but she was stymied by her inability to

develop what she considered was a needed rapport with her partner. Kate's perception of

her role in the overall writing assignment her partner was working on also impeded her

inability to move outside the role of college student and assume the role of writing coach,

a role which she felt required more authority than she believed herself to possess during

the partnership.

The friction between Kate and her partner escalated throughout the semester,

culminating in what I call the "sugar-coating incident." Kate had stated early on that it

was a challenge avoiding the grammatical and mechanical errors exhibited in her

partner's writing, but true to her word and the instructions for the assignment, Kate

avoided becoming an "editor" and dealt primarily with what she viewed as improving

"the substance" of her partner's work. Her comments, while largely critical, were

directed at the larger structure of the high-school student's writing, and Kate gave her

partner very specific suggestions on ways she could "re-vision" the various places that









Kate felt exhibited "poor writing." Her comments were polite, but were aimed at areas of

her partner's weakness, and Kate withheld any praise until the very end:

Overall, I like what you are trying to do here. The second persona approach has the
potential to be amazing and can really make your paper powerful. However, you
need to decide what the purpose of the paper is. Are you trying to recount a history
of Avatar, are you doing a commercial for the process and this is a testimonial
about the power or is it an instruction manual on how to use a process to improve
daily outlooks on life? You may be trying to do too much. You have a great start
here with some really huge ideas. With some time and planning, this could
convince even the most stubborn critic to give Avatar a try. I can't wait to see the
final draft!!!

Her partner did not respond in a positive way. After the last paper was returned to

her partner, Kate received an email from her partner, detailing her views of Kate's

responses:

thank you for helping me out with these papers. i took your comments on the
second paper a little harsh haha they were more like revisions [sic] than suggestions
i guess. i enjoyed the ideas that you were trying to get across but it took me a while
to get past "what i thought was things I was doing wrong in stead [sic] of things i
could improve on" i think you have wonderful ideas and i'm really glad that you've
done something like avatar [a self help program that was the subject of the paper in
question] I think that makes people so much more aware. you had really intelligent
though through [sic] comments and i enjoyed that, but at least in my position you
might want to consider sugar coating them a little hehe. sorry if this sounds mean i
just figured youd want some feed back [sic] for teaching. good luck

This email really got under Kate's skin and she mentioned the "sugar coat"

comment specifically both in her interviews at various points, as well as in her final

reflective essay for the language methods course. Attached to the bottom of the above

email was a copy of the final paper, and in it Kate noted that many of the suggestions she

had given her partner were not, in her view, even considered. This was very frustrating

for Kate. I asked her about the "sugar-coating" incident, and her answer revealed a

clearer picture of Kate's beliefs about the nature of her response to her partner's writing.









Moreover, it revealed Kate's expectations of what a student should do with a teacher's

feedback to their writing:

At the same time I kind of wonder if I should, if that would be an effective way to
get through or... cause I kinda sugar-coated things in the first draft and a lot of
them, a lot of the ideas were omitted, and they weren't considered. And because
they [the comments she left] were "oh, you're doing all this stuff really great so
let's continue..." and so in this one I think I made a concerted attempt to try not to
sugar-coat things so that maybe there would be some change? Maybe if I say this,
and I say well, "and it's not so good that I'm going to say a lot of good things about
it because I really want you to change it."

For Kate, it was important for the student to not only read the responses she gave,

but to incorporate them into the revised draft. Her partner, by and large, did not do this,

and Kate felt that this was due largely to hard feelings held by her partner in response to

what the partner felt were "harsh" critiques. This incident occurred at the very end of the

partnership, and there was no further contact between Kate and her partner, although

Kate expressed in her reflective writing that she did wish to talk with her more.

Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing

In talking about her beliefs regarding educational philosophy and her role as

teacher, two comments stand out as being particularly well articulated and synoptic of her

statements throughout the interview process. One was in response to a straightforward

inquiry into her philosophy of education as a whole; the other to an inquiry into her

beliefs of her particular role within the classroom.

Kate presented a clearly articulated set of beliefs concerning what teaching was and

her role within the educational environment. In each of the participants' first interview

sessions (approximately one month into the semester), I asked them to describe their

teaching philosophy, in their own words, and it was clear from Kate's answer, given









immediately and without hesitation, that for her, teaching was largely centered around

relationships:

... for me I see the classroom as an opportunity to be a guide on this journey and on
the discovery of um, the voice, it's kind of psychological. And, helping students,
well creating an environment that's comfortable for students to express themselves
and to read things they identify with so that they can do that. So that they can
participate in society, so they can have working relationships with families and
friends and to use reading and writing as a method for self-discovery and, and
relationships? I guess? And to model, to model good relationships for them, so
they can see the way to conduct yourself in a business-like way with certain people
and then their relationship with peers, kind of just a microcosm of what they're
going to experience with the tools, are the books and writing to, to encourage that.
To make you go further and, kind of, guided preparation for life.

This view of the purpose of education dovetailed nicely into her view of the role of

a teacher in the classroom. While her answers presumed particular notions of what

effective relationships were and appropriate ways of social engagement, her approach

was far from dogmatic. Rather, she saw her role

As the introducerr?" [laughs] Can I say [that]? The, as the person who's
introducing the students to the ideas, presenting the material, presenting problems
and facilitating the discovery but not necessary the core, um, more, more like, I'm
learning too. This is something that is interesting to me. I think [the professor]
does it a lot. She's just, something that's interesting me and so I want to know if it
interests you, and it's a lot of "let's take on this thing together?" And I think that's
a probable way to look at it in an English classroom especially because it's so much
about world-view. Instead of saying "this is your world-view and this [is] the way
you need to look at this," it's "this is the way you could look at a situation" or "how
do you look at a situation?" Because it's so subjective, there's not the right and
wrong, and it's gotta be, for me, a, um just kind of planting ideas, and wait...and
strategies to tackle problems more than necessarily problem-solvers.

Kate viewed the student teacher relationship as one of coordination and

cooperation, where the teacher acts as a guide, but also as a participant in the process of

discovery rather than an arbiter of collected fact. The notion of the teacher as a

participant guide, with student choice and motivation playing an important role, was

evidenced in her critique at the end of the semester of an in-class practicum experience in









a local middle school. During this classroom experience, she saw students react

negatively to a writing assignment because, in Kate's view, "the teacher... stripped the

ability to choose a topic from the student whereby stripping away some of the

motivation."

From our first meeting Kate expressed very definite ideas of what writing was, and

what her job as a writing mentor/teacher ought to be. So much of her background (she

began her undergraduate education as a journalism student with an emphasis on editing)

was focused on the "ins and outs" of the structure of writing that she knew it would be

difficult for her to focus on other aspects of the writing process. In her view, the fact that

the mentoring she was being asked to do was facilitated by communication technologies

such as the Internet only made the task more difficult, as she would be limited to the

"text" of the writing and would not have physical access to the student doing the writing.

Kate believed that this would limit her to seeing only the words of the writer and not the

writing partner, and she understood that it was expected that she should not act as an

editor. She felt that she had done a fairly good job up to that point of not "nit-pick[ing]

over actual language things but over 'what's behind it.'"

Although Kate employed a variety of ways to describe the writing process, each

suggested that for her, writing is a process of transcribing one's thoughts, rather than a

process that contributes to thinking itself. During one interview, she stated that her

"whole goal is to go in, and go in there and show that writing is nothing more than

stringing your thoughts together in a creative way," but much of what she said about the

writing process in relation to the classroom reflected a view that there was a "right" and a

"wrong" way to string these thoughts together. This perspective led to a degree of









friction between Kate and her partner. Yet despite this tendency to view writing as a

mechanical activity, there were aspects of Kate's view of writing that placed heavy

emphasis on the writer her/himself.

For Kate, writing can be "so personal" in part because she views writing as

revelatory of the writer's very identity. Writing was viewed as a process by Kate because

she saw it as a self-discovery process. She articulated on a number of occasions that in

her mind, writing and self-discovery are intricately related. In explaining the difference

between assisting someone with physical learning (the example she used is learning to

ride a bike) and learning that "has to do with the mind," Kate said the following:

the point is you wouldn't need to nurture as much because it's [learning to ride a
bike] not an activity that's related to the person's like, mind and their... I guess
writing somehow's got to like, it's related to the psyche and just the way
they're...you can tell different things about a person the way they even, I think,
structure sentences in different situations and how we talk to different people.

Kate considered writing, even at a structural level, as a window into the essence of

a person, and therefore it came as no surprise that relationships between teachers and

students would be the central concept for her of important contextual threads related to

the successful teaching of writing.

As a subject of instruction, writing for Kate was an amalgam of "nurturing" and

"guidance," yet she viewed her response toward writing in very separate and distinct

categories that favor the "guidance" aspect. One type of response, which Kate called

"feedback," is no more than empty encouragement, designed to bolster a student's

confidence in writing, but with little aim toward improving that writing. Kate felt that

"feedback" was the type of response to student writing required of her through the

partnership. In her words, the partnership was an opportunity for the graduate students to

"give 'em a little feedback, but not a lot of critique." Critique, in Kate's view, was when









the teacher provided a student with an assessment of the success of the writing and

reasons for why it was or wasn't "working," along with suggestions for improvement.

While not explicitly stated in any of her interviews, it became clear over time that Kate

expected her suggestions to be adopted into her partner's writing revisions. When they

were not, as in the case of the "sugar-coat incident," Kate felt that the student wasn't

listening to her.

Technology as a Means to an End

Not all aspects of the partnership were negative for Kate, and she demonstrated a

genuine recognition of the benefits of certain technologies, such as the comment feature

of Microsoft Word, where reviewers can embed comments into the word processing

document in ways similar to marginal notations that can be written on physical papers.

Yet, it would be a stretch to call Kate a technophile.

When Kate complemented the partnership and recognized its value, it was usually

in a "backhanded" manner. She would often hail the "efficacy" of using a word

processor for the correction of grammatical and mechanical mistakes, and note that

reading a student's paper on a computer, away from the student herself, a teacher was

permitted more focus. This was due in part because it "dramatically cut back on

extraneous conversation unrelated to writing instruction." Yet this acknowledgement of

the benefits of online writing instruction belied what she repeatedly mentioned as a

shortcoming of the partnership, that there was no venue to allow for a relationship to

develop between teacher and student. Without a relationship, without a sense of trust

between teacher and student, there could be no conversation about the paper, which was

how Kate preferred to think of her approach to mentoring writers. She needed only to









point at the misinterpretation of her remarks on her partner's paper as evidence of her

intent not translating in its electronic form.

Technology was not the enemy in Kate's eyes. Quite the contrary, not only had

Kate used communication technologies frequently in her own education, she admitted to

using them almost exclusively for things like drafting and revising papers. Early in her

interviews, she stated:

Um, I'm very comfortable with technology and I really like the idea of having, I
mean if it were up to me you'd have computers in every room and do all of our
editing on computers with everybody's paper in front of us [laughs] and do peer
editing, and there'd be a way for us to, to send it back and forth, and it would
reduce paper but, it just doesn't seem possible. But as far as this project, I liked it a
lot.

Moreover, Kate had enjoyed taking writing classes in a networked environment.

She described the experience in our first interview session:

I really like the idea of the networked writing environment, and I've had really
good experiences writing and receiving feedback. It was in a university setting of
course where everybody was able to sit in front a computer and it was all done
anonymously. And, you wouldn't, you didn't put your name on your paper you
just presented it and then the whole class could make comments and...it's kinda
class accountability for who's going to provide good and bad feedback. And it was
a good, it was really good for me

However, Kate's comments suggest that despite her experiences and beliefs about

technology, that computers and other forms of communication technology had their

place, and in the case of integrating technology with education, that place was in the

conventional school classroom. What she described as a very positive experience using

computers in writing was within a networked environment that was bounded by four

walls, in much the same way as any traditional classroom environment.

One aspect of context that is particularly important for technology uses is the

notion of transparency, or the level to which the technology goes unnoticed in the normal









use of that technology. For Kate, there was a decided lack of transparency in the

partnership on multiple levels. First, Kate was all too aware of the technology

confronting her during her participation in the partnership. Largely this was because the

contextual threads that establish relationships, admittedly her biggest factor in being a

teacher, were absent. She was being asked to do what in her mind was impossible, to

mentor someone in writing without actually seeing them.

Technology was never the culprit for Kate per se, but rather technology appeared to

lack the inherent contextual features that she felt necessary for a successful mentoring

relationship to develop. Immediacy was primary among these. For Kate, the lack of

immediacy inherent in email was detrimental to having a conversation about writing with

her student. Although she acknowledged the availability of the chat rooms and bulletin

boards, she also acknowledged having never attempted to use them. She liked the "post-

it" comment function of Word because it mimicked her idea of critique, which was part

of her already formed notion of writing responses. Technology use for Kate was almost

always discussed with qualifiers such as "complement," "conjunction," and

"supplement." Through her statements in interviews and reflective writing, it seemed

Kate's view of the partnership, at least in part because of the technology, was that of an

exercise in preparation for the "real thing," that of teaching writing in a physical

classroom.

Relationships form the core of Kate's teaching philosophy, and technology seemed

to depersonalize every aspect of the partnership for her. While she did not hesitate to

mention this particular dissatisfaction in the interviews, it was perhaps most effectively









illustrated through a note she included at the very beginning of one of the papers her

partner sent.

The comments are by Kate Conwell, not Aaron Ellington... sorry about the name
confusion, I have to edit this on his computer...

Microsoft Word has, as part of its comment function, a feature that places the name

of the person leaving a comment at the top of the comment box. However, the program

automatically inserts the name of the person to whom the software is registered, not

necessarily the person using the program at that particular time. In this case, Kate was

using the computer of a friend, and the comments that showed up in the margins

trumpeted a name that would have been entirely unfamiliar to her partner. Not only was

the process of providing online feedback creating what in Kate's view was detrimental

distance between writing partners, but now her very identity was confused as a result of

the technology used.

Partnership as Flawed Success

Kate had largely negative experiences in the online partnership, by her own

admission. This negative assessment stemmed largely from her perception that there was

no tangible relationship between her and her high-school partner. For Kate, the need for

a relationship seemed paramount, but her notions of relationship had very definite

contextual elements that did not overlap with the contextual threads that defined her

experience with her partner.

I know only what the student wished me to know from a short introductory
paragraph, I have read two writing samples, and exchanged three emails that were
no more than three lines each. That is not a relationship! Moreover, since
relationships are the key to instruction, especially writing instruction that is so
frequently connected to personal issues and worldviews, I would need more than a
"book jacket" familiarity with the student to provide worthwhile feedback.









For Kate, technology at the heart of the partnership was helpful with certain aspects

of mentoring student writers, such as focusing the partners on the writing and cutting

down on time spent discussing extraneous, possibly tangential subjects. On the other

hand, the freedom of extemporaneous communication that can lead toward "off-topic"

discussion was also responsible for what Kate considered to be the real power of face-to-

face instruction, the ability to rely on "so much more than the words" written by either

party:

Just because there's something about the relationship that can't.. well, when you're
teaching writing or critiquing something about the way they're presenting their
thoughts [it] can come across as if you're actually critiquing their thoughts. And
so, it [being face-to-face] creates kind of a buffer, where you can say, "you know
this is what I'm not doing..." there's just something with voice inflection and,
maybe that's just a female thing, but there's just something about...being able to
soften the blow I guess, kind of, when you're not being, or even like facial
expressions, you're not trying to say it in a way that would be offensive. And not
that you wanted to say anything that could be taken offensively to the student
anyway but... something where it's not just, almost what we do physically, it kind
of explains what we're saying often times and so it...it makes more sense to me,
but that's just my learning style, and so I would probably tend to teach that way,
too.

Ironically, when giving her own assessment of the partnership after all was said

and done, Kate agreed that the experience was a positive one. This was the case because

she felt that the partnership had provided her with a problem to solve, a problem that

required her to examine the nature of relationship between teacher and student in the

teaching of writing. It focused her attention also on the technology of the partnership and

made her think of how that technology could be used in the course of teaching writing.

In nearly each case, the technology was reported to have limited usefulness, and then

only in addition to the traditional face-to-face work done in the classroom.

Context was a big factor for Kate, especially because she felt she could not fully

immerse herself in it. Rather, through her own admission, she spent a great deal of time









trying to imagine the context she felt was most appropriate for mentoring a student

writer, rather than acting in the context she was in. The context Kate felt was necessary

was that of the traditional classroom.

Libby

When I began to seek study participants, I sent those graduate students who were

interested a link to an online survey I had set up to get some idea of their knowledge of

the technology involved in the Online Writing Partnership. The survey consisted of a

series of questions asking about the frequency of use of various computer technologies

such as chat rooms, the Internet, and email. Each item included a scale from one to five,

with five representing frequent use of and high comfort level with that particular

technology. Ultimately this survey was not used as part of the participant selection

process; however, the results of the survey showed that nearly all the students used email

regularly, but few other items were ranked as "fives" by anyone other than Libby, who

averaged five over the entire survey.

As we were getting ready to begin the interview process, I asked Libby about her

experiences with computers. She had been "online" since high school and had been

around computers for as long as she could remember. As we talked, she mentioned that

she was not at all intimidated by computers or technology in general, and I noted in my

research journal that her approach to unfamiliar technologies was the same as mine:

Libby simply jumped in and figured out what she needed to know about a given

technology. As a result, Libby had incorporated email and instant messaging (the

sending of messages in real time with one or more persons) into her everyday life in ways

far surpassing any of the other study participants. She readily acknowledged that there

were some friends with whom she maintained intimate relationships entirely through









online communication technologies. I wondered how Libby's comfort with online

technologies might manifest in her experiences during the partnership and was glad she

agreed to participate in the study.

Experiences in the Partnership

For our initial interview, Libby and I met in a conference room at the university

where she was enrolled as a student in a preservice teacher preparation program. Libby

came into the conference room smiling, apparently excited to be there. The Online

Writing Partnership had just begun and she was very pleased with what she viewed as a

great opportunity for growth, both as a teacher and a user of technology. While sharing

her initial thoughts leading up to the partnership, she drew on her experiences as a

substitute teacher to explain her general ease with the prospect of working with high-

school students in an online environment:

Well, I mean I'm really comfortable with people, at almost any level, but um.. .and
teaching, and substituting, I think, you know, thank god I was already in grad
school, but besides that it made me have really thick skin, so...when I heard that
we were going to be doing it, I guess always I measure it like that [laughing]. I'm
like, this could never be like substituting because, you know, all I could possibly do
was learn how to give suggestions for papers, improvement? You know the goal is
to help my student, I have a female student, so the goal was to help her, so I mean,
there's no fear on my part, all I have to do is learn from the experience. So I didn't
really have anxiety, I think I looked at it more like, you know, "I hope I can be
supportive enough to my student" [laughing].

Libby was consistently focused on her ability to help her student during the

partnership and rarely expressed concern about the technology involved. From her

perspective, she told me that this absence of anxiety toward the technical end of the

partnership stemmed from Libby's "technological family" and her high comfort level

with computers and using communicative technologies.









During the partnership, Libby experienced a few issues with the technology itself,

although she was quick to point out that these were, in her view, common problems and

at least in part due to conditions beyond anyone's control. One such condition

undeniably beyond her control was the weather. During the semester in which this

partnership occurred, the area surrounding the university was beset by multiple high-level

hurricanes. On a number of occasions classes were cancelled at the university and at all

area schools. Much of the county experienced power outages that lasted days and

sometimes weeks. While these circumstances were minimal for those nearest the

university, such as Libby and the rest of the participants, the inclement weather was a

factor that Libby identified as affecting the fluidity of her developing relationship with

her partner.

Hurricanes aside, Libby made every effort to take advantage of the communicative

technologies provided for all participants in the partnership. She was one of the few

study participants to actually use the chat rooms, albeit to no fruition. Libby was

frustrated at her and her partner's inability to connect online in such a manner, but the

experience didn't sway Libby from her belief that online chatting would be of great use

in talking with students about their writing. Some study participants felt that the

exclusively online format of the partnership limited what they could do for their partner.

For Libby, however, chatting online provided a better way of mentoring:

And I sometimes think that chat is better than a phone conversation for this type of
thing, because it allows you to think, you know, on the phone you don't often stop
and think for three minutes and then answer whatever the person said, but on chat
you can do that. You can say "I need to think a second" and the person does
whatever else on the computer and then answers you on the chat.

Libby compared the use of chatting online with that of a phone, which she felt

would be impractical for working with students' writing. However, she acknowledged









that a phone call would have made things easier in some ways. Libby and her partner

were one of only two partnership pairs to attempt to use the chat rooms to discuss the

partner's writing. This attempt failed largely because it was difficult for Libby and her

partner to set up a time to be online together. Even when an agreed-upon time to meet

online in the chat room was arranged via email, the two partners still failed to connect.

The chat room program available to all partnership participants included four virtual

"rooms," in order to provide enough "space" for multiple partner groups to chat without

interfering with others. Once a time and date was set up for chatting, it was still a matter

of showing up at the correct chat "room." The nominal transcripts of Libby and her

partner's attempted online meeting show Libby in one chat room and her partner in

another, each waiting for the other to show up.

With the difficulty of coordinating all of the factors necessary to have an online

chat, coupled with the time constraints that were a big concern for Libby as a graduate

student, she and her partner decided to forgo the chat rooms altogether in favor of relying

solely on email. Libby explained that her initial excitement of being able to chat in real

time with her partner was disrupted by the irony of needing "old-fashioned"

communication to facilitate the online variety:

When I found out "oh, we can chat," I was like, "oh that'd be really good." But
then we didn't have a means of... like the chat was the one-on-one like, real-time
conversation, so we needed a real-time conversation to get to the real-time
conversation. You know what I mean? [laughs] So the problem was, we needed
to have a phone conversation to solve the scheduling problem. Because we tried to
schedule over email, and the lapse of time over email was too great for us to
adequately schedule, which is why we never met.

Despite the initial frustration of not being able to discuss her partner's writing in

real time, Libby's attitude toward the partnership stayed positive. Throughout our

discussions, both in formal interviews and in informal conversation, Libby felt that she









was learning a great deal from the process. Going into the partnership, her biggest desire

was "to be a support" to her student in ways that Libby felt she herself had missed out on

in high school and college. Through her comments in the interview, it was clear that the

notions of revision and writing multiple drafts was something she had only experienced

recently, since beginning the graduate program in teacher education:

I've learned through writing so much in college and not having a lot of feedback
and never really getting to draft things. You know, you just turn it in and it's like
50% of your grade, and whatever you get you get. And I think the whole idea that
they [the high-school partners] were going to get to use the feedback that we gave
them to improve their draft and have another chance without that scary "you're
going to get a grade now and that's it," ... I was really excited about being a part
of that process because I almost sort of do want students to see, you know, if I
would have known about drafting back then, I would have had much less anxiety
about writing in general.

To Libby's thinking, she was in fact able to provide the support she felt would be

most beneficial to her partner. Asked if she felt that a relationship had developed

between her and her partner, she felt it had. While not the intimate, mentor-like

relationship Libby anticipated being able to establish given more time than was available

during the partnership, she felt that there was a bond similar to that of a teacher/student

relationship but without the anxiety, for either partner, of having to concern themselves

with grades. When I asked Libby about the drawbacks she saw in the partnership, she

laughed while telling me that her partner "could totally blow off" the suggestions given

for a paper. But after considering her initial answer, Libby clarified her belief that the

option of her partner to ignore suggestions might not be a drawback at all:

I think as far as drawbacks go in the relationship, um...you know, the students
could not take it seriously as far as...but I don't know if that would be really that
negative, because maybe they take certain things that they see in my comments or
maybe nothing, you know? Or maybe only like one often comments would help
them. Spur them on to keep writing.









Libby felt that her relationship with her high-school partner was more relaxed than

it would have been had the high-school student been dealing with a classroom teacher.

Libby had discussed this point with her fellow graduate students and shared with me her

sense that this was generally true with all partnership pairings:

You know, I think overall my impression, I can tell you from the class's comments
and things too, is that um, the students, the high-school students felt less
intimidated that we were commenting on their papers because they knew that we
had nothing to do with their grade.

Not only was it a "relief' for the high-school students, but Libby felt that she was

less anxious about providing feedback to a developing student's writing. Because the

notion of response to writing drafts was relatively new to Libby, she was grateful for the

opportunity to practice commentingn] on student's writing separate from grading their

writing." Libby felt that during the partnership she had grown most in greatly increased

comfort level providing response designed to help improve a student's writing.

Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing

Many of Libby's beliefs about teaching were shaped through what Lortie coined

as the apprenticeship of observation (Borg, 2004), where her initial approach to

education mirrored closely that of her own experiences as a student in secondary school.

While Libby was reflective about her stance on education, and part of her desire as an

educator stems from her goals to give to her students what she herself felt was lacking in

her own education, much of her approach admittedly came from watching her teachers as

a student, both in high school and college.

Libby was one of only two participants in this study who had any kind of

substantive teaching experience. In addition to working as a substitute teacher for the

local county school board, she had worked for a number of years as a teacher of adult









learners of English as a second language (ESOL). Both of these teaching experiences

contributed to her beliefs about the practice of teaching, and the ESOL teaching

especially contributed to her self-perception as an educator. However, Libby consistently

returned to the notion that until she was taught otherwise (a process she viewed as

ongoing), her apprenticeship of observation was the foundation of her approach to

teaching:

I just, you know, a lot of how you are as a teacher, I think, without classes teaching
you how to be a teacher, is how you were taught. Because that's what you know.
And then you say, well, I want to be just like that, or I really don't want to be like
that. But until you try it, you know, I don't think... I think you're always adding to
things.

Libby did not believe that she would remain static in her beliefs about teaching.

She viewed continual development as the "job" of a preservice secondary English

teacher, "adding to things" as she gained an understanding of theory and pedagogy

through course work in the teacher preparation program and in practicum experiences

like the Online Writing Partnership. When speaking of her teaching philosophy, Libby

expressed great desire to hone her ability to provide support to students in their writing,

and to work at taking some of the focus off of grades, both for her students' sake and her

own:

I'm pretty sure that the name you could put with my philosophy is "warm
demander." I think? As far as my feeling in the classroom and things like that.
Um, I tend to have really high expectations for my students, but not necessarily
grade-wise. I'm definitely not grade-focused. Which is sometimes hard because
students don't respond to that as well, like they don't know, like they need more
concrete so...I've learned how to do the grade thing but...I think yeah, I just have
really high expectations so...you know... I expect the students to do the best they
possibly can even if they are at different levels. Rather than having the idea that
everyone needs to be at this level and...you know what I'm saying? In English
it's...you know, it can be really sketchy how you teach a few... I don't know, if you
say, well this is the range of papers I have, the worst paper's gonna get an "F" and
the best paper's gonna get an "A"... some people think about it like that but I don't









think about it like that. I like to think about it like progress over revision and things
like that.

In this statement about her view of herself as a teacher, Libby pointed out that she

likens her progression as a developing teacher to that of the revision process in writing.

Revision as a metaphor for her development was constant, suggested by Libby because of

the relative "newness" of her experience with multiple drafting of papers and also

because she viewed revision as "closer to [her] style [of teaching]." In her apprenticeship

of observation, her academic writing had not been something she enjoyed largely because

of the pressure she felt to "get it right the first time." In her reflection paper, written after

the partnership was over, Libby noted how this pressure affected her personally as a

writer, especially during high school:

Much of my fear of writing and halting approach to it has resulted from the way my
writing was conceived and subsequently assessed during secondary school. During
this critical time, the word "paper" only meant one thing to me: hours of agony.

One of the most significant developments in Libby's beliefs about teaching was the

"discovery" of revision. Revision as a concept was new to Libby, and its introduction

late in her academic career sparked a revolution in her view of teaching. For Libby,

revision came to be more than just a part of the writing process. Instead, she saw this as

critical to the teacher/student relationship as well as being integral to what she viewed as

the primary duty of English teachers, the "responsibility to promote critical and

independent thinking." Revision to Libby gave students the opportunity and freedom

necessary to view learning as a gradual process and that grading, while important, is not

the final step in writing a paper.

On a number of occasions, Libby expressed concerns about grading, both in her

ability to assign grades and what she saw as the tendency in classrooms to conflate









grading with assessment. One element of the partnership that she appreciated and

enjoyed was the ability to work with a student without having to assign grades. As

discussed earlier, Libby felt this opportunity to focus on helping the student and not on

grading relieved pressure on both ends of the partnership, and helped to clarify in her

mind the relationship between revision, growth as writers by her students, and the

assigning of grades. In this extended quotation from her reflection paper, Libby

discusses her view of revision and grading, and how they impact the role of writing

teacher:

Another advantage to the partnership was the fact that I was not responsible for
grading the student's work. The concept of assessment and grading are often
synonymously addressed in secondary school. But could it be that this perspective
is one that ultimately hinders the improvement of writing? Assessing student
writing is a difficult task, but then adding a numerical value to a qualitative thing
makes teaching writing a bit daunting in my mind. Maybe we could attempt to
separate these two tasks by allowing students multiple revisions and feedback on
their writing process, rather than on one hastily written piece. Allowing for the
time to give feedback encourages a dialogue between the student and teacher,
which supports the goal of creating critical thinkers.

In addition to supporting creativity and critical thinking, the process of revision
may give a teacher more substantial information upon which to assign a grade. A
teacher could look at the improvement from draft one to the final copy of a
student's work, rather than being pressed to judge only one copy. Another benefit
to this method would be to encourage student progress. Often as a student, I felt as
though my writing could not improve because it was not judged on its own merit,
but compared to the writing of others in my class. I found this process to be very
frustrating as a student. It seemed to alienate me from the teacher, because there
was not that connection between us that could be achieved through verbal or
extended feedback.

In the above writing, Libby distilled much of what she said repeatedly during the

course of our interviews. While her experiences as a student provided a foundation for

her view of what a teacher's role was, Libby's notion of revision as a cornerstone of

teaching writing was quickly becoming the scaffold on which to build the teacher she


wished to become.









Technology as a Legitimate if Flawed Alternative

In addition to being very comfortable with technology, Libby was also very open

to the idea of using technology to enhance the educational experiences of her students

when she entered the classroom as a full-time teacher of English. Partly this view came

from her extensive experiences with and frequent use of communication technologies in

her academic and personal life. Moreover, Libby felt that it was important to integrate

technology in teaching situations because resources such as computers and the Internet

were already a large part of society as a whole:

I would define integration of technology as anyway you can use technology that is
available in society now, email, laptops, internet, blah blah, cell phones, anything.
I know these kids are on AIM all the time. Using all those things that they already
know how to use and probably better than we do [laughs], um, to enhance what's
happening in the classroom. Especially with writing.

Libby's emphasis on using technology to enhance the work of the classroom was

consistent with her view that technology was not just something to make teachers' work

easier. She acknowledged that in some ways technology integration would make more

work for teachers. However, making connections between students' lives in school and

at home via technology provided ample rationale:

I definitely think it takes more planning, and more energy to have a class that's
more dynamic. But I think it really advances how students learn. Because they're
already doing all those things anyway. It's like well are we going to include what
they [students] are already doing with what they're learning in school, or is it going
to keep getting more and more separate. [She imagines students saying] "I'm
learning this in school, and I go home and it's a totally different world."

Libby's view of the Online Writing Partnership's technology was through the lens

of expanding her notion of writing instruction. She did not see the partnership as

something to be emulated or replicated, but as an opportunity to learn more about

particular technologies and their possible uses in teaching writing. Libby recognized that









not only could computer technology provide a scaffold for her students' learning, but it

could provide a scaffold to her own learning as well. Her comfort level with technology

and openness to further learning helped her move past the anxiety she felt in dealing with

response to student writing, an area where she acknowledged she had little confidence.

In particular, Libby was impressed with the use of Microsoft Word not only as a

means of students preparing drafts of writing, but as a way of providing content-related

feedback to that writing. For Libby, the level of ease in reading her partner's paper as a

word processing document was equally present when inserting her own typed comments

using the comment card function of Word. Paired with her increased confidence in

providing helpful feedback to developing writers, this technology was a highlight of the

partnership:

I felt like, over the course of making the comments and learning how to do the
comments in, within the Microsoft Word program and...I just felt that was a really
valuable thing that I learned on my end of it.

Even in those areas of communication technologies where Libby was not active,

such as the chat rooms, there was a great deal of reflection on how they might enhance a

teacher's ability to reach students. Libby viewed discussion about writing that took place

through writing was in itself beneficial, in that "you're actually practicing all those skills

that you're doing in your paper, in like a microcosm ... ". She explained in a later

interview what she believed high-school students were doing when they were using text-

based, online technologies:

And when you're typing things, it's different than when you're saying things,
because you're always editing. You know, especially kids... I didn't really grow up
with chat, I'm not that young [laughs], but I know they did, and so they've,
probably are, you know, editing all the time when they're chatting, too. Or you
know, at least they put addendums onto whatever they said. Whereas when you
speak it's not the same rhythm, you know. You don't like, say something and then









get a chance to edit it and then say it again, so when you're typing something for a
chat you do.

For all the benefits Libby saw in using technology to aid in teaching writing, she

still viewed technology in the context of the conventional classroom. She most often

talked about technologies in general, and those specific to the partnership, in terms of

how they might enhance teaching during a "normal" class period. But she surprised me

during one interview by stating that she saw where some of the technologies made

available for the partnership, in particular email and online chat, might have benefits

beyond what the classroom provided:

It's [online communication technologies] important to me for communication
purposes. I think a lot of breakdown happens because we rely on those 50 minutes.
It's like, that is not enough time to deal with all those students. It's not. Even
when I was subbing, I didn't even have enough time to say "hi" to those students. I
think that I definitely will have a class website. I'll probably have an email that's
available for just those students, things like that. I could definitely see [that]
available in the fall. It can be a really positive addition to your classroom. If your
students say, "she doesn't really get me," I mean, "she doesn't, you know, she's
separate from the classroom, she's there to give us homework." That's [email,
other online technologies] another way that you can reach them on their level.

Not all aspects of the partnership were positive in Libby's experience. She felt that

the personal closeness she had experienced with students she had taught in the past was

not there with the partnership, and she speculated that this was likely due to the fact that

neither partner had ever seen or heard the other "in real life." Libby viewed the online

partnership as an opportunity to learn, one that provided "an intriguing stance from which

to make comments on her [partner's] writing." She did not view technology as a

replacement for the classroom context, but as a possible extension of that context.

Partnership as an Opportunity to Grow, Learn

As a learning experience, Libby felt she had gained a great deal from the Online

Writing Partnership. Foremost was her belief that she was much more adept at providing









"comments" to student's writing that would ultimately help them to improve, without

burdening them with a fear of failure. The benefits of response were a two-way street for

Libby:

One [good] thing is getting the copy back of her writing, her final draft, and her
comments about how my comments helped her. That really did kind of complete
the circle of the first paper for me. Because of the first paper we did that for. Um,
because that really helped me see how my comments were helping and how they
weren't, and if it was different than how I thought.

Libby's comments about the benefit of "assessment" from her partner illustrate the

importance of clear communication as a contextual thread that contributed to the success

of the partnership in Libby's eyes. All of the communication between the pair was

written. From the typed papers that were the subject of discussion to the discussion itself,

there was in Libby's view more control over what she was doing in her mentoring of her

partner:

Having it typed is really nice, first of all, because then there's no like, "what's that
word?" you know. But also, reading it through, and then being able to insert
comments exactly where I wanted to and having the space to do that, made me feel
more confident about making comments because I felt like my comments would be
directed exactly where I felt they would, I wanted them to be? Like, if I was
having a face-to-face writing conference with you, you might not be able to get
much more out of it than you would by having that kind of comment on Microsoft
Word.

Another thread that contributed to Libby's mentoring relationship was the

"distance" created between the two. At times, the distance between Libby and her

partner was palpable, and there were periodic frustrations resulting from failed

communication attempts. Yet this distance also provided a sense of safety for Libby, a

sense that she and her partner could "take [their] time" and respond to each other more

clearly and effectively. Libby made this point while talking about the chat rooms, a









technology that she attempted to use only once, but one that she acknowledged could be

beneficial to mentoring developing writers.

Libby was admittedly nervous regarding her own ability to provide useful feedback

to a high-school student. Because she had had little experience in her own writing

processes with revision, she was unsure how to provide the type of response to writing

that her partner would require. In Libby's view, the online context of the partnership

provided her with enough distance that she could slow down and reflect not only on what

she wanted to say to her partner, but how her partner might respond to what she said.

A relationship with her partner was another thread of the online context that, while

not perfect, was present for Libby. She felt that her relationship with her partner was

sufficient, and that it allowed for a new perspective on teaching writing:

I found the fresh look at a student's work, without the insight into her thinking, to
be an intriguing stance from which to make comments on her writing.

If there was one contextual thread that was problematic for Libby during the

partnership, it was the absence of immediacy. On one hand, the time between the

partners' communications was helpful for Libby as she struggled with determining the

proper balance between critique and encouragement. On the other hand, she missed the

"personal connection" that she had previously experienced as a substitute teacher and a

teacher of ESOL.

Throughout the partnership, Libby was aware of the context of online

communication and was not "put off' by it. Nor did she feel it prevented her from

developing a relationship that was ultimately beneficial to both herself and her partner.

While there were aspects she felt could have been better, such as the difficulty involved

in orchestrating an online chat, these deficiencies were related more to her belief that any









approach to teaching should be under constant revision. That the writing partnership was

online created little dissonance in Libby's mind concerning the proper context for

responding to students' writing. This was in part because she had no basis of

comparison; the context of providing written response to writing was one in which Libby

had seldom found herself, either as a student or a teacher.

Claire

Few of the graduate students participating in this study could claim a more

circuitous route to teaching than Claire. After taking a degree in creative writing from a

small liberal arts college in the northeast, Claire began what would be a short career in

retail sales. Sales was not to her liking, and after another brief stint at a regional

newspaper, she admitted that her decision to enter graduate school was determined in part

because she believed it would afford her an easier time finding employment geared

toward her love of "literature and theory."

Teaching was not something Claire had considered prior to entering the teacher

education program, although the prospect of teaching was something that appealed to her

at the beginning of our interviews. However, she was not sure that teaching would be her

life's calling, and in fact it became clear in our later discussions that she was not sure she

was making the best use of her time and resources in a preservice teacher education

program. Claire was forthcoming in her admission that she had trouble seeing herself in

the role of teacher as she understood that role, and toward the end of the interview

process was on the verge of withdrawing from her graduate program altogether.

Ultimately she would complete her internship and graduate, but the doubts concerning

her pursuit of a teaching career would persist throughout our time together.









Experiences in the Partnership

Claire entered the partnership with an immediate bent toward the practical

experience it would afford her going into her internship the following spring. Unlike

many of her classmates, Claire had not anticipated going into education and did not have

a clear vision of herself in a classroom. As such, there were many teacher "behaviors"

that she felt she needed to experience before she entered a classroom, and providing

response to student writing was one of them:

It was good to just be able to practice commenting on a student's work, since
without doing this ... I mean in the internship there would be no other place, you
know, outlet for that [responding to writing] before going into the field, so....

Because of her background in writing, Claire not only felt comfortable working

with student writing, but also she was reasonably sure that she would be able to help her

partner become a stronger writer. There was not much about the Online Writing

Partnership that worried her, but she was concerned that she might not be able to connect

with her partner. In his introductory email to Claire, her partner stated strong interests in

sports and cars, something Claire admittedly had little interest in. Additionally, Claire

had concerns about using the chat room. Although she had used online chatting

technologies since she was in middle school, it was not a skill she had maintained, and

one she was not sure how to re-engage in:

I was worried about going to the chat room, and we never did that. Yeah, so that
I've never done anything like that before, and that might take a little ... it's just like
a normal chat, right? Yeah, I just didn't know how to get there. I did that on
Prodigy [an early bulletin board system featuring chat rooms] when I was like
thirteen.

Yet in spite of her discomfort with chat rooms, Claire had been willing to meet,

even when it seemed her partner was not:









Kids are busy. Meeting, like in the chat rooms ... I don't know, maybe they
weren't really excited about it. I mean I would have done it, but ....

Of all the study participants, Claire seemed to connect the most with her partner.

Claire's impression was that they "emailed back and forth quite a bit," eventually

becoming "more like a friendly thing as opposed to like, feeling like he needed to be real

proper or something if I was maybe his teacher."

Claire did not express a strong feeling one way or another toward the fact that the

writing partnership was online, although she did feel disappointed that she would not get

to meet her partner face to face. Otherwise, Claire felt the partnership would be a good

opportunity to learn more about certain communication technologies, both for her and her

partner.

At the beginning of the partnership, Claire did not feel that her job was to edit her

partner's paper and was confident that she would be able to provide the kinds of response

that would encourage her partner toward better writing. She did remark, however, that

the grammatical and mechanical errors in her partner's writing were plentiful. Claire's

initial approach was to ignore the errors, whose presence she attributed to being "first

draft mistakes":

I really did think that in the first draft that some of the things [errors] were just a
first draft mistake, that would have gotten corrected in the second, that didn't [get
corrected].

When Claire realized that these mistakes were not merely errors typical of a first draft,

she began to wonder about the cause of them. In her own writing, grammar and spelling

had not been problem areas as she noted in her reflective writing at the end of the

semester:

I'm pretty sure my fifth-grade story about a monkey and a banana boat in the
Rainforest met a lot of the elements of "excellent writing" that we determined in









this class. My story was organized, had good grammar and spelling, was filled
with strong verbs and adjectives, and created an intriguing reality for the reader
through its strong imagery. I'm also pretty sure that my culminating essay for the
International Baccalaureate program followed rules of convention, had a purpose,
pushed boundaries and made people think (I was comparing different sects of
Judaism not usually compared), showed creative and original thinking, and was
clear and organized. My score on the essay was a large determiner of whether or
not I received the coveted IB diploma, so I took care to present my writing in the
best possible light.

In her discussion of her own writing, Claire acknowledged that her expectations for

writing mirrored those she had for herself during her secondary education, and while she

did not often voice a clear understanding of what she saw as the role of a teacher, she was

surprised to recognize her own reliance on the conventions of writing of which she had

previously been unaware. We spoke one afternoon at a local coffee shop, on the very day

she had written the reflection paper quoted above, and she noted with some irony her

realization:

Because I did just happen to write the essay that's reflecting on our online thing,
um, I did just happen to write that today, and was completely shocked at myself,
about how kinda stuck I was on conventions, and I didn't think I would be a person
that was real worried about that or would grade based on that.

Perhaps as a result of this realization, Claire made a concerted effort to focus more

on praise for her partner, who so far had been receptive to her responses to his writing.

What continued to be difficult for Claire, however, was addressing the problems of

convention that were not being fixed during the multiple drafts her partner was writing:

The frustration that I had was like still him using "seen" instead of "scene" I think
in one place, or vice versa. Or he'd have "scenery" there, but I don't remember
what word it was, but I didn't ... because of our conversation with [the professor] I
didn't mark those things and I didn't mark the spelling errors and assuming that he
would correct them the second time around. And that was what was most
frustrating to me, because he, I think he really did take most of my comments, and
like I said, to the way he understood [what] I was suggesting I think he did. I
wasn't frustrated with that. Like I don't think I made a comment that he just
blatantly ignored that would have greatly improved the paper.









Claire's concern at the end of the partnership was how to devise a strategy that

would result in these "grammar errors" being fixed, without Claire's falling into the role

of editor:

Maybe I would have replied again with less ambiguous.. you know, because that's,
initially she [Claire's professor] had said, well let them try and figure out how to
fix what you're suggesting, but maybe I would have tried again, it was like, "For
example, you could do this here," you know? And maybe it would have seemed
less... or less difficult for them to change it if they had seen more... I know that
that's like pushing them to it, but if they're not, if they're not doing it to begin with,
at least showing them what would make it better, even if they copy it, they're kind
of learning it. So maybe I would have done that. I don't know.

In the end, Claire felt "fortunate" to have had the opportunity to work with her

partner. She felt that he had been receptive to her feedback, and that she had been given

the chance to consider how she would work with student writers who struggled in ways

that she never did as a secondary student. As the partnership wound down, Claire felt

that a real relationship had formed between her and her partner:

I think there had to have been some relationship between us or he would not have
... I wouldn't have seen any of the suggestions I made in the final draft. You
know, 'cause if he didn't feel like I had anything important to say, or that he
wanted to hear what I had to say, then I would not have expected to see that he had
taken any of my suggestions? ... But I would say it was kind of like I was his like,
older sister, reading his papers? Because I was very ... I tried to watch out for
circling the conventions and saying this is wrong. And I tried to, not false praise,
but I tried to say these are really good ideas, but you might want to phrase things
like that, which I know he said he liked.

Indeed, Claire's partner wrote on a number of occasions expressions of his appreciation

for the help she was providing. In an email to Claire, her partner expressed appreciation

not only for the substance of her responses, but also for the quickness:

I also can't thank you enough for returning my papers as quickly as you did, and
when there was a problem with the corrections not coming through you sent me
another copy right away, it made things so much easier for me.









Regardless of the positive experience Claire had in the Online Writing Partnership,

she was not convinced that her internship would be any different as a result. While she

had valued the chance to work with her partner, she had been "shocked" that his writing

was as "low-level" as it had been. If anything, the experience Claire had in the

partnership presaged more struggles on her part to adjust to low levels of student writing,

and to the idea of being a teacher of writing.

Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing

Coming into the preservice teacher graduate program, Claire was of two minds.

She seemed to understand on one level what teaching was, and what would be required of

her in a classroom. In spite of this, Claire had trouble envisioning herself as a teacher.

She was quick to point out that this difficulty did not mean that she lacked confidence in

her ability to do the work of a teacher, but that she felt at a distinct disadvantage

compared to her classmates:

I think that a lot of people who intimidated me too, their parents are teachers? So
they've seen lesson plans their whole life. They've seen them at home and they
know what it means. And I'm like, whoa ....

It was the "nuts and bolts" aspects of teaching that intimidated Claire as she thought

about becoming a teacher, in part because she did not have the "teacher perspective" that

she saw in so many of her peers. Claire admitted early in her interviews that she could

barely even remember her teachers from high school, and only one of her English

teachers stood out even in a vague sense. When I asked Claire to describe to me what she

saw as a teacher's role, she gave an amalgam of what she knew to be stereotypical and

what she had been seeing in the graduate program she was enrolled in:

Um, I don't think the teacher is like, I guess what an older era, like, stereotype of a
teacher would be. Where they just like, stand up there and teach their information
all day long. I mean I definitely don't think it's that way anymore. And I think,









um...the classroom should be more like, less structured, more group stuff. Not all
group stuff. I think sometimes, even in this program, that's a huge emphasis, and
I'm going, well, it might be getting a little too far the other way, or, a little too
much fun all the time. I don't think it should be that way either. I think...I do
think the teacher like, can learn stuff from students too, like I don't want to be
super-authoritative. I think that's part of the problem I'm having anyways with it,
is that I've never seen myself in like, a teacher role before? You know? Or, I've
never been someone's boss, or anything like that, so I'm having a little difficulty
imagining how I'm going to do in that role. I really, I really don't...even through
all the work, I can't give you a concrete answer to a question like that, 'cause I just,
I haven't [seen an example of the role recently] ....

Claire implicitly acknowledged that her secondary education experiences should

serve as a basis for the type of teacher she saw herself being in the classroom, but was

frustrated because these experiences were not providing much help:

I think until I get into the classroom and get up in front of the kids, I won't know
what kind of teacher I'm going to be, or what things I think are super important ...
cause I just don't know, it's been so long since I've been in a classroom ....

When Claire's own school experiences failed to provide her with some sense of

what she would be doing as a teacher, she turned to her preservice teacher graduate

program. This too was a frustrating experience because Claire felt that it was not

providing the type of learning she needed to feel confident in her role as teacher. During

her undergraduate work, theory had played a large part in giving her a sense of expertise.

Claire felt that to be a teacher she needed the same sense of expertise, and believed that

she required the same emphasis on theory that she received as an undergraduate:

I'd like to be getting more theory than we're getting? Like, we don't get any? Like
for somebody who doesn't know...I mean we do, we get some, but it's not...it's
like then, the practical application of that theory. Which is good, because we need
that. But like I kind of, for me, for someone who never saw themselves really
doing this, and still doesn't know? I need to know... I think I want to know a little
more theory about that kind of stuff before I can really figure it out.

I will be the first to admit, I haven't done some of the readings, so I'm sure there
could be more, but it's very...I mean we're just turning in product after product,
it's so much... and it's lesson plan, lesson plan, and all these real practical things,
like... I'm not writing a paper...now, I did have to write, like I said, the









management and discipline thing, but that was just strategies that had been
presented to us, it wasn't, you know, "research this, and find where you really sit
with this information." It wasn't anything like. Which has been kind of a
disappointment. In going back to school and choosing to go back to school? And
I'm trying to, enrich yourself [laughs] and make a commitment to do more
schooling, I kind of want some more of that. Instead of just producing all these
things non-stop.

In discussing her own education and how those experiences influenced her

approach to teaching, Claire suggested that her own learning style had much to say about

her future teaching style. A product of an International Baccalaureate program in high

school, Claire was accustomed to highly academic, independent work. She received the

same type of education in her college undergraduate degree and was unaccustomed to the

"hands-on" learning that she saw as the predominant form of learning in her graduate

program. Often, discomfort with this type of learning environment manifested in Claire a

desire to be "told what to do," after which she was sure she could model her own work:

I mean like, I understand it's ... it's making more sense than it used to, but I don't
... I would rather somebody tell me, this is how ... I would rather somebody had
said, "Here's an example of a unit plan on how to teach a book." And I would go,
"Oh! Very good. Thank you." You know what I mean?

This desire to be told how to do something appeared in Claire's approach to the

Online Writing Partnership as well. When she assessed the partnership as a success, she

gave as evidence the fact that her partner had followed her suggestions. It seemed that to

Claire, learning occurred when someone more knowledgeable was available to "show"

how something was accomplished, either in learning to write or learning to teach.

Claire was much more comfortable in the role of student than she was in the role of

teacher. In her words, she knew "how to study," and wasn't worried about the grades she

would get in the program. Her sense of expertise in education was not something she felt

was improving over time:









It's just such the first period of my life where I've really never felt like I had a great
amount of anything to say, because Ijust don't know what's going on. Like I just
showed up here and I'm like, oh! This is what I'm doing. And I'm trying so hard
to devote all my attention to it, and think about it seriously, and say, this is what
you're going to do, and try and figure it out, and it is so...it is just so difficult.

I just don't feel like the planning thing is ever going to come to me. I don't feel
like it's ever going to make sense. And it's... last semester I got through because it
was school. And I know how to do school. And I could get the same grades I got
in any program. Even math, probably. Just because I know how to study. But I...
this is teaching. And I don't think I can't do it. Like, I really don't. I don't care
about the grades, I don't care what I get. But if I'm going to be suffering...I don't
want to suffer through the next semester. It seems... horrifying to me [laughs].

Claire also struggled in her conception of herself as a writer. In writing, Claire

acknowledged her preparation and ability to perform. She was even confident that she

would be able to help others with their writing:

Well, I thought, "Hey, I went to school for writing, so I might have some good
things to say." Um, I don't know. I thought ... I don't know, I just thought I was
going to get a chance to help someone to really be stronger.

Often, Claire suggested that she was able to see herself in any role only at the time she

was actually in it. This was evidenced in her belief that her teaching style would not

reveal itself until she was in front of a classroom and was also apparent in her statements

about herself as a writer:

I mean I can't say to anybody that I'm a writer now because I don't have time. I
could be like, I wrote this book, years ago, for school, and here it is, but every time
I look at it now, because it's probably not what I would write right now if I was
writing. I just don't have the time. I don't know when I'll ever have the time.

Claire's perception of herself as a writer affected her approach to the Online Writing

Partnership. Because she viewed authority as the product of achievement in writing, and

in her view she had not achieved much recently, Claire at times wondered whether she

even had the right to respond to her partner's writing:

Yeah, like I could see myself ... or maybe perhaps the way I thought of myself in
my head when I was responding to [her partner's] papers is like, if I was a









published author of a book that these kids had read and liked, and they were writing
something that they would want to show to me, because they would want to hear
what I had to say about what they wrote. But not like ... does that make any sense?
That I'm somebody who writes? And partially went to school for writing? [laughs]
And so what I have to say about that [the high-school student's writing] makes
sense. But not really like their teacher. Not in any way as a teacher.

Ultimately, Claire believed that while she was able to help her partner with his

writing during the online partnership, writing to her was really something that "comes

out." Revision was a concept that she understood in theory, but not in practice:

I think that what comes out originally for anybody when they write is, mostly going
to be there in the end. And forever and ever I had a huge problem with revision.
And even now, my last drafts? Not very different than my first. Unless it's like a
research paper and I didn't really put a lot of effort into it in the beginning. And I
vastly ... you know, come in contact with more information toward the end. My
poems ... every poem I turned in in my freshman, sophomore year I wrote in one
sitting. And I just like, turned it in. And I understand now better the process of
revision, and how that helps people.

You can play with it. And I see that too, I do see that too. I see the benefits of both
of them. But I think the writing that people feel the most connected to is usually
something that comes out.

Claire felt very differently about her abilities as a writer and as a teacher of writing.

She indicated that she felt the same about how one became either, however. For Claire

the student, writing always had come easily; provided she had the time to write, she could

envision herself as a writer. As a graduate student who was struggling to devise an image

of herself as a teacher, Claire imagined that teaching "just [came] to you" as well. It just

was not coming to Claire.

Technology and Indifference

Perhaps because so much that was on Claire's mind during the Online Writing

Partnership centered around her doubts about the choice to pursue teaching in the first

place, the technologies involved in the partnership were never of primary concern to her.

Often my questions regarding her experiences with the technology itself, such as the chat









rooms, were met with a dismissive wave of the hand and a look that told me that

computers were the least of Claire's problems. In fact, computers were the least of

Claire's problems, and not because of the other more pressing concerns she was dealing

with. Claire described herself as a self-starter when it came to technology. She was

willing to "jump in" and figure out how to use a particular software function, such as the

"comment" function in Microsoft Word that played a prominent role in the graduate

students' responses to the high-school students' writing. Moreover, experiences with

faulty computers had led her to develop abilities with computers she had not expected to

hone:

I've been a lot better though, since my computers have all crashed consistently, I
now like.., can probably fix most things on my own, which I'm incredibly proud of.
Because, this sixteen hundred dollar laptop is the last one I can afford and deal
with, and I can't afford to lose everything. In college I lost everything twice and
nothing was backed-up.

Most of the education that Claire received in computer technologies, including

communication technologies like those used in the partnership, came through experiences

she had outside formal education. Before entering the preservice teacher graduate

program, Claire had worked at a small newspaper. She only managed to land the job

because of her willingness to get her "hands dirty":

I didn't get hired originally because she was like, well you don't know how to do
Photoshop [a digital photography computer application]. And then they hired
someone else who could like, work for a few days, and they were like, oh, that
really didn't work, do you think you could learn it? And I'm like, of course. Or
Quark, I had never used Quark [a publishing industry standard in word processing
and layout, and progenitor of the desktop publishing software industry]. Even
though I was in a publishing program [for her undergraduate degree], I somehow
got out of there without ever having to take the class on it. And I wrote a feature
article the first day there and used it and printed it out.

Claire described herself as someone who would "jump in with no fear" and tackle

computer tasks if she saw them as something that would be of value, either in her









academic or professional career. Technology was not something she loved, however.

Early in our interviews, Claire laughed as she related the following anecdote:

A psychic once told me when I was like...my step-mom took me to a psychic once,
and [the psychic] said I was going to work with computers, and I thought that was
really laughable, because I have such a love-hate relationship with them, because
they're always breaking. But I guess I'm ok with them, for someone who can't
stand them. Sometimes. [laughs]

Even as someone who "can't stand" computers, Claire saw the partnership as a

good opportunity for high-school students to become accustomed to using technology.

Regardless of her personal feelings, Claire acknowledged that she never wrote anything

by hand, besides the occasional note to herself:

I definitely don't hand-write anything, I haven't, definitely since high-school. I
don't even hand-write poems. Do you know what I mean? Like if I'm writing in a
journal and it's a quick thing I'll hand-write it, but I won't make anything like that
unless I'm sitting at a computer.

Claire suspected her partner was also someone who used computers to compose,

based on the types of mistakes she saw ("I mean, I know I...like he wouldn't have

written 'red rock canyon comma red rock canyon...'"). At the same time, there was a

part of Claire that felt meeting with her partner would have been helpful, that there were

simply some aspects of helping her partner with his writing that she wasn't able to fully

address:

I'd still kind of think that we need to meet face-to-face. Like I know that maybe
that's, that having the kids work with technology is good, and getting them used to
mailing or using the Word feature or being more comfortable with the computer,
but...and I think that you should make the comments first, before, like on paper for
them, and have them look over before you do explain, but I think it's helpful, if
they don't... I mean I said in every email, "if you don't understand what I'm saying
here, email me back and let me know and I'll be glad to look at another draft or
answer a question, so..." but he never did. So, but I think, I think maybe he would
have benefited more if I could have explained it a little bit better, or he could have
said, "Well how bout this?" and I would have said, "Ok you're getting there, but
let's try another one." As opposed to just, he saw it, and then I saw a revision.









And I don't know how many times or ways he, or how he changed it between
those.

It could be that Claire viewed the communication technologies featured in the

Online Writing Partnership as one more aspect of the teaching profession. Because

Claire rarely wrote unless she was in front of a computer, she may have seen these

technologies as merely an aspect of the writing process. Either way the technologies

involved in the partnership were of secondary concern to Claire, behind her struggle to

see herself as a teacher. The Internet was simply the medium the online partnership used

to provide what Claire believed was a valuable experience she did not feel she would get

otherwise.

Partnership as Microcosm of an Existential Crisis

At the start of the third interview, sitting across from Claire at a local downtown

coffee shop, I found myself in a conundrum. Claire had long since stopped talking about

the Online Writing Partnership, and was instead talking very honestly to me of the dread

she felt toward the approaching internship, along with feeling that she had wasted an

incredible amount of money on a graduate degree she did not know that she would finish,

much less use. My predicament was clear. I wanted to talk about the partnership, as it

was the focus of this study and something in which I was deeply invested and interested.

On the other hand, I was not only a teacher and thus someone who could attest to the

"fear and trembling" Claire was experiencing, I was also a teacher educator talking to a

preservice teacher who was experiencing a singular moment of self-doubt, bordering on

despair, not only toward what she had done in her graduate program so far, but what she

still faced doing in the internship the following spring. I opted to let Claire talk about









what she needed to talk about. I would worry about how her words informed my study

when the time came.

As such, the narrative concerning Claire's experiences in the Online Writing

Partnership felt quite different to me from the moment I began writing it. It seemed to

me that while the other participants were focused on the partnership during the

interviews, Claire was constantly struggling with the more fundamental idea of whether

she should teach at all. Yet, her uncertainty was just as revealing as the responses of any

of the other study participants. For Claire, someone who had never imagined herself as a

teacher, there were just as many important contextual threads to her success in the

partnership. They were not as explicitly stated, perhaps because at the moment I was

conducting the interviews, she had other things on her mind. But the threads stood out

nonetheless.

Primary among the contextual threads of importance to Claire was the notion of

comfort. To Claire it was important that she feel comfortable with what she was doing,

whether that be writing, fixing a computer that had crashed, or standing in front of a

group of seventh graders attempting to teach them about techniques of propaganda. In

her discussions with me, she seemed to jump whole-heartedly into those areas where she

expressed extreme comfort, and therefore confidence. In my experience nearly all

preservice teachers experience discomfort before they actually enter the classroom,

usually in the form of nerves-they have never done this before, or their experiences are

limited. Claire's discomfort with teaching was on a different plane; she could not even

envision herself doing on a full-time basis what she was being asked to do, during the









Online Writing Partnership in particular and in the preservice teacher preparation

program in general.

Identity within the relationships involved in teaching and teaching writing

specifically was another important contextual thread for Claire. It mattered to Claire not

only how her students viewed her, but also how she viewed herself in the role of teacher.

She wondered frequently where her authority in the classroom and as a writer would

come from, and struggled to understand if that authority was legitimate. "I'm really by

myself in the program," she told me after the Online Writing Partnership was over. She

felt that although she was used to succeeding in school, she was struggling to keep her

head above water and dreaded even talking to her classmates about the teacher education

program:

Really, I just...it makes me so overwhelmed. And I'm not usually the type of
person that's concerned of whether somebody's ahead of me or doing something
different than me because I'm pretty confident in my work, but... I'm just like...!
Like, I can't listen to what you've done, and they're like, do you want my ideas?
Not really. I know that's the point of being here, but actually, no, please don't give
me your two cents because I will go home and have nightmares about it. I can't
listen to it.

Talking with Claire was as heartbreaking as it was illuminating. Such a confident

person in her everyday carriage, she seemed genuinely shaken at times by the "strange"

world of education. The Online Writing Partnership did not shake Claire's confidence

more than any other activity in her graduate program. Rather it was merely an

opportunity to reflect on the ways in which, for the first time in her academic life, she felt

unsure of herself. These feelings were no doubt intensified because the contextual

threads that Claire felt most important to her own success, in the partnership and beyond,

were frayed to the point of breaking at the close of her first semester leading into her

internship.









Nikki

From the beginning ofNikki's first interview, I suspected that her sessions would

present a bigger challenge than the other participants'. There was nothing unpleasant

about Nikki, and I was grateful for her participation and told her so. Additionally, she

seemed pleased and even excited to participate, yet her responses to my questions were

problematic. First, it was difficult to get her to speak beyond truncated or even single

word answers to my questions. More often than not she responded to my questions with

short, direct answers, and when she did speak at length, she did not always speak to the

topic at hand. Second, there were some cliched answers that she gave with relative

frequency that caught me off guard. I am accustomed to dry wits, but I struggled to

determine if the answers she was giving were meant to be jokes or if they reflected her

actual beliefs about writing, teaching, and the partnership (for example, during one

interview session she paraphrased the old cliche "Those who can, do; those who can't,

teach." This quote is given in context later in this section.). More so than any other

participant, I found myself having to repeat back to Nikki the answers she gave, gently

and in a non-confrontational manner, to see if I understood her correctly.

Nikki's eagerness to immerse herself in the world of education was clear from the

moment I introduced the Online Writing Partnership. The class in which the partnership

was assigned was split into two sections, so I presented the nuts and bolts of the

partnership twice; once to each section. At the second section's presentation, the

partnership pairs had already been determined and I had introductory essays to hand out

to the graduate students both at the section that night and at the section I had spoken to

the previous evening. Realizing that the students from the night before would have to

wait a week to get their partners' papers unless some kind of arrangement was made the









professor asked if anyone would be willing to take the remaining essays and give them

out when the whole graduate program group met the next day for another class. Nikki

immediately and eagerly volunteered. She told me during a later interview that she had

volunteered because she wanted to read all of the papers, so excited was she about the

prospect of working with student writing.

Experiences in the Partnership

Nikki's initial excitement about the partnership wore off slightly when she realized

just what kinds of students she would be working with. In her part-time job at a local

diner, Nikki worked with a number of area high-school students who were taking college

courses as part of accelerated academic programs. Before my presentation of the Online

Writing Partnership showed otherwise, she assumed that she would be working with

high-school students like these, perhaps even the very ones who were her co-workers.

There was noticeable disappointment in her voice when she talked about the realization

that she would be working with "regular kids"-students in the High School Dual

Enrollment program that were not in college English classes at all. Nikki maintained a

positive outlook however, in spite of her initial disappointment:

I was like, I don't care. They're smart in other things. Maybe they can help me on
something, you know? So, I was still excited about it. And um, I looked forward
to just working with students. It's just something that I really enjoy whether... I
guess I don't really care how old they are, I think that students, you know, just have
so much potential. And I like being around, just inspiring people.

Another initial disappointment for Nikki early in the partnership was learning that

her anticipation of "working with a student's grammar aspect" would go unfulfilled. In

her understanding of the assignment, the Online Writing Partnership specifically forbade

any work on grammar and mechanics. Nikki wrote in her reflection paper:









I remember one of the things we were specifically told not to work on was
grammar, since this could be edited through the many drafts of the paper.

Even though she believed that this was a directive of the assignment (it was not), Nikki

smiled when she told me that she held this "rule" as one that she could break, because it

ultimately benefited her partner's writing. The following excerpt illustrates why Nikki

felt it necessary to "break" the rules:

N: So, that's probably the only part where I was like, ok I have to fix this one, you
know, 'cause I have to...if I saw a way for you [her partner] to change a sentence
or if I wrote the sentence it would have been completely different and had a
better...but I said, ok. So that's about the only place that I broke it. But it was
more for her.

PI: So you went there really thinking you weren't supposed to touch grammar or
be tuned to mechanics at all.

N: Well, yeah. Very little.

PI: Alright, and that was kind of difficult?

N: It wasn't very difficult, but it was...I would have liked to have gone
through...like changed, a lot. I was like, I could publish this if it's in my voice
[laughs].

Once the partnership began in earnest, Nikki showed great enthusiasm for working

with her online partner. Along with Libby, Nikki was one of the few participants who

used the chat rooms to talk with her partner about the writing assignments. Unlike Libby,

Nikki and her partner were able to connect online, although this meeting would end

quickly in frustration. (Because there were not enough high-school students for each

graduate student to have their own, some graduate students had to share. Ironically,

Nikki and Libby shared not only the distinction of being the only ones to attempt to use

the chat room, but they also shared the same partner.) Nikki initially had great plans for

using the chat room:









I actually wanted to. I really wanted to be in the chat room. I thought that would
be a lot...like, you know? Just go line by line, but again, that's coming from
somebody that likes to write and read, and critique papers, and that kind of stuff.
And I don't think that she was even as motivated, and didn't really want to do it,
plus the whole computer factor. Maybe she's just not comfortable with technology,
I don't really know.

Although she and her partner were more successful than most, Nikki was not able

to chat with her partner about anything. The one time they met online did not go

smoothly:

Well, we went into the chat room once, and we scheduled a time. And I had... I
was in the chat room, the other chat room, and I had a guest, and I was like, ok,
look. I'm only in here temporarily, I have something to do at a scheduled time, and
it was like nine o'clock I'm waiting, and I'm waiting, and she [her partner] wasn't
there, but I was still there, and I had it opened, and I'm talking to my people, and
then she [her partner] shows up. And I'm like, hello! And she's like, hi. And then
she says that her computer's really slow, and so it was dragging, and I was like, oh,
ok. Well I'll be here, you know if you want to meet in another room or something,
that's fine. And I told her...I guess it just, she got booted off or something, once or
twice...very shady. And then, I emailed her and I was like, you have computers at
school, I'm sure, at school, so, if you have the opportunity, if you'd like to meet
when you're at school, just let me know and I'll do what I can to arrange a meeting.
But she never got back to me. So I kind of felt let down at that.

Nikki herself stated that while she did not have a computer at home, it was never a

problem for her to get to one in the university computer labs. When she recognized that

her partner was having technical difficulties, yet was not making strides to compensate

for these difficulties, Nikki viewed this as largely a lack of motivation in her partner,

something Nikki attributed to her partner's inability to write well. Motivation would be a

recurring theme with Nikki through the interview process; whenever problems arose

Nikki never saw them as faults in the partnership's technological components or in her

own responses but rather something inherent in her partner's level of motivation.

Nikki struggled with the belief that her partner was not motivated to work on

improving her writing. Nikki had very high estimations of her abilities as a writer,









believing herself to be someone who liked to write and who wrote well. As such, she

viewed herself as an inspiration to students, and especially her partner. It came as a

disappointment then, when she did not see her partner put forth the effort that Nikki

considered necessary. Often, Nikki expressed her disappointment with her partner in

personal terms, saying that she was "hurt" and "let down." From time to time Nikki

would test her partner by intentionally leaving errors in a paper to which she was

responding. Nikki wrote in her reflection paper of the frustration she felt when these

errors were not corrected:

One of the most upsetting things I found on working with the first essay was that I
purposely ignored a typo on the first essay expecting the student to see it when they
retyped the essay but they didn't. I found it very frustrating to care about someone's
writing if they don't care about it themselves.

Consequently, Nikki viewed her partner's failure to respond to suggestions as being

evidence of a lack of motivation on the high-school student's part. Nikki expressed

repeatedly that had the partnership given her more time, and if her partner had gotten to

know her better, she could have inspired her partner to want to work harder.

Throughout the partnership, Nikki showed no signs of doubt in her ability to help

her partner. Likewise, she was fully confident in her assessment of why her partner

"struggled." Nikki assumed that when she sent back drafts of papers to which she had

responded, if her partner did not respond with questions it meant that everything Nikki

had suggested was clear. When the revised draft came back, Nikki was equally clear in

her mind as to why few if any of the suggestions she made were followed. In the

following excerpt, Nikki describes her process of responding to writing, and why in her

mind her partner was unresponsive:

Um, well on the first essay I definitely got back to her really fast. I mean I was... I
wanted to get it to her, and I'm like, I wanted to see the change, I wanted to see her









get back to me, and like, "what does this mean, I don't understand what you're
saying here," but she never did, so I figured that she understood everything. But
also I think she was busy too. You know, like in her own right. And I don't think
um, she put as much time into her essay. ... It's hard to tell somebody who doesn't
like to write that she needs to take the extra time to make it... more affordable.
Like you need to spend that extra hour on it. Somebody who likes to write, like
me, it's just...I get it out. You know, I know what I want to say and it didn't take
me very long to say it. You know, I know when I'm typing it that, this, this isn't
like...you know, like I've completely gone off subject for the past five paragraphs.
Delete, start over. But I think she didn't realize that. But I gave, I tried to give
helpful comments, but I guess they were pretty generic. Just like, show me, don't
tell me. You know? And I had this... after I re-read her whole first essay, I came
up with this really dramatic way of how she would do it... she would have to redo
the entire essay and it would be a lot better. And I don't think she just wanted to
spend the time to do it. Which is understandable, if you don't really like to write
you're not going to rewrite a whole essay.

Despite the frustrations and disappointments Nikki felt during the partnership, she

never lost her optimism in her ability to help student writers. Rather, she saw the

problems with her partner stemming from not having had enough time. Time was a

complaint of many of the study participants, as they wished there had been more time to

work with their students. However, Nikki felt that the shortness of time affected her

partner's ability to get to know her. Much of what Nikki felt she had to offer was

through inspiration; as someone who liked to write and therefore in her mind was a good

writer, Nikki felt the partnership did not provide enough time for that inspiration to make

a difference:

I think she had somebody to look up to, but I don't think it [the duration of the
partnership] was enough to motivate, I guess. To make her want to be a better
writer.

Nikki's view of the partnership was that of a "good experience for future teaching,"

but little else. Though I asked for clarification, she did not explain how the experience

had been good for her future teaching, other than to say she felt she had helped make her

partner's essays better. When I asked Nikki if the partnership had revealed anything to









her about her approach to responding to student writing, she took my question to mean

had her approach changed, and answered simply: "The partnership I don't think changed

it at all."

Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing

Whereas Nikki had less to say than the other study participants about the online

partnership itself, she was eager to share her views on teaching and learning, especially as

it pertained to the teaching of writing. Nikki enjoyed writing and considered herself a

highly capable writer; as such she felt great confidence in her ability to be a success as a

teacher of writing to secondary school students. In her view, she had achieved expertise

in reading and writing by virtue of her academic accomplishments. For Nikki, this

expertise was the keystone in the ability to teach.

Reflecting on her early school experiences, Nikki believed that becoming a teacher

was inevitable. She remarked in the interviews that she was surprised, looking back on

her life, by all the instances where she was "being a teacher." For Nikki, the conscious

desire to teach stemmed from a paper on home schooling she was assigned to write in a

college education course. This paper, and the professor who assigned it, had far-reaching

influences on Nikki's views regarding teaching and education:

So, between that paper and then just the things that she said in class, she just let me
believe that I was, you know I was really privileged in what I had when I was
growing up, with being read to and having the love of reading and being able to
write and do all that, but... I wanted to be able to share that, with somebody else.
And I figured, teaching was just one of those things... I don't even know, I write
about it so much on my papers now, that, when I was...the first day I started
school, my mom says I came home and started teaching. Like I set up my stuffed
animals and I would write on the wall and do that kind of stuff. It was just really
bizarre to think about that now, but...and then I found myself, like in high school I
had ROTC in ninth grade and I did the same thing. I came home and I taught my
sister how to do all the ROTC moves. And I didn't even think of "Hey, I'm being a
teacher." It was just like, "Hey, I learned something cool today, let me show you."









In Nikki's own education, she was profoundly impacted on a number of occasions

when a professor or teacher stated a fact that rang true in her mind. Nikki did like

reading, and remembered having been read to as a child. Whether her professor stated a

correlation or causation between children being read to and their love of reading later in

life, Nikki took it as axiomatic:

And then one teacher at my junior college went ahead and said that, unless you read
to your kids they're not going to find a love of reading. And I think I benefited
from that. And I think that was a strong thing for me was that, "Hey, I got read to
as a kid," you know, so it really made me like it. And I look forward to being able
to do that [create a love of reading].

There were examples during our interviews that suggested Nikki saw teaching as

primarily the delivery of knowledge from expert to novice. Skill in teaching seemed to

stem not from pedagogical competency, but from subject area expertise. In fact, Nikki on

one occasion suggested a belief in the adage, "Those who can, do. Those who can't,

teach":

I think most of us have somewhere deep inside like, oh I'd like to be a writer, that's
be really great. Whether or not that will ever actually happen, who knows? I mean
that's why we're going into teaching, because things like that don't happen.

Nikki viewed teaching as a type of mentorship that anyone with skill in a particular

discipline could do. This was possible, in Nikki's view, because a teacher's job was

primarily to inspire students to want to achieve what the teacher had achieved.

Many of Nikki's views about teaching centered around elements of a teacher's

personality. Learning, as she understood it, seemed to occur by virtue of the teacher's

presence in the classroom. Nikki was excited about the opportunity of learning from her

students, although her comments made it clear that learning in this sense more accurately

meant encouraging students to contribute to a classroom discussion. Learning centered

around authority in Nikki's eyes. As the authority figure in the classroom who knew "a









little bit more," the students would learn from her. Nikki would in turn encourage

students' motivation to learn by creating at least the appearance of her learning from

them:

I want to be more like a friend, I guess. That's how I see it. And I know in one of
our classes, they're like "You don't want to portray that," and all that. And I'm
like, yeah you do. Because, if you're that much above the students then they're not
going to want to be there. I mean, as long as they see me as an authority figure,
and that I know a little bit more than them on certain things, then I think they'll
understand... I think I have to set the day...the day, like the first day you set the
standard. That I'm here to learn about ... as much from you as you are ... to learn
from me. And I think that's one reason why I'm going into teaching, is that I want
to know ... I just want to keep learning. And I think that being in school, as a
teacher or as a student, you're always going to learn something. And I just, I really
like the atmosphere of being in school and learning from each other and that kind
of a thing. 'Cause I'm sure, I've heard my teachers growing up even saying, "oh,
really?" A kid will say something ... and whether or not they [the teacher] really
didn't know that, doesn't matter. But it made you feel like, hey, I taught the
teacher something. So, it makes you feel good at the end of the day. Even if it's
not true.

Teaching to Nikki was an endeavor that relied largely on the force of the teacher's

personality, but also on the level of motivation a student possessed. In Nikki's eyes, this

motivation was in proportion to a student's enjoyment of a subject. Given an increase in

her partner's motivation, or more time for each partner to get to know the other better,

and Nikki felt she could have done more to help her partner. But of the three areas of

Nikki's teaching philosophy of time, motivation, and inspiration, only over inspiration

did she feel she had direct control.

That Nikki enjoyed writing was beyond doubt; that she believed she was a good

writer equally so. Part of this confidence resulted from her belief that expertise came

with time and work, and in fact Nikki felt that because of her academic background she

was particularly qualified over her peers to teach writing. Early on I asked Nikki about









any anxiety she might have felt going into the partnership and working with a high-

school student's writing:

Well, there was kind of... I wasn't really worried. I think if we all were ... in my
own capability to help somebody in their writing since I write so much ... so ... but
I feel, almost empowered? More so than anybody else, because I took a grammar
class, and I took a writing ... like I made sure that with every reading class I took
that I had a writing class to go with it. Because it ... I thought you can't be an
English teacher if all you do is read. It's like you can't be an English teacher if all
you do is write. You have to have a balance, and I tried to do that in my undergrad.
So I feel a little more ... I feel better about it, I think, than a lot of my friends do. I
made sure that I had that, that background going in. So I know certain things that
they're not so ... sure of.

It was not mere preparation that gave Nikki confidence in her ability to write well.

On a number of occasions, she noted how others looked to her as someone who was a

good writer. On one occasion, Nikki noted that she had "a couple of fans [among her

peers in the graduate program] that like to hear my stuff being read." On another

occasion she pointed to a teacher who had asked her to proofread papers turned in by a

journalism class. Each of these was, to Nikki, evidence of others recognizing her

expertise in writing.

It was clear that Nikki had great confidence in her writing ability. What was not so

clear was how she became a good writer, and how she saw herself helping others with

their writing. When asked, Nikki seemed to be at a loss to explain just what she would

do for her students when they needed help with their writing. Because Nikki seemed

frustrated at the end of the partnership, believing that her partner had not responded

sufficiently to the responses Nikki had given, I asked her how she might adjust her

approach the next time she worked with a student's writing:

Hmm. I think I would want to get to know the student a little bit more before I
started. Because that would help. And then they'd...they'd maybe they'd be able
to hear my voice, and they wouldn't be like, "Oh this is the same person telling me
the same thing again," you know? Because I'm sure she's heard the "show me









don't tell me" five hundred times, I know I have. It makes a difference. When you
can put a picture, like when you can picture somebody in your mind telling you
"Show me, don't tell me," and then you know what, you're going to get a bad grade
[laughing] because you didn't do it. And just, to have somebody that's... a good
writer, known for their writing, and inspiring them.

This statement, given by Nikki after the completion of the Online Writing Partnership,

suggests that her presence, her specific personality would have turned what Nikki

acknowledged to be a cliched bit of response to writing into a transformative act of

writing mentorship.

Writing in Nikki's view was a skill that developed over time. Nikki believed that

this was true for any writer, and could be evidenced by looking at earlier examples of

writing and comparing them with later examples:

I [am] supposed to cover sonnets in my internship. So it was one of the things I
was going to cover, so I wanted to look in my ... 'cause I keep all my writing... so I
wanted to go back to when I was in middle school, and find my first sonnet, and
show them my first one, and then write one now, so that they'd see a progression,
you know. Like it's not an overnight thing. It takes a while to be able to write
something well. And so, maybe find you know, Shakespeare's first ones and then
find one, his later ones. You know, just so they see, like you have to practice, it's
not going to just come. You're not a writer because you feel like writing.

Nikki frequently suggested that writing develops over time, with practice, but was

largely silent about what else should take place during that time, or what her role as a

teacher would be in the meantime, other than a source of inspiration. She acknowledged

that the Online Writing Partnership had shown her how computers could be used in the

English classroom, and she was excited about the prospect of having a handful of

computers in the classroom she would intern in that spring, believing they would allow

her to prepare her students for the state writing assessment. However this idea also

centered on repetition over time:

Actually the classroom I'm in has about ten computers. So I'm thinking, most of
the classes have less than thirty, but... some kind of learning center thing, where ten









are at computers and the other ten are, like doing some other activity. So I'm
actually, I'm going to use that. And it's just a matter of figuring out what the other
activities are. They have an FCAT [a state-wide assessment] writing online, where
you can write the whole essay and it grades you? Like they would have FCAT. So
I'm going to have the students do that. So they can see how they're doing and
maybe do it two or three times before the FCAT comes.

After a certain point in the interview process, I became hesitant to ask Nikki to

clarify how she envisioned teaching writing. So much of her identity seemed to center

around her abilities as a writer, and she began to sound defensive when I would

frequently return to questions about her views on writing, questions she felt she had

already answered. It was clear, however unsure I was about her understanding of

teaching writing, that Nikki did not question her abilities as a writing mentor and

appreciated the experience of mentoring a high-school writer in the Online Writing

Partnership. In Nikki's view, the partnership did not change her beliefs about how to

help developing writers, but it did provide an opportunity to experience what she

anticipated she would encounter during her internship the following spring.

Technology as Efficient, Inevitable

During the Online Writing Partnership, technology was never intended to be the

primary focus for the graduate students as they worked with high-school student writers.

Rather, the partnership was done online largely because it allowed preservice English

teachers the opportunity to gain experience responding to high-school students' writing in

a way that would normally be unavailable to them until they entered their internships.

However, the frustrations that occurred during the partnership were often directly related

to the technologies involved, and therefore the attention of the participants was frequently

drawn to issues concerning the communication technologies made available to them.

Nikki was largely an exception to this rule.









Nikki's experiences with computers were admittedly limited, and in fact she did

not own a computer herself. Instead she would make use of the computer labs available

at the university whenever the need arose, including those times she needed a computer

for the Online Writing Partnership. Unlike her peers and fellow study participants, and

perhaps because the labs Nikki was obliged to use were well-maintained and staffed with

those able to help her as needed, Nikki rarely commented negatively about technology.

Nor did she look at the partnership technologies, such as the chat rooms, as being

responsible for any of the "problems" she identified in her experiences with her partner.

Much of Nikki's reflection on the role of technology was in terms of its practical

uses. Nikki recounted an anecdote from her undergraduate education:

I was told when I was in community college that by the time I got into the
classroom every student would have a computer. I was like, "Thank god, every
student can turn in typewritten work!"

Nikki viewed online technology in general much as its role had been envisioned for the

partnership, as a medium through which preservice teachers could gain experience. (The

partnership's purpose was also to develop the graduate students' ability to teach writing;

it is unclear but unlikely that this was part of Nikki's understanding.)

In our discussions during the interviews, I got the impression that Nikki did not

spend much time thinking about the technology involved in the partnership one way or

the other. I realized this late in the interview process, and noted in my research journal at

the time that this was a surprise to me:

I kinda thought she would be the one to rail about the stuff more because she seems
to [have] had such a miserable time with [her partner]. [She seems to be] just taking
it in stride, nothing unusual for her ... Only one so far that hasn't blamed it [the
online technology] and won't talk about it unless I ask.









One possible reason for this indifference toward technology revealed itself in a story

Nikki told about a computer class she had taken in college:

A long time ago when I was in junior college one of my computer professors told
me, you know, you're not going to be a teacher for very long. Everything's going
on the Internet, there's going to be all this online teaching. And he's like, "You
better get used to computers if you want a career," and I was like, "Oh, ok." I was
like, I can do that. It's like, computer. My best friend.

Computers, and more importantly the Internet, appeared as inevitable to Nikki. Typically

in the discussion of her educational experiences, Nikki deferred to the authority of her

teachers when they presented information to her. For Nikki, her computer professor was

the expert and if he said it, it was true. As a result it seemed that Nikki viewed the online

partnership and the technologies involved as a good "exercise" because it confirmed what

she had been told to anticipate in the near future as a teacher of English.

Partnership as an Opportunity to Inspire, Motivate

Through all the data it seemed apparent that for Nikki the pivotal contextual

thread in the success of any writing mentorship, including the Online Writing

Partnership, was an ability to inspire her students as someone who enjoyed writing and

"was known for her writing." Through her years of gaining expertise by taking classes in

grammar and writing, Nikki felt especially qualified to provide this inspiration. While

the Online Writing Partnership presented some frustrations for her, Nikki believed that

the partnership had been a positive experience and was "satisfied with how it ended."

Because Nikki's view of learning reflects a "container" metaphor, wherein the

teacher has been "filled" with knowledge and in turn will "pour" that knowledge into her

students, it was clear that her preparation as a preservice teacher and undergraduate

English major was the contextual thread of most importance in her ability to help with

her partner's writing. From Nikki's accomplishments in academic work stemmed her









authority, and she believed that this authority would establish, perhaps on its own, the

one attribute in her teaching philosophy that was necessary in order to maintain a

classroom, as she noted in the following observation from a reflection paper at the end of

the semester:

Ms. Lemon [a teacher she had observed during a practicum experience] had a great
relationship with her students-they listened to her and respected her-but she
didn't really have a management plan (not that she needed one with the
aforementioned qualities) ...

In the above quotation and in others, it became clear that another important

contextual thread, revealed through Nikki's experiences with the partnership, is the

personality of the teacher in the classroom. Repeatedly, Nikki stated her belief that if

students saw that their teacher enjoyed writing, then they too would enjoy writing. In her

assessment of the partnership, discussed in a previous section, had her partner been able

to hear Nikki's voice, picture Nikki giving advice instead of a semi-anonymous college

graduate student, that ability to imagine the person of Nikki might have made a

significant difference in one final, pivotal contextual thread, that of motivation on the part

of her partner.

Juliet

The language and composition class to which the Online Writing Partnership was

assigned was part of the core curriculum of the graduate level preservice teacher

preparation program in secondary English. However, enrollment in the class was not

limited to those students preparing to begin a career in education. Other students from

different graduate programs (and subsequently different levels of experience) were also

enrolled in the class. Juliet was one such student.









When Juliet volunteered to participate in this study, I was at first concerned that she

would not "fit." Juliet was already in the classroom, working at a local private academy

teaching five-year-olds in a pre-kindergarten program. I was concerned that because of

Juliet's differences in experience and background, as well as the level of students she was

already working with, that her experiences in the partnership would be too different from

the other study participants. Ultimately, I decided that since the focus of this study was

the context of the Online Writing Partnership itself, and not the class in which it was

assigned nor the program that incorporated that class as part of its curriculum, Juliet's

experiences in the partnership would be just as valuable and informative as the other

participants'.

Juliet's perspective would differ on even more levels than I initially thought. Like

Claire, Juliet was not an English major in her undergraduate years. Rather, Juliet

majored in theater arts with an emphasis on education; she was in the methods class as

part of a Literacy and the Arts master's degree specialization. Juliet would not be in an

internship the next semester as she was already a certified, practicing teacher, and while

other study participants had some prior experiences in the classroom, Juliet was the only

member who would be teaching full-time during her participation in the Online Writing

Partnership.

Experiences in the Partnership

Because she was not a full-time student, Juliet and I agreed to meet at a local

coffee house chain after she got off work in the afternoon. We would meet at the same

location for all our conversations, both of us drinking coffee and usually beginning with

Juliet recounting some anecdote from school related to the partnership. Although she

taught students a full decade younger than the high-school student she was partnered









with, she seemed always to be able to make connections with what she was doing in her

graduate work with the work she did in her pre-kindergarten classroom.

Like the other graduate students, there were some anxieties about the Online

Writing Partnership for Juliet. She was concerned about grammar and mechanics from

the beginning, but for different reasons than most of her classmates. Because she had not

majored in English, and had taken a route to education very different from her

classmates, Juliet was concerned that she might not be immediately up to the task of

proofreading her partner's paper:

If I was more concerned about anything it was more the mechanics of it. The more
because, I mean, I know what should be a capital [laughing] and I know where a
period goes, but you know, there are things that I'm sort of foggy on, because come
on, how long has it been since freshman English? And most of my...I couldn't tell
you the last time I had a class...'cause I had AP English classes in high school and
then, skipped freshman English and went straight into, you know, all these different
literature classes.

So I think I was probably overwhelmed with thinking, you know, if we're going to
get into participles, if we're going to get into all this stuff, then I'm going to need a
good review. But then when we talked about it in class, that it's more, you're not
there to correct their writing and edit their writing, you're there to you know, help
them to become better writers? That wasn't so overwhelming for me.

Though Juliet was relieved to be free of editing duties, there were other areas of

concern going into the partnership, as she revealed in her reflection paper at the end of

the semester:

The Online Writing Partnership provided some anxiety for me, as most of my
writing instruction has been at the early childhood level. I was unsure I would be
able to help an older student to become a better writer.

Additionally, Juliet was concerned about the amount of technology involved. She

did not view technology as "a threat" per se, but was concerned about becoming

"overwhelmed" by the amount of online technology use expected of her:









... My experience with technology is, you know, I can search the web and I can
send email and so, the whole chat room situation was a little overwhelming. But it
wasn't hard to understand. Like once we got into the lab and went through that, it
was very, very easy. Um, so I think my only sense of being overwhelmed was just
in the technology of it, not at all in the partnership.

As far as her actual experiences in the partnership, Juliet conceded that most of her

problems with the "technology end" had more to do with the circumstances surrounding

the beginning of the semester. Like everyone that semester, Juliet had to contend with an

unusually active hurricane season. Additionally, there were outside complications that

affected her experience:

Like, for me in the beginning it was a logistical, because we were leaving the
apartment and moving into a house, and I was at the public library to use the
computer, so for me it [the problems she experienced with the technology] was [a
lack of] convenience to have a computer at my house, and for me I wasn't at UF all
the time, so I can't just go into the computer lab. And I didn't really have a real
updated computer in my classroom, it doesn't even have Internet capability. In fact
the first email I sent her I didn't even use comment cards. I printed out her paper at
the library, took it back, and then emailed her the info, 'cause I did it my way that I
can look at and just...and a lot happened right at the beginning of the internship,
like in September, I mean we finally got phone and cable at the end of October.
So, for a big chunk of the beginning of the partnership that wasn't available to me,
so I just never sent them the thing, you know, "Do you want to set up a time to do
the chat room?" I think it would have been helpful, I was sure of the technology,
for me it was just something to use, just to be able to use it.

Despite the inconvenience of not having easy access to a computer, Juliet made the

best of her situation and believed that she had established a good relationship with her

partner. Although her partner's writing was wrought with grammatical errors, and

Juliet's comments did address areas of concern regarding structure and organization,

Juliet believed that her approach to providing response to her partner's writing was well

received, as she explained in her reflection paper:

It was hard not to edit her work at first as there were numerous mechanical errors. I
tried suggesting things for her to look at (i.e. "Look at the tenses you use in this
sentence") instead of telling her what she was doing wrong. This was well
received, and she wrote me an email thanking me for the way I approached this.









She said that method was really helpful to her because she usually shuts down due
to criticism. I also asked a lot of questions to help her focus on things she could
revise, and we both really enjoyed this process.

Juliet expanded on her approach to working with her partner's paper in the

interviews. Because she was relegated to using computers at the public library, Juliet

found it easier to first print her partner's draft and read through it a number of times,

adding comments in the margins only after she got a sense of the paper as a whole:

I try very hard like when I get [her partner's] papers to just read through them, and
once to experience it and then go back through it, sort of adding comments.

Printing the paper out gave Juliet more time to consider the nature of her comments

and to think about how they might be received by her partner. Upon reflection, Juliet

decided to change her approach to response:

I printed out her last paper and I went through it and wrote you know, "Say more
about this, and say then..." I found when I was doing the comments that I had to
change all of those to questions instead of saying more, you know, "What could
you say about this that might...?" you know?

More than any other participant in the Online Writing Partnership, Juliet

approached her partner's writing as a reader might, engaging in the text because she was

interested in what it had to say instead of scouring the lines for errors. At times, Juliet

found that she was interested in areas of the writing that were not as fully developed as

others, and asked questions of her partner to "pull out the things that ... seem like the

heart of what [her partner was] writing." It was clear from Juliet's interviews that she did

not approach her partner's writing as if she were the teacher who would ultimately assign

a grade. Instead, she saw her role in the partnership as that of an additional reader,

viewing her partner as "writing [a paper] for someone and asking [Juliet] to read it along

the way." As a result, Juliet felt more freedom to engage her partner in ways that she

might not have as a teacher. Instead of focusing entirely on the structural faults that she









acknowledged were plentiful in her partner's writing, Juliet focused on her role as reader,

attempting to draw out of her partner more of the ideas that she found interesting about

her partner's paper:

I just found the things I was drawn to in her paper. Well, this last [paper] was
about Avatar. Well, ok the first [paper]. About the whole, the camp that she was
writing about, this farm camp and ... The things that were interesting to me, like
she would talk about the native, you know this camp was based in Native American
lore, and you know... she spent a lot of time like, describing...maybe it's just my
own personal opinion. I think that, I think she could have really enriched it with
the Native American element. She sort of described the cats and the dogs and the
goats, but then didn't go anywhere with it, but then when she talked about the
Native American, and just sort of skipped over it, I thought that that was more
interesting to me ... what are the foundations of this camp, you know, how was this
important to it? Those kind of things. And then she talked about meeting this girl
or whatev- ... And I think that it could have been...you know, talked about, but
then go more into why she was the most wonderful person that you've ever known
or, you know. She's sort of, the details...it was like, a lot of like, little details, but
the things that were really interesting to me she wasn't really talking about. And
then this Avatar thing [the second paper], like... I thought it was very interesting
and I praised her for including... and I don't know if this was part of the
assignment, but including part of her journal? Like, she had written a journal entry
from when she had gone to the experience? And I thought that was wonderful
because that really made it very relevant to us, you know, that it was very
accessible. But, you know, and she talked about the most wonderful thing she had
was the walk for atonement, and then she gave lots of little, other little [details],
and I just would have been more interested in her talking about her process [of self-
discovery, the topic of the paper].

Not only did Juliet take care to phrase her critiques of her partner's writing as

questions to "soften the blow" and avoid causing her partner to "shut down," she also

used a questioning stance to engage with her partner in the substance of the writing.

Juliet showed genuine interest in what her partner was writing about, and to Juliet's eyes,

this approach was well received. Her partner wrote to Juliet at the end of the partnership

via email to thank her for the help she received, confirming Juliet's belief:

Thank you for the comments they were very helpful I liked the way you sugar coat
things I think that helps me take criticism a little better. I liked your word choice
when giving suggestions instead of saying your doing this or do that you would say
consider this and look at that. I think that helped me because then I wasn't looking









at your suggestion I was considering my own. Thank you very much for
participating I'm really glad that you were my partner you sounded like a really
interesting person I wish I could meet you.

Ironically, Juliet worried about the level of gratitude her partner expressed at the end of

the partnership:

[My partner] sent me a very kind email saying "I really appreciate this, I respond
very well to this, thank you very much," but it made me wonder if maybe I wasn't
... not that my job is to frustrate the student but ... was I being a little bit too slack?
Was I being a little too, "Oh, this is good, this is ..." You know, and it wasn't all
"This is good, this is good," or "I love this," but it was you know, "Well think
about this how can you know, how could you do this," um, you know, there are a
lot of times where, her tenses were wrong or you know I would say you know look
at the tenses you're using in a sentence instead of you know you're switching
tenses here you know, whatever, and apparently she was receptive to that. I'm glad
about that, but ...

Part of Juliet's concern that she wasn't "tough enough" on her partner stemmed

from the fact that she shared a high-school partner with Kate, and the two graduate

students had shared stories about their experience with their partner throughout the

Online Writing Partnership. Juliet was well aware of the "sugar coating incident"

discussed in the previous participant thread. Juliet wondered if the response she gave her

partner was received so willingly because it contrasted starkly with the response her

partner was getting from Kate. Although she never saw the types of response Kate was

providing to their partner, Juliet ultimately concluded that it wasn't that she was less

"harsh" than she should be, but rather a difference in personalities that resulted in the

difference in response from her partner:

I like Kate very much ... I don't want to speak for her ... But I know that Kate got
a lot more, I think, frustrated than I did, even though we were experiencing the
same thing.

At the end of the partnership, as we sipped coffee and talked about her experiences

aiding a high-school student in her writing, Juliet expressed genuine pleasure at the









opportunity. Juliet confessed that she felt few of the technological elements would be

applicable to her classroom of five-year-olds. However the experience of, in her words,

learningn] to listen to [her] partner" had a lasting impact on how she viewed student

writing in general, and her role in helping students to develop as writers.

Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing

None of the participants in this study was lacking in beliefs about the nature of

teaching. Juliet was no different in her belief that her early educational experiences

influenced not only how she approaches teaching but also her decision to go into teaching

in the first place. The biggest difference in Juliet's views about teaching stemmed from

her experiences in the classroom. She was not only currently teaching as she participated

in the Online Writing Partnership, she had been doing so for a number of years. While

she would sometimes talk about pedagogy in the same way the other participants would,

Juliet brought with her a different perspective that allowed her not only to share what she

believed about teaching but also to talk about how those beliefs had evolved over the

course of the semester.

Juliet, like her fellow participants, viewed her own experiences in education as

influential in the way she approached teaching. While she acknowledged that many who

go into teaching do so because they were "impacted by a teacher at some point," her

teaching philosophy was also influenced by the approach to literature that some of her

teachers took, toward which Juliet took umbrage:

I got really frustrated when we would do poetry and we would do um, particularly
analyzing it and looking at its symbolism. And I got very frustrated when she [her
high-school teacher] would tell me that I was wrong. Because I felt the point of
poetry was that you read something, what you're going to read from it? Um, I
know, unless you have the poet's notes of, this is what I meant by this line, I didn't
feel that she could tell somebody that, what they glean from it wasn't valid. So I,
you know, I felt, I'll take a different approach to ... I really get into some ...









meaning but I think that part of the beauty of literature and by extension drama,
playwriting, is that it speaks to people on so many different levels and I just didn't
appreciate being told what I thought was wrong and this was what the absolutely
only, right. So maybe that's why I don't say "This is wrong, and this is how you
should be doing it" but ....

This approach to reading literature not only influenced Juliet's approach to teaching

in her own class, but also to the Online Writing Partnership. On a number of occasions

Juliet saw striking similarities between what she did in her pre-kindergarten class and

how she worked with her high-school partner. Midway through the interview process,

she told me of the following breakthrough:

I thought I would have a hard time [with the Online Writing Partnership] because
when it comes to issues of mechanics, I don't deal with that, obviously, with five-
year-olds. We're just learning to write things, you know, and so I'm not going to
tell them, "This isn't right." I'm going to write it however they want me to write it.
And so I guess I feel like maybe, why should I do that to hers [her partner's]?

Juliet explained further in her reflection paper:

I came to realize all of my work dictating my Pre-K students' stories really was tied
to this partnership. I learned to listen to my partner, to her voice, and to her story.
I was there to help her find ways to make it better. I was there to listen.

Perhaps she only realized something she actually had been doing for a while, but through

her reflection on the Online Writing Partnership, Juliet acknowledged that she had begun

to look at her own role as a teacher in a different light. She admitted that at times she felt

her job was to "hand down" information to her students. Through the Online Writing

Partnership and the other work she was doing that semester, Juliet began to reevaluate her

role in the classroom:

... I'm sort of seeing myself as more a facilitator to helping my children to learn,
instead of being the person who has the knowledge that I need to give to them. So
it's ways in helping them find that. And it was...with the online partnership, with
responding to their writing, like I said, I asked a lot of questions. You know, "How
could we ..." or "What could you say ..." So I think I've, coming through that but
also coming through my first year of working on my masters, but also in my own
classroom, I'm looking at myself differently, and that I'm not this font of









knowledge I need to just, give to everyone, but more helping them along the
process more.

For Juliet, the ability to dispense information was not her primary role. She noted

in her first interview that "just because someone's an expert in their subject [they are] not

a good teacher," but still the relative distance she felt from grammar instruction gave her

pause upon entering the Online Writing Partnership. Her discovery, however, was that

while the content of the lesson might change, her position as teacher centered around the

same principle, best expressed by Juliet in her reflection paper after the partnership was

over: "All students, regardless of age or skill level, want to feel validated."

Because Juliet was originally a theater major and received a degree in theater

education, her experiences with English curricula were considerably limited in

comparison to her classmates. In high school Juliet had taken Advanced Placement

classes in literature and writing and tested out of the required freshmen and sophomore

English classes. As a result, Juliet did not take even the basic college writing and

literature courses common to many college students. However, writing was important to

Juliet, and while she took relatively few writing courses in college, it was a discipline she

pursued on her own. When I asked her about her background in writing, she explained:

Well, like [I took] writing for theater, like, you know...both writing classes, but uh,
playwriting. But no, you know I have like my little books Anyone Can Write and
little excer-, writing exercises that I do like, once every two years because...you
buy the journal and you buy the book and you're going to be a great writer and
then, you know...I don't, a lot of it's very like, "On Monday Journal about this, on
Tuesday journal..." you know. I don't do, it's just too limiting, you know.

Despite the "phases" Juliet would go through in her pursuit of writing, she wrote

regularly. I asked her about the type of writing she did, and her answer made it clear that

while she took writing seriously, she was less inclined to take herself so:









I do a lot of ... I always laugh at myself when I used to say in college, or in high
school, and college that I dreamt in the made-for-TV movie form? [laughs] And it
just sort of, I don't know if I watched way too many of them when I was growing
up or sort of ... so then I've started writing them down and embellished, you know,
and adding more to them ...

Writing was something that Juliet did not feel came easy to her. Rather, she

considered herself a storyteller:

... Writing for me is very overwhelming and very scary and I tend to ... I'm a
storyteller, I guess, being in theater, and I love to talk and I love to tell stories. I'm
trying to transition that into my writing and it's very hard for me.

Juliet took her approach to writing as storytelling into the classroom. For her pre-

kindergarten students, most of whom were only beginning to write, she inverted the

storytelling process. Her students would tell their stories, and she would transcribe them

onto paper. Juliet viewed her role as a teacher of writing to be primarily one of modeling

the act of writing, and showing the "meaning and purpose behind their words."

For her pre-kindergarten students, Juliet believed that her job was to encourage

them to "explore language openly." As her participation in the Online Writing

Partnership progressed, she realized that this belief also applied to her partner. Noting

that there should be a "balance of mechanics," nonetheless Juliet expressed a

determination to help her students through encouragement, and to show her students and

her partner that "educators are not consumed with what's wrong with their writing, but

how [they] can help them improve."

Technology and Obstacles

When I asked Juliet about her experience with communication technologies at the

beginning of our interviews, she laughed and replied that the experiences in the Online

Writing Partnership had given her a chance to "face [her] fears." I wondered if she meant









technology in general, but Juliet was quick to explain that her fear was not the chat rooms

or the bulletin boards, but rather being forced to participate in them:

No, just because I hadn't done it before. And I know that, you know, like, say...I
was looking at a web site and there were you know, like bulletin boards or chat
rooms, I would certainly...it wouldn't keep me from [looking at the webpage] ...
I'm trying to think of like what I would say if I went to a women's health website
and there you know, [were] bulletin boards and chat rooms... I've certainly looked
at those, but I've never joined in, or created a name and jumped right in ...

At the beginning of the semester, as I was presenting the various technologies that

would be available to all participants in the partnership, Juliet initially felt overwhelmed.

She suggested that this anxiety came from her preferred learning style with computers.

Juliet described herself as one who eschewed manuals, preferring to "just sort of start"

when she wanted to perform a task. Juliet was an avid user of a digital camera, and

enjoyed doing photo editing on the computer in addition to using the Internet for research

and mailing.

While she admitted to never using the chat room made available to her and her

partner, Juliet readily acknowledged that she saw how useful it could have been. For her,

however, computer use came at a premium. Between hurricane-related power outages

and the frustration of not having phone or cable service until well past the partnership's

half-way point, Juliet felt lucky to have been able to find ways of improvising her role in

the partnership with the computers available to her.

The inconvenience of having to use the computers at the public library did not

prevent Juliet from feeling that she gained a great deal from her experiences with

Internet-based communication technologies. When prompted to reflect on the biggest

influence the technology aspect of the partnership had on her, she answered in terms of

how it changed her level of comfort in actually participating in online environments:









I've been thinking about that and it has, insofar as, like for the gender class [a
course on gender issues in education taken as part of her master's program], we had
a blog, and we were required to submit to it and to respond to it. So just the
technology, in and of itself, being familiar with it, having come through it in the
fall during the online partnership, wasn't nearly as scary as it would've ... posting
online, responding to things online, I felt was easier because of going through what
we went through with getting the writings from the student and responding to it.

Likewise, the use of Internet technologies prompted Juliet to consider how she

might use technology in her own classroom. Although she felt that much of the Online

Writing Partnership was beyond what would be useful for her five-year-olds, the idea of

computer use as part of the curriculum was something Juliet was looking at through a

new lens:

So if anything, it got me to think, "Oh, how can I use the computers with my kids?"
I mean I can't really do this, but ... just, as far as just using the technology and
realizing that even in early childhood it can be part of the curriculum, it was
something I hadn't done in two years, but it was obviously, I started thinking about
[it] ....

One of our expected uses of communication technologies going into the partnership

was that the graduate students would use them to develop relationships with high-school

students that would facilitate response to writing. Juliet felt she had no need to use

technology in this way with her own students but did begin to make use of email to

establish relationships with the parents of her students.

Although Juliet seemed to have many practical difficulties with computers during

the Online Writing Partnership, she expressed great openness toward thinking about how

computers could be used in her classroom and was quick to use the online partnership as

a starting point to reflect on her own beliefs about teaching. Juliet was aware that many

of her peers in the methods class were openly resistant to the use of Internet technologies

to work with high-school writing partners. She acknowledged this in an off-handed way

that reflected the ongoing transformation of her own self-image as a teacher of writing:









"It's interesting the things we're resistant to when we don't ... we're not really realizing

that we're resistant to them."

Partnership as a Transformative Experience

More than anyone else in the partnership, Juliet expressed a belief that her very

approach to teaching had been affected by the experience of the Online Writing

Partnership. Not only was it an experience that allowed her to work with a student writer

in a way she never had before, but also the partnership provided an impetus for her

reflection on the very fundamentals of a teacher's role in the classroom. Juliet stated her

belief on a number of occasions that the partnership had been of great value to her, that

she had been able to help her partner improve her writing, and that she herself had

learned a great deal during the process.

One of the central contextual threads that led to Juliet's feeling of success in the

Online Writing Partnership was the experience of having worked with language learners

who were beginning the process of learning to write not only in making letters but also,

as Juliet put it, "in telling stories." Repeatedly Juliet drew connections between the five-

year-old pre-kindergarten students she saw everyday and the sixteen-year-old high-school

junior she worked with over the course of a semester. Being a listener to her own

students allowed Juliet to listen to her writing partner in ways that no other graduate

students mentioned. Working with young children as they explored their own

storytelling ability was parallel to the experience Juliet had with her partner whom she

believed was just as eager to explore her own abilities with writing.

Another thread of importance to Juliet was accessibility to the computers that

would allow her access to her partner. Many of the study participants complained about

the ways they viewed technology as inhibiting their ability to get to know their partner.









For Juliet, it was nearly as difficult to find a computer to use as it would have been to

actually meet with her writing partner. The irony was not lost on Juliet when she laughed

at the "prevailing wisdom" that computers "made things easier." She was quick to point

out that this axiom was only true for those who had easy access to computers.

Perhaps the biggest contextual thread for Juliet was her own ability to connect with

the writing her partner would send her. She acknowledged that at times her partner didn't

make it easy for her:

[The] last paper especially was very hard to get through because it was so, there
were so many grammar issues and it was sort of all over the board, and, I think she
has a good voice it's just sort of getting her to write ....

Yet instead of changing her approach of being an ear to those who had a story to tell,

Juliet stated that she just listened. As she listened, she asked questions about the areas of

her partner's writing that she was genuinely interested in. Pointing to her partner's

thankful emailed response, Juliet expressed her belief that listening and connecting

personally to the writing in front of her made all the difference.

Across Case Analysis of Results

At the beginning of this chapter, I introduced a metaphor to organize my discussion

of the results of this study: a piece of woven cloth. The five participants of this study

were represented as the individual threads of that cloth; however, a cloth is more than just

a collection of threads. To present a thicker, richer description of the study data, it is

necessary to look at the pattern in which the threads of context are woven.

Context, and especially the nature of context in online environments, has been of

interest to me from long before my decision to pursue doctoral work. In fact, it was

largely my experience with incorporating online, asynchronous discussions in my

literature classes at the area high school where I taught that prompted me to continue my









education in the first place. I was fascinated by how some of my students were not

interested in having discussions online, yet others would "log on" at all hours of the night

eager to see the responses their posts received. I was equally fascinated by how the

online discussions were ostensibly part of "the class" but also not of the class in both my

mind and in my students' minds. I wanted to know more about this "online space"-I

didn't know it at the time, but I was wondering about the context of online learning

environments.

Often in educational settings, the context centers around the classroom, with

individuals in close proximity. But what about online contexts? Certainly each

individual in an online environment brings with them an individual surround context just

as any student and teacher would to a physical classroom. Exploring the individual

surround contexts is an important first step, but none of the study participants'

experiences in the Online Writing Partnership happened in isolation; the partnership was

a class assignment. There is a broader context, a weave context, which requires a view of

the experiences of the five participants collectively, to see how the individual threads

relate to each other and further, to illuminate the nature of one specific online activity.

In this section, I discuss the five cases collectively in a manner similar to the

discussions of the cases individually, with one primary difference. As discussed in

chapter two, gaining a more complete understanding of context requires examination

from at least two perspectives. The first perspective, the surround context, deals with

those elements relevant to the task in which participants are engaged. These elements

were explored in the discussion of the individual cases and included their unique

experiences, beliefs about teaching, and attitudes toward technology. The second









perspective of context is the weave, which is concerned with the relational aspects of

activities and objects of the individuals involved. The weave context is actively

constructed as the phenomenon proceeds, and in so doing all of the individual

participants' contextual threads are brought to bear. Herein lies the complicating aspect

of question four of this study, "What contextual threads appeared most salient to these

prospective English teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership?"

Because the weave context concerns relations between and among an array of elements, a

full discussion of context requires consideration of the four particular contextual threads

the five participants themselves identified as significant, as they relate across the three

common elements of the partnership that were the subject of investigation for this study:

the participants' experiences in an Online Writing Partnership, their beliefs about

teaching and teaching writing, and their attitudes toward technology in teaching writing.

Emerging from my analysis of the data, the study participants identified four

contextual threads of significance: social presence, relationships between teachers and

students, the role and authority of a teacher, and preconceived expectations of learning

environments. In the next section I discuss, in turn, each of the first three study questions

through the lens of question four:

1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the
teaching profession have in distance, online partnerships with secondary writers?
2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers' views of
teachers and teaching writing?
3. What influences appear to exist between experience with and attitude toward
technology, and in what ways do these attitudes affect the partnership?
4. What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English
teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership?

Additionally, I have included two discussions outside of the study participants'

perspectives that provide insight into the weave context of the Online Writing









Partnership. In the section focusing on experiences in the partnership, I include a brief

discussion of the experiences of the graduate students' high-school partners. Also, in the

section on beliefs about teaching and teaching writing, I include a discussion of the types

of responses to the high-school students' writing given by the graduate students, and the

relative emphasis on those types.

What Were the Experiences of the Study Participants?

The experiences of the five study participants varied greatly because of their

individual surround contexts. Because each participant came into the partnership with

particular expectations, it was possible through the interviews and in reading their

reflective writings to determine if those expectations were met and to what degree. To

illustrate the level of satisfaction of the five participants I have included a continuum

showing their placements relative to each other, from satisfied to dissatisfied, seen in

Figure 4-1.

Experience

Satisfied //// Frustrated


Juliet Nikki Libby Claire Kate

Figure 4-1. Continuum of experiences reflecting participants' overall attitude toward the
Online Writing Partnership.

Each of the four context threads identified by the participants contributed

significantly in determining the degree to which each participant felt satisfied with the

Online Writing Partnership. In the following section I discuss the relation between each

of the four threads to the experiences of the five participants across cases, and include a

brief discussion of the experiences of the high-school student partners.









Experiences and social presence

Frequently in the interviews with all five participants, I was struck by the

difference between how each participant felt and what they actually said. When I looked

at responses given me by each graduate student when asked in general about their

assessment of the Online Writing Partnership, everyone agreed that it was a positive

experience. On closer inspection, however, I was hard-pressed to find positive

statements pertaining to specific aspects of the experience.

Libby provided one of the few exceptions to this rule in her belief (although this

belief did not manifest itself as practice) that online chatting held an advantage to other

forms of communication because it allowed each user more "wait-time" in preparing a

response. Each turn in the dialog could be thought out more, without the pressures of an

immediate response that Libby felt was expected in face-to-face communication.

However, as reported by the participants, most experiences in the partnership were

characterized by the ways in which the experience was limited. Socialpresence,

described in chapter two as the awareness one has for the presence of another during an

interaction (Richardson & Swan, 2003), impacted the experiences of the participants

largely through its felt absence. As a context thread this absence manifested to the

graduate students not only as literal distance between the partner pairs, but also as an

inability to connect personally, resulting in confusion and frequent misunderstandings

when communicating online.

In the most direct sense, the Online Writing Partnership in the mind of the graduate

participants was characterized as the actual distance between the sets of partners. Kate

spoke specifically of the limitations she felt because she was only able to communicate

with her partner through words. All of the online technologies provided to the









participants for use in the partnership were text-based, and for Kate as well as her

classmates, this "one-dimensional" approach to working with students was difficult.

Kate explained that because her interactions with her partner were limited to written text,

this limitation stunted her ability to communicate altogether:

There was nothing in the email relationship that made us think that it would be
necessary to get in the chat room.

There's only so much you can do in text. ... I felt like my job was half-done
because of the relationship, but I don't think it could have been completed with the
chat room. Had I just used it [the chat room] it would have been OK, [but] I don't
think that it would have [been] that effective.

Libby further illustrated how a sense of limited social presence characterized her

experiences in the partnership by pointing out the difficulties she had in initiating dialog

with her high-school partner. While she generally felt that the technologies provided in

the partnership were adequate for maintaining already established relationships, the

distance she felt between herself and her partner created problems logistically when

trying to set up meetings using only asynchronous modes of communication. Nikki had

similar concerns with the lack of proximity to her partner, but for Nikki the feeling of

distance from her partner was manifested temporally. She characterized her partner (and

to a degree, herself) as lacking motivation because it was "too easy to ignore" an email,

thus dramatically increasing the time between contacts. While all the graduate

participants tried to be conscientious about the need for prompt responses to their

partners' work, the frustration remained regarding Nikki's question of "Why don't we

just get these papers?" when they took so long to arrive in her in-box.

Often, a discomfort with the lack of a physically present partner characterized the

experience of the partnership not merely because communication was limited to written

language-indeed all participants expressed at least basic confidence in their abilities in









writing. Rather, it was the literal separation between partners that colored experience in

the Online Writing Partnership. In the minds of the graduate students, so much of

communication did not translate to written text. Claire was keenly aware of the problems

of attempting to connect with another person devoid of the benefits of body language and

other forms of non-verbal communication:

It's really, in computer language, I mean, it's like, it's completely different. You
just sometimes can't tell if the person's being serious, funny, sarcastic or also
maybe ... I don't know.

Kate expressed similar feelings when asked if she felt there was a relationship with her

partner:

I feel there's a relationship, but because it's entirely through written language it's
limited. I think there's a relationship where we can misinterpret each other.

Both Kate and Nikki saw the need for a larger context to establish a relationship,

not only because communication encompasses more than "just" words and expressions,

but also each felt that "the opportunity to see" and hear their partner would allow for

greater understanding. Text-only communication weakened the degree of social presence

felt between partners because social interaction was viewed as more than just an

exchange of words. That the graduate students felt limited in this way characterized the

experience of the Online Writing Partnership as a whole.

There was a general acknowledgement from all the study participants that some of

the problems of communication they associated with the lack of social presence between

partners could have been alleviated through the use of other technologies that were

available but largely unused, such as the chat rooms. But as Kate stated early in the

interview process, the inclination of the graduate participants was to maintain contact









with their partners in the same way that contact was first made, through email, creating a

perpetuating cycle of limited communication and further separation from their partners.

Experiences and relationships

Though directly connect to the issue of social presence, no other contextual thread

had more influence on how the graduate participants characterized their experiences in

the Online Writing Partnership than that of their sense of the relationships between

partners. The various sources of collected data show that all of the graduate participants

of this study held complex and often contradictory views about whether they had

established a connection with their high-school partners on any level as well as what the

nature of that relationship might be. Most frequently the graduate participants described

their associations with their online partners as lacking a sense of personal connection.

Sometimes this belief was expressed in just so many words, as when Juliet said that she

didn't know her partner "as a person," or when Libby reflected on how "the personal

connection would have been made more" if there had been a more concerted effort to use

all the technologies available through the Online Writing Partnership. Other participants

merely hinted at a lack of personal connection with their partner. Kate frequently went

back and forth as to whether there was any interrelation at all, but when she finally

concluded that there was, she qualified it by saying:

I feel like there's a relationship, but because it's entirely through written language,
it's limited. ... If the goal is to only develop good writing, just on the page, then I
think the relationship is good; it's standard, it's accomplished what it's supposed
to.

Later in that same interview, Kate expressed how she felt she could have improved the

rapport with her partner:









I think our relationship would have been supplemented well by a physical, like, like
a spatial relationship where we could see one another or at least communicate
verbally? But I think we do have one, I just don't know how great it is ....

Nearly all statements made by the graduate participants about the bonds they

formed with their high-school partners were qualified in some way, and this in turn

characterized their experiences over all, as the perceived quality of the relationship often

ran parallel to each participant's satisfaction with the Online Writing Partnership (see

Figure 4-1). Neither Juliet nor Libby felt they knew their partners "personally." Claire

felt that she did not know her partner "as a student." Yet, there was an equal reluctance

to state categorically that there was no relationship at all (although Kate and Nikki did

state this on at least one occasion, the specific context of their denials along with the

numerous statements to the contrary suggest otherwise).

I remember being rather shocked at the time of the interviews as I realized that the

majority of those participating in the study did not feel they had adequate relationships

with their partners. The stories the graduate students told me concerning the partnership

itself were anecdotes often rich in detail and insight such as the "sugar-coating" incident.

I found it surprising that these same graduate students felt little connection to the high-

school students they were paired with and were so inclined to characterize their

experiences as lacking a full sense of satisfaction as a result. I was curious to see if the

same were true on the other side of the equation.

While the high-school students were not the focus of my study, they were an

important part of the larger context of the Online Writing Partnership. Therefore, I

arranged for brief interviews to be conducted with them to see how the experiences

differed among the groups. I wondered if this general sense of disappointment felt by the

graduate students carried through to the high-school dual enrollment students. I admit









my surprise when I realized that, yes, the high-school students largely agreed with the

graduate students that no substantive bond had developed; they did not share in the

disappointment, however.

High-school students' experiences in the Online Writing Partnership

I have discussed previously how there were uneven numbers among the two groups

of students involved in the Online Writing Partnership, resulting in some high-school

students having more than one graduate student paired with them. As it turned out,

although there were five graduate participants in this study, there were only three

corresponding high-school student partners.

Claire was the only graduate student in this study to have an exclusive pairing with

a high-school student. Sam, like all the high-school students in the partnership, was a

high-school junior enrolled in a college dual-enrollment program. I noted Claire's grin as

she described her image of him as a "man's man, but in high school," adding that his

writing was "not what I would consider to be on-level." Shannon was described by her

two partners, Libby and Nikki, as a "fairly out-going girl" who was very much into dance

and used dancing as her topic for all the papers she wrote during the partnership. Finally

there was Ana-Lucia, whom Juliet described as someone who "likes to shock for the sake

of shocking," but who was "trying to find who she is." Kate, Ana-Lucia's other partner,

identified personally with what she saw as Ana-Lucia's desire to "get up on a soap-box

thing" when writing.

When the high-school students were asked to characterize their experiences overall,

the consensus saw the partnership as a "good idea" that would help them improve their

writing. Ana-Lucia felt the experience was beneficial because "instead of just getting

like the teacher's opinion you get, like, other people's opinion." Ana-Lucia and Shannon









explained that they often used a parent to assist them when a paper was due, and

compared those experiences to the partnership. Each of the high-school partners when

asked agreed that their expectations coming into the Online Writing Partnership were

met.

All of the high-school partners felt that their writing had improved as a result of the

Online Writing Partnership. Charlie stated that not only did his specific papers improve,

but he also "learned how to improve [his] writing" overall. Ana-Lucia claimed to be "a

lot more organized" when writing and felt her partners helped her to "stay on topic."

Shannon was simply thankful for the feedback she received.

The three student writers uniformly acknowledged that they believed the graduate

students would benefit the most because they were going to be English teachers (Ana-

Lucia was unaware that Juliet's background in education was different from the others),

and therefore had the opportunity to "practice on them." Ana-Lucia in particular had

much to say regarding this opportunity:

I'm sure they graded papers in their class and stuff like that and talked to other kids
and stuff, but like, someone who's actually not experienced, then that's really good
for them. And, like, on the first one, we never sent them back anything about their
comments, but this time we're sending them information about how their
comments made us feel and how their comments affected us, so. I think that's
kinda helpful a lot, because, like, I don't know. Depending on what you say I think
it would be "oh you did fine" then that doesn't really benefit you know...but if
you're like, constructive criticism (laughs), I guess it helps.

Finally, I wanted to know if the high-school students' views of the relationships

that developed were the same as the graduate students'. So often, the graduate students

characterized their ties to the high-school students as impersonal, sometimes strained, and

often a factor that impacted their experiences in the partnership in frustrating ways.

Failure to connect fully with their partners colored their experiences in the partnership









overall, and I was eager to see if the same dearth of connection existed in the minds of

the high-school partners. It did. The three high-school partners were consistent in

describing their situations as "working relationships" and little else. Shannon, Libby and

Nikki's partner, elaborated:

I wouldn't say that there was really much of a relationship except for that criticism
[the response] back and forth, and then like, they were really nice and helpful but, I
don't really think there was any [relationship] ....

Charlie was even more to the point, saying "there wasn't too much of a relationship just,

email and, that's about it." Even Ana-Lucia, of "sugar-coating incident" fame, spoke

only of the experiences she enjoyed about her two partners, at one point calling the

experience "groovy" but acknowledging that no bond had developed beyond that of

working together. One difference from the graduate students was none of the high-school

students expressed dismay over the lack of connectedness they described with their

graduate partner, nor did they express any wish for anything different.

Experiences and role/authority

The purpose of the partnership stated at the beginning of their language and

composition methods class was to provide opportunities for the graduate students to

practice responding to high-school student papers, and in so doing, to help improve those

students' writing while learning something important about the teaching of writing.

However, when asked to define their role in this process, the graduate participants were

frequently vague and unsure in their responses.

It is likely that confusion over each graduate participant's role in the partnership

stemmed from the conflicting position each found themselves in. On the one hand, each

graduate student felt they were being asked to perform duties they saw as "teacher-like."

As a result, the graduate participants saw their role as being in part that of teacher. On









the other hand, all graduate students were aware of their simultaneous role as student, and

admitted viewing the Online Writing Partnership as an assignment. Consequently, there

was confusion over the role each graduate student played in the learning dynamic of the

partnership, and what authority each had as a result of that role. This confusion over role

and authority in turn played a part in characterizing the experience of each graduate

student.

Most of the graduate students understood what their "job" was, and Nikki

articulated succinctly the consensus view: "We just had to help them be a better writer."

While this was the consensus belief, this answer provided confusion of its own. The

graduate students generally understood that response to student writing was not all that

was required in the teaching of writing. As discussed previously, their own belief was

that relationships were the key to successful writing instruction. Yet, many proceeded in

the Online Writing Partnership as if providing written response was the only requirement

of their assignment. Kate discussed at length how she admittedly gave short shrift to the

partnership process (see her individual thread for more discussion of this point). She saw

every aspect of her participation as confined to text-only communication, which in turn

limited her role in ways that precluded other forms of participation. Kate summed up the

experiences of the partnership, as characterized by her confusion over role, by saying

what seemed to be on the tongue of each graduate partner at one point or another:

"That's what it seemed like I was supposed to do."

One facet of the graduate students' roles that was less confusing was the authority

they felt they possessed as writers. Whether in the storyteller role of Juliet or the

inspirational talents of Nikki, part of each participant's identity was comprised of their









view of themselves as writers. Even Claire, who expressed the most doubt about her

identity as a writer, drew on her past experiences in writing as evidence of her ability to

do what the partnership's assignment asked of her. When the high-school students would

overlook some or all of the given suggestions, this lapse conflicted with the graduate

students' sense of authority as writers. The consternation they felt in these instances only

served to compound their doubt about their role, which in turn further drenched their

experiences with frustration.

The graduate students' sense of confusion over their role and authority in the

partnership stemmed from their belief that rather than letting them define or discover

their role, these roles were assigned to them. Further problems arose when the assigned

role of providing response to student writing conflicted with the beliefs the graduate

students already held about the role of the teacher in a classroom.

Experiences and expectations of the physical classroom

There was a spectrum of opinions about how favorably the Online Writing

Partnership compared to what the graduate students had or expected to experience in the

classroom (see Figure 4-1). What was consistent, however, was how expectations of the

"conventional classroom" characterized the experiences each graduate participant had in

the Online Writing Partnership. Each graduate participant viewed the Online Writing

Partnership through the lens of the conventional classrooms they all anticipated working

in after their degree program was finished. Even Juliet, who was already teaching full-

time during the partnership, reflected on her experiences in relation to how they informed

her classroom process, as well as how her classroom informed her experiences in the

partnership. Providing for this comparison was in part what the partnership was intended

to do. Ostensibly an opportunity to give practice to preservice teachers, there was also









the expectation that the partnership would provide a bridge between the theoretical and

academic learning experienced at the university, and the "practical, real-world" learning

done in traditional classroom practicum experiences.

Early in her interviews, Libby made explicit her take on how the partnership would

benefit her in the long run. As discussed earlier in her individual thread, Libby felt

insecure about her ability to provide useful feedback to student writers. Not only did she

view the Online Writing Partnership as an opportunity to gain experience and therefore

confidence, but also in the end she felt the partnership was successful; her confidence

was in her mind dramatically improved, and she laughed in relief that this would "help

me in my internship."

For some participants, the partnership was at least an exciting opportunity to get

started working with students in anticipation of the internship the following spring. Nikki

especially looked forward in the beginning to helping Shannon with her writing. Claire

likewise expressed gratitude that she would get to "try out" giving responses to student

writers before she was expected to do so in a more "serious" way during her internship.

Despite some serious misgivings in other areas concerning the partnership, each

participant expressed different reasons that they were thankful for the experience.

However, these experiences were always characterized by thoughts of eventual four-

walled classrooms.

Not all of the experiences in the partnership were positive, and this too was due to

the expectations held concerning the physical classrooms. Kate had perhaps the least

positive experience of the five because the partnership in her mind did not approximate

closely enough the idea she had of herself as a teacher in the classroom. Text-only









communication was limiting to Kate because she was aware of all the other ways she

could communicate with her students when face-to-face with them. Claire also noted the

difficulties of trying to communicate via computers, believing that so much of the

communication that goes on in the classroom does not translate to online communication.

Most striking in this study was the way in which the lone classroom teacher, Juliet,

viewed the Online Writing Partnership through the lens of the classroom. Everyday

Juliet was in an actual classroom as a teacher. I noted early in my research journal that I

anticipated she would find the partnership more difficult than the other participants

because she had ongoing and possibly contrasting experiences in a classroom. My

expectations were proven opposite, however, as she deftly used her experiences in her

pre-kindergarten classroom to enhance her experiences with Ana-Lucia in the online

environment as well as to reflect on those experiences to improve her current classroom

teaching.

All of the four contextual threads identified by the participants played important

roles in the characterization of the experiences of the Online Writing Partnership, even if

the experiences themselves were not as universal. Some of the contextual threads, such

as social presence and the confusion over roles/authority, appeared to the participants as

deal-breakers from the start regarding a feeling of success in the partnership. Other

threads, such as each participant's expectations of the physical classroom acting as a

model for experiencing their online partnerships, were enlightening and even pleasant for

the participants. Regardless of how they were characterized, all of the threads played

important roles in determining the texture of each participant's experience.









What do these Experiences Reveal about these Prospective Teachers' Beliefs about
Teachers and Teaching Writing?

There are likely no two teachers in the world who hold exactly the same beliefs

about teaching and the teaching of writing. Certainly beliefs varied widely among the

participants in this study. By examining those beliefs expressed and implied in

interviews and in reflective writing, it was possible to place each of the five participants

along a continuum starting with the social constructivist model, where meaning is jointly

Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing

Social Transmission
Constructivist Model
Juliet Libby Kate Claire Nikki

Figure 4-2. Continuum of teaching philosophies reflecting participants' stated and
implied beliefs during the Online Writing Partnership.

constructed between teachers and students, and moving to the transmission model of

teaching, where information is transferred from teacher to student. This continuum is

seen in Figure 4-2.

Each of the four contextual threads identified by the participants played significant

roles in revealing their beliefs about teaching and teaching writing during the Online

Writing Partnership. In the following section I present an across-case discussion

pertaining to question two, "What do these experiences reveal about these prospective

teachers' beliefs about teachers and teaching writing?" in order to explore the relations of

the four context threads and those beliefs. Finally, to illustrate how beliefs about

teaching writing manifested in the emailed responses given to the high-school partners

about their writing, I include a brief discussion of those responses and the relative

emphasis placed on them.









Beliefs and social presence

Although they did not have the specific jargon, social presence during the Online

Writing Partnership was the most immediate contextual thread of the entire experience

for the study participants. Even before they began exchanging emails with their high-

school partners, concerns were expressed about the quality of assistance the graduate

students could provide absent actual, spatial presence. The study participants largely

understood social presence in terms of immediacy and transparency (and more precisely

for each, the lack thereof). Communication with their partners was not immediate, and

the technology they were to use was often the only thing the graduate students saw. As a

result each study participant felt separated from her high-school partner. This separation

between partners impacted the experiences of the Online Writing Partnership overall, and

also revealed beliefs about teaching that included a felt need for closeness to their

partners.

For the study participants, frustrations expressed over separation from their high-

school partner illuminated other beliefs about important contextual threads and provided

a way to frame their discussion of what they believed was important in three areas:

establishing relationships with students, establishing a clear understanding of the roles

teachers and students were expected to play in writing instruction, and beliefs about the

context of a physical classroom and the role it would play in their careers as teachers of

writing. Without a sense of social presence conducive to the beliefs each participant held

regarding student/teacher interaction, connections would either be impossible to create or

unsuitable to the objectives of writing instruction. Likewise, the graduate students'

beliefs about writing instruction included what they saw as the very nature of teaching:

presenting information to students with sufficient clarity to improve writing ability. They









simply did not believe the level of social presence in the Online Writing Partnership

allowed them to do so. In their view, physical proximity determined to some degree their

ability to present instruction in a clear and effective manner.

Kate most adamantly expressed belief in the importance of social presence to

writing instruction. Here she explains this belief, shared by the others, of how closeness

in proximity allowed a teacher to go beyond the "mechanical" skill of writing instruction:

... In terms of writing apart from mechanics, just writing for audience and all
these other aspects that kind of go beyond, you know, mechanics, it's, it's lacking
the ... the, even the spatial element, it's lacking, just like, knowing what each other
looks like, kind of ... because you always skew what you think of a situation based
on your physical surrounding and the way, and you, interactions and ... I rely a lot
on speech, and combining rhetoric and ... I think you can read a speech or you can
hear a speech and they have totally different effects just because the words on the
page don't always do what um, when you hear what the speech actually does.

Situations that lacked close proximity only made teaching more difficult in the minds of

the study participants. While Libby expressed a belief that "talking about writing using

writing" seemed like it would benefit writing instruction, the reality based on the

experiences of the five participants was that being limited to text-only communication

was a fly in the ointment at best when trying to mentor others in writing.

Beliefs and relationships

In reviewing the varied data sources, one of the participants' prevalent and shared

beliefs about teaching writing became apparent as the five study participants discussed

the relationships they developed with their high-school partners. Each graduate student

stated that they had seen evidence of changes made in their high-school partners' writing;

it was their belief that these changes indicated the existence of some type of bond

between the two and frequently this was the only evidence they would identify. Claire

stated plainly that "there had to have been some relationship between us or he would not









have ... I wouldn't have seen any of the suggestions I made in the final draft." Juliet

acknowledged that she "didn't know who [her partner] was as a writer," yet wrote in her

reflective paper "it was rewarding to see my questions answered in her revisions" and

characterized the difference between her relationship with Ana-Lucia and the one Ana-

Lucia had with Kate (Ana-Lucia's other partner) by saying that Ana-Lucia responded to

Juliet's suggestions more readily. Libby likewise felt that because her situation with

Shannon lacked a "personal aspect" it therefore was "more teacher/student ... than

mentorish."

But what contextual factors went into establishing these bonds in the first place?

What beliefs did these five participants have regarding the ways in which teachers and

students established connections at all? As I have noted in previous sections, the

technologies involved in the Online Writing Partnership often received blame when the

graduate students became frustrated with the lack-luster collegiality between them and

their high-school partner. After the partnership had ended, Kate reflected on her

frustration with technology, and while she did not absolve it from culpability, her

reflection raised awareness of her own proclivities toward relationships even outside of

the classroom:

It made me aware of the way I am, as in someone who's responding in a way, in a
teacher student relationship ... like, I treat my friends, with people, and they're
like, "You're really harsh, you're being really mean to me." And I'm like, "Well,
you're my friend, and you can deal with it." It shouldn't be the way I function just
naturally without really thinking about it, or [I should] think about it some.

Kate realized she had a tendency to disregard her friends' feelings at times when she

interacted with them, and recognized that this "harshness" in her communicative style

also flavored her attempts at establishing a rapport with her partner. Under "normal"

circumstances to account for this harshness and compensate for it, Kate relied on hand









gestures, facial expressions, and other "nurturing" tendencies she felt she possessed but

that were unavailable to her in a text-only environment.

In the minds of the study participants, student/teacher relationships developed

naturally and as a matter of course, and particularly when those participants were

uninhibited by the limitations of text-only communication technologies. From

observations that sarcasm did not translate well in email, to frustrations resulting from a

lack of "emotional feelings" toward the high-school partners, the study participants'

comments revealed two beliefs about student/teacher interaction in writing instruction.

One was that using online communication technologies during the partnership made the

graduate participants more conscious of the complexities of communication, and

especially of communicating to connect with others. The other belief was that being

conscious of and attending to the various complexities of communication only made the

process of establishing bonds more difficult. In the case of teaching writing, the belief

was that left to their own devices in a physical classroom, relationships would "just

happen." Technology was the bMte noir frustrating any sense of connectedness between

partners; Nikki captured the zeitgeist of the frustration surrounding rapport in the Online

Writing Partnership by saying that "if I had the opportunity to see [her partner], that

something would definitely develop."

Beliefs and role/authority

While the graduate students felt their assignment in the Online Writing Partnership,

and therefore their role, was vague, this initial confusion did not prevent them from

interpreting their role within the partnership and acting on that interpretation. Often the

way the participants interpreted their roles was very revealing about their beliefs not only

about the role of the teacher in writing instruction, but also about the role of the student.









The descriptions of their experiences in the partnership reflected a strong belief that the

role of the writing instructor was to identify errors and suggest changes to be made to

students' writing. Regardless whether or not these suggestions were followed, the

responses of the graduate participants revealed another aspect of role within the Online

Writing Partnership. Not only was their role to suggest changes, it was also in their view

the role of the high-school student to incorporate those changes into their writing.

Because they saw themselves as authorities in writing, the study participants

experienced frustration when responses were "ignored" by their high-school partner. To

the graduate participants, this was contrary to their beliefs about a teacher's role and the

authority inherent in that role; in the interviews this conflict was often expressed as

confusion. Nikki shook her head in exasperation as she commented about an example in

her partner's paper: "I saw a way for [her partner] to change a sentence, or if I wrote the

sentence it would have been completely different and had a better ... ." Sometimes the

graduate participants went so far as to view failure to take suggestions as defiance by

their high-school partner, as did Kate in her reflective essay when talking about her

partner's writing: "If I were grading the final draft, I would mark her off for the places

she refused to consider the revisions."

The authority inherent in the graduate students' self-defined roles stemmed from

each participant's belief that they had "figured out" what writing was, and this

understanding of the nature of writing was the basis for their approach to the teaching of

writing. Libby exhibited this belief in her near total adoption of revision not only as an

approach to writing but as an approach to learning, as discussed in her individual thread.

Kate, too, believed that her "duty" to her students was to show them how writing could









do for them what it had done for her. Kate talked early in the interview process about

unlocking the power of writing in her own life:

When I say something then it makes sense to me and so writing it helps me to make
sense of my reality and so, I majored in it and I found, well, this goes even further
you can study culture, and people's output is a way of, it's a microcosm of
understanding what's going on in the world ...

In a later interview, she expressed how this early realization concerning her own writing

influenced her beliefs about teaching others:

So I hope that by introducing the idea of like, themselves, in their writing, they're
going to do a lot of writing about themselves, who they are and, a bunch of... all the
poetry we're going to do at the beginning, it's just poetry about yourself. So that
you can, plug your feelings and your thoughts and your actual ideas into...and the
writing becomes a natural outgrowth of it. And it's not...it's the bridge.

Like Kate, the belief that each study participant understood the nature of writing in

their own lives contributed to the authority inherent in their beliefs about the role of

teacher in writing instruction, and how the beliefs the participants had about writing also

influenced their approach to teaching writing. Juliet considered herself a storyteller, and

her students assumed the same role (in part because they were learning to write for the

first time). Claire, while dealing with internal struggles over her right to tell others "what

to do" in general, believed that her experiences working for a newspaper and her degree

in publishing made her competent to instruct others in their writing. Libby's negative

experiences as a writer in high school instilled in her the belief that she needed to

countermand those negative influences for her own students. Nikki, confident beyond all

the others in her writing abilities, would allow her position of authority to inspire others

to write, emulating her as a writer. For each of the participants, it was the experiences

they had had in writing that led to a certain level of confidence in their own abilities as

writers, and therefore as figures of authority in writing instruction.









Emphasis on types of response given in the Online Writing Partnership

The purpose of this study was to look at the contextual features that affected the

experiences of preservice teachers in an Online Writing Partnership and the beliefs about

teaching, writing, and technology those experiences revealed. Since much emphasis was

placed on responding to student writing both in the class of which the Online Writing

Partnership was an assignment and by the participants in this study, I felt it was important

to consider the kinds of responses the graduate students gave to their high-school

partners, and to examine the emphasis on the kinds of response given. While the

directions of the partnership assignment clearly indicated that the purpose of the graduate

partner was not to serve as proofreader, this stated purpose clearly sat in conflict to the

graduate students' already held beliefs about the role of teacher in writing instruction. I

was curious to see what types of responses were given, how much collective emphasis

was given to the various types of responses, how the actual responses compared to the

ways the graduate students' characterized their responses, and what these

characterizations revealed concerning their beliefs about the role of the teacher in writing

instruction.

Of the five graduate participants in this study, only three discussed specifically the

manner in which they responded to their student partner. For reasons unknown, Nikki

never talked or wrote about the kinds of responses she gave to her partner, only that she

occasionally "fixed" grammatical errors. Libby only ever spoke in general terms, often

speaking theoretically about how the Online Writing Partnership would inform her

classroom teaching the following year. In looking at their actual responses, both Libby

and Nikki were on par with their fellow study participants as to type and emphasis of

response. Kate, Juliet, and Claire, however, seemed eager to talk specifically about both










their approach to providing response to student writing and the specific types of

responses they placed on the drafts sent to them. What I found interesting in my review

of these data was that often the transcripts of their recollections read very differently from

the document data sources of actual student papers. For example, as discussed in her

individual thread, Juliet stated in her interviews that she worked very hard at phrasing all

of her responses as questions, in order to appear "less dogmatic" to her partner. Upon

review of Ana-Lucia's papers, however, I noted that the percentage of Juliet's responses

phrased as questions was only slightly higher than the twenty-three percent that

represented the amount of questions among the collective responses given. (For more

details of the relative emphasis on types of response among all participants, see Figure 4-

3).


Emphasis on response type

Criticism 11%


Praise 23%



Question 18%








Development 11%
Structure 23%


Mechanics 9%-


Grammar 5%


Figure 4-3. Percentage of emphasis on response type









To examine the types of responses given by the participants, I first collected the

various drafts of papers exchanged by the participant pairs and read through the

comments left marginally using the "comment card" function of Microsoft Word (see

Appendix C). Determining categories of response was relatively straightforward. As I

read through the responses and noted their placement in context of the high-school

students' writing, I thought carefully about the purpose of each response. Because the

graduate participants frequently mentioned the use of questions in responding to their

partner's writing, and also because their professor had suggested an approach to giving

response that included asking questions, questions was one category of response. Some

examples from the question category include: "Why is this important to [your subject]?"

"How does it fit into the philosophy?" "How could you describe this activity?" "What

did you feel as you had this realization?" and "Do you think there is a difference in the

way we talk and write?" I was careful with the questions category, however, as there

were some instances where responses were written as questions, but indicated an error

needing correction. For example, Juliet asked in Ana-Lucia's second paper, "Do you

mean 'is'?" in response to what was clearly a typographical error. Instead, I included

these "questions" in the mechanics category, which included such typographical errors,

errors of punctuation, and others. Many of the responses fit into multiple categories. For

example, most questions were asked in a way that was designed to elicit more

information. This type of response was therefore identified as both asking a question and

eliciting further information designed to help with the development of the paper. (For a

summary of the types of responses along with brief descriptions of each, see Table 4-2.)









The majority of the responses to student writing, despite the graduate students'

claims to the contrary, were classified as editorial responses. While praise accounted for

nearly a quarter of all responses, and questions for just slightly less, five of the seven

categories identified through my analysis of response types dealt with issues of

correction. Nearly two-thirds of all given responses dealt with what the graduate partners

viewed as "mistakes" in their high-school partners' writing. This proportion confirmed,

along with the description of the graduate students' repeated expressions of frustration

with the "raw" form of their partners' papers, the belief that the primary role of the

teacher is to identify errors in student writing and/or suggest changes, and the role of the

student is to make changes accordingly.

Beliefs and classroom writing instruction

Table 4-2. Categories of response type with descriptions.
Response Type Type Description
Grammar Any response that points out an error in grammar conventions, such
as errors in parts of speech, plural endings, or verb tenses.
Mechanics Any response that points out an error in written conventions, such
as misplaced or absent punctuation and spelling.
Development Any response designed to elicit more information from the writer.
These were generally also questions, although not exclusively.
Questions Any response that was phrased as a question and the answer to
which was not already known.
Structure Any response relating to an issue of writing convention and
specifying clarity, such as sentence structure and organization.
Praise Any response whose main purpose is to praise and/or encourage the
writer, or otherwise express pleasure.
Criticism Any response the purpose of which is to point out an error that does
not otherwise fit into either grammar or mechanics. Often
responses in criticism were about style and preference.









One of the most surprising aspects of the entire study of the Online Writing

Partnership was the revelation of the belief that revision in writing was not only rare in

the writing processes of the five study participants, but their beliefs about the process of

writing largely did not include the notion of revision. In their interviews and writings,

the study participants painted a picture of revision as an activity done in class as the last

step before submitting a final draft.

From her remarks about how profoundly the "new" notion of revision presented

in her methods class affected her outlook on nearly every aspect of teaching, I concluded

that Libby did not view revision as a usual step in her writing process. Moreover, she

stated in her interviews and in her reflective writing that academic writing elicited bad

memories because of what she called the "one and you're done" approach to writing.

This experience with academic writing, as discussed in chapter two, is not uncommon

among college undergraduates.

Claire was the most experienced of the five participants as a writer. Yet she

described her approach to writing primarily as sitting down at a computer or typewriter

and composing in a single sitting. Claire acknowledged that some people might benefit

from the ability to "play around" with their writing, but she was also convinced that the

writing most writers connected with "just came out." Most of the participants to some

degree believed their own writing was something that did not require revision. Nikki

viewed revision "like an actress watching her own movies, or a chef eating their food. I

don't think it happens very often." In her reflection paper Nikki even calls the revision

process retypingg."









These beliefs about revision revealed the participants views about how they

envisioned writing instruction in the classroom. Their antipathy toward revision reflected

deeply held beliefs that revision was not something that skilled writers did. Instead

revision was a classroom activity, a step in the writing procedure, especially for those

(such as high-school students) still developing their writing abilities. The pervasive

belief was that the teacher was there to illuminate errors in the student's writing, and

through revision the student corrected those errors-otherwise know as editing. For the

graduate students, revision did not resemble the recursive process described by the

literature in chapter two. Rather, revision was teacher-assisted proofreading followed by

re-writing.

There were some instances when response was given to the high-school students

that did not focus merely on error correction. Frequently the participants would reflect

on how very difficult it was to communicate to their partner how verb tense could change

the meaning of a passage, or how writing in the second person could be a powerful

technique but was difficult to maintain. I do not contend that in my analysis of the data

there is no evidence of belief that a teacher, working with a student writer, can assist

them in ways other than pointing out "mistakes." However, it was clear that revision as

illustrated in chapter two was dissimilar to what the study participants believed revision

to be, nor did this concept of revision reflect the graduate students' beliefs about the role

of revision in the classroom.

What Influences did Participant Attitudes toward Technology have on the
Experiences of the Online Writing Partnership?

Originally the technological aspects of mentoring student writers in an online

environment were what prompted me to undergo this study. It was not long, however,









when I discovered that technology was but one thread of many contributing to the

complex and fascinating experiences of the participants in the Online Writing

Partnership. But technology holds a particularly important place in this study, and

attitudes toward technology and the role it played in the partnership did have a great

impact on the experiences of the five study participants. Through an analysis of the

statements and writing of the five graduate students, it was possible to place them on a

continuum illustrating their relative comfort level toward technology in general, and the

Attitudes Toward Technology

Positive / / / / / Negative

Libby Juliet Nikki Claire Kate

Figure 4-4. Continuum reflecting participants' overall attitude toward technology as
revealed through Online Writing Partnership.

online communication technologies featured in the partnership specifically. This

continuum can be found in Figure 4-4.

Each of the four context threads identified by the participants impacted the attitudes

they had toward technology, especially as technology was used for writing instruction in

the online partnership. In the following section I examine each context thread in an

across case discussion pertaining to question three, "What influences did participant

attitudes toward technology have on the experiences of the Online Writing Partnership?"

Attitudes toward technology and social presence

Examining the nature of social presence in terms of the technology of the online

partnership was enlightening in what it revealed about the participants' views of the

nature of social presence in a relationship. For most of the participants the biggest fault

of the online communication technologies such as email were those aspects of face-to-









face communication that could not be translated to text-based communication. In the

minds of the graduate students text-based communication technologies were insufficient

when communicating for the purpose of writing instruction. As a result, when

complaints arose concerning the felt "distance" between the graduate students and their

high-school partners, these complaints were rarely about quantitative, measurable

distance but of a more qualified distance that reflected the experience of being separated

from each other.

Difficulties felt as a result of weak social presence with the high-school student

they were to mentor in writing appeared mostly through the frustrations of having to

translate communicative functions such as hand gestures and facial expressions into text-

based equivalents. Kate spoke of eliciting laughter and watching as her classmates

"imitate[d]" her propensity to "speak with [her] hands" in equal measure to her words.

Juliet was the one participant who seemed least bothered by this distance, saying of the

partnership "it is what it is," yet stating that she was limited to "knowing" her partner

only through the words written in their papers. Nikki was adamant in her beliefs that the

mere visage of partners would have improved the experience of the partnership on both

ends. Repeatedly the graduate participants gave examples of how distance, both actual

and perceived, revealed beliefs that technology within the Online Writing Partnership

created obstacles to effective communication.

There were some instances where the distance between partners provided benefits

to the graduate students. As discussed in her individual thread, Libby felt that using chat

rooms to discuss papers had an inherent benefit in decreasing the rate of communication

and forcing the participants to move at a pace more conducive to thoughtfully discussing









writing. Juliet also implied that the distance in both time and space between her and her

partner allowed her to review areas of grammatical uncertainty, areas for which Juliet felt

she might need a "refresher course."

Overall, the thread of perceived social presence (or lack thereof) had unfavorable

effects on the experiences of the partnership for the five study participants, and they saw

the technologies of the partnership as responsible. There were few wholesale attacks on

the insufficiencies of text-only communications. However, the point was made clear on a

number of occasions that because of the limitations created by text-only relationships,

misunderstandings between partners were common and created an atmosphere of

frustration. While the participants understood that distance was only one aspect that

contributed to the feeling that their partners were not present during interactions, there

was a tendency to lay the bulk of responsibility for this felt separation at the feet of the

technologies used in the Online Writing Partnership. This frustration led to a perceived

decrease in motivation not only on the side of the high-school students, as Nikki pointed

out, but also a lack of motivation on the part of the graduate students themselves, who at

times "gave in" to the sense of limitations imposed by the technology and did little more

than insert perfunctory comments into the drafts of papers sent their way.

Attitudes toward technology and relationships

However the technology might have actually affected the graduate participants'

ability to connect with their high-school partners, it was undeniable that these

relationships were viewed as impersonal at best, and sometimes strained. Much was said

about the rapport between partners, or lack thereof, in the interviews. While only Nikki

said in her interview sessions that she felt there was no connection at all with her partner,

virtually all mentions of "relationship" by the five study participants were qualified with









limitations and acknowledgements that these relationships were not what they would

have been had the technology allowed the ease of communication that the participants

assumed occurred naturally in face-to-face communication.

Frequently the graduate participants discussed their relationships in terms of how

they were influenced by the technology of the Online Writing Partnership. Libby for

example looked at text-based communication as mirroring the editorial aspect of writing.

In other words, the conversations Libby and her partner had were constructed in the same

manner as the papers that were the subject of those conversations. For Libby, this was a

benefit to the relationship, for although it increased the length in time between

interactions, it provided for her and her partner an opportunity to avoid

misunderstandings. In Libby's mind, the technologies eliminated to a degree the need to

ask for clarification:

But in a chat, you can do the same thing [seek clarification], but you can avoid
some of that by editing what you type in the first place. Does that make sense? So,
making your comments more specific in the first place is a benefit of chatting ...

For Kate, the opposite was true. Because she felt so strongly about her need for other,

non-verbal forms of communication, being able to avoid miscommunication in typed

conversation was beside the point. The fact remained that the technology of the

partnership was largely viewed by the participants as responsible for the types of bonds

they formed, whether they were beneficial or not. The technologies made available for

the Online Writing Partnership were viewed, in terms of the relationships between

partners, not for what they provided but for what they lacked. While connections were

established between partners, even if they proved adequate for writing instruction as was

the case with Juliet and Libby, these connections were not the relationships the

participants expected would develop in ideal circumstances. The belief among the five









study participants was that technologies such as email, chat rooms, and others of the

Online Writing Partnership could not provide these circumstances.

Attitudes toward technology and role/authority

As discussed earlier, part of the dissatisfaction of the participants in their overall

experiences was the feeling that their role in the Online Writing Partnership was vague

and not completely under their control. In one of the clearest examples of how context

threads were interwoven in the experience of the Online Writing Partnership, all the

participants pointed to ways in which the technologies shaped their roles. Kate was most

upfront with this admission, stating that because of the way she perceived the partnership

was set up, she established her role in the partnership accordingly. In her individual

thread Kate was quoted as saying she didn't see her role in the partnership extending

beyond the insertion of minimal comments in her partner's paper and returning that paper

via email. Yet Kate was also the most disappointed of all the study participants with how

superficial the relationship she had with her partner seemed. Later in that interview

session she clarified how the technology influenced her perceived role:

I think it would have been beneficial with the chat room if we'd [been] critiquing a
little different, instead of email form, like either or. If I had had the paper in front
of me and she'd had it there, and we could do the voice thing, that would help, or
even type...if it was a conversation then through the paper, step by step, now you
see what you're doing here. Then I would, then that would have been a good thing.
But, the fact that I did all the comments and then just emailed them to her and she
read them, there wasn't...that was the conversation. You know? And it happened
in a lump as opposed to back and forth. Which is what I think the bulletin board or
the chat room would be good for. So I can see them working well, but not, I mean
together but, a little differently. Like, email less. If email was only meant to like,
email the copy in the beginning, then that's fine. But then when it, when I'm
giving all the feedback for you now...









Kate felt that the assignment of the partnership required little more than her participation

through email. As a result, she was less motivated to move beyond email, even though

she saw the potential benefits of doing so.

The example above was indicative of what the study participants saw as the

influence of technology in determining what role they would play in the partnership.

Libby compared the way the partnership was set up, and thus the way she approached her

role in the partnership, as similar to the experiences she herself had had in high school,

when she emailed papers to her older brother for advice; Nikki felt the process lacked the

person of the mentor, which she felt was her greatest asset in writing instruction and

alluded to her felt sense of anonymity which she believed was caused by the technologies

of the partnership. Although each participant had different reactions to their perceived

role, and each defined their roles in slightly different ways, all five of the graduate

participants' views of role revealed the belief that technology provided a partial

definition of those roles in the Online Writing Partnership.

Attitudes toward technology and expectations of the classroom

With the exception of Juliet, each of the participants in the Online Writing

Partnership was anticipating their eventual entry into the classroom as full-time English

teachers. Juliet was already in the classroom, but her situation was similar to the others.

Each study participant was enrolled in the class to prepare them for classroom teaching,

and it was natural that they would look at the Online Writing Partnership through the lens

of their individual expectations concerning the physical classroom. This was never more

evident than when looking at how expectations of the physical classroom revealed the

participants' views and attitudes concerning technology.









The Online Writing Partnership represented the unfamiliar to the graduate students.

A typical reaction therefore was to look for some area of familiarity with which to

approach an understanding of their experiences working online with student writers.

Invariably this reference point was the rather generic "physical classroom," which

encompassed a mental manifestation of not only what the graduate students were learning

in their educational degree programs, but also their cumulative experiences in classrooms

as observers, sometimes as teachers, and as students themselves.

During the interviews, the participants would give me their "take" on technology

integration in the classroom and would draw on their experiences in the Online Writing

Partnership. Afterward they would apply certain elements from the partnership to a more

conventional understanding of how teaching and learning happen within the "four walls"

of an English/Language Arts classroom. Typically, these applications dealt with ways of

making instruction either easier or more efficient. Kate described her ideal classroom in

a discussion early in the partnership experience, even including some elements of online

communication. However she stressed her belief that the value of technology in the

classroom was as a way of "reduc[ing] paper." Libby saw computers as being an aid in

the administration of her classroom:

I think anything, like there would be a way for students and teachers to
communicate or even keep in touch with things like, business-type stuff that takes
up a lot of class time some times.

Libby further speculated that the online communicative functions she was experiencing

in the partnership could assist in avoiding some of the pitfalls of attendance and

assignment due dates she saw as a part of teaching:

Or if the student's sick you can say, well you can email your paper to me, it's still
due Friday, or whatever.









Even if specific examples of translation from online environments to physical

classrooms were not forthcoming, the five study participants often claimed to benefit

"just from thinking about how to use" the technologies of email and online bulletin

boards emphasized during the Online Writing Partnership. This was especially true for

Juliet, who did not believe much of the actual experience of using email and chat rooms

for writing instruction would translate to her five-year-old students. Still, she

acknowledged the value of the brainstorming that resulted from her experience of

working online with her high-school partner in providing new ideas for her teaching.

The graduate participants considered their new perspectives on the use of

communication technologies for instruction as ways of "cleaning up" the experiences in

the classroom. For example, nearly every participant in this study expressed their

appreciation for not having to read handwritten papers. Libby expressed a unique

perspective on this point, stating that not only was it nice to have papers typed "nice and

neat," but that in the case of word processing, it might even improve the effectiveness of

her teaching. She felt able to insert comments exactly where they belonged using the

comment-card function of Microsoft Word.

While there were many aspects of technology that were viewed in light of how it

could make teaching writing more convenient (albeit in light of methods of in-class

instruction), no single technological aspect of the Online Writing Partnership was more

universally beloved by the five graduate students than that of the comment function of

Microsoft Word. Each and every time I examined the data I collected, I was struck by

how devoted each participant was to this rather minor (at least in my mind) function of

Microsoft's flagship word processing application. Some were not aware of the function









before beginning the partnership, and Juliet was so taken aback by it that she admitted

talking to friends about being able to add "little virtual Post-Its" to documents. The

comment function alternated between a pleasant convenience for Kate and Claire, to

empowering for Libby and Nikki, to humorously "life-altering" for Juliet.

The strongest belief about technology revealed through the participants'

expectations of the physical classroom was that technological approaches to teaching

writing should not replace "traditional" writing instruction. Rather, on a frequent and

consistent basis, each of the participants expressed their belief that technologies such as

email and even Microsoft Word's comment function should at best only enhance the

experience of in-class writing development.

Kate, who was highly critical of the effect she believed the technology had on her

relationship with her partner, noted that she saw the online technologies working "well in

conjunction with an actual working relationship," even that it might be more productive

to submit work in an online fashion such as email. However, she was mindful to point

out in her reflective essay that:

I do not think that teachers should rely on online feedback when they communicate
with students, but that it should be combined with classroom instruction.

Technological additions to writing instruction were fine, as long as the foundation for

teaching was firmly based on "traditional" classroom methods. Libby expressed similar

ideas, believing that the communication technologies of the Online Writing Partnership

could "enhance what's happening in the classroom," but these technologies could not

replace classroom approaches to teaching writing. Nikki admitted that she saw

computer-based instruction as inevitable in the future, but so much of her idea of teaching









centered around her own physical persona that the idea that a student could be helped

without the actual presence of the teacher for inspiration was anathema to her beliefs.

Although the spectrum of attitudes and beliefs concerning technology and its role

in the teaching of writing were varied, the interwoven thread of an expected physical

classroom suggested a uniform belief that at best, online communication technologies

could serve as an enhancement to writing instruction. Although at times defensive

toward what they saw as too-fast modernization of the writing process, most of the

participants believed that there was a place for computers in the writing classroom, if not

the online technologies that frustrated so many of them during the experience of the

Online Writing Partnership.

Summary

This chapter presented the findings of the study data, organized by the four guiding

questions of this study:

1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the
teaching profession have in distance, online partnerships with secondary writers?
2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers' views of
teachers and teaching writing?
3. What influences appear to exist between experience with and attitude toward
technology, and in what way did these attitudes affect the partnership?
4. What contextual threads appear most salient to these prospective English teachers
in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership?

In the first section of this chapter, analysis focused on the data as they informed the

individual cases of the graduate students' participation in the Online Writing Partnership.

For a more detailed summary of these cases, see Table 4-1. The following is a summary

of the major points emerging from the discussion of the study data:

1. The overall experiences of the five study participants, viewed across the individual
cases, revealed that:









The participants in this study reported a sense that the relationships with their
partners were inhibited by a perceived lack of social presence in the online
context;

Although the degree varied among individuals, the participants viewed
limitations of text-only communication as negatively influencing their
satisfaction of the experience of the Online Writing Partnership as a means
of helping them prepare to be teachers of writing;

Graduate participants' beliefs regarding student/teacher interaction largely
revolved around the notion that teacher and student must be physically
present in order for writing instruction to take place fully and effectively;

A persistent belief held by the graduate participants was that relationships in a
physical classroom happened with little effort put forth by either teacher
or student; and that consequently,

The distance created by the felt lack of social presence was responsible for the
inadequate instructional relationships experienced by the graduate
students.

2. Through participation in the Online Writing Partnership, the graduate student
participants revealed beliefs

That student/teacher relationships, as it pertained to writing instruction, were
ones in which the teacher served as editor and the students made
corrections to their writing based on the errors identified by the teacher;

That writing instruction was best accomplished through face-to-face
interaction;

That authority in writing instruction derived from the graduate students'
experiences writing, both academically and professionally;

That revision as understood by the graduate students was not what theory and
best practices show revision to be, but rather is closer to the concept of
editing and proofreading.

3. In their experiences with the Online Writing Partnership, the five graduate student
participants attitudes toward technology manifested as

Frustration toward the perceived lack of personal connection between partners
as a result of the physical and emotional distance imposed by the
communication technologies used;

Decreased motivation toward participation in the partnership beyond the
minimum requirements of the methods course due to vaguely defined roles
and a perceived lack of authority in those roles;






178


Inclinations toward using technology in the classroom in ways that assisted
with managerial-type routines but that did not threaten the participants'
previously held conceptions of what writing instruction in a classroom
should be.

4. While the individual experiences of the five study participants varied greatly, four
significant contextual threads impacted the participants' experiences: perceived
social presence, understanding of relationships between teachers and students, the
sense of role and authority of a teacher, and preconceived expectations of
classrooms processes.













CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of four preservice teachers

and one practicing teacher in an Online Writing Partnership with high-school students

dual-enrolled in a community college, and to examine what these experiences revealed

about preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching, writing instruction, and the use of

technology for instructional purposes. To this aim, I conducted extensive interviews

(both formal and informal), collected documentary data from both the graduate students

and their high-school partners, and kept a detailed research journal. In this chapter I

summarize the results of the study, discuss the limitations of those results, and provide

implications for practice in both secondary and post-secondary education. Finally, I

propose a series of questions for future research.

Summary of the Results

Each of the five graduate students experienced the Online Writing Partnership in

ways that reflected their individual experiences, beliefs, and attitudes not only about

online technologies, but also about education in general and writing instruction in

particular. However, as unique as the individual cases were, there were significant

similarities across cases, providing for this online environment a view of surround

context, described by Lindfors (1999) as a collective "pool[ing] of resources" (p. 218)

from which all participants can draw in creating and interpreting meaning. Looking at

the individual cases collectively, those aspects of context deemed salient by the

participants of the Online Writing Partnership were: their perception of social presence









between partners, their understanding of the relationships between teachers and students,

their sense of the role and authority of a teacher, and their preconceived expectations of

classrooms processes.

An examination of the verbatim transcripts of interviews with participants revealed

that participation in the Online Writing Partnership was a valuable experience in

preparing them to teach, albeit to varying degrees. The participants felt that social

presence, or the emotional connection felt between the graduate participant and their

high-school partner, was not at a level high enough to be satisfying. While some felt this

gap was an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of the nature of the Online Writing

Partnership, for others such as Kate, the lack of social presence was the lynchpin to an

overall feeling of dissatisfaction with the experience of mentoring a developing writer

online.

The manner in which communication took place between partners was entirely

text-based, and was comprised of emails (with drafts of papers attached) between

partners. The five graduate student participants perceived this medium of communication

as limiting and thus negatively influencing of their ability to assist their high-school

partner's writing development; although some participants, particularly Libby, saw

benefits to communicating with their partner via text, to varying degrees each

participant's frustration with text-only communication led to decreased motivation to

participate fully in the assignment.

As the experiences of each participant were viewed across cases, a weave context

was revealed, comprised of the salient contextual features common to the five graduate

students (Derry & Steinkuehler, 2003; Dourish, 2004; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lindfors,









1999). One contextual thread woven among the study participants was the impact their

beliefs about the nature of teaching had on the partnership experience. One such belief

was that the graduate students' perceptions of student/teacher relationships were

universally positive, and these relationships were necessary in order for effective writing

instruction to take place. But the five graduate participants reported virtually no

understanding of the work involved in developing relationships with students, instead

implying that connections between teachers and students developed merely through

physical proximity to each other. There was no physical classroom to confine the

participants in the Online Writing Partnership, and because each participant's frame of

reference for teaching included a teacher physically present with students, it was difficult

for the participants to feel that any relationship had been established at all. As a result,

most of the participants felt the relationships that did develop were less successful for

writing instruction; some, such as Nikki, felt the relationship they had with their partner

was so weak that instruction was not possible at all.

The study data for the five graduate participants coincided with prior research

suggesting the single biggest influence on preservice teachers' beliefs about education

and writing instruction come from their own experiences as students (Darling-Hammond,

Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Phelps, 1989). When asked to describe their experiences with

writing in school, each participant recounted memories that, while individual, were of a

theme; that writing was primarily done in one sitting, and the teacher's job in writing

instruction was to pass on knowledge of grammar rules, identifying in students' papers

instances when those rules had been broken. Revision as understood by the study

participants reflected little of the recursive process of composition identified by previous









research on writing (Emig, 1994; Perl, 1994). Rather, for the study participants, revision

resembled what would more accurately be identified as proofreading or editorial work.

While the graduate students readily admitted almost exclusive use of computer

technologies in the preparation of their own writing, the results of this study suggest that

their prior attitudes toward technology had less to do with their attitudes toward the

technology of the Online Writing Partnership than did the recognized differences

between mentoring writing in an online environment and how each participant envisioned

writing instruction would take place in their future, physical classroom. Rather, the

communication technologies used by the Online Writing Partnership served to bring

those differences to the fore, and as a result often became the "scapegoats" for the

frustrations most participants reported having. The views of technology in general, and

the online technologies of the partnership in particular, traversed a wide spectrum. Some

participants felt that technology was an impersonal substitute for "traditional"

student/teacher interaction, while others saw technology's role in the English classroom

as being appropriate for non-instructional tasks, such as keeping attendance and grades,

and communicating with students regarding homework or missed assignments. For all of

the graduate participants, regardless of their reported feelings about technology and its

integration in the classroom, online communication technologies served to decrease the

sense of social presence, resulting in some degree of frustration, as well as decreased

motivation toward participation by some graduate participants.

Limitations of Results

In this study I examined the context of a particular event within a larger teacher

preparation program. While it is possible to recognize, through the experiences of the

participants in this study, similarities to other experiences, what Stake (quoted in









Merriam, 1998) describes as the process of naturalistic generalization, the findings of this

study are not ones that can be generalized to other teacher preparation programs.

Specifically, the Online Writing Partnership was a component of a program that in many

ways is unique, and necessarily any conclusions drawn from this study apply only to this

particular instance. However, I believe that certain implications can be drawn from this

study that apply to teacher education as well as the teaching of writing in secondary

schools, and I will discuss these implications in the following section.

The participants in this study had widely varying experiences and provided five

unique perspectives on the partnership. However, all of the participants in this study

shared certain characteristics that limited the scope of this study. They were all women,

were of approximately the same age, and all shared similar ethnic backgrounds

(Caucasian/European). While this group of participants represented the majority of those

enrolled in this particular teacher education program, and particularly the methods course

that provided the "pool" from which study participants were drawn, it was not wholly

representative of other races and genders enrolled in teacher education as a whole.

Another limitation of this study was the connection between me and the online

experience that was at the heart of my investigation. As the co-creator of the Online

Writing Partnership, and as the one who introduced the partnership to the classes that

would participate, there was a large degree of association between the partnership and

me. Although I played no such role, in some ways I was viewed as an instructor in the

class. This point is evident when looking at the decidedly more blunt tone of the

documentary sources of data, especially the reflection papers turned in to the course

instructor. These papers were written for a different audience than the one the









participants had in their interview sessions. To a participant, the graduate students

reported to me having had a positive experience in the Online Writing Partnership.

However, the attitude toward the partnership was markedly different in the written

reflections. Teaching has been described as one of the "caring professions," and I suspect

that the study participants chose to soften their words when offering criticisms to me.

The words written in the reflection pieces were not being offered directly to me, and were

more blunt and more critical.

The time available for exploring a phenomenon is often a limitation with case

studies. There is simply never enough time, and researchers can always think of one

more data source to pursue, if only there were more hours in the day. While I believe that

for the purposes of this study the data I collected are sufficient, I also believe that there is

much more to be said about the context of online educational environments. I will return

to this point in the section on implications for future research.

Discussion of Results

When I first decided to return to school and continue my education, it was largely

because of experiences I had using technology in my ninth-grade classrooms. I was

fascinated with the impact online discussion forums made as a part of literature study

with my ninth-grade honors students. To these students, the online forums were

something other than class work, and although they were required to participate, posting

their comments about the books they were reading spurred them to inhabit this online

space in ways they never inhabited our classroom. The forums belonged to my students;

they ran the show online. They were learning, but they were learning on their own terms.

It was, in a sense, magical, a source of endless wondering for me. I wanted to know why,









and to a large degree I entered my doctoral program to pursue my curiosity surrounding

technology integration in English classes.

A few years later, an opportunity arose to work with future teachers as they

mentored student writers using online technologies. This was exactly what I had come

back to school to do! I anticipated that the excitement I felt toward my ninth graders'

experiences would be reflected in the reactions of the preservice teachers to this "cutting

edge" approach, and how cool it would be for them, to respond to genuine student writing

as part of their learning process. I expected the technological experience to excite the

future teachers, sparking an internal motivation to participate beyond the levels of even

my original ninth-grade classes.

The Online Writing Partnership, a coordinated effort between a university methods

course on the teaching of language and composition in a teacher education program and a

community college-based high-school dual-enrollment program, was exactly what I

hoped it would be, and little of what I expected. It did in fact provide an excellent

learning opportunity for future teachers, offering challenges in ways perhaps not possible

in other practicum situations. But just as interestingly, the Online Writing Partnership,

and subsequently this study of that event, did not unfold as I anticipated. The participants

in this study, all seemingly dedicated to the teaching profession and eager to learn about

themselves in learning about their chosen careers, were often frustrated rather than

intrigued by their experiences working with student writing in a strictly text-based

environment, and viewed the Online Writing Partnership with skepticism as to its

effectiveness in providing support to developing writers. Moreover, the study









participants reported a decreased sense of motivation toward the Partnership as a result of

this frustration.

The Online Writing Partnership presented to the study participants a different

perspective on teaching writing, a perspective that was in contrast to many of the

preconceived ideas already held by these future teachers. Because of the starkness of this

contrast, there was also a high level of discomfort among participants. The unfamiliar

processes of using online technologies to help developing writers became the grain of

sand trapped in the oyster's shell of these preservice teachers' assumptions about

teaching. At first, the technologies and their perceived limitations were an irritant and the

primary focus of the participants' attention. Over time, through the process of discussing

these experiences in interviews and in writing reflections, the study participants began to

see how it was possible for this irritant to become wrapped in the theory given them in

their writing methods course, smoothing out the rough edges where their expectations

met experience. I, too, saw the pearl forming, even though it was not manifested as I had

anticipated. I recognized the value of online practicum experiences in providing future

teachers with opportunities to narrow their focus to one aspect of teaching, in this case

writing, to implement the theory given to them in university coursework during that

focused experience, and most importantly to provide experiences that prompt discussion

about theory, examinations of previously held beliefs about teaching, and begin the

development of important concepts for teaching, including: what it means to be a teacher,

how to establish effective relationships with students, understanding writing as a process,

and how to teach writing.









What It Means to Be a Teacher

One of the first frustrations felt by the study participants, once the partnership had

begun, centered on what their role in the partnership would be. This confusion over role

stemmed in part from preconceived notions of what their role would be as teachers when

they eventually entered the classroom. However, during the Online Writing Partnership,

they were not teachers, and this also contributed to their frustration; in the dichotomy of

their notion of the classroom, there were only the roles of teacher and student. Both the

course instructor and I encouraged the participants to steer away from functioning solely

as "error-finder/corrector" and instead explore ways in which to participate with their

high-school partners in the thinking opportunities that writing provided. This emphasis

further confounded the participants' anticipated role in the Partnership.

Factors concerning role created difficulties for some of the participants. Kate

stated early and often that her frustration with the Online Writing Partnership stemmed

from confusion over her role. On one hand, she was charged by the assignment of the

Online Writing Partnership to mentor a developing writer; on the other hand, she was

being asked to avoid doing so in the way she assumed was appropriate, by attending to

grammar. Nikki also knew that her role was not to proofread her partner's writing, and

this conflicting approach to her understanding of the teacher's role ultimately led to her

admitting (in a conspiratorial whisper) that she regularly broke this rule for the benefit of

her partner.

I wondered about the frustrations experienced by the study participants, and what it

revealed about their understanding of what it means to be a teacher. The participants

seemed genuinely perplexed as to where they "fit" in the Online Writing Partnership.

They understood that their high-school partner had a teacher responsible for grading, and









that they were participating in a supporting role. And in spite of the friction between

what they would like to have done with grammar and what they were encouraged to do

instead, the participants in this study were able to provide the type of support envisioned

by the partnership. While more than a quarter of the responses given to their partners

focused on some form of corrective instruction, responses that pointed out errors in

grammar or mechanics, over half of the responses were not focused on technical aspects

of writing but instead were attempts to ask questions of the writer, to draw the student

into a discussion of the thought processes involved in the students' composing process.

Even while Kate insisted that she could be of little use to her student as the partnership

was set up, she was able to give her partner, Ana-Lucia, encouragement and at the same

time ask questions to spur Ana-Lucia's development: "You have done a good job

expressing your excitement about the event. What are some other things about it that

make you remember it?" Likewise, Claire admitted to seeing little hope for getting

Charlie, her partner, up to speed with grammar in his writing, yet she found a way to

encourage Charlie's use of descriptive language.

So then, what was the difference? The participants were confused about role, yet

largely fulfilled the role envisioned for them. What this indicated to me was not that

there was misplaced frustration; their complaints did not seem to stem from a desire to be

turned loose on the grammar mistakes of their partners. Rather, by being asked to take a

markedly different approach to responding to student writing than they anticipated, the

participants in this study discovered a feeling of discomfort arising from an inherent

contrast between their initial beliefs about the role of teacher and the role of writing









instructor that emerged from the theory of the methods class in combination with the

experiences of working with a student writer.

Studies have shown that students entering a teacher education program do so with

very definite conceptions of the "job" of the teacher, a role that they hope to fill (Burant

& Kirby, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2000). Moreover, these roles are often formed not by

theories of learning and pedagogy, but by what future teachers have seen while they were

students. Further, in the case of this study's participants, much of what served as models

for their own understanding of teaching came from classrooms where revision, as a

component of writing process, did not occur often-if it occurred at all. Libby described

the writing in her own academic experiences as a "one and done" approach, where a

paper was submitted, and only a grade was returned. Libby's experiences with writing

are not unique; rather, as Applebee et al. (Applebee, Auten, & Lehr, 1981) have shown,

this aspect of the teacher role in writing instruction is common. Because the participants

had no experience with multiple drafts as part of classroom writing instruction, they saw

their role, and the role of teacher generally, as one to address all problem areas of writing

at once, after submission of a paper occurred.

The study participants' concept of the role of teacher also arose from their

understanding of the student's role. While their expectation for the role of the teacher

was largely determined by what the participants observed in their own schooling, their

own movement through the schooling process determined how they understood the role

of the student. This understanding of the role of the student, and how that impacted their

understanding of the role of the teacher, was another source of friction within the Online

Writing Partnership. For the study participants, the role of their high-school partners was









clearly defined when it came to writing instruction. It was largely the students'

responsibility to read the comments left by their graduate partner, and make changes

accordingly. When the high-school students failed to do so, there was a good deal of

reported tension. During their participation in the Online Writing Partnership, the

graduate students had to view each role, teacher and student, from their own single

perspective. They saw their role as mentor through the lens of the teachers who had

taught them; their partners they saw through the lenses of the students they themselves

had been. When, in either role, expectations were not met, it caused anxiety and

frustration, often leading the participant to blame the Partnership in general and the

technology used during the Partnership in particular. For example, Claire noted that

when she pointed out an error to Charlie, her partner, he corrected it. However, her

assumption was that he would look for other areas where he had made a similar mistake

and correct those, too. Claire described herself as the type of student who would have

taken her teacher's suggestion and looked for other areas that would have benefited; she

seemed disappointed that Charlie was not this kind of student. When I examined

Charlie's writing with Claire's comments inserted, I noted an area that reflected what she

was talking about. Her comment did note that the specific error she was pointing out was

one that Charlie made frequently. In the final draft of the same paper, I noted that

Charlie had corrected the error, but only in that particular instance. Claire was generous

enough to conclude that Charlie was not the same kind of student that she was. Nikki

was not as kind with her partner. In describing her own experiences in school, Nikki

exhibited very high regard for the authority of her teachers and professors. She reported

that as a student, she knew her teachers were there to "give [her] what [she] needed to









know," and Nikki characterized herself as motivated by this understanding to do what

they asked of her. For Nikki, the fact that her partner Shannon did not make all the

suggested corrections was not an indication of Shannon's ownership of the writing, but

an indication that Shannon lacked motivation to perform as Nikki felt students should

perform.

Kate rather bluntly noted in her reflection paper after the Partnership concluded that

she "would mark her [partner] off for the places she refused to consider the revisions"

were she the teacher, revealing that, while participating in the role of mentor during the

Online Writing Partnership, she was imagining herself in the role of teacher. Thinking

about how one would approach being the teacher in a situation, while not actually

occupying that role is one of the benefits of experiences such as the Online Writing

Partnership. By providing an opportunity to focus exclusively on one aspect of the

teacher's job, in this case helping developing writers through revision, online experiences

can provide future teachers with the opportunity to see themselves in the role of teacher

in a limited, specific teaching situation. However, merely seeing themselves as the

teacher is not enough; because the Online Writing Partnership was a component of a

methods course, Kate could be guided by the instructor to examine why she would mark

her students in such a way, to question the theory informing that approach, and to

consider other theories for fulfilling the role of teacher effectively.

Developing Working Relationships with Students

When I was in the seventh grade, I remember studying the development of the

scientific method and how it evolved out of a process of observing the world and then

asking questions. What I remember more than even the scientific method, however, was

the example used as an illustration of fallacious reasoning centuries ago. A common









assumption was that a wet rag left in the corner of the room would eventually give rise to

what the textbook called "spontaneous generation" of mice. Somehow, merely from

throwing a wet rag into a corner, you could magically produce a family of mice. I

remember wondering how anyone could think there was nothing more to explain the

advent of a mouse infestation.

I was reminded of the anecdote of spontaneous generation when reviewing the data

of this study, however, when I realized three things. First, the participants in this study

clearly saw effective student/teacher relationships as being essential to successful

teaching. Also, the participants did not feel that effective relationships with their high-

school partners had developed, and the cause for this failure was laid at the feet of the

technologies used in the Online Writing Partnership. Kate was most adamant in her

assertion that being limited to text-only communication simply would not permit the

establishment of sufficiently close relationships needed for writing instruction. Libby

acknowledged that she did maintain relationships over email and through instant

messaging, but that these were relationships that had originated through face-to-face

contact. The felt need of face-to-face contact in developing relationships was my third

realization, for although the study participants were able to respond to student writing in

the Online Writing Partnership, none of them felt the relationships that had developed as

a result of this work even approached the level of rapport that they would have achieved

had they been permitted to meet with their partners in person.

For some in this study, merely being physically present was all that was required

for effective relationships to spontaneously generate. There was a range of comments to

this effect: Nikki stated that merely being able to "put a face" to the comments she was









giving would inspire her partner more; Kate was insistent about her need for the variety

of non-verbal forms of communication in order for two people to understand each other.

But it was Libby's comment about needing to use the telephone to set up an online chat

that was most revealing regarding the participants' beliefs about relationship

development in an online context.

Libby was one of only two participants who attempted to use the online chat rooms

to communicate with her partner, albeit with very limited success. When discussing

those attempts with me, she laughed at the redundancy she felt in needing to use the

phone to set up the chat appointment; trying to coordinate through email lacked the

immediacy that she felt was necessary to negotiate a time when both she and her partner

could chat.

When I had devised the online mentoring assignment, I believed I was providing

options that would compensate for what text-only communications would lack. I was

aware that email lacked the synchronicity of time in communication, that connecting with

partners via email could span days and that sometimes a more immediate form of

communication would be necessary. Therefore, I set up chat rooms to provide a venue

for more immediate conversations. What I did not anticipate was that the participants

would be so confounded by the notion of using these technologies to alleviate their

discomfort regarding asynchronous communication. It was not that the study participants

did not know how to use chat rooms-they had all done so before. Rather, they had

never used chat rooms in an educational context, and were unsure of how to negotiate

such an experience.









Kate inadvertently drew my attention to one benefit of the Online Writing

Partnership by repeatedly stating that she was forced to think about what she said to her

partner, and consider how her words might be taken. She saw this self-monitoring as a

detriment to the overall process of building rapport, that she would have to spend so

much time wondering if her statements were being taken the wrong way. In Kate's view,

having to be overly cautious toward the possible meanings of her statements created a

sense of artificiality, because in her own life she did not have to consider how her friends

would react to the things she said. Indeed, in this same conversation she admitted to

being caustic sometimes around her friends but because they knew her they did not take

her remarks with offense. Kate did not like the care she had to give to avoid this tone

when communicating through writing with her partner. The partnership opened the door

to challenging Kate to examine the work of getting to know her students as she had

gotten to know her friends.

Kate's complaint about the text-only approach illustrates a value of experiences

like the Online Writing Partnership. So much about preservice teachers' views about

teaching are formed by what they see in their own education, but like the assumption that

tossing wet rags in the corner of a room would cause mice to generate, there is often more

going on that is not immediately visible without critical reflection. In this study, the

participants experienced having to communicate with their partners without the familiar,

comfortable aspects of communication they were used to. The Online Writing

Partnership did not provide a way to compensate for facial expressions, intonation, or

body language, a few of the suggested "shortcomings" given by the study participants.

All of the contextual features involved in building rapport with students are important,









but as with the "spontaneously generated" mice, a beginning teacher has so much to deal

with that the only concern very well could be that there are mice present, and not how

they got there. Experiences such as the Online Writing Partnership can create in

preservice teachers a sense of discomfort regarding the establishment of working

relationships with students. With focused, critical discussion as part of a methods course

incorporating limited online instructional experiences, these opportunities can allow

future teachers to begin examining what teacher behaviors contribute to developing

effective relationships with students in the first place, particularly when working with

student writing.

The frustrations that arose through the limited means of communication provided

by the Online Writing Partnership evoked a general belief among study participants that

social presence, a sense of emotional connection and a feeling that the people in

communicative situations are real (Richardson & Swan, 2003), was lacking in the online

environments in which they were participating. Libby's need to phone her partner to set

up a chat meeting, Kate's need for non-verbal cues, and Nikki's belief that associating a

face with responses to writing were examples of the participants' understanding of

elements that contribute to social presence. Because these elements were not available in

an online experience limited to text communication, the assumption by the study

participants was that effective relationships were unachievable to the degree necessary

for effective writing instruction to occur. Yet, merely "being there" is no guarantee that

social presence will be established, or that relationships will develop.

While distance between partners, both actual and emotional, was most palpable to

the participants of this study because of the contextual features online communication









(such as email) seemed to lack, these same elements can also be lacking in face-to-face

educational settings. When talking about their own experiences with writing papers for

college classes, the study participants recalled that they would turn in one draft, receive

little or no feedback from their professor, and be given only a grade in response. This

was the extent of the face-to-face writing instruction so often used as a basis for

understanding student/teacher relationships, which in turn led to the discomfort each felt

in the "inadequate" relationships with their high-school partners; yet there was arguably

less social presence in these college classrooms than in the Online Writing Partnership.

What online mentoring experiences can offer, in addition to a narrow focus on one

particular aspect of teaching, is an opportunity to discuss those elements of teaching not

immediately evident from future teachers' observations of their own experiences as

students. In the example above, there is little evidence of rapport between student and

professor. Yet, each study participant was readily able to call forth examples of positive

experiences with teachers, teachers who not only instructed them but inspired them to

pursue teaching themselves. (The exception was Claire, who had difficulty even

remembering the names of former teachers, and by her own admission found herself

preparing to teach "by accident.") Certainly there was more going on regarding

relationship development than the participants realized at the time. By participating in

the Online Writing Partnership, and especially by participating in the study of that

experience, these future teachers were given an opportunity to discuss what they felt was

missing with regard to developing effective student relationships, and in turn explore

what was required for this development to take place. Kate's comment that she did not

like having to attend to her own communication tendencies becomes more enlightening in









this respect, because it reveals that there is more required than just being present in order

to develop the trust and mutual respect necessary for effective writing instruction. Few

friendships can survive when one party delivers caustic remarks without the benefit of

context. There is the need for consideration of the way words are used, the tone used

with those words, and other factors that determine how and to what extent relationships

between teachers and students develop.

The felt need for effective relationships was genuine on the part of the study

participants; however, it also served as an excuse for why each felt frustrated by the

experience, and for some was an excuse for why they did not feel obligated to participate

fully. Kate was particularly adamant about the need for a closer, more personal

relationship in which she understood her partner beyond what her partner revealed in

writing. Certainly, Kate is correct in this. Relationships are important aspects of writing

instruction because while the mechanisms of writing are social (Emig, 1977; Ong, 1982;

Reither, 1994), there can be a large degree of personal revelation in writing (Dyson &

Freedman, 2003; D. Murray, 1994; P. Y. Murray, 1989). The trust established through

nurtured relationship can help a student be more receptive to what otherwise might be

considered "criticisms" of intimate thought. Likewise, for a teacher to understand who a

student is as a person can be invaluable for understanding the needs of students in

developing their writing (Daiker, 1989). Providing future teachers with opportunities

such as online mentoring of developing writers, perhaps even because of the discomfort

initially felt as a result of communicating in unfamiliar ways, may help preservice

teachers to develop communicative competencies that avoid assumptions of

spontaneously generated social presence, regardless of context.









Understanding Writing as a Process

In planning for the project, the professor of the methods class and I had determined

to emphasize the importance of revision when working with student writers, to encourage

the preservice teachers to move away from focusing on the grammatical and mechanical

mistakes in student writing and begin to help in the process of writing development by

asking questions and seeking to engage their partners in discussions about the writing.

By directing their participation in this way, we were asking them to look at writing in a

very different way than they were accustomed to.

Perl and Wilson (1994) describe the writing process as recursive, that moving

forward in writing development happens as a result of looking back at the work that has

gone on before. This process involves the writer engaging herself or himself in the text,

and changing, developing, altering the writing of that text as the need arises and their

thoughts develop. Yet this view of writing was virtually unknown to the study

participants before entering their teacher education program. Kate viewed revision as a

procedure developing writers needed because they lacked a familiarity with the rules

associated with good writing. Claire said that while she understood writers sometimes

felt the need to "move things around," that for the most part the writing that came out

through the initial drafting process was the writing with which the author felt the most

connection. Nikki presented an intriguing view of revision, likening it to "an actress

watching her own movies, or a chef eating their food," and stated that she did not believe

it happened very often.

The exception to these beliefs came from Libby, who was, from the beginning,

fascinated with the idea of revision. It was Libby who first mentioned the phrase "one

and you're done" when referring to writing assigned in her coursework, and she felt









genuinely "cheated" that revision was something she "seldom experienced as a student,"

and had only begun to see revision as more than correcting errors in grammar and

mechanics. And still, Libby's nearly euphoric embrace of revision illustrated the view of

some preservice teachers that, at least until their enrollment in a teacher education

program, writing was largely viewed as a product, not a process, and that mastery in

writing stemmed largely from mastery of the rules of grammar and punctuation.

In this study, participants reported little if any experience with revision in their own

writing. For them, revision was synonymous with "proofreading" and "editing," and

these alternate terms were as likely as not to be used when referring to the work the

graduate students were doingfor their partners. In practice, however, revision is an

important step for developing writers; it illustrates that writing is a process one actively

engages in (Emig, 1994; Ivani, 2004) and provides a useful opportunity (sometimes the

only opportunity) for teaching intervention. During one of her interviews, Claire

described writing as "transcribing [one's] thoughts," but the process of writing requires

as much development of thought as it is a simple record of one's thoughts (Emig, 1977).

Still, the study participants viewed grammar as the primary concern teachers would have

with student writing, and the area of their partner's writing in which they could be of

most use.

At times during the Online Writing Partnership the study participants saw

themselves as Tantalus, and grammar mistakes in their partners' writing were the fruit

just out of their reach. While they were not prohibited altogether from addressing

grammatical concerns in their partners' writing, these future teachers interpreted their

instructions as such, and complained early and often about the propensity for error in the






200


drafts they were receiving. Kate acknowledged in her interviews that students needed to

hear about more than just mistakes in writing, yet followed this admission by questioning

how she could respond at all when poor grammar prevented the meaning from being

communicated. Yet when I looked at the first paper Kate received from her partner, Ana-

Lucia, I noted that there were many examples (in fact, nearly half of the comments)

where Kate had responded to the content of the writing and not the grammatical and

mechanical errors. In fact, the grammar had not got in the way of content after all.

The study participants' views of writing was one area of the Online Writing

Partnership where the technology used was not blamed as often for the frustrations they

felt. Instead, the frustrations experienced, as a result of the student writings they were to

comment on, stemmed from their views of writing itself. In his study of teachers' own

educational experiences, Anson (1989) noted that the way in which teachers were taught

to view texts often reflected the way they viewed their own students' papers. From their

statements about writing and specifically about writing assigned as part of their

undergraduate coursework, writing for the future teachers in this study was a product

intended to show what students had learned, not a learning process in itself. Because one

assumption the participants had about their partners was that as high school juniors they

would have a reasonable background in grammar, then the writing produced should

reflect that knowledge by containing fewer errors than were actually present. If, as Claire

stated, the participants viewed writing as merely a transcript of one's thoughts, to

comment on the thoughts of another might indeed seem like a presumption these future

teachers may have been unwilling to make.









Writing is a complicated affair, having the capacity to be both intensely personal

and boldly public all at once. It is conceivable that the private nature of some writing,

along with the vulnerability often felt by developing writers unsure of their ability, could

contribute to the reluctance of preservice teachers to address anything other than the

grammar and mechanics of student writing. Yet the Online Writing Partnership provided

opportunities, and in fact required these future teachers, to engage their partners in

writing in ways other than how to fix grammar errors and punctuate more appropriately.

Ironically, the fact that for many in this study there was a decreased sense of social

presence may have aided the study participants in providing more substantive response to

student writing, beyond just offering suggestions for increasing the technical precision of

writing. Nikki saw her partner as being less motivated to respond to feedback because

"emails are just there," and were easy to ignore because they seem separate from the

person sending them. Nikki admitted that she, too, was more inclined to ignore the work

of the partnership, and at times had to force herself to respond to her partner, despite

initially being the most excited of the five participants to work with a student writer. To

Nikki, her partner seemed more likely to ignore emails relating to writing because there

was no face to put with the response she was getting. The comments and feedback that

Nikki was composing could have come from anywhere, as far as Shannon was

concerned, and therefore Nikki saw no inherent motivation for Shannon to do anything

with this feedback. Instead of commenting on grammatical errors, Nikki would comment

in a conversational manner, asking questions about the subject Shannon was writing

about (always dancing), and when an error presented itself to Nikki, she would simply fix

it. This correcting of her student's writing, however, was considered by Nikki to be






202


something extra, something that she understood to be forbidden by the assignment of the

partnership, but in her mind ultimately beneficial to her partner. In the meantime, she

would "talk" to her partner through the embedded comments she inserted using Microsoft

Word's comment card feature.

Kate, too, reported that the anonymity of the partnership process, coupled with her

sense that there was no way to establish a relationship with her partner even if she wanted

to, limited her sense of need to participate in the Online Writing Partnership beyond the

minimum amount of work required for credit in the course. More importantly, Kate felt

that her frustration added to her tendency to speak brusquely, and she did so with her

partner without consideration for how her brusque comments would be received. With

her guard down and her frustrations high, Kate seemed more inclined, because of a

decreased sense of social presence, to speak freely. Kate went so far as to suggest this

phenomenon as a benefit of online writing mentorship, writing in her semester's end

reflection that the process could "dramatically cut back on extraneous conversation

unrelated to writing instruction."

It is good that preservice teachers feel a certain level of discomfort about how to

view writing with respect to their student's work. Discomfort can prompt us to seek the

source of that feeling, and to explore ways of lessening it. However, merely feeling

discomfort is not enough. What the Online Writing Partnership provided the future

teachers in this particular case was an opportunity to feel uncomfortable with their

approach to student writing during a period when they were not responsible for it, and in

contexts that were supportive of approaching writing as process. In online experiences

such as the one at the center of this study, preservice teachers' view of writing can be









challenged, and possibly adjusted so that writing can be approached as a process of

learning for themselves and their students, rather than a march to discover a presumed

"product," as is often the case among teachers of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1994). Under

the watchful eye of the university or college professor, the knowledgeable other,

preservice teachers can gradually become more comfortable approaching writing

instruction as an opportunity to assist students in exploring and developing thinking,

rather than being, in Juliet's words, "consumed with what's wrong with [students']

writing."

How Teachers Teach Writing

Vygotsky (1978a) described his famous theory of learning as a zone bordered by

two levels of development. One level represented that which a student could accomplish

on her/his own (actual development level); the other represented what the student was

capable of achieving with the help of a knowledgeable other (potential development

level). The participants in this study understood the concept of Vygotsky's Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD), and in fact would refer to it by name occasionally during

their interviews. There was a general understanding that their future responsibilities as

teachers of writing (the knowledgeable other) would be to help students move across the

zone separating actual writing ability from potential writing development. Yet one

persistent anxiety in this study was exactly how to accomplish this move from actual to

potential with their high-school partner. Bruner and others (Bruner, 1985, 1986; Samaras

& Gismondi, 1998) have advocated scaffolding as a bridge between Vygotsky's levels of

development, an approach where teachers/tutors assist students' learning by first

determining what a student knows, and building gradually from there. This idea of

scaffolding, too, was a concept the study participants were familiar with and referred to









frequently. What was missing from the discussions of student learning was the ability to

see these theories in light of actual practice. Instead, the study participants approached

their work with student writing in reverse of ZPD and scaffolding, approaching the

partnership from the perspective of what their high-school partners could not do.

Kate was the most vociferous in her frustration over the level of grammar mistakes

evident in her partner's writing. In her reflection paper, she wrote of her first experience

with Ana-Lucia's writing: "I found myself at a loss and unable to provide constructive

feedback because the errors that filled her paper required a back-to-the-basics approach to

writing." Claire described her "main revision suggestions" to her partner as primarily

warning against run-on sentences, and how Charlie might break up long sentences into

smaller sentences. Yet in spite of such clear concern about the grammatical and

mechanical insufficiencies in their partners' writing, and the certainty that these should

be addressed first, there was still a high degree of uncertainty as to how they were to

approach the teaching of writing.

In perhaps the most telling comment of all concerning the approach to teaching

writing, Nikki stated at the end of her interviews that even after a semester of instruction,

... nobody's ever said, oh, this is what you look for when you grade a paper. So
that kinda scares me...when I go into a classroom, because I don't know exactly
how to grade a paper just yet, and here I am going to have to assign them and I
don't know what to look for.

That Nikki felt grading was a process of "looking for" things (errors) suggests what could

be an underlying sense of need on the part of many of the study participants. Here was

yet another discomfort associated with student writing, this time radiating from a felt

sense that while at present they were only comfortable identifying areas of grammar that

were in need of correction, there was something more to teaching writing than identifying









what their partner was unable to do. Korthagen and Kessels (1999) write that for teachers

to be able to transfer knowledge of theory to practice, there must first exist a felt sense of

need for that particular knowledge in a particular context. For the participants there was

a constant need to focus on grammar, something these future teachers were perfectly

capable of doing on their own. Yet there was also a felt sense of need for something

more, a need to attend to more than just grammar when working with student writing, as

evidenced by Nikki's statement above. The discomfort the participants felt responding to

student writing came not from the technological aspect of the Online Writing Partnership,

nor even from the instructions to look beyond correcting errors in their student's drafts.

The discomfort these future teachers felt arose from feeling that there was something

more to writing instruction, but they did not know what that "more" was.

However, as much as they felt the need to argue otherwise, the participants in the

Online Writing Partnership did not fail at their task of mentoring student writers. Claire,

for example, shook her head when considering where her partner stood at the end of the

partnership in relation to where he was in the beginning, suggesting that she was unsure

how much progress Charlie had made. However, in her reflection paper she

acknowledged that she had seen improvement in his writing, and not just in the fewer

number of errors she noted in Charlie's final draft. The high-school students themselves

reported universally that they believed their writing had benefited from the work they did

with the graduate students. While it took time for the study participants to recognize it,

the Online Writing Partnership provided an opportunity to see the development of student

writing while attending to the developmental process of that writing, an approach that






206


was markedly different than the assumptions in the minds of the participants at the

beginning of the semester, regarding how writing was taught.

What the Online Writing Partnership provided for these future teachers was an

extended experience working with individual students, an experience that can focus

preservice teachers' attentions on the student as an individual writer, with a distinct

writing process and distinct needs for her or his writing development. Unfortunately,

many future teachers do not get these opportunities even in their internship experience

(Burant & Kirby, 2002; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). Once they have begun full-time

teaching, the chances of applying the theory learned in methods courses are significantly

lower (Bransford et al., 1999; Graham & Thomley, 2000).

So many of the study participants' experiences in the Online Writing Partnership

centered on frustration, discomfort, and uncertainty. Yet despite these feelings, there was

a general sense of appreciation for the opportunities the partnership provided. When

asked what they felt they learned from their experience mentoring student writers online,

the answers among study participants leaned toward the practical experience of

commenting on student papers. Libby in particular felt that her comfort level had

increased greatly because of her work with Shannon. But it was Nikki who described the

Online Writing Partnership in a way that reflected what I saw as the greatest value to

these future teachers: "it was a different...it was a nice contrast."

Perhaps the greatest value of the Online Writing Partnership was the "nice contrast"

between the future teachers' expectations of working with student writers and the reality

of working with specific high-school students in an online context. But simply agitating

preservice teachers is unlikely to provide the necessary experiences that facilitate the






207


transfer of theory learned in teacher education programs and the practice of their eventual

daily teaching. In her final interview, Kate reported that what made the partnership

worthwhile to her was the process of interviewing itself, that while her frustration was

high, talking about these frustrations not only alleviated these feelings but helped her to

acknowledge her own beliefs related to the teaching of writing. Most obvious to Kate

was her experience in the "sugar-coating" incident, where her partner "took [her] to task"

about Kate's caustic comments. This response led Kate to genuine insight regarding the

way she related to others, and while she was far from convinced that online mentoring

was the way to go, she saw value in it as a chance for critical reflection.

The goal of teacher education should not be to agitate future teachers intentionally

with the hopes of prompting a reassessment of the preconceived ideas many of them

bring to the profession. However, neither should possibly valuable experiences be

avoided merely because they have the potential to cause anxiety and frustration. My

own bias going into this study of an online mentoring partnership may have assumed a

panacea of learning for preservice teachers; the results of this study have shown that the

Online Writing Partnership was anything but perfect. What, then, is the compromise

position for experiences designed to help preservice teachers apply theory and pedagogy

as they learn, in authentic experiences? The participants in this study were reasonable in

their assessments that the Online Writing Partnership lacked many of the elements

facilitating social presence that may have allowed for closer mentor/student relationships

to develop. As technological innovations continue, and as access to computers and the

Internet continues to become more available to schools, some options for increased social

presence can be taken into account. Technology was only a part of the experience of









these study participants, however, and there are other considerations that must be made

for task-specific practicum experiences such as the Online Writing Partnership to have as

much impact as possible on the preparation of teachers to teach writing, or any other

subject area.

In this study, the felt need for effective relationships was genuine on the part of the

graduate students; however, it also served as an excuse for why each felt the experience

was frustrating to them, and for some was an excuse for why they did not feel obligated

to participate fully. Kate was adamant about the need for a closer, more personal

relationship with her partner; she felt strongly the need to understand Ana-Lucia beyond

just what was revealed in her writing. No doubt, Kate is correct in this. Relationships are

important aspects of writing instruction because no matter how social the mechanisms for

writing, there can be a large degree of personal revelation in writing. The trust

established through nurtured relationships can help a student be more receptive to what

otherwise might be considered "criticisms" of one's thinking. Likewise, for a teacher to

understand who a student is as a person can be invaluable for understanding the needs of

a student in developing her/his writing.

The weak bonds between partners in this study were blamed largely on the

imposed limitations of the technologies provided for use. It was hard to tell, however,

just how much of the blame was deserved because the chat rooms and bulletin boards

provided to enhance the experiences in the partnership went virtually ignored.

Relationships in educational contexts do not bloom from mere exposure, yet this was an

assumption of many of the study participants. One way to combat this assumption

among preservice teachers would be to provide opportunities for critical reflection on






209


what constitutes social presence, in the classes where task-specific practicum experiences

are a component.

Discussions about the nature of social presence and how effective teacher/student

relationships develop can assist preservice teachers to develop a greater understanding of

the nature of such presence and how it can be optimized regardless of the context of the

teaching situation. For online experiences, the technology itself can be adjusted and

enhanced to facilitate both teachers' and students' comfort with educational experiences

online. As access to online technologies becomes more common, video conferencing

instead of text-only chat rooms could afford a greater sense of connection between

partners. Until that day, however, text-based communication technologies such as email,

chat rooms, and discussion forums can be used to establish and maintain relationships

between mentoring pairs. These technologies cannot be helpful, and ultimately

successful, if they are not used; they should be required, not optional. Prior to the

commencement of these online experiences, discussions should take place in the methods

classroom on how to use text-based technologies to establish relationships, the types of

relationships that best provide for effective writing instruction, and what is required of

each party within a relationship. These discussions will likely not assuage all fear

regarding an experience like the Online Writing Partnership; however, students will

become more at ease in unfamiliar environments if a knowledgeable other is there to

guide them to better understandings of relationships and how they develop, even in more

traditional educational environments.

Because of limited time and resources, university instructors are not able to be

with preservice teachers at all times during field experiences. How then, as






210


knowledgeable others, are they to provide the guidance necessary for competencies to

develop? Korthagen and Kessels (1999) identify three factors affecting the transfer of

theory to practice: prior knowledge, a felt sense of need, and the relevance of knowledge

to particular situations. Two of these factors are naturally served through field

experiences in classrooms. Preservice teachers enter field experiences with a certain

degree of prior knowledge, both of a particular subject area and (to a lesser degree) of

pedagogy. Working with students in actual classrooms provides a felt sense of need for

the application of that pedagogy, in the service of helping students develop competencies,

for example, in language arts. But with limited teaching experience, and without

someone to guide them, there is no guarantee these novice teachers will see the relevance

of theoretical knowledge to situations as they arise during an internship. Directing

teachers have traditionally served as the experienced other, guiding the novice in

application of theory as the need arises, or in reflection after the fact. However, as some

researchers have noted (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002;

Graham & Thornley, 2000; Samaras & Gismondi, 1998), classroom teachers can be

factors contributing to beginning teachers' reversion to previously held notions of

teaching.

Online mentoring should not be viewed as replacements for traditional classroom

field experiences. Indeed, there is no replacement for this critical aspect of teacher

preparation. However, online experiences add to the variety of experiences preservice

teachers can have, and offer aspects of learning that can facilitate the transfer of theory to

practice in ways that other experiences cannot. Online practicum experiences can take

place concurrently with methods coursework at the college or university, while offering









opportunities to experience writing instruction in ways that are safe, limited in scope, and

guided by others more knowledgeable in the theory of writing process and pedagogy.

These experiences can provide a way to demonstrate not only how to scaffold a student's

learning in writing, but to scaffold a student teacher in the teaching of writing under

careful supervision, something they might not otherwise receive.

Implications for Future Research

In the span of three short years, from the time the data of this study were collected

to the writing of this chapter, technology in communication has advanced considerably.

As such, communication itself has changed (Ong, 1982). It is necessary for research into

this change, and how these changes may affect the teaching of writing, to continue as

well. For instance, when I was collecting the data for this study in 2005, most of the

Internet connections made by my study participants were through dial-up modems. Now,

dial-up modems are vanishing faster than record players. This is a change in more than

hardware, however. Because of faster Internet connections and data transfer, new

wrinkles can be added to the research agendas of those interested in preparing teachers of

writing. Now, chatting with others using the Internet is not limited to text; chatting can

be (and more and more often is) done via voice, and increasingly, via video. Yet I

wonder if video conferencing would ease the frustrations of future teachers trying to

establish relationships with students, or if new frustrations would arise? How would

video conferencing influence issues of social presence in assisting developing writers?

Kate mentioned in her interviews that she wanted to be able to draw arrows on Ana-

Lucia's papers as they talked together, but was unable to do so because of the limits of

the Online Writing Partnership's reliance on text-only technologies. I, too, tend to

emphasize my writing instruction by drawing lines and arrows on student texts. Is there a






212


way technology can provide the means for doing so in an online context? Would

whiteboards, technologies that track the handwriting of users and transfer that writing to

computers, be suitable for use in online partnerships?

Likewise, there is still much to know about the efficacy of online writing

mentorship and its use in preparing preservice teachers for the classroom. The focus of

this study was to examine the online experiences of future teachers of writing, but it only

began to look at how these experiences transferred to practice, if indeed they did at all. I

suspect that much of the insight gained from participating in the Online Writing

Partnership was not available to the study participants until after the semester in which

the experience took place. In my own first year of teaching I was more concerned with

survival than with remembering and applying to my practice the theory I had learned at

university. Did the experiences of the Online Writing Partnership impact the study

participants' approaches to teaching writing, particularly during subsequent, full-time

teaching? If so, how?

Often, a concern about technology is that it will replace the need for human

interaction. There is some evidence of this today, although I think the fears of the most

staunchly techno-phobic are unwarranted. Technology, ultimately, helps us to do things

we would do anyway, perhaps only in a different way. Technology gives us assistance,

provides us with faster, more efficient approaches, but in terms of education, I cannot see

any technology replacing what is fundamental to the teaching profession: caring

individuals who, in spite of all the barriers placed in front of them, want nothing more

than to help students develop the competencies they will need to be well-rounded,

contributing members of society. This study has whet my appetite, yet I am still curious






213


to explore how technology and its integration into education might impact teaching and

learning, and how technology can assist those who dedicate their lives to doing both.
















APPENDIX A
CONSENT FORMS





Infuarmnd Consent
Pnitocol Title: An investigation of Iprospctive teachers' experiences in online
c nvironments.

Pler'ir read this consent dlwumini1t carefully before yo)u decide to pIrtiripalk
in thiblus hId.

Purpose of the rtHarch study:

The purpose r, ilhii study is to examine rhe experiences prospective EinL'ilih
teachers have in ritin! partnerships that are conducted via "nlhrie media.

What you will be asked to do in the study:

You will be asked to participate in ihree interviews based on your experiences in
the online writing partnership you are rparirkipating in. The first two interviews
will ask you to reflect on the experience in reg.lrds, to the technology involved and
the process of pri idin cg edI.ick to student writers. Addili[inanllll you will he
asked to participate in a lollh i -lip interview to be conducted in the spring, the
IpurpLITIj of which is to see h~ w.it the experiences in the p.irliIer'di il have
inl'luenrl d your ideas about te;Licliiiir and learning.

In adldilion to the interviews. '.I will be asked to allow your feedback given to students
to be analyzed, as well as the transcripIs f ally participation in di, t unin boardars. mail,
andlor chat rooms.

Time required:

1/2 hour i for each interview, approximately)

Risks and Ik- itfls:

I do not anticipate .ily risks associated with participation in this study, nor do I
anticipate any direct hernL ii.


214







215





Cnni'prial ion:

You will not be compensated fr I r Ir Ii.jt.ioii.

Confidentialit%:

Your identity L ill be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your
information will be a.i gned a code number. The list connecting your name to this
number will be kept in a locked file in my faculty supervisor's office, along with


~2~, 1~- -74,7k~






216


SchooI nf Tib'lidtiTi and I calrning
2304 Norman IHall
I'Uieril of Fl-roidn
Gainesville, FL, 3261 I


Dear Parent"( i i;irdian,

I am a graduate student in the School of Teaching and Learning at
the University of Florida, conducting research on prospective
teachers* experiences with online % riling partnerships under the
supervision of Dr. Jane To, nsend The purpose of this study is to
explore the process of pruvidiig; feedback to student writing
through online media such as em.iil, bulletin boards, and chat
rooms. The rc~ells of the study may help teachers better
understand ihe nature of sludent-teacher relationship, and how
lose relationships aid in the development of writing skills. These
results may not dirIc-ly help your child today, but may benefit
future students. With your permission, I would like to ask your
child to volunteer for this research.

Your child, as part of his or her English class at Santa Fe's High
School Dual Enrollment progr.Aim will be partliciilting in an online
partnership w iih graduate students at the University of Florida who
are prepa.rint for a career teaching English. I would like the
opportunity to gain your child'\ insight into the process of this
partnership from the student's perspective.

With your permission, your child will be interviewed once the
partnership has reached its halfway point. These interviews will be
taped so that transcriptions can be made. At the end of the study,
the tape will be erased. Although the student's name will be used
for matching purposes (to their university partners'. their identity
will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. We % ill
replace their names with code numbers. Participation or non-
participation in this study will not affect the children's .'rades in
any way whatsoever.

You and your child have the right to \% ihidraw consent for your
child's participation at any time % iiholl consequence. There are no
known risks or immediate benefits to the participants. No



u z'4 j./ 7 C2






217


comipen.sati.on is offered for participation. Results of this study
will be available in the Spring uponi request. If you have any
queLstions about this research protocol, please contact me by phone
at 395-534(0 or by email at all;tn'" ilh Mughunddword.comi You may
also contact my faculty supervisor. Dr. Tin usenld, at 392-9191 ext.
231 or by email at j.1' .oc.ull.edu. Questions or concerns about
your child's rights as a research parlicipant may be directed to the
UFIRB office. University of Florida, Box 112250, Gaiincsville, FL
326.11. (352) 392-(433.

Allan Nail

I have read the procedure described above. I \oltimarily give my
con sen for my child, ,_ to participate in Allan
Nail's study of prospective teacher's experiences in online writing
partnerships. I have received a copy of this description.


Parent / Guardian Date


2nd Parent / Witness Diate


-ZCJ- L#.^ h'i 7
P-f*J-t^










Assent Script for Minor Participants

Protocol Title: An investigation of prospective teachers' experiences in online
environments,

MX name is Allan Nail, and I am a graduate student in the College of
Education at the University of Florida. I am asking for your voluntary
participation In a research stud% that I am conducting. Please listen careful%
to the following information.

I am conducting a study of prospective teachers If I:nglish and their experiences m online
environments. M% research is primarily fiuCled i.n the graduate level college students
with whom you are parrtn d in the Santa Fe'UF College of Education Online Witing
Partnership. Because m interests center around the relationships that JI elop within this
P.inerhnip. I feel it is valuable to have your perspecik ce on the experience as well.

I am asking that you participate in a short interview, which will he audio taped You will
be asked questions about your experiences in the online partnership; you should feel free
to answer them as honcmi. as you wish. After the interview, I will transcribe (type) your
answers, After transcribing the interview, the taps % ill be raised and you % all be
assigned a pceudLonm to protect y>'ur iJeniil. The interview should last between ('l
and 45 minutes.

There are no anticipated risks involved in this study. Whether \ou participate or not,
your grade .' ill not be affected in an. vua% There are also no anticipated immediate
benefits, nor w l41 you be compensated for your time.

Do you have any questions?

Do you agree to participate in this study?














S- -. *i- "7k7














APPENDIX B
SAMPLE INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS

Questions for interview (Part 2)

What are your thoughts on the process of this partnership?

How have your attitudes toward technology been affected by this experience?

In what ways have you witnessed any relationship develop between you and your
partner?

How has this relationship helped you to provide helpful feedback for their writing?

What progress have you noticed in the writing of your partner?

What elements of the partnership and/or your relationship with your partner do you
attribute to this progress?

How, if at all, have you used the bulletin boards in this partnership? (What have been
your experiences with this aspect of the partnership? With the technology?)

What have your experiences been in using the chat rooms? How have these experiences
affected your attitudes toward technology/the partnership?

What problems have you experienced in using any aspect of the technology involved in
this partnership (email, chat rooms, bulletin boards)?

What insights have you gained from your experience in this partnership, in regard to
providing feedback, developing relationships with students, etc.?


219







220


Sample Interview Protocol with Individual Participant Notes



Questions for interview (Part 2)
What are your thoughts on the process of this partnership?
How have your attitudes toward technology been affected by this experience?
In what ways have you witnessed any relationship develop between you and your
partner?
How has this relationship helped you to provide helpful feedback for their writing?
% h ,i pr..er -Lr h, li you noticed in the writing of your partner?
What elements of the partnership andor your relationship with your partner do you
attribute to this progress?
How, if at all, have you used the bulletin boards in this partnership? (What have been
.ani ei-c \What have your experiences been in using the chat rooms? How have these cxpenences-] U'-
affected your attitudes toward IcLIInlI.. .Ihr i pannfr A.hip' J
What problems have you experienced in using any aspect of the technology involved in
this pT.lnnL,'-hpl :n1111 .i i r.....,_ lt.ulleLii boards)?
or \% 'h ,,lil'n -l.gI, have you gained from your experience in rh; p.'nnr ip. in regard to
t Jr. -developing relationips with u. '


7,


t
'.)I t ai
VA k o

















APPENDIX C
SAMPLE CODED INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT


s MScogginsl.txt


Save Workbench


(D --I, CD -1 i


(Code to .o.Ib rb (Def
Select =.de


( Ne-
(C i-ll


Codes
background
back round >teach ing
background >technology
background>writer
behaviors>teacher
belief>teaching
belief>teaching>ability
belief>technology
belief>technology>teaching
belief>writing >ability
internship
partnership>anecdotal
partnership>attitudes> negative
partnership>attitudes> positive
partnership>expectations
partnership>influences>relationship
partnership> Inluences >role
partnership>influences>technology
partnership>influences>writing
partnership>process
partnership>relationship


~-E-- Edita Search

PI: Now, when you say you were read to as a kid, do
you mean by your teachers or your parents?
{speaker}MS{/speaker}: By my parents.
PI: Do you remember any favorite books?
{speaker}MS{/speaker}: Winnie the Pooh. It stands up.
We did a chapter every night. Yeah, I have the edition
that we read. It was given to my father when he was a
young kid, and then he kept it, and he
gave it t me, because he knows that I'm actually going
to read from it
PI: That's great. I love Winnie the Pooh. So, going
-through high school, and you say you didn't particularly
care for reading, what was it, the fact that you were
being assigned something, or the subject matter?
{speaker}MS{/speaker}: {relationship>teacher}yeah, I
think it was that I was being assigned and then having
to be tested, and ...I just, when I sit down with a book, I
Spread at my own pace. And some books I'll read in one
sitting, and some books it will take me a couple of days.
I guess I kinda hate the fact that someone
was telling me that oh, you have to read it this way
And it's just...I didn't really like to. And
then I have, I guess I have my book days, and I have my
magazine days, and I was forced to have book days
more than I wanted to [laughing].
{/relationship>teacher}PI: Sometimes I have TV days.
{speaker}MS{/speaker}: Well, I don't have TV, so...
PI: that's probably better. So ur, did you major in
English from the start?
{speaker}MS{/speaker}: No, actually I went to the
community college and I was very undecided about the,
What all I wanted to do. {relationship>teacher}And it
Sutccnna thinn "t 10! tha tanitharwUa iiict Enrlrninri


Customize


T














APPENDIX D
SAMPLE NOTES FROM RESEARCH JOURNAL

Notes on -- interviews:

In the interviews, there is a high frequency of comments made that reflect the subject's
views on writing, both as an act and as a subject to be taught. I tended to separate
these into perceptions about and attitudes toward, although I'm struggling to be sure
that there is a significant difference between the two. I suppose these two would
represent what she thinks writing is and how she feels about it.

From reading through the interview data of all the participants, not only --, I find that one
of the more obvious topics involved the subject's understanding of what a teacher is
supposed to do, and what a student is supposed to do. I have found myself looking at
the data and attempting to code along those lines. This is where Goffman's frame
analysis would come in. There are also understandings about the nature of
relationships between teachers and students, and what factors are involved with
creating those relationships and what obstacles prevent that relationship from
forming. These are all from Monique primarily, although as I code I think of the other
interviews and realize that these are formulating my codes as well.

In terms of the relationship, for -- it is primarily a mentor-type relationship where
desirable behavior is modeled by the teacher and the student reflects that behavior back in
the classroom or in their writing. -- talks a lot about inspiration and motivation, with
success coming in writing primarily through a motivation to do so. This was reflected in
experiences with student-teacher relationships for the most part, with nominal
experiences with teacher-student relationships, where the former of each pair is the
subject. I suspect, because of the perceived differences between the experiences of the
subjects, that this aspect will differ the most in terms of attitudes. This will be tricky for
me.

The partnership was the "excuse" for talking to the subject, and it did not come up as
frequently, but the peripheral discussion informed on a number of the questions I had
about their experiences in the partnership. I again tended to go with perceptions about
and attitudes toward the partnership, and will probably refine these codes to include
positive experiences and negative experiences with. Another aspect of the coding will be
the influence of the partnership on writing instruction and on developing
relationships with students. Because I went into this project thinking that relationships
would be of paramount importance, while it was not in the strictest sense, the partnership
did open the door to a discussion on how relationships are developed and the
aforementioned factors involved.













Sample Journal Notes:

The trouble with doing this case study is that the nature of case reporting is to describe

the phenomenon with rich and thick detail, in order to present to the reader an

opportunity to experience vicariously the phenomenon itself. In my case, this is not so

easy to do. It is not a matter of having never been to the site of the phenomenon; rather,

there is no site to visit. Even if, for example, we assumed that each participant created an

individual site when they sat down at the computer and began to participate in the

phenomenon of the online writing partnership, that would present very real, practical

problems, as there would then be ten different sites, each meeting at different times and

in different places. Aside from the difficulty in obtaining access to all these sites (it is in

theory possible); the error in the assumption that these ten "sites" comprise the field of

study is just that: an error. In a classroom study, the classroom provides physical

boundaries that do nicely to limit the study. Other boundaries are inherent in the

structure of the school, such as the time allotted for a class. Certainly this is not the

entirety of context, as context from outside the classroom affects profoundly the ways in

which students experience the classroom phenomena. This study lacks even that inherent

structure for a site of study.



















APPENDIX E
SAMPLE OF INTER-RATER CODED TRANSCRIPT


(Grayscale; Original was color-coded)



PI: I tkink ii's m. nr htWrng ihh An mrryA pofipO e mn'uw I nws a i'imi

c(ler.Whive j, bri 1 knwW yJU wivre'j a camp inwwIt bruI/

IK: ] i1 was the san :iri:, I

PI

it iw a. .u similar Jysp thrng so .maly pv opl who go mino edi.caiur

hbuW etperwrrbftree hvw .1m unm mnfigm rifing a cemple oimi es.t 0? .rA-I

aboro n At id, sl, J.r' ',. ..Lrnit. '.,. i.ri. i .. I...oi ; m u fld 4 u sa3g

*. 11 .1 1..; .. ,...r.; (ip't ~r thU t l puwhed y io more or o4us tr rho hexruarmp

a.qpct or iwtv it (xambirwrion rfffi 'h

~po4ANAt 1JC: I really think It was Ith wrilng. Uih, ni that. I don't reilly do a lot of
5 '5 C reMiv wr ring inyioie. I sartid of in... as long as I can reiantber I would

rgo will my dad to> hi, o1fflic and I would sit ia his computer, at his secretaries

compit er whet lc ..F ir i ,ll J. '. A I would...rhyme and [ called i poi-y,

and I w lIdji us wrie bout whaEtver wAs on my mind, and this is slarned in like

fourth or fifth grade where I VoIld julis nmR oul with "Look morn, I wro~e 50

ipon r 'Lt ,1. i.h.' nd i wasjust a nmalC, that was my IRairal oUL anid,

it prD 4 iogrsiCed a grew u and b;e ime, ou n n w k ,ay .......ir. .I I t. L'., I:- to
Sy nr4t-
h.C < do so. Writing gl high sc h was ..i... it was a lot of soap-box kind of, I

identified i ih Roxciy a oit in hill thing, thi. a lot of, "this is the w.ay it is" and

L) v um, i.L J i-ll c LWiunid it to more academic and... in a way it's L I .L i'f.i i. .

cause I fc like a.cadcnun completely squckhed my ability to write creatively.

lJb but I enjoy it ~nre than anylhing els. I can write academically and h ve
S complete satisfairtn wilh ii now ih,: so it's, it's a good thing.


224
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Anson, C. M. (1989a). Response styles and ways of knowing. In C. M. Anson (Ed.),
Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 332-366). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.

Anson, C. M. (1989b). Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In Speech genres and other late
essays (pp. 60-102). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Beach, R. (1976). Self-evaluation strategies of extensive revisers and nonrevisers.
College Composition and Communication, 27(2), 160-164.

Berthoff, A. E. (1994). The intelligent eye and the thinking hand. In S. Perl (Ed.),
Landmark essays on writing process (pp. 107-112). Davis, CA: Hermagoras
Press.

Bleich, D. (1989). Reconceiving literacy: Language use and social relations. In C. M.
Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 15-36).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation ofprint.
(Second ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.

Borg, M. (2004). The apprenticeship of observation. ELTJournal, 58, 274-276.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Burant, T. J., & Kirby, D. (2002). Beyond classroom-based early field experiences:
Understanding an "educative practicum" in an urban school and community.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 561-575.






226


Carter, M. (1990). The idea of expertise: An exploration of cognitive and social
dimensions of writing. College Composition and Communication, 41(3), 265-286.

Cheyne, J. A., & Tarulli, D. (1999). Dialogue, difference and voice in the zone of
proximal development. Theory and Psychology, 9(1), 5-28.

Christensen, L. M. (1990). Teaching standard English: Whose standard? English
Journal, 36-40.

Clayton, J. B. (1996). Voices from the fringe. Voices from the Middle, 3(3), 3-7.

Cole, R. A. (Ed.). (2000). Issues in web-basedpedagogy: A Criticalprimer. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.

Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELTJournal, 52, 179-187.

Daiker, D. A. (1989). Learning to praise. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response:
Theory, practice, and research (pp. 103-113). Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher
Education, 51(3), 166-173.

Delfino, M., & Manca, S. (2006). The expression of social presence through the use of
figurative language in a web-based learning environment. Computers in Human
Behavior, 23, 2190-2211.

Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 282-298.

Delpit, L. D. (1998). What should teachers do? Ebonics and culturally responsive
instruction. In T. Perry & L. D. Delpit (Eds.), The realEbonics debate: Power,
language, and the education of African-American children (pp. 17-26). Boston:
Beacon Press.

Derry, S. J., & Steinkuehler, C. A. (2003). Cognitive and situative theories of learning
and instruction. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 800-
805). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Dey, A. K., & Abowd, G. D. (1999). Towards a better understanding of context and
context-awareness (GVU Technical Report GIT-GVU-99-22). Atlanta: College of
Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Dourish, P. (2004). What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and
Ubiquitous Computing, 8(1), 19-30.






227


Dyson, A. H., & Freedman, S. W. (2003). Writing. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire & J.
M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts
(2nd ed., pp. 967-992). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case. New York: Teachers College Press.

Egan-Robertson, A. (1998). Learning about culture, language, and power: Understanding
relationships among personhood, literacy practices, and intertextuality. Journal of
Literacy Research, 30(4), 449-487.

Emig, J. (1994). The composing process: Review of the literature. In S. Perl (Ed.),
Landmark essays on writing process (pp. 1-22). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

Faigley, L. (1994). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. In S. Perl
(Ed.), Landmark essays on writing process (pp. 149-164). Davis, CA:
Hermagoras Press.

Farnan, N., & Dahl, K. (2003). Children's writing: Research and practice. In J. Flood, D.
Lapp, J. R. Squire & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the
English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 993-1007). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research,
57(4), 481-506.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1994). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical
problem. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark essays on writing process (pp. 63-74). Davis,
CA: Hermagoras Press.

Freedman, S. W., Greenleaf, C., & Sperling, M. (1987). Response to student writing.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Graham, S., & Thornley, C. (2000). Connecting classrooms in pre-service education:
Conversations for learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher-Education, 28(2),
235-245.

Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school
subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5-11.

Gwizdka, J. (2000). What's in the context. Proceedings of Workshop on The What, Who,
Where, When, and How of Context-Awareness, Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI 2000).









Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways ii/i words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. New York: Routledge.

Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (2000). Global literacies and the World-Wide Web. New
York: Routledge.

Ivani, R. (2004). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education,
18(3), 220-245.

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice:
Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4-
17.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social
interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review
of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335-353.

Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext 2.0: The convergence of contemporary critical theory
and technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A Study of
teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leh, A. S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and social presence in a
distance learning environment. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 7(2), 109.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Lindfors, J. W. (1991). Children's language and learning (Second ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.

Lindfors, J. W. (1999). Children's inquiry: Using language to make sense of the world.
Urbana, IL: Teachers College Press, National Council of Teachers of English.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.






229


Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experience of preservice teachers. Journal of
Teacher Education, 54(1), 31-42.

Murray, D. (1994). All writing is autobiography. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark essays on
writing process (pp. 207-216). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Murray, P. Y. (1989). Teachers as readers, readers as teachers. In B. Lawson, S. S. Ryan
& W. R. Winterowd (Eds.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive issues in
reading student writing (pp. 73-85). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London:
Routledge.

Onore, C. (1989). The Student, the teacher, and the text: Negotiating meanings through
response and revision. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory,
practice, and research (pp. 231-260). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning.
Annual Review ofPsychology, 48, 345-375.

Perl, S. (1994). Understanding composing. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark essays on writing
process (pp. 99-105). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

Phelps, L. W. (1989). Images of student writing: The deep structure of teacher response.
In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp.
37-67). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Reither, J. (1994). Writing and knowing: Toward redefining the writing process. In S.
Perl (Ed.), Landmark essays on writing process (pp. 141-148). Davis, CA:
Hermagoras Press.

Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in
relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN, 7(1), 21.






230


Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The Reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of
literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Samaras, A. P., & Gismondi, S. (1998). Scaffolds in the field: Vygotskian interpretation
in a teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 715-733.

Schmidt, A., Beigl, M., & Gellersen, H. W. (1999). There is more to context than
location. Computers & Graphics, 23(6), 893-901.

Smagorinsky, P. (1995). The Social construction of data: Methodological problems of
investigating learning in the zone of proximal development. Review of
Educational Research, 65(3), 191-212.

Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from?: Toward a
cultural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 133-169.

Smagorinsky, P. (2002). Teaching English through principledpractice. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Smagorinsky, P., & Whiting, M. E. (1995). How English teachers get taught: Methods of
teaching the methods class. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Smith, F. (1997). Reading ii ithi,,ut nonsense (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.

Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers.
College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 378-388.

Stake, R. E. (1978, February). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational
Researcher, 5-8.

Tu, C.-H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social
presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, 23(1), 27-37.

Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in
online classes. The American Journal ofDistance Education, 16(3), 131-150.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen : Identity in the age of the Internet. New York:
Simon & Schuster.

Vygotsky, L. (1978a). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978b). Tool and symbol in child development. In Mind in society (pp. 19-
31). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.










Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and word. In Thought and language (pp. 210-256):
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Journals.

Warnock, T. (1989). An analysis of response: Dream, prayer, and chart. In B. Lawson, S.
S. Ryan & W. R. Winterowd (Eds.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive
issues in reading student writing (pp. 59-72). Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research:
An Insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 190-
204.

Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. OxfordReview of
Education, 22(1), 5-16.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Allan Nail was born in Jacksonville, Florida, but moved to Atlanta, Georgia, with

his parents as a toddler when they left to pursue their own education. After living seven

years in rural South Georgia, Allan graduated from Zionsville Community High School

in Zionsville, Indiana, and returned to his native state to attend the University of Florida.

After completing a master's in education, Allan taught at North Marion High School in

Citra, Florida, and at Keystone Heights High School in Keystone Heights, Florida, before

returning to university for his Ph.D. He continues to teach writing and literature as an

associate professor at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida. Allan is

married to Cheryl Glantz Nail; he is the son of Dan Nail and Diane Parsons, and brother

of Erin Berryman.





PAGE 1

AN EXPLORATION OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS EXPERIENCES IN AN ONLINE WRITING PARTNERSHIP By DANIEL ALLAN NAIL, JR. A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2008 by Daniel Allan Nail, Jr.

PAGE 3

To Elizabeth R. Nail, and in memory of W illiam A. Nail, Sr. for their love and support.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am fortunate to have so many people in my life to provide support and friendship during my work on this dissertation. My greatest debt is owed to my wife Cheryl; her love, steadfast support, and confidence carries me through everything, this dissertation included. This document is a testament to her patience and caring as much as anything. My family has lived this degree program with me. My parents, Dan Nail and Diane Parsons; my sister, Erin Berryman; and my grandmother, Elizabeth Nail, showed great patience regarding canceled visits home and long spans without phone calls. When I was around, they listened to my gripes and offered welcomed advice. Never once did they snicker when I swore I would finish in just one more semester. I thank them for everything. Dr. Jane S. Townsend changed my thinking about writing during my masters work, and further transformed these thoughts during my doctoral work. As my committee chair, she guided me with care and consideration, honesty and good humor, and reminded me to breathe every once in awhile. Her suggestions throughout this process were invaluable, and if there is worth in this study, she has a claim to it. I cannot imagine doing this with anyone else at the helm, and I thank her. Taking classes with Dr. Barbara Pace opened my eyes to ways of thinking about education and the students we teach that I might never have thought of. Her enthusiasm for technology was a shared interest and provided many opportunities for fruitful iv

PAGE 5

discussion. Working with Dr. Pace in the Proteach program led me to a greater appreciation of her talents as an educator and helped be become better as a result. When I first applied to graduate school for a masters degree in education, Dr. Greg Ulmer agreed to write a letter of recommendation for me, saying he felt I had shown an ability for graduate work. I do not know that I agreed with him at the time but I have never forgotten that vote of confidence, nor have I forgotten how transformative was his class during my English studies. I am grateful that he has continued to support my academic pursuits. Dr. Richard Ferdig provided an avenue of scholarly insight into the world of educational technology, allowed me to spar with him over issues likely more semantic than substantive (however important I felt they were at the time), and encouraged me to explore developing issues of writing space. Finally, more thanks than I can give are owed to my mentor, Dr. Robert Wright. From his advisement when I was an undergraduate considering teaching, to his constant smile and gentle (but profound) guidance both in education and in life, he has been a blessing to me in ways few others have or will. I am grateful for the care he has taken with me, the inspiration he has always provided, and most importantly for his friendsh v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................2 Scope and Significance of the Study............................................................................3 Questions of the Study..................................................................................................4 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......................................................................................6 Language and Learning................................................................................................6 Language Development.........................................................................................6 Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development..........................................10 Preservice Teacher Education.....................................................................................13 Knowledge and Competency...............................................................................13 Issues Affecting Knowledge Transfer.................................................................15 Expertise and the Organization of Knowledge....................................................18 Theory and Practice in Practicum Experiences...................................................20 Writing........................................................................................................................22 Writing as Process...............................................................................................23 Writing as a Social Act........................................................................................25 Teacher Response to Writing......................................................................................27 Defining Response...............................................................................................27 Teachers Responses to Students Writing..........................................................29 Revision...............................................................................................................30 Importance of Context................................................................................................32 Defining Context.................................................................................................33 Online Context.....................................................................................................35 Transparency................................................................................................36 Social presence.............................................................................................37 Writing space............................................................................................37 vi

PAGE 7

Qualitative Research Methods....................................................................................38 Summary.....................................................................................................................39 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................41 Study Design and Rationale........................................................................................41 Setting and Participants..............................................................................................43 Description of Setting..........................................................................................43 English teacher preparation program...........................................................43 High-school dual-enrollment program.........................................................44 Participant Selection............................................................................................45 Data Collection Methods............................................................................................47 Subject Interviews...............................................................................................48 High-school Student Interviews..........................................................................50 Documentary Evidence.......................................................................................50 Student writing.............................................................................................51 Email correspondence..................................................................................52 Participants reflective writing.....................................................................53 Data Analysis Procedures...........................................................................................53 TAMS, Computer Software for Qualitative Data................................................53 Analysis of Interviews.........................................................................................55 Analysis of documents........................................................................................57 Authenticity and Internal Consistency........................................................................58 Researcher Bias..........................................................................................................59 Summary.....................................................................................................................61 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................62 A Metaphor.................................................................................................................63 Kate.............................................................................................................................66 Kates Experiences in the Partnership.................................................................67 Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing....................................................72 Technology as a Means to an End.......................................................................76 Partnership as Flawed Success............................................................................79 Libby...........................................................................................................................81 Experiences in the Partnership............................................................................82 Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing....................................................86 Technology as a Legitimate if Flawed Alternative.............................................90 Partnership as an Opportunity to Grow, Learn....................................................92 Claire...........................................................................................................................95 Experiences in the Partnership............................................................................96 Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing..................................................100 Technology and Indifference.............................................................................104 Partnership as Microcosm of an Existential Crisis............................................107 Nikki.........................................................................................................................110 Experiences in the Partnership..........................................................................111 Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing..................................................116 vii

PAGE 8

Technology as Efficient, Inevitable...................................................................121 Partnership as an Opportunity to Inspire, Motivate...........................................123 Juliet..........................................................................................................................124 Experiences in the Partnership..........................................................................125 Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing..................................................131 Technology and Obstacles.................................................................................134 Partnership as a Transformative Experience.....................................................137 Across Case Analysis of Results..............................................................................138 What Were the Experiences of the Study Participants?....................................141 Experiences and social presence................................................................142 Experiences and relationships....................................................................145 High-school students experiences in the Online Writing Partnership......147 Experiences and role/authority...................................................................149 Experiences and expectations of the physical classroom...........................151 What do these Experiences Reveal about these Prospective Teachers Beliefs about Teachers and Teaching Writing?.........................................................154 Beliefs and social presence........................................................................155 Beliefs and relationships............................................................................156 Beliefs and role/authority...........................................................................158 Emphasis on types of response given in the Online Writing Partnership..161 Beliefs and classroom writing instruction..................................................164 What Influences did Participant Attitudes toward Technology have on the Experiences of the Online Writing Partnership?...........................................166 Attitudes toward technology and social presence......................................167 Attitudes toward technology and relationships..........................................169 Attitudes toward technology and role/authority.........................................171 Attitudes toward technology and expectations of the classroom...............172 Summary...................................................................................................................176 5 DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................179 Summary of the Results............................................................................................179 Limitations of Results...............................................................................................182 Discussion of Results................................................................................................184 What it Means to be a Teacher..........................................................................187 Developing Working Relationships with Students............................................191 Understanding Writing as a Process..................................................................198 How Teachers Teach Writing............................................................................203 Implications for Future Research......................................................................211 APPENDIX A CONSENT FORMS.................................................................................................214 B SAMPLE INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS...................................................................219 C SAMPLE CODED INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT...................................................221 viii

PAGE 9

D SAMPLE NOTES FROM RESEARCH JOURNAL...............................................222 E SAMPLE OF INTER-RATER CODED TRANSCRIPT.........................................224 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................225 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................232 ix

PAGE 10

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. Study questions with corresponding data sources......................................................49 4-1. A comparison summary of data across cases............................................................64 4-2. Categories of response type with descriptions........................................................164 x

PAGE 11

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Example of Microsoft Word Comment Card function, with pop-up comments to the right, with corresponding place indicators connected to the student text with dotted lines.......................................................................................................51 4-1 Continuum of experiences reflecting participants overall attitude toward the Online Writing Partnership....................................................................................141 4-2 Continuum of teaching philosophies reflecting participants stated and implied beliefs during the Online Writing Partnership.......................................................154 4-3 Percentage of emphasis on response type..............................................................162 4-4 Continuum reflecting participants overall attitude toward technology as revealed through Online Writing Partnership........................................................167 xi

PAGE 12

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN EXPLORATION OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS EXPERIENCES IN AN ONLINE WRITING PARTNERSHIP By Daniel Allan Nail, Jr. May 2008 Chair: Jane S. Townsend Major: Curriculum and Instruction The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of four preservice teachers and one practicing teacher in an Online Writing Partnership with high-school students dual-enrolled in a community college, and to examine what these experiences revealed about preservice teachers beliefs about teaching, writing instruction, and the use of technology for instructional purposes. The following questions guided this study: 1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the teaching profession have in a distance, online partnership with secondary writers? 2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers views of teaching and specifically teaching writing? 3. What influences on the partnership or on the participants appear to exist from experience with and attitude toward technology? In what way did these attitudes affect the partnership/participants? 4. What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership?

PAGE 13

For the study, the researcher conducted extensive interviews (both formal and informal), collected documentary data from both the graduate students and their high-school partners, and kept a detailed research journal. The questions of the study are addressed in the results and presented as individual case studies of the five participants; an across-case analysis addresses the questions again, using the contextual threads identified by the participants for question four of the study as a lens for further examination. Each of the five graduate students experienced the Online Writing Partnership in ways that reflected their individual experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about online technologies, education in general, and writing instruction in particular. Each individual case was unique; however, there were significant similarities across cases, providing for a view of context from which all participants can draw in creating and interpreting meaning. Looking at the individual cases collectively, those aspects of context deemed salient by the participants of the Online Writing Partnership were: their perception of social presence between partners, their understanding of the relationships between teachers and students, their sense of the role and authority of a teacher, and their preconceived expectations of classrooms processes.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When I first entered my teacher preparation program, a group of friends and I would meet once a week to drink beer, talk freely, and generally enjoy each others company. We met at a local Irish pub because the pub served cheap food, and we were invariably hungry and broke. It did not hurt that the pub was close to the university we all attended while we pursued graduate degrees in education; we met on Wednesday evenings after class, and often walked over from campus. Our agenda for these meetings was always what we were reading, what we wanted to read, novels, magazines, anythingit was not uncommon for each of us to have pen and paper in pocket, in case a recommendation was made to further weigh down our bedside tables. The discussions that insued were sometimes loud, always passionate, and motivated not only by our love for literature, but also by our love for talking about literature. In the mythology of my progression and development as a teacher, I like to think there was one night when I had a sudden wondering about how I could encourage my own students to pursue the discussion of their own reading with the fervor and need that each in my group felt. In reality, it was likely a wondering that developed over time. But it seemed to me that somehow, there had to be something I could do to help my ninth graders engage in reading and be motivated to do so naturally, similar to my Wednesday night outings. Eventually, the problem of student-motivated literature discussions was addressed by my implementing an online bulletin-board system as part of my curriculum. After 1

PAGE 15

2 some time and many small (and not so small) adjustments, my students took my initial idea and ran with it, pursuing discussions of their own design beyond my most optimistic expectations. While gratified at the outcome, I was not satisfied. I found myself wondering about the very success my students had achieved, how they had managed to develop a community of learning outside (and largely independent) of our physical classroom. What was it about this online environment that seemed to encourage learning in ways that complemented and enhanced what my students were doing in class? When I left teaching to continue my education, this wondering found new ways of expression. My focus shifted from wondering about teaching literature to helping future teachers prepare to teach, and specifically to teach writing. I wanted to know how online, virtual environments could assist in preparing future teachers of English for the classroom. So many educational opportunities were moving to online environments, but rather than replace traditional teacher education, I wondered how online learning might enhance traditional teacher preparation programs. Statement of the Problem As the Internet has become more and more ubiquitous, it has become difficult to believe that email, the World Wide Web, and various other computer technologies have been around a scant fifteen years. Even public schools, which have historically been behind the curve of early adopters of developing technologies, are increasingly connected to the Internet. The nature of education is beginning to change, as more and more courses and entire degree programs are moving from the brick and mortar schoolrooms to the virtual spaces of distance, online education. There has been much research conducted regarding the nature of online technologies (Hawisher & Selfe, 2000; Murray, 1997) and the varied applications of

PAGE 16

3 these technologies in education (Bromley & Apple, 1998; Cole, 2000). Additionally, there have been some explorations into the nature of context in online environments (Bolter, 2001; Bolter & Grusin, 1999; Landow, 1992; Turkle, 1995). However, there is a marked dearth of studies that focus on the use of online communication technologies by pre-service teachers as a means of facilitating practicum experiences with the teaching of writing. I believe the Partnership at the heart of this study represents a unique and effective contribution to the development of future teachers and that exploring this particular case can shed light on the learning of future teachers in other practicum experiences. A number of reports have pointed to the division that exists in the minds of teachers between the theory of the university classroom and the practice of the secondary school, and to the difficulty of bridging this divide. The Online Writing Partnership, which paired graduate students in English education with dual-enrolled high-school juniors for the purpose of providing mentoring in writing, represents one such approach to this problem that has experienced success in this area, and study of this particular instance can provide insight into ways to address what has been identified as a common problem for teacher preparation programs. Scope and Significance of the Study This study is a case study of five women enrolled in a writing methods course as part of a graduate level teacher education program in English Education. As part of the writing methods course, these women were assigned a high-school student to mentor online in writing, exchanging drafts with feedback via email. Over a span of ten weeks, the graduate students provided feedback to multiple drafts of two separate writing assignments. In researching this particular process, I conducted multiple in-depth interviews with each of the five study participants; these interviews were audio taped and

PAGE 17

4 transcribed verbatim by me. I also collected documentary data from both the graduate students (emails, reflective writings, feedback given to their high-school partners) and the high-school student partners (emails, drafts of writing assignments). As part of and during the data collection process, I kept detailed notes in a research journal. My findings in this study, although specific to this particular instance, have implications for teacher education. Most significantly, online practicum experiences can provide opportunities not only for authentic use of educational theory but also allow for more and varied occasions of applying theory to practice. Moreover, this application can be guided by the experience of a knowledgeable other, without the myriad concerns (e.g. taking attendance, grading papers) that demand the pre-service teachers attention in traditional, field-based practicum environments. Additionally, online experiences such as the Online Writing Partnership can provide valuable opportunities for reflection on beliefs about teaching and teaching writing that are often formed prior to entering a teacher preparation program (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). Questions of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of five graduate students in an online writing partnership and to explore what beliefs those experiences revealed. To guide my research, I designed the following questions: 1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the teaching profession have in a distance, online partnership with secondary writers? 2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers views of teaching and specifically of teaching writing? 3. What influences on the partnership or on the participants appear to exist from experiences with and attitudes toward technology? In what way did these attitudes affect the partnership/participants?

PAGE 18

5 4. What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership? The first question provided a way to examine the online partnership from the perspectives of those participating in the partnership. The second question looked at the experiences of the five study participants through the lens of belief about teaching, writing, and writing instruction. The third question required me to look at prior beliefs about technology and how those beliefs might have impacted the experiences of the graduate students during the partnership. The final question provided the opportunity to explore the nature of online environments and the impact these contexts might have on teacher education.

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE This study looks at an online partnership between pairs of students, one student from a graduate-level, teacher education program and one from a college dual-enrollment, high-school program. This partnership gave future English teachers the opportunity to work with developing writers like the ones they would work with both later in their internships and moreover in their careers as professional educators. In this chapter, I will begin by looking at literature pertaining to learning, followed by literature dealing specifically with teacher learning. Research and theory related to learning is of primary importance for this review of literature for the light it sheds on the movement from novice to expert, both in the practice of writing and in the practice of teaching writing. I will also review literature concerning writing and theory related to the teaching of writing. Next, I examine research on and theory of context in general and online contexts in particular. I conclude this chapter with a summary of literature on the methodology used in this study. Language and Learning Language Development In this study I employ a social constructivist view of learning. Social constructivism is poststructuralist in its view of learning and development and as such rejects an empirical view of knowledge, wherein what can be known is limited to what can be verified by observation. For the social constructivist, knowledge and meaning do not exist externally outside of the individual. Instead, meaning is constructed by an 6

PAGE 20

7 individual within the context of a particular culture (Bruner, 1986; Ong, 1982; Smagorinsky, 2001). Rarely do we formulate an understanding of the world in isolation; rather, our knowledge of the world is most frequently mediated through negotiation with others (Frank Smith, quoted in Bruner, 1986, p. 261). This mediation is accomplished primarily through our use of tools and signs (Vygotsky, 1978a), with language serving as a central tool. Language is our primary means of representing the world; it is both a socially constructed tool with which we organize our personal understanding of the world (Holquist, 1990; Ong, 1982; Smagorinsky, 2001) and the tool with which we construct meaning through negotiation with others (Bruner, 1986; Cheyne & Tarulli, 1999; Holquist, 1990). Bruner (1986) notes that language is our primary tool for referring, wherein language uses cues to the context in which utterances are being made and triggers presupposition that situate the referent (p. 63). In other words, language allows us to interact with others by relying on shared and jointly constructed meaning; language provides the primary medium by which we are able to communicate and, thus, to learn (Lindfors, 1991). Bakhtins (1986) concept of utterance as a unit of speech communication provides significant insight for this study. Most of the communication between the selected participant pairs occurs using variants of written language such as emails, papers, and comments on those papers. Often, teachers and students alike view writing as a product (Dyson & Freedman, 2003; Flower & Hayes, 1994) and do not view this form of language use in the same way they view traditional, oral speech. To be sure, there are significant contextual differences between written and oral speech (see Kress, 2003; Ong,

PAGE 21

8 1982). However, as Bakhtin notes, we do not communicate through the exchange of sentences, but rather through the exchange of utterances (1986). Each piece of writingwith all its contextual elements, including the writers speech will, or purpose in speaking, and the readers assumptions about that speech willconstitute one utterance, one link in a chain of communication. Bakhtins differentiation between sentence and utterance, where a sentence has no implicit meaning at all, unless as part of a whole utterance, is fundamentally constructivist in nature because through utterances, meaning is created by a convergence of contextual features selected by the speaker as part of his/her speech will. Language in use is social. Vygotskys view of language, like all higher psychological processes, is also fundamentally social in nature: When we speak of a process, external means social. Any higher mental function was external because it was social at some point before becoming an internal, truly mental function (Vygotsky, 1981, quoted in Cheyne & Tarulli, 1999, p. 9). For Vygotsky, what makes human learning unique is its presumption of a particular social nature that leads to development in keeping with the expectations of intellectual life within a culture (Vygotsky, 1978a). This social aspect is manifested in the dialogic nature of language, wherein each speech act, or utterance, consists in part of the presumed response of an other (Bakhtin, 1986; Holquist, 1990). No matter if an utterance is a single word rejoinder to a command, a complex and artistic written utterance such as a novel, or an informal greeting in the form of an email or instant message, each speech act is a whole utterance whose completeness includes the presumption of response, whether immediate or delayed, in the form of another utterance, or in influencing the others actions.

PAGE 22

9 Some learning occurs as part of the natural development of most children, such as language acquisition itself (Lindfors, 1991). This type of learning is in large part outside the scope of this study. However, learning and development are not separate phenomena; learning is a kind of development. At a certain point development and learning converge and learning becomes more deliberate, especially in the context of schooling. The internalization that occurs when the mediation of human action with tools moves from the interpersonal to the intrapersonal is an indicator of psychological growth, of learning (Palincsar, 1998; Smagorinsky, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978a), and is accomplished primarily through the use of language (Vygotsky, 1978a) and the organizational structures that language provides (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Lindfors, 1991, 1999), such as the core concepts that experts in specific disciplines or areas develop to guide their thinking about problems. For example, the expert jazz guitarist knows that when a solo is called for in a song, s/he needs to know only the key in which the song is played. The guitarist understands because of the organization of her/his knowledge of music theory that certain notes and chords are called for, while others are not. By reading a tablature transcription of a solo, the novice guitarist can also play a solo in a jazz piece; she can read the notes on the page but does not necessarily know how they relate to chords or key signature. The same is true for theories in other disciplines, such as education. These organizational structures, these theories, are not rigid and uniform; rather, they are both individually specific and at the same time bound to the process of cultural development (Kress, 2003; Ong, 1982). Smagorinsky (1995) notes that in any theory of development there is a sense of telos, an assumption that development through learning constitutes a move toward a

PAGE 23

10 positive, appropriate end. This is especially true in education, where competency in various areas is a primary goal (Bransford et al., 1999). However, any subjective terms such as positive and appropriate connote a meaning that can only be culturally determined. Any such theory, then, might be grounded in unexamined cultural assumptions (Smagorinsky, 1995, p. 194). Even if those assumptions are examined by a learner, either individually or as part of a community of discourse, it is impossible to escape completely the cultural assumptions that shape the construction of meaning (Phillips & Burbules, 2000). In English education, for example, the debate over standard English and the role of dialect in the classroom has led to researchers and teachers alike looking at the cultural assumptions that lead to certain languages being imbued with power, others denied power, and the costs of both to students (see for example, Christensen, 1990; Clayton, 1996; Delpit, 1988, 1998; Egan-Robertson, 1998). The very tools we use to negotiate meaning with others, most notably language, are born of a particular culture. Bakhtin (1986) argues that even the choice of how one will engage in speech (the selection of a particular type of utterance, or speech genre) is indicative of a multitude of contextual (and cultural) considerations. The importance to this study of viewing language and its forms as culturally bound are evident when considering the varying levels of competency in writing and other instances of language use, not only between the university students and their high-school partners but also between the university participants themselves and the ways their language competencies affected the relationships among and between partners. Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development From an early age, everyone constructs a theory of the world which forms the basis of all perception and understanding (Smith, 1997, p. 65) and determines how we

PAGE 24

11 act toward new information (Lindfors, 1991). When we encounter new information, it either conforms to our theory and we assimilate that information, or it does not conform and we are faced with a need to make sense of this new development, to accommodate this new information by restructuring our theory (Lindfors, 1991, 1999; Palincsar, 1998). In a sense, we are required to reconstruct our theory of the world in light of new information that conflicts with our previous understanding. Sometimes, we require help in assimilating new information. This study looks at the ways selected preservice teachers assist high-school students in their writing and also how these preservice teachers assimilate new information about the nature of teaching and the roles teachers play in assisting learning. For this study, I looked at participants enrolled in a masters level teacher education program. Studies show that students entering these types of programs often have already formed concepts of what teaching is and the role teachers plays in student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Moore, 2003). Often, these beliefs about teaching and teachers do not reflect what research has shown about how students learn and the most effective ways of teaching for student learning. However, the traditional notion of teacher as one who assists in the development of competencies in students is common and mirrors to some degree Vygotskys (1978a) mentoring relationships. According to Vygotsky (1978a), there is a gap between a learners actual developmental level (what a learner can do independently) and the learners potential developmental level (what a learner can accomplish with the assistance of a more knowledgeable peer, teacher, or other form of tutor). The gap between these levels is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is of importance to this study of online partnerships in particular, as

PAGE 25

12 studies show that communication technologies can assist teachers in bridging the gap between actual and potential development, placing the ZPD within the context of the online environment. Additionally, knowledge of the ZPD and the mentor/teachers role in it can shed light on the role this partnership plays in bridging the actual and potential development of the university students competencies in teaching. Vygotskys theory of development is helpful in understanding how learners develop understanding with the help of others, but what Vygotsky does not describe in detail is the nature of the work that falls to the tutor when assisting a learner within the ZPD. Bruner et al (Wood & Wood, 1996) suggest the metaphor of scaffolding, wherein tutors seek to build onto what students already are independently capable of doing (actual developmental level) by performing various critical functions such as providing focus and performing demonstrations, to name a few. These activities in turn scaffold the gap and help students develop further additional independent processes. Every learner has his/her own ZPD; while Vygotsky (1978a) primarily used examples from early childhood learning and development, students of all ages continue to learn and continue to require the assistance of others in moving toward their potential development (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Lindfors, 1999; Palincsar, 1998; Samaras & Gismondi, 1998). Moreover, simply moving to independent competence does not mean a learner is capable of being the tutor to someone else. Bruner (1986) notes, in a follow-up study of the tutoring process, that children who are taught a certain skill and then asked to assist another in learning that skill, are not able to gradually relinquish responsibility of completion to the learner they are assisting. Teaching is not so easy, and Bruners follow-up study suggests the particular importance of scaffolding and the ZPD in relation

PAGE 26

13 to contexts of teaching and learning how to teach. In the next section, I look at literature relating specifically to learning in the field of teacher education. Preservice Teacher Education Learning to teach, especially learning to teach in a specific subject area discipline such as English, can often resemble a two-headed beast. Preservice teachers must not only acquire competence in the content area they are to teach, but also must become competent in pedagogical theory as well and then somehow synthesize the two. In addition to the traditional, academic approach to the study of education, preservice teachers must, often simultaneously through practicum experiences, internships, and methods classes, learn how and when to apply the knowledge they have acquired. Because this study focuses on the experiences of preservice teachers in both an academic setting and practicum setting occurring simultaneously, I will be looking at literature related to preservice teacher education and in particular in the following areas: knowledge and competency, factors affecting the transfer of knowledge to practice, and the role of field experiences in preservice teacher education. Knowledge and Competency Student teachers learn a certain body of knowledge, generated through research on teaching (Bransford et al., 1999), that is required of effective classroom teachers, what educational researchers call epistemic knowledge (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Moore, 2003). Studies have shown that when teachers lack this pedagogical knowledge, they also lack the ability to engage students in the content of their teaching (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002) But learning to teach is not merely accumulating knowledge. Participation in educational discourse communities is necessary to allow learning to move from isolated to contextually situated (Graham & Thornley, 2000).

PAGE 27

14 Student teachers need to interact inside the communities they are seeking to join, while at the same time being guided through deliberate, reflective processes regarding their own emerging and transforming beliefs and behaviors (Samaras & Gismondi, 1998). While knowledge acquisition is the first step toward competency, it is assuredly not the last. It is one thing to memorize facts and otherwise acquire knowledge and another to be able to apply that knowledge in settings different from the one in which it was learned. This ability to apply knowledge in unique settings is referred to as transfer and results in a learners body of knowledge becoming conditionalized, meaning that knowledge is organized in such a way that it is responsive to situational cues that signal what knowledge is relevant and when it is needed (Bransford, 1999; Moore, 2003). I will discuss issues affecting transfer in more detail later in this section. Another aspect of interest concerning knowledge and learning, not only to teacher education in general but to this study in particular, is the perceived disconnect between the theoretical base of knowledge that is presented in teacher education coursework and the learning that occurs from experiences in the field. Very often, student teachers identify these as separate realms, with theory coming from the realm of universities and education researchers and practical knowledge coming from field experiences and from mentor teachers in the field (Graham & Thornley, 2000; Moore, 2003; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Wilson et al., 2002). Field experiences are consistently remembered by teachers not only as the most valuable part of teacher preparation programs but as largely disconnected from coursework (Burant & Kirby, 2002; Samaras & Gismondi, 1998). Research suggests that when preservice teachers see these two realms as disconnected, and when there is insufficient help bridging this gap between realms,

PAGE 28

15 preservice teachers are likely to fall back on previous conceptions of teachers and teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Moore, 2003; Wilson et al., 2002). What is the cause of this disconnect, however? This same research suggests that the gap that student teachers and practicing teachers see between the academic training and field training is owed in part to the sense that teaching is doing, that assisting others in learning is not something that occurs in theory but in actual practice. Studies have also suggested that because student teachers have spent so long in the academic community, exposed to teaching in practice, they feel (perhaps subconsciously) as if a type of apprenticeship has already been served (Borg, 2004; Phelps, 1989). This disconnect between the two realms of teacher education is of particular importance to my study, as the partnership under investigation takes place in some sense in the field (albeit in a non-traditional, emerging context), at the same time that it is part of a traditional university methods course. Issues Affecting Knowledge Transfer In the present study, preservice teachers were asked to mentor a high-school student in writing via communication technologies. Part of the preservice teachers task was to act as a guide, helping to initiate high-school students into the community of writing of which the preservice teachers were already competent members. To do this, they had to view the educative situation, determine the characteristics of that situation and how those characteristics related to their own beliefs about teaching and the role of the teacher in addition to their ongoing acquisition of knowledge about the theories of pedagogy and then apply these beliefs to that situation. In other words, the online practicum was asking the preservice teachers to reflect about what they were learning in the realm of the university setting and apply that knowledge to the mentorship they had

PAGE 29

16 been assigned to do. To provide a theoretical base and to better understand the processes involved with participation in this partnership, I will review the literature related to knowledge transfer and how learners move from novice to expert. I begin by looking at a number of factors that are necessary for knowledge transfer to take place and knowledge to become conditionalized. Perhaps one of the most common misconceptions of learning is that it consists primarily of knowledge transmitted to the learner either by an instructor or through educational materials. Some learning can occur in this manner, if the listener or reader is alert, receptive, and curious (Lindfors, 1991). However, for learning to affect beliefs and actions, that knowledge must find some way from an abstract, isolated concept in the students mind to become part of that students beliefs about the world. Knowledge must be transferred to belief and practice. Korthagen (1999) identifies three factors affecting knowledge transfer that are of particular interest to this study. They are: prior knowledge, felt sense of need by way of an immediate problem or past experience, and the nature of relevant knowledge to a task. In all forms of learning, prior experience and understanding play hugely significant roles. In teacher education this is especially true, perhaps more so than in other professional programs. By the time a student has reached a teacher preparation program, that student has spent a minimum twelve years observing and experiencing teaching first hand. Research has shown that this experience shapes in very real ways beliefs about good teachers and teaching, beginning as early as second grade and possibly before formal schooling even begins. Students of education bring with them conceptions of teaching that they have been forming for more than a decade. The challenge for

PAGE 30

17 teacher education is the integration of research-generated theory into already existing beliefs that will then be applied to real contexts and students. Another potential problem, or area of interest, is the fact that all learners need to have some sense of the relevance of what they are learning to some situation that will come up later in their lives. If theory does not relate directly to a concern that a student teacher has, or does not address a problem the student teacher has faced, then there is no immediate relevance sufficient to provide clarity of purpose and motivation for study. There needs to be a reason to learn and those reasons, if transfer is going to occur, cannot come on faith alone. However, learning in relevant contexts, while helpful in promoting transfer, does not guarantee transfer. When placed in an authentic setting, student teachers often become overwhelmed with the daily routines of teaching (Moore 2003), such as taking attendance, monitoring student behavior, and managing the paper load. Often student teachers and teachers alike do not have the opportunity to reflect on situations that arise and how learned theory might be applied to those situations. Knowledge must not only be learned, it must be relevant to a situation and conditionalized to certain circumstances (Bransford et al., 1999) in order to be fluently recalled. Another factor that greatly affects the transfer of knowledge is the nature of the knowledge itself and the ease with which it can be accessed. Not only is it important what theories teachers learn, it is important how they organize their understanding of that learning. Teachers often rely on immediate solutions to concrete situations that arise in the course of a day. Rarely is there time, in the immediacy of the classroom, to stop and reflect on which theories are relevant to a particular situation (Burant & Kirby, 2002;

PAGE 31

18 Darling-Hammond, 2000; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). Rather, teachers react instinctually to the situation as a whole. If knowledge has not been organized in the preservice teachers mind in such a way that it can be recalled according to a particular situations cues, then that knowledge is of little use (Bransford et al., 1999). Expertise and the Organization of Knowledge The current study looks at an online partnership designed in part to give experience to preservice teachers seeking to develop expertise in the teaching of writing. Looking at how knowledge is organized in those who have expertise in a field offers insight into the ways these selected participants may have been beginning to organize the theories about teaching taught in university coursework and how they began to apply that knowledge to a mentoring process. Those who have expertise in a particular field do not have to stop and think about what they know in a given situation. Instead, they are able to recognize features of a situation as being indicative of and requiring certain knowledge (Bransford et al., 1999; Carter, 1990). Additionally, they have fluency in their ability to recall and apply knowledge. This is due in part to an experts ability to notice things about a particular context that a novice would not and comes not only from the vast amount of content knowledge they possess about their field, but also from the large amounts of time spent in situations that require those particular knowledge sets. For example, all of the selected participants in this study were undergraduate English majors. By and large, the participants have expertise within the field of literature studies, in part because they have read not only a great quantity of literature and related theory, but have developed competencies that allow them to automatically and without conscious reflection apply various theories of literary meaning to their reading, evaluate the quality of books as

PAGE 32

19 either serious reading as opposed to beach reading, or draw forth any number of evaluative techniques that would not be available to novice readers lacking their specific areas of expertise. Part of the automaticity of this interaction with text is because, as graduates with an English degree, students do not really look at reading and interpreting a text as a process that they go through. Instead the reading of a text, the recognition of symbolic elements in that text as well as the decoding of letters and words on the pages of the book, is seen as elements of a whole that is reading. The act of reading for an English major likely is a gestalt, defined by Korthagen et al (1999) in the context of educational theory as the dynamic and holistic unity of needs, feelings, values, meanings and behavioral inclinations triggered by an immediate situation (p. 9). Teachers, regardless of their level of expertise, view teaching situations as whole experiences, rather than as a collection of contextual elements suggesting the selection of certain theories over others in order for learning to take place (Bransford et al., 1999; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). Teaching is an active profession and teachers are constantly acting within the role of educator; rarely do they have the time (much less the inclination) to stop and reflect on which theory of education is most pertinent to the situation at hand and how that theory might be implemented. Rather, they must react to a situation viewed holistically, recognizing automatically the cues that direct their recall of relevant knowledge. As mentioned earlier, in order for knowledge to transfer to practice, it must be organized in such a way that knowledge becomes conditionalized, or stored in the learners mind so that, when conditions are recognized, the cues allow for fluent recall of

PAGE 33

20 applicable knowledge (Bransford et al., 1999; Smagorinsky & Whiting, 1995). Korthagen et al (1999) draws on the work of Gestalt psychologists, calling teachers holistic view of situations gestalts. In order for new learning to be incorporated into teachers practice, they must reflect upon their gestalts. This reflection can lead to schema formation. Reflection within the schema level, when teachers begin to make connections between various schematic relationships, can lead to theory formation. When teachers reflect on their held theories of learning and learners, these theories gradually become incorporated into new gestalts. Within teacher education especially, preservice teachers usually benefit from guided assistance through the reflection process. A preservice teachers initial gestalt can be viewed as his/her actual development level (Vygotsky, 1978a). With assistance from a knowledgeable other in a situated context (Lave & Wenger, 1991), such as a university professor, novice teachers can begin to work toward gestalt transformation and, ultimately, expertise. Theory and Practice in Practicum Experiences In the example of a student of English literature, perhaps in part because it is an academic discipline, literature studies facilitate the type of learning that takes place in classrooms; students can be guided through the process of analyzing literature because the mentor, or knowledgeable other, is often with them through the entire process. Literature study is predominantly academic and thus thrives in the academy. Teaching, however, takes place in schools; learning to teach does not always lend itself to having both the preservice teacher and university professor in the same context at all times. In teaching, authentic experiences are thought to occur largely in schools and it is not as easy to model the act of teaching and then give over a classroom of students for practice. This is where the traditional employment of internships come into play

PAGE 34

21 (Smagorinsky & Whiting, 1995). Even though tradition holds that theory is presented in the university classroom and later applied in practice in the internship classroom, often with little continuing, practical connection between the two, it is common for students to fall back on previously held beliefs about the nature of teaching and teachers, which often is at odds with progressive theories of education most frequently proposed in university-based teacher preparation programs. Virtually all teacher education programs incorporate some form of internship experience (Smagorinsky & Whiting, 1995; Wilson et al., 2002), where anywhere between nine weeks and sixteen weeks are spent by the preservice teacher in some form of apprenticeship to a practicing, mentor teacher. Likewise, many programs incorporate shorter, interspersed practicum experiences before the internship to provide preservice teachers with opportunities to try out some of the pedagogical theory they have been learning in class. However, merely learning theory and then being given time to practice it are not enough to develop competency in teaching (Graham & Thornley, 2000). All learners have a Zone of Proximal Development; there is a limit to what student teachers are able to do on their own. In this study, the selected participants were all college graduates and had demonstrated an ability to succeed in traditional classroom environments. This traditional, academic competency represents their actual developmental level, in that they do not have to be guided through the process of acquiring information about, in this case in particular, writing. What preservice teachers do need assistance with exists in the realm of their individual, pedagogical potential development level. In other words, there is a similarity between the children in Bruners

PAGE 35

22 follow-up study and the participants in the present study: the participants know how to write; they do not know how to teach writing to others. Preservice teachers require a knowledgeable other who can assist them in moving forward in their competencies related to implementing the theoretical into the practical (Graham & Thornley, 2000; Samaras & Gismondi, 1998). For preservice teachers, the gap between theoretical understanding of pedagogy and the ability to implement effective practice based on that theory is their Zone of Proximal Development. Practicum experiences, as well as internships, can exist within that zone, and require a knowledgeable other, a mentor, to assist in a reflective progression through that zone. In this study, the gap of special interest existed between the participants competence in writing and their developing abilities in teaching others to write. I turn next to literature about the writing process and approaches to teaching writing. Writing Writing is a complex and multifaceted discipline; while writing resembles in many ways spoken language, it is fundamentally differentunlike spoken language, writing evolves through a recursive process. Writing can also have the appearance of paradox, for while writing often seems to be an exercise undertaken individually, writing as a cognitive process always presumes an other. All of thesethe complexity, the seeming contradictory nature of the space where writing occurscan create difficulties for veteran and novice teachers of writing alike, especially when writing moves from the confines of the classroom to those of online environments. For this study, there are three aspects in the literature about writing that warrant particular attention: the process of writing and the recursive nature of that process, the social nature of the writing act, and

PAGE 36

23 teachers responses to students writing. These aspects are to a degree not separable from each other and often overlap and inform the others. Writing as Process Writing, like any other complex activity, is a process (Farnan & Dahl, 2003), and many if not all teachers of writing have come to internalize some notion of writing as a process into their teaching (Faigley, 1994). Problems arise for students when process is over-generalized and codified into a series of rigid rules and procedures, which are then used as criteria for evaluation. Often this codification occurs when writing is viewed as product-oriented. For example, Flower and Hayes (1994) explore a common example of a metaphor for thinking about writing, that of discovery. In the discovery view of the writing process is the presumption of a product waiting to be found in some already extant form. This notion of process is contrary to what Kress (2003) calls the semiotic work of language and writing; rather than finding meaning through composing, meaning is created through the very act of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1994; Kress, 2003; Reither, 1994). Instead of prescribing a series of linear steps to be followed to reach a predefined end product, a view of writing as a process suggests a number of stages that best represent the recursive work of writing. These stages are broad enough to be generalized, yet still allow for the differences of individual writers as they recursively move through these stages. Emig (1994) notes that most views of the writing process mirror (with occasional adjustments or modifications) the stages set forth by Graham Wallas in his typology of creative thought (cited in Emig, 1994). Wallas stages begin with preparation, wherein the writer begins to think about the problem of the writing task itself. Whether or not preparation includes actual drafting or takes place fully in the

PAGE 37

24 writers head does not lessen the importance of this first stage (Vygotsky, 1986). Preparation is followed by incubation, when the writer thinks about the task at hand. Perl (1994) writes about a felt sense, wherein the writer focuses inwardly to non-verbalized perceptions. She calls the process of attending to this felt sense retrospective structuring that forms an arch between incubation and the next stage of Emig and Wallas typology, illumination. The final stage is verification that in the case of writing could include the revision process. Because these stages seemingly fit within the usual organizational structure of the school (Dyson & Freedman, 2003), that is, they appear to be a set of procedures to follow, a common reaction to this and other process typologies is to incorporate them into curricula as instructions for writing (Dyson & Freedman, 2003; Faigley, 1994). As Emig (1994) notes, what starts as a useful way to view the writing process often is reduced to a rigid set of criteria for creating and evaluating writing, wherein process is understood as a prescriptive rather than descriptive tool for viewing writing. Researchers (Dyson & Freedman, 2003; Faigley, 1994; Farnan & Dahl, 2003; 1994) caution against this view of process, arguing that writing does not always follow a straight line of development, but instead will return to substrands of the overall process, or subroutines (Perl, 1994). Recursiveness, according to Perl (1994), is a unique feature of the writing process that implies that there is a forward-moving action that exists by virtue of a backward-moving action. In other words, writing cannot be looked at as occurring in a linear sequence. Even as a writer moves forward in his/her writing, part of that moving forward involves re-reading what had previously been written; this interaction of reader and text then informs the writing that follows, and the cycle repeats.

PAGE 38

25 This process in its essence is not an individually-isolated one and in the context of the classroom becomes decidedly social. While we as writers often view the process of writing as solitary, and certainly at times it feels solitary, the mental processes involved in writing keep us from isolation (Bakhtin, 1986; Holquist, 1990). We must interact with others as we write in the Bakhtinian sense; that presumed interaction is how we order our ideas. Writing as a Social Act Bleich (1989) notes that all forms of language, by definition, rely on social factors for meaning; language, and therefore writing, can only be understood through the lens of a society. Likewise, language acts (of which writing is one) have multiple aspects, including purpose, expression, participants, and context (Lindfors, 1999). By using a language, we are acknowledging (however subconsciously) the systems of that language (Bakhtin, 1986). Researchers have suggested that rather than focusing on writing in the traditional, decontextualized sense, it is necessary to study and understand the variety of communities in which writing takes place (Faigley, 1994; Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995; Heath, 1983; Ivani, 2004; Reither, 1994). Faigley (1994) and Reither (1994) state that it is important to study the contexts of writing as necessary components of the composing process. In their view, the contexts of writing are at least partially self-generative. Writing cannot be separated from the social-rhetorical situations where writing occurs; moreover, writing not only happens within contexts, it creates and constitutes its own contexts through its very use (Reither, 1994). Because of this inextricable link between writing and context, the difference between successful and unsuccessful writers exists in part due to the

PAGE 39

26 unsuccessful writers lacking sufficient familiarity with the context in which s/he is writing (Berthoff, 1994; Flower & Hayes, 1994; Reither, 1994). Murray (1994) argues for the social nature of writing by illustrating how, when we read anothers writing, we must understand it as it relates to particular contexts. Writing, as an interactive process, places the writer and the reader in each others roles simultaneously, requiring the writer to understand not just what is being written, but how it is construed within the context of a particular community of discourse (Ivani, 2004). Therefore, merely knowing the facts of the subject is insufficient for writing about that subject one must not only know how to participate within the discourse community but also actively identify as a member of a socially meaningful group (Gee, 1999). Not everyone sees writing as social. Teachers may see writing as intensely private and be disinclined to engage students in aspects of writing other than the conventional (grammar use, appropriate vocabulary, etc.). Writing, however, is inherently social. Certainly the projective structuring, what Perl (1994) defines as adherence to the rules of a particular writing discourse, is an aspect of writing that invites teachers to engage socially with their students. The teacher is the knowledgeable other in Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development (cited in Lindfors, 1999) who helps initiate students (Murray, 1989), modeling how they participate within a writing discourse and assisting students as they move toward their own participation. There is also the retrospective structuring of writing, defined by Perl as the recursive process unique to each writer. The retrospective structuring by its nature seems private, untouchable, but is just as influenced by the context of the writing as any other aspect of the writing process. For

PAGE 40

27 students, the teacher is inextricably part of this context and the teachers responses to students writing inevitably influence the learners development. Teacher Response to Writing Defining Response Response is not something that comes only after instruction; rather, response can be an integral thread in the teaching-learning interaction (Freedman, Greenleaf, & Sperling, 1987). Researchers contend that response is most often considered within the confines of written remarks by teachers, either in the margins or at the end of a submitted text (Dyson & Freedman, 2003; Freedman et al., 1987). Response is not limited to written comments, however, and can occur in a formal conference or informally between classes, in writing, or through oral interactions with students (C. M. Anson, 1989; Freedman et al., 1987; Onore, 1989; Warnock, 1989). Response can come at any time during the writing process, even in the discussion of what topic a student will write about (Freedman et al., 1987). Often, the theory of response to writing is different than the practice of response. Teachers frequently view responding to writing and editing student papers as the same thing; for that matter, so do students, if only because that is what they are used to (Langer & Applebee, 1987). One study of writing teachers practices looked at the frequency of editing comments (comments that sought to correct some rule of writing) versus the frequency of praise comments, where the comments were intended to encourage what was seen as good writing. Of the thousands of comments given during this study, ninety-seven percent were editing comments (Langer & Applebee, 1987). Correcting errors can be part of response to be sure, but it is not the entirety of response helpful to student writers. This study has at its center a partnership designed to

PAGE 41

28 foster social engagement between prospective teachers and developing writers. In the partnership, which forms the focus of the current study, emphasis was placed on response to writing that was not primarily corrective. One goal of the partnership was to focus the interaction of two (and sometimes three) people on a writing task, to help improve a piece of writing, not to evaluate it. As such, an expanded view of teacher response is helpful. Freedman (1987) defines response as collective problem solving. Defined in such a way, response to writing can be more accurately viewed as it was intended by the partnership. Flower and Hayes (1994) argue that the best writing stems from the need to solve problems identified by the writer. This view of response includes the teacher in this problem-solving view of writing and clarifies the social aspect of writing. For example, in presenting students with the assignment to write an argument for an issue of importance, teachers present students with a problem that must be solved largely by the student, who must determine an issue that they consider important and write an argument in defense of their view. The teacher, however, is not divorced from the writing process simply because the student determines the specific issue on which to write. Rather, teacher response contributes to the students understanding in a number of ways, such as pointing out issues of clarity in the structure of the argument and providing an alternate view of the issue, to name a few. Response becomes part of the writing process; writing then is jointly accomplished teaching and learning where [b]oth the teacher and learner negotiate the parts they play (Freedman et al., 1987, p. 9). This definition highlights the social nature not only of response, but also the social aspect of writing and more closely represents the stated intent of the writing partnership in this study.

PAGE 42

29 Teachers Responses to Students Writing Response to student writing is a difficult notion for many teachers because it requires the teacher to wear two hats simultaneously: that of the helpful guide and also of the authoritative representative of the field of proper writing (Anson, 1989). Students likewise find response to writing difficult to grapple with; many students perceive response to a final draft of a paper as more valuable than response during the process of writing itself (Daiker, 1989). As a result, this view often has the effect of removing what is viewed as the real benefit of response, joint discovery and problem solving (Freedman et al., 1987). Similarly, the way teachers are taught, not only in methods courses, but particularly in college literature courses, influences greatly the way they approach student texts (Anson, 1989; Emig, 1994; Phelps, 1989; Reither, 1994). Murray (1989), drawing on Rosenblatts (1978) reader response theory, states that much of what teachers expect from a text reflects not only their mental and physical characteristics, but their culture, their experiences with the world, and their experiences with the world of texts as well (p. 73). These expectations result in teachers reading students texts from the perspective of their own academic training and experiences with writing papers (p. 77), experiences which typically are one-shot critical essays, graded and evaluated when they are turned in and rarely revisited with the aim of improving writing. Because such academic experiences can have a profound impact on teachers approaches to student writing, and because this study deals with participants who are graduate students with undergraduate degrees in English who are prospective English teachers, looking at how students in college literature courses approach texts (both writing and reading) is important. Anson (1989) delineates a progression of ways of

PAGE 43

30 knowing that is particularly relevant. They are: the dualist, who sees a text in black and white with only one possible reading; the relativist, who sees that all readings are correct and therefore none of them are; and the confident relativist, who understands that there are multiple ways of approaching a text and multiple possible meanings, delimited by the parameters of what constitutes valid readings (Rosenblatt, 1978). Although this taxonomy represents a progression, Anson acknowledges that not all students move beyond any given level. This is true even of graduate level students in teacher preparation programs and can have a profound effect on their assistance with students developing abilities in writing. A teacher reading a students paper is reading a text; how they define and approach texts in general will likewise determine their role in the joint production of that text in the classroom. Revision A discussion of revision is warranted here, because revision is a central and important part of writing (Fitzgerald, 1987), and because the partnership at the center of this study was developed to provide high-school students assistance in the ongoing process of revision and to provide experience to prospective teachers in providing that assistance. For most teachers, the closest they come to affecting the revision of a students writing is in providing response to that writing, if they provide any response at all; ultimately the student decides what depth of revision, if any, occurs (Beach, 1976). Revision is a sequence of changes in a compositionchanges that are initiated by cues and occur continually throughout the writing of a work (Sommers, 1980). Revision is inextricably linked to writing because it is part of the interaction between writer and text as s/he moves recursively through the writing process. However, like response, revision in classroom practice is often different from revision as practiced by experienced

PAGE 44

31 writers (Sommers, 1980). Also like response, revision is often shaped not only by past experiences with writing, but also by the writers conception of revision (Beach, 1976). Sommers (1980) and Fitzgerald (1987) show in their research that student writers often look at their revising efforts as attending to matters of form. Typically, student writers approach revision of writing as if the core meaning is already present and it is a matter of moving words around for the sake of clarity of meaning and/or the polishing of writing style (Sommers, 1980). Experienced writers, on the other hand, view revision much as Perl (1994) envisions the recursive nature of writing itself, as a process that is ongoing from the moment writing begins (Fitzgerald, 1987; Perl, 1994; Sommers, 1980). They view the revision process as the creation of meaning rather than the clarification of that meaning (Beach, 1976; Sommers, 1980). Teachers, if they are to model the approach to writing found in experienced, successful writers, must approach their responses to student writing in ways designed to engage students in the process of reflecting on their own writing. The goal of writing instruction, competency in writing in a variety of contexts, requires students to view revision not as a final step before assessment and grading, but as a recursive part of the writing itself. Within the context of the classroom, this orientation can be especially difficult to achieve, as the nature of schooling is regimented and divided, and many (if not most) tasks are viewed in light of the end product results. Revision becomes mere proofreading, both in the students eyes and at times in the eyes of the teacher. Elements of the classroom context play a large role in revision of students writing, such as the time allowed for work on assignments, how much time is available in a class overall, the physical conditions of composing (whether on computers or with pen and

PAGE 45

32 paper), and the number of student writers demanding the attention of one teacher, to name just a few. When the mentoring of writing goes online, as in the partnership at the center of this study, the contexts change, but are still critical to understanding the processes of writing and the teaching of writing. Importance of Context This study examined the experiences of selected participants within a particular online context. No experience occurs within a vacuum (Kress, 2003; Smagorinsky, 2001, 2002) and every experience incorporates aspects of the participants past and current understandings (Kress, 2003) both implicitly and explicitly (Dey & Abowd, 1999; Gwizdka, 2000). For Vygotsky (1978b), the most significant moment in intellectual development occurs when speech and practical activity converge. This convergence can be described as speech in context and produces new relations with the environment, noting that every thought tends to connect something with something else, to establish a relation between things (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 218). Dourish (2004) defines context itself as a relational property, suggesting a strong connection between thought, intellectual development, and context. That is, context is not merely a set of quantifiable factors such as place and time, but includes the interaction of the individual with and within these factors. Context is particularly important to issues of language and learning. Discussing the movement of thought to speech, Vygotsky (1986) notes that every thought is a generalization and word meanings are dynamic and dependent on context. Kress (2003) states that no language act (communication) is neutral; neither are any of the modes for representing communication. Rather, communication is dependent largely on the context of its mode of representation. Every time an individual word is uttered, according to

PAGE 46

33 Kress, the speaker fills it with meaning consisting of every experience with the concept that that word signifies; each utterance is therefore unique and dependent on context (Bakhtin, 1986; Kress, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986). Defining Context The term context is one with which most are familiar but are unable to define precisely. Common approaches to defining context are attempted by listing examples of elements of a particular context or by selecting synonyms such as conditions, factors, or environments (Dey & Abowd, 1999). Neither of these approaches gets a researcher any closer to understanding what exactly context is. Context is understood in general terms as having relevance to the matter at hand (Dourish, 2004), that gives meaning to something else (Schmidt, Beigl, & Gellersen, 1999). Dey and Abowd (1999) note that this sense of context is insufficient and that in order to make the most of context in research settings, a better understanding of its defining characteristics is important. In other words, in order to study context, it is necessary to be able to recognize it, or at least know where to look. Context as a concept is important when considering the interaction between human and computer (Dey & Abowd, 1999). When studying the effects of context in online communities, it is important to have a definition that identifies important, common features indicative of all contexts. Often contextual features of communication go unnoticed in human to human interaction (Dourish, 2004), becoming noticeable only when the ability to use these contextual features is no longer there (Lindfors, 1999), as can be the case when using online communication technologies. First, context is unique to a particular situation and resists objective categorization (Dey & Abowd, 1999; Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995; Lindfors, 1999; Schmidt et al.,

PAGE 47

34 1999). Second, context is both internal and external to the individual and is either implicitly or explicitly manifested (Gwizdka, 2000). Third, context is dynamic (Dourish, 2004) and is constantly negotiated (Cullen, 1998; Dourish, 2004; Lindfors, 1999) by participants in a particular situation. There are other ways, suggested by Lindfors (1999), to approach context than by attempts at definition. Many of the past attempts at defining context for the purposes of applying it to human-computer interactions have roots in the theoretical philosophies of positivism (Dourish, 2004), wherein all aspects of context were such that they could be objectively observed in a controlled setting. The assumption was that contextual features were stable, predictable, and generally applicable. According to Dourish, this asssumption is only in part true. More important are the aspects of context that are unique to any particular situation and the fact that there are many more aspects of context that are subjective and particular not only to an instance but also to an individual. Rather than looking at context as a set of facts to be determined independently, Dourish positions context as a relational property between the user and his/her environment. Lindfors (1999) acknowledges the difficulty of defining context and suggests that, rather than defining the term, probing context in relation to particular events is instead more useful (p. 216). Drawing on the work of Cole (1996), she elucidates two interrelated notions of context. First, there is the notion of surround; second is the notion of weave (1999). The surround notion of context includes those aspects of context relevant to the nature of the task in which the individual is participating. In educational settings this surround is typically (but not always) the classroom (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995;

PAGE 48

35 Lindfors, 1999). Lindfors notes that although metaphorically we might look at the surround as being the immediate environment of the individual, the boundaries of this environment are not impenetrable. Indeed, during any experience, the individual brings with him/her all previous knowledge, experiences, and beliefs, which in turn contextualize utterances and interaction events (p. 218). Other researchers suggest this notion of surround context when discussing the concept of community of practice (Derry & Steinkuehler, 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991), which includes social relationships, physical and temporal contexts, symbolic and material resources (such as tools), and historical change (Derry & Steinkuehler, 2003). The weave notion of context referred to by Lindfors suggests the definition of context given by Dourish; that context, while having elements of things, is primarily a relational property (2004) between activities and objects and is actively constructed. In other words, context is created through the weaving of all of the various threads (such as those included earlier in communities of practice) available to the individual and from the individuals inhabiting any particular context (Derry & Steinkuehler, 2003; Dourish, 2004; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lindfors, 1999). Online Context Because the context of special interest to this study was online, further discussion regarding specific possible threads of context in the particular world of cyberspace is warranted. First is the notion of context as it relates to writing and in particular to the notion of writing as a mode of communication. Vygotsky (1986) sees written speech as lacking situational and expressive supports and notes that communication in writing must be achieved through the choice and combination of words. This observation does not suggest that writing lacks context but merely that the context for writing is different

PAGE 49

36 from other modes, and for written communication to be successful there is the requirement of what Kress and others (Kress, 2003; Smagorinsky, 2001, 2002) refer to as a translation between modes. Online communication represents what some have called a revolution, one which is ongoing and in which the translation from modes of printing to those of electronic forms of writing are negotiated (Bolter, 2001; Ong, 1982). Transparency An important thread of context for online experiences is the notion of transparency. Transparency refers to the ability of a particular mode of communication to be invisible to/unnoticed by the user (Bolter, 2001; Ong, 1982). Transparency evolves through time as the relation between mode and medium become nearly invisiblethrough the naturalizing effects of long-standing convention (Kress, 2003). The more transparent the medium the more natural it seems to the user and the less likely it would be that the technology of writing would distract from the communicative functions it seeks to facilitate. Considering the aspect of transparency in online methods of communication is of particular importance because online modes of communication have not yet achieved the degree of transparency that other, similar modes of communication have. Writing on a computer screen shares the same sense of transparency as writing with a typewriter or even writing free hand on paper. Where online communication differs is in its potential for more dynamic uses. Online modes of communication are governed by spatial relations as well as temporal (Kress, 2003) and are characterized as being more flexible and immediate (Bolter, 2001). This flexibility can lessen transparency and create what some researchers call hypermediacy (Bolter, 2001; Bolter & Grusin, 1999; Landow, 1992) which suggests that part of the nature (context) of this emerging mode of communication is the attention drawn to the medium

PAGE 50

37 itself. In other words, part of the context of online communication is that it can be sometimes transparent and sometimes hypermediated (Bolter, 2001). Social presence What is not completely natural for tasks mediated by computers is interaction between participants who are not physically present. Another salient contextual thread for online contexts, especially when considering the level of satisfaction of an individual with experiences in online contexts, is that of social presence. Each person within an online context experiences a level of social presence, defined as ones awareness of another in a mediated environment, and the quality of relationship that manifests as a result of that awareness (Delfino & Manca, 2006; Leh, 2001; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Tu, 2000). Social presence is not limited to online contexts (Delfino & Manca, 2006; Tu, 2000) and can be developed and strengthened in any context where there is personal interaction. Social presence is of particular importance to computer-mediated educational experiences; while there may be high levels of transparency regarding the medium and user task, it is difficult to make the absence of another transparent. Higher levels of social presence positively influences online interaction (Tu & McIsaac, 2002), and social presence is essential for establishing collaborative learning environments (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003). Writing space As the modes of communication transform, so do the economies of those modes (Bolter, 2001; Kress, 2003; Ong, 1982). Each mode of writing, specifically electronic modes, although not exclusively, has its own intricate economy defined by Bolter as a dynamic relationship among materials, techniques, genres, and cultural attitudes and

PAGE 51

38 uses (2001). Part of the economy of writing is constituted by the actual/virtual space in which the writing occurs; according to Bolter and others (Bolter, 2001; Kress, 2003; Ong, 1982), that space is in a constant process of remediation, (Bolter, 2001; Bolter & Grusin, 1999) wherein one medium gradually reforms and/or replaces an older one. Kress (2003) uses the metaphor of time to represent the mode of writing as a form of communication, where words are placed temporally in sequence, one after another. For Kress, the emerging space of online and electronic modes of writing is visualized through a spatial representation, where words are still temporally sequential, but are also juxtaposed with images and other media to form a multimodal space for communication to occur. Kress temporal metaphors for conceptualizing the context in which writing takes place is helpful in understanding the complexity and evolving nature of communication contexts within the realm of cyberspace, and especially the challenges presented to preservice English teachers notions of educational context and the teaching of writing. Qualitative Research Methods Qualitative research methods are forms of inquiry that enable better understandings of the meaning of social phenomenon (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1978), with the philosophical assumption that meaning is constructed by participants and context. Context is a defining characteristic of meaning, inseparable from a particular phenomenon, and can only be studied holistically (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Any study that looks at particular social phenomena warrants the use of qualitative research methods. Case studies are intensive descriptions and analyses of a singular unit or bounded system (Merriam, 1998), the aim of which is to illuminate the meaning of a

PAGE 52

39 phenomenon as it is socially constructed. Case studies, and qualitative research in general, emphasize meaning as constructed by participants and their contexts (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). More precisely, case studies emphasize the processes of meaning construction (Merriam, 1998). This study examines the phenomenon of an online writing partnership in order to explore the contexts of a unique case, a singular unit, within a teacher preparation program. In this study, I am particularly interested in the threads of the partnerships context, such as the communications technology used to facilitate writing instruction, and the meaning that is created by the participants as they prepare to become teachers. Dyson & Genishi (2005) state that case studies do not attempt to present meaning context-free for greater generalization. Rather, case studies, including this one, are interested precisely in context itself. Case studies are particularly well suited when the goal of a study is to explore the messy complexity (Dyson & Genishi, 2005) of human experience; this complexity requires holistic descriptions that take into account the unique features of a particular phenomenon, in order to accomplish what Lincoln and Guba (1985) consider to be the primary purpose of qualitative research: the greater understanding of complex phenomena by readers of the study. Summary In the process of composing this review of literature, the following major ideas have emerged: 1. Meaning is socially constructed and contextually dependent. 2. Language, our primary tool for negotiating meaning, is both individually specific and culturally bound.

PAGE 53

40 3. Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development is not limited to viewing early childhood development but can also provide insight into the development of teaching competencies. 4. For students in preservice teacher education programs, there is a perceived disconnect between academic course work and experience in field placements, creating a gap between knowledge of practice and knowledge in practice. 5. In order for pedagogical knowledge to transfer to practice there must be relevant, prior knowledge, a felt sense of need on the part of the learner, and the availability of a knowledgeable other to assist in application of knowledge to a specific situation. 6. Writing is a recursive, social process that simultaneously takes place within contexts and creates its own contexts. 7. Teachers approaches to teaching writing often mirror their own education and are often at odds with the notion that writing is a process rather than a product. 8. Teachers of writing often limit their feedback to student writing to issues of grammar and mechanics if they provide feedback at all. 9. Context is a critical factor when examining meaning. 10. Regarding online environments, it is more useful to view context as a relational property between users and their environment. 11. Drawing on the work of Michael Cole, Judith Lindfors views context as being twofold: context both surrounds participants in an event, and is woven by those participating in the event. 12. In all writing spaces, or contexts, transparency is an important thread, particularly in the emerging space of online, electronic writing. 13. Qualitative research methods are appropriate in studies that seek to understand the meaning of a social phenomenon. 14. Case studies emphasize the processes of meaning construction. 15. Case studies are particularly well suited for exploring human experience and holistically presenting the complexity of these experiences.

PAGE 54

CHAPTER 3 METHODS In this study I examined the experiences of four preservice teachers and one practicing teacher in an online writing partnership, to examine the contextual features identified by the participants as salient during the mentoring experiences, and to see how those experiences contribute to a broader understanding of how preservice teachers preparing to enter the field envision their role in the teaching of writing. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research setting and participants in this study. Additionally, I describe the process of selecting the setting and participants, as well as the collection of data sources and my method of analysis. Finally, I discuss the issues of internal validity and the consistency of the study results. Study Design and Rationale Finding a site to examine the phenomenon of online writing instruction was a difficult task. I sought out a number of potential sites, including programs in distance learning offered through a major research institution and a public, virtual high school. Neither avenue proved fruitful, with the former operating primarily through traditional means of distributing instruction at a distance (course materials were distributed via postal service), and the later being reluctant to open their program to possible critique. At a large research institution in the southeast, there had been an online partnership program in place for two years. This partnership was developed for use in a course on language and composition by myself and the professor of that course, and paired high41

PAGE 55

42 school students dual-enrolled in a local community college with masters level graduate students enrolled in the language and composition course. This partnership had two primary purposes: a) to provide feedback to young, developing writers, and b) to provide opportunities for future writing teachers to practice giving feedback and being a mentor to a student in his/her writing. I chose this partnership as the setting for this study because it included the use of communication technologies in teaching, represented a developing method of preparing future English teachers to teach writing, and provided authentic teaching opportunities incorporated in an in-class practicum, all of which are areas of teaching and teacher development that hold great interest to me. Ultimately, my research interests center around educational technology and teacher preparation, and the best choice for the study that I wanted to conduct existed in the partnership that I had helped to establish. Because of my relationship with the professor of the language and composition course that hosted the online partnership, and because of my involvement in designing the partnership itself, I was able to gain the access necessary to examine the phenomenon of online writing partnerships and of online teaching and learning opportunities. Finally, because at the time of this study the Online Partnership was in its third year of existence, this study design was ideal for my desire to observe the real experiences of participants in a bounded instance, where the core activity (the actual, online partnering of future teachers and secondary students for the purposes of providing tutoring in writing) was established and supported by two years of prior use.

PAGE 56

43 Setting and Participants Description of Setting In a grounded approach to research in education, the ideal situation for a researcher is to immerse him/herself in the site of study (Hutchinson, 1997). Because the phenomenon that I wanted to study occurred in a virtual setting, immersion in the traditional sense was problematic. The partnership was on one hand a dialogic relationship between two partners, mediated by technologies that operate in virtual spaces but allow the connection[s] between differences (Holquist, 1990) that are endemic in all dialog. On the other hand, the experiences within this phenomenon of an online writing partnership dealt directly with the medium itself and the frustrations inherent in negotiating new and developing technologies. The writing space (Bolter, 2001; Bolter & Grusin, 1999) of the two partners was virtual, and it was not an area that I could be physically present in. For contextual purposes, there were two physical sites that, along with their corresponding programs, provided the background to this study. One was a teacher preparation program at a major research institution in the southeast United States; the other was a high-school dual-enrollment program at a local community college. It is important to note that neither of these programs were the object of study. Rather, it was the purpose of this study to examine the online partnership that provided the dialogic connection between the two (Bakhtin, 1986). English teacher preparation program This study focused on graduate students who volunteered to participate and were enrolled in a course on teaching language and composition. The majority of students enrolled in this course were preparing to become English teachers; however, some

PAGE 57

44 students, including one of this studys participants, were enrolled in other programs. All the graduate students, as a part of the curriculum for this course, were paired with high-school students who were dual enrolled on the campus of a local community college, for the purpose of mentoring the high-school student in her/his writing. The Online Writing Partnership was an assignment in the language and composition class, but the vast majority of the work of the partnership took place outside of the physical classroom through the use of email, chat rooms, and online bulletin boards. The online partnership continued for approximately ten weeks. High-school dual-enrollment program At the time of this study, the community college was celebrating thirty years of hosting an on-campus dual-enrollment program for high-school students. This program differed from most dual-enrollment programs. Rather than attending select college classes while remaining on their home high schools campuses, these students were completely immersed in the life of the college. While they maintained ties with their home high schools, during their junior and/or senior years these students attended classes exclusively on the community college campus. Because not all student progress at the same speed, or in the same subject areas, the community college employs full time faculty who teach high-school requisites to complete the graduation requirements of the dual enrolled students. For this study, I looked exclusively at eleventh-grade students enrolled in a high school-level writing course and who had been paired with graduate students in the language and composition course at the university. The High School Dual Enrollment program (HSDE) reflects the diversity of the area. Students in this program come from a variety of backgrounds, both ethnic and economical. Busing and free and reduced lunch are provided for students. Tuition is

PAGE 58

45 free, and textbooks and lab fees are provided as part of the States obligation to public school students. While the HSDE program does have an admissions process and not every applicant is accepted, students enrolled in the program have a diverse range of abilities and skills. Participant Selection At the beginning of the semester, after the graduate students had been given a chance to acclimate to their new situation, I came to the language and composition course to introduce the partnership and answer questions about what they could expect during the semester in regards to both the partnership and the technology involved. In the weeks leading up to the beginning of the semester, I had worked on setting up a variety of online technologies in order to facilitate communication between the graduate students and high-school students, and planning out the logistics of such communication. I understood that email would be a vital aspect of communication as the method for exchanging drafts of papers between participants. Because email is asynchronous and does not have the immediacy that I suspected the graduate students would desire in working with developing writers, I established a web page featuring multiple chat rooms where participants could meet up and talk about the partnership in synchronous, real-time discussions. Although discussion would be limited to typed communication, I anticipated that the chat-rooms might provide some of the immediacy of communication that would be missing from email-only dialog. The online bulletin boards I set up were also designed to provide a space where participants, both graduate and high-school, could discuss issues in a group setting. During this first visit, I focused on establishing the outlines of the online partnership. Ultimately this partnership had value to the course beyond my research

PAGE 59

46 interests, and my involvement was established regardless of my presence as an investigator. As a part of introducing the partnership and the rationale behind it, I led the students in a brainstorming exercise to develop an idea of how they felt they could benefit from this experience. Many of the students in the class saw the partnership as an opportunity to practice giving response to student writers, but many also mentioned the benefit of experiencing interactions with students similar to those the graduate students anticipated teaching in the coming years. When it came time to pair high-school students with graduate students, I allowed the high-school students to express their preference in the process. The graduate students had written letters of introduction, and I presented these letters to the high-school students to read. Each high-school student used Post-Its notes to indicate their top three choices, and I was able to assign partners chosen among the top two in each instance. After giving the high-school students their graduate partners email addresses with instructions to send along their own letter of introduction, the online writing partnership was underway. After the partnership had progressed for a few weeks, I made a return visit to the graduate class. By this time the writing partners had exchanged one paper; the graduate students provided response and the high-school students had submitted their revised, final version to their English teacher. I delivered these revised papers to the graduate students, and sought to clarify and further troubleshoot any technical problems they had experienced. At this time I informed the graduate students that I was interested in examining their experiences in this partnership, and asked those who were willing to volunteer. I gave every student in the language and composition course a volunteer form

PAGE 60

47 approved by the universitys Institutional Review Board (see Appendix A) that included in detail what I wanted to look at and what would be involved for anyone who volunteered to participate. On the high-school end of the equation, I proceeded in a similar way: the high-school students had been given both a volunteer participation form and parental permission form, approved by my Universitys Institutional Review Board, allowing them to participate in the study if they chose to do so (see Appendix A). There were a possible six graduate participants available with a willing high-school partner. One graduate student soon became unavailable, and I decided to study all of the remaining five. Of the five participants in this study, four were enrolled as masters level graduate students in the teacher preparation program. The remaining participant was a classroom teacher enrolled in a specialized Literacy and the Arts graduate program and was taking the language and composition course as part of her program of study. The participants ranged in age from twenty-two to twenty-seven years at the time of the study and had had widely varying experiences involving education outside of their respective programs. All of the participants were Caucasian and female. (See results chapter for more elaborate descriptions of each participant.) Data Collection Methods In qualitative studies, facts and values are viewed as inextricably mixed (J. K. Smith, 1983) and require diverse slices of data (Merriam, 1998) to provide thick, rich data sets for a thorough understanding of bounded instances. I collected data by conducting a series of interviews with each of the five participants, beginning in September of 2004 and concluding in March of 2005; collecting student and participant

PAGE 61

48 artifacts; and conducting interviews with ancillary participants in the study, primarily the high-school partners. I conducted four semiformal, taped interviews with each participant, as well as numerous informal, non-recorded interviews. I collected reflective writing by the participants, high-school student papers with embedded feedback, and email correspondence between the participants and their partners. I also kept a journal containing my thoughts and experiences throughout the study. Each data source provided insight to the questions that were guiding this study; these sources and the questions they address are represented in Table 3-1. Subject Interviews A few weeks after the start of the semester, I conducted the first of four interviews with those graduate students selected to be participants in the study. The interviews were semiformal in design, with a written protocol (see Appendix B) for all participants but that also allowed me to explore topics as they arose. I kept the tone of the sessions informal, at times meeting in coffee houses and book shops, in order to put the participants at ease. I felt this approach would take pressure off both parties and minimize the feeling of being analyzed that I feared might limit the participants responses. The first round of interviews served as an introduction not only to the study, but also to the participants themselves. These interviews explored the backgrounds of the participants. I also wanted to gauge attitudes toward the various realms of the study, such as the attitudes and beliefs about technology, teaching, and writing instruction. As the first audio taped interviews were being completed, I began to make and analyze the transcripts in order to shape the questions I would ask in the next interview (Merriam, 1998). I noticed commonalities across the selected participants, and applied those commonalities to followup questions and questions relating back to the

PAGE 62

49 Table 3-1. Study questions with corresponding data sources Study Questions Primary Data Sources Secondary Data Sources What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the teaching profession have in distance, online partnerships with secondary writers? Interviews with study participants Reflection papers Journal Journal Email correspondence with high-school partner What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers views of teaching and specifically teaching writing? Interviews Reflection papers Interviews with ancillary participants Journal What influences on the partnership or on the participants appear to exist from experience with and attitude toward technology? In what way did these attitudes affect the partnership/participants? Interviews Reflection papers Feedback on student writing Email correspondence with high-school partner Interviews What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership? Interviews Reflection papers Journal Interviews with ancillary participants experience of the online partnership. For example, early in the process of conducting the first interviews, I noticed that all five participants exhibited surprise at what they perceived as a low-level of writing ability in the high-school students. Therefore in the second interview session I asked the graduate participants what their expectations for student writing had been coming into this online experience, and how those expectations compared to the actual writing.

PAGE 63

50 During each interview, I conducted numerous member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) by summarizing the themes that had arisen, such as the disappointment with the quality of writing by their partners. I asked if these themes accurately reflected their thoughts on particular issues, or if these summaries were accurate summaries of their answers. Where we differed, I asked them to clarify their answers, and to expand upon those answers when possible. High-school Student Interviews The focus of this research was not on the experiences of the high-school partners, but because their perspective could provide valuable insight and triangulation to the data collected through interviews with the five participants, interviews were conducted with all of the online partners of the studys participants. These high-school students were interviewed once on the campus of the community college at a time and location convenient to the students involved, using a semi-structured interview protocol. Documentary Evidence During the online partnership, various documents were created by both groups of student participants. Some of these documents were created separately by each group of students in their respective sitesthe graduate students wrote reflection papers as required by the course they were enrolled in, the high-school students wrote the initial drafts of the papers on which they would ultimately receive feedback. Other documents were jointly created in the process of paper feedback and revision. I collected all of these documents for analysis and incorporated them into the picture that developed as I examined the phenomenon of the online writing partnership. These data sources included two separate papers, along with multiple revisions of those papers, written by the high-school students that formed the center of the online partnership, email correspondence

PAGE 64

51 between the partners, and reflective writing done by the five participants in this study as a requirement of the language and composition course. Student writing The essays written by the high-school students served as one medium for establishing a relationship with the graduate student participants. These papers were originally electronic in nature, written on Microsofts Word computer program and submitted between partners via email. To facilitate the feedback process, early in the semester I provided a workshop in using the comment card function included in Microsoft Word. Using comment card, the graduate student participants were able to embed, or place directly into the document, their thoughts, comments, and suggestions for their partners writing (see Figure 3-1). In establishing the online partnership, both the professor and myself encouraged the graduate students not to act as editors; mechanical and grammatical errors in the writing should be noted when they distracted from the Figure 3-1 Example of Microsoft Word Comment Card function, with pop-up comments to the right, with corresponding place indicators connected to the student text with dotted lines. clarity and flow of the writing, but should not be the sole focus of the graduate students attention. Rather, part of their focus should be on engaging their partners in dialog about writing, for the benefit of the papers at hand and for writing in general. Theproposed purpose of these comments was to engage the high-school students in a

PAGE 65

52 dialog about their writing, to provide another set of eyes with which to view the writing and to give the high-school students an audience that would in turn provide guidance in their writing. These comments then would show up as highlighted sections on the computer document, and pop up when the computers cursor was placed on top of that section, revealing the embedded comment of the graduate student. To collect this documentary evidence, I printed from the electronic format a physical copy, including the embedded notations (placed marginally for printing) at their original location in the text (see figure 3.1). These documents provided valuable insight into the process of the partnership itself and the developing relationships between partners, as well as a source of triangulation for the analysis of other data sets. Email correspondence Email was intended, as part of the Online Partnership, to be the primary form of communication to transmit the writing of the dual enrollment student to their graduate partner; it was not intended to be the only form. I had participated in the online writing partnership for two years prior to this study, and one of the elements of the previous partnerships that had been negatively critiqued by the future teachers was the lack of real-time interaction between graduate and high-school students. For this study, I had established an online chat, which would allow partners to meet online in a synchronous environment, meaning they could chat in real time by typing on a computer and having their words sent immediately to each other. Chat rooms have an immediacy that is not present in email, but chats require more coordination between partners (in setting up times to participate in chats) in order to provide this immediacy. It was my intention that the chat rooms would provide the missing social presence that had marked the previous two iterations of the online partnership. In practice, however, email became the near

PAGE 66

53 exclusive form of contact of any kind, be it sending papers or otherwise. Although I ran a workshop early in the semester to show how to make use of the chat rooms, both graduate and high-school students had difficulties employing the technology involved, coordinating times to meet online, and/or finding the motivation to do either. Email was used for a variety of purposes during the partnership. Microsoft Word documents were created by the high-school students and attached to emails, which were then sent to their partners. Copies of these emails were also sent to me and I received all email correspondence connected to the papers themselves. I also received a copy of the paper on its return from the graduate students, including all imbedded comments, as part of my role in the online writing partnership itself. Additionally, any time there was a problem or issues with the partnership, I was the contact person via email. These emails were also collected for use with this study. Participants reflective writing As a required culminating assignment for the course, the participants were asked to write a reflection paper describing their experiences in the course and highlighting in particular those elements that were major features of the courses design. These elements included two practicum experiences in area classrooms as well as the online writing partnership itself. I collected copies of these reflection papers for their insight and for purposes of establishing internal consistency. Data Analysis Procedures TAMS, Computer Software for Qualitative Data According to its creator Matthew Weinstein, TAMS Analyzer is an open source qualitative package for the analysis of textual themes (Weinstein, 2002). In other words, it is a computer program that assists in the analysis of digital forms of collected data. In

PAGE 67

54 addition, TAMS provides a powerful set of tools that allow for the manipulation of data results and the organization of data into accessible, useful forms. In certain ways, TAMS Analyzer works like most word processorsthere is the ability to enter text and format it according to need. Where TAMS Analyzer differs from conventional word processors is in the types of formatting it allows. TAMS stands for Text Analysis Mark-up System, and this program allowed me to embed in the data themselves codes that helped to identify meaningful units within a particular document. Once all the documents had been coded, TAMS Analyzer assisted me in searching through multiple documents for particular information relevant to a specific question; in doing complicated searches for themes appearing in multiple documents across multiple participants; and to collate information into usable and useful groupings. Using computers to sort qualitative data has implications in qualitative research. Because the computer and software used in data analysis constitute additional levels of mediation (Bolter, 2001) it is important to consider the ways in which computer assisted analysis affects that analysis. Software of any stripe is limited in that any functions included by the programmer are assumed to be the functions that will be needed by the average user; the same is true for qualitative analysis software. If the creator of a particular program does not see the need for a particular function, then this function may not be available with that software and this can color what analysis is done with a given data set (Merriam, 1998). As Ong (1982) has suggested, the nature of the tool affects the nature of the task. To account for the possibility of the software influencing the way in which I analyzed my data, I made sure I was as aware as possible of the limitations of TAMS Analyzer and considered the by hand method of everything I did on my

PAGE 68

55 computer, to see if there was anything that was limiting me in my ability to see what my data had to show. When this proved to be the case, or when I found the parameters of the software influencing my approach to the data, I followed the suggestions of Merriam (1998) and worked with my data by hand. An example of this happened early in the analysis process. As I was first looking at the newly transcribed first interviews, I noticed that devising new codes while using TAMS to read through the documents was cumbersome and broke the natural flow of interacting with the text. I found myself looking for ways of stretching the codes I had already created, or forcing bits of data into categories when they should have been given a separate and unique code. It did not take long for me to realize that this process was not going to work, so I printed out all of the interview transcripts, placed them in individual folders according to participant and put pencil to paper. I rid myself of the distraction of the computer interface and I was able to move at a more natural pace. As a result, the initial analysis of the transcript data and most of the collected artifact data was done by hand. Only afterward was the data transferred to TAMS Analyzer, which facilitated further analysis. Analysis of Interviews As soon as possible after each interview, I transcribed the audio taped sessions into Microsoft Word documents. As I transcribed, I began to look for patterns in the information contained in the interview protocols, such as similarities in the ways the participants answered questions, or how certain answers reflected particular beliefs, and applied these patterns to the protocols for the next round of interviews in accordance with the grounded-theory approach (Hutchinson, 1997). I continually made notes on these

PAGE 69

56 emerging patterns, which would formulate the eventual codes used for analysis after all of the interviews had been conducted (Hutchinson, 1997; Merriam, 1998). The emergence of patterns in my data was one of the most exciting aspects of this study. Because the online partnership was designed to provide prospective teachers with an opportunity to perform tasks traditionally included within the role of teacher, but in a setting that was not a part of the traditional context of that role, I suspected that part of the information gathered through interviews would be about the technology itself. This was the case, and one early example of an emerging pattern was of negative attitudes toward technology, especially when technology was perceived to be replacing human interaction: I do not think that teachers should rely on online feedback when they communicate with students, but that it should be combined with classroom instruction. In my initial analysis, this comment was coded as a belief as it clearly expressed a belief held by the participant about teachers. There were many statements of belief in the interview data and in subsequent analyses I refined the code for this statement to include belief about teaching, and finally belief about teaching and the role of technology integration in instruction. I coded this particular example as beliefs>teaching>technology in TAMS Analyzer (for an example of a coded transcript, see Appendix C). As all four interview sets were conducted and transcribed, I imported each transcript into the TAMS Analyzer program and began the coding process. Typing new codes into TAMS Analyzer is not difficult, but as I discussed earlier, I found that it interfered with the natural flow of reading through and looking at emerging themes in my data, so I decided to print out each protocol and make my first coding pass by hand. As

PAGE 70

57 I read through each transcript, I made marginal notations recognizing emerging themes and patterns, assigning codes that fit Lincoln and Gubas (1985) criteria of being both heuristic and interpretable in the absence of any additional information (Merriam, 1998). Analysis of documents The process of analysis for the documents collected in this study was much like that of the interview analysis. In the instances where I did not have an electronic copy of the particular document, such as the reflection papers written by the participants, I used ReadIris, a commercial Optical Character Recognition (OCR) computer program, to scan the text into my computer, which I then imported into TAMS Analyzer. Once the document was in TAMS, I analyzed the content of that document exactly as I analyzed the content of the transcribed interview protocols. I analyzed the reflective writing documents after the analysis of most of the interviews, as these documents were not available until after the second (and for two participants, after the third) interviews. Therefore, some of the codes used in the reflection papers were the same as those used in the interview protocols. However, there were some fundamental differences in the reflection papers as data sources and the interview sources. Primary among the differences was that of audience. In the interviews, the participants were speaking directly to me. I was very clear as to the purpose of the interviews and what I was interesting in looking at in the study. The reflection papers also had a different purpose. The professor of the language and composition course assigned the reflection papers as a part of the overall course curriculum, and the purpose in writing was not to provide me, the researcher, with insight into the participants experiences in the online writing partnership. In fact, much of the

PAGE 71

58 reflection papers focus was on aspects of the course other than the partnership. For this data set, they had a different audience and purpose. My analysis of these documents had to consider that there could be different levels of candidness in addressing the online partnership. Indeed, there were some instances where the participants attitudes toward and experiences with the partnership were expressed differently than in the interviews. In these instances, new codes were needed. For the remainder of the documents, such as student papers and emails, I incorporated them into data sets as they came to me. The majority of these secondary sources (see Table 3-1) were used as contextual data and for the purposes of triangulation. Authenticity and Internal Consistency Validity and reliability are terms commonly associated with quantitative research. For all research, however, there is the need for the study to be plausible, to be authentic and internally consistent. There are a number of strategies that can be used to ensure that a researcher has done everything he or she can to safeguard that authenticity and consistency. I used four basic strategies provided by Merriam (1998): triangulation, member checks, peer examination, and examining my own biases as researcher. The main data source for this study of participants self-reported experiences was comprised of interviews of the five participants. Triangulation of the participants perceptions of events and their reflections on experiences within the online partnership was accomplished with the documentary data sets, such as the essays written by their high-school partners (with embedded comments from the graduate students), that reflected actual feedback and participation within a teacher/student relationship. In this way each of my guiding questions was addressed by at least two separate sources of data (see Table 3-1).

PAGE 72

59 Because of the number of conducted interviews and the opportunity to do member checks on patterns and themes as they emerged in conversations, I was able to check the reliability of my analysis by talking to my subjects about what I had observed from their statements, asking if they felt my analysis accurately reflected their experiences and perceptions, and receiving qualifying information when necessary. I enlisted the aid of fellow doctoral students in order to provide inter-rater reliability. In particular, a doctoral student familiar with this study was given representative transcripts of all interviews of one of the participants in this study, along with the parameters I used in determining codes for analysis. He was instructed to read through the protocols and provide his own analysis of the data using the same criteria and we met to discuss and look at the two separate analyses. Each analysis proved strikingly similar, with over three-quarters of the code sets overlapping and almost a quarter bearing similar if not identical wording. Researcher Bias Nearly a decade ago, I completed the very program in which four of the five participants in this study were enrolled. The completion of this program contributes in no small part to my self-identity and is a part of my life that I am proud of, not only in having completed the degree and become a classroom teacher of English, but also in my natural affinity and pride in my alma mater. Additionally, in the years prior to this study, I participated as a doctoral student on the instructional side of the program and was vested not only in the success of my students at that time, but in the success of the program itself. There were multiple levels to which I was personally invested in the setting of this study. Primarily among these was my work in helping to design and implement the online partnership. In the first year

PAGE 73

60 of the online writing partnership, I helped to establish the logistics of pairing high-school and graduate students for the purpose writing mentorships. At that time, the high-school students involved were from the same program at the same community college as in this study. Later, I was employed by the community college in the high-school dual-enrollment program, and the high-school students in subsequent partnerships were my own. In order to account for the issue of bias that naturally arises in any researcher, but especially in my case as an alumni of and former graduate assistant in one aspect of the study setting, and as the instructor of the high-school students involved in the partnership, I took steps to address the issue of bias. Primary among these steps was the keeping of a reflection journal, where I recorded my thoughts about myriad elements of the data collection and analysis process. This journal provided a number of benefits. First, it proved an invaluable tool in the constant and recursive nature of the grounded theory approach of this study. Toward researcher bias, it kept me honest in the sense that in writing about my feelings concerning various aspects of the study as it progressed, it drew my attention toward those areas that might affect my ability to look honestly at a particular data set and helped me to recognize those areas of my understanding that were influenced by the role of teacher and/or alumni in me, rather than one of an investigator. Although the focus of the study was on the phenomenon of the Online Writing Partnership itself, and specifically through the experiences of five graduate student participants, I understood that there could be the appearance of a conflict of interest. My focus in this study was never on the high-school students that I taught and were involved in this study, so for the purpose of interviewing the high-school participants, I enlisted the

PAGE 74

61 aid of a fellow doctoral student, who conducted the interviews using the protocols I had designed. As a colleague in both doctoral programs and the high-school dual-enrollment program, this doctoral candidate was familiar with the study proposal and was able to interview the students in a satisfactory manner. Summary I conducted qualitative case studies in order to explore research questions regarding the experiences of five masters level graduate students in an Online Writing Partnership. The participants were enrolled in a language and composition course and were paired via online means with a dual enrolled high-school student at a local community college. To explore the research questions I: Conducted semiformal and informal interviews with the five participants; Collected documentary data from a variety of sources, including emails, reflective writings, and student papers; Observed selected participants in internship classrooms; Arranged for semiformal interviews with participants high-school partners; Conducted semiformal interviews with persons ancillary to the study but involved in the participants university programs. Authenticity of the study was aided by data triangulation and member checks, while the internal consistency of my analysis was enhanced through inter-rater reliability checks and through an awareness of and attention to researcher bias.

PAGE 75

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of four preservice teachers and one practicing teacher in an Online Writing Partnership, and to see how those experiences contribute to a broader understanding of how preservice teachers preparing to enter the field envision their role in the teaching of writing, as well as to explore the influence/experiences of an online context on their learning. This partnership paired graduate education students with high-school juniors for the purpose of helping to develop the high-school students writing, while at the same time providing opportunities for those enrolled in a graduate-level language arts methods class to begin to apply theory and pedagogy in an authentic, if virtual, setting. The assignment of the Online Writing Partnership was for each graduate student to act as a writing mentor to a high-school student. There were few written-in-stone requirements of the assignment, other than to help the high-school students improve in her/his writing. At minimum, the graduate students were expected to provide written feedback to drafts of three papers sent to them by their high-school partner and generally to attempt to establish the kind of rapport they felt would be helpful in writing instruction. The primary focus of this study is to look at the context of an online learning environment and to examine how the participants constructed meaning through the partnership as it related to the teaching of writing. As discussed in Chapter 2, context has two interrelated aspects that are important for looking at any phenomenon and 62

PAGE 76

63 particularly this one. First is the surround context, which in this case includes primarily the participants themselves and the online environment in which they were operating; second is the weave context, or the relational property between the individual threads of context that is actively constructed by the individuals involved along with their assorted histories and previous experiences teaching and learning. A Metaphor To better illustrate the context of this partnership, imagine that you hold in two hands a piece of cloth. From arms length the cloth has the appearance of unity, of a single, whole object with particular attributes. There is a great deal you can tell superficially about a single piece of cloth, such as the color you see, the texture you feel, perhaps even a distinguishing smell. However, on closer inspection you can tell that the cloth, while having the appearance of a single object, is made up of a multitude of interwoven parts. By pulling the cloth toward your eyes you can see a criss-crossing of threads that form the fabric before you. Each of these threads, while part of the whole, has characteristics of its own. Looking at the edge of the fabric, you can even see that those threads could come loose, separating from the whole. Pulling at one of the threads, you can see more elements that illuminate just how the cloth is constructed. You might note just how many threads there are on average in any given inch, how they are woven together, or that each thread is slightly different in hue, giving the cloth as a whole the impression of a single, particular color. Remove one thread completely from the cloth, and upon very close inspection you notice that even that smaller piece of the fabric is the result of many, smaller fibers twisted together. With the naked eye alone, you can see the complexity of a simple, everyday item.

PAGE 77

64 Table 4-1. A comparison summary of data across cases. Kate Libby Claire Nikki Juliet Experiences during partnership Approached as a student rather than teacher; no sense of relationship with partner; partnership not a priority; tension with partner Offered an opportunity to reflect on how to work with high-school writers; learned to view revision as part of teaching philosophy Qualified to help as someone trained in writing; partnership a good opportunity to gain practical experience Excited to inspire partner as someone known for their writing; frustrated by partners lack of motivation Nervous about catching grammar as a non-English major; reader approach to partners writing; listening stance Beliefs about teaching writing Writing as a product-generating process; writing as self-discovery; response as direction for revision/editing Too much pressure to get it right; desire to be there as support mechanism Difficulty envisioning self as expert, teacher; uncomfortable as an authority figure in writing Teacher as expert, authority; teaching writing is largely inspiration Elements of teaching writing are same regardless of age/grade; writing as storytelling Attitudes toward technology Tech. useful in conjunction with conventional approaches Very comfortable with comm.. tech. in social/familial contexts; Love/hate relationship with computers; proud of ability to trouble-shoot Distance teaching as inevitable; harder to inspire developing writers when not physically present Can be overwhelming in large quantities; accessibility is important Contextual threads related to success of partnership Student-teacher relationship paramount; transparency of technology; immediacy of communication Ability to communicate clearly; distance as a benefit; immediacy was absent; relationship adequate Comfort level with theory relating to task; sense of identity within relationships Writing ability as inspiration; expertise in form/function of writing; personality of teacher Prior experience in pre-K classroom; accessibility of technology; ability to connect to writing. In presenting the findings from this study, I use this metaphor of a piece of cloth and the threads that form the whole to provide organization for a very messy human

PAGE 78

65 endeavor, to paraphrase Dyson and Genishi (2005). This metaphor stems largely from Lindfors (1991) own metaphoric notions of context, discussed in chapter 2, of surround and weave. Ultimately my interest is in the cloth as a whole, and how online partnerships may contribute to our understanding of how the teaching of writing can be approached through communication technologies that are part of the threads that hold the piece together. But understanding the whole requires examining not only the subsequent parts, but also how those parts fit together; a handful of threads by themselves do not constitute cloth. They must be put together, constructed, and the act of construction is as much a part of the whole as the threads themselves. The first part of this chapter presents the threads of this metaphoric cloth. Each participant, like threads in woven fabric, had her own unique existence within the partnership at the heart of this study, and so I present first those threads individually as rich, thick descriptions of each of the participants experiences working with high-school writers through verbatim interviews and other documentary evidence, such as reflective writings and emails. These descriptions constitute the threads of the fabric, which together form the surround aspect of context; each individual participant thread in this study brought with them a unique set of experiences and beliefs, summarized in Table 4-1, which surrounded them and influenced how they would experience the partnership. The second part of this chapter presents a view the fabric itself, consisting of those aspects of the cloth held in common by its constituent threads and the ways in which they are woven together and relate to each other to form a picture of this particular experience that was at once individual (each participant engaged in the activity of the

PAGE 79

66 partnership individually) and collective (the assignment was part of a class they participated in together), and occurred in cyberspace. Both sections one and two address the following research questions: 1. What kinds of experiences do prospective English teachers preparing for the teaching profession have in a distance, online partnership with secondary writers? 2. What do these experiences reveal about these prospective teachers views of teaching and specifically teaching writing? 3. What influences on the partnership or on the participants appear to exist from experience with and attitude toward technology? In what way did these attitudes affect the partnership/participants? 4. What contextual threads appeared most salient to these prospective English teachers in the success (or lack thereof) of this online partnership? Part one of this chapter addresses these questions as they relate to each participant in the study. Each thread follows the order of questions given above. Part two addresses the case of the online partnership as a whole, also in the order given above. Kate Of all the students enrolled in the class that made up the pool of participants in this study, Kate was one member I had hoped would participate. At the beginning of the semester, I entered the classroom prepared to talk about the partnership, explain how it was intended to work, and answer questions that any of the students might have. Kate, from the outset, had many questions. In my research journal I noted my doubts that she would in fact agree to be a participant in my study, because many of her questions seemed tinged with doubt as to the efficacy of the Online Writing Partnership. The professor of the language and composition methods course and I, along with another doctoral student, established the Online Writing Partnership a few years earlier with the goal of providing both sets of students (graduate-level preservice teachers on one end and

PAGE 80

67 high-school students on the other) an opportunity to receive help with their respective learning. The high-school students would get an additional set of eyes to read and respond to their writing as it was developing, and the preservice teachers would experience in a limited way what it was like to work with a student writer while they learned about the teaching of writing. Kate spoke to me briefly outside of class when my presentation was over. She had more questions, mainly about the nature of my work with students in the high-school dual-enrollment program that formed one end of the partnership. I was glad to talk to her, still hoping that she might be someone willing to explore with me the nature of mentoring writers online. When I finally had a chance to look through the collected release forms I had handed out that night, I was happy to see her name on the list to participate; I thought she would make an especially thoughtful participant Kates Experiences in the Partnership Kate and I met for our first interview shortly after the partnership began in earnest. Kate sat across from me at a conference table, at ease and personable, as she would for most of the sessions when we met to talk. My initial impressions were of a person who was comfortable with who she was, sure of what she was doing. It came as a surprise when her first comments regarding the partnership were about the intimidation she felt. I was pretty intimidated by the idea of limiting my critique to language [in the online, virtual context] because to me, um, critiquing writing is, it's kind of ironic, but it's so much more than the words. And you cancritiquing writing has so much...it's the way you deliver the critique and the way it comes across face-to-face and your general relationship with the student and so I was really kinda intimidated by the idea of limiting myself to the words on the page and finding, "how am I going to do this?" ...My frame of mind going into it was "wow, this is going to be really hard, but a good exercise for me in this thing."

PAGE 81

68 During this initial visit, I felt that overall Kate was having a positive experience in the partnership. By the time of our next meeting, her experiences with the partnership had changed. Enough time had passed in the process of the partnership that she had been able to form opinions as to the success of the partnership itself, or to the lack thereof. As she had anticipated, it was difficult for Kate to get past the grammatical and mechanical aspects of her partners writing: When my student emailed me her drafts, I found myself at a loss and unable to provide constructive feedback because the errors that filled her paper required a back-to-the-basics approach to writing. Moreover, she was frustrated with the partnership in general, and her partner specifically. Largely this was due to what Kate felt was the lack of opportunity for a relationship to develop. Email was the primary way Kate and her partner were communicating, and even that was limited. For Kate, there needed to be some element of real-time communication, rather than the back and forth of emailed messages punctuated by substantial blocks of time without communicating. I wondered about her apparent dissatisfaction. I asked about her use of the other technologies made available through the partnership, in particular the chat rooms, which allowed for real time conversation. Her response was that she did not use them. In fact, while she acknowledged that the other available technologies would have been useful and would have made for a better experience, she did not feel that her obligations to the assignment of the partnership warranted the use of these other technologies: it wasnt set up, it wasnt easy to [use] and there really wasnt any need, like I felt like what I needed to do for the [assignment], my requirement was taken care just by putting the comments and there wasnt really anything to discuss By the time of our third interview, these beliefs and frustrations concerning the partnership were pronounced. By her own admission, she had done nothing beyond what

PAGE 82

69 she saw as the minimum required for the assignment, and at the same time had become increasingly frustrated at her felt lack of success in getting through to her partner in regard to her partners writing. Kate seemed aware of this contradiction to a degree, and acknowledged that there was a disconnect between the amount of emphasis placed in her methods course on the partnership, and the amount of time that she actually spent on the partnership itself. Kate was very blunt in her assessment of how much effort she felt compelled to give in mentoring her student writer: We had so much to do last semester that this seemed like such a small part of it, yet there was such an emphasis put on it, in the class? Like, respond to your experience. In terms that we actually spent on it, there wasnt much to respond to. Most of us were like, I can write a five page essay if you want, on this experience, but Im writing an essay about thirty minutes of my life. There was a point during this interview when I felt my own defensiveness rising. I noted in my research journal that shes rather passive aggressive in her critiques. [Its clear that] shes using this [interview] as an opportunity to voice her disapproval. However, Kate always strove for balance and was never critical of the partnership without being reflective. For each problem she identified in the partnership, whether it related to how she viewed her participation in it or how it was structured, she considered the lessons learned at the time, and how those lessons fit into her understanding of what she would need to do as a teacher. For example, in reflecting on all the practicum experiences she had during the semester, Kate framed her discussion in terms of how the writing activities she had observed might have been affected, both negatively and positively, through the inclusion of an online element. Part of Kates frustration with the partnership stemmed from her belief that relationships formed the core of educational practice. Kate simply did not feel she had a relationship with her partner in any real sense:

PAGE 83

70 Throughout the online partnership, I found myself very limited, in that not only did I not have a role in this scenario, I did not have a relationship with the student. Since writing can be so personal, it is imperative that the teacher considers other factors like mood, attitude, personal situation, and the interest level of the student when commenting on student writing. Relationships were obviously important to Kate, but she did little to try and establish one with her student. In her reflection paper after the partnership was complete, Kate discussed the paucity of communication between her and her partner, admitting that she wanted to write to her [her partner] more, but did not do so, stating in her interviews that she did not feel compelled to do more than was required of her, because of the relatively low level of work product required by the assignment. Kate seemed to grasp what she needed to do as a writing coach, but she was stymied by her inability to develop what she considered was a needed rapport with her partner. Kates perception of her role in the overall writing assignment her partner was working on also impeded her inability to move outside the role of college student and assume the role of writing coach, a role which she felt required more authority than she believed herself to possess during the partnership. The friction between Kate and her partner escalated throughout the semester, culminating in what I call the sugar-coating incident. Kate had stated early on that it was a challenge avoiding the grammatical and mechanical errors exhibited in her partners writing, but true to her word and the instructions for the assignment, Kate avoided becoming an editor and dealt primarily with what she viewed as improving the substance of her partners work. Her comments, while largely critical, were directed at the larger structure of the high-school students writing, and Kate gave her partner very specific suggestions on ways she could re-vision the various places that

PAGE 84

71 Kate felt exhibited poor writing. Her comments were polite, but were aimed at areas of her partners weakness, and Kate withheld any praise until the very end: Overall, I like what you are trying to do here. The second persona approach has the potential to be amazing and can really make your paper powerful. However, you need to decide what the purpose of the paper is. Are you trying to recount a history of Avatar, are you doing a commercial for the process and this is a testimonial about the power or is it an instruction manual on how to use a process to improve daily outlooks on life? You may be trying to do too much. You have a great start here with some really huge ideas. With some time and planning, this could convince even the most stubborn critic to give Avatar a try. I cant wait to see the final draft!!! Her partner did not respond in a positive way. After the last paper was returned to her partner, Kate received an email from her partner, detailing her views of Kates responses: thank you for helping me out with these papers. i took your comments on the second paper a little harsh haha they were more like revisions [sic] than suggestions i guess. i enjoyed the ideas that you were trying to get across but it took me a while to get past what i thought was things I was doing wrong in stead [sic] of things i could improve on i think you have wonderful ideas and im really glad that youve done something like avatar [a self help program that was the subject of the paper in question] I think that makes people so much more aware. you had really intelligent though through [sic] comments and i enjoyed that, but at least in my position you might want to consider sugar coating them a little hehe. sorry if this sounds mean i just figured youd want some feed back [sic] for teaching. good luck This email really got under Kates skin and she mentioned the sugar coat comment specifically both in her interviews at various points, as well as in her final reflective essay for the language methods course. Attached to the bottom of the above email was a copy of the final paper, and in it Kate noted that many of the suggestions she had given her partner were not, in her view, even considered. This was very frustrating for Kate. I asked her about the sugar-coating incident, and her answer revealed a clearer picture of Kates beliefs about the nature of her response to her partners writing.

PAGE 85

72 Moreover, it revealed Kates expectations of what a student should do with a teachers feedback to their writing: At the same time I kind of wonder if I should, if that would be an effective way to get through or cause I kinda sugar-coated things in the first draft and a lot of them, a lot of the ideas were omitted, and they werent considered. And because they [the comments she left] were oh, youre doing all this stuff really great so lets continue and so in this one I think I made a concerted attempt to try not to sugar-coat things so that maybe there would be some change? Maybe if I say this, and I say well, and its not so good that Im going to say a lot of good things about it because I really want you to change it. For Kate, it was important for the student to not only read the responses she gave, but to incorporate them into the revised draft. Her partner, by and large, did not do this, and Kate felt that this was due largely to hard feelings held by her partner in response to what the partner felt were harsh critiques. This incident occurred at the very end of the partnership, and there was no further contact between Kate and her partner, although Kate expressed in her reflective writing that she did wish to talk with her more. Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing In talking about her beliefs regarding educational philosophy and her role as teacher, two comments stand out as being particularly well articulated and synoptic of her statements throughout the interview process. One was in response to a straightforward inquiry into her philosophy of education as a whole; the other to an inquiry into her beliefs of her particular role within the classroom. Kate presented a clearly articulated set of beliefs concerning what teaching was and her role within the educational environment. In each of the participants first interview sessions (approximately one month into the semester), I asked them to describe their teaching philosophy, in their own words, and it was clear from Kates answer, given

PAGE 86

73 immediately and without hesitation, that for her, teaching was largely centered around relationships: for me I see the classroom as an opportunity to be a guide on this journey and on the discovery of um, the voice, its kind of psychological. And, helping students, well creating an environment thats comfortable for students to express themselves and to read things they identify with so that they can do that. So that they can participate in society, so they can have working relationships with families and friends and to use reading and writing as a method for self-discovery and, and relationships? I guess? And to model, to model good relationships for them, so they can see the way to conduct yourself in a business-like way with certain people and then their relationship with peers, kind of just a microcosm of what theyre going to experience with the tools, are the books and writing to, to encourage that. To make you go further and, kind of, guided preparation for life. This view of the purpose of education dovetailed nicely into her view of the role of a teacher in the classroom. While her answers presumed particular notions of what effective relationships were and appropriate ways of social engagement, her approach was far from dogmatic. Rather, she saw her role As the introducer? [laughs] Can I say [that]? The, as the person whos introducing the students to the ideas, presenting the material, presenting problems and facilitating the discovery but not necessary the core, um, more, more like, Im learning too. This is something that is interesting to me. I think [the professor] does it a lot. Shes just, something thats interesting me and so I want to know if it interests you, and its a lot of lets take on this thing together? And I think thats a probable way to look at it in an English classroom especially because its so much about world-view. Instead of saying this is your world-view and this [is] the way you need to look at this, its this is the way you could look at a situation or how do you look at a situation? Because its so subjective, theres not the right and wrong, and its gotta be, for me, a, um just kind of planting ideas, and waitand strategies to tackle problems more than necessarily problem-solvers. Kate viewed the student teacher relationship as one of coordination and cooperation, where the teacher acts as a guide, but also as a participant in the process of discovery rather than an arbiter of collected fact. The notion of the teacher as a participant guide, with student choice and motivation playing an important role, was evidenced in her critique at the end of the semester of an in-class practicum experience in

PAGE 87

74 a local middle school. During this classroom experience, she saw students react negatively to a writing assignment because, in Kates view, the teacherstripped the ability to choose a topic from the student whereby stripping away some of the motivation. From our first meeting Kate expressed very definite ideas of what writing was, and what her job as a writing mentor/teacher ought to be. So much of her background (she began her undergraduate education as a journalism student with an emphasis on editing) was focused on the ins and outs of the structure of writing that she knew it would be difficult for her to focus on other aspects of the writing process. In her view, the fact that the mentoring she was being asked to do was facilitated by communication technologies such as the Internet only made the task more difficult, as she would be limited to the text of the writing and would not have physical access to the student doing the writing. Kate believed that this would limit her to seeing only the words of the writer and not the writing partner, and she understood that it was expected that she should not act as an editor. She felt that she had done a fairly good job up to that point of not nit-pick[ing] over actual language things but over whats behind it. Although Kate employed a variety of ways to describe the writing process, each suggested that for her, writing is a process of transcribing ones thoughts, rather than a process that contributes to thinking itself. During one interview, she stated that her whole goal is to go in, and go in there and show that writing is nothing more than stringing your thoughts together in a creative way, but much of what she said about the writing process in relation to the classroom reflected a view that there was a right and a wrong way to string these thoughts together. This perspective led to a degree of

PAGE 88

75 friction between Kate and her partner. Yet despite this tendency to view writing as a mechanical activity, there were aspects of Kates view of writing that placed heavy emphasis on the writer her/himself. For Kate, writing can be so personal in part because she views writing as revelatory of the writers very identity. Writing was viewed as a process by Kate because she saw it as a self-discovery process. She articulated on a number of occasions that in her mind, writing and self-discovery are intricately related. In explaining the difference between assisting someone with physical learning (the example she used is learning to ride a bike) and learning that has to do with the mind, Kate said the following: the point is you wouldnt need to nurture as much because its [learning to ride a bike] not an activity thats related to the persons like, mind and their I guess writing somehows got to like, its related to the psyche and just the way theyreyou can tell different things about a person the way they even, I think, structure sentences in different situations and how we talk to different people. Kate considered writing, even at a structural level, as a window into the essence of a person, and therefore it came as no surprise that relationships between teachers and students would be the central concept for her of important contextual threads related to the successful teaching of writing. As a subject of instruction, writing for Kate was an amalgam of nurturing and guidance, yet she viewed her response toward writing in very separate and distinct categories that favor the guidance aspect. One type of response, which Kate called feedback, is no more than empty encouragement, designed to bolster a students confidence in writing, but with little aim toward improving that writing. Kate felt that feedback was the type of response to student writing required of her through the partnership. In her words, the partnership was an opportunity for the graduate students to give em a little feedback, but not a lot of critique. Critique, in Kates view, was when

PAGE 89

76 the teacher provided a student with an assessment of the success of the writing and reasons for why it was or wasnt working, along with suggestions for improvement. While not explicitly stated in any of her interviews, it became clear over time that Kate expected her suggestions to be adopted into her partners writing revisions. When they were not, as in the case of the sugar-coat incident, Kate felt that the student wasnt listening to her. Technology as a Means to an End Not all aspects of the partnership were negative for Kate, and she demonstrated a genuine recognition of the benefits of certain technologies, such as the comment feature of Microsoft Word, where reviewers can embed comments into the word processing document in ways similar to marginal notations that can be written on physical papers. Yet, it would be a stretch to call Kate a technophile. When Kate complemented the partnership and recognized its value, it was usually in a backhanded manner. She would often hail the efficacy of using a word processor for the correction of grammatical and mechanical mistakes, and note that reading a students paper on a computer, away from the student herself, a teacher was permitted more focus. This was due in part because it dramatically cut back on extraneous conversation unrelated to writing instruction. Yet this acknowledgement of the benefits of online writing instruction belied what she repeatedly mentioned as a shortcoming of the partnership, that there was no venue to allow for a relationship to develop between teacher and student. Without a relationship, without a sense of trust between teacher and student, there could be no conversation about the paper, which was how Kate preferred to think of her approach to mentoring writers. She needed only to

PAGE 90

77 point at the misinterpretation of her remarks on her partners paper as evidence of her intent not translating in its electronic form. Technology was not the enemy in Kates eyes. Quite the contrary, not only had Kate used communication technologies frequently in her own education, she admitted to using them almost exclusively for things like drafting and revising papers. Early in her interviews, she stated: Um, I'm very comfortable with technology and I really like the idea of having, I mean if it were up to me you'd have computers in every room and do all of our editing on computers with everybody's paper in front of us [laughs] and do peer editing, and there'd be a way for us to, to send it back and forth, and it would reduce paper but, it just doesn't seem possible. But as far as this project, I liked it a lot. Moreover, Kate had enjoyed taking writing classes in a networked environment. She described the experience in our first interview session: I really like the idea of the networked writing environment, and Ive had really good experiences writing and receiving feedback. It was in a university setting of course where everybody was able to sit in front a computer and it was all done anonymously. And, you wouldnt, you didnt put your name on your paper you just presented it and then the whole class could make comments andits kinda class accountability for whos going to provide good and bad feedback. And it was a good, it was really good for me However, Kates comments suggest that despite her experiences and beliefs about technology, that computers and other forms of communication technology had their place, and in the case of integrating technology with education, that place was in the conventional school classroom. What she described as a very positive experience using computers in writing was within a networked environment that was bounded by four walls, in much the same way as any traditional classroom environment. One aspect of context that is particularly important for technology uses is the notion of transparency, or the level to which the technology goes unnoticed in the normal

PAGE 91

78 use of that technology. For Kate, there was a decided lack of transparency in the partnership on multiple levels. First, Kate was all too aware of the technology confronting her during her participation in the partnership. Largely this was because the contextual threads that establish relationships, admittedly her biggest factor in being a teacher, were absent. She was being asked to do what in her mind was impossible, to mentor someone in writing without actually seeing them. Technology was never the culprit for Kate per se, but rather technology appeared to lack the inherent contextual features that she felt necessary for a successful mentoring relationship to develop. Immediacy was primary among these. For Kate, the lack of immediacy inherent in email was detrimental to having a conversation about writing with her student. Although she acknowledged the availability of the chat rooms and bulletin boards, she also acknowledged having never attempted to use them. She liked the post-it comment function of Word because it mimicked her idea of critique, which was part of her already formed notion of writing responses. Technology use for Kate was almost always discussed with qualifiers such as complement, conjunction, and supplement. Through her statements in interviews and reflective writing, it seemed Kates view of the partnership, at least in part because of the technology, was that of an exercise in preparation for the real thing, that of teaching writing in a physical classroom. Relationships form the core of Kates teaching philosophy, and technology seemed to depersonalize every aspect of the partnership for her. While she did not hesitate to mention this particular dissatisfaction in the interviews, it was perhaps most effectively

PAGE 92

79 illustrated through a note she included at the very beginning of one of the papers her partner sent. The comments are by Kate Conwell, not Aaron Ellingtonsorry about the name confusion, I have to edit this on his computer Microsoft Word has, as part of its comment function, a feature that places the name of the person leaving a comment at the top of the comment box. However, the program automatically inserts the name of the person to whom the software is registered, not necessarily the person using the program at that particular time. In this case, Kate was using the computer of a friend, and the comments that showed up in the margins trumpeted a name that would have been entirely unfamiliar to her partner. Not only was the process of providing online feedback creating what in Kates view was detrimental distance between writing partners, but now her very identity was confused as a result of the technology used. Partnership as Flawed Success Kate had largely negative experiences in the online partnership, by her own admission. This negative assessment stemmed largely from her perception that there was no tangible relationship between her and her high-school partner. For Kate, the need for a relationship seemed paramount, but her notions of relationship had very definite contextual elements that did not overlap with the contextual threads that defined her experience with her partner. I know only what the student wished me to know from a short introductory paragraph, I have read two writing samples, and exchanged three emails that were no more than three lines each. That is not a relationship! Moreover, since relationships are the key to instruction, especially writing instruction that is so frequently connected to personal issues and worldviews, I would need more than a "book jacket" familiarity with the student to provide worthwhile feedback.

PAGE 93

80 For Kate, technology at the heart of the partnership was helpful with certain aspects of mentoring student writers, such as focusing the partners on the writing and cutting down on time spent discussing extraneous, possibly tangential subjects. On the other hand, the freedom of extemporaneous communication that can lead toward off-topic discussion was also responsible for what Kate considered to be the real power of face-to-face instruction, the ability to rely on so much more than the words written by either party: Just because theres something about the relationship that cantwell, when youre teaching writing or critiquing something about the way theyre presenting their thoughts [it] can come across as if youre actually critiquing their thoughts. And so, it [being face-to-face] creates kind of a buffer, where you can say, you know this is what Im not doing theres just something with voice inflection and, maybe thats just a female thing, but theres just something aboutbeing able to soften the blow I guess, kind of, when youre not being, or even like facial expressions, youre not trying to say it in a way that would be offensive. And not that you wanted to say anything that could be taken offensively to the student anyway butsomething where its not just, almost what we do physically, it kind of explains what were saying often times and so itit makes more sense to me, but thats just my learning style, and so I would probably tend to teach that way, too. Ironically, when giving her own assessment of the partnership after all was said and done, Kate agreed that the experience was a positive one. This was the case because she felt that the partnership had provided her with a problem to solve, a problem that required her to examine the nature of relationship between teacher and student in the teaching of writing. It focused her attention also on the technology of the partnership and made her think of how that technology could be used in the course of teaching writing. In nearly each case, the technology was reported to have limited usefulness, and then only in addition to the traditional face-to-face work done in the classroom. Context was a big factor for Kate, especially because she felt she could not fully immerse herself in it. Rather, through her own admission, she spent a great deal of time

PAGE 94

81 trying to imagine the context she felt was most appropriate for mentoring a student writer, rather than acting in the context she was in. The context Kate felt was necessary was that of the traditional classroom. Libby When I began to seek study participants, I sent those graduate students who were interested a link to an online survey I had set up to get some idea of their knowledge of the technology involved in the Online Writing Partnership. The survey consisted of a series of questions asking about the frequency of use of various computer technologies such as chat rooms, the Internet, and email. Each item included a scale from one to five, with five representing frequent use of and high comfort level with that particular technology. Ultimately this survey was not used as part of the participant selection process; however, the results of the survey showed that nearly all the students used email regularly, but few other items were ranked as fives by anyone other than Libby, who averaged five over the entire survey. As we were getting ready to begin the interview process, I asked Libby about her experiences with computers. She had been online since high school and had been around computers for as long as she could remember. As we talked, she mentioned that she was not at all intimidated by computers or technology in general, and I noted in my research journal that her approach to unfamiliar technologies was the same as mine: Libby simply jumped in and figured out what she needed to know about a given technology. As a result, Libby had incorporated email and instant messaging (the sending of messages in real time with one or more persons) into her everyday life in ways far surpassing any of the other study participants. She readily acknowledged that there were some friends with whom she maintained intimate relationships entirely through

PAGE 95

82 online communication technologies. I wondered how Libbys comfort with online technologies might manifest in her experiences during the partnership and was glad she agreed to participate in the study. Experiences in the Partnership For our initial interview, Libby and I met in a conference room at the university where she was enrolled as a student in a preservice teacher preparation program. Libby came into the conference room smiling, apparently excited to be there. The Online Writing Partnership had just begun and she was very pleased with what she viewed as a great opportunity for growth, both as a teacher and a user of technology. While sharing her initial thoughts leading up to the partnership, she drew on her experiences as a substitute teacher to explain her general ease with the prospect of working with high-school students in an online environment: Well, I mean Im really comfortable with people, at almost any level, but umand teaching, and substituting, I think, you know, thank god I was already in grad school, but besides that it made me have really thick skin, sowhen I heard that we were going to be doing it, I guess always I measure it like that [laughing]. Im like, this could never be like substituting because, you know, all I could possibly do was learn how to give suggestions for papers, improvement? You know the goal is to help my student, I have a female student, so the goal was to help her, so I mean, theres no fear on my part, all I have to do is learn from the experience. So I didnt really have anxiety, I think I looked at it more like, you know, I hope I can be supportive enough to my student [laughing]. Libby was consistently focused on her ability to help her student during the partnership and rarely expressed concern about the technology involved. From her perspective, she told me that this absence of anxiety toward the technical end of the partnership stemmed from Libbys technological family and her high comfort level with computers and using communicative technologies.

PAGE 96

83 During the partnership, Libby experienced a few issues with the technology itself, although she was quick to point out that these were, in her view, common problems and at least in part due to conditions beyond anyones control. One such condition undeniably beyond her control was the weather. During the semester in which this partnership occurred, the area surrounding the university was beset by multiple high-level hurricanes. On a number of occasions classes were cancelled at the university and at all area schools. Much of the county experienced power outages that lasted days and sometimes weeks. While these circumstances were minimal for those nearest the university, such as Libby and the rest of the participants, the inclement weather was a factor that Libby identified as affecting the fluidity of her developing relationship with her partner. Hurricanes aside, Libby made every effort to take advantage of the communicative technologies provided for all participants in the partnership. She was one of the few study participants to actually use the chat rooms, albeit to no fruition. Libby was frustrated at her and her partners inability to connect online in such a manner, but the experience didnt sway Libby from her belief that online chatting would be of great use in talking with students about their writing. Some study participants felt that the exclusively online format of the partnership limited what they could do for their partner. For Libby, however, chatting online provided a better way of mentoring: And I sometimes think that chat is better than a phone conversation for this type of thing, because it allows you to think, you know, on the phone you dont often stop and think for three minutes and then answer whatever the person said, but on chat you can do that. You can say I need to think a second and the person does whatever else on the computer and then answers you on the chat. Libby compared the use of chatting online with that of a phone, which she felt would be impractical for working with students writing. However, she acknowledged

PAGE 97

84 that a phone call would have made things easier in some ways. Libby and her partner were one of only two partnership pairs to attempt to use the chat rooms to discuss the partners writing. This attempt failed largely because it was difficult for Libby and her partner to set up a time to be online together. Even when an agreed-upon time to meet online in the chat room was arranged via email, the two partners still failed to connect. The chat room program available to all partnership participants included four virtual rooms, in order to provide enough space for multiple partner groups to chat without interfering with others. Once a time and date was set up for chatting, it was still a matter of showing up at the correct chat room. The nominal transcripts of Libby and her partners attempted online meeting show Libby in one chat room and her partner in another, each waiting for the other to show up. With the difficulty of coordinating all of the factors necessary to have an online chat, coupled with the time constraints that were a big concern for Libby as a graduate student, she and her partner decided to forgo the chat rooms altogether in favor of relying solely on email. Libby explained that her initial excitement of being able to chat in real time with her partner was disrupted by the irony of needing old-fashioned communication to facilitate the online variety: When I found out oh, we can chat, I was like, oh thatd be really good. But then we didnt have a means oflike the chat was the one-on-one like, real-time conversation, so we needed a real-time conversation to get to the real-time conversation. You know what I mean? [laughs] So the problem was, we needed to have a phone conversation to solve the scheduling problem. Because we tried to schedule over email, and the lapse of time over email was too great for us to adequately schedule, which is why we never met. Despite the initial frustration of not being able to discuss her partners writing in real time, Libbys attitude toward the partnership stayed positive. Throughout our discussions, both in formal interviews and in informal conversation, Libby felt that she

PAGE 98

85 was learning a great deal from the process. Going into the partnership, her biggest desire was to be a support to her student in ways that Libby felt she herself had missed out on in high school and college. Through her comments in the interview, it was clear that the notions of revision and writing multiple drafts was something she had only experienced recently, since beginning the graduate program in teacher education: Ive learned through writing so much in college and not having a lot of feedback and never really getting to draft things. You know, you just turn it in and its like 50% of your grade, and whatever you get you get. And I think the whole idea that they [the high-school partners] were going to get to use the feedback that we gave them to improve their draft and have another chance without that scary youre going to get a grade now and thats it, I was really excited about being a part of that process because I almost sort of do want students to see, you know, if I would have known about drafting back then, I would have had much less anxiety about writing in general. To Libbys thinking, she was in fact able to provide the support she felt would be most beneficial to her partner. Asked if she felt that a relationship had developed between her and her partner, she felt it had. While not the intimate, mentor-like relationship Libby anticipated being able to establish given more time than was available during the partnership, she felt that there was a bond similar to that of a teacher/student relationship but without the anxiety, for either partner, of having to concern themselves with grades. When I asked Libby about the drawbacks she saw in the partnership, she laughed while telling me that her partner could totally blow off the suggestions given for a paper. But after considering her initial answer, Libby clarified her belief that the option of her partner to ignore suggestions might not be a drawback at all: I think as far as drawbacks go in the relationship, umyou know, the students could not take it seriously as far asbut I dont know if that would be really that negative, because maybe they take certain things that they see in my comments or maybe nothing, you know? Or maybe only like one of ten comments would help them. Spur them on to keep writing.

PAGE 99

86 Libby felt that her relationship with her high-school partner was more relaxed than it would have been had the high-school student been dealing with a classroom teacher. Libby had discussed this point with her fellow graduate students and shared with me her sense that this was generally true with all partnership pairings: You know, I think overall my impression, I can tell you from the classs comments and things too, is that um, the students, the high-school students felt less intimidated that we were commenting on their papers because they knew that we had nothing to do with their grade. Not only was it a relief for the high-school students, but Libby felt that she was less anxious about providing feedback to a developing students writing. Because the notion of response to writing drafts was relatively new to Libby, she was grateful for the opportunity to practice comment[ing] on students writing separate from grading their writing. Libby felt that during the partnership she had grown most in greatly increased comfort level providing response designed to help improve a students writing. Beliefs about Teaching and Teaching Writing Many of Libbys beliefs about teaching were shaped through what Lortie coined as the apprenticeship of observation (Borg, 2004), where her initial approach to education mirrored closely that of her own experiences as a student in secondary school. While Libby was reflective about her stance on education, and part of her desire as an educator stems from her goals to give to her students what she herself felt was lacking in her own education, much of her approach admittedly came from watching her teachers as a student, both in high school and college. Libby was one of only two participants in this study who had any kind of substantive teaching experience. In addition to working as a substitute teacher for the local county school board, she had worked for a number of years as a teacher of adult

PAGE 100

87 learners of English as a second language (ESOL). Both of these teaching experiences contributed to her beliefs about the practice of teaching, and the ESOL teaching especially contributed to her self-perception as an educator. However, Libby consistently returned to the notion that until she was taught otherwise (a process she viewed as ongoing), her apprenticeship of observation was the foundation of her approach to teaching: I just, you know, a lot of how you are as a teacher, I think, without classes teaching you how to be a teacher, is how you were taught. Because thats what you know. And then you say, well, I want to be just like that, or I really dont want to be like that. But until you try it, you know, I dont thinkI think youre always adding to things. Libby did not believe that she would remain static in her beliefs about teaching. She viewed continual development as the job of a preservice secondary English teacher, adding to things as she gained an understanding of theory and pedagogy through course work in the teacher preparation program and in practicum experiences like the Online Writing Partnership. When speaking of her teaching philosophy, Libby expressed great desire to hone her ability to provide support to students in their writing, and to work at taking some of the focus off of grades, both for her students sake and her own: Im pretty sure that the name you could put with my philosophy is warm demander. I think? As far as my feeling in the classroom and things like that. Um, I tend to have really high expectations for my students, but not necessarily grade-wise. Im definitely not grade-focused. Which is sometimes hard because students dont respond to that as well, like they dont know, like they need more concrete soIve learned how to do the grade thing butI think yeah, I just have really high expectations soyou knowI expect the students to do the best they possibly can even if they are at different levels. Rather than having the idea that everyone needs to be at this level andyou know what Im saying? In English itsyou know, it can be really sketchy how you teach a fewI dont know, if you say, well this is the range of papers I have, the worst papers gonna get an F and the best papers gonna get an Asome people think about it like that but I dont

PAGE 101

88 think about it like that. I like to think about it like progress over revision and things like that. In this statement about her view of herself as a teacher, Libby pointed out that she likens her progression as a developing teacher to that of the revision process in writing. Revision as a metaphor for her development was constant, suggested by Libby because of the relative newness of her experience with multiple drafting of papers and also because she viewed revision as closer to [her] style [of teaching]. In her apprenticeship of observation, her academic writing had not been something she enjoyed largely because of the pressure she felt to get it right the first time. In her reflection paper, written after the partnership was over, Libby noted how this pressure affected her personally as a writer, especially during high school: Much of my fear of writing and halting approach to it has resulted from the way my writing was conceived and subsequently assessed during secondary school. During this critical time, the word paper only meant one thing to me: hours of agony. One of the most significant developments in Libbys beliefs about teaching was the discovery of revision. Revision as a concept was new to Libby, and its introduction late in her academic career sparked a revolution in her view of teaching. For Libby, revision came to be more than just a part of the writing process. Instead, she saw this as critical to the teacher/student relationship as well as being integral to what she viewed as the primary duty of English teachers, the responsibility to promote critical and independent thinking. Revision to Libby gave students the opportunity and freedom necessary to view learning as a gradual process and that grading, while important, is not the final step in writing a paper. On a number of occasions, Libby expressed concerns about grading, both in her ability to assign grades and what she saw as the tendency in classrooms to conflate

PAGE 102

89 grading with assessment. One element of the partnership that she appreciated and enjoyed was the ability to work with a student without having to assign grades. As discussed earlier, Libby felt this opportunity to focus on helping the student and not on grading relieved pressure on both ends of the partnership, and helped to clarify in her mind the relationship between revision, growth as writers by her students, and the assigning of grades. In this extended quotation from her reflection paper, Libby discusses her view of revision and grading, and how they impact the role of writing teacher: Another advantage to the partnership was the fact that I was not responsible for grading the students work. The concept of assessment and grading are often synonymously addressed in secondary school. But could it be that this perspective is one that ultimately hinders the improvement of writing? Assessing student writing is a difficult task, but then adding a numerical value to a qualitative thing makes teaching writing a bit daunting in my mind. Maybe we could attempt to separate these two tasks by allowing students multiple revisions and feedback on their writing process, rather than on one hastily written piece. Allowing for the time to give feedback encourages a dialogue between the student and teacher, which supports the goal of creating critical thinkers. In addition to supporting creativity and critical thinking, the process of revision may give a teacher more substantial information upon which to assign a grade. A teacher could look at the improvement from draft one to the final copy of a students work, rather than being pressed to judge only one copy. Another benefit to this method would be to encourage student progress. Often as a student, I felt as though my writing could not improve because it was not judged on its own merit, but compared to the writing of others in my class. I found this process to be very frustrating as a student. It seemed to alienate me from the teacher, because there was not that connection between us that could be achieved through verbal or extended feedback. In the above writing, Libby distilled mu