Christy
Comyns
English
100
Essay
2
10/17/99
Helen Keller once said, "
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is
either a daring adventure or nothing." This quote explains the way Chance
McGuire, 25, must be thinking just before he jumps off a “650 foot concrete dam
hoping his parachute will open facing away from the dam and that the wind won’t
slam him into the hard concrete” (Greenfeld 29). Many more young people, mostly
between the ages of 15 and 35, are taking risks these days. Oblivious to the
consequences, they are accomplishing dangerous and often deadly feats that have
never before even been attempted. Base jumping, which is basically jumping off
a cliff or bridge with a parachute strapped to your back, has become an extreme
sport with one of the world’s highest fatality rates (Greenfeld 29). In its
18-year history, 46 participants have been killed, yet it remains extremely
popular, with over a thousand jumpers in the United States alone (29). Other
types of risk-taking include skydiving, which, in 1992, had a fatality rate
of about 2 for every 100,000 jumpers,
and mountaineering, which has a death rate of 47 fatalities per every 100,000
participants (Skydiving Statistics). There are also many risks that are not
life threatening, but can be financially hazardous. These include day trading
or speculating on high-risk Internet or technology stocks. Time magazine
gives the statistic that, "More than 30% of U.S. households own stocks of
some form or another" (30). People are quitting their jobs more than ever
to start up their own Internet businesses or to become entrepreneurs (Greenfeld
30). So why are we taking risks with our financial stability and even with our
lives? What are the benefits and why are we going to such great lengths to
achieve them? What are we thinking?
"I believe the rush is so high because you know you’re
going to cross the line, and death awaits you over there. You cross the line,
and then you get back," John Growney says of bull riding (qtd. in Parfit
114). The adrenaline rush is just one of the reasons that risk-takers like
these will do whatever it takes to get their heart pumping. They are free when
they partake in these dangerous ventures and feel obligated to overcome
challenges. Thirty-nine year old mountaineer, Mark Wellman, has been in a
wheelchair for 17 years from a climbing accident, and he is still determined
not to give up (qtd. in Greenfeld 31). He climbs even now, with customized
gear, and is the first disabled person ever to climb the 3,000-ft. face of
Yosemite’s El Capitan and the first paraplegic to ski across the Sierra Nevada
(31). Eric Perlmann, another mountaineer and a filmmaker specializing in
extreme sports, gives a second thought as to why the risky sports may be so
popular. He says, "Every human being with two legs, two arms is going to
wonder how fast, how strong, how enduring he or she is. We are designed to
experiment or die" (Greenfeld 31).
Darwin,
who, long before genes were discovered, thought that the curious and
inquisitive type of behavior was at least partly inherited (32). That is what
Israeli scientists were trying to find out about when they studied the DNA of
risk takers. What they found was surprising; they found that these types of
people had a longer version of a gene known as D4DR than the people who were
grouped as laid back and reflective (Greenfeld 32). This information has not
shown that we have personality genes or that having this one gene will somehow
make someone become a permanent risk taker. This just shows that some of us may
have a predisposition to risk taking.
Another
way in which risk-taking behavior is thought to have come out in some
individuals and not others is by their track record so to speak. If a person
has had many successes caused by taking risk then that person will have more of
a likelihood of going after more risky behavior ("New Model"). The
amount of risk involved in a person’s life also depends on how they perceive it
("New Model"). Some individuals would think speeding is a huge risk
while others would think of it as no big deal. I usually drive about 90 miles
per hour on the freeway, but somebody who always drives 60 would probably think
that driving 90 is a big risk even though I don’t perceive it as one. If a
person perceives risk as a normal part of life then they are obviously more
likely to take bigger and more risks. "The people who tend to take risks
tend to perceive less risk," says Sim B. Sitkin, author of the award-winning
article "Determinants of Risky Decision-Making Behavior: A Test of the
Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions and Propensity" ("New
Model").
Risk
does not always have to be related to danger.
It can basically mean any type of chance that somebody takes which requires
change. Taking some risks in life is
very important to personal growth and, as paraglider pilot Wade Ellet, 51 puts
it, "If you don’t assume a certain amount of risk, you’re missing a
certain amount of life" (Greenfeld 36). Risk helps us discover new things
by allowing us to go beyond the rules that are presently in control of
Americans’ lives. We also need risk to better ourselves by taking the
initiative to quit a bad job that is getting us nowhere or to get a better job
that may not be what exactly what we studied in. Instead of always being afraid
of snakes, for example, risk picking one up and see what happens. If it doesn’t
bite, the fear you have of snakes will probably be gone forever. If a person
decides to take a risk and gets on a motorcycle, and that person finds that he
or she loves riding, the person will likely keep doing what he or she loves
even if it may be dangerous. Some people will never find their passion because
they have always been afraid of trying new things. This is why risk can be so
important. It is very difficult to find
anything out about yourself if you never take risks because you won’t know
everything that is out there.
The
prosperity of the past decade could be causing Americans to push themselves, to
see how far they can go causing the amount of risk-taking to increase. This can
be extremely dangerous, as statistics done by the Consumer Products Safety
Commission show (Greenfeld 31). "They reported that 48,000 Americans were
admitted to hospital emergency rooms with skateboarding related injuries in
1997 which is 33% more than the year before," Karl Greenfeld says (31).
This shows the increase in the popularity of these extreme sports. Since the
past decade has been relatively free of major conflict and more cures for
diseases have been found, Americans may be becoming restless. In the past, risk
was a way of life, and Americans never chose to seek it out because it came to
them (Greenfeld 32). For instance: The Vietnam War, The Cold War, and World War
II were horrible events when people didn’t have the time or the need to try or
even think about extreme sports. As Dan
Cady, professor of popular culture at California State University at Fullerton,
puts it, “Coming back from a war and getting onto a skateboard would not seem
so extreme” (Greenfeld 32). Diseases were also not so scarce. “There were
childbirth complications, there was polio, the measles, and smallpox” (32). All
of these contributed to the amount of uninvited risk that kept the older
generations of Americans from risking their lives in crazy and risky sports.
Nowadays, Americans are very lucky. We don’t have to worry as much about
diseases because of all the cures and vaccines that have been invented, and
this may be why we are looking for a certain amount of danger in our lives.
Risk,
although often times extremely dangerous, is healthy to a certain extent and
can allow Americans to better themselves and to see things from a different
perspective. It helps them discover new things and overcome fear and challenges.
It can add excitement and fun to an otherwise boring life. The popularity of
risk-taking has increased over the past decade because of the decrease in the
amount of uninvited risk like wars or life-threatening diseases. There are many
reasons why Americans are taking risks these days. They want the adrenaline
rush and the excitement. Some even have a predisposition to risk-taking and
others just perceive big risks as a normal part of life. In any case, risk is
important for any type of change, and people are always changing. Those who
don’t are usually unhappy and unsatisfied with their life. Risk-taking, from
extreme sports like base-jumping to speculating on high-risk Internet stocks,
gives Americans the opportunity to find what they love, to accept change in
their life, and to experience different things. Americans take risks because
they want the adrenaline rush, some are born with a predisposition for
risk-taking, and some want change and excitement in their lives.
Thesis:
Americans take risks because they love the adrenaline rush, some are born with
a predisposition for risk-taking, and some want change in their lives, and
risk-taking has increased in the past decade because the lack of uninvited risk
allows Americans to seek it out.
Works Cited
Greenfeld,
Karl Taro. "Life on the Edge." Time 6 Sept. 1999: 29-36.
“A New Model of Risk-Taking.” School News. Nov. 1996. 9 Oct.
1999
<http://www2.fuqua.duke.edu/admin/extaff/exchange/winter96/model.htm>.
Parfit,
Michael. "Rodeos-Behind the Chutes." National Geographic Sept.
1999: 105-125.
“Skydiving Statistics.” FAI/IPC Technical and Safety
Subcommittee Congress. Oct. 1993.
9 Oct. 1999 <http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/5897/stats.html>.
English
100
Essay
3
11/8/99
Team
teaching and collaboration among teachers can benefit the teachers as well as
the students. They can raise the
enthusiasm of the teachers and students, give a larger diversity of knowledge
and lesson plans while sticking to the curriculum, and decrease the
student/teacher ratio. These three
things are very important in schooling because they will allow the students and
the teachers to learn more and also enjoy being in the classroom more. “Two heads are better than one,” is an old
saying that clearly demonstrates the potential of team teaching and
collaboration among teachers.
Collaboration in teaching is basically
defined by Barbara Duchardt et al., team teachers who did a study on the ups
and downs of team teaching, as “the sharing of expertise in delivering a
‘seamless’ lesson, solving a problem, working on a project, or any similar
activity” (Duchardt et al 3). This
could include working together either outside or inside the classroom. Collaboration outside of the classroom would
be best described as the sharing of ideas in teaching areas such as lesson
plans or curriculum. These types of
discussions could range anywhere from making sure everyone is generally
following the same curriculum to developing almost the same exact lesson plan
as another teacher. Inside the classroom
collaboration could be described as team teaching, which is simply having two
teachers in one classroom instructing a single group of students. According to Natalie Bohlmann, a team
teacher, there are three major team teaching situations (Bohlmann 1). One involves a mentor and a specialist “in
which the mentor is the primary classroom teacher and a specialist teacher
works in the classroom for periods of time.
The time in the classroom is usually limited to the specialist’s
schedule and the needs of her students in that classroom. This may be a learning disabilities
instructor, a gifted and talented education teacher, or any other specialist in
a push-in teaching situation” (Bohlmann 1).
The second type of circumstance is when there are two mentors working
together in a classroom. These mentors
are both certified teachers and are teaching the same students within the same
classroom. Both of these teachers have
experience in teaching and must share responsibility for the their students and
the classroom. They usually get paid
equally and have the same job descriptions (Bohlmann 2). The third situation that could arise in team
teaching is that of a mentor and associate.
“This situation involves a classroom in which one teacher is a
certified, experienced teacher acting in a mentor capacity. The other teacher may be certified but does
not have the same experience as the mentor teacher. This is a full time position with similar job descriptions and
equivalent classroom and school responsibilities. There is often a significantly different pay scale” (Bohlmann 2).
The use of collaboration and team
teaching can increase the enthusiasm of the teachers and the students by giving
them a variety of ideas. The teachers
will be more enthusiastic about their work if they can work together in
creating a flawless lesson plan or lecture that is a mixture of two different
points of views. Each of the teachers
will be able to give his or her input and this will enable them to learn a lot
about different teaching strategies.
One of the great things about team teaching and collaboration is that
the teachers have another adult to talk with which allows them to give and
receive support. Having two teachers in
a classroom can also allow the teachers to have more fun. As one third grade team teacher puts it, “A
companion, person to laugh with and vent with, all add to how we feel about our
days” (Bohlmann 3). “This is supported
by a research survey conducted in 1989 by Bauwens et al. in which they found
that cooperative teachers reported a variety of significant benefits, including
increased job satisfaction, stress and burnout reduction, enhanced job
stability, and increased teaching effectiveness” (Bohlmann 3). Another advantage to team teaching is that
the teachers can bounce ideas off each other, producing a more valuable and
interesting lesson (Bohlmann 3).
Because the lesson will provide the students with a more exciting
outlook on the subject given, they will become more enthusiastic about their
schoolwork. They will likely contribute
more often in group discussions and become more sociable.
Team teaching members can bring
different specialists to the classroom that can give the students a wide
variety of knowledge as well as a deeper, first-hand knowledge about a subject
that the primary teacher may not know much about. This is especially so in the mentor/specialist situation
discussed earlier. Mike Wenger and
Martin Hornyak, two team teachers in management education of college students,
write of this, “One teacher is clearly more experienced and knowledgeable in
his or her subject, and it is common for team members to teach their individual
sections of the course sequentially with clearly marked boundaries between
their subjects. The goals, often not
explicitly stated, are to broaden topic coverage, share the workload, and
perhaps reduce class time for the individual members” (2). The teachers can learn a lot from this type
of situation because they will gain additional knowledge from the specialist
who they invite to the classroom. Even
if the team teaching situation is not that of a mentor/specialist, the
teachers’ areas of knowledge can differ and they can learn from each
other. For example: if one teacher’s
specialty is and creativity and the other’s area of expertise is organization,
the two can work together to create a lesson that will be clearly presented and
interesting to the students. This can
be very helpful to the students because they will be engaged in the activity
and learn something from both areas while also having the ability to see the
result of effective collaboration. The
use of collaboration will also help all of the teachers stick to the same
curriculum. This will assist the
students in the future because they will all be on the same track when they
start their next year of education, causing nobody to be left behind. Mickey Bogart and Carol Adams, who have been
team teaching for years but teach different subjects, explain that by “using cooperative
learning, problem solving, multiple intelligences, technology and a variety of
reading and writing strategies” they can show how their two subjects are
interwoven (1). This, they say,
“capitalizes on the strengths of both teachers making them better, even when
they teach apart” (Bogart and Adams 1).
So, in addition to giving the students and teachers a wider variety of
knowledge, team teaching and collaboration can also show the positive effects
of working together and the connectedness of different subjects, which can
relate to real life situations.
Decreasing the student-teacher ratio
is another advantage that results from the use of team teaching. Natalie Bohlmann, a team teacher who did a
study on the effectiveness of team teaching, stated that “The students in our
class were quick to point out that having two teachers provides diversity in
presentation of materials and in the ways in which each of us offers help. They reported that, depending on the task,
they may choose to go to one teacher over the other” (4). Two teachers in one room gives the students
a choice of who they want to ask their questions to while also allowing the
teachers to be more available to them.
Bohlmann has determined that, “The lower the student-teacher ratio is,
the greater is the potential for individualization within the classroom
environment, translating into increased student achievement” (3). She goes on to say that, “cooperative
teaching eases the classroom management burden.” This is another positive effect of a decreased student-teacher
ratio. Some people may ask, “Well, why
don’t you just reduce the number of students in the classroom instead of using
two teachers to decrease the student-teacher ratio?” Decreasing the student-teacher ratio by adding a teacher will
allow the teachers to share the sometimes tedious responsibilities of
“preparing materials, grading papers, writing newsletters, developing bulletin
boards, planning for parent-teacher conferences, and writing report cards with
another person” (Bohlmann 4). “It also
provides greater consistency in classroom routine when one teacher is absent”
(Bohlmann 4). Decreasing the
student-teacher ratio by adding another teacher is extremely important because
a division of classroom tasks can lessen the workload of the teachers, and the
availability of the teachers to the students is greatly increased.
There have been various studies done
in which a team teaching situation was tested in a school and was found to be
beneficial to the students and the teachers.
In Bohlmann’s study, she found that out of the 12 teachers in her school
who team teach, 9 said that they prefer two teachers in the room and the
remaining 3 stated that “both have their advantages” (Bohlmann 3). She then asked the same question of the
students in team teaching situations and they unanimously stated that they
preferred two teachers in the classroom (Bohlmann 3). From Wenger and Hornyak’s experiences with team teaching in
management education, they found that the teachers’ responses were that “the
presence of another professional teacher in the classroom and during lesson
preparation is beneficial in terms of feedback, support, and access to a
different viewpoint. The social
benefits of working closely with a professional colleague are valued” (Wenger
and Hornyak 9). From the students’
perspectives “two instructors enhance interest, make the classroom more fun and
informal, and improve student listening” (Wenger and Hornyak 10). Another study was done in 1993 on
co-teaching in general elementary education classes in which all participating
team members “cited the experience of co-planning and co-teaching as a positive
learning experience” and the concerns that the teachers originally had were
fixed (Duchardt et al. 5). This study
also showed that “expansion of ideas, along with the variety of examples and
strategies, resulted in the perception of enhanced professional development by
those involved” (Duchardt et al. 5).
Although these studies clearly show the benefits of
team teaching and collaboration among teachers, the question still remains, why
isn’t team teaching the main form of education right now? Possibly, there are not enough educators who
are willing to try team teaching, or maybe there just aren’t enough teachers
period. Another and even more likely
possibility is that some believe the cost would be far too much. Although hiring two teachers to teach one
classroom would be more expensive, the class sizes can be increased a little to
lower the cost. For the idea of
co-teaching to be spread universally, teachers need to be more informed of the
benefits that it has to offer and many more studies must be done to provide
this information. Team teaching and
collaboration among teachers has many advantages. These include giving more enthusiasm to the teachers and the
students, presenting different areas of expertise while sticking to the
curriculum, and decreasing the student-teacher ratio.
Thesis: Teachers and their students benefit greatly
from team teaching and collaboration among the teachers in that these two
things raise the enthusiasm of the teachers and students, give a larger
diversity of knowledge and lesson plans while sticking to the curriculum, and
decrease the student/teacher ratio.
Bogart, Mickey, Carol
Adams. "Team Teaching." 27
Oct. 1999
<http://www2.educ.ksu.edu/Organizations/chalkboard/may/team_teaching.htm>.
Bohlmann,
Natalie L. "Cooperative teaching:
A model for teacher collaboration."
Teaching and Change 5(1998): 199-224.
Duchardt,
Barbara, et al. "Collaboration and
co-teaching: General and special education faculty." The Clearing House
72 (1999): 186-190.
Wenger,
Mike S., Martin J. Hornyak. "Team
teaching for higher level learning: A Framework of professional
collaboration." Journal of Management Education 23 (1999): 311-327.
English
100
Essay
#4
11/28/99
Many Americans believe that society
will be harmed by technological advancements, but I strongly disagree. Individuals and groups like political
parties are concerned mainly with an increase in wage gaps, loss of privacy,
the demoralization of society, and a population increase. I do not believe that these problems do or will
exist because of an increase in technology, and, to me, putting a limitation on
technological advancements, as suggested by some, would be very detrimental to
the citizens of the U.S. Technology is
defined in the Webster’s New World Dictionary as “the system by which a
society provides its members with those things needed or desired” or “applied
science” which means science that is used to create something. So technological advancement can basically
be described as progress or development in technology. Technological advancements can be important
in many ways although some Americans tend to think otherwise.
Democrats are worried about wage
gaps that could be caused by the increasing technology (Munro 3). A left-wing writer, Jeremy Rifkin, believes
that technology will allow the wealthy to become richer and the lower class to
become even more distant from the upper class (Munro 4). I agree with the free-market advocates and
social liberals who believe that technological advancement will narrow wage gaps
and that technology will become cheap enough for all (Munro 4). New technology, mostly computers, software,
and the Internet, actually “supports an estimated 7 million well-paid jobs, is
pushing millions of people into the upper middle class, and during 1995-97
upped the national economic growth rate by 50 percent” according to a White
House report (Munro 1). “Without
technology, 1997’s inflation rate would have climbed by half,” the White House
estimates (Munro 1). The middle class
has been numerous and successful since major technological advancements have
been developed like computers and the Internet that it is hard, if not
impossible, to say that wage gaps have been widened. There are now more opportunities for good schooling for the lower
class because of financial aid and scholarships that are available. It seems to me that as technology increases,
the lower classes will eventually become more educated, and they will assume
better paid jobs than before because of their advanced education. Unemployment and inflation are both down which
shows that people are working for their money, and they have not gone up since
the invention of computers and the Internet.
So why would the wage gaps widen?
Lionel Basney, author of “Technolatry Unmasked,” says that “Technology
benefits those in the best position to obtain it: those who are already in
positions of social and economic advantage” (3). This is not true in my opinion.
I believe that as technology increases, it will soon become available to
anyone. The prices of new inventions
get lower and lower as we develop the technology to increase production of them
and as we continue to learn more about them.
Only the upper classes originally had a phone when this form of
communication was invented, but now even the majority of the lowest classes can
afford one. I do not think that the
above quote is a very fair statement because these people must have done
something right to even be in a position of social and economic advantage. If they earned it then what are we going to
do about it, turn Communist? Gradually,
technology will allow for the moving up of all citizens’ income. This should allow the positions of the upper
and lower class to stay proportionate with each other and wage gaps will not
widen.
Another concern that Americans like
the Christian Coalition have with an increase in technology is loss of
privacy. If Americans want privacy,
they will not allow themselves to be coerced into anything that dissolves their
privacy. The Christian Coalition and
its conservative allies are concerned that computers, credit cards, cameras,
and genetic technology will be used by certain corporations or government
agencies to gather citizens’ closest secrets (Munro 3). If you don’t want your privacy to be at all
violated then you have the choice to do what you want to do. Nobody is forcing you to put any private
information on the Internet, have a credit card, or be videotaped. Americans now have and will continue to have
rights, and this will keep people’s secrets from being known to the rest of the
world. Remember, you do have a choice…
The demoralization of society is a
problem that many believe is due to the increasing technology. Social conservatives believe that “the new
economy undermines useful social norms—patriotism, religion, and traditional
virtues such as delayed gratification and marital fidelity” (Munro 3). It is my position that if somebody is really
religious, they will not fall into traps that will demoralize them. It is important to know where you stand as
an individual, and if you strongly believe in something and morals are very
important to you then you have the ability to choose what is right and what is
wrong. To say that the new economy
undermines useful social norms is definitely incorrect. Social norms can include moving forward as a
society in technology and developing new things to increase our knowledge. It is not customary for a society to move
backward in development, but it is natural and inevitable for a society to progress
in everything that they can. Patriotism
is in no way affected by technological advances either. Love for your country can come about for
many different reasons. I, for one, am
very proud of the way that the United States is developing, and I would gladly
fight for my country if need be. There
is no way to prove that technology causes an undermining in religion and
patriotism, and I have not seen any proof that there is less religion and
patriotism in the U.S. than there was before the car, the train, the computer,
and so on.
As for a population increase caused
by technology, this will not happen.
Students in my English 100 class believe that technology will cause a
population explosion with the new medicines and cures for diseases. Just because Americans will be living
longer, healthier lives does not mean that we will be having more
children. In fact, the average family
size will probably get smaller because of the time it takes to go to college
and finally get a good paying job.
Since the entire population of the world can fit into the state of Texas
with a nice house and good-sized yard, we should not be too worried about
running out of room (Springer 1).
People do not have the time to have six kids, hold down a good job, go
to school, and have enough productive time to spend with each of their
children. What makes people think that
all of a sudden the population of the United States will double? If it does, it will not be from increased
birth rates caused by technological advancements, it will be from immigrants
who want a better life because, after all, that is what primarily made up the
U.S. population in the first place.
Some people even believe that we
should limit our technological advances.
A retired engineer, T. Jack Heckelman, president of the Alliance for a
Sustainable Future, believes that this Council should be elevated to a
full-time government agency (Boyd-Merrit 1).
Rick Boyd-Merrit, who shares Heckelman’s views, signed a petition that
Heckelman handed out requesting to Clinton that this be put into action. I do not agree with limiting technological
advances because with these limitations we also limit growth, development,
education, and our freedom. Sustaining
development would only smother American’s natural curiosity and zest for
knowledge. Who knows what would happen
if the government put a stop to innovations?
It would just exacerbate the situation.
I want our country to develop and grow as it naturally should because
with it the people grow too. Human
beings are not born as adults and gradually shrunk until they become babies,
they are babies first and grow smarter and larger as life goes on. This is how we as a society should grow
also.
People should start taking
responsibility for their actions and stop blaming technology for the problems
of the world. Technology itself does
not create the problems, the way we use it does. Americans will always have a choice as to whether or not they
want to use technology for practical purposes, educational purposes, or just
for fun. Limiting technological advances
will not only stifle the independence of Americans, it will defy the meaning of
the phrase “Land of the Free.”
Personally, I love hearing about all the new things being created and
all the new ideas different people have come up with, but that doesn’t mean I
am going to try them if they are morally wrong to me. Although many Americans
fear that technological advancements will increase wage gaps, decrease
Americans’ privacy, demoralize society, and increase population, I believe that
technology does not harm Americans in these ways because people always possess
the freedom to choose their actions.
Thesis: Although many Americans fear that
technological advancements will increase wage gaps, decrease Americans’
privacy, demoralize society, and increase population, I believe that technology
does not harm Americans in these ways because people always possess the freedom
to choose their actions.
Basney,
Lionel. “Technolatry unmasked.” The Other Side. 33 (1997): 8 Infotrac. 22
Nov. 1999 http://…/purl=rcl_EAIM_0_A20821573&dyn=32!xrn_8_0_A20821573?sw_aep=cclc_paloma.
Boyd-Merritt,
Rick. “One engineer’s view.” Editorial.
Electronic Engineering Times 1
June 1999. 29
Nov. 1999 http://www.eetimes.com/story/editorial/OEG19990601S0017.
Munro,
Neil. “We’re Wired, But Now What?” National Journal. 31 (1999): 99 Infotrac.
22 Nov. 1999
<http:/…/purl=rcl_EAIM_0_A53730179&dyn=23!xrn_57_0_A53730179?sw_aep=cclc_paloma>.
Springer,
Charlie. Letter. Electronic Engineering Times 21 June 1999. 22 Nov. 1999
<http:/…/purl=rcl_EAIM_0_A54947429&dyn=10!xrn_24_0_A54947429?sw_ae
p=cclc_paloma>.