Movie #2 -- 10th Grade Biology:
From loose recitation to free time…
Interaction Orders, Network Switches,
and the Process of Schooling
Daniel McFarland
mcfarland@stanford.edu
Skye Bender-deMoll
skyebend@stanford.edu
Research presented here is supported by funds from the Spencer Foundation
and Stanford University’s Office of Technology and Licensing.
Topic / Problem -- two interrelated goals of paper.
– The first is to explain how interaction dynamics are central to our
understanding of the structure of complex organizations.
• Interaction dynamics reveal how normative structures of association
form in everyday affairs; how they entail a multiplicity of coordinated
endeavors, some of which involve orthogonal forms of association;
how actors can move between this multiplicity of affairs; and how
local actions can depart from and transform larger aggregate patterns
of association.
• This addresses a shortcoming in network theory. The least developed
aspect of social network analysis concerns the fluid, interpretive
dynamics of communication on the micro-level. Fluid interactions are
generally assumed to aggregate into stable relations and cultural
domains are either fully ignored, or only related to networks in a
casual, ad-hoc basis.
Topic / Problem -- two interrelated goals (continued…)
– The second goal is to apply this conceptualization to the empirical
dimension of schools.
• We illustrate how interaction dynamics afford a deeper understanding
of schooling. Interaction dynamics reveal how a teacher-centered
pattern of pedagogy arises in most classrooms; how pedagogy
nonetheless entails a variety of coordinated endeavors that depart
from this norm; how participants move through these different and
orthogonal forms of coordinated activity; and how local actions can
induce departures, negotiations, and transformations of the larger
normative structure of schooling.
• The process of classroom order is important for education research
because it is a precursor to learning (content focus). As patterns of
interaction settle into recognized patterns, teachers and students find
opportunity to shift attention away from concerns of coordination
and social order to subject matter content. Current education
research does not study the distributed, relational nature of
educational settings in a systematic way that can be formalized and
tested. This work presents such analysis.
Theoretical Argument on Structuring Process
– The structuring of classrooms entails at least four classes of interaction
order: role-frames, transitions, bracketed laminations, and problems
(White 1995; Mische and White 1998). Certain classes of interaction order
entail concatenating actions that reinforce norms, while others facilitate
switches and counter-normative behaviors.
• Role-frames entail interaction where networks and interpretive frames
concatenate and reinforce each other so as to create specialized forms of stable
interaction. In the classroom, there is an academic role-frame and a social roleframe anchored in certain topics, activities, social identities, and status structures.
• Transitions arise as unstructured segments at the beginning and end of class, as
well as between tasks when the academic frame and social roles of friendship
and clique membership are not on.
• Problems are volatile episodes when the social order breaks down, uncertainty
takes hold, and then reconstruction or repair efforts follow. As such, they are
interchanges that can emerge in the middle of other classes of interaction order
and sweep aside their dynamics.
• Another type of interaction order consists of bracketed laminations that span
interpretive frames by bracketing episodes of interaction wherein a role-frame’s
meaning is transformed into something patterned on but independent of them
(jokes, keying, fabrications, etc).
– Building on prior work, we describe interaction ordering, or
“structuration”, as guided by rules (activity-scripts) and resources (Giddens
1984; Barley 1986; Sewell 1992), but we expand the notion of resources to
entail (a) claims (discursive cues) and (b) contexts (network configurations).
Empirical Argument on the Structure of Schooling
• We reinforce the conceptual argument through case studies and formal models
of classroom interaction. In particular, we identify processes that establish (or
undermine) recursive patterns of behavior.
• We find that there are certain activities, network conditions, and forms of talk
that generate the normative structure of schooling across classrooms.
– We find the normative structure of schooling is teacher-centered (e.g., recitation
and lectures), and that even in decentralized activities of class discussion, there is a
tendency to fall back on centralized formats to coordinate collective action.
• In addition, we identify (de)stabilizing mechanisms within types of activities
(i.e., coordination games), which reveal how the structure of schooling can be
transformed by practitioners.
– Only in student-centered tasks like presentations and group work does the
teacher’s diminished role help stabilize the pattern of ongoing interactions, and
reveal routes by which alternative forms of schooling can be successfully managed.
Data and Unit of Time
• Unique Data on Streaming Classroom Interactions
– Observed many classrooms and recorded who spoke to whom, when, and in what
manner.
• Caught turns of interaction and their corresponding forms of speech (task, social, moral
evaluations, technical evaluations, broadcasts, questions), and noted activity schemas, time, etc.
• Lower reliability is had in phases where simultaneous talk arises (free time). However, all
measures use patterns of interaction (instead of frequency), and the number of observations
decreases the amount of error affecting results. In spite of reliability issues, this is closest data
has come to coded streaming interactions, and it is useful for developing methods appropriate
to data on fully dynamic systems. Should there be a bias, it will underreports of such behavior.
– The final data set consists of over 800,000 turns of interaction that spans 3000
individuals, 603 class periods, and 153 separate classrooms of two high schools.
• Classroom focus
– We study how classrooms organize interaction over time.
• Our goal is to identify mechanisms endogenous to classroom settings and to offer a bottomup perspective that is remiss in most sociological and educational research.
– How do we decide on the unit of time to use?
• Since we are interested in how interaction is ordered, we want a time-scale that is not too short
(so as to miss patterning of different “games”) nor too long (so as to merge multiple doings
together). Hence, we settle on 2.5 minute slices of time, aggregate within them, and then look
at how slices of class time are interrelated.
• Other durations of time could be used and the exploration of this is the topic of a future
paper (Sunbelt topic).
• Measurement: When does order arise in interaction?
• Challenge to measure stability when interaction patterns vary
depending on the activity being performed. We want a single measure
of stabilization.
• How do we capture the stability in interaction patterns when ties are
distributed and can have variable organization in different settings? We
take the triad census for every slice of class time and correlate it with
the successive slice (census of slice t=0 with census of slice t=1).
– Since null triads are overwhelmingly common, we omit them
– Also, we separate task from sociable types of ties (~ 30 triad types).
• The correlation of successive triad censuses is a measure of patternsimilarity over time, and affords a scaled variable that is consistent
across classes regardless of the type of activity and the size of the
classroom network.
– We tried other distance measures that had various problems: hamming
distances, euclidean distances (across dyads and linguistic arrays), and
even clustered structural distances (Butts and Carley 2003).
• RESULTS (cases and formal models)
Part 1 -- Four cases of interaction order
• Will use variety of visualizations to reveal dynamic
processes of network manipulation and task cueing.
– Summary plots
» Used to display hundreds of thousands of observations in a
format that can be readily understood and explored by
practitioners and researchers (rates and inter-structural
correlations are plotted).
– Visualization of network dynamics
» SoNIA (Social Network Image Animator, Bender-deMoll and
McFarland 2003; Moody, McFarland and Bender deMoll
2004) – animates across graph layouts and uses a series of
techniques to render movement reliable and meaningful. Free
software publicly available <http://sonia.stanford.edu>
Two Cases of
Switching
40
40
All Task
Tch Task
All Social
Tch Social
Sanction
Face-Time Rate
25
15
25
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Minutes of Class Time
Minutes of Class Time
Stability Plot
(Trigonometry 10 [mm173], 4/29/97)
Stability Plot
(Biology 10 [ms121], 3/24/97)
1.2
Correlation
(successive slice comparison) .
1.2
Correlation
(successive slice comparison) .
Case #2: Biology
announcements,
recitation lesson
(with humor),
recitation review,
free time
30
20
0
All Task
Tch Task
All Social
Tch Social
Sanction
35
Face-Time Rate
35
30
Case #1: Trigonometry
announcements,
recitation review,
recitation fun
problem, pair work
quizzes
Rates Plot
(Biology 10 [ms121], 3/24/97)
Rates Plot
(Trigonometry 10 [mm173], 4/29/97)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35
Minutes of class time
40
45
0
5
10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Minutes of class time
45
Intensity Plot
(Biology 10 [ms121], 3/24/97)
Intensity Plot
(Trigonometry 10 [mm173], 4/29/97)
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
`
25
0
5
25
30
30
35
35
40
40
45
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
45
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time Index
(minutes of class time)
0
5
Time Index
(minutes of class time)
Movie 1 – Trigonometry: announcements, recitation review,
recitation fun problem, pair work quizzes
Movie 2 – Biology: announcements, recitation lesson (with humor),
recitation review, free time
40
All Task
Tch Task
All Social
Tch Social
Sanction
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Case #4: English 10
Lecture introduction,
seatwork
All Task
Tch Task
All Social
Tch Social
Sanction
35
Face-Time Rate
(weighted interaction) .
Case #3: Economics
Lecture introduction,
groupwork
Rates Plot
(English 10 Comp [re683], 12/10/96)
40
Face-Time Rate
(weighted interaction) .
Two Cases of
Stalled /Failing
Order
Rates Plot
(Economics 10-12 [mh33], 10/16/96)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
40
0
5
Minutes of Class Time
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
Correlation
(successive slice comparison) .
Correlation
(successive slice comparison) .
Stability Plot
(Economics 10-12 [mh33], 10/16/96)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
10 15 20 25 30
Minutes of Class Time
35
Stability Plot
(English 10 Comp [re683], 12/10/96)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0
5
10 15 20 25 30
Minutes of class time
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
Minutes of class time
30
35
Intensity Plot
(English 10 Comp [re683], 12/10/96)
Intensity Plot
(Economics 10-12 [mh33], 10/16/96)
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
`
20
25
25
30
30
35
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time Index
(minutes of class time)
35
40
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time Index
(minutes of class time)
30
35
Movie 3 – Economics: Lecture introduction, groupwork
Movie 4 – English 10, Speech: Lecture introduction, seatwork
• Finds across four cases –
– Different “games” with different organization.
• Different “dances” that designate distinct interaction orders:
–
–
–
–
–
recitation entails stars with rotating core
free time has fluid cluster and spanning tree
group work has stable cliques and teacher monitoring
student presentation entail rotating stars
seatwork entails local, fluid communications centered around teachers
• Different network processes:
– Centralization-decentralization (e.g., recitation/presentation versus
group work / free time)
– Clustering-separating (e.g., group work versus seatwork)
– Different points of disorder –
• brackets of period
• cued transitions
• unplanned deviations and rebellion
– Typically inverse network processes as that called for by the activity. For
example, group work falls apart with broadcasts or centralization moves,
and lectures fall apart when clustering and/or competing centralization
efforts arise.
• Part 2 – Formal models
– Additive model of central tendency
• Want to identify general structure of schooling.
• Correlation is really skewed variable with classes veering into and out of
interactional stability -- basically a discrete shift. We dichotomize the variable
so that “stable” refers to slices of class time with triad patterns correlated by
at least .89 (value is the median correlation).
• We then use fixed effects models that identify mechanisms creating
stability/change within classroom interaction over time (so classroom and
school level characteristics are removed).
• We use fixed effects because it enables us to focus on the social processes
endogenous to classrooms (where most of the variance resides) and it affords
the most conservative model (i.e., removes spuriousness, bias, heterogeneity
shrinkage, etc).
– Interaction terms
• Conditional effects presented since we want to know how various network
conditions and forms of speech influence the stability of interaction within
types of prescribed tasks (Jacard 2003).
– We want to know the relative rate of each form of speech relative to other forms.
We operationalize this as the percentage of total interaction that is of a particular
type. Such measures capture the stylistic focus within a slice of class time as
opposed to sheer volume or rates of behavior. We argue that it is linguistic style
that should affect interaction roles and the structuring process.
TABLE 2. Longitudinal Fixed Effects Logit Model of Stable Classroom Interaction Patterns
Independent Variables
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Timing Variables
Class Time
.40 *** .33 *** .29 ***
.39 *** .29 *** .31 ***
Class Time2
-.44 *** -.30 *** -.30 *** -.41 *** -.25 **
-.27 **
Months into School Year
-.07 *
-.05 †
-.06 *
-.07 *
-.05 †
-.04
Transition Segment
-.15 *** -.14 *** -.15 *** -.17 *** -.14 *** -.14 ***
Activity Schemas
Lecture
.15 ***
.16 *** .11 ***
Recitation (Baseline)
------Discussion
-.02
.01
-.02
Presentations
.01
.07 *
-.03
Groupwork
-.11 ***
-.04
-.10 ***
Undefined
-.22 ***
-.13 *** -.25 ***
Seatwork
-.22 ***
-.17 *** -.24 ***
Test / Quiz
-.16 ***
-.12 *** -.22 ***
Audio/Visual
-.17 ***
-.14 *** -.22 ***
Forms of Speech (% of total talk)
Teacher Broadcast
.20 ***
.09 *
Teacher Question
-.09 *
-.10 **
Teacher Moral
-.02
-.02
Teacher Technical
.08 **
.06 †
Teacher Joke
-.08 **
-.08 **
Student Broadcast
.03
-.02
Student Question
-.02
-.02
Student Moral
-.06 *
-.07 **
Student Technical
.01
.01
Student Joke
-.03
-.03
Teacher-Student Task
-.11 ***
-.09 **
Student-Student Task
-.16 ***
-.13 ***
Teacher-Student Social
-.19 ***
-.19 ***
Student-Student Social
-.15 ***
-.13 **
Network Configurations
Task Asymmetry
.30 ***
.13 ***
Task Reciprocity
-.45 ***
-.63 ***
Social Asymmetry
-.54 ***
-.57 ***
Social Reciprocity
-.09 *
-.08 *
Model Statistics
Wald Chi-Square
87 *** 380 *** 339 *** 511 *** 495 ***
Chi-Square > Model 1
293 *** 252 *** 424 *** 408 ***
Change in DF
4
8
14
4
22
Source: McFarland classroom interaction study (1999). N=9384, stable = 50%.
Note: Invariant characteristics of classrooms are fixed in these models.
† p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two sided tests)
Presented values are standardized as follows: b x* = x * x
767 ***
680 ***
12
• Factors causing interaction order/disorder in classes – story of
centralization and control, but more from local disputes and
coordination problems (bottom up perspective of schooling
process).
– Transitions are more volatile (open-close, transitions)
– Long-term decrease in stability (months into year)
– *Cued activity structures differ in order / disorder
• lectures > presentation, recitation, discussion > group work, tests, audio >
seatwork and undefined.
• Centralized formats tend to be more stable routines (lacks ambiguity of
hierarchy).
– Forms of Speech – central tendencies of schooling process
(driven by most common activities, i.e. recitation)
• Teacher broadcasts and technically evaluative speech stabilizes
• Most any form of direct talk destabilizes, but especially teacher-student talk,
conflicts (moral) and bracketed laminations (jokes).
– *Network conditions vary in effect
• Task asymmetrical ties are helpful (~broadcasts), social reciprocity creates
some disturbance, and reciprocal task ties and asymmetric socializing are
quite problematic (student outbursts).
• Prior section describes central tendencies of schooling
process, and as such, describes the realized social structure
emerging in classes more generally. The emergent structure
of schooling is contingent on which activities are
prescribed and enacted.
– The tendency toward centralized formats reflects problems
of coordination in student-centered and progressive forms
of instruction.
• In order to transform the structure of schooling, the problems of
coordination undermining progressive forms of instruction need to
be understood and overcome. Therefore, it is useful to know
what types of behavior sustain or undermine distinct
interaction orders. In effect, we ask, what speech and
network forms are crucial to the stability of different
activity structures, and which are most capable of
undermining them. We turn to interaction terms…
TABLE 3. Conditional Effects - Forms of Speech and Network Configuration by Each Activity
Lecture
Recitation Discussion Presentation Groupwork Undefined
Forms of Speech
Teacher Forms
Teacher Broadcast
.37 ***
.22 ***
.39 **
.66 ***
-1.14 ***
-.30 †
Teacher Question
.17 †
.05
.29 *
.26 *
-.48 †
-.14
Teacher Moral
-.08
.00
.00
-.05
-.69 **
.10
Teacher Technical
.11
.09 **
-.12
-.03
-.21
-.52
Teacher Joke
-.21 ***
-.25
-.17 *
-.25
-.25
.00
Student Forms
Student Broadcast
-1.95 ***
-.46 ***
-.07
.14 ***
-.88
.11
Student Question
-.07
.07
-.01
-.14
-.29 †
-.12
Student Moral
-.19 **
.00
-.23 *
-.33 ***
-.45 **
.04
Student Technical
.23 †
.12 ***
.02
-.19
-.55
-1.42 *
Student Joke
-.11 *
.03
-.08
.08
.08
-.04
Other Direct Forms
-.40 ***
.03
-.07
-.05
-.07
.17 †
Teacher-Student Task
.02
-.19 **
.05
.16 *
.13 *
-.31 **
Student-Student Task
-.53 ***
-.24 ***
-.42 **
-.27 *
-.52 ***
-.11
Teacher-Student Social
-.13 †
-.10 *
-.13
-.32 **
.04
.13
Student-Student Social
Network Configurations
Task Asymmetry
.62 ***
.45 ***
.27 **
.52 ***
Task Reciprocity
-1.74 ***
-.63 ***
-1.42 ***
-.46 **
Social Asymmetry
-.98 ***
-.77 ***
-.16 *
.04
Social Reciprocity
-.39 **
-.21 *
-.43
-.26
Source: McFarland classroom interaction study (1999). N=9382, stable = 50%.
Note: Invariant characteristics of classrooms are fixed in these models.
† p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two sided tests)
Presented values are standardized as follows: bx* = x * x
"Main effect" lists values from models 5 and 6 of Table 2 and reflects the norm.
-1.06 ***
.30 †
-.98 **
.00
-.15
-1.50 ***
-.23 *
.32 **
Seatwork
Test/Quiz Audiovisual Main Effect
-.04
.03
-.07
.06
-.08
-.23 *
.25
-.02
.25
.00
-.02
-.16
-.05
-.14
-.31
-.71 **
.11 †
-.12 *
.15
.06
-.47
-.03
-.02
.44 †
.06
-1.33 †
.00
-.29
-.58
.06
.01
-.26 ***
-.19 †
.10
-.06
-.07
-.42 ***
-.09
-.28
-.99
-.35
.28
**
***
***
*
-.25
-1.28
-1.93
-.55
*
**
*
†
.09
-.10
-.02
.06
-.08
-.12
-.08
-.40 **
-.13 †
-.46
-2.66
-.88
-1.12
*
†
*
*
*
**
†
**
-.02
-.02
-.07 **
.01
-.03
-.09
-.13
-.19
-.13
**
***
***
**
.30
-.45
-.54
-.09
***
***
***
*
FIGURE 3. Conditional Effects of Student Forms
of Speech within Different Types of Activity
FIGURE 2. Conditional Effects of Teacher Forms
of Speech within Different Types of Activity
Lecture
Lecture
Recitation
Recitation
Discussion
Discussion
Presentation
Presentation
Student Broadcast
Student Question
Teacher Broadcast
Groupwork
Groupwork
Teacher Question
Student Technical
Teacher Moral
Undefined
Student Moral
Undefined
Teacher Technical
Student Joke
Teacher Joke
Seatwork
Seatwork
Test / Quiz
Test / Quiz
Audiovisual
Audiovisual
-.50
-.30
-.10
.10
.30
.50
% Likelihood of Network Stability from 1 s.d. of speech form
-.50
-.30
-.10
.10
.30
.50
% Likelihood of Network Stability from 1 s.d. of speech form
FIGURE 4. Conditional Effects for Other Direct Forms
of Speech within Different Types of Activity
FIGURE 5. Conditional Effects of Network
Characteristics within Different Types of Activity
Lecture
Lecture
Recitation
Recitation
Discussion
Discussion
Presentation
Presentation
Groupwork
Groupwork
Undefined
Undefined
Seatwork
Seatwork
Test / Quiz
Teacher-Student Task
Task Asymmetry
Test / Quiz
Task Reciprocity
Student-Student Task
Teacher-Student Social
Audiovisual
Student-Student Social
-.50
-.30
-.10
.10
.30
.50
% Likelihood of Network Stability from 1 s.d. of speech form
Social Asymmetry
Audiovisual
-2.00
Social Reciprocity
-1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
% Likelihood of Network Stability from 1 s.d. of network characteristic
• Lecture, recitation, and discussion – all similar in that they are
“teacher centered”
– Lecture: best maintained when the teacher voices broadcasts and
technical evaluations; undermined when the teacher is sociable, or when
students have side conversations, argue, and emit broadcast statements of
their own.
– Recitation: same as lecture but now student technical evaluations also help
stabilize interaction and T-S contact is more acceptable; undermined by
teacher-sociability, student broadcasts, and peer side conversations.
– Discussion: best maintained by teacher broadcasts and questions, and
there is tolerance for more open dialogue; undermined by teacher-student
sociability, jokes, and student arguing.
• Student presentations different
– Presentation: student broadcasts stabilize, but so do teacher
broadcasts/questions, and peer task interaction (Tch = MC who
coordinates and discusses / embellishes student broadcasts); undermined
by open socializing and arguing.
• Group work, undefined, seatwork, and tests /
audiovisuals
– Group work: best maintained by a distant teacher and student
task conversations; tolerant of sociable behavior and humor,
but undermined by any centralizing claims (broadcasts).
– Undefined (free time / maintenance): maintained by student
socializing; undermined by peer task interactions and teacher
broadcasts.
– Seatwork: tolerant of peer socializing, humor, and students
posing questions; undermined by centralized formats.
– Tests: teacher questions and student technical evaluations
mildly assist matters (i.e., test preparation behaviors), but
everything else disrupts the activity.
– Audiovisual: non-action, or silence, stabilizes the task.
• Network Conditions and Cued Tasks
– Task asymmetry: helpful for centralized tasks like lecture,
recitation, discussion (teacher centered discussions ~ Socratic
method), and student presentations.
– Task reciprocity: key for group work and not much else.
– Social asymmetry: avoid in most tasks, but not of concern in
undefined segments. Entails student broadcasts, so especially
disruptive of routine segments involving repetition (lecture,
recitation, group work) or low interaction rates (tests and
audiovisuals) where it stands out.
– Social reciprocity: salient in seatwork and undefined segments
where appropriate, but problematic elsewhere.
• Conclusion
– Study identifies general structure of schooling as well as the
strengths and weaknesses of various instructional formats.
– Models show the dynamics of interaction, and how these
dynamics are organized in ways reflective of a general
schooling process.
– The general story derived from these results is that the
structure of schooling is defined primarily by prescribed
activity-frames and issues of instructional control. Activity
frames define the instructional process and the network
conditions educators want to establish. However, prescribed
formats do not always take hold, and interaction orders of
varying kinds can drift toward more centralized formats.
– Results offer some hope in that educators can identify various
activities, network conditions, and forms of speech (i.e., rules,
contexts, and claims) that can either bolster or transform
interaction patterns they would like to establish in educational
settings.
Interaction Orders, Network Switches,
and the Process of Schooling
Daniel McFarland
mcfarland@stanford.edu
Skye Bender-deMoll
skyebend@stanford.edu
Research presented here is supported by funds from the Spencer Foundation
and Stanford’s Office of Technology and Licensing.
Histogram for Triad Census Correlation
(Mean .6639, Std Deviation .3866, Median .8887)
Histogram
1.025+*********
.************************************************
.**************
.*******
.****
.***
.***
.******
.*****
.****
.***
.***
.***
.***
.**
.***
.***
.***
.***
.***
.*****
.*************
.*****
-0.125+*
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+--* may represent up to 68 counts
#
602
3219
918
458
251
176
193
387
281
229
181
156
139
148
124
155
140
168
160
187
294
883
320
9
Boxplot
|
+-----+
|
|
*-----*
|
|
|
|
|
|
| + |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-----+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• Group dramatization in creative writing classs
FIGURE 1. ALL POSSIBLE TRIADS
(Columns reflect the number of arcs)
(0)
(1)
1 - 003
2 - 012
(2)
(3)
(4)
3 - 102
7 - 111D
11 - 201
4 - 021D
8 - 111U
12 - 120D
5 - 021U
9 - 030T
13 - 120U
6 - 021C
10 - 030C
14 - 120C
(5)
(6)
15 - 210
16 - 300