Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmeni Perspektifinden 3B Yazıcıların Eğitimde Kullanımı

Öz

3B baskılama teknolojisinin kullanımı 21. yüzyıl becerilerinin gelişiminde öğrencilere önemli fırsatlar sunmaktadır. Söz konusu teknolojinin sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde kullanımına yönelik cesaretlendirici çalışmaların son yıllarda artmaya başladığı görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda, çalışmada 3B baskılama teknolojisinin sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde kullanımına yönelik öğretmen görüşlerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden fenomenoloji deseni kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma grubunu 18 sosyal bilgiler öğretmeni oluşturmuştur. Veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formları ile toplanmıştır. Bu formundan elde edilen veriler ilk aşamada niteliksel kodlama ve in vivo kodlamaya, ikinci aşamada eksenel kodlamaya tabii tutulmuştur. Eksenel kodlama sonucunda veriler sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde 3B yazıcı kullanımının branşa katkısı, zayıf yönleri, sınırlılıkları ve fırsatları olmak üzere dört üst kategoride yorumlanmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin, eğitimde 3B yazıcı kullanmalarının zayıf yanlarına ilişkin en çok baskının maliyetli olması, zaman alması, konu sınırlılığı ve ders süresinin yetersiz kalması gibi kategorilerde görüş bildirdikleri görülmüştür. Öğretmenler tehdit eden unsurlara ilişkin baskının maliyetli olması, eğitimde fırsat eşitliğini bozması, okullardaki teknolojik donanım yetersizliği ve ders saatinin yetersiz kalması gibi kategorileri içeren görüşlere yer vermişlerdir. Buna karşı öğretmenlerin 3B baskılama teknolojisinin eğitimde kullanımının güçlü yanlarına ilişkin en çok kalıcı öğrenmeler oluşturması, dikkati ve güdülemeyi arttırması, öğrenmeyi kolaylaştırması ve somutlaştırması kategorisinde görüşlerine rastlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal bilgiler eğitimi
• sosyal bilgiler
• öğretmeni
• teknoloji
• 3B yazıcılar

The Use of 3D Printers in Education from the Perspective of Social Sciences Teachers

Öz

The he use of 3D printing technology offers students important opportunities in the development of 21st century skills. Encouraging studies on the use of this technology in social studies education have started to increase in recent years. In this context, this study aimed to determine teachers' views on the use of 3D printing technology in social studies education. The study was conducted using phenomenology design, one of the qualitative research methods. The study group consisted of 18 social studies teachers. Data were collected through semi-structured interview forms. The data obtained from this form were subjected to qualitative coding and in vivo coding in the first stage and axial coding in the second stage. As a result of axial coding, the data were interpreted in four categories of 3D printer use in social studies education: Strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities.As a result of the research, it was seen that social studies teachers reported the weaknesses of using 3D printers in education mostly in categories such as costly printing, time-consuming, subject limitation, and insufficient class time. Regarding the threatening factors, teachers gave opinions in categories such as costly printing, disrupting equality of opportunity in education, insufficient technological equipment in schools, and insufficient class time. On the other hand, teachers' opinions on the strengths and opportunities of using 3D printing technology in education were mostly found in the categories of creating permanent learning, increasing attention and motivation, facilitating and concretizing learning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social studies education
• social studies teacher
• technology
• 3D printers

Kaynakça

1. Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured ınterviews. In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 492–505). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
2. Aktaş, V., Yılmaz, A., & İbrahi̇moğlu, Z. (2021). Sosyal bi̇lgi̇ler öğretmenleri̇ni̇n sanal müze kullanimina yöneli̇k tutumlari. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.806159
3. Aktın, K. (2017). Okul öncesi dönemde müze eğitimi ile çocukların tarihsel düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 465-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.336734
4. Ambrosi, A., & Pumera, M. (2016). 3D-printing technologies for electrochemical applications. Chemical Society Reviews, 45(10), 2740–2755. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5cs00714c
5. Arvanitidi, E., Drosos, C., Theocharis, E., & Papoutsidakis, M. (2019). 3D printing and education. International Journal of Computer Applications, 177(24), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2019919711
6. Avcı, T., & Ateş, Ö. (2017). A research on science teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.323375
7. Azimi, P., Zhao, D., Pouzet, C., Crain, N. E., ve Stephens, B. (2016). Emissions of ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds from commercially available desktop three dimensional printers with multiple filaments. Environmental Science and Technology, 21(1), 1260-1268. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b04983
8. Başkale, H. (2016). Determination of Validity, Reliability and Sample Size in Qualitative Studies. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi., 9(1), 23-28.

9. Bernard, H. (1988). Research methods in cultural anthropology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
10. Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Fields, D. (2017). An assessment ınstrument of technological literacies in makerspaces and fablabs. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20156
11. Boyd, C. O. (2012). Phenomenology the method. In Nursing Research. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
12. Brown, Q., & Burge, J. (2014). Motivate: Bringing out the fun with 3-D printing and e-textiles for middle- and high-school girls. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. ASEE Conferences. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22848
13. Bull, G., Chiu, J., Berry, R., Lipson, H., & Xie, C. (2013). Advancing children’s engineering through desktop manufacturing. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer Science & Business Media.
14. Campbell, T., Williams, C., Ivanova, O., & Garrett, B. (October 2011). Strategic foresig report: Could 3D printing change the world? Technologies, potential, and ımplications of additive manufacturing. Washintgon, DC: Atlantic Council. Erişim tarihi: 22.04.2022. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/files/publication_pdfs/403/101711_ACUS_3DPrin ting.PDF.
15. Chenail, R. (2011). Interviewing the ınvestigator: Strategies for addressing ınstrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255-262. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1051
16. Cheng, L., Antonenko, P. D., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., Miller, D., MacFadden, B. J., … Ziegler, M. (2020). Exploring the influence of teachers’ beliefs and 3D printing integrated STEM instruction on students’ STEM motivation. Computers & Education, 158, 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103983
17. Chun, H. (2021). A study on the ımpact of 3D printing and artificial ıntelligence on education and learning process. Scientific Programming, 2021, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2247346
18. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
19. Corum, K., & Garofalo, J. (2015). Using digital fabrication to support student learning. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing, 2(2), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2015.0008
20. Creswell, John W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
21. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22. Çalışkan, E., Önal, N. ve Yazıcı, K. (2016). Öğretim etkinliklerinde sanal müzelerin kullanımına ilişkin sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adayları ne düşünüyor? Turkish Studies, 11(3), 689-706. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9275
23. Çınar, C., Utkugün, C., & Gazel, A. A. (2021). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde sanal müze kullanımı hakkında öğrenci görüşleri. Uluslararası Sosyal ve Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 16, 174-194. https:/doi.org/10.20860/ijoses.1017419.
24. Demir-Kuzu, E. B., Çaka, C., Tuğtekin, U., Demir, K., İslamoğlu, H. ve Kuzu, A. (2016). Üç boyutlu yazdırma teknolojilerinin eğitim alanında kullanımı: Türkiye’deki uygulamalar. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 2(17), 481-503. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.280754
25. Dinç, E. ve Üztemur, S. (2017). Türkiye'de sosyal bilgiler ve tarih eğitiminde müzelerin ve tarihi mekânlardan yararlanmaya yönelik araştırmaların içerik analizi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 46(214), 61-84.
26. Eisenberg, M. (2013). 3D printing for children: What to build next? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.08.004
27. Eisenhart, M., & Howe, K. (1992). Validity in Educational Research. In M. LeCompte, L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. San Diego: Academic Press.
28. Ellis, P. (2016). Understanding research for nursing students. Learning Matters.
29. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic ınquiry: A guide to methods. Sage Publications.
30. Farnicka, M., & Serrano Diaz, N. (2019). 3D printing skills as a resource for the development of creativity in middle childhood. Rocznik Lubuski, 45(1), 133-134
31. Ford, S., & Minshall, T. (2019). Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education. Additive Manufacturing, 25, 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028
32. Gallup, N., & Pearce, J. M. (2020). The economics of classroom 3-D printing of open-source digital designs of learning aids. Designs, 4(4), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs4040050
33. Gershenfeld, N. (2008). Fab: The coming revolution on your desktop--from personal computers to personal fabrication. Hachette UK.
34. Gibbs, L., Kealy, M., Willis, K., Green, J., Welch, N., & Daly, J. (2007). What have sampling and data collection got to do with good qualitative research? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31(6), 540–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00140.x
35. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192
36. Grant, C. A., MacFadden, B. J., Antonenko, P., & Perez, V. J. (2016). 3-D fossıls for k–12 educatıon: a case example usıng the gıant extınct sharkcarcharocles megalodon. The Paleontological Society Papers, 22, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/scs.2017.15
37. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 9(1), 75-91.
38. Guo, N., & Leu, M. C. (2013). Additive manufacturing: Technology, applications and research needs. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 8(3), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-013-0248-8
39. Hicks, D., Lee, J., Berson, M., Bolick, C., & Diem, R. (2014). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 433–450.
40. Hsiao, H.-S., Chen, J.-C., Lin, C.-Y., Zhuo, P.-W., & Lin, K.-Y. (2018). Using 3D printing technology with experiential learning strategies to improve preengineering students’ comprehension of abstract scientific concepts and hands-on ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12319
41. Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (2013). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. John Wiley & Sons.
42. Houser. J. (2016). Nursing research: Reading, using and creating evidence. Jones & Bartlett Learning: United States of America.
43. Horowitz, S. S., & Schultz, P. H. (2014). Printing space: Using 3D printing of digital terrain models in geosciences education and research. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(1), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-031.1
44. Horvath, J. (2014). Mastering 3D printing. Berkeley, CA: Apress. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-0025-4
45. Jang, H. (2015). Identifying 21st century STEM competencies using workplace data. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-
46. Karaduman, H. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde 3 boyutlu yazıcıların kullanımı. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 7(3), 590-625. https://doi.org/ 00.00000/ajesi.000000.
47. Karakütük, K., Özbal, E. Ö. ve Ulutaş, P. (2019). Okul temelli (bazlı) bütçenin hazırlanmasına ilişkin okul yöneticilerinin görüşleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 48(1), 455-481.
48. Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2015). Open source 3D printing as a means of learning: An educational experiment in two high schools in Greece. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.05.001
49. Kroll, E., & Artzi, D. (2011). Enhancing aerospace engineering students’ learning with 3D printing wind‐tunnel models. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 17(5), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541111156522
50. Lacey, A., & Luff, D. (2001). Trent focus for research and development in primary health care: An introduction to qualitative analysis. Nottingham: Trent Focus.
51. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
52. Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4
53. Lim, K. H. A., Loo, Z. Y., Goldie, S. J., Adams, J. W., & McMenamin, P. G. (2015). Use of 3D printed models in medical education: A randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(3), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1573
54. López-Belmonte, J., Segura-Robles, A., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., & Parra-González, M.-E. (2021). Robotics in education: A scientific mapping of the literature in web of science. Electronics, 10(3), 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10030291
55. Loy, J. (2014). eLearning and eMaking: 3D Printing Blurring the Digital and the Physical. Education Sciences, 4(1), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4010108
56. Maloy, R., Trust, T., Kommers, S., Malinowski, A., & LaRoche, I. (2017). 3D modeling and printing in history/social studies classrooms: Initial lessons and insights. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 229-249.
57. Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 1(1), 107-116.
58. MEB (2018). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 4, 5, 6 ve 7. Sınıflar. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
59. Martin, R. L., Bowden, N. S., & Merrill, C. (2014). 3D Printing in technology and engineering education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(8). 30-35.
60. McGahern, P., Bosch, F., & Poli, D. (2015). Enhancing learning using 3D printing. The American Biology Teacher, 77(5), 376–377. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2015.77.5.9
61. Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. A., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The role of representational fluency in students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 141–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20004
62. Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2017). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091
63. Mutluoğlu, A., & Erdoğan, A. (2016). Examining primary mathematics teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) levels according to their preferred teaching styles. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 6(10).122-126.
64. Neumüller, M., Reichinger, A., Rist, F., & Kern, C. (2014). 3D printing for cultural heritage: Preservation, accessibility, research and education. In 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage (pp. 119–134). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44630-0_9
65. NCSS (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Erişim Tarihi: 18/04/2022 https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/2022/c3-framework-for-social-studies-rev0617.2.pdf.
66. Ng, O.-L. (2017). Exploring the use of 3D Computer-Aided Design and 3D Printing for STEAM Learning in Mathematics. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(3), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0036-x
67. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 160940691989922. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
68. Parra-Cabrera, C., Achille, C., Kuhn, S., & Ameloot, R. (2018). 3D printing in chemical engineering and catalytic technology: Structured catalysts, mixers and reactors. Chemical Society Reviews, 47(1), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7cs00631d
69. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
70. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2018). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
71. Peels, J. (2017). 3D printing in education: How can 3D printing help students? Erişim Tarihi: 15.04.2022, https://3dprint.com/165585/3d-printing-in-education.
72. Peker, N. (2020, 3-4 Kasım). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde sanal müze kullanımı ve sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının sanal müze kullanımına yönelik tutumları: Aksaray Müzesi örneği. V. Uluslararası Aksaray Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı içinde, (s. 20-31), Aksaray: Aksaray Üniversitesi.
73. Saldana, J. (2012). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage Publications.
74. Saorin, J. L., Carbonell-Carrera, C., Cantero, J. D. L. T., Meier, C. ve Alemán, D. D. (2017). Three-dimensional ınterpretation of sculptural heritage with digital and tangible 3d printed replicas. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 16(4), 161-169.
75. Suat Bal, M., & Karademir, N. (2013). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (tpab) konusunda öz-değerlendirme seviyelerinin belirlenmesi. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 34, 15–32. https://doi.org/10.9779/puje468
76. Scalfani, V. F., & Vaid, T. P. (2014). 3D printed molecules and extended solid models for teaching symmetry and point groups. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1174–1180. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400887t
77. Schelly, C., Anzalone, G., Wijnen, B., & Pearce, J. M. (2015). Open-source 3-D printing technologies for education: Bringing additive manufacturing to the classroom. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 28, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2015.01.004
78. Screpanti, L., Miotti, B., & Monteriù, A. (2021). Robotics in education: A smart and ınnovative approach to the challenges of the 21st century. In Makers at School, Educational Robotics and Innovative Learning Environments (pp. 17–26). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from: 10/04/2022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77040-2_
79. Speziale, H. S., Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic ımperative. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
80. Schaffhauser, D., & Nagel, D. (2016, September). Teaching with tech: A love (and hate) story. The Journal, 43(5), 6–15. Şahin, K. (2019, 19-22 Temmuz). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretiminde sanal müze kullanımına ilişkin öğrenci tutumlarının belirlenmesi [Tam Metin Bildiri]. International Congresses on Education içinde (s. 381-388), Sakarya Üniversitesi: Sakarya.
81. Taylor, M. C. (2005). Interviewing. In In Qualitative Research in Health Care. New York: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
82. Turner, D. (2014). Qualitative ınterview design: A practical guide for novice ınvestigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1178
83. Vaccarezza, M., & Papa, V. (2014). 3D printing: A valuable resource in human anatomy education. Anatomical Science International, 90(1), 64–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-014-0257-7
84. Van Epps, A., Huston, D., Sherrill, J., Alvar, A., & Bowen, A. (2015). How 3D printers support teaching in engineering, technology and beyond. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 42, 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/bul2.2015.1720420107.
85. Yarar, G. (2018). İngilizce öğretim elemanlarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi: Ankara ili̇ örneği̇. Journal of International Social Research, 11(57), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2018.2464
86. Yılmaz, M. ve Algil, M. (2018). Matematik öğretim materyallerinin 3D yazıcılarla üretimi ve eğitimciye sağladığı katkılar. Journal of Awareness, 3(4), 41-52.
87. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
88. Yoshioka, R., Mirenkov, N., Sekine, H., & Noda, K. (2015). 3D Kanji: A new paradigm of 3D objects to exploit additional dimensions of human sense for enhancing expression. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 28, 250–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2015.02.003
89. Zhu, A., Shen, H., Shen, Z., Tu, Y., & Song, J. (2019). A novel engineering education ınnovation pattern with design ıdeas and robot maker practice. MATEC Web of Conferences, 301, 00009. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201930100009
90. Waseem, K., Kazmi, H. A., & Quresh, O. H. (2017). Innovation in education-Inclusion of 3D-printing technology in modern education system of Pakistan: Case from Pakistani educational ınstitutes. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 22-28.