Nichols, K., Burgh, G., \u0026 Fynes-Clinton, L. (2017). Reconstruction of thinking across the curriculum through the community of inquiry. In M.R. Gregory, J. Haynes \u0026 K. Murris

$Page 1: Nichols, K., Burgh, G., \u0026 Fynes-Clinton, L. (2017). Reconstruction of thinking across the curriculum through the community of inquiry. In M.R. Gregory, J. Haynes \u0026 K. Murris$
245

28RECONSTRUCTION

OF THINKING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM THROUGH THE

COMMUNITY OF INQUIRYKim Nichols, Gilbert Burgh and Liz Fynes-Clinton

Thinking skills pedagogies, like those employed in a community of philosophical inquiry (COI), provide a powerful teaching method that fosters reconstruction of experience (Dewey, 1938), and its collaborative, dialogic approach enables students to think deeply about the thinking process within a supportive, structured learning environment, by fostering the trans-formative potential of lived experience. Our proposition here is that COI-based approaches transform thinking in both teachers and students that allows them to successfully engage in, and integrate, inquiry-based interactions and thinking behaviours across the curriculum.

Based on a systematic review of 13 empirical studies of thinking skills interventions across primary and secondary classrooms, Baumfield (2006) presents the notion that thinking skills approaches, like those utilised in a COI, are powerful pedagogical strategies because they provide access to students’ thinking and they stimulate teacher inquiry. Baumfield’s review revealed that the importance of fostering teacher inquiry skills is that the teacher models and promotes inquiry behaviours in students. Teachers have a greater tendency to pose higher order questions when they use a thinking skills approach which models higher order ques-tioning behaviours for students. The supposition is that this facilitates student higher order questioning. These changes in classroom dialogue are critical to inquiry-based learning and deeper, greater metacognitive abilities.

When teachers engage in teaching thinking skills they commonly find a change in stu-dents’ enthusiasm to learn and are surprised by this shift in engagement. Baumfield describes this as a cognitive dissonance experienced by teachers that arises from being surprised by the new and unexpected abilities that students are demonstrating. A study by Scholl, Nichols and Burgh (2014) with 59 primary school teachers (teaching years or grades one to six), with a broad range of teaching experience (one to 20 years), from five socio-demographically similar metropolitan schools in Brisbane, Australia, showed that the COI intervention group (n = 32 teachers) demonstrated this dissonance and the comparison group trained with think-ing tools (n = 27 teachers) did not. Teachers were astounded by students’ responses in the classroom: ‘Some of the things they come out with, just actually blow me away because it’s that deeper thinking that they can do, that you don’t always appreciate with small chil-dren that they have it in there (Scholl, Nichols & Burgh, 2014: 265). This dissonance is an

Rollins, Gregory, Maughn, Joanna Haynes, and Karin Murris. The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophy for Children, edited by Gregory, Maughn Rollins, et al., Taylor and Francis, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uql/detail.action?docID=4756240.Created from uql on 2017-05-25 01:38:06.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. T

aylo

r an

d F

ranc

is. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Kim Nichols, Gilbert Burgh and Liz Fynes-Clinton

246

important instigator for shifting pedagogy toward genuine inquiry; one that supports higher intellectual quality in the classroom through higher order questioning, substantive conver-sation and problematising knowledge, which in turn transforms interactions that promote students’ higher order thinking (Scholl, Nichols & Burgh, 2014). Classroom interactions in the COI and comparison groups were coded with a productive pedagogies framework around intellectual quality (Lingard et al., 2001). At three months post intervention, teachers in the COI intervention group demonstrated statistically significantly higher intellectual qual-ity in their classrooms compared to the teachers in the comparison group (large effect sizes = 0.41 to 0.87 on different quality dimensions; substantive conversation – 0.41; deep understanding – 0.61; problematising knowledge – 0.87). Teachers’ reflections on their teach-ing, as a result of implementing COI in their classroom, confirmed the quantitative findings. One year six teacher commented that the COI:

made me question and think about the way that I look at issues within the classroom and how valuable the contributions that the children have, not that I didn’t think that they were valuable, but giving them an opportunity to really talk about the big issues in life and it’s made me really think about the questioning techniques that I use.

(Scholl, Nichols & Burgh, 2014: 267)

Another interesting aspect of this shift in classroom behaviours and dialogue is the cognitive dissonance experienced by the students: a necessary condition for the development of students’ questioning and other inquiry skills. Baumfield argues that the development of teacher inquiry strategies elicits responses from students and these responses provide the catalyst for change in student behaviours. The Scholl, Nichols and Burgh (2014) study showed that teachers recog-nise the benefits of a COI on the development of students’ inquiry skills and see COI as ‘a tool or instrument to get the children to think more deeply about everything not just a discussion about a story but [to] get them to be inquiring in science’ (year or grade 2 teacher, cited in Scholl, Nichols & Burgh, 2014: 265). This chapter explores the potential for dissonance during students’ experiences of inquiry to be transformed into impetus for the acquisition and improve-ment of social and intellectual inquiry capabilities and thinking behaviours.

We use two studies (see Nichols, Burgh & Kennedy, 2015; Fynes-Clinton, 2015), con-ducted by our research group at The University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, as contexts for reflection on the kinds of student transformations to which Baumfield (2006) refers. We start with a description of the research findings from these studies and then turn to philosophical reflection on those findings, focusing on the notion of reconstruction prevalent in Dewey’s educational theory and which underpins the conception of COI as pedagogy.

The first study (Nichols, Burgh & Kennedy, 2015) sought to explore the impact of pro-viding teachers with an inquiry-based science curriculum and embedded inquiry pedagogical intervention (COI) in comparison to the same inquiry science curriculum and embedded non-inquiry pedagogical intervention (collaborative strategic reading) on student question-ing and other inquiry skills. The study involved 227 students from 18 teachers’ classrooms in nine socio-demographically similar primary schools across the city of Brisbane, Australia. The teachers were randomly allocated by school to one of the two conditions. The comparison condition received training in four inquiry-based science units and in collaborative strategic reading. The experimental group, COI condition, received training in facilitating a COI in addition to training in the same inquiry-based science units.

The researchers followed the students across the teaching of four science topics (Living and Non-living Things, Cells, Forces, and Genetically Modified Crops) over years (grades)


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. T

aylo

r an

d F

ranc

is. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Reconstructing thinking in the curriculum

247

six and seven. Students’ discourse during small group activities was recorded and then coded for question types (procedural and substantive; Splitter & Sharp, 1995), questioning levels (recall, analytic and evaluative; Gall, 1970) and other inquiry skills (developing ideas, exploring alternatives, exploring key concepts, testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions; Cam, 2006).

This study provided two clear results. First, that learning through a COI approach to sci-ence inquiry improved students’ substantive and procedural higher order questioning as well as other inquiry behaviours and supported students to transfer and apply these skills across contexts (multiple science topics). The results showed that the students in the COI condition maintained these behaviours and demonstrated significant improvements throughout the two years of the study. The inference drawn is that implementing a COI within inquiry science develops students’ questioning and other inquiry behaviours that support student engagement with science and society into the future. It allows teachers to foster in their students the inquiry skills required by the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2014). Second, the study showed that, no matter the quality of a science inquiry unit, providing only inquiry-based curriculum resources to teachers is not sufficient in supporting teachers to promote the questioning and other inquiry skills predicated by the Australian Curriculum. Teachers require quality pedagogical interventions that enable them to think about and inquire into the topics they are teaching.

The findings of this study showed that embedding primary school teacher professional development in COI as inquiry pedagogy, when compared to collaborative strategic reading as non-inquiry pedagogy, into a science inquiry curriculum results in a significant shift in pri-mary school students’ higher order questioning (large effect size – 0.76) and other inquiry skills

Table 28.1 Examples of student (i.e. S1, S2, S3) inquiry skills from coded discourse (from Nichols, Burgh & Kennedy, 2015)

Inquiry skill Examples from student discourse

Developing ideas

S1: With social, will they turn the job market upside down in making GM food?S2: Is it possible that GM may be our future?S3: Is it possible that GM is our next future food? What about economic?S2: Is it benefitting us or only the farmers?S3: The government and farmers.

Exploring alternatives

S1: What if you’re allergic to bananas?S2: Then they’ll make bananas that are allergy free.

Exploring key concepts

S1: So, is it [GM] beneficial to us? Are the farmers the only ones that are benefitting from the economic – from money?

S2: For the environment – cross-pollination. What happens when there’s cross-pollination?

S1: The plant that is cross-pollinated to . . . S2: It changes its DNA and then that becomes GM.

Testing hypotheses

S1: But it doesn’t break . . . (Pause) Does the car have cells?S2: How do we know that? You can’t stick a needle into it. Otherwise the needle

would break. And it has cells, gas cells, molecules.S1: That’s from petrol.

Drawing conclusions

S1: But what happens when they [cars] crash? If it can break, what does that mean?S2: If it breaks and it doesn’t work again, that would tell that it isn’t living.S1: That is true.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. T

aylo

r an

d F

ranc

is. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


248

(large effect size – 0.51). The study also showed there was a statistically significant improve-ment across the two years of the study, from the first year to the second year, in student higher order questioning in procedural categories (e.g. ‘Are we going to explain safety features of the bike with Newton’s laws?’), and in substantive categories (e.g. ‘What if the cell wall is like a fence and the cell membrane is the big entry and exit?’) (large effect size – 0.79), as well as other inquiry skills (large effect size – 0.67; see Table 28.1 for examples). These effect sizes are consistent with a meta-analysis of 29 empirical studies (Higgins et al., 2005) on the impact of using thinking skills interventions on primary and secondary school students’ attainment in science, mathematics and literacy. The overall mean effect size for the impact of think-ing skills interventions on students’ reasoning skills in these learning areas was 0.58. These data, and the statistically significant changes in inquiry skills across the Nichols, Burgh and Kennedy (2015) longitudinal study, favour the notion that ‘cultivating the disposition of criti-cal thinking is necessary before implanting the skills’ (Facione et al., 1995: 9). The research discussed here suggests that engaging in COI simultaneously and systematically involves teach-ers and their students in deep transformational learning and provides evidence for the process of reconstruction. In other words, COI nurtures students’ disposition toward critical thinking as demonstrated by a shift in inquiry skills and competencies.

The findings of this study imply that infusion of COI pedagogy into scientific inquiry learning has the potential to invoke in students a state of cognitive dissonance (Facione et al., 1995; Harmon-Jones & Judson, 1999), where they are put into a situation of conflict-ing beliefs, attitudes, behaviours or knowledge. The dissonance is a state of discomfort that comes from a discrepancy between a students’ prior knowledge and understanding and new information or interpretation. This state of discomfort can motivate students to try to reduce the dissonance by changing their behaviour, justifying the inconsistency or ignoring the con-flict. Thinking skills pedagogies, like a COI, nudge students into and out of this dissonance or conflict and help them resolve or adjust through a change in their thinking and behav-iours. Peirce (1887) first identified this state of discomfort as genuine doubt in one’s own and others’ beliefs, knowledge and interpretations that induces students into behaviours that support resolution if they are exposed to problem-solving experiences as in a COI (Burgh & Thornton, 2016). This process toward critical thinking involves a mediation phase or time for the brain to seek solutions, without which the learner will regress to a state of acquiescence. Critical thinking is both a process and an outcome. As an outcome it involves deep concep-tual understanding as well as content-specific critical inquiry abilities, skills and dispositions (Gabbard & McBride, 2001).

Inquiry-based skills that are at the heart of critical thinking, such as questioning, develop-ing ideas, exploring alternatives, testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions, are developed through self-correction and what Facione et al. (1995) refer to as consistent internal motivation to resolve internal conflict, engage with problems and make decisions, by adjusting thinking and behaviours. Thinking skills pedagogies, like those employed in a COI, nurture those habits of mind and provide opportunities to use thinking to resolve problems. Dewey (1922) pro-posed that students acquire these habits of mind from interactions with our habitat, especially the socio-linguistic habitat. He argued that the mind identifies with acts and deeds through participation in socio-linguistic practices and institutions of a community to develop habits, hence habits of mind.

As an example, in the second study (Fynes-Clinton, 2015) students were asked to think about their experiences in class and also their participation in community of philosophical inquiry lessons over a number of years, specifically in relation to changes that had taken place


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. T

aylo

r an

d F

ranc

is. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


249

for them as a result of this participation. The responses below provide examples of students’ metacognitive understanding of the changes that had taken place for them as active participants in a reconstructive process. Thinking and learning attributes such as risk-taking, focus, explora-tion of new ideas, collaboration and consideration of the perspectives of others were identified by the students.

S1: Ah, I think like it’s unlocked like, you know, the other things of life that no one usually concentrates, no one usually thinks about, for me like it’s made me think about stuff that I usually just don’t – like it makes me explore unknown regions.

Here the student is acknowledging that as a result of experiencing philosophical inquiry lessons a shift has occurred to cause a reconstruction of his thinking to those things he wouldn’t have thought about before and to step out into exploration or inquiry of the unknown.

S2: I reckon like, before I had this, people used to see me as a straight thinker – like a straight line – but since I’m, since I went into philosophy it made me, it’s made me bend that line to make um – and people have now been seeing me as a better thinker.

This student has recognised that others have noted a change in his thinking to be more complex and higher order in nature.

S3: Um, I thought that philosophy did sort of built myself today – sort of like that because I’m – I usually think philosophically – like I don’t think from my own per-spective and I also – with philosophy I like to um think of reasoning – a lot more. Like when I was younger and I didn’t do philosophy I think I was much more sorta in my own negative, fixed mind set as you could say – but after I sorta started getting into philosophy I realised that there’s a lot of things that you can do and you can discuss, and life’s better when you discuss things and you talk about things rather than [just] having your own opinion and not having other people’s sort of feedback and not hav-ing a discussion about things.

The kind of thinking demonstrated by this and the other students is illustrative of deep reflec-tive thinking, which is an active engagement in learning that emerges from a balanced, dynamic interplay among four key elements: (1) immersion in the practice of COI and its emphasis on philosophy; (2) the development of a repertoire of intellectual inquiry skills and processes; and (3) explicit attention to metacognitive practice; leading to (4) reconstruction of thinking and transformation of self (see Figure 28.1).

A key focus of this second study was on the reconstruction of thinking through engagement in a COI. It is noteworthy how students’ discourse often demonstrates moments of hesitation where doubt may be cultivated through a COI. In the process of engaging in a COI, and paying attention to both its procedural and substantive dimensions, students draw on all three fundamental but overlapping foundations of philosophy that characterise and unify the disci-pline: ontology, epistemology and value theory. Through the acquisition of habits of thinking, being and acting (reflecting and acting on values and beliefs), students are able to engage in the practical reconstructive process as active learners.

The reconstruction of thinking is the result of the reconstruction of social and personal habits; a transformative process brought about through the relationship of habits and habitat


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. T

aylo

r an

d F

ranc

is. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


250

(the interaction between the self, community and the environment in which these inter-actions take place) in an ongoing process of reconstructing experience through communal inquiry. Dewey explains this as ‘habits formed that are more intelligent, more sensitively per-cipient, more informed with foresight, more aware of what they are about, more direct and sincere, more flexibly responsive than those now current’ (Dewey, 1922: 90). Communal inquiry begins with experiencing doubt or felt discomfort and moves towards creating a ‘uni-fied whole’ (Dewey, 1938: 108). Students learn by starting with a genuine problem and then engaging in inquiry until this problem is resolved. To Dewey, this is the key to developing the inquiry behaviours demonstrated in our first study.

Dewey’s ideas can be traced back to Peirce (1887), who referred to inquiry as the space between genuine doubt (a state of disequilibrium) and a fixed belief (a state of equilibrium). Subsequently, he proposed the notion of a community of inquirers as a regulative ideal to facilitate the tension between these two contradictory felt experiences. It was a reaction to the Cartesian view of knowledge from the certitude of introspection and led him to the conclu-sion that thinking must be subject to a rigorous inquiry to correct and revise theories. To this end, he made the distinction between genuine doubt and paper doubt, which lacks the ‘heavy and noble metal’ of genuine doubt. He coined the term in rejection of absolute scepticism as a construct grounded in the theoretical rather than in practice.

Paper-doubt or the pretence of doubt is merely self-deception, typically illustrated by Descartes’ cogito. If doubt is to be genuine, ‘it must actually interfere with my firmly fixed belief-habit and accompanying habitual action, causing me to hesitate and put my beliefs to the test in the form of inquiry’ (Burgh & Thornton, 2015: 9). As such, genuine doubt acts as a gadfly, a persistent irritant that challenges our view of reality and established beliefs. In other words, Peirce perceived genuine doubt to occur when an action or actual experience brings about a feeling of disequilibrium resulting in one’s need to revise an existing belief; an irritat-ing quality with an inherent capacity to motivate us to substitute doubt with the satisfaction of belief.

The irritation of doubt is the only immediate motive for the struggle to attain belief. It is certainly best for us that our beliefs should be such as may truly guide our actions so

Figure 28.1 Reconstruction of thinking and self.

CPI — Immersion in Philosophising

Repertoire of Intellectual Skills and Processes

Metacognitive Practice

Reconstruction of Thinking and Self


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. T

aylo

r an

d F

ranc

is. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


251

as to satisfy our desires; and this reflection will make us reject any belief which does not seem to have been so formed as to insure this result. But it will only do so by creating a doubt in the place of that belief. With the doubt, therefore, the struggle begins, and with the cessation of doubt it ends. Hence, the sole object of inquiry is the settlement of opinion.

(Peirce, 1887: 6)

In other words, the presence of genuine doubt is a feeling of unease or irritation that arises from ‘the dissatisfaction of contradictory experiential episodes that throw into disarray habitual beliefs which result in habitual actions being disrupted’ (Burgh & Thornton, 2015: 9). It is this need that elicits an inquiry based on the epistemic position of fallibilism.

Peirce also saw genuine doubt ‘as a prime mover for wonder which is the beginning of inquiry aimed at reconstruction of beliefs and habits’ (Burgh & Thornton, 2015: 3). For Peirce (1931) ‘the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge that you do not satisfac-torily know already; so that no blight can surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksuredness’ (Pierce, 1931: Section 1.13). Moreover, in his First Rule of Logic, Peirce stated that ‘in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think’ (Peirce, 1899/1998: 48). If inquiry begins in won-der then the first rule is to wonder; or as Peirce put it: ‘Do not block the way of inquiry’ (Peirce, 1899/1998: 48).

A COI can cultivate dispositions of genuine doubt that lead to epistemological fallibilism: acknowledgment that knowledge claims are invariably vulnerable, and therefore, that we have no assurances that all knowledge derived from philosophical inquiry are definitely true, and indeed, could turn out to be false. This, in turn, facilitates the educative process of ongoing reconstruction of experience in response to deep metacognitive evaluation of the thinking and learning process. Deep reflective thinking emerges through the complex, sustained inter-relationship of these elements (see Figure 28.1). We propose that deep reflective thinking is a necessary predisposition for the development of questioning and other genuine inquiry behaviours.

Our studies conducted at the University of Queensland suggest that if students are to develop inquiry behaviours, pose substantive questions and construct a world view of science and other subject areas they need to be able to synthesise the tools and processes of critical, cre-ative and caring thinking, and understand how the appropriation of these tools and processes facilitate a more comprehensive reconstruction of experience. In order to provide students with these opportunities teachers need to provide environments where students engage in genuine inquiry.

Philosophical inquiry empowers students to engage in active, persistent and careful consid-eration of fixed beliefs and the grounds that support those beliefs. It does this by cultivating genuine doubt, which provides the impetus for inquiry. In this process, students work collabo-ratively to construct deep reflective behaviours through consideration of their thinking habits and the ontological claims they make about the world. They uncover the fallibility of their own beliefs through sustained attention to thinking, reasoning, questioning and other inquiry behaviours, and develop these genuine habits of philosophical and intellectual collaboration. The application of reconstructed thinking habits or behaviours within new problematic situa-tions facilitates further re-evaluation of existing beliefs and reasoned self-correction within and beyond the COI context.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. T

aylo

r an

d F

ranc

is. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


252

ReferencesAustralian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2014). The Australian Curriculum: Science.

[Online]. Available at http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/curriculum/f-10?layout=1 (Accessed 6 June 2014).

Baumfield, V. (2006). Tools for pedagogical inquiry: the impact of teaching thinking skills on teachers. Oxford Review of Education 32(2): 185–196.

Burgh, G. & Thornton, S. (2015). Inoculation against wonder: finding an antidote in Camus, pragmatism and the community of inquiry. Educational Philosophy and Theory 48(9), 884–898.

Burgh, G. & Thornton, S. (2016). Lucid education: resisting resistance to inquiry. Oxford Review of Education 42(2), 165–177.

Cam, P. (2006). Twenty thinking tools: collaborative inquiry for the classroom. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. New York: Simon and Schuster.Facione, P.A., Sanchez, C.A., Facione, N.C. & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking.

Journal of General Education 44(1): 1–25.Fynes-Clinton, L. (2015). Genuine doubt, fallibilism and collaborative philosophical inquiry. Presentation to The

International Council of Philosophical Inquiry with Children, 25 June.Gabbard, C. & McBride, R. (1990). Critical thinking in the psychomotor domain. International Journal for

Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 26(2): 24–27.Gall, M.D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research 40(5): 707–721.Harmon-Jones, E. & Judson, M. (1999). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview

of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones & M. Judson (Eds) Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Science conference series (pp. 3–21). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Higgins, S., Hall, E., Baumfield, V. & Moseley, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of the impact of the implemen-tation of thinking skills approaches on pupils. [Online]. Available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=339 (Accessed 7 April 2015).

Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Chant, D., Warry, M., Ailwood, J., Capeness, R., Christie, P., Gore, J., Hayes, D. & Luke, A. (2001). Queensland school reform longitudinal study. Final report. Vols 1 & 2. Brisbane: Department of Education.

Nichols, K., Burgh, G. & Kennedy, C. (2015). Comparing two inquiry professional development inter-ventions in science on primary students’ questioning and other inquiry behaviours. Research in Science Education, 1–24. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-015-9487-5.

Peirce, C.S. (1887). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly 12: 1–15.Peirce, C.S. (1899/1998). First rule of logic. In The Peirce Edition Project (Ed.) The Essential Peirce:

Selected Philosophical Writings (Vol. 2, pp. 42–56). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Peirce, C.S. (1931). Principles of philosophy. In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds) Collected papers of Charles

Sanders Peirce, 1931–1958. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Scholl, R., Nichols, K. & Burgh, G. (2014). Transforming pedagogy through philosophical inquiry.

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 9(3): 253–272.Splitter, L. & Sharp, A.M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: the classroom community of inquiry. Melbourne:

Australian Council for Educational Research.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. T

aylo

r an

d F

ranc

is. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Documents

Nichols, K., Burgh, G., \u0026 Fynes-Clinton, L. (2017). Reconstruction of thinking across the curriculum through the community of inquiry. In M.R. Gregory, J. Haynes \u0026 K. Murris