Understanding History TeachingKlein, S.R.E.

CitationKlein, S. R. E. (2005). Understanding History Teaching. Retrievedfrom https://hdl.handle.net/1887/11195 Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown)License: Leiden University Non-exclusive licenseDownloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/11195 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version(if applicable).

ELSEVIER Teaching and Teacher Education 2\ (2005) 60] 606

Essay Review

TEACHINGAND TEACHER

EDUCATION

ww\v.elsevier.com locale tale

Understanding history teachingChris Husbands. Alison Kitson, Anna Pendry,

Understanding History Teaching. Teaching andLearning about the Past in Secondary Schools,Maidenhead and Philadelphia, Open UniversityPress. 2003 173p.

knowledge and collective memory such as mu-seums, memorials, and monuments. This is thecomplexity of "the past" as it presents itself tocitizens in western societies today. How doteachers approach this state of affairs whenteaching history at secondary school?

1. Introduction

Teaching history may well be one of thetoughest professions in the game. History is thesubject thai deals with change over time. Academichistorians who research the past, investigatemoments or periods in time that are lost forever,describe people whom they never met, and recoverinformation from sources one would not imagineworth studying. In a process that may take years, aprofessional historian reconstructs the past in away that perhaps makes sense to many people, butthe interpretation is always the product of his orher mind. There are many sorts of "historians".Some are more and some are less faithful to thecurrent methods and values of the profession.Some reconstruct the past for scientific purposes,others out of political interests, and still othersmerely to entertain an audience. Many of theserepresentations of the past coexist and—if onehappens to be living in a liberal democraticsociety—are allowed to coexist and to be debated.This exchange of theoretical and concrete notionsof the past shows great variety in scope andcontent. Historical visions of the past reflect long-term changes or sudden upheavals, and aremediated through academic writings or shockingaudiovisual images, through indifferent commentor passionate appeal. Cinema. TV. and theInternet compete with older mediators of historical

doi:10.10l6/j.tale.2005.03.009

2. History teaching in England

This question is raised in Understanding HistoryTeaching by Chris Husbands, Alison Kitson, andAnna Pendry. In the first part of this book, theauthors provide an overview of the development ofhistory as a school subject and its underlyingassumptions in England during the last 30 yr.These assumptions pertain to both content andpedagogy The authors distinguish two competingtraditions in the teaching of history and point tothe shift in emphasis from one to the other. Unt i lthe 1970s, the so-called "great tradition" wasdominant. In terms of content, school history wasmainly concerned with British political and im-perial history, aiming to imbue pupils with ashared heritage or collective memory. In terms ofpedagogy, history lessons were one-way processes,with teachers as active transmitters of historicalknowledge and pupils in the role of passiverecipients. The other—more recent—tradition isknown as "critical history" and involves adifferent pedagogical approach and a differentpurpose of history as a school subject. Here,we see pupils in the role of active constructors ofhistorical knowledge, through a combination ofteacher instruction and various ways of workingin the classroom. Historical knowledge is notsimply passed on through memorization, butactively developed by pupils themselves throughresearching primary sources and questioning

602 Essay Review / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 12005) 601-606

interpretations made by others. History teachingin the critical tradition aims at contributing topupils' historical identity and to their sense ofhistory as an interpretative discipline.

3. Research method

The first National History Curriculum, pub-lished in 1990, showed the clash between thetraditions on a macro level. The authors char-acterize this Curriculum as "a policy compromisewhich appeared to hold the two traditions increative tension" (p. 13). What actually went on inthe classroom after its publication and subsequentrevisions remains unclear. What choices didteachers from various backgrounds make andhow did these choices affect their pupils' learningof history? In Understanding History Teaching, theauthors aimed to uncover the knowledge basefrom which history teachers work today. By using"teacher knowledge" as a concept that encom-passes "knowledge", "beliefs" and "intuitions"(Verloop, Van Dnel, & Meijer, 2001), the authorsfocused on the mindset of the teacher and itsrelation to classroom practice and pedagogicalbehavior. Part of teacher knowledge is the conceptof pedagogical content knowledge, developed byShulman (Shulman, 1986), but the authors ex-plicitly abstained from using PCK because thisconcept often results in "deficit models of teachers'expertise" (p. 69).

The research that this book is based on, tookplace in eight secondary schools, which wereselected on the basis of variables of intake, agerange, and location. Within these schools, thehistory departments differed in composition,stability, and development. Although the researchwas varied in scope, the authors do not pretend tohave selected a representative sample of schools.Furthermore, it is unclear on what criteria theteachers were selected. They differed in experience,but all were already familiar to the researchersbefore actual data collection took place. Themethods used by the researchers were non-participant observation of one full day of lessonsof one of the teachers in every school, followed upby two semi-structured interviews. The first inter-

view took place soon after the observation andfocused on the aims and objectives of the lesson;the second was conducted some days later anddealt with several topics such as the nature ofhistory as a school subject and present and futuregoals. Departmental handbooks and other sourcesof information about the department and theschool were also consulted. The authors makeclear that their main concern during the collectionof data was to maintain an open and constructiveapproach. An account of their methods of analyz-ing the data can be found in an appendix.

4. Teacher knowledge of the history teacher

What can we learn from this book about whathistory teachers do, what they know, and how theyuse their knowledge in a classroom context? Theseare the central questions in the second part of thebook. Although they use the concept of teacherknowledge in a broad sense, the authors did notwork with the subtle distinctions other researchershave made in this field. Working inductively, theauthors constructed a simple model in which theshared components of teacher knowledge of thehistory teacher were categorized. They discerned:

1. knowledge of subject2. knowledge of pupils3. knowledge of resources and activities

Before we discuss these categories, a shortremark should be made. As the history teacher isnon-existent, the authors start the second part ofthe book by describing three individual teachersand their classroom practices. The contexts inwhich their lessons take place are different as arethe major goals of their lessons. One teacherconcentrates on the affective dimension of teach-ing in a school with low average results, anotheron getting the content across in a class preparingfor examination, while the third teacher focuses ondeveloping historical understanding in a class withpupils performing above average. From thesedescriptions and the generalizations that follow.it seems that, for the authors, the key to under-standing history teaching is understanding expert-

Essay Review j Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 601-606 603

enced history teachers. The authors make clearthat the knowledge of the experienced historyteacher differs in some fundamental ways from theknowledge of the novice teacher. It is unclear,however, whether experience, according to theauthors, is simply the result of time invested inaccumulating PCK and other aspects of "teacherknowledge", and therefore, attainable for many,or professional development based upon specificpersonal character traits and, therefore, attainableonly for a few. In other words, is there a differencebetween the experienced and the expert (Bereiter &Scardamalia, 1993; Torff, 2003)? It is the authors'contention that, the more experienced historyteachers are, the more their personal base ofteacher knowledge contains the following twocompartments.

First, the teacher knowledge of the historyteachers observed consisted of elements of ageneral pedagogical nature in combination withcontent knowledge. Although no specific questionswere asked, subject content proved for all teachersto be a major factor in preparing and givinglessons aimed at developing historical understand-ing. Most of the teachers observed were able toquestion pupils more closely and react to theiranswers more effectively because of their detailedcontent knowledge. Also, most teachers observedsucceeded in relating their planned learningactivities to a level that fitted intellectually andsocially with the pupils in the classroom. Espe-cially the experienced teachers drew on a broadreservoir of possible activities and sources in orderto engage their pupils in a learning process aimedat incremental learning. Because of their broadcontent knowledge, their general knowledge aboutpupils' learning, and their tested repertoire ofteaching activities, these teachers succeeded manytimes in motivating pupils to work actively ontheir ability to understand the past.

Second, the authors concluded that there isanother compartment of teacher knowledge that—related to the one mentioned above—forms theheart of history teaching today. Most teachers heldexplicit beliefs about the nature of history as aninterpretative discipline. They were aware of thestatus of the discipline in the postmodern era andof the procedural concepts of the critical tradition.

These concepts include evidence, causation, sig-nificance, change, and empathy. In their teaching,all experienced teachers worked upon these centralconcepts and tried to develop historical under-standing of a critical nature in their pupils.Sometimes, pupils were encouraged to questionwhether historical information was reliable or notafter considering the sources that provided it.Other activities were aimed at reconstructing ahistorical moment in time, in order to understandbetter what options people in the past believedthey had and how this affected their behavior.Experienced teachers were more aware of thenature of their profession and more accurate inthinking through its consequences for classroompractice, as was demonstrated by their choices ofgoals, activities and tests. In the words of theauthors, "a broad conception of what history isseemed to underpin a more detailed understandingof both substance and procedures of history, bothpart of a unified whole" and "these conceptionsand understandings were intimately linked to whatthey actually did with their pupils in the class-room" (p.72). The authors subscribe to the viewsof Cooper and Mclntyre (1996), who haveemphasized the complexity of the diverse types ofknowledge with which expert teachers operate.

The authors do not claim to be sophisticated intheir reconstruction of teacher knowledge andadmit that many more characteristics could befound. Nevertheless, they mention specifically onearea of teacher knowledge of the history teacherthat they were unable to untwine sufficiently; onethat seems crucial for the development of historicalunderstanding by pupils. Although almost allteachers held theoretical notions of learning bychildren in secondary schools, none of them statedexplicitly how exactly pupils arrive at the knowl-edge and notions of the past that they hold at acertain age. This may be caused—we learn—byinefficient research methods or by the fact that thistype of knowledge is closely linked to theoreticalnotions of learning and to subject knowledge. Thistype of knowledge is, therefore, seldom articulatedseparately and the authors emphasize the need fordiscussing it more frequently in history depart-ments. The problem here is that the developmentof historical knowledge by children is not limited

Essay Review / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 120051 601-606

to classroom activities. In societies where pupilsare overloaded with historical notions and narra-tives from everywhere in the globalizing world, it ishard to determine how they developed the beliefsabout the past they currently hold. Teacherssometimes use a great variety of activities in theclassroom without knowing exactly how theseactivities work upon pupils' existing frameworksof incomplete knowledge and understanding ofhistory. Discussing the issue might help, but it willnot change the fact that pupils encounter mosthistorical impressions outside the influence ofprofessional teachers and their critical methods(Wineburg. 2000). I will address this in more detailbelow.

with the holocaust. But in many areas, teachers inthe critical tradition treat morality as somethingthat is tied to context and personal values ratherthan something that is unquestionable. The overallaim for history teachers in England today is, helppupils to develop into critical citizens; all un-certainty lies in the nature of the society in whichthese citizens will have to participate and incomplex ways historical representations aremediated today. This last aspect is not coveredby the book, but it needs to be mentioned, whereunderstanding of history teaching is concerned.After all. pupils of today were born in what somecall "the media age" and the book invites us tothink further about our discipline.

5. History teachers in the critical tradition

In the third part of Understanding HistoryTeaching, the authors demonstrate that imple-menting a national curriculum from the perspec-tive of teacher knowledge is a highly complexprocess, influenced by several internal and externalfactors. The teachers who were questioned on theirdecisions and outcomes concerning curriculumimplementation showed high awareness of thiscomplexity and were able to build up logicallyconsistent sequences of lessons. It is their profes-sionalism, according to the authors, that trans-forms a "standardized and theoretical curriculum"into a "local and actual curriculum" that fits into aparticular learning context (p. 109). The so-calledcritical tradition has gained ground as mosthistory teachers stressed the importance of contentand skills to be developed without sensing acontradiction. That content still matters to theseteachers is obvious from what they said, but it isfar less clear to them which areas of content are tobe regarded as obligatory. Simply there is lessconsensus on what to teach. Teaching nationalhistories and cultural heritage—a major aim in the"great tradition"—has become a more uncertainway of dealing with identity. Some feel the moraldimension of history teaching more strongly thanothers, but all agree that no history teaching cando without moral judgement. In some cases, themoral position is obvious, for example, in dealing

6. Understanding history teaching in the media age

In the introduction, I referred to the complexityof the exchange of historical representations inwestern societies today. From UnderstandingHistory Teaching, we learn that, in England,experienced history teachers increasingly teachtheir pupils to develop historical knowledge in acritical way. Instead of memorizing facts andfigures, pupils actively construct knowledgethrough learning activities that invite them to usehistorical concepts which derive from the profes-sional discipline. An important question is. how-ever, whether these concepts can be applied byteachers (and their pupils) to those sources ofhistorical knowledge that seem most influentialtoday. Although the authors claim that theirteachers had a deep and sophisticated knowledgeof content, sources, and activities, they do notspecifically distinguish between written and audio-visual sources or moving images. It may be truethat history teachers use documentary and film intheir lessons in a critical way, i.e., by askingquestions that stimulate viewing moving images asrepresentations rather than as manifestations ofhistorical reality, but we know little about whatteachers know in this area; how they operate in theclassroom, and what effect their teaching has. Asacademics, history teachers are usually very welltrained in analyzing written texts, less well trainedin analyzing pictures and paintings, and hardly or

Essay Aérien- / Teachinq and Teacher Education 21 12005) 601-606 605

not at all trained in analyzing moving images.There is ample reason, however, to take thedifference between the written and the unwrittenvery seriously. From American research, we knowthat citizens derive their historical consciousness—to use this more general term—to a large extentfrom audiovisual materials, in particular thosebroadcast on television (Wineburg. 2001). Theseinclude such "suspect" sources as biographies,documentaries, and historical film, whether dra-ma, action, romance, or even satire. Why "sus-pect"? Researchers of history teaching are dividedon many things, but certainly on the issue of howto define historical understanding (Wilson &Suzan. 2001). And audiovisual sources promptfundamental questions about the nature of histor-ical knowledge and thus pose dilemmas when thesesources are used in educational environments.

Let us consider some of those dilemmas. Manyfilms and documentaries share characteristics thatmake these products accessible to larger audiences.For example, they have a narrative structure thatdirects the viewer toward a certain closed end, andthus provide easy answers. But the story, althoughset in a historical context, does not enlighten thatcontext in its most complete and often contra-dictory way. It singles out and oversimplifieselements of present concern; which concern is upto the maker or director of the moving images andhis or her commercial, political, or artistic back-ground. Shaping the past into storylines for massconsumption is, of course, no different from whata professional historian does when writing for apopular audience. There is, however, a substantialdifference in the techniques used. Explaining ahistorical process in writing often involves abreaking up of the process into separate dimen-sions that can be described in nuance and detail.Popular history books can be entertaining for thereader and they can reach dimensions of historythat are difficult to transform into narratives ofmoving images. The written text, however, doesnot capture our emotions the way moving imagesdo. These can make deep impressions by reducinga complicated historical process to relationshipsbetween a few antagonists to whom we canconnect. Our emotions are influenced by acombination of various filmshots, cutting techni-

ques, and added sound, as well as mise-en-scene.The visuals can be close to historical accuracy andwhat one sees is history as an integrated picture(O'Connor. 1990; Rosenstone. 1995; Edgerton &Rollins. 2001; Stradling. 2001). So, compared towritten history, moving images are highly proble-matic and provide many opportunities when itcomes to learning.

Pupils see quite a lot of popular visual historyand many teachers use this kind of material inclass. Why they do that seems obvious. The pasthas already been structured in a way that is moreaccessible to modern viewers, although not neces-sarily to young modern viewers. But the visualizedpast does capture the attention easily and givesemotion to a subject, in a way teachers finddifficult to match when telling a story (exceptionsnoted). The need to motivate pupils is amplereason for using audiovisual sources. Nevertheless,some fundamental questions have to be asked.How do moving images contribute to historicalunderstanding? Which genres or products provokewhat kind of understanding in which pupils? Andto what extent do we wish emotion to become ahistorical category (Rosenstone. 1995. p.59)? Thelast question is a familiar one for those working inthe critical tradition, since empathy is listed amongthe historical concepts teachers work with. As atool for pupils to develop historical understanding,this concept has provoked much debate (Hus-bands, 1996). Do we mean by empathy, simply therational capacity of pupils to reconstruct thehistorical situation of a person in the past in orderto better understand his actions, or does empathyinvolve some affective bridging from present topast (Husbands & Pendry. 2001)? In either way,can moving images be of help here or do they formobstacles to historical understanding? Closed,moving narratives tend to project modern emo-tions on people separated from us by centuries andseldom allow much room for understanding thestrange and unexpected ways that people in thepast differed from us (Seixas. 2000). But they canpowerfully present cognitive information abouthistorical contexts that is essential for the act ofimagination in learning history.

Are these notions about the problematic rela-tionship between moving images and the past part

Essay Reiïen- / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 601-606

of teacher knowledge? Do teachers know how tocope with the difficulties of learning history usingthese often very complex sources? We hope theydo, because there would be little sense in teachinghistory if adult citizens were to end up havingreservoirs of historical information filled almostcompletely with notions derived from variousinaccurate and biased products of our mass media.In Understanding History Teaching we learn thatthe critical tradition has influenced the teachingpractice of teachers today. It would be interestingto know whether (and if so. how) this criticalapproach is also applied to the audiovisual sourceswhich, as many suggest, are deeply influential increating the historical understanding of the media-generations.

7. Conclusion

In Understanding History Teaching. Husbands.Kitson, and Pendry succeed in giving a clearinsight into the complexity of what constitutes theteacher knowledge of the history teacher, even ifsome aspects could not be untwined. Viewingteachers as responsible actors in their craft, theauthors claim that it is teacher knowledge thatshould be the starting point of future innovationsin the curriculum rather than educational blue-prints constructed in government offices (p.144).The political message the authors deliver here issound and important, although familiar. Thestudy is somewhat jubilant about the teachingqualities of most of those observed, but the resultsdo not make clear whether, in general, anythingmeaningful can be said about differences inteacher knowledge between the expert and theexperienced non-expert. This seems especiallyrelevant to learning in the media age, in whichaudiovisual sources challenge teachers' knowledgeand skills in many ways and will continue to do soin the future.

Reference

Bereiter. C. & Scardamalia. M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. Aninquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicagoand Lasalle: Illinois. Pub Group West.

Cooper. P.. & Mclntyre. D. (19961. Effective teaching andlearning: Teachers and students' perspectives. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Edgerton. G. R . & Rollins. P. C. (2001). Television historiesShaping collective memory in the media age. Lexington:University Press of Kentucky (pp. 1-16).

Husbands. C. (1996). What is history teaching? Language, ideasand meaning in learning about the past. BuckinghamPhiladelphia Open University Press (pp. 54-70).

Husbands. C.. & Pendry. A. (2001). Thinking and feelingPupils' preconceptions about the past and historical under-standing. In J. Arthur. & R. Phillips (Eds.). Issues in historyleaching (pp. 125-134). London. New York: RoutledgeFal-mer.

O'Connor. J. E. (Ed.). (1990). Image as artefact. The historicalanalysis of film anil television. Malabar: Roben E. KriegerPublishing Co.

Rosenstone. R. A (1995) Visions of the past: The challenge offilm to our idea of history. Cambridge. MA: HarvardUniversity Press (pp. 45-79).

Seixas. P. (2000). Sweigen' die Kinder! or, does postmodernhistory have a place in the schools? In P. N. Stearns. P.Seixas. & S. Wineburg (Eds.). Knowing, teaching & learninghistory. National and international perspectives (pp. 19-37).New York London: New York University Press-

Shuiman. L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledgegrowth in teaching. Educational Researcher. /5(2). 4—14.

Stradling. R (2001) Teaching 20th century European history.Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing: pp. 247 256

Torff. B (2003). Developmental changes in teachers' use ofhigher order thinking and content knowledge. Journal ofEducational Psychology. 95(3). 563-569.

Verloop, N.. Van Driel. J.. & Meijer. P. (2001). Teacherknowledge and the knowledge base of teaching Interna-tional Journal of Educational Research. 35. 441 —461.

Wilson. W . & Suzan. M (2001) Research on history teaching.In V. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching(pp. 527-544). Washington DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

Wineburg. S. (2000). Making historical sense. In P. N. Stearns.P. Seixas. & S. Wineburg (Eds.). Knowing. leaching &learning history. National and international perspectives (pp.306-325). New York/London: New York University Press.

Wineburg. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnaturalacts. Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia:Temple University Press (pp. 232-255).

Dr.Stephan R.E. KleinHistory Teacher Educator. ICLON Graduate

School of Education. Leiden University,The Netherlands

E-mail address: kleins@iclon.leidenuniv.nl

TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATIONAn International Journal of Research and Studies

AIMS & SCOPEI This journal aims to enhance theory, research, and practice in teaching and teacher education through the

publication of papers concerned wi th the description of teaching, teaching effecliveness. the factors thatdetermine teachers' thought processes and performances, and the social policies that affect teachers in allaspects and stages of their careers. The journal \ \ i l l recognize that many disciplines — psychology,sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, history, and philosophy — have importantcontributions to make to achievement of its goals, and the Editors »ill welcome contributions fromthem. In the absence of any dominant paradigm, the journal \ \ i l l allou varied approaches to offer empiricalresearch, theoretical and conceptual analyses, and reviews (both qualitative and quantitative syntheses) ofhigh qua l i ty .

2. Papers should be concerned primarily ui th teachers, teaching, or teacher education at whatever grade,level, or whatever subject-matter, at any stage of the teacher's career.

CALL FOR PAPERS AND NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

1. Papers, which must be in English, are invited for editorial consideration2. The original and four copies of the paper should be submitted to Professor John Fil/. Cardiff School of Social Sciences.

Cardiif Univers i ty . Glamorgan Building. King Edward VII Avenue. Cardiff. CFIO 3WT, UK3. Manuscripts should conform to the style set forth in the Publtn/rtori Manual of the American Psychological Association

(Fourth Edition. 1994).4. Manuscripts should be typew ritten, double-spaced throughout, on A4 or SVi x 11, paper.5. Manuscripts most acceptable to space requirements would be 15 25 typewrit ten pages or between 4500 and 7500

words.6. The Authors' names, titles, and affiliations, with complete addresses and telephone and fax numbers should come

directly after the t i t l e on the first page of the manuscript.7. The journal has adopted a unilateral bl ind rev iewing policy so Authors should use separate pages for all identifying

information (name, affi l iat ion, references or footnotes to one's own work. etc). These pages wil l be removed before themanuscript is sent to the referees, who w i l l themselves remain anonymous except for acknowledgement as a group.

8. An abstract noi exceeding 100 words must be provided; this abstract will be printed at the beginning of the paper.9. Authors should include up to six keywords uith their article. The controlled list of keywords is based on the ERIC list

of index descriptors, however. Authors may include one or two additional "free" keywords if they wish to do so.10. Diagrams and tables should be submitted on separate pages, clearly labelled wi th the Author's name except on copies

prepared for blind review and numbered Captions should be separately listed.11. Submission of manuscripts on disk Authors are requested to submit a computer disk (3.5. HD DD disk) containing

the final version of the paper along with the final manuscript to the editorial office. Please observe the follow ing criteria:(a) Send only hard copv when first submitting vour paper.(b) When your paper has been refereed. revised if necessary and accepted, send a disk containing the final version

with the final hard copy. Make sure that the disk and the hard copy match exactlv.(c) Specify what software was used, including which release (e.g. WordPerfect 5.1).(d) Specify w h a t computer was used (either IBM compatible PC or Apple Macintosh).(e) Text, tables, and illustrations (if available on disk) should be supplied as separate files.( f ) The lile should follow the general instructions on s tyle arrangement and. in particular, the reference style.(g) The rile should use the wrap-around end-of-line feature (i.e. no returns at the end of each line) All textual

elements should begin flush left, no paragraph indents Place two returns after every element such as title,headings, paragraphs, figure and table callouts

(h) Keep a back-up disk for reference and safety.12. Proofs w i l l be sent to the Author (f i rs t -named Author if no corresponding Author is identified on multi-Authored

papers) b> PDF wherever possible and should be returned within 48 hours of receipt preferably by e-mail. Correctionsshould be restricted to typesetting errors; any other amendments made may be charged to the Author. Any queriesshould be answered in full Eisevier wi l l do everything possible to get your article corrected and published as quicklyand accurately as possible. Therefore, it is important to ensure that all of your corrections are returned to us in one all-inclusive e-mail or fax. Subsequent additional corrections wi l l not be possible, so please ensure that your firstcommunication is complete Should you choose to mail your corrections, please return them to: Log-in Department.Elsevier. Stover Court, Bampfylde Street. Exeter, Devon EXI 2AH. UK. Twenty-five free reprints will be supplied tothe first-named Author wi th 100 extra free reprints in the case of paid colour Additional reprints can be obtained at areasonable cost if ordered at the time when proofs jre received for correction

13. All Authors must sign the "Transfer of Copyright" agreement before the article can be published. This transferagreement enables Elsevier Ltd to protect the copyrighted material for the Authors, but does not relinquish theAuthor's proprietary rights. The copyright transfer covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article,including reprints, photographic reproductions, microform or any other reproductions of similar nature andtranslations, and includes the right to adapt the article for use in conjunction wi th computer systems and programs,including reproduction or publication m machine-readable form and incorporation in retrieval systems- Authors areresponsible for obtaining from the copyright holder permission to reproduce any figures for which copyright exists.