File Download
 
 
Supplementary

Postgraduate Thesis: A study on argumentative ability of secondary school students in Hong Kong through argumentative group discussion inChinese
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleA study on argumentative ability of secondary school students in Hong Kong through argumentative group discussion inChinese
 
AuthorsLam, Wai-ip, Joseph.
林偉業.
 
Issue Date2011
 
PublisherThe University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong)
 
Abstract香港教育在課程和評估等方面均十分重視學生口語或書面論辯的能力,不論是學習階段內的全港性系統評估,還是學生完成中學課程後所參加的中學會考 (2012年之前) 或文憑考試 (2012年後),均要求學生參與小組討論,訓練並考核學生評價觀點的強弱、適當回應組員的觀點的能力。香港教師能夠引導學生綜合書面論辯篇章的組織,並指導學生提出理由支持自己的觀點,但少於培養學生如何理解乃至評價他人觀點的根據,以及回應並發展反駁的能力。學生能夠評價書面篇章內容,也能在教師指導下辨識作者觀點的理據,但在小組討論中建立相反觀點以說服持不同意見的其他成員,表現仍見不足。 本研究旨在發展理論架構與分析程序,以分析中學生在中文小組討論中的論辯。為此,本研究探討了中文小組討論的論辯話語的特徵、學生表達觀點與理據所運用的策略、批判地回應對手的方式,特別是發展反駁、評價對手觀點與理據,以及表達與有衝突的觀點。 十八名來自九所中學的中學畢業學生按學校與性別的分層隨機分配到三組六人組別中,參與時限為廿五分鐘的中文小組討論。他們須討論一項禁止學校小賣部售賣垃圾食物,並禁止學生?帶垃圾食物回校的措施是否合理。學生的討論經謄錄後,在質性分析軟體 (NVivo) 的輔助下,運用話語分析和非形式邏輯中的論辯理論分析,以發現學生在討論中建構論辯的模式,包括:意念、言語行為、論辯圖式、討論的四個中文小組論辯討論的四個層次、廿五項讓學生得以建構論辯並參與討論的言語行為、六種論辯圖式及發展反駁的相關批判問題、討論的五階段,特別是學生傾向於把相互矛盾的論點統合為沒有衝突的討論發展方向。 本研究提出了理論架構與分析程序,把學生在中文小組討論的論辯歸類,以分析論辯的特徵。本論文所提供的研究程序、理論架構、分析程序,以及學生在中文小組論辯討論的表現,有助中國語文課程及其他課程中論辯教育的課程發展、教學設計與評估。最後,本論文探索了研究設計的優點與不足,並提出了日後繼續發展本研究的可能方向。 The ability of Hong Kong students to frame arguments in written and spoken exchanges in Chinese is afforded high priority in Hong Kong secondary schools and is strongly emphasised in the Hong Kong Curriculum. The ability to attend to points made in a discussion, to identify strengths and weaknesses in assertions and content and to make appropriate counter responses has been formally examined in the matriculation examination since 2007. Teachers are comfortable about developing students‘ competence in identifying micro- and macro-structures in text content, and in using these to support opinions expressed in writing. They are less assured about teaching students how to perceive the grounds for counter-arguments and making measured responses and rebuttals of what others in a group have said. Students are able to critically examine text content, to appreciate points advanced and to assemble these in written responses, but, partly due to the Confucian endorsement of avoiding confrontation and disharmony, senior secondary students are apprehensive about public discussions in which they are asked to formulate opposing points of view and persuasive arguments to peers who hold conflicting standpoints. The study set out to assist teachers by establishing a theoretical framework and procedure for analyzing students‘ contributions in group discussion in Chinese. To achieve this, it was necessary to investigate characteristics of discourse; to identify the strategies students employ in presenting reasoned points of view; to critically analyse the contributions of others, especially those presenting counter-arguments; to weigh the merits of opposing opinions; and to present propositions against those expressed by fellow group members. Eighteen final year secondary school students from nine schools were selected, randomly placed into stratified groups of six and asked to participate in twenty-five minute long group discussions of the merits of a school policy prohibiting the sale of junk food in the school canteen and bringing junk food into school. The students‘ utterances were transcribed and points of argument examined using conversational discourse analyses, the logic of the arguments advanced being analysed with the assistance of research software (NVivo). Patterns of argument formulations by the students in the discussions were found. Levels of idea units, speech acts, argumentative scheme and discussion were identified and twenty-five types of spoken exchanges enabling students to construct arguments during the group discussions were identified. Six types of argument shemes were found; and types of critical questions for stimulating justifications and rebuttals of what participants said in the discussions were noted. A five-stage process of presenting arguments in the discussions emerged, together with a tendency for the students to attempt to integrate disparate and heterogeneous points of view into homogeneous standpoints. The research proposes procedures for analyzing and categorising the arguments students raise in group discussion in Chinese, and a framework for developing teaching students how to formulate and sustain telling arguments as part of the Chinese Language Curriculum. The strengths and weaknesses of the research are set out and the implications for further research and current practice are discussed.
 
AdvisorsTse, SK
 
DegreeDoctor of Philosophy
 
SubjectChinese language - Study and teaching (Secondary) - China - Hong Kong.
Debates and debating - Study and teaching (Secondary) - China - HongKong.
Discussion - Study and teaching (Secondary) - China - Hong Kong.
 
Dept/ProgramEducation
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.advisorTse, SK
 
dc.contributor.authorLam, Wai-ip, Joseph.
 
dc.contributor.author林偉業.
 
dc.date.hkucongregation2011
 
dc.date.issued2011
 
dc.description.abstract香港教育在課程和評估等方面均十分重視學生口語或書面論辯的能力,不論是學習階段內的全港性系統評估,還是學生完成中學課程後所參加的中學會考 (2012年之前) 或文憑考試 (2012年後),均要求學生參與小組討論,訓練並考核學生評價觀點的強弱、適當回應組員的觀點的能力。香港教師能夠引導學生綜合書面論辯篇章的組織,並指導學生提出理由支持自己的觀點,但少於培養學生如何理解乃至評價他人觀點的根據,以及回應並發展反駁的能力。學生能夠評價書面篇章內容,也能在教師指導下辨識作者觀點的理據,但在小組討論中建立相反觀點以說服持不同意見的其他成員,表現仍見不足。 本研究旨在發展理論架構與分析程序,以分析中學生在中文小組討論中的論辯。為此,本研究探討了中文小組討論的論辯話語的特徵、學生表達觀點與理據所運用的策略、批判地回應對手的方式,特別是發展反駁、評價對手觀點與理據,以及表達與有衝突的觀點。 十八名來自九所中學的中學畢業學生按學校與性別的分層隨機分配到三組六人組別中,參與時限為廿五分鐘的中文小組討論。他們須討論一項禁止學校小賣部售賣垃圾食物,並禁止學生?帶垃圾食物回校的措施是否合理。學生的討論經謄錄後,在質性分析軟體 (NVivo) 的輔助下,運用話語分析和非形式邏輯中的論辯理論分析,以發現學生在討論中建構論辯的模式,包括:意念、言語行為、論辯圖式、討論的四個中文小組論辯討論的四個層次、廿五項讓學生得以建構論辯並參與討論的言語行為、六種論辯圖式及發展反駁的相關批判問題、討論的五階段,特別是學生傾向於把相互矛盾的論點統合為沒有衝突的討論發展方向。 本研究提出了理論架構與分析程序,把學生在中文小組討論的論辯歸類,以分析論辯的特徵。本論文所提供的研究程序、理論架構、分析程序,以及學生在中文小組論辯討論的表現,有助中國語文課程及其他課程中論辯教育的課程發展、教學設計與評估。最後,本論文探索了研究設計的優點與不足,並提出了日後繼續發展本研究的可能方向。 The ability of Hong Kong students to frame arguments in written and spoken exchanges in Chinese is afforded high priority in Hong Kong secondary schools and is strongly emphasised in the Hong Kong Curriculum. The ability to attend to points made in a discussion, to identify strengths and weaknesses in assertions and content and to make appropriate counter responses has been formally examined in the matriculation examination since 2007. Teachers are comfortable about developing students‘ competence in identifying micro- and macro-structures in text content, and in using these to support opinions expressed in writing. They are less assured about teaching students how to perceive the grounds for counter-arguments and making measured responses and rebuttals of what others in a group have said. Students are able to critically examine text content, to appreciate points advanced and to assemble these in written responses, but, partly due to the Confucian endorsement of avoiding confrontation and disharmony, senior secondary students are apprehensive about public discussions in which they are asked to formulate opposing points of view and persuasive arguments to peers who hold conflicting standpoints. The study set out to assist teachers by establishing a theoretical framework and procedure for analyzing students‘ contributions in group discussion in Chinese. To achieve this, it was necessary to investigate characteristics of discourse; to identify the strategies students employ in presenting reasoned points of view; to critically analyse the contributions of others, especially those presenting counter-arguments; to weigh the merits of opposing opinions; and to present propositions against those expressed by fellow group members. Eighteen final year secondary school students from nine schools were selected, randomly placed into stratified groups of six and asked to participate in twenty-five minute long group discussions of the merits of a school policy prohibiting the sale of junk food in the school canteen and bringing junk food into school. The students‘ utterances were transcribed and points of argument examined using conversational discourse analyses, the logic of the arguments advanced being analysed with the assistance of research software (NVivo). Patterns of argument formulations by the students in the discussions were found. Levels of idea units, speech acts, argumentative scheme and discussion were identified and twenty-five types of spoken exchanges enabling students to construct arguments during the group discussions were identified. Six types of argument shemes were found; and types of critical questions for stimulating justifications and rebuttals of what participants said in the discussions were noted. A five-stage process of presenting arguments in the discussions emerged, together with a tendency for the students to attempt to integrate disparate and heterogeneous points of view into homogeneous standpoints. The research proposes procedures for analyzing and categorising the arguments students raise in group discussion in Chinese, and a framework for developing teaching students how to formulate and sustain telling arguments as part of the Chinese Language Curriculum. The strengths and weaknesses of the research are set out and the implications for further research and current practice are discussed.
 
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version
 
dc.description.thesisdisciplineEducation
 
dc.description.thesisleveldoctoral
 
dc.description.thesisnameDoctor of Philosophy
 
dc.identifier.hkulb4723023
 
dc.languagechi
 
dc.publisherThe University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong)
 
dc.relation.ispartofHKU Theses Online (HKUTO)
 
dc.rightsThe author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights) and the right to use in future works.
 
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License
 
dc.source.urihttp://hub.hku.hk/bib/B4723023X
 
dc.subject.lcshChinese language - Study and teaching (Secondary) - China - Hong Kong.
 
dc.subject.lcshDebates and debating - Study and teaching (Secondary) - China - HongKong.
 
dc.subject.lcshDiscussion - Study and teaching (Secondary) - China - Hong Kong.
 
dc.titleA study on argumentative ability of secondary school students in Hong Kong through argumentative group discussion inChinese
 
dc.typePG_Thesis
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.advisor>Tse, SK</contributor.advisor>
<contributor.author>Lam, Wai-ip, Joseph.</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>&#26519;&#20553;&#26989;.</contributor.author>
<date.issued>2011</date.issued>
<description.abstract>&#65279;&#39321;&#28207;&#25945;&#32946;&#22312;&#35506;&#31243;&#21644;&#35413;&#20272;&#31561;&#26041;&#38754;&#22343;&#21313;&#20998;&#37325;&#35222;&#23416;&#29983;&#21475;&#35486;&#25110;&#26360;&#38754;&#35542;&#36783;&#30340;&#33021;&#21147;&#65292;&#19981;&#35542;&#26159;&#23416;&#32722;&#38542;&#27573;&#20839;&#30340;&#20840;&#28207;&#24615;&#31995;&#32113;&#35413;&#20272;&#65292;&#36996;&#26159;&#23416;&#29983;&#23436;&#25104;&#20013;&#23416;&#35506;&#31243;&#24460;&#25152;&#21443;&#21152;&#30340;&#20013;&#23416;&#26371;&#32771; (2012&#24180;&#20043;&#21069;) &#25110;&#25991;&#24977;&#32771;&#35430; (2012&#24180;&#24460;)&#65292;&#22343;&#35201;&#27714;&#23416;&#29983;&#21443;&#33287;&#23567;&#32068;&#35342;&#35542;&#65292;&#35347;&#32244;&#20006;&#32771;&#26680;&#23416;&#29983;&#35413;&#20729;&#35264;&#40670;&#30340;&#24375;&#24369;&#12289;&#36969;&#30070;&#22238;&#25033;&#32068;&#21729;&#30340;&#35264;&#40670;&#30340;&#33021;&#21147;&#12290;&#39321;&#28207;&#25945;&#24107;&#33021;&#22816;&#24341;&#23566;&#23416;&#29983;&#32156;&#21512;&#26360;&#38754;&#35542;&#36783;&#31687;&#31456;&#30340;&#32068;&#32340;&#65292;&#20006;&#25351;&#23566;&#23416;&#29983;&#25552;&#20986;&#29702;&#30001;&#25903;&#25345;&#33258;&#24049;&#30340;&#35264;&#40670;&#65292;&#20294;&#23569;&#26044;&#22521;&#39178;&#23416;&#29983;&#22914;&#20309;&#29702;&#35299;&#20035;&#33267;&#35413;&#20729;&#20182;&#20154;&#35264;&#40670;&#30340;&#26681;&#25818;&#65292;&#20197;&#21450;&#22238;&#25033;&#20006;&#30332;&#23637;&#21453;&#39361;&#30340;&#33021;&#21147;&#12290;&#23416;&#29983;&#33021;&#22816;&#35413;&#20729;&#26360;&#38754;&#31687;&#31456;&#20839;&#23481;&#65292;&#20063;&#33021;&#22312;&#25945;&#24107;&#25351;&#23566;&#19979;&#36776;&#35672;&#20316;&#32773;&#35264;&#40670;&#30340;&#29702;&#25818;&#65292;&#20294;&#22312;&#23567;&#32068;&#35342;&#35542;&#20013;&#24314;&#31435;&#30456;&#21453;&#35264;&#40670;&#20197;&#35498;&#26381;&#25345;&#19981;&#21516;&#24847;&#35211;&#30340;&#20854;&#20182;&#25104;&#21729;&#65292;&#34920;&#29694;&#20173;&#35211;&#19981;&#36275;&#12290;

&#26412;&#30740;&#31350;&#26088;&#22312;&#30332;&#23637;&#29702;&#35542;&#26550;&#27083;&#33287;&#20998;&#26512;&#31243;&#24207;&#65292;&#20197;&#20998;&#26512;&#20013;&#23416;&#29983;&#22312;&#20013;&#25991;&#23567;&#32068;&#35342;&#35542;&#20013;&#30340;&#35542;&#36783;&#12290;&#28858;&#27492;&#65292;&#26412;&#30740;&#31350;&#25506;&#35342;&#20102;&#20013;&#25991;&#23567;&#32068;&#35342;&#35542;&#30340;&#35542;&#36783;&#35441;&#35486;&#30340;&#29305;&#24501;&#12289;&#23416;&#29983;&#34920;&#36948;&#35264;&#40670;&#33287;&#29702;&#25818;&#25152;&#36939;&#29992;&#30340;&#31574;&#30053;&#12289;&#25209;&#21028;&#22320;&#22238;&#25033;&#23565;&#25163;&#30340;&#26041;&#24335;&#65292;&#29305;&#21029;&#26159;&#30332;&#23637;&#21453;&#39361;&#12289;&#35413;&#20729;&#23565;&#25163;&#35264;&#40670;&#33287;&#29702;&#25818;&#65292;&#20197;&#21450;&#34920;&#36948;&#33287;&#26377;&#34909;&#31361;&#30340;&#35264;&#40670;&#12290; 

&#21313;&#20843;&#21517;&#20358;&#33258;&#20061;&#25152;&#20013;&#23416;&#30340;&#20013;&#23416;&#30050;&#26989;&#23416;&#29983;&#25353;&#23416;&#26657;&#33287;&#24615;&#21029;&#30340;&#20998;&#23652;&#38568;&#27231;&#20998;&#37197;&#21040;&#19977;&#32068;&#20845;&#20154;&#32068;&#21029;&#20013;&#65292;&#21443;&#33287;&#26178;&#38480;&#28858;&#24319;&#20116;&#20998;&#37912;&#30340;&#20013;&#25991;&#23567;&#32068;&#35342;&#35542;&#12290;&#20182;&#20497;&#38920;&#35342;&#35542;&#19968;&#38917;&#31105;&#27490;&#23416;&#26657;&#23567;&#36067;&#37096;&#21806;&#36067;&#22403;&#22334;&#39135;&#29289;&#65292;&#20006;&#31105;&#27490;&#23416;&#29983;?&#24118;&#22403;&#22334;&#39135;&#29289;&#22238;&#26657;&#30340;&#25514;&#26045;&#26159;&#21542;&#21512;&#29702;&#12290;&#23416;&#29983;&#30340;&#35342;&#35542;&#32147;&#35588;&#37636;&#24460;&#65292;&#22312;&#36074;&#24615;&#20998;&#26512;&#36575;&#39636; (NVivo) &#30340;&#36628;&#21161;&#19979;&#65292;&#36939;&#29992;&#35441;&#35486;&#20998;&#26512;&#21644;&#38750;&#24418;&#24335;&#37007;&#36655;&#20013;&#30340;&#35542;&#36783;&#29702;&#35542;&#20998;&#26512;&#65292;&#20197;&#30332;&#29694;&#23416;&#29983;&#22312;&#35342;&#35542;&#20013;&#24314;&#27083;&#35542;&#36783;&#30340;&#27169;&#24335;&#65292;&#21253;&#25324;&#65306;&#24847;&#24565;&#12289;&#35328;&#35486;&#34892;&#28858;&#12289;&#35542;&#36783;&#22294;&#24335;&#12289;&#35342;&#35542;&#30340;&#22235;&#20491;&#20013;&#25991;&#23567;&#32068;&#35542;&#36783;&#35342;&#35542;&#30340;&#22235;&#20491;&#23652;&#27425;&#12289;&#24319;&#20116;&#38917;&#35731;&#23416;&#29983;&#24471;&#20197;&#24314;&#27083;&#35542;&#36783;&#20006;&#21443;&#33287;&#35342;&#35542;&#30340;&#35328;&#35486;&#34892;&#28858;&#12289;&#20845;&#31278;&#35542;&#36783;&#22294;&#24335;&#21450;&#30332;&#23637;&#21453;&#39361;&#30340;&#30456;&#38364;&#25209;&#21028;&#21839;&#38988;&#12289;&#35342;&#35542;&#30340;&#20116;&#38542;&#27573;&#65292;&#29305;&#21029;&#26159;&#23416;&#29983;&#20670;&#21521;&#26044;&#25226;&#30456;&#20114;&#30683;&#30462;&#30340;&#35542;&#40670;&#32113;&#21512;&#28858;&#27794;&#26377;&#34909;&#31361;&#30340;&#35342;&#35542;&#30332;&#23637;&#26041;&#21521;&#12290; 

&#26412;&#30740;&#31350;&#25552;&#20986;&#20102;&#29702;&#35542;&#26550;&#27083;&#33287;&#20998;&#26512;&#31243;&#24207;&#65292;&#25226;&#23416;&#29983;&#22312;&#20013;&#25991;&#23567;&#32068;&#35342;&#35542;&#30340;&#35542;&#36783;&#27512;&#39006;&#65292;&#20197;&#20998;&#26512;&#35542;&#36783;&#30340;&#29305;&#24501;&#12290;&#26412;&#35542;&#25991;&#25152;&#25552;&#20379;&#30340;&#30740;&#31350;&#31243;&#24207;&#12289;&#29702;&#35542;&#26550;&#27083;&#12289;&#20998;&#26512;&#31243;&#24207;&#65292;&#20197;&#21450;&#23416;&#29983;&#22312;&#20013;&#25991;&#23567;&#32068;&#35542;&#36783;&#35342;&#35542;&#30340;&#34920;&#29694;&#65292;&#26377;&#21161;&#20013;&#22283;&#35486;&#25991;&#35506;&#31243;&#21450;&#20854;&#20182;&#35506;&#31243;&#20013;&#35542;&#36783;&#25945;&#32946;&#30340;&#35506;&#31243;&#30332;&#23637;&#12289;&#25945;&#23416;&#35373;&#35336;&#33287;&#35413;&#20272;&#12290;&#26368;&#24460;&#65292;&#26412;&#35542;&#25991;&#25506;&#32034;&#20102;&#30740;&#31350;&#35373;&#35336;&#30340;&#20778;&#40670;&#33287;&#19981;&#36275;&#65292;&#20006;&#25552;&#20986;&#20102;&#26085;&#24460;&#32380;&#32396;&#30332;&#23637;&#26412;&#30740;&#31350;&#30340;&#21487;&#33021;&#26041;&#21521;&#12290;





The ability of Hong Kong students to frame arguments in written and spoken exchanges in Chinese is afforded high priority in Hong Kong secondary schools and is strongly emphasised in the Hong Kong Curriculum. The ability to attend to points made in a discussion, to identify strengths and weaknesses in assertions and content and to make appropriate counter responses has been formally examined in the matriculation examination since 2007. Teachers are comfortable about developing students&#8216; competence in identifying micro- and macro-structures in text content, and in using these to support opinions expressed in writing. They are less assured about teaching students how to perceive the grounds for counter-arguments and making measured responses and rebuttals of what others in a group have said. Students are able to critically examine text content, to appreciate points advanced and to assemble these in written responses, but, partly due to the Confucian endorsement of avoiding confrontation and disharmony, senior secondary students are apprehensive about public discussions in which they are asked to formulate opposing points of view and persuasive arguments to peers who hold conflicting standpoints. The study set out to assist teachers by establishing a theoretical framework and procedure for analyzing students&#8216; contributions in group discussion in Chinese. To achieve this, it was necessary to investigate characteristics of discourse; to identify the strategies students employ in presenting reasoned points of view; to critically analyse the contributions of others, especially those presenting counter-arguments; to weigh the merits of opposing opinions; and to present propositions against those expressed by fellow group members.

Eighteen final year secondary school students from nine schools were selected, randomly placed into stratified groups of six and asked to participate in twenty-five minute long group discussions of the merits of a school policy prohibiting the sale of junk food in the school canteen and bringing junk food into school. The students&#8216; utterances were transcribed and points of argument examined using conversational discourse analyses, the logic of the arguments advanced being analysed with the assistance of research software (NVivo). Patterns of argument formulations by the students in the discussions were found. Levels of idea units, speech acts, argumentative scheme and discussion were identified and twenty-five types of spoken exchanges enabling students to construct arguments during the group discussions were identified. Six types of argument shemes were found; and types of critical questions for stimulating justifications and rebuttals of what participants said in the discussions were noted. A five-stage process of presenting arguments in the discussions emerged, together with a tendency for the students to attempt to integrate disparate and heterogeneous points of view into homogeneous standpoints. The research proposes procedures for analyzing and categorising the arguments students raise in group discussion in Chinese, and a framework for developing teaching students how to formulate and sustain telling arguments as part of the Chinese Language Curriculum. The strengths and weaknesses of the research are set out and the implications for further research and current practice are discussed.</description.abstract>
<language>chi</language>
<publisher>The University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong)</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>HKU Theses Online (HKUTO)</relation.ispartof>
<rights>The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights) and the right to use in future works.</rights>
<rights>Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License</rights>
<source.uri>http://hub.hku.hk/bib/B4723023X</source.uri>
<subject.lcsh>Chinese language - Study and teaching (Secondary) - China - Hong Kong.</subject.lcsh>
<subject.lcsh>Debates and debating - Study and teaching (Secondary) - China - HongKong.</subject.lcsh>
<subject.lcsh>Discussion - Study and teaching (Secondary) - China - Hong Kong.</subject.lcsh>
<title>A study on argumentative ability of secondary school students in Hong Kong through argumentative group discussion inChinese</title>
<type>PG_Thesis</type>
<identifier.hkul>b4723023</identifier.hkul>
<description.thesisname>Doctor of Philosophy</description.thesisname>
<description.thesislevel>doctoral</description.thesislevel>
<description.thesisdiscipline>Education</description.thesisdiscipline>
<description.nature>published_or_final_version</description.nature>
<date.hkucongregation>2011</date.hkucongregation>
<bitstream.url>http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/146127/3/FullText.pdf</bitstream.url>
</item>