Article Sidebar

Published
Jul 4, 2024
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 1

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study explores the effectiveness of the Station Rotation Model (SRM) in adding and subtracting fractions. A mixed-method design was conducted through convenience sampling of 31 students from Year 9. They were given pre-and post-tests consisting of ten questions for collecting quantitative data. Students’ online questionnaires consisting of five-point Likert scales, two open-ended questions, and structured interviews with six selected students were further analysed to collect qualitative data. A non-parametric test was adopted to compare the results of the achievement tests. Wilcoxon’s signed rank test findings showed a significant difference (p=0.024) and a large effect size (rb=0.558) between the achievement test scores. This indicates that the SRM positively impacts students’ performance in adding and subtracting fractions. Three major themes emerged from the questionnaires and interviews about students’ perception of using SRM: Manipulatives make learning fun, enjoyment of working in a group, and challenges in implementing the SRM. Overall, students positively viewed their experiences with the SRM as an approach to teaching and learning. The study offers insights into SRM’s impact on student learning, aiding educators amd researchers assess its future application, especially in mathematics education.

Keywords

Blended learning Fractions Secondary mathematics Station rotation model Visual manipulatives

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Abbas, N. A., Abdullah, N. A., Shahrill, M., & Tengah, K. A. (2022). Primary school pupils’ performance on the addition of fractions: Conceptual and procedural knowledge. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 16(2), 227-238. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.16.2.17811.227-238

  2. Abbas, N. A. H., Shahrill, M., & Indra Prahmana, R. C. (2020). Understanding primary school children’s learning on addition of fractions. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1613(1), 012046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1613/1/012046

  3. Akinoso, S. O., Agoro, A. A., & Alabi, O. M. (2020). Effect of station rotation mode of instructional delivery for mathematics in the era of advancing technology. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 24(2), 60-72.

  4. Ali, H. A. H., Salleh, S. M., & Shahrill, M. (2015). Technology integration in the context of Brunei primary schools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 558-568.

  5. Ali, H. M. H. H. M., Asamoah, D., & Shahrill, M. (2022). Effectiveness of flipped classroom model through multimedia technology in improving students' performance in directed numbers. Infinity Journal, 11(2), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v11i2.p193-210

  6. Almahasees, Z., Mohsen, K., & Amin, M. O. (2021). Faculty’s and students’ perceptions of online learning during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 6, 638470. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.638470

  7. Anthony Jnr, B. (2022). An exploratory study on academic staff perception towards blended learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3107-3133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10705-x

  8. Ayob, N. F. S., Halim, N. D. A., Zulkifli, N. N., Zaid, N. M., & Mokhtar, M. (2020). Overview of blended learning: The effect of station rotation model on students’ achievement. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(6), 320-326.

  9. Bayeck, R. Y. (2020). Examining board gameplay and learning: A multidisciplinary review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 51(4), 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119901286

  10. Belazi, N., & Ganapathy, M. (2021). The effects of the station rotation model in promoting Libyan students’ EFL writing: Blended learning. AJELP: Asian Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 9(1), 111-127.

  11. Belazi, N. A., & Ganapathy, M. (2023). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards the station rotation model: A case of Libyan EFL writing classroom. AJELP: Asian Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 11(1), 22-36.

  12. Bhardwaj, R., Jafri, S., Mohan, D., Upreti, K., Kumar, N., & Sharma, V. (2022, 22-24 June 2022). Role of e-learning in educational institutions: Analyzing its impact on students’ satisfaction and performance In 2022 7th International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES), (pp. 1667-1678). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCES54183.2022.9835746

  13. Bouck, E. C., & Long, H. (2023). Online delivery of a manipulative-based intervention package for finding equivalent fractions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 32(2), 313-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09449-y

  14. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006

  15. Chaeruman, U. A., Wibawa, B., & Syahrial, Z. (2018). Determining the appropriate blend of blended learning: A formative research in the context of spada-Indonesia. American Journal of Educational Research, 6(3), 188-195. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-6-3-5

  16. Cooper, J. L., Sidney, P. G., & Alibali, M. W. (2018). Who benefits from diagrams and illustrations in math problems? Ability and attitudes matter. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3371

  17. Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Sage.

  18. Delucchi, M. (2014). Measuring student learning in social statistics: A pretest-posttest study of knowledge gain. Teaching Sociology, 42(3), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055x14527909

  19. Faradillah, A., & Hadi, W. (2020). Educators’ perception of blended learning models on mathematics learning. Kalamatika: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 5(1), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.22236/KALAMATIKA.vol5no1.2020pp83-92

  20. Finti, H. N. F. M. M., Shahrill, M., & Salleh, S. M. (2016). Integrating virtual manipulative with the use of iPad in the teaching and learning of fractions. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 8(4), 581-601. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2016.08.036

  21. Fitri, S., & Zahari, C. L. (2019). The implementation of blended learning to improve understanding of mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1188(1), 012109. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012109

  22. Fox, S., & Mackeogh, K. (2003). Can elearning promote higher-order learning without tutor overload? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 18(2), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510307410

  23. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001

  24. George‐Walker, L. D., & Keeffe, M. (2010). Self‐determined blended learning: a case study of blended learning design. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903277380

  25. Gerald, B. (2018). A brief review of independent, dependent and one sample t-test. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 4(2), 50-54. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijamtp.20180402.13

  26. Gobbo, E. d., Guarino, A., Cafarelli, B., Grilli, L., & Limone, P. (2022). On the perceptions of online learning due to COVID-19 pandemic. Case study: University of Foggia, Italy In P. Limone, R. Di Fuccio, & G. A. Toto, In Psychology, Learning, Technology, Cham (pp. 130-149). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15845-2_9

  27. Govindaraj, A., & Silverajah, V. S. G. (2017). Blending flipped classroom and station rotation models in enhancing students' learning of physics Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.1145/3175536.3175543

  28. Greener, S. (2021). Exploring remote distance learning: what is it and should we keep it? Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1848506

  29. Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: a conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145-178. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481

  30. Hamida, N., Arianto, F., & Hartono, S. (2021). The effect of station rotation online model on problem solving students ability: A case study at junior high school. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11(10), 1500-1507.

  31. Han, X., & Wang, Y. (2021). System-driven blended learning for quality education: A collective case study of universities and vocational colleges and schools in China. In C. P. Lim & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended Learning for Inclusive and Quality Higher Education in Asia (pp. 1-23). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4106-7_1

  32. Hartney, E., Melis, E., Taylor, D., Dickson, G., Tholl, B., Grimes, K., Chan, M.-K., Van Aerde, J., & Horsley, T. (2022). Leading through the first wave of COVID: a Canadian action research study. Leadership in Health Services, 35(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-05-2021-0042

  33. Hidayat, W., & Aripin, U. (2023). How to develop an e-LKPD with a scientific approach to achieving students' mathematical communication abilities? Infinity Journal, 12(1), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v12i1.p85-100

  34. Hidayat, W., Rohaeti, E. E., Hamidah, I., & Putri, R. I. I. (2023). How can android-based trigonometry learning improve the math learning process? Frontiers in Education, 7, 1016. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1101161

  35. Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5

  36. Huda, M., Jasmi, K. A., Hehsan, A., Mustari, M. I., Shahrill, M., Basiron, B., & Gassama, S. K. (2017). Empowering children with adaptive technology skills: Careful engagement in the digital ınformation age. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(3), 693-708.

  37. Ismail, N. F. H., Shahrill, M., & Asamoah, D. (2023). Learning through virtual manipulatives: Investigating the impact of Gizmos-based lessons on students’ performance in integers. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 4(1), ep23009. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/12857

  38. Japar, I., Asamoah, D., & Shahrill, M. (2022). Addressing student learning gaps in fractions: How effective is synchronous video conferencing. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 16(1), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.16.1.17027.103-120

  39. JASP Team. (2023). JASP (Version 0.17.1) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org

  40. Kaur, A., & Kumar, R. (2015). Comparative analysis of parametric and non-parametric tests. Journal of computer and mathematical sciences, 6(6), 336-342.

  41. Khan, B. (2005). Managing e-learning strategies: Design, delivery, implementation and evaluation. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-634-1

  42. Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

  43. Kul, Ü., Celik, S., & Aksu, Z. (2018). The impact of educational material use on mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 303-324. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11420a

  44. Laer, S. V., & Elen, J. (2017). In search of attributes that support self-regulation in blended learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1395-1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9505-x

  45. Laidin, D. R., & Tengah, K. A. (2021). Applying butterfly method in the learning of addition and subtraction of fractions. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 15(2), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.15.2.13934.161-174

  46. Lastariwati, B., Komariah, K., Mulyatiningsih, E., & Kartika, M. G. (2021). Exploration of the determining factors of successful online learning in the industrial revolution 4.0 era. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1833(1), 012069. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1833/1/012069

  47. Leite, W. L., Kuang, H., Jing, Z., Xing, W., Cavanaugh, C., & Huggins-Manley, A. C. (2022). The relationship between self-regulated student use of a virtual learning environment for algebra and student achievement: An examination of the role of teacher orchestration. Computers & Education, 191, 104615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104615

  48. Lince, R. (2016). Creative thinking ability to increase student mathematical of junior high school by applying models numbered heads together. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(6), 206-212.

  49. Literacy and Numeracy Coaching Programme (LNCP). (2017). Teaching for mathematics mastery framework (CfBT Brunei Education Development Trust, Ed.). Ministry of Education, Brunei Darussalam.

  50. Low, J., Shahrill, M., & Zakir, N. (2020). Solving fractions by applying the bar model concept with the butterfly method. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 14(2), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.14.2.11261.101-116

  51. Mahalli, M., Nurkamto, J., Mujiyanto, J., & Yuliasri, I. (2019). The implementation of station rotation and flipped classroom models of blended learning in EFL learning. English Language Teaching, 12(12), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n12p23

  52. Manjanai, S. N. N. P., & Shahrill, M. (2017). Introducing the flipped classroom strategy in the learning of year nine factorization. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Studies, 11(4), 35-55. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-011X/CGP/v11i04/35-55

  53. Matzavela, V., & Alepis, E. (2021). M-learning in the COVID-19 era: Physical vs digital class. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7183-7203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10572-6

  54. McGrath, C., Palmgren, P. J., & Liljedahl, M. (2019). Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews. Medical Teacher, 41(9), 1002-1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1497149

  55. Mendiburo, M., & Hasselbring, T. (2014). Technology's impact on fraction learning: An experimental comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(2), 209-231.

  56. Mendoza, M. J. L., & Lapinid, M. R. C. (2021). Blended learning models in schoology: Effects on students’ mathematics achievements and perception. Intersection, 1(1), 44-52.

  57. Miller, G., & Obara, S. (2017). Finding meaning in mathematical mnemonics. Australian Mathematics Teacher, The, 73(3), 13-18.

  58. Ministry of Education. (2015). Handbook for teacher performance appraisal (2nd ed.). Ministry of Education, Brunei Darussalam.

  59. Mishra, L., Gupta, T., & Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100012

  60. Moorhouse, B. L., Li, Y., & Walsh, S. (2021). E-classroom interactional competencies: Mediating and assisting language learning during synchronous online lessons. RELC Journal, 54(1), 114-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220985274

  61. Moorhouse, B. L., & Wong, K. M. (2022). Blending asynchronous and synchronous digital technologies and instructional approaches to facilitate remote learning. Journal of Computers in Education, 9(1), 51-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00195-8

  62. Nida, N. K., Usodo, B., & Saputro, D. R. S. (2020). The Blended Learning with WhatsApp Media on Mathematics Creative Thinking Skills and Math Anxiety. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 14(2), 307-314. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v14i2.16233

  63. Nugraha, D. M. D. P. (2020). Station rotation type blended learning model against critical thinking ability of fourth grade students. Journal of Education Technology, 4(4), 516-523. https://doi.org/10.23887/jet.v4i4.29690

  64. Ocak, G. (2010). The effect of learning stations on the level of academic success and retention of elementary school students. New Educational Review, 21(2), 146-156.

  65. Ogude, B. A., & Chukweggu, C. O. (2019). The effects of station rotation model (SRM) and lecture method on blended learning on secondary school students’ performance on reading comprehension. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy, 3(10), 376-383. https://doi.org/10.36348/JAEP.2019.v03i10.006

  66. Okagbue, H. I., Oguntunde, P. E., Obasi, E. C. M., & Akhmetshin, E. M. (2021). Trends and usage pattern of SPSS and Minitab Software in Scientific research. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1734(1), 012017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1734/1/012017

  67. Ololube, N. P. (2011). Blended learning in Nigeria: Determining students’ readiness and faculty role in advancing technology in a globalized educational development. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended Learning across Disciplines: Models for Implementation (pp. 190-207). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-479-0.ch011

  68. Orcan, F. (2020). Parametric or non-parametric: Skewness to test normality for mean comparison. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(2), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.656077

  69. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments. Quarterly review of distance education, 4(3), 227.

  70. Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1285-1296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011

  71. Palioura, M., & Dimoulas, C. (2022). Digital storytelling in education: A transmedia integration approach for the non-developers. Education Sciences, 12(8), 559. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080559

  72. Parungao, R. C. (2021). Manipulative approach in teaching fractions. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 2(5), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.02.05.10

  73. Pg Abu Bakar, D. N. N., Shahrill, M., & Zakariya, Y. F. (2023). Digital escape game and students’ learning outcomes in mathematics: Experience from Brunei. SAGE Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231216838

  74. Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in human Behavior, 63, 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.023

  75. Rohaeti, E. E., Evans, B. R., Wiyatno, T., Prahmana, R. C. I., & Hidayat, W. (2023). Differential learning assisted with SANTUY mobile application for improving students’ mathematical understanding and ability. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(2), 275-292. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i2.pp275-292

  76. Sahni, J. (2019). Does blended learning enhance student engagement? Evidence from higher education. Journal of E-learning and Higher Education, 2019, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5171/2019.121518

  77. Salim, A. N., Jawawi, R., Shahrill, M., Jaidin, J. H., & Musa, J. (2023). Integrating game-based-learning to improve students’ essay writing in high school sociology. International Journal of Essential Competencies in Education, 2(1), 15-53. https://doi.org/10.36312/ijece.v2i1.1359

  78. Shahabadi, M. M., & Uplane, M. (2015). Synchronous and asynchronous e-learning styles and academic performance of e-learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.453

  79. Simpol, N. S. H., Shahrill, M., Li, H. C., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2017). Implementing thinking aloud pair and Pólya problem solving strategies in fractions. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 943(1), 012013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/943/1/012013

  80. Siswono, T. Y. E., Rosyidi, A. H., Kohar, A. W., Hartono, S., Shahrill, M., & Uripno, G. (2024). What teachers know about integrating technology to enhance students’ mathematical creative thinking? AIP Conference Proceedings, 3046(1), 020049. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0195278

  81. Skolastika, I. M. P. (2020). Boosting students’ participation through the implementation of virtual station rotation model. ELLITE: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 5(2), 51-58.

  82. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2013). Blended Learning in the K—12 Education Sector. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives (Vol. 2). Routledge.

  83. Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063

  84. Szymkowiak, A., Melović, B., Dabić, M., Jeganathan, K., & Kundi, G. S. (2021). Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technology in Society, 65, 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565

  85. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

  86. Timonen, P., & Ruokamo, H. (2021). Designing a preliminary model of coaching pedagogy for synchronous collaborative online learning. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1834490921991430

  87. Tomal, D. R. (2010). Action research for educators (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

  88. Truitt, A. A., & Ku, H.-Y. (2018). A case study of third grade students’ perceptions of the station rotation blended learning model in the United States. Educational Media International, 55(2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1484042

  89. VanVoorhis, C. R. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding Power and Rules of Thumb for Determining Sample Sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043

  90. Wahyuni, S., Sanjaya, I. G. M., Erman, E., & Jatmiko, B. (2019). Edmodo-based blended learning model as an alternative of science learning to motivate and improve junior high school students’ scientific critical thinking skills. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 14(7), 98-110. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i07.9980

  91. Walne, M. B. (2012). Emerging blended-learning models and school profiles. Houston: Community Foundation. http://www.edustart.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Emerging+BL+Models+and+School+Profiles+FINAL+09.21.12.pdf

  92. Wang, L., Huang, Y., & Omar, M. K. (2021). Analysis of blended learning model application using text mining method. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(1), 172-187. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i01.19823

  93. Willits, F. K., Theodori, G. L., & Luloff, A. E. (2016). Another look at Likert scales. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 31(3), 126-139.

  94. Wulandari, D., & Amir, M. F. (2022). Analysis of elementary school students' difficulties in fraction addition. Kreano, Jurnal Matematika Kreatif-Inovatif, 13(1), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.15294/kreano.v13i1.35275

  95. Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & MacLeod, J. (2016). Collaborative teaching approaches: Extending current blended learning models In S. K. S. Cheung, L.-f. Kwok, J. Shang, A. Wang, & R. Kwan, In Blended Learning: Aligning Theory with Practices, 9th International Conference, ICBL 2016, Cham (pp. 49-59). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41165-1_5

  96. Zboun, J., & Farrah, M. (2021). Students’ perspectives of online language learning during corona pandemic: Benefits and challenges. Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ), 7(1), 13-20.