The purpose of this paper is to describe ongoing collaborative research concerning the internship program at the Faculty of Education, Memorial University. In particular, we wish to focus on one aspect of this research involving seconded teachers who supervise interns. This research is done within the context of educational reform in the province generally and of the development of various delivery models for the internship program within the Faculty of Education specifically.

An underlying premise of this paper is that the teacher internship experience, as one component of the teacher education program, can be examined within the framework of an interdisciplinary education team development process. We believe there are a myriad of issues related to this conceptual framework and process that can inform the development and implementation of an internship program. Teacher internship programs are constantly changing in response to new developments in educational methods and research, as well as to new instructional and developmental models. Therefore, the focus of this paper is on the emergent values of team interdependence and collaboration as they relate to our efforts in developing a Reflective and Critical Internship Program: The RCIP Model (See Figure 1). At this stage of our work, we are attempting to test the efficacy of this model in the field. Specifically, our aim is to explore more fully the potential of the RCIP Model to resocialize students, cooperative teachers, supervisors and school personnel into the norms of interdisciplinary team-work. Hence, we are interested in issues relevant to the formation and continuation of an interdisciplinary and collaborative service and/or research team.

This paper makes no attempt to classify the numerous issues related to the conceptual framework for interdisciplinary education, interdependence and collaboration. Instead, the paper is organized in the following way. First, we review selected literature on collaborative action research as well as selected conceptual, theoretical, and practical approaches to the development of interdisciplinary teams. This type of work is being done in health care fields to achieve comprehensive and coordinated geriatric care by bringing professionals in many disciplines to work collaboratively. As Toner, Miller and Gurland (1994) have pointed out, "the structure for this collaboration is often the interdisciplinary team, and the collaboration itself is called interdisciplinary team-work" (p. 53). Secondly, we briefly describe our own involvement in collaborative and interdisciplinary action research (Doyle, Kennedy, Ludlow, Rose and Singh, 1994). Thirdly, we highlight one aspect of this research as it relates to issues surrounding seconded teachers as university supervisors. The voices of these seconded teachers point to the complexity of the internship program as well as to the need for the development of collaborative research models as part of ongoing development and delivery of the internship program.

Collaborative action research has been conceptualized and practiced in different forms (Sagor, 1992; Calhoun, 1994). This section reviews ideas from selected research which informs our view of collaborative action research in the field of education.

As Oja and Smulyan (1989) have pointed out, action research (a term first used in the 1940s by Kurt Lewin), has recently emerged as a method which addresses both researchers' needs for school-based study and teachers' desires to be involved in more effective staff development. Both university researchers and teachers were looking for an alternative to linear models of research and development in which theory and practice remained unrelated to, and therefore unaffected by, one another: AThe participation of both teachers and researchers on an action research team was expected to lead to a connection between theory and practice through which theory would be enriched and p ractice improved@(pp. 203-204).

This research methodology suggests that participants who take part in the research process be involved from the very beginning in the planning, implementation and analysis of the research and that each participant should contribute his or her unique expertise and unique perspective to the research process. It suggests also that participants recognize that the purpose and value of collaborative research is to learn about those actions which would improve one's school or classroom. We relate to this particular approach because it encourages us to work with school-based educators and continue the development of a reflective and critical internship program. Further to this, such an approach may well improve communication and collaboration between various educational personnel and institutions. This in turn will allow all of us to be actively involved in ongoing educational and reform agendas.

According to Oja & Smulyan (1989), action researchers have realized that "it may be difficult to produce traditional educational theory and change classrooms or school practices all within the same project. However, the two goals are not mutually exclusive, but they may be difficult to achieve simultaneously. Perhaps some of the difficulty lies in our approach to educational theory" (p. 205-206). They suggest that a first step in addressing the theory/practice issue may be to redefine educational theory to include teachers' understanding of the problems and practices in their classrooms and schools (Cummings and Hustler, 1986; Street, 1986). At present, as Carr and Kemmis (1986) point out, much educational theory is produced by people outside the school community who use the "straightforward application of the scientific disciplines to educational problems" (p. 124). Elliot (1985) describes this as research for products rather than understanding; Carr and Kemmis (1986) claim that it produces a body of knowledge unrelated to practical situations. Action research, in particular, offers a different kind of educational theory, one which is "grounded in the problems and perspectives of educational practice" (Carr and Kemmis, 1986, p. 122 ) and made up of insights, and practical methods to address their concerns. Oja and Smulyan (1989) claim that if this theory is recognized as legitimate, then action research will be closer to meeting its goals of both improved practice and educational theory .

It is interesting to note that besides generally recognizing the power of the action research methodology to connect theory and practice, many researchers in this area have sought alternative ways of evaluating the outcomes of collaborative research. For example, Kemmis (1980) points out one potential outcome regarding the development of critical communities of practitioners:

In our own efforts to develop the RCIP model, we have sought to develop critical communities of practitioners through working collaboratively with cooperating teachers, teacher interns and university-based supervisors. We have attempted to incorporate their understanding of the problems and practices in their schools in our analysis of the educational practices in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our focus has been on encouraging teacher interns, cooperating teachers and university supervisors to participate in the reflective and critical process in order to build a more effective internship program in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University. For the purpose of this paper, we will highlight some of the reflective and critical processes in volving seconded teachers as they work as university internship supervisors.

Researchers in the health care area (DePoy & Gallagher, 1990; Hagle et al., 1987; Sweeny, Gulino, Lora & Small, 1987; Whitney, 1990) have defined team work as an indepth cooperative effort in which experts from diverse disciplines, clinical experiences, or settings work together to contribute to the study of a problem. In effective collaborative teams, experts from the same or different disciplines are linked together in such a way that they build on each other's strengths, backgrounds , and experiences and together develop an integrative approach to resolve a research or educational problem. This integrative approach enhances the capabilities of members of the team to examine and understand issues from many perspectives and develop innovative solutions to the multiple and complex health issues of older persons (Kapp, 1987; Selikson & Guzik, 1986).

Many people have come to recognize the benefits of, and need for, collaboration. However, researchers show that the structure of many educational institutions may not facilitate cooperative approaches to research, education, and service. According to Gitlin, Lyons & Kolodner (1994), this is so because "traditional educational models tend to foster individualism and competitiveness and create a gap between knowledge and development" (p. 16). Their work is based on the major key constructs of this social exchange theory: exchange, negotiation, role differentiation, and an environment of trust. In regard to exchange, for example, the theory suggests that individuals join work groups because of the benefits available to them as a result of membership. These benefits vary greatly and may include social support, help in solving a particular problem, or professional advancement (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Jacobs, 1970; Thibault & Kelly, 1959).

Gitlin et al. (1994) suggest that an individual must assess his or her willingness and ability to work cooperatively with others. Flexibility in thinking and work style, the ability to relinquish or take control in a group process, and an openness to the ideas of others are "just some of the characteristics an individual must possess in order for an environment of trust and successful collaboration to emerge" (Bergstrom et al., 1984; Singleton, Edmunds, Rapson, & Steele, 1982).

They suggest as well that "through ongoing negotiation and role differentiation in shaping the research question or educational project, a culture should emerge that promotes and rewards collaboration" (p. 25). They call this a "culture of collaborati on." According to them, such a culture is characterized by an environment that supports:

The collaborative learning approach to education focuses on the importance of community, not individualism. Consequently, many new collaborative learning models and methods have been developed and a variety of challenges have emerged. Frameworks such as role theory and role conflict (McKenna, 1981), cognitive maps (Petrie, 1976), models of professional functioning (Qualls, & Czirr, 1988), and small group dynamics (Kane, 1975) have been developed for understanding these challenges.

Toner et al., (1994) state that "self-education in the interdisciplinary team setting is best achieved in an environment that is informal, encourages face-to-face interaction among members, and uses a structure that is determined by consensus" (p. 57). Further "the purpose ... is to improve communication and facilitate more effective interdisciplinary team relations. Team members are most often not strangers to one another. They share a history as staff at their work site and bring to the team meetings their perceptions of that history. In fact, the team members' perceptions of their shared history are bound to influence their actions and interactions in the team. The team members also come in contact with one another outside the team meetings , and the team facilitators are most often totally unaware of these external interactions. Another fact to be understood is that team members are not accountable and responsible only to themselves; they are accountable to the larger group, the institution or organization. Consequently, some members arrive at team meetings with authority, power, and status. This can exert an overwhelming influence on the functioning of a team, depending on team types" (p. 58). They state also that

As mentioned earlier in this paper, collaborative action research assumes self-education and cooperative learning. The Reflective and Critical Internship (RCIP Model) also assumes that reflection is a social process and not purely an individual process. The reality is that prospective teachers, supervisors, cooperating teachers, seconded teachers and administrators are all active learners. Hence, in terms of the data we examine in this paper, we want to learn from the voices of the seconded teachers. We want to identify aspects of their particular interests, motivation and general ambitions at this stage of their professional development and careers. Our overall objective is to identify windows of opportunities and conditions that might enable us to collaborate with those in the field in building interdisciplinary teams for the development and delivery of a reflective and critical internship experience, as one aspect of the teacher education program.

As part of our effort to build interdisciplinary teams, we were required to develop an environment of trust and respect so that various participants involved could feel safe to voice their concerns. We knew that participants bring their own histories and specific concerns to the interactive settings, and that incentive to participate in team-work varies from participant to participant and is, of course, connected to their past experiences. Also the participants' willingness to participate in interdisciplinary team work is very much dependent upon the structure of the institutions in which they work, the stage of their career development , and their future plans as individuals and professionals. These and other factors influence participants ' willingness to relearn new roles in order to become team players.

In the long run, the RCIP Model aspires to engage in the development of critical communities of practitioners. Given the changing nature of the delivery of the internship program in the Faculty of Education, it is envisioned that such comm unities would be developed through the building of interdisciplinary teams in various school districts and regions. The role of collaborative interdisciplinary teams would be to reflect on, and deal critically with, current issues and dilemmas faced by teacher interns, and those who work with them, during the internship period. The overall goal is for all participants involved with the delivery of an effective, reflective and critical component of internship programs in teacher education in this province to be engaged in both individual and collective professional development. For example, interdisciplinary and collaborative team work may improve conditions in which teacher interns work by improving the teachers' work place in general. It is within this context that we now describe our efforts to build an interdisciplinary team in the Faculty of Education.

As an interdisciplinary research team, we realized from the beginning that it would be unrealistic to think that our work could be carried out in any meaningful way without others, i.e., we needed external collaboration. We invited cooperating teachers, seconded teachers, interns, administrators and our colleagues in the faculty, whose responsibility it was to deliver the internship program, to participate in this project. We never underestimated the fact that each category of people brought its own cultural capital to the internship program and had much knowledge to offer about the culture of schools. Our own orientation was to establish reflective sites in which we could share, dialogue, listen to others, examine what they had to say, and ultimately learn from their experiences. We realized that respecting others' local theorizing, and genuinely trusting their insights about the complex nature of schooling, were the key factors in establishing good communication and working relationships.

One of our focus areas was to specifically work with seconded teachers. To this end, we contacted twelve seconded teachers and discussed our intention to build a Reflective and Critical Internship Program in the Faculty of Education. They cooperated with us by consenting to let us interview them indepth regarding their reflections and perceptions about the internship program based on their own perceptions about, and experience in, the Newfoundland school system. Each interview lasted approximately two hours. In the informal setting of our offices or theirs, we explored issues pertaining to their roles and experiences as internship supervisors. We recorded their responses and made extensive notes. Our purpose was to sensitize ourselves about how seconded teachers analyzed dominant practices and discourses concerning not only the internship program, but also the larger issues of teacher education. We learned how each of us, through the process of dialogue, questioning and reflection, was able to add a critical aspect to our respective involvements with the internship program.

Another way we attempted to make the internship critical was to function as cultural workers. We tried to insert in the ongoing conversations our own concerns about the difference between teacher education and teacher training. We saw the interns hip program as a site not only for learning classroom management techniques, although we fully realized the fact that these techniques formed the overriding concern of many teacher interns and seconded teachers. We asserted that pedagogy was a form of cultural and political production rather than simply a transmission of knowledge and skills. Part of our intention was to share with others our understanding of pedagogy. We wanted to share how pedagogy helped all of us to recognize our own relationships with each other and our environment. How else could we establish working, collaborative relationships with all those involved in teacher education in this province? How else could we understand the relationship between schooling, education, and the dynamics of social power? How else could we understand the consistencies or inconsistencies between what we say and do? How else could we understand what we agree to exclude or include? How else could we accept the authority of some experts and deny th at of others? How else could we accept the privileging or legitimizing of one form of vision about the future of this province over another?

Yet another way we attempted to insert a critical aspect towards building the Reflective and Critical Internship Program was to encourage others at the interview sites to produce local knowledge and a language of possibility through the process of local theorizing. Our interviews with the seconded teachers, the cooperating teachers, and the teacher interns are filled with local theorizing on various aspects of the complex nature of schooling and classrooms. Learning to conceptualize one's own everyday life experiences in one's own voice is a step toward becoming a reflective and critical person. Recognizing that one has the ability, the linguistic resources, and above all, the courage and confidence to theorize, is another step in opening windows of possibility.

Our transcribed material revealed to us that, to an extent, we were successful in creating safe spaces for the participants who were then able to create a language of possibility for themselves and others. This form of practice enabled participants to create sites where they could imagine the possibility of achieving their desires and fulfilling their wishes. The seconded teachers, for example, saw the Reflective and Critical Internship Program as a site where they could genuinely contribute to the advancement of teacher education in this province. These experienced teachers could see their roles and visualize structural changes that could be brought about in the existing educational system so as to build bridges between teachers in schools and professors at the Faculty of Education... bridges that could lead to a stronger linking of theory and practice. Specifics of these ideas can be found through the voices of seconded teachers.

We also involved the cooperating teachers in these mini-reflective sites. Inviting the cooperating teachers to share extensive notes on teacher interns, we opened ourselves to the critique of the practising cooperating teachers. How else could we find out what the practising classroom teachers bring to the internship? In our orientation seminars, and in reading the literature in the area of teacher education, we heard repeatedly that university-based supervisors often have little knowledge of real classroom situations and that what they often have to offer as advice is too theoretical. We compared and contrasted our notes, recognizing and respecting each other's situational authority as experts at different levels of the schooling process. The teacher interns and their cooperating teachers also compared and contrasted their notes separately. Then at the mini-reflective sites, we entered into the reflection process. Our intention was to accord recognition to the different voices, privileging each of them in their own authentic ways.

Besides creating the mini-reflective sites in the school settings, we created other sites for reflection in the Faculty of Education, e.g., group sessions with interns and supervisors. We saw these reflective sessions as sites away from school routines. The main purpose for using the group setting was to create a site and opportunity where the teacher interns could voice their experiences of the internship, reflect together on those experiences, and also share their experiences with others at different levels of reflectiveness. We conceptualized the reflective sessions as being sites in which we would be enabled to practise reflection-in-action. These reflective sessions have since become a regular feature of the internship program in the faculty.

In this section we describe the results of one of the areas from our research with the Internship Program. In our reflective sessions with seconded teachers as supervisors (ST's) and cooperating teachers (CT's), we focused primarily on listening to their assessment of the unfolding nature of teacher education generally and the teacher internship program in this province specifically. We now share some of their ideas and concerns about these areas.

It is clear from data collected that the supervising teachers and cooperating teachers perceive the internship experience to be a significant element in the professional and personal development of all parties involved in teacher education. Following is typical of the statements ST's and CT's have made in their interviews:

Generally, these teachers recognize their contribution to the continuing development of the internship program. For example, this seconded teacher said:

The seconded teachers=perception of their role in the internship process is a very positive one. They believe strongly that they have something very special to offer, i .e., the skills and competencies which the university-based professor/supervisors and the cooperative teachers, may not be able to offer. They believe they bring a unique perspectives from teaching experiences in the school system. The following quote from ST's typically represent this type of perception held by them:

The ST's claim also they have a sense of classroom realities which the university professors and interns do not seem to have. Following are some typical statements made by the ST's during the reflective interviews we conducted with them:

The ST's also believe their relationship with school-based cooperating teachers can be more objective than the relationship between cooperating teacher, university professors and interns. They feel their ability to be objective enables them to reduce the tension that often exists between cooperating teachers and teacher interns. The belief of ST's is that, in many cases, both teacher interns and cooperating teachers prefer supervisory involvement by the ST's over that of university professors.

The ST's also attach some degree of status, prestige and pride to the position of seconded teacher as university supervisor. They seem to view this position located somewhere between the cooperating teachers who are still in the classroom and the university-based supervisors who are structurally located at in Faculty of Education, Memorial University. To summarize briefly, they seem to believe they were selected as internship supervisors because in the eyes of their school boards they were the most effective teachers, a "model" or "master teacher", in terms of personal and professional abilities and competencies. They were the best suited teachers to carry out the role of supervising interns at the University level. They also felt ethically responsible to correct what they perceive to be weakness in the pre-service programs offered to students in the Faculty of Education. Following are typical statements by ST's conveying this type of perception:

The ST's envision a valuable role for experienced teachers in the internship program. They believe recent initiatives surrounding current educational reform in this province can provide new vistas or windows of opportunity for creating new roles f or school-based experienced teachers. However, throughout the interviews, they have addressed a number of issues that underscore the complexity of their potential involvement in the internship program as supervisors. These include the selection process, teacher evaluation, defining aA good@ or A master@ teacher, and ongoing professional development.

Regarding the selection and acceptability of seconded teachers as university supervisors, the following claim was made:

In relation to defining a A good@ or A master @ teacher, these comments were made:

Some seconded teachers envisioned that their experience gained through the role of ST's would have an impact on their future practice and ongoing professional development. These comments reflect some of their ideas in this regard:

Seconded teachers are aware of the dialectical relationships between university supervisors, cooperating teachers and interns. Such an awareness is an essential component of effective collaborative and team-work. This seconded teacher states:

While the above quotations from seconded teachers are revealing, it is important to remember that these perspectives represent a limited portion of the complete data. This data are rich and, as indicated above, speak to the complexity of the internship program as well as to the challenges of working within collaborative research models.

In this paper we have described briefly the nature of collaborative research as it applies to our work with the internship program at the Faculty of Education. Specifically, we focussed on that part of our collaborative research efforts which involved seconded teachers as university supervisors. Data from this research informs us of some of the attitudes, perceptions, understandings, experiences, beliefs, and values that this sample of seconded teachers bring to the internship experience. Th is data also indicates a myriad of issues related to the nature of collaboration and team-work that can inform ongoing development of the internship program. Such data highlights the need for team interdependence and collaboration as a means to further developing a reflective and critical internship program.

As noted above, seconded teachers are fully aware of the contribution they can make to the continuing development of the internship program. Further to this, they perceive the internship experience to be a very significant aspect of their professional development. They see their involvement in a very positive light and believe they bring a unique perspective to internship supervision. These seconded teachers indicate that there is some degree of status and prestige given to the position of university internship supervisor. They see these positions as windows of opportunities for creating new roles for school-based teachers. This is very much in keeping with transformative aspects of collaborative action research as outlined by Oja and Smulyan (1989).

It is important to note that, in addition to feelings of pride generated from their involvement with internship supervision, there are also some concerns. These stem from insecurities as expressed through comments and questions about the selection process. Many seconded teachers were, in fact, unaware of how they themselves were selected to be supervisors. They note the potential for politics, as well as the realities and challenges surrounding teacher evaluation, in the selection process. How ever, these seconded teachers realized that the experience gained through supervising in the internship program would have a positive impact on their own teaching and professional growth.

Seconded teachers indicated to us that they are very aware of the delicate relationships between university supervisors, cooperating teachers and interns. Given the nature of these complex relationships and working arrangements, it is incumbent on those of us working in the Faculty of Education to take responsibility in building a Aculture of collaboration@ (Gitlin et. al, 1994) between all parties involved the development and delivery of the internship program. In this way, we can help develop critical communities of educational practitioners.

Bergstrom, N., Hansen, B., Grant, M., Hanson, R., Kubo, W., Padilla, G., and Wong, H.L. (1984). Collaborative nursing research: Anatomy of a successful consortium. Nursing Research, 33, 20-25.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

Calhoun, E.F. (1994). How To Use Action Research in the Self-Renewing School. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge, and Action Research. Lewes, Falmer Press.

Cummings, C. and Hustler, D. (1986). Teachers' professional knowledge. In Hustler, D., Cassidy, T. and Cuff, T. (Eds.), Action Research in Classrooms and Schools. London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 36-47.

DePoy, E. and Gallagher, C. (1990). Steps in collaborative research between clinicians and faculty. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44, 55-59.

Doyle, C., Kennedy, W., Ludlow, K., Rose, A. and Singh, A. (1994). Towards Building a Reflective and Critical Internship Program (The RCIP Model): Theory and Practice. St. John's: Faculty of Education, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland.

Elliott, J. (1985). Facilitating action research in schools: Some dilemmas. In Burgess, R. (Ed.), Field Methods in the Study of Education. Lewes, Falmer Press, pp. 235-62.

Gitlin, L.N., Lyons, K.J., and Kolonder, Ellen (1994). A model to build collaborative research or educational teams of health professionals in gerontology. Educational Gerontology, 20:15-34.

Hagle, M.E., Barbour, L., Flynn, B., Kelley, C., Trippon, M., Braun, D., Beschorner, J., Boxer, J., Hange, P., McGuire, D., Bressler, L., and Kirchhoff, K. (1987). Research collaboration among nursing clinicians. Oncology Nurses Forum, 14, 55- 59.

Homans, G.C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Hartcourt, Brace and World.

Jacobs, T.O. (1970). Leadership and Exchange in Formal Organizations. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organizations.

Kane, R.A. (1975). The interprofessional team as a small group. Social Work in Health Care, 1, 19-32.

Kapp, M.B. (1987). Interprofessional relationships in geriatrics: Ethical and legal considerations. Gerontologists, 27, 547-552.

Kemmis, S. (1980). Action research in retrospect and prospect, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney. Quoted in Oja and Smulyan (1989, p. 204).

Kennedy, J. and Doyle, C. (1995). Perception of Internship Evaluation. St. John's: Memorial University of Newfoundland, Faculty of Education.

McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

McKenna, P.M. (1981). Role negotiation: A strategy for facilitating an interprofessional health care team. Nursing Leadership, 4, 23-28.

Oja, S.N. and E. Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative Action Research: A Developmental Approach. New York: The Falmer Press.

Petrie, H.G. (1976). Do you see what I see? The epistemology of interdisciplinary inquiry. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10, 29-43.

Qualls, S.H. and Czirr, R. (1988). Geriatric health teams: Classifying models of professional and team functioning. The Gerontologist, 28, 372-376.

Sagor, R. (1992). How To Conduct Collaborative Action Research. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Selikson, S. and Guzik, H. (1986). Perspectives on a geriatric fellowship: A personal account. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 34, 412-413.

Singleton, E., Edmunds, M., Rapson, M. and Steele, S. (1982). An experience in collaborative research. Nursing Outlook, 30, 325-401.

Street, L. (1986). Mathematics, teachers, and an action research course. In Hustler, D., Cassidy, T. and Cuff, T. (Eds.), Action Research in Classrooms and Schools. London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 123-32.

Sweeney, M., Gulino, C., Lora, J. and Small, M. (1987). Collaboration in clinical research: Binational projects shed new light on old issues. Journal of Professional Nursing, 3, 28-38.

Takamura, J. (1983). Introduction: Health teams. In L. Campbell and S. Vivell (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Team Training for Primary Care in Geriatrics: An Educational Model for Program Development and Evaluation (pp. 64-67). Los Angeles: Veterans Administration Medical Center.

Thibaut, J.W. and Kelly, H.H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.

Toner, J.A., Miller, Patricia, and Gurland, B.J. (1994). Conceptual, theoretical, and practical approaches to the development of interdisciplinary teams: A transactional model. Educational Gerontology, 20:53-69.

Whitney, F.W. (1990). Passion and collaboration. Nursing Connections, 3, 11-15.