Dear @Michael, I think it is the science of education and deals with the methods and strategies of teaching, so, it belongs to pedagogy faculty and not the science faculty. The following article deals with the nature of science in science education:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008642510402#page-2

Dear @Michael, I think it is the science of education and deals with the methods and strategies of teaching, so, it belongs to pedagogy faculty and not the science faculty. The following article deals with the nature of science in science education:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008642510402#page-2

I am agree with Mr. Rababah:

It is the science of education.....

Pedagogy is a skill disposition while "Education science" is a where-with-all of the content and delivery of learning .

I find it is science of education. Therefore, I fully agree with @Abedallah M Rababah. He has narrated in a very clear manner.

Dear Michael

Education science is intimately related with the term, pedagogy i.e. teaching process. Education science focuses more on making the teaching process more effective by using alternative interventions, tools and techniques. It may involve examining different teaching methods, conducting research on these methods, and studying the response of the students to these methods as groups and as individuals.

So the aim of education science is to improve the methodologies of teaching.

It's the science of education. People like to say that teaching is an art. So maybe we need 'science of education' to state clearly that education can be measured.

On the other hand, Science education, that we are familiar with, is the teaching and learning of science.

First we should discriminate between "Science education" and "education science". The firs means education concerning science subjects. Education Science, is all around , pedagogy, curriculum studies, learning difficulties in each one of the courses, e.g algebra, analysis, etc. We should add an important subfield of mathematical education and this is "problem solving"., see e.g. G. Polya, How to solve it. Last but not least is studies aboyt "intuition" and its role in learning and problem solving.

see for Science education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_education

and Education Sciences — Open Access Journal

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Yes, agree, 'Education Science' ('Science of Education'). I recall a short, clear and thorough book on the topic (first published in 1974)

Moore, T. W. (2011). Educational theory: an introduction (Vol. 20). Routledge.

The reason why you're finding google to switch the terms interchangeably is because that's how search engines work: you type in the words you want to search for and if finds sources with those words, although not necessarily in that order.

If you want to find them in that order you should use quotes, for example "education science".

Agree with most other people on here:

Education Science = the science of education (i.e. how education is taught)

Science Education = studying science within the education field (i.e. how biology is taught or what you learn in 12th grade physics).

“Our goal is to transform how children learn, what they learn, who they learn from.”

Mitchel Resnick, A Media Lab for Kids in Resnick M., A Media Lab for Kids: $27 Million from Isao Okawa Creates Center for Future Children at MIT, MIT News. (November 18, 1998.)

Let us try to resolve terminology gap, what is difference between Pedagogy, Didactics and Methodics?

Namely, the American Educational Research Association (AERA) has classified the field of educational research into 12 divisions that represent broad substantives or professional interests. However, some fields were not given such an independent status. For example, the philosophy of education did not exist as its own field of a classification title level, as well as didactics, methodics, etc.

In addition, continental Europe (without Great Britain) researchers have understood didactics slightly differently than Anglo-American researchers. In Anglo-American countries didactics was found in under several division titles such as Curriculum Studies, Learning and Instruction, and School Evaluation & Program Development ("12 divisions within AERA", Retrieved January 24, 2011 from http://www.aera.net/divisions/Default.aspx?menu_id=62&id=179

The difference in classification and emphasis of subfields in the Continent and the America is a matter of different cultures that have their own philosophical and political roots. Uljens ("On General Education as a Discipline", Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20, 291-301. pp. 295, 2001), stated, “From an American perspective it may seem odd to have several sub-disciplines in education. From a Nordic perspective again it is odd that education is not an autonomous discipline at every American university, but is instead conceived of as an ‘a field of research’.”

In addition, what about the term Methodics (or in Slovenian languages Metodika)? I do not find the definition in English yet. I find Didactics, Pedagogy, Subject-matter Didactics, Instructional Design, etc.

The rest you could find at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Lets_try_to_resolve_terminology_gap_what_is_difference_between_Education_Pedagogy_Didactics_and_Methodics?_tpcectx=profile_highlights

Education science is the science of education. It is closely related to pedagogy, which is the process of teaching. More specifically, education science is considered to be the study of improving the teaching process. Therefore, if you are interested in researching and learning the ways that teachers can improve, you need to consider studying education science. Education science examines and investigate teaching methods, how group of students receive these methods, teaching methodologies and the process of improving them.

In addition to the reasons mentioned by Michael Wells, science education is more 'popular' in Google due to the increasing importance of STEM - Science Technology Engineering Mathematics - in the English-speaking world, above all in the USA which means a greater exposure of the terms 'STEM' and 'science education' in the online news, sources, search engines.

While social sciences and education science are included (but not the liberal arts!) in the US definition of STEM which follows the guidelines of the National Science Foundation, the German (close to) equivalent MINT - Mathematics, Information science, Natural sciences, Technology - is more narrow. However, depending on lobbying and purpose, the US definition of STEM may overlap with the one of MINT.

In other words, 'science education' (=education in the sciences) is part of 'education science' (=the science of education) and while both terms would be on the list of STEM subjects and degrees, only science education may be included in MINT.

Some major sites for research papers and journals in education science:

The US ERIC Digital Library: http://eric.ed.gov/

Directory of Open Access Journals in Education - http://www.ergobservatory.info/ejdirectory.html

Repositories and Journals indexed by the German site Open Access -

http://open-access.net/ch_en/open_access_in_individual_disciplines/education/#c1562

Don't forget, Michael, that in the English that both some arts and all sciences can be translated into " Wissenschaften" in German, which means, when someone translates back from German the following:

(1) Applied Sciences

(2) Physical Sciences

(3) Natural Sciences, etc.

In response to the query: " What is the difference between science and applied science?"

Kumar P. has written: Science is basically a way to define how things works. what is the whole phenomenon behind the numerous processess that we observe around ourselves. To answer such question in simple and understanding way we have devised some formulae and laws which govern these processes. these terms are included in science.

While applied science is the branch of science that deals with application of scientific facts and discoveries for the benifit for the common human being so as to continue the human desire to excel in the technology. This deals with the industrial approach of the basic science.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_science_and_applied_science

Education Sciences are a subset of Applied Sciences and some other Sciences. They seek to advance the field of education research and subsequently teaching and efficacies thereof etc.

Thank you all for clarification. So, most of you agree on 'education science' as 'science of education', which makes perfectly sense to me. Does anyone know how to include this on the page of the related RG topic (see link below)?

@Michael B. Wells, in my question I referred to "string search" in Google, which I have already used; nevertheless, it switches the terms.

https://www.researchgate.net/topic/education_science?ev=tp_pst_dtl_xkey

I don't see a possibility to edit ''education science" to "science of education" if this is what you mean. Even if you do that, I think RG editors will edit back the field to ''education science".

Regarding search strings, it is true that "education science" doesn't work well but "educational science" and "education sciences" are returning relevant results; "science of education", "education research" and "educational research" work even better. I guess the terms are sociologically more recognizable this way - "science education" and "education research", probably precisely to avoid confusion. Besides, research and education are broader terms while science is often associated only with exact or natural sciences.

On the other hand, searching and finding terms on a search engine is a matter of linguistics (how you define terms, how they are indexed or tagged on various websites and search engines) and mathematics (how often the terms appear somewhere, possible combinations).

I will suggest one more idea in terms of linguistics -- the rhythm metrics of a phrase in the English language which is a stress-based language. Consider the rhythm of ''education science'' as opposed to "educational science'' or "education sciences". It might seem odd at first but intuitively you will notice that the latter two sound more English than the former.

Yes, Hristina, your suggestions are well founded. Just as a remark: I didn't want to change the topic title (maybe, I do want now) but I suggest to add some more information to the topic page here on RG regarding the meaning of the term 'Education Science' (you find the link 17 hrs ago).

@MB:

Please always search as phrase and not key words

e.g.

"science of education"

OR

"education science"

and you will find no switching of any kind

-----------------------------

also you can use Boolean operators

[(aa+bb+cc) OR (cc+dd+ee) NOT "abcd efg"]

or always search in advanced mode to limit the HITS

Thanks to everybody for very wise and often widely treated answers. In my opinion science, in precise meaning of this word is connected the fields like mathematics, physics, statistics, etc. Since all these sciences, especially statictics have been used in investigtions of certain branches of humanities (e.g. linguistics, pedagogy), the previously mentioned fields ( in italics) have been incorporated into sciences for about twenty years now. I've experienced it while doing research in appied linguistics -every investigatin had to be ststistically proven in order to show its "exactness" and correctness .

Rightly said that the statistical provability on the investigated evidences leads to science of education...@ Janina, good remark

@Prof. Ravi K. Sharma, I have exactly the opposite experience to what you propose. I used string search for 'education science' (as I indicated in the original answer) but Google switches the words, see the screenshot attached below.

Michael is right, this is new to Google search, it used to return results for strings as they are. The new search algorithm may be due to the recently introduced semantic features - related strings at the bottom of the page. But there are many other factors (such as your search history, the fact that the Internet is dynamic - it changes as we write, etc), probably they are all mentioned on Google's inside search site: http://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/index.html

In that sense, the problem is not in that ''education science" is entirely wrong as a term and that is why there are no relevant results (or not enough), it's the number of times the other mentioned combinations appear which outweighs its importance. No matter how correct a term is linguistically, there are often other ways and synonyms to enter the search, some combinations work better than others on search engines. Also, I don't always trust the results on the first page (esp. without a search filter) since their popularity may be a result of advertising.

Hi,

I think it is science of Education.

To my understanding the science of how to educate someone.

It is pedagogy

Education science is the science of education ie. the methods and approaches of communication, pedagogy and cognitive understanding that should be used by teachers to give lessons and assess their students

As I have noticed, there are many approaches to the definition of science education and all of them are valuable to some of us, many -speak to others. It seems to me that the most important thing in this discussiion is a wide variety of interesing "vivions' of the issue.

After a week of following your valuable input and points of discussion, I think it's worth a (too short) summary.

Most of you see 'Education Science' as the science of education, which makes perfectly sense from the grammar of English language. Some see a relation to 'Science Education', which then seems to be only a part of Education Science, i.e. where Education Science deals with the teaching of science and aims at creating valid instruments to foster instruction and education regarding the appropriate body of knowledge.

Very precise summary, good.

Let me try to build upon Michael's summary. 

1) As the 'science of education', we might mean the scientific study of education. The aim then is to explain educational outcomes - why people learn and understand in the ways they do after being in educational contexts for example. Such a study would describe what is happening and then try to explain it. it probably should remain neutral as to what the aims  (and values that are behind those aims) of education should be, as aims and values  followed would be part of the explanations, as would the role of learning intentions, epistemological beliefs, cultural contexts, how memory and representation of concepts work, the role of language, the nature of academic and vocational disciplines, and so on and so on. As such, it is a very complex and demanding science and probably best practiced by research academics 

2) Alternatively, we might mean the science of what to teach and how one should do it. Aims and values are now part of the argument  of what we should do and not just part of the explanation. Ideally though, this should draw upon findings from 1, yet avoid over simplification or taking those findings out of context. This is complex in a different way in that it is a very broad type of science (study??) into which philosophers, politicians, curriculum developers, teachers, and research academics feed ideas, findings and arguments about values and aims. This could be divided into fields, including science education. It asks what is science, what is valuable about it, and how should it be taught and why should it be taught this way. The same questions can be asked for history, geography, mathematics and so on.

3) Finally, it might be the applied science of educating people as actually practiced by teachers and lecturers. Any teacher or lecturer who reflects upon and evaluates what they are doing, both in terms of the outcomes they see in their students and in terms of findings or arguments from 1 and 2 is working within this meaning.

I see elements of all three of these in the discussion.

Colin, thanks for this fine elaboration. Now I'm getting curious of how to teach Education Science. Should we go along your steps from 1) to 3), thereby building a teacher, who can apply it in the classroom? 

I would like to restrict myself to Mathematical education.

In contemporary education, mathematics education is the practice of teaching and learning mathematics, along with the associated scholarly research.  In Europe it is known as the didactics or pedagogy of mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_education

In particular we have:

Curriculum studies (CS) is a concentration within curriculum and instruction concerned with understanding curricula as an active force of human educational experience.Specific questions related to curriculum studies include the following:

• What should be taught in schools?
• Why should it be taught? To whom should it be taught?
• What does it mean to be an educated person?

Problem solving consists of using generic or ad hoc methods, in an orderly manner, for finding solutions to problems. Some of the problem-solving techniques developed and used in artificial intelligence, computer science, engineering,mathematics, medicine, etc. are related to mental problem-solving techniques studied in psychology.

For Mathematical Problem solving see 

• G. Polya, How to solve it and 

•Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

A very good question Michael and I would need to reflect further upon it. As a starter thought, Costas' contribution seems to be  a beginning in elaborating  2 as applied to mathematics so we might need to work out and teach what are the components of each eductional subject that we deem worth teaching, then allow student teachers  to be mentored by experienced, reflective teachers engaged in evaluation of their own practice. Then allow them to try this reflective and evaluation process out and gradually bring in relevant academic research. That is start with 2 as applied to the subject, give experience of 3 and introduce elements of 1 as appropriate. Just an initial thouht though until I have more time to think further.

As for me, this discussion is taking an exciting turn, and I'm grateful for your feedback here, Costas and Colin. During many years in science, I often tried to understand a concept by asking myself how to teach it; a sort of holistic view is needed then.

To stimulate ideas I would say - following Colin's last remarks, we begin with 2) and think about the content and teaching materials/methods. We let students evolve to the stage on that they can teach by themselves and gain experience, 3). Now, where does 1) come from? It certainly must have a solid foundation (or connection) to 3), otherwise we would have theoretical results but without evidence. Do we need more teacher-researchers or a different approach to get it done? Is there more than one way to teach Education Science?

Let me add: Education is science of communicating knowledge as well as information

I think, to follow your suggested line Michael, we need to step back a bit and consider the type of theories that are associated with each (let's use the term aspect just now) of educational science. 

1 - the scientific study of education- aiming as it does to explain, with out judgement as to what is best, the outcomes of processes in our educational institutions would result in explanatory theories and understandings that are eqivalent to those achieved by the physical, biological and social sciences. When I say 'equivalent', it does not follow that they would take the same form but that they perform the same sort of role as, say the theory of evolution, which explains the process without assuming that one evolutionary pathway is inherently any more valuable than the other. Constructivism might be the umbrella approach for such theories, but I don't know if anyone has actually achieved this type of theory. Most theories, perhaps because of the way that educational research is funded, tend to draw conclusions for practice (writers quickly move into 2) and I suspect, this prevents us from developing such explanatory theories. Psychological theories of learning, although obviously relevant, do not 'cut the mustard' as they do not take into account the full complexity of factors that impinge upon educational outcomes (as my very incomplete list above) suggests. That said, there is plenty of data  and theories to draw from and we do not necessarily need to follow the educational implications if our own contetexrts differ. 

2 - the science of what to teach and how to do it- in thinking about this in the past, I have struggled with this one. I have referred to it as instructional theory or target understanding theory (Smith, 2002) (the latter in line with a model of educational understanding that I developed with Noel Entwistle (the paper can be found on his RG home page) but I am not really happy with either term. The reason is that I suspect that it really encompasses a range of different types of theory. Costas again gives us a hint. We have theories of what is an educated person, what should be taught. Theores that are quite abstract. Then we have theories of application- how to apply problem solving methods from one area in an other, for example. We might add theories of values, social ends, and so on. Also, course prescriptions will have, at least, implicit theories of one or more types within this aspect of educational science. There is a mix then of academic theories, political theories, and theories of application in aspect 2. One problem with curriculum documents though, at least in my country, is that they tend to be in the form of assertions, rather than argued theories.

3- the applied science of actually educating people as actually practiced by teachers and lecturers. This results in theories of practice held by the practitioners or practitioner theory. Obviously, these will be greatly influenced by the forms of aspect 2 that they experience in their own contexts. One idea that greatly influenced me as a teacher was Jack Whitehead's idea of a living theory. Teachers develop these when they notice and work through conradictions between the values they espouse and what they are actually doing. The way I experienced this myself is that I looked to 1 and 2 for ideas and conceptual tools that I could use to try in helping to resolve such contradictions.

One further issue that I have not resolved that is hinted at in your comment Michael is the relationship between teachers and researchers. There is educational research where the researchers stand back from the teachers and their aims and collect their data. That fits easily in aspect 1, if they then develop theories of explanation, rather than just recomendations for change. There is also research where teachers and researchers work together to achieve goals that are valued. At first sight, this would be in aspect 2 but it is possible, I am not sure, that theories might devlop that fit within 1, if that was a conscious aim.

Perhaps, Michael, there is something there to suggest how we should approach teaching education science.

Obviously, there is much work that would be needed to expand this, modify it if necessary, and to see if it stands up but I am content here if it helps us think together.

Is there any relevant paper on the topic of teaching Education Science in your databases or drawers? 

 Probably many releavant papers Michael, but not using the term "educational science." It would be an interesting exercise, if I could find the time, to categorise many, or some of them around the three aspects above. 

I suppose one starting point is to think about the knowledge teachers need. Shulman HULMAN, L.S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educa- tionalReview,57(1), pp. 1-22. sets out his views that have stimulated a large literature, particularly around the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Definitions of this can be discussed at length but is basically the knowledge teachers develop of how to present, explain, and so on the topics they are teaching. The analytical papers, if they refrain from specifying action, may fit in aspect 1. Many, however, do draw conclusions for practice. One common approach is to look at what teachers who are regarded as succsseful know and then try to transmit this to other teachers. I am, sceptical of that approach, unless the teachers are already looking for solutions to pedagogical problems they have identified themselves. You can find my own views in the "Adding Pedagogical Process Knolwedge..." paper on my RG Home page. You will also find more references to PCK there.  Anyway, these approaches probably contribute to aspect 2 and 3, depending on how they are used. There are many other approaches to teacher development though.

Another couple for anyone interested.

For another look at Shulman, Anne Meredith (1995) Terry's Learning: some limitations of Shulman's pedagogical content knowledge, Cambridge Journal of Education, 25:2, 175-187 .

One that I think is interesting in showing the political influence in Aspect 2.

David Hamilton (1987) The pedagogical juggernaut, British Journal of Educational Studies, 35:1, 18-29,

And one that may provide a basis of developing the relationships between all aspects.

Jens Bennedsen & Ole Eriksen (2006) Categorizing Pedagogical patterns by teaching activities and Pedagogical values, Computer Science Education, 16:2, 157-172

Collin, thanks a lot for an exteremely interesting "collection " of articles and books which form a good reference list. I'll take adventage of your advice.

@Colin, very valuable answers here, many thanks to you and the other contributors. 

Just as a remark: interestingly, 'Education Science' is not a lemma in the English Wikipedia. Would you be so kind and check this in your native languages?

For me, Pedagogy is the science and education is the application of such pedagogy into the social and cultural contexts.

Dear margarita, well said. Thanks a lot!

Strategies to-be used, facilitate learning, Knowledge sources, extreme conditioning, sociocultural limitations. Methods of evaluation are some of the common framework for Educational science.

Education is rather a social science, not science in its true sense. we are trying to develop it as a science but with limited success. 

What is "science in its true sense"? If philosophers of science talk about science, they would be very foolish to make a priori exclusions, because the boundaries between the thousands of disciplines are not really hard. Same holds for the field of science of science, which studies with scientific methods the human activity we call science.

There are differences in subject of study and (currently) favorite methodology, appropriate or not, but even these aspects don't make hard distinctions. Not if you press practitioners hard enough and look at what they are really doing, not what they say or pretend to do.

So let's not diminish what we call educational science because its subject can't always be approached like a molecule. It is still science as long as its practitioners adhere to one of the available and appropriate scientific methods.

Call it research if you want to stick to the USA-english sense of 'natural science', but I ask you: what does natural in this phrase mean? And who has the right to restrict 'science' in this way? Long time ago 'natural sciences' was called 'natural philosophy', which we still see in the abbreviation PhD !

Perhaps this kind of confusion is also created and maintained by not always distinguishing between 'the scientific discipline of X' and the 'applied disicipline of X', where X may be education, psychology, biology, physics, etc. etc. Sure enough, applied disciplines aren't always adhering to strict rules of methodology of there scientific counterparts, but this isn't necessarily bad. After all, they (the applied ones) operate in a completely different context, in which methodology plays often a subordinate role.

In Education Science - teacher as a Leader,  It creates a  framework that supports a flexible environment in which the schools and school districts are protected within an area that recognizes school reform is everyone’s business. Moreover, the teacher’s role as a leader in  the classroom and among  peers becomes part for success culture. Leadership has a vital place in the field of management. Recent studies mostly focus on leadership from the point of view of leaders, and followers are generally ignored. However, leadership does not exist without followers.Leadership preferences are through the perspectives of followers and are considered to be linked with locus of control and culture. 

please see my amendments to my previous commentary.

Science needs "experimentation" and "observation" based on measurements. From this point of view "Education Science" hardly satisfies this requirements. There are however something called "soft sciences". I  think "Education Science " belongs to these soft science. Statistics is usually used to dress up some "ideas" and give the impression of "hard science". Education science needs to be based on "soft" mathematics too. For example "fuzzy sets", "many-valued logic", "category and Topos theory".

@ Costas Drossos : I politely disagree, for several reasons.

One reason is that there are quite distinct sorts of experimentation and related empirical methods, which are equally useful, creative and "valid" from a methodological point of view to advance science. Thus we can only try to discuss how hard or soft a given research is after specififying its experimental approach/design.

A second reason is, that the distinction between so-called hard and soft sciences is counter-productive and in fact unclear, because any attempt by methodologists to define hard versus soft has up to now failed.

A third reason is, that adopting and applying Fuzzy Logic (FL) in a field of scientific research has IMHO nothing to do with being "soft" instead of "hard" (I know, Lofti Zadeh has propagated and popularized FL in this way, but that is 50 years ago, in the meantime FL is as hard as if not harder than many supposedly hard methods in hard science). If you need, I can give you ample references.

A fourth reason is, that pure as well as applied physics would be nowhere without statistics, not only for a theory of measurement error but even at the very origin of e.g. quantum theory. (Whether fundamental physical theories *need* to be probabilistic-statistic is a question not definitely settled, because in the last years several serious rival theories of mainstream-classic physics have arisen which explicitly abandon any probabilistic interpretations).

A fifth, pragmatic reply would be to have a close look at the several disciplines making up science. Almost everywhere you can find 'empirical' or 'experimental' branches next to theoretical ones. Furthermore, in many fields of science and research which at first sight may seem to be highly soft, you will find highly respected niches, or cousins, which are as hard as physics - hard in the sense of methodology as well as hard in the sense of difficult to understand, unless you are willing to invest a lot of time and effort in learning the mathematics behind it. I am talking e.g. of mathematical psychology, mathematical sociology, mathematical biology, etc. All fields with their own body of knowledge, departments at respected universities, journals, conferences, etc. Those are scientific disiplines in which theorizing, experimenting, observation and measurement go hand in hand, so according to your definition they should be called science, even in the narrow sense of "natural science" as implied by colloquial US-english.

Dear Professor ,

By referring to "A fourth reason is, that pure as well as applied physics would be nowhere without statistics, " 

I will suggest change it to " No where without mathematical approaches" 

Regards

Chin

Open University Malaysia 

Educational science means the methods and means of teaching science to students in schools and universities.

There are many methods and methods used in the teaching of science, including the following: [1] indirect methods: to accept the views of students and encourage them and involve them in the educational process, where the teacher seeks to know the views and problems of students and try to solve them, where studies have shown the role of teacher behavior and impact On the progress of students' achievement, she explained that a single teaching method is not enough, but methods must be commensurate with the nature and mission of the teacher. Method of teaching based on praise and criticism: It is intended to praise moderate and positive, where studies have shown that the increase in criticism by the teacher leads to a decrease in the level of the student. Feedback-based teaching method: This method is one of the most prominent methods in the methods of self-learning, where it is used to achieve the student's positive impact. Teaching method based on the use of student ideas, and this method is divided into five stages: Extract the idea expressed by the student by noting the repetition of a group of names. Help the student to develop an idea that he understands by rephrasing sentences by the teacher. Use the student's idea by the teacher to access the analysis results. Find a link between the idea of ​​the student and the teacher. Summarize ideas by the student. Teaching methods based on repetition of questions: This method aims to develop the speed of achievement and effectiveness of the student.