Friday, November 2, 2012

Overcoming the Common Complaints of Teaching Shakespeare to Secondary Students

Hey, so for those of you looking at a pedagogical approach to Shakespeare, Professor Burton suggested I post this. It is a paper I wrote for a teaching class and its focus is overcoming the common complaints of teaching Shakespeare in a secondary classroom using alternative teaching methods. There is an annotated bibliography at the end, so maybe that can help you find some good sources.




Overcoming the Common Complaints of Teaching Shakespeare to Secondary Students through Alternative Teaching Practices
            “To be, or not to be; that is the question” (Hamlet 3.1.58). Well, that may have been the question for William Shakespeare, but in today’s modern classroom, when students hear that the next unit their class will study is Shakespeare, their questions range from, “do we have to?” to “why do we have to study something so old?” or even “Can I just drop out of school now?” While this last question is a little extreme, our students make a valid point: the plays of William Shakespeare present a challenge to the reader, regardless of their level of prowess. Even teachers find themselves saying to their classes, “Let’s just get through this, please!” (Tabers-Kwak 69). How then, do we as educators, get past the inhibitions our students hold with Shakespeare, our own reservations of the Bard and find a pain-free, possibly even enjoyable way, to teach these plays which, unarguably, contain some of the richest language in all of the English language?
            As with any predicament, we cannot accurately prescribe the solution without a clear understanding of the problem. In this case, the issue stems from the question what makes Shakespeare so overwhelming and difficult for students and educators alike? In my research I have run across several complaints lodged by teachers and students against Shakespearian material. Among the myriad of reasons were these statements:
·         “He’s too hard […] Shakespeare? Boring! His work isn’t relevant to my world.” (Tabers-Kwak 69).
·         “One of our constant challenges with […] Shakespeare, is to foster active learning” (Robbins 65).
·         “Students complain about having to read Shakespeare because they do not understand the language” (Hett 94).
·         “Most teachers do not have the class time necessary to perform the entire play; develop supplemental learning activities; and discuss the language, meter, humor, themes, and symbolism of Shakespearean drama” (Bowman 88).
·         “Most [students] have never seen a live drama or comedy in a theater” (Shosh 71).
·         “My belief [is] that adolescents are incapable of appreciating Shakespeare and might develop a lifelong aversion to the plays if forced to analyze them too early” (Milburn 74).
·         “How…do learning disabled (LD) students, especially those with language deficits, learn and perform the work of Shakespeare, the most elusive and challenging text of all?” (Johnson 45).
·         “Asking students to engage in a…process [a project relating to Shakespeare] for my viewing pleasure alone [is not] appropriate or fair” (Bucolo 51).
Each of these educators poses valid concerns to the logistics of teaching Shakespeare in the secondary school setting. In summary, the 7 major roadblocks of teaching Shakespeare to middle school, junior high and high school students are: lack of relevance to the modern students, language comprehension, time constraints, lack of exposure to drama as a genre, lack of ability to understand mature content, teaching to learning disabled students and, concerns regarding audience. How do we overcome these legitimate concerns?
In my research the answer to each one of these plights can be addressed under the heading of non-traditional approaches to teaching Shakespeare. Each of the authors I encountered exhorted his or her reader to steer clear of traditional methods of breaking down every line, writing traditional literary analyses or research papers. Instead they advocated for the incorporation of methods including use of technology, art, music, drama and other mediums not traditionally associated with the English classroom. While I argue that each of the seven common complaints of teaching Shakespeare can be overcome by applying non-traditional methods of teaching in our classrooms, for the purposes of this paper I will focus in-depth on only four of these: lack of relevance to our students, language, time constraints and audience.
Complaint 1: Lack of relevance to the modern student
            The book, Teaching Literature to Adolescents, refers to the generation of students now in the secondary schools as ‘the millennials’ and rattles off the following statistics about this age-group including:
·         10% of all U.S. families…have incomes below the poverty level
·         9%...are headed by single parents
·         15% of people over the age of five have a recognized disability
·         20% [of people in the U.S.] speak a language other than English at home
·         By 2033, it is estimated that half of all U.S. children will be minorities
·         Teenagers spent an average of 12.5 hours online per week
·         Teens and tweens watched 11-12 hours of television per week (Beach 20-21)
            From these staggering statistics, it is evident that the world of a ‘millennial’ reflects a very different set of norms than the generations that came before them. It is no wonder teachers of these earlier generations struggle to relate to their students, let alone relate the literature of 16th century to them. How can we as educators bridge a gap that spans more than 400 years?
            Bob Ives, a teacher from Texas, has developed one method for overcoming this great divide which he affectionately dubbs the ‘Shakespearience.’ In his class he had students act out a Shakespearian play, which required not only class time, but also quite a bit of time outside of school. He believes that, “the experience works for three reasons: it is student-centered, it is collaborative, and it is experiential” (Johnson 46). In other words, the students are allowed some choice and control in their learning. By allowing our students choice and control in projects they are more willing to engage, because they will naturally work the assignment into something that is more interesting, and thus more applicable, to themselves and the lives that they live. When they feel they have more control in how they will be assessed, they work harder to prove that their alternative methods are every bit as worthy as traditional analytical papers or tests. Little do they know that all we want is for them to be thinking critically about Shakespeare and doing their best in the first place. The vehicle students use to achieve this aim is simply a means to an end.
            Matthew Ratz, another English teacher dedicated to overcoming Shakespeare’s lack of relativity to modern students’ lives, decided that the vehicle he would use for teaching his students was through literary circles and that, within this vehicle, he would focus on having a student-centered learning experience. In this unit he also had students complete a MySpace profile as well as a soundtrack for the work of Shakespeare they were studying. Each of these activities, music and social media, were things that students willingly engaged in during their daily free time and so Ratz simply redirected the use of these resources in a way that allowed his students to bring the world of Shakespeare into their own sphere. Ratz described how he:
noticed that these creative, artistic projects…helped lessen students’ anxiety about performing in Shakespearean English, because they had other opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge in more immediate, culturally relevant, and creative ways. Using an element of students’ popular culture has a positive tendency not only to increase engagement, but also to improve ‘buy in’ of course content. (Ratz 44)
            Using mediums that students are more familiar with are excellent ways to show them that what they are doing outside of school has relevance in the classroom which helps them get excited about learning more on the subjects we present to them—they ‘buy in.’ The same logic that governs the free market governs our classrooms—if we are unable to sell our product, we must either change our market or change our product, and since we cannot change who we teach, we must then change what we teach, or at least how it is packaged.
            There is a myriad of resources available for teachers to solve the problem of relating the text to the student. Art, social media, blogs, music, chat rooms, graphic novels, and films are just a few of these amazing non-traditional methods that can really bridge the gap for our students. A few articles that are full of great ways to utilize technology specifically geared toward the teaching of Shakespeare are “Shakespeare Is Alive and Will in Cyberspace: An Annotated Bibliography” by Dorothy Hett and “Shakespeare, Our Contemporary: Using Technology to Teach the Bard,” by Cindy Bowman and Brendan Pieters. Both of these amazing articles are found in The English Journal. However, if teacher decides to implement technology in his or her classroom as a means of bridging the Shakespearean-student gap, the most important thing to be aware of is that:
technology must support student learning, build a community of learners, and create strong teaching/learning networks…We need to view technology as a means of collecting information, capturing ideas, and making meaning where students summarize, synthesize, evaluate, select, reject, listen, read, organize, interpret, talk write, edit, and revise. Technology is all about integration and finding connections, inspiring critical literacy. (Bowman 89)
            Sometimes there is a tendency for teachers to incorporate technology for technology’s sake alone. No teacher enjoys the moans and groans created by assigning another research paper and it can be tempting to try and spice up your curriculum, as well as boost your overall approval rating, with the implementation of a fun and ‘hip’ activity that holds little educational value. This kind of meaningless task can do little in the way of helping our students think critically about literature and should be avoided. However, with a little extra thought, effort, and time spent searching the web, it is not too difficult to find meaningful ways to use any technology in the classroom.
            At the end of his literary circle unit, Ratz asked his students to reflect on the activities and overall experience during their study of Shakespeare. To his relief he found:
Not only did students state that they enjoyed the unit, but also many said it was the first time they enjoyed reading any work of Shakespeare…they loved the freedom of choice, the constant input they were asked to provide regarding the format of the unit, the creative assessment options, and the overall structure of the class. (Ratz 44)
Because he was able to include technology and non-traditional teaching methods into his lesson plans in a way that also fostered critical thinking, Ratz found that he was successful in his aims as a teacher and that his students had also enjoyed the process—a win, win!
            In short, the key in helping our students to overcome their perceived beliefs that Shakespeare simply cannot resonate with their modern lives, is found in being unafraid to use technology and other mediums that the students are already using on a daily basis and then, using thoughtful parameters, repurpose them to aid student learning.
Complaint 2: Language Comprehension
       Once we have managed to get our students past their original aversions to Shakespeare and convince them that they will find meaningful messages within his texts, the next big barrier in helping students gain an understanding of Shakespeare is the language. Shakespeare is known worldwide for writing some of the most complex literature of the English language, but his messages are worth the work and as teachers we have to find a way to help our students navigate these challenging waters. Specific challenges regarding language include, unfamiliar and archaic vocabulary, words with original meanings different from the meanings they possess today, strange sentence constructions, obscure allusions, and emphasis on rhetorical tropes that are not prevalent today. Each of these makes it difficult for any reader, and especially for our students, to interact with Shakespeare’s texts.
            Johnson states, quoting B.A. Mowat and P. Wernstein from the Washington Square Press that, “all readers of Shakespeare, ‘need to develop the skills of untangling unusual sentence structures and of recognizing and understanding poetic compressions, omissions, and wordplay’” (Johnson 46). To help students ‘untangle’ these syntactical knots, Johnson says, “the key lies in understanding the play, the characters and motivations, rather than a word-for-word translation” (Johnson 47). It is overwhelming for students to undertake Shakespeare if they believe they must understand every single word of his plays, not to mention it makes the reading process incredibly slow. This is a great place to incorporate reading strategies with our students and help them understand that, by ‘constructing the gist’ of what Shakespeare is saying, they are more than adequate to the task of taking on Shakespeare. Johnson also suggests that having students learn basic “Latin roots, prefixes and suffixes” can help students decode a larger selection of Shakespeare’s word choices rather than creating vocabulary lists of specific words (Johnson 47). In this way they learn to problem solve and construct a fairly accurate meaning for unfamiliar words without the hassle of running to the dictionary for every other word.
            G.B. Harrison, a notable expert in the field of high school drama from the 60’s, expressed a struggle he has overcome in his own teaching which results from the evolution of words and their meanings and explains that Shakespeare “uses words which are still common, but he frequently uses them with different meanings and connotations. As a result we often miss his meaning, or—what is more exasperating—we produce a perfectly good sense which was not what he meant at all” (Harrison 411). Imagine the student who agrees to ‘buy in’ to our Shakespeare unit, writes a compelling argument, only to find that the phrase he or she has based his or her entire argument upon actually meant something completely different. With risks like that, no wonder our students get frustrated before they begin. To circumvent situations like this Harrison suggests a couple of things, the first is more preventative in nature; he urges teachers to carefully consider their choice of text based on the grade level and maturity of the students we are teaching. For students with little or no experience with Shakespeare’s works he suggests the plays Julius Caesar and Twelfth Night. Both of these plays are rather uncomplicated in terms of plot and in comparison to Shakespeare’s other play, are far simpler. Harrison’s next suggestion is the consideration of studying the plays “in translation” (Harrison 411). There are tons of resources available that simplify the text of Shakespeare and make it easier for our students. The “Shakespeare Made Easy” library is one such tool. This publisher prints the original text of the play on the left side of the page and then a simplified version on the right side. Students are then able to follow along in class while supplementing with this easier version as necessary for understanding. Other teachers have taken this idea of translating Shakespeare and used it as a mode for assessment. Ideas such as creating picture books, raps, and updated Shakespearean scenes are all excellent ways to help our students tango with the text and re-read it multiple times so that they understand it well enough to change it, while preserving the original meaning (Tabers-Kwak 69). The best part is that students do not even realize they are doing this, because they are having so much fun!
            Another important aspect of Shakespearean language which students must understand is that in his attempt to maintain rhyme and meter, Shakespeare had no qualms about manipulating words He created conjunctions where they did not belong, added syllables and accents to words, and made words up altogether. Shakespeare had fun with his language and true lovers of Shakespeare are able to recognize when he is doing this and so, for our students to appreciate the true genius of the Great Bard, they must learn to pick up on this too. Sarah, a colleague of Michael Milburn designed an activity to do just this, “drawing upon Shakespeare’s fondness for witty incongruities she asked her students to pair objects from their own lives…with unpredictable companions” (Milburn 74). Her students loved the funny phrases generated through this activity and, with the help of their teacher, loved picking out places where Shakespeare was doing the same thing.
            In my own experience with Shakespeare as a high school student, I really enjoyed a Shakespearean Insult activity my teacher assigned to the class. We got to go home and combine Shakespeare’s zany vocabulary in hilarious ways; in fact, when I shared it with my mother, she enjoyed the activity so much we had to leave the list on the refrigerator so we could have it at our disposal whenever we needed a good laugh. Shakespeare’s language can be fun and engaging if we help our students realize that part of what makes it fun is not just being able to define every word, but simply the sounds and cadence; language need not be a barrier to our students and by incorporating more non-traditional activities, language can actually be a conduit for engagement with the text.
Complaint 3: Time
            Unfortunately, even if a teacher is willing to undertake the task of teaching Shakespeare and his or her students agree to engage in the process, all classrooms are under the proverbial time-crunch problem. How can we possibly expect to cover Shakespeare adequately and still fit in everything else we are required to teach in a given school year?
            In an attempt to find a solution to this problem, Michael Milburn decided rather than teach an entire play to his ninth-grade class he would simply teach a single soliloquy and give them a basic overview of the backstory that preceded the passage. At the conclusion of his lesson he interviewed a few of his students about the experience and then surmised that “while students [may not]…rush from class to acquire the play, neither would they groan the next time a teacher mentioned Shakespeare” (Milburn 78). Milburn was successfully able to teach these students critical skills in reading literature using Shakespeare as an avenue for doing so. In some classrooms, especially those filled with younger students, this can be a useful technique for priming students for later grades where they will have more exposure to Shakespeare without the time commitment of teaching an entire play.
            Another way to alleviate the stress caused by lack of time can be to implement the idea of literary circles mentioned earlier. Ratz designed his unit by selecting multiple plays and assigning one to a group of students in his class. By doing this he was able to teach 4 different plays simultaneously, which allowed students to learn about multiple plays from their fellow students, without actually having to spend the time reading them themselves (Ratz Shakespearean Circles: How a New Approach Enlivened My Classroom). This could be a great solution for teachers who want to teach more than one play to their students, but do not want to allot months of time to trudging through two and three Shakespearean plays as a class.
            Bruce Robbins suggests that another way to tackle the time issue is by using what Patrick Tucker, former Royal Shakespeare Company director, calls the ‘Original Approach’ to teaching Shakespeare. He explains that in Shakespeare’s day, actors were often expected to perform a different play every day and many times did not even have the time to read through an entire play before they actually performed it (Robbins 65). Thus, the original approach to Shakespeare would involve a similar experience where actors were given no more than a day’s notice to perform their parts the following day. “I could see that some of the techniques of Tucker’s Original Approach could be adapted for the secondary school English classroom,” says Robbins, these:
techniques reveal some interesting historical background, and they operate in a compressed time period…I see a potentially fun, active way for teachers to help students learn to read Shakespeare’s plays with better understand of the cues and nuances in the language, resulting in improved visualization and understanding, thus providing a better basis for interpretive thinking. (Robbins 65-66)
            Not only does this method cut down on the class time allotted to Shakespeare, leaving more time for other important classroom activities, but it also teaches students other great skills for thinking about literature that may otherwise have remained untaught. 
            One last consideration to help with the time issue is to use the Shakespearean unit as an opportunity to incorporate alternative assessments to the traditional paper method. As discussed throughout this paper, there are many ways to test students on their knowledge of Shakespeare that are less time-consuming than the writing process, but still allow for the same critical thinking process to occur. These same alternative assignments can also save the teacher time on the grading end as well. Just food for thought! J
Complaint 4: Audience
            The nature of teaching a Shakespearean unit raises several concerns regarding audience: first, that students work tirelessly simply to perform for their peers or teacher, which seems like a letdown after so much work; second, Shakespeare’s plays were intended for a Shakespearean audience, which differed considerable than the audience found in a typical secondary classroom; and third, the audience that our classes perform for are composed of their peers, which can make even the brightest student falter for fear of embarrassment. Each of these is a legitimate concern and must be dealt with if a Shakespearean unit is to be taught with the upmost degree of success.
            The first of these concerns is quite easily dealt with through the mode of alternative assessment assignments. One teacher decided that for his class, he would ask his students to produce a film similar to Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard. Joe Bucolo felt that by having students create this film it would make it possible to create an audience for their finished product worthy of students’ hard work. He had his students present their work at a fine arts festival held every other spring in his area. “With an authentic audience in place, the project was ready for action,” and students were much more dedicated to the task set before them knowing that the product would go beyond the classroom (Bucolo 51). If we give our students an audience they feel is not contrived, they are much likelier to exert more effort in their work, and thus engage in a deeper learning experience with the text. Venues like this for your own classroom are easily come by with a little extra research on your part and can have a powerful impact on your students’ experience not only with Shakespeare, but education in general.
            The next portion of this concern, overcoming the disparity between Shakespearean audiences and the audience of our classroom, is another area worth a bit of reflection. Some teachers try to solve the first concern of audience by performing a play in an auditorium built for a large audience in an even larger room. In Shakespeare’s Globe Theater “the farthest spectator was about fifty-five feet away from the actors. As a result Shakespeare wrote plays which demand the greatest subtlety in the acting, and the closest attention from the audience” (Harrison 413). If we expect our students to perform Shakespeare’s plays and give the same effect Shakespeare himself did, then we are setting our classes up for failure and disappointment. Shakespeare’s plays contain little in the way of scenery, props and blocking in general. If we want our students to successfully entertain a larger, less Shakespearean-savvy audience, slight modifications in these areas will produce entertaining performances students can be proud of. Going one step further, because today’s audience is less accustomed to the language of Shakespeare, modifying the language itself may be another fantastic way for your students to perform and gain the benefits of really ‘untangling’ the script.
            Lastly, to help students overcome their fears in acting in front of their peers, we must create a classroom community in which students feel safe to make mistakes and to experiment with the text. It must be okay to fail as long as real effort is exerted in this failing. Allowing students choice in the assessment portion of the Shakespearean unit, as discussed under the heading of Complaint 1, will also allow students to feel more comfortable when performing or presenting their finished product to the class. Students will naturally create productions they are comfortable with and may even feel confident enough to step out of their comfort zones if allowed to do so without coercion. Filming performances may also give students the confidence they need to present in front of the class, because it is removed from the risk of ‘messing up’ right in front of their classmates and also allows for the opportunity to do less satisfactory sections over again.
            In conclusion, teaching Shakespeare to a secondary school audience can be a daunting task. There are many risks involved and many teachers have failed in their own attempts to stir a love of the Bard in their students, but it does not have to be this way. Any teacher willing to dedicate the time and effort required to research and implement non-traditional methods of assessment and instruction can find success in teaching the works of William Shakespeare to his or her class—and who knows, both the teacher and the class may even find it an enjoyable feat in the process!
           
Annotated Works Cited Page
Beach, R,. Appleman, D., Hunds, S. & Willhelm, J. Teaching Literature to Adolescents. 2nd Ed. New York: Routledge. 2011. Print.
            This source is a fantastic textbook that teaches prospective teachers of literature at the secondary level great ways to go about doing so. Published in 2011, this is a very up-to-date source in the teaching community, which is important when entering the modern classroom. For the purposes of this paper, this source provided some great statistics to help the reader gain an understanding of what the ‘millennial’ generation looks like today.
Bowman, Cindy and Brendan Pieters. “Shakespeare, Our Contemporary: Using Technology to Teach the Bard.” The English Journal. 92.1 (2002): 88-93. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
            This article was written for the purpose of making other teachers of Shakespeare aware of the many emerging technological resources available today. The internet is a great resource, but often teachers are not able to realize its full potential for their classrooms, because they simply do not know it exists. In this paper, I felt this was a great source, because it brought up (like many of the other authors I researched) that time was a huge constraint on what teachers were able to fit into their curriculum, especially with respect to teaching Shakespeare. This article then tried to help teachers overcome this by suggesting several useful sites that can make teaching Shakespeare both fun and educational, without teachers having to waste time trying to find the new technologies on their own.
Bucolo, Joe. “The Bard in the Bathroom: Literary Analysis, Filmmaking, and Shakespeare.” English Journal. 96.6 (2007): 50-55. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
            This source was my favorite bar far. I loved this teacher’s assessment of Shakespeare in the form of a film fostering critical analysis. I thought this was an ingenious way ofof using alternative teaching methods to create student interest and increased comprehension. Through the vehicle of film this teacher was able to address both the concern of relating Shakespeare to students’ lives and audience. I definitely plan to use Bucolo’s ideas in my future classroom. 
Harrison, G. B. “The Teaching of Shakespeare.” The English Journal. 52.6 (1963): 411-419. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
            This source is older source, but I thought it was valuable for the purposes of this paper because it really outlined the same problems that teachers are still struggling with in the classroom today. I also thought that this source did a good job laying the groundwork of  some of the more theoretical ideas behind reasons why alternative teaching methods would be beneficial for the classroom. This paper was also a good source for specifically looking at why audience is a concern.
Hett, Dorothy Marie. “Shakespeare Is Alive and Well in Cyberspace: An Annotated Bibliography.” The English Journal. 92.1 (2002): 94-97. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
            This source was one of the many I researched that mentioned the language of Shakespeare as the main barrier between our students and understanding. The main purpose of this piece was to provide teachers with great resources for teaching Shakespeare. For the purposes of this paper I put a plug in for the sources found in this annotated bibliography. My audience is teachers and I wanted them to be aware of the resources available to them, but without allotting too much writing space to discussing these resources in depth.
Johnson, Kathryn King. “Teaching Shakespeare to Learning Disabled Students.” English Journal. 87.3 (1998): 45-49. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
            I really wish I could have gone into more depth in this paper about helping students with learning abilities use Shakespeare as a vehicle for teaching literacy and critical thinking. This article had some great ideas for doing this and many of these ideas apply across the board for all students, which is how I used this piece in this article. This article expressed several of the common concerns as well as offered solutions to them.
Milburn, Michael. “Selling Shakespeare.” English Journal. 92.1 (2002): 74-79. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
            This source was a little more narrative in nature, but still really useful to my research. It contained a lot of great windows into the mind of a wary teacher contemplating using Shakespeare in his classroom. I really liked his idea of teaching portions of Shakespeare’s works, because this could be a great solution to the time crunch problem. I also liked his discussion of his colleague, Sarah, and her implementation of wordplay in the classroom. This is a great way to help students feel more comfortable with Shakespeare and his language.
Ratz, Matthew. “Shakespeare Circles: How a New Approach Enlived My Classroom.” Kappa Delta Pi Record. (Fall 2008): 40-44. Web. 25 Oct 2012.
Robbins, Bruce. “Using The Original Approach to Teach Shakespeare.” The English Journal. 95.1 (2005): 65-68. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
            This article focused on using a technique coined by Patrick Tucker called “the Original Approach” to Shakespeare. This article was great because it focused on ways to foster active learning during the teaching of Shakespeare as well as provided an innovative way to save critical classroom time. Using the original approach in his own classroom, Harrison was able to teach some historical facts about the Shakespearean stage as well as help his students engage with the text itself and I thought this activity was a really good one to share with teachers under a time crunch.
Shosh, Joseph M. “Wrighting: Crafting Critical Literacy through Drama.” English Journal. 95.1 (2005): 69-74. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
            This source was very different from my other sources despite the fact that it came from the English journal as well. This article was written from the perspective of a drama teacher teaching Shakespeare and incorporating writing into his curriculum. For the purposes f this paper I used this source to address the concern regarding drama as a genre.
Tabers-Kwak, Linda and Timothy U. Kaufman. “Shakespeare through the Lens of a New Age.” The English Journal. 92.1 (2002): 69-73. Web. 13 Oct 2012.
            I particularly enjoyed this article, because it addressed a lot of ways for applying alternative teaching to the teaching of Shakespeare. I thought it was a wonderful source for practical application ideas. This source also really addressed the idea of find ways to relate Shakespeare to the lives of our students as an avenue for inspiring learning. This was one of my favorite sources for this paper because it had several great ideas. 

No comments:

Post a Comment