Online Learning
http://voicethread.com/share/1694020/
With ages nine to seventeen reportedly being the largest group of technology users (Gillard & Bailey, 2007), the premise of the American education system must switch modalities in order to best meet the needs of these primarily visual learners (2007). Web-based Course Management Systems (CMS) provides a platform for today’s digital learners to interact with content knowledge within their preferred learning style. “The result: Students gain time, more learning-pace flexibility, more engaging course material, and more individualized attention from teachers” (Young, Birtolo, & McElman, 2009). An effective and well-constructed example of a web-based CMS is Rcampus with features that include access to threaded discussions, embed content, grade book, rubrics and Eportfolios.
Reduction of instructional gaps occurs when students receive rigorous standard based instruction through differentiated instruction in a protected, supportive and risk free environment. Cavanaugh and Clark (2007) state:
Recent advances in K-12 online learning technology provide solutions to some of the most important perplexing issues in K-12 education today: teaching core literacy skills to young learners, teaching complex math and science skills at advanced levels, and teaching problem solving in authentic context.
Using CMS, systematic scaffolding for individual students occurs automatically based on real time performance feedback (2007). It eliminates time consuming tasks such as individualizing lesson planning and instruction and record keeping, enabling teachers to channel their attention toward building relationships with students. “In virtual schools, participants seek both deeper and stronger relationships, and they also value frequent and timely responses to questions (2007).
The 21st century workforce requires proficiency in digital communication, production, and collaboration. “[CMS]… reinvented the educational delivery system with the end use students in mind, using tools, content, and teaching strategies that help students develop critical thinking skills, build global awareness, and gain 21st century skills (Young, Birtolo, & McElman, 2009). The advantage to using CMS over traditional means happens when students are authentically and actively engaged in learning within their preferred learning style. “Strong academic, motivation, discipline, and course structure compatible with one’s learning style are conducive to success in K-12 online learning (2007). By providing students relevant context in which to demonstrate their knowledge, self-motivation becomes the driving force for success and achievement.
Successful transition into the 21st century workforce is imperative for students’ future success. It is our job as future producers to enable all students with the necessary skills set to be productive consumers, users, and producers of technology. CMS affords all teachers the ability to transcend instructional gaps and gift to students a learning experience to last a lifetime.
References
Cavanaugh, C., & Clark, T. (2007). CHAPTER 1: The Landscape of K--12 Online Learning. In , What Works in K-12 Online Learning (pp. 5-19). International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Gillard, S., & Bailey, D. (2007). Technology in the Classroom: Overcoming Obstacles, Reaping Rewards. International Journal of Learning, 14(1), 87-93. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Young, J., Birtolo, P., & McElman, R. (2009). Virtual Success. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(5), 12-17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Friday, December 24, 2010
Customizing my Instructional Practices
When searching for the key to unlock education for all students, teachers must consider a wide spectrum of available tools and methodologies. Consequently, the time I spent studying and researching differentiating instruction (DI) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) empowered me to see them both as viable means by which all students can access and demonstrate knowledge of content information. The incorporation of technology into customizing education provides an authentic medium for me to help support students’ efforts to overcome physical and academic barriers that otherwise would impede their learning process (Laureate, 2009).
An immediate and initial first step I can take to begin customizing instruction is by examining the individual readiness, interest and learning profile of my students through student interest/inventory surveys. This will enable me use the information gathered to pilot my instructional practices and activities in the future (2009). However, like most assessment tools, surveys are only one measure of student preference. Addressing the individualized needs of each student in my classroom will require me consider the student’s short term as well as long term objectives to be an effective and high quality teacher.
Today’s classroom is a virtual melting pot of cultures, beliefs, background, interests and abilities. Technology by the sheer nature of its multitude of platforms offers all students a plethora of inroads to connect with others in the effort to construct knowledge. MY second modification to my instructional practice will be to implement UDL’s three types of learning: recognition, strategic, and affective into the content, products, and processes taught in my classroom. Like the model for differentiating instruction whereby individual student needs determine flexibility and modifications in the curriculum (2009), UDL goes a step further and “…calls for the design of curricula with the needs of all students in mind, so that methods, materials, and assessments are usable by all” (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2009). An appropriate digital format in my early childhood classroom is a SMART Board (smartboards.com). Using a Smartboard to explore virtual fields and interactive books/software, positively alters my students’ chances to gain experience and produce knowledge of content areas (2009).
“The brain's modules are interconnected through multiple pathways, enabling visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile recognition to influence one another” (Rose & Meyer, 2002). The ease in which technology addresses multiple learning style formats makes it a credible platform for instruction (2009). Furthermore, it enables educators is to equalize the learning process, so students are exposed to the same content in a manner that is befitting their needs, wants, and desires.
References
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and
implications for UDL implementation. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications /ncac/ncac_diffinstructudl.html
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Knowing Your Students [Educational video]. Baltimore: Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Managing A
Differentiated Classroom. Baltimore: Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). What is Differentiated Instruction [Educational video]. Baltimore: Author.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
An immediate and initial first step I can take to begin customizing instruction is by examining the individual readiness, interest and learning profile of my students through student interest/inventory surveys. This will enable me use the information gathered to pilot my instructional practices and activities in the future (2009). However, like most assessment tools, surveys are only one measure of student preference. Addressing the individualized needs of each student in my classroom will require me consider the student’s short term as well as long term objectives to be an effective and high quality teacher.
Today’s classroom is a virtual melting pot of cultures, beliefs, background, interests and abilities. Technology by the sheer nature of its multitude of platforms offers all students a plethora of inroads to connect with others in the effort to construct knowledge. MY second modification to my instructional practice will be to implement UDL’s three types of learning: recognition, strategic, and affective into the content, products, and processes taught in my classroom. Like the model for differentiating instruction whereby individual student needs determine flexibility and modifications in the curriculum (2009), UDL goes a step further and “…calls for the design of curricula with the needs of all students in mind, so that methods, materials, and assessments are usable by all” (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2009). An appropriate digital format in my early childhood classroom is a SMART Board (smartboards.com). Using a Smartboard to explore virtual fields and interactive books/software, positively alters my students’ chances to gain experience and produce knowledge of content areas (2009).
“The brain's modules are interconnected through multiple pathways, enabling visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile recognition to influence one another” (Rose & Meyer, 2002). The ease in which technology addresses multiple learning style formats makes it a credible platform for instruction (2009). Furthermore, it enables educators is to equalize the learning process, so students are exposed to the same content in a manner that is befitting their needs, wants, and desires.
References
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and
implications for UDL implementation. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications /ncac/ncac_diffinstructudl.html
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Knowing Your Students [Educational video]. Baltimore: Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Managing A
Differentiated Classroom. Baltimore: Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). What is Differentiated Instruction [Educational video]. Baltimore: Author.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Putting the GAME Plan Together
The focus of my GAME plan goals is to utilize technology to foster an active learning atmosphere whereby creativity and authentic learning experiences/assessments are implemented across the content areas (National Education Standards for Teachers, 2009). Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer state that “[a]uthentic instruction enables you to meet your curricular standards in ways that can engage and support your students’ interest, creativity, and motivation” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009) To help define these goals and select appropriate strategies, I reached out to colleagues for advice and information on various digital tools . Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer state that “[s]haring what you have discovered with your colleagues is a critical step in improving your instructional effectiveness” (2009). “When you know what your choices are, you are better able to determine whether technology is already available or whether you need to request specific technology” (King-Sears and Evmenova, 2007). Additionally, I used the Checklist for Integrating Technology Into Instruction(2007) by King-Sears and Evmenova to progress monitor my ability to organize and implement these various mediums. Consequently, this process provided me the opportunity to set objectives, choose appropriate methodologies, monitor progress and determine effectiveness.
During my investigation in using the GAME plan as means to maturate my own understanding of authentic learning opportunities, I ascertained the significant importance self-directed learning can have on student achievement. A self-directed learner is able to synthesize prior knowledge with new discoveries to guide and monitor progress toward goals (2009). Instruction that supports the development of self-efficacy must be scaffold to take into account the varying degrees of abilities and interest in the classroom. By scaffolding instruction I can “…accomplish four important goals: 1) initiating student’s inquiry; 2) maintaining students’ engagement; 3) aiding learners with concept integration and addressing misconceptions; and 4) promoting reflective thinking” (Ertmer & Simons, 2006). One way in which I can implement this into my classroom is by alternating the methods on how students are assessed and evaluated. Students will therefore have multiple options for demonstrating mastery through means that address the differing multiple intelligences found in the classroom.
I plan to use my position on my school’s STEM committee is help mentor other teachers about best practices regarding integrating digital means to support self-directed learning. At our next meeting, I will be sharing my own GAME plan and information on developing authentic learning experiences in the classroom using NETS-T standards in conjunction with our state objectives. As I assist each member in writing a plan of their own and providing guidance for developing the means in which to carry them out, I hope to work toward developing my own personal goal of becoming a technology instructional coach.
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Ertmer, P., & Simons, K. (Spring 2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 40-54. Retrieved on October 4, 2010,from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article =1005& context=ijpbl.
King-Sears, M., & Evmenova, A. (2007). Premises, Principles, and Processes for Integrating TECHnology Into Instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 6-14. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
National Education Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/ 2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf
During my investigation in using the GAME plan as means to maturate my own understanding of authentic learning opportunities, I ascertained the significant importance self-directed learning can have on student achievement. A self-directed learner is able to synthesize prior knowledge with new discoveries to guide and monitor progress toward goals (2009). Instruction that supports the development of self-efficacy must be scaffold to take into account the varying degrees of abilities and interest in the classroom. By scaffolding instruction I can “…accomplish four important goals: 1) initiating student’s inquiry; 2) maintaining students’ engagement; 3) aiding learners with concept integration and addressing misconceptions; and 4) promoting reflective thinking” (Ertmer & Simons, 2006). One way in which I can implement this into my classroom is by alternating the methods on how students are assessed and evaluated. Students will therefore have multiple options for demonstrating mastery through means that address the differing multiple intelligences found in the classroom.
I plan to use my position on my school’s STEM committee is help mentor other teachers about best practices regarding integrating digital means to support self-directed learning. At our next meeting, I will be sharing my own GAME plan and information on developing authentic learning experiences in the classroom using NETS-T standards in conjunction with our state objectives. As I assist each member in writing a plan of their own and providing guidance for developing the means in which to carry them out, I hope to work toward developing my own personal goal of becoming a technology instructional coach.
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Ertmer, P., & Simons, K. (Spring 2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 40-54. Retrieved on October 4, 2010,from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article =1005& context=ijpbl.
King-Sears, M., & Evmenova, A. (2007). Premises, Principles, and Processes for Integrating TECHnology Into Instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 6-14. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
National Education Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/ 2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
A Asynchonous Classroom
This week I have been focusing on finding the resources to link my classroom with another classroom for the purpose of conducting a book study. Recently, my district purchased a new literacy program that focuses content standards around one piece of literature for an entire month. This has lend me to channel my goals to facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity as well as design and develop digital-age learning experiences and assessments towards developing a problem based learning activity around the theme of one of these books. To work toward these goals, I have been investigating sites suggested by both Vicki Davis and Hargis and Wilcox to delve into social networking in the classroom. Davis states that technological knowledge and terminology can be one of the biggest deterrents for educators looking to implement PBL in their classrooms (Laureate, 2009). I think the site that will best meet my needs as well as those of my students is Eduwiki.(eduwiki.com). This will allow me to select among existing collaborations or establish one of my own. I am now ready to transitions my classroom from its traditional synchronous setting to a asynchronous one.
Reference
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Integrating technology across the content areas. Baltimore: Author.
Reference
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Integrating technology across the content areas. Baltimore: Author.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Evaluation of my GAME plan
The evaluation phase of a GAME plan includes a critical examination into the actions steps and their metamorphosis towards appointed goals. In the case of my GAME plan, I have found that reaching out to others for advice and information to be an invaluable tool. Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer state that “[s]haring what you have discovered with your colleagues is a critical step in improving your instructional effectiveness” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009). My action steps involving accessing others prior knowledge and seeking professional development opportunities gave me a firm foundation in which to develop 21st century based learning strategies to teach my students content area knowledge.
An critical strategy I have learned through this process is the importance of scaffolding student learning and performance to meet the varying degrees of abilities and interest in my classroom. By scaffolding instruction I can “. . . accomplish four important goals: 1) initiating student’s inquiry; 2) maintaining students’ engagement; 3) aiding learners with concept integration and addressing misconceptions; and 4) promoting reflective thinking” (Ertmer & Simons, 2006). Each student in my classroom has a learning style preference, it is my job to incorporate choices and challenge them to try other alternatives with in their ability levels. Consequently, I will need to further develop my abilities to differentiate the ways that I assess student comprehension and synthesis of core content. There are still questions in my mind about how to go about integrating and simplifying authentic assessment in an objective and quantitative manner.
As I search more in depth regarding the usage of my iPod Touch for the purpose of progress monitoring, I realize additional fiscal resources will need to be making this a reality. This is an unfortunately hurdle in my plan but not one that cannot be overcome with time and further investigation.
References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Ertmer, P., & Simons, K. (Spring 2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 40-54. Retrieved on October 4, 2010,from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article =1005& context=ijpbl.
An critical strategy I have learned through this process is the importance of scaffolding student learning and performance to meet the varying degrees of abilities and interest in my classroom. By scaffolding instruction I can “. . . accomplish four important goals: 1) initiating student’s inquiry; 2) maintaining students’ engagement; 3) aiding learners with concept integration and addressing misconceptions; and 4) promoting reflective thinking” (Ertmer & Simons, 2006). Each student in my classroom has a learning style preference, it is my job to incorporate choices and challenge them to try other alternatives with in their ability levels. Consequently, I will need to further develop my abilities to differentiate the ways that I assess student comprehension and synthesis of core content. There are still questions in my mind about how to go about integrating and simplifying authentic assessment in an objective and quantitative manner.
As I search more in depth regarding the usage of my iPod Touch for the purpose of progress monitoring, I realize additional fiscal resources will need to be making this a reality. This is an unfortunately hurdle in my plan but not one that cannot be overcome with time and further investigation.
References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Ertmer, P., & Simons, K. (Spring 2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 40-54. Retrieved on October 4, 2010,from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article =1005& context=ijpbl.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monitoring my GAME Plan
As I began the stage of monitoring my progress towards reaching my goals of:
1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity
2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments
I am remind of the old phrase “begin as you mean to go”. This emphasizes for me the importance of knowing at the beginning what your designation will be and the avenues you intend to take. Dr. Ross says that assessment should be the first thing teachers consider when designing lessons (Laureate, 2009).
I mentioned in an early post that I was going to use digital story telling to spark my students’ natural curiosity and creativity through the use of iMovie and flip cameras. This week I met with another teacher in my school that routinely uses flip cameras in her classroom. She showed me previous footage her students had shot and edited. I was amazed at the amount of detail these second grade students had added to their feature films. One great suggestion she had was to let students watch the "making of the movie" feature on a educational DVD and the credits of the film. She also had a cameraman from a local television station come in as a guest speaker. I can now see the how the affect of integrating real life situations and context into lesson can have a powerful impact on students buy–in to the content areas.
Pressing forward with my quest to find authentic opportunities to assess my students’ achievements I encountered a nifty way to use PDAs.. “Whether based on formal or informal observations, many student information systems allow you to quickly add notes to students records that can be accessed and recorded on handheld and laptop computers, making students records dynamic” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009). One of the great struggles I have in regards to student performance-based assessments is the time consuming and laborious task of recording and transferring information. Handling student performance assessments in this manner would free up time and provide instantaneous feedback to customize future lessons.
My most pressing question so far is how I can use my own personal iPod Touch to make wireless performance assessment take place. It definitely not something I have come across in the iTunes (itunes.com) app store. Does anyone have any prior experience with this method of data collection? What program would you suggest? What is the cost factor involved?
References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Program 7. Assessing Student Learning with Technology. [Educational video]. Baltimore: Author.
1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity
2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments
I am remind of the old phrase “begin as you mean to go”. This emphasizes for me the importance of knowing at the beginning what your designation will be and the avenues you intend to take. Dr. Ross says that assessment should be the first thing teachers consider when designing lessons (Laureate, 2009).
I mentioned in an early post that I was going to use digital story telling to spark my students’ natural curiosity and creativity through the use of iMovie and flip cameras. This week I met with another teacher in my school that routinely uses flip cameras in her classroom. She showed me previous footage her students had shot and edited. I was amazed at the amount of detail these second grade students had added to their feature films. One great suggestion she had was to let students watch the "making of the movie" feature on a educational DVD and the credits of the film. She also had a cameraman from a local television station come in as a guest speaker. I can now see the how the affect of integrating real life situations and context into lesson can have a powerful impact on students buy–in to the content areas.
Pressing forward with my quest to find authentic opportunities to assess my students’ achievements I encountered a nifty way to use PDAs.. “Whether based on formal or informal observations, many student information systems allow you to quickly add notes to students records that can be accessed and recorded on handheld and laptop computers, making students records dynamic” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009). One of the great struggles I have in regards to student performance-based assessments is the time consuming and laborious task of recording and transferring information. Handling student performance assessments in this manner would free up time and provide instantaneous feedback to customize future lessons.
My most pressing question so far is how I can use my own personal iPod Touch to make wireless performance assessment take place. It definitely not something I have come across in the iTunes (itunes.com) app store. Does anyone have any prior experience with this method of data collection? What program would you suggest? What is the cost factor involved?
References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Program 7. Assessing Student Learning with Technology. [Educational video]. Baltimore: Author.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Puttling Actions Into Words
From past experiences, I have surmised that my preferred through process is deductive thinking. Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer define deductive thinking as moving “from the whole to its parts, from generalizations to underlying concepts to examples” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009). So, I began the Action phase of my GAME plan by watching my son’s home iMovies. This allowed me to refamiliarize myself with the scope and sequence of the movie making process. I also began a journal to record my questions, thoughts, and findings as well as a technology list which includes my Mac laptop, the iMovie application, and a flip-camera.
I then began to search for resources to help me gain proficiency. My district offers several professional develop classes on both iMovie and flip-cameras. Additionally, I discovered a well developed and detailed site entiled Dummies.com: Knowing What You Can Do with iMoive at http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/knowing-what-you-can-do-with-imovie.html One of my most crucial sources of knowledge will be my innovative thinker husband. I hope to benefit from his wealth of knowledge gathered over the past nine years of making countless iMovies.
In my classroom, I have 20 different versions of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. Each child is a unique individual with equally important needs. By expanding the creativity level students need to expend in order to learn, I am gifting them with not only information to past a standardized test but also the ability to face and conquer life’s challenges.
Reference:
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
I then began to search for resources to help me gain proficiency. My district offers several professional develop classes on both iMovie and flip-cameras. Additionally, I discovered a well developed and detailed site entiled Dummies.com: Knowing What You Can Do with iMoive at http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/knowing-what-you-can-do-with-imovie.html One of my most crucial sources of knowledge will be my innovative thinker husband. I hope to benefit from his wealth of knowledge gathered over the past nine years of making countless iMovies.
In my classroom, I have 20 different versions of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. Each child is a unique individual with equally important needs. By expanding the creativity level students need to expend in order to learn, I am gifting them with not only information to past a standardized test but also the ability to face and conquer life’s challenges.
Reference:
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
