My department here at Warner, focuses on some larger issues: one that is cited alot is that of social justice. I have found that although this is central to my own thinking it has tended to be a given, almost a backdrop to what I wanted to look at. Recently, as I have struggled to really understand what my central question for my study was, I began to look to larger and larger issues. It was less about the process, setting or activities I was studying. What was at the core of my research?
As I thought of myself as a researcher (yes, code this for identity), I began to ask: What do I research? If it is just about the stuff of the research project, than I maybe am wasting my time.
I don't research K-12 students and teachers in online spaces. That might be the current focus, but I think what I really care about is much larger. How do we move beyond the current constraints of school to truly provide an environment that encourages student-exploratory learning? How do we free and at the same time support students to learn? This becomes more than research...it becomes a pursuit...a mission? Some might suggest that this would then 'taint the research.' If I have a purpose than I will make the research fit my purpose. Well, that is where ethics and design come into play. If I am ethical and design my research in such a way that I am truly looking for uncovering and understanding, than this is not an issue. AND if I am up front with my stances, this provides others with an understanding of where I am coming from. I don't see that this taints the research at all, but rather focuses it.
So I guess that in my design I need to understand not just the 'so what' of my research, but also what I am looking to say and do with it?
J:)
Friday, October 3, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Moving beyond literacy
So I am finding that there are really three strands that are coming into play for what I am looking at regarding emerging technology in education. There is the one that is more of an ICT (think geek) approach that is looking at this as a technology approach which examines the networking, the computers as tools to communicate, etc. There is a second that looks at this phenomena from a use in education approach...that is from a how do I apply this technology in my teaching and how does that impact the teaching. The third is more where I situate myself which is the idea of new literacies which has been used by many, including my favorites of Lankshear and Knobel, to discuss emerging technologies and the impact of the meaning-making associated with and a part of the
everyday and classroom practices in the use of these technologies.
I see that this is incredibly useful starting point, but I also have this feeling that it is slightly off-center from my own focus (or better to say that I am off-centered from this focus). That is, there is a great amount of work looking at this from a literacy view. This is not bad, I just seem to feel that there is other views, that I am in some ways constrained by forcing this through the literacy lens. I resonate more with the practices and spatial approach. Yet, this area is less defined and is so often tied into this idea of literacies. I know that part of this is that the way that we do interact are through artifacts of communication. This approach seems to come from those like Heath and Street who discuss literacy events and practices. They have defined these so broadly that we can really look at anything we do as part of that event/practice.
Yet, I do see that we are missing something. So what is this something? Or is it something, or rather, as I said earlier, that I am coming from a different viewpoint. Thus, I am not viewing this through the lens of literacy and see that there may be value in viewing these activities through different lenses. Other lenses that have been used: identity, spatial, participation, activity, etc.
Although all of these are part of what I am seeing as a part of this, I do not see one as resonating with me as MY lens.
So this is more a post of questions than a post of in depth theorizing.
everyday and classroom practices in the use of these technologies.
I see that this is incredibly useful starting point, but I also have this feeling that it is slightly off-center from my own focus (or better to say that I am off-centered from this focus). That is, there is a great amount of work looking at this from a literacy view. This is not bad, I just seem to feel that there is other views, that I am in some ways constrained by forcing this through the literacy lens. I resonate more with the practices and spatial approach. Yet, this area is less defined and is so often tied into this idea of literacies. I know that part of this is that the way that we do interact are through artifacts of communication. This approach seems to come from those like Heath and Street who discuss literacy events and practices. They have defined these so broadly that we can really look at anything we do as part of that event/practice.
Yet, I do see that we are missing something. So what is this something? Or is it something, or rather, as I said earlier, that I am coming from a different viewpoint. Thus, I am not viewing this through the lens of literacy and see that there may be value in viewing these activities through different lenses. Other lenses that have been used: identity, spatial, participation, activity, etc.
Although all of these are part of what I am seeing as a part of this, I do not see one as resonating with me as MY lens.
So this is more a post of questions than a post of in depth theorizing.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Exploring everyday life and social space literature in four articles
Here are my reviews of 4 articles and the themes that play across them.
Lankshear- The Challenge of Digital Epistemologies
Starting from the idea that the everyday life is more and more digitized, Lankshear looks at the way that the change from 'atoms to bits' in everyday practices cause specific changes to knowledge, knowledge processes. Specifically he says that "these are ‘changes in the world to be known’, ‘changes in conceptions of knowledge and processes of coming to know things’, ‘changes in the nature of knowers,’ and ‘changes in the relative significance of different modes of knowing.'"
First, the knowledge changes in value from that of a valuable resource to that of a commodity to be used. Secondly, knowledge becomes externalized, so it is not a property of the individual but rather a shared resource existing between people. This also impacts the essential knowledge for a task. Internalized knowledge was needed in the past to complete a task, that is the one performing the task needed to know the information, now one must know how to access and operate the technology to bring up the information to be used in the task. Lankshear discusses that this shift is really that of shifting from propositional knowledge, or knowing what, to procedural knowledge, or knowing how. Even so, "the abstraction and decontextualization of classrooms from mature forms of authentic non-scholastic social practices has seriously limited the range of possibilities until recently" (p. 177).
All of this questions the current way knowledge is looked at and understood and suggests the need to develop an understanding of knowledge in the digital age. There are references to the ways in which schooling is impacted by this such as recognizing the change to shared knowledge work in the wider, online world does not truly change the individualistic approach in schools. "Ultimately, schools too operate on this assumption at the level of their ‘deep structure.’ For all of the group work and collaborative activity that has entered classrooms in recent times, knowledge is seen in the final analysis as a private possession, and is examined and accredited accordingly" (p. 176).
Leander- Tracing of everday sitings of adolescents online
Leander and McKim discuss the need to "understand online literacies as social practice" p. 211. As such they problematize the dichotomy of offline/online practices which is often addressed in the literature regarding online practices. They suggest that this is primarily an aspect of moving from analysis of one type of place, that is a static conception of space to a different understanding of social space, that is a relational notion of space. They provide examples from the research that make the case that offline and online are not separate but are rather interconnected and interwoven.
They suggest that there needs to develop new methodologies which could be grouped under the context of connective ethnography. This is the ethnographic study of relational interactions through multiple contexts and not tied to a specific physical space, but rather defining space as "performance of place" which is done through boundary creation. These boundaries are continually defined by practices which have embedded meaning within that space.
In my own critique, it is here that I would want to further explore this idea of space and place. If the performance of place does involve that definition of boundaries, yet there is a desire to define place by the relational aspect, then it is difficult to see how we would in reality develop that context of study. The continual enactment of the place would mean that the space that is being study would be a shifting and changing entity and perhaps lose clarity for the study in this shifting. I believe that this is not an issue which is irresolvable, but rather needs to be further refined and discussed.
Leander- You won't be needing your laptop
In this discussion of a study done at a private school, Leander examines the ways in which traditional definitions of literacy and instructional practices intersected with the "open" framework provided by every student having a laptop connected to the internet. The implications from his study is that the provision of access to the technology is not enough to change the practices in school around teaching and learning with these technologies. Leander does not address this issue from an organizational culture or even the momentum of 'habitus' in recreating itself. However, he discusses the technologies which are used to "spatio-temporally produce and organize schooling as a particular kind of activity" (p. 27). The observed practices of ths use of the laptops, for the most part, were for common practices that were just the transfer from print interactions, such as taking notes and the processes surrounding handing out and submitting homework. Yet, even in these traditional practices, the use of the laptops did provide opportunity for changes to these practices.
Leander also highlighted tensions between competing concepts of identity (strong wired women versus vulnerable frightened girls), information (unlimited, open digital library versus questionable and unreliable online postings), and classroom interaction (ongoing, shared discussion versus scattered, disruptive and unobserved side chatter). Most helpful is Leander's chart depicting the space-time productions seen in school and that in the online.
Although Leander's shift to the idea of space-time is very helpful in approaching the issue of the use of online practices in the school setting, he is recreating the very binary that, in other works, he problematizes of in-school/out of school. I do not see that this is a contradiction, but merely the tension in discussing how we can address this complex interaction. Leander does reference Soja's work on spatiality which recognizes the complexity of space-time by understanding it as trialectically created, with the trialect being comprised of social, historical and spatial aspects. This is an area that could use further exploration. How do these three intersect? What can actually be seen as the social, historical and spatial aspects? and How do these interact to produce social space?
Starting with an example of chalk writings on city walls explaining how to access wireless internet, Leander highlights four ways that this act provides entry into understanding online literacyscapes: 1) the writing is about the digital world but not in it, 2) explicitly shows the 'working of social-spatial boundaries' 3) a practice of identification and 4) uneven distribution of identity and knowledge related to online work. Pulling from both spatial theory (primarily Soja, 1989 and Lefebvre, 1991) and narrative discourse analysis (Holloway & Valentine, 2001) Leander suggests that the research needs to move beyond looking at the artifacts created by youth in online spaces and begin to understand the process or 'travels' through this cyberspace as an important aspect of study. He specifically discusses the need to recognize the crossing of practices without limiting to the in school literacy practices or out of school online activities only.
Leander provides a brief critique of the use of activity theory to analyze the shifting interactions of literacy across various literacyscapes; offline, online, home, school, out of school, etc. He suggests that this theory has potential as a lens, but is limiting in that it is so often tied to the concept of communities of practice which suggest a history of practices that are passed through an apprenticeship model. This reduces the explanatory power of such a lens when applied to rapidly changing forms of interaction which are developed and redeveloped through use with others who are also new to them. However, he does end with the suggestion that this lens is a useful one to examine and perhaps modify to help understand "how new literacies are learned and culture is being transformed' (p. 396).
Themes playing across these articles
First, it should be recognized that these articles were selected specifically since they addressed the ideas and themes seen in Leander's Connective Ethnographies chapter in the Handbook on New Literacies Research. Thus, the themes were in some ways already known going into these articles. However, there were in deed specific themes seen:
· The focus on the everyday practices shifts our analysis from that of recreating the online/offline binary to understanding how the new literacies practices shape and change the way that people interact and construct identity, space and knowledge. In this way the new literacies need to be seen as always emerging and changing, but that they are not new as in novel. The very everydayness of their use suggests a broader impact and transformation of practice and interaction.
· There is a shift to understanding space and literacy as relational. The social interactional aspect of activity and the connectedness of these interactions changes the primary assumptions about space and literacy as bounded and defined by one location or type of interaction. This understanding brings into play the historical trajectories of interaction as impacted by the current technologies for relating.
· Finally, all of these articles highlighted the conflicts and tensions that exist within systems and organizations which were designed and developed out of traditional literacy practices and yet now are beginning to try and utilize new literacies practices. These articles suggest that there needs to be an actual shift in mindset or change in foundational epistemologies for the new literacy practices to be put into place and also to be effectively researched and understood.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Everyday of NML
In reading again today I found Leander (2003)* discussing everyday literacies. This resonates well with what I am looking at in regards to the concept that students are not completely different in school from out of school. Nor do they do identity work in isolation, as Wortham shows. Rather the development of literacies, practices and identities are across various spaces and settings in our lives. The use of the internet and the practices, meaning-making spans the spaces. By understanding new media literacies as everyday practices which cross spaces, it problematizes the binary often set between in and out of school practices. It situates the interactions in the broader social context of what is happening in the internet, which is a part of the broader society. The recognition that students bring more to school than just what school gives them (and more than school often values), can be seen in the ideas of Moll who discuss funds of knowledge. This movement to seeing the student participant as part of the larger social interaction of society rather than merely an actor in the school setting in isolation gives power to the need to look at the ways that students interact out of school (others are doing that) and inside school as part of that broader context (few are doing this). I see that the latter is my focus. What are the students doing inside the school setting, but at the same time enacting identities and practices to create social spaces which are part of trajectories which have school as a part of them. This view does not examine the students trajectory as that of a kindergartener (or preschooler) to that of a graduate (or non-graduate). Rather, this view sees the student as having a life trajectory that intersects with school and school practices, but does not limit the resources for action, participation, identity work and interaction to those which have been supposedly provided by school or assessed by school. It is for this reason, that I do not wish to focus on 'academic achievement' as the means of seeing what the impact of technology is on the students. This concept is problematic, not only in the problem of academic achievement but also in that of examining the impact of the technology. Again, the focus on everyday practices allows us to understand the technology, not as a tool put rather examining the social ecosystem for which the technology provides a vital part which changes the way the whole system is enacted and identities which in that are produced..not just a single impact. The embeddedness of the practices in everyday helps us to see that it is the practices which continually create, recreate the large system of interactions. Thus, to examine the 'impact of the technology' is to assume a static system on which it is impacting. This does not recognize the constant enactment of the ecosystem which is continually emerging.
This embededness of the everyday allows us then to return to a situatedness of the practices and interactions in both the local setting as well as the larger global setting through the internet and societal context (Gidden; Gergen).
*Reading Research Quarterly 38 no3, p. 392-7
This embededness of the everyday allows us then to return to a situatedness of the practices and interactions in both the local setting as well as the larger global setting through the internet and societal context (Gidden; Gergen).
*Reading Research Quarterly 38 no3, p. 392-7
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Themes of NML (part 2)
In this post, I'm going to take a stab at a couple of different ways that various authors have talked about NML themes and overarching concepts.
Warshauer summarized how different individuals have framed technology and literacy together. He suggested that there were three different frames; learning, power and change. Learning discusses the impact of technology use with a focus on literacy and learning. However, he saw that "In addition, technology- even when used in a particular way- usually is better understood not as having an impact, but rather as helping reshape a broad social ecology, and thus affecting learnining in ways that are unforeseen" (New Lit. Handbook, 219) He suggests that the change framework allows us to understand that ways that literacy reshapes learning, however, by looking at a power framework, introduces context a purpose and thus can include the change and learning frameworks to some extent according to Warshauer.
Another suite of themes "to construct expanded notions of literacies and being literate" are those of identity, participation and collaboration. These are strong terms and lenses to use for understanding changing literacies. One might also add into these, the aspect of culture as this provides the underlying flow from which to discuss changing identity and identity resources, as well as the ways that participation and collaboration are constructing a shared set of practices.
In my own examination of the literature, I might suggest connectivity, access and modality. This would be conenctivity in both that of the connection to others and among others (social), as well as the interlinking of information and ideas through the web nature of the internet. Access also refers to access to a variety of people, cultures, potential identities (the more social aspect) as well as to information (which changes the dynamics of information capital). Finally, the modality refers to the expanded ways that relationships and information are being constructed.
Although not foregrounded to the same extent, I see an underlying, and interesting theme flowing throughout the literature: everyday practices. This idea is valuing the practices that emerge in the everyday life's of individuals outside of school. It is looking at the ways that the,as internet use becomes part of the everyday, it does change the ecology of interactions and assumptions about knowledge, information and people. Thus, the funds of knowledge and knowledge resources of individuals has become more prominent in discussions of this technology. However, I am not sure if that is a theme or more prominent than just a theme and needs to be a defining aspect of the discourse around new literacies.
So: connectiviy, access and modality as seen in the everyday practices of individuals are changing the ways we understand and interact...thus the major themes and ideas from NML??
Well, it at least is a start. Comments...anyone...anyone??
J:)
Warshauer summarized how different individuals have framed technology and literacy together. He suggested that there were three different frames; learning, power and change. Learning discusses the impact of technology use with a focus on literacy and learning. However, he saw that "In addition, technology- even when used in a particular way- usually is better understood not as having an impact, but rather as helping reshape a broad social ecology, and thus affecting learnining in ways that are unforeseen" (New Lit. Handbook, 219) He suggests that the change framework allows us to understand that ways that literacy reshapes learning, however, by looking at a power framework, introduces context a purpose and thus can include the change and learning frameworks to some extent according to Warshauer.
Another suite of themes "to construct expanded notions of literacies and being literate" are those of identity, participation and collaboration. These are strong terms and lenses to use for understanding changing literacies. One might also add into these, the aspect of culture as this provides the underlying flow from which to discuss changing identity and identity resources, as well as the ways that participation and collaboration are constructing a shared set of practices.
In my own examination of the literature, I might suggest connectivity, access and modality. This would be conenctivity in both that of the connection to others and among others (social), as well as the interlinking of information and ideas through the web nature of the internet. Access also refers to access to a variety of people, cultures, potential identities (the more social aspect) as well as to information (which changes the dynamics of information capital). Finally, the modality refers to the expanded ways that relationships and information are being constructed.
Although not foregrounded to the same extent, I see an underlying, and interesting theme flowing throughout the literature: everyday practices. This idea is valuing the practices that emerge in the everyday life's of individuals outside of school. It is looking at the ways that the,as internet use becomes part of the everyday, it does change the ecology of interactions and assumptions about knowledge, information and people. Thus, the funds of knowledge and knowledge resources of individuals has become more prominent in discussions of this technology. However, I am not sure if that is a theme or more prominent than just a theme and needs to be a defining aspect of the discourse around new literacies.
So: connectiviy, access and modality as seen in the everyday practices of individuals are changing the ways we understand and interact...thus the major themes and ideas from NML??
Well, it at least is a start. Comments...anyone...anyone??
J:)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Themes in New Literacies Research
New literacies addresses a wide range of ideas and concepts. It is pulled from various fields and foci. Although primarily with at least one foot in the education/teaching/learning realm, the term literacy has become such a catch-all phrase that nearly any idea relating to interaction and meaning making can be applied to it. With the idea of literacy is more broadly understood as meaning making practices, we gain a certain focus for our discussions around the term literacy. Yet literacy with this idea moves outside of the realm dealing with reading/comprehension and ability to write/communicate in written form. Meaning making can be done in many different areas and with crossed with a term like Science, as in scientific literacy, we now are speaking to a certain type of meaning making, that is scientific. However, it is not just the concepts of science, that is required when making meaning, but an understanding and use of the broader tools and resources of those who tend to talk about science. Gee refers to this as Discourses which one can participate in. The literacy in a specific area, then is looking at the ways that meaning is made in the Discourse of that specific area, encompassing the shared practices, histories, vocabulary, etc of that area.
Now then, what 'area' would New Literacies be? New literacies research looks at the way that various technologies change and transform the meaning making process, or literacies. This research can span the change that utilizing different mediums (such as video, graphics and audio) impacts the way that communications that typically might have been text are created and understood. This multi-modality is a focus of some researchers (Kress) who are looking at the way that communications that might have been in print is being transformed and what that transformation does for the meaning itself, the process of making meaning and the individual utilizing that medium to make meaning. Others look at the way that more open access, brought about by ubiquitous computing and the internet, to information is changing the way we think about, relate to, evaluate and present information. Still others consider what technologies such as gaming or simulations might do for making meaning, once these games allow for the end user to help in the creation of the way the game is played (Gee, Prensky, Squires). Even more so when those games involve multiple users from multiple locations.
So then, as we look at the ways that new literacies studies exams the impact of ever-changing technology has on meaning making, what are the themes that begin to emerge? I think more on that tomorrow. I am more on a roll to finish by addressing the question: What happens when you look at new literacies in a specific area such as science. We saw that with science and literacies, we entered into specific Discourse in which the meaning was made not only with the use of resources of that specific Discourse but the meaning itself only had meaning as it existed in that area. For example, the discussion of the impact of changing barometric pressure on the density of air masses, causing energy to be released has very specific meaning to a group of people (even if my meaning is wrong as I do not claim to be an earth scientist). Both the vocabulary but also the relationship within that and the ways that this can be observed and measured are all a part of this larger way of making meaning. Now if we are to take new literacies and cross that with science, this intersection or nexus provides us with an area of study which is looking at the ways that technology is changing how meaning is being made, the meaning itself, and the person making the meaning in the scientific Discourse....or in our case the scientific education Discourse. This is not only interesting but also extremely complex area to study.
I shall leave my notebook tonight with this final thought:
New Literacies research is creating a space for understanding the changing practices of any area. It provides us with a space for exploring how these practices might change when the processes around the interactions is disrupted and redesigned for different space.
Thanks,
J:)
Now then, what 'area' would New Literacies be? New literacies research looks at the way that various technologies change and transform the meaning making process, or literacies. This research can span the change that utilizing different mediums (such as video, graphics and audio) impacts the way that communications that typically might have been text are created and understood. This multi-modality is a focus of some researchers (Kress) who are looking at the way that communications that might have been in print is being transformed and what that transformation does for the meaning itself, the process of making meaning and the individual utilizing that medium to make meaning. Others look at the way that more open access, brought about by ubiquitous computing and the internet, to information is changing the way we think about, relate to, evaluate and present information. Still others consider what technologies such as gaming or simulations might do for making meaning, once these games allow for the end user to help in the creation of the way the game is played (Gee, Prensky, Squires). Even more so when those games involve multiple users from multiple locations.
So then, as we look at the ways that new literacies studies exams the impact of ever-changing technology has on meaning making, what are the themes that begin to emerge? I think more on that tomorrow. I am more on a roll to finish by addressing the question: What happens when you look at new literacies in a specific area such as science. We saw that with science and literacies, we entered into specific Discourse in which the meaning was made not only with the use of resources of that specific Discourse but the meaning itself only had meaning as it existed in that area. For example, the discussion of the impact of changing barometric pressure on the density of air masses, causing energy to be released has very specific meaning to a group of people (even if my meaning is wrong as I do not claim to be an earth scientist). Both the vocabulary but also the relationship within that and the ways that this can be observed and measured are all a part of this larger way of making meaning. Now if we are to take new literacies and cross that with science, this intersection or nexus provides us with an area of study which is looking at the ways that technology is changing how meaning is being made, the meaning itself, and the person making the meaning in the scientific Discourse....or in our case the scientific education Discourse. This is not only interesting but also extremely complex area to study.
I shall leave my notebook tonight with this final thought:
New Literacies research is creating a space for understanding the changing practices of any area. It provides us with a space for exploring how these practices might change when the processes around the interactions is disrupted and redesigned for different space.
Thanks,
J:)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Lost in (virtual) Space
Threaded throughout my discussion thus far has been the idea that there is an online space. I have defined this as a points of interaction or a location where practices are shared. This space is first of all fractured (Brighum and Lankshear) in that there isn't a single physical location but rather there are multiple points of entry into this online space. However, there are certain aspects that define this as a space. First, there is the designed aspect (thanks to Joanne for her input on this one). That is this space has both purpose and intentionality in how it is laid out, the activities required of the students and its relationship to the rest of the classroom activities. Secondly, this design is for movement or development in the individual. That is there is a desire to move the students, through participation in this space, towards a specific new identity (this might be knowledgeable students in science, young scientists or merely progressing through the stages of being a student). This designed changed and movement within a space through specific activities is similar to the type of design work that is done in games (as Gee and others have pointed out). Yet, it is the very design which makes this space take on the unique qualities in school settings and that which is most intriguing to me. For a teacher who wants to utilize the 'power of social networking' in the classroom, she is designing and requiring participation in a space for the purpose of voluntary interaction and emergence of learning practices around a subject matter she has selected.
As can be seen, the design of a space and even requirement of activity, does not automatically elicit the type of participation desired for a more Web 2.0 mindset (Lankshear and Knobel). So, can space be designed to produce the type of interaction and practices which would make it the online space that is being sought? According to deCertau, the designed space may be taken up in very unexpected ways by the users of that space. So, then what would be the purpose of having this type of space? Well, first; we are expanding the range of practices that are possible through the use of these spaces.
Secondly, although these spaces may not mimic the spaces seen more broadly online, there is still good work that can be done in them. It just must be seen that these spaces must be designed in a manner congruent with the goals of inviting participation in the types of activities desired by the teacher.
Finally, part of the broader online spaces are the potential for the user to impact and change that space...or at least a corner of it. The design must allow for this AND ALSO there must be ongoing redesign to allow for practices to continue to emerge based on the varying resources and trajectories of the individuals.
I realize there are many claims made above that are not substantiated. However, as I think about spaces, these ideas are what peculate to the top.
As can be seen, the design of a space and even requirement of activity, does not automatically elicit the type of participation desired for a more Web 2.0 mindset (Lankshear and Knobel). So, can space be designed to produce the type of interaction and practices which would make it the online space that is being sought? According to deCertau, the designed space may be taken up in very unexpected ways by the users of that space. So, then what would be the purpose of having this type of space? Well, first; we are expanding the range of practices that are possible through the use of these spaces.
Secondly, although these spaces may not mimic the spaces seen more broadly online, there is still good work that can be done in them. It just must be seen that these spaces must be designed in a manner congruent with the goals of inviting participation in the types of activities desired by the teacher.
Finally, part of the broader online spaces are the potential for the user to impact and change that space...or at least a corner of it. The design must allow for this AND ALSO there must be ongoing redesign to allow for practices to continue to emerge based on the varying resources and trajectories of the individuals.
I realize there are many claims made above that are not substantiated. However, as I think about spaces, these ideas are what peculate to the top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)