Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Riverside Libraries]On: 09 November 2014, At: 11:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of In-Service EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie19
The influence of in-service trainingon teacher attitudes towards religiouseducation in non-denominational schools inEnglandLeslie J. Francis a , J. Astley b , Linda Burton c & Carolyn Wilcox ba Trinity College, Carmarthen and University of Wales , Lampeter, UnitedKingdomb North of England Institute for Christian Education , Durham, UnitedKingdomc University of Durham , United KingdomPublished online: 19 Dec 2006.
To cite this article: Leslie J. Francis , J. Astley , Linda Burton & Carolyn Wilcox (1999) The influenceof in-service training on teacher attitudes towards religious education in non-denominational schools inEngland, Journal of In-Service Education, 25:1, 173-185, DOI: 10.1080/13674589900200063
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674589900200063
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Influence of In-service Training on Teacher Attitudes towards Religious Education in Non-denominational Schools in England
LESLIE J. FRANCISTrinity College, Carmarthen and University of Wales, Lampeter, United KingdomJ. ASTLEY & CAROLYN WILCOXNorth of England Institute for Christian Education, Durham, United KingdomLINDA BURTONUniversity of Durham, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT A sample of 221 teachers concerned with teaching religiouseducation in non-denominational secondary schools in England completeda detailed inventory concerning the aims of religious education andprovided information about their in-service training. The data highlightdifferent in-service training needs for different groups of religiouseducation teachers. Particular attention is drawn to the distinctive needsof those teachers who contribute to the subject, but may not be subjectspecialists, and those subject specialists whose initial training took placeduring an age when the confessional and neo-confessional approaches toreligious education were ascribed greater legitimacy than is currently thecase.
Introduction
The contemporary state maintained system of schooling in England andWales had its origins not in an initiative of the state, but in initiatives ofthe churches through the founding of the Royal Lancasterian Society in1808, the National Society in 1811, and the British and Foreign SchoolSociety in 1814 (Cruickshank, 1963; Murphy, 1971). As a consequence ofthese voluntary initiatives religious education was an accepted componentof the church school curriculum. When a mechanism was first establishedby the 1870 Education Act for the state to found non-denominational
ATTITUDES TOWARDS RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
173
Journal of In-service Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1999
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
schools, religious education, although not mandatory, quickly becameestablished and accepted as part of the secular school curriculum. As partof the complex compromise between the interests of the churches and thestate in restructuring the educational system after the Second World War,the 1944 Education Act legislated for the provision of religious educationin all state maintained schools, subject to key conscience clauses for bothparents and staff (Dent, 1947). The 1988 Education Reform Act preservedthe statutory place of religious education as part of the basic curriculum(Cox & Cairns, 1989). According to both the 1944 Education Act and the1988 Education Reform Act religious education within non-denominationalstate maintained schools is taught according to an ‘agreed syllabus’formulated by representatives of the local authority, the teachingprofession and the Christian churches and other faith communitiesrepresented in the local area (Kay & Francis, 1997).
Commentators on the provision for religious education in secondaryschools in England and Wales frequently stress the importance of thein-service training and education of teachers responsible for deliveringthis subject (e.g. Gates, 1993, pp. 36-37). However, in-service providersface a difficult task in this area. Not only do they need to addressinadequacies in subject knowledge and understanding, they must alsotackle the issue of the teachers’ personal attitudes to religion and to theteaching of the subject (Gay, 1995, p. 9). In-service courses in religiouseducation in England and Wales are thus often framed “primarily toprovide the opportunity for teachers to re-examine their own assumptionsand attitudes about religion and to consider the aims and objectivesappropriate for the subject”, as well as strengthening the teachers’expertise in subject content and classroom method (Whittle, 1984).
The debate about the proper aims of this particular subject withinthe non-denominational state maintained schools of England and Waleshas been a contentious one, spread out over many decades andprogressing through a series of stages. Some religious education teacherswill be more informed about or more sympathetic to the results of thisdebate than will others. Both their familiarity and their sympathy are likelyto be closely related to their experience of initial and in-service educationin religious education.
The primary aim for religious education in non-denominationalschools is now routinely taken to be the broadly phenomenological ordescriptive aim of developing an empathic understanding of the religions(cf. Smart, 1968, 1973; Schools Council, 1971; Dhavamony, 1973; Grimmitt,1973; Department of Education and Science, 1985, pp. 474-475, 466, 490;Leech, 1989, p. 74; Department for Education, 1994). This aim has a secureplace in agreed syllabuses and curriculum material for religious education.It is described in the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority’smodel syllabuses in terms of acquiring and developing “knowledge andunderstanding of Christianity and the other principal religions represented
LESLIE J. FRANCIS ET AL
174
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
in Great Britain” (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 1994, p.4).
The same document, however, accepts a number of other legitimateaims for religious education. These are somewhat more controversial,although they have also been widely endorsed by syllabus writers andscholars. These other aims are:
x to understand the influence of religion, in the sense of developing anunderstanding of the ways in which beliefs, values and traditions withinreligions influence “individuals, communities, societies and cultures”(cf. Leech, 1989).
x to think critically about religion, in the sense of developing in pupils theability “to make reasoned and informed judgements about religious andmoral issues”, with reference to the teachings of the religions (cf. Smart,1968; Schools Council, 1971, 1977; Grimmitt, 1987; Wilkinson, 1989).
x to enhance the students’ “spiritual, moral, cultural and socialdevelopment”. This is a broad aim that the School Curriculum andAssessment Authority unpacked in terms of the pupils’ awareness of“the fundamental questions of life raised by human experiences”, and ofthe responses to such questions from the teachings and practices ofreligions and from their own “understanding and experience”, inaddition to their “reflecting on their own beliefs, values andexperiences”. This might be broadly conceived as the aim to reflect onultimate questions (cf. Cox, 1966; Loukes, 1965; Durham, 1970; Holley,1978; Mitchell, 1980; Hull, 1984; Grimmitt, 1987; Arthur, 1990; NationalCurriculum Council, 1993).
x to develop a positive attitude toward religion and other people in general,particularly respecting their right “to hold different beliefs from [thepupils’] own”, and being tolerant of living in a plural religious society(cf. Department for Education, 1994; Department of Education andScience, 1985, p. 466; Wilkinson, 1989, pp. 42-43).
One possible aim for religious education which is highly controversial, andis not endorsed by the current agreed syllabuses, is the older‘confessional aim’ of evangelisation and religious nurture or formation.School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (1994) regards this asillegitimate, as does Department for Education (1994). County or stateschools, therefore, are encouraged to reject, as a proper aim of religiouseducation, this aim of promoting a religious way of life (cf. Schools Council,1971; Gardner, 1980; Hull, 1984).
Empirical studies of teachers’ perceptions of the aims of religiouseducation have revealed that they adopt a number of these different aims(see Jarvis, 1972; Bedwell, 1977; Astley et al, 1997). It is the purpose of thispaper to explore empirically whether any variation in the extent to whichdifferent teachers endorse the five aims outlined above might be explained
ATTITUDES TOWARDS RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
175
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
by the teacher’s sex, age and responsibilities in the religious studiesdepartment, and particularly by the amount of in-service education inteaching religious education that they have received.
Methods
SampleA sample of 221 teachers concerned with teaching religious education innon-denominational secondary schools in England participated in thestudy. The sample comprised 128 women and 93 men; 28 teachers in theirtwenties, 61 in their thirties, 92 in their forties and 40 in their fifties. Of thetotal sample, 126 teachers had overall responsibility for religiouseducation in their school, and 95 teachers did not have overallresponsibility for the subject.
Questionnaire
The teachers were invited to assess the relative importance of 80 differentaims for religious education on an eight-point scale ranging from ‘notlegitimate’ (0), through ‘legitimate, but very unimportant’ (1) and ‘averageimportance’ (4), to ‘very important’ (7). The 80 different aims included fivesets of eight items each designed to assess the following major aims ofreligious education: to understand the influence of religion, to thinkcritically about religion, to reflect on ultimate questions, to develop apositive attitude toward religion, and to promote a religious way of life.The teachers were also asked to record the number of hours of in-servicetraining which they had received in religious education during thepreceding 36 months.
Data Analysis
The data were analysed by the SPSS statistical package, using thereliability, correlation and regression routines (SPSS Inc., 1988).
Results
The data demonstrate that there were considerable variations in therespondents’ exposure to in-service training during the past 36 months.Thus, 45% had received no in-service training during this period, 34% hadreceived up to 10 hours, 11% had received between 11 and 20 hours, 7%had received between 21 and 40 hours, and 3% had received more than 40hours. The main variation takes place between teachers who are in chargeof religious education in their school and those who are not in charge ofthe subject. Thus, while only 8% of teachers in charge of religious
LESLIE J. FRANCIS ET AL
176
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
education had attended no in-service training during the past 36 months,the proportion rose to 72% among those not in charge of the subject (x2 =89.7, df = 1, P <0.001). Of those not in charge, 18% had received up to 10hours, 5% had received between 11 and 20 hours, 4% had receivedbetween 21 and 40 hours, and 1% had received more than 40 hours. Ofthose in charge, 55% had received up to 10 hours, 19% had receivedbetween 11 and 20 hours, 12% had received between 21 and 40 hours, and7% had received more than 40 hours.
Tables I – V set out the items for the five scales assessing differentaims of religious education and assess the scale properties of these sets ofitems in terms of the item rest of scale correlations and the alphacoefficients (Cronbach, 1951). These statistics demonstrate that all fivescales function with satisfactory levels of internal consistency andreliability among the present sample of teachers.
90mm
Table I. To understand the influence of religion: item rest of scale correlations.
ATTITUDES TOWARDS RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
177
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
90mm
Table II. To think critically about religion: item rest of scale correlations.
90mm
LESLIE J. FRANCIS ET AL
178
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table III. To reflect on ultimate questions: item rest of scale correlations.
90mm
Table IV. To develop a positive attitude toward religion: item rest of scalecorrelations.
90mm
ATTITUDES TOWARDS RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
179
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table V. To promote a religious way of life: item rest of scale correlations.Table VI explores the relationships between scores on the five
indices concerned with different aims of religious education and fourcharacteristics of the individual teachers: their sex, their age, whetherthey are in charge of religious education in the school where they teach,and the number of hours they have been exposed to in-service training.These statistics demonstrate that there is no significant relationshipbetween sex and the priority given by teachers to three of the fivespecified aims of religious education, namely to understand the influenceof religion, to think critically about religion and to reflect on ultimatequestions. On the other hand, female teachers give a significantly higherpriority to developing a positive attitude toward religion, while maleteachers give a significantly higher priority to promoting a religious way oflife. Similarly, there is no significant relationship between age and thepriority given by teachers to four of the specified aims of religiouseducation, namely to understand the influence of religion, to thinkcritically about religion, to reflect on ultimate questions and to develop apositive attitude toward religion. On the other hand, there is a significantrelationship between age and the priority give by teachers to theconfessional aim of religious education. Older teachers are more likelythan younger teachers to endorse the view that religious education shouldpromote a religious way of life.
45mm
Table VI. Correlations between aims of religious education and sex, age, status andin-service training. Notes: Sex is coded 1 = male, 2 = female; Status is coded:1 = not in charge of RE, 2 = in charge of RE; In-service is coded: 1 = none, 2 = 1 – 10hours, 3 = 11 – 20 hours, 4 = 21 – 40 hours, 5 = over 40 hours. *P <0.05; **P <0.01; ***P <0.001.
The statistics presented in Table VI also demonstrate that the teachers incharge of religious education have a significantly different set of priorities
LESLIE J. FRANCIS ET AL
180
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
for the subject, compared with the teachers who are not in charge ofreligious education. Those with responsibility for the subject give higherpriority to the aims of understanding the influence of religion, thinkingcritically about religion, reflecting on ultimate questions, and developing apositive attitude toward religion. At the same time, those withresponsibility for the subject give lower priority to the aim of promoting areligious way of life.
Finally, the statistics presented in Table VI suggest that in-servicetraining is significantly related to giving a higher priority to the two aimsof understanding the influence of religion and reflecting on ultimatequestions. At the same time, in-service training is significantly related togiving a lower priority to the aim of promoting a religious way of life. Onthe other hand, there is no significant relationship between in-servicetraining, and the priority given to the two aims of thinking critically aboutreligion and developing a positive attitude toward religion.
The main limitation within the analysis presented in Table VI is thateach of the four issues of sex, age, status and in-service training has beenviewed independently. The key question now is to ask whether theapparent relationships between priority given to different areas ofreligious education and in-service training are sustained after taking theother three factors into account. Table VII, therefore, presents themultiple regression significance tests exploring the relationship betweenin-service training and scores on the five scales concerned with the aimsof religious education, after the teachers’ sex, age and status have beenentered into the equation in that fixed order.
90mm
ATTITUDES TOWARDS RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
181
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table VII. Multiple regression significance tests.
The findings of the multiple regression equations modify the conclusionssuggested by the correlation matrix considerably. After controlling for thesex, age and status of the individual teachers, in-service training is shownto have minimal influence on the priorities which teachers ascribe to fourof the specified aims in religious education. In-service training appears toimpact the priority given to only one of the five specified aims of religiouseducation, in that it appears to enhance marginally the priority given tothe aim of reflecting on ultimate questions.
The multiple regression equations also demonstrate that theapparent relationships between in-service training and higher prioritygiven to the aim of understanding the influence of religion, as well as lowerpriority given to the aim of promoting a religious way of life are artifacts ofthe characteristics of the teachers who attend the in-service trainingcourses.
Discussion
Overall, three major conclusions emerge from the data presented in thisstudy.
The first conclusion is that currently there are two fundamentallydifferent communities of religious education teachers withinnon-denominational secondary schools in England. One communitycomprises the professional heads of department who are generally subjectspecialists. It is these teachers who primarily take advantages of in-servicetraining opportunities in this field. These are the teachers who see theaims of religious education more in terms of understanding the influenceof religion, thinking critically about religion, reflecting on ultimatequestions and promoting a positive attitude toward religion. The othercommunity comprises those teachers who contribute to the religiouseducation department, but who are generally specialists in other subjectareas. They may be drawn to teaching religious education because of theirpersonal interest in and faith commitment to religion. It is these teacherswho are less inclined to take advantage of in-service training opportunitiesin the field. These are the teachers who see the aims of religious educationmore in terms of promoting a religious way of life.
The second conclusion is that there remains a generational gulfamong religious education teachers in England concerning the way inwhich they conceptualise their understanding of the subject. On the onehand, both younger and older religious education teachers have taken onboard the educational professionalisation of the subject to the extent thatthere is no relationship between age, and the priority given to theprofessional aims of understanding the influence of religion, thinkingcritically about religion, reflecting on ultimate questions and developing apositive attitude toward religion. On the other hand, older and younger
LESLIE J. FRANCIS ET AL
182
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
teachers have perceived different implications emerging from theseprofessional aims in relationship to the earlier confessional orneo-confessional emphasis in religious education. Older teachers aremuch more inclined than younger teachers to maintain the compatibilityof the educationally professional aims of religious education with theconfessional or neo-confessional aim of promoting a religious way of life.
The third conclusion relates directly to the aims and objectives offuture initiatives in in-service training in religious education in Englandand Wales. One reasonable aim for in-service training might be to promotea unified professional approach to the subject across the boardthroughout non-denominational secondary schools. Such an aim would beconcerned to communicate a consensus of good professional practiceamong all religious education teachers, irrespective of their individualages and the generation in which they experienced initial teacher training,and irrespective of whether they were head of subject in the school orcontributing to religious education as part of their teaching timetable. Inorder to realise this aim, in-service opportunities need to target twospecific groups of religious education teachers. The first group comprisesthose teachers who contribute to the subject but are not themselves incharge of the subject within their school. The second group comprisesthose subject specialists whose initial training took place during an agewhen the confessional and neo-confessional approaches to religiouseducation were ascribed greater legitimacy than is currently the case.
The kind of in-service training appropriate for these two groups issomewhat different. The major emphasis in programmes for thoseteachers who are not in charge of the subject and who may not be subjectspecialists should concern a proper grounding in current educationalthinking regarding the nature and aims of religious education. Thisgrounding needs both to emphasis the educational rationale for religiouseducation in schools in terms of the specific aims of understanding theinfluence of religions, thinking critically about religion, reflecting onultimate questions and developing a positive attitude to religion, and atthe same time dismantle commitment to the confessional aim ofevangelisation and religious nurture or formation in schools. The majoremphasis in programmes for subject specialists whose initial training tookplace in an earlier educational ethos needs to be less grounded intransmitting current educational thinking about these four aims ofreligious education. These teachers have, in one sense, already taken thisthinking on board. What they do not appear to have found is theappropriate opportunity to develop the implications of such educationalthinking for challenging their earlier conceptions of the subject asappropriately including the confessional aim of evangelisation andreligious nurture or formation.
ATTITUDES TOWARDS RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
183
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Correspondence
Revd Professor Leslie J. Francis, Centre for Theology and Education,Trinity College, Carmarthen SA31 3EP, United Kingdom([email protected]).
References
Arthur, C. (1990) Biting the Bullet. Edinburgh: St Andrew Press.Astley, J. Francis, L.J., Burton, L. & Wilcox, C. (1997) Distinguishing between aims
and methods in RE: a study among secondary RE teachers, British Journal ofReligious Education, 19, pp. 171-185.
Bedwell, A.E. (1977) Aims of religious education teachers in Hereford andWorcester, Learning for Living, 17, pp. 66-74.
Cox, E. (1966) Changing Aims in Religious Education. London: Routledge & KeganPaul.
Cox, E. & Cairns, J.M. (1989) Reforming Religious Education: the religious clauses ofthe 1988 Education Reform Act. London: Kogan Page.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,Psychometrika, 16, pp. 297-334.
Cruickshank, M. (1963) Church and State in English Education. London: Macmillan.Dent, H.J. (1947) The Education Act 1944: provisions, possibilities and some
problems, 3rd edn. London: University of London Press.Department for Education (1994) Religious Education and Collective Worship,
Circular 1/94. London: Department for Education.Department of Education and Science (1985) Education for All: report of the
committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups(Swann Report). London: HMSO.
Dhavamony, M. (1973) Phenomenology of Religion. Rome: Gregorian UniversityPress.
Durham, Bishop of (Ed.) (1970) The Fourth R. London: National Society/SPCK.Gardner, P. (1980) Religious education: in defence of non-commitment, Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 14, pp. 157-168.Gates, B. (1993) Time for Religious Education and Teachers to Match: a digest of
under-provision. Lancaster: Religious Education Council.Gay, J.D. (1995) The In-Service Training of RE Teachers: the report of an action
research project. Abingdon: Culham College Institute.Grimmitt, M. (1973) What Can I Do In RE? Great Wakering: Mayhew-McCrimmon.Grimmitt, M. (1987) Religious Education and Human Development. Great Wakering:
McCrimmons.Holley, R. (1978) Religious Education and Religious Understanding. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.Hull, J. (1984) Studies in Religion and Education. Lewes: Falmer.Jarvis, P. (1972) Teachers report their aims, Learning for Living, 11, pp. 12-15.
LESLIE J. FRANCIS ET AL
184
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Kay, W.K. & Francis, L.J. (1997) Religion in Education: 1. Leominster: Gracewing.Leech, A.L. (1989) Another look at phenomenology and religious education, British
Journal of Religious Education, 11, pp. 70-75.Loukes, H. (1965) New Ground in Christian Education. London: SCM.Mitchell, B. (1980) Religious education, Oxford Review of Education, 6, pp. 133-139.Murphy, J. (1971) Church, State and Schools in Britain, 1800-1970. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.National Curriculum Council (1993) Spiritual and Moral Development: a discussion
paper. London: National Curriculum Council.School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (1994) Model Syllabuses for Religious
Education; Model 1: living faiths today. London: School Curriculum andAssessment Authority.
Schools Council (1971) Religious Education in Secondary Schools. London:Evans/Methuen.
Schools Council (1977) A Groundplan for the Study of Religion. London: SchoolsCouncil.
Smart, N. (1968) Secular Education and the Logic of Religion. London: Faber & Faber.Smart, N. (1973) The Science of Religion and the Sociology of Knowledge. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.SPSS Inc (1988) SPSSX User’s Guide. New York: McGraw-HillWhittle, D.C.G. (1984) In-service education for teachers of RE, in J.M. Sutcliffe (Ed.)
A Dictionary of Religious Education, p. 171. London: SCM.Wilkinson, I. (1989) RE and the fight against racism: some guidelines, Multicultural
Teaching, 8, pp. 42-43.
ATTITUDES TOWARDS RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
185
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, R
iver
side
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
1:11
09
Nov
embe
r 20
14
