What
are the best practices and methodology for upper elementary students in Common
Core State Standards to be successful in reading and writing?
(2) The intended population you wish to study (examples may include my 3rd grade students, my fellow teachers, my school's curricula/standards, etc.).
My population will be focused this fall on my 4th grade students, but will also look into the practices of other teachers within out school. We are just now switching to Common Core and I am curious to see how reading and writing instruction changes to reflect the changes in the standards. I will implement workshops in my classroom and use the results to show growth versus my instruction last year.
(3) What you plan on measuring in your study (student learning, teacher attitudes, history of an educational practice, usage of technology, etc.).
I will measure student learning in regards to their ability to read and write. The basis for the change in curriculum and practices is based upon the educational research and theories that have been published in the past.
(4) How you plan on acquiring the data for your study (a test, a survey, historical documents, etc.).
I will collect writing samples from the beginning of the year, as well as previous year's writing samples from their student portfolios. I will use research based measures for data improvement such as Reading 3D and rubrics to show the students' growth. I plan to survey teachers on their practices, while following my counting plan, to find out how much time is truly dedicated to literacy each day in every class.
(5) Which general form of design you intend to employ
This study will primarily be qualitative, although I feel that there should be some quantitative data used, for reading I would use data and I would survey teachers and students to get their take on the workshops. As for qualitative, this may involve a variety of data collection. For example, through interactive, I would observe the collective classroom as a social group and the conversations had through ethnographic research, but also may have a specific case study of students in my classroom and possibly others. Ideally, I would achieve a triangulation design for research, so that there is less subjectivity in the qualitative findings.
Two cups of coffee, two halves of plain bagel, two tablespoons of cream cheese, eight hours of sleep, and one happy morning. I often think of counting things on a regular basis, as strange as that seems. I tend to think quantitatively about the frequency of things, for example, yesterday I had the hiccups three times and sneeze seven today. There are so many numbers that rule our daily routines and affect our lives that we rarely think about. I think it is safe to say that the most commonly counted item for adults are calories, whether they are consumed or spent and for children how many songs are on their ipod or levels achieved on a video game. I think it says a lot about a person, if you asked them one quantity from their day or life, what would they say?
In the teacher world, my focus is completely different. How many of my students say please or thank you? How long does it take the average student to go to the bathroom and at what length of time should I be concerned? How many students are present today? How many copies do I make of this assignment? How many pages did they read for homework? My daily life is consumed by numbers at school, and I am only a reading teacher. The increasing amount of data driven instruction adds to those numbers, how many students mastered the concept? How many words did they read in a minute? What is their AR level and how many points is that book worth? It is truly shocking when you think about the countless numbers we encounter regularly.
I would like my counting plan to tie into my research topic. How many minutes are students given to write (or read) in one day? This count will be collected as a poll from all teachers anonymously. In that poll I would also ask the subject they teach. Moving to Common Core Standard Course of Study, literacy should be present in every classroom regardless of the subject. Students may read nonfiction texts and respond to them, they should read and write word problems in math, they should be able to explain and justify their answers, they should be able to explain the process they followed to reach that solution, etc.
I would like to count this because research states that students should spend at least 90 minutes a day in literacy. I am afraid that although they are getting a 90 minute literacy block (in some grades), that instructional time is being somewhat lost and the 90 minutes are not preserved. Another concern may be the honesty of the teachers completing the poll. Using the information, I would be able to support other teachers to incorporate reading and writing in their lessons, or encourage teachers to find other ways to allow students additional literacy time.
By including literacy in all classrooms, reading and writing become interdisciplinary and will make up for the instructional minutes lost in Language Arts class. These results may also support the need for additional time spent reading and writing or homework, to insure that 90 minutes are spent daily. The connection of literacy between the classroom and home is also supported by the research I found. Literacy cannot stop at the end of the school day, they need to see the continuation of reading and writing in all aspects of their life. To truly be proficient according to Common Core, students need to see the ties of literacy across all subjects and dedicate the time to practicing those skills. Through this counting plan, it would confirm or deny the need for additional efforts in all classes to allow for literacy to take place, and may even prove that this may be an immediate concern. If proven that very little time is dedicated daily, then it would further emphasize the need for writing workshop in all Language Arts classroom, and may change the way that my school looks at literacy and our curriculum. Additionally, this could lead to action research through which a team of teachers really evaluates and practices a variety of ways through which literacy can be used in other subjects (math, science, social studies, even the specials classes – art and music). This counting plan may lead a realization and confirmation that there is not enough time truly utilized for literacy in the day.
Writing Workshop and Common Core Standard
Course of Study: Teaching students to be Writers
Introduction
Topic:
Writing
is the format through which thoughts, understanding, and opinions are published
and shared and for too long, writing has been pushed aside in the classroom to
allow for more instructional time for math and reading. How can we deny the connection between writing
and all subjects, do they not go hand in hand? As schools continue to evolve
and adapt to the changing student, writing should be at the forefront of all
communication. Adoption of the Common Core Standard Course of Study requires
students to explain their thinking and justify their answers, which means, being
able to express their ideas and understanding in words, through writing. The
topic that has been so long ignored must reemerge into every subject and every
classroom. Not only must teachers begin teaching student to write, but also
this involves instruction on grammar, conventions, and spelling. It is
necessary to make up for the years they have lacked in writing experience and
make years of growth in just one year to ensure that students are competitive
in their academics. Schools must adopt a writing program to encourage the
writer in every child.
General Overview of the
Literature:
Research
supports that schools are in need of a Writer’s Workshop and the
characteristics that should be involved. However, there are several quality programs to choose
from, but what makes an excellent workshop? In reviewing literature by several
researchers, Donald Graves, Nancie Atwell, Jane Hansen, Mark Dressman, and
others who have great contributed to the study, there are certain
characteristics that were interlaced and supported by nearly all of the
experts. A workshop should involve student led discussions and allow for
freedom of choice in their writing. According to Fletcher and Portalupi,
“…Young writers work best when they feel a sense of ownership – personal
investment – in their writing…” giving them a “this really matters to me
feeling as they write,” (p. 23) if a teacher cannot invest the students the workshop
may be a lost cause (2001). When teachers release control to the students, they
are able to explore and learn on their own. It is also evident that one of the
most important criteria for an effective workshop is allowing for time;
students need the time to brainstorm, write, confer, and revise their writing. All
researchers were in favor of choice for students in their writing, but also
promoted worthy questions that also affect a writer’s voice and development.
Rationale:
Common Core Standard Course of Study
requires students to effective explain their reasoning and thoughts across the
curriculum, schools are in need of a writing program that is supported by data
research. Teaching writing is hard; it is a collection of skills that
require other subject knowledge and ability to put thoughts into words
(Fletcher, 2001). As there is plenty of research around writing, the focus of
this literature review will be in the overall environment in the classroom to
foster excellent youth writers. Denise Leograndis identifies four primary goals
for writing workshop: build a safe writing community, establish rituals and
routines, generate lots of thinking, talk and writing, and develop the
understanding that all good writing has meaning, detail, structure, and pacing
(2008). Therefore, the majority of research fell into three major aspects that
must be present for a successfully workshop: proper teacher modeling, students routinely
given time to write, and opportunity for student choice.
Body
Kinds of Work Reviewed:
To
form an educated opinion, one should consider scholarly research from a variety
of studies, case studies, reviews, and articles. Many of these researchers are
interrelated and often discuss the others’ research in their own. It seemed
that many built their theories and studies based upon another’s. Lucy Calkins
and Donald Graves studied and researched together, which led to many findings
involving each other’s work. One such study by Graves and Calkins that related
to the revision process of students (1991). This research also contained his
case study featured in Research in the
Teaching of English that looks specifically at the writing process of
seven-year-old children. All the research pointed conclusively to the need for
writing workshop in the classroom environment, but differed slightly as to what
need to be emphasized in that workshop (1975). All agreed to the development of
student choice to develop themselves as authors. Mark Dressman conducted his
research by reviewing the procedures of reading initiatives in to states, Texas
and California. Although not direct research upon the writing program, reading
and writing should not be separated, which included the emphasis on explicit
teaching to marry reading and writing in the classroom setting (1999).
Primarily this research seemed to be qualitative research based on the
observations of students and their interaction within the classroom. This type
of subject is difficult to support with data analysis because students vary in
countless ways. However, the results are conclusive; writing workshop is a
necessary aspect for teaching student writers with specific characteristics
involved, but primary emphasis upon student choice within their own writing
development.
Description of selected
important works:
Writing
should be an opportunity for students to have a choice and a voice in the
classroom and their writing. Nancie
Atwell
(1985), references to Lucy Calkin’s idea of an “underground curriculum” of the
students’ ideas and knowledge, which the teacher too often ignores. It should
not be the teacher’s role to assign mandatory writing topics, but rather
demonstrate good writing habits for students to imitate and make their own. By
modeling and participating, the teacher demonstrates that each student has
their own story to tell. According to Donald Graves and Lucy Calkins research,
students should develop as writers by having the opportunities of authors:
“daily time for writing, conferences with teachers, and peers, and
opportunities to draft, revise, and publish their writing; most significantly
they took responsibility for deciding what and why and for whom they would
write” (p. 35). This is a necessary freedom for children to find their own
author’s voice. Furthermore, the recognition for the need of time, talk, and
reading all play an important role in writing. This journal, really hit upon
many aspects that I have found must be in a writing workshop for maximum
success in the development of student writers. That being said, one of the most
important aspects is creating the proper classroom environment where students
feel able to write freely and bring out the author inside, whomever that may be
(Atwell, 1985).
Gender and environment can affect the type
of writer a student becomes. Through a case study of a seven-year-old
child, Donald Graves (1975), finds after observing students’ writing, the
classroom setting in which this occurred, analyzing writing samples, and
looking at the interventions of the teachers in those classrooms, that
“learning environments, sex differences in writing, developmental factors and
the writing process” (p.234). Thus proving that students need a relaxed
environment to be able to write freely and independently and recognizing the
difference in the needs of students based on gender. These conclusions led him
to the classification of two writers that students may become due to these
factors: reactive or reflective. Understanding the ways in which students write
and their writing styles, allows a teacher to better mold the workshop to fit
those writing needs. For example, reflective writers do not usually need as
much time before writing, and often revise frequently at a phrasal level.
However, the needs of these two writers are very different and by recognizing
their strengths and weaknesses, and providing support for both, the teacher
would ensure that a proper environment, conducive to their writing is produced.
It takes time for a student to truly develop who they are as a writer (Graves,
1975).
Students need ample time to routinely
practice the writing process. After reviewing the practices in two highly
regarded states for eduction, Dressman (1999), found the need for curriculums
to proide “explicit, systematic instruction…” (p. 278). Not only must a writing
program encourage writers, but also students need consistency and instruction
when they write. It is through these
lessons and teacher modeling that students observe proper skills for writing
and truly learn and internalize the writing process. (Dressman, 1999).
Teachers
are active learners and model the writing process for student learning in the
classroom. As teachers,
we should continually be learning and growing in our profession, as we do
through professional development. Jane Hansen and Donald Graves (1986),
emphasized the importance of the teacher actively portraying a learner in the
classroom. Not only should teachers teach, but they should learn from their
students as well, giving students ample time to be teachers in the classroom. Teachers
should attend professional development, read educational literature, or even do
research, and demonstrate this continual growth to their students as a model for
students to imitate their learning habits. Similarly, the teacher needs to
demonstrate the act of selecting topics and the writing process, especially
revision, for students to truly grow in their writing (Hansen & Graves,
1986).
Students
demonstrate sophistication of writing.
As students develop as writers, their stories become more descriptive and
detailed. Donald Graves (1991), found that character development is a primary
characteristic to show development in a child’s writing. He goes on to address
poetry, as another form of development. Lucy Calkins (1994), mentions poetry
beginning with songs and chants, where students are able to the sounds of their
writing, but Graves says students are developed when they are able to
understand what information is necessary to the piece and what is superfluous.
Students can fall into the trap of writing what they think the teacher wants,
but advanced development shows when they truly act as a writer and find their
own voice. Their growth as a writer leads to appreciation of author’s craft, in
turn developing their overall literacy(Graves,
1991).
Literacy development through reading and
writing is critical in students. For true literacy development, workshops
must develop students as lifelong readers and writers. Referencing other great
researchers, Nancie Atwell, Lucy Calkins, and Donald Graves, Mark Dressman
(1993), creates the statement “students largely read silently and
independently from books of their choice and dialogue with teachers and
classmates through response journals, while promising to transform the
reluctant readers…into lifelong loves of books and into critical, literate
citizens, are also, by design, a socially reproductive practice” (p. 258). That
is the true purpose of literacy development and the workshop program. However,
as readers and writers, literacy cannot be confined to the classroom (Dressman, 1993).
Writing should bridge the connection between
home and school. Connecting home and school can be a
great challenge, but with a literacy program that embraces and enables parents
to be an active participant in their student’s life is what every school needs.
By having a program in which the teacher has more control over the content and
subjects taught, they are able to incorporate lessons and texts that reinforce
the lives of their students. Although this article discusses greatly, ways in
which to involve parents, the relevance lies in the flexibility allowed through
various reading workshops that is not allowed through textbook programs. As
McCarthey emphasizes, understanding their students’ backgrounds is important so
that the teacher may “alter curriculum and discourse patterns to include all
children,” and strictly following a textbook of stories through which families
cannot relate, will not bridge the gap from classroom to home. Through workshop
style curriculum, the teacher would be able to reinforce those connections and
allow parents to be a great part of their student’s literacy development
(McCarthey, 2000).
Conclusion
How
your work is informed by the work of others:
After
extensive research, I have found the criteria upon which to base a writing
workshop. The research has been very conclusive as to what the teacher should
provide and what the students must bring to the workshop. Many of the articles
and books I reviewed led to similar conclusions as to the emphasis of writing
workshop. I now understand that workshops should be primarily student led in
conferences and discussion of topics. Although the teacher must set an example
and provide instructional mini-lessons, for the students to use, the teacher
must allow student choice to play the primary role in their writing. The
workshops purpose is for the students to find their voice in their writing. The
element of choice for students was evident in nearly all the researchers’
works. Prior to this research, my understanding of a workshop was to provide
plentiful writing prompts for students to choose from and that would allow them
choice. It seemed more teacher led, the teacher choosing topics for the
students to follow and practice a skill of writing daily. However, I have found
that this is not the case; the best word for the teacher that I have found is
“facilitator.” Lucy Calkins emphasizes that this is not the case, as teachers
we should gradually release the responsibility, initially helping students to
brainstorm, but in the end the students should choose a topic that is
meaningful to them. Fletcher and Portalupi (2001), put it best in saying that
students must have the “this really matters to me” (p. 23), feeling in their
writing. If a student is not invested in telling their story, then they are
unable to create the detailed piece with proper character development that is
necessary for a proficient writer.
Without
doubt, my vision of a writing workshop has drastically changed and as I had
mentioned before, countless researchers reference Lucy Calkins and her writing
workshop. Although I have heard of other programs, this research continuously
peaked my interest in evaluating the aspects of Calkins program. That being
said, this research confirms my need for writing workshop for students to be
proficient according to Common Core Standard Course of Study and will lead to
my proposal to our school for the adoption of Lucy Calkin’s writing program.
This program ensures that students are given a choice, within a safe
environment, and their writing is facilitated by the teacher model, but they
encouraged to find their own voice.
As Common Core primarily supports argumentative writing, as opposed to
narrative, some adaptations will need to be made to the workshop to promote
this writing. Naturally students write what is familiar and that involves
stories that do not need factual support. Thus, more emphasis upon teacher
modeling will be needed to teach students to find a topic that interests them
and go through the writing process for a persuasive piece. How will students
learn to write if they are not given the time, the choice, and the support to
do it? Writing workshop will be in place in my classroom and hopefully within
my school.
Atwell,
N., (1985). Everyone Sits at a Big Desk: Discovering Topics for Writing. The English Journal, 74 (5), 35-39. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/817698
Writing should be an opportunity for
students to have a voice in the classroom. Atwell references to Lucy Calkin’s
idea of an “underground curriculum” of the students’ ideas and knowledge, that
the teacher too often ignores. It should not be the teacher’s role to assign
mandatory writing topics, but rather demonstrate good writing habits for
students to imitate and make their own. By modeling and participating, the
teacher demonstrates that each student has their own story to tell. According
to Donald Graves and Lucy Calkins research, students should develop as writers
by having the opportunities of authors: “daily time for writing, conferences
with teachers, and peers, and opportunities to draft, revise, and publish their
writing; most significantly they took responsibility for deciding what and why
and for whom they would write.” This is a necessary freedom for a child to find
their own author’s voice. Furthermore, the recognition for the need of time,
talk, and reading all play an important role in writing.
Dressman,
M., (1993). Lionizing Lone Wolves: The Cultural Romantics of Literacy
Workshops. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(3), 245-263. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1179992
Dressman directly addresses the ideal
of Reader’s and Writer’s Workshop through this article that emphasizes the
sense of community and individual choice to build life long readers and
writers. Referencing other great researchers, Nancie Atwell, Lucy Calkins, and
Donald Graves, he creates the statement “students largely read silently and
independently from books of their choice and dialogue with teachers and
classmates through response journals, while promising to transform the
reluctant readers…into lifelong loves of books and into critical, literate
citizens, are also, by design, a socially reproductive practice.” That is the
true purpose of literacy development. Dressman continues by linking a strength
in literacy to overall intelligence. Another important aspect, is the sense of
community within that safe reading environment. Students are able to make
connections between text and writing, between themselves and others, and
between texts. These workshops allow for a “collective negotiation of meaning”
and gives students a voice in the classroom where they are able to learn
through their own exploration.
Dressman, M., (1999). On the Use and
Misuse of Research Evidence: Decoding Two States’ Reading Initiatives. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 258–285. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/748064
In
reviewing the reading initiatives of two highly regarded states in the world of
education, Mark Dressman reviews the practices of Texas and California. He
begins by referencing education of the past and effects of various diversity
aspects. Specifically Dressman addresses race in the school systems and the
role it has played in these two states. This is not of primary concern for the
article, after doing so, he begins to evaluate the development of literacy
through these programs. After much research and refences to many studies of
Phonemic/Phonological Awareness, he states that “the future of children as
literate individuals in these states is jeopardized by current curriculums
based principally on the reading and writing of meaningful texts…need to be
replaced by explicit, systematic instruction…” It is then evident that students
need a consistent program that marries reading and writing that is taught with
consistency. He also emphasizes the importance of research based teaching and
recognized that these states had not revisited their curriculum for the
relevancy to today’s youth. This further supports my desire to implement a
research based program that can be taught routinely beginning at a young age
for Phonemic/Phonological Awareness.
Graves,
D.H., (1975). An Examination of the Writing Process of Seven Year Old Children.
Research in the Teaching of English, 9
(3), 227-241. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40170631
Through this case study, Graves looks
closely at the development of the writing process of seven-year-old children.
After observing students’ writing, the classroom setting in which this
occurred, analyzing writing samples, and looking at the interventions of the
teachers in those classrooms. This study came to conclusions about “learning
environments, sex differences in writing, developmental factors and the writing
process.” Thus proving that students need a relaxed environment to be able to
write freely and independently and recognizing the difference in the needs of
students based on gender. Reactive and reflective writers were identified, with
rather opposite characteristics. Reflective writers have a strong sense of
audience and provide reasoning for their feelings in writing. These are the
characteristics in writers that we should be aware of and encourage. However,
Graves goes on to ask further questions that apply to my research, and
emphasizes the need for additional observation on this topic of writing
development.
Graves,
D. H., (1991). Trust the Shadows. The
Reading Teacher, 45 (1), 18-24. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200796
Specifically looking at the writing
programs within American schools, Graves digs deeper to find out what kind of
writing is taking place in the classroom. One surprising finding was from the
school supply companies, noting that lined paper (which is used for writing)
purchases were in steep decline. One topic studied with Lucy Calkins, was the
process through which students revise their work. Graves also mentions the
differences in topic choice between genders and the range of focus through
which children write, but both genders place a large focus on the character and
the “motion and action” of that individual. The level of character development
in a child’s writing can also signify the level of their development as a
writer. Finally, he relates it, through poetry, to adult writers and the
importance of understanding what information is necessary to the piece and what
is superfluous. Students often write what they think the teacher wants as an
answer instead of truly acting as a writer and “trust (their) own
thinking.”
Hansen,
J., & Graves, D., (1986, April). Do You Know What Backstrung Means? The
Reading Teacher, 39(8), 807-812. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199226
.
In a study conducted by Jane Hanson and
Donald Graves, in Lee, New Hampshire at the Mast Way School (K-5), they found
the importance of the teacher actively portraying a learner in the classroom.
Teachers always attend professional development, read teacher books, or even do
research, but the importance of this study was to demonstrate that a teacher
learner values student knowledge and models learning for his/her students is
the most effective. The teacher must listen to his/her students and ask
questions, the students will then imitate the actions and do the same. This can
be related to reading and writing in the sense that the teacher must show
students how to be both and actively participate in the practices of reading
and writing. Teachers often hold back from allowing their students
opportunities to teach and share, sometimes afraid to lose control over their
classroom. Hansen and Graves emphasize teachers participate in similar
practices as their students, e.g. reviewing others’ writing. They then dive
deeper into the roles of both the teachers and students engaging in the writing
process.
McCarthey,
S. J., (2000). Home: School Connections: A Review of the Literature. The
Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 145-153. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542260
Connecting home and school can be a great
challenge, but with a literacy program that embraces and enables parents to be
an active participant in their student’s life is what every school needs. By
having a program in which the teach has more control over the content and
subjects taught, they are able to incorporate lessons and texts that reinforce
the lives of their students. Although this article discusses greatly, ways in
which to involve parents, the relevance lies in the flexibility allowed through
various reading workshops that is not allowed through textbook programs. As
McCarthey emphasizes, understanding their students’ backgrounds is important so
that the teacher may “alter curriculum and discourse patterns to include all
children,” and strictly following a textbook of stories through which families
cannot relate, will not bridge the gap from classroom to home. Through workshop
style curriculum, the teacher would be able to reinforce those connections and allow
parents to be a great part of their student’s literacy development.
As more states across the nation make the
shift to Common Core standards, the rigor increases and the expectations of
higher level thinking skills required for proficiency far surpasses what
students have been required for proficiency. Being an upper elementary teacher,
I am eager to see the effects on students having been held to these standards all
along, but what does that mean for those students in upper elementary who have
barely gained exposure to what we are now asking. Going through their
elementary career, students have not been asked to write informational texts
and their time of free writing has nearly vanished. How do we adopt a reading
and writing program in upper elementary that will make up for the shortcomings
of these students while allowing for them to move at their readiness level and
be successful with the new standards? What would that reading and writing
program look like? So to begin exploring these options, the real question is,
what are the best practices and methodology for upper elementary students in
Common Core State Standards to be successful in reading and writing?
During the 2011 – 2012 school year, I was
hired as a Fourth Grade Reading teacher, and that was it. Our school had
separated reading and writing for my group of students. I was handed the SRA
Open Court curriculum and was informed that our Science and Social Studies
teacher would also teach writing, but had not curriculum or standards to abide
by. I was then given the option to veer away from Open Court and go where I saw
fit as long as the standards were met for the North Carolina Standard Course of
Study and that the students proved proficient on the End of Grade Test. This
lack of curricular structure, led me to discuss the options with other
teachers. Every teacher in our building was doing something different for their
reading and writing instruction. The only consistency was that we all had the
Open Court materials, some of them, and that we were aware of Reading A-Z as a
program that was available. Continuing through the year, I saw the disconnect
among grade levels as well as a lack of communication between all reading and
writing teachers. In the past, writing had been tested, but was recently
dropped and merely a writing sample is kept in each student’s portfolio.
Through this research, I hope to find a program that will enable our teachers
to have consistency and routine in their instruction to better prepare students
for the level of writing required for reading comprehension through Common
Core.
In doing so, I plan to present the data to
our school Principal to review for the upcoming 2012 – 2013 school year. By
piloting this program, there may be an opportunity for our district leaders to
review our work with the program and potentially implement them across the
district. However, for full district adoption, I will need to keep in mind the
cost of the programs I review, as well as the training required for teachers to
understand the materials and implementation of the program. Therefore, this
will not only guide my instruction in the fall, but potentially also within my
school and district to benefit all students to be successful.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.
(2012). English Language Arts Unpacking Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/acre/standards/common-core-tools/unpacking/ela/4.pdf
