Advertisement

Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 233–257 | Cite as

How to Elaborate What Teachers Should Learn? Five Steps for Content Specification of Professional Development Programs, Exemplified By “Moves Supporting Participation in Classroom Discussions”

  • Susanne PredigerEmail author
  • Uta Quasthoff
  • Anna-Marietha Vogler
  • Vivien Heller
Originalarbeit/Original Article

Abstract

This paper aims at widening the discussion on the research-based design of professional development (PD) programs: from the prevailing “how-questions” (with their focus on the pedagogy and didactical principles for PD) to the “what-questions.” What-questions focus on the specification of the content in the PD program that should surmount deficit-oriented views on teachers’ perspectives. The presentation of a five-step program for the theoretically and empirically grounded process of content specification of a PD program is exemplified by the content “moves supporting participation in classroom discussions.”

Keywords

Professional development of teachers Content specification What-question Moves supporting participation 

Wie spezifiziert man, was Lehrkräfte lernen sollen? Fünf Schritte der Inhalts-Spezifizierung für Professionalisierungsprogramme, exemplifiziert am Inhalt „partizipationsförderliche Impulse“

Zusammenfassung

Der Artikel zielt auf eine Ausweitung der Diskussion um forschungsbasierte Professionalisierungsprogramme: von den vorherrschenden „Wie-Fragen“ (mit Fokus auf Methoden und didaktische Prinzipien) zu den „Was-Fragen“. Was-Fragen fokussieren auf die Inhalts-Spezifizierung jenseits der beliebigen Gegenstandskonstitution und defizitorientierten Perspektiven. Vorgestellt wird ein Fünf-Schritte-Programm für einen theoretisch und empirisch begründeten Prozess der Inhalts-Spezifizierung, und zwar am Beispielinhalt „partizipationsförderliche Impulse in Unterrichtsgesprächen“.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

97B50 97C50 97C60 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The research project INTERPASS—Interactive procedures of establishing matches and divergences for linguistic and microcultural practices”—is funded by the German ministry BMBF (grant 01JC1112). We are conducting it together with Kirstin Erath and thank her and the involved teachers for their valuable contributions. This paper transcends the reconstructive project in the direction of professional development, which we consider an important result.

Literatur

  1. Adler, J., Ball, D., Krainer, K., Lin, F.-L., & Novotna, J. (2005). Reflections on an emerging field: Researching mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(3), 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, S. J. (2008). Teacher language awareness. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Knowledge about language (Vol. 6, pp. 287–298). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Barwell, R. (Ed.). (2009). Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms (pp. 1–13). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  4. Barwell, R., Leung, C., & Morgan, C. (2005). Applied linguistics and mathematics education: More than words and numbers. Language and Education, 19(2), 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bass, H., & Ball, D. L. (2004). A practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching: The case of mathematical reasoning. In W. Jianpan & X. X. Binyan (Eds.), Trends and challenges in mathematics education (pp. 107–123). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bauersfeld, H. (1995). “Language games” in the mathematics classroom: Their function and their effects. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning. Interaction in classroom cultures (Vol. 2, pp. 271–291). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bauersfeld, H., Krummheuer, G., & Voigt, J. (1985). Interactional theory of learning and teaching mathematics and related microethnographical studies. In H. G. Steiner & H. Vermandel (Eds.), Foundations and methodology of the discipline mathematics education (didactics of mathematics) (pp. 174–188). Antwerpen: University of Antwerpen.Google Scholar
  8. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker-Mrotzek, M. (2009). Unterrichtskommunikation als Mittel der Kompetenzentwicklung. In M. Becker-Mrotzek (Ed.), Mündliche Kommunikation und Gesprächsdidaktik (pp. 103–115). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
  10. Becker-Mrotzek, M., & Quasthoff, U. M. (1998). Unterrichtsgespräche zwischen Gesprächforschung, Fachdidaktik und Unterrichtspraxis. Der Deutschunterricht, 50(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
  11. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., & Kaiser, G. (2011). Teacher education effectiveness: Quality and equity of future primary teachers’ mathematics and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 154–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C. E. (1992). Developing autonomy for tellers, tales, and telling family narrative events. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 2(3), 187–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman, O. (2014). Understanding mathematics education through teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(3), 199–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Civil, M. (2006). Working towards equitiy in mathematics education: A focus on learners, teachers, and parents. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz & A. Méndez (Eds.), Proceedings of 28th Annual Meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 30–50). Mérida: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.Google Scholar
  15. Clarke, D. J., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Cohors-Fresenborg, E., & Kaune, C. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität: Die Rolle von Diskursivität für „guten“ gymnasialen Mathematikunterricht. In H.-W. Henn (Ed.), Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht (pp. 173–180). Hildesheim: Franzbecker.Google Scholar
  18. Crawford, K., & Adler, J. (1996). Teachers as researchers in mathematics education. In A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 1187–1205). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.Google Scholar
  20. Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77–80. (Republished in his book Experience and Education, 1938. Reprinted 1998 in West Lafayette, Indiana by the Kappa Delta Pi Honorary Society in Education).Google Scholar
  21. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction—A framework for improving teaching and learning science. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research in Europe (pp. 13–37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Erath, K., Vogler, A.-M., Prediger, S., Heller, V., & Quasthoff, U. (2014). Interaktive Verfahren der Enkulturation von Lernenden in fachspezifische Praktiken im Mathematik- und Deutschunterricht. In J. Roth & J. Ames (Eds.), Beiträge zum Mathematikuntericht (pp. 1349–1350). Münster: WTM.Google Scholar
  23. Gellert, U. (2009). Zur Explizierung strukturierender Prinzipien mathematischer Unterrichtspraxis. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 30(2), 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gellert, U., Hernández, R., & Chapman, O. (2013). Research methods in mathematics teacher education. In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 27, pp. 327–360). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: TES.Google Scholar
  26. Gogolin, I. (2009). “Bildungssprache”—The importance of teaching language in every school subject. In T. Tajmel (Ed.), Science education unlimited. Approaches to equal opportunities in learning science (pp. 91–102). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  27. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harren, I. (2013). Sprachförderung im Unterrichtsgespräch – Integration unterstützenden Feedbacks bei der Versprachlichung naturwissenschaftlicher Inhalte. In E. Grundler & R. Vogt (Eds.), Unterrichtskommunikation. Grammatik, Experimente, Gleichungen (pp. 13–29). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
  29. Hasan, R. (2011). Language and education: Learning and teaching in society. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  30. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Hattie, J., & Timberley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hausendorf, H., & Quasthoff, U. (1996). Sprachentwicklung und Interaktion: Eine linguistische Studie zum Erwerb von Diskursfähigkeiten bei Kindern. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heller, V. (2012). Kommunikative Erfahrungen von Kindern in Familie und Unterricht. Passungen und Divergenzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
  34. Heller, V. (2015). Academic discourse practices in action: Invoking discursive norms in mathematics and language lessons. Linguistics and Education. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.003. (in press).
  35. Heller, V., & Morek, M. (2015). Unterrichtsgespräche als Erwerbskontext: kommunikative Gelegenheiten für bildungssprachliche Praktiken erkennen und nutzen. Leseforum.ch, (3) 2015.Google Scholar
  36. Helmke, A. (2010). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts. Seelze: Klett/Kallmeyer.Google Scholar
  37. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). Can scientific research answer the ‘what’ question of mathematics education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hosoda, Y., & Aline, D. (2013). Two preferences in question-answer sequences in language classroom context. Classroom Discourse, 4(1), 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hußmann, S., & Prediger, S. (2016, in press). Specifying and structuring the content of exponential growth—questions and approaches on the formal, epistemological, semantic, and cognitive level. To appear in Journal für Mathematikdidaktik, 37.Google Scholar
  40. Jablonka, E., & Gellert, U. (2011). Equity concerns about mathematical modelling. In B. Atweh, M. Graven, W. Secada & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 223–236). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Jungwirth, H., Steinbring, H., Voigt, J., & Wollring, B. (2001). Interpretative classroom research in teacher education. In H. G. Weigand, A. Peter-Koop, N. Neill, K. Reiss, G. Törner & B. Wollring (Eds.), Developments in mathematics education in Germany (pp. 49–56). Hildesheim: Franzbecker.Google Scholar
  42. Kattmann, U., Duit, R., & Gropengießer, H. (1998). Educational reconstruction—Bringing together issues of scientific clarification and students’ conceptions. In B. Bayrhuber & F. Brinkman (Eds.), What, Why, How? Proceedings of the First European Conference on Didaktik of Biology (ERIDOB) (pp. 253–262). Kiel: IPN.Google Scholar
  43. Klafki, W. (1958). Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Die Deutsche Schule, 50(1), 450–471. Reprinted in English: Klafki, W. (1995). Didactic analyses as the core of preparation for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Komorek, M., Fischer, A., & Moschner, B. (2013). Fachdidaktische Strukturierung als Grundlage für Unterrichtsdesigns. In M. Komorek & S. Prediger (Eds.), Der lange Weg zum Unterrichtsdesign: Zur Begründung und Umsetzung genuin fachdidaktischer Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramme (pp. 43–62). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  45. Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions. Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krainer, K. (2005). Was guter Mathematikunterricht ist, müssen Lehrende ständig selber erarbeiten! Spannungsfelder als Orientierung zur Gestaltung von Unterricht. In C. Kaune, I. Schwank & J. Sjuts (Eds.), Mathematikdidaktik im Wissenschaftsgefüge: Zum Verstehen und Unterrichten mathematischen Denkens (Vol. 1, pp. 165–178). Osnabrück: Forschungsinstitut für Mathematikdidaktik.Google Scholar
  47. Krainer, K., & Stern, T. (2004). Mathe ist mehr! Lernende Schule, 7(28), 10–15.Google Scholar
  48. Krummheuer, G. (2011). Representation of the notion “learning-as-participation” in everyday situations of mathematics classes. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(1), 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 180–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lee, Y.-A., & Takahashi, A. (2011). Lesson plans and the contingency of classroom interactions. Human Studies, 34(2), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leisen, J. (2010). Gesprächsführung. In J. Leisen (Ed.), Handbuch Sprachförderung im Fach. Sprachsensibler Fachunterricht in der Praxis (pp. 94–105). Bonn: Varus.Google Scholar
  52. Lerner, G. (1995). Turn design and the organization of particSipation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes, 19(1), 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lipowsky, F. (2010). Lernen im Beruf – Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfortbildung. In F. Müller, A. Eichenberger, M. Lüders & J. Mayr (Eds.), Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen – Konzepte und Befunde zur Lehrerfortbildung (pp. 51–72). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  54. Maas, U. (2008). Sprache und Sprachen in der Migrationsgesellschaft. Die schriftkulturelle Dimension. Göttingen: V & R Unipress.Google Scholar
  55. Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33(5), 703–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maher, C. (2008). Video recordings as pedagogical tools in mathematics teacher education. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Hrsg.), Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education. International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education (Vol. 2, pp. 65–84). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1991). Getting the story: A longitudinal study of parental styles in eliciting oral personal narratives and developing narrative skill. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narrative structure (S. 217–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 182–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Williams Hall, M., & Resnick, L. B. (2013). Accountable talk sourcebook. For classroom conversation that works. Pittsburgh: Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  61. Morek, M. (2012). Kinder erklären. Interaktionen in Familie und Unterricht im Vergleich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
  62. Morek, M., & Heller, V. (2012). Bildungssprache – Kommunikative, epistemische, soziale und interaktive Aspekte ihres Gebrauchs. Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik, 57(1), 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Neubrand, M., Seago, N., Agudelo-Valderrama, C., DeBlois, L., & Leikin, R. (2009). The balance of teacher knowledge: Mathematics and pedagogy. In R. Even & D. L. Ball (Eds.), The professional education and development of teachers of mathematics (pp. 211–225). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Prediger, S. (2005). “Auch will ich Lernprozesse beobachten, um besser Mathematik zu verstehen.” Didaktische Rekonstruktion als mathematikdidaktischer Forschungsansatz zur Restrukturierung von Mathematik. Mathematica didactica, 28(2), 23–47.Google Scholar
  69. Prediger, S., & Erath, K. (2014). Content or interaction, or both? Synthesizing two German traditions in a video study on learning to explain in mathematics classroom microcultures. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(4), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Quasthoff, U. M. (1997). Mündliches Erzählen, Berichten, Schildern, Beschreiben im Deutschunterricht: Umrisse einer Diskursdidaktik. In R. Köhnen (Ed.), Wege zur Kultur: Perspektiven für einen integrativen Deutschunterricht (pp. 155–169). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  71. Quasthoff, U. M. (2012). Globale und lokale Praktiken in unterschiedlichen diskursiven Genres: Globale und lokale Anforderungen in unterschiedlichen diskursiven Genres: Wie lösen L2-Sprecher globale Anforderungen bei eingeschränkter sprachstruktureller Kompetenz im Deutschen? In H. Roll & A. Schilling (Eds.), Mehrsprachiges Handeln im Fokus von Linguistik und Didaktik (pp. 47–65). Duisburg: Universitätsverlag. Rhein-Ruhr.Google Scholar
  72. Quasthoff, U. M. (in press). Ko-Konstruktion in Erwachsenen-Kind Interaktionen: Membership und der Erwerb von sprachlicher Kompetenz. To appear in U. Dausendschön-Gay, E. Gülich & U. Kraft (Eds.), Ko-Konstruktionen als interaktive Verfahren. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  73. Quasthoff, U. M., & Krah, A. (2012). Familiale Kommunikation als Spracherwerbsressource: Das Beispiel argumentativer Kompetenzen. In E. Neuland (Ed.), Sprache der Generationen (pp. 115–132). Mannheim: Duden.Google Scholar
  74. Rex, L. A., & Green, J. L. (2007). Classroom discourse and interaction: Reading across the traditions. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), International handbook of educational lnguistics (pp. 571–584). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  75. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schmitt, R. (2012). Zur Multimodalität von Unterstützungsinteraktion. Deutsche Sprache, 40(4), 343–371.Google Scholar
  77. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bermann, J., et al. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 10(1), 353–402.Google Scholar
  78. Sert, O. (2013). ‘Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Setati, M., & Adler, J. (2000). Between languages and discourses: Language practices in primary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(3), 243–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sfard, A. (2005). What could be more practical than good research? On mutual relations between research and practice of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(3), 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sherin, M. G. (2007). The development of teachers’ professional vision in video clubs. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. J. Derry (Hrsg.), Video research in the learning siences (pp. 383–395). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  83. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smit, J., van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Snow, C. E., & Ucelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sullivan, P., & Wood, T. (Eds.). (2008). Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  87. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Thomas, M., & Yoon, C. (2014). The impact of conflicting goals on mathematical teaching decisions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(3), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tirosh, D., & Wood, T. (Eds.). (2008). Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  90. Vogler, A.-M. (2015). What really counts in mathematical communication—reconstruction of teachers’ professional vision concerning important aspects of classroom interaction. To appear in Proceedings of CERME 9, Prague. (in press).Google Scholar
  91. Wald, B. (1978). Zur Einheitlichkeit und Einleitung von Diskurseinheiten. In U. Quasthoff (Ed.), Sprachstruktur – Sozialstruktur. Zur linguistischen Theorienbildung (pp. 128–149). Königstein: Scriptor.Google Scholar
  92. Walsh, S. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom. Language Awareness, 12(2), 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© GDM 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Prediger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Uta Quasthoff
    • 1
  • Anna-Marietha Vogler
    • 1
  • Vivien Heller
    • 1
  1. 1.DortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations