Dr. Edward Roy Krishnan

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The word education originates from the Latin word, educere which means to bring out. For centuries, educators have noted the importance of tapping into existing knowledge and wisdom of a learner and work on deepening them. The question that teachers often ask is, “are there concrete ways to make this possible?”

About five years ago, I watched a DVD that completely changed my attitude toward teaching. It is an award-winning video, A Private Universe, Minds of Our Own produced by Harvard-Smithsonian, Center for Astrophysics. The documentary emphasizes the importance of starting from what students already know before teaching them what they need to know. According to several case studies presented in the documentary, students who do not connect past and present knowledge tend to under-perform. Teaching a concept over and over again is not necessary if existing knowledge is put in the context of new knowledge.

KWL

The KWL teaching strategy (K represents “What students already know?” W represents “What students want to know?” and L represents “What students have learned?”)  effectively addresses the need to bridge the gaps between what students already know, what they want to know, and what they have to learn. This method was popularized by Donna M. Ogle in 1980’s as a strategy to encourage active reading of expository text. The strategy has increased in value and diversified in application over time. Today, the strategy is used by teachers to encourage active learning and extension of new concepts.

The application of KWL strategy allows students to personalize knowledge and become accountable for their own learning. The teacher becomes a facilitator who designs a learning environment where feedback, in the form of factual statements and questions is generated and channeled in the direction of building meaningful new knowledge. It encourages both teachers and students to become critical about existing and new information. More importantly, it provides a sense of purpose to the whole process of teaching and learning.

Example

Let’s take for example a lesson on The Eiffel Tower. The teacher starts off by announcing that students are going to learn a new topic and they are responsible for the same. She indicates that she is going to help guide them through the process. She then divides the whiteboard into three columns. On top of the first column, she writes, K (What you already know?), second column, W (What you want to know?), and third column, L (What did you learn?). Prior to this, the teacher has either prepared a handout containing sufficient information about the topic, or decided on the page in the textbook where information about the topic is found.

The class continues with the teacher asking students what they already know about The Eiffel Tower. She list down each statement shared by students on the whiteboard. At this time, the teacher must emphasize that accuracy of information is not a priority. Misconceptions could be detected and corrected later. After generating sufficient statements from students and filling up the first column, the teacher can then ask students to share questions that they may have to further their knowledge and understanding of the topic. Emphasis must be placed on encouraging students to ask good questions. These questions will be written on the second column. Every student should be involved in the process.

Once the two columns are filled up, students are asked to read the handout. This purposeful reading will allow students to verify information in the first column, answer questions in the second column, and gather additional information about the topic. Motivation for reading is high as it is highly directed and focused. At the end, the teacher and students work on filling up the third column and gauge the overall learning experience.

To view an example of actual lesson using KWL, click KWL lesson[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The greatest challenge of being a teacher is managing students’ interpersonal relationships. Likewise, the most difficult task of a school leader is managing teachers’ interpersonal interactions. While it is okay for children to squabble, misunderstand, and fight, it is worrying when teachers engage in these immature responses toward each other. Additionally, it is easier to educate students to develop healthier relationships compared to teachers. Adults seem to be more set in their ways. This is particularly observed in their emotional responses to other adults.

Teacher relationship

At school, as long as each teacher is required to work on his/her own individual tasks (e.g. lesson planning, managing his/her own classes, assessing student learning, etc.), relational frictions are almost non-existence. Problems occur when teachers are required to work interdependently with others. Because teachers are used to working within a well-defined boundary, stretching and/or exposing personal space to others can be frightening.

New requirements

Twenty-first century schools require teachers who are comfortable working closely with others. Due to the ever-changing nature of education and students’ needs, teachers need to readily disclose information about what they teach, how they teach, what resources are used, and how learning will be assessed. Without dialoguing about these, teachers cannot empirically ensure logical flow and meaningful connections across grade levels and subjects taught.

Types of relationships

Teachers relate to their peers in a myriad of ways. This corresponds to the number of people involved in a relationship. Idiosyncrasies are the only constant in relationships at school. They are difficult to predict and thus, prepare for.

According to Roland Barth, the Founding Director of the Principals’ Center at Harvard University, teachers generally relate to one another in one of the following ways; parallel play where they work in close proximity but do not desire to work together; adversarial where they deliberately withhold information from one another, despite knowing that the same could improve student learning; congenial where they appear friendly on the surface but do not like to talk about deep-seated hopes, passion, dissatisfactions and problems; collegial where they work interdependently for collective success.

Preferred type

Obviously, collegial relationship is what leaders want to encourage in teachers. Other types of relationships imply that teachers avoid talking about teaching. When teachers don’t talk about teaching, their instructional practices fail to directly address learning needs of students. Consequently, students under-perform without much hope for improvement because there is no way for individuals in the school to engage in intelligent decision-making.

Boosting collegiality

Judith Warren Little, a professor at the Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley states that a school leader plays a significant role in reinforcing collegial relationships among teachers. To create and sustain a culture of collegiality, leaders should model collegial attitude and behaviors. Rewarding and protecting teachers who already demonstrate collegiality reinforce the same in others. More importantly, a leader who desires collegiality among his/her teachers should clearly communicate it to them. While talking about this may seem unconventional, teachers appreciate truthfulness from their leaders and would willingly oblige. They will take the leader’s words seriously and follow suit.

The extent to which a school progresses (academically) depends on the relational dynamics of teachers. Genuine discussions and vital dialogues about teaching/learning only take place when teachers are comfortable talking to each other. A positive organizational climate provides them with this opportunity. If there is any lesson that I learned as a teacher and school leader, it is that one cannot single-handedly affect constructive changes in a school, not matter how accomplished he/she is. School improvement must be anchored in steady, maturing relationships among individuals who think, feel, and do education![/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]There are literally tens of conflict resolution techniques. Teachers are taught and encouraged to use them to maintain harmony among students. Examples of these are negotiation, compromise, problem solving, changing the formal structure of a group, expansion of resources, etc. Sometimes, when these don’t work, teachers use authoritative commands to fix relationships.

The effectiveness of these techniques is contingent upon the reason(s) for the conflict, the relation between the conflicting students, and the relation between the teacher and the conflicting students. If examined carefully, most of the aforementioned conflict resolution techniques are formulated around identifying or clarifying issues, searching for shared values, exploring possible solutions, and selecting the solution that satisfies students who have the conflict.

Problems with conventional techniques

While relatively easy to learn and remember, this methodical approach to conflict resolution has its own flaws. Because the presence of a mediator/referee is crucial, it becomes difficult to control conflicting situations outside the classroom or school. Conflicting parties find it difficult to find a middle ground, considering that people have their own unique needs to be fulfilled.

Characteristics of an effective technique

A truly helpful conflict resolution technique should bring reconciliation from within the individuals involved in the situation. In other words, it does not necessarily involve a third person, and at the same time, its effect endures time, space and circumstances.

Robbers Cave Experiment

In 1954, Muzafer Sherif, one of the founders of social psychology, and his colleagues conducted an experiment famously known as the Robbers Cave experiment. The study took place in a 200 acre Boy Scouts Camp, surrounded by Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. In this experiment, two groups of twenty-four homogeneous twelve-year old boys were randomly selected. The boys, twelve members in each side, were unaware of the existence of the other group of boys as they were transported to the camp area separately.

On arrival at the camp site, individuals within a group started bonding with each other. Positive group processing enabled each group to get organized in a functional manner. This occurred naturally, without any instruction from camp staff. The groups worked exceptionally well together that each came up with a name for itself, “The Eagles” and “The Rattlers.” Feeling of Groupness was at its peak.

Later in the experiment, boys from each group were deliberately exposed to the fact that they were not alone in the camp site. Series of unpleasant events took place thereafter. Both groups became protective of camp facilities that belonged to them. Each insisted camp staff to arrange for competitive events to prove the superiority of one over the other. Name calling, passing nasty comments, raiding cabins, burning the other’s flag, and unwillingness to eat in the same cafeteria were frequently observed.

In the next phase, experimenters tried to reduce tension between the two groups through reconciliatory activities involving all the boys (e.g., get-to-know-you). Surprisingly, these activities only made the situation worse. Boys continued to defend their group and disrespect the other.

The experimenters then subjected the boys to a series of difficult situations. These situations required the two groups to work together to overcome specific problems. One such situation was the “drinking water supply failure.” Vandals had supposedly blocked the faucet from the main water tank with a sack. When the boys arrived at the scene, they gathered around the faucet trying to clear it out. They discussed effective ways to solve the problem. After 45 minutes of collaborative work, water finally came through. There was a common rejoicing. The Rattlers did not object the Eagles to get the first drink.

Implication for teaching

The experiment proved that Superordinate goals (goals that get people from opposing sides to come together and work toward a common end result) are indeed effective in resolving conflicts. Teachers could use Superordinate goals to reduce or eliminate conflicts among students. Inspiring students with the “bigger picture” helps them to focus on what is really important, and work together with others to become successful learners.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]It is almost eight years since the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, in the financial hub of one of the most advanced countries in the world. Surprisingly, all of us can still recall (with great precision) the events of that fateful day. How is it possible for us to recall details of an event that took place years ago, but not so for something that happened last week, or even yesterday? Psychologists call this phenomenon “flashbulb” memory.

To test this theory, ask a friend where and what he/she was doing on 9/11 when the planes crashed into the twin towers. You will invariably get detailed, specific response from your friend. Then, ask the same person where and what he/she had for lunch last Sunday. Chances are that your friend will find it difficult remembering what he/she had. Try this with as many people as you can, and you will be surprised to notice a pattern in their responses.

Flashbulb memory explained

An event or experience registers as flashbulb memory when it is emotionally-packed, unusual, shocking, and given personal meaning. This type of memory tends to form instantaneously, but remains relatively long in one’s mental schema. Some psychologists theorize that flashbulb memory exists because of adrenalin rush and its consequent effect on both episodic (memory of events, in which one has emotional connections with) and declarative memories (memory of factual information surrounding an emotion-filled event).

This could possibly explain why the most negative and positive experiences are easily recalled. A combination of novelty, sudden change in emotional state, and strong cognitive involvement in a particular event or experience makes it harder to forget.

Application for teaching

A lot of school work requires students to commit facts into their memories. However, there are many who struggle to utilize the full capacity of their memory powers. While it is the responsibility of students to work on this, teachers could help a great deal.

Students usually memorize what was taught after school hours. The time gap between lessons at school and study time at home means that a lot of information is lost. That is why it makes more sense for teachers to teach so that students understand and memorize lessons at the same time. Applying the principle of flashbulb memory to teaching makes both possible. In the context of classroom learning, flashbulb memory should only be created using positive experiences (only positive experiences lead to effective memorization)!

Strategies

Starting a lesson with a surprise element (e.g. coming in dressed up as a Roman Emperor when introducing a lesson on Roman Empire or bringing different sized magnets when teaching earth’s magnetic poles, etc.) increases students ability to remember the lesson by mentally associating the surprise element(s) with facts learned. This association is done visually and at the time of recall, students visualize the surprise element(s) and consequently activate their declarative memory where facts are recorded.

If a teacher is a persuasive speaker or a good story-teller, he/she could use this knack to help students memorize facts better. A teacher could narrate a story (personal or otherwise) that relates to a lesson being taught. When a story is shared from the heart (implying that it touches the hearts and minds of students), and later connected to a learning experience, students tend to remember it better.

Students memorize and recall better when they have the opportunity to learn by doing. However, this is a conventional idea. The trick is to allow student to engage in learning by doing something novel, exciting, and personally meaningful. For example, when teaching about the Olympics, students could be asked to make their own medals (gold, silver and bronze), Olympics torch, etc.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]One of the most common learning outcomes expected of students in any school is the ability to constructively work together with others on various academic and non-academic tasks. Students who do not work well with others are considered ill-prepared for the world of work. They invariably perform poorly on tasks like group projects and presentations that require collective effort of everyone to be successful.

The paradox

While school administrators and teachers work hard to create interest and instill skills that would enable students to work cooperatively on various school tasks, little emphasis is placed on the level and quality of cooperation that exist between administrators and teachers, as well as among teachers. While collaboration is a catchword in the field of business management and leadership, it is hardly a concept that depicts the realities of how adults in a school behave and respond to each other.

Schools are supposed to be places where the concept of collaborative problem solving and decision making is upheld and promoted. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. While students are coaxed into cooperative learning, administrators and teachers work themselves out of it. Students understand the benefit of cooperating with their peers conceptually, but they hardly see the same principle put into action by their role models. By doing this, we give mixed messages to the youth of tomorrow.

Believing we can

Expecting administrators and teachers to harmoniously work together without any bickering is like expecting impossibilities. This may be possible in a perfect world, but it cannot be true in our world. The kind of stress and pressure that everyone is exposed to in the school does not allow them to work together as well as we would want them to. These are the excuses most people give.

I would like to believe otherwise. It is possible for people to effectively work together in the school system. If students can do it, why can’t administrators and teachers who teach them how to do it in the first place? It takes deliberate decision and effort on the part of adults to make this happen. Often, adults are quick to and good at teaching things to others, especially those younger than themselves – but they seldom reflect on whether or not they believe in what they teach; they often overlook the fact that their lives are totally opposite to what they teach to kids.

An example

One of the reasons that encouraged more competition than cooperation among administrators and teachers is the way education was organized and delivered in the past. Take curriculum development for example. Curriculum was developed by a “group of geniuses” who literally had no access to or any connection with actual classroom experiences of teachers and students. Their work was to put together a curriculum (What to teach, how to teach, and how to assess learning) and prescribe it to teachers. An administrator was appointed to make sure that the prescribed curriculum is implemented as instructed. Teachers on the other hand were preoccupied with covering the curriculum as best as they could. They were closed within the four walls of their own classrooms because they did not have the luxury of time and space to think about and work with other teachers – because everyone was busy finishing up his/her own curriculum tasks.

However, new ways of looking at the curriculum and how it is developed have revolutionized how administrators and teachers respond to each other. Although the concept of curriculum mapping is fairly new, it embodies a fresh outlook on how education is organized and delivered in the 21st century. Curriculum mapping requires that teachers who teach a subject work on their own curriculum map. This means that teachers are empowered to decide on what students should learn, how they should be taught, and how learning is assessed. Additionally, and this is very important, curriculum maps are regularly reviewed by groups of teachers and administrators who gather to fill in the gaps that exist in the document through reflective discussions.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]While many feel the pressure to label the energetic, restless, actively-exploring child as hyperactive, there are others who feel that these are characteristics of a “normal” child. The terms “normal” and “abnormal” have been loosely used by many specialists in the field of psychology and/or education. The use of these words invariably reflects subjective judgment (of someone or a group of people) about different aspects and quality of human experiences, often through limited, narrow perspective.

Because of its subjective nature, it is difficult to accurately identify, categorize, and label behaviors in the classroom. The best we could do is cautiously place behavioral habits and patterns on a continuum of norm and out-of-norm conduct.

Defining normal/abnormal

In the context of classroom teaching/learning, normal behavior could be characterized by responses that are facilitative of successful teaching/learning. Normalcy in this light encompasses both student and teacher behavior. While it is important to have normal kids in the classroom (to ensure learning), it is equally important to have normal teachers who deliberately plan and design positive learning environments. Literature in behavior modification has always and almost completely focused on student behavior that little attention is given to the fact that a lot of “abnormalcy” in the classroom springs from out-of-norm practices of educators.

As a teacher trainer, I end most of my teacher training courses by encouraging student-teachers to take time to examine themselves, identify personal conflicts and complexes, and resolve the same. In other words, before one becomes a teacher, he or she must straighten out emotional insecurities, come to terms with his or her true self, and accept and constructively work with strengths and weaknesses. A teacher who has had an opportunity to healthily resolve his or her own internal battles treats students respectfully, possesses a broad mindset (believes that every student can and does learn), and does not resort to harsh punishment to manage student behavior. Hence a teaching practice that stems from emotional insecurities of a teacher could be considered as abnormal.

In the same manner, most out-of-norm student behaviors stem from their feeling of dissatisfaction toward unmet basic and growth needs. Significant lack in the experiences of belonging, achievement, and meaning propel students into behaving counter-productively at home and in the classroom. Hence students engage in many internalizing (withdrawn, passive, and extremely shy) as well as externalizing (vandalizing, abusive, and unruly) behaviors that are considered unacceptable.

Additional criteria

Inconsistencies in behavior are expected because humans posses dynamic personality patterns. Not all out-of-norm behaviors are unacceptable.

A behavior is considered truly out-of-norm and in need of special attention when it differs significantly from that of student-peers (e.g. drawing vulgar graffiti, hitting other students, not listening to lectures, etc.) and teacher-peers (e.g. screaming to get student attention, administering harsh punishment that are degrading, etc.). This recurrent behavior also lessens the possibility of successful teaching/learning. When a teacher screams at his students to get their attention, he looses their respect and trust. The class becomes more chaotic and quality of teaching suffers. Conversely, a student who does not listen to lectures performs poorly in exams.

An out-of-norm behavior represents a serious, persistent, chronic safety threats to individuals in the classroom. For example, a student who hits other children may end up seriously injuring his or her classmate. A teacher who administers harsh punishment to his or her students may injure them physically and emotionally. This affects overall desire to teach/learn.

Furthermore, to accurately identify out-of-norm behaviors, it is important to differentiate between behaviors that stem from cultural differences and the ones that don’t. For example, it is not abnormal for a Japanese student to avoid eye-contact while talking to a teacher compared to his/her American counterpart. In fact, in many Asian cultures, it is abnormal for a student to look at a teacher straight into his/her eyes. In this case, avoiding eye-contact is not considered out-of-norm behavior.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]While most teachers would think that their primary duty is to deliver contents as specified in the curriculum, some understand the value of slowing down and spending time in planning and designing a classroom climate that is conducive to learning. This is especially true if a teacher is new to the profession, which is mostly the case in international schools in Thailand. Adults coming into the teaching profession from various other backgrounds of work tend to take this simple, yet significant factor for granted. Most adults getting into the teaching profession wrongly thinking that “teaching” is the only thing expected of them in the classroom. Before long, they realize that teaching is just one of the many things teachers are responsible for. There are other more important things that teachers do and are expected to do in order to be effective disseminators of knowledge/skills.

Difference in expectation

Because of the nature of their previous jobs, adults who newly come into the teaching profession tend to view working in a school similar to working in a corporate sector. While there are definite similarities, the overall culture and function of a school is different from that of commercial ones. For example, productivity in a factory is more concretely measurable (in the rate and quality of production) than productivity of staff or students (ambiguous measures of performances) in a school. Additionally, the importance placed on human interactions could be minimal if not completely absent in a factory setting. This is not the case in a school, where its success or failure is founded upon the quality of interactions among members of its constituency.

Bridging the gap in practice

One of the greatest challenges faced by an adult undertaking teaching for the first time in his or her career history is dealing with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of interactions in the classroom. If children were robots, they could be easily programmed to behave in a certain way to pay undivided attention to a teacher. However, since teachers deal with human children who are different, unique, and lively, teaching has to be put in the context of social-emotional dynamics. Thus, apart from teaching a subject, teachers engineer (design) the social-emotional climate of their classes to ensure effective learning. In essence, this requires every teacher – experienced or inexperience, trained or untrained – to be aware of the psychology and sociology of human interactions. Effective teachers use this knowledge, along with an understanding of child and adolescent development to create positive classroom climate.

Definition

According to Richard and Patricia Schmuck, the authors of Group processes in the classroom, classroom climate is defined as, “the emotional tones associated with informal interaction, attitudinal responses to the group, and to both the self-concepts of students and their motivational satisfactions and frustrations.” In other words, teachers are constantly responding to the different social-emotional needs of students, as reflected in their attitudes and behavior toward self and others. Additionally, the quality of social-emotional experiences in the classroom determines the breadth and depth of learning. Managing and constructively channeling these informal interactions and the subsequent attitudinal and behavioral vacillations constitute a teacher’s primary task. These includes, but are not limited to, taking care of the physical movements, bodily gestures, seating arrangements, and patterns of verbal and non-verbal communication.

Positive classroom climate

A positive classroom climate is characterized by students who support one another, share high amounts of potential influence with one another and teacher, experience high levels of interaction, function by norms that are supportive of getting academic work done, recognize and respect individual differences, dialogue openly and genuinely, and deal constructively with conflicts. The outcome of such a climate guarantees the accomplishment of common goals, fosters positive self-esteem and feeling of security, allows for shared influenced and high involvement in academic learning, and ensures high degree of healthy interactions with one another.

On the other hand, a negative classroom climate is characterized by competition, alienation, and hostility that leads to anxiety, discomfort, and intellectual deprivation.

The following could be done by teachers to ensure a positive classroom climate:

1. Come before the class

2. Stay after the class

3. Talk to students

4. Tell in advance if you are rushing and if you are not available to talk to students

5. Make yourself available

6. Provide Safe environment for participation
•Don’t attack!
•Don’t ridicule!
•Mediate when students attack each other

7. Communicate expectations (for academic and non-academic tasks) early and clearly!

8. Provide a non-threatening physical setting (seating) – regularly changing seating arrangement is recommended

9. Be sensitive to individual difference

10. Learn students’ names and call them by their names!!!

11. Encourage your students[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]It is said that the first three years of marriage is the most beautiful, after which couples tend to lose their “first love.” Usually, marriages hit a wall after the third year, especially if the first three years were unpleasant. This phenomenon is also seen in workers, who tend to experience burnout after three years of working in a particular profession. Teachers are not exempted from this effect. Most often, teachers who start out with enthusiasm and passion for teaching become disheartened in less than three years.

Loss of passion

A variety of factors account for the decline in level of enthusiasm among teachers. Young teachers start out in the profession wanting to make a difference. They are gung ho about giving the best, diversified instruction, managing students’ behavior in non-threatening manner, using assessment results to improve student achievement, and engaging in life-long learning to improve teaching. These are the ingredients that make up for successful teaching, that directly and positively impact student learning. However, teachers tend to gradually lose their initial beliefs about and passion for the profession as they continue in the school system.

Primary cause

First and foremost, this is due to the fact that schools curb teacher autonomy. Although teachers are considered to be professionals, they are hardly treated like one. Teachers do not have the independence of determining what is educationally sound for their students.

In many countries, the National Curricula are developed by a group of geniuses in complete isolation from the social and emotional realities of how teachers teach and how students learn. Teachers are required to follow and complete the curriculum within a specified time, which further increases stress at work. Instead of providing meaningful contents and skills that are founded upon the needs, strengths and passion of individual students, teachers resentfully disseminate “empty” knowledge that is prescribed by curriculum designers.

Apart from the lack of autonomy in determining the contents taught, teachers are also required to teach using prescribed teaching methods. For example, when the concept of learning styles was popularized, teachers were required to be trained in the use of different teaching strategies to cater to different learning styles of students, only to be told by researchers that measuring and identifying learning styles would be psychometrically flawed. Additionally, psychologists also argue that humans use a variety of modalities to learn and never stick to any one learning style.

The same was seen when the concept, “meta-cognition” was introduced. Lots of money and time were spent in training teachers to teach meta-cognition; however, the term was overused until it became a cliché.

Consequences

Teachers who are stripped off their sense of autonomy to carry out professional tasks through the micromanagement of higher authorities feel “proletarianised”, de-professionalised, de-skilled and sometimes demoralized. As a result, disillusionment sets in; the level of commitment to the profession of teaching deteriorates. This explains why many teachers start off very excited about teaching and become completely disappointed with the profession.

Reviving passion

When people go to a medical doctor, they listen to the doctor’s diagnosis of the illness and accept whatever prescription given. Unfortunately, teachers (who are also professionals in teaching) are not treated this way. Hence, instead of listening, society prescribes to teachers what they need to do. This continues to de-motivate and discourage them.

One of the best ways to keep teachers enthusiastic about teaching is to give them opportunities to be actively involved in school matters. Teachers should be empowered to determine their own (educationally-sound) decisions and actions. They should do so by utilizing their highest creative prowess as educators. In other words, teachers must be allowed to be the professionals they are supposed to be.

“Good teachers are born; great teachers are made; extraordinary teachers are inspired!”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]