File:Sa.png: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:43, 10 September 2021

A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING

When implemented holistically, with a coordinated, community-wide approach, social-emotional learning can build stronger communities and support inclusive, equitable learning experiences.

A wealth of evidence reveals the positive effects of universal, classroom-based social-emotional learning (SEL) programs for children. Alongside this evidence is broad recognition among scholars and field leaders that SEL benefits are even greater when children experience SEL throughout their day, across home, school, and out-of-school time environments, and throughout their developmental stages. This understanding has led field leaders to expand SEL frameworks to incorporate the full ecosystem of a child’s experiences (CASEL, 2020). When implemented holistically, with a coordinated, community-wide approach, SEL can build stronger communities and support inclusive, equitable learning experiences.

Theoretical Foundations

"We learn implicitly and explicitly throughout our days and over the course of our lives."

The case for attending holistically to SEL has deep theoretical roots. The Ecological Framework for Human Development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) places the child at the center of six systemic levels that shape an individual’s development (see Figure 1). These levels are the individual; the microsystem, which includes the child’s family, friends, educators, and others who directly interact with and influence the child; the mesosystem, which includes connections between individuals in the microsystem; the exosystem, which includes individuals and circumstances that indirectly influence the child’s microsystem, such as the caregivers’ work schedules or the community’s resources; the macrosystem, which includes broad societal forces that shape a child’s environment, such as cultural values, customs, and laws; and the chronosystem, which represents time’s influence on the child through experiences and developmental changes.

We learn implicitly and explicitly throughout our days and over the course of our lives. A key premise of Bronfenbrenner’s social-ecological model is that factors in each systemic level influence developmental outcomes. Thus, the likelihood of affecting outcomes increases when multiple systems are addressed, both at once and over time. Bronfenbrenner’s model suggests the limits of interventions that occur only in one time or place, as these experiences may be reinforced or countered by messages received elsewhere.

Furthermore, the model suggests that both implicit and explicit learning are powerful forces in development: a child learns through constant observation of how peers and adults interact with them, each other, and broader institutions (Bandura, 1977; Greer et al., 2006), and when adults explicitly teach them vocabulary, skills, and strategies (Durlak et al., 2011). Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical framework and supportive empirical research, which this paper will review, have important implications for those invested in enduring SEL.

File:Picture1.png

The Components of a Holistic Approach to SEL

A holistic approach to SEL supports both children’s and educators’ social-emotional competencies, provides SEL throughout the day and across the stages of child development, and occurs in positive, supportive environments. The following sections review the evidence on the effects of these approaches to SEL.

A Holistic Approach to SEL

Provides SEL throughout the child’s day
Reaches the child across developmental stages throughout their school career
Supports educators’ social-emotional competencies and well-being
Supports a positive implementation environment

1. SEL Throughout the Child’s Day

SEL improves when integrated into academic content and reinforced throughout the day (Jones & Bouffard, 2012; Mahoney et al., 2020). Additionally, SEL-specific findings affirm broader findings that learning takes place across time and place and is supported by opportunities to practice and apply learning to a range of contexts and situations (Aspen Institute, 2017; Cantor et al., 2019).

Reinforcing social-emotional skills and vocabulary in all corners of the school (such as the lunchroom, the playground, and in all classrooms) supports SEL outcomes (Zins & Elias, 2006) and is often considered to be a core element of high-quality SEL implementation (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Jones & Bouffard, 2012). Recognizing the powerful effects of integrating and reinforcing SEL across time and place, developmental psychologists and educators have advocated for more coordinated approaches to SEL in schools, districts, and communities (Greenberg et al., 2003; Pittman et al., 2003; Little & Pittman, 2018).

One response to this call is the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) Collaborating District Initiative, which supports districts in creating a coherent, districtwide approach to SEL. This approach often involves coordinating SEL standards, professional learning for educators and leaders, and SEL integration into other district efforts (Kendziora & Yoder, 2016). Districts engaged in this work have experienced an array of positive outcomes, including improvements in students’ social-emotional competencies and grade point averages, and decreases in disciplinary interventions (Kendziora & Yoder, 2016).

Mounting evidence also supports the value of an ecological approach to youth development and broader community improvement (Lynn et al., 2018). For example, HighScope and Chicago Child-Parent Centers have taken a multipronged intervention approach to supporting positive child development, focusing interventions on both children and their parents. These organizations have produced positive long-term child outcomes, including the requirement of fewer remedial services, higher high school completion rates, and fewer arrests in adolescence and adulthood (Blair & Raver, 2014; Heckman & Kautz, 2013; McClelland et al., 2017).

The Partnerships for Social and Emotional Learning Initiative is a more recent community-level effort focused on supporting the collaboration of districts and out-of-school time providers on SEL work. Research on this initiative is ongoing, but community members have reported perceived benefits from adopting common language and approaches to SEL curricula and professional learning (Schwartz et al., 2020).


Features of SEL Throughout the Child’s Day
• Universal, classroom-based SEL curricula that are reinforced in all parts of the school day • Intentional SEL programming for out-of-school time programs • Home communication and reinforcement • Common language and coordinated approaches within and across settings

2. Developmentally Appropriate SEL Over Time

Social-emotional skills developed early in life predict those developed later in life (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2002; Oberle et al., 2016), so it’s important to support SEL across time as well as place. While core social-emotional competencies broadly apply to all ages and grade levels, the contexts and presentation of these abilities evolve. As children develop, they can understand and manage increasingly complex emotions and relationships with decreasing levels of adult support and guidance (Denham, 2018). Therefore, SEL programming must mature with the child, with content tailored to meet developmental needs.

Children’s consistent exposure to SEL improves outcomes. Children participating in SEL programs who received more lessons in one school year experienced greater gains in SEL and lower levels of disruptive behavior than those who received fewer (Low et al., 2015). A two-year study of children receiving SEL Early Learning programming showed significant improvement in children’s social interaction and social independence and decreased externalizing and internalizing problems after one year of participating; these effects were larger following the second year of participation in the program (Ocasio et al., 2015). Other SEL programs have also revealed enhanced outcomes when implemented for multiple years (Blair & Raver, 2014; Hagelskamp et al., 2013).

Features of Developmentally Appropriate SEL Over Time
• Age-appropriate SEL curricula for early learning through high school • Regular use of SEL programming throughout each school year and across the course of development

3. Educator SEL

Among the most central findings from cross-disciplinary learning science research is that both academic learning and SEL are deeply rooted in relationships. Positive relationships that support learning are characterized by consistency, trust, care, and responsiveness (Zins & Elias, 2006; Osher et al., 2018) and contribute to feelings of connectedness, a sense of agency, and the ability to regulate emotions, cognition, and behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Murray et al., 2015; Osher et al., 2018). Kindergarteners’ relationships with their teachers affect academic and behavioral outcomes through middle school (Hamre & Pianta, 2001), and adolescents’ relationships with teachers have been linked to increased school motivation, success expectations, and satisfaction, as well as higher grades (Roeser et al., 1996; Wentzel, 1996; Baker et al., 2008). Furthermore, scholars have emphasized the key role that positive adult-child relationships have in advancing equity through SEL (Jagers et al., 2018). In relationships that advance equity, teachers and other adults support SEL while celebrating differences, creating a warm and welcoming learning environment, and focusing on children’s assets, rather than their deficits (National Equity Project, n.d.).

Another critical way in which adults support SEL is by modeling behavior. As a social, relationship-based enterprise, learning often occurs through observing and imitating the behavior of others, including teachers, parents, peers, and siblings (Bandura, 1977). Adults’ social-emotional competencies shape children’s behaviors and SEL, even in the absence of direct instruction (Grusec, 1992). Therefore, it’s particularly important for teachers to attend to their own SEL.

Modeling social-emotional competencies can be difficult in stressful situations, and teaching consistently ranks among the highest-stress professions (Gallup, 2017). Stress and burnout can impair teachers’ instructional effectiveness and classroom climate, and in turn hamper the social-emotional and academic growth of their students (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Given that relationships and modeling are so important for student learning, it follows that teachers’ well-being is a strong predictor of classroom quality—a stronger predictor than even teacher educational attainment and experience (La Paro et al., 2009).

Features of Educator SEL
• Adult SEL programs that provide both learning and ongoing practice • Staff training and supports to help educators develop positive relationships with each other and with children, manage stress, advance equity, and develop efficacy

4. Positive Implementation Environment

Education scholars have long documented that a positive school culture and climate, characterized by high levels of trust, benefit students and teachers (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Edgar Schien (1995) defines culture as how things are done at an organization and climate as how children and adults feel about how things are done. Compared to low-trust schools, teachers in high-trust schools are more likely to work with parents and experiment with new teaching methods to improve their practice, and students have better attendance and perseverance (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).

Recognizing the importance of school and classroom culture and climate, schools have widely adopted systems and tools like Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) to improve learning environments. In addition to laying a strong foundation for SEL program implementation, these efforts have had positive effects on a variety of outcomes, including increased academic performance and reduced suspensions and office disciplinary referrals (Bradshaw et al., 2010; James et al., 2019)

Positive learning environments have also been directly linked to improved social-emotional outcomes. PBIS is associated with improvements in students’ social-emotional competencies, prosocial behaviors (behaviors intended to help others), and emotion-regulation abilities, and with decreases in aggressive and disruptive behaviors, office disciplinary referrals, and concentration problems (Waasdorp et al., 2012). Studies of CLASS, an observation and training tool to improve learning environments, produced similar findings: Children in classrooms with a more positive, supportive culture showed greater gains in social and cognitive skills, including inhibitory control, working memory, and language and literacy skills (Hamre et al., 2014).

Culture and climate are so important to SEL outcomes that they’re often considered a foundational element of SEL program implementation (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Scaccia et al., 2015). Teachers working in schools with more positive cultures rated the quality of the delivery of their SEL program higher and used more supplementary materials (Domitrovich et al., 2019). Principal support, which shapes the implementation environment, also influences students’ SEL outcomes (Kam et al., 2003).

A meta-analysis of more than 200 elementary, middle, and high school SEL programs found that at high-quality implementation sites—those where the SEL program was embedded in school culture and consistently used and reinforced across contexts—students’ academic gains were twice that of students in low-quality implementation sites, reductions in conduct problems were nearly twice as large, and reductions in emotional distress were more than twice as large (Durlak et al., 2011; Durlak, 2016). Other studies have found positive effects for SEL programs only among sites that have implemented the programs well (Battistich et al., 2000; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2014; Durlak, 2016).

Features of a Positive Implementation Environment
• High-quality schoolwide SEL implementation • Principal and district-level leadership and support • Intentional systems and structures to support climate and culture

Holistic SEL: A Shared Vision

Research makes clear that the more holistic a community’s approach to SEL, the more benefits there are for children. Coordinating the social-emotional language, skills, and strategies educators and caretakers use provides children consistent messaging and critical reinforcement throughout their days and school years. Additionally, children benefit when adults make efforts to provide positive and supportive learning environments and model the social-emotional competencies they hope to nurture in youth. SEL programming can have beneficial effects on children, but isolated approaches leave opportunities untapped. Conversely, a holistic approach to SEL brings communities together around a shared vision for how children can grow, learn, and thrive.

File:Picture2.png

Combining classroom-based programs with a program designed specifically for out-of-school time settings and a social-emotional professional learning program for educators, the CLISE family of programs works together to help educators take a holistic approach to building supportive communities for every child through social-emotional learning.

References

Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.3 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., & Lewis, C. (2000). Effects of the Child Development Project on students’ drug use and other problem behaviors. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007057414994 Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e112393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112393 Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709334798 Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130(5), e1136–e1145. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0243 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2002). A developmental psychopathology perspective on adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.1.6 Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2020). A (re)introduction to social and emotional learning: CASEL’s definition and framework. https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Oct-9-CCW.pdf Denham, S. A. (2018). Keeping SEL developmental: The importance of a developmental lens for fostering and assessing SEL competencies. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Keeping-SEL -Developmental.pdf Domitrovich, C. E., Li, Y., Mathis, E. T., & Greenberg, M. T. (2019). Individual and organizational factors associated with teacher self-reported implementation of the PATHS curriculum. Journal of School Psychology, 76, 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.015 Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x Durlak, J. A. (2016) Programme implementation in social and emotional learning: Basic issues and research findings. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/030576 4X.2016.1142504 Gallup. (2017). State of America’s schools: The path to winning again in education. https://www.gallup.com/file/services/178769/Gallup%20 Report%20--%20State%20Of%20Americas%20Schools.pdf Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466 Grusec, J. E. (1992). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 776–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.776 Hagelskamp, C., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2013). Improving classroom quality with the RULER approach to social and emotional learning: Proximal and distal outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9570-x Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R. C., & Jamil, F. (2014). Evidence for general and domain-specific elements of teacher-child interactions: Associations with preschool children’s development. Child Development, 85(3), 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12184 Hamre B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301 Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. (2013). Fostering and measuring skills: Interventions that improve character and cognition (NBER Working Paper No. 19656). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19656 Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Borowski, T. (2018) Equity & social and emotional learning: A cultural analysis. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. https://measuringsel.casel.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Frameworks-Equity.pdf James, A. G., Noltemeyer, A., Ritchie, R., & Palmer, K. (2019). Longitudinal disciplinary and achievement outcomes associated with school-wide PBIS implementation level. Psychology in the Schools, 56(9), 1512–1521. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22282 Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693 Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies. Social Policy Report, 26(4), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2012.tb00073.x Kam, C.-M., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003). Examining the role of implementation quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 4(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021786811186 Kendziora, K., & Yoder, N. (2016). When districts support and integrate social and emotional learning (SEL): Findings from an ongoing evaluation of districtwide implementation of SEL. Education Policy Center at American Institutes for Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571840.pdf La Paro, K. M., Hamre, B. K., Locasale-Crouch, J., Pianta, R. C., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., Barbarin, O., Howes, C., & Burchinal, M. (2009). Quality in kindergarten classrooms: Observational evidence for the need to increase children’s learning opportunities in early education classrooms. Early Education and Development, 20(4), 657–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802541965 Little, P., & Pittman, K. J. (2018) Building partnerships in support of where, when, and how learning happens. Aspen Institute National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/building-partnerships-in -support-of-where-when-how-learning-happens/ Low, S., Cook, C. R., Smolkowski, K., Buntain-Ricklefs, J. (2015). Promoting social–emotional competence: An evaluation of the elementary version of Second Step®. Journal of School Psychology, 53(6), 463–477. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.002 Lynn J., Gase L., Roos J., Oppenheimer, S., Dane A., Stachowiak S., Akey, T., Beyers, J., Chew, A., Habtemariam, E., Gutierrez, J., & Orians, C. (2018). When collective impact has an impact: A cross-site study of 25 collective impact initiatives. Spark Policy Institute, ORS Impact. https://www.orsimpact.com/blog/When-Collective-Impact-Has -Impact-A-Cross-Site-Study-of-25-Collective-Impact-Initiatives.htm Mahoney, J. L., Weissberg, R. P., Greenberg, M. T., Dusenbury, L., Jagers, R. J., Niemi, K., Schlinger, M., Schlund, J., Shriver, T. P., VanAusdal, K., & Yoder, N. (2020). Systemic social and emotional learning: Promoting educational success for all preschool to high school students. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000701 McClelland, M. M., Tominey, S. L., Schmitt, S. A., & Duncan, R. (2017). SEL interventions in early childhood. The Future of Children, 27(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0002 Murray, D. W., Rosanbalm, K., Christopoulos, C., & Hamoudi, A. (2015). Self-regulation and toxic stress report 1: Foundations for understanding self-regulation from an applied developmental perspective (OPRE Report # 2015-21). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/report_1_foundations_ paper_final_012715_submitted_508.pdf National Equity Project. (n.d.). Social emotional learning and equity. https://www.nationalequityproject.org/frameworks/social-emotional -learning-and-equity Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C. E., Meyers, D. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for schoolwide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/030576 4X.2015.1125450 Ocasio, K., Van Alst, D., Koivunen, J., Huang, C.-C., & Allegra, C. (2015). Promoting preschool mental health: Results of a 3 year primary prevention strategy. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1800–1808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9983-7 Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2018). Drivers of human development: How relationships and context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1 080/10888691.2017.1398650 Pittman, K. J., Irby, M., Tolman, J., Yohalem, N., & Ferber, T. (2003). Preventing problems, promoting development, encouraging engagement: Competing priorities or inseparable goals? The Forum for Youth Investment, Impact Strategies Inc. http://dev.forumfyi.org/files/Preventing%20Problems,%20 Promoting%20Development,%20Encouraging%20Engagement.pdf Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Larsen, R. A. A., Baroody, A. E., Curby, T. W., Ko., M., Thomas, J. B., Merritt, E. G., Abry, T., & DeCoster, J. (2014). Efficacy of the responsive classroom approach: Results from a 3-year, longitudinal randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 567–603. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214523821 Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.408 Santrock, J. W. (2008). Child development (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Scaccia, J. P., Cook, B. S., Lamont, A., Wandersman, A., Castellow, J., Katz, J., & Beidas, R. S. (2015). A practical implementation science heuristic for organizational readiness: R = MC2. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(4), 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21698 Schien, E. H. (1995). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, H. L., Hamilton, L. S., Faxon-Mills, S., Gomez, C. J., Huguet, A., Jaycox, L. H., Leschitz, J. T., Prado Tuma, A., Tosh, K., Whitaker, A. A., & Wrabel, S. L. (2020). Early lessons from schools and out-of-school time programs implementing social and emotional learning. RAND Corporation. https:// www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA379-1.html Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.202 Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2006). Social and emotional learning. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 1–13). National Association of School Psychologists.

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

	Date/Time	Thumbnail	Dimensions	User	Comment
current	14:52, 29 October 2022		2,672 × 333 (210 KB)	Admin (talk \| contribs)

You cannot overwrite this file.

File usage

There are no pages that use this file.

Metadata

This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it.

If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file.

Image height	1,800 px
Image width	2,880 px
Horizontal resolution	56.69 dpc
Vertical resolution	56.69 dpc

File:Sa.png: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:43, 10 September 2021

File history

File usage

Metadata

Navigation menu

Search