[ESCRIBIR EL NOMBRE DE LA COMPAÑÍA]

The European Language Portfolio (ELP) a

reflexive tool to promote learners’ autonomy

DR. GILDARDO PALMA LARA

Abstract: This article provides an epistemic stance of the Common European Language Portfolio (ELP) as a promoter of students’ autonomy. It also analyses it as a successful innovation with 90% of adopters in the faculty of languages of Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP) according to Markee’s theory of innovation and Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior. The ELP is thus not only a tool for pupils to work closely together developing and exchanging materials and activities in their language classes, but also to stimulate the reflective processes that are central to learners’ self-sufficiency.

Abstract:

Este artículo proporciona una postura epistémica del Portafolio Europeo para las

Lenguas (PEL) como promotor de la autonomía de los estudiantes. También

presenta el análisis de esta innovación en la Facultad de Lenguas de la

Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP) según las teorías de

Markee y la de Ajzen (1991) sobre el comportamiento planificado exitoso. El PEL

es así no sólo concebido como una herramienta para que los alumnos trabajen en

estrecha colaboración en el desarrollo y el intercambio de materiales y actividades

en las clases de lengua extranjera, sino también para estimular los procesos de

reflexión que son fundamentales para los alumnos y su auto-suficiencia.

I. INTRODUCTION

Under the impact of socio-linguistic research into Second Language

Acquisition (SLA) corpora, communicative theory has clearly emphasized the

learners’ importance to take their first step towards autonomy when they recognize

that they are responsible for their own learning (Holec 1979; cited in Little

2007)Since the communicative approach to language teaching was first introduced

in the mid 1970s, the European research community has continued to explore the

processes of SLA and there have been significant innovations in second language

(L2) and foreign language (FL) teaching (Kohonen, 1999; Little, 2005). In the light

of these experiences obtained, the decision of the Council of Europe to develop the

Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) was taken, in the early

1990s, to set up a taxonomic approach to the description of linguistic

communication and the skills that the learner must acquire (Little, 2007). It is more

comprehensive than anything previously attempted and thus provides an

unparalleled basis for international discussion and further work (Kohonen, 2005).

The CEFR’s action-oriented approach assigns a central role to language

use in language learning: “Language use, embracing language learning, comprises

the actions performed by persons who as individuals and as social agents develop

a range of competences, both general and in particular communicative language

competences” (Council of Europe 2001, p.9). Thus, the “I can” descriptors of the

self-assessment grid (ibid, p.26-27) and the “can do” descriptors of the illustrative

scales lay a consistent emphasis on a broad learner-centered basic orientation in

language teaching. As a result, promoting learners’ autonomy to foster SLA is an

obliged endeavor (Little, 2007).

Such educational goals as promoting learning-to-learn skills and lifelong learning

have thus become crucial. In this vein, the Common Core of English as Foreign

Language (EFL) Program at the State University of Puebla has actively been

involved in developing its language educational curricula by adopting the CEFR

policies. In this program students from different backgrounds, sex and ages come

to learn and/or to improve their skills in English, among other languages within the

CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001) complex descriptive set of standards for the

specification of L2 proficiency at six levels in relation to five communicative

activities: listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production and writing. In

this context, the European Language Portfolio (ELP) is being piloted as a tool to

enhance learners’ self-assessment and self-confidence to attain the CEFR

descriptors. Therefore, the goal of this article is twofold:

1. It discusses the implementation of the ELP whose main aim is to find out

learners’ conceptions and views concerning the use of self- and peer

assessment in the assessment of language skills.

2. It attempts to analyze the ELP curricular implementation through Markee’s

(2002) framework: S-shaped curve of diffusion of an innovation.

Furthermore, it proposes some pedagogical implications based on Ajzen’s

(1991) Theory of Planned Behavior.

II.LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 OVERVIEW

Under the impact of socio-linguistic research in Second Language

Acquisition (SLA) corpora, communicative theory have clearly emphasized the

importance of providing learners with a rich diet of authentic experiences from

which they could develop both socio-cultural competence and input required for

Language Acquisition (Kohonen 1992). Since the communicative approach to

language teaching was first introduced in the mid 1970s, the European research

community has continued to explore the processes of SLA and there have been

significant innovations in second languages and Foreign Language (FL) teaching

(Kohonen, 1999). In the light of these experiences the Council of Europe decided

to develop the CEFR in the early 1990s to set up a taxonomic approach to the

description of linguistic communication and the skills that the learner must acquire.

It is more comprehensive than anything previously attempted and thus provides an

unparalleled basis for international discussion and further work (Kohonen, 2000b).

The CEFR has proved to be extremely influential in the promotion of

plurilingualism in Europe, in syllabus design, curriculum planning, and in language

examinations in a number of European countries. Little (2005) posits that this is a

welcome trend that the many language experts, educational officers and politicians

who created, designed, promoted, and implemented the framework should be

congratulated on. Language learners, language teachers, educational institutions

and employers will probably find the framework a helpful tool in the setting of

curricular goals and entry requirements, in comparisons of curricular systems in

various countries and regions, and in communicating in rather concrete terms

about what language learners can and cannot do in their FLs.

2.2 The CEFR Communicative Approach

The CEFR (2001, p.9) is not tied to any single method of language

teaching but rather presents a more general, Action-Oriented Communicative

Approach in terms of the customary communicative language competence,

expressed with the linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic components, and the

strategies in communicating and learning. The CEFR gives a succinct summary of

the central concepts in communication noting that language users draw on the

competences at their disposal in various contexts and under various conditions and

constraints to engage in language activities involving language processes. They

produce and/or receive texts in relation to themes in specific domains, activating

those strategies which seem most appropriate for carrying out the tasks to be

accomplished. The monitoring of these actions by the participants leads to the

reinforcement or modification of their competences. Competences are defined as

the sum of knowledge, skills and characteristics that allow a person to perform

actions.

The CEFR also emphasizes the importance of Learner Autonomy as a goal

in modern language learning and teaching. The goal entails enabling learners to

develop a stance of socially responsible language learning in the course of their

learning processes, accepting responsibility for their own learning. To proceed

towards this goal; teachers must progressively delegate pedagogic responsibility to

the learners in the course of their FL learning. Language teachers must also

encourage their students to reflect on their learning and to share experiences with

other students. In this process students develop an awareness of language and

communication (Kohonen, 2001 a).

This involves a knowledge and understanding of the principles according to

which languages are organized as linguistic systems and used in communication.

This knowledge helps them to assimilate new language experiences into their

evolving linguistic framework for an increasingly accurate and fluent personal use

of language. Students also need to develop their study and heuristic skills to make

effective use of the learning opportunities and use available materials

independently (Kohonen, 2001 a). Connected with these goals, is the notion of

plurilingual and pluricultural competence involving a complex, multiple language

competence on which the user may draw in intercultural contexts. The notion refers

to the ability to utilize the competence in the mother tongue and knowledge and

skills learned in a foreign language for the learning and use of other languages

(Little, 2005).

2.3Autonomy

Vygotsky (1978), an early precursor of the theory writing in the 1920/30s,

emphasized social interaction as the basis for the development of higher-level

mental activity of the individual. He described this process of development using

the metaphor of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), referring to the zone

between the individual’s actual and potential planes of development. The tasks that

pupils can do on their own are within their area of self-regulation. The development

in the zone thus proceeds from other-regulation to self-regulation, from tasks

carried out with the help of others (scaffolding) to increasing self-regulation and

autonomy.

In socio-cultural theory, students are seen as a significant resource for

their own learning as well as for each other’s learning (Kohonen, 2001a). They

need to take charge of their learning in order to enhance their autonomy as

students and language users. This shift in the research has brought about a new

focus on the students themselves as language learners. Students need to be

facilitated to develop a basic reflective orientation to learning by working on their

experiences, beliefs and expectations of language use and learning (Little, 2005).

Beliefs are socially constituted, interactively sustained and time-bound

assumptions about the roles and duties of the participants in the social teaching–

learning process (Lantolf, 2000). Consequently, they are modifiable and

changeable (at least to some extent), rather than being stable and permanent. The

ELP is likely permeated by these issues, as Cavana (2007, p.23) posits:

“One of the main purposes of the ELP is to promote learners’ autonomy that is

for students to take responsibility for their own learning […] in particular the LB

represents this pedagogical aspect through the detailed biography, the

checklists and the planning instruments it uses”.

2.4 The ELP

The ELP is connected with the CEFR as a pedagogical language learning

and reporting instrument. Little (2007) posits that the pedagogic function

emphasizes the process aspect of language learning: helping the students to

identify their learning aims, to make action plans, to reflect, monitor and modify the

processes, and to evaluate the outcomes through self-assessment and reflection.

The reporting function, on the other hand, is concerned with the product aspect of

foreign language learning: providing a record of their language skills and cultural

experiences by relating their communicative skills to the proficiency levels

according the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Thus, this

distinction between the two functions is essential for understanding its potential to

enhance FL education. It consists of three parts: the Passport, the Language

Biography (LB), and the Dossier.

1. The Passport is used to build up a cumulative record of the students’

language learning and intercultural experience. At its centre is the owner’s

own assessment of his/her achieved proficiency in L2/FLs, undertaken on

the basis of the so-called self-assessment grid.

2. The LB provides a reflective accompaniment to the ongoing process of

learning and using L2/FLs, and engaging with the cultures associated with

them. It supports the setting of learning targets and the process of self-

assessment by expanding the descriptions of proficiency in the self-

assessment grid into checklists of communicative tasks.

3. The Dossier is the least defined part of the ELP—in many models it consists

of no more than an empty table of contents for the students to fill in. Its

purpose is to provide a space in which ELP owners can show what they can

do in the various languages they know and illustrate their intercultural

experience, usually in written text but sometimes also in audio and/or video

recordings. In some implementations the dossier is also a place where

owners keep materials relevant to their current learning; for example,

vocabulary or grammatical rules they know they need to master, plans and

drafts of projects they are working on, and newspaper or magazine articles

that are relevant to their learning goals.

III. CercleS ELP for use in higher education

This ELP is distributed by the European Confederation of Language Centers

in Higher Education (CercleS). The “canonical” version is bilingual in English and

French and was developed in the Centre for Language and Communication

Studies, Trinity College Dublin. It is aimed at university learners at all proficiency

levels. The goal-setting and self-assessment checklists in the LB cover all six

Common Reference Levels. Thus, this ELP is likely to be translated into more than

20 other languages (Cavana, 2007) to show its efficacy to develop students’

communicative competences and autonomy. The CercleS has been the panacea

to produce incipient research about ELP implementation within different contexts

such as the following:

Cavana (2007) posits that the chief intentions of the ELP are to foster

learner’s independence. As a result, the LB stands for this educational feature

through exhaustive checklists and planning instruments. There is a range of

different learner types, although there are many different versions, and an almost

endless amount of research studies, with very little relevance for classroom

practice. This study works out how to integrate a checklist in the LB, based on

some essential learning style categories, to help students through self-observation

and reflection towards self-knowledge and autonomy. This study was,

consequently, based on her teaching experience about how learners realize their

own ways of learning a language and their self-reflection upon it.

Colwell (2007) posits that the development of learner self-sufficiency and

self-assessment is central to the ELP. In the development of learner autonomy,

learning is facilitated by involving the learner in every stage of the learning process,

including assessment, correction, and feedback. Colwell (2007) described an

ongoing, classroom-oriented research study that aimed to investigate, document

and analyze the development of the learners’ ability to engage in the processes of

peer assessment and self-assessment by means of a social constructivist

approach. The ELP model used in this study was currently sponsored by Trinity

College, Dublin. The study sought 1. to examine and experiment with ways to

involve learners and their judgments in the L2 writing assessment process by

means of collaborative teamwork, 2. to help build and support a case for peer

assessment and self-assessment in the undergraduate L2 writing class. As this

study shows foreseen outputs included student-produced good practice guidelines

for peer assessment and self-assessment in the L1 Spanish undergraduate EFL

writing class which, along with criteria, procedures and ‘can do’ statements for peer

assessment and self-assessment of L2 writing ability, it also included refined ‘can

do’ statements for writing levels B2, C1 and C2.

Church (2007) comments his personal experience when using the ELP at

the University of Padua. Church’s study shows that he mainly focused on two

aspects: 1. developing self-assessment skills and autonomous learning, 2.

developing and encouraging intercultural learning and skills. Thus, the first

objective was central to the teaching and learning of writing and speaking skills

with students taking their second university English course in the Faculty of

Political Science. The second was relevant to increasing awareness of cultural

differences and appreciation of cultural and linguistic pluralism with students who

were doing a revision course in preparation for the Erasmus program (all will use

English as a vehicular language, but many will not be going to Great Britain or

Ireland).

The ELP was eventually introduced with the first group and subjects were

asked to complete the self-assessment grid of the Passport. This was followed by

using ‘My next learning target’ and ‘Learning how to learn’ sections of the LB.

Consequently, for Erasmus students the ‘Summary of language learning and

intercultural experiences’ and “Ways in which I have engaged with the cultures

associated with the L2/FLs I know” from the LB were accordingly used as a means

to address the question of cultural differences. He intended to develop appropriate

‘can do’ statements to be used in particular learning contexts. Consequently, for

the speaking domain, Church (2007) had a clearly good idea of what the questions

could be. However, for the intercultural skills he remained less certain about the

result.

Schaffner (2006) claims that the Language Centre of the University of Zurich

and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich uses the CEFR both as a

means of classification of courses and as a diagnostic tool aimed at helping

students to choose a course at their level of proficiency. The tools offered to

students on their website are threefold: 1. self-evaluation with the help of the level

descriptors of the CEFR available in several languages, 2. link to the Council of

Europe website, with the level descriptors and with further information about the

ELP, 3. link to the DIALANG testing system [DIALANG is a European project for

the development of diagnostic language tests in 14 European languages. Tests are

made available on the Internet free of charge. The project is financially supported

by the European Commission, Directorate General Education and Culture, under

the SOCRATES Program, LINGUA Action D]. Since the course choice depends

mostly on self-assessment, an evaluation of students’ placement strategies was

carried out at the end of summer term 2006 in order to gain deeper insight into

their actual procedures. In the questionnaire, Schaffner focused both on general

criteria of choice such as course lists, categorization of the courses according to

specific language skills, previous courses, and the teacher, as well as the means of

self-assessment offered on the Language Centre of the University of Zurich and

the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich’s website. Schaffner also

evaluated students’ need for further placement information or counseling.

The main results of this evaluation conducted on the basis of 1,375 samples

confirmed Schaffner’s hypothesis that pragmatic criteria of choice are too heavily

weighted. Another significant outcome was that students often do not manage to

assess their own proficiency appropriately, even when referring to the level

descriptors of the CEFR. The main finding is that the placement procedure has to

be improved by means of a more guided presentation of the Language Centre of

the University of Zurich and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich’s

program and more appropriate assessment tools on their website.

IV. Professional Application

This paper discusses the implementation of the ELP with a slightly fairly

stress in the LB, within the Common core EFL program at the State University of

Puebla, as an innovation. According to Little (2007) and Cavana (2007) the LB

section focuses on the EFL pupil’s linguistic identity by providing for regular

summative self-assessment related to objectively derived proficiency scales. In

other words, descriptors in the checklists help learners to see themselves as

autonomous users of English whose capacity is continuously expanding.

Little (2007) and Kohonen (2000a) posit that the LB embodies the dynamic

nature of the EFL curriculum by making it visible to EFL teachers, learners and

school administrators. The LB makes clear to all these stakeholders an approach

to FL learning that emphasizes learner involvement, learner reflection, and

communicative use of the target language. I.e. stakeholders find that the LB

symbolizes the principles of learner involvement, learner reflection and target

language use. Therefore, the LB provides teachers and students with a common

basis for sharing experience, discussing problems and developing approaches.

In the light of these studies, the administration of the Common core of

languages at the State University in Puebla is currently developing its curricula in

accordance with the communicative action-oriented approach of the CEFR.

Consequently, I was using the LB- a companion piece to the CEFR- as a tool of

learner reflection by carrying out action research based on the ELP.

4.1 The ELP as a curricular innovation

I shall hence argue that I have already implemented three waves of innovation

research by applying the ELP as a pedagogical tool with some learners of the

fourth pre-intermediate phase of an EFL program at the Psychology Faculty to

record their language experiences (including the mother tongue) in the passport

section; to make them aware of the different learning styles and strategies they can

use in order to succeed in most language tasks within the Language Biography

section; to collect pieces of their own language projects ranging from simple ones

such as postcards or pen-pal letters to essays describing a point of view about the

global warming or another interesting topic within the dossier. As I stated, the first

wave, with young adult students within this cohort, showed that some of them

rejected at first this tool; but as Markee (2002) argues the innovation process is

slow at first and “if a critical mass of between 5% and 25% of potential users adopt,

the innovation will take off and become self sustaining” (Rogers, 1995; cited in

Markee, 2002; p.57). Thus, my students at the faculty of languages of Benemérita

Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP) were gradually assimilating the

innovation as they were trained to use this pedagogical tool according to the S-

shaped curve of diffusion proposed by Markee (2002) and based on Cooper (1982)

[see table 1 below]. Hence I had some early adopters which were motivated

students with a clear tendency of learning autonomy.

Table 1. Adopted and taken from Witten, Casteneira, Brenes, Preciado, Tapia, Sánchez (2007)

Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior has also had far-reaching implications

for language curriculum development (Kennedy, Doyle, and Goh, 1999; Long,

1997). The problem, according to Ajzen, is that regardless of what strategy for

innovation is used, predicting how people will respond to the innovations can be

fraught with peril. A central tenet of his Theory of Planned Behavior proposes that

a key to better understanding how people will organizationally respond to

innovations is through a discovery of the true intentions of key stakeholders. These

intentions were clearly stated showing that using the ELP may increase learners’

autonomy (Little, 2007) so as to begin a second wave, that of an early majority.

During this project learners were getting acquainted with the ELP and its sections.

They were in turn enacting little resistance towards the innovation at this stage. A

Innovators/Early adopters

Early Majority/Late Majority

Laggards

% of adopters who implement innovation over a specific

time period often form a typical S-shaped diffusion curve

third wave then began with late majority accounting for the 90% of the class and

only 10% of laggards.

4.2 My epistemological stance

I might argue the ELP can help develop various aspects of the paradigm shift in

ELT as described by Jacobs and Farrell (2001), including the following: (i) Learner

autonomy is supported by the fact that learners can set their own objectives with

the aid of self-assessment checklists; (ii) Curricular integration can be fostered

through production of the Dossier; (iii) A focus on meaning is adopted throughout

checklists; (iv) other tools for assessment might be developed for young adults and

the author of this essay is going to take part in the project as a member of a

teacher's pilot group to test materials; (v) The concept of the teacher as a 'co-

learner' is an important one for work with the ELP, notably when new paths are

followed. This might be illustrated by an example: grammar progression, an

important term for most language programs and textbooks, does not occur in the

ELP neither is any grammatical progression described. Over and above that, it can

be assumed that the ELP will play a role of increasing importance for foreign

language teaching and learning in Europe and Latin America (Little, 2007). At

present, the number of validated portfolios has raised to 30 covering Europe from

Ireland to Russia and from Sweden to Italy according to the Council of Europe's

ELP website (Council of Europe 2002).

V. Conclusion

5.1 In formal language learning the development of autonomy requires that

learners use the target language at once as medium of classroom communication,

channel of learning, and tool for reflection. Such reflection is triggered by the ELP.

In the light of these events, different versions of the ELP ought to be developed to

match specific classroom’s necessities to foster learners’ autonomy. The teachers’

praxis is framed within a spectrum of different beliefs and theoretical assumptions.

I also argued that under these conditions innovation occurs. The third wave of

adopters in this project (90%) clearly shows that students’ autonomy grows as a

result of their never ending effort to understand the why, the and the how of their

learning (Dam 1995; cited in Little, 2007).

5.2 The ELP through the Learners’ autonomy entails a variety of self-regulatory

behaviors that develop – through practice – as a fully integrated part of the

knowledge and skills that are the goal of learning. The ELP helps the teacher to:

Convert the communicative component of any curriculum into an inventory

of tasks

Plan and negotiate a structure for learning in the short, medium and long

term

Introduce and manage a portfolio approach to learning that does not have to

set its own evaluation criteria

reflect on the progress of individual learners and the whole class

5.3. Functions of the ELP

Pedagogical function – the ELP is designed to make the language learning

process more transparent to the learner and foster the development of

learner autonomy (cf. the Council of Europe’s commitment to educational for

democratic citizenship and lifelong learning)

Reporting function – the ELP provides practical evidence of L2 proficiency

and intercultural experience against the metric of the Common European

Framework’s common reference levels (Little, 2007).

5.4 How does the ELP work?

• All behavioural autonomy is the product of interactive/dialogic processes

(Vygotsky 1978, 1986; cited in Little, 2007)

• The reflective processes that the ELP stimulates and supports are themselves

dialogic (the learner in conversation with his/her present and past self)

• The three parts of the ELP correspond closely to a triadic architecture of

personhood: self – social identity – roles (Riley 2003; cited in Little, 2007)

.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes 50, 179-211.

Cavana, M. (2007). Integrating learning styles awareness in the ELP. CercleS ELP

Seminar Dissertation. Applied Language Center: Dublin

Colwell V.(2007). Student-produced guidelines for peer- and self-assessment: A

proposal. CercleS ELP Seminar Dissertation. Applied Language Center: Dublin.

Council of Europe, (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Jacobs, J. and Farrell, T. (2001). Paradigm Shift: Understanding and Implementing

Change in Second Language Education. Teaching English as a Second

or Foreign Language, 5 (2), 1-13. In electronic format at http://www-

writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej17/toc.html

Kennedy, C., Doyle, P., and Goh, C. (1999). Exploring change in English language

teaching. Oxford, UK: Machmillan Heinemann.

Kohonen, V. (1992). Foreign language learning as learner education: facilitating

self-direction in language learning. In B. North (ed.) Transparency and

coherence in language learning in Europe, (pp 71–87). Strasbourg: Council of

Europe

Kohonen, V. (1999). Authentic assessment in affective foreign language education.

In J. Arnold (ed.) Affective language learning, (pp 279-294). Cambridge: CUP.

Kohonen, V. (2001a). Towards experiential foreign language education. In

Kohonen, V., Jaatinen, R., Kaikkonen, P. & Lehtovaara, J., Experiential

learning in foreign language education, (pp 8-60). London: Pearson

Education.

Kohonen, V.( 2000a). Student reflection in portfolio assessment: making language

learning more visible. Babylonia 1, 13–16.

Kohonen, V.( 2000b). The European language portfolio as an instrument for

developing foreign language pedagogy:guidelines and possibilities. In V.

Kohonen and U. Pajukanta (eds.) The European Language Portfolio:

experiences from the first half of the Finnish EKS project. Tampere: Department

of Teacher Education Publication.

Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural

theory of second language learning, (pp 1-26). Oxford: OUP.

Little, D.(2007). Language learner autonomy: some fundamental considerations

revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching (1)1, 14–29.

Little, D., (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language

Portfolio: involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process.

Language Testing 22 (3), 321–336.

Long, R. (1997). Investigating and responding to student attitudes and suggestions

for course improvement. The Language Teacher 21(10), 23-29.

Markee, N. (2002). Managing Curriculum Innovation. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Schaffner, S. (2006). The role of the CEFR and the ELP. CercleS ELP Seminar

Dissertation. Applied Language Center: Dublin.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Witten, M. Casteneira, T. Brenes, M. Preciado, P. Tapia, R. Sánchez, V. (2007).

Exploring innovation processes in a public university in central Mexico.

MEXTESOL 31 (2), 47-56.