What’s ‘Key’/‘Core’ about Literacy in FE? Authorising resonance between everyday literacy practices and formal learning

June Smith
(University of Stirling)

Greg Mannion
(University of Stirling)
Contact details: [email-masked]

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006

Abstract

Traditionally, being competent with reading and writing of texts of various kinds has been seen as a form of neutral competence of decoding and encoding that a learner can easily carry with them from one context to another. This view has been critiqued (Street, 1993, 1995) with the New Literacy Studies (NLS) taking a socio-cultural view and foregrounding the situated perspective. This critique is supported by an analysis of the purposes and effects of reading and writing practices and the concurrent emergence of the related social and material contexts. In the light of evidence from a three year research project forming part of the TLRP, this paper explores and critiques different models used in the teaching of key and core skills. It closes with an exploration of how everyday life is textually mediated and how formal processes of teaching and learning reading and writing and core/key skills in FE might better relate to out-of-college literacies. Taking a situated approach and analysing the data in a relational manner leads us to move away from the traditional ideas of transfer and neatly bounded views of context. We propose the term resonance as a way of describing how literacy practices might sustain or inhibit learning of and through literacy across domains in a fluid and relational manner. Using the idea of resonance across context, we seek to offer an alternative empirically grounded way of addressing the ‘transfer’ and ‘core skill’ question. We are suggesting that what is actually ‘key/core’ of purposeful literacy is what makes it relevant for students across the different overlapping domains of their lives (home, college and work). Since the practice of teaching, learning and assessment in FE are often circumscribed by outside authorities with a decontextualised ‘skills’ development agenda rather than a socially-situated approach, how educators might do this raises issues.

Introduction

The Literacies for Learning in Further Education (hereafter, LfLFE, see www.lancs.ac.uk/lflfe ) research project has been funded for three years from January 2004 as part of the United Kingdom’s Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP, http://www.tlrp.org/ ), administered by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The project involves collaboration between two universities and four further education colleges in England and Scotland. The project aims to develop strategies that enable students to draw upon the literacies they have developed in their everyday lives on their courses as potentially a basis for more successful study. It specifically works with the notion that literacies are not a disembodied set of skills that can be learnt in isolation from contexts of use, but are developed within meaningful and purposive activity. Thus our use of the term literacy practices rather than literacy. We also view literacy practices broadly as embracing icon and screen as well as text and page, and the many multimodal artefacts and genres of communication which are to be found in colleges and everyday life, including computers, mobile phones, etc. A central concern for the project is to understand how the literacy practices required of college life and being a student relate to the wide range of students' literacy practices – the knowledge and capabilities they involve and the texts and modalities they address – which support learning across the curriculum. We follow the work of Cumming et al. (1998) in seeking to explore the curriculum literacy practices in a range of subjects.

The research focuses on the use, refinement and diversification of literacy events and practices in Further Education (F.E.). The premise for the project is that the literacy demands and practices of F.E. colleges are not designed around the literacy resources people bring to student life. We are exploring ways of mobilising students’ everyday literacy practices in different ways to enhance their learning. The intention is to achieve a critical understanding of the movement and flows of literacy practices in people’s lives: how literacy practices are ordered and re-ordered, networked or overlapped across domains (home-college, virtual-real, reading-writing), across social roles in students’ lives and what objects might mediate such mobilisations.

In the LfLFE project, literacy practices are viewed as resources for learning across the curriculum (Lee 1996), while, at the same time, learning across the curriculum can provide purposeful contexts for literacy learning. The learning specifically of literacy is not our main focus, except in so far as it is an incidental by-product of engaging in the literacy practices that support learning. Our focus is on the other direction in the equation: the reading and writing which are entailed in learning on F.E. courses. We are researching the literacy practices in which students need to engage in order to be successful in learning the content (however broadly conceived that ‘content’ may be) of their vocational, academic or leisure courses, and, where necessary, in demonstrating that learning in order to gain qualifications through assessment tasks.

Within this framing, developing literacy is seen to be a necessary part of learning a subject. We are exploring different horizons of possibilities: literacies for learning, literacies for learning to be a student; literacies for the workplace and literacies for learning something. We are talking about the whole F.E. experience, taking a holistic approach to looking at learning. Some literacies will be directly related to the demands of each curriculum area (demonstrating knowledge by writing an essay, producing a PowerPoint presentation; reading the course text books etc.). Other literacies will not be within the curriculum but will be part of the more general demands that being an F.E. student places upon people (for example, completing a course evaluation form, reading notice boards).

Within the LfLFE project we found five broad categories of literacy practices within classrooms across the thirteen curriculum areas. These include literacy practices for learning (reading handouts and note taking); literacy practices for assessment (essay writing, PowerPoint presentations), practices related to the workplace real or simulated (reading instructions on a paint tin, writing an email, explaining a menu to a customer); evidence based literacy practices that bridge the gap between college and the workplace (detailing events in a logbook, completing proformas, and constructing portfolios of evidence) and finally mediating literacy practices which explain what and how classroom activities are expected to be undertaken by students (documents which explain how to produce assessments, glossaries of examining bodies terminology). This variety and complexity of literacy practices was often not explicitly acknowledged by many tutors. As a result, students were often expected to engage with a variety of literacy practices which were ‘hidden’ and this lack of awareness of the diversity of different literacy practices within the curriculum caused additional problems for students. We argue that students on vocational courses have complex literacy careers.

The New Literacy Studies is the theoretical basis for our research, providing a social view of literacy which is expanded by treating literacy as not only a social practice but also as a multimodal form of communication. With this complex view of the nature of literacy we then theorise the role of multimodal literacy practices as resources for learning. Ivanic et al (2004) argue that text-related practices increasingly involve an element of multi-modality and have been influenced by digital and new technologies. They argue that the use of new technology has facilitated a shift in the semiotic landscape towards the iconic and visual as well as the written word. We incorporate a view of learning which is informed by cultural geography and recent educational theories which emphasise the relationships among context, identification, and learning (Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom 2003). To date, much of the discussion has focused on the mobilising of learning from education to everyday life, most notably the workplace. Less account has been taken of the literacy practices to support such learning and the mobilisation from the everyday into that required by education. This is despite the recognition of the ‘centrality of symbols, technologies, texts or systems of artifacts for constructing continuities and transformations across social situations’ (Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom 2003a: 27).

While LfLFE was never designed as a research project to research core or key skills per se, we clearly encountered different forms of pedagogy that were being used to address these. Also, many of the same questions underlying the empirical focus we took are relevant for those seeking to understand how better to teach key and core skills. From our perspective, New Literacy Studies can be used to interrogate what is going on with Key /Core skills pedagogy. First we look at the models that are being used currently and offer a critique of these from a NLS perspective.

Models of Teaching Key/Core Skills(1)

A range of initiatives aimed at enhancing the attainment of literacy as part of the agenda for the improvement of ‘key/core skills’ are now in place. These include the government’s response to the Tomlinson Review in England and Higher Still in Scotland and the competence-based frameworks for National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) and Scottish Vocational Qualifications (SVQs). These initiatives focus on the induction of people of all ages into at least ‘functional’ literacy and numeracy. Education in general and literacy development in particular, has been, and continues to be, perceived as a route to achieving success in the global economy Smith (2005).

Although, Key/Core skills have been developed as part of the FE curriculum in different ways; all of them rest on a view that literacy is a set of skills which can be learned and then transferred across a number of contexts. The understanding here is that skills are generic, individualised, transferable. We begin by describing four models by the relationship between skills and the ‘rest’ of the curriculum. The words we use to explore these models are ‘discrete’, ‘contextualised’, ‘integrated’ and ‘embedded’. Some of these words have been used interchangeably (Guardian article) and there is muddy water here; we argue there is a need for clarity on what these words mean in practice and in terms of the theories of situated learning and skill acquisition. In practice we found that these models are not mutually exclusive – they are perhaps better seen as nuances of approach – no one model is in play at any one time and there is usually some mix of these in any given setting. That said, understanding and making clear these differences can free up our thinking and enable us to understand how the ‘marriage’ between skills and the vocational curriculum is sustained and how a ‘situated practice view’ can help us see what is really key and core. In this section, we suggest the models of Core/Key skills pedagogy in currency at the moment are based on different relations between the learning of skills per se and other forms of learning.

Model 1: The discrete model

Students usually have to move to other teaching and learning areas to ‘pick up’ their skills where they are taught by the key/core skills ‘expert’. Students are then expected to carry these skills and adapt them for use within their vocational areas. For students the main problem that this approach poses is that of relevance. ‘What has this got to do with construction or catering?’ is the question core skills’ staff hear frequently. They develop a view that learning the content of their course and learning the literacy aspects of this course are separate. For vocational staff the problem is one of transfer. When a student has a core skill communication unit at a particular level, the assumption is that the students will be able to write at this level whatever the context, mode of production or genre expected. The question frequently heard here is: ‘If they can write an essay for core skills why can’t they write a letter for Business Studies?’ This approach sees literacy as something which happens within the individual head of the student and decontextualised from the activities in which it is usually found.

Model 2: The contextualised model

This is very similar to the discrete model in that students are taught core/key skills away from the vocational area by a specialist skills teacher. However, the core/key skills teacher makes the content relevant to the students they meet from the various vocational areas. They may use written materials from the vocational area like posters, leaflets or manuals or they may chose materials from the media with a particular vocational slant e.g. a newspaper article about the problems of bringing up a family with childcare students or read an extract from Dan Brown’s ‘The De Vinci Code’ for an Art and Design student. Other than this focus on making the content relevant for the students, this model works like the discrete model above. The teaching and learning of skills is maintained as a set apart practice. The culture, values and practices of the vocational area do not permeate the teaching and learning of the skills. Because the teacher is not located in the vocational area, it is more difficult for the teacher to develop a critically sensitive approach; skills remain abstractions as a result and the epistemological position that regards skills as generic and transferable is sustained. This model still works from a premise that learning reading and writing is one form of learning and learning the vocational area is another. The benefit is that the student may see some relevance but it can lead them to undertaking personal responsibility for ‘failing’ when they are unable to transfer.

Model 3: The integrated model

Other terms have been used to describe this approach but integrated seems to capture it best. This model works on a continuum. Formal and informal planning between vocational and core skills staff is necessary for integration to occur. At one extreme, integration occurs where the core skills staff and the vocational staff agree on an assessment instrument that could meet the requirements of both units. They still teach their separate aspects in their separate classrooms but work towards the same assessment goal. The problem with this is that the assessment instrument can become so complex it causes extra challenges for the student. Additionally the student may pass the vocational element and fail the core skills element or vice versa both of which reinforces the view that reading and writing are different from the ‘doing’ the content of the programme. At the other extreme, the core skills teacher and the vocational teacher work together in partnership usually in the vocational area classroom; sometimes the core/key skills teacher is also a practitioner from the vocational area with a background in the industry themselves.

The benefits of each are that there is a potential dialogue between the vocational teacher and the core skills practitioner. The latter could be more like a ‘social practices’ view because when the core skills teacher works within the classroom, the content, assessments, materials, and texts come from within the vocational area. There is much to be gained from this approach and it addresses many of the problems raised by the two previous models. The potential problem is that both vocational and core skills teachers still see literacy as a generic skill that is transferable across contexts. The participatory approach can be costly in terms of time for both the institution and the teachers.

Model 4: The embedded model

In this model, vocational teachers do not ‘teach’ core skills. In advance of teaching any course or programme, the teaching team look at the curriculum and decide which elements provide opportunities for students to develop key/core skills. These decisions are validated by both internal and external moderators. Staff are encouraged to make explicit to the students which activities are developing their core skills as well as their vocational skills. At one level then, this model recognises that literacy is part of the vocational area students are studying and so could be said to be a situated view of literacy. However, we argue that literacy can become invisible if not made explicit.

Furthermore, we found in our research that some vocational staff are being asked to make judgements when assessing the text. In our research, we have evidence of vocational teachers who did not feel confident in this or who said it did not really matter to them. One HN tutor said:

‘ah will admit in terms of the work coming in ah certainly wouldn’t fail a student if it came in on a non essay format what’s more important to me is that the work’s coming in however they choose to present their text or their work. It is obviously easier for them to understand so in terms of assessment ah’ve got to admit we’re not… Ah’m certainly not very strict on this is not an essay what ah’m more than happy is the fact that they’ve done their work and they’ve handed it in to be quite honest’.

‘if we say you know that we’re expecting an essay and if the assessment says an essay in terms of the product expected of the student and the content is ok but the product possibly isn’t an essay, then I would probably say what I would be more concerned in would be the content yes absolutely’.

Despite the assessment instrument asking for an essay, this teacher feels that if a student covers the content expected of her/him then s/he would pass. This student is being doubly disadvantaged. Both the students and the teachers assume the student is capable of core skills to a certain level and will be able to transfer those skills because s/he has passed the course. On the whole, most of the LfLFE vocational staff felt little confidence when assessing a core skills element. Because core skills are embedded, there is the possibility that they remain invisible to teachers and students alike.

At one level all learning is situated, but we argue that literacy learning is more effective when it is situated in the activities in which it plays a part. In both the integrated and embedded models there is potential for teachers to address the situated nature of the literacy practices students meet. Our critique of the models presented above is that they are all missing the mark because they take the teaching of skills as transferable across contexts in uncomplicated ways. Model 1 and 2 fail because they do not take as their starting point the situated perspective at all. We also suggest those who understand the practices perspective, may not yet have appropriate ways of bringing their teaching into line with the epistemological paradigm they espouse. Here we think our emerging understandings from LfLFE can assist.

Taking a literacy practices view means being aware of who these practices are ‘for’, who controls them, what values underpin them and so on. For writing, for example we suggest that the communicative act is understood through questioning who the likely audience(s) are, what genre is appropriate and why, what the purpose of the communication is, (among other aspects). A skills approach can and does do this too. However, within each vocational area, there is a set of relationships, values and attitudes that influence the kinds of reading and writing students face. When we attend to these, we are taking a situated view, when we isolate a particular aspect, (for example the genre) we run the risk of taking a decontextualised view. The error, from a situated perspective on literacy, occurs when a teacher or student isolates a text or a feature of a text from the relevant socio-cultural features of the entire communicative activity. The situated perspective suggests we have to look at how that text relates to the people who use it and how it is used within a system of other texts and activities. This approach takes is beyond merely altering the content in order to make it relevant. Similarly, we would expect that communicating using language in all its forms (using ICT for example), and numeracy practices too are learned better if they are made very visible by teachers as practices within socio-cultural systems.

The transfer question

In Lflfe we too have had to address the transfer question head on. The conceptual framing that we began with drew broadly upon the social practice view of literacy developed in New Literacy Studies. Here studies had identified the extent to which people engage in literacy practices as part of their everyday lives, even when they do not have significant educational attainment (Barton and Hamilton 1998, Barton et al. 2000). If people do engage in literacy practices in everyday contexts, why are these not apparently available as a resource for learning more formally? We envisioned those literacies from everyday context as resources to be mobilised within the context of further education courses. These we identified as border literacy practices (Figure 1), which are those practices which are or can be mobilised for pedagogic advantage. The LfLFE project was investigating the interface between the literacy requirements which students face on their courses and the resources that they bring with them to their studies. This interface was described as ‘border literacies’ which, if they exist, enable people to negotiate more successfully between vernacular and formal literacies.

Figure 1 Border literacy practices

Yet, this raises an immediate set of questions. For instance, if learning is situated, can it be mobilised across different contexts and what influences such mobilisations? Indeed does the very concept of mobilisation carry assumptions that mitigate our understanding of literacy as situated? We were exploring the extent to which such border literacies can positively affect learning outcomes and can serve as generic resources for learning throughout the life course. These border literacies are potentially the altered literacy practices that students are already familiar with which become relevant in college contexts. These border literacies would somehow connect the everyday with the formal educational practice domain. This expectation was not realised empirically. We did find a myriad of forms of reading and writing in the everyday lives of students. In their everyday lives, students’ literacy lives were usually rich semiotic spaces. Whereas many of the practices they encountered in college were restricted and narrow. We discovered that sometimes, some aspects of formal course-related reading and writing were similar to these everyday literacy practices. An alternative conceptualisation was needed.

Why Resonance?

We use the term resonance to describe how different aspects of practice were similar to practices experienced at other times and places. Resonance is a concept drawn from the field of music. It is taken to describe when two objects are vibrating in sympathy. We suggest the term can usefully be applied to literacy. After reading a newspaper or magazine, you may have commented that some feature of the article ‘struck a chord’ with you; we take this commonsense notion of ‘striking a chord’ as the starting point for considering teaching and learning across contexts.

The terms resonance is interesting because in music the term incorporates both elements that are consonant (very in tune) and dissonant (very slightly out of tune): the degree of consonance and dissonance is what gives music its character. We suggest that resonance captures the ways in which reading and writing is experienced as relevant because there are also degrees of consonance and dissonance for literacy practices in different domains. No two events are ever the same. Looking across the way reading and writing was important in the lifeworlds of students, we found we could notice what aspects afforded consonance and what aspects afforded dissonance for individual students on courses. The degree of consonance and dissonance was what made a literacy event and the practices around it enjoyable, easy, challenging, relevant or beyond their reach. We set out to pick out the different aspects of reading and writing that afforded the ‘right’ degrees of consonance and dissonance in the ‘right’ aspects of the communicative act. In this way we began to re-configure what we understood initially as ‘border literacies’ and found a way of addressing the transfer question.

From our ethnographic data collection we generated a set of characteristics of literacy practices which students seemed to value. The sorts of reading and writing that they considered important in their lives (across the domains of home, college and work) were:

Mostly multi-modal
Mostly multi-media
Shared
Non-linear
Owned
Purposeful
Clear audience
Generative

In order to understand how any one literacy practice was relevant to another practice (undertaken at another time and place) we realised that entities called border literacy practices may not exactly exist. Instead, we suggest that literacy practices ‘border off’ each other or are resonant with each other in many subtle and different ways along different aspects. The following features of literacy practices are likely to be important but differently important at different times and places. Also, the degree of importance will vary from context to context and across contexts:

The features of a literacy practice that we suggest can be resonant with literacy practices in other contexts:

Media
Artefact(s)
Text-type(s)
Participants
Purpose(s)
Activities / Processes
Place / Space
Time
Genre
Audience
Identity
Value / Attitude
Content / Topic

When it came to reading and writing, our data show that at times it might be important that the medium used is similar across domains (home and college/workplace). But the fact that a computer is used in different contexts was usually not sufficient to generate high levels of relevance or engagement in a given reading and writing task. More often it was a combination of aspects: for example, the genre deployed, the audience being targeted, the purpose of the communication and so on. For many cases, it was important that there was a connection between the identification processes involved in different literacy practices in different domains. If the identities being generated through everyday communication was somehow resonant with that being encouraged through college-based literacy practice, then it was more likely that these two sets of practices were experienced by the student as resonant. Our evidence suggests that these resonances across domain varied in number and varied in intensity in the degree of resonance for different students on the same course even for those facing the same assessments or reading/writing task.

One way of putting it is to say that resonance is brought about along different ‘wavelengths’ or aspects of the process of reading, writing and communicating. For one student it may be that the topic is what is important – in other words what is being read or written about is what makes it resonant. So if the topic of a book being read at home is similar to the topic of a course, we can say there is topic resonance across these contexts. For another student it may be critical that the medium being used to assist with reading and writing is the same in the different contexts. For another student, it can be critical that the audience of the texts they produce have relevance for who they want to be or who they want to become. Clearly, there are diverse ways in which resonance can be experienced. We suggest a number of different wavelengths along which resonance can be achieved. These include (and this is not an exhaustive list): topic resonance, genre resonance, audience resonance, resonance of purpose, resonance of medium.

As we have noted, it is not important that all of these aspects are consonant across domains for students, but that at least some of them are. It also seems likely that if college-related literacy practices connect with the identification process that students value most, then their engagement in the tasks set was more likely.

Multimodality of the unit ‘Working in the Creative Industries ’:

To illustrate this we will now discuss an assessment from the HN unit HNC Working in the Creative Industries’ which is taught across two HN programmes: ‘Sound Production.’ and ‘Music’. In these two vocational areas students are mostly passionate about their subject, music. This passion can relate to the technology, a particular instrument, a range of instruments or aspects of music writing (lyrics, notation, etc). These passions infiltrate many aspects of their everyday literacy lives. They read fictional novels, biographies about musicians, they read magazines about the latest technology, about music reviews, they write their own lyrics, keep notes on their latest melodies and share many of these texts with fellow band members. For some students, they are involved in literacy around managing a recording studio - getting tracks down, having notes for themselves so they know the structure of the music. We began to notice how aspects of reading and writing were important: the idea that this was meaningful practice, that there were real ‘audiences’ out there for their work, that what they write was often collaborative.

In contrast, when it came to college-based writing, there seemed to be an expectation by staff that students do a certain ‘amount’ of writing. There was a sense that external bodies e.g. Scottish Qualifications Authority, in this case, drive the content and assessment. As a result, assessments are notionally constructed around norms for length and were paper text based. Within this unit students have to produce a case study of approximately 2000-3000 words in length in addition to a development plan which must include a CV and they have to take part in a 10 minute interview. This fixation on length was not critiqued by staff in terms of what sort of genre is being expected of the students. Interestingly, we noticed the only ‘audience’ for these submitted works was the SQA and /or the lecturer. There was therefore a clear disparity between what many of these sound production students’ experiences in their everyday literacy lives and their college literacy lives. In their everyday lives their literacy practices were multi-modal, multi-media, shared, purposeful, generative, non-linear, owned and had a clear audience.

For the purposes of this paper we are concentrating on learning outcome three which asks the students to ‘Outline and develop a strategic plan for personal career development’. One of the stated evidence requirements for this is that of a CV. In previous years students had produced text based documents which followed a traditional CV format. In phase 2 of our research, students reported to our researchers they found this flat, 2-dimensional, extended text boring to do and read and that it could not capture the ‘creativity’ inherent in their industry. This text appeared not to excite the student body or be relevant to their emerging careers in the industry where a personal web-based biography was more the norm. As a member of the research team, the tutor decided to approach the production of this task from a social practices view. He encouraged the students to make the literacy involved in assessment relevant, multi-modal and personal. Final copies of the assessment could be handed in on CD or in paper. They could contain images, text, graphics, icons and they were permitted to attach sound files of their music.

Students reacted favourably to the idea of being asked to submit a CD and to the opportunity to enhance their website reflecting the need to network themselves in the business. They were attracted by the practical focus, the idea that this would be worthwhile ‘work’ not unconnected to their ‘band’ lives.

What’s key/ core?

We are suggesting that what is actually ‘key/core’ of purposeful literacy is what makes it relevant for students across the different overlapping domains of their lives (home, college and work). Both the integrated and embedded models currently in play in FE would provide opportunities for a situated practices approach to be adopted if there was formal shared planning (i.e. in officially allocated time), and informal planning on a day-to-day basis between vocational staff and those core skills staff .

Adopting a social practices view of literacy within the curriculum offer a less fragmented view for both staff and students.

Notes

1. Key skills are the term used in English system and core skills in the Scottish. In England there are 6 key skills which are Communication, Application of Number, Information Technology (IT), Working with Others, Improving own Learning and Performance, Problem Solving. In Scotland they cover 5 areas: Communication, Numeracy, Working with Others, Problem Solving and IT.

References:

Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (1998) Local literacies: reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge

Barton, D., Hamilton, M. and Ivanic, R. (Eds) (2000): Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London: Routledge.

Cumming, J.J., Wyatt-Smith, C.M., Ryan, J. and Doig, S.M. (1998): The Literacy-curriculum interface: the literacy demands of the curriculum in post-compulsory schooling. Canberra DEETYA

http://www.griffith.edu.au/school/cls/clearninghouse/content_1998_interface.html

Lee, A. (1996) Gender, Literacy, Curriculum: Rewriting school geography, London: Taylor and Francis

Smith, J: (2005) ‘Further Education and the literacy debate – a Scottish perspective’ in Scottish Education Review pp153-162.

Street, B. (1995) Literacies Across Educational Contexts. Philadelphia: Calson Press.

Street, B. (Ed.) (1993) Cross-cultural Approaches to Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tuomi-Grohn, T. and Engestrom, Y. (eds) (2003) Between work and school: New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary-crossing, London: Pergamon

Tuomi-Grohn, T. and Engestrom, Y. (eds) (2003a) Conceptualising transfer: from standard notions to developmental notions. In T. Tuomi-Grohn and Y. Engestrom (eds) Between Work and School: New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary-crossing, London: Pergamon.

This document was added to the Education-Line database on 05 February 2007