WORLD NEWS: No. 59 December 2003

THE LATEST ON LANGUAGE

AND LANGUAGES

Teaching communicate peace in the second-language classroom
by Reinhold Freudenstein

NOTE FROM THE PRESIDENT

Teaching communicate peace in the second-language classroom

by Reinhold Freudenstein

1 Introduction

More than fifteen years ago, in January 1987, a group of dedicated foreign-language educators from fourteen European countries came together in the Russian city of Kiev in order to discuss content and methods of teaching foreign languages and literatures for peace and understanding. The meeting was initiated and organised by UNESCO, and it ended with a declaration which became known by the term of LINGUAPAX. It contained a plea for the integration of peace education into foreign-language instruction from the curriculum level down to everyday classroom activities. The philosophy behind the LINGUAPAX program was - and still is - to make strenuous efforts to increase the effectiveness of teaching foreign languages with a view to enhancing mutual understanding, respect, peaceful coexistence and cooperation among nations1. Follow-up conferences took place in Spain in 1988, two years later in Germany, in Spain again in 1994 and in Melbourne in 1995. The Australian event was organised and sponsored under the auspices of the Fédération Internationale des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes (Cunningham & Candelier 1995). Ever since LINGUAPAX was introduced to the profession I wondered why language teachers seemed to be very reluctant, if not negligent in dedicating more attention to that subject. A few years ago I offered a workshop on peace education at a regional institute for the in-service training of language teachers in Germany. There was only one out of about 200 participants who wanted to attend that workshop. When I asked him why he was interested in the topic he said that he had never heard before of peace-related foreign-language classroom activities and that he wanted to learn what it was all about. The same holds true for university seminars in initial training for future language teachers. When I first held a seminar on the role of peace education in the teaching and learning of foreign languages at my university I had only three students who showed interest. One of them was a future teacher of Latin. He wanted to find out how he could avoid the reading and translation of texts by Julius Caesar on fighting and killing in wars which had taken place more than 2000 years ago. At the same time, I had over sixty students who attended a seminar on “Computer Use in the Language Classroom” and even more on “For and Against Grammatical Rules in Language Instruction”.

Looking at today’s global situation, we should have more than one reason for dedicating instructional efforts to issues of war and peace. In the last century, we have experienced the most dreadful wars in the history of mankind. They have brought death and suffering to millions of people. One would have thought nothing like that would ever happen again. But according to information from the International Red Cross, more than 200 wars have been fought since 1945 in which at least 40 million people were killed. After the turn of the century, a new wave of terrorism resulting in more wars brought renewed anxiety and fear to mankind. After the German LINGUAPAX conference in 1991 a book was published which was given the fitting title, Language Teaching in a World without Peace (Raasch 1993). It still holds true today. As the world copes with the aftermath of 11 September 2001, the destruction of Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the ongoing fighting in the Congo, the waves of terror in Israel, Palestine, Spain and Ireland - to mention just the most spectacular ones - it is more than timely that we focus squarely on the role that languages can effectively assume in the fostering of peace. Therefore, it is both justified and necessary to emphasise the notion of peace whenever and wherever possible, including in the foreign-language classroom. It was Pope John Paul II who phrased the slogan: “If you want to reach peace, teach peace”.

In the history of foreign-language teaching, learning a new language has always been more than just a question of acquiring linguistic skills. Communication is the overall objective generally accepted throughout the world, and communication automatically includes subject matter because it usually takes place in meaningful situations. The contexts of such situations have been described by curriculum designers not only in the form of everyday events or interesting stories, but also in the form of general statements and universal goals. It has been stated, for example, that foreign-language teaching should promote friendly relations between the people of various countries. Classroom activities should encourage the understanding and appreciation of other cultures, especially those that are different from the learner’s own social environment. In particular, the teaching of English as a world language should contribute towards the development of tolerance as a basis for mutual recognition. This list could easily be enlarged. Peace, however, has so far not been given a prominent place on such lists of general statements. It might well be that the idea of peace is supposed to be included implicitly. It might well be that it is simply taken for granted that learning another language and living peacefully together with speakers of other nations go hand in hand. But in a world that has become increasingly aggressive, peace as an educational objective should be given a prominent and explicit place in all aspects of foreign-language instruction. Peace education and the teaching of foreign languages are to be inseparably combined both in official documents and in classroom activities. There is an important reason for this. Pupils of today have to learn how to master the challenges of the 21st century. The most demanding challenge will probably be to live in a globalised world with a fast-growing population. People who have different ideas, beliefs, interests and goals will have to accept each other. In a social context like that the only chance for survival is to live together peacefully. And one of the prerequisites for peaceful coexistence is the ability to communicate with others in a civilised, friendly, humane and caring – in short - in a peaceful manner. Thus, “communicative competence” - internationally accepted as the most important objective in the teaching of foreign languages - should be expanded to “communicative peace” - a phrase to be understood as the overall concept for everything connected with the teaching and learning of foreign languages. The phrase was first coined by the Brazilian linguist, Francisco Gomes de Matos about ten years ago, and he has promoted it in many ways ever since. In order to achieve “communicative peace”, basic changes in educational thinking must take place.

In the past, there were changes in foreign-language policy, and some of these have had considerable influence on the instructional process. One of the most spectacular ones over the last fifteen or twenty years has been an increasing awareness of the selection and treatment of content areas that should be covered in the foreign-language classroom. Many aspects of modern life that have previously been disregarded or misrepresented in traditional teaching materials have now received specific attention. A good example is the role of women in foreign-language textbooks. In the 1970s, it was the Fédération Internationale des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes that initiated a world-wide survey on this subject (Freudenstein 1978). Since then, the discussion about the place of women in society and their representation in schoolbooks has brought about enormous change. It was not only that learning materials were revised; equally important was the fact that the awareness of the teaching profession became focused on a problem which was and still remains a social challenge. Let me give you an example which shows how a new orientation of traditional concepts can lead to basic changes in everyday communication! My example is the use of the words “pupil” and “teacher” in German discussions of educational issues. In the past, we simply used to say “Schüler and Lehrer”. This is not possible any more; it has become common practice to refer explicitly to the female forms of the words as well, and so today you have to say “Schülerinnen und Schüler” and “Lehrer und Lehrerinnen”. The same holds true for similar vocabulary items like “Kollege” and “Kollegin” or “Professor” and “Professorin”. On such a basis of a new orientation in educational thinking other deficits in the contents of foreign-language materials have been identified and criticised; for example, the situation of old people, the problems of the handicapped, the treatment of social minorities or the protection of the environment. The main reason for the fact that they have been either misrepresented or are even non-existent in textbooks or learning materials is that the teaching of foreign languages in all parts of the world still concentrates more on formal aspects of grammar, translation and vocabulary than on educational concerns. We know that such a foreign-language strategy no longer serves the interests both of pupils and society; it cannot even be justified by modern linguistic research any longer. Most of the traditional formal aspects of language teaching have been criticised as being superfluous, useless or even harmful and could easily be replaced by elements of alternative methods. Along these lines we should therefore see to it that new forms of how to teach should go along with a change of new thinking in what to teach. This is where peace education can play an important role.

2 Achievements in Peace Education in the Past

Classroom activities aimed at promoting peace are more or less non-existent. But the idea is gaining ground. In 1990, the world congress of the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA) was devoted to the topic, “Applied Linguistics, International Understanding and Peace Education”. In the United States of America, the annual National Foreign Language Week in 1991 concentrated on “Peace through Understanding”. Particularly in America, peace education in the foreign-language classroom has advanced well beyond the slogan level. For example, in the state of New York, a group of foreign-language educators is trying to integrate materials on nuclear disarmament and international security into everyday teaching. In Germany, several papers have been published with recommendations for making the foreign-language classroom a place for peace education (cf. Thürmann & Weber 1989; Reisener 1990). In addition, the German UNESCO Commission has supported a project for the promotion of peace through English teaching materials for beginners, intermediate and advanced pupils (Classen-Bauer 1989). In South America, Francisco Gomes de Matos is one of the foremost fighters for linguistic rights of students and the most prominent representative of peace education in the foreign- and second-language profession. In numerous papers he has demonstrated why the teaching of peace should become the most important task for modern-language teachers (Gomes de Matos 1990:2; 1992:1; 2002a). In Japan, the Global Issues in Language Education network is a special interest group of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) which has gained international repute. It is a forum for language teachers from all over the world who share an interest in peace-related matters such as global awareness, social responsibility and world citizenship2. The British Ministry of Defence and the British Council work together in a Global Conflict Prevention Fund; this program concentrates on teaching English to soldiers, police and border guards of 24 countries in Europe so that they may better be able to communicate. In Latvia, a project called English for Military Purposes (EMP) has worked since 1995 to form positive attitudes, overcome prejudices, change of mindsets and raise intercultural awareness (cf. Lucas 2002:8). These are hopeful signs. But they are still like little islands in a vast ocean of meaningless everyday episodes in the life of happy textbook families that still dominate the teaching process in the beginning years of foreign-language learning.

Gomes de Matos has repeatedly pointed out that peace-related items should not just be interspersed with other material and become only one topic among others. It ought rather to be accepted as an underlying philosophy, as a form of thinking from which all classroom activities should profit. Gomes de Matos promotes a humanising pedagogy, an atmosphere of ethics in the school environment. In other words: the notion of peace deserves to be integrated into the foreign-language curriculum as an all-embracing leitmotif. In order to achieve this goal, action has to be taken at three levels: (1) at the level of curriculum planning; (2) at that of textbook writing; and (3) at the level of classroom activities. As these levels indicate, three groups of foreign-language educators are challenged by the new task: firstly, administrators and people responsible for state, local or private school planning and development, secondly textbook-writers, and thirdly the millions of foreign- or second-language teachers around the globe.

2.1 The Curriculum Level

So far, curriculum designers have concentrated too much on formal aspects of the language-learning process. Their main interest seems to be to see to it that each and every grammar point is fully covered. But pupils should not only - if at all - learn about language rules and language patterns. They must primarily be prepared for communication across cultural and ideological barriers. This can only work if pupils are willing to meet and accept each other as well as other human beings in a truly humanistic way. They should be guided towards talking with others on the basis of equal partnership. It follows that the dimension of peace be included as a regular and explicit objective in curricula of foreign or second languages.

At this point, I cannot specify in detail which peace-related subjects could be embedded in an official course of study prescribed by ministries or curriculum designers. But I can give a few ideas along which lines people responsible for educational objectives should try to concentrate their thinking. They should, for example, not only write a list of how to read, understand and interpret literature in another language; it is much more important that pupils learn how to tolerate different opinions. They should propose ways and means in which pupils can be made aware of the fact that they are individually responsible for their environment, for their social contacts and for their communicative behaviour. They must guide teachers as to how they can equip pupils with the knowledge, skills and commitment necessary for becoming fighters for peace. It is not enough to mention peace education as one general objective among others; this has been done with comparable curriculum items in the past and resulted in nothing but paying mere lip-service to the idea. Content areas must be identified specifically and described in detail: the relationship between peace and social responsibility, the role of peace in international understanding, the context of peace for justice and human rights, and many more. These areas need to be exemplified in such a way that their relevance can be shown both for people as individuals and for community life. Specific methods of teaching peace topics must be developed in order to get the message across to the language learners in a stimulating, interesting and motivating way. On the administrative side everything should be undertaken to merge peace education into a unique concept in which language learning and striving for peace are regarded as different parts of the same concern. In the future, administrators should pay attention first and foremost to what subject matter is being communicated, and only then look out for the language forms which need to be learned in order to express a message adequately. It might well be possible that the overall goal of peace education could lead to a new definition and evaluation of the role of linguistic elements in the instructional process once they serve an educational rather than a grammatical purpose. On such a basis “communicative peace” could well be accepted in the same way as “communicative competence” has become the leading objective in the teaching of foreign languages. Wherever the notion of peace is excluded from communication one is left with a restricted competence unable to contribute towards a peaceful world. Thus, “communicative peace” is the challenge of the future.

2.2 The Textbook Level

Because future teachers have not experienced how peace education can be put into practice in the foreign-language classroom during their own school days, they will have to be familiarised with examples which demonstrate just this notion. There is no better way of doing this than by providing a new generation of textbook materials. A systematic analysis of the most popular English textbooks used in German schools has shown that peace as a learning objective is not covered at all. The same holds true for textbooks in other foreign languages, and the situation in other countries is not very much different from that in Germany. No chapter, no lesson, no unit, no specific reading text or exercise in textbooks, workbooks, grammar guides or on cassettes, CDs and videos deal with the question of how to avoid war or with the challenge of how to achieve peace. Learning materials devoted to this goal are not only missing in textbooks for beginners, but also in readers for the advanced student. In this respect, textbooks recently published are not at all different from older ones which means that there is no awareness of the need for change. There is no reason for neglecting peace-oriented texts and exercises because of vocabulary or grammar problems. Such texts could be studied and discussed by foreign-language learners in just the same way as they have up to now dealt with texts about going shopping, asking the way or going to a party. There is a wide range of possible topics, and here again Gomes de Matos has made a lot of valuable suggestions on how to do this. One of them is the so-called THRIL technique in the service of humanising vocabulary use (Gomes de Matos 2002b). THRIL stands for “threefold repetition of an initial letter”. This is a probing of the well-known device of alliteration which involves a sequence of words beginning with the same sound or letter for achieving some communicative effect. Take AAA, for example, where you can come up with “Avoid aggressive assertions” or “Advise and advocate rather than admonish”. BBB can result in “Be a peaceful bridge between persons”, CCC in “Consider conflicts constructively” or “Convince through cooperation rather than competition”. In this way one can go through the entire alphabet and end up with, for example, WWW as in “Weigh your words wisely”, XXX as in “X-in cultural and linguistic diversity and X-out xenophobia”, or YYY as in “Yearn for permanent peace in your yard”. Once one has started to think and talk about subjects like these, pupils will most certainly provide a multitude of examples which could be integrated into the foreign-language learning process.

Even if one has to use traditional materials, the idea of peace need not be neglected. If peace is regarded as an integral part of language learning, one can easily discover many places in textbook chapters and other teaching materials where the idea of peace can be suggested, added or even become a central focus of attention. For example, if pupils are asked to replace dehumanising uses of vocabulary in a boring traditional text, such a text could often be turned easily into an interesting and meaningful story. I hope that textbook authors will become aware of the need for “communicative peace” in the foreign-language classroom and devise their materials accordingly. In this regard, textbooks for the learning of English could play a leading role. In the history of foreign-language teaching it has always been the textbook writers of English who have brought about innovations in the teaching process. This is why they should once again forge ahead and lead the way into a new world of peace-related materials so that other foreign and second languages can follow.

2.3 The Classroom Level

Finally there is the classroom level. The classroom is where the real action takes place. Teachers should be guided towards means and methods of including both the spirit of peace and peace activities in their daily teaching. Here again, it is not the occasional inclusion of an exercise or a text which can easily be identified as a peace item. It is what I call the spirit of peace which should become the basis for the entire teaching process. In dealing with their pupils, more than ninety per cent of foreign-language teachers all over the world practise a so-called authoritarian approach, a question-and-answer instructional method where strict rules of command and obedience guide the instructional process. Questions are only asked to find out whether pupils know correct answers, and not what they really think or believe. Teachers know that a democratic, a so-called “socially integral” teaching style is educationally preferable, but so far they have time and again found reasons for not following this approach. Excuses which are given are large classes, a pressing teaching load, too much content to cover, classrooms not suitable for group work and other pupil-centred activities, students becoming increasingly more aggressive, and many more. All this might well be so. But to teach peace starts with a peaceful educator. An eight year-old girl in primary school in my neighbourhood was recently asked what she didn’t like about her English lessons. She said: “I don’t like my teacher shouting at me”. This is where peace education can begin to change teacher behaviour.

From there it almost automatically follows that peace-related topics should be dealt with as something that goes without saying. There is almost no topic which could not be used in the service of peace. Just take a regular textbook and look at it with the concept of peace education in mind! You will immediately come up with a lot of useful ideas on how to include the dimension of peace in the instructional process. Be it a role-played family conversation, a discussion on environmental conservation, a debate in which opposing parties try to compromise, be it dictionary or even grammar work, there is nothing that can be left out when concentrating on how to integrate the peace dimension into the foreign-language instructional process. It can be put into practice from the very first lesson. Specific aspects of “life and institutions” – “the German Landeskunde” – or topics of intercultural interest are an integral part of every existing language program; once they are placed in the context of peace education, a new dimension is added to them. Activities of this kind can open the door of the classroom and connect the outside world with the teaching process. I very much like a relatively simple exercise which Gomes de Matos has suggested. It shows how peace education can be integrated into slogans, statements and proverbs and contribute towards forging general wisdom into a new direction. “Thus”, he says, “Two heads are better than one” could become “Two peaceful minds are stronger than one”” (Gomes de Matos 1990:2). Along these lines “Drive carefully” could become “Drive peacefully”, “Nobody is perfect” could read “Peace is perfect”, “Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise” could be changed to “Early to bed and early to rise makes people healthy, peaceful and wise”. Pupils are very imaginative once they are given the opportunity to come up with similar ideas. Just ask them to paraphrase peaceful quotations, to find or create sayings of peace or to look for peaceful proverbs across cultures!

3 Peace Education is a Form of Thinking

Peace education in the foreign-language classroom should reflect a state of moral conviction; it is something to be permanently pursued. It is a form of thinking which originates in the teacher’s mind. Language instruction and peace education ought to be regarded as one and the same concern, otherwise the challenges of the twenty-first century cannot be adequately met. Teachers must be willing to dedicate time, effort and professional skill to their work if they wish to contribute towards peace in tomorrow’s world. They must learn to teach peace in such a way that it is not the topic of special exercises which have been particularly selected for that purpose and which are occasionally added to other classroom activities. They must learn that it is not sufficient merely to talk about peace, but that there are close links to their individual behaviours and their personal teaching styles.

Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said: “Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” In peace education, we are still on level one: we – at least some of us, not necessarily all of us – tell our students about the importance of global issues, and they forget. Some teachers have reached level two: they occasionally teach about peace by using materials that have been published in order to promote international understanding through language teaching, and their students hopefully remember what they have been told. What we should aim at and work for is involving our pupils in all kinds of activities in the context of peace education so that they learn what to do in order to build up a peaceful world. This can and will not happen within a short period of time. There is an old saying which is very relevant to peace education. It says: “If you make plans for a year, plant rice! If you make plans for ten years, plant trees! If you make plans for a hundred years, educate the people!” Peace education is a long-term process. If we want to be successful we must start today by trying to change a world without peace into a peaceful globe. Foreign- and second-language teaching cannot achieve that goal on its own but it can contribute considerably by adjusting its educational context to this purpose from the selection of teaching materials and the way of presenting them to the students, to a cooperative teacher-student relationship in a relaxed classroom atmosphere. In this way, language teachers can help to prepare the young generation for a better world.

Selected References

Classen-Bauer, I. (ed). 1989. International Understanding through Foreign Language Teaching. Bonn: German Commission for UNESCO.

Cunningham, D., & Candelier, M. (eds). 1995. Linguapax V. Melbourne: FIPLV & AFMLTA.

Freudenstein, R. (ed). 1978. The Role of Women in Foreign-language Textbooks. Bruxelles: AIMAV/Didier.

Gomes de Matos, F. 2002a. Comunicar para o bem: rumo à paz comunicativa. São Paulo: Editora Ave-Maria.

Gomes de Matos, F. 2002b. “Teaching Vocabulary for Peace Education”. ESL Magazine, 4, pp 22ff.

Gomes de Matos, F. 1992. “Using Foreign Languages for Communicative Peace”. FIPLV World News, 59 (25) , p 1.

Gomes de Matos, F. 1990. “Integrating Peace into the Classroom”. FIPLV World News, 53, p 2.

Lucas, E. 2002. “Global Issues at the IATEFL 2002 Conference in York, England”, Global Issues in Language Education Newsletter, 47, p 8.

Raasch, A. (ed). 1993. Language Teaching in a World without Peace/L’Enseignement des Langues dans un Monde sans Paix/Der Fremdsprachenunterricht in einer Welt ohne Frieden. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.

Reisener, H. 1990. “Friedenserziehung durch Fremdsprachenunterricht”. In Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht, 2, pp 30ff.

Thürmann, E., & Weber, A. 1989. “Friedenserziehung und Fremdsprachenunterricht”. In Landesinstitut für Schule und Weiterbildung (ed). Schularbeiten. (Heft 2). Soest: Landesinstitut für Schule und Weiterbildung.

- 1987. “Foreign Languages and Literatures for Peace and International Understanding”, FIPLV World News, 44, pp 1-3.

Note from the Editor: Reinhold Freudenstein is a Honorary FIPLV Counsellor and Professor Emeritus at the University in Marburg – Germany.

 

From the Regions

FIPLV- NBR Project Report

Nordic-Baltic Network for Foreign Language Teaching: Promoting a Common European framework, a European language portfolio and Computer assisted language learning in Nordic and Baltic countries

The main goal set for the project was to form transnational networks working on the various themes of the project (CEF, ELP, ICT). The seminar held in Tallinn in June of 2002 was a starting point for the project. The participants were given the initial input on the themes by several experts and had a chance to get to know each other, which then made it easier for them to join in the networking groups to be formed after the seminar.

The first follow up seminar for the national partners was held in Helsinki in October 2002, and at that time guidelines for the networking groups were drawn up and a questionnaire prepared on how the participants had adopted new ideas after the Tallinn seminar. The results of the questionnaire were very promising: it seemed that the input put forward in Tallinn had made the participants at least more aware of, and in many cases more active in, experimenting in CEF, ELP and ICT.

At the follow up meeting in Helsinki it was agreed to have two more networking groups in addition to the three major themes of the project, namely groups for creativity and motivation in second and third language learning. The participants were asked to sign up for one or more networking groups, state their preference of language of the medium, put forward questions, issues or ideas on the theme in question. They were asked to continue their cooperation via email messages. Each group was assigned a coordinator whose main job was to monitor the discussion, put questions forward to some experts (the ones presenting their papers in Tallinn), possibly help with the technical difficulties, etc. Quite a large number of the participants present in Tallinn signed up for a group, and some new people signed up as well.

The group coordinators then prepared reports on the work of the networking groups. The reports were then discussed at the follow-up in Stockholm in May 2003 and a final report was prepared.

1. Long-term transnational networks

We had groups that have worked over a period of time. And some of the groups will go on working on various issues, e.g. a request for cooperation on another project was sent out by a Latvian colleague and the networks proved to be an efficient way to get people involved in further cooperation once the initial connection has proven to be valid and working.

Some new, but related websites have been created, forums started, contacts established. Technical difficulties have sometimes proved to be an obstacle.

2. Transparency in evaluation, CEF

It has been discussed and disseminated and will be put into use gradually. CEF will be used, but it is difficult to organize in-service training. The CEF should be included in curriculum for future teachers. Courses should be organised by responsible teacher organisations experienced with CEF, also teacher trainers, in-service trainers…

3. Pedagogical, methodological and structural solutions

Have we changed our methods, - become more conscious? Without a doubt the answer is ‘yes’ and in some countries there have been courses held in different cities on ELP/Portfolio. We have been stimulated and have become more aware of our pedagogical approach to teaching.

4. ICT as a part of language teaching

We have seen that we have to be careful in using it and must do so in a structural way, not overdo it, nor overuse it, but use it. We need new didactics for the use of this medium.

5. ELP

We have been reminded of the Portfolio being a tool of learning and that it should be used according to personal needs or will and if the teacher believes in it as an effective tool. We can choose to use it or not.

6. Collaboration between Nordic and Baltic countries

This collaboration has been very successful and on a high professional level. A feeling of belonging to a common society was created - a common aim. It has been very inspiring to know that there are people willing to discuss issues with you and to find a solution to problems. Intercultural exchange has been more important than particular problems of different groups of teachers. In the networking the Baltic teachers proved to be more active than the Nordic teachers.

It seems that the collaboration got a good start in the beginning with the joint seminar where people met and carried on maintaining contacts through e-mails.

It’s also important to offer input in other languages than English, and to encourage people/teachers to share ideas in other languages as well.

The various language teacher associations have in their respective magazines and websites published articles about the issues of this project. These articles have been available to all readers of the magazines and to all visitors of the websites in question. The project additionally promoted good practices.

Each involved language teacher association has published articles on the project in their respective newsletters, magazines and websites. The participants of the project have been given permission to use the email list of the project participants in order to disseminate ideas aroused by the themes of the project. Additionally, the participants in the networking groups can take advantage of the email lists when disseminating other ideas and issues concerned with language teaching.

SUKOL/LH/27.8.2003

Note from the Editor: The FIPLV- NBR Report has been shortened for technical reasons.