1. [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.

2. 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

3. 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:

4. 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).

5. 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

6. 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).

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.
% of adopters who implement innovation over a specific
time period often form a typical S-shaped diffusion curve
Laggards
Early Majority/Late Majority
Innovators/Early adopters
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

16. 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).

17. 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

18.  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)

19. .
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.

20. 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

21. 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.