Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Online Discussions on the Accuracy of the Written Output of Bahraini L2 University Students

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
English Language Teaching Research in the Middle East and North Africa

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of using online discussions facilitated on a university learning management system’s (LMS) discussion board on L2 students’ writing accuracy. In order to achieve this, a quasi-experimental design, in which a sample of undergraduate L2 students (n = 40) enrolled in an English writing course, was implemented during one academic semester at the University of Bahrain. The sample was divided into an experimental group which used the discussion board to engage in interactive discussions and a control group which did not. Two measures were used to assess the writing accuracy development of students: the ratio of error-free clauses to the total number of clauses (EFC/C) and the ratio of the number of errors divided by the number of words. Students’ perceived satisfaction and learning benefits were measured through using semi-structured interviews. Statistical findings reveal that facilitating online discussions can significantly enhance students’ writing accuracy. Students reported positively perceived outcomes and influence of online discussions on their writing accuracy attributed to a number of proposed factors. To obtain more satisfactory results, a number of implications and recommendations are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams, Z. I. (2006). From theory to practice: Intracultural CMC in the L2 classroom. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling to CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 181–209). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Ani, M. F., Hameed, S. M., & Faisal, L. (2013). Students’ perspectives in adopting mobile learning at University of Bahrain. Fourth International Conference on e-Learning “Best Practices in Management, Design and Development of e-Courses: Standards of Excellence and Creativity”, Manama, 2013, pp. 86–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alghamdi, A. (2013). Pedagogical implications of using discussion boards to improve student learning in Higher Education. Higher Education Studies, 3(5), 68–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alharbi, M. (2015). Effects of Blackboard’s discussion boards, blogs and wikis on effective integration and development of literacy skills in EFL students. English Language Teaching, 8(6), 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al Jahrami, D., Al-Wadi, H., & Al-Majdoob, S. (2003). A survey of students’ attitudes towards English language learning and curriculum. Paper presented at the English Language Curriculum Development Symposium: Towards a New Curriculum for the New Millennium, Bahrain, 18–20 January 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • AlJeraisy, M. N., Mohammad, H., Fayyoumi, A., & Alrashideh, W. (2015). Web 2.0 in education: The impact of discussion board on student performance and satisfaction. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 247–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almansour, N., & Alshorman, R. (2014). The effect of an extensive program on the writing performance of Saudi EFL university students. International Journal of Linguistics, 6, 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AlOmrani, H. (2014). Integrating reading into writing instruction in the EFL programs at Saudi universities. Arab World English Journal, 5(3), 100–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez, G. (2012). New technologies in the university context: The use of blogs for developing students’ reading and writing skills. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 9(2), 185–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alzahrani, M. G. (2017). The effect of using online discussion forums on students’ learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 164–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2008). Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2005). Improving quantitative research on ALN effectiveness. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 81–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, N. (2007). Reducing foreign language communication apprehension with a computer-mediated communication: A preliminary study. System, 35, 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamanger, E. M., & Gashan, A. K. (2015). The effect of planning time on the fluency, accuracy, and complexity of EFL learners’ oral production. Journal of Educational Sciences, 27(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2002). A comparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. asynchronous group decision making. Decision Support System, 34, 457–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binglan, Z., & Jia, C. (2010). The impact of teacher feedback on the long-term improvement in the accuracy of EFL student writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 18–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmon, S. J. (2012). Outcomes of chat and discussion board use in online learning: A research synthesis. Journal of Educators Online, 9(2), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D. (2008). None of this is real. In J. Karaganis (Ed.), Structures of participation in digital culture (pp. 132–157). New York: Social Science Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, T., & Lomicka, L. (2000). A case study of learner interaction in technology-enhanced language learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(3), 247–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabiness, C., Irvine, J., & Grove, G. (2013). Integrating wikis in the support and practice of historical analysis skills. TechTrends, 57(6), 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. F. (1989). The use of the sentence verification technique in diagnostic assessment of listening and reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research, 5(1), 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castner, J. (2000). The asynchronous online writing session: A two-way stab in the dark? In J. A. Inman & D. N. Sewell (Eds.), Taking flight with OWLs: Examining electronic writing center work (pp. 119–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z. (2012). Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of Education Computing Research, 46(1), 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. A., & Scott, L. W. (1995). Assessing the impact of course-related electronic communications on student performance in an introductory programming course. Journal of Information Systems Education, 7(1), 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. A. (2000). Intersections of writers’ intended readers with peer responders during asynchronous forms in first-year composition (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, A. C. (2010). Collaborative and networked pedagogies: Using wikis in the composition classroom (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wyoming, Wyoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozens, P., Al-Kaabi, H., & Al-Ali, K. (2005). Discussion boards: Tools for reflection and learning. In Proceeding of the 10th TESOL Arabia Conference: Standards in English language teaching and assessment (Vol. 9). Dubai: TESOL Arabia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, A., Goold, A., Coldwell, J., & Mustard, J. (2008). Perceptions of roles and responsibilities in online learning: A case study. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 4, 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson-Shivers, G., Ellis, H. H., & Amarasing, P. (2010). How do female students participate in online debates? International Journal on E-Learning, 9(2), 169–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B., & Thiede, R. (2000). Writing into change: Style shifting in asynchronous electronic discourse. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practices (pp. 87–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, L., & Yuen, A. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances of blogs. Computers & Education, 56, 441–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, X., Lee, K. C., Chitra, V., & Lim, M. L. (2010). Academic writing development of ESL/EFL graduate students in NUS. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 9(2), 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Morakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effect of focused and unfocused corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fageeh, A., & Mekheimer, M. (2013). Effects of Blackboard on EFL academic writing and attitudes. JALTCALL Journal, 9(2), 169–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fjermestad, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Zhang, Y. (2005). Effectiveness for students: Comparisons of “in-seat” and ALN courses. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 39–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, B., Yin, C., Suzuki, T., & Hirokawa, S. (2014). Classification of English language learner writing errors using a parallel corpus with SVM. International Journal of Knowledge and Web Intelligence, 5(1), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halic, O., Lee, D., Paulus, T., & Spence, M. (2010). To blog or not to blog: Student perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in a college-level course. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 206–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J. (2000). Sustaining online interactions in a knowledge forum classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (Eds.). (2005). Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirata Y., & Hirata Y. (2008). Japanese students’ attitudes towards hybrid learning. In J. Fong, R. Kwan, & F. L. Wang (Eds.), Hybrid learning and education. ICHL 2008. Lecture notes in computer sciences, LNCS 5169 (pp. 439–449). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: Speak easy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. (2011). ‘Small talk’: Developing fluency, accuracy, and complexity in speaking. ELT Journal, 66(1), 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Im, Y., & Lee, O. (2003). Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher training. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G. (2008). The relative learning benefits of synchronous and asynchronous text-based discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 166–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kol, S., & Schcolnik, M. (2008). Asynchronous forums in EAP: Assessment issues. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 261–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapadat, J. C. (2000). Teaching online: Breaking new ground in collaborative thinking. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 443 420).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapadat, J. C. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4). Retrieved on December 7, 2017 from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/7/4/JCMC742/4584264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2010). Effective use of technology in teaching and learning in HE. International Encyclopedia of Education, 4, 419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L. (2009). Exploring native and nonnative interactive discourse in text-based chat beyond classroom settings. In L. B. Abraham & L. F. Williams (Eds.), Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching (pp. 127–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, P. (1991). Errors: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. Applied Linguistics, 12, 180–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & Huang, R. (2008). Analyzing peer interactions in computer-supported collaborative learning: Model, method and tool. In J. Fong, R. Kwan, & F. L. Wong (Eds.), ICHL 2008: Hybrid learning and education, LNCS 5169 (pp. 125–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, J. (2016). The impact of interactive discussions on L2 Chinese composition writing (Doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa. Retrieved from Iowa Research Online http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1728&context=etd.

  • Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51, 864–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowes, S., Lin, P., & Wang, Y. (2007). Studying the effectiveness of the discussion forum in online professional development courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 181–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundin, R. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition, 25(1), 432–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabrito, M. (2000). Facilitating and evaluating student interaction in an online business writing course. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(2), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Labour and Social Development. (2017, April 5). Program in mass communication and public relations: Challenges and ambitions. Presentation by Ministry officials at the Media Stakeholders Seminar, University of Bahrain, Bahrain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montero, B., Watts, F., & García-Carbonell, A. (2007). Discussion forum interactions: Text and context. System, 35(4), 566–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mora, J. C., & Valls-Ferrer, M. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 610–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mubarak, M. (2013). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: A study of practices and effectiveness in the Bahrain context (Doctoral dissertation). University of Sheffield, Sheffield. Retrieved from White Rose eTheses (EthosID: uk.bl.ethos.577404).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1), 82–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Hodder Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pena-Shaff, J., Altman, W., & Stephenson, H. (2005). Asynchronous online discussions as a tool for learning: Students’ attitudes, expectations, and perceptions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, 409–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2002). A critical examination of L2 writing process research. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 11–47). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sabooni, S. (1994). The teaching of writing within the integrated skills approach in Bahrain (M.Ed., dissertation). University of Manchester, Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(4), 357–385. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, L., Tavalin, F., & Billig, S. H. (2000). Good online conversation: Building on research to inform practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 85–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, R. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. (2003). The discourse of computer-mediated communication: A study of an online community (Doctoral dissertation). University of Reading, Reading. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.108.8873&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  • Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 71, 38–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soter, A., Wilkinson, I., Murphy, K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), 372–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology Journal, 4(1), 82–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai, H.-Y. (2015). Writing development in syntactic complexity, accuracy and fluency in a content and language integrated learning class. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(3), 149–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 148–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware, P. G., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei, H. C., Peng, H., & Chou, C. (2015). Can more interactivity improve learning achievement in an online course? Effects of college students’ perception and actual use of a course-management system on their learning achievement. Computers & Education, 83, 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociohistorical approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wichadee, S. (2010). Using wikis to develop summary writing abilities of students in an EFL class. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(12), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, J., Fielder, J., & Siragusa, L. (2013). Achieving better peer interaction in online discussion forums: A reflective practitioner case study. Issues in Educational Research, 23(1), 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yousif, L. S. (2006). Grice’s maxims as a tool of assessing the efficiency of ESP writing (Master’s thesis). University of Bahrain, Bahrain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Arts, University of Bahrain, Zallaq, Bahrain

    Diana Al Jahrami

Authors
  1. Diana Al Jahrami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. English Department, Faculty of Human and Social Sciences of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia

    Sahbi Hidri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Al Jahrami, D. (2019). The Impact of Online Discussions on the Accuracy of the Written Output of Bahraini L2 University Students. In: Hidri, S. (eds) English Language Teaching Research in the Middle East and North Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98533-6_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98533-6_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98532-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98533-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation