as well as knowledge about language learning and multilingualism' (p. 116). Likewise, Vollmer (2009) argued that '*(l)anguage competence, therefore, is an integral part of subject competence*—it is not an additional external element nor is it a luxury which can be ignored' (p. 4, emphasis in original). We, therefore, reason that all teachers are language teachers to some degree and examined the extent to which Otwinowska's categories are evident in the policy documents. A strength of these categories is that they incorporate research that has been carried out since the 1980s, for instance, the influence of positive and negative transfer from the learner's L1 (cf. Otwinowska 2014). Table 1 provides the categories we employed to carry out a qualitative content analysis of the national ITE policy documents in question. A closer explanation of our understanding of the categories is given below.

**Table 1.** Categories for TLA (adapted from Otwinowska 2017).

**Table 1.** *Cont.*

Otwinowska (2017) based her model on the traditional understanding of TLA (Edge 1988), related to all the languages the teacher knows. L1, L2, and L3/Ln hereby influence each other and lead to 'crosslinguistic awareness of a multilingual language user' (Otwinowska 2017, p. 309). Our understanding of *Crosslinguistic awareness* includes an understanding of similarities and differences across two or more languages. Where our documents only refer to individual languages and not to comparisons of several languages, we have categorised these instances as *Teacher as language analyst*. In addition, Otwinowska defined metalinguistic awareness as being able to *reflect* on at least two language systems. For that reason, knowledge about specific language systems and how language(s) work more generally was not considered sufficient to be classified as *Metalinguistic awareness* in our data analysis. These examples were also counted as *Teacher as language analyst* (see Table 1 above). The emphasis here is specifically on *knowledge* about language systems. The example for *Teacher as language teacher* in Table 1 focuses on using a specific framework to facilitate the learning of te reo Maori. As the example for ¯ *Psycholinguistic awareness* illustrates, the focus is on the learner's language acquisition. *Sociolinguistic awareness* refers to an understanding of the language user's linguistic and cultural background as well as to a good cooperation between the teacher, the student, and the students' families.

Examples (1) and (2) from the subject Norwegian both include the phrase 'is capable of using knowledge of [...] language', which can be interpreted differently depending on the context. In example (1), it is unclear whether the pre-service teacher is supposed to produce, analyse, or teach such texts, and it could therefore be assigned to any of the seven categories. For cases like this, we have included an additional category (*Miscellaneous*). In example (2), the pre-service teacher is expected to analyse a variety of texts, and therefore (2) was classified as *Teacher as language analyst*.

Furthermore, a challenge arose in instances such as (3). It is arguable whether 'recognising' refers to a teacher's awareness or a teacher's role. We have coded these instances as *Teacher as language teacher* but acknowledge that understanding individual factors in language acquisition (*Psycholinguistic awareness*) is a prerequisite for the teacher's role as a language teacher. Example (4), in contrast, illustrates a case of *Psycholinguistic awareness* as the focus is on 'knowledge' rather than classroom practice.

In the National Guidelines, aspects related to TLA are primarily present in the language subjects. In non-language subjects like Arts and Crafts or Pedagogy, TLA is mainly reflected in work with basic skills. We have included basic skills in our analysis because it refers to reading, writing, and oral skills (in addition to numeracy and digital skills) (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2017), although the National Guidelines do not specify which basic skills are being referred to in the respective subject. In the ITE monitoring document, we have likewise included references to literacy.

In the coding process, we sometimes found several categories in one sentence. In these cases, each was coded separately. Example (5) illustrates such an instance, which refers to both *Teacher as language user* and *Teacher as language teacher*.

(5) The main tasks of the English teacher are, therefore, to develop both their **own** (*Teacher as language user*) and **the pupils'** (*Teacher as language teacher*) **linguistic, communicative and intercultural competence** (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 24).

The authors from Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (HVL) coded the National Guidelines, while the ITE monitoring document was coded by the author from Auckland University of Technology (AUT). This contributed to optimising a contextual and linguistic understanding of the documents (Grønmo 2004). In the Norwegian context, for example, we used the English version of the National Guidelines but compared these to the Norwegian original when there were concerns regarding the interpretation of the translation. This process would have been more challenging for someone unable to understand Norwegian. Regarding the ITE monitoring document, the use of Maori terms (such ¯ as *Ka Hikitia* or *Tatai Reo ¯* ) required a certain degree of familiarity with the language that the researchers from Norway do not possess. However, in order to increase coding reliability, parts of the National Guidelines were coded separately by the two authors from HVL and subsequently compared.4 There was a high level of agreement between the two authors. The categories from the ITE monitoring document were coded by the author from AUT and subsequently discussed in plenum. In all but a few instances where the original coder had marked insecurity, the authors agreed on the analysis.

#### **3. Results**

This section presents the findings from the content analysis of the *National Guidelines for Teacher Education* (years 1–7 and 5–10) in Norway and *Initial Teacher Education (ITE) Programme Approval, Monitoring, and Review Requirements* in New Zealand, exploring how the concept of teacher language awareness is incorporated in these documents.

#### *3.1. Results from Norway*

The National Guidelines for teacher education (both 1–7 and 5–10) include a general introduction to ITE and learning outcomes in the respective subjects. Before we start reporting our results, it should be pointed out that because the term *(teacher) language awareness* is never used in the documents, we identified aspects related to this concept represented in a combination of different competencies or categories. Our analyses find that the policy documents for years 1–7 and 5–10 generally show the same tendencies when it comes to the distribution of these categories. Without a doubt, *Teacher as language teacher* is the most prominent category. In the language subjects, the focus is on aspects such as teaching methods and learning strategies, the capability of facilitating students' development of basic language skills, adapted teaching, or developing the students' communicative and intercultural skills, whereas this category almost exclusively refers to basic skills in the non-language subjects or the general introduction. One of the few exceptions can be found in Natural Science, where pre-service teachers are expected to be 'able to develop pupil's senses, joy of discovery, sense of wonder, joy in nature and **natural science language**' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 57).

The second most common category is *Teacher as language user*, which mainly refers to the development of the pre-service teacher's own language skills. In the non-language subjects, the few instances identified refer to using specialist language. Differences become clearer when looking at the language subjects. The subject Norwegian emphasises developing one's own language skills on a more general basis, whereas English specifically mentions the pre-service teacher's own oral and written skills and emphasises a teacher's task of being a language model. This is specified even further in Foreign Languages, which explicitly points to the pre-service teacher's capability of 'communication with good pronunciation and intonation, and of freely using key language structures in oral and written communication' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 28). In addition, the foreign language teacher is expected to be 'a reflective language user and language disseminator' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 27). It seems that the requirements for the *Teacher as language user* become more detailed from the L1 subject Norwegian (language skills) to L2 English (oral and written language skills), and eventually Foreign Languages (e.g., pronunciation and intonation) and Norwegian Sign Language (e.g., applying language structures and basic vocabulary). The latter does not demand any previous knowledge of the language and must thus be considered a foreign language for the pre-service teacher.

Both *Psycholinguistic awareness* and *Sociolinguistic awareness* appear to have relatively prominent places in the guidelines, though both are almost exclusively found in the language subjects. *Psycholinguistic awareness* is largely concerned with language acquisition, including learner motivation and individual multilingualism, as exemplified in the following statement: '(t)he candidate has knowledge of multilingualism that includes Norwegian sign language, where the goal of functional bilingualism in education is key' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 63). In the English subject, multilingualism generally refers to knowledge of multilingualism as a resource in the classroom. Outside the language subjects, references to *Sociolinguistic awareness* can be found in the general introduction and in the subject of Mathematics (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b). In these contexts, pre-service teachers are expected to demonstrate knowledge of students' cultural, linguistic, and social diversity and how this can be used as a resource in teaching. The same is expressed in the language subjects, but, in addition to this, here, there is also a focus on aspects such as the language user's identity, linguistic variation, or 'an understanding of ( . . . ) sign language users as a linguistic and cultural minority, and the language's place in Norwegian society' (subject Norwegian Sign Language, National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 61). *Sociolinguistic awareness* is present to a higher degree in the subjects Norwegian Sign Language, Norwegian, and Foreign Languages than in English. In the latter subject, the only instances of *Sociolinguistic aware-* *ness* refer to English as a world language and developing linguistic, communicative and intercultural competence (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, pp. 31, 33).

An important observation was made in relation to the category *Teacher as language analyst*. This category is relatively infrequent in the data and is most often found in Norwegian Sign Language. There are a few general references to language structure, but in Foreign Languages, there are references to 'detailed knowledge of the target language's sound system, intonation and grammatical structure' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 30). Similar to the findings in the category *Teacher as language user*, the category *Teacher as language analyst* occurs more often in foreign language subjects and less frequently in Norwegian and English, which is not considered a foreign language in Norway. The references to language structure are about knowledge rather than being able to reflect on these structures, which corresponds with the fact that we found no instances of *Metalinguistic awareness* in the policy documents.

Additionally, *Crosslinguistic awareness* is almost non-existent in the data material. The only instance found comes from Foreign Languages, which states that 'the foreign language teacher shall have ( . . . ) insight into the differences and similarities between the target language, Norwegian and other languages' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 27).

The last category we used in our analysis was *Miscellaneous*. These instances cannot be clearly assigned to any of the seven categories, as is illustrated in examples (6) and (7).

Example (6), from the subject Norwegian, points to the knowledge of the Sami language and other minority and neighbouring languages. Here, it is not clear whether the reference is to the knowledge about the existence of the languages, the position of the languages in society, or the ability to speak these languages to a certain degree. The last instance that needs to be discussed in more detail is (7). This sentence can be found in the introduction to the National Guidelines and highlights the fact that all teachers need linguistic knowledge, regardless of which subject they are teaching, but it is not clear what this 'linguistic knowledge' entails.

#### *3.2. Results from New Zealand*

In New Zealand, there is a lack of awareness of the need for all teachers to be language teachers, and this is evident in the paucity of references to TLA in the ITE monitoring document. Where references to TLA do appear, it is generally in relation to the stipulations around teacher proficiency in the two languages of instruction in New Zealand: te reo Maori and English. There are also references to teaching M ¯ aori as a second language in ¯ English medium schools and some mentions of teaching students in diverse contexts. While this latter topic could be taken to refer to students from linguistically and ethnically diverse backgrounds, the context suggests students with a range of intellectual and physical needs.

Interestingly, in a policy document referring to all ITE in New Zealand and given that New Zealand is such a linguistically diverse nation with more than 160 languages spoken (Royal Society of New Zealand 2013), the naming of particular languages is quite narrow, limited to English, Maori and Pacific languages. There are references to bilingualism but ¯ not to multi- or plurilingualism.

The predominant LA category in the main body of the ITE monitoring document (Teaching Council 2019) is *Teacher as language user*, with a couple of appearances of the category *Teacher as language teacher*. In the appendices, one more category appears: Sociolinguistic awareness. There are no coded instances of *Metalinguistic awareness*, nor *Psycholinguistic awareness* or *Crosslinguistic awareness*.

The predominance of the language awareness code *Teacher as language user* can be explained through a strong emphasis in the ITE monitoring document on graduating pre-service teachers being able to use the mediums of instruction (either English or te reo Maori) at a high level of proficiency. Therefore, an effort is made to precisely stipulate ¯ proficiency levels required in both te reo Maori or English, depending on which language ¯ is being employed as the medium of instruction (Teaching Council 2019). For example, the code is found where the amount of te reo Maori beginning teachers will need to teach ¯ is explained. There are two levels of Maori medium instruction in New Zealand. One is ¯ known as immersion, constituted by teachers using between 81–100 % te reo Maori in class. ¯ The other is bilingual instruction, where teachers are required to use te reo Maori at least in ¯ the range of 50–80% (Teaching Council 2019).

Requirements for teachers in English medium settings to have specified levels of English proficiency are also detailed. This is particularly the case for those who do not have English as their first language/mother tongue (see Teaching Council 2019, pp. 42–44). For example, 'Prior to entry, candidates for English medium programmes must demonstrate English language competency by providing one of the Council's approved pieces of evidence of English language competency' (Teaching Council 2019, p. 42). In addition, pre-service teachers entering English medium programmes are tested and then monitored on their te reo Maori ¯ proficiency as ITE programmes are required to ensure their candidates are improving their te reo Maori proficiency from whatever the baseline was when they entered the programme. ¯ These requirements also come under the code *Teacher as language user*, as exemplified in (8):

(8) Candidates selected for entry into an English medium programme must be assessed on their te reo Maori competency as close as reasonably practicable after entry. English medium programmes must progressively monitor and support competency in te reo Maori during the programme... (Teaching Council 2019, p. 44).

The code *Teacher as language teacher* has been applied where pre-service teachers are referred to as future language teachers. It should be noted that while high levels of English or te reo Maori are often cited as requirements for effective teaching, they are hardly ever ¯ cited as necessary for effective *language teaching*. One example of *Teacher as language teacher* is where teachers are supposed to provide support for English language learners. It should be noted that although many students in the New Zealand education system come from households where a wide range of languages are spoken, particularly in urban areas, and many of these students would need extra support with English, there is only one mention of teachers needing the skills to be able to do this. The 'approval panel' for the teacher education programme will test for 'whether the programme will enable graduates to identify and respond appropriately to those for whom English is an additional language' (Teaching Council 2019, p. 16). However, there is no explanation of what 'identifying' and 'responding appropriately' translates to in practice. Nor is there an indication as to what other language(s) English might be additional to and whether this means a student needs extra instruction or support in English or not. The overall interpretation and elaboration of the statement would need to be provided by the ITE provider. In the example above, the teacher would also need to be a *Language analyst* in order to be able to identify who has English as an additional language and then what kind of support they might need.

In the appendices of the ITE monitoring document, there are several instances of the code *Sociolinguistic awareness*, closely located with instances of the code *Teacher as language user*. For example, in Appendix 1 (Teaching Council 2019), sociolinguistic awareness is required so that teachers would be able to make accurate judgements about Pacific and Maori families, in particular, Pacific families' familiarity with English. Graduating teachers ¯ need to be able to respond to families and students in culturally and linguistically appropriate and supportive ways. For example, a list is presented that unpacks the attributes, behaviours, and knowledge of a 'good teacher' from a Pacific perspective (9):

(9) A good teacher . . . .

• recognises that English might not be my and/or my parents' first language and communicates with us in a way that we can understand (Teaching Council 2019, Appendix 1, p. 13).

The ability to recognise that English might not be the parents' first language and judge the students' level of proficiency in English was coded as *Sociolinguistic awareness* and *Teacher as language analyst*, respectively, while the ability to communicate with a family in a way they can understand was coded as *Teacher as language user*.

The following is another example of *Sociolinguistic awareness* and *Teacher as language analyst* (10):

(10) A good teacher . . . .

• does not make fun of my and/or my parents' limited English language skills if we don't speak it fluently (Teaching Council 2019, Appendix 1, p. 13).

As a final example in this appendices section, the code *Teacher as language user* was applied. In this case, it was hoped the teacher would be able to use simple greetings and polite phrases, presumably in a range of Pacific languages: 'A good teacher . . . . makes an effort to learn and use simple words like saying 'hello' and 'thank you' in my language' (Teaching Council 2019, Appendix 1, p. 13).

In summary, in the *ITE Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review Requirements* (Teaching Council 2019), TLA mainly arises in the form of the code *Teacher as language user*, less frequently as *Teacher as language teacher*, *Teacher as language analyst* and, occasionally, as *Sociolinguistic awareness*. While language awareness may be further elaborated by providers of ITE as they unpack teacher standards (Education Council 2017) and the New Zealand national curricula (Ministry of Education 2007, 2017) for educating pre-service teachers, the paucity of references to multilingual students, developing student plurilingual repertoires, and the overall importance of language awareness for pre-service and in-service teachers seems to be a significant lacuna in this document.

#### **4. Discussion**

Although New Zealand and Norway could not be further apart geographically, they have several linguistic commonalities. Previously, we discussed their comparable population size, their efforts at indigenous language revitalisation, the salience of minority languages, as well as strong inbound migration, which results in linguistically complex educational environments in both jurisdictions. Examining how two key policy documents that guide ITE in each country refer to different aspects of teacher language awareness has therefore been instructive. Comparing high-level policy documents across countries has offered new perspectives regarding TLA within ITE for policymakers and teacher educators, both concerning the type of policies that exist, their overall content and what they emphasise. In Norway, the National Guidelines specifically include information on what pre-service teachers are supposed to learn over the course of their studies, while the ITE monitoring document in New Zealand does not include any reference to the content of teacher education but rather focuses on how programmes are approved, monitored, and regulated. The National Guidelines are, furthermore, centralised to guarantee that pre-service teachers all over the country receive a comparable education. Interpretation at the local level is possible to some degree. In contrast, the ITE monitoring document gives the individual institutions more freedom for local interpretation and adaptation when it comes to the content of their ITE programmes. Based on the nature of these documents, we would have expected reference to TLA to feature more prominently in the Norwegian document. Interestingly, however, the term language awareness itself never occurs in either of the documents. Neither document communicates why TLA, whether plurilingual or more traditional TLA, would be an important skill for pre-service and in-service teachers to have or how to achieve it.

Looking through the lens of Otwinowska's (2017) different categories that in combination foster plurilingual awareness, however, we do see differentiated pictures of how

TLA is included in the respective documents. In the Norwegian context, *Teacher as language teacher* and *Teacher as language user* are the most common categories, followed by *Psycholinguistic awareness* and *Sociolinguistic awareness*. The *Teacher as language analyst* is relatively infrequent in the data, and *Crosslinguistic awareness* could only be found on one occasion in Foreign Languages. References to *Metalinguistic awareness*, namely the ability to reflect on similarities and differences in two or more languages, are not present in the National Guidelines. We furthermore found that these categories are only included in the language subjects (Norwegian, English, Foreign Languages, or Norwegian Sign Language), whereas non-language subjects, with very few exceptions, only refer to 'basic skills', namely reading, writing, oral, and digital skills, as well as numeracy. This means that pre-service teachers who do not choose to study a language subject may never be exposed to aspects of TLA. This, however, is in contradiction to what Fischer and Lahmann (2020) pointed out, namely that all teachers need linguistic knowledge and knowledge about language learning and multilingualism to reduce linguistic inequality in classrooms. Furthermore, the National Guidelines mention that '(t)he internationalization of society and working life presupposes **linguistic** and cultural **knowledge** and international experience' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 9). However, it seems that the National Guidelines do not facilitate this knowledge in all subjects.5

As in the National Guidelines, *Teacher as language user* and *Teacher as language teacher* are the two most frequent categories in the ITE monitoring document, but the order in which they occur most prominently is reversed. *Teacher as language user* receives more attention than *Teacher as language teacher*. That the categories occur in reversed order may be explained by the different purposes of the respective documents. In Norway, the categories refer to different aspects of TLA that the pre-service teachers need to acquire during their studies, while New Zealand uses these categories more to evaluate the language level of the pre-service teachers both before they start and their competence in te reo Maori after ¯ completing their teacher training. Significantly, other languages are hardly mentioned. The large focus on being a proficient user of the majority language (English) also differs from the National Guidelines, where there are few occurrences of *Teacher as language user* in both the Norwegian (mother tongue) subject and the general description of ITE.

Even though the National Guidelines do not explicitly mention LA, the English subject curriculum in Norway does: 'Language learning refers to developing language awareness and knowledge of English as a system' (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2020, p. 2). In the National Guidelines for the English subject, we found that *Teacher as language teacher* and *Psycholinguistic awareness* feature most prominently, whereas *Teacher as language user* is infrequent. Although teachers are expected to be 'language models'6 (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 31), the English teacher's own language proficiency is relatively unspecified and is rather generally described as improving one's own language skills. This stands in contrast to Foreign Languages or Norwegian Sign Language, where more emphasis is put on the teacher's intonation, pronunciation, and vocabulary. Furthermore, both Foreign Languages and English also have few instances of *Teacher as language analyst*. Knowledge of language as a system is an important aspect of the English subject curriculum, and we would have expected a stronger focus on this in the guidelines for ITE as well. This leads to speculations that there might also be less focus on it in the teacher education institutions' course plans. These have not been subject to investigation in this study, but similar to findings by Nordlie (2019) for multilingualism in teacher education in Norway, the implementation of *Teacher as language analyst* may come to depend on the interpretation by teacher education institutions and the teacher educators' personal preferences. Summing up, neither the curriculum nor the National Guidelines define (T)LA, and this may cause discrepancies in interpretation and uncertainties for the graduated teachers who are going to execute the curriculum in the classroom. Therefore, this increased focus on LA for pupils in the curriculum should also influence the type of knowledge and skills pre-service teachers bring with them from their teacher training.

#### **5. Conclusions**

In this article, we analysed high-level policy documents for ITE in Norway and New Zealand in order to investigate how the concept of TLA is incorporated in these documents. Despite both documents being aimed at supporting teacher education programmes, we found that these serve different purposes and that TLA is manifested in varying ways in the two countries. Employing Otwinowska's (2017) additional categories of plurilingual TLA invites a wider range of interpretation of the data than the traditional model (Edge 1988) would have allowed us to do. However, even though we broadened our description of this concept, we only found fragments of it in the non-language subjects (Norway), and not all categories were represented, neither in the Norwegian nor the New Zealand ITE policy documents. It appears that the current policy documents are not likely to promote TLA in ITE programmes. We argue that a more detailed interpretation of the concept of (T)LA is needed in ITE documents to ensure the implementation of language-aware teaching and learning in ITE programmes and schools.

Our analyses further support the significance of international considerations and comparisons of policy documents. This can offer different jurisdictions new perspectives and ideas when developing guidelines aiming to increase the quality of ITE programmes.

A limitation of this study is that the two countries have different foci in their top ITE policy documents. We chose the respective policy documents from Norway and New Zealand because of their similar level of high authority in the hierarchy of ITE national policies. Including other documents which may be read alongside these policies could strengthen the analysis. However, this is deemed outside the scope of this paper. We should note that based on the documents analysed, we cannot know how teacher education is being carried out in the different teacher education institutions, but we see this as a fruitful topic for further studies. For example: How are these (and other) documents interpreted by providers of ITE, and how are they translated into practice? Which methods for language aware teaching are being used in the field? How does TLA influence teaching in a multilingual classroom? The praxis of TLA has been a subject of study since the early 1990s (cf. Wright and Bolitho 1993), but we need a broader research perspective in continuously changing school settings (cf. Gage 2020).

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; methodology, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; software, not applicable; validation, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; investigation, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; resources, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences; data curation, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; writing—original draft, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; writing—review & editing, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; visualization, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; project administration, D.J.B.; funding acquisition, not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** This is a policy analysis using original policy texts. No human participants were involved in this study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data can be retrieved from the respective websites listed in the references.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to thank Simon Borg for reading an early draft of this article. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Notes**

#### **References**

Mayring, Philipp. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. *A Companion to Qualitative Research* 1: 159–76.

Wright, Tony, and Rod Bolitho. 1993. Language Awareness: A Missing Link in Language Teacher Education? *ELT Journal* 47: 292–304. [CrossRef]

Young, Andrea S. 2018. Language Awareness, Language Diversity and Migrant Languages in the Primary School. In *The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness*. Edited by Peter Garrett and Joseph M. Cots. New York: Routledge, pp. 23–39.

MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 Fax +41 61 302 89 18 www.mdpi.com

*Languages* Editorial Office E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

Academic Open Access Publishing

www.mdpi.com ISBN 978-3-0365-7728-9