Masgoret and Gardner (2003) conducted on Behavioural meta-analysis in order to characterise the relationship between language achievement and the primary components of the socio-educational model, defined as follows:

Integrativeness: An openness to identify with a different language community
Attitude toward the learning situation: The reaction of student in relation to events that occur in the immediate language learning context.
Motivation: The goal directed behaviour.

The total complex of these three components is referred to as Integrative Motivation. Two orientations to language learning are also identified;

Integrative Orientation: Reasons for language learning that emphasise the notion of identification with a community.
Instrumental Orientation: Emphasise the practical reasons for language learning without implying any interest in community integration.

Three major conclusions were drawn from the analysis:
a) All five classes of variable are positively related to achievement in second language learning
b) Motivation is more highly related to second language learning than the remaining variables
c) The findings are not moderated to any great degree by the availability of the target language in the immediate environment or by the age of the learners.

According to the authors, the active variable in the socio-education model is motivation. Whilst broadly accepting this premise, the theoretical model and its operationisation – AMTB, has been questioned by Dornyei (1994) on the basis of conceptual, validity and measurement issues requiring efforts to elaborate the construct of L2 motivation. Whilst a summary version of the AMTB is available, it would seem that there is no updated, elaborated version of an L2 motivation scale. Amongst other things, Dornyei does give credit to Gardner for noting that success in L2 is a function of the learner attitude toward the linguistic community of the target language. This is particularly significant in relation to the semi-rural Ghanaian perception of the British and their legacy.

Additional research questioning the meaning the integrativeness, Nikolev (2001, in Dornyei, 2005, p75) found that although unsuccessful learners shared positive values towards foreign languages, the main reason for their failure concerned the perception of the classroom practices they were exposed to. She stated that the problematic areas related to classroom methods in general and assessment, focus on form and rote learning in particular. For these (Hungarian learners) situation-specific motives overrode attitues towards the L2.

Whilst this situation specific conclusion may not be generalisable to an African context, it does tend to favour the SOLE where methods of learning emerge spontaneously from the group. Furthermore Wu (2003 in Dornyei, 2005, p79) suggests that giving students the freedom in choosing content, methods, performance outcomes all lead to enhanced percieved autonomy. Dornyei (2005) identifies a further concept of vision as a means of connecting contemporary research with the integative motive model of Gardner. According to Dornyei the notion of an ideal self (who has mastered L2 in terms of integrative and instrumental goals) is a profound source of motivation for the learner. In view of the communal nature of traditional society, the situated notion of an ideal-self in Ghana presumably differs from that of a western student. However, it should still provide a resilient source of motivation (at least for the older African students). The relevance of the motivation scale for young children (say 6-9) remains questionable.

On the subject of motivation, aside from a appropriate instrument (child focused), it is also important to understand de-motivation i.e to interview a student dropout on order to understand the precise reasons for failure as a means of characterising the research domain.

Meanwhile in the search for L2 behavioural material, I have found a useful document that assesses L2 acquisition in an African, socio-cultural context (Cleghorn, Rollnick, 2002). In a similar vain to Tedla and the pan-Africanists, the research focuses on the difficulty of learning Science in L2 and in a culture that has a different perception of knowledge and knowledge acquisition than the west (the source of the curriculum). The authors suggest that the problems of learning is often related to the language as opposed to the subject theme. Given the opportunity to discuss, clarify and assimilate ideas and concepts in the traditional L1 (develop socio-cultural meaning) prior to translation into L2, then the chances of successfully crossing the (cultural and knowledge) border are improved. Furthermore, the use of L1 as a means of positive reinforcement in L2 acquisition has already been documented. Once again, this position seems to support the SOLE as a basis for a developing world pedagogy.

In relation to education policy, the authors make the following recommendations: 1) Establish Basic literacy skills in the mother tongue. In rural areas in particular, an emphasis on oral skills in the initial years on schooling may be an excellent precursor to later reading and writing in L2. 2) Developing materials in the local language. The use of rote learning to deliver disconnected facts without meaningful contextualisation undermines the development of authentic L2 skills, particularly for the poor and marginalised, reproducing existing inequalities. 3) Educate Teachers about code switching. 4) Educate teachers about border crossing. This concept joins the cognitive with the social, characterising the conflict in world views that characterises learners moves from home to school and back again.

As previously observed (post 18-08-10), the objectives are related to distinct areas of research 1) what is learned i.e improvement in L2 communication. 2) how learning was achieved. Only relevant to the SOLE (as the direct teaching associated with the monitorial method is underpinned by behavioral theory).

James has suggested that Obj. 2 could be undertaken as post-doctoral research. However in order to define the methodology, it is important that I understand theories related L2 acquisition and the means of directing the assessment based on an appropriate toolset. This process is complicated by the specific nature of the SOLE environment:

a) no teacher: the lessions are focused on the computer
b) no predefined tasks: the learning is by nature Self Organised loosely based the immersion approach to L2 acquisition (as opposed to formal learning) as described by Krashen. In this context, Hammerly (1987) has provided a negative critique of outcomes. One has to refer to Krashen’s Natural Approach for a more definitive description.
c) No theory exists to describe SOLE. The Social Cultural approach to learning. (with or without computers) is based on specifically designed tasks and promoted by scaffolding. Simply putting children together does not necessary promote learning (Piaget). It should be noted however that Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (n+1) is not dissimilar to Vygotsky’s theory of peer learning
d) Context: The research is being undertaken in a difficult developing world context (as opposed to a conventional school environment).

Furthermore, little beyond On-Off task comparison has yet been found in relation to Behavioural analysis of the different learning approaches. It probably time to seek some assistance.

Theories associated with L2 learning are listed as follows (Krashen, 1983):

1) Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: There are 2 ways of developing langauge competence. a) formal learning. b) language acquisition through subconscious processes.
2) Natural Order Hypothesis: grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order.
3) Monitor Hypothesis: conscious learning has a limited function in adult learning; it can only be used as a monitor/editor of output.
4) Input (and net) Hypothesis: Language acquisition is achieved by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of competence (i+1). Listening comprehension and reading are considered of primary importance. Acquisition is achieved through context and extra-linguistic information. According to Krashen (1983), optimal input maybe simply be ensuring that the students understand what is being said or read. Total Physical Response (TPR) is a derivative of the input hypothesis
5) Affective Filter Hypothesis: affective/attitudinal stance of the student is related to L2 achievement.

The Natural Approach combines a number of theory in a context-related, language acquisition technique that primarily dependent on the following factors: a) the quantity of comprehensible input. b) the strength of the affective filters. The goals of NA are to improve communicative (priority and focused on functional language) and linguistic (pronunciation, morphology and syntax) competency.

L2 acquisition activities associated with the Natural Approach have the following aims:

1) introduce new vocabulary
2) provide the comprehensible input the students will utilise for acquisition (develop listening skills is a priority, pp97). Adjustment of L2 to level is considered important though I wonder how individual children are able to learn L2 through TV and radio.
3) create opportunities for oral production
4) instill a sense of group belonging and cohesion that will contribute to lowering the affective filter

General Communicative Format
1) Personal Identification Stage: Students learn how to describe themselves and their family and friend in L2
2) Experiences: Students talk about themselves and their experiences.
3) Opinions: Students discuss political issues, current affairs etc.

The validity of language proficiency testing (p165) is judged in terms of the following criteria: a) relevance b) acceptability.
c) comparability d) economy. The tests can be classified as tests of linguistic competency or communicative competency.

Krashen suggests the following the following test structure in relation to the NA to L2 acquisition:

1) Listening Comprehension: a) pre-speaking stage: vocabulary recognition, true/false statements. b) single word stage: what…?, how many..? questions c) elementary discourse stage: listening comprehension as a result of media-based activities (audio and visual)

2) Speaking: Oral exams focused on subjective ratings (Callaway, 1980) of language characteristics such as fluency, nativeness, grammar, vocabulary, content, comprehension etc. Contexts for testing speech include a) conversational interchange. b) narrating, recounting events, giving instructions. c) formal talks and speeches. d) debating and arguing.

3) Reading & Writing: Testing is context-based can be delivered in terms of the following forms of text. a) signs/advertisements and check comprehension. b) newspapers and general interest reading. For pleasure reading the standard tests used to evaluate the scanning and gist reading skills in the L1 are useful in adapted form; the student reads a text and answers related questions. c) academic reading; detailed reading of the passage.

The writing test depends on the nature of the task, as follows i.e filling-in forms, personal letter, business letters, personal narratives etc. Writing samples are then evaluated in several ways: a) an indication of the learning competency acquired (linguistic or communicative or both). b) Measure of monitor efficiency.

In terms of a definite methodology for my research, I believe that I’m currently struggling with two main objectives (listed as follows) that are difficult to reconcile.

Obj 1. Observing an improvement in English communication in the three research environments. Presumably a deductive approach required on the existing assumption that English language learning is a priority and the principal means of comparative assessment.
Obj 2. Deriving a learning theory in association with the SOLE. Presumably an inductive approach based on some form of discourse analysis.

Research Strategy: Obj. 1 is a derived through deductive strategy while Obj 2 is an inductive strategy presumably based on some form of discourse analysis.

The environmental factors that characterise the SOLE are listed as follows:

Social cultural – meaning is derived as a consequence of social interaction; the social dimension of consciousness is primary while the individual dimension is derivative and secondary. Assuming learning is achieved within a (loose) socio-cultural context, an analysis of the discourse between the students would be required if any form of hypothesis were to be derived.
Not Task led – The SOLE is self organised. Whilst guided towards a general learning aim, classes are neither pre-planned nor driven by a specific set of tasks and activities. In contrast, Vygotsky believed that Cognitive Development toward self-regulation is realised through specific tasks during complex interaction with others in ones culture and mediated principally by language (DiCamilla and Anton, 2004).
Language – While the full scope of the SOLE curriculum is yet to be defined, a principal focus will be on English language acquisition through participation. In view of the L2 learning impact on student identity, it is suggested that an additional assessment of student behaviour is undertaken.
In the absence of a definitive lesson structure and a declared set of objectives, assessment can neither be process or outcome based.
No teacher – The SOLE is technology focused and self organised. The lessons are neither teacher led nor provide any definitive level of scaffolding.

Tool assessment to date has included:

– Language Learning (Participation metaphor rather than acquisition in the Social Cultural context
Analysing Accuracy, Complexity and Fluency (Ellis, Barkhuizen, 2005). Complex instrumentation that measures individual outcomes only (based on transcript analysis) and not the dialogue between students.

– SOLE Theory
Dialogue Analysis. Referencing a Kenyan research paper (Hardman, 2001) that employs a analysis tool designed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1992). The tool appears to be teacher-focused and was employed as a means of characterising the rote learning methods used in the context.

It is suggested that the Language Acquisition goals take priority. This assessment is supported by a behavioural analysis once a suitable model has been identified. Work on an unpinning SOLE theory will be subordinate to these requirements subject to further discussions with my supervisor.

In view of the complexity of the research and the unfamiliarity of the context, Dr Leats suggestion of a flexible research strategy is without doubt valid. To this extent, an Action Research approach that places the practioner at the centre and recognises the validity of procedural change will be considered.

The work of Alexander (2000) in the realm of Comparative Education seems to provide a strong indicator to the structure and form of research appropriate in the given context. To a significant degree, Comparative Education research has been motivated by globalisation and human capital theory (Becker), raising questions about relative economic performance and national showing in league tables of educational performance.

The transplanting of ideas and methods across international borders eg. in 1990, UK government placed an emphasis on basic literacy and numeracy skills to be taught through interactive whole-class teaching models used in Germany, Switzerland and Japan. Unfortunately, this kind of method transfer is not always appropriate nor successful because adoption has not considered the full range of context related variables associated with the development of a national education system. It is this framework that Alexander develops and employs as a means of assessing different education systems within his five cultures study. What is Comparative Education? Broadfoot divides it into the following categories:

1. Studies which provide detailed empirical documentation of educational phenomena in a particular (typically national) setting
2. Same as above but which are contextualised in terms of broader international debates, theoretical frameworks and empirical accounts of the issues
3. Studies which are designed as explicitly comparative based on a coherent rationale for their selection in order to illuminate constraints and contexts
4. Studies in which the contexts being compared are themselves theorised as part of wider social sciences debates e.g the relationships of system and action, power and control, culture and the creation of meaning.
5. Studies which use comparative research to inform theory

This definition would suggest that items 1, 3 and 5 are probably the most appropriate to the research objectives. It should also be noted that the research is a comparison of different educational approaches in a single developing country (as opposed to an international comparison)i.e how are different pedagogies received within a single culture. Noah identitied an associated methodological structure stating that the work is primarily descriptive relying on mixed methods with explicitly formulated social science paradigms in mind.

In contrast to the theoretical basis underpinning Comparative Education, Noah has identified five types (upward moving hierarchy) of policy-directed international education comparisons, listed as follows;

1. System-level factual information and databases.
2. System-level indocators of input, process and output
3. International league tables of education performance
4. Effectiveness studies
5. Value for money studies.

Whilst noting the drawbacks associated with distinct theoretical and policy driven approaches, Alexander suggests his programme represents a pragmatic synthesis and an appropriate basis/method for the five cultures study. The five cultures resrearch related to the following concerns:

1. the relationship between education policy and practice
2. the balance of historical change and continuity in the evolution of public education
3. the context of professional and political power
4. the values, purposes and content of primary schooling
5. the nature of teaching and its conceptual and ethical basis
6. the question of what kind of teaching are most worthwhile and what classroom practices have the greatest leverage on childrens learning.

Whilst points 1, 2 and 3 will provide an important contextual panorama within the Literature Review, the methodology will be focused on points 4, 5 and 6.

Whilst the method of comparison employed by Alexander could provide significant corner stones to the Ghanaian research, the five cultures study itself only includes a single developing nation (India) from which to draw comparisons with tradition education associated with Africa. Potential similarities will be documented at a later date.

In the introduction to formal education, Alexander asked the following questions as a means of characterising individual systems:
1. What is the essential character of the national primary education system?
2. What was its origin and how did it develop?

Indicators of the character of Ghanaian Education

a) General
In Ghana as in most of Africa, the formal education system (the government structure for planning and delivering education to children. The structure is administratively mediated and policy referenced and derives its legitimacy from legislation and is paid for by public funds) is free and compulsory, though in Ghana the shortfall in enrolment and retention remains a challenge. The span of compulsory education is x years (from until ). Primary education takes place in either designated or mixed schools (lower and senior high). Alexander has also identified Infrastructure as a useful comparative indicator of investment in education.

b) Goals, Cirriculum and Assessment
Whilst allowing for the occasional rhetorical nature of government missions and the fundamental lack of resources, the principal objectives of education in Africa represent a compromise/synthesis of national goals and those related to foreign programmes i.e EFA, MDG etc.

According to Baah-Wiredu, MoE (2003), the Government of Ghana is committed to the cause of providing relevant education to all Ghanaians at all levels, to enable them acquire skills that will assist them to develop their potential, to be productive, to facilitate poverty reduction and to promote socio-economic growth and national development. The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MOEYS) in fulfillment of its mission provides facilities to ensure that all citizens, irrespective of age, gender, tribe and religion are functionally literate and self-reliant through the provision of basic education for all, opportunities for open education for all, education and training for skills development emphasizing science, technology and creativity as well as higher education for the development of middle and top-level manpower requirements. In line with this objective the Government is committed to the six Dakar goals of Education for All (EFA) and has developed a National Plan of Action to attain the Six Dakar goals by 2015.

According to this statement, Ghanaian education is most definitively directly towards seemingly bourgeois goals of individualism and improvements in human capital as they relate to potential economic benefits. In its current form, it would appear that a commitment to the EFA agenda of foreign donors has skewed the Ghanaian mission statement away from a traditional (pre and post colonial) African understanding of education. Alexander believes this basic misunderstanding or ignorance of indigenous values is at the root of failed education projects imposed from abroad. It would appear that fiscal constraints preclude a definition of education that reflects national identity and/or humanist notions such as democracy, human rights, equality, social cohesion etc. preferred by the more developed nations.

The next level of comparative analysis is the curriculum, providing a more accurate indication of national intentions and priorities than the goals themselves. In line with the set of rational EFA objectives, the curriculum priority in Ghana is literacy. This aim is further complicated by the choice of English (as a symbol of unity) as the national language and principal medium in the classroom as opposed to the local vernacular (in this case, Fanti). Although for most rural poor, the local vernacular is the pre-eminent social language, it is clear that literacy goals in Ghana are driven towards L2 acquisition with potential impact on the students overall ability to learn.

No understanding of national education is complete without reference to the structures of power and control that define the aims, nature and framework of the system. Archer (1979) defined the distribution of power in terms of centralisation and decentralisation, viewed historically (rather than administratively). In centralised systems, educational change is achieved mainly by political manipulation. Furthermore, they operate on a stop-go pattern in which long periods of stability and/or stagnation are interrupted by sudden (normally ideological) shifts in inertia.

Alternatively, educational change in the decentralised system is achieved though a combination of political manipulation, external transaction and internal initiation. The rate and direction of movement is then dependent of the degree to which the political system is accessible/permeable. Note that definitions related to (de)centralisation are not fixed. In all education systems, power is differentially distributed with respect to different kinds of decisions – goals, policy, resources, curriculum, assessment, quality assurance etc. According to Archer, the Decentralised system out of interaction between state, community and school, achieve change that is progressive, sustained and incremental (questioned by Alexander, pp261).

Alternatively, Green (1990) refers to Marxist theory and the notion of hegemony (the pre-eminence of the ideas and values of the dominant class) as a means of defining the development of the state education system. Accordingly, public education provided a broad and efficient form of social control and developed most rapidly in countries where the requirements of cohesion and manpower were established as national priorities. For Althusser the school is no less than an ideological state apparatus which serves to reproduce the power and ideology of the state and socialises children into the prevailing mores and economic structure. Bowles and Gintis go further suggesting that schooling in capitalist countries (though the hidden curriculum) reproduces the psychology of production through social relations based on subordination and domination. Apple and Friere argue for a struggle against education of this type, proposing a critical pedagogy which links teaching and learning to forms of self and social empowerment focused on the principle of liberty, equality and justice etc. Whilst having some validity Alexander (2000, pp258) indicates that these arguments portray students (and parents) as little more than passive receptacles of knowledge and values, ignoring the potential for resistance against these forms of indoctrination. He demands a more qualified account of the interplay of top-down transmission and bottom-up resistance with a recognition of pluralism in a tacitly homogeneous notion of national identity.

The final cornerstone of the analysis is Identity. Hobsbawm suggests that despite efforts to secure and maintain national unity, the rise of globalisation and indivualism in particular, have led to an erosion of historical memory and the definitive communal consciousness. Into the vacuum step the prophets of technology and the post-modernists whose implicit assumption is the acceptance of full individualisation of behaviour and of society’s powerlessness over its destiny (Castells, 1993). The schooling process is a vital part of the hegemony process in terms of forging national identity and conveying messages regarding the nature of knowledge, ways of thinking, talking and acting and – through assessment – what achievements and people are of greater or lesser worth.

In Ghana, the economic and social differences including tribal (and language) affiliations, will have a strong influence over the messages associated with schooling and the resulting identity of the children. The forging of a national identity as an overt political and educational objective includes language teaching, civic education and moral development.

Having written nearly 10k words for my lit review I have come to a grinding halt at the point where I have to underpin my research theme with theory. Whilst the direct/transmission teaching style (rote) of the formal African and monitorial systems can be related to the work of Skinner and Behaviourism, the learning theory associated with the SOLE is not so easy to pin down.

The initial trail related to the socio-cultural work of Piaget and Vygotsky in the realm of collaborative learning. However, according to these two educational psychologists, cognitive gains are not simply a question of putting children in groups but delivering a carefully designed task focused environment based on a detailed understanding or individual and class characteristics. This has developed into a separate realm of research commonly referred to as CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning). As Sugata’s work is related to Self-Organised systems, largely practical and developed from technological inspiration rather than educational theory, it would seem that I am going to have to develop some principle of learning as a basis for SOLE experimentation. Dr David Leat has suggested that discourse analysis (G.Wells, N.Mercer, G.Cazdon, P.Scott and R.Alexander) and Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar, Brown) may provide some incite and guidance in that direction. From an epistimological view, I also need a methodology that is sufficiently flexible to withstand the inevitable changes to approach that result from working in an unfamiliar environment. David suggested Action Research (focus on the researcher) or Design Experiments (focus on the innovation).

In relation to the context, David suggested that I review research material emanating from South Africa as a means of understanding the problems associated with the development and implementation of a progressive pedagogy within a traditional environment. He also suggested that I talk to Kate Wall regarding the capture of child voice as a means of assessing behaviour and/or affective response. Naturally, this is made more complicated when researching in a foreign environment where English is not the first language.

Progress in the Lit Review is therefore dependent on an understanding of the following;
– Discourse Analysis
– Reciprocal Teaching
– Design Experiments
– Action Research
– Progressive education in S.Africa

Having established the aims of the project (and a high level plan of action), it is time to turn my attention to the means (a research methodology); how will I meet the objectives and how do I prove that they have been met (assessment). In order develop a meaningful methodology one has to revisit the principal objective; Does the SOLE promote deeper learning in children excluded from the education system in the developing world. The focus of the research is the learning process and how students acquire knowledge. Mathewson (1994) defined learning in terms of student engagement or willingness to participate in school activities. Pintrich et al (1990,92) subsequently defined learning task engagement in terms of the following factors:

– Cognitive: the extent to which students are attending to and expending mental effort in the learning tasks encountered e.g. efforts to integrate new material with previous knowledge and to monitor and guide task comprehension through the use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies
– Behavioural: the extent to which students are making active responses to the learning tasks presented e.g. active student responding to an instructional antecedent, such as asking relevant questions, solving task-related problems, and participating in relevant discussions with teachers/peers
– Affective: the level of students investment in, and their emotional reactions to, the learning tasks e.g. high levels of interest or positive attitudes towards in the learning tasks

Chapman (2003) continues with the identification of a number of tools used to characterise learning in terms of engagement factors. The groups of the tools is listed as follows:

Self Report measures: Items relating to the cognitive aspects of engagement often ask students to report on factors such as their attention versus distraction during class, the mental effort they expend on these tasks e.g. to integrate new concepts with previous knowledge, and task persistence e.g. reactions to perceived failures to comprehend the course material. Students can also be asked to report on their response levels during class time e.g. making verbal responses within group discussions, looking for distractions and engaging in non-academic social interaction) as an index of behavioural task enagagement. Affective engagement questions typically ask students to rate their interest in and emotional reactions to learning tasks on indices such as choice of activities e.g., selection of more versus less challenging tasks, the desire to know more about particular topics, and feelings of stimulation or excitement in beginning new projects. Related tools include: Educational testing service (1992a, b, c), Meece et al (1998), Miller et al (1996). The problem of self assessment is related to the consistency of students of varying ability to accurately report their own cognitive, behavioural and affective responses.

Checklists and rating scales: A summative assessment scale asking teachers to rate their students in terms of percieved levels of task engagement. Tools in this category include: Skinner et al (1990, 93), Student motivation to Read by Sweet et al (1996)

Direct Observations: Often used to validate student self perception of task engagement. In addition to the observation protocols of Ellett & Chauvin (1991), Ysseldyke & Christenson (1993), Greenwood & Delquadri (1988) related tools include: CISSAR by Delquadri and Greenwood (1998). Most observational tools apply some form of momentary time sampling system that records nominated student activity (code) at prescribed intervals/periods in time.

Work Sample Analysis: Engagement judged in terms of student outputs (project, portfolio, assignment, learning journal etc)

Focused Case Study: When the focus of an investigation is restricted to a small group of target students, it is often more useful to collect detailed descriptive accounts of engagement rates. These accounts should describe both students behaviours and the classroom contexts in which they occur. This might include, for example, the behaviour of peers, direct antecedents to the target students behaviours e.g. teacher directions, as well as the students response and the observed consequences of that response e.g., reactions from teachers or peers. Case studies generally attempt to place observations of engagement within the total context of the classroom and/or school, and are concerned as much with the processes associated with engagement as they are in depicting engagement levels. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest several types of observations recording methods that may be used in case studies e.g. field notes, context maps, and sketches.

This last option has been elaborated in full as it may provide a suitable platform of analysis for each of the individual learning environments identified. It would appear that the focused case study would enable an objective evaluation of the learning process as well as learning outcomes. This would provide a further dimension of assessment when compared to the work previously undertaken by Sugata (in relation to the efficacy of the SOLE).

Unfortunately, the Lincoln and Guba book (Naturalistic Inquiry) will not be available from the library until 16th July at the earliest.