- •Acknowledgements
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Theoretical Background I.
- •2.1 Reasons for promoting autonomy
- •2.2 Attempts to define autonomy
- •2.2.1 An overview of definitions in the literature
- •2.2.2 Conflicting and complementing concepts
- •2.3 Attempts to describe an autonomous learner
- •2.4 A working definition of autonomy
- •2.5 A working description of an autonomous learner
- •2.6 A practical approach to learner autonomy
- •3. Theoretical Background II. Aspects of autonomous learning – an overview of theory and research
- •3.1 Theories of motivation
- •3.1.1 Integrative-instrumental and intrinsic-extrinsic theories of motivation.
- •3.1.2 Attribution theory
- •3.1.3 Relating motivation to success
- •3.1.4 Motivation and autonomy
- •3.2 The theory of personal constructs
- •3.3 Modern communicative approaches and the issue of learner/teacher roles
- •3.4 Research into learning strategies
- •3.5 Research into learner beliefs, preferences and attitudes
- •3.6 "Measuring autonomy" – and overview of research to date
- •3.7 Summary
- •4. Research
- •4.1 Research background
- •4.2 Aims of the research and research questions
- •4.3 Methods, materials, participants
- •4.3.1 Participants in the project
- •4.3.2 Methods
- •4.3.3 Anticipated problems
- •4.3.4 The structure of the interview
- •4.4 Data analysis and interpretation
- •4.4.1 Factors explored in the study
- •4.4.2 Factors revealed by the study
- •4.4.3 Reactions to a more autonomous learning environment
- •4.5 Discussion
- •4.6 Conclusion
- •5. Ideas for further research and Epilogue
- •5.1 Ideas for further research
- •5.2 Epilogue
- •6. References:
- •7. Appendix – a transcription of the interviews
4.3.3 Anticipated problems
A number of problems were anticipated that may arise in the course of the research. Consequently, we devised solutions and incorporated them in the construction of the research tool.
Firstly, it was assumed that the respondents might misunderstand certain items. This problem is virtually unobservable in questionnaire research; similarly, in a standardized interview, one is not supposed to deviate from the pre-planned format in any way. However, we decided to be ready to ask for a clarification whenever we assumed a clarification was needed – although we would not ask any additional questions or deviate from the interview format in any other way. This way, the objectivity of the study would not be compromised to a great extent, while ensuring that the students truly voice their opinions.
Secondly, the research aimed towards collecting a fairly large sum of data, and also, we saw the true potential of the study in eliciting opinions which the students were not directly asked for – thus trying to support the view that autonomy plays a part in the learner's perceptions of their learning. It was assumed that if we presented the respondents with a number of 'closed' (structured) items (Chráska 1998: 93), we would, in effect, be projecting our view of the learning reality into them. This way, we would maybe find out whether the learners adhere to our perception of learning, but we would scarcely be able to determine what their perceptions are. Therefore, a number of 'open' (or unstructured) items (Ibid: 92) were incorporated into the interview. These were of a very general nature, ensuring that the respondents were free to give any answers they could possibly dream of. (The taxonomy of items presented above was taken from Chráska's treatment of questionnaire items; as we infer that the questionnaire and the standardized interview have a lot in common in this respect.)
Thirdly, it was assumed that even though we used a number of open questions, the students might find it difficult to think of a number of details at one moment. This would in effect compromise both the amount of data obtained and the reliability of the students' answers. Even though the interview was limited in size, we introduced a series of essentially similar questions that followed from a general question, breaking it up into more specific segments (this is the case of items 5, 7, 8 and 9 below). This is reminiscent of the 'funnel' technique presented by Chráska (1998: 99). Also, every student was informed prior to the interview that the length of their answers is not limited in any way.
The last problem lies in the assumption that the students may produce 'diplomatic' answers – those that they assume the researcher might want to hear. Breen and Mann (qtd. in Benson 2001: 52) voice a similar assumption – "Learners will generally seek to please me as a teacher." Therefore, it was assumed that the students might find it difficult to express their negative emotions and criticisms, especially if the researcher is someone who directly participated in their learning in the past years. The problem was dealt with in three ways. First, all the students had a vague idea that the interview would investigate their perceptions of learning in the past, but they did not know anything about the concept of autonomy that the research focused on. This gave us a twofold advantage – the respondents were able to infer the 'right' answers, and also, in the more general questions, they had a chance to react spontaneously, instead of focusing on one issue. The second solution is embedded in the instructions given prior to the interview – the students were asked to produce only honest answers, as this was vital to the reliability of the research. Also, they were informed that if they do not know an answer to a question, they should not answer it. And lastly, the questions focusing on criticism and negative feedback outnumbered the ones focusing on positive feedback, in a ratio of two to one. Sadly enough, however, even such extensive precautions do not really ensure that students answer honestly – for this is fully in the realm of their own responsibility.