Autonomy and motivation - Assignment Example

?Evaluation of a research paper This paper seeks to evaluate a research conducted to gather basic facts that surround the topic of Autonomy and motivation. The two topics have exuded conflict of interest and hence research was conducted to determine the relationship between the two. The paper examines the relationship between these two areas of language learning. The paper displays report gotten from the study carried in Hong Kong. The result gotten from the study aimed at equipping teachers with relevant information on how to go about the two relevant aspects in language teaching in schools as well as the important parts of teaching that need to be prioritized. Paradigm This research paper has utilized mixed research method Research Questions: The first question and probably one of the most difficult facets of any research task is the recognition of suitable research questions. Research questions are a pivotal and essential part of any quantitative research. The process of identification for qualitative research that is discussed in chapter 6, is quite dissimilar than for quantitative research (Deci and Ryan, 1985). For example, questions are usually not as narrowly constrained as they are in quantitative studies when keeping with the goals of research in qualitative studies. Questions should be interesting in that they address current and emerging issues; they need to be sufficiently constrained and narrow so that they can be answered at the same time in the same manner. Broad research questions can be easier said than done if not impossible to attend to without breaking them down into smaller questions that are answerable. Ethical consideration As discussed by Deci and Flaste (1995), in most educational settings, one ought to obtain permission from a committee of human research before recruiting volunteers for a research project or before conducting any research (page 16). Methodology D?rnyei (1994) describes mixed methods research as a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in a single research project. The two approaches have been identified already and there is no need replicate their main features. The methodology used was the sampling of population taken into consideration to get their responses on the contentious issues. The first batch of respondents was gotten from nine different departments of parents. Those in real estate and the building industry, structural engineering, management, hotel management, English, mechanical engineering, bilingual studies and maritime studies. The total population of the respondents was 508. Most of those interviewed were graduates and diploma holders (Dickson, 1995). Instrumentation According to Holec (1981), typically there are two distinct types of instruments of survey data collection: interviews and questionnaires. Questionnaire instrument is given in written form, and are used where information is to be got or collected from a large number of individuals. On the other hand, interviews are orally administered and are used in cases where there is need for in-depth information from a smaller group of individuals. The instrument used to gather the information was a questionnaire. The questionnaire had four sections. Each section had its own set of information that was to be submitted at the end. The first section was to determine who was responsible, between the teachers and the students should be the one to facilitate various aspects under learning both in and out of the classroom situation according to the students’ preferences. The second section was to determine the specific views according to the students on their own abilities to carry out similar learning aspects in and out of the classroom. The third aspect aimed at gauging the amount of motivation the students could afford to uphold in learning situation, especially of the English language. The fourth section set out to find out the actual activities the learners engaged in under both the classroom and outside class environment that could be considered as a manifestation of the subject of discussion in the whole of the study, i.e. autonomous behavior in language learning (Green, 1999). Procedure Since so much depends on the actual wording of the items in questionnaires, a fundamental part of construction of questionnaire is ‘field testing’ i.e., piloting the questionnaire at a variety of phases of questionnaire development on a sample of people who are the same in the target sample for which the instrument has been designed for. The runs of the theses trail enable the researcher to get the feedback concerning how the instrument works and if it does the job it has been tasked with. The pilot test can be used when highlighting questions which are much more difficult for the participants and respondent to answer. Piloting can also be used to identify problems or potential loopholes concerning the questionnaire administration and the processing and scoring of answers. The test pilot can also be used to get valuable feedback concerning the overall questionnaire appearance, the length of time required to complete the questionnaire instrument, and the clarity of the instructions. According to Green (1999), pilot testing is carried out in order to discover any problems, and to attend to them before the main study is addressed The procedure used was quite transparent. The questionnaire was designed first then piloted. The questionnaire was amended appropriately to accommodate all sorts of feedback that could be gotten. The respondents were then exposed to these questions in class. Class time was availed for the 508 participants. In this procedure, the respondents were allowed the indulgence of the supervisors, but denied the permission to confer with fellow respondents. These respondents were given an average 20 minutes to do the responses, after which the feedback was collated then analyzed. The results were interpreted after the questions that were used to conduct the research were availed for verification. The researchers went ahead to conduct interviews for small groups so as to validate the responses given (Dornyei, 1994). Data Analysis An essential initial step in this process is to identify means of abridgment and summarizing the results which indicates their most obvious features. Even though raw data are not specifically revealing, they must be described and organized so as to remain informative. The basic analytic program is SPSS. There are add-on packages for much more refined statistical use; however, the typical statistical tests such as t-tests, frequency statistics (chi square), ANOVAs (with post-hoc tests), correlations, regression, and other more complex statistics which are included. One can also convert output and raw data from SPSS to graphs and charts (Pemberton et al., 1996). In many cases, chi square tests are usually used with categorical data (nominal). Some of the examples of categorical data include gender, types of relative clauses, age groups (8-10 years old, 11-13, 14-16), native language, and so forth. The statistic of chi square relies on expected frequencies and observed frequencies. Analysis of the data was carried out using the SPSS. This is when the percentages of responses are calculated for all the items in all the four sections. More tests were therefore carried out with the aim of determining the sort of relationship there is between frequencies that differ according to the previous actual response gotten from the questionnaires. The responses were in regards to the perception of students on their teachers. They were to talk about what they perceive as the responsibility of the teacher in language teaching alongside the responsibility of the learners in the same undertaking. The students’ perception was also scrutinized with regards to what they regarded as their responsibilities when it comes to language learning (Pemberton et al., 1996). Results The section of results should include a defined and clear description of the collected data and the statistical procedures outcomes. The data analyses are usually organized in relation to the relevant hypotheses and/ or research questions so that there is a clear stance of whether the hypotheses are rejected or confirmed. In the section where discussion is addressed, the authors indicate and present their result interpretation. Additionally, the authors need to address the implications that the results might have for practice and/ or theory, as well as with the limitations of the study and any recommendations and suggestions they may have for any further research. In most cases, the discussions begin with a brief summary of the research findings that were indicated in the section where results are detailed and then move on to a much more detailed discussion of each of the research question. In addition, summarizing comments needs to be included that are useful because it can inform the reader clearly, especially a skimming reader, as to the outcome and purpose of the study. The findings gotten from the research shows that there are indications that provide evidence to the fact that motivation has the capability of possibly leading to autonomy or may exist as a precondition for it. The students showed in their responses that lack of motivation hindered their interest in the business of autonomy in language. The research was based on self report and hence is prone to exaggeration or biased reporting from the part of the respondents. It may therefore be true that autonomy and motivation work in parallel directions or run hand in hand at different stages of a learner’s progress. Motivation is dynamic and hence may alter intensity and type over learner’s duration of acquisition of knowledge (Cotterall, 1999). Limitation Limitation may be included in the sections of discussion; however, it can appear in a separate section on its own, or even as part of the conclusion. Without any regard to the concise location, limitation acknowledgment in the research is significant, not only as a concern or caution to the readers against findings’ overgeneralization, but also as a proposition or a suggestion as an indication of possible avenues for further investigation. And for the way future studies could be improved (Benson, and Voller, 1997). Bibliography Benson, P. and Voller P., 1997: Autonomy and independence in language learning. Longman: London. Cotterall, S. 1999, Key variables in language learning: what the learners believe about them. System 27(4): 493–513. Deci, E.L. and Flaste, R. 1995, Why we do what we do: the dynamics of personal autonomy. Putnam’s Sons: New York. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. 1985, Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Dickinson, L. 1995, Autonomy and motivation: a literature review. System 23(2): 165–74. Dornyei, Z. 1994, Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom, Modern Language Journal 78(3): 273–84. Gardner, D. and Miller, L. 1997, A study of tertiary level self-access facilities in Hong Kong. City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Green, C. 1999, Categorising motivational desires in second language acquisition. Language, Culture and Curriculum 12(3): 265–79. Holec, H. 1981, Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Nunan, D. 1997, Strategy training in the language classroom: an empirical investigation. RELC Journal 28(2): 56–81. Pemberton, R., Li, E.S.L., Or, W. and Pierson H., 1996, Taking control: autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong. Read More