All the students enrolled in the last semester of the program (n=84) were invited to participate in this research. However, only 21 students responded the questionnaire and 20 wrote the reflective report.
As for the interview, 10 students were invited to participate in a conversation through Skype, being 2 students of each study center who were selected based on the relevance of their answers in the questionnaire, upon the researcher’s decision. Only 4 students accepted
10 It explores a relatively new, uncharted area. Very little is known about the relation between autonomous language learning in DE (Dörnyei, 2007).
11 (Dörnyei, 2007).
the invitation to take part in the interview; 4 others did not reply and 2 affirmed having no time to participate. In the students’ profile questionnaire (Appendix 2), participants were asked personal questions such as name, age, gender, among others. This section illustrates some of the data collected.
Most of the study centers had a similar number of students, ranging from 15 to 24 students in each of them. All students were invited to participate in this investigation by answering the online questionnaire. Despite that, there were two study centers – Araranguá and Concórdia – from which fewer students collaborated. A possible explanation for that may rely on the fact that other investigations had been carried out with the same group of students (e.g. Kremer, 2012;
Estivalet, 2012; Estivalet & Hack, 2011; Bender, 2013) and they might have been tired of taking part in research. Table 2 shows the number of participants per study center.
Table 2
Number of students per study center
Study Center Araranguá Chapecó Concórdia Itajaí São José Number of
Students
1 7 1 6 6
Regarding gender, most of the participants were women (66.7%). As for age, participants ranged from 20 to 50 years old or more. There was one participant aged 51 years old. As regards educational background, only two participants mentioned not having another undergraduate degree, except for the one they were taking at the moment of data collection – Letras Inglês EaD. However, 3 participants may have misunderstood the question (Figure 1) since they referred the DE language teacher education program as a degree they already hold or are pursuing. By ‘another’, the researcher meant a degree ‘other than the Letras Inglês EaD’. In this case, the question should have been more explicit.
Figure 1
Figure 1 shows the percentage of participants who held or were pursuing another degree.
Among the undergraduate degrees held by the participants are:
Library Studies, Biology, Law, International Business, Education, Administration, Theology, Architecture, Medicine, Computer Science, Human Resources, Psychology and Visual Arts. Some participants (n=9) also held or were pursuing a graduate diploma in different areas, such as Specialization in Information Systems Management, Specialization in Communication, Education and Culture, Specialization in Production Management, Specialization in Psychopedagogy, MBA in Sustainable Constructions, Master’s in Civil Engineer, Master’s in Epidemiology, and PhD in Education Sciences.
Another relevant item from the Students’ Profile Questionnaire was the question about previous involvement in DE. Most of the participants (n=13) had already experienced studying in a DE program before. This means that the DE language teacher education program was not their first experience studying at a distance, at least for most of the participants. This fact supports the idea that their previous experiences as DE learners enlightened their answers regarding their studies in this educational mode.
Concerning the participation in the disciplines required by the program, the majority of the participants (61.9%) were exempted from
language courses through placement tests12 (e.g. Oral Production and Comprehension in English; Written Production and Comprehension in English). Although the focus of the questionnaire was on how autonomously they developed the four skills in English in the DE language teacher education program, their participation was relevant as they also learned language from the content courses13.
In sum, the Students’ Profile Questionnaire brought into light some important details about the participants in this investigation. It showed that the number of students who already had other degrees – 91% held an undergraduate degree, and 43% a graduate diploma – was significant. It also showed that most participants had experience in DE courses. These facts certainly influenced their performance in the Letras Inglês EaD program; however, this study did not correlate data from the students’ profile questionnaire to the autonomy investigation.
Two on-site tutors from two different study centers who worked in the program since its beginning were invited to participate in the research. They worked as mediators among students, teachers, and the institution. They were required to support learning by answering content-wise questions; collecting information about the students;
providing help in order to maintain and increase students’ motivation;
and coordinating and accompanying videoconferences organized for the course, among other functions. They were in charge of carrying out activities proposed by the teachers, besides administering tests.
In addition, the on-site tutors were responsible for the face-to-face meetings specifically organized, two times a week, with 90 minutes of duration each, for the development of language ability, involving the four skills investigated in this research. They were interviewed in order to have a broader view on the characteristics of autonomous learners
12 Some participants were not exempted from all language courses; from the 12 students who did not take all the language courses, 3 of them were exempted only from the first level; 7 were exempted from levels 1 to 5. One student did not mention the level he was exempted and another decided to do all the disciplines, even though he was exempted from level 1.
13 Content courses refer to the disciplines whose primary focus was not the English language.
Among them, there were Literature, Linguistics, and research Methodology. Students still learn English through them since they were taught in English, but the focus was placed on the content instead of on the language per se. On the other hand, Language courses were the ones whose aim was to work on students´ language development, such as Oral Comprehension and Production in English, Written Comprehension and Production in English, Special Topics in English Language, among others. The curriculum of the program can be found online through the link http://cagr.sistemas.ufsc.br/relatorios/curriculoCurso?curso=712&curriculo=20092, last accessed on March 17th, 2014.
pointed out by the students in the questionnaires, reflective report and interviews. This way, besides the students’ perceptions, the tutors’
insights also grounded the interpretations resulted from this investigation. It is important to mention, though, that these tutors worked in two different study centers; consequently, their views refer only to some of the participants in this study.