Philosophical orientation

In order to understand how students experience learning in the EFL programme, I must first decide on the appropriate research approach for this inquiry. This involves exploring different philosophical paradigms that determine the epistemological assumptions and beliefs about the nature of the relationship between the knower and what can be known; and ontological theories and assumptions about the nature of reality and what can be known about it that guide this study. In general, there are different paradigms, such as positivism, post- positivism, critical theory and interpretivism, that inform how researchers understand the nature of knowledge as well as the way in which they conduct their research and the methodological orientations they espouse (Cohen et al., WX\\; Denzin and Lincoln WX\\; Guba and Lincoln, WXXd).

The positivist paradigm represents the traditional form of research and holds a deterministic philosophy in that it assumes the existence of a single objective reality waiting to be studied, captured and understood through the isolation of cause and effect (Denzin and Lincoln, WX\\). Guba and Lincoln (WXXd, p. WXY) state that the positivist paradigm assumes “there is a ‘real’ reality ‘out there’, apart from the flawed human apprehension of it…that reality can be approached only through the utilisation of methods that prevent human contamination of its apprehension or comprehension”. Therefore, knowledge is viewed as being independent from the

individual, and the researcher is external to the research site. Researchers working within this paradigm conduct careful observations and measurements of the objective reality, which allows them to quantify the phenomena at hand, and produce findings that can be both replicated and generalised (Flick, WXX]). This paradigm uses terms such as validity, reliability and objectivity to evaluate the quality of research.

However, many social researchers are critical of the use of the scientific method in the social world, and reject the belief that human behaviour is governed by the same laws as the natural world. They “share a view that the subject matter of the social sciences—people and their institutions—is fundamentally different from that of the natural sciences. The study of the social world therefore requires a different logic of research procedure, one that reflects the distinctiveness of humans as against the natural order” (Bryman, WX\], p. W]). In other words, social researchers need to adopt an epistemological stance that reflects and capitalises on such differences. Unlike positivism, the interpretivist paradigm asserts that there is no objective knowledge independent of the individual; rather, knowledge is subjectively constructed. This epistemological assumption emphasises that “all human actions are meaningful and have to be interpreted and understood within the context of social practices when we discuss how knowledge is gained. In order to make sense of the social world, the researcher needs to understand the meanings that form and arise from interactive social behaviour” (Scott and Robin, \ss], p. \i). This denotes that the interpretivist paradigm highlights the impact that the social context has in shaping the respondents’ viewpoints about reality. It also asserts the importance of researchers accessing the participants’ context in order to understand the subjective meaning of social action. As O’Donoghue (WXXf, p. \X) elaborates:

This approach [interpretivism] emphasizes social interaction as the basis for knowledge. The researcher uses his or her skills as a social being to try to understand how others understand their world. Knowledge, in this view, is constructed by mutual negotiation and it is specific to the situation being investigated.

In the interpretivist paradigm, the traditional positivist criteria of validity and reliability are replaced by terms such as trustworthiness and authenticity (Guba and Lincoln, WXXd). This is established through the research design and data collection process (see section e.i). In the context of the current study, this paradigm reflects my epistemological stance as an interpretivist. This position allowed me to gain access to the participants’ specific context and understand how it shapes their realities. It helped in contextualising students’ learning experiences in light of the role of the institution, familial educational background, and teaching approaches. It also enabled me to view reality from the participants’ own perspectives, and to examine these realities in terms of the existing literature in the field of EFL teaching and learning in higher education. Bryman (WX\]) describes this process as the double hermeneutic. Throughout the course of a study, the researcher provides an interpretation of the participants’ views about reality; but also the researcher’s interpretations are further understood in relation to literature of the discipline.

In relation to ontology, constructivism reflects the ontological assumptions which inform this study. While objectivism implies that the social phenomena that confront the researcher are beyond the reach of social actors or their influence, constructivism “asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors. It implies that social phenomena are not only produced through social interaction but are in a constant state of revision” (Bryman, WX\], p. Ws). This suggests that researchers always present a specific version of social reality, instead of one that can be considered as definitive. Fry et al. (WXXs) argue that this assumption is particularly useful for the arts and humanities education that involves the consent revision and making of knowledge, and therefore generates multiple and amendable realities.

In addition, researchers articulate different types of research questions according to the paradigm they choose in their studies. On this, O’Donoghue (WXXf, p. \W) states:

[On] this matter of different ‘types’ of research questions, the argument is that the adoption of a different paradigm can predispose a researcher to approach a research problem differently in terms of the questions

asked. This situation will, in turn, lead the researcher to choose different research methodologies and research methods.

Thus, the interpretivist paradigm used in this study has influenced the way in which the research questions were formulated. As mentioned before, this paradigm emphasises the importance of understanding how respondents interpret their world and construct their own realities. This indicates that this paradigm is particularly useful in investigating how students experience learning.