relevant. For him, observation is the method to be used. Considering it a "central aspect
of classroom research"(ibid,39), he gives the possibility of different types of observation:
participatory∕non-participatory and overt∕covert observation. With observation as the
basis, then the researcher can describe and analyse the classroom phenomena, which is
his focus. The recording and transcription of the observed data let the researcher work
with it. In a very detailed and specific way, van Lier discusses some possibilities for the
data to be described and analysed. He mainly focuses on discourse elements of
classroom interaction, namely, turn taking, structure of participation and organisation of
repair, van Lier is interested in language as data and not as means to get data. For this
reason, he thinks that observation is better than interviewing as a research method. Based
on Mehan's work on ethnography, he writes
we must realize that the close, rigorous examination of interaction per se, as
exemplified by Mehan....may reveal things about how learners and teachers get
their lessons accomplished, which no amount of interviewing can reveal (ibid,62)
In his book van Lier clearly separates ethnography from other types of
methodology (under the subheading of "Other approaches") such as classroom
experiment and action research and concludes saying that "the debate between
interpretative (or humanistic) versus experimental (or positivistic) science has existed for
centuries and continues unabated" (ibid,69).
I clearly understand why van Lier relies on observation as his main method,
followed by an intense description and analysis of the classroom data. However, I do not
think that this is a suitable procedure for carrying out self-directed learning research.
First of all, SAC contexts lack the everyday interaction of classrooms. Things in SACs
happen in a more covert way. My own attempts to observe SAC activity have ended in
boring descriptions of students going from the shelves to the working booths to the
shelves again, with occasional questions to the counsellor on the floor about the location
of material or the operation of a piece of equipment. There have been, of course,
interesting studies that try to go further than that. Teremetz and Wright (1997) have
observed the way two pairs of students work with interactive computer programs. They
can objectively state where the students start and where they go. For instance, some
students may start in the key source text and work only with the dictionary and the
language notes translation. Others may work more interactively combining the task and
the gap exercise with the text itself. In short, Teremetz and Wright were able to visualise
the pathways that the students went through when working by themselves. Although this