methodological details that made this research different from others. After explaining my
arguments I stated that my research follows an ethnographic tradition with a openly emic
position (as van Lier and Freeman define it) but with an action research agenda in mind
(as in Holliday's). I made clear my concerns about certain ethnographic techniques
recommended for second language learning and teaching research, namely observations
and interviews, and called for the use of VRs and metacognitive experiences (through
different tasks) as the appropriate tools within a counselling mode, which in turn is part
of the interaction leamer∕counsellor I believe in. My interest in doing this was not to
make a claim for methodological originality but to reflect on, and adapt my own
investigation to the theoretical and contextual features that underlie the whole research
situation. In short, I strongly believe that the way I carried out my research allowed me
get involved in and to involve the participants in a self-awareness process about their
own learning. As the reader can see, this also links the cognitive model for self-directed
learning I put forward in Chapter 4 with the data that is going to be analysed and
interpreted in the upcoming chapters.
What I propose to do is to give an account of the results I got from my work with
participants in the Oaxaca/97 project. I also want to highlight the main aspects that
became relevant. I plan to discuss, among other issues, the way I carried out counselling
sessions, participants’ belief systems (including my own belief system, as one of the
participants) in relation to learning a language in a self-directed context, the learning
processes of the participants and the way they managed them. These discussions entail a
close analysis of the recorded data I have got. I am sure that during the process of
listening to, transcribing and interpreting data, I will become aware of important matters
I did not notice while working with the learners.