Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2

Archiving Self-Access: Methodological considerations
John Adamson, Howard Brown and Naoki Fujimoto-Adamson
University of Niigata Prefecture, Japan
Bio Data:
John Adamson received his Doctorate of Education from Leicester University. He
teaches English for Academic Purposes at the University of Niigata Prefecture in
Japan. His research has focused on interview discourse, learning strategies, Teacher
Development, and Business English methodology. His current interest is in the area of‘interdisciplinarity’.

Howard Brown is an assistant professor at the University of Niigata Prefecture in
Japan. His teaching interests are in English for Academic Purposes and Content Based
Instruction. His current research interests include issues in self access and Content
and Language Integrated Learning. He is also involved in faculty development.

Naoki Fujimoto-Adamson is currently completing her Ed.D. thesis from Leicester
University, U.K., on team-teaching in Japanese junior high schools. She works at the
Self-Access Learning Center (SALC) in University of Niigata Prefecture. Her
research interests are in the fields of team-teaching, and the history of ELT in Japan.

Abstract
This study has illustrated how a long-term ethnographic approach of archiving dataand profiling its key participants represents an effective means of revealing11

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
perceptions of a new Self-Access Learning Center (SALC) within a university inJapan. This on-going process of conducting qualitative interviews and conversational
narratives with center staff, accompanied by student questionnaires, has required
methodological reduction of the large amount of ensuing data. Such a process isachieved by a combination of crystallization of themes emerging from dialogues, andanalysis of questionnaire data from various perspectives. This methodology reflects
the researchers’ wishes to investigate the self-access center where they work in amanner more locally situated, co-constructive and, importantly, in one which accords
voice and agency to peripheral SALC stakeholders. As a study for the purpose of thecontinuous improvement of practice, the triangulated methodology employed togather and analyze data can be adopted by other self-access centers seeking a rich,diverse body of evidence and an analytical framework to respond to the pedagogicaland institutional environment where they operate.

Keywords: Self-Access Learning, Methodology, Ethnography, Archive

Introduction
By investigating the growth of a self-access learning center (SALC) in a Japanese
university, we as center staff and committee members seek to illustrate in this study
the ethnographic methodology implemented over a 2-year period from 2009 to 2010.
The methodological stance is that longitudinal, qualitative research undertaken by
three central figures in the running of the center and involving various stakeholders
represents an effective means to investigate and understand shifting views of selfaccess and institutional conditions surrounding the center.
We start the study with an overview of the context in which SALC was established12

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
and profiles of the stakeholders using and managing the center. Following this, themethodological approach in the creation of a triangulated ‘archive’ of data is outlined.
In keeping with the centrality of ethnographic principles in the research process, wethen critically describe the methodology itself. Thereafter, selected archived findings
are presented in order to illustrate the importance of using ethnographic techniques tounderstand diversity and shift over time of themes central to a growing SALC.
Finally, we state conclusions and implications for the methodological approach.
Context of the research
The context of this study focuses on the history of SALC, the institution, and thestakeholders – the committee created to direct the center’s operation, students who
use it, university management, and non-institutional bodies at the regional and central
governmental levels. As both committee members and researchers, we believe that
this rich description provides a means to understand more clearly the total “ecologicalmicrosystem” (Creese & Martin, 2008) surrounding SALC.
The university was established in April 2009 and was previously a two-year collegewith courses in various fields, including English Studies. Upon becoming a university,
fields were expanded and English Studies was removed from the curriculum. Instead,
English was announced as the intended medium of instruction for many content
courses, hence requiring a full first year of English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
instruction to 160 students in International Studies and Regional Development(ISRD), and 80 students in Human Life Studies (HLS – including nutrition studies
and a pre-school teacher’s course). The EAP programme offers students instruction inreading, writing, speaking, and lecture listening and note-taking. SALC wasestablished in April 2009 as part of the change to university status and a SALC
Committee was immediately set up to direct its operation. The committee meets every
13

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
few months and has 13 members, the largest in the university, the majority of which
are English language instructors and SALC mentors. Three part-time mentors staff thecenter in shifts from 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday. Their role is to maintain thecenter and provide advice to students on language learning strategies, resources andevents in the center.
SALC itself is a large hall with 10 internet-linked computers, a reception, tables,
chairs, a sofa and a carpet area. It has full graded reader collections (including audio
book CDs) from most major publishers, DVDs, grammar reference materials, games,
and a large number of paperbacks and reference materials linked to subjects taught on
the ISRD and HLS curricula. Some Chinese, Korean and Russian self-study materials
are also available as those languages are also offered as options from the 2nd year.
Self-study sites are also bookmarked on the computers for English and Chinesestudies.
SALC’s day-to-day operations are funded by the university, which is a regional
government institution, and budgets have been allocated for its materials from theuniversity itself and the central Japanese government (the Ministry of Education).
Furniture and other infrastructure expenses are funded directly by the regional
government.
Use of SALC English materials (graded readers and audio CDs) is integrated with
the EAP curriculum as taught by six expatriate teachers. Of the six Japanese teachersof English, one has integrated his syllabus with SALC materials usage. No integration
with content teachers in the ISRD and HLS faculties has been made. As EAP is
obligatory for first year students, requiring up to 16 hours per week of study, the vast
majority of visitors are freshmen. Second year students are only required to take five
credits of English classes a year, most of which are taught by Japanese faculty
14

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
members, so considerably fewer sophomores use the center for English self-study,
although students taking Chinese, Korean and Russian do visit to borrow self-study
materials in those languages. Use of self-study materials for those languages has notbeen linked to evaluation in the corresponding syllabi.
There are various other ways in which the center has been integrated with the EAP
programme taught by expatriate teachers. Workshops are held with a view to focus onareas which the mentors and teachers feel represent deficits in students’ competencies,
for example, process writing. In an attempt to involve teachers of other languages andsubjects in SALC, mini lectures are given by some of those teachers who are willing
and able to introduce their subject areas and their experiences of learning English.
These lectures have been well-attended and popular.
In this study, an archive of one-to-one semi-structured interviews, informal group“conversational narratives” (CNs) (Ochs & Capps, 2001, p.3) and questionnairefindings has been compiled. We have adopted this mixture of methods inconsideration of our dual role as practitioners and researchers, two stances which
inform each other and benefit from multiple perspectives of SALC usage, both interms of accessing a wide range of participant voices, and also allowing thoseparticipants various means to express their voices. This process is one which firstly
regards narratives and our own experiences as valid forms of data in that they provide
insightful evidence for research purposes (Sperber & Wilson, 1995). Additionally, ourmethod of data collection reflects and enriches the democratic practice of the SALC
committee in which co-construction of ideas through dialogue is considered
professional practice in its own right.
Every few months the researchers have met to discuss SALC’s progress in the oneto-one interviews and group CNs, all of which have been recorded and summarized.
15

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
These participants have pseudonyms to protect their anonymity. To aid the reader inunderstanding the role of participants as a key part of the context of this ethnographic
study, and their profiles are given in brief below.

Participant profiles
Peter: Peter has been the head of the SALC Committee since its opening and reports
to Mr. Tanaka. He has experience in setting up small extensive reading self-accesscenters (in Japan), medium-sized self-access centers (in Thailand) and has visitedother centers in Europe and Asia. As committee head, his role is to co-ordinate the
SALC operation, particularly with regard to budgets allocated to the center. He is a
doctor in his late-40s, a UK national and is keen on ethnographic, qualitative research.
Paul: Paul is a committee member and has experience teaching in Turkey and Japan.
He has set up small, non-staffed self-access centers in other universities and isfamiliar with computerized systems of monitoring student self-study. He is a
Canadian national, qualified with an MA and is in his early 40s. He is interested inperceptions of self-access and the role of mentors.
Lee: Lee is a committee member from Singapore with various experiences of selfaccess in Japan and Singapore. He is a strong advocate of extensive reading andlearner autonomy. He is a doctor in his early 40s. He conducts research in the field of
language policy and is responsible for SALC promotion.
Sayaka: Sayaka, a Japanese graduate of the institution when it was a college and inher early 20s, worked for one year as a mentor in SALC before moving on to a fulltime teaching position elsewhere. She graduated from an American university (anundergraduate degree in second language acquisition), but had little teachingexperience before becoming a mentor. She was instrumental in setting up and16

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
promoting the center.
Keiko: Keiko has been a mentor in SALC since its opening and is seen as the‘senior’ mentor. She is Japanese, in her early 40s and has extensive experienceteaching English at junior high schools in Japan. She has an MA from a UK university
and is studying for a doctorate. She has experience using self-access in large UK
universities and also helped set up a small extensive reading center in a Japanesecollege before becoming a mentor. Her specific role in SALC is to manage the day-today budget for the mentors’ administrative needs and make orders for resources.
Simon: Simon is a young American mentor who joined SALC in its second year ofoperation. He recently graduated from a university in America, but was brought up in
Japan. He is multilingual (bilingual in English and Japanese) and also speaks some
Chinese. He takes care of the computer systems in SALC and is responsible for coordination between teachers of Chinese, Korean and Russian and SALC.
Rika: Rika also joined SALC as a mentor in its second year. She recently came backfrom university in Canada where she graduated with a BA and has a teachingcertificate in TESOL. She organizes SALC events and is responsible for coordinating
the duties of SALC student assistants.
Mr. Tanaka: Mr. Tanaka is the administrative manager of SALC and is a regional
government official working at the university. He is head of the mentors but does not
manage their day-to-day activities, preferring to leave that to the SALC committee todetermine. His role as manager is to allocate budgets and evaluate the center to reportto the university management, regional government administration and Ministry of
Education. With an MBA from an English-medium university in Japan, he speaks
English well and is a strong advocate of self-access in the university.
With this contextualization of SALC and its participants, we now turn to the17Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
methodological approach employed in this study.

Methodology
The triangulated methodology draws upon an archive of one-to-one interviews andgroup “conversational narratives” (CNs) (Ochs & Capps, 2001, p.3) with various
SALC stakeholders (committee members and management), along with a large bodyof findings from questionnaires completed by students (see Appendix 1 for thequestionnaire). Among the committee members involved in the study, all wereencouraged to keep journals to record their feelings about SALC over time, especiallyto note any critical incidents affecting their views and to use in interviews or CNs.
The concept of CN was used when the group met to discuss issues as the agenda was
not pre-determined. For one-to-one interviews, themes were negotiated beforehand sothat preparation could be made, for example, by recalling notes kept in theparticipants’ journals. The schedule of data collected is illustrated chronologically intable 1.

Time/Method

Participants

Theme

1. 1st November/ CN
2. 2nd November/CN
3. February/Questionnaire
4. March/CN
5. April/Interview
6. May/CN
7. 1st June/Interview
8. 2nd June/Interview

4 Committee members (CM)
5 Committee members
1st year students
4 Committee members
1 CM & office manger
3 Committee members
1 mentor
1 mentor
Images/curriculum/improvement

Mentors
Half-year review
SALC use in first year
Questionnaire /year review
Images/management
First year review
Images/curriculum/improvement

Table 1: Schedule of data collection

This represents the archive of CNs, interviews and a questionnaire over the 20092010 period. The data is qualitative and involves much reflection on SALC’s progress
and future directions within the interviews and CNs. In this sense, we see some18

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
resonance to studies into autonomous learning in Finland by Kjisik (2007 in Gardnered.) in which an action research approach was adopted and in Hong Kong by
Morrison (2008) in which the voices of a range of stakeholders was regarded asimportant. The process in this study of creating an archive of data is epistemologicallyethnographic in that it focuses on the position of a SALC within a larger university
community and on its participants over time. It also places the process ofunderstanding shifting contexts and critical views towards SALC at the center of theresearchers’ considerations. Blommaert and Jie (2010, p. 10) see this process as the“product” of ethnographic research since the archive “documents the researcher’s own
journey through knowledge”.

Interviews and conversational narratives
As a large amount of recorded data was collected for the archive, data reduction wasnecessary. In the analysis of CNs and interviews, a three-stage process of data
reduction was carried out based on an adapted “phenomenological reduction”(Hycner, 1985; Kvale, 1996). In the first stage, it was noted from the audio recordings
what views were expressed (and by whom) for each topic under discussion, whether
relevant to the topic or not. New themes that had not originally been predetermined
were also added to the list of topics. For the second stage of reduction, “natural
meaning units” or “central themes” (Kvale 1996, p. 195) were identified which weredirectly relevant to the topics, termed by Hycner (1985, as cited in Cohen & Manion,
1994, p. 294) as “crystallizing” each theme’s meaning, and included eliminating
irrelevant data. After “crystallization” was completed for each interview, a final stageof analysis compared and contrasted the views expressed across interviews andbetween participants to ascertain what shifts in opinions had occurred over time.
19

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
Interviews were based upon a loose, semi-structured schedule of themes conveyed
to all participants beforehand, but were also open to both participants’ topic
extensions and deviations (Drever, 1995). In this sense, all interviews werethematically open to negotiation and “co-constructed” (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995, p. 171)
between participants. Holstein and Gubrium (1995) see this as “active” interviewing(p. 114). In reality, the open-ended nature of the interviews and frequent deviationfrom any predetermined themes resulted in long interviews which more resembled thegroup CNs in which participants encouraged each other to jointly build mini
narratives without a strict, pre-determined agenda. The interviews and CNs attempted
to explore and extend themes in a reflexive manner between participants. These
themes were often indexed to unrecorded and spontaneous conversations which arose
on a day-to-day basis out of participants’ readings and critical incidents. We believed
the creation of rapport was essential to achieve this joint meaning-making and soaligned the interviews and CNs with Alvesson’s (2003) and Roulston’s (2010, p. 217)
“romantic conception of interviewing” where themes are drawn out in the form ofmini narratives. Additionally, the process of participation in both interviews and CNs
could be seen as beneficial for personal development and “transformative” (Roulston,
2010, p. 220) in that, through the dialogic process, ideas and assumptions about selfaccess were frequently challenged, and new insights were formed during thediscussions themselves, rather than pre-determined ideas simply being reported.
Baker and Johnson (1998, p. 241) actually see such interaction as “situatedprofessional practice” in its own right, since it creates a healthy opportunity to “sharemoral ground” (Baker & Johnson, 1998, p. 231), create rapport and share stories
related to practice (Ellis & Berger, 2003). In effect, the discourse emanating frominterviews and CNs formed two “cartographies of communicability” (Briggs, 2007 as
20

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2cited in Talmy, 2010, p.130) which conceptualize how the interactions can be viewed
as “social practice” (stakeholders meeting to talk about SALC as collegial,collaborative meaning making) and as “research instruments” (methods in which data
can be generated) (Talmy, 2010, p. 129). All one-to-one interviews and CNs wereaudio recorded in SALC itself or at a conference venue.

Questionnaires
At the end of the first academic year we gave out questionnaires to all university
students who had access to SALC. The two fields of study, ISRD (International
Studies and Regional Development) and HLS (Human Life Studies) had various
levels of classes, as shown in table 2. Institutional consent was granted and theobjectives of the study were explained to the students by all class teachers. Someteachers allocated class time to complete the questionnaire, whilst others chose toallow students to complete it in their free time. Of the 240 students enrolled in ISRD
and HLS, 180 students were available for the study, among which 114 returned theirquestionnaires, representing a 63% return rate.

HLS

80 students

ISRD

160 students

BasicIntermediate

Advanced

1 class: 18 returns

2 classes:39 returns

no classes taught

1 class: 17 returns

3 classes: 27 returns 1 class: 13 returns

Table 2: Questionnaire returns
The questionnaire was devised in consultation between mentors and teachers working
for the SALC committee and comprised ten questions on six areas of enquiry as
represented in table 3:
Views of SALC (room and materials):
Views of mentors:
Reasons for using SALC and personal use:

Questions 1 -3
Questions 4- 5
Questions 6- 7
21

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
Teacher engagement with SALC:
Metaphors of SALC:
Suggestions for improvement:
Table 3: Questionnaire themes

Question 8
Question 9
Questions 10

There were two final sections for open-ended responses; one asking students to add aquestion that they feel should have been asked and answer it, and the other inviting
students to write any free comments. A mixture of open-ended and closed questions
was used which were qualitatively analyzed. We invited students to complete thequestionnaires anonymously in either English or Japanese and informed them that
there was no obligation to participate in the study.
The questionnaire data from the 114 students was in paper form and collected fromclass teachers in the last two weeks of the first year of study. Analysis of returns was
conducted in Japanese by Japanese speakers and in English by a native English
speaker. This involved identification of the most or least commonly-occurring words
or phrases such as ‘informative’, ‘kind’, ‘helpful’ or ‘good’. In questions for which
responses could be counted, numbers were totaled for classes, levels and fields but
then brought together to constitute generalizations such as ‘most students at the basic
levels in the HLS field’ or ‘some students’, ‘a few students’ or ‘one student’. It wasthought among the researchers that data quantitatively analyzed to produce findings
represented in detailed percentages would be less informative or meaningful to us.
Following the basic concept of data reduction (Miles & Huberman, 1984), theanalytical framework for this questionnaire data was formulated to meet local needsof revealing student perceptions of SALC at multiple levels. The returns wereanalyzed according to the following scheme of data reduction in four stages:

Stage 1: Individual class analysis
Returns were analyzed from the eight classes revealing patterns (most common
22

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
responses) and idiosyncrasies (least common but informative responses) withinclasses.
Stage 2: Level analysis for two fields
Findings from each level were compiled in separate fields, ISRD (Basic, Intermediate
and Advanced) and HLS (Basic and Advanced). At this stage, patterns started toemerge at different levels.
Stage 3: Combining levels across the fields
Findings from the three levels were then combined across the HLS and ISRD (withthe exception of the advanced level which existed for the ISRD faculty only). Thisrevealed some commonalities across the two fields, yet care was taken to note
important differences between the fields if they occurred.
Stage 4: Revisiting the individual classes
To make sure that important results had not been missed in the subsequent stages offindings, individual class returns were then redistributed among the researchers, each
receiving a set of returns that they had not originally analyzed. This enabled us tomake the analysis more reliable in that initially missed, yet potentially informative;
responses could then be reintegrated in the findings at stages 2 and 3 respectively. In
fact, some insightful findings were successfully reintegrated in this manner.
The four stages adopted in this data reduction scheme provide multi-perspectives on
the same body of data: from the individual class, individual fields, and levels ofclasses across the fields. These perspectives serve not simply to inform theresearchers educationally, but also equip us in appropriate dissemination of thefindings to the various stakeholders in the university and beyond who need different
types of detail on SALC’s effectiveness.

23

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
Archived findings
The methodological approach in this study leads to the formulation of data whichneeds to be interpreted within the context and setting. For the purpose of this study,
selected findings from only one major theme within the archives are given to illustrate
the diverse and shifting nature of opinions. They are presented in a variety of forms
which constitute the ethnographic procedure: key group conversational narrative (CN)findings in their same conversational format to reflect the co-constructed nature ofmany decisions: interview and questionnaire findings in summarised form. Participant
psydonymns and positions as described in their participant profiles earlier are given inbrief in table 4 below.

Peter
Committee head (UK, English teacher)Paul
Committee member (Canada, English teacher)
Lee
Committee member (Singapore, English teacher)
SayakaCommittee member (Japanese mentor for one year in 2009)
Keiko
Committee member (Japanese mentor from 2009 to present)
Simon
Committee member (American mentor from 2010 to present)
Rika
Committee member (Japanese mentor from 2010 to present)
Mr. Tanaka
SALC manager (Japanese regional government/ university
staff)
Table 4: Participants
An example of one theme emerging over the period 2009 to 2010 was that oflanguage policy for SALC. Below key findings from the archives are presented
chronologically and are followed by a discussion which both summarises the opinions
expressed and links them to key literature in the field.
Language policy
2nd November, 2009: CN - extract
Lee: One committee member suggested strict guidelines on language policy, evenasking students to leave SALC if they speak Japanese. Many felt this to be too strict
since most students come from non-English speaking school environments.
24

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
Keiko: I was one of the objectors to this proposal as my experience of language center
use

in

the

UK

was

one

of

flexibility

in

code

switching.

Lee: Initially our policies were based on a view of one homogenous student group.
However, the diversity among them is fairly wide as we have groups of students
doing different programmes. There was also diversity as how faculty members
perceived the students.
February, 2010: student questionnaire - summary
Some students’ feedback stated that the loose language policy should be more strictly
enforced as many students appeared to make little effort to practise English in thecenter.
May, 2010: CN with mentors and other committee members - summary
Keiko reaffirmed her image of self-access as one influenced by her own experiencesin UK universities which employed multilingual mentors. This made those centers thescenes of linguistic code-switching, rather than of the strict monolingual language
policies in other self-access centers. Peter and Keiko referred to this as“translanguaging” where the ability to switch languages between L1 and L2 isregarded as a linguistic competence in its own right because the L1 is valued, notcensored.
June, 2010: Interview with a new mentor, Simon - summary
Simon encouraged students to use English, but would not ban Japanese. He felt codeswitching was linguistically beneficial for both students and himself when giving
advice. More important than a strict ‘English only’ policy was the “cost/benefit” idea
(persuading students that they should think of the costs of their study to get as much
benefit as possible).
June, 2010: Interview with a new mentor, Rika - summary25

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
Rika was unsure how strict a language policy should be enforced and felt that apositive “cool” “knock-on effect” occurs when students speak English in the vicinityof less confident students.

Discussion of language policy
Archive findings appear to show that the initial ‘English only’ policy has beensuperseded by the realization that some use of the students’ L1 is beneficial whentalking about language. This “translanguaging” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010, p. 105)
suggests that code-switching is recognized as a third competence (after competence in
L1 and L2) among mentors and committee members. However, there remains theimportant issue of how students themselves regard use of the L1 as some findings
illustrate objections to a loose language policy. “Parallel monolingualism” (Heller,
1998) or the “two solitudes” (Cummins, 2005, 2008) approach to language acquisition
would appear to be more embedded in student beliefs about language learning thanamong committee members. The new mentor’s (Rika) comments about making
English usage “cool” among student peer groups, coupled with the other new
mentor’s (Simon) policy of reminding students of the “cost/benefit” of using as much
English as possible both represent perhaps a more persuasive approach of achieving
more English use in the center. Although, in principle, code-switching is seen bycommittee members as a valid ‘third competence’, feelings of resistance to L1 use,“guilt” (Setati et al, 2002, p. 147) and lack of awareness of translanguaging as a bonefide skill remain possible obstacles to the multilingual space as envisaged by the elder
mentor, Keiko.

Conclusions and Implications
26

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
The purpose of this study has been to represent the methodological approach so as toinform researchers involved in developing a new self-access learning center in auniversity context. The longitudinal and qualitative process employed is ethnographic
in nature as it regards context as central and ever-shifting. Static approaches toassessing a center’s performance are rejected in this study since they do not accountfor such longitudinal changes. Instead, the diversity of views is better represented bycarefully collected archives of discussions (semi-structured interviews and CNs), andquestionnaire data representing views of a range of stakeholders who impact thecenter’s development.
We have argued that within the process of gathering data, particularly in the semistructured interviews and CNs, various purposes can be cited for talking withstakeholders. One is to gain access to opinions and beliefs over time to create a bodyof data, meaning that the discussions themselves are “research instruments” (Talmy,
2010, p. 129); the other is to create sites of “social practice” (Talmy, 2010, p. 129) inwhich participants co-construct beliefs through mini narratives in a collegial manner.
This represents a form of professional development at the workplace which can be
regarded as empowering for participants who may normally feel excluded, or
marginalized in the organization at large.
The archives in this ethnographic approach have been presented in chronologicalformat for the purpose of illustrating potential shifts of views over time as well as
how participants express a diversity of opinions. This representation is an important
exercise for the SALC committee to engage in regularly so that the archive itself isconstantly being reviewed, revisited and challenged. Findings themselves are
localised to this particular university context, yet the methodology outlined here may
serve as a useful basis for other self-access centers in monitoring growth over time.
27

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
Implications for this study suggest that an expansion of methods may benefit theeffectiveness of the archives. A greater emphasis on autoethnographic journal keeping
can provide more individual records for public use in the archives, rather than private
use alone. Importantly, as the center operates within a larger university organization
which is itself overseen financially and evaluated by regional and national
governments, access to stakeholder voices outside of the committee and student body
can provide wider perspectives on how the center is positioned and viewed. Asinternal evaluation by the committee has adopted this current ethnographic stance, thepossibly more financially-oriented, quantitative evaluation criteria of the university
management, regional and national governments also need to be taken into account to
supplement the qualitative criteria of the committee.

References
Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond Neopositivists, Romantics, and Localists: A Reflexive
Approach to Interviews in Organizational Research. Academy of Management
Review, 28(1), 13-33.
Baker, C. D. & Johnson, G. (1998). Interview talk as professional practice. Language
and Education, 12(4), 229 – 242.
Blommaert, J. & Jie, D. (2010). Ethnographic Fieldwork. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto:
Multilingual Matters.
Briggs, C. (2007). Anthropology, interviewing, and communicability in contemporarysociety. Current Anthropology, 48, 551-567.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A
Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103115.
28

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
Creese, A. & Martin, P. (2008).Classroom ecologies: A case study from a Gujarati
complementary school in England. In Creese, A., Martin, P., & Hornberger, N. H.,(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 9: Ecology of Language (2nded., pp. 263-272). Boston: Springer + Science Business Media.
Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage
language competencies as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom.
The Modern Language Journal, 89, 585-592.
Drever, E. (1995). Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research.
Edinburgh: The Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Ellis, C. & Berger, L. (2003). Their Story/My Story/Our Story: Including the
Researcher’s Experience in Interview Research. In Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F.
(Eds.) Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns. (pp. 467-493), Thousand
Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Gardner, D. & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing Self-Access. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic
ethnography. London: Longman.
Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The Active Interview. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Hycner, R. M. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis ofinterview data. Human Studies, 8, 279-303.
Jacoby, J. and Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An Introduction. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 28 (3), 171 – 183.
Kjisik, F. (2007). Ten years in autonomy: reflections and research on the ALMS
programme. In Gardner, D. (Ed.). Learner Autonomy: 10 Integration and Support.
29

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2(pp. 113-126). Dublin: Authentik.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand
Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
Morrison, B. (2008). The role of the self-access centre in the tertiary language
learning process. System, 36, 123-140.
Ochs, E. & Capps, L. (2001). Living Narrative. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Roulston, K. (2010). Considering Quality in Qualitative Interviewing. Qualitative
Research, 10(2), 199-228.
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Codeswitching and other language practices in mathematics, science and English
language classrooms in South Africa. Language and Education, 16, 128-149.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. (2nded.) Oxford: Blackwell.
Talmy S. (2010). Qualitative Interviews in Applied Linguistics: From ResearchInstrument to Social practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 128-148.

Appendix 1: English questionnaire
1.What do you think of SALC?
The room? (Space, enough seats ..)The posters (interesting? Informative?)

2.What do you think of the resources in SALC?
Books/CDs/DVDs?



PCs , DVD players?

Games,?

Grammar materials, testing materials etc?

30

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2
Magazines?

3.What do you think of the activities/events?
With teachers (including the lecture series)

WorkshopsFestivals/celebrations

Movie nights

4.Did you ask the mentors for advice? (Yes/No)
If yes, what did you often ask?
If no, why not?
5.How was the advice from mentors?


About how to use SALC

About language and language learning

6.Why did you go to SALC? (Mark O as many times as you wish)My teacher told me ()

SALC is a good place to study (SALC is comfortable (SALC is a good social place (Other reasons:)))

7. How about your use?
How easy or difficult is it to use SALC?

How often do you visit SALC per week? (Mark O)
1. Once a week ( )2. A few times a week ()

3. A few times a month ( )4. A few times a semester ( )5. Never ()How long do you spend each visit? (Mark O)
1. Less than 10 minutes (2. 11 – 30 minutes ()

3. 31 – 60 minutes ()

4. More than 60 minutes (

)

)

31

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2

What do you usually use SALC for? (Mark O)
1. Lecture activity? (2. ER/EL? ()

3. Games? ()

4. Grammar? ())

5. Testing preparation? (6. Events? ())

7. Talk with friends? ()

8. To pick up materials to study at home? (9. Group projects? (10.Watch DVDs? (


)

)
)

Do you study by yourself or with friends?

8. How about your teachers?
Do they encourage you to use SALC? (Yes/No)

Do they encourage you to study independently? (Yes/No)Is SALC integrated with classes? (Mark O)
No ( )
A little ()

Enough ()

Too much ()

9. How do you see SALC? As a…. (Mark O as many times as you wish)Self-study center? ()

Homework center? ( )Place to meet friends? (Library? (Another CALL? (Advice center? (Another ?

)

)
)
)

10. Suggestions for improvement:More materials? Which?

More technology? Which?

More events/activities? Which?



Other suggestions?

32

Asian EFL Journal Volume 13 Issue 2

11.What question(s) did we forget to ask you? If you have a question, please answer it.
Question(s)Answer(s)Other comments:

33