urthermore, by not using a leading title question, the research data was considered non-subjective, which in regard made strength in providing qualitative data accessible.
Then again, the word ‘concern’ wasn’t suggestible in each question, therefore not focused upon to influence answers. This made the advantage of forming a conclusion more viable.
However, by carrying out the interviews, advantages of using open questions resulted in rich and detailed data being collected.

What is more, differences arose within the result similarly. Participant 1 has no in-depth knowledge of the course only brief information known. Whereas participant 2 has previous experience from starting the course prior, therefore knowledge is apparent.

Weaknesses in the research was evident by the barrier that was found in relation to gathering results from each researcher, evident by only 2 interviews being conducted, transcribed and provided for thematic analysis within the time period.
What’s more, made the results limited and refutes the validity of them as more data could have been analysed and used to narrow down the themes.

Results were also different in the area of the age difference of the participants. More life experience was evident from one participant than the other.

The interviews were conducted before the adult learners had started to study. This gives weakness to procedure because the participants were asked for knowledge of concerns provided by the open questions, of which were unknown to them. Results would’ve been very different as actual knowledge would be known and not assumed.

Conclusion