The study used seven strategies of trustworthiness designed into the research activities in order to strengthen its credibility. First, I maintained a reflexive journal throughout the research process (Hays & Singh, 2011). In this journal, I reflexively described my assumptions, biases, reactions, experiences, and other thoughts and feelings related to the study. I maintained this re- flexive journal daily throughout the 8-week course. Second, I integrated recursivity in the pro- cess of data collection and analysis - where earlier data collection and analysis informed later data collection and analysis (Patton, 2002). This recursivity also allowed me to revise interview questions and other research activities based on the lived experiences of students in this study, as well as myself.
order to identify tensions and sources of explanation within the data (Creswell, 2007). For example, I triangulated the following multiple data sources:
Course materials that I used (lesson plans, assignments, sample papers, etc.)
Written assignments that consenting students submitted
Field notes from the courses (I requested permission from consenting students to use
field notes regarding comments or questions they express publicly in class.)
Digital recordings of myself during class (I requested permission from consenting
students to use recordings of comments or questions they expressed publicly in class that might be caught by the recorder I had for myself.)
Digital recordings of private interviews with students
General information form on writing background, etc.
Self-reflective daily journal
Fourth, I used negative case analysis to strengthen the credibility of this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In my interview questions, reflexive journal, and other research activities, I
searched for examples within the data where participants and I engaged in dynamics that were not mutual empathy/strength-based or where participants shared thoughts that were less enthusi- astic about a mutual empathy/strength-based approach to learning academic writing.
The fifth strategy of trustworthiness was my work with a peer debriefer. I submitted a se- lection of uncoded data (e.g., interviews with learners, reflexive journal, transcripts of in-class interactions) to the peer debriefer along with a description of the tenets of RCT and Positive Psy- chology that I selected as the basis for this study. The selection represented approximately ten
percent of the total data. I asked the peer debriefer to review the data and code the data accord- ing to what they believed were reflections of any of the six tenets.
Then, the peer debriefer and I reviewed the data and came to consensus on what consti- tuted a reflection of the tenets I had selected. Finally, in writing my discussions of the data anal- ysis (Chapters 4, 5, & 6), I used thick, rich descriptions of data to illustrate how the tenets were reflected in this study.
4 THEORY TO PRACTICE: RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1 & 2
Kumaradivelu’s (2006) concern that the critical awakening in TESOL may not have af- fected everyday teaching practices very much reflects the age-old question in education of how much educational theory in general ever engenders true change in classroom practices. His con- cern also reflects the fundamental philosophical question that all individuals face of how much their stated beliefs about what is best are ever reflected in their daily practices. Both the educa- tional and the philosophical question have a compelling influence on this study.
As the teacher-researcher in this study, I am well aware of the theory-practice divide in the field of TESOL. I have witnessed it from both sides of the proverbial divide, for I have been immersed in a Ph.D. program that is concerned with preparing future researchers to discuss, de- bate, and create theory. However, I have also been equally immersed in the everyday teaching of ESL in an IEP that is concerned with teachers fulfilling their obligation to impart knowledge, skills, and abilities to students in a regulated, efficient, and acceptable (from students’ points of view) manner. I have experienced first-hand how important it is to incorporate theory into prac- tice, but I have also experienced how difficult and frustrating that incorporation can be when the theory fails to account for some very real situational factors. My internal and external struggles with regard to this dilemma have alternately caused me to feel vexed on the one hand by col- leagues and students and the other hand by myself. My vexation with colleagues and students usually arises when, in my opinion, they refuse to see the benefits of incorporating new ideas and want to rigidly continue doing what they have always done. My vexation with my own self usu- ally arises when I become aware of my own inconsistencies with regard to enacting the theoreti- cally-inspired beliefs that I hold in my actual classroom practices.
This study is inspired in part by the vexation I feel with my own inconsistencies and my own desire to demonstrate that everyday practices can change in beneficial ways through the thoughtful application of theory. As a result, the first two research questions of this study focus on how theory becomes everyday practice and how theory is challenged by the real factors of everyday practice. The questions are as follows:
1. How can an ESL teacher develop an orientation to interactions in an academic writing
course using tenets of Relational Cultural Theory (mutual empathy) and Positive Psy- chology (focus on strengths)?
2. What internal and external obstacles will the teacher encounter as she develops and
implements an orientation to interactions in an academic writing course using tenets of RCT and Positive Psychology?
This chapter will discuss the theory that I, as the teacher-researcher, wanted to enact and how I enacted that theory in my everyday classroom practices. As the practices for enacting the theory are discussed, data collected from my own reflections during this study and data collected from learners will be used to illustrate the connections that I see between theory and practice. Next, the limitations of my enactment of theory will be described. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the potential implications that these findings have for aspiring critical and feminist pedagogues like myself.