Channels • 2021 • Volume 6 • Number 1 Page 13 then initiating simple conversation to set them at ease. Next, I transitioned to questions concerning their language experience, humor preferences, and general attitudes. We continued with a discussion of the participant’s perspectives on class humor in general as well as specific instances from the class periods (Harbon & Shen, 2010; Wagner, 2010). Throughout the interviews, I intentionally paraphrased the interviewee’s words back to them and directly invited validation or correction of the stated concepts to ensure accuracy as a form of member checking. Due to this emphasis on co-construction and natural elicitation of data (Mann, 2011), each interview naturally followed a slightly different train of conversation. The questions listed in the interview protocol were mere starting points, as the goal of the interviews was to begin a conversation around the context to gain a more holistic understanding of the situation (Harbon & Shen, 2010). Finally, as suggested by Mann (2011), I embraced my own interactional influence and potential bias as a peer researcher, student, and fellow language learner, using these as an opportunity to elicit student responses in a manner that researchers of other backgrounds might not be able to. I obtained approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board to conduct this study. The process of data analysis was greatly shaped by acknowledging my underlying assumptions as a student researcher and adding another level of reflexivity to mitigate unwanted skew (Mann, 2011; Wagner, 2010). My method of data collection was informed by Holiday (2010); based on his suggestions, I began with broad observations, then moved to personalized thick descriptions, and landed on focused inquiry. My approach was influenced by transparency in method, submission to data, and dedication to making appropriate claims in order to maintain reliability (Holliday, 2010). According to the suggestions of Wagner (2010), I also considered the effects of self-deception bias and acquiescence bias on participants’ responses to interview questions. In analysis, I strove to let the research be driven by the themes the data elucidated. To draw proper conclusions from subjective data, I coded my transcribed interviews and portions of the video recordings from observations, then grouped them according to themes. Using these themes, I formed a tentative argument that I revised as I continually refined my data analyses and gradually approached a formal set of findings (Holliday, 2010). Finding and Discussions Reflection on the Research Question How does L1 humor, specifically when used as a pedagogical tool, influence students’ affective filters in a college-level elementary foreign language classroom? During the course of this study, diverse themes emerged from the data beyond what I had originally anticipated in my research question. Originally, I expected to gather information concerning humor as a pedagogical tool and its impact on the affective filter. However, no students reported seeing humor as a tool; on the contrary, Participant 1 noted, “I do think a lot of this is just her personality. I do think she likes to make us laugh, but I don’t think she goes out of her way to make us laugh.” The other three participants expressed similar impressions, commenting that the professor’s style of humor seems to be a natural extension of her personality. I can report little on the affective filter element, which I had used as a framing device for my research question. The data gathered does not
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=