Theorizing on Meaning-Making in Classroom Interaction Using “Critical Presuppositions-To-Theory” (C-PRETTY) Research

Theorizing on Meaning-Making in Classroom Interaction Using “Critical Presuppositions-To-Theory” (C-PRETTY) Research Janeson M. Miranda Rempson N. Gipaya De La Salle University Integrated School Senior High School Division Marcelo H. Del Pilar National High School, De La Salle University-Manila janeson.miranda@dlsu.edu.ph rempson_gipaya@dlsu.edu.ph Abstract The paper proposes “Critical Presuppositions-To-Theory” (C-PRETTY) research as a new form of qualitative inquiry due to the realized challenges of grounded theory and the seemingly barren domain of theory building. The C-PRETTY serves as a special type of qualitative inquiry that focuses on critical presuppositional framework and critical presuppositions as the primary theoretical and methodological compass during the zigzagging data gathering and analysis. Guided by these, observations of two English classrooms, interviews with their teacher, and focus group discussions with the students were done to investigate classroom interaction with the belief that there is an exigency to create a contextualized theory to better depict the contextual realities of meaning- making as an integral part of classroom learning. The theory generated has been formalized as the Multi-Layered Symbiotic Process of Meaning-Making, which proposes that meaning-making starts at an Interactional Reference Point (IRP) and is carried through five mediums: locutionary, kinesic, affective-prosodic, cultural, and physical-spatial. These mediums interact with the intermediary layers as meaning travels through them. The findings of this study bring forth new ways of theorizing and conducting investigations, especially in the realm of educational linguistics. Introduction Despite the vibrancy and dynamism of qualitative researchers utilizing varying methods to strengthen the potency of investigation, only limited approaches or methods have been actualized to build theories in specific contexts of realities. In fact, Shah and Corley (2006) stated that although many journal editors have desired to cast more attention to theory development, fewer studies of such have been actually undertaken. Theories are regarded to be the “currency of scholarly research” (Corley & Gioia, 2011, p. 12). Therefore, new practical methods to theory building have to be explored and carried out to fortify the methodological efficiency and reliability of theory development, especially within the planes of qualitative inquiry. Glaser and Strauss (1967), even decades ago, raised already a similar point, prompting them to initiate a notable way of theory building, which has been termed as ‘grounded theory.’ They expressed their dissatisfaction with the current existing theories that prevailed in sociological research and contended to move from data to theory so that new theories could potentially emanate. Their notion was eventually accepted and applied in several disciplines and later became a distinct type of qualitative study. It even permutated to several versions (MacDonald, 2001) depending on the researcher’s ontological and epistemological perspectives (Mills et al., 2006). However, several criticisms have been hurled against grounded theory and even Strauss and Glaser, who started out as colleagues have separated ways out of ontological and epistemological differences with regard to the method and data analysis. One of the usual criticisms of grounded theory is the indefiniteness of the time when the researcher has finally achieved the theoretical or data saturation, an important feature of grounded …

Content truncated to 500 words