Barry Chametzky, Washington & Jefferson College Abstract When online, post-secondary foreign language learners wrestle with the course material and environment because of their inexperience or misguided expectations, frustration and anxiety often ensue. The resulting imbalance often hinders satisfactory progress in the course. Classic grounded theory was used to develop the substantive theory of offsetting the affective filter, which explains the behaviors of learners in the substantive area of online, post-secondary foreign language classes. With the grab and conceptual generalities of this substantive theory, it is valuable for novice researchers to understand that the possibility is strong to continue the research and develop a formal theory. In this paper, the author examines the aforementioned theory in light of possibly developing a formal grounded theory. Introduction An important element involving the classic grounded theory method (CGT) proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and subsequently by Glaser (1978) is the idea of generalizability. Generalizability, along with the other components—“fit, work, relevance, and modifiability” (Glaser, 1992, p. 15)—allows the researcher to “broaden the theory so that it is more generally applicable and has greater explanatory and predictive power” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 24). In grounded theory terms, the newly discovered endogenous (1967) theory must apply to a variety of situations and environments within and outside of the substantive area not just one situation (Glaser, 1996). The idea of generalizability—especially for doctoral candidates—has important ramifications for researchers inside and outside of the initial substantive area. In this article, I will present (a) the five pillars of grounded theory, (b) a brief discussion of generalizability, (c) an overview of the grounded theory process vis-à-vis generalizability, (d) a theory—Offsetting the Affective Filter—developed using CGT, and finally, (e) a brief analysis of generalizability vis-à-vis the aforementioned theory. By illuminating the importance of the substantive theory (Glaser, 1978) outside the field of online foreign language education, I hope to present a potentially bigger picture of the theory thereby demonstrating generalizability and to show that generalizing “a core category is strong . . . [and] hard to resist” (Glaser, 2007, p. 14). The five pillars When a novice researcher uses CGT as a design—perhaps for a doctoral dissertation—he or she quickly learns about its five pillars necessary for developing a satisfactory theory: fit, grab, work, relevance, and modifiability (Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1998). To negate or minimize one of them is to create a unbalanced and inadequate theory. Because these terms are vital to grounded theory, each is discussed briefly in this research. In the world of classic grounded theory, in order to have fit, researchers must ask whether a “concept adequately [expresses] the pattern in the data which it purports to conceptualize” (Glaser, 1998, p. 18). If such a connection exists between the concept and the data, fit exists. With theories discovered using grounded theory, it is vital that the researcher not force the data into preconceived patterns. If the theory is indeed developed through detailed analysis of the data according to the precepts of CGT (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1965, 1992), the theory is said to have fit (Glaser, 2002a). On the other hand, if an idea is forced and therefore not directly and solely derived from the original data, the theory has validity issues and does not fit the data (Chametzky, 2013a). Grab is the ability of an idea to snag the attention of a person quickly (Glaser, 1978). When a reader senses that he or she understands the idea and what is going on...