It would be helpful to know if you are conducting the interviews. Assuming that you have a student-professor relationship with the people that you are studying, it would be helpful to have some sort of outside perspective so that you can make more robust conclusions. I would suggest trying to recruit someone to help you code and analyze the responses and/or conduct the semi-structured interviews. 

Hi Sian, you need to collect at least three different types of data for it to be triangulation. Also, if you are asking the same questions to the same people in interviews as you are in the journals that seems a little strange? Student may feel that its a bit demeaning being asked the same questions twice? Could they just write a more free journal? Maybe you could give them one overarching question to guide their journal writing rather than the whole interview list? If you wanted to triangulate maybe you could include your own observations of the class dynamics and any other relevant aspects as well. Cheers

Also 'wikipedia' in all its trustworthy knowledge says two sources is enough for triangulation but it is my understanding that for data to be triangulated you need at least three sources. Can't make a triangle with two sources ;)

RE: Jarod: We've tried to apply for funding. If that goes through, we can definitely involve third party to code / conduct the interviews. At this time, I think we may have to make do with what we have. When we move beyond this pilot study, we'll be sure to tighten up these methodological problems.

RE: Leanne: Interesting. I'll look into that more. I think having a more free-run journal entry might be useful. I'll explore that with my collaborators.

These are very helpful thoughts. It seems that the only concern with denying the scenario posed as triangulation is the insufficient number of methodologies. I am getting the sense that having the same questions--strictly speaking--doesn't negate this as part of triangulation.

The term triangulation can be somewhat confusing, but it actually began in navigation as the intersection of two different "lines of sight," so it refers to the tip of the triangle created by that intersection.

For "data triangulation" you need to have two different sources that produce independent results, so you can compare the similarity of those results. What you describe comes close to this, but I wonder whether asking the same questions for two different data sources really amounts to "independent" sources for the data.

Thank you very  much for the insights provided, David and Maryam. This is very helpful. I will go back and adjust the sets of questions. I will go through the literature to see how best to adjust the guiding questions for the journal entry and I'll take into account that Leanne suggested that we can broaden the journal entry questions.

Thank you, Harshvardhan.

triangulation consist at several sources from any different data such as Document Review, Journal and Books and it must be 3 sources to get a strong Literature Review components since there are underlying Qualitative Research Approach

Once again, we have the misconception that triangulation involves three data sources. As I noted earlier, the original analogy came from navigation, and involves the intersection of two sources. The first person to use this terminology was Donald Campbell, and it was later popularized by Norman Denzin, who freely acknowledged Campbell as the initial source of the idea of comparing two independent data sets.

Here is a figure that illustrates this.