Finding Inspiration for a Near-Peer Qualitative Methods Teaching Activity from a Published Card

Sorting Game and Making it My Own

Christy Bebeau

University of South Florida

Abstract

Note for Janet: This is a strategy that arose from a strategy! (How meta). As I was reviewing

this I realized this was the product of a teaching assignment from you! You assigned us to

develop a lesson plan (and that’s the big idea). My “strategy” was a result of that.

the stuff below is a start. I need the rest of the paper completed before I can write a good

abstract:

First, I describe how I found inspiration in the extant literature for the foundation of her

lesson about data analysis.

I also explain how I extended the lesson presented in Waite’s article. First I added student

instructions to record their sorting process to simulate researcher journaling and reflect on its

importance to the audit trail. Then, to demonstrate how the theoretical frameworks

researchers select to support their qualitative inquiries might influence how they analyze data, I

created my own “Taxonomy of Card Sorting” (Figure 1.) and asked students to use it to guide

their card sorting. I made a deliberate decision to embed ambiguity into the taxonomy so

students would have to make decisions based on their own interpretations, mimicking authentic

methods. Finally, I describe how I modified the lesson for an online environment and my
impressions about differences in teaching (it needs to be shorter… or send students the first

deck ahead of time)

In my conclusion, I encourage novice instructors of qualitative methods to seek out mentor

interactive lessons created by those more experienced and then shape those lessons for their

own positionality and purposes.

Introduction

As a student in our College’s inaugural Ph.D. Qualitative Pedagogy Course, one of my

(Christy’s) assignments was to develop a lesson plan focused on an aspect of qualitative

research methodology and use it to teach to a small group of doctoral students in a Qualitative

Research Methods #1 class.

In this chapter, I (Christy) share my thoughts as I prepared my lesson and my

perceptions and observations of how the doctoral students received it and insights I gained

from the experience.

Background and Epistemology

In the Winter 2020 semester, I (Christy) enrolled in the College of Education’s inaugural

Qualitative Methods Pedagogy course for doctoral students. We began the course by “coming

to understand ourselves as present and future instructors of qualitative research, including

what we embrace as our epistemology, ontology, and theoretical orientations about teaching

and learning” (course syllabus). Through dialogue and reflexive exercises, I discovered myself to

be a pragmatic social behaviorist (see Garrison, J., 1995), an epistemology which provides

“social constructivism with a general theory of meaning making taken literally in terms of a

culture’s language, tools, and forms of labor” (Garrison, 1995, p. 721). I place importance on
the use of language to build knowledge, combine it with hands-on educational manipulatives,

and foster a community of practice where “groups of people who share a concern or passion

for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2011,

pg 1).

One of our assignments was a peer microteaching (Sen, 2009) activity where we would

each develop a lesson plan focused on an aspect of qualitative research methodology and use it

to teach to a small group of doctoral students enrolled in a Qualitative Research Methods #1

class. “A lesson plan organizes what a teacher will do and say during teaching sessions”

(Rodriguez, 2014, n.p.).

“Near-peer teaching is the phenomenon whereby senior trainees teach more junior

trainees. Under this teaching modality, students are instructed by students who are one or

more classes ahead of them” (Bulte, Betts, Garner, and During, 2007). Students may feel more

comfortable in a learning environment with a near peer role model since, ,there is less student

competition and “the mastery of their near peers is more achievable and easy to replicate”

(Singh, 210, p.50). Additionally, Blute, Betts, Garner, and Durning (2007) reported students with

near-peer teachers believed because the near-peer teacher was closer to their own levels of

experience, the near-peer teacher could “explain difficult topics at an appropriate level”,

“would take more time to explain concepts”, and create a “safe atmosphere to raise questions

and concerns” (p. 587).

I knew I wanted my lesson to follow social constructivist tenets both because this was a

requirement of the assignment and because I seek to be an “agent between my students and

the curricula” and “to merge agendas and bring the two together in a way that is meaningful for
the learner without diminishing the curriculum” (Watts & Jofili, 1998, p. 175). Thus, I wanted to

promote social interactions to enhance students’ levels of engagement and to allow them to

experience meaningful learning (Kim, 2001).

Further, as a teaching assistant for qualitative methods courses, I noticed novice

qualitative research student struggle with the concept of theoretical frameworks. My

observations are validated by Anafara and Mertz in their introduction to Theoretical

Frameworks in Qualitative Research (date), “Students as well as experienced researchers who

employ qualitative methods frequently have trouble identifying and using theoretical

frameworks in their research. This trouble is typically centered on finding a theoretical

framework and understanding its pervasive effects on the process of conducting qualitative

research” (page..?? it’s online, so I don’t know). Furthermore, as the Qualitative Methods

Course #1 is the first of a two-course sequence, its students do not focus on data analysis;

students defer extensive practice with data analysis until the second semester. Instead, the

instructor introduces the ideas behind data analysis with the learning objective: “Begin to

understand how to analyze qualitative data through Constant Comparative Methods” (cite

syllabus). She accomplishes this by having the students read and critique exemplary qualitative

studies and by leading brief discussions about constant comparative methods and reflexive

thematic analysis.

Additionally, I developed an interest in fun as an aspect in learning. I believe fun to be a

motivator, as students who are having fun seem to be engaged. When I teach – regardless of if

my students are children in K-12 science classes or undergraduates in my geology lab – I find

myself asking them, “Are you having fun?” Yet fun, it turns out, is difficult to define. As Bisson
and Luckner (1998) state, “Only a few authors have taken the time to suggest a definition for

the amorphous concept of fun (pg 108), and from Prensky (2002) we learn there is little

research about fun; in fact, “no language other than English has an exact equivalent of the word

‘fun’.” (pg 7). Still, Prensky writes, “Fun in the learning process creates relaxation and

motivation. Relaxation enables learners to take things in more easily; motivation enables them

to put forth effort without resentment” (pg 8). While fun was elusive, I learned of gameplay,

defined as “all the activities and strategies game designers employ to get and keep the player

engaged and motivated to complete each level and an entire game” (Prensky, 2002, pg 9). I

gravitated to the idea that fun lessons are effective to engage students. I believed I could

further develop my understanding of fun as an aspect of learning through this assignment.

Therefore, I decided to deliver my lesson as a game the doctoral students could play.

Still, the game needed to be more than fun; it had to effectively convey a qualitative methods

research technique and incorporate social constructive teaching techniques. I envisioned my

lesson plan as a game-based presentation about qualitative data analysis and the effects of an

undergirding theoretical framework through which students might interact and engage with

each other and with myself as the teacher to socially construct understandings.

I wondered:

 Have other instructors used games to teach qualitative methods? If so, what might I

leverage from their lesson plans to improve my own pedagogy?

 In what ways might I extend or modify someone else’s game design to make it reflect

my lesson’s objectives?

 In what ways might I extend or modify my game design for use in a synchronous, online
 class?

 In what ways might I perceive teaching through games engages my students and effects

their learning? (Note this is my own perceptions, but I might also ask Janet about

feedback she received). Or what “stood out” as an experienced instructor about the

effectiveness of the strategy.

 How might this assignment affect my understanding of fun as an aspect of learning?

Search for Other’s Lesson Plans

As “teachers are mainly reproducers/developers of someone else lesson plans”

(Rodriguez,2014, p.1), I turned to the extant literature and found few journal articles about the

use of gaming to teach graduate-level students the skills necessary to be exemplary qualitative

methods researchers. However, those I found were encouraging. Mallette and Saldana (2019)

described the use of a party game they adapted to teach qualitative data analysis. They

concluded, “These games also provide opportunities for qualitative research methods

instructors to teach oft-perceived complex analytic processes in intriguing and entertaining

ways” (pg. 1089), and stated, “Fun is often dismissed in masters and doctoral-level courses and

seminars as a mood that negates the seriousness of the research enterprise. But student

engagement is necessary to maximize learning” (pg. 1089). I took away this message: not only is

it possible to use games to teach qualitative methods research, but also gameplay techniques

are engaging and effective at clarifying abstract analytical processes through metaphors

encapsulated in the games. Another author, Waite (2011) described his lesson plan that uses a

deck of playing cards as a manipulative to teach qualitative data analysis. He wrote,

“I take this opportunity to share a pedagogical move – a lesson plan, if you will –
 that I developed and have used with some success to introduce graduate

students to the concept of qualitative data analysis, one which, through the use

of manipulatives and by engaging the tactile senses, captures the student’s

attention and allows a little respite from the overly cerebral mode of instruction

found in most graduate school classrooms.” (pp 982-983).

Waite’s lesson plan was exactly what I was seeking. It used easy to acquire materials

(decks of cards), had very simple rules (shuffle and sort the cards), clear teaching instructions,

and stimulated discussion between students and the teacher. Finally, I believed I could extend

the lesson to teach the impact of an undergirding theoretical framework and still complete the

lesson in the allotted time of 20 minutes.

Waite’s Card Sorting Game

To prepare for my lesson, I purchased enough decks of cards so each doctoral student

would have a deck. I opened them and sorted them, including “jokers and whatever ‘extra’

cards there were in the pack” (Wait, p. 983), just as Waite’s lesson plan suggested.

Then, when I met with the three doctoral students the Qualitative Methods instructor

assigned to me. I gave each a deck of cards, and following Waite’s lesson plan, I asked the

students to sort the cards, with “no questions, no talking, working independently” (Waite p

983). Giving instructions without the reasoning elicited an emotional response and built

anticipation.

I watched as each student worked with their cards and noted each chose a different

method of sorting. One student sorted the cards into suits. The second student sorted the cards

by color. The third student sorted the cards by numeric value. Only the student who sorted by
color included the extra cards (the jokers) in their sorting algorithm; the other students set

them aside in their own piles. When the students finished, as directed by Waite’s lesson plan, I

explained the unsorted cards represented qualitative data and the decisions they themselves

made when sorting brought order to the data. I was pleased and bolstered since the results of

my students’ initial card sorts were in line with the results Waite reported.

Then, again implementing Waite’s plan, I directed the students to shuffle their cards and

sort them differently. The first sort made the students aware of the ambiguity caused by the

extra cards. This presented a learning opportunity I had not planned, but as lesson plans are

“living artifacts that can evolve” (Rodriguez, 2014, n.p.), I modified mine and deviated slightly

from Waite. I asked the students to keep notes concurrently with their sorting processes so

they could explain the decisions they made. I wanted the students to reflect on their decisions

and to record their processes as if data synthesis notes for a confirmability audit trail (Lincoln

and Guba, 1985). I wondered: would they be able to describe how they arrive at their sorted

card decks? Would they document the decisions they made about the “extra” cards – the

jockers and documentation cards I left in their decks?

After their second sort was complete, I asked each student to explain their sorting

techniques. I asked them specifically to describe the decisions they had to make about

“ambiguous data” that might not fit neatly into the sorting sequence. Waite refers to this as

“discrepant case analysis” (p 983).

I was pleased the students referenced their notes as they explained their processes and

shared their results. I explained taking notes concurrently with sorting represented researchers’

reflexive journaling, which “can provide guidance on handling challenging situations

infrequently described in published research and which can add a discursive component to

decisions made throughout the research process” (Meyer and Willis ,2019, p 583-584). We

discussed how such notes improve verisimilitude. Feldman (2007) advises action researchers,

“There are multiple stories that can be told from the same data and experiences. However, if

we are to ask whether our research is valid, we need to demonstrate why our narrative(s) are

more truthful than the other possible narratives. Therefore, it is important for action

researchers to provide clear and detailed descriptions of how their narratives were constructed

from the data (pg 30). This is sage advice for all qualitative researchers who strive for credibility

in their data analysis process.

The students asked each other questions to clarify the different sort sequences; they

were engrossed in the cards-represent-data analogy and immersed in the game. I recall the

students nodding in agreement and understanding they began to understand the concept of

researcher as instrument. Each arrived at a different sorting sequence because each employed

their own experiences to bring meaning to the data; a concept important to novice qualitative

researchers (Xu and Storr, 2012).

From student interactions and our discourses, I believed they gained an appreciation for

the abstract concept of data analysis by looking for common patterns in the data. Further, they

experienced the importance of journaling to answer challenges about the patterns they caused

to emerge. Most importantly, they saw that each sorting pattern was a legitimate truth based

on the individual choices made by the researcher and is influenced by the researcher’s values

(Laverty, 2003).

As Waite asserted in his article’s conclusion, not only were my students able to
understand discrepant case analysis, but they found analogies to other qualitative research

concepts: the researcher as the instrument of the research and confirmation bias. Additionally,

my small modifications to Waite’s game rules allowed the students to experience reflexive

journaling and how it helps with data verisimilitude and the audit trail.

Theoretical Framework Extension

To extend Waite’s card sorting game to illustrate the effects of an undergirding

theoretical framework on the outcomes (the patterns that emerge from the students’ sorts), I

created a theory the students would refer to during a third round of card sorting, Christy’s

Taxonomy of Card Complexity and Higher Order Thinking (Figure 1.). As I worked with students,

I noticed they – regardless of their national origin – were familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs, so I used this ubiquitously understood theory as a conceptual metaphor (Hogan, 2014)

when I tutored students. Therefore, when I created my own theory for this lesson, I used a

pyramid – as Maslow did – to display my taxonomy. In effect, I leveraged doctoral students’

familiarity with Maslow’s model to enable their understandings of mine. I created a framework

analogous to Maslow’s in the hope the familiar base domain might cue my students’

understanding of my model (Podolefsky & Finkelstein, 007). In my model, I listed a hierarchical

schema to order any card based on its suite, color, or numeric value: criteria on the bottom of

the pyramid was on a lower level of complexity than the category above it; any even red card

would fall in the lowest level of card complexity, while any ace would be at the highest level. I

built ambiguity into my hierarchy so students would need to make their own decisions about

how to handle discrepant cases. For example, a red eight could be placed in either the lowest

level or in the third level from the top.

 Figure 1. Christy’s Taxonomy of Card Complexity and Higher Order Thinking.

An invented theoretical framework to demonstrate the effects of an undergirding

theory on data analysis. By Christy Bebeau, 2020.

I printed and distributed one copy of the taxonomy to each student. I referenced

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and called their attention to the similarity in my taxonomy. I gave

them a few minutes to look over the taxonomy then reviewed it with them. I told the students

they would sort the deck of cards again, but this time they would sort according to the

undergirding theory. Additionally, I asked them to journal how they made decisions.

I noticed the students took longer to sort their cards. As soon as they encountered

ambiguity, I noticed them pause to think, decide on the category placement, and record their

decisions in their journals. When all the students were finished with their sorts, I asked them to

compare each other’s sort outcomes. They noticed the cards were sorted into piles that were

more similar than in the first two sort processes. They realized the common theory helped

them reach more consistent data analysis.

 By now the students were familiar with the game. They began to ask each other how

they handled those cards that might fit in more than one level or that might have been left off

the theory. It was interesting to watch, as they referenced their journaled notes, and either

explained or defend their decisions. Eventually, they acknowledged the decision of their peers

were all valid – so long as the decisions could be explained through the documentation. I

completed the exercise with a facilitated discussion about how the theoretical framework

might influence the a priori questions or might provide insight to possible coding categories.

*** A section must be added about modification for online environment ***

As a novice qualitative methods research instructor, I found it worthwhile to search

extant literature for teaching ideas. While there are only a few authors who published about

the use of games or gameplay as pedagogy (, those who did show creativity and effective

teaching methods in their lessons. Moreover, their works were inspiring as they demonstrated

how games engage students and enable greater understanding of the abstract processes

employed in qualitative methods research

In my literature search, I found few researchers or practitioners who discuss games as a

pedagogical tool for teaching qualitative methods in a graduate-level course. Those I found

(Mallette& Saldaña, 2019; Waite, 2011) focused on describing their gameplay (the preparation for

play, the rules, their observations of outcomes). Their publications were effective as lesson

plans and likely targeted toward practitioners. I was heartened to find researchers who were

using games to teach qualitative methods as their works provided a foundation for what I

wanted to present in my lesson plan. Further, the amount of details contained in these articles

was sufficient for me to evaluate how I might use them to improve my own pedagogy. The
interactive nature aligned with my epistemology, and I believe working with the card-sorting

game reinforced my belief in the motivational power of fun.

I selected Waite’s card sorting game as a basis for my lesson plan because of its

simplicity. It required a deck of cards for each student, had easy to follow rules, and Waite

provided clear directions for use. As Waite designed the game to demonstrate data analysis, I

could use it as published for one of my lesson objectives. Interestingly, while Waite discusses

how his game highlighted the concept of discrepant case analysis, I also found it might reveal

other qualitative research methods tenets: the researcher as the instrument of the research

and confirmation bias.

While my initial lesson plan did not call for the students to record decisions they made

as they sorted the cards, I added these instructions during the teaching session. This ad hoc

modification did not significantly add to the game duration, and was valuable to demonstrate

reflexive journaling, the importance of field notes to verisimilitude, and the concept of an audit

trail.

Adding a third round of card sorting to Waite’s lesson plan - a round in which the

students would reference a theoretical framework – involved planning and preparation. I

assumed the students would be familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and used it as a

model as I constructed my own imaginary theory. I was able to rely on the parallels between my

hierarchy and Maslow’s to improve the ease with which the students would become familiar

with my theory. I ensured I included some ambiguous sorting directions in the scheme to

enable the students to make their own decisions and reflect on why they made such decisions –

and journal about them. Most importantly, the third round of sorting demonstrated the effect
of a theoretical framework as a guide: the data was more likely to converge – even across

different researchers.

 In what ways might I perceive teaching through games engages my students and effects

their learning? – not yet answered; might want Nina’s stuff first

 What are the perceptions of my doctoral student participants about the game-based

lesson? – Not yet answers – need Nina’s stuff – OR just delete this question.

While I was naturally drawn to the idea of fun as an educational motivator, I had not

thought to deliberately build games into my pedagogy. While fun seems to be an aspect

researches have eschewed, the concept of gameplay is acceptable as a research subject. Put

more here about what I learned about gameplay… what makes a game “fun” cite sources… Still,

researchers (list them) imply fun, motivation, engagement, and learning are bound together.

After completing this activity, I was inspired to develop another game to use when

teaching qualitative methods. I created a lesson plan based on the public domain game,

Celebrity. In this lesson plan, students play a qualitative methods-adapted version to review

and learn vocabulary and research techniques they learned in their qualitative methods

courses. The game, which I call Qualulary, is played at three different levels and employs a

holistic assessment method (citation). I’ve included the rules and beginning Qualulary deck in

the appendix. Unfortunately, because of Covid-19, the qualitative methods classes were moved

to a virtual format, and I was not been able to test the game or gain perceptions of its use. Still,

I include it as a model and encouragement to other teachers of qualitative methods to develop

games as methods of teaching qualitative methods research. Change all this since I created an

online version.
Conclusion and Implications

Must finish this part.

Stuff I used before… and then didn’t use… might still use… in the next revision

My experience teaching according to this lesson plan agrees with Waite’s, “Data sorting and

categorization, the use of tacit and explicit theory in data analysis, and discrepant case analysis

can all be illustrated though use of a standard deck of playing cards” (pg 982).

, so I wondered if my card sorting exercise might serve as a conceptual metaphor with the

“purpose of representing one thing (presumably difficult to understand or describe) with

another thing” ( reference). Would it help them understand how researchers identify patterns,

the researchers’ role as instrument, and how researchers’ positionalities might influence the

patterns they bring to light.

I decided to use the concept of a theoretical framework and how it undergirds a qualitative

research methodology would be the central objective of my lesson.

References

Bisson, C., & Luckner, J. (1996). Fun in learning: The pedagogical role of fun in adventure

education. Journal of Experiential Education, 19(2), 108-112.

Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan Pragmatism and the Epistemology of Contemporary Social

Constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716–740.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032004716

Bulte, C., Betts, A., Garner, K., & Durning, S. (2007). Student teaching: views of student near-peer

teachers and learners. Medical teacher, 29(6), 583-590.

Feldman, A. (2007). Validity and quality in action research, Educational Action Research,

15:1, 21-32, DOI: 10.1080/09650790601150766

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 1(1),

16.

Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and

methodological considerations. International journal of qualitative methods, 2(3), 21-35.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.

Mallette, L. A., & Saldaña, J. (2019). Teaching qualitative data analysis through gaming. Qualitative

Inquiry, 25(9-10), 1085-1090.

Meyer, K., & Willis, R. (2019). Looking back to move forward: The value of reflexive journaling for novice

researchers. Journal of gerontological social work, 62(5), 578-585.

Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007, January). Refraining Analogy: framing as a mechanism of

analogy use. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 883, No. 1, pp. 97-100). American Institute of Physics.

Prensky, M. (???) The motivation of gameplay The real twenty-first century learning

revolution…

Rodríguez, M. C. (2014, August). Opening lesson plans to support teaching innovation and open

educational resources adoption. In Proceedings of The International Symposium on Open

Collaboration (pp. 1-4).

Roulston, K., & Shelton, S. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods.

Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 332-342.

Sen, A. I. (2009). A study on the effectiveness of peer microteaching in a teacher education

program. Egitim ve Bilim, 34(151), 165.

Singh, S. (2010). Near‐peer role modeling: The fledgling scholars education paradigm.

Waite, D (2011) A Simple Card Trick: Teaching Qualitative Data Analysis Using a Deck of Playing

Cards…

Mike Watts & Zelia Jofili (1998) Towards critical constructivist teaching, International

Journal of Science Education, 20:2, 173-185, DOI: 10.1080/0950069980200204

Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.

Xu, M. A., & Storr, G. B. (2012). Learning the concept of researcher as instrument in qualitative

research. Qualitative Report, 17, 42.