Developing a Q-Sort for training
Domain of activity
- Animation of group
- Training
Objective of the tool/method
Q-Sort is a technique of Qualitative (Q) Selection (sort) developed by an American statistician at the end of the 1960s. This tool enables collection, through a questionnaire or an attitude scale, of subjective appreciations and personal impressions.
**__Why ?__**
When we address subjects that are on the face of it rather consensual (education, right and wrong, responsibility, complexity...), there is a risk of not addressing the multiple interpretations that members of a group may offer on this subject. These are referred to as ‘representations’, and ‘instilled’ values. Consequently, **behind an apparent consensus, the heterogeneity of points of view and interpretations may impact the construction of a group, the development of a shared culture and become a source of misunderstanding** on a more or less serious level with possible consequences on the group dynamic and the development (cognitive, professional, affective...) of each of its members.
**__For what ?__**
The procedure proposed by the Q-Sort test enables us to **highlight and demonstrate the heterogeneous nature of a group’s representations** by looking at the positions of each of the members with regards to the proposals made. But if the process doesn’t go any further, it remains informative, but not particularly formative. Consequently, over and above the individual positions with the group, the fact of creating the conditions for collective exchange on each member’s positions invites each of the members to draw upon their intellectual and emotional reserves in order to present and defend their choices (conceptualisation) and to therefore call them into question through confrontation (controversy).
The objective is** not to aim for a consensus, but to share any dissensus in order to create tools for development, reflexion, levers...** and not to focus on sticking points which may hinder group development.
**__For whom ?__**
The Q-Sort process is supple, easy to deploy and does not require any special procedure. It is therefore highly adaptable to a wide variety of situations and publics. And is notably pertinent in initial phases of teaching-learning when a new and central concept is being addressed.
From primary school to university, from the scholarly environment to a professional environment, **all types of courses can benefit from the procedure**.
Description of the tool
__**How ?**__
A Q-Sort is a **group of proposals, affirmations, citations… compiled** in a table or in the form of a list which are relative to a given subject or issue: “teaching is above all...” or « “educating on responsibility involves…”, or again “taking into account the complexity of situations requires...”. The number of proposals is variable and mainly depends on the time allocated to this sequence in the training plan and to the level of complexity of the notion addressed. Generally speaking, some 20 to 30 proposals enables a **reasonable overview of the different dimensions of the subject**.
To enable the representations to emerge and to stimulate discussion, **the proposals should be carefully thought out**. This is the most delicate phase in the construction of the tool... If we consider that the objective is to encourage exchange and debate and to bring diverging opinions to the fore, it is essential that the proposals are not too evident and are also not off-subject. They **must be devised and formulated in such a manner that they do provoke discussion, are ambiguous and maybe contested**...
For example, in a Q-Sort concerning teaching models with 40 proposals, we could find the 3 following relative to the question “teaching is above all...”:
11. Efficiently organising the written information remaining on the board;
21. Conclude each activity with a very clear résumé;
38. Call upon the knowledge and experience of the participants;
Through the formulation of the question (… is above all...), the reader is invited to take a position. This is an initial dilemma because the proposals never enable the subject to be addressed in full. There will have to be choice and renunciations. Some of the choices will be personally questionable which again encourages collective discussion.
If the initial ‘trick’ lies in the fact of introducing ambiguity in the articulation between the question and the proposals, a **second ‘trick’ is the construction of a sort of grid for reading the proposals**. Taking the example of pedagogical models, the proposals have been formulated with an underlying reference to the three key models identified in educational science : transmissive, behaviourist and constructivist. This meta grid represents an indicator for the tutor. Proposals 11, 21 and 38 each refer to a practice or an approach relative to one or other of the models. In the present case, proposal 11 is close to the transmissive form, 21 to the behaviourist form and 38 to constructivism... It is therefore important to balance the number of proposals relative to one or other of the previously identified categories...
In other words, for the construction of the proposals, it is important to establish an evaluation grid up front. This method, which is potentially partial and one-sided, will give the course leader the opportunity to regulate the ensuing exchanges and enable the participants to take a step back and take a more informed stance.
**__Running a Q-Sort__**
Once produced, the grid (or list) of proposals is submitted to a group of learners (trainees...) and there are 3 to 4 phases to be carried out within the given time frame and subject to the size of the group.
- **An initial phase of individual reading** (5 to 10 mins.) with the following instruction : “choose x proposals (from 2 to 5 depending on the number of proposals available) which you entirely agree with and x that you fully disagree with”.
- **A second phase of sharing these choices with a partner** (10 to 15 minutes) with the following instruction: “compare your choices and discuss in order to select x proposals that you agree upon and x that you do not agree upon”.
- **A third phase of sharing these choices by bringing 2 pairs together** (10 to 15 minutes) and the same instructions as above.
- **A final phase with the entire group** (20 to 30 minutes), for sharing the choices and above all the exchanges and the difficulties met when trying to find common ground. During this final phase the tutor can reveal the methodology behind the implementation of the tool.
Contact
Loïc Braida
Contact email
loic.braida@supagro.fr
Address
9 rue Célestin Freinet
Town
FLORAC
Author of the index card
Marie-Laure Girault
Author structure
Institut d'éducation à l'agro-environnement de Florac
Author email
marie-laure.girault@supagro.fr