Student's online evaluation comments included "Awesome teacher. Freakishly smart. Helpful and his lectures are informative and he has a good sense of humour. He'll challenge you and makes sure you learn the material. He should teach other instructors in the program how to teach" (2010, p. 80).  Reagan interpreted this passage as "Student is appreciative of instructor's knowledge and presentation, including humour, with the goal of challenging the student to learn. (p. 80).  She then coded this evaluation with the initial codes "Awesome," "Smart," "Humorous," "Helpful," "Informative" and "Challenging."   Students, however, did not rate all instructors so positively.  Another student's evaluation read "Does not follow curriculum, inconsistent marker, hard to follow in class" (p. 80).  Reagan interpreted this evaluation as meaning: "Student is dissatisfied with the absence of content, inconsistency in marking and lack of clarity in presenting the content" (p. 80).  She then coded this evaluation with the initial codes "Inconsistent" and "Unclear" (p. 80).  The initial codes, like open codes in grounded theory, are quite close to the specific content stated in each evaluation.   The second step of combining and consolidating codes involves more interpretation.  It may also involve a move toward greater abstraction and conceptualization.