Reading (Converse and Presser, 2011; Patten, 2017), alongside tutorial feedback, helped me to clarify my thinking and determine my data collection method: a questionnaire comprising two questions.
Converse and Presser’s (2011) focus on practical questionnaire design significantly informed my approach. Their discussion of how researchers’ intended meanings often differ from respondents’ interpretations (drawing on Belson, 1981) highlighted the risk of ambiguity in survey questions. To mitigate this and improve accessibility, I used straightforward language and clearly defined parameters throughout the questionnaire. For example, the opening question asks students to consider whether they have experienced confusion within the past month, explicitly situating this reflection in relation to creative and academic activities such as classes, tutorials, studio work, and independent practice. Although I initially intended to begin with a drawing task, insights from the readings and feedback from tutorials indicated that this approach could be overwhelming, leading me to revise the structure accordingly.
The reading also highlighted the value of varied question formats to reduce respondent fatigue, and the use of visual aids such as bold text, arrows, and boxes. I incorporated both into my questionnaire design. Peer feedback from Anna Reading prompted me to consider paper size and colour. When we discussed printing the questionnaire at A3 and on coloured paper, Anna noted this could compromise anonymity. As a result, the final questionnaire was printed at A4 on plain paper.
Further ethical considerations around anonymity and participant wellbeing were also addressed through reading and tutorial discussions. Converse and Presser (2011, p. 14) ask, “In the academic setting, who can say that a questionnaire is distressing respondents, leaving them feeling worse about themselves or their lives than the interviewer found them? If that happened . . . is it anyone’s responsibility to find out?” This raised three key concerns for me: how to support students without compromising anonymity, how to avoid reinforcing negative associations between their course and confusion, and how to ensure that participation or non-participation did not affect our tutor-student relationship. To address these, I built 20 minutes into the teaching session for optional follow-up, did not mention UAL or the course in my questions, instead asking students to think about their “creative or academic work,” and communicated both verbally and in the information sheet that participation was voluntary and would have no bearing on my relationship with them.
Finally, when drafting my questionnaire, this quote was particularly helpful: “Human experience is much too unruly in its diversity to be fully contained by the precoded responses of closed questions . . . Open-ended questions are far better for capturing these details and idiosyncrasies.” (Converse and Presser, 2011, p. 14) While my first question was closed to help students situate themselves, the second question was open, with the option to write and/or draw, to enable responses that might better capture students’ plural experiences of confusion.
Appendix:
- A brief voice note capturing my initial reflections after reading The Tools at Hand (Converse and Presser, 2011). If listening, please do so from 2 mins 40 secs: http://ewoolleypgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/files/2026/01/Reflections-on-The-Tools-at-Hand-Converse-and-Presser-2011.m4a
- Initial draft questionnaire: http://ewoolleypgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/files/2026/01/Outline-for-a-questionnaire-1.pdf. My questions were initially wide-ranging, exploring confusion as a bodily and emotional experience, how students from different language backgrounds use the word, synonyms they might employ, and the strategies or support they draw on to navigate confusion. Tutorial feedback prompted me to realise that I had collapsed my project ambitions to review my group tutorial delivery into the data collection method. Several questions were presumptive or asked students to identify potential solutions, rather than locating responsibility for change within my own practice. The discussion also highlighted the role of language. If the phrase “I’m confused” functions as a proxy for multiple or layered experiences, this, rather than the word “confused” alone, becomes the more meaningful focus for exploration.