Choosing Survey Methods

Overview

In lesson 10 of 16, students build on earlier questionnaire planning by deciding how they will collect their data. They compare online and paper surveys, considering practicality, bias risk, and what environments make each method more suitable.

Learning intentions

WALT: Explore various data collection methods for a questionnaire and justify your choice.

• WALT: Compare online and paper surveys using clear advantages and limitations.
• WALT: Discuss environments (time, access, privacy, setting) that affect who responds and how reliably data is collected.
• WALT: Use questionnaire design thinking to reduce sources of error before piloting.

Success criteria

Students can:

• I can compare online vs. paper surveys using at least 2 pros and 2 cons each.
• I can explain how collection environments may change who responds (sampling/response bias).
• I can recommend a data collection method for a scenario and justify it with evidence from our considerations.
• I can identify at least one change to improve data quality based on expected issues.

Curriculum links

• Mathematics and Statistics: Statistics enquiry—designing data collection as part of the questionnaire design process.
• AS91263 Design a questionnaire: refining questionnaire questions through desk review and pilot planning, including documenting decisions.
• NZ Curriculum Refresh (Statistical inquiry): making choices about data collection methods and evaluating their suitability for the purpose and the population.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–8 min · Activation: quick sort. Teacher displays 8 statements about data collection (e.g., “easy to distribute”, “privacy risk”, “reach limited internet access”, “faster results”), and students sort into “more likely online”, “more likely paper”, or “either”. Students sort and give a one-word reason on their worksheet.

2. 8–18 min · Direct teach: compare methods. Teacher introduces an evidence checklist: access, anonymity, speed/efficiency, question order effects, missing responses, data quality/accuracy, cost, and response bias risk. Students copy the checklist and complete a guided compare table for online vs. paper (2 rows filled together).

3. 18–28 min · Partner task: environment scenarios. Teacher gives 4 short scenarios (e.g., a workplace training survey, a school wellbeing check during class time, a community event survey, a rural group with limited devices) and prompts students to think about the setting and who can realistically respond. Students complete a pros/cons list for both methods per scenario, then choose one “best fit” method.

4. 28–38 min · Whole class debrief: justify decisions. Teacher facilitates a discussion focusing on “what changes in the responses?” (who might be missing, who might decline, and whether answers may be influenced by the setting). Students contribute one justification using the template: “I recommend ___ because ___, so we expect ___ issue(s) and can reduce them by ___.”

5. 38–48 min · Mini check: desk review for data quality. Teacher models how data collection choices connect back to questionnaire design by asking: “How will the method affect missing data and clarity?” Students consider wording clarity, required questions, time limits, and response options. Students revise one collection note for a questionnaire draft: add one improvement to reduce a likely issue.

6. 48–58 min · Practice writing: method recommendation paragraph. Teacher provides a sentence scaffold for Merit-level clarity (compare + justify). Students write a short paragraph for a chosen scenario including expected risks and a mitigation. Students write and then peer-check with a checklist: compare, justify, mention environment, mention improvement.

7. 58–60 min · Exit ticket. Teacher asks: “What is one environment where paper is better, and one where online is better—and why?” Students answer on a ticket (2–3 sentences).

Resources

• Scenario cards (4) with brief context and population/access notes
• Online vs. paper comparison table (student handout)
• Data collection checklist (access, anonymity, missing data, bias risk, cost/time)
• Sentence starters and peer-check checklist
• Coloured sticky dots or mini-slips for the opening sort
• Dyslexia-friendly printed version of scenarios (short lines, clear spacing)
• Timers for each task segment

Assessment

• Formative: teacher observes the opening sort reasoning and checks misconceptions during the partner scenario work.
• Formative: scenario pros/cons lists and “best fit” choice are collected or spot-checked for quality of justification.
• Exit ticket checks whether students can link method choice to environment and response risk.

Differentiation

• Support: provide a partially completed comparison table and a checklist with sentence stems (“One pro is…”, “A limitation is…”). Offer an audio read-aloud option for scenario cards.
• Support (dyslexia-friendly): use shorter scenario paragraphs, larger font, and allow highlighted keywords (e.g., “limited internet”, “anonymous”, “during class time”).
• Extension (advanced learners): students create a mixed-method justification (e.g., online primary + paper backup) and predict how they would compare/merge results (e.g., how to treat different non-response rates).
• Extension (advanced learners) challenge: propose one pilot test plan comparing completion rate and missing data by method, then suggest one refinement to the questionnaire or data collection process.

Extension (optional)

• Mixed-method design: Students design a two-stage strategy for one scenario (online first, paper for non-responders or limited-access groups) and include a short justification describing expected sampling/response effects and mitigation steps.