Ethical Survey Design

Overview

This is lesson 9 of 16 in the unit “Designing Effective Questionnaires”. Today students explore ethical considerations in survey design, focusing on research guidelines, consent, and confidentiality, then apply them to their own developing questionnaire.

Learning intentions

WALT understand ethical considerations in survey design.

Success criteria

Students can:

• identify ethical guidelines in research and how they apply to survey questions
• discuss consent and confidentiality issues in survey contexts
• spot ethical risks in example survey items and justify improvements

Curriculum links

• Statistics — understanding survey design decisions and the statistical enquiry cycle (clarifying purpose, posing questions, checking and refining tools)
• AS91263 — Design a questionnaire (including documenting the design process with justification)
• Key competencies: Thinking (ethical trade-offs), Managing self (responsible decision-making), Participating and contributing (class discussion norms)

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Starter: “What’s the harm?” Teacher displays 3 short scenario cards (e.g., asking about income, collecting names, pressure to answer) and asks students to underline the potential ethical risk. Students think silently, then do a quick turn-and-talk: “What could go wrong for participants?”

2. 5–12 min · Direct teach: Ethical guidelines for surveys Teacher explains core ethical ideas for questionnaire design: respect for persons, honesty about purpose, voluntary participation, minimising harm, and fairness (no coercion, no targeting vulnerable groups). Students complete a 1-minute note: “One ethics rule I can see in surveys is…”

3. 12–22 min · Consent in practice Teacher leads a focused discussion on consent types students may see in school/community surveys: informed consent (purpose, what data is collected), opt-in/opt-out, and participants’ right to skip questions. Students match 6 consent statements to the correct idea (informed, voluntary, right to skip, withdrawal, age/guardian considerations, clarity of purpose) using mini whiteboards.

4. 22–34 min · Confidentiality & privacy Teacher models how questionnaire features create privacy risks: collecting names, linking answers to identity, indirect identifiers (exact location, student number), storing data, and reporting results in aggregated form only. Students label a sample questionnaire outline as “confidentiality-safe” or “needs change”, then write one improvement for each flagged item.

5. 34–44 min · Ethical dilemma workshop (pairs) Teacher provides 4 dilemma prompts and a quick “Ethics T-chart”: Risk vs Safer alternative. Students work in pairs to propose a safer questionnaire approach and prepare a 30-second justification.

6. 44–52 min · Whole-class debrief + teacher feedback Teacher collects pair suggestions and highlights how ethical refinement connects to statistical quality (better response rates, less bias from fear/pressure). Students refine their own thinking using a “Justify” sentence stem: “We changed this because it reduces…”

7. 52–60 min · Exit ticket (individual) Teacher asks students to answer two prompts:

• “Give one consent issue and one confidentiality issue that could appear in a questionnaire.”
• “Name one question feature you would change to improve ethics.” Students submit individually; teacher uses responses to plan next lesson checks on questionnaire draft refinements.

Resources

• Scenario/dilemma cards (print or slide)
• 1-page “Ethics T-chart” worksheet
• Sample questionnaire snippets (short, anonymised)
• Mini whiteboards and markers
• Sticky notes for class debrief
• Sentence stems handout (dyslexia-friendly, optional)
• Timer for workshop and exit ticket

Assessment

• Formative checks: ethical risk identification during starter and confidentiality-safe labeling
• Workshop evidence: pairs’ “risk vs safer alternative” and 30-second justification
• Exit ticket: assesses whether students can articulate consent and confidentiality issues and propose ethical changes

Differentiation

• Support for diverse learners:
• Provide sentence starters for consent/confidentiality justifications (e.g., “To ensure informed consent, we would…”)
• Use short, clearly worded dilemma prompts with icons for consent vs confidentiality
• Offer dyslexia-friendly reading: provide an audio read-aloud of the scenario cards and a simplified glossary (e.g., “confidentiality = not sharing identity”)
• Targeted guidance:
• Offer a checklist of “ethical risk signals” (names, sensitive topics, coercive wording, unclear purpose, inability to skip)
• Pair students strategically so each pair includes a confident explainer and a reflective responder
• Extension for advanced learners (in class during the dilemma workshop):
• Require an additional “ethics justification” linking the change to data quality (e.g., reducing non-response bias and improving trust)
• EAL considerations:
• Allow responses using diagrams or bullet points first, then add one sentence of explanation
• Confirm understanding of key terms before pair work

Extension (optional)

• Create an ethics checklist for their studies: collect students’ checklist drafts as homework or for the start of the next lesson if time allows (use the T-chart headings: consent, confidentiality, minimising harm, fairness).