Research Methods Focus

Overview

In this lesson, students explore how health and social care practitioners use research to improve outcomes. They compare qualitative and quantitative methods and practise choosing an appropriate approach for a realistic scenario.

Learning intentions

• WALT research methods in health and social care by describing key differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches.
• WALT explain how sampling and data collection methods affect the reliability and usefulness of findings.
• WALT plan a simple, ethical mini-study linked to a current health or social care issue.

Success criteria

• I can define qualitative and quantitative research and give a clear example of each.
• I can explain how each method produces different types of evidence.
• I can choose suitable research methods for a given question and justify my choice.
• I can describe at least three ethical considerations when researching with people.

Curriculum links

• PSHE: relationships and health education, including how evidence can inform choices and services.
• PSHE: developing critical thinking about information, data and claims.
• Health and social care learning themes: using evidence to improve care, and understanding ethical practice.
• Skills for life in the wider curriculum: planning, evaluating information and communicating findings responsibly.

Lesson structure ({total minutes})

1. 0–5 min | Starter: Evidence sorting

• Display four short “study blurbs” (two qualitative, two quantitative) with different wording (e.g., interviews vs questionnaires; numbers vs themes).
• Students individually sort into “numbers” or “themes”, then pair-share one reason for each choice.

2. 5–15 min | Mini-lesson: Two types of evidence

• Teacher introduces qualitative and quantitative methods, focusing on: aims, data type (words/themes vs numbers), common tools (interviews/focus groups vs surveys/measurements), and typical strengths/limits.
• Use a quick teacher-led comparison chart: “What it helps you understand” and “What it might miss”.

3. 15–25 min | Guided discussion: Sampling and reliability

• Students answer prompts in a class discussion: “If you only ask 5 people, what might that mean?” and “How could the same question lead to different results?”
• Clarify that reliability/usefulness depends on method choices, sample, wording, and consistency—without requiring advanced statistics.

4. 25–40 min | Group task: Method matching

• In groups of 4, students receive a scenario (e.g., reasons for missed appointments; experiences of carers; barriers to using mental health services).
• Task: decide which method fits best (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed), then write:
• research question
• chosen method(s)
• how data would be collected (tool + step)
• one limitation
• Teacher circulates and uses questioning to challenge thinking (“What evidence would you get from this?” “What bias could happen?”).

5. 40–50 min | Ethics spotlight: Safe, respectful research

• Students complete a short “ethics check” on their scenario, identifying ethical issues such as consent, confidentiality, safeguarding concerns, voluntary participation, and avoiding harm.
• Teacher consolidates with a class summary and links to professional practice: people must not be treated as “data only”.

6. 50–58 min | Share-out and method justification

• Each group gives a 1-minute pitch. Peers ask one “challenge question” focusing on method fit and ethics.
• Teacher provides targeted feedback on clarity of justification, not just the label.

7. 58–60 min | Exit ticket: Quick choice

• Students answer: “For this question: ___, would you choose qualitative or quantitative (or both)? Explain in 2 sentences.”
• Collect to inform next lesson and check misconceptions.

Resources

• Scenario cards for group work (health and social care contexts appropriate for Year 12)
• Evidence sorting cards (study blurbs)
• Method comparison chart (teacher-made or projected)
• Ethics prompt strips (consent, confidentiality, safeguarding, bias, data protection)
• Planning sheet template for research mini-study
• Timer and display for 1-minute pitches
• Sticky notes or mini whiteboards for challenge questions
• Dyslexia-friendly reading versions of scenarios (short sentences, increased font)
• Optional audio-read of scenario cards (teacher or device)

Assessment

• Formative: observation during group method matching and teacher questioning on bias, sampling, and evidence type.
• Summative-lite: exit ticket showing whether students can justify a method choice and name ethical considerations.
• Peer feedback: challenge questions used to check understanding and reasoning quality.

Differentiation

• Support:
• Provide sentence starters for research question, method justification, and limitations (e.g., “I chose… because…”, “A limitation is…”).
• Offer a simplified planning sheet with fewer boxes and example “good answers”.
• Use audio-supported reading of scenario cards and allow extra processing time.
• Stretch:
• Ask advanced groups to propose a mixed-methods option and explain what each method adds.
• Require one additional ethical issue or bias risk and propose how to reduce it (e.g., leading questions, low response rates).
• EAL:
• Provide vocabulary support cards for “qualitative”, “quantitative”, “themes”, “data”, “consent”, “confidentiality”.
• Allow bilingual discussion first, then one spokesperson summarises in English with structured prompts.
• SEN / Dyslexia-friendly:
• Use large-print materials, consistent formatting, and clear colour coding (numbers vs themes).
• Provide reduced-text scenario versions and offer “read-aloud” support.

Assessment for dyslexia-friendly reading options

• Provide all key handouts in two formats: standard and reduced-text.
• Allow students to listen to the scenario cards via teacher read-aloud or an accessible audio option.
• Keep written tasks short and broken into steps with visible timers.