Transcripts
Part 3: You will hear two students, Hannah and Luca, discussing plans for a pilot survey.
HANNAH: Have you read Dr Whitaker’s comments on the draft questionnaire?
LUCA: Yes. He’s been pretty clear. He says the pilot isn’t about testing our theory. It’s about checking whether the procedure works smoothly.
HANNAH: Good. Then we treat it like a trial run. Let’s list the likely problems for participants and decide how we can reduce each one.
LUCA: First problem, people dropping out before they finish.
HANNAH: That usually happens when they can’t see how much is left. We could shorten the survey.
LUCA: But then we wouldn’t be testing the real flow.
HANNAH: True. So we keep the structure, but we make it feel manageable. Give them a clear indication of progress on every page.
LUCA: A progress bar at the top.
HANNAH: Exactly.
LUCA: Second, low digital confidence. Some people get stuck on the first screen and then give up.
HANNAH: We could add instructions at the start.
LUCA: I’m not sure they’ll read them.
HANNAH: Then we change the setting for the pilot. We can run it on tablets at the community centre, with a helper nearby if someone gets stuck.
LUCA: Not hovering, just available.
HANNAH: Yes, just quiet support.
LUCA: Third, the frequency questions. The wording is too vague. When we say regularly, people interpret it differently.
HANNAH: We should anchor the meaning. Replace vague words with fixed intervals.
LUCA: Like once a week or once a month.
HANNAH: Exactly. Concrete time frames make it clearer for participants and cleaner for us.
LUCA: Fourth issue, consent. People scroll and click without reading.
HANNAH: We could include it in the introduction paragraph.
LUCA: They’ll skim it.
HANNAH: Right, so we make it its own step. One clear tick box, and nothing else loads until they’ve agreed.
LUCA: A separate consent page.
LUCA: Fifth, duplicate responses. If someone completes it twice, it messes up the pilot feedback.
HANNAH: We could spot duplicates afterwards.
LUCA: That’s risky, and it raises privacy issues.
HANNAH: Then we prevent repeats at the start. A QR code is fine for recruitment, but each participant should receive a link that works only once.
LUCA: Single-use access links. Good.
LUCA: Sixth, open questions taking too long. Some people write long answers, and others skip them.
HANNAH: We could remove free text completely.
LUCA: Dr Whitaker might want at least one space for comments.
HANNAH: Then keep just one optional comment box at the end, and make everything else multiple choice.
LUCA: That should speed it up.
HANNAH: Great. Now the pilot plan details. Sample size first.
LUCA: What about thirty participants?
HANNAH: For a pilot that’s more than we need. We’re looking for usability problems, not estimating population values. I’d aim for twenty-four.
LUCA: Twenty-four. Fine.
HANNAH: Recruitment should be split as well. Half from the campus noticeboard, half from the community centre mailing list.
LUCA: The mailing list will give us a different mix, so that’s useful.
HANNAH: Incentives?
LUCA: We could offer cash.
HANNAH: I’d avoid it. It can affect motivation and complicate approval.
LUCA: So a prize draw instead.
HANNAH: A bookshop voucher as the prize, then.
LUCA: Works for me.
HANNAH: Timeline.
LUCA: Two weeks?
HANNAH: That’s longer than we need. Ten days is enough, and it includes two weekends.
LUCA: Ten days, agreed. Also, we should collect pilot feedback separately from the actual survey answers.
HANNAH: Yes. After they submit, we add a short feedback screen asking what felt confusing and what took too long.
LUCA: OK. I’ll write this up for Dr Whitaker, with the risks and fixes, the sample size, recruitment, and the timeline.
HANNAH: And I’ll update the questionnaire so it matches what we’ve decided.
