Questionnaire link: Effectiveness and accessibility of instructional video guides – Fill in form
The questionnaire proved to be a useful tool for gathering feedback from students. However, several discrepancies within the responses suggest that the questionnaire’s design may need refinement, particularly to ensure greater accessibility and clarity for the students it was intended for – those who are neurodivergent or whose first language is not English.
In the first question:
[Screen shot of question]
[Screenshot of results]
There were noticeable inconsistencies in how students responded. Eleven out of fifteen respondents selected the same rating for every statement. Of these, eight chose “Strongly agree,” indicating that they found the resource helpful and easy to use. Their written comments on question 5 (“What could be improved or changed to make the video easier to use?”) reinforced this positive feedback, with responses such as:
- “All good!”
- “Nothing.”
- “It’s pretty much perfect I think.”
However, three respondents selected “Strongly disagree” for every statement. Interestingly, their comments on question 5 did not align with this rating. They responded with:
- “n/a”
- “The video is super clear!”
- “n/a”
This contradiction suggests that these participants may have misunderstood the scale or the phrasing of the first question. Among these three respondents, two identified as neurodivergent and one preferred not to say; one also indicated that English is not their first language. This further supports the idea that the question format may not have been accessible or intuitive for all students.
After reflecting on this, and drawing on relevant research, a more inclusive approach for this type of question might be to use visual rating scales — for example, a series of faces or colours — rather than text-based Likert statements. Sauer et al. (2020) emphasise that pictorial scales reduce the cognitive load required to interpret response options, making them particularly beneficial for individuals with lower literacy levels, limited language proficiency, or cognitive processing differences. The authors note that visual formats can “increase clarity and reduce misunderstanding compared to text-based scales,” as they rely less on linguistic interpretation and more on intuitive visual judgement.
[Pictorial scale example]
Alternatively, a face to face interview may have bypassed some of these issues, where no “reading” on the students part had to be done, or where I could read body language for instance.
Nevertheless, perhaps having these discrepancies in the questionnaire feedback, only further evidences the need for resources and an array for different learning styles, that aren’t solely written.
References
Sauer, J., Baumgartner, J., Frei, N. and Sonderegger, A. (2020). Pictorial Scales in Research and Practice. European Psychologist, 26, pp.112–130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/10169040/a000405.