The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,

Issues and Ideas

ISSN: 0009-8655 (Print) 1939-912X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtch20

Using Questionnaires in Teacher Research

Daniel Xerri

To cite this article: Daniel Xerri (2017) Using Questionnaires in Teacher Research, The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 90:3, 65-69, DOI:
10.1080/00098655.2016.1268033

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1268033

Published online: 12 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3076

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vtch20
THE CLEARING HOUSE
, VOL. , NO. , –
http://dx.doi.org/./..

Using Questionnaires in Teacher Research

Daniel Xerri
Centre for English Language Proficiency, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Teacher research is described as being beneficial and yet it is hampered by teachers’ lack of knowl- Teacher research;
edge about research, including how to use popular research methods. Given that accounts by teach- questionnaires; survey;
ers describing their use of such methods in a systematic manner might prove useful for their peers, professional development
this article describes my experience of using a questionnaire in teacher research.

Introduction Surveying students

Engaging in research is an important means by which
teachers can enhance teaching and learning, and
develop as professionals. Teacher research is defined as
research conducted by practitioners in their own con-
text and for the purpose of developing their under-
standing of their practices (Borg 2013). It “encour-
ages teachers to reflect on their practice, and therefore
leads to potential change. It plays an important part
in reflective teaching, where personal and professional
development occur when teachers review their experi-
ence in a systematic way” (Field 1997, 192). Despite its
benefits, the main argument against teacher research
concerns teachers’ lack of research skills and training
(Burns 2010b). One of the lacunae in teachers’ knowl-
edge about research seems to be constituted by a lack
of solid familiarity with how to use popular data collec-
tion methods. Despite the plethora of guides in relation
to different research instruments, these are not usu-
ally written by teachers and most often fail to take into
consideration how teachers might need to use them.
Given the idea that teachers seem to learn best from
other teachers (Margolis 2009), in this article I describe
my experience of using a questionnaire in some of my
teacher research. My account illustrates how I sought to
use the questionnaire in a systematic fashion, this being
one of the defining characteristics of teacher research
(Henderson et al. 2012).
In one of my studies at the school where I used to
teach, I incorporated a questionnaire into the mixed
methods design as a means of investigating the inter-
play between students’ attitudes, beliefs and prac-
tices in relation to some of the texts they studied in
class. I chose a mixed methods approach because this
enables teacher-researchers to combine different data
sources and methods of analysis in order to enhance
the completeness of description, and the accuracy
and sensitiveness of interpretation (McDonough and
McDonough, 1997).
In my experience, one of the attractions of using
a questionnaire is that it gives teacher-researchers
the opportunity “to gather information that learn-
ers are able to report about themselves, such as their
beliefs and motivations about learning or their reac-
tions to learning and classroom instruction and activ-
ities” (Mackey and Gass 2005, 77). However, I am
also aware that questionnaires tend to provide a some-
what thin description of whatever is being investigated
(Dörnyei 2007, 115) and are characterized by the possi-
ble restricted scope of the data that are collected, as well
as limited flexibility of response (Cohen, Manion, and
Morrison 2007, 317). The main downside for teacher-
researchers is that questionnaire data may sometimes
provide a superficial assessment of a very complex con-
struct (Wagner 2010, 26). In my study I sought to

CONTACT Daniel Xerri daniel.xerri@um.edu.mt Centre for English Language Proficiency, Room , Ġuze Cassar Pullicino Building, University of Malta,
Msida, MSD , Malta.
©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
66 D. XERRI
counteract these problems by combining the question-
naire with semi-structured and focus group interviews,
both of which have the capacity to provide rich data.
Teacher-researchers can design questionnaires in
order to collect three kinds of information about stu-
dents: factual, behavioral, and attitudinal (Dörnyei and
Taguchi 2010, 5). The first item in my study’s ques-
tionnaire asked for bio-data information whereas the
rest was made up of selected-response items and open-
ended questions focusing on attitudes, beliefs and prac-
tices. In this I followed McDonough and McDonough’s
(1997, 177) advice to choose a variety of question types
to enhance the range and detail of the gathered infor-
mation. That is why the questionnaire contained dif-
ferent kinds of questions, including multiple-choice,
dichotomous (e.g. yes or no questions), rank ordering
and open-ended questions. One of the questions was
in the form of a four-point Likert scale, which teacher-
researchers might find useful for identifying students’
opinions, views and judgements (Brown and Rodgers
2002, 120). I chose to use a four-point scale since I
was aiming for a stronger level of commitment on stu-
dents’ part than that entailed by a more finely tuned
five-point scale giving the “no opinion” option. Newby
(2014, 308) claims that “when a mid-point is inserted,
there is evidence that responses can gravitate towards
it because there is comfort in the average and it is eas-
ier to check it rather than think deeply about the issue
and decide on which side you sit.” For similar rea-
sons, the “don’t know” option was not inserted in the
selected-response items that formed part of my ques-
tionnaire. Teacher-researchers need to be aware of the
fact that if too many students opt for this category, the
results of their survey will not be statistically significant
(Wagner 2010, 27). Perhaps that is why it is described
as “a lazy option for some respondents” (Newby 2014,
314). I used open-ended questions whenever I could
not predict all the possible answers that students might
produce. According to Dörnyei (2007, 107), “By per-
mitting greater freedom of expression, open-format
items can provide a far greater richness than fully quan-
titative data”, however, they “work particularly well
if they are not completely open but contain certain
guidance.” I found that the best way of providing this
kind of guidance is by including clarification questions
and sentence completion items in my questionnaire.
Teacher-researchers also need to keep in mind that a
questionnaire’s brevity is very important as it facili-
tates response. I kept my questionnaire to a maximum
of four pages because of the suggestion that anything
much longer than that would be a heavy imposition on
respondents (Dörnyei 2007, 110).
Besides paying attention to a questionnaire’s design,
teacher-researchers also need to be careful of how
they administer it. I used my questionnaire to survey
the entire A-level English student population at my
school, which stood at 376 students (96 males and 280
females). By choosing to include the whole target pop-
ulation in the survey rather than just my students, I felt
I could speak with a higher degree of certainty about
their attitudes, beliefs and practices (Munn and Drever
2004, 19). I also realized that I would be able to com-
pare my students’ views with those of students taught
by my colleagues, thus identifying important similari-
ties and differences. Given my proximity to the target
population, I was also able personally to adminis-
ter the questionnaire. This is a good technique for
those teacher-researchers who want “to get standard-
ized information by offering everyone the same stim-
ulus”, especially since “the spoken presentation and
the attitude of the presenter can have a marked effect
on how questionnaires are completed” (Munn and
Drever 2004, 35,36). When a teacher-researcher takes
on responsibility for questionnaire administration, this
increases the response rate and the quality of the results
(Wagner 2010, 30). A problem that is sure to affect
teacher-research based on questionnaire data is that of
non-response bias. I chose to minimize this as much as
possible by asking students who were absent during the
administering of the questionnaire to complete a copy
upon their return to school.
The next stage in the process of using a question-
naire in teacher-research is that of analyzing the data.
A questionnaire is likely to yield a substantial amount
of numerical data, which has to be analyzed statisti-
cally. However, this does not necessarily involve famil-
iarity with dedicated software like SPSS. In my study, I
used spreadsheets to make sense of the raw data (Munn
and Drever 2004, 40). Closed-ended questions were
pre-coded by means of numbers and letters and this
was in line with the suggestion that “a coding frame
is generally developed before the interviewing com-
mences so that is can be printed into the questionnaire
itself ” (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007, 348). In
the case of open-ended questions, the coding frame
was developed by examining a sample of responses and
calculating a frequency tally, upon which the validity
of the coding frame was checked further by coding

a larger sample (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007,
348). This method is in line with the recommenda-
tion to analyze open-ended questions “by describing
the trends, themes or patterns of ideas you find in them”
(Burns 2010a, 85). Teacher-researchers need to bear
in mind that the main advantage of using categories
derived from the data rather than pre-set categories
is that one avoids the risk of imposing one’s interests
on the data (Munn and Drever 2004, 45). Moreover,
when coding both closed and open questions, missing
answers need to be taken into account, as are answers
that clearly show students’ disregard or misinterpreta-
tion of the instructions.
Piloting the questionnaire
If teacher-researchers wish to use questionnaires in a
systematic manner, it is advisable to pilot their instru-
ment. I found that when designing my questionnaire
it was helpful to take into account a number of rec-
ommendations put forward by the literature, especially
in relation to writing questions that match the stu-
dents’ vocabulary and ideas, making questions concise
and straightforward, and having one issue per question
(Newby 2014). The wording of the questions is par-
ticularly important when evaluating non-factual mat-
ters, such as students’ attitudes, beliefs and practices
(Dörnyei 2007, 103). The piloting of the questionnaire
will serve to address any problems in the wording
and in other aspects of the instrument. In the piloting
phase, teacher-researchers should aim “to increase the
reliability, validity and practicability of the question-
naire” (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007, 341) by
checking whether it is “relatively easy to answer, easy to
record and evaluate, user-friendly and unambiguous”
(McDonough and McDonough 1997, 177).
The choice of participants forming part of the pilot-
ing phase is an important consideration for teacher-
researchers. In line with Brown and Rodgers’s (2002,
143) recommendation to pilot a questionnaire with
participants similar to the ones who will form part of
the final study, I chose to pilot my questionnaire with a
group of students attending an A-level English course at
an institution similar to my school. Following Newby’s
(2014, 335) advice “to sit with respondents as they com-
plete the questionnaire and ask them to comment on
the questions as they answer them”, I chose to person-
ally administer the questionnaire to students in small
THE CLEARING HOUSE 67
groups so as to get an opportunity of tackling and mak-
ing a note of their difficulties.
The success of the piloting phase will depend largely
on the feedback provided by the students chosen by
the teacher-researcher. By piloting the questionnaire
with a group of students who were “sympathetic …
but willing to give forthright comments and sharp crit-
icism” (Munn and Drever 2004, 35), I was able to make
a number of adjustments to ambiguous and mislead-
ing terms and phrases. For example, in three particu-
lar questions students were asked to indicate the effec-
tiveness of their teacher’s method when teaching a set
text in lectures, and when conducting seminars and
tutorials. The design of these questions was somewhat
problematic, primarily because of the issue of “effec-
tiveness.” Noticing that some of the students had prob-
lems interpreting the term “effective”, I asked them to
explain to me what they considered to be effective or
not. Most of them claimed that an effective method
of teaching a set text is one in which they are pro-
vided with plenty of notes and background informa-
tion. However, during seminars and tutorials a teacher’s
method is considered effective if students are allowed
to “participate” and voice their views about the text
in question. Therefore, I decided to replace the term
“effective” with the less ambiguous “useful.” Another
problem presented by these three questions consisted
of the ambiguity surrounding the “somewhat effective”
category. Even though this category can be interpreted
as neutral, during my analysis of the data I tended
to associate it with the negative categories rather than
with the positive ones given that on its own it was not
telling me anything about the students’ opinions. As
mentioned above, a mid-point category attracts a lot
of attention because many respondents find it comfort-
able not having to take a definite stand on a particular
issue (Newby 2014). The data showed that this was cer-
tainly the case with seminars and tutorials and when I
questioned students about their choice, they conceded
that this was somewhat true. Hence, I decided to omit
the mid-point category from the revised questionnaire.
Besides dealing with issues concerning wording of
questions, teacher-researchers might sometimes have
to change the format of certain items. For exam-
ple, in another set of three items in my question-
naire students were asked whether they would like to
see any changes in their set text lectures, seminars,
and tutorials. A number of students merely answered
68 D. XERRI
affirmatively or negatively and failed to elaborate.
Hence, I decided to change these three items into
binary questions and provide adequate space for stu-
dents to write down reasons for their choice of answer.
Besides serving as an opportunity for redrafting
some of the items in a questionnaire, the pilot offers
teacher-researchers an avenue for data cross-checking.
For instance, I found that the attitudes towards texts
recorded by means of my questionnaire were largely
also highlighted by the student interview guide, topic
guide, and stimulus material. This is in line with the
idea that the best way of assessing the validity of
an instrument is by comparing its results with the
data yielded by other instruments (McDonough and
McDonough 1997, 179). For example, the question-
naire respondents’ appreciation of a lecturing approach
during lessons on a set text and a desire for more inter-
action during seminars and tutorials also emerged dur-
ing the analysis of the data generated by the other
instruments I used in my study. This meant that the
findings generated by means of the different instru-
ments in most cases corroborated each other. More-
over, as a teacher-researcher I was pleased to see that
in completing the questionnaire students answered
the questions in a consistent fashion, that is, the data
yielded by one particular item verified that produced
by other questions. For example, the percentage regis-
tered in relation to student satisfaction with the activi-
ties they did during their seminars was in line with the
results yielded by the question on students’ evaluation
of a teacher’s methodology during such seminars, and
the question on students’ enjoyment of said seminars.
Conclusion
After having used a questionnaire in one of my stud-
ies I am convinced of the value of this instrument
for teacher-researchers as long as it is deployed in the
systematic manner I have outlined. My use of a ques-
tionnaire provided me with a broad picture of students’
attitudes, beliefs and practices in relation to the texts
studied in class. The students’ views about the latter
also offered me an indication of what went on during
A-level English lessons at my school. The questionnaire
helped me to develop an insight into which classroom
practices students valued and found useful. The fact
that I did not restrict the questionnaire solely to my
students enabled me to compare myself as a teacher to
my colleagues, learning from some of the differences to
improve my teaching. Moving away from the insular-
ity of focusing only on my students and myself, I was
able to gain a better understanding of where I stood
as a practitioner in my context. I consider this to have
been the most important benefit of my use of a ques-
tionnaire.
The deployment of a questionnaire (in conjunc-
tion with other instruments) facilitated the process of
addressing some of the problems I had noticed my
students facing when reading texts in class for exam-
ination purposes. This is very much in line with the
idea that “teacher-researchers raise questions about
what they think and observe about their teaching and
their students’ learning” (MacLean and Mohr 1999, x).
Knowing how to answer those questions systematically
enables teacher-researchers to enhance their teaching
and their students’ learning.
References
Borg, S. 2013. Teacher research in language teaching: A critical
analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. D., and T. S. Rodgers. 2002. Doing second language
research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burns, A. 2010a. Doing action research in English language teach-
ing: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge.
Burns, A. 2010b. Teacher engagement in research: Published
resources for teacher researchers. Language Teaching 43 (4):
527–36.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research methods
in education. 6th ed. London and New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., and T. Taguchi. 2010. Questionnaires in second lan-
guage research: Construction, administration, and processing.
2nd ed. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Field, J. 1997. Key concepts in ELT: Classroom research. ELT
Journal 51 (2): 192–3.
Henderson, B., D. Meier, G. Perry, and A. Stremmel. 2012.
The nature of teacher research. Voices of practitioners 1–
7.https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/vop/Nature%20of
%20Teacher%20Research.pdf
Mackey, A., and S. M. Gass. 2005. Second language research:
Methodology and design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
MacLean, M. S., and M. M. Mohr. 1999. Teacher-researchers at
work. Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project.
Margolis, J. 2009. How teachers learn. Educational Leadership
66 (5). http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-lead
ership/feb09/vol66/num05/How-Teachers-Lead-Teachers.
aspx

McDonough, J., and S. McDonough. 1997. Research methods for
English language teachers. London: Edward Arnold.
Munn, P., and E. Drever. 2004. Using questionnaires in small-
scale research: A beginner’s guide. Rev. ed. Glasgow: The
SCRE Centre, University of Glasgow.
THE CLEARING HOUSE 69
Newby, P. 2014. Research methods for education. 2nd ed. Abing-
don and New York: Routledge.
Wagner, E. 2010. Survey research. In Continuum companion to
research in applied linguistics, edited by B. Paltridge, and A.
Phakiti, 22–38. London and New York: Continuum.