Purpose of This Post:
This post reflects on how I worked with interview data collected as part of my Action Research Project. I focus on analytic observations and reflections that emerged from engaging with the interview interactions.
I conducted two semi-structured interviews with students who had completed the inclusive pre-session questionnaire and attended a 1-to-1 technical support session.
The focus here is not on identifying themes across participants, but on examining how meaning was produced within the interview interaction itself, particularly in relation to how students react to the pre-session questionaries.
Ethical Note on Transcript Use
- Anonymised (Student A / Student B),
- Lightly edited for clarity,
- Selected because they illustrate interactional dynamics relevant to the research focus.
Transcript Analysis Notes
Across both interviews, the questionnaire appeared to function less as an administrative tool and more as a preparatory materials that shaped how students entered the one-to-one session.
Student A repeatedly returned to feelings of reduced anxiety and increased clarity. Early in the interview, she stated that the questionnaire “helped me feel less anxious or less stressed about communicating how I feel” Interview cleaned transcript. She contrasted this with previous sessions, explaining that without the questionnaire she would have “probably sat there and let you lead.” This indicates that, without any pre-session prompts and questionnaire, student in the session assume it would be a educator-centered rather than a learner-centered session.
When prompted further, Student A described the questionnaire as something that “made me think about what I actually wanted to ask.” This reflection occurred before the tutorial itself, suggesting that engagement began in advance rather than emerging reactively during the session. She emphasised the supportive nature of the structure, repeating that “all the options were there”, and struggled to identify anything missing, suggesting that the design reduced uncertainty rather than overwhelming her with choice.
During discussion of the session itself, Student A pointed out the importance of learning modality. She noted that “rather than just talking about it, being able to see it [the live demonstration] was really helpful,” and that working directly with her own content improved understanding. By articulating this preference, the student was shaping the session towards visual and applied modes of learning, rather than abstract explanation.
Student B’s interview centred around language and efficiency. While she found the tick-box questions straightforward, the open-ended question required more thought: “writing questions always takes longer.” Notably, she framed her effort in relational terms, explaining that she felt she “should think of something to write” in order to “support this research.” This moment required reflexive attention, as it suggested a desire to be helpful rather than purely expressive.
However, the questionnaire opened space for a practical and significant adjustment. Student B explained that although she usually chooses English “out of respect for the culture here,” using her mother language for technical software was more effective. Following the session, she changed the system language to Chinese, describing it as “much easier to understand,” particularly for advanced stages where she needed to articulate complex goals clearly. She also reflected that the questionnaire helped her realise she could use alternative learning methods, such as videos or problem-solving, when booking a session was not possible.
Analysis Discussion
Taken together, these interviews suggest that the UDL-informed pre-session questionnaire supported anticipatory engagement, reduced anxiety, and enabled practical adjustments that would have been difficult to negotiate spontaneously during one-to-one sessions. Rather than simply collecting information, the questionnaire shaped how students reflected on their learning needs and how they participated in technical support, aligning with UDL’s emphasis on proactive rather than reactive design.
Both students described how completing the questionnaire in advance shifted the focus of the session itself. For Student A, this reduced uncertainty and allowed the tutorial to prioritise visual and applied learning approaches. For Student B, the questionnaire created space to discuss language preferences, leading to technical and communication adjustments that improved efficiency and clarity. These examples demonstrate how flexibility in representation, engagement, and emotional support was operationalised most effectively before the session began.
At the same time, Student B’s expressed desire to “support the research” highlights that power dynamics and perceived expectations continue to shape student responses, even within inclusive designs. While this did not diminish the usefulness of the questionnaire, it reinforces the need for reflexivity when interpreting feedback. Overall, the findings suggest that the value of the pre-session questionnaire lies in enabling preparedness, choice, and responsiveness, supporting more inclusive and effective one-to-one technical learning experiences.