Samantha Ayers:
The survey tool has many ways of being interpreted. However, you mentioned, it does not allow open-ended questions, which may be required to enhance the study even further. What must be done is to engage the participants in a manner through additional testing. The importance of the survey is to maintain anonymity, which would promote ethical considerations in the purest sense. There is a driven sense of privacy being maintained in the process, which would be useful in the analysis of the situation being presented. The improvements you presented would limit the variability of the data, especially in the analysis of the study at hand. These insights would also establish heightened validity for the academic performance that you wish to assess, which would then promote even deeper perspectives at hand. The same work load would normalize the data in such a way that externalities will be limited and they will be adapted to with minimal hindrances.
Taylor Signore:
Your contention provided the necessary insight that would cultivate deeper meaning to how the self-report survey can be enhanced. Improving the questionnaire by streamlining it so that the unnecessary pieces of information can be removed is a good move, which would ensure the continuity of the study being maintained. I also believe that fillers are unnecessary and they can harm the integrity of the questionnaire at hand. What is important is to establish the dynamic that can ensure a continuous insight being derived when considering how the study design was created. These perceptions would not only establish accuracy on the part of the researcher, but it would ensure a sense of continuity to the design being presented. The self-report survey can be interpreted in various measures, but there must be a concrete support to further validate the situation being presented, in order to promote a deep-seated view that can enhance the delivery of the knowledge to relevant sectors.
