I had my first meeting with my supervisor today—both nervous and excited. Over the past week, I’ve been piecing together scattered ideas like a puzzle. To prepare for the discussion, I listed over a dozen questions in advance, ranging from “How large should my sample size be?” to “How should I handle culturally sensitive issues?” I even debated whether to study both students and teachers simultaneously. Looking back, this anxiety actually gives the meeting a stronger sense of direction.

My research goals were too broad—I want to analyze urban-rural differences while also comparing students’ and parents’ acceptance of sex education. My supervisor advised me to focus on one group first. “For example, high school students, as they are at a stage where the need for sex education is particularly complex. If time permits, you can then expand to compare urban and rural differences.” This insight was a wake-up call for me—not covering everything but about finding a clear entry point and digging deep.

Regarding methodology, my supervisor gives me some very practical advice on questionnaire design. I was worried that open-ended questions might make students uncomfortable, and her response was straightforward: “For sensitive topics, use closed-ended questions—rating scales from 1 to 5 or simple Yes/No options. Focus on collecting data first; in-depth interviews can be left for future research.” She also recommended Qualtrics, mentioning that the university provides free access and that it’s safer and more efficient than paper-based surveys. But what surprised me the most is the concept of saturation point—turns out, a larger sample size isn’t always better. If responses start repeating, even 30 surveys can be enough to draw meaningful conclusions.

When discussing ethical, my supervisor emphasized that details make all the difference. “For example, you must clearly state that data will only be stored on the university server—not on a USB drive. And participants’ right to withdraw shouldn’t be ‘anytime’ but should have a specified deadline.” These were things I haven’t even considered before. She also suggested changing the questionnaire title from ‘Sex Education Survey’ to ‘Adolescent Health Behavior Study’ to avoid triggering resistance. I realized that behind such a small adjustment lies a deeper respect for participants’ perspectives.

I suddenly recall a question my supervisor raised: “If rural students can’t access AI tools due to internet limitations, would your conclusions be completely reversed?” This makes me realize that behind tech optimism lies a deeper infrastructure gap.

There are still many uncertainties, but at least now, I have a clearer roadmap.

A Recap of the First Individual Supervision / Meiling Feng / Education Futures: KIPP & Futures Project (2024-25) by Mewling Feng is licensed under a 知识共享署名CC BY 3.0