After calling out to 146 BA Fashion Contour students on email, 8 students attended the focus group. This is a sample size of 5.5%. I wanted a maximum of 10 students. Johnson and Christensen (2004, P.326) explain that ‘A focus group is composed of 6 to 12 participants who are purposively selected because they can provide the kind of information of interest to the researcher.’ 

I am presenting my findings using descriptive statistics, indicating patterns. Frequencies are used to evaluate how the updated handouts address the needs of students in line with the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles.

All eight participants were Year 2 students who had completed this workshop in the previous academic year, possessing prior technical knowledge. I asked them to go through the handouts and think about what they want now, as a year 2 student with prior technical knowledge, but also as the year 1 student they were, when they took this workshop.

Data Analysis

Attached below is the data gathered. I took all participants annotations on the original handout and the new handout, and jotted them down, broken into sections.

Page 1 is the original handout, page 2 is the updated handout. There is more data for the updated handout, as there was a larger volume of work to annotate during the focus group.

The original handout

5 out of 8 participants (62.5%) commented positively on its visual appearance; however, 6 out of 8 (75%) identified clarity-related barriers. These included unexplained abbreviations, poor diagram labelling, and a lack of technique explanation.

Half of participants (50%) were confused around technicial wording, asking for further information. This suggests that the original handout privileged learners with prior technical knowledge. 

Aligning with UDL principles, narrowly designed curricula can marginalise the range of learners. ‘Lessons are not designed merely for talented students or average students or untalented ones; rather those lessons also have options built-in supports so that most or all students are in their zone of proximal development and optimally engaged.’  Glass, Meyer, & Rose, (2012, p. 105). If the built-in supports are not good enough for a vast range of students, I dont believe they are appropriate.

The updated handout

All participants (100%) described the redesigned handout as clearer or easier to follow. 7 out of 8 participants (87.5%) referenced the front-page overview, and the second page learning objectives, stating they helped them understand what the task required.

Referencing UDL, this handout reflects improved understanding through clearer organisation with smaller sections of information.

Multiple means of representation, a core UDL principle, is evidenced. 6 out of 8 participants (75%) commented on the value of mixed media  (photographs of the sample and clear technical drawings) writing that this helped them visualise the construction process more effectively.

The glossary and symbol key had a positive response. 7 participants (87.5%) commented on this, indicating reduced confusion and increased independence. This follows UDL guidance around providing options for language and symbols so that technical vocabulary does not become a barrier to learning.

6 participants (75%) stated that explaining methods such as ‘French seams’, a complicated method done in several stages, helped them connect practical steps to taught content.  

Further changes were asked from all 8 participants (100%). They ask for:

• more detailed explanations in places,
• repositioning sections and diagrams in places,
• improving photographs to have contrast trims and thread for better visibility.

The comments relate to enhancement rather than learning barriers. No participants indicated that the updated handout reduced clarity or accessibility.

The findings demonstrate that the redesigned handout reduced barriers associated with learner variability. Rather than requiring individualised clarification during teaching or supervised studio sessions, the resource itself carries more of the instructional load.

The findings also demonstrate how applying UDL principles to practical resource can function as an equity intervention, supporting consistent access to learning materials for students with varied educational and technical backgrounds, and for students with neurodiverse needs, or studying in a second language.

While the findings demonstrate clear patterns, and the new handout is an improvement on the original, there are limitations. The sample size was small, and participants self-selected to be part of the focus group. This may indicate higher confidence or engagement within the course. Participants were Year 2 students reflecting on their Year 1 experience. While this dual-perspective provides valuable insight, it may also have influenced responses through increased technical confidence or recall bias. For these reasons, the findings should be understood as indicative rather than generalisable.

Bibliography

Glass, D. Meyer, A. and Rose, D. (2012) Universal design for learning in the classroom: practical applications. New York: Guilford Press.

Johnson, B., & Christensen L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Image bibliogprahy

Fig. 1. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 8 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 2. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 7 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 3. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 2 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 4. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 3 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 5. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 3 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 6. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 8 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 7. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 1 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 8. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 8 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 9. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 2 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 10. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 1 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 11. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 5 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 12. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 8 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 13. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 7 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 14. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 2 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 15. Gellard, J (2025) Participant 3 feedback [Screen shot of PDF]