This presentation will be delivered in person, Wednesday 28th January.

Project changes.

The project had to be altered due to time constraints. I originally planned to complete two full cycles of the action research process, however, this was not possible. An unexpected additional Year 1 class increased my teaching schedule, reducing time to work on my studies. I had to reconsider what was realistically achievable. This helped me to understand that action research is ongoing, not something that has to be completed within one academic cycle. Below is the intended critical path plan (Fig. 1) vs. what I actually achieved (Fig.2)

What worked and what didn’t?

The focus group was successful in generating thoughtful and constructive feedback, but participation was limited to Year 2 students. I was unable to recruit Year 1 students, I think due to a lack of an established relationship early in the academic year (November). Final Year students were too busy to contribute. This highlights limitation in my research design. In the future, this research may be more effective if done within a taught workshop or conducted later in the year, when stronger relationships with students have been established.

What inspired me and what can I celebrate.

What brought me the most joy was the students’ genuine desire to be involved. Students regularly checked in with me about the progress of the new handout and wanted to help improve resources for future cohorts. I was initially worried that engagement might be difficult as students need to focus on their own studies. This experience has challenged my previous beliefs. I can celebrate the strong working relationships I have built with my students and their willingness to collaborate as partners to enhance the BA Fashion Contour course.

Overcoming barriers.

The main barriers were time and workload, but I also need to mention my own need for perfectionism. I could not achieve everything I had planned to do as part of my ARP, which led to a loss of motivation and procrastination. I had to sit with the discomfort, and reframe the project as part of an ongoing action research cycle. Allowing myself to let the original plan adapt was difficult, but it allowed me to recognise that this work may be unfinished, but then when is research ever really finished? It should be an ongoing process that grows with the more experience and research undertaken.

Have I experimented enough and gained any skills?

I have gained confidence in reading academic journals, and really enjoyed this part of the process. I have improved in analysing qualitative data. I also improved my Adobe Illustrator skills through the redesign of the handouts. I developed better communication with students and learned how to work in more non-hierarchical ways, viewing students through the lends of collaborators and reducing power imbalances where possible.

Ideas for the future.

This project has cemented that handouts are only one part of a much wider support structure. With growing course numbers and students increasingly joining us with limited technical experience, there is a need to rethink supporting resources more holistically. Relying on overstretched staff for extensive one-to-one support is not sustainable in busy workshop environments. This has prompted further questions about how we can design inclusive, scalable resources that support student independence while maintaining equity and quality of learning.

Image bibliography

Fig. 1. Gellard, J (2025) original critical path plan [Screen shot of PDF]

Fig. 2. Gellard, J (2025) true critical path plan [Screen shot of PDF]

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

Fig. 4. Gellard, J (2025) Data analysis of focus group [Screen shot of PDF]

I wanted to be mindful and respect the principles set out in the British Educational Research Association (BERA) ethical guidelines, to ensure that my research process was valid. BERA emphasises that its the ‘spirit of the guidelines’ that matters most, particularly in protecting those who are involved in, or affected by the research (BERA, 2018). it is my responsibility as the researcher to ensure that the research is to the correct ethical standards for the participants (students) involved.  

I am aware of the power dynamics within my own teaching context. When I issued an open call to the full BA Fashion Contour cohort, I made sure it was clear that participation was entirely voluntary, and it was separate from assessment, or progression. ‘The researcher needs to identify such power imbalances and counterbalance their effects by ensuring that it’s clear to all parties that participation is entirely voluntary.’  (SRA 2021, p.7). I communicated that choosing not to participate would have no negative consequences in the briefing at the start of the focus group. This approach reflects BERA’s emphasis on trust, researcher responsibility, and an ethic of care within educational research relationships (BERA, 2018).

Informed consent was treated as an ongoing process, not a one-off formality. Participants were informed about the purpose of the research, how their feedback would be used, and their right to withdraw at any stage without explanation (see blog post ‘Focus group – preparations’)

Focus group – preparations

Responses were anonymised during analysis to protect the participants privacy, naming them ‘participant 1’, ‘participant 2’, etc. BERA highlights the importance of recognising structural inequalities; ‘Individuals should be treated fairly, sensitively, and with dignity and freedom from prejudice, in recognition of both their rights and their differences arising from age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class, nationality, cultural identity, partnership status, faith, disability, political belief or any other significant characteristic.’ (BERA , 2018, p. 11).

30% of students studying BA Fashion Contour have declared disabilities. It is my responsibility to ensure that the research process and the supporting documents did not unintentionally exclude or disadvantage participants. I referenced and worked to the British Dyslexia Association’s ‘Dyslexia Style Guide’ to inform my decisions around layout, language and visual clarity in the redesigned handouts. This was also followed when designing the presentation delivered during the focus group. (British Dyslexia Association, 2023). While these guidelines are framed as accessibility support, I understand them as an ethical commitment, reducing barriers for all students.

When analysing and reporting back on findings, I am conscious of not overstating findings. I treated participant responses as situated and contextual. The findings are shaped by experience, confidence (as all participants were year 2 students), and retrospective reflection. I acknowledge the limitations of a small, self selected sample, important in maintaining ethical integrity and trustworthiness throughout the research process. ‘Researchers must, however, be very careful in making generalizations from focus groups because the sample size typically is too small and the participants are usually not randomly selected from any known population.’ (Johnson & Christensen, 2004, P.327)E

Ensuring to take an ethical approach protects participants, but also strengthened the quality and credibility of my research. By sculpting a focus group exercise in which students could contribute openly without fear of judgement, it reinforced trust between researcher and participant. This ensures that student voices meaningfully inform changes to my teaching practice.

---

References

BERA (2018) Ethical guidelines for educational research. 4th ed. London: British Educational Research Association.

British Dyslexia Association (2023) Dyslexia Style Guide 2023. Available at: https://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/advice/employers/creating-a-dyslexia-friendly-workplace/dyslexia-style-guide or: https://cdn.bdadyslexia.org.uk/uploads/documents/Advice/style-guide/BDA-Style-Guide-2023.pdf?v=1680514568 (Accessed: 13 July 2025).

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

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]

I’ve been reflecting on my intentions regarding using ‘scaffolding’ as a term to explain supporting students to become confident independent learners in the sewing studio. I am researching and working to improve handouts to ensure students are ‘scaffolded’ and supported while learning difficult sewing techniques at their own pace. Reading Shvarts and Baker’s (2019) exploration of the history of the scaffolding metaphor helped me to question both its purpose and its limits.

Shvarts and Baker (2019) argue that scaffolding has become a “vague and polysemic” concept in education (p.5). I’ve often assumed that by adding clearer instructions and more diagrams, I’m automatically improving students’ learning experiences. How can I be sure that this support is genuinely helpful?

Scaffolding is not intended to be long-term support. Luria and Vygotsky describe it as temporary and transitional, designed to be removed once learners no longer need it. They explain that support should be discarded “as no more external help is needed” (1930/1992, p.145). Students are free to use the handouts to support their sewing until they feel confident in their capabilities and then no longer need to rely on them.

My practice and research is grounded in Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UDL aims to provide ‘multiple means of representation’, allowing students to access content in ways that suit them and gradually build independence (Meyer, Rose and Glass, 2014). Within this, redesigned handouts act as flexible scaffolds: offering structure through clarity and supporting visuals.

Shvarts and Baker (2019) trace the scaffolding metaphor back to Bernstein’s work on reducing ‘degrees of freedom’ when learning new skills. Bernstein described how beginners initially restrict movement to manage complex tasks before developing fluency (Bernstein, 1967). I am often teaching to students with limited sewing experience and knowledge complex techniques used in contour garment construction. Scaffolding through improved handouts allows the students to return to learning resources as and when they need them. It lets them reflect and try by themselves before asking for help; a bridge to help them become more independent learners. The help from technicians is always there should they need it, but some students do not like to ask for help. The new handouts should help improve their independent learning.

By breaking handouts down into manageable steps using diagrams and annotations, I aim to help students focus on ‘understanding before automation’. This reflects what Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) describe as simplifying tasks by ‘reducing the number of constituent acts’ (p.98).

Shvarts and Baker also caution against scaffolding becoming ‘overly prescriptive’. Griffin and Cole (1984) warn that it can assume fixed goals, limiting creativity. This creates tension in my role as a technician. Students need to complete garments in the demonstrated way to understand core methods of make. There is no flexibility when constructing demonstration garments together, required as part of their hand in submission. UDL helps me navigate this by re framing choice. Rather than altering the task itself, I can offer options through multiple formats of learning and engagement, including:

• Live, in-person workshop demonstrations
• The option for students to record and revisit demonstrations in their own time
• Improved technical handouts
• Supervised studio time and 1-to-1 support

Shvarts and Baker (2019) emphasise that scaffolding isnt fixed. It depends on the specific situation, the student and their learning differences or needs. It must respond to learners rather than impose a fixed structure. By inviting students to critique the handouts during a focus group, I want to test if these materials support autonomy or constrain it. Their feedback will shape the next version, ensuring the handouts remain collaborative.

This paper helped me realise that scaffolding is about trust, both from the student and the teacher (in this instance, technician). Improved handouts offer students an additional resource they can return to until techniques are familiar and understood. This benefits all learners, but is especially supportive for neurodivergent students and those studying in a second language, closely aligning with the principles of UDL.

Bibliography

Bernstein, A.N. (1967) The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1984) ‘Current activity for the future: The Zo-ped’, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1984(23), pp. 45–64.

Luria, A.R. and Vygotsky, L.S. (1992) Ape, primitive man, and child: Essays in the history of behaviour. Translated by E. Rossiter. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Meyer, A., Rose, D.H. and Gordon, D. (2014) Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST.

Shvarts, A. and Baker, A. (2019) ‘The early history of the scaffolding metaphor: Bernstein, Luria, Vygotsky and before’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26(1), pp. 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1574306

Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. (1976) ‘The role of tutoring in problem-solving’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), pp. 89–100.

My focus group will be 1pm-2pm on Wednesday 12th November.

I have sent the students the information sheet, along with an email asking for participants.

At the start of the focus group, I will ask participants to sign their consent forms.

During the focus group, I will present this power point presentation.

I have prepared a plan for the focus group in order to stay on track and on time on the day.

In order to ensure I stay on track, I have created a simple critical path to help with alignment.

At the end of the block, I will submit the true critical path to see how closely I kept to the schedule, any changes, and why.

Through my teaching experience and blog reflections, I have realized that our technical handouts are not meeting the needs of all learners. Approximately 30% of students on BA Fashion Contour have a declared disability, and many more experience barriers linked to learning in a second language, or their general confidence in a sewing studio.

Students rely heavily on one-to-one support, as the current handouts lack clarity and visual guidance. This limits independent learning and can disadvantage those who find it difficult to ask for help.

My values are deeply rooted in Universal Design for Learning (UDL). This centers on inclusivity and accessibility. I believe resources should be designed to empower all students to work independently, we should not expect them to adapt to inaccessible materials, and produce their best work. Improving handouts is about aligning my teaching practice with my commitment to equity and autonomy.

How can I improve my technical handouts to make them more accessible and effective for students with diverse learning needs in BA Fashion Contour workshops?

Following McNiff and Whitehead’s (2009) action research model, I will work through a cycle of planning, action, observation, and reflection:

1. Define the problem: Using reflections and student comments gathered through my blog, I will identify what aspects of current handouts hinder accessibility, such as inconsistent layouts, or confusing terminology.
2. Collect data: I will gather feedback through a focus group, exploring how students use current handouts and what improvements they suggest.
3. Implement change: Based on the findings, I will design a new handout template that includes simplified language, and annotated visuals.
4. Observe: I will trial the new handouts in workshops, observing how students interact with them. I will track independence, and engagement through tracking questions students have during class.
5. Evaluate and reflect: I will hold another focus group for further feedback, then analyse all data to assess whether the revised design improves accessibility and autonomy.

This project continues themes throughout my PGCert journey so far, which is how UDL principles and self-reflection can drive more inclusive teaching. By sharing the outcomes when complete I hope to contribute to a positive shift toward accessible learning design across LCF.

This research is about turning reflection into action, and ensuring that all students can learn and thrive independently.

Bibliography:

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

McNiff,J., & Whitehead, J.(2009) Doing and writing action research. SAGE.

Image Bibliography

Fig. 1. Gellard, J (2025) Action research cycle plan. Unpublished [PDF]