J Ball's PGcert

Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) ‘Chapter 5: Interpreting the map: methods of evaluation and analysis’ in Visualizing Research: A guide to the research process in art and design. Farnham: Ashgate. 

Rowley, J. (2003), “Designing student feedback questionnaires,” Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 142-149. 

Rose, D.H., 2009. Universal Design for Learning in Postsecondary Education: Reflections on Principles and their Application. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), and Harvard University. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ844630.pdf  

Gleßmer, M.S. & Brose, A. (2014) ‘Misalignment of everyday and technical language’, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE, pp. 1-4. Available at: https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/42598/   

Alonso, L., & Le, K. (2023). The Language Warriors: Transcending ideologies on bilingualism in education. Action Research, 21(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750320931155 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476750320931155 

Monaghan, John and Just, Peter. 2000. “Bee Larvae and Onion Soup: Culture.” in Social and Cultural Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction. Pp. 34-52. https://anthropolojamz.wordpress.com/2019/12/16/monaghan-just-bee-larvae-and-onion-soup-culture/ 

This action research project aimed to improve the accessibility and usability of instructional resources for laser cutting in the 3D workshop. Recognising the barriers students face—such as technical jargon, outdated materials, and lack of prior experience—the project sought to create an inclusive resource that empowers all students, regardless of their positionality.

Guided by Universal Design for Learning principles, the redesigned Laser Cutting File Preparation leaflet prioritised clarity, accessibility, and practical usability. Feedback gathered through surveys highlighted key strengths, such as its logical structure, visual design, and accessibility features, which were particularly appreciated by participants with learning differences.

The project also identified areas for improvement, including optimising digital formats, incorporating visual aids like photos, and refining the survey design to gather more balanced and actionable insights. The iterative action research cycle enabled continuous refinement of the resource, illustrating how teaching materials can evolve to better meet students’ needs.

Looking ahead, the project will focus on gathering broader feedback from a more diverse range of students and introduce more robust evaluation methods, such as pre- and post-leaflet assessments, to measure the resource’s impact. These steps will further enhance the leaflet’s effectiveness, ensuring it remains an inclusive, practical, and empowering tool in the 3D workshop.

By addressing accessibility at every stage, this research contributes to a more supportive and equitable learning environment, helping students feel confident and capable in navigating technical spaces.

Action Research Project

“Improving Accessibility of Technical and Instructional Resources in the 3D Workshop: An Action Research Approach” …. Continue reading →

 13th November 2024

Participants: Who Took Part and Why It Matters

Accessibility has been the driving force behind this action research project from the outset. The aim? To design teaching resources that cater to a diverse range of students with varying abilities. Achieving this goal required gathering and analysing data to assess the effectiveness of the teaching materials.

As outlined in my earlier methodology post, I distributed a five-question survey along with a PDF version of the Laser Cutting File Preparation leaflet. I also placed a QR code in the workshop to encourage on-the-spot feedback while participants used the facilities. After leaving the survey open for one month, I received 13 responses. While this number fell short of expectations, the timing of the survey—coinciding with MA degree show deadlines—likely limited participation.

Interestingly, 75% of responses came from colleagues in technical departments. While this provided valuable insights, a broader demographic, including staff and more crucially students from different departments, could have offered more comprehensive feedback. Nevertheless, the responses I did receive highlight some key findings about the resource’s accessibility and usability.

Results

Question 1: How helpful was the leaflet? (rating scale 1-5)

Looking at Figure 1, nearly all participants—except one—found the leaflet helpful. While this result is encouraging, I now realise the question could have been more focused. Instead of asking for a general impression, I could have framed it specifically for first-time laser cutter users to minimise bias stemming from prior knowledge.

Question 2: What aspects of the leaflet worked well? (Tick those you agree with)

This question allowed participants to select specific aspects they felt worked well, providing richer feedback than a simple rating scale. Breaking the responses down aligns with Gray and Malins’ (2004) definition of analysis—examining components to uncover essential features.

Key themes emerged:

• Logical flow and structure made the leaflet easy to follow.
• Visual design, including text, images, and layout, enhanced clarity without overwhelming readers.
• Accessibility features like bold text, icons, and arrows were highly effective, with one participant stating, “Bold text/icons/arrows make it good for a dyslexic like me!”

To deepen the analysis, I created a word cloud (Figure 3) highlighting recurring terms such as “Clear language,” “Infographics,” and “Layout.” These visual patterns underscored what resonated most with participants.

Question 3: Would you feel confident preparing your file for laser cutting using just this leaflet? (yes, no, unsure)

This yes/no question assessed participants’ confidence in using the leaflet to prepare files for laser cutting. As shown in Figure 4, all but one respondent felt confident. While this suggests the leaflet was effective, it also raises questions about bias. With 75% of respondents working in technical roles, prior knowledge of design software may have influenced their answers.

For future iterations, I could refine the survey by including a pre- and post-leaflet questionnaire. Comparing responses before and after reviewing the leaflet would better isolate its impact, particularly for participants without prior experience.

Question 4: What would you add or change to the leaflet to improve it?

While most respondents expressed satisfaction—36% said no changes were needed—others offered helpful suggestions:

• Adjusting blue text to make key terms stand out.
• Adding photos of laser cutting in action to support visual learners.
• Including material selection guidance, although this may duplicate information in the 3D workshop’s online induction.
• Optimizing the leaflet for digital formats, as the A5 folded layout caused some confusion in PDF form.

These insights provide clear, actionable steps to refine the leaflet further without compromising its accessibility.

Question 5: How likely are you to recommend the 3D workshop at LCC?

Although not directly related to the leaflet, this question gauged participants’ willingness to recommend the 3D workshop. It highlighted broader perceptions of the space and revealed that it can sometimes feel intimidating. While this feedback was more relevant for students than staff, it offers a useful starting point for making the workshop environment more welcoming.

Reflections and Next Steps

This analysis uncovered valuable feedback about the Laser Cutting File Preparation leaflet, affirming its accessibility and usability while identifying areas for improvement. Moving forward, I plan to:

• Refine survey questions to reduce bias and capture more nuanced data.
• Incorporate visual aids and optimize the leaflet for digital formats.
• Conduct further testing with a broader participant pool, focusing on students.
• Create a two-stage investigation comparing the students learning and feedback both before and after using the leaflet to help.

By making these adjustments, I aim to create an even more inclusive and practical resource that empowers all students to navigate laser cutting with confidence.

References

Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) ‘Chapter 5: Interpreting the map: methods of evaluation and analysis’ in Visualizing Research: A guide to the research process in art and design. Farnham: Ashgate.

When designing my methodology for this action research project, I carefully considered my fast-paced working environment and daily responsibilities. The 3D workshop sees students coming and going throughout the day, so I needed an efficient method to collect feedback about the new leaflets.

Initially, I considered observations as a primary data collection method. Observations would allow me to gather real-time insights into how the leaflet affected students’ ability to set up their files for laser cutting. This approach could capture environmental and contextual data often missed in surveys or interviews. However, several challenges made observations impractical. Observer bias, where behaviours aligning with expectations are emphasised, was a concern. Additionally, observations require time-intensive data collection, which wasn’t feasible during the workshop’s busiest period. Ethical concerns about privacy and obtaining consent further complicated the process, especially given the high demand in the workshop.

After careful consideration, I opted for surveys as my primary methodology. Surveys offer a time-efficient, flexible, and unbiased approach to data collection. They allow for gathering diverse types of data, including opinions and behaviours, while providing participants anonymity to reduce social desirability bias. As accessibility is a key goal of this project, surveys provide a comfortable way for participants to share honest feedback. Surveys can also be distributed widely, enabling students to complete them off-site and at their convenience—a perfect fit for their busy schedules.

Designing Survey Questions
Evaluating teaching and learning resources is essential to improving teaching practices. As Rowley (2003) highlights, student surveys, while not fully objective, can provide valuable feedback. My survey questions focused on five key areas for analysis:

1. Visual Design – layout, impact, and composition.
2. Text and Content – readability and messaging.
3. Structure – organisation and clarity.
4. Colour Use – visual appeal and effectiveness.
5. Typography – font selection and impact.

To collect a range of data, I included both open and closed questions. Closed questions, such as tick boxes and rating scales, simplify responses and increase participation, while open-ended questions provide qualitative insights. Keeping the survey concise, with just five questions, ensured it was manageable for students without overwhelming them.

Survey Distribution
Initially, I used printed surveys (see fig.1) in the workshop for immediate feedback. However, discussions with my tutor and peers highlighted potential biases and accessibility issues with in-person surveys. To address these concerns, I transitioned to a Microsoft Forms survey, enabling off-site completion and ensuring anonymity and consent. A QR code (see fig.2) was also displayed in the workshop for easy access. While this approach risked lower response rates due to timing flexibility as the students would have to complete it in their own time, it better aligned with ethical and accessibility considerations.

Final Thoughts
Choosing surveys as my methodology balanced practicality and ethical standards within my busy workshop environment. This approach supported my goal of improving accessibility and developing resources that meet student needs effectively.

References
Rowley, J. (2003), “Designing student feedback questionnaires,” Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 142-149.

Bibliography

https://researchmethodscommunity.sagepub.com/blog

https://www.intrac.org/resources/me-universe/

https://www.pewresearch.org/writing-survey-questions/

https://www-emerald-com.arts.idm.oclc.org//insight/content/doi/10.1108/09684880310488454/full/html

Effective instructional materials are vital teaching aids, especially for explaining technical processes. Well-designed leaflets and posters offer accessible guidance to students both in and outside lessons. However, poorly designed materials can confuse rather than assist. The current resources for laser cutting in the 3D workshop (see figure 1), used for over five years, no longer meet students’ needs. Initially created as online guides during COVID-19, they are outdated for in-person workshop use. This action research project (ARP) provided the perfect opportunity to redesign these resources and align them with modern needs.

Key Observations

Through observing student interactions with the existing materials, I identified strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths:

• Clear screenshots with labels.
• Step-by-step instructions.
• Useful color guide for laser cutting.
• Titles clarify the resource’s purpose.

Weaknesses:

• Steps appear rigidly sequential but can be completed in any order.
• Overuse of small text.
• Broken hyperlinks unsuitable for printed materials.
• Poor layout and usability.
• Color choices unsuitable for dyslexic students.
• Ambiguous phrasing like “check by going…” instead of “click on.”
• Insufficient visuals and infographics.
• Missing answers to frequently asked questions.

Design Principles

Focusing on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was central to the redesign. Rose (2009) emphasises the importance of multiple means of representation, as no single approach works for all learners. The redesign prioritised accessibility, clarity, visual emphasis, and dual functionality for online and workshop environments.

The New Design (see Figure 2 & 3)

Switching from a poster to a folded A5 leaflet allows more structured and engaging content. Each panel has a defined purpose, covering workshop guidelines, booking systems, file setup, and laser cutting instructions. Key improvements include:

• Navy blue text, reducing visual strain for dyslexic or visually impaired readers.
• Bold, capitalised, and red highlights for critical information.
• Infographics and icons complementing text for visual reinforcement.
• Clear sans-serif fonts for improved readability.
• Concise language with straightforward verbs.
• QR codes linking to additional resources, enhancing accessibility inside and outside the workshop.

Conclusion

The redesigned leaflet balances visual appeal with practical usability, addressing prior shortcomings and embracing UDL principles. It serves as a more inclusive, functional, and engaging resource, ensuring students can confidently navigate laser cutting processes in the workshop and beyond.

References

Rose, D.H., 2009. Universal Design for Learning in Postsecondary Education: Reflections on Principles and their Application. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), and Harvard University. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ844630.pdf 

One of the major cornerstones of this project is language and how that can affect the learning of students within a technical space. Since working as a technician at LCC, I have had to reexamine my own use of language and adapt my teaching to facilitate to the diverse body of students that go to the university. Words that I may hear and use everyday will be completely new to most people, especially international students and those whose native language may not be English.

This got me thinking… I need to reflect on my own positionality and put myself in their shoes to fully understand how to teach them effectively. I thought about how I could do this and something that came to mind was to create a glossary of terms of workshop specific vocabulary and then understand how these terms could be perceived by others. I looked around the workshop, focusing on the laser cutting room where I teach, and started noting down common phrases, key words, technical language and anything I deem specific to the space. In the end I came up with 20 words that I felt were specific for the space and compiled them onto one sheet to see them altogether (see fig 1). Creating the glossary was one thing but looking at the words from a student’s point of view was another. I re-examined the words to find alternative meanings, homophones, synonyms, acronyms and any other artefacts that may affect the learning of a student.

The results were very interesting, each word had at least one alternative meaning with most words having multiple meanings or differing translations. For example, the word ‘Score’, within the context of the workshop and laser cutting it means to lightly mark a material using the laser cutter. After inspecting it further I realised it could mean ‘to score a goal’ in sports, ‘to score high in a test’ or to ‘score a date with someone’. The type of action is also referred to as ‘etching’ in print making practices or ‘marking the surface’. These multi-faceted meanings can be confusing and therefore need to be thought about more within the workshop context. “Technical terms often use language that carries a meaning in everyday language” (M.S. Gleßmer & A. Brose, 2014). Assuming everyone understands technical language isn’t a fair method of teaching and the delivery of language should be adapted to ensure the highest level of learning is able to take place.

From doing this investigation, I have thought about methods for helping avoid miscommunication and misunderstanding surrounding language use. These involve:

• Having accessible examples of processes in the workshop to give a visual reference for the terminology e.g. examples of scoring, cutting, engraving etc.
• Ensuring the instructor checks in with the student at regular intervals to see if they understand the terms being used.
• Creating a glossary of terms that can be displayed within the workshop and online for the students to access in their own time to help understanding.
• The instructor being patient and understanding of differing skillsets and previous knowledge of workshop terms.

Before conducting the experiment, I wasn’t sure how helpful it would be for my teaching but it allowed me to step out of my comfort zone and develop a whole new understanding around the language I use day-to-day with the students, language I took for granted and assumed most people would already know. “Technical terminology, in contrast to high frequency vocab, has to be explicitly and directly taught and is not learned indirectly through everyday contact with language” (L, Alonso & K, Le, 2023). Taking the time to ensure language is understood correctly from the start will save confusion and misunderstanding down the line and is something I want to incorporate in my instructional leaflets.­­

­­References

Gleßmer, M.S. & Brose, A. (2014) ‘Misalignment of everyday and technical language’, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE, pp. 1-4. Available at: https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/42598/  

Alonso, L., & Le, K. (2023). The Language Warriors: Transcending ideologies on bilingualism in education. Action Research, 21(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750320931155 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476750320931155

As a pre-reading task prior to Workshop 4 we looked at citation. Citation and academic research is an area I have struggled with during my PgCert and this task and workshop was very eye opening for me, allowing me to see citations in a new light. Citations are more than just a tool to back up arguments—they reflect the voices we choose to amplify. While it’s common to use citations as stand-alone quotes to strengthen our writing, it’s essential to consider who we are citing, not just what they say.

The people we cite occupy specific positionalities in the world, shaped by their identities, privileges, and lived experiences. This positionality influences their perspectives and the academic discourse they contribute to. For instance, scholar Sarah Ahmed deliberately avoids citing white men in her research, arguing that their voices already dominate academic spaces. Instead, she highlights the work of underrepresented academics to challenge institutionalised norms and diversify the academic conversation. While controversial, her approach underscores a critical point: citation practices can either reinforce or disrupt systemic inequalities in knowledge production.

This idea has prompted me to reflect on my own citation practices. Have I inadvertently overlooked marginalised voices in my work? Could I have been more intentional in seeking out diverse perspectives? By thinking about the positionalities of my references, I can better understand which voices I have amplified—and which I might have excluded.

Knowledge production is deeply entwined with power dynamics. Historically, white male authors have held disproportionate influence in shaping the academic landscape. By examining these dynamics and making deliberate choices about who we cite, we can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable body of knowledge. Going forward I will have far more intention when citing certain people.