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.