Author: Sophie Reynolds

Following on from the Circles of Influence post, I have been reflecting on what comes next and where the ARP has begun to lead. Through conversations with students and responses to my questionnaire, a recurring set of feelings and challenges has emerged around workshop access at CSM. Although the questionnaire did not explicitly ask about workshops, students repeatedly described their experiences using words such as overwhelming, busy, confusing, and unclear. Physical spaces are often crowded, systems feel fragmented, communication is inconsistent, and access to equipment can feel intimidating rather than enabling. For many students – particularly those with additional needs – workshops can feel less like creative opportunities and more like barriers.

CSM is currently planning a significant shift and reorganisation of its workshops over the next five years. Opportunities of this scale are rare and carry real potential for change. This moment allows not only for physical redesign, but also for a deeper rethinking of systems, communication, and inclusion. While the current workshop moves appear to respond effectively to increasing student numbers and spatial pressures, these pressures are unlikely to disappear. Student numbers continue to rise, contact time is decreasing, machinery is increasing, and staffing levels are not. Without deeper structural change, the same challenges risk being reproduced in new buildings.

However there are several areas that could be addressed at a less complex, systemic level.

• Standardisation across workshop systems

Students are often expected to navigate multiple platforms simultaneously — Orb, Microsoft Calendar, Padlet, Moodle — each used differently depending on the need of the workshop. This creates unnecessary cognitive load, particularly for neurodivergent students or those unfamiliar with workshop culture. While workshops have different technical needs, greater communication between technicians or a specialist role could allow for clearer standardisation. This might include consistent use of booking systems, defined roles for platforms, and unified expectations across all workshops.

• Use of (standardised?) video demonstrations

Feedback highlighted a desire for more technical videos across workshops. A shared hosting platform for high-quality demonstrations, perhaps accessible to both current and graduated students, could allow learners to revisit information at their own pace, reduce pressure during in-person sessions, support different learning styles, and improve both confidence and safety.

Crucially, this work raises the importance of designing with students, not just for them. Inclusive research frameworks, such as those outlined in I’m Me: Involving people with learning disabilities and autism in the research process (Reason, Acton and Foulds, 2024) stress the need to move beyond token consultation towards active involvement and shared decision-making. This prompts important questions: how can neurodivergent students be involved in workshop design from the start? How can accessibility be embedded into physical layouts, systems, and communication rather than added later? How can workshops feel safe, navigable, and empowering for everyone?

To take this research forward, the next phase could use focus groups over questionnaires, particularly with students who have additional needs. As a reflection from this porject, questionnaires maybe pose a barrier to some. Focus groups allow for richer, more nuanced discussions and may give more space for experiences that may not fit neatly into predefined survey options. Key steps could be to include:

• Running small, supported focus groups
• Collaborating directly with Disability Services
• Applying inclusive research principles, and feeding insights directly into workshop planning and policy

The upcoming workshop moves at CSM offer a rare chance to do things differently!

References

Reason, M., Acton, K. and Foulds, D. (2024). Working it out together: Lessons and insights into inclusive research in an arts context. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12609.

Brunswick, N. and Bargary, S. (2022). Self‐concept, creativity and developmental dyslexiain university students: Effects of age of assessment. Dyslexia, 28(3), pp.293–308. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1722.​

Burden, R. (2008). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review and implications for future research. Dyslexia, 14(3), 188–196.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects Martyn Denscombe The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects Open University PressEdition: Third360£18.9903352202230335220223. Nurse Researcher, 15(2), pp.88–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.15.2.88.s4.

Europe Beyond Access (2025). Learning to Change – Europe Beyond Access. [online] Europe Beyond Access.Available at: https://www.europebeyondaccess.com/resources/learning-to-change/?utm [Accessed 8 Jan. 2026].

Mayer, R. (2002). The Future of Multimedia Learning. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, [online] 41. doi:https://doi.org/10.59668/423.10349.

Navarrete, E., Nehring, A., Schanze, S., Ewerth, R. and Hoppe, A. (2023). A Closer Look into Recent Video-based Learning Research: A Comprehensive Review of Video Characteristics, Tools, Technologies, and Learning Effectiveness. arXiv (Cornell University), 35, pp.1631–1694. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2301.13617.

Reason, M., Acton, K. and Foulds, D. (2024). Working it out together: Lessons and insights into inclusive research in an arts context. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12609.

Ryan, C., Seymour , L., Xu, X., Li , H., Grønlie , S. and Lin, G. (2025). Neurodivergent Education for Students, Teaching & Learning (NESTL) Toolkit. [online] Available at: https://www.education.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/NESTL-Toolkit-Main.pdf.

Sherwood, C. (2024). Studios Report 2024. [online] Issuu. Available at: https://issuu.com/artstudentsunion/docs/sr2024_final_pages?utm_source=website&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=studiosreport [Accessed 10 Dec. 2025].

Sauer, J., Baumgartner, J., Frei, N. and Sonderegger, A. (2020). Pictorial Scales in Research and Practice. European Psychologist, 26, pp.112–130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/10169040/a000405.

One area of feedback from the questionnaire that I hadn’t explicitly asked for, but which came up consistently, was students’ concerns about access to workshops and technical spaces. Many respondents highlighted that these spaces often lack the capacity to accommodate all students, an issue that frequently arises in broader discussions with students about university provision.

Question 6: What is the biggest barrier for you when using technical spaces (e.g., computer rooms, software, or printing equipment)?

Responses included:

• “We need more computers with the software.”
• “Computer usage.”
• “If the space is busy.”
• “Them being occupied.”

This feedback aligns strongly with staff observations. As staff, we often agree with students’ frustrations and are sometimes surprised by the extent to which limited studio space and equipment hinder learning. For courses that are highly practical, access to technical spaces and equipment is critical.

At the same time, it is important to recognize the pressures on technical staff. For example, at CSM, workshops often operate with minimal staffing. In our workshop, Surface Design Lab: seven machines are in high demand, with only one staff member present for one day of the week and two staff for the remaining four days. This can result in waitlists of up to two weeks. Such understaffing inevitably contributes to burnout, especially at peak times like term ends or submission periods. This highlights that the problem is systemic: simply increasing the number of students or equipment will not resolve it without corresponding investment in staffing and support.

Supporting this, a 2024 Arts SU survey on UAL’s studio and workshop spaces revealed:

• 58% of respondents felt they did not have adequate access to studios or workshops during the 2023/24 academic year.
• 68% indicated that holiday closures negatively affected the quality of their work.
• Fewer than one-fifth had access to a designated workspace at home, meaning the majority rely entirely on university facilities.

One student comment noted that studios “dictate … our ambitions,” underscoring how crucial access is to artistic practice. Limited access is therefore not a minor inconvenience—it directly impacts students’ ability to learn, create, and succeed.

[Screenshot – The studio & Workshop report, UAL 2024

To address these challenges, systematic changes are required: additional staffing, extended facility access, and funding for new equipment or open-access spaces are necessary to meet student demand while supporting staff wellbeing. Simply extending hours or opening during holidays is unlikely to resolve staff burnout and could exacerbate pressures.

Within our immediate control, there are practical steps we can implement in the workshop to improve the student experience:

• Provide clearly visible term dates, opening hours, and workshop schedules.
• Offer accessible and well-structured learning materials, including videos and guides.
• Communicate clearly how to book and use the space through inductions, emails, and signage.
• Consider more equitable allocation of machine and software time per student. For instance, with the upcoming addition of a large embroidery machine for MA and final-year BA students, a maximum stitch-out time could help manage demand.

The feedback highlights a clear tension between student demand for technical spaces and the practical limitations of staffing and resources. While long-term investment in staffing, facilities, and equipment is essential, there are also immediate steps we can take in the workshop to improve access, communication, and fair use. Addressing these challenges will not only enhance the student experience but also support technical staff, ultimately creating a more sustainable and productive learning environment for everyone.

References:

Sherwood, C. (2024). Studios Report 2024. [online] Issuu. Available at: https://issuu.com/artstudentsunion/docs/sr2024_final_pages?utm_source=website&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=studiosreport [Accessed 10 Dec. 2025].

Questionnaire link: Effectiveness and accessibility of instructional video guides – Fill in form

The questionnaire proved to be a useful tool for gathering feedback from students. However, several discrepancies within the responses suggest that the questionnaire’s design may need refinement, particularly to ensure greater accessibility and clarity for the students it was intended for – those who are neurodivergent or whose first language is not English.

In the first question:

[Screen shot of question]

[Screenshot of results]

There were noticeable inconsistencies in how students responded. Eleven out of fifteen respondents selected the same rating for every statement. Of these, eight chose “Strongly agree,” indicating that they found the resource helpful and easy to use. Their written comments on question 5 (“What could be improved or changed to make the video easier to use?”) reinforced this positive feedback, with responses such as:

• “All good!”
• “Nothing.”
• “It’s pretty much perfect I think.”

However, three respondents selected “Strongly disagree” for every statement. Interestingly, their comments on question 5 did not align with this rating. They responded with:

• “n/a”
• “The video is super clear!”
• “n/a”

This contradiction suggests that these participants may have misunderstood the scale or the phrasing of the first question. Among these three respondents, two identified as neurodivergent and one preferred not to say; one also indicated that English is not their first language. This further supports the idea that the question format may not have been accessible or intuitive for all students.

After reflecting on this, and drawing on relevant research, a more inclusive approach for this type of question might be to use visual rating scales — for example, a series of faces or colours — rather than text-based Likert statements. Sauer et al. (2020) emphasise that pictorial scales reduce the cognitive load required to interpret response options, making them particularly beneficial for individuals with lower literacy levels, limited language proficiency, or cognitive processing differences. The authors note that visual formats can “increase clarity and reduce misunderstanding compared to text-based scales,” as they rely less on linguistic interpretation and more on intuitive visual judgement.

[Pictorial scale example]

Alternatively, a face to face interview may have bypassed some of these issues, where no “reading” on the students part had to be done, or where I could read body language for instance.

Nevertheless, perhaps having these discrepancies in the questionnaire feedback, only further evidences the need for resources and an array for different learning styles, that aren’t solely written.

References

Sauer, J., Baumgartner, J., Frei, N. and Sonderegger, A. (2020). Pictorial Scales in Research and Practice. European Psychologist, 26, pp.112–130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/10169040/a000405.

First draft of the questionnaire. Created on Microsoft forms, to create a cohesiveness with the software (Microsoft outlook) that students already use, which will hopefully mean that it is easier to navigate.

Effectiveness and accessibility of instructional video guides – Fill out form

When I designed the questionnaire for the Photoshop video guides [Link to video], my main goal was to understand how students actually use and experience the videos. I wanted to know not just whether the videos were effective, but also if they were accessible and useful for everyone. After my tutor’s feedback, I focused on making the questions balanced, so they collect meaningful data without being overwhelming, and on including a mix of structured and open-ended questions to get both numbers and stories. As Denscombe (2010) highlights, careful question design is crucial to ensure that research captures meaningful insights while remaining manageable for participants.

I included rating questions (Likert scales) to measure key aspects like clarity, pacing, visuals, captions, and confidence. These seemed like the best way to see patterns across the group and find out which parts of the video really help students learn. For example, I wanted to know if students found the step-by-step instructions clear, if the zoom-ins and highlights were helpful, and whether captions made a difference. Using a consistent scale makes it easier to spot trends and see what works and what might need improvement.

Following my tutor’s suggestion, I also added a ranking question asking students to prioritise different elements of the video. This helps me understand what students value most. I might think that narration is the most important part, but students might actually find captions or visual cues more useful. It’s always interesting to see how student priorities sometimes don’t match what I assumed as a teacher. This information is really useful when thinking about what to focus on in future videos and what’s less essential.

The open-ended questions were another key part of the design. Asking things like “How would you use a resource like this?” lets students explain in their own words how they interact with the videos. They might say they use them for revision, while working on a task, to recap something they missed, or just to read the captions at their own pace. Another open question, “What is the biggest barrier for you when using technical spaces?” goes a little beyond the video itself but gives insight into challenges that might affect learning more broadly. These responses can highlight areas to improve in the workshop or future resources.

I also included a couple of optional background questions about neurodivergence and language. The idea here is to explore whether the videos are especially helpful for neurodivergent students or those for whom English is an additional language. I made sure these questions are optional and clearly explained that students don’t have to answer. This way, I can test my hypothesis sensitively without putting anyone on the spot.

Ethics were really important throughout the design. I made it clear that responses are confidential and participation is voluntary, and students can skip any question they’re not comfortable with. I also included a small £1 printing discount as a thank-you, which hopefully makes students feel appreciated without being coercive.

Overall, the mix of structured rating questions, a ranking question, and open-ended prompts feels like a good balance. The ratings give clear, measurable insights into what works, while the open responses provide context and reveal unexpected ways students use the videos. This approach also reflects inclusive teaching principles: providing structure while valuing individual differences and preferences.

Creating this questionnaire has been a really useful exercise. It’s made me think carefully about what’s important to measure, what students really value, and how feedback can directly influence teaching practice. I’m looking forward to seeing the results and using them to improve the videos. I also think it will be interesting to see whether inclusive design features benefit everyone, or if certain groups gain particular advantages. Either way, listening to students’ voices feels like the most important part of the process, and it’s exciting to know their feedback will help shape future learning resources.

References:

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects Martyn Denscombe The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects Open University PressEdition: Third360£18.9903352202230335220223. Nurse Researcher, 15(2), pp.88–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.15.2.88.s4.

Writing the ethical action plan I found to be useful in terms of where to begin with the project, what to consider and do in a practical sense. I had two iterations of the ethical action plan, the first draft being:

Ethical Action Plan Template 2025-26 1.docx

The second and final version:

Final SR Ethical Action Plan Template 2025-26 1

In my first draft of the Ethical Action Plan, I proposed using both questionnaires and document analysis to gather feedback from students and colleagues. My tutor, Carys Kennedy, suggested clarifying what I meant by “document analysis” and recommended focusing on a single method—specifically questionnaires or surveys—since they differ slightly in approach. In response, I revised my plan to concentrate solely on questionnaires, simplifying the data collection process and reducing potential confusion over methodology.

Originally, I intended to directly seek feedback from neurodivergent students and those for whom English is not their first language. My tutor highlighted the ethical implications of collecting this sensitive personal information, recommending that the questionnaire be open to all students, with optional questions about neurodiversity or language background. I incorporated this by making questions on learning needs optional and ensuring responses remain anonymous, which balances inclusivity with ethical safeguards.

My first draft also stated that participants could withdraw consent at any point. The feedback pointed out that if survey data is collected anonymously, it cannot be withdrawn once submitted. I adjusted the wording in my second draft to clarify that participants may stop the questionnaire before submitting their responses, after which their answers remain anonymous and cannot be retracted.

Regarding physical and recorded data, my initial plan mentioned filming hands-on videos and including students, but my tutor asked for clarification on whether recordings were part of data collection. I acknowledged that the videos themselves are not part of the research data; any participation in recordings would require separate informed consent. I also clarified that no physical data will be collected beyond digital questionnaire responses, simplifying the data protection plan.

Reflection:
This feedback helped me refine my Ethical Action Plan to be more ethically rigorous and methodologically focused. By narrowing my data collection to anonymous questionnaires and carefully considering the sensitivity of personal information, I improved the clarity and ethical integrity of my project. The process reinforced the importance of aligning research methods with ethical guidelines while remaining practical and inclusive. I also became more aware of the nuanced differences between data collection methods and how these impact consent, anonymity, and participant protection. Overall, I feel more confident that my revised plan respects both ethical standards and the diverse needs of participants.

The motivation for exploring this topic emerged directly from my day-to-day teaching practice. Over time, we began receiving a high volume of student emails asking the same questions about using Photoshop, often relating to very basic skills. Despite providing written help sheets, it became clear that many students were still struggling to apply the instructions successfully. In alot of cases, extended email exchanges revealed persistent misunderstandings, suggesting that the existing support materials were not meeting the needs of all learners. This highlighted a clear gap and room for improved support. I therefore wanted to address this issue by developing a more effective and accessible learning resource in the form of a video that could better support students’ learning and reduce repeated confusion.

This issue is particularly important within the context of my role and my students. Photoshop is a foundational tool within our discipline, yet many students arrive with little or no prior experience. When students lack confidence in core technical skills, it can negatively affect their engagement, creativity, and overall academic performance. From a departmental and institutional perspective, repeatedly responding to the same queries is also inefficient and unsustainable. Creating clearer, more supportive resources has the potential to enhance student independence, improve learning outcomes, and reduce staff workload. More broadly, within the sector, there is increasing recognition that digital skills cannot be assumed and that learning resources must be inclusive of diverse levels of prior knowledge.

Mayer’s work on multimedia learning suggests that students learn more effectively from words and images combined than from text alone, particularly when learning procedural or technical skills. This aligns with my own observations that static help sheets were insufficient for students who needed to see processes demonstrated step by step. By drawing on these perspectives, my aim was to create a resource that better aligns with how students actually learn, supports their confidence, and responds directly to the challenges observed in practice.

Moreover, I want to in particular use guidelines for the video resource that would support neurodivergant students. Many students who struggle with digital tools such as Photoshop may be neurodivergent, including those with dyslexia, ADHD, or other learning differences, and poorly designed instructional materials can exacerbate existing barriers to learning.

Research consistently demonstrates that when students are not adequately supported, there can be significant negative impacts on both confidence and emotional well-being. Burden (2008) emphasises that self-esteem and emotional resilience are particularly vulnerable in learners with dyslexia, especially where their needs have been missed or poorly supported within mainstream education.

Within this context, the repeated experience of not understanding technical instructions or failing to complete tasks correctly—despite seeking help—can reinforce feelings of inadequacy and frustration. For neurodivergent students, unclear or text-heavy help sheets may increase cognitive load and contribute to disengagement.

References:

Burden, R. (2008). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review and implications for future research. Dyslexia, 14(3), 188–196.

Mayer, R. (2002). The Future of Multimedia Learning. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, [online] 41. doi:https://doi.org/10.59668/423.10349.

Introduction

This report outlines the development of accessible guidelines for the embroidery software used in our workshop, with a particular focus on supporting neurodivergent students—especially those with dyslexia. The resource is available to view on a previous post; https://sreynolds.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2025/06/27/intervention/.

The guideline uses various accessibility guideline advice from numerous sources (also linked in the previous post). Although we have been meaning to change the guidelines for a while to be less text heavy, the PG-Cert has allowed the time for reflection and time on how to go about making some accessible adjustments to them.

Positionality

As a dyslexic workshop technician (and in fact, all three of us technicians in the workshop are dyslexic), I bring lived experience that directly informs this resource. My own educational journey has shown me the barriers that arise when instructions are dense, unclear, or overly reliant on text-heavy formats. I know first-hand how quickly confidence can be undermined when learning materials do not take diverse ways of processing information into account. As I was diagnosed at 19, I feel that my experience through previous school education had lowered my confidence in things such as reading. As a concequence I didn’t think I even liked reading, until only 5 years back. So the lasting effects can be long felt. Additionally, shared positionality within our team means we constantly see the same barriers our students face reflected in our own working practices. Because of this, we are more attuned to recognising where things break down — whether that’s confusing software menus, inconsistent instructions, or a lack of visual aids. Our experiences remind us daily that these obstacles are not due to any lack of ability, but rather a mismatch between the learner’s needs and how information is presented.

Being dyslexic myself means I approach teaching and resource design from the perspective of someone who has had to find alternative ways to navigate written instructions. I instinctively look for visual strategies, clear structure, and ways to reduce unnecessary cognitive load. This positionality shapes my commitment to accessible design, because I know that what supports dyslexic and neurodivergent learners often benefits everyone, including students whose first language is not English, students balancing study with caring responsibilities, or students who prefer to learn independently at their own pace.

What I want to change and why

I developed these new guidelines because I have seen firsthand how our current approach in the workshop relies too heavily on one-to-one verbal explanations during workshop inductions. With growing student numbers and limited technician time, this is becoming increasingly unsustainable, and it risks leaving some students behind, particularly those who need more time to process information or revisit instructions independently.

The increase in student numbers, not only at our university but across the UK and globally, is well documented in numerous studies and reports. Figure 1, a graph from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), clearly illustrates this trend. Showing that the number of students obtaining higher education degrees has risen by over 50,000 between the 2014/15 and 2023/24 academic years. This significant growth highlights a critical challenge that must be addressed by rethinking and adapting our teaching approaches.

Fig 1. Academic years 2014/15 to 2023/24, HSEA

The impact of increasing student numbers on staff workload is also noted by Dineen and Collins (2005), who emphasize that creativity flourishes in environments of trust, openness, and tolerance for ambiguity. However, growing student populations and mounting pressures across various areas make it increasingly difficult to build supportive relationships, let alone accommodate individual student needs.

Students with dyslexia, other forms of neurodivergence, often face additional challenges when instructions are dense, text-heavy, or delivered only verbally. Research by Grant and French (2017) highlights that many dyslexic learners are strong visual thinkers, so text-only instructions can be a barrier rather than a support. Mortimore and Crozier (2006) and Bacon and Bennett (2012) further show that repeated struggles with traditional written or spoken instruction can undermine confidence and motivation, compounding the problem over time.

I want to move away from an approach that depends on students disclosing a specific need. Figures, including statistics at UAL (Fig. 2), show that home students are more likely to disclose a disability than international students. Most recently in 2024/25 the gap of home to international students declaring a disability is 22%. So by default, some students remain unsupported. Instead, I aim to create guidance that is useful for everyone from the start.

Fig 2: Percentage of students declared disabled by fee status

To address this, I am changing the guidelines to be clearer, more visual, and available in multiple formats, that include online, printed copies, and easy to adapt for translation tools. This supports students with different language backgrounds, those who miss time due to caring responsibilities or faith commitments, and those who prefer or need to work independently.

By doing this, I hope to reduce barriers for all students, not just those who disclose a need. In line with universal design and inclusive education principles, the goal is to empower every student to access the technical skills they need without anxiety about keeping up, asking for repeated help, or feeling excluded by inaccessible instructions.

How this can be beneficial more broadly

Although this intervention was originally developed with neurodivergent students in mind, I believe its benefits will extend far beyond that group. As mentioned, figures suggest that home students are much more likely to disclose a disability than international students. Barriers to disclosure could be a mulitdude of factors including facing cultural, linguistic, or visa-related barriers. By designing guidance for the workshop that is clear, visual, and easy to use for everyone, by default, I hope to ensure that support does not depend on a student needing to self-identify or request adjustments.

This is particularly important because international students also face an awarding gap compared to their home student peers of up to 17% in 2025, as shown in the graph below (Fig 3). Creating clearer, more accessible guidance for technical processes like embroidery software could help tackle one small part of that structural inequality by removing unnecessary barriers to full participation.

Fig 3: Degree awarding by ethnicity

Beyond language and disability, this intervention can benefit students with faith commitments that require them to take time away from taught sessions, or students with caring responsibilities who may not always be able to attend every induction in person. Having flexible, easy-to-follow resources allows these students to work more independently, catch up on missed content, and engage with workshop processes more confidently.

By making inclusive design the standard, not the exception, this resource helps create a workshop culture where every student, regardless of their background, needs, or circumstances, has a fairer chance to succeed.

Feedback

As it is currently summer, there are few students or colleagues available to test the resources or provide feedback. As a result, I have not yet been able to conduct formal feedback. However, once the new term begins and I can access participants, I plan to gather feedback specifically from first-time users of Wilcom. My focus will be on the dyslexic students for whom the guides were primarily designed, while also seeking input from a broader group to gain a general consensus on accessibility and usability.

To encourage open and honest dialogue, I will invite students to share their feedback either verbally or informally via email. To guide the feedback process, I will use simple prompts such as:

• Were the guides clear and easy to follow?
• Did the images and illustrations help support the instructions?
• Is there anything you would change, remove, or add?

Anything I might have overlooked

• Some of the text within the images currently falls below the recommended minimum size of 14 pt. While this text is not intended to be read in detail — it serves mainly as a visual reference within the image — it would still be helpful to increase the overall image size to ensure better legibility. The main reason the images are smaller is to fit everything onto a single sheet, but from an accessibility perspective, this is an oversight that should be addressed.

• I am also aware that translating this embedded text may not be feasible in its current format. It may be worth exploring whether a plug-in or tool for Moodle or Padlet could support translation for students who need it. Some basic training for staff on how to better accommodate international students’ language needs could also be beneficial, alongside promoting digital apps that help with real-time translation.

• Another point to consider is that the instructions are designed specifically for the software setup in our workshop, where the necessary templates are pre-installed. In other workshops or computer labs, these templates may not be available, which could create confusion for students following the guidelines elsewhere. It may be worth clarifying this in the guidance or ensuring templates are made more widely accessible.

• The online versions of the guidelines will be housed on Moodle and Padlet, which are the main platforms our workshop uses to share information. However, we are aware from student feedback that these platforms can be challenging to navigate, particularly Moodle. To improve access, we could look at emailing the resources directly to students at the point of booking, so they have a clear, direct link without having to search multiple platforms.

Evaluation

While this intervention was shaped by my own lived experience of dyslexia, I recognise that no single solution can meet the needs of all learners. Dyslexia, and neurodivergence more broadly, encompasses a wide range of experiences, challanges and what supports one student may not work for another. In addition, factors such as language background, cultural context, prior learning experiences, and confidence with technology all intersect to shape how students engage with resources.

That said, this project marks a step toward building a more inclusive workshop environment and one where accessible design is embedded from the outset rather than added in response to individual requests.

Figures:

Fig.1: Higher Education Statistics Agency (2025). Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2023/24. [online] HESA. Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/20-03-2025/sb271-higher-education-student-statistics [Accessed 28 Jul. 2025].

Fig. 2: UAL (2022/23). Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Annual report 2022.23. [Online] University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/432141/SPCB23435-EDI-report-2022-23.pdf  [Accessed: 15 Jul. 2025].

Fig. 3: UAL (2022/23). Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Annual report 2022.23. [Online] University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/432141/SPCB23435-EDI-report-2022-23.pdf  [Accessed: 15 Jul. 2025].

References:

Bacon, A.M. and Bennett, S. (2012). Dyslexia in Higher Education: the decision to study art. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(1), pp.19–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2012.742748.

Dineen, R. and Collins, E. (2005). Killing the Goose: Conflicts between Pedagogy and Politics in the Delivery of a Creative Education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 24(1), pp.43–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2005.00422.x.

Grant, D. (2017). That’s the Way I Think. Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315647005.

Mortimore, T. and Crozier, W.R. (2006). Dyslexia and difficulties with study skills in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp.235–251. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572173.

My intervention will focus on developing and restructuring accessibility guidelines for the embroidery software used in our workshop. While this has been a concern for some time, undertaking the PG-Cert has provided me with the space, framework, and reflective tools needed to address it more effectively. 

This proposal is closely tied to my daily practice within the workshop. Over the past few years, we have developed guidelines to help students prepare files for printing and embroidery. Although these guidelines have been valuable, they rely heavily on one-to-one instruction during workshop inductions. Increasing student numbers and limited time have made it challenging to provide consistent, thorough support—especially for students who require additional time or alternative learning formats. By creating clear, accessible, and well-structured guidance in both print and digital formats, I aim to have a more inclusive and equitable learning environment. 

In their 2013 study, Bacon and Bennett explore how the lived experiences of dyslexic students influence their decision to study art. Their findings show that students often view art education as a space where they can express themselves and reframe dyslexia as a strength rather than a deficit. Participants emphasized that engaging in creative and hands-on work supported the development of a positive identity as dyslexic individuals, highlighting the importance of visual, practical learning environments in their academic success.

Given this, the availability of accessible resources is vital. I anticipate that the re-formatted guidelines will not only to support neurodivergent students, but for those for whom English is not a first language, students who feel anxious about using new technology, and anyone who would appreciate a clear, supportive resource to refer to after a session.

The guidelines I will develop will be grounded in principles of inclusive design and accessibility, ensuring they are user-friendly, equitable, and responsive to diverse needs. Key considerations will include: 

• Left-aligning text, using wide margins, and setting line spacing to 1.5 for improved readability. 

• Writing short sentences (10–15 words) for clarity. 

• Incorporating relevant images and software screenshots, positioned to the left of the text. 

• Setting a minimum font size of 14pt, using Helvetica or another sans-serif font. 

• Avoiding italics, underlining, and decorative fonts; instead, using bold, clear headings. 

• Printing on cream or off-white paper; offering a pastel background option for digital versions. 

These guidelines align with recommendations from: 

• Dyslexic.com 

• GOV.UK Accessible Communication Formats 

• NHS England’s guidance on making information accessible for neurodivergent people 

Images of the document:

Bacon, A.M. and Bennett, S. (2012). Dyslexia in Higher Education: the decision to study art. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(1), pp.19–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2012.742748.

Dyslexic.com (2017). Quick Guide to Making Your Content Accessible – Dyslexic.com. [online] dyslexic.com. Available at: https://www.dyslexic.com/quick-guide-making-content-accessible/ [Accessed 27 June 2025]. 

GOV.UK (2021). Accessible Communication Formats. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/accessible-communication-formats [Accessed 27 June 2025]. 

Leeds Autism AIM (2021). Making information accessible for neurodivergent people. [online] Available at: https://www.wypartnership.co.uk/application/files/3716/4735/6437/making-information-accessible-for-neurodivergent-people-final-v2-20.04.21.pdf [Accessed 27 June 2025]. 

University of the Arts London (2025) Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Annual Report 2024. London: University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/480901/EDI-annual-report-2024.pdf [Accessed 27 June 2025].