Category: Unit 1 Theories, Policies and Practices (Spring 2025)

After Session 2, we will begin our case study reviews. I’ve chosen to reflect on the learning resources available in our workshop, particularly focusing on Wilcom embroidery software. This topic resonates with me personally, as I am dyslexic and know that lengthy, wordy instructions often don’t make sense. 

Through further reading on dyslexia in education, a subject I hadn’t previously explored, I found the findings both fascinating and validating. One key insight is that individuals with dyslexia can become disheartened by repeated failures in the education system, leading to lower self-worth compared to their non-neurodiverse peers (Bacon & Bennett, 2012). Additionally, research by Hughes and Dawson (1995) shows that this lack of self-worth in education can extend to feelings of low personal intelligence, affecting social and professional aspects of life. 

While I don’t attribute all my feelings of low self-worth and intelligence solely to dyslexia, it does shed light on factors that contribute to these emotions. As an educator, I want to emphasize that having dyslexia is a valuable asset, especially in the arts. My goal, as I will discuss further in Case Study 1, is to create resources that support dyslexic and neurodivergent students in general. I believe it’s a societal issue that “standard intelligence” is often based on IQ and reading speed, rather than a broader understanding that intelligence can also encompass practical skills, memory, and other strengths.  

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. 

Hughes, W. and Dawson, R. (1995). Memories of school: Adult dyslexics recall their school days. Support for Learning, 10(4), pp.181–184. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.1995.tb00037.x.

Reading Clare Sams’ article How Do Art and Design Technicians Conceive of Their Role in Higher Education, 2016, really resonated with me, as it captures themes that often arise in discussions among groups of technician colleagues. One key point that stood out is the desire to be valued for the full range of our contributions—not only for providing technical and practical advice, but also for our role in supporting the overall wellbeing of students. Our work goes beyond being a mere aid for students; we are skilled artists and makers in our own right.

In the article, Clare Sams (2016) interviews Technician A, who explains that she and her colleagues often feel that their support is not truly appreciated by academic staff. This sentiment is one I encounter frequently and was something that surprised me when I first started at UAL. Before joining CSM as a support technician, I worked as a visiting lecturer at UEL. In my experience, the environment there was quite different. Even though I wasn’t working as a technician, we (as academic staff) interacted with technicians in much the same way I do now. Our lunchroom was shared by both technical and academic staff, and small group meetings with the student year groups involved all staff members, allowing technicians to contribute to curriculum discussions and stay informed about deadlines, briefs, and other important details. This level of involvement and cross-team collaboration was valuable not only for staff but also for students. Technicians understood the objectives of the projects they were supporting, which allowed them to plan workshops effectively around peak usage and deadlines. This also helped foster mutual respect between students and technicians, as technicians were seen as equal members of the academic team.

In contrast, at UAL, interactions between technical and academic staff are rare. We often learn about briefs and deadlines through students, rather than directly from academic staff. We’re seldom invited to student shows or crits where students present their completed work. Additionally, the contractual benefits for technical staff differ significantly from those of academic staff. For example, technical staff have fewer holiday allowances, lower grading bands, and no time allocated for personal practice development. These discrepancies reinforce the feeling that technical staff are undervalued, and also enforces this feeling of ‘them and us’, which is touched upon in an article by A Shreeve, 2009.

To address this, technicians should be more actively involved with the staff running the courses. Bi-termly in-person meetings would provide a valuable opportunity to stay informed about upcoming projects and deadlines. This would allow technicians to plan workshops around deadlines, provide input on what is possible in the workshops, and contribute to the practical outcomes of the students’ work. Additionally, it would give us a chance to propose specialized workshops that could benefit students.

Furthermore, technical staff should automatically be invited to crits, shows, and other relevant events. There should also be an effort to equalize benefits across the board, ensuring that all staff in student-facing roles receive the same grading, benefits, and recognition.

References:

Sams, C. (2016). How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education. Spark Journal, 1(2), pp.62–69.

Shreeve, A. (2009). ‘I’d rather be seen as a practitioner, come in to teach my subject’: Identity Work in Part-Time Art and Design Tutors. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(2), pp.151–159. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2009.01602.x.