This project represents a first Action Research cycle, not a full evaluation.
The biggest constraint was timing. I introduced the revised pre-session questionnaire towards the end of term, when fewer students were booking one-to-one Technical Resources sessions. As a result, only a small number of students engaged with the questionnaire, and only two took part in follow-up interviews. This means the findings are small-scale and situated in my own practice, rather than something I can generalise.
My dual role as Specialist Technician and researcher shaped the project in both helpful and challenging ways.
Being embedded in the work meant I could notice subtle shifts in how students arrived at sessions and how prepared they felt. At the same time, my institutional role may have influenced how students responded, especially in interviews. Some moments suggested students wanted to be supportive or reassuring, which was a reminder that power dynamics don’t disappear just because a tool is designed to be inclusive. This felt like an ongoing tension rather than something I could neatly resolve.
From an Action Research perspective, these limitations point to next steps rather than failure.
In a future cycle, I would introduce the questionnaire earlier in the academic year and use it over a longer period. This would allow patterns to emerge across different students and types of support. I’d also like to add lighter forms of feedback, such as short post-session reflections, rather than relying mainly on interviews after the fact.
This cycle has already shaped how I would refine the questionnaire itself.
Student feedback suggests that allowing more open reflection, especially around why certain aspects of learning feel difficult and could make it even more supportive.
A significant limitation that became visible relates to language preferences.
While the questionnaire made space for students to express language related needs, one-to-one Technical Resources support cannot realistically accommodate all languages. My ability to offer Mandarin support worked well for one student, but it also highlighted an unevenness: similar support wouldn’t be available for students who speak other languages. In this sense, the questionnaire can surface needs that staff are not always able to meet.
This raised questions for me about the boundaries of inclusive design.
UDL encourages flexibility and choice, but those choices are still shaped by institutional capacity, staff skills, and available resources. There is a risk that making needs visible without being able to respond to them could create frustration or disappointment.
In future cycles, I’d want to explore more equitable, system-level responses to language barriers.
This might include clearer guidance around multilingual software interfaces, shared translated resources, e.g. One possible way forward could be the creation of a shared technical terms glossary in multiple languages, or alternatives that don’t rely on spoken language, such as annotated visuals or recorded demonstrations.
Overall, this first cycle helped me see more clearly how UDL-informed design can support one-to-one technical learning, and also where individual practice meets institutional limits. Rather than closing the project, it has given me a grounded starting point for continuing to develop more inclusive and responsive support.