Category: Uncategorised

Revised Research Focus & Rationale

Research Question:

How can a pre-session questionnaire, informed by Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies (CSP), help identify and accommodate diverse student needs, overcoming barriers in existing Technical Resources one-to-one sessions?

Rationale

In my role providing one-to-one support sessions, I noticed that many students, particularly international students and those with anxiety or specific learning differences, struggle to articulate their learning needs during the session itself.


Some avoid mentioning their access needs out of fear of being judged or because of cultural or linguistic barriers. For instance, a student with anxiety may feel uncomfortable in a shared or noisy environment but hesitate to disclose this until the session is already under way. Another student with dyslexia might struggle to follow a live software demonstration but would benefit from receiving video materials in advance.

The current pre-session questionnaire only asks basic logistical questions (e.g. which course are you currently enrolled in?, What topics you would like to focus on in this tutorial? ) and does not invite students to express how they learn best or what conditions support their focus. This gap limits my ability to prepare effectively and unintentionally maintains barriers to inclusion.

To address this, I will redesign the questionnaire guided by two complementary frameworks:

  • Universal Design for Learning (UDL) : to embed structural inclusivity through multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression.
  • Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies (CSP) : to affirm diverse linguistic, cultural, and communicative identities, creating space for students’ preferred ways of interaction.

Together these frameworks shift the focus from reactive accommodation (“tell me if you need support”) to proactive design (“support is built in from the start”).

Aim

To design and evaluate a more inclusive pre-session questionnaire for exsisting Technical Resources one-to-one sessions, enabling students to express their learning preferences and access needs in advance.

Objectives

  1. To reflect on previous pre-session questionnaires and identify barriers that may prevent students from communicating their learning preferences and access needs.
  2. To redesign the pre-session questionnaire using principles from Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies (CSP) to make it more inclusive and student-centred.
  3. To pilot the redesigned questionnaire with a small group of students accessing to Technical Resources one to one Sessions.
  4. To collect qualitative feedback through semi-structured interviews on the usability, accessibility, and inclusivity of the redesigned questionnaire.
  5. To reflect on the interview findings to inform more inclusive and proacive responsive practices in one-to-one sessions.

Methods and Data Collection

This action research project follows a single-cycle model focused on the redesign of a presession questionnaire used in Technical Resources one-to-one sessions. The intervention draws on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies (CSP) to ensure accessibility and cultural inclusivity are embedded from the outset.

The redesigned questionnaire will be piloted with a small group of students who voluntarily book one-to-one support sessions. Data will be collected through short, semi-structured interviews conducted after students have completed the new questionnaire.

These interviews will explore participants’ perceptions of the form’s clarity, usability, and inclusivity, and how it affected their comfort in communicating learning needs. The feedback will be transcribed and reflected to identify recurring themes and opportunities for refinement.

The findings will inform reflective evaluation of the intervention’s effectiveness and guide future iterations of inclusive one-to-one support practice.

Reading list:

Gray, C. & Malins, J. (2004) Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design.
→ Useful for framing practice-based research in art and design; helps position my project as a reflective, iterative inquiry within teaching practice.

Kara, H. (2015) Creative Research Methods and Ethics.
→ Highlights how creative and participatory approaches can be both innovative and ethically grounded, supporting my use of interviews as reflective, relational tools rather than data extraction.

Banks, S. (2016) Everyday Ethics in Professional Life.
→ Provides practical guidance on managing power, consent, and emotional labour within practitioner-led interviews.

Lenette, C. (2022) Cultural Safety in Participatory Arts-Based Research.
→ Informs my culturally sensitive approach to interviewing diverse students, ensuring the process validates multiple identities and communication styles.

BERA (2024) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (5th edn).
→ Establishes the ethical framework for informed consent, confidentiality, and participants’ right to withdraw.

University of Sheffield (2018) Emotionally Demanding Research Guidance.
→ Offers strategies for emotional self-care and reflexive awareness when conducting qualitative interviews.

Interview methodology:

Irvine, A., Drew, P. & Sainsbury, R. (2012) ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ The structure and function of semi-structured interviews in qualitative research.
→ Directly informs my method, showing how interviewer flexibility and conversational structure affect data depth and participant comfort.

Alvesson, M. (2012) Interviews: A Critical Guide.
→ Encourages reflexivity in interpreting interview data and recognises the co-constructed nature of researcher–participant dialogue.

Visual Elicitation in Interviews (2019) SAGE Research Methods Foundations.
→ Explores the use of visual prompts or creative artefacts to support communication — relevant to digital or art-based 1-to-1 sessions.

Odeniyi, V. (2023) Reimagining Conversations.
→ Examines how language, culture, and power operate within academic dialogue; offers a framework for designing more inclusive, reciprocal, and culturally aware tutorial interactions — strongly aligned with Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies.

Blog Task 3 – Race

When I first read the UAL anti-racism action plan, especially the bit that says “increase representation of BAME academic staff by 15%” and “by 50% at Grade 7” (UAL, 2021), I didn’t feel reassured. I felt anxious. I started to question myself: Was I employed because I’m good at what I do, or was it to help the numbers look better? I support the idea of equity and increasing representation, of course I do, but this way of framing it made me feel like a statistic, not a person.

Asif Sadiq’s TED Talk (2023) put words to something I’d been struggling to explain. He says, “It’s easy to count people, but it’s hard to make people count.” That really hit home. Sometimes inclusion feels more like performance, something that looks good on paper, but doesn’t actually shift who is being listened to or who feels like they belong. It reminded me of another point he made, about how all the case studies and resources he saw while studying business were about the successful people who didn’t look like him. That example stayed with me. It mirrors what I sometimes feel in my own academic journey, like I’m not the person these spaces were originally built for.

Bradbury (2020) deepens this point using Critical Race Theory. She explains how policy, even when it claims to be neutral, often centres whiteness as the default. She writes that “representation is necessary but not sufficient” and argues that without shifting power, policies risk turning people of colour into symbols of institutional success instead of truly including them. That resonated. Sometimes being visible feels like being under a spotlight rather than being supported.

On Monday, in our group discussion in the workshop 3, we spoke about this too. We questioned where these percentages in the action plan came from, and who decides them. We also talked about the way data is collected, how we’re not always told why our identity data is being used, or how. That can feel invasive and a bit performative, especially when you’re not sure if it’s helping or just another tick box. We also questioned the term “BAME”—how it groups so many different people together and ends up creating a binary between “white” and “everyone else.”

I’m not saying the action plan is bad. It’s a step. But if we want real change, the approach has to go deeper. Garrett (2024) talks about how racialised PhD students often can’t picture a future in academia because the system hasn’t shown them one. That really stayed with me, because representation on paper doesn’t always translate into real support, real listening, or a real sense of belonging.

One thing our group suggested was making data collection more transparent, clearly explaining how it’s used, and why, and building it into a two-way conversation. Because anti-racism shouldn’t feel like something happening to us—it should feel like something we’re actively shaping together.

Reference:

Bradbury, A., 2020. A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England. Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), pp.241–260.

Garrett, R., 2024. Racism shapes careers: Career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp.1–15.

Sadiq, A., 2023. Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Learning how to get it right. TEDx Talks , 2 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw [Accessed 4 June 2025].

University of the Arts London (UAL), 2021. UAL Anti-racism Action Plan Summary. London: UAL.