Tag: Reflective writing

Limitations & What I’d Do Next

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.

Findings

Purpose of This Post:

This post reflects on how I worked with interview data collected as part of my Action Research Project. I focus on analytic observations and reflections that emerged from engaging with the interview interactions.

I conducted two semi-structured interviews with students who had completed the inclusive pre-session questionnaire and attended a 1-to-1 technical support session.

The focus here is not on identifying themes across participants, but on examining how meaning was produced within the interview interaction itself, particularly in relation to how students react to the pre-session questionaries.

Ethical Note on Transcript Use

  • Anonymised (Student A / Student B),
  • Lightly edited for clarity,
  • Selected because they illustrate interactional dynamics relevant to the research focus.
Interview cleaned transcriptDownload

Transcript Analysis Notes

Across both interviews, the questionnaire appeared to function less as an administrative tool and more as a preparatory materials that shaped how students entered the one-to-one session.

Student A repeatedly returned to feelings of reduced anxiety and increased clarity. Early in the interview, she stated that the questionnaire “helped me feel less anxious or less stressed about communicating how I feel” Interview cleaned transcript. She contrasted this with previous sessions, explaining that without the questionnaire she would have “probably sat there and let you lead.” This indicates that, without any pre-session prompts and questionnaire, student in the session assume it would be a educator-centered rather than a learner-centered session.

When prompted further, Student A described the questionnaire as something that “made me think about what I actually wanted to ask.” This reflection occurred before the tutorial itself, suggesting that engagement began in advance rather than emerging reactively during the session. She emphasised the supportive nature of the structure, repeating that “all the options were there”, and struggled to identify anything missing, suggesting that the design reduced uncertainty rather than overwhelming her with choice.

During discussion of the session itself, Student A pointed out the importance of learning modality. She noted that “rather than just talking about it, being able to see it [the live demonstration] was really helpful,” and that working directly with her own content improved understanding. By articulating this preference, the student was shaping the session towards visual and applied modes of learning, rather than abstract explanation.

Student B’s interview centred around language and efficiency. While she found the tick-box questions straightforward, the open-ended question required more thought: “writing questions always takes longer.” Notably, she framed her effort in relational terms, explaining that she felt she “should think of something to write” in order to “support this research.” This moment required reflexive attention, as it suggested a desire to be helpful rather than purely expressive.

However, the questionnaire opened space for a practical and significant adjustment. Student B explained that although she usually chooses English “out of respect for the culture here,” using her mother language for technical software was more effective. Following the session, she changed the system language to Chinese, describing it as “much easier to understand,” particularly for advanced stages where she needed to articulate complex goals clearly. She also reflected that the questionnaire helped her realise she could use alternative learning methods, such as videos or problem-solving, when booking a session was not possible.

Analysis Discussion

Taken together, these interviews suggest that the UDL-informed pre-session questionnaire supported anticipatory engagement, reduced anxiety, and enabled practical adjustments that would have been difficult to negotiate spontaneously during one-to-one sessions. Rather than simply collecting information, the questionnaire shaped how students reflected on their learning needs and how they participated in technical support, aligning with UDL’s emphasis on proactive rather than reactive design.

Both students described how completing the questionnaire in advance shifted the focus of the session itself. For Student A, this reduced uncertainty and allowed the tutorial to prioritise visual and applied learning approaches. For Student B, the questionnaire created space to discuss language preferences, leading to technical and communication adjustments that improved efficiency and clarity. These examples demonstrate how flexibility in representation, engagement, and emotional support was operationalised most effectively before the session began.

At the same time, Student B’s expressed desire to “support the research” highlights that power dynamics and perceived expectations continue to shape student responses, even within inclusive designs. While this did not diminish the usefulness of the questionnaire, it reinforces the need for reflexivity when interpreting feedback. Overall, the findings suggest that the value of the pre-session questionnaire lies in enabling preparedness, choice, and responsiveness, supporting more inclusive and effective one-to-one technical learning experiences.

Research Methods

My Original Research Design

When I first planned this project, my intention was to evaluate a newly designed inclusive pre-session questionnaire by collecting data from several students across the Autumn term. My research design combined:

  1. A semi-structured interview method, guided by a flexible interview schedule.
  2. Thematic analysis as described by Braun & Clarke (2006, 2013), which is designed to identify patterns across multiple accounts.

My expectation was to gather a small but sufficient dataset to look for common themes around how students experience the questionnaire, how it shapes their 1-to-1 learning, and how it influences feelings of confidence, inclusion, or anxiety.

This design aligned with standard qualitative practice: semi-structured interviews allow depth and flexibility, while thematic analysis supports an inductive exploration of students’ experiences across a dataset.

Interview Schedule:

PGCERT INTERVIEW QUESTIONSDownload

Participant-facing documents

Analysis method

When the action phase began, the timing of the academic calendar became an unexpected constraint. Because my intervention launched at the end of term, very few students were booking 1-to-1 technical support. In reality, I was only able to complete one full cycle:

  1. 4 students completed the new pre-session questionnaire.
  2. 3 student attended a 1-to-1 tutorial with me.
  3. 2 participated in a follow-up interview.

Although I spoke with two students, the small scale of the data meant my original analytical based on thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; 2017) was not viable. Given this limited dataset, I decided not to pursue thematic analysis in its conventional form. As Braun and Clarke (2017) emphasise, thematic analysis is designed to identify patterned meaning across a dataset, rather than to support close analysis of a small number of cases. Applying this method with only two interviews would have risked overstating the analytic claims or forcing themes that were not adequately supported by the data.

Rather than forcing a method that no longer fit, I treated interviews as illustrative, case-based accounts that enabled a closer examination of how the UDL-informed questionnaire functioned in practice. My focus of analysis shifted from identifying themes across students to examining how they articulated their learning preferences and access needs, and how these articulations shaped the one-to-one interaction.

My analysis uses an interaction-focused approach. I conducted a close, reflexive reading of the interview transcripts alongside field notes from the tutorial sessions, paying attention to how meaning was produced through talk and relevant nonverbal interaction. I specifically examined points where the questionnaire seemed to influence students’ preparedness, session responsiveness, and the ways students raised or clarified their needs (Jordan and Henderson, 1995). Features such as pauses, hesitations, adequacy checks and requests for reassurance were analysed as indicators of comfort, confidence and inclusion in practice, rather than as a separate analysis of power dynamics (Jordan and Henderson, 1995).

The specific approach was informed by Kvale’s (1996) concepts of interviews as “an exchange of views” an InterView, where the interviewer (i.e., myself as a researcher) engage in an almost “therapeutic exchange” with the interviewee, co-creating meaning and curating discourse on the subject. I’ve also drawn inspiration from Holstein and Gubrium’s (1995) notion of the “active interview” — understanding the student’s behaviour as a performance of a “good participant”: agreeable, supportive, and careful not to challenge me, a common dynamic in interviews shaped by institutional roles. Irvine et al.’s (2013) discussion of adequacy checks was particularly useful for interpreting how students monitored their responses and sought confirmation during the interview. These interactional cues provided insight into whether the pre-session questionnaire helped reduce uncertainty, anxiety, or the emotional labour associated with disclosure.

Rather than aiming to produce generalisable findings, this analysis of the results remain as a situated, practice-based account of how a UDL-informed pre-session questionnaire can operate within one-to-one Technical Resources support. By focusing on process, interaction, and anticipatory adjustment, the analysis seeks to illuminate how UDL principles may be operationalised at a micro-pedagogic level to improve inclusivity, preparedness, and student experience.

Reference:

Anyan, F. (2013) ‘The influence of power shifts in data collection and analysis stages: A focus on qualitative research interviews’, The Qualitative Report, 18(18), pp. 1–9.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2017) ‘Thematic analysis’, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), pp. 297–298.

Holstein, J.A. & Gubrium, J.F. (1995) The Active Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/mono/the-active-interview/toc

Sayrs, L. (1998) ‘InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing (Steinar Kvale)… [book review]’, American Journal of Evaluation, volume(19), pp. 267-270

Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. (1995) ‘Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), pp. 39–103.

Action Plan & Ethics

1. Ethical Action Plan

Version 1 Ethical Action Plan 25:26Download
Version 2 Ethical Action Plan 2025-26Download

2. Action Research Cycle & TimeLine

Action Research Cycle:

Research Timeline:

End September -Mid December 2025

StageTasksApprox DatesOutputs Status
Stage 1 – ReflectReview previous pre-session questionnaires and identify barriers (anxiety, language, environment). Begin reading key sources.29/09/2025 – 31/10/2025Reflection notes on barriers; short summary of key readings for ethics or workshop submission.Done
Stage 2 – PlanDraft and refine redesigned questionnaire using UDL principles. Write interview schedule (4–6 open questions). Gain tutor feedback on both tools.20/10/2025-10/11/2025Final version of pre-session questionnaire and interview guide ready for ethical approval.Done
Stage 3 – Act (Pilot Implementation)Pilot the redesigned questionnaire with a small number of one-to-one bookings (3–5 students). 10/11/2025 –
02/12/2025		Completed pilot questionnaires and reflection on student interaction.Done
Stage 4 – Observe (Data Collection)Conduct semi-structured interviews with participating students.
Focus on usability, accessibility, and inclusivity. Transcribe or summarise responses.		24/11/2025 –
08/12/2025		Interview transcripts or summaries. Done
Stage 5 – Reflect / EvaluateReflection on student feedback and pilot outcomes. Link findings to UDL frameworks.01/12/2025 –
15/12/2025		Final reflection and prepare for the presentation.Done

Redesigned Pre-session questionnaire:

Presession questionnairDownload

Intervention and Reflective Report

Inclusive Practice

Rebekah Guo

Introduction

This report will discuss a teaching intervention designed to promote further inclusion in the Digital Communication sector, as well as my one-on-one support sessions. I work with students from different cultural backgrounds in Art and Design education who face numerous challenges related to language, digital fluency, and a lack of understanding of what is expected in their studies. This situation is something I see all the time: students who are silently struggling academically, unwilling to raise their hand and seek help, and are apprehensive about asking questions or participating in class discussions. This intervention addresses those observations by providing a way for students to share how they learn best while providing multiple access points for participation. The intervention is informed by concepts of learning styles and inclusive pedagogy, in particular the research of Reid (1987), Kolb (1984), and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles. My intention was not to categorise people based on learning styles; I wanted to create something that all teachers can use to reflect, improve access to the curriculum, and make our learners feel good about learning.

Context

The intervention will be delivered within two correlated contexts – one-to-one tutorials and group Digital Communication sessions. Students are often required to learn creative digital tools, such as Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and CLO3D, as part of these courses. The students in the group I’m teaching are first-year undergraduate students with diverse cultural and educational experiences. For many, this is their first taste of UK higher education. To address students’ unique learning styles, I created a pre-session questionnaire based on Reid’s (1987) Perceptual Learning Style Preferences model. It gives students a moment to think about how they prefer to consume information and reflect on their intake after the individual support session. In Phase 2, I have incorporated Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (1984) to encourage reflective thinking in collaborative and iterative design processes. The double-pronged method enables students to express their learning choices and engage in meaningful work with creative, multi-layered patterns.

Inclusive Learning Intervention Journey (Visual)

To illustrate the full scope and development of my teaching intervention, the diagram below presents the six key stages of the process. It begins with my classroom observations and continues through theoretical framing, practical implementation, reflexive positioning, and future planning. The aim of this visual is to provide a clear overview of how theory and practice were integrated at each step.

Inclusive Learning Intervention JourneyDownload

Inclusive Learning: The case for design

While learning styles theory has received considerable criticism for its lack of empirical evidence and conceptual vagueness (Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2020), it offered a functional reflective approach. Ghobain and Zughaibi (2024) claim that “learning style” is ambiguous and “has lost its specificity over the years” (p. 996). They warn the field not to reify learning styles as stable constructs or diagnostic markers. I did not employ Reid’s model to label students but instead to engage students in a conversation about how they participate in learning. It is an attempt to provide a more interactive and personalised experience, especially for students who are not comfortable expressing their needs verbally.

Whilst I am aware of these criticisms, I believe each learning model can be used strategically to support different stages of learning and has specific advantages. I will make the questionnaire available in various languages to minimize linguistic bias. I will use Kolb’s (1984) model in the group experience to provide processes for metacognitive reflection. For Kolb, learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience (p. 41). This resonates well with Digital Communication when students iterate through a process of trial and error. Kolb’s cycle offers a mechanism for students to gain active awareness of their learning behaviors and to modify them. By using each framework strategically —Reid for individual interactions and Kolb for larger scope classes —I hope to mitigate the “sloppy blending of (individual) theories” (Papadatou-Pastou et al. 2020:5) that they criticize. Each model can be used to support a different stage of learning and has specific advantages.

Although the intervention was developed specifically for international students, it is also beneficial for general learners. Almost every mention here – the anxiety of group work, getting to grips with digital platforms, needing to understand the conventions and protocols of the academy – resonates for neurodivergent students, mature learners, and others who may feel marginalized by higher education too. Designing for one group of people has helped me develop practices that benefit many groups of people.

Reflection on Development and Challenges

This intervention was formed through reflection on my work with students who are timid to speak or ask for help. Some had communicated their discomfort explicitly; others had done so obliquely, by avoiding it or disengaging. The literature reflects these patterns. According to Qu (2024), some international students choose not to speak in order to maintain class harmony. This referred to a universal institutional challenge: although there is a push for inclusivity in practice, there is typically not enough time or support in place to fully implement it. This led to some critical questions I had about how to support and scale inclusive approaches for my workload and departmental systems. I initially worried that using two different models, or theoretical models, Reid’s and Kolb’s, might result in conflicting messages, which Papadatou-Pastou et al. (2020) had warned about. However, I now know that each has a specific purpose. Reid’s model allows students to reflect on their preferences in a non-threatening environment, whereas Kolb’s model underpins reflective learning in construction and design. The models are applied in separate steps and, in practice, do not conflict, so cohesion is maintained. This also compelled me to reflect more on my positionality. I once saw it as a static identity label, and yet Bayeck (2022) characterises positionality as influenced by “The interplay of space, context, and identity.” I connected on a deep level to her idea, I am an “in-out-sider.” I am a Chinese woman, an immigrant, a lecturer, a technician—roles that can change depending on the context. This is the experience on which I draw to notice silence in the classroom, to interpret disengagement, and to act. Similarly, Schiffer (2020) argues that researchers ought to reflect as a form of being in responsibility, which accounts for power and transfers the role of the teacher from an expert to a facilitator. That has pushed me to relinquish control, to be open to the perspectives of students, and to rethink inclusion as an ongoing, relational practice.

Action and implementation

I will start trialing the questionnaire during one-to-one tutorials next term. The information gathered will inform the types of support I provide – whether through visual schematic guidelines, written instructions, or video tutorials – so that students can engage with the resources in a manner that feels comfortable to them. For group work, I will use reflective triggers from Kolb’s Learning Cycle. These could include written reflections, anonymous polls, or breakout group discussions, depending on what the cohort is comfortable with. The idea is to create a space for reflection that encourages students to share their thoughts without forcing them to speak up if doing so makes them uncomfortable. In the future, I’d like to continue developing the intervention to become a more peer-led programme where students can co-construct learning strategies and their own approaches to discussing how they learn. As Qu and Cross (2024) suggest, students tend to dismiss non-assessed activities unless their purpose is clearly articulated frequently. The claim is that teachers need to facilitate that it is essential to make credits for what students do more visible” (p. 10). As I make reflection and engagement a central part—not a free choice to opt in or out—I hope that students will come to value the learning process in different ways.

Process Evaluation

If the intervention is successful, I hope to see increased student participation from the most shy and reluctant students. I will specifically be looking for greater use of differentiated resources, e.g., Handouts, Video recording of the sessions, Interactive mock questions, more thoughtful written reflections in class, and informal feedback that students report feeling better supported. I will also determine whether the intervention is making a difference in the teaching practices that I want to improve, so that I can respond to and anticipate diverse learning needs more effectively. This process has altered my perspective on learning style data. I no longer view it as a form of categorisation but rather as a medium for planning, reflection, and communication. I am still skeptical of its constraints, but when implemented ethically and situationally, it has the potential to strengthen inclusive teaching.

Conclusion

This research process has strengthened my resolve to be an inclusive practitioner. It is a reminder that we start by listening to voices, yes, but also to silences and the places marked as uncertain. It also solidified my sense that inclusion is not something you check off a list; it is a relationship between a teacher and a learner that you remain attentive to throughout the year. And I will continue to refine this work, filled with kindness, empathy, and wonder.

Bibliography:

Bayeck, R.Y., 2022. Positionality: The interplay of space, context and identity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 17(1), pp.8–24. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/itls_facpub/article/1853/&path_info=ITLSfacpub2023_Bayeck_PositionalityInterplaySpace.pdf

Qu, X. and Cross, B., 2024. UDL for inclusive higher education—What makes group work effective for diverse international students in UK? International Journal of Educational Research, 123, 102277. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035523001404

Papadatou-Pastou, M., Touloumakos, A.K., Koutouveli, C. and Barrable, A., 2020. The learning styles neuromyth: When the same term means different things to different teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(3), pp.511–531. file:///Users/bsg/Downloads/s10212-020-00485-2.pdf

Schiffer, E., 2020. Issues of power and representation in participatory design: Reflections from research in The Gambia. Design Studies, 70, 100964. https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/6656/1/IssuesOfPowerAndRepresentationAM-SCHIFFER.pdf

Reid, J.M., 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), pp.87–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586356

Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701029_Experiential_Learning_Experience_As_The_Source_Of_Learning_And_Development

Ghobain, E. and Zughaibi, A.A., 2024. ‘Multimodal’ fits all: Revisiting the relevance of perceptual learning styles in higher education today. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 14(4), pp.995–1004.https://tpls.academypublication.com/index.php/tpls/article/view/7868/6372

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.

Blog Task 2 – Faith, religion, and belief

Through my work as a specialist technician and associate lecturer, I’ve become moe aware of how race, faith, and gender intersect with classroom dynamics, often invisibly. I don’t practice a religion myself, so at the first I didn’t think much about faith related to my teaching. But from the Blog 2 resources, especially Ramadan (2022) and Rekis (2023) opened up a deeper understanding of how identity shapes who is heard, believed and accommodated in academic environment.


In Ramadan’s study, Muslim women academics shared how they avoid social events that involved alcohol. On paper, this sounds more like a personal choice, but reading further, I realised this’ Choice’ often came with a professional cost: for instance, lost networking, exclusion from information sharing, and subtle sidelining. It reminds me how social norms, like afterwork drinking or casual meetups can feel optional, but actually function s gatekeeper to full participation. One participant in the study noted that while she was technically included, she still felt unable to fully belong in academic culture. This struck me as a form of exclusion hidden in plain sight that I can relate.


Rekis(2023) offers a powerful framework for understanding this through the lens of epistemic injustice. Testimonial injustice occurs when someone is seen as less credible based on identity. This resonated with me personally. As an Asian Women in a predominantly white UK institution, I’ve often been mistaken for a student, in a surface level, it might seem minor, just a mix-up. But over time, I started to realise this reflects an assumption about credibility, assumption of age based on the look. Because I share an ethnic background with a large portion of students, some people see me through that student-lens first, before seeing my professional role. If I were a white woman of the same age, I wonder: would those assumptions still happen? These moments reflect broader assumptions about who “looks like” a lecturer, and who doesn’t.


Hermeneutical Injustice, as Rekis explains, is even harder to notice. It’s when someone lacks cultural tools or shared language to explain their experience, and therefore can’t be fully understood. Muslim women who wear the hijab are often seen through western stereotypes: either oppressed or hyper-religious. Their own explanation of veiling is as an act of devotion, agency or spiritual expression. As cited in Rekis (2023, p. 787), Alia Al-Saji observes that “the veiled woman is at once hypervisible as oppressed and invisible as subject.”, this lead to Muslim women is made hypervisible as a symbol, but her own subjectivity, her voice, meaning, and beliefs are remain unseen. That’s what makes this injustice so persistent.
In my own teaching, I’ve worked with Muslim students who missed session during Ramadan. When I noticed their absence, I made sure to email them, share leaning resources, and assure them that their participation was still fully recognised. As educators, we can’t always remove barriers, but what we can do is to make sure students know the barriers aren’t their fault, weather it’s their religion, race, believes or cultural background.


Jawad (2022) makes a similar point about Muslim Women in sports. She notes, :’ There is nothing in Quran or Hadith that explicitly precludes men’s or women’s participation in physical activities.’ Yet sport often excludes women of faith though assumptions about body visibility, clothing and mixed sex environment. This made me question why our definition of sport is so narrow? Why must inclusion come with compromise? Hy don’t dominant system adapt to difference, instead of demanding the reverse?


In the Trinity University (2016) Video, Professor Simran Jeet Singh mentioned when he went to an airport, people were looking at him with fear and funny looks, awkward,It wasn’t just an awkward moment, it shaped who gets to feel safe, who gets to speak, who is seen as a threat, and who ends up staying silent. But he didn’t stay silent. He started a conversation, and even showed a photo of his daughter, helping others to see him as just a normal person. That small action challenged the stereotypes placed on him. I think this is the kind of environment we should be working towards in higher education , one that doesn’t avoid difference, but makes space to break down assumptions through real, human connection.


Moving forward, I want to continue questioning what feels “normal” in our academic culture. From the language we use to how we deliver sessions or shape feedback, everything carries hidden norms. I will explore how to create more flexible, identity aware systems in both my 1-2-1 work and Digital Communication teaching.

Reference:

Jawad, H. (2022) Islam, Women and Sport: The Case of Visible Muslim Women. Religion and Global Society Blog, LSE. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2022/09/islam-women-and-sport-the-case-of-visible-muslim-women/ (Accessed: 23 May 2025).

Ramadan, S. (2022) ‘When faith intersects with gender: The challenges and successes in the experiences of Muslim women academics’, Gender and Education, 34(7), pp. 853–870.

Rekis, J. (2023) ‘Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account’, Hypatia, 38, pp. 779–800.

Trinity University (2016) Challenging Race, Religion, and Stereotypes in the Classroom. [Video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CAOKTo_DOk (Accessed: 23 May 2025).

Blog task 1 – Disability

After studying Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality, which highlights how different aspects of identity such as race, gender, disability, and class can overlap to create unique experiences of discrimination and privilege (Crenshaw, 1991), I found the video Intersectionality in Focus: Empowering Voices during UK Disability History Month 2023 particularly resonant.

In this video, Chay Brown shares his experience as a white, trans man with a mental health disability. Although his whiteness grants him certain privileges, he also faces complex challenges navigating hidden disabilities and decoding social cues within the LGBTQ+ community. His story powerfully shows that discrimination is not caused by a single aspect of identity, but by the collision and compounding of multiple identities.

Reflecting on Chay Brown’s Intersectionality
by Rebekah Guo, 2025

In the diagram I created, I mapped out different parts of Chay Brown’s identity: being white, living with a mental health disability, and being a trans mom. As a white man, Chay carries certain social privileges, especially compared to racial minorities. But at the same time, his lived experience is far from simple. Being a trans gay man with a hidden disability brings layered, often invisible challenges. Because his disability is not immediately visible, it can be harder for him to express his needs or gain recognition for the barriers he faces. There’s also the pressure to learn the subtle non-verbal communication often expected in male-dominated spaces, as he described, it’s adding another layer of anxiety.

Chay’s interview really resonated with me because it reminded me of my own intersectional identity. I am a Chinese woman, living with a mental health disability, and an immigrant. There are challenging situations I encounter sometimes without even fully realising they’re unfair. I’ve learned to fit in, to read hidden social cues, even when doing so feels uncomfortable or overwhelming. I am also neurodivergent, and I find it very stressful to stay in loud, chaotic social environments for extended periods. For a long time, I thought I simply disliked these spaces, but now I understand it as part of my disability experience, not a personal failing.

Reflecting on my own Intersectionality
by Rebekah Guo, 2025

According to UAL Active Dashboard data (University of the Arts London, 2024), around 2.94% of students declared mental health conditions in 2024/25, 656 individuals. While this may seem like a small proportion, it actually represents a significant number of people who are navigating invisible disabilities alongside the demands of academic life. Although UAL offers a wide range of mental health support services, not all students are aware of them, and many may feel hesitant or uncomfortable seeking help.

University of the Arts London (2024) UAL Active Dashboard: Student Profile: Characteristic 2024/25

This reality makes it even more critical to recognise that inclusion must happen inside the classroom itself, not just through external support channels. Hidden disabilities, like mental health challenges, are often overlooked in standard classroom practices. As a result, many students who are struggling silently end up feeling excluded, even when they are physically present.

Reflecting on intersectionality has made me realise that creating a genuinely inclusive learning environment means intentionally valuing and responding to invisible needs—not just visible ones. In my future practice, I want to make hidden disabilities visible in the sense of recognition and respect, without forcing disclosure. By embedding flexible ways to engage, express, and participate into everyday teaching, I hope to create spaces where students with diverse, often unseen, experiences can truly feel seen and supported.

In the third interview video, Christine Sun Kim’s words, “If you don’t see us, we have no place to be,” stayed with me deeply after watching her interview. It reminded me that visibility is not just about acknowledgement — it’s about expectation, about infrastructure, about creating spaces where people know they are anticipated, not just accommodated.

Reference:

Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp. 1241–1299.

University of the Arts London (2024) UAL Active Dashboard: Student Profile: Characteristic – Disability 2024/25, unpublished internal data. Accessed 29th April 2025

YouTube (2023) Intersectionality in Focus: Empowering Voices during UK Disability History Month 2023 . Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yID8_s5tjc (Accessed: 28 April 2025).

YouTube (2021) Christine Sun Kim: “Friends and Strangers” . Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqoDsQyqGpA (Accessed: 28 April 2025).

This blog post has been supported by grammar and expression checking using OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4o model.

OpenAI (2025) ChatGPT [online]. Available at: https://chat.openai.com/ (Accessed: 28 April 2025).

Reflective Writing 3: Free of Speech

Workshop 1

Reading lists:

Malcolm, F. (2020). Silencing and Freedom of Speech in UK Higher Education. British Educational Research Journal, [online] 47(3).

Sammary:

In this article, Malcolm (2021) explores whether freedom of speech is genuinely under threat in UK universities or if this narrative has been exaggerated. He argues that media coverage often amplifies isolated incidents like no-platforming or disruptive protests, creating a sense of crisis that doesn’t reflect the actual scale of restriction. Instead of just discussing “freedom of speech,” Malcolm introduces a more nuanced concept—silencing—which includes both legal restrictions and subtle, often invisible forms of pressure that cause people to self-censor.

He creates a taxonomy of silencing, including:

  • Pre-emptive silencing (e.g., disinviting speakers before they arrive),
  • Passive inhibitive silencing (e.g., students feeling too intimidated or afraid of judgment to speak), and
  • Illocutionary silencing (when someone speaks, but their words are ignored or dismissed).

Malcolm finds that while extreme forms like no-platforming are rare and usually justified, passive silencing is more widespread and concerning, especially among Muslim students and those with conservative views, who feel pressure to stay quiet in certain environments​Malcolm 2021 Silencing ….

He also discusses the role of government policies like the Prevent Duty, which, though intended to stop extremism, can create a “chilling effect” on free speech—leading some students to avoid controversial topics or even hide aspects of their identity​Malcolm 2021 Silencing ….

Ultimately, Malcolm argues that universities must look beyond headline-grabbing debates and start addressing the deeper, more nuanced issues around who feels heard—and who doesn’t—in campus conversations.

Reflective Writing:

Reading Malcolm’s article made me realise how deeply all three types of silencing—pre-emptive, passive, and illocutionary, exist around me and within me.

As a woman of colour, I’ve often avoided talking about politics, particularly anything related to China. I’m very aware of how Chinese politics are framed in the West, and I’ve seen how easily a conversation can turn uncomfortable or hostile, even when my intention is just to share a personal view. Malcolm (2021) describes this type of pre-emptive silencing as a form of self-censorship, where people choose not to speak because of the potential risks or misunderstandings, especially in politically charged contexts.


I’ve also experienced illocutionary silencing as an international student. In group discussions, I sometimes hesitated for a long time before speaking—because I’d already learned that sharing my thoughts could lead to awkward silence or be ignored altogether. When everyone else seemed to agree with a dominant opinion, I started assuming my perspective wasn’t valuable. As Malcolm (2021, p. 5) points out, “silencing” can happen when students feel like their voices won’t be heard or respected, even if they are technically allowed to speak.


These reflections have made me reconsider how I create space for discussion. I’ve started thinking about using prompts like, “Does anyone have a different view?” or “Can you think of an alternative example?”—not just to encourage participation, but to signal clearly that it’s safe to disagree and to bring in personal perspectives. It’s not enough to say “this is a safe space”; we need to actively build that space through how we respond to difference.
As a lecturer from China, this adds another layer of complexity to how I think about classroom dialogue. I’m teaching in a Western institution where freedom of speech is often associated with directness, debate, and open confrontation of ideas. Meanwhile, I come from a cultural background that also values freedom of expression, but often expresses this through more indirect or context-sensitive communication. In many Chinese contexts, there is a strong emphasis on harmony, relational respect, and timing—people often speak with awareness of how their words might affect group dynamics or social relationships. So I often find myself balancing between these two communication styles. I don’t want to avoid difficult topics, but I’m also mindful of how different students, especially international ones, might feel overwhelmed or exposed in open debates. My goal is to create a space where students can express themselves freely, but also thoughtfully, with awareness of the diverse cultural lenses in the room.
Freedom of speech, to me, isn’t just about the right to speak—it’s about being heard, being safe, and being seen as part of the conversation.


I’ve also been thinking about the role of 1-to-1 support sessions in breaking silencing patterns. For many students, especially international ones or those from underrepresented backgrounds—the classroom can feel like a performance space, where there’s pressure to say the “right thing” or follow dominant views. But in a one-to-one setting, they’re often more willing to share thoughts, ask questions they might feel embarrassed about in front of others, or even challenge ideas in a safer, more personalised environment. I now see 1-to-1 sessions not just as academic support, but as a space to validate individual perspectives and gently encourage more confident participation over time. It’s a quiet but meaningful way to help students reclaim their voices.


References
Malcolm, J. (2021) ‘Silencing and Freedom of Speech in UK Higher Education’, Education and Self Development, 16(3), pp. 4–13. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.16.3.01