Background
I am Joao Maraschin, and I am a fashion designer and educator. Since 2021, I have been teaching on the BA Fashion Design Technology Womenswear course at London College of Fashion. Currently, I am a design lecturer and the Design Unit Leader for two Year 2 units. Prior to this, I gained experience teaching and leading design in two Year 1 units over two years. I am interested in building connections across textiles, craft, community building, knowledge exchange, skill preservation, all intertwined with education.
Context
When I stepped into this role, I encountered several contextual challenges. Year 2 design had been led by my current counterpart for four years, with various practitioners stepping in periodically, leading to a lack of consistency and frequent renegotiations of the unit’s vision and purpose. Despite this, the Sample Room unit leader did an excellent job maintaining a satisfactory student experience under these circumstances. However, the design side needed restructuring to address key issues. The brief felt disjointed, students expressed concerns about workload, pass rates were low, and morale among both students and staff was affected. This created a perception that these units were the “trouble child” of the course.
Year 2 is a pivotal stage for students, requiring them to consolidate the tools and methods learned to produce thoughtful, critical, and forward-thinking projects. This is compounded by the pressure to secure industry internships and manage a demanding academic workload, which includes skills development and substantial content delivery. The high demand for close support from students was also unintentionally straining staff, creating additional challenges in ensuring a balanced and effective learning environment.
Rationale – Bigger Picture
The core problem addressed by this action participatory research project lies in supporting students as they navigate the complexities of balancing personal and academic life within the context of higher education, particularly in one of the units I teach in Year 2 of the BA WW course at LCF, PPD (Professional Product Development) and looking specifically at students from B.A.M.E or IMD backgrounds. By integrating my expertise in design with my teaching practice, the intervention aims to create a space where students can feel empowered to explore their creative potential while also managing the pressures of academic demands and supporting staff.
The project focuses on reducing stress within the unit by addressing students’ challenges in meeting assessment requirements and enhancing tutors’ support. It seeks to bridge the gap between academic demands and staff intervention, fostering a collaborative and supportive learning environment. The aim is to improve well-being, enhance collaboration, and achieve higher pass rates and better attainment.
Rationale – Unit Oriented
- Pass rates were low.
- Attainment fell significantly below the university’s target.
- The unit was flagged by the Quality Assurance Committee.
- Student satisfaction, as reflected in the NSS and CSS, was insufficient to meet targets. The unit was perceived as overly complicated, packed with multiple tasks, unattainable and not inclusive for some students, and lacking a structure that catered to diverse needs.
Research Question: How can a visual toolkit designed to help students better understand submission requirements in practice improve attainment within the PPD unit of the BA Fashion Design Technology course at LCF?
Research Methods
Engagement with participants
Initial surveys were conducted with current Year 2 students studying the unit and Year 3 students who had previously completed it.
A broader survey was distributed to London College of Fashion students to gauge stress levels related to assessments.
A “Fashion Break” workshop pilot was delivered to two groups within the PPD unit during design classes.
A “Design Surgery” workshop pilot was conducted with selected students to test the toolkit and gather feedback via surveys and feedback forms available in the session.
The toolkit was made available for independent use by students who attended the workshops.
Two students were closely monitored to evaluate their progress and include their experiences in the full study.
Journey
Intervention
The intervention was broken down into five stages: the first one involved mind-mapping, brainstorming, and surveys to understand the angle; the second focused on framing the intervention and delivering the “Fashion Break,” which provided greater insight into the stress levels affecting students’ performance; the third stage was the “Design Surgery,” delivered to targeted students to test the Toolkit; the fourth stage was the implementation of the Toolkit by students; and the fifth stage involved evaluating the results, both from a grading perspective and through the feedback received from the students involved.
Looking at the impact of stress and well-being in higher education was crucial for the research. Ashwin (2020) explores reflective teaching as a means to address student needs, and Brookfield (2015) emphasizes responsive teaching practices. Additionally, Creswell & Plano Clark (2017) provide insight into mixed-methods research that blends quantitative and qualitative approaches, much like the surveys and feedback employed in my project.
The use of visual tools such as the Toolkit (the concrete outcome of this intervention) connects to co-design and the idea of creative exploration in learning. Gauntlett’s work on creativity and the social meaning of making shows how design, especially when it’s connected to personal identity and collective experiences, can foster engagement and understanding. Co-creation (Sanders & Stappers, 2008) in design further stresses collaboration and shared knowledge-building, which the Toolkit embodies by involving students in the creation and testing process.
The toolkit serves as a visual methodology that allows students to interact with the content in tangible ways. It reflects principles from Universal Design for Learning (UDL), ensuring accessibility and engagement for a diverse student body. The iterative nature of the back-and-forth of the project also aligns with design experiments, as suggested by Brown (1992), where tools are developed and refined through real-world application.
Findings
Fashion Break (Stage 1)
Students often experience significant stress leading up to submission deadlines and assessments.
This session included questions to gauge stress levels, with results showing high levels of anxiety.
Students found it helpful to connect with peers, realizing they share similar struggles and concerns.
Design Surgery (Stage 2)
A highly effective session that allowed students to catch up on work with supervised, open office time.
This was the first pilot test for the toolkit, where students quickly responded positively and demonstrated immediate results.
Toolkit (Stage 3)
The toolkit reflects a commitment to social justice by:
Creating equitable learning opportunities.
Fostering a sense of belonging.
Addressing systemic barriers that impact attainment, particularly for students from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds.
Final publication of assessment feedback (stage 4)
Summary
The project went through significant changes, incorporating feedback from tutors, peers, students, and staff. Initially rigid, it evolved into a flexible process as new ideas reshaped the focus toward a more specific, impactful outcome. The methods effectively transitioned from broad concepts to targeted decisions, delivering tangible results.
A key strength was the shared commitment to addressing inequities in a supportive but competitive environment that can hinder student potential. While engaging all students remains a challenge, those who fully participated achieved excellent grades and felt empowered and more aligned with other students which also helped them to feel like they belong.
Building community and a sense of belonging is also crucial in higher education and one of the focus of this study. Bell Hooks (1994) highlights the importance of love, care, and compassion in teaching practices to create a nurturing environment. The Belonging through Compassion initiative also explores how students feel supported by peers and faculty, something I tried to directly apply in the “Fashion Break” workshop where students could openly share and acknowledge common struggles.
The unit’s performance improved significantly, surpassing targets and addressing prior concerns. Challenges included skepticism from staff, balancing the project with existing responsibilities, and ensuring sufficient time with students – areas to improve in future iterations.
The social justice impact was particularly rewarding, as the targeted group of students benefited greatly, and the tutorials provided sharp, generous, and effective feedback.
The focus on students from B.A.M.E. or IMD backgrounds directly connects with social justice pedagogy, especially in how marginalized groups experience higher education. Paulo Freire’s pedagogy centres on the concept of education as liberation, which fosters critical thinking and empowers students to act on social injustices. The toolkit and the participatory approach seek to bridge systemic barriers and provide equitable learning opportunities.
Rachel’s expertise was instrumental in refining the project. Time management was a personal hurdle, but I managed to balance competing commitments. The experience provided space for experimentation and helped me develop skills I’ll carry forward. Looking ahead, I plan to continue developing this work, aiming for even greater impact not only within the units I lead but also across the course and, eventually, the wider university community. Overall, this project has been a deeply rewarding and meaningful journey.
Next Steps
1. Share the toolkit with my immediate team to gather initial feedback based on the practical evidence developed in this unit.
2. Create and deliver this as a workshop during the next away day, allowing colleagues to experience it from a student’s perspective and provide feedback for further improvement. This will help refine the toolkit before testing it in the next academic year with a larger sample of students and diverse tutors.
3. Focus on enhancing the cards with a more visually engaging design to make them more stimulating and appealing.
4. Apply the same approach to another deliverable, specifically the portfolio edit.
5. Share the toolkit with the wider academic community to further refine and develop it.
Bibliography
Ashwin, P., 2020. Reflective Teaching in Higher Education. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Brookfield, S., 2015. The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, A. L., 1992. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.
Bryman, A., 2016. Social Research Methods.
Bunting, L. and Hill, V. et al., n.d. Belonging through Compassion. Available at: https://belongingthroughcompassion.myblog.arts.ac.uk/ [Accessed: 3 December 2024].
Clifford, J. and Marcus, G. E., 1986. Writing Culture.
Collins, P. H., 2019. Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Durham: Duke University Press.
Creswell, J. W. and Plano Clark, V. L., 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
Etherington, K., 2004. Becoming a Reflexive Researcher.
Fals-Borda, O., 2018. Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Freire, P., 2018. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 50th Anniversary ed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gauntlett, D., 2007. Creative Explorations.
Gauntlett, D., 2018. Making is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity, from DIY and Knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures.
Hooks, B., 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Krippendorff, K., 2018. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.
Leone, L. (ed.), 2020. Craft in Art Therapy: Diverse Approaches to the Transformative Power of Craft Materials and Methods. London: Routledge.
Marshall, J. and Powell, K., 2020. Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Martin, B. and Hanington, B., 2012. Universal Methods of Design.
Morgan, D. L., 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research.
Pink, S., 2013. Doing Visual Ethnography.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2023. QAA’s Inclusive Education Framework. [online] Available at: https://www.qaa.ac.uk [Accessed 1 September 2024].
Richardson, L. and St. Pierre, E. A., 2005. Writing: A Method of Inquiry.
Rose, G., 2016. Visual Methodologies.
Sanders, E. B.-N. and Stappers, P. J., 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1).
Spradley, J. P., 1980. Participant Observation.
Tatum, B. D., 2017. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race. 20th Anniversary ed. New York: Basic Books.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL), 2024. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines. [online] Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org [Accessed 12 November 2024].
Yin, R. K., 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods.
Zimmerman, D. H. and Wieder, D. L., 1977. The diary-interview method.