Hello :)

Hello! My name is Mihali Intzieyanni and I am a creative practitioner from Cyprus based in London. I currently work at London College of Fashion as a Specialist Photography Technician  for School of Media and Communication. I am also a Visiting Practitioner for short courses and the Outreach program.

I hope the PgCert provides me with the knowledge to create and foster creative spaces and educational reflexive practices in my teaching methods and personal and professional journey. I also hope to develop further into Academia and progress professionally.

IP unit: Reflective Report

Inclusive Toolkit for Photography Workshops

Introduction

This reflective report outlines the development and theoretical grounding of my intervention proposal: an Inclusive Toolkit for Photography Workshops. As a queer, bilingual specialist technician my intersectionality and positionality inform my commitment to embedding inclusive practices in my technical teaching. The proposal emerges from an awareness of how exclusion can be structurally embedded in photography teaching environments, where assumptions around physical ability, neurotypical processing, and technical fluency often marginalise disabled, neurodivergent, multilingual, or otherwise underrepresented students.

My aim is to design and implement an intervention that moves from reactive accommodation to proactive inclusive design. Grounded in intersectional social justice (Crenshaw, 1991; Bell, 2007) and inclusive pedagogies (Hockings, 2010), this toolkit seeks to create more equitable and accessible learning environments. The intervention is shaped by both lived experience and observation in technical workshops, and supported by critical reflection and peer feedback throughout the Inclusive Practices (IP) unit.

Context

In my role at LCF, I deliver a wide range of technical workshops including analogue darkroom processes, digital photography, post-production editing, and studio lighting. These workshops cater to diverse student cohorts across multiple courses. A recurring challenge I have observed is the mismatch between the one-size-fits-all structure of technical delivery and the multifaceted learning needs of students. From complex technical language to physically demanding processes, these workshops often presume a normative learner-English-speaking, physically-able, neurotypical, and confident in navigating unfamiliar tools.

The Inclusive Toolkit I propose is intended as a modular, shareable resource for embedding inclusive practice across technical teaching. 

It includes: 

  • Flexible task adaptations. 
  • Screen-reader accessible asynchronous materials. 
  • Access reflection prompts.
  • A diverse reference list highlighting underrepresented photographers. 
  • Optional, inclusive feedback formats.
  • Potential additional workshop/discussion session on how access and identity shape photographic practice and vice versa. (to be continued in Action Research project).

The toolkit is designed for adaptability, allowing other technicians and educators to build on it. While the initial pilot will be limited to one or two workshops, I envision its application across my technical department.

Toolkit for Inclusive Workshop PracticesDownload

Inclusive Learning and Theoretical Rationale

Inclusive practice in photography education is not just an ethical imperative but a pedagogical one. Students must be able to engage fully in order to develop critical, creative and technical knowledge. In my context, where fashion photography often reflects and reproduces dominant norms around beauty, ability and identity, an inclusive approach must challenge these structures.

This intervention is grounded in Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality (1991), which highlights how multiple systems of oppression can compound barriers to access. It also draws from Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018), which advocates for designing learning environments that anticipate diverse needs.

Boler and Zembylas’ (2003) concept of “pedagogies of discomfort” has also informed my approach, particularly in designing workshops that encourage critical reflection on privilege and access. Hockings (2010) argues that inclusive learning involves recognising and valuing difference, which aligns with my aim to incorporate diverse photographic references and open formats for participation.

Recent research also emphasises participatory design in inclusive education. Huang, He and Jiang (2024) argue for co-producing accessible knowledge through community-based methodologies, while Falk et al. (2024) highlight the importance of designing diverse pathways for participation. These insights reinforced the need for my toolkit to be a living, co-created document.

Reflection on Process

The intervention proposal evolved through continuous reflection and peer feedback during the IP unit. Initially, I conceived the toolkit as a solo project shaped by my own observations. However, formative feedback from peers and line management team encouraged me to consider co-designing elements with students and colleagues. This shift towards participatory design represents a meaningful transformation in my approach, acknowledging that inclusion is not a fixed outcome but a collective, evolving process.

One key decision was to centre flexibility within the toolkit, avoiding a prescriptive approach. Feedback also highlighted the importance of planning the toolkit’s implementation in phases—prioritising certain changes for immediate rollout while leaving room for iteration. A potential risk is institutional inertia: unless embedded within departmental structures, the toolkit could remain underutilised. To mitigate this, I plan to share findings and invite collaboration from other technical staff, especially those in photography across UAL.

Challenges also included time constraints within technical delivery and the emotional labour of advocating for inclusion in environments where it’s often seen as supplementary. Nonetheless, the IP unit gave me a framework and community to explore these tensions constructively.

Action and Next Steps

I intend to pilot the Inclusive Toolkit in one or two photography workshops at the beginning of the academic year, focusing on analogue or digital studio sessions. The pilot will include flexible task options, an accessible handout, and an optional debrief using a reflective prompt on access and identity. Informal student feedback will be gathered through short reflective forms and one-on-one conversations.

Following the pilot, I aim to revise the toolkit based on feedback and invite peer technicians to trial elements in their own workshops. A collaborative meeting with colleagues across technical photography teams at UAL could motivate cross-departmental application. In the longer term, the toolkit could become part of new technician’s induction or training.

Evaluation of Process

This process has deepened my understanding of inclusion as a design practice rather than a retrofit. I have learned that intersectional access must be embedded at all levels—from planning to delivery to evaluation. Theoretical frameworks from intersectionality to Universal Design for Learning have provided language and structure to ideas I had previously intuited through experience.

If implemented, the toolkit’s success will be measured not just by participation but by student confidence, feedback, and engagement. I am also interested in how peer technicians respond to the resource – whether it resonates, adapts, or evolves through their contexts.

The IP unit has also encouraged me to consider inclusion as a shared responsibility, not the burden of individual educators or students. Inclusion becomes transformative when it is participatory, evolving and embedded in the fabric of practice.

Conclusion

This intervention has allowed me to crystallise an ambition I have long held: to create technical learning environments where all students can thrive, not just survive. My intersectionality has helped me recognise the subtle and systemic ways in which exclusion manifests in photography teaching. Through the PgCert course, theory, peer discussions, and structured reflection, I have begun to shift from reactive accommodation to proactive inclusion.

The Inclusive Toolkit is both a practical resource and a philosophical commitment to equity in technical education. It remains open-ended, designed for co-creation and continuous development. Looking forward, I am committed to embedding this work into my own practice, and collaborating with others to foster inclusive, equitable learning spaces across UAL and beyond.

References

Bell, L. A. (2007) ‘Theoretical foundations for social justice education’, in Adams, M., Bell, L. A. and Griffin, P. (eds) Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–14.

Boler, M. and Zembylas, M. (2003) ‘Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference’, Philosophy of Education, 2003(1), pp. 110–119.

CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org (Accessed: 10 July 2025).

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

Falk, J., Blumenkranz, A., Kubesch, M., Vetter, R., Hofer, L. and Frauenberger, C. (2024) ‘Designing diverse pathways for participation’, in Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–16.

Flacke, J., Hoefsloot, F. I. and Pfeffer, K. (2025) ‘Inclusive digital planning: Co-designing a collaborative mapping tool to support the planning of accessible public space for all’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 121, p. 102310.

Hockings, C. (2010) ‘Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research’, EvidenceNet, pp. 1–31.

Huang, S., He, J. and Jiang, Z. (2024) ‘Co-producing access(ible) knowledge: Methodological reflections on a community-based participatory research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, p. 16094069241257947.

Schindler-Ruwisch, J., Paiz, H. R. and Pryor, K. (2024) ‘Social justice in community environments: A collaborative photovoice process’, Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 5(2).

Reflection: Anti-Racism, Creative Practice & Institutional Barriers

The materials in this task sit in tension with reflections from our workshop on race. Both expose the friction between institutional frameworks and the lived experience of exclusion.

Bradbury (2020) draws on Critical Race Theory to show how UK assessment policy erases racial inequality through the pretext of neutrality. This resonates with how policy and institutional processes also police creativity. In class, we discussed how bodies can intervene – and be policed – in teaching. An example raised was Santiago Sierra’s UK flag artwork soaked in Indigenous blood, an explicit critique of colonialism, which also faced censorship. It reminded me of the Cypriot ministry censoring a Venice Biennale publication for using ‘inappropriate’ dialect – revealing how culture is regulated to uphold national identity.

Ahmed (2012) writes that diversity often becomes institutional PR – a surface commitment masking inaction. Speaking about racism can feel like “becoming the problem” itself, where critique is seen as a threat to the institution’s self-image. I see this when students’ creative exploration is constrained by policies of ‘appropriateness.’ When these barriers arise, students withdraw – not just from creative risk, but from engagement with technical spaces, creating distance from us as technicians.

Garrett’s (2024) work on racialised PhDs shows how structural racism shapes constrained futures, while Sadiq’s (2023) TEDx presents a palatable, corporate DEI focused on innovation. Yet, as Ahmed suggests, this reframes diversity as a tool for reputational maintenance rather than real change.

The question I’m left with is: how do we create space within institutions to talk about racism without it being neutralised by the demand to ‘stay positive’?

References:

Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press.

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.

BBC. (2021). Santiago Sierra: UK flag soaked in Indigenous blood artwork rejected. [Online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-56505840 [Accessed 6 June 2025].

Cyprus Mail (2025) Culture Ministry orders withdrawal of Biennale publication. Cyprus Mail, 4 June. Available at: https://cyprus-mail.com/2025/06/04/culture-ministry-orders-withdrawal-of-biennale-publication (Accessed 6 June 2025).

Sadiq, A. (2023). Diversity, Equity & Inclusion: Learning how to get it right. [Video]. TEDx. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw [Accessed  5 June 2025].

Orr, J. (2022) Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke. The Telegraph [Online]. Youtube. 5 August. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU [Accessed  5 June 2025].

Channel 4. (2020) The School That Tried to End Racism. [Online}. Youtube. 30 June. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3wJ7pJUjg [Accessed  5 June 2025].

Intervention Proposal: Inclusive Toolkit for Photography Workshops

Intervention Proposal: Inclusive Toolkit for Photography Workshops

My role as a specialist technician in photography at LCF involves delivering varied workshops—from analogue and darkroom to digital, studio, and post-production. In my intervention, I aim to develop a toolkit to embed inclusive practice into the structure and culture of technical learning within my workshops and my team. This study will focus on improving access and engagement for students with diverse needs, identities, and learning styles.

The practice of professional photography, especially within the fashion industry, assumes physical ability, sometimes neurotypical processing, and prior familiarity with technical language or equipment. These assumptions can create barriers for disabled, neurodivergent, multilingual, or otherwise marginalised students. My aim is to shift from reactive accommodation to proactive, inclusive design – something I have been thinking about quite a lot recently, and I’m up for the challenge of exploring avenues and solutions to better my practice, with the hope of implementing it in my technical department.

This intervention will take the form of an Inclusive Teaching Toolkit. I will be looking into:

  • Flexible task adaptations for technical processes.
  • Revising asynchronous materials to be screen-reader friendly and available in multiple formats.
  • Access reflection prompts embedded in pre-briefs.
  • Diversifying my reference list, centring underrepresented photographers and artists.
  • Optional, inclusive crit formats; and finally
  • Developing a short workshop or discussion session – exploring how access, identity, and belief shape photographic practice.

I plan to pilot these changes in at least one workshop (to be confirmed) and collect informal student feedback to refine the toolkit. The aim is to create something sustainable, shareable, and adaptable across different technical contexts.

My approach is grounded in critical pedagogy and a belief that access must be designed into the learning environment – not added as a response, but embedded as a shared responsibility. The goal isn’t to redesign the curriculum overnight, but to take small, intentional steps that can shift how inclusion is understood and embedded in technical learning.

* “Toolkit” refers to the modular, adaptable nature of these resources – designed for ongoing development, use, and co-creation in technical teaching.

Reflection: Belief, Discomfort & Politics of Inclusion

In our last workshop on faith, religion and belief, and through conversations with peers, I came to realise how institutional norms continue to shape – and often restrict – how belief and identity are recognised in education. Our discussions around positionality made me reflect more critically on how technical teaching, too, is embedded within these structures. It is not neutral. In adapting to students’ needs, I now recognise my adaptability not only as a teaching strategy but as a political act, one that challenges normative expectations and seeks to centre difference as a pedagogical resource.

This realisation is also reflected in Ramadan’s (2021) article, where they explore how hijab-wearing Muslim women academics are subject to gendered Islamophobia, with their beliefs pathologised and rendered incompatible with institutional norms. Similarly, McKeown and Dunn (2021) argue that ethical vegans must often prove the seriousness of their convictions in legal settings – a process that delegitimises belief systems that fall outside dominant worldviews. Both readings speak to bell hooks’ concept of marginality as a site of resistance, as discussed in Fitts (2011), which challenges us to embrace discomfort as a site of possibility, not failure.

Our conversations also touched on institutional data, with questions about who is included, how information is gathered, and how flawed data can misrepresent lived experience. As one peer put it, institutions can be transformed by one student—but only if systems are built to listen. Kozleski (2016) reminds us that social justice education is not just about changing people; it’s about challenging the systems that reify inequality. This also relates with the call by Joseph-Salisbury and Connelly (2021) for education to go beyond awareness and actively inspire students to be part of change. Jawad (2022) offers a practical application of this in sport, urging institutional reform to create spaces where visibly Muslim women are welcomed, not merely accommodated.

These reflections are also prompting me to think more critically about faith and religion. Having grown up in a religious-oriented education that led me to distance myself from organised belief, I’ve tended to hold religion at arm’s length. Yet, as an educator, I’m beginning to recognise the importance of stepping beyond that discomfort.

Embracing belief in educational spaces enables the fostering of inclusive and daring learning spaces. It invites a shift: to hold space where faith, religion, and belief are not just tolerated, but recognised as vital dimensions through which transformation can begin. A crucial part of existing collaboratively and co-creating spaces of justice, where discomfort, belief, and identity are not viewed as obstacles, but as entry points for meaningful change.

References:

Fitts, S. (2011) ‘Theorizing transformative and revolutionary praxis through the lens of bell hooks’, Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 11(2), pp. 71–88.

Jawad, H. (2022) ‘Islam, Women and Sport: The Case of Visible Muslim Women’, LSE Religion and Global Society, 22 September. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2022/09/islam-women-and-sport-the-case-of-visible-muslim-women/.

Joseph-Salisbury, R. and Connelly, L. (2021) Anti-Racist Scholar-Activism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 150–155.

Kozleski, E.B. (2016) ‘Reifying categories: Measurement in search of understanding’, DisCrit: Critical Conversations across Race, Class, & Dis/ability’, Teachers College Press, pp. 101-115. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308787505_Reifying_categories_Measurement_in_search_of_understanding

McKeown, P. and Dunn, R.A. (2021) ‘A ‘Life-Style Choice’ or a Philosophical Belief?: The Argument for Veganism and Vegetarianism to be a Protected Philosophical Belief and the Position in England and Wales’, Liverpool Law Review, 42(2), pp. 207–240.

Ramadan, I. (2021) ‘When Faith Intersects with Gender: The Challenges and Successes in the Experiences of Muslim Women Academics’, Gender and Education, 34(1), pp. 34–36.

Additional readings:

https://tns-gssi.newschool.org/2022/02/23/how-to-radically-transform-society-with-bell-hooks

Reflection: on Intersectionality, Disability, and Structural Change in the UK

Recent conversations and interviews have underlined an important truth: Access is not an individual privilege – it is a collective responsibility. As educators, artists and citizens, the choices we make about inclusion are deeply political and personal. Whether in learning environments or cultural spaces, we must stop framing accessibility as a favour or accommodation. Instead, it is a prerequisite for equality and equity

In our group tutorial, we reflected on how inclusion starts with ourselves – how we engage, listen and build relationships. We discussed the challenge of intersectionality and the importance of recognising that people fall into multiple, intersecting systems of oppression. Our teaching spaces need to respond to this – not by ticking boxes, but by being radically open to structural rethinking.

This was made clear in the interview with Chay Brown (@TransActual), who highlighted the real-life barriers faced by disabled LGBTQ+ people – lack of accessible toilets, venues without step-free access, events that exclude neurodivergent people through noise, chaos and an alcohol-centric culture. Chay reminded us that accessibility isn’t just about ramps and elevators – it’s about asking people what they need, budgeting for accessibility and being prepared to be told, “You could have done better.”

What resonated deeply was Chay’s statement that it’s not enough to just listen – we need to take notes and implement change. This is access as collective responsibility. However, if we look at the wider societal context, we can see how far we are from this ethos.

The UK in 2025 is a difficult place for disabled and marginalised people. Recent Supreme Court rulings have curtailed workers’ rights, protections under the Equality Act are under threat, and benefit cuts have left thousands of people with disabilities in financial and housing precarity. The erosion of public health and social care funding means that many are being pushed out of their homes, education or jobs.

This is not happening in isolation. The rise of fascist rhetoric, increasingly hostile immigration policies and the suppression of protest and activism through legislation such as the Public Order Act amendments in 2023, are part of the same systemic architecture. These mechanisms exacerbate instability for those already at the intersections of oppression – disabled people, migrants, trans people, racialised communities. Institutional structures not only ignore these problems, but actively contribute to causing harm.

This political landscape stands in stark contrast to Christine Sun Kim’s reflections on Berlin — a city she describes as providing support, language and resources that give her and her family stability. In the UK, this support feels increasingly out of reach. And yet, as Kim says, “If you don’t see us, we have no place to be.”  Her experience highlights the urgent need for visibility – not just in representation, but also in design, language and policy.

In my teaching practice, I experience that some workshops remain inaccessible, and adaptations are often reactive. There is an urgent need to shift the notion of disability from individual need to systemic design failure. Our conversations about intersectionality reminded me that we cannot separate disability from ethnicity, class, gender or immigration status – these are interwoven, lived realities.

What kind of society do we want to build, and what kind of educators do we want to be? If access is everyone’s responsibility, then silence and inaction is complicity.

Inclusion must be embedded, practiced and fought for — not just in our classrooms, but in every corner of the institutions to which we belong.

References:

Adepitan, A. and Webborn, N. (2020). Nick Webborn interviews Ade Adepitan. ParalympicsGB Legends [Online]. Youtube. 27 August.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnRjdol_j0c

Brown, C. (2023) Interview with ParaPride. Intersectionality in Focus: Empowering Voices during UK Disability History Month [Online]. Youtube. 13 December.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yID8_s5tjc

Sun, C. (2024). Christine Sun Kim in ‘Friends & Strangers’ – Season 11 | Art21. [online] YouTube.

https://youtu.be/2NpRaEDlLsI

Additional Reading:

Walker, P. (2025) ‘Ill and disabled people will be made “invisible” by UK benefit cuts’, The Guardian, 8 April. 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/08/ill-disabled-people-uk-benefit-cuts-policy-in-practice [Accessed 26 April 2025].

Walker, P. and Butler, P. (2025) ‘Equality Act under threat from new UK Supreme Court interpretation’, The Guardian, 15 April. 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/apr/15/equality-act-under-threat-uk-supreme-court-ruling[Accessed 26 April 2025].

Syal, R. (2025) ‘Sadiq Khan warns democracy at risk from rise in fascism’, The Guardian, 18 January. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/18/sadiq-khan-warns-western-democracy-at-risk-from-resurgent-fascism-ahead-of-trump-inauguration [Accessed 27 April 2025].

Case Study 3: Assessing Learning and Exchanging Feedback

Connecting Feedback, Peer Review, and Digital Tools for Learning

Contextual Background

As a Specialist Technician at London College of Fashion, I deliver technical workshops across various courses within the School of Media and Communication. These workshops have defined learning outcomes but do not directly impact on students’ grades. This can affect engagement, with some students fully committed, while others see less value in participating. In addition, the limited insight into students’ prior work and course requirements makes it difficult to provide meaningful and targeted feedback. A key concern is to ensure that formative feedback is recognised as an essential part of student learning while bridging the gap between technical and academic development.

I currently provide real-time, hands-on guidance during workshops to support skill refinement and experimentation. This aligns with Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick’s (2006) principles of good feedback practice, particularly in fostering self-regulation. However, this feedback lacks structure and reflection, making it difficult for students to link their technical progress to broader academic goals. Furthermore, the absence of technical staff in formal assessment creates a disconnect between practical learning and its academic recognition. While students value the informal workshop environment, structured feedback mechanisms could help them to articulate their technical development more effectively (Addison, 2014).

Moving Forward

Strengthening structured feedback frameworks – Providing structured feedback rubrics within workshops could ensure that feedback is clear, consistent with unit learning outcomes and promotes self-reflection (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). By explicitly linking technical learning to academic progression, students can better understand how their skills contribute to their overall development.

Increasing collaboration with academic staff – Closer collaboration with course tutors could improve the integration of technical and theoretical learning. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) emphasise the importance of clarifying learning expectations, which could be achieved by aligning workshop feedback with academic assessment criteria. Addison (2014) also criticises rigid learning outcomes in creative education and suggests that a more negotiated approach to assessment could improve student learning.

Promoting peer review and collaborative learning – Encouraging students to engage in structured peer feedback could help them to critically reflect on their progress, gain diverse perspectives and develop self-assessment skills. The ‘Make the Grade’ strategy (Finnigan, n.d.) suggests that increasing student engagement with assessment criteria could reduce repetition and improve performance. Incorporating peer feedback into workshops may also help students to better understand the assessment criteria in an interactive way.

Maximising blended learning and digital feedback – Blended learning and asynchronous resources are already available, but their role in supporting formative feedback could be enhanced. Regular updates, structured prompts for reflection and interactive elements such as self-assessment checklists can improve student engagement (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Digital feedback should encourage dialogue rather than serve as one-way communication to ensure that students actively engage with feedback rather than passively receive it.

Creating a reflective culture – Encouraging students to document their technical progress in journals, visual blogs, or process logs such as Miro Boards and Padlet can help them connect experimentation to conceptual development. Reflection is a key principle in formative assessment (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) and could provide a more flexible approach that acknowledges the iterative nature of creative practice (Addison, 2014).

Advocating for inclusion in assessment conversations – Technical learning plays a crucial role in creative disciplines, yet technical staff are excluded from assessment discussions. Working with academic teams to include technical learning in assessment processes could create a more holistic approach to student assessment. Addison (2014) argues for a move beyond performative learning outcomes towards a model that values emergent and situated knowledge. Furthermore, Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) emphasise the role of feedback in clarifying performance expectations — an area that technical staff could contribute to by providing insights into students’ engagement with practical learning.

References

Addison, N. (2014) Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: From Performativity Towards Emergence and Negotiation. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp. 313–325.

Finnigan, T. (n.d.) Make the Grade. University of Derby PReSS Pack.

Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218.

Reflection: on Assessment Dimensions and Art Criticism

Reflections on Assessment, Art Criticism, and Student Attainment

Assessment plays a critical role in shaping students’ learning influencing how they engage in creative practice. The reading of Dimensions of Assessment (Anon, n.d.) highlights the need for different methods of evaluation that balance formative and summative approaches, while bell hooks’ Talking Art as the Spirit Moves Us (1995) critiques the power structures that shape artistic validation. Reflecting on these readings within my role as a technician, I recognise the challenge of ensuring students value formative feedback while advocating for assessment practices that acknowledge diverse artistic expressions.

The role of formative feedback in technical learning

In my workshops, I primarily provide formative feedback and offer students real-time guidance for their technical and creative decisions. However, as Dimensions of Assessment suggests, formative work is often perceived as less critical when it does not contribute to the final grade (Anon, n.d.). This is consistent with my observations — students sometimes overlook the importance of these sessions to their academic progress. To remedy this, structured reflection and peer feedback mechanisms are needed to help students recognise the formative process as essential to their learning.

Beyond the product: Assessing process and artistic intent

Traditional assessments in creative education often emphasise the end product, such as a fashion campaign or a 3D rendering, over the actual creative process. hooks (1995) refers to Sylvia Ardyn Boone’s discussion of the Mende aesthetic, in which true artistic perception requires a deep intellectual and cultural initiation. Similarly, assessment should move beyond superficial judgement and consider artistic intent and process. By encouraging students to document their experimentation, decision-making, and influences, a more holistic approach to assessment can be developed (Anon, n.d.).

Addressing power structures in assessment and art criticism

hooks (1995) critiques how mainstream art institutions often validate artists of colour if their work conforms to prevailing narratives. This raises critical questions about assessment in arts education: Who sets the criteria for success? Whose artistic values are given priority? Standardised grading systems run the risk of reinforcing dominant perspectives and excluding diverse, situated knowledge (Anon, n.d.). As educators, we must advocate for assessment frameworks that recognise multiple artistic languages and perspectives.

Using ‘Make the Grade’ to reduce referrals and resubmissions

The Dimensions of Assessment (Anon, n.d.), suggests that students often lose marks because they misunderstand the assessment criteria or overlook key elements (Anon, n.d.). One possible solution is to implement structured interventions, such as the Make the Grade approach. Finnigan (n.d.) explains that Make the Grade aims to help students manage assessment expectations by unpacking assignments, building checklists, and conducting structured workshops. By integrating this approach into technical workshops, students can gain a clearer understanding of what is expected, reducing the amount of revision and improving performance. In addition, using self-assessment checklists prior to submission can help students identify gaps in their work and make necessary adjustments (Finnigan, n.d.).

Conclusion: Rethinking assessment as a space for dialogue

hooks (1995) calls for a more engaged and dialectical approach to art criticism — one that encourages meaningful discourse rather than prescribing a rigid framework. Similarly, assessment should not just be a tool for judgment, but a space for dialogue, reflection, and growth. By integrating structured feedback, process-based evaluation, and inclusive assessment practices, we can better support students in bridging technical skills with conceptual depth, ultimately fostering a more critically engaged learning environment.

References

Anon. (n.d.) Dimensions of Assessment. Unpublished document.

Finnigan, T. (n.d.) Make the Grade. University of Derby.

hooks, b. (1995) Art on My Mind: Visual Politics. New York: The New Press.

Observation of my teaching practice by my tutor

(Part Two & Three: Feedback & Reflection)

ROT_Tutor-Kwame_17-3-25Download

Kwame’s feedback was a thoughtful and encouraging reflection on my teaching practice, highlighting both strengths and areas for further development. His observations reassured me that my approach is supporting students in meaningful ways, particularly in developing their portfolios and encouraging deeper engagement with their creative direction.

It was great to hear that my teaching not only provides technical support but also encourages students to critically evaluate the structure of their work. Kwame’s appreciation for how I balance technical considerations — such as colour theory, print formats, and sequencing — with creative intentions was particularly gratifying. I find his suggestion to develop a separate lesson on colour theory for photographers very valuable and will definitely explore further, as it would provide students with a more solid foundation in industry-relevant presentation techniques.

I also appreciate Kwame’s comments on my ability to create a supportive and empathetic learning environment. He noted that my approach encourages students to move confidently in different directions, which emphasises my commitment to student-led instruction. His comments on my calm manner and ability to adapt to students’ perspectives confirmed that my approach helps to build their confidence in their creative choices.

His feedback on accessibility and adaptability was also valuable. He acknowledged how I adapted my approach to ensure all students were included and highlighted the one-to-one support I provided to a student without a laptop as an example of inclusive pedagogy. This reinforced my belief that flexibility is essential in practical, skills-based teaching.

Thank you very much, Kwame! 

Observation of my teaching practice by a peer (Part Three: Reflection)

Ian’s feedback provided a valuable perspective on my teaching approach, highlighting both strengths and areas for further development. It was reassuring to hear that the session felt structured and effective, that students were actively engaging and producing work that met industry standards. Dealing with lateness was a challenge that I had anticipated, and I am glad that my approach helped to keep disruption to a minimum. His comments on the balance between the workshop and the concurrent one-to-one tutorials were also encouraging — it can be difficult to balance both, but it was great to have the workshop ran smoothly.

One of the key takeaways from Ian’s notes was the importance of prompting more student responses before offering explanations. Ian pointed out moments where I could have encouraged students to analyse visual elements on their own instead of immediately giving answers. More active participation in these situations could help students engage more deeply with the material and build their confidence in discussing visual concepts.

His feedback on cultural considerations in composition techniques was particularly insightful. The observation that reading direction influences composition and design, and that this varies from culture to culture is something I to consider more in future discussions during the workshop. His comment about L2 speakers and pronunciation difficulties was also useful — I had not previously considered how emphasising certain words can improve engagement and communication.

The structure of the lesson seemed to work well, and the use of previous student work to demonstrate real-life applications was effective in reinforcing key concepts. In the future, I will continue to refine my approach and ensure that students are more actively involved in the discussions while maintaining a structured and professional learning environment. This is also part of my ongoing case study research where I am investigating how different teaching methods impact on student engagement and learning outcomes.

Overall, Ian’s feedback was very helpful, and I will take these points into consideration when developing workshops.

Case Study 2: Planning and Teaching for Effective Learning

Bridging Theory and Practice in Student Learning

Contextual Background

As a Specialist Technician in Photography at London College of Fashion, I design and deliver technical workshops that support BA and MA students in developing both conceptual understanding and technical proficiency. A key challenge in my teaching practice is ensuring that students effectively integrate technical skills with creative decision-making. Some students excel in hands-on tasks but struggle to articulate their choices conceptually, while others grasp theoretical concepts but lack confidence in executing practical work. To address this, I am refining my workshop structure, feedback mechanisms, and reflective exercises to create a more balanced learning experience and improve student outcomes.

I currently deliver technical workshops as part of the course units and unit learning outcomes, but there is often a disconnect between practical learning and the wider course objectives, limiting students’ ability to develop transferable skills. While I have already introduced reflective discussions and project-based learning, I plan to refine these methods to ensure deeper engagement and better professional preparation.

Moving Forward

Refining teaching practices for impactful learning 

To improve student learning outcomes, I am further exploring the following strategies:

Integrated workshop design – Working closely with academic staff, I will improve workshops to better align with course learning outcomes and allow students to immediately apply technical knowledge in meaningful ways. This will strengthen the link between technical skills development and creative intentions.

Structured reflection and critical evaluation – I will further integrate structured journaling and guided peer critiques to help students articulate their technical decisions and reflect on their creative processes. Drawing from the creative process model (Bremmer, Heijnen & Haanstra, 2024), this approach emphasises reflection at every stageof orientation, research, execution and evaluation, supporting iterative learning.

Project-based and inquiry-led learning – Revising project assignments with explicit problem-solving elements will encourage students to consider how technical skills support artistic and industry-specific outcomes. This refinement fosters deeper engagement by mirroring professional workflows and encouraging students to take ownership of their learning.

Collaborative and peer-led learning –Refining peer review sessions with structured prompts will help students engage more critically with their own work and that of others. This fosters a more inclusive learning environment where students build confidence in their technical and conceptual skills (Ross & Leewis, 2022).

Real World Contextualisation –– Integrating live case studies and professional project deconstructions into workshops will expose students to industry-level decision-making processes. By analysing professional works step-by-step—examining the conceptual development, technical choices, and problem-solving strategies—students can gain a deeper understanding of how technical skills translate into creative and professional outcomes. 

References

Bremmer, M., Heijnen, E. & Haanstra, F. (2024) ‘Wicked Arts Education—Designing Creative Programmes‘. Amsterdam: Valiz.


Ross, S. L. & Leewis, L. (2022) ‘Home Sweet Home: Achieving Belonging and Engagement in Online Learning Spaces’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 5(1), pp. 71-79.

Additional Reading

Sams, C. (2016) ‘How Do Art and Design Technicians Conceive of Their Role in Higher Education?’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 1(2), pp. 62-69.

Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (2013) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, pp. 91-99