Encouraging Noticing: Can visual supporting material contribute towards effective teaching of technical skills?

The first draft of my presentation slides was prepared before I had completed my blog writing. I had wanted to get some feedback from tutors before breaking up for Christmas, so these were done without considering timing.

When I started to script the presentation, I quickly realised there was too much information to cover in the 10 minutes, so scaled back on all extraneous data, focusing on the one graph that displayed the data that addressed the research question most directly.

I have been a Specialist Garment Technician at London College of Fashion for over 5 years, teaching garment construction skills to BA students in a workshop setting. The students come to these workshops with a widely differing range of knowledge and abilities; some having never touched a sewing machine, to others who have made garments for a living.

The procedure in these workshops, is to demonstrate step by step how to construct a garment, giving the students time to practice each step before moving on to the next one. Sometimes, in these workshops, students will struggle to complete the step before I have moved on to demonstrate the following one. However, if I wait for every student to catch up, I may not be able to deliver all the required content in the available time.

One student in this situation complained that, as a ‘visual learner’, the sections of the demonstration were too much for her to follow and she wanted me to slow down. Her very evident distress when expressing this to me, remains in my mind when I teach and as this issue continues to regularly occur, I was interested in using the ARP as an opportunity to critically explore ways to address this. Do students with different learning styles need to be taught differently to be able to achieve the learning outcomes?

Investigating the idea of learning styles theories, I found that although the categorization of learners’ styles were generally accepted, there was contested evidence of its validity as a method of teaching. Many of the research studies in to the practical application of these theories used small sample groups, were applied under very specific circumstances and had little re-test confirmation (Coffield, 2004). There were concerns that the emphasis on learning styles might even impact negatively on learning outcomes, through limiting access to teaching that could be beneficial because it did not match the learners style, and through the affect on individuals’ motivation. It is also possible that the student self-identifying as a ‘visual learner’ could have a specific learning difference rather than an issue with a style of learning. Students with learning differences are quite common in our student body, and I am interested in developing teaching practices that would benefit this group as well as those with English as a second language, who also share some analogous characteristics. Some of the literature sceptical of the application of learning styles to teaching methods, instead propose alternatives which align with my practice.

Educators should instead focus on developing the most effective and coherent ways to present particular bodies of content, which often involve combining different forms of instruction, such as diagrams and words, in mutually reinforcing ways.

(Rohrer, & Pashler, 2012)

As part of my work as a Technician, I have been involved in creating learning materials to support our workshops and many of my conversations with my colleagues (Initial Observations) revolve around how best to incorporate these materials into our teaching practice for our students’ benefit. These informal conversations, reflections, together with my initial scoping of literature, led me to focus on which forms of information might be more effective for individual students and if they could be applied specifically to aid students with differing learning styles.

However, it was not until I read Jean McNiff’s introduction to Action Research, where she explained the importance of approaching the project with social justice paramount (McNiff, 2002), that I was able to re-frame my thoughts into a coherent research question. Rather than trying to approach it by attempting to balance the various educational needs of individuals against those of the group, I found it useful to design my ARP with critical disability theory (Shildrick, 2012), rather than a deficit model, in mind. I would try to determine what interventions in my teaching I could develop that might enhance ALL students’ learning, thereby increasing the equity of access to learning of core technical skills and consequently increasing student attainment and retention (Bhagat & O’Neill, 2011)  (Finnegan & Richards, 2016).

I began by mapping the factors involved in delivering a garment construction workshop.

Then through my scoping of literature, I identified some research on effective use of demonstration in technical teaching, and also the use of supporting material to augment demonstrations (Billett, 2010). But with limited research available in my field of garment construction, I looked to documentation and research on the teaching of technical skills from other, diverse disciples.

In my readings on learning theories, teaching technical skills and tacit knowledge, from across disciplines like medicine and engineering, a common theme emerged around actively observing and synthesising those observations.

Learning through action, learning through experience. . . each student in a separate and individual way has a possibility to solve a problem and make a decision. Using active methods breaks the routine and boredom of the school reality.

(Noga, 2014)

Peyton’s 4-Step Approach, a medical model of teaching technical skills such as surgical procedures, advocates introducing the learner to the procedure by using a non-verbal example first, to focus attention on seeing, before repeating the procedure accompanied by verbal explanations to help to deconstruct the learning. The learner synthesises the knowledge and then practices the procedure. These 4 steps are demonstration, deconstruction, comprehension and performance, developed from Constructivist Learning Theories. When learning outcomes for this method were compared with Halstead’s ‘See one, do one, teach one’ approach, a ubiquitous method of teaching surgical skills developed in the late 19^th century, students of Peyton’s approach performed better upon assessment (Romero, 2018).

Those trainers who effectively combine opportunities for their trainees to mentally rehearse the skill with opportunities for the physical practice of each new skill can increase the accuracy with which the procedure is conducted significantly quicker than physical practice alone.

(Allery, 2020)

A systematic review of Peyton’s 4 step method (Giacomino et al., 2020) also finds it more effective for speed and accuracy when performing the skill upon completion of learning and also for long term retention of the skill technique. This was, however, qualified by factors like size of student group and the quality and professionalism of the teacher.

These ideas, combined with the developments arising from evaluating some of the Learning Style theories, helped me to construct an intervention for my ARP; introducing students to the garment construction skill they will be learning in the workshop with a non-verbal, visual preview before the live demonstration. This resonates with key ideas from inclusive teaching practices as well, by presenting information in advance and in accessible formats. The introduction gives students an example from which to identify key moments, an opportunity to synthesise the information and a benchmark against which to assess their work. The idea is to give the student time to study and mentally rehearse the skill before trying it themselves. While I would not be able to formally incorporate all the elements of the 4-step approach into my intervention, I would be utilising the principles that are most appropriate for the context of my teaching. The intervention will include a visual preview of the demonstration, step by step instruction which breaks down the skill into key elements, discussion with students as they practice and feedback in the form of checking the sample on completion.

the purpose of demonstration and these set-ups is to guide the students in the art of noticing, to help them to learn how to see.

(Harris, 2021)

I hypothesise that following this approach could increase positive learning outcomes for my students.

References

Allery, L. (2020) How to Teach Practical Skills. Cardiff: Centre for Medical Education.

Bhagat, D. and O’Neill, P. (2011) Inclusive practices, inclusive pedagogies: learning from widening participation research in art and design higher education. Croydon: CHEAD.

Billett, S. (2010) Learning Through Practice: Models, Traditions, Orientations and Approaches. Dordrecht: Springer.

Coffield, F. et al. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Finnegan, T. and Richards, A. (2016) Retention and attainment in the disciplines: Art and Design. York: Higher Education Academy.

Giacomino, K. et al. (2020) ‘The effectiveness of the Peyton’s 4-step teaching approach on skill acquisition of procedures in health professions education: A systematic review and meta analysis with integrated meta-regression, PeerJ, 8(10129), pp.1-26. Available at: http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10129

Harris, A. (2021) A Sensory Education. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

McNiff, J. (2002) Action Research for Professional Development. Jean McNiff.

Noga, H. (2014) ‘Applying Chosen Teaching Methods in Technical Education’, International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 4(4), pp.23-26.

Rohrer, D. & Pashler, H. (2012) ‘Learning styles: Where’s the evidence?’, Medical Education, 46, pp.634-635.

Romero, P. et al. (2018) ‘Halsted’s “See One, Do One, and Teach One” versus Peyton’s Four-Step Approach: A randomized trial for training of Laparoscopic Suturing and Knot Tying’, Journal of Surgical Education, 75(2), pp.510-515.

Shildrick, M. (2012) Critical Disability Studies: rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. London: Routledge.

Defining the question

• Research/Reading on ARP, Research Methodologies.
• Research/Reading on learning practical skills, tacit knowledge, learning styles, non-verbal/verbal, inclusive teaching/learning

Ethics Form

• Defining the project to be able to fill in Ethics form.

Designing the Activity

• Workshop Design: Stitch sample, Video, Illustrated Guide PDF.
• Workshop materials: Needles, Thicker thread, Fabric swatches, Snips/scissors, Pens, Envelopes, Paper Clips.

Performing the Activity and Survey

• Inform Line Manager, inform colleagues about project and seek support for access to their students.
• See Technical Workshop calendar to work out my classes and which other classes I have time to access.
• Collate Questionnaire/ Information Sheet packs.
• Observation/Reflection Notes about the Activity.

Analysis of Data

• Research/Reading on Data Analysis.
• Data Entry.
• Data Analysis.

Blog

Bibliography/References

Presentation

• Reflection on results and exploring future possibilities.
• Slides/Visuals
• Script/Notes for presenting.

Designing the Intervention

In order to develop a method to collect data which would address my research question, I mapped where I was in the Action Research Cycle. I had already made observations both first hand during workshops I had taught previously and through informal conversations with colleagues Initial Observations. Reflecting on these, along side the research I had done, I designed an intervention to encourage students to learn through active observation. My research question asks whether the introduction of non-verbal supporting material into my teaching practice will improve students’ learning. How would I be able to measure this?

When considering the methodology for my ARP, I identified the following:

1. Research population: the students from the undergraduate programs at LCF. This group, mainly first and second year students, would be accessible to me during the time frame for the ARP, as it coincided with the scheduled technical workshops that my team delivers. This group would be ideal subjects as most would be novice learners and more likely to be interested in learning a skill. They are the group that will benefit from the results of the ARP if they prove to be positive. Also, as less experienced students, there would be skills which they were not familiar with, which I could use to test the intervention.
2. Sampling method: Convenience sampling, a Non-probability method, which would be the most practical way of producing data in the short time available. However, being aware of the higher risk of sampling bias when using this technique, I would recruit volunteers from as wide a range of courses and cohorts of students as possible (Mcleod, 2023). The skill I choose to teach will result in some self-selection, eliminating students who are already proficient in it, as they will probably choose not volunteer to take part. This should help to focus the data on the population with the background characteristics I want to be testing.
3. Data Collection: both Quantitative and Qualitative; a Mixed method approach. Collecting data comparing the effectiveness of different methods of lesson delivery, presents particular difficulties. It is only possible to teach someone something new once, so I would need to test the different teaching methods on different individuals. However, Convenience sampling meant that I would not be working with participants of standardised ability levels, making it difficult to compare identical measurements of each learning outcome. I determined that surveying a large cohort of subjects could mitigate for the potential range of differences in participants, establishing a Quantitative approach as an appropriate method of data collection in the form of a questionnaire. Additionally, to investigate the research question from an Action Research approach, I considered the social justice element of promoting the participant voice and co-construction of the learning environment. In order to collect data around the experience of the participants as they took part in the intervention, a Qualitative approach was also necessary, leading to a Mixed methodology, which would incorporate open ended questions on the questionnaire as well as field observations. This would also act to triangulate the data.

Relying on subjective knowledge enables teachers to engage more effectively as researchers in their educational context. Educator-researchers especially rely on this subjective knowledge in educational contexts to modify their data collection methodologies. Subjective knowledge negotiates the traditional research frameworks with the data collection possibilities of their practice, while also considering their unique educational context.

(Clark et al., 2020)

From my experience of working with undergraduate students at LCF, I considered their previous knowledge of sewing, time pressures, interests and attitudes to learning when designing my project. I felt that, to increase the participant response rate, the intervention would need to be tested in a very short, simple workshop, delivered in no more than 10 minutes. I chose a hand sewing technique called a Chain stitch loop to demonstrate. This is a skill that looks difficult, but once the technique is understood, it can be mastered quite quickly. The demonstration entails a number of steps and the skill requires the application of tension on thread, something best understood through doing. After the demonstration, the participants would be given the materials to practice the stitch and could take their sample home with them to add to their technical files if they wished. I was calculating that students would be interested in taking part in the workshop because of the usefulness of the stitch to their practice.

I planned three versions of the workshop to teach the chainstitch:

Control: A live demonstration of how to construct the stitch with step by step verbal instructions, then students practice the skill. This would be the control version as there would be no intervention.

Video: First, a video is shown of the demonstration with no verbal accompaniment. After this, the live demonstration with instructions will be delivered, then students practice the skill.

Video of how to sew a Chainstitch Belt Loop

PDF: First, a PDF is offered which illustrates the skill in steps without text explanation. After this, the live demonstration with instructions will be delivered, then students practice the skill.

To measure any increase in ‘noticing’, which I hypothesised would help students in their learning, I identified the learning outcome to be the completion of a sample of the chain stitch. I reflected that the more a student noticed, the more they would be able to comprehend the process and thereby independently complete the sample. So the key question to survey would be, after the demonstration, ‘how much additional instruction (teacher assistance) would the participant need to complete the sample?’ The questionnaire would also pose a number of questions to determine the ability level of the participant, previous knowledge of the stitch and their understanding of the technique they were being taught. This would establish some background on the participants skill level prior to the intervention and help to contextualise the data collected.

To quantify participants responses to questions other than the binary (yes/no) ones, I would use an interval scale of measurement. I designed the scale with 10 grades to give a more nuanced choice of response. This was because I believed that any increase of competency resulting from the intervention would be small, and there fore needed a measurement system that could record that.

I also added some open ended questions asking for comments on the teaching itself, to create space for participants’ voices, as the experts on their own learning. Multiple methods of data collection aid in triangulating the data during analysis, increasing validity and understanding of the results (learning for action). To increase the response rate and in keeping with the principles of inclusive practice, I also informed students that they could write in their own language and I would get the results translated.

Qual enables you to open the world of the ‘small, measurable gain’ see what is happening in there. That may turn out to be another interesting unexpected outcome.

(O’Reilly, 2023)

Testing the Intervention

Having gathered all the necessary equipment, created the supporting material, information sheet and the questionnaire (info sheet and questionnaire), I was ready to start surveying. I could not predict the number of participant responses, so I began with the control version of the workshops and when I had received a good number of responses (22), moved on to testing the video intervention workshops (23 responses) and finally, the PDF intervention workshops (18 responses).

I asked for voluntary participation by making an announcement about my project at the beginning of a class. The classes consisted of 1st and 2nd year fashion design students across menswear, womenswear, pattern cutting, sportswear and fashion design and development courses. At the end of the class, I gathered the interested students together around a table and performed the workshop, giving them the forms and questionnaire at the end to complete. Almost all students who took part in the workshop returned a questionnaire.

To help to increase response rates, and with an awareness of inclusive practices, I let participants know that if they wanted to write responses in their own language, that they would be welcome to and I would have them translated. I did not mention any language in particular so as not to single out any group. In the end, I only had one answer returned in Chinese, which a colleague translated for me.

Additionally, taking an ethnographic approach to qualitative data collection and to increase validity through triangulation of data (Clark, 2020), I observed the students as they watched me, and as they practiced, giving assistance and answering any of their questions as I would during a technical workshop. Then, I wrote my notes down from memory after the session was completed (Field Observations). When collecting the completed questionnaires, I kept them grouped by session, enabling me to assign my corresponding observations to them when encoding.

References

Mcleod, S. (2023) Sampling Methods In Reseach: Types, Techniques, & Examples. SimplyPsychology

Clark, J.S. et al. (2020) Action Research New York: New Prairie Press

O’Reilly, J. (2023) Email to E-Sinn Soong, 20 October.

Monday Oct 23, 2023– FPC 2B. Control session. Very good response rate from morning session. However, larger group meant harder to manage. Because the ARP was conducted at the end of a long workshop, participants were tired and chaotic. I asked participants to come up to the table and they stood around it as I demonstrated. Non-participants were still using the space, passing to leave, packing up around us. A large proportion of the group were Chinese and I let the group know that they were welcome to write comments in their own language as I could get their answers translated. Students were attentive. They knew me from the 2 workshops I had taught them so seemed comfortable asking questions and requesting individual help. I repeated parts of the demonstration for some of the students and assisted them through the steps as they practiced the skill. All the students were able to complete the skill.

FPC 2C. Control. Afternoon session had less take up. Again, quite a lot of background distraction, but students are motivated because of interest in learning the skill. Self-selecting, maybe more attentive as they have made an active choice to take part. Looking at my hands from upside down position. I had to guide a number of students quite extensively through their samples, but they were able to complete.

Thursday Oct 26, 2023– FDD 1A. Control. 7 students from my colleagues class room were encouraged by their teacher to take part in my workshop. I had time to set up so was not distracted. Students were very attentive. Not many distractions as my class area was open access, only a few students using the space. These students had finished their class a few minutes early.

FPC 2A. Video. Low take up. Colleagues class. Class very distracted as students were finishing up their jacket, which many had struggled with. I showed the video on the large teaching screens. Not sure students were concentrating. One left and came back after video was finished. Noisy and a lot of background moving around as students packing up and leaving. Students more attentive when I was physically demonstrating and asked for help when needed.

Note: I approached these workshops as I do my teaching. I am proactive in offering assistance when students look like they may need help. I will explain multiple times to students individually as well if necessary. Can this be reducing the measurable affects of the interventions?

Friday Oct 27, 2023– FDD 1E. Video. Showed video on tablet. I was supporting this class. Students looking up close at screen. Low take up as students were short on time as they had another class in an hour. 3 students responded. Good concentration even though felt a little rushed as they tried to complete the sample quickly. Questionnaire given to be returned next week. We’ll see!

FDD 1F. Video. Showed video on tablet. My class. First 3 finished class early and so had time to take part. Feeling quite relaxed and good concentration. Even though class going on in the background, not much distraction. Second 4 took part after class finished. End of day so quite a bit of background noise and slightly rushed at the end as feeling like they wanted to go home.

Monday Oct 30, 2023– FDD 1B. Video on big screen. Some interest (6-7 watching) but not all tried to complete the sample. A lot of distraction when viewing video as some students still catching up on class work. 3 took part. Lots of explanation and repetition with individual students. Holding down the fabric for students. Students concentrated even though quite a lot happening in the background.

FDD 1D. Video on big screen. Group mainly completed their workshop on time/early so not as stressed about leaving. Less background noise. Good concentration. Talked about how they would incorporate it into their work. “So useful”.

Note: As I repeat the demonstration, I am varying the way I explain the process, incorporating adjustments in response to my observations of areas that students are finding problematic. I am drawing attention to where to apply the tension on the thread. I am stressing the importance of holding on to the exit thread and how to vary the size of the loop to make it more manageable. Could the iterative development of my own skill as a teacher be affecting the responses?

Thursday Nov 2, 2023– WW 1A. Video on big screen. Dedicated class room so no background interruption. Class finished so calm and concentrating. Siaw lee teaching and she is very strict so class is used to discipline.

FDD 1C. Video on tablet/PDF. Dedicated class room with Dawit teaching. Not much uptake, as end of the day and students not finished their class work. One student finished early and I gave him a 1-2-1 tutorial. Looking closely at the screen as it is small. Very engaged.

Friday Nov 3, 2023– FDD 2E. PDF. Dedicated class room with Dawit teaching. Class finished on time so students not distracted by packing up quickly. Picked up skill quickly.

FDD 2F. PDF. Dedicated class room with Dawit teaching. Class finished on time. Large group but not all returned questionnaires. Students did not spend very long looking at the PDF. Quickly scanning the page but concentrating on my demonstration.

Monday Nov 6, 2023– FDD 2D. PDF. Dedicated class room with Banetta. Class was late finishing with students behind on the work. Positive attitude towards learning. Looking at closely at PDF. Average time 45 seconds. Concentrated on demonstration and looked closely. One student took a video of my demonstration and used it to refer back to when practicing her sample. However, she still needed my assistance and I offered help when I saw she was struggling.

Sportswear 2B. PDF. Demo at beginning of class. Dedicated class room with Karen. Students not from a hand sewing background but interested in learning. Small groups in succession. Some variation in length of time spent looking at PDF. Some needed a lot of help. I had to guide their hands. Some chat about how the stitch compared to other things in their lives: braiding hair, friendship bracelets, crochet.

Note: Length of time spent looking at PDF can give students their own agency over pacing. A few students used the PDF guide to refer back to while doing their sample. They asked less questions. Were these students’ independent characters used to considered observation because they don’t like to ask for help?

Second tutorial. The tutorial space has been really useful for consolidating my thoughts into a cohesive narrative. Having to explain where I am on the ARP journey has obliged me to bring some order to the chaotic, messy trails of information that have collected in my head. I explained to my critical friends that along side my questionnaire, I have been making field notes and have observed myself ‘noticing’ my own teaching methods. There seem to be micro-AR cycles at play, where I am reflecting on where I can make improvements in my teaching, implementing small adjustments, evaluating whether these are effective and then incorporating them, or not, into the subsequent workshops I deliver.

This may be affecting the results of my data as each cohort of test subjects may be answering the questionnaire based on a non-identical situation.

As a self reflective practitioner you need to be aware of what drives your life and work, so you can be clear about what you are doing and why you are doing it. You might need to spend time clarifying for yourself the kinds of values and commitments you hold.

(McNiff, 2002)

The intention of my research project was to examine ways of facilitating learning through inclusive practices. I believe every student should have the opportunity to achieve their fullest potential. So following an ethics of care, I felt that I could not deliver less than what I believe to be the most effective teaching to students taking part in my research, even if it might affect the neutrality of the data I am collecting. Voicing these concerns in the tutorial have challenged me to re-examine the scope of my ARP, to reflect and perhaps re-position my research, and to look at expanding on my initial ideas of how I would analyse the data I have collected.

Other comments I found useful were the encouragement to look at environmental, social and personal factors which could also be affecting the learning outcomes.

Ideally, I would continue surveying additional participants using the control workshop to see whether later results correlate positive learning outcomes with the improvement in my teaching rather then because of the supporting visual material. However, because of time constraints, I will not be able to do this. It is something I would consider for a future AR cycle.

References

McNiff, J. (2002) Action Research for Professional Development. Jean McNiff.

Having collected all the data, I recorded it on an Excel spreadsheet, including the additional observations from my field notes.

I collected 63 completed questionnaires in total. Not all the questionnaires were fully completed, with some questions left blank. I grouped the results by which workshop the participant undertook. The three workshops were categorised as Control (demonstration only), Video ( Video introduction), and PDF (Illustrated guide introduction).

	Control	Video	PDF
No of Questionnaires Returned	22	23	18

The first three questions were Yes/No questions. The data from these establishes the participants’ background knowledge and their learning outcomes as a result of undertaking the workshop. This also clarifies whether the learning outcome was a result of participation in the workshop, and not from prior teaching. N/A indicates no response.

Q1: Were you aware of how to sew a chain stitch belt loop prior to this demonstration?

Q2: Have you ever tried to sew a chain stitch belt loop before?

Q3: Were you able to complete a sample of the chain stitch belt loop today?

	Q1	Q2	Q3
No	82.5 %	92.0%	1.6%
Yes	14.3%	4.8%	95.2%
N/A	3.2%	3.2%	3.2%

Most students had never come across this stitch technique, and only 4.8% of students had tried to do it before. Of these students who had tried the technique, none of them had previously been able to complete the stitch. This is an anecdotal observation, as I verbally asked all participants for this information. After the demonstration, 95.2% reported completing a sample and therefore meeting the learning outcome. This might have been higher, as 3.2% did not complete this section of the questionnaire, although they did fill in the later sections.

The next three questions used an interval scale of 1-10 for recording answers. These questions related to the participants perception of the demonstrations.

Q4: How clear was the demonstration?

Scale of 1 = Muddy to 10 = Clear.

The mean was 9.7, so almost all students felt that the demonstration was very clear. This average being high across all the three workshops, established that each method of delivery was of a good quality. There were no responses below an 8, so even with a wide variation of skills ability or differences in learning styles, participants felt the demonstration was clear. Any differences in learning outcomes would not therefore be a result of differences in the quality of the teaching resources.

Q5: After watching the demonstration, how confident are you that you understand how to sew a chain stitch belt loop?

Scale of 1 = Confused to 10 = Confident.

The mean was 9.3, so almost all students felt they had a good understood the process. However, these results, although also high, showed a greater range of responses, with the lowest being a 5. This showed that although participants felt the demonstration was clear, this did not necessarily correlate to feeling they could do the procedure themselves. When this information is combined with the 95.2% of participants who reported completing the stitch, understanding is possibly being reached during the practice stage.

Q5	All	Control	Video	PDF
Mean	9.30	9.55	8.78	9.56

I also broke down these results by the three workshop variations and found the average confidence levels of participants presented with the video preview were lower than the overall average. I was surprised by this, as I had generally found students quite comfortable with video format. This could be attributed to the perception of the complexity of the skill, where as once students were able to do it themselves, it made more sense.

Q6: How much additional instruction did you need to complete a sample of the stitch?

Scale of 1 = None to 10 = A lot.

The graph above plots the results, with the red dotted line representing the mean. Looking at the individual results, I could see that they were very widely spread as well as see-sawing from one response to the next. I had expected this, based on my understanding of the varied ability levels across the student population.

This is the question that I designed specifically to measure the effectiveness of my intervention. I hypothesised if there was any improvement in learning as a result of the intervention, the difference would be seen here. I calculated the mean for the data from each of the 3 versions of the workshop separately. I also calculated the standard deviation for these data sets as well.

Q6		Control	Video	PDF
Mean		5.15	5.04	4.72
Standard Deviation		2.76	2.51	2.13

The figures show a downward trend towards needing less assistance for those taking part in Video intervention and PDF intervention workshops. The standard deviation also falls, showing a downward trend towards less distance from the mean, which I interpreted as resulting from the method of teaching with the intervention being more effective for students of all backgrounds. This narrowing of the spread in the learning outcomes of individual students is happening in spite of variations in their ability, language skills and possible learning differences. I had not expected this, but am pleased because it correlates with inclusive teaching practice.

The final two questions were qualitative, and I used thematic analysis to gain some insights into how the students experienced the teaching interventions.

Q7: Was there anything particular about the teaching that helped you to learn the skill?

Q8: Was there anything that you found made it difficult for you to learn the skill?

Being a technician, and from an embodied teaching practice, of course I used an embodied coding method (Kara, 2022)! I highlighted key words and phrases that occurred often, were novel or reflective and categorised them into themes.

Quite a few respondents answered Q7, but almost all replied ‘No’ to Q8. It was useful to refer back to my mapping of how students learn .

I was surprised by comments which showed how self-aware students were of their own learning. The themes that emerged generally fell into one of 4 categories; Delivery of Teaching, Environment, Teacher, and Supporting material.

The most ubiquitous quotes mentioned clarity of instruction, slow pace and chunked, step-by-step teaching. These seemed mainly in response to the in-person demonstration that I delivered which all groups received. They did not specify between the in-person teaching and the supporting visual material.

“Steps were done in chunks to make it manageable. Clear instruction and a slow demonstration allows for easy understanding.”

The few comments in response to Q7 which students found difficult were all in this category.

“Maybe was done too fast.”

“When I’m shown too many steps at once.”

These comments reflected students’ awareness of how they learn and what they feel impacts their learning of technical skills the most. They drew attention to the pacing and almost all comments were positive about the amount of information presented in each step. There were a lot of comments about the clarity of the demonstration. I considered whether students were displaying Response Bias, where their perception of what they feel is socially acceptable affects the way they respond (Bogner & Landrock, 2016). The previous questions which mentioned clarity of demonstration would have been foremost in the participants minds when responding to this question, which could be inclining them to reiterate how clear they felt the demonstration was. However, data from Q4 where participants rated the clarity of demonstration very highly, reinforces the reliability of these responses.

The second category pertained to the environment of the workshop. There were quite a few comments about in-person teaching.

“Was easier to see in person”

This is perhaps a response to the Covid-19 pandemic and remote learning. It was notable that students felt live demonstration was important to their learning. But also, that live demonstration worked better for them in smaller groups. This is a finding that could be useful for wider university policy, when planning teaching activities and allocating room resources.

“Feels like you have to do it to understand it so maybe a big group would be hard?”

“There wasn’t a lot of people around. It made it easier to learn”

This comment could relate to the size of the group, but also to environmental factors like noise, movement and other distractions caused by larger numbers of people using the space. Other environmental factors mentioned were about the atmosphere in the classroom.

“Comfortable environment, easy to ask when mistakes were made”

The possibility of being able to ask questions and interacting with the teacher was something that students reported as important, which also relates back to in-person teaching. This comment, however, seemed to stem more from the intangible leadership with which a teacher creates an open, welcoming atmosphere in the classroom, rather than the physical space. It overlaps into the third category of the Teacher.

The teacher was mentioned as a positive element affecting students’ learning, both for care for the students, and for the effective delivery of instructions.

“Very patient”

“Tutor was extremely helpful when asked questions”

“Excellent instruction”

A number of participants mentioned particular characteristics of the tutor as something they felt helped their learning, and uncomfortable as I am with praise, it is important to recognise that being an expert in ones field does not necessarily make one a good teacher. And that the way in which that knowledge is communicated is also important to students learning outcomes. Qualities such as patience and care may not have anything to do with the demonstration of the skill but support the formation of an environment conducive to successful learning.

The last category pertained to the application of the visual supporting material. A number of comments point directly to the ideas I set out when designing the interventions; that the visual preview would help to focus attention on seeing, before the process is explained in detail.

“Watching the visual demonstration and talking through each step.”

“Video then in person increased confidence. Speaking and visuals helped focus.”

“The step by step photos in addition to the physical demonstration.”

These comments support my interpretation of the quantitative results.

The Third Pillar

So far, the data has positively supported my research question. However, I had a third pillar to my data collection; my field observation notes (Link). As I have written about in an additional blog post (Link), this data has opened up some alternative lines of inquiry.

My field notes were quick snap shots of what the workshop was like. I did not set out with specific criteria to record, or not. I simply wrote observations of things I thought might be important to my teaching practice. However, they were informed by my awareness of the issues I regularly encounter when teaching technical workshops; so not random. An entry from one of the first workshops I delivered highlighted the noise and chaos in the classroom.

‘Class very distracted as students were finishing up their jacket, which many had struggled with. I showed the video on the large teaching screen. Not sure students were concentrating… Noisy and a lot of background moving around as students packing up and leaving. Students more attentive when I was physically demonstrating and asked for help when needed.’

(Field Observations)

These observations pointed to other factors which could be affecting my results. But it was this note that caused most concern.

‘As I repeat the demonstration, I am varying the way I explain the process, incorporating adjustments in response to my observations of areas that students are finding problematic. I am drawing attention to where to apply the tension on the thread. I am stressing the importance of holding on to the exit thread and how to vary the size of the loop to make it more manageable. Could the iterative development of my own skill as a teacher be affecting the responses?’

(field observations)

When I designed the workshop, I chose the chainstitch technique to teach because it looked difficult, although the process was short. I had not taught this stitch in a workshop setting before. So this observation had the possibility to lead to a different interpretation of the data. Going back to the Q6 results, the steady reduction in help reported by the students from the first workshops to the last ones, might actually be more representative of my improvements as a teacher, than because of the intervention. I would not be able to validate that without carrying out further workshops using the control format to see if the results would follow a further path of reduction in the numbers or remain as high as  the original control numbers, the more experienced I became teaching this specific skill.

This uncertainty led me to re-evaluate my data analysis methodology, and I applied some further criteria to the grouping of the data, to determine if there were other conclusions to be drawn from the it. Adding the data from my field observations to the  spreadsheet, I re-grouped the data sets according to these new categories and calculated the means from Q6.

1. Group Size by number of participants (Small 1-3, Medium 4-7 or Large 8+)
2. Environmental Conditions (Organised, calm and quiet vs. Chaotic and noisy)
3. Physical Space (Open plan space vs. Enclosed room)

Q6 by Group Size	Small	Medium	Large
Mean	5.00	5.47	5.44

Q6 by Environment	Calm	Chaotic
Mean	4.93	5.12

Q6 by Physical Space	Open Plan	Enclosed
Mean	5.16	4.60

These calculations represent the same amount of improvement between the variable for Group Size and Physical Space as those between the Control workshops and the Intervention ones. The difference between calm vs. chaotic environments is not large enough to be statically significant.

However, these numbers do not necessarily negate the outcomes from the Control/Intervention workshops. Looking closer at the Physical Space data, all the later workshops, the ones with the Intervention, were in enclosed rooms, while the Control workshops were more often delivered in open plan spaces. The group sizes were more evenly spread between the Control/Intervention workshops, so possibly factors conditional to smaller group sizes could have as much effect on learning outcomes as teaching with the Intervention. This substantiates some of the conclusions of Giacomino’s (2020) review of Peyton’s 4 Step teaching approach, where a smaller size of student learner group increased positive learning outcomes.

References

Bogner, K., & Landrock, U. (2016). Response Biases in Standardised Surveys.GESIS Survey Guidelines. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. doi: 10.15465/gesis-sg_en_016

Coffield, F. et al. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Giacomino, K. et al. (2020) ‘The effectiveness of the Peyton’s 4-step teaching approach on skill acquisition of procedures in health professions education: A systematic review and meta analysis with integrated meta-regression, PeerJ, 8(10129), pp.1-26. Available at: http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10129

Kara, H (2022) Embodied Data Analysis. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k79AWH59JpQ/ (Accessed: 7 January 2024)

Learning Styles

The comment that inspired my ARP was about a students’ learning style. Their expectation was that I, as the teacher, should vary the delivery of my teaching to better suit their learning style, and that if I were to do so, this would help their learning outcomes. My reading of research and literature concerning learning styles theories has led me to a better understanding of what these categories are; visual, auditory, read/write and kinaesthetic. I have discovered that although there are a profusion of models and approaches in this field, supported by research with positive outcomes, systematic reviews have led to a questioning of the validity of some of their conclusions. There are many benefits drawn from these theories which have a basis in more robust evidence. They encourage flexibility in developing alternative teaching techniques and resources as well as assessment formats, an awareness of environment and belief in the potential for everyone to learn. But I have also become aware that some caution must be taken not to use labels to limit students’ learning opportunities or to discriminate against certain groups of students, and not to conflate learning styles with ability or potential.

… labelling is not a disinterested process, even though social differences are made to seem reducible to psychometric technicalities… Perhaps the most troubling implication of applying the learning style approach,… it acts directly by contributing the basic vocabulary of discrimination to the workplace through its incorporation into educational practice’

(Reynolds, 1997)

More recent research indicates effective teaching methods depend on the context or subject being taught and that individuals may not display the same learning style consistently in all situations. I now have more confidence, supported by these findings, that I will be able to knowledgeably address concerns that some students have about their learning style. I have also identified approaches that I can apply which are congruent with inclusive teaching methods, some of which I have been testing in this ARP. These include being aware of all the senses, using as wide a range of supporting materials as possible, incorporating a flexible learning environment, encouraging discussion and analysis within the peer group, introducing appropriate examples so assessment criteria is clear and giving timely feedback.

Methodology

As I wrote about when explaining the rationale for my ARP, I wanted to use it as an opportunity to answer questions I had about my own teaching practice. In mapping my project to the AR cycle, I recognised that I had been applying some of the principles and methodology informally in my work; in the iterative, cyclical nature of examining my practice, testing interventions and seeing if they work, as I try to improve how I teach (Initial Observations). As a non-academic, I have had to teach myself how to teach, mainly by observing, collaborating with colleagues and through doing. From this position as an outsider, the ARP has been a means of legitimising these actions within an academic framework. In researching how to do research, I have achieved a greater understanding of developing appropriate testing strategies, critically analysing data and drawing valid conclusions which I can incorporate into the informal testing that is part of my professional development.

My positionality as a non-academic manifested itself in the design of my ARP through a tendency to value Quantitative over Qualitative data. I have recognised this as an internalised bias towards a historically western belief in Quantitative data as ‘masculine’, ‘hard’ evidence and Qualitative as ‘soft’ or ‘feminine’, which I have struggled to overcome, even as someone who identifies as a feminist.

Feminism added a dualistic critique that noted how the binary of qualitative and quantitative was associated with a dualistic structuring of female/male; soft/hard; intuitive/rational; art/science and so forth

(Hughes & Cohen, 2010)

It also stems from feeling uncertain of the academic value of my technical skills, further reinforced by the scarcity of research I was able to discover in my subject area and by the hierarchical structure at UAL which fails to recognise Technicians as Teachers. In my reading on research methodology, I have come to understand that Quantitative data is no more factual than Qualitative data, but rather depends on well executed methodology, appropriate research tools and un-biased data analysis and interpretation. This, and readings of literature on the principals of Action Research, as well as thought provoking conversations in classes and tutorials, have made me challenge my views and inspired me to interrogate my practice with more confidence. I can now see how valuable the addition of Qualitative questions to the methodology of surveying and thematic analysis is as a means of triangulating data and increasing the validity of my project findings.

My ARP

Examining the responses, I was impressed by how self-aware students were about their own learning and how closely their comments echoed the reasoning behind my intervention.

My analysis of the data that I collected did show my intervention had some positive effects. I found both Quantitative and Qualitative evidence that the previewing of visual material helped with confidence and focus, and students of varying backgrounds were more able to complete the skill independently, expressed as a reduction in the need for additional instruction to complete the learning outcome (data analysis). An unexpected result for Q6 (How much additional instruction did you need to complete a sample of the stitch?) was a reduction of the Standard Deviation for the intervention workshops. More students scored closer to the mean, which I interpreted as overall, students becoming closer to needing the same amount of additional instruction. This attests to the effectiveness of the intervention in encouraging noticing and communicating the skill technique to all students, no matter their background, ability or learning style; a central aim of inclusive teaching practice.

I will be able to integrate these findings into my teaching practice. Although the intervention workshops were micro in length, I can apply the principals into my longer process workshops. I will be able to treat each step as a micro-teach, which I can approach by presenting a visual introduction before demonstrating. This could be a simple as showing the step in it’s completed form so that students are able to observe the subsequent demonstration with more understanding of the outcome.

Although I have reached these conclusions as a result of this research, it has not been a linear process and as I have discussed in my blog on Data Analysis (Link), I have examined the data from a number of directions which I had not anticipated when I designed the project. My data showed a correlation between smaller group sizes and improved outcomes. There was also a correlation between improving outcomes where learning activities took place in enclosed space environments as opposed to open plan spaces, although I have discounted this finding when cross referencing this data with the Control vs. Intervention categories. The group size result is consistent with the systemic review of Peyton’s 4 step method (Giacomino et al., 2020) which informed the design of my intervention, which shows that teaching using this method was more effective in smaller groups.

I enjoyed planning and implementing my ARP. I was excited to see the results as I felt the ARP could prove something I had a ‘feeling’ was right. I was aware of expectation bias from my research into methodology, and that, as my first ARP, there were bound to be unexpected occurrences. The most troubling design flaw in my methodology, which calls into question the results, was the effect of the intervention on myself as the practitioner-researcher. Not only was I encouraging noticing in my students, I observed myself noticing my own practice. My research into learning styles and tacit knowledge had prompted me to think about multiple senses, especially touch and movement; how I could describe and bring these to the awareness of my students when demonstrating (Field Observations). As I noted in my Field Observations, I had not taught this workshop prior to the surveying, and as I delivered the research activities, I noticed slight changes in my delivery of the demonstration. This has led me to question whether the data I was collecting was based on consistent conditions.

As you, the educator-researcher, interacts with participants, you may find it necessary to continue the research with additional data sources to better address the question at the center of your research. When educators are researchers and a participant in their study, it is especially important to keep an open mind to the wide range of research methodologies.

(Spencer Clarke et al, 2020)

To my mind, this last point cannot reliably be addressed without further testing. Additional testing of the activity using the Control workshop, demonstrating the skill using the techniques and descriptions matching those used in the later Interventions workshops, would help to discount this as a variable which might instead be responsible for the positive effect. It is possible that at least some of the improved outcomes of the participants’ learning could be attributable to improvements in my teaching. This is another direction that could be followed through in further AR cycles; identifying what is successful about my teaching, what were the changes I implemented in my teaching and whether these have a positive impact on students’ learning outcomes.

The importance of the skill that one has for teaching, could have links to another of the findings of Giacomino’s review of Peyton’s 4 Step method; that positive outcomes were measurably better when the activity was carried out by a teacher, as opposed to a peer. Very little indication was given of the qualities of these teachers and peers; what their differences were, beyond experience and professional qualifications. In many of the research studies on Learning Styles and Methods, little definition of what makes a ‘good’ teacher is presented. Both groups delivering the teaching clearly understood the activity, but a teacher would have developed ways of communicating their knowledge to students in an effective manner that perhaps a peer would not. So this aspect of the success of the Peyton method could be behind at least some of the positive outcome of my ARP, rather than the introduction of the visual supporting material.

Although I have not been able to reach a definitive conclusion, the principle of Action Research is it’s cyclical nature, where reflection leads to further research cycles. The many things I have learned all feed back into my development towards becoming a better teacher.

References

Giacomino, K. et al. (2020) ‘The effectiveness of the Peyton’s 4-step teaching approach on skill acquisition of procedures in health professions education: A systematic review and meta analysis with integrated meta-regression, PeerJ, 8(10129), pp.1-26. Available at: http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10129

Hughes, C. & Cohen, R. L. (2010) ‘Feminists really do count: the complexity of feminist methodologies’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(3), pp.189-196.

Reynolds, M. (1997) ‘Learning Styles: A Critique’, Management Learning, 28(2), pp.115-133.

Spencer Clarke et al. (2020) Action Research. Available at: https://kstatelibraries.pressbooks.pub/gradactionresearch/ (Accessed: 7 January 2024).

Allery, L. (2020) How to Teach Practical Skills. Cardiff: Centre for Medical Education.

Andrade, C. (2020) ‘Mean difference, standardized mean difference (SMD) and their use in meta-analysis: as simple as it gets’, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 81(5), article number 20f13681. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.20f13681

Bhagat, D. and O’Neill, P. (2011) Inclusive practices, inclusive pedagogies: learning from widening participation research in art and design higher education. Croydon: CHEAD.

Billett, S. (2010) Learning Through Practice: Models, Traditions, Orientations and Approaches. Dordrecht: Springer.

Bogner, K., & Landrock, U. (2016) Response Biases in Standardised Surveys.GESIS Survey Guidelines. Mannheim: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. Available at: https://doi: 10.15465/gesis-sg_en_016

Coffield, F. et al. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Curry, L. (1990) ‘A critique of the research on learning styles’, Educational Leadership. 48(2), pp.50–56.

Dunn, R. (1984) ‘Learning Style: State of the science’, Theory Into Practice, 23(1), pp.10-19.

Finnegan, T. and Richards, A. (2016) Retention and attainment in the disciplines: Art and Design. York: Higher Education Academy.

Francis, J.J. et al. (2010) ‘What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies’, Psychology and Health, 25(10), pp. 1229-1245.

Freeman, C. and Kobia, C. (2016) ‘Sewing for a Cause: Implementing and Evaluating Service-Learning in a Clothing Construction Course’, Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education, 6, pp.45-59.

Giacomino, K. et al. (2020) ‘The effectiveness of the Peyton’s 4-step teaching approach on skill acquisition of procedures in health professions education: A systematic review and meta analysis with integrated meta-regression, PeerJ, 8(10129), pp.1-26. Available at: http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10129

Gray, C. & Malins, j. (2004) Visualising Research: A guide to the research process in Art and Design. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Gurung, R. & Prieto, L. (2009), Getting culture: incorporating diversity across the curriculum. New York: Routledge.

Harris, A. (2021) A Sensory Education. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

Hughes, C. & Cohen, R. L. (2010) ‘Feminists really do count: the complexity of feminist methodologies’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(3), pp.189-196.

Kara, H (2022) Embodied Data Analysis. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k79AWH59JpQ/ (Accessed: 7 January 2024)

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Lahti, H. (2012) ‘Learning sewing techniques through an inquiry’, Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 45, pp.178-188.

Madriaga, M. et al. (2010) ‘Confronting similar challenges? Disabled and non‐disabled students’ learning and assessment experiences’, Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), pp.647-658.

Mayer, A. (2021) ‘Reducing respondents’ perceptions of bias in survey research’, Methodological Innovations, 14(3). Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20597991211055952

McNiff, J. (2002) Action Research for Professional Development. Jean McNiff.

Morse, J.M. et al. (2002), ‘Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), pp.13-22.

Moussa, N. (2014) ‘The Importance of Learning Styles in Education’, Institute for Learning Styles Journal, 1(Fall), pp. 19-27.

Niiranen, S. (2019) ‘Supporting the development of students’ technological understanding in craft and technology education via the learning-by-doing approach’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, pp.81–93.

Noga, H. (2014) ‘Applying Chosen Teaching Methods in Technical Education’, International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 4(4), pp.23-26.

Reynolds, M. (1997) ‘Learning Styles: A Critique’, Management Learning, 28(2), pp.115-133.

Rohrer, D. & Pashler, H. (2012) ‘Learning styles: Where’s the evidence?’, Medical Education, 46, pp.634-635.

Romero, P. et al. (2018) ‘Halsted’s “See One, Do One, and Teach One” versus Peyton’s Four-Step Approach: A randomized trial for training of Laparoscopic Suturing and Knot Tying’, Journal of Surgical Education, 75(2), pp.510-515.

Royal Society of Chemistry (2024) Practically Perfect. Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/how-to-help-students-develop-their-practical-skills/4016986.article. (Accessed: 11 January 2024)

Shildrick, M. (2012) Critical Disability Studies: rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. London: Routledge.

Slocum, A. & Beard, C. (2005) ‘Development of a CAI Module and Comparison of its Effectiveness with Traditional Classroom Instruction’, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 23(4), pp.298-306.

Spencer Clarke et al. (2020) Action Research. Available at: https://kstatelibraries.pressbooks.pub/gradactionresearch/ Accessed: 7 January 2024).

Wang, T. et al. (2004) ‘An Education Theory–Based Method to Teach a Procedural Skill’, Archives of Dermatological Research, 140(11), pp.1357-1361. 

Willis, S. (2017) ‘Literature review on the use of VAK learning strategies’, The STeP Journal, 4(2), pp. 90-94.

Wood, N. et al. (2009) ‘A Tacit Understanding: The Designer’s Role in Capturing and Passing on the Skilled Knowledge of Master Craftsmen’, International Journal of Design, 3(3), pp.65-78.

This is a sample of reflections on my day to day teaching practice and informal conversations I have with my colleagues on this subject. I use it to note questions and issues that I notice students struggling with, and ideas on how to improve on delivery of workshops to help students in their learning of garment construction skills.

Monday October 2, 2023– Jacket Workshop part 2 (group A and B). Live demonstration and live video stream of demonstration (small camera and poor lighting in new studio). For some of the operations, we asked students to gather around my machine so they could look more closely at how I was constructing a welt pocket. Students stood around the machine, some in front and some to the side of the machine where the demonstration was taking place. When they went back to their machines to replicate the procedure on their sample garment, I noticed many more students than normal had attached the pocket mirrored backwards. Could this be because of the view point they were seeing the demonstration from? They were looking at the sewing desk from the front, therefore seeing the garment upside down. The point of view could be affecting the interpretation of what they were seeing.

Thursday Oct 5, 2023– Jacket Workshop part 2 (group E and F). Live demonstration and live video stream of demonstration (small camera and poor lighting in new studio). Camera was functioning better this time. Student cohort were asking a lot of individual questions about whether they were doing the steps correctly. The majority of this cohort of students had english as their second language. Was their understanding of the steps affected by language competency, or my manner of speaking? I have noted that some students from different cultural backgrounds express heightened fear of doing things ‘wrong’ and were looking more for reassurance than because they did not understand. Could this be the reason for the questions; issues of self-confidence?

Friday Oct 6, 2023– Machine Induction. We were teaching students how to thread the sewing machine, wind the bobbin and operate the machine. Many students attempted to thread their machines at the same time as our demonstration. We had to ask them a number of times to just watch first and to practice after. We gave them sufficient time to complete the tasks, breaking down the operation into smaller chunks. There were a number of students who did their threading incorrectly, or had to ask us for assistance. This is common, however, and there did not seem to be a higher than usual number of mistakes.

Monday Oct 9, 2023– Jacket Workshop part 3 (A/B). In informal conversation with a colleague, she said she noticed that many of her students had accessed the video guide that our department has made available to help them complete the construction of the jacket. However, she felt that using only the video to complete the work, affected the quality of the work produced. She thought it was messy and more inaccurate than students who viewed our live demonstrations first. She felt the video most benefitted students once they had seen our demonstrations first, building an understanding of the process. Then they could use the video as a reminder of what they had seen as they practice making their own sample. To be used instead of notes.

Thursday Oct 12, 2023– Jacket Workshop part 3 (E/F) At this point, quite a few students are working at different stages of the sample. This means some students are accessing the video to work ahead of the main group. I am having to demonstrate each stage multiple times to smaller groups so that more of the students can work at a pace that suits them. Pace is an issue. Students don’t want to ‘waste’ their time waiting for others to catch up to them.

Monday Oct 16, 2023– Jacket Workshop part 1 (Group C/D). I tried stitching the welt on first and the lining of the welt from the reverse to see if this alleviated the problem of the mirrored positioning. I noticed that there were far fewer welts incorrectly positioned. But instead, this made it more difficult for a few students to leave enough seam allowance evenly spaced on either side of the welt. So 6 of one, half a dozen of the other! However, if I explain further about the positioning of the lining, possibly this method will be easier for students to understand.

Thursday Oct 19, 2023– Jacket Workshop part 1 (FPC). It was instructive to see my colleague deliver this workshop. There were a number of finer points which she demonstrated differently from how I do it. The mitred cuff is completed first before closing the back sleeve seam and I can see that this makes it clearer to students where the fold line should be located. I will try it this way the next time I deliver this jacket workshop and see how my students do.