Introduction + Context
I teach on the BA Embroidery course at LCF working across all 3 year groups, it is important to point out that although this course is its own BA it sits within a wider textile team with Knit and Print courses. Just before I started lecturing it was 1 degree with 3 pathways, it is now 3 different degrees however there are still ties such as shared units, timetabling and teaching teams between the pathways where parity needs to be considered.
The project structure on these courses typically relies on traditional formats: general brief, research sketchbook, samples, presentation and portfolio submissions for assessment along with regular 1-to-1 tutorials and written feedback. These approaches, while familiar and functional, often create isolated learning experiences. Students can become siloed within their year groups, and dialogue between levels is minimal. Project expectations become repetitive there are not enough opportunities for students to see beyond their classes dynamic and therefore their position in it which creates a barrier to many students’ growth. Tutorials, in particular, can foster dependence on tutor validation rather than self-assessment or peer feedback.
This environment has led me to question whether our current structures best serve student learning, community development, or professional readiness. I have observed that students often lack confidence when articulating their ideas, discussing their work with peers, or receiving criticism. Simultaneously, they are asked to navigate increasingly complex, self-directed projects, especially in their final years.
“Any review of the role of assessment should ask whether it strengthens the links between formal and non-formal learning, and whether it does this in an inclusive way.” Bjørnåvold, J., Brown, A. (2002)
Through guest lecturing and external collaboration, notably at Kingston University’s Graphic Design programme, I was exposed to alternative models of course structure which included a wider range of ideas for feedback, assessment and community-building that more closely mimic creative industry practices. These sessions emphasised group discussion, peer critique, and experimentation over rigid grading criteria. Inspired by this, I began exploring how to pilot a manageable intervention within my own institutional context, something that could lay the groundwork for a broader shift in my courses community, (something that has been a reoccurring topic in student rep meetings on my course), whilst building the student learning experience and offering alternative experiences around the assessment and feedback culture.
Intervention Idea
The intervention I am proposing is a‘Cross-Year Creative Exchange’, separate from the structured course curriculum and piloted as sign-up modules with the core aims of improving collaborative learning, skill enhancement, peer feedback, fostering a stronger course community, and beginning to shift the feedback culture away from tutor-centric assessment.
The modules provide the students with agency over their own learning and creates a more tailor-made element to their studies. The modules would be organised and developed not by academic year or skill level but by shared and wider industry interests. This strategy aims to flatten hierarchies, promote learning as a communal process and makes space for not always having the answer.
The structure of each session may differ but would include:
- Sharing work in-progress and/or skills
- Roles assigned to peers (e.g. presenter, respondent, observer) on a rotating basis to build critical skills and diversify the types of contributions.
- Discussion element, with guided prompts to help scaffold discussion.
This intervention aligns with Hockings’ (2010) vision of inclusive practice which involves designing pedagogy, course content and ways of assessment accessible to all.
“Inclusive assessment refers to the design and use of fair and effective assessment methods and practices that enable all students to demonstrate to their full potential what they know, understand and can do.” (Hockings, C. 2010)
By valuing different kinds of student outputs within this intervention (e.g., process documentation, reflective commentary, sharing of a found resource), and creating more discursive spaces, the intervention accommodates diverse learners.
“…integrated assessment should recognise and incorporate different intelligences and diverse cognitive and stylistic profiles.” (Hockings, C. 2010)
Not every student thrives in a presentation-based format, and this model allows for different voices and feedback styles to be acknowledged.
Rationale
This intervention focuses on removing power dynamics and pressures of tutor dominated learning formats and moves towards more student-led communal spaces where all voices are invited and valued regardless of academic year and standing. It aims to build on students’ confidence and skills in both practical work but also feedback, presentation and social aspects. Importantly, this approach builds cultural capital by mimicking professional industry practices where collaborative critique, articulating work in progress, and responding to diverse feedback are essential skills. Students who may not arrive with this implicit knowledge gain structured, supported exposure to these professional norms without the added pressure of being assessed, graded or compared to peers in any way, helping to creating more equitable access to learning opportunities and better prepare them for industry contexts.
I enjoyed reading the paper ‘The Trials and Triumphs of Running Cross-Year Experimental Modules’. I was inspired by how similar the learning and enhancement aims were to what I am working towards. The report cited that, “whilst cross-year, collaborative learning has numerous challenges, it is highly beneficial to both students and staff… students benefit from peer mentorship, working in authentic environments related to their chosen career path and the accompanying development and enhancement of key meta-skills, such as leadership, which are invaluable to building their confidence and employability” (Vickers, Pirie and Reid, 2023)
Challenges that I want to keep in mind from this study is how there was confusion in the early sessions as it introduced a new format of working, along with the need for more clarity at the start about the content of the sessions. Taking this learning into my own intervention has helped me recognise that being transparent from the start about how these module sessions are piloting a new idea, and why I believe they will be useful to the students’ university experience will be key. Working with the students to co-create a setup they feel ownership over, rather than these sessions being seen as an extra obligation, will not only benefit their engagement but also help to establish the desired working environment.
Reflection/ Peer Responses
Reflecting on this intervention at its planning stage has highlighted both the potential impact it could have on student learning and the complexities of implementing change within established structures. Through discussions with my wider team, who know the course and students well, I have gained valuable logistical and informed feedback. These conversations have surfaced practical concerns, such as timetabling challenges and the need to ensure parity across pathways, while also highlighting the importance of aligning initiatives like this with what is already embedded in course materials.
Discussing the intervention with my PGCert tutor and peer group has been particularly beneficial, offering perspectives from outside my immediate context. Their lack of connection to the course has helped me identify assumptions I may hold, and question perceived barriers, allowing me to see possibilities I might have overlooked. Their breadth of teaching experiences has diversified my ideas, and their encouragement has helped reaffirm the importance of the values underpinning this intervention: community, peer-led feedback, and focusing on the learning process rather than solely on outcomes.
Importantly, the phrase “work in progress” came up repeatedly in these discussions, resonating deeply with my aims. It has reinforced that the intervention should not be about having an outcome or resolution after each session but about building an ongoing space for experimentation, reflection, and progression in a supportive, communal environment.
A recurring challenge has been the tension between encouragement to pursue this idea and the lack of a clear structure or institutional support to implement it sustainably. Feedback from my pathway leader to trial the approach during my 3-4 existing BA3 workshop sessions, replacing 1-to-1 tutorials, has provided a practical starting point, shifting the intervention from an additional workload to a potential enhancement of existing sessions, however, it also comes with compromises to the original idea. This highlights the logistics that arise with when working towards implementing new course opportunities, there is still a trade-off between staff time, pre organised and prioritised classes which requires ideas to be adapted, for instance the main point of my intervention is to build community across all 3 years however the solution offered up to run these sessions would only allow for 3rd years to be involved. This may also prompt questions around how group crits are evaluated in terms of effectiveness, and whether they risk detracting from formally assessed work, especially for final-year students.
Moving forward, I aim to involve students at the start of the next academic year by asking questions about what they need from crit/focus session spaces and how they would like to engage in peer feedback. This will ensure the intervention is co-constructed, fostering agency and aligning it with student needs while maintaining the core purpose of nurturing critical dialogue and community within the course.
Conclusion:
As a practitioner within the textile industry, I bring a strong subject knowledge and a deep familiarity with professional standards and expectations. While this industry experience enriches my teaching, I have come to recognise how it can also create assumptions about student knowledge, pace of learning, or confidence with certain skills. Early in my teaching career, I often underestimated the time and support students need to explore, experiment, and build foundational skills along with allowing space and time for different knowledge backgrounds and ways of learning.
By asking students what they want to learn and creating a shared space for process and experimentation within this intervention, I hope to challenge traditional hierarchies and foster a more participatory, inclusive learning culture.
Ultimately, this intervention is a pilot, not a prescription. Similarly to students showing work in progress, these sessions too will openly be a work in progress. In doing so, they will showcase a malleable and adaptable model to both students and staff, that values a reflective, communal, and student-centred approach to learning and assessment, in contrast to the rigidity of the current course structure.
References:
Ban, L. (2023). Inspired: Exploring creative pedagogies at the early stage of the fashion design process. Intellect Discover.
Bjørnåvold, J., Brown, A. (2002). ‘Rethinking the role of the assessment of non-formal learning’. Transformation of learning in education and training. CEDEFOP.
Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research. Advanced HE.
Lawrie, G., Marquis, E., Fuller, E., Newman, T., Qui, M., Nomikoudis, M., Roelofs, F., Van Dam, L. (2017). Moving Towards Inclusive Learning and Teaching: A Synthesis of Recent Literature. Research Gate.
Thomas, J. (2019). And Shift! A Review of Approaches That Support Transition from A-Level Art and Design to Fine Art Undergraduate Study. Arts.
Vickers, B., Pirie, E., Reid, C. (2023). The trials and triumphs of running cross-year experiential modules: Blending theory and practice to advance student professional development and academic practice. JPAAP.
Wedawatta, G. (2016). Applicability of non-modular assessment in construction management and allied undergraduate programmes: perspective of the academics involved. Journal of Further and Higher Education.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.