Recent Comments
Blog 9- ARP- Final Reflections: Why Mark to Material Still Matters
As Mark to Material entered its second iteration at London College of Fashion, I was reminded that action research rarely offers neat conclusions. Instead, it surfaces tensions, questions and confirmations that feel as important as any success. This workshop didn’t replicate the first; it tested the framework within a different institutional context, revealing why this work feels not only relevant, but necessary.
The LCF session reached 24 tutors, and when combined with the 26 participants at CSM, the project engaged 50 secondary school teachers and technicians across two workshops, amplifying the potential impact far beyond the room. Working with educators who shape creative experiences at such a formative stage reaffirmed my belief that process-led, material-based practice has ripple effects. When teachers feel able to loosen control, prioritise play and value making over measuring, those shifts travel directly back into classrooms and young people’s creative confidence.
Yet this second workshop felt markedly different. While the first was loose, exploratory, and surprisingly productive, this iteration felt more contained and cautious. The opening presentation framed creativity through “what tutors are looking for” in prospective students. While well-intentioned, this subtly reintroduced performance and expectation. Participants appeared to complete tasks efficiently rather than inhabit them fully, as though creativity had become something to evidence rather than experience.
This sense of constraint surfaced during the making itself. At several points, when I offered open-ended instructions for mark-making, participants interpreted them in unexpected ways. What I imagined as drawing became collage-making; mark-making shifted into fabric construction; yarn-making emerged where sketching had been suggested. Rather than seeing this as misunderstanding, I found it revealing. It highlighted how interpretive creative instruction is and how participants gravitate towards materials and processes that feel intuitive or safe. This slippage between intention and outcome reinforced a core premise of my research: creative processes are non-linear and meaning is co-produced rather than delivered.
The facilitation dynamic also shifted. My co-facilitator delivered the presentation, while I led the workshop activities. I had hoped this division would allow me to observe more, but instead I felt an unexpected pressure to perform and justify my approach. This was unsettling, particularly given that Mark to Material was conceived as a response to precisely this pressure. It revealed how easily institutional hierarchies and expectations can resurface, even within spaces designed to resist them.
There was also a negotiation around space and structure. I advocated for an inclusive, U-shaped seating arrangement to support dialogue and visibility, while a more conventional table layout was initially proposed. Choosing the U-shape felt important, even if it introduced chaos and reduced my sense of control. Ironically, despite this perceived disorder, I ultimately held more control than in the first workshop and felt less prepared as a result. This contradiction became data, in that structure can both enable and constrain, depending on how it is held.
What remained consistent was the value participants took from the session. Teachers spoke again about freedom, adaptability and the relief of working without outcome-driven pressure. Many reflected on the constraints of time, timetabling, and assessment in their own settings. One comment lingered with me: that students increasingly view architecture as the “acceptable” creative path, revealing anxieties around what is now deemed valuable in the arts.
This reinforces a central motivation of my research: the importance of material making in an increasingly digital, outcome-focused creative culture. Sketching, stitching, cutting, and marking are not nostalgic acts; they are ways of thinking. Losing that connection risks narrowing creativity into something slick, strategic and exclusionary.
Despite its challenges, this second iteration strengthened my conviction. The workshop surfaced crucial insights about power, expectation, and interpretation. Mark to Material continues to evolve not as a fixed model, but as a pedagogical stance, one that insists on making, play and process as acts of resistance.
Fig 1 -Collaging, Mark making experiments
Fig 2 up-cycled ‘waste’ from CSM textiles department
Fig 3 “Yarn’ making with waste materials
Fig 4 Collaging
Fig 5 Fabric making
Fig 6&7
Fig 1-7 [R, Taylor], (08/12/2025) “From mark to material: explorations in experimental textiles delivered by Romany Taylor with CSM& LCF Outreach 2025“
Posted in ARPAssessment
Leave a comment
ARP – Blog 8- Looking forward -From Mark to Material to Ongoing Practice
Reflecting on Mark to Material, I’m struck by how the workshop’s success lay not in its precision, but in its openness. What began as an overambitious plan evolved into something far more collaborative and responsive, a reminder that structure and freedom are not opposites, but dynamic partners in learning. The playfulness, spontaneity, and process-led ethos of the session not only resonated with participants but reaffirmed my own commitment to creating spaces where experimentation feels safe, valued and visible.
Moving forward, I see clear opportunities to embed these insights within my Associate Lecturer role at UAL. One of the most immediate applications will be in the upcoming Divergent Thinking briefing for third-year students, a session designed to spark creativity at the start of a new project. Inspired by Mark to Material, I plan to integrate more tactile and intuitive exercises: using graphics/shape to translate emotion into imagery, introducing quick 3D making challenges These activities mirror the workshop’s process-led approach, but with a sharper focus on critical making and conceptual development suitable for a graduating cohort.
Fig 1,2,3
In my first-year teaching, where many students struggle to see the value of sketchbooks, often reflected in their ‘Enquiry’ assessment criteria, I want to rethink the briefing experience itself. Rather than a dense, slide-heavy presentation filled with examples that can overwhelm new students, I hope to create a more active and visually engaging “creative briefing.” Drawing from my ARP learnings, this session would transform the sketchbook from a site of anxiety into one of exploration. By referencing diverse creative practitioners such as Massimo Osti, Visvim, and Alexander McQueen, I aim to demonstrate that there is no single ‘right’ way to visualise ideas or build a body of research. The goal is to show that sketchbooks can be alive with material thinking, a space where enquiry happens through process, not perfection.
The next Mark to Material iteration, now scheduled at London College of Fashion (LCF), offers an exciting opportunity to build on what worked while addressing key areas for growth. I’ll be co-facilitating with an embroidery tutor, which will allow us to weave together distinct but complementary perspectives. Utilising the ‘waste’, from print, knit and weave studios to highlight sustainability not as an abstract concept but as an embedded, lived practice. This approach connects directly to my ARP’s interest in inclusive, process-led pedagogy: using material constraints as creative catalysts rather than limitations.
Information collated by insights CSM after the workshop.
I also plan to refine the session’s rhythm. While the looseness of the original workshop enabled freedom, I’m curious to see how introducing a touch more structure to the drawing exercises might shift outcomes. Would more specific prompts enhance confidence, or risk reintroducing pressure? This small adjustment, guided by participant feedback and my own reflections, will deepen my understanding of how balance functions in process-led learning.
Collaborating again with my previous student assistant, Oliver, also opens up new questions about co-facilitation and positionality. His curation of music and documentation during the last workshop transformed the atmosphere, reminding me that facilitation is a shared, creative act. For the next session, I plan to give my co-facilitator greater ownership of the soundscape and material-based exploration, treating these contributions as integral to the learning ecology rather than supportive add-ons. In doing so, I hope to embody what Freire (1970) describes as a “dialogue of equals,” where learning is co-constructed rather than delivered.
Ultimately, these next steps extend my action research beyond critique into sustained pedagogical practice. The Mark to Material framework has become more than a workshop, it’s evolving into a way of teaching and thinking that values process over polish, dialogue over direction and freedom as a disciplined curiosity.
References
- Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
- hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
- Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design. London: Routledge.
- Fletcher, K. (2008) Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys. London: Earthscan.
- Kara, H. (2015) Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Bristol: Policy Press.
Fig 1-3 [R, Taylor], (30/09/2025) “From mark to material: explorations in experimental textiles delivered by Romany Taylor with CSM& LCF Outreach 2025“
References
Ahmed, S. (2017) Living a Feminist Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Alvesson, M. (2012) Interpreting interviews. London: SAGE Publications.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2023) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE Publications.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2012) “Research Methods in Education”. 7th edn. London: Routledge.
Ellis, C. and Bochner, A.P. (2006) Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An autopsy. In: Ellis, C. and Bochner, A.P. (eds.) The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp. 431–457.
Fletcher, K. (2008) Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys. London: Earthscan.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin
Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) Visualizing research: A guide to the research process in art and design. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Harris, A. (2020) Creative Ecologies and the Future of Education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Kara, H. (2015) Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Bristol: Policy Press.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988) The action research planner. 3rd edn. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
McNiff, J. (2002) “Action Research for Professional Development: Concise Advice for New Action Researchers”. Dorset: September Books.
Tjora, A. (2006) Writing small discoveries: An exploration of fresh observers’ observations. Qualitative Research, 6(4), pp. 429–451.
Action Plan- Checklist
- Blog 1 -Reflect on refining activity after intervention – – Evolving Inclusive Approaches to Creative Process’
- Blog 2 -Planning an Ethical Framework
- Ethical Action Plan
- Workshop Plan ‘From Mark to Material: Explorations in Experimental Textiles’
- Participant Information Sheet & participant Consent forms
- Pre & Post Questionnaires
- Blog 3 -Reflection on questionnaires in relation to ARP and tutor feedback
- Group Reflection Prompts
- Blog 4 -Thinking Through Data and Reflection
- Run workshop 27th September
- Blog 5 -Reflections on Process play and Pedagogy- Reflection in and directly after the session,
- Get feedback/Collate feedback-Add collected data overall to blog as an image, password protected (wonderweather44£)
- Blog 6– Thematic Analysis: Mark to Material CPD Workshop -Distilling the Data -Analyse data
- Blog 7 (Part I & II) -Reflection on Data (2 versions/longer and shorter) Extended Draft for Blog Post 7: Reflecting on Mark to Material & Following the Thread: Reflections on Mark to Material
- Blog 8- ARP -Looking forward -From Mark to Material to Ongoing Practice
- References
- PPT Presentation Slides
- Blog 9- ARP- Final Reflections: Why Mark to Material Still Matters
- Unravelling the Norms -ZINE
ARP – Blog 7 – PART II -Following the Thread: Reflections on Mark to Material
Feedback from the group reflection and post-workshop questionnaires revealed strong affective themes. Many participants described feeling “liberated” by the “no right or wrong” approach. One teacher reflected that “it freed me up and gave me permission to be creative,” while another valued the “reassuring” non-judgemental atmosphere. The simple repetition of a warm-up exercise (a continuous line portrait done twice) allowed participants to see their own relaxation unfold, moving from self-consciousness to flow.
This reinforced a broader pedagogical concern. Several teachers noted that fear of failure and limited time for experimentation restrict students’ creative risk-taking in schools. If teachers themselves rarely experience the freedom to play, how can they model it for their learners? As Harris (2020) argues, the increasing prioritisation of STEM subjects in the national curriculum has contributed to a devaluing of creative exploration, positioning art and design as peripheral rather than essential. The workshop therefore became a small act of resistance, a reassertion of creativity as a critical and embodied practice.
The artefacts produced (diverse, layered, and expressive) reflected a genuine engagement with material process. Despite minimal instruction, participants generated an impressive range of outcomes, often surprising themselves with what emerged. A few commented that the abundance of materials made the session feel “less sustainable,” prompting reflection on abundance and restraint in creative learning.
What stood out most was how collaboration and display shaped behaviour. As work began to fill the walls, a subtle awareness of visibility emerged. Some participants commented that seeing others’ work was motivating; for one, it risked reintroducing competition. These dynamics reflected how even in seemingly playful, process-led contexts, traditional hierarchies of assessment and comparison can resurface.
This observation connected back to my positionality as a UAL tutor. I wondered whether participants expected a particular level of aesthetic or technical output and whether my presence inadvertently reinforced those expectations. Braun and Clarke’s (2023) reflexive thematic analysis framework helped me interrogate this, emphasising that interpretation is always situated within the researcher’s own assumptions and social position.
The data collected from questionnaires, verbal exchanges, and visual documentation suggested clear shifts. Confidence in using experimental methods rose markedly, with seventeen participants reporting feeling “very confident” post-workshop (up from five before). Many planned to incorporate warm-up exercises, open-ended mark-making, and time-limited creative challenges into their own classrooms.
More importantly, participants described how the session made them empathise with students’ experiences of vulnerability, uncertainty, and risk. One teacher reflected, “Doing this reminded me what it feels like not to know what you’re doing, that’s what my students feel all the time.” This awareness is precisely what I hoped to foster: inclusivity through shared creative vulnerability.
In hindsight, ‘Mark to Material’ became both a workshop and a mirror, reflecting how creative educators negotiate confidence, structure, and spontaneity. The triangulation between my facilitation, Oliver’s observation, and participants’ reflections revealed how learning environments can evolve when authority and authorship are shared.
As a piece of creative ethnography, it affirmed the value of listening through making and of recognising that reflection happens not only in words but in gestures, textures, and collective rhythm.
Ultimately, the workshop reaffirmed my belief that inclusivity in art and design education begins not with access to materials or facilities, but with permission: permission to play, to fail, and to find meaning in process.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023) “Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide.” London: SAGE.
Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) “Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design.” London: Routledge.
Harris, A. (2020) “Creative Ecologies and the Future of Education.” Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kara, H. (2015) “Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide.” Bristol: Policy Press.
ARP – Blog 7- PART I- Following the Thread: Reflections on Mark to Material
The ‘Mark to Material’ CPD workshop, delivered through UAL’s Insights outreach programme, set out to explore how process-led, inclusive textile practices might reduce barriers to creativity in classroom settings. Working with twenty-six secondary school art and design teachers, the session focused on playful mark-making and material exploration, but what unfolded went far beyond a skills workshop. It became a living inquiry into how educators experience freedom, confidence, and community within creative practice.
While my initial plan was more structured, I quickly found that allowing activities to merge organically created a richer sense of engagement. The atmosphere, supported by music curated by my assistant Oliver (a former student ambassador), was informal, lively, and collaborative. The playlist he chose (Raye, Florence and the Machine, Bodyguard soundtrack) seemed to frame the rhythm of the room: energetic, confident, but with space for reflection.
This freedom to diverge from the planned structure mirrored my own learning about facilitation. As Gray and Malins (2004) suggest, practice-led research often involves “reflective conversations with materials, participants, and context,” where structure serves as scaffolding rather than prescription. In this spirit, my “overambitious” plan evolved naturally into something more interactive and responsive.
Throughout the session, I worked alongside Oliver, who documented interactions, group discussions, and body language. His observational notes, alongside my own impressions, became part of a triangulated dataset that included pre- and post-workshop questionnaires and group reflection transcripts.
Before reading Oliver’s notes, I recalled the group as fully immersed and upbeat. His perspective largely confirmed this but added nuance: he noted quiet hesitations, participants observing before joining in, and moments of peer reassurance. His positionality as a recent UAL graduate offered both proximity and distance, close enough to understand the pedagogy, but removed enough to see things I could not as facilitator.
Oliver also played an active creative role, curating work on the walls and photographing artefacts with sensitivity to process rather than outcome. The collaborative act of documentation itself became an ethnographic layer, what Kara (2015) terms “creative reflexivity”, where “the act of recording becomes part of the research narrative.”
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023) “Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide.” London: SAGE.
Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) “Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design.” London: Routledge.
Harris, A. (2020) “Creative Ecologies and the Future of Education.” Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kara, H. (2015) “Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide.” Bristol: Policy Press.
ARP – Extended Draft: Reflecting on Mark to Material
During the ‘Mark to Material’ CPD session, what struck me most was not only what the participants produced, but how the atmosphere of the room shifted over time. Within three hours, a group of secondary school art teachers, initially tentative and slightly cautious, transformed into a collective space of playful energy, collaboration, and experimentation.
I had planned the session with more structure than I eventually delivered. Allowing activities to merge organically created space for deeper engagement. It also revealed how much can emerge when we step back from control, instruction, and fixed outcomes, a lesson as relevant to teaching as it is to creative practice itself.
Triangulating Perspectives: My View and Oliver’s Notes
One of the most interesting aspects of this project was the ‘triangulation’ between my own reflections, the participants’ feedback, and the observational notes taken by Oliver my assistant, student ambassador and a former student of mine. His perspective added a valuable layer to the ethnographic understanding of the session.
Before seeing his notes, I had the impression that participants were relaxed and fully immersed, with energy building as the session progressed. Oliver’s notes confirmed this, but he also noticed nuances I had missed, moments where some participants hesitated at first or quietly observed before engaging. His documentation captured shifts in tone and confidence that might have gone unnoticed in the busyness of facilitating.
Oliver’s positionality, as a recent UAL graduate and someone who had once been taught by me, offered both proximity and critical distance. He curated the playlist (Raye, Florence + The Machine, the Bodyguard soundtrack), consciously shaping the atmosphere through rhythm and tone. He also began curating the emerging work on the wall, arranging pieces in clusters and photographing them alongside the professional photographer. His visual documentation reflected his interpretation of value: moments of process, gesture, and energy, rather than polished outcomes.
This triangulation between ‘my interpretation’, ‘Oliver’s documentation’, and ‘participants’ reflections’ echoes the idea of ethnographic reflexivity discussed by Gray and Malins (2004), who argue that creative research requires a constant negotiation between subjectivity, interpretation, and the artefacts produced. The artefacts in this case, the drawings, textiles, and photographs, became “data” not just of what was made, but of how creative confidence was negotiated collectively.
Freedom, Fear, and the Culture of Expectation
The workshop revealed how easily we criticise ourselves in isolation, and how quickly that self-consciousness dissolves in a supportive environment. The lack of examples or demonstrations initially unsettled some participants, but as one teacher put it, “It freed me up and gave me permission to be creative.”
This made me reflect on the broader educational culture from which these teachers come. Many noted that their own teaching contexts, shaped by time constraints, exam pressures, and the marginalisation of art and design within the national curriculum, make it difficult to prioritise process, play, and experimentation. There was an underlying concern that if teachers themselves struggle to take creative risks, this inhibition might be passed on to their students.
As Harris (2020) observes, the privileging of STEM subjects within UK schooling has increasingly framed creativity as a supplementary or ‘nice-to-have’ skill rather than a critical mode of inquiry. The teachers’ reflections echoed this, a desire to reclaim creativity as an intellectual practice, not just a decorative or recreational one.
Process, Positionality, and Interpretation
My positionality as a UAL tutor inevitably shaped the workshop. I was conscious that participants might expect a certain level of academic or aesthetic ‘standard,’ or anticipate a learning outcome that mirrored higher education assessment norms. Yet my motivation was to remove those hierarchies, to create a space where making for its own sake was enough.
The artefacts that emerged (layered, intuitive, and diverse) were testaments to that freedom. No two pieces resembled each other. The participants’ surprise at what they achieved without detailed instruction revealed how ingrained the desire for approval and direction has become, even among educators.
This resonates with what Kara (2015) describes as “creative reflexivity” in qualitative research, a way of “thinking through doing” that values both the process and the researcher’s affective engagement. My own interpretation of the session, shaped by my emotions and expectations, became as much a part of the data as the participants’ words and artefacts.
Analysing the Data: Drawing Meaning from Making
Using Braun and Clarke’s (2023) reflexive thematic analysis framework, I reviewed the pre- and post-questionnaires, Oliver’s notes from the group reflection transcripts. Themes emerged around ‘playfulness, confidence, inclusivity, and redefined notions of creativity’.
Quantitatively, confidence in using experimental methods rose sharply (from 5 to 17 participants reporting “very confident”). Qualitatively, participants described the experience as “liberating,” “non-judgemental,” and “therapeutic.” They valued the chance to play and reflect without outcome-driven expectations, echoing the ethos of “learning for action” (2017), where reflection is embedded in doing, not detached from it.
Conclusion: Rethinking the Value of Process
Reflecting on this session, I see ‘Mark to Material’ as both a learning environment and an act of research. an exploration of how inclusive, process-led methods can nurture creativity across contexts. It reaffirmed my belief that freedom, structure, and reflection can coexist; that creative play is not the absence of discipline, but another form of it.
The workshop became a dialogue, between me, Oliver, and the participants, about what it means to make without knowing, to teach without demonstrating, and to assess without measuring. In that space of uncertainty, genuine creativity flourished.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). “Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide.” SAGE.
Gray, C., & Malins, J. (2004). “Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design.” Routledge.
Harris, A. (2020). “Creative Ecologies and the Future of Education.” Palgrave Macmillan.
Kara, H. (2015). “Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide.” Policy Press.
Posted in ARPAssessment
Leave a comment
ARP -Blog 6- Thematic Analysis: Mark to Material CPD Workshop -Distilling the Data
1. Playfulness and Engagement
Summary:
Participants consistently described the workshop as ‘fun, motivating, and freeing’. The open-ended, non-judgemental structure encouraged experimentation and dialogue. Many noted that being surrounded by others felt inspiring rather than intimidating, contributing to a relaxed atmosphere.
Evidence:
– “Enjoyed the time pressure, gave a sense of purpose when the task is really open.”
– “The tone of your voice created a sense of informality.”
– “Liked the repetitive nature of the ‘do it again’ exercise, less overthinking the second time.”
– “It was fun, enjoyable and felt motivating and inspiring.”
Interpretation:
The workshop successfully embodied ‘process-led play’ as a pedagogical tool. Playfulness acted as a catalyst for creative confidence, aligning with hooks’ (1994) vision of education as a “practice of freedom,” where learners engage without fear of judgment.
2. Materials, Accessibility, and Sustainability
Summary:
Engagement with ‘low-cost, everyday, and upcycled materials’ was viewed as both inclusive and practical. Many teachers linked material accessibility to classroom feasibility, noting that sustainability also fosters creative problem-solving.
Evidence:
-“Use materials unconventionally.”
-“Inspired to use shredded fabrics.”
-“Budget often determines access, this gave new ideas.”
-“Confirmed my own use of materials, but made me think differently about waste.”
Interpretation:
Sustainable material practices were perceived as ‘democratising creativity’. This aligns with Kate Fletcher’s (2008) notion that sustainability in design education can prompt “resourcefulness and relational creativity.” A few participants did note the abundance of choice made the session feel less sustainable, highlighting a tension between ‘freedom’ and ‘restraint’ in resource-led design.
3. Fear of Failure and Confidence-Building
Summary:
The “no right or wrong” ethos strongly influenced participants’ sense of creative freedom. While some initially felt uncertain, the approach encouraged risk-taking and self-expression. Participants described the experience as “liberating,” “reassuring,” and “therapeutic.”
Evidence:
– “Reassuring that you won’t be judged.”
– “Liberating to focus on process over outcome.”
– “The hardest part was starting, but it became easier.”
-“Nervous at first, but the approach helped me set my own rules.”
Interpretation:
This theme underscores the affective dimensions of learning; how emotional safety enables experimentation. By removing evaluative pressure, participants engaged more deeply, echoing Freire’s (1970) argument that freedom in learning arises from dialogic, non-hierarchical encounters.
4. Supporting Diverse Learners and Inclusive Pedagogies
Summary:
Teachers identified clear potential for applying process-led methods to support neurodiverse and less confident students. Many planned to incorporate warm-up exercises, time-based tasks, and open-ended exploration into their own classrooms.
Evidence:
-“So useful for SEND students, as it allows experimentation.”
– “Good as it’s not limited to ‘drawing,’ which students find intimidating.”
– “Warm-up and repetition are key, where you can see the difference.”
– “Setting the same starting point but focusing on process makes it equal.”
Interpretation:
Participants recognised inclusivity as emerging through ‘process flexibility’ rather than outcome equality. This mirrors Sara Ahmed’s (2017) concept of “doing diversity” as an ongoing, situated practice rather than a fixed framework, inclusivity is enacted through ‘how’ learning is structured and experienced.
5. Rethinking Creativity and Assessment
Summary:
Many participants reflected that the workshop challenged their assumptions about what creativity “looks like.” The emphasis on experimentation and process reframed creativity as ‘a mode of inquiry’ rather than skill mastery.
Evidence:
– “Not having an example helps students create unique work.”
– “The freedom-based exercises can lead to intuitive making.”
– “Helps you empathise with students and how it feels to do something unfamiliar.”
– “Reaffirmed my own teaching practice and the importance of play.”
Interpretation:
This theme speaks directly to my research aim: challenging dominant creative norms. The findings suggest participants began to value experimentation and reflection, aspects often underrepresented in formal assessment frameworks. As one participant observed, “work being displayed is revealing, it can create competition,” highlighting how assessment structures can inadvertently reintroduce hierarchy.
6. Practical Application and Pedagogical Transfer
Summary:
Participants expressed strong intention to adapt elements of ‘Mark to Material’ within their own teaching. The most cited takeaways were quick warm-ups, time-limited tasks, and emphasis on material exploration.
Evidence:
– “I’ll integrate more open exercises.”
– “Offering a warm-up reduces stakes.”
– “Push ideas of process rather than outcome.”
– “Will replicate the whole workshop.”
Interpretation:
Confidence gains were notable: pre-workshop, only 5 participants felt ‘very confident’ using experimental methods; post-workshop, 17 reported ‘very confident’. This quantitative shift complements the qualitative reflections, suggesting tangible pedagogical growth. The workshop functioned not just as a creative experience but as professional learning aligned with action research principles, reflection leading directly to change in practice (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988).
Summary of key outcomes
| THEME | PRE-WORKSHOP INSIGHT | POST WORKSHOP SHIFT |
| Confidence in experimentation | 5/23 very confident | 17/23 very confident |
| Inclusivity & Accessibility | Theoretical awareness | Practical, adaptable strategies identified |
| Fear of Failure | High apprehension | Significantly reduced through process-led play |
| Creativity definition | Outcome-focused | Process and reflection valued equally |
| Material Use | Limited sustainability focus | Expanded awareness of low-cost, inventive materials |
| Pedagogical transfer | Interest in new ideas | Strong intent to implement in classrooms |
Concluding Reflection
The findings illustrate that ‘Mark to Material’ effectively modelled “inclusive, process-led pedagogy”. Participants reported enhanced confidence, renewed enthusiasm, and greater awareness of the emotional and sensory aspects of making. The combination of “play, reflection, and material exploration” fostered both individual insight and collective dialogue, embodying the aims of my action research to challenge creative norms and broaden the frameworks of art and design education.
References
Ahmed, S. (2017) Living a Feminist Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2023) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE Publications.
Fletcher, K. (2008) Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys. London: Earthscan.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design. London: Routledge.
hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Kara, H. (2015) Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Bristol: Policy Press.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988) The Action Research Planner. Geelong: Deakin University Press.