Following the Thread: From “Unravelling the Norms” to “Mark to Material”
In my last module, my intervention Unravelling the Norms focused on questioning how sketchbooks (such a staple in textile education) can sometimes become limiting spaces. I noticed how the sketchbook, while meant to be a site for experimentation, can reinforce quite narrow ideas of what creativity looks like. For some students, particularly those who are neurodivergent, disabled, or simply less confident with traditional drawing, the sketchbook can feel like a test rather than a tool.
That experience really shaped how I’ve approached my action research project. I wanted to move from critique to creation: from analysing the structures that constrain practice to actively designing a space where making feels open, playful, and process led. That’s where Mark to Material began to take shape.
This new workshop builds on the same principles as Unravelling the Norms, but translates them into a more tactile, experiential format. Rather than focusing on what a sketchbook should be, it asks what it could be, a place for marks, textures, movement, and material exploration. As McNiff (2002) reminds us, “action research is about improving what we are doing,” and for me, that means rethinking how creativity and process are framed within the classroom.
My approach follows Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988) model of the Action Research Spiral, which emphasises cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. This iterative framework supports my dual role as both educator and practitioner, allowing me to respond dynamically to what emerges during the workshop. It positions reflection not as a retrospective activity but as a continuous, dialogic process embedded in teaching practice.
Within my role as a Textile educator, this method enables me to bridge theory and pedagogy, to use artistic making as a mode of inquiry into learning itself. It also reflects my commitment to inclusive, participatory methodologies, ensuring that student voices directly inform the research.
During Mark to Material, I will gather verbal feedback from participating teachers, paying particular attention to how they describe confidence, play, and accessibility in their own and their students’ creative processes. These spontaneous reflections often reveal the affective and pedagogical dimensions of learning, such as curiosity, risk-taking, or hesitation that are frequently overlooked in formal assessment.
In line with Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988) cyclical model of action research, these insights will inform ongoing reflection and adaptation of the workshop design, ensuring that teacher and learner experiences directly shape the development of future sessions.
In designing this CPD session for the UAL Insights outreach programme, my intention is to open a dialogue around how process-led, experimental approaches can inform inclusive art and design teaching in schools. Feedback from previous first-year BA Textiles modules at UAL has highlighted that while technical and visual outcomes are well-defined within assessment frameworks, aspects such as experimentation, reflection, and emotional engagement are less explicitly valued. This enquiry therefore seeks to address that imbalance, exploring how teachers might integrate reflective dialogue and material play into their own classrooms to support more inclusive, confidence-building creative learning.
The Scoping Workshop readings also reminded me that research doesn’t have to sit neatly on the page. Ellis and Bochner (2006) describe how qualitative work can be “evocative and performative,” and that idea really stayed with me. Mark to Material feels like a way to put that into practice, to make research something lived and felt, not just written about.
Ultimately, I want this workshop to open space for students and teachers to experiment, to play, and to see that creativity isn’t about doing things the “right” way; it’s about following your own line, and seeing where it leads.
References
Ellis, C. and Bochner, A.P. (2006) ‘Analyzing Analytic Autoethnography: An Autopsy’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), pp. 429–449.
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.