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.