Month: January 2026

The references below are grouped thematically to reflect how they informed my practice.

Pedagogy
Bayne, S. (2015) ‘What’s the matter with “technology-enhanced learning”?’, Learning, Media and Technology.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
Edwards, R. (2015) ‘Software and the hidden curriculum in digital education’, Pedagogy, Culture & Society.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H. and Gordon, D. (2014) Universal Design for Learning: theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
Nicol, D. (2009) ‘Transforming assessment and feedback: enhancing integration and empowerment in the first year’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.
Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Art and design pedagogy in higher education: knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. London: Routledge.
Öztok, M. (2019) The hidden curriculum of online learning. London: Routledge.
Selwyn, N. (2014) Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. Abingdon: Routledge.
Selwyn, N. (2016) Education and technology: key issues and debates. 2nd edn. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Action research
Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) Visualizing research: a guide to the research process in art and design. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988) The action research planner. Geelong: Deakin University.
Schön, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
White, P. (2009) Developing research questions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Data collection
Bowen, G. A. (2009) ‘Document analysis as a qualitative research method’, Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2).
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2018) Research methods in education. 8th edn. London: Routledge.
Denscombe, M. (2010) The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S. (2009) InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 2nd edn. London: Sage.

Analysis
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2019) ‘Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis’, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), pp. 589–597.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods (2023) ‘Advances in thematic analysis’, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/16094069231205789 (Accessed: 19 December 2025).
Martin, B. and Hanington, B. (2012) Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport.
Nielsen Norman Group (2024) Thematic analysis, available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/thematic-analysis/ (Accessed: 19 December 2025).

Ethics
Banks, S. (2016) Everyday ethics in professional life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
BERA (2024) Ethical guidelines for educational research. 5th edn. London: BERA.

Throughout this action research project, I made intentional use of ChatGPT by OpenAI, a generative artificial intelligence tool, to support specific stages of the research and writing process. The tool was not used to generate research findings or make analytical decisions, but functioned as a reflective and technical aid that supported clarity, structure, and confidence.

1. At the early stage of the project, AI was used to sense-check the interview and questionnaire questions, both before and after tutor and peer feedback. This included reviewing the order, logic, and number of questions to ensure they were coherent and accessible.
2. AI was also used to support the refinement of my research focus, particularly when narrowing and dividing the final research question in response to tutor and peer feedback.
3. As a non-native English speaker, I used the technology to copy-edit and spell-check my final blog posts. AI did not generate academic content, but assisted in improving clarity and flow.
4. During the artefact review, AI was used to support the organisation and comparison of observations across platforms, helping translate qualitative notes into indicative groupings for visual comparison. Interpretive coding and analytic decisions remained researcher-led.
5. Similarly, AI was used to sense-check the thematic analysis during a later stage, supporting reflection on the relative weighting and prominence of themes once they had already been manually identified through reflexive thematic analysis.
6. AI was also used to check Harvard referencing, supporting consistency and formatting accuracy. All sources were selected independently and drawn from approved academic readings.

Reflecting forward: closing one cycle and opening the next

The final stage of this action research project involved reflecting on how insights from my enquiry informed and will continue to inform my pedagogical actions, and how these actions, in turn, raised further questions for practice.

Findings from the thematic and artefact analysis highlighted recurring issues around orientation, coherence, and the way learning was experienced as fragmented within the Virtual Learning Environment. These insights were reinforced by recent student feedback from Unit 1 of the MA Graphic Design (Online), which echoed similar concerns. Students described difficulty understanding how weekly tasks related to the wider aims of the unit, despite engaging carefully with individual activities. This tension reflects a wider challenge in online education: while learning design often prioritises focused, task-based engagement, students also need reassurance that these moments of detailed work sit within a considered and meaningful educational direction. Biggs and Tang (2011) argue that constructive alignment is not only about aligning outcomes, teaching, and assessment, but about helping learners recognise how these elements connect. When this sense of connection is unclear, students may complete tasks without trusting that their overall learning journey is being held in view.

In response, two targeted changes were implemented collaboratively with the course leader. The idea of introducing a visual learning arc first emerged during one of the semi-structured interviews, where a participant described the need for students to better understand how weekly teaching connects to the wider unit trajectory. When this concept was shared with the wider UAL Online teaching team, it resonated strongly and was agreed as a meaningful way to open live sessions. Positioned at the start of teaching, the learning arc communicates the learning journey to date, clarifies where students are currently situated, and signals the intended direction for the remainder of the unit. This approach helps counter Moodle’s tendency to function primarily as a “now-focused” environment. By zooming out momentarily, the intention is to reassure students that focused, detailed tasks sit within a considered and purposeful learning journey rather than isolated requirements. This aligns with Orr and Shreeve’s (2017) discussion of studio pedagogy as a culture of shared understanding, where learning is shaped not only through tasks but through awareness of trajectory, dialogue, and purpose. In online contexts, where physical cues and informal studio rhythms are absent, such narrative scaffolding becomes increasingly important.

Second, a weekly overview activity was positioned at the very start of each learning block, explicitly outlining learning intentions, expected engagement, and deliverables. Interestingly, this overview structure had already been developed by one of the learning designers for a single unit, but had not been communicated across the wider course team. Its uneven adoption highlighted the fragmented and siloed nature of course development within UAL Online. Through collective discussion, the overview was recognised as a strong response to the issues identified in both the research findings and student feedback. While it is currently being implemented within one unit, the longer-term intention is to extend this approach across all nine units to support greater coherence. Nicol (2009) suggests that clarity around purpose supports learner self-regulation and helps build trust between students and educators. When learners understand why they are being asked to do something, they are better able to manage uncertainty, workload, and motivation. These interventions were deliberately modest, operating within existing institutional and platform constraints. Their value lies not in redesigning the system, but in reframing how learning is signposted. From a Universal Design for Learning perspective, making purpose and structure explicit supports cognitive accessibility by reducing unnecessary interpretive effort (Meyer, Rose and Gordon, 2014).

However, this stage of action also exposed ongoing tensions. While early feedback suggests improved orientation, these changes remain provisional. Action research requires that interventions be revisited and re-evaluated rather than assumed effective. The next cycle of enquiry will therefore focus on whether these strategies continue to support learning coherence over time, and how they might evolve in response to further student experience. Reflecting on the process overall, I have come to understand accessibility not solely as clarity of content, but as clarity of intent. Supporting students to “zoom out” periodically is not a distraction from focused learning, but a condition for trust; signalling that behind individual tasks sits a thoughtful, connected educational purpose.

References
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H. and Gordon, D. (2014) Universal Design for Learning: theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
Nicol, D. (2009) ‘Transforming assessment and feedback: enhancing integration and empowerment in the first year’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), pp. 335–352.
Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Art and design pedagogy in higher education: knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. London: Routledge.

Figure 1: Screenshot of an anonymised Miro board visualising a full unit structure through an arc-based diagram, mapping weekly activities, teaching phases, and learning progression to support student orientation and overview.

Figure 2: Detail view of the anonymised Miro arc diagram illustrating the relationship between exploratory research, reflection, synthesis, and concept development across the unit timeline.

Figure 3: Screenshot of an anonymised Moodle unit page from the MA Graphic Design (Online), illustrating the use of a “Prepare for the week” activity to foreground key learning activities, expected outputs, and session preparation in order to support student orientation and reduce cognitive load.