Is the MA Fashion Padlet useful in supporting MA Fashion students’ technical inquiries, and does its existence have value for their learning?
My role at Central Saint Martins is MA Fashion Senior Lecturer and Technical Studies Lead. I am responsible for all aspects of making and physical garment construction, and I advise students on technical solutions to support the development of their ideas.
I have created an intervention: an MA Making Padlet, which brings together reference materials and resources related to garment making and technical practice.
As outlined in my Reflective Report, the Padlet is designed to diversify and decolonise the technical and making reference materials used within the MA Fashion programme at Central Saint Martins.
As I discussed in my IP Unit Reflective Report, I designed an intervention to diversify and decolonise the technical and make reference materials used in the MA Fashion programme at Central Saint Martins (CSM). In my role as Senior Lecturer, Technical Studies Lead, I support students as they develop garment-making skills and navigate the technical aspects of their design practice. Working at the intersection of technical and academic teaching, creative practice, and university systems, I often reflect critically on both what we teach and how we teach it.
Rather than attempting to change the university system, I took responsibility as a practitioner-educator and asked myself what I could do to improve the student learning journey. I considered what would best support students’ creativity, reflect their cultural backgrounds, and foster innovation.
One issue I have observed is that students often feel compelled to design and construct garments in a particular way: a method (techniques) they perceive as “traditional” or “correct” because it is widely used in the Western fashion industry and promoted by many fashion schools. This perception can create anxiety, limit experimentation, and constrain the development of personal or culturally informed approaches to making.
Technical skills are often taught in a highly prescriptive manner. For example, tailored jackets are typically presented as requiring jet pockets with flaps, following a fixed sequence of steps. While effective, this approach leaves little room for exploration or consideration of different cultural practices and learning styles.
In response, I created the MA Making Padlet resource to combine traditional making resources (step-by-step guides), techniques as examples drawn from diverse cultures and photographs of current student work. Some of the techniques may not be widely recognised in professional contexts but offer alternative perspectives, encouraging students to see technical making as a space for creativity, experimentation, and cultural dialogue.
One practical example is the materials list. When I studied for my MA in Fashion Design in London, almost 20 years ago, the recommended suppliers were expensive, high-end shops and agents catering only to established designers. As a student, accessing these suppliers was daunting and restrictive. I revised the list to include agents, wholesalers, independent shops, market stalls, and vendors selling end-of-roll or deadstock materials. This approach broadens access and encourages students to explore materials creatively and sustainably.
I recognise that this intervention is a small step and not without limitations. However, through ongoing feedback (data collection), reflection, and iteration, I hope it supports students in engaging confidently with technical making, exploring their own ideas, and producing work that is innovative and personally meaningful, rather than simply following prescribed conventions. This project has reinforced for me the value of reflection as a practitioner-educator and the importance of making space for diversity, creativity, and cultural awareness in technical teaching.
The below are the examples of two traditional making resources: folders with sewing samples and fabric sample cards from European fabric agents and manufacturers. And the bottom photo shows stacks of old vogue magazine, the “only”, real source and Fashion reference.
Prior to my intervention, my research was primarily informed by my own learning and teaching experience, supported by unstructured observation. This included observing student behaviour in the studio and during one-to-one tutorials, as well as drawing on informal feedback gathered at the end of projects and following final shows. Such feedback often revealed shifts in practice, for example an increased focus on traditional tailoring in one year, or a noticeable absence of craft and textile techniques in another.
Following the design of the intervention, I adopted a qualitative research approach in the form of questionnaires to gather data on the perceived usefulness of the project from both students and peers. Although I initially considered focus groups or interviews, time constraints led me to select questionnaires as a more practical method. Interviews would have been time-consuming and unlikely to reach as many participants as a survey distributed to the entire MA2 cohort. In retrospect, focus groups or interviews may have provided richer, more in-depth insights and enabled more responsive discussion; however, concerns about low attendance or cancelled participation also influenced my decision.
As the project progressed and in response to the course timeline, the questionnaire method continued to feel appropriate. Autumn is an especially busy period for second-year students, and I was also keen to gather feedback from colleagues. Given that our teaching team is small, with many tutors working one day per week or employed as HPLs or VLs, a survey offered a flexible and inclusive approach. I therefore designed two questionnaires using Google Forms and distributed them to both students and staff.
The student questionnaire focused primarily on whether students had engaged with the Padlet and which areas they found most useful. During the ARP unit, my central concern was establishing whether students were willing to engage with technical content in a digital format. For peers, I anticipated limited prior engagement with the Padlet, so the survey was shared alongside a direct link and an explicit request to view the content before responding.
Before distributing the questionnaires, I consulted my tutor, my course leader for MA Fashion, and my partner, who provided informal feedback on the clarity and focus of the questions. I consider this a pre-survey survey.
As the Padlet is embedded within the MA Fashion Moodle page, I initially assumed that engagement data would be available through Moodle. However, after consulting CSM Moodle coordinators, I learned that this level of data is not available for individual pages and was advised to use Padlet’s own analytics instead. When reviewing this data, I was surprised by the high number of views early in the project. As the Padlet is set to private, this was explained by the system counting multiple IP addresses, meaning that individual users may be recorded more than once if accessing the Padlet from different devices or locations.
Engagement continued to increase throughout the term, and I captured screenshots of the analytics at various stages. During a tutorial, my tutor confirmed that this form of tracking also constitutes primary data collection, reinforcing the value of combining qualitative feedback with digital engagement data.
The below is an email exchange between the Moodle specialist and me.
The first drafts of both forms revealed a lack of consistency, reflecting my initial uncertainty about which methods would be most appropriate for data collection. At an early stage, I considered facilitating a focus group; however, as the project developed, I recognised that a questionnaire (Google Form) would be more practical and better aligned with the course timeline and student availability.
The information sheet and consent form were introduced during the first student briefing, where I outlined the aims of the project, the purpose of the MA Fashion Making Padlet, and how students could locate and engage with it. In retrospect, this meeting was a crucial moment in establishing clarity and awareness, and it played a significant role in the overall success of the project.
Despite my explanation that data collection would take place at a later stage, some students chose to complete the consent form during the meeting. This highlighted a strong initial willingness to engage but also prompted me to reflect on how clear I was explaining about the project and how timing and context can influence participation.
As I was still uncertain about how the project might evolve, I also displayed the information sheet on the studio noticeboard, accompanied by a QR code linking directly to the Making Padlet. This decision was intended to create a less pressure, allowing students time to familiarise themselves with the information and to engage on their own terms, without time constraints.
I frequently observed students pausing at the noticeboard, reading the displayed information, and then scanning the QR code to explore the Padlet. These informal observations reinforced the value of visible, physical prompts within studio spaces and demonstrated how students navigate digital resources in conjunction with their learning environment.
At the start of the Google Form, I included the information sheet and consent form, requiring participants to actively indicate their consent before proceeding. Making consent a mandatory step ensured that ethical considerations remained essential to the data collection process and reinforced my responsibility as a practitioner-researcher.
The below is the first version of my Ethics form. I completed it in hurry in order to submit it in time for the first tutorial. As one of the earliest pieces of work for my project, it clearly reflects a lack of planning and uncertainty about how my ARP project would evolve, including which data collection methods would be most appropriate. At this stage, I also felt overwhelmed by the reading, and was unsure where to begin or which sources were most relevant.
After submitting the form, my tutor highlighted inconsistencies in my proposed data collection methods and advised me to keep the project more focused, rather than attempting to do too much at once. The group tutorials and lectures further supported my understanding of the research process, and discussions with fellow PGCert students helped to clarify my thinking.
My Action Research Cycle. This has been created at the beginning of the ARP unit and I tried to stick to it as much as possible, considering the PgCert timetable and availability of students and the MA Fashion course timeline.
Defining the problem: DONE (May 2025)
Design intervention: DONE (June 2025)
Intervention: DONE (published Sept 2025)
Ethics form: DONE (first draft Oct 25, final version 21/11/25
Conversation with Course Leader how ton integrate the Intervention into teaching
Briefing with students, to notify them of the existence of the Padlet (13/10/25)
Make a survey for students: DONE
Make a survey for tutors : DONE
Get feedback: Survey sent to students 24/11/25 : DONE
Get feedback: Survey sent to tutors 3/12/25 : DONE
Converse, J.M. & Presser, S. (1986) Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Vol. 63, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kara, H. (2020) Creative Research Methods: A Practical Guide [electronic resource]. 2nd edn. Foreword by Kenneth J. Gergen and Mary M. Gergen. Bristol: Policy Press. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/UAL/detail.action?docID=30821265 (Accessed: 10 November 2025).
McNiff J. (2020) ‘Action Research for Professional Development’ Available on Moodle.
Shen, Y., & Sanders, E. B.-N. (2022). Identity discovery: Small learning interventions as catalysts for change in design education. Journal of Design, Business and Society, 9(1), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00049_1
Timmis, S. et al. (2024) ‘Students as co-researchers: participatory methods for decolonising research in teaching and learning in higher education,’ Teaching in Higher Education, 29(7), pp. 1793–1812. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2359738.
Inclusive Making: Rethinking Technical Language and Reference in MA Fashion
word count: 1628
Introduction
This report outlines a pedagogical intervention designed to diversify and decolonise the technical and make reference materials used in the MA Fashion programme at Central Saint Martins (CSM). As Technical Studies Lead, my role involves supporting students as they develop garment-making skills and navigate technical aspects of their design practice. In this position, I work across teaching, creative practice, and university systems. It is within this intersection that I often reflect critically on what we teach, how we teach it, and what underlying messages are being conveyed.
My positionality deeply informs my work. As a white European woman trained in a European system, completing a BSc in Fashion and Textile Design in Slovenia, I was educated through a rigid model of garment making. During my studies, I was taught that garments must follow very specific rules, for example: grainline should always be followed; edges must never be left raw; and details were clearly defined by gendered categories such as “menswear” or “womenswear.” There was little room for creative experimentation, deviation, or contextual thinking. Garment construction was treated as a technical craft that could be perfected through precision, discipline, and standardisation.
When I moved to the UK to complete my MA in 2009, (before the implementation of the UK Equality Act in 2010) the approach became more exploratory and creative. However, a high value was still placed on finish, professionalism, and reproducibility. The garments were expected to look as though they could be sold on a shop floor, aligning with industry standards and aesthetics. Even within an institution promoting creativity, there was an implicit hierarchy of privileging factory-ready outcomes over handmade, culturally specific, or unconventional finishes. In practice this means that students from UK, EU, India, China, Denmark etc. would all produce garments following the same Western standards.
Looking back, I now recognise how these expectations reflect dominant Western narratives about what constitutes “good” or “professional” making. They risk marginalising approaches that fall outside of those norms, whether rooted in cultural tradition, neurodivergence, or experimentation. My aim with this intervention is to encourage students to reflect on their own positionality and making choices, and to question industry-derived assumptions. I want to promote a more expansive view of technical excellence that values difference, inclusivity, and critical engagement. This work is a direct extension of my academic practice as an educator committed to inclusive, reflective, and student-led learning.
Context
This intervention is situated within the MA Fashion course at CSM, a globally recognised course known for its creative innovation and diverse student body. Students come from all over the world with varying degrees of experience in garment construction. While some arrive with strong technical skills, others have had little exposure to pattern cutting, sewing, or manufacturing processes. Although the traditional expectation that all students possess advanced technical skills has softened in recent years, there remains an unspoken pressure among students to produce work that meets perceived “industry standards.”
It is also important to mention that it is expected that during 15-month course students improve technical skills and understanding, but it is impossible to teach students skills from “scratch”.
I often witness students comparing their output to commercial benchmarks or referencing mainstream luxury fashion in moments of doubt about their own practice. Many express concerns about whether their garments appear “professional enough,” often linking that idea to neatness, finish, or conventional construction methods. This reveals a disconnect between the MA ethos, which prioritises experimentation, and individual voice.
CSM’s mission to “inspire experimental innovation and nurture groundbreaking talent” underpins this intervention. The proposed resource is intended to help students build confidence in developing their own, signature, technical voice, what I refer to as a personal “making language.” It aims to validate diverse routes to technical competence, particularly those not necessarily rooted in Western industrial frameworks.
Inclusive Learning
In a field so deeply intertwined with identity, culture, and lived experience, inclusivity is not optional; it is essential. Fashion is not just a product but a process of expression. Teaching practices that prioritise narrow definitions of excellence risk reinforcing dominant hierarchies and excluding students whose approaches do not align with those norms.
Fashion education often leans heavily on Eurocentric references and formalised making techniques. These default standards can marginalise “alternative” garment traditions, ignore the contributions of disabled or neurodivergent practitioners, and dismiss “low-status” methods such as gluing, stapling, or visible overlocking. These approaches are often perceived as substandard, but they represent different values, resourcefulness, and creative or aesthetic intention.
This intervention is grounded in inclusive pedagogy and informed by several theoretical frameworks. bell hooks’ concept of engaged pedagogy advocates for mutual learning, critical inquiry, and the affirmation of lived experiences. It encourages teachers and students to co-create knowledge, challenging the traditional, one-directional flow of expertise. I also draw on Rekis’ concept of epistemic appreciation, which argues for the recognition of multiple, culturally situated ways of knowing. Additionally, Wenger’s work on communities of practice supports the idea that learning occurs most meaningfully through shared dialogue, practice, and participation.
The proposed intervention, a collaborative digital visual reference hosted on Padlet, reflects these principles. It showcases a wide spectrum of techniques and examples, as mentioned in my intervention blog post.
Rather than reinforcing a singular ideal, this resource invites students to explore multiple paths toward technical fluency.
This intervention was shaped by continuous reflection and informal conversations with students and peers. Many students voiced anxiety about technical standards, particularly when their work diverged from mainstream expectations. They often felt unsure whether their approach was “valid” or “professional,” revealing the hidden curriculum at play within technical teaching.
A draft of a Padlet Board
Reflection
Initial drafts of the intervention focused mainly on featuring designers from a broad range of cultural backgrounds. However, I quickly realised that attempting to represent all cultures equally was unrealistic and risked superficial inclusion. Instead, I shifted the scope to focus on broader forms of inclusion, prioritising critical engagement with technical norms, rather than attempting comprehensive representation.
My colleague’s feedback affirmed the need for this shift. Others noted that their own teaching materials heavily consisted of established Western designers and traditional technical references. The intervention was seen as a valuable step toward widening the scope of what is considered worthy of reference.
Key decisions included:
Curating examples that reflect critical, non-traditional approaches to making
Using Padlet for its accessibility and interactive format
Positioning students as co-authors and contributors
Avoiding tokenism by prioritising depth, context, and student voice
The resource should support students with less technical skills and students with great technical skills
One of the major risks is that garments and collections end up looking unfinished, unconsidered and not exhibiting students’ ability to make.
Challenges included sourcing meaningful and accessible references, ensuring cultural sensitivity, and setting boundaries to avoid overloading staff and students.
The sustainability of the process of creating this resource was recognised as essential to the intervention’s success.
Action
The Padlet board will be introduced as part of technical support and tutorials, both in group and one-to-one sessions. Rather than being presented as a definitive guide, it will function as an open-ended prompt, a starting point for discussion, discovery, and reflection. Students will be encouraged to engage with the resource throughout their studies and to contribute examples from their own practices, communities, and cultural backgrounds.
This shared library will complement existing teaching by offering an expanded set of possibilities. It will help students see that technical confidence can be built through multiple routes, and that personal, cultural, or non-traditional approaches are not only acceptable but valuable and essential.
For my own academic practice, this represents a shift in how I define and communicate technical standards. It challenges me to question inherited assumptions, diversify my own teaching materials, and invite students into the conversation as collaborators. By embedding co-creation into the teaching process, I hope to cultivate a more relational, inclusive, and reflective pedagogy.
Evaluation of the Process
Through this process, I’ve learned that inclusive teaching is not about having all the answers and trying to cover all cultures or techniques; it’s about creating space for different perspectives to emerge. Inclusion is not a checklist; it’s an ongoing dialogue shaped by critical reflection and responsiveness.
To evaluate the success of the intervention, I will consider:
Reduction in expressions of anxiety about meeting “industry standards” (hopefully)
Observable shifts in students’ confidence and experimentation
References to the resource in crits, portfolios, tutorials or finished garments
Student and staff feedback on its usefulness and accessibility
Sustainability of keeping the resource relevant will be ensured through periodic review and student feedback, allowing the resource to evolve organically while remaining rooted in its original intention.
Conclusion
This intervention has led me to reflect more deeply on my positionality and the values embedded in my teaching. At the beginning of this unit, I was very critical of it and felt guilty in the sense that I was to blame for this issue. I was a part of the problem. But towards the end of the unit and through writing this report I realised, that I have an opportunity to also be a part of a solution.
By introducing a more inclusive and participatory technical resource, I hope to foster a culture of curiosity, experimentation, and mutual respect. Co-creating reference materials with students not only diversifies content but also shifts the power dynamics of the learning space. It validates difference, invites dialogue, and redefines what finished garments can look like.
Ultimately, fashion education should not only train students to meet industry expectations but equip them to challenge, reshape, and innovate within those systems. As the text Identity discovery: Small learning interventions as catalysts for change in design education (Shen & Sanders, 2022) suggests, even small interventions, when grounded in critical intent and collaborative purpose, can have transformative impact. This project is one such intervention, and its development has strengthened my commitment to inclusive, reflective, and forward-thinking teaching in the field of Fashion.
References:
Shen, Y., & Sanders, E. B.-N. (2022). Identity discovery: Small learning interventions as catalysts for change in design education. Journal of Design, Business and Society, 9(1), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00049_1
Rekis, J. (2023) Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account [online]. Hypatia, Cambridge University Press.
