Intervention – Enacting social justice in your practice
Introduction – what is the report about and how does it intersect with your positionality? What do you want to change and why? How does it relate to your academic practice?
This report outlines the design, execution, and reflection of an inclusive teaching intervention aimed at addressing barriers to learning within Year 1 Digital Skills classes in Illustration and Visual Media (IVM) at London College of Communication (LCC) It focuses on an online and printed glossary/database that seeks to enhance accessibility, engagement, and equity in digital learning environments.
As a visiting practitioner (VP) working across the IVM and Outreach teaching team, I have developed a growing concern about the accessibility and inclusivity of digital skills education, particularly regarding the lack of foundational resources, increasing students absence, digital poverty, and learning disengagement – particularly among neurodivergent and disabled students.
I am a cisgender, heterosexual male of Chilean descent, born in London and living without known disabilities or learning difficulties, and I acknowledge I occupy a position of privilege in educational and professional spaces.
However, my intersecting identities also offer an alternative lens in how to engage critically with questions of access, inclusion, and systemic inequality.
This intervention emerges from both reflective practice and conversations with peers, students, and colleagues. By designing an accessible glossary of digital terminology for Adobe Creative Suite programs, available online and in printed format, I aim to reduce barriers, support varied learning needs, and shift the culture of technical teaching toward equity and inclusion.
Context – what is the (teaching/learning support) context for the intervention? What practice, course or department are you in and what is the proposed utility of this intervention?
The intervention takes place within the context of Year 1 Digital Skills class on the IVM course at LCC. I teach six groups of approximately 20–25 students, totalling around 130 students per academic year.
Classroom infrastructure presents immediate challenges: only three desktop computers are available, requiring most students to bring their own laptops or tablets. This raises immediate question of hardware access, particularly for students experiencing digital poverty. According to the Digital Poverty Alliance (2022), nearly 1 in 5 students in the UK lack adequate access to digital devices or internet at home.
Additionally, informal peer feedback reveals that many students, particularly those who are dyslexic, neurodivergent, or from non-traditional educational backgrounds, struggle with key terminology and digital concepts. Terms like “raster vs. vector,” “masking,” and “keyframes” often cause confusion.
Furthermore, I have observed increasing student absentees for Digital Skills class, which has prompted reflection on how the course is structured, delivered, and the use of language may be unintentionally alienating some learners and creating unintentional barriers.
I record all Digital Skills classes and upload the videos to Moodle for students to revisit. However, the recordings are typically an hour long and suffer from poor visual and audio quality. This lack of clarity and length may discourage students from engaging with the material, reducing the effectiveness of the resource.
In response, I propose a two-part solution: a digital glossary hosted on Padlet and a printed tri-fold A4 leaflet. The glossary provides explanations of core Adobe terms, software tools, keyboard shortcuts, and beginner guides, organised across Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Premiere Pro. The print leaflet summarises key terminology and hotkeys, offering a physical support tool students can annotate or carry with them. This dual delivery system aims to support students both in and outside of class time, and aligns with principles of inclusive design.
Inclusive learning – why is inclusion/inclusivity important within your discipline? What is the rationale for your intervention design (based on relevant theory)?
This intervention is grounded in the principle of intersectionality, a concept first articulated by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), which describes how overlapping identities, such as race, gender, class, and disability, combine experiences of oppression and privilege.
Brian Watermeyer and Leslie Swartz (2016) further expand on this concept in Disability and the Problem of “Lazy Intersectionality”, arguing that educators often overlook the nuanced ways in which disability intersects with other identity categories, disregarding the complexity of lived experience.
In my teaching context, assumptions about digital fluency reflect what Watermeyer and Swartz call “normative pedagogical practices,” which fail to recognise that students’ access to knowledge is mediated by ability, literacy, and socio-economic status.
UAL’s 2024 EDI data report highlighted a 1% increase (2023/24 to 2024/2025) of students declaring disabilities, with 18% of students identifying as disabled, 40% of whom declared they have Specific learning difficulties.
Designing a glossary aims to interrupt this norm by foregrounding Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, especially multiple means of representation. This ensures students can engage with information in varied and accessible ways (CAST, 2018).
It also aligns with the social model of disability, which frames inaccessibility not as a personal issue but as a result of systemic design failures. This intervention responds to such failures by providing simple, clear, and accessible entry points into digital tools that are core to the class and future professional practice.
Reflection – what supported your thinking in deciding on this intervention? What feedback did you receive from peers/other colleagues? What were some of the key decisions? Did you encounter any challenges? Did you identify any potential risks?
The idea developed through conversations with students, colleagues, and PGCert peers. Initially, I considered creating a printed book; a tactile, interactive reference tool students could use alongside their laptops. However, feedback raised concerns around feasibility, funding, and the time investment such a resource would require. Instead, I adopted a “minimum viable product” approach to start with a digital glossary on Padlet and a simple A4 folded printout produced via staff printers.
One of the major challenges was selecting the appropriate platform. Moodle, though widely used at UAL, has been described by students as “cluttered” and “difficult to navigate.” By contrast, Padlet was suggested by students and peers as intuitive and flexible. It allows multimedia integration and user interactivity, making it well-suited to inclusive and visual learning.
A further concern involved avoiding information overload. While inclusive resources are useful, too much content can be intimidating, which can lead to student disengagement. As a result, curating a minimal but focused glossary is essential, prioritising clarity and usability. The printed leaflet, provides a visual reminder and entry point, especially for students who prefer or require non-digital formats.
My own positionality required ongoing self awareness throughout this process. As someone without a disability and with high digital fluency, I recognise the risk of projecting my comfort with technology onto students. Reflecting on this helped me understand that digital literacy is not universal and that true inclusion requires designing for those most likely to be excluded—not simply those already succeeding.
Action – How do you propose that this intervention be used and what might this mean for your personal academic practice and your work context?
The intervention will be piloted over the next term. During each Digital Skills class, students will be introduced to the glossary and printed leaflets, encouraged to use it as a additional learning tool. A short anonymous feedback survey will be conducted midway through the term to assess accessibility, usefulness, and suggestions for improvement.
To develop the glossary, I will collaborate with:
- Digital Learning staff for best practices in online learning design.
- IVM tutors to identify essential terms and tools.
- Workshop and technician teams who often provide necessary technical support to students outside of class time.
The glossary is structured into four initial categories based on core Adobe programs (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere Pro), with subsections for terminology, common tools, beginner guides, and troubleshooting tips. Content will be reviewed and updated based on student and staff feedback.
The printed leaflets will compliment this resource offering very brief summaries of key hotkeys and visual cues in an easily foldable format.
Evaluation of your process – what have you learned from this process? If you were to implement it, how would you know if it’s working?
This process has been a powerful reminder of the importance of listening, both to student voices and peer feedback. It has shown me that inclusive design requires more than good intentions; it requires structure, iteration, and institutional awareness.
Success will be measured through direct student feedback, informal focus groups, and observations of engagement. If the glossary improves confidence, participation, and independent practice, this will validate the model. If it prompts further questions or new needs, it will offer the basis for ongoing iteration.
If implemented and successful, this intervention could be extended across other courses or adapted as part of an institutional approach to digital equity. Long term, the glossary could be formalised into Moodle despite its current limitations, or integrated into student onboarding materials for Digital Skills education.
Conclusion – what are your key observations and reflections regarding this process, your positionality, and your practices?
This project has reshaped my understanding of inclusion, this isn’t just a institutional policy or concern, but a teaching practice of noticing, adapting, and responding. As a visiting practitioner, I may not hold structural power, but I can still design for equity, advocate for accessibility, and collaborate with colleagues to co-create and make them aware of particular informal or formal data that needs to be addressed.
Through this intervention, I have come to see that technical instruction must not only teach students how to use tools, but it must ensure that all students feel capable and supported, while doing so. This glossary project is a small but tangible step in that direction, hopefully supporting students with creative growth.
Bibliography
CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. [Online] Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ [Accessed 12 July 2025].
Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167.
Digital Poverty Alliance (2022) National Delivery Plan to End Digital Poverty by 2030. [Online] Available at: https://digitalpovertyalliance.org/ [Accessed 12 July 2025].
Ellevation Education (2025) What is multimodal literacy? [Blog] 17 July. Available at: https://ellevationeducation.com/blog/what-multimodal-literacy (Accessed: 14 July 2025).
Oliver, M. (1990) The individual and social models of disability. Paper presented at: Joint Workshop of the Living Options Group and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians on People with Established Locomotor Disabilities in Hospitals, London, 23 July 1990.
University of the Arts London (UAL), 2025. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Data Report 2024. Version 01. [pdf] London: UAL. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/equality-and-diversity [Accessed 14 July 2025].
University of the Arts London (UAL), 2025. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Annual Report 2024. Version 01. [pdf] London: UAL. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/equality-and-diversity [Accessed 14 July 2025].
Watermeyer, B. and Swartz, L. (2016) ‘Disability and the problem of “lazy intersectionality”’, Agenda, 30(2), pp. 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2016.1196981