Short Abstract

We piloted a collaborative qualitative approach to explore student experience of a new complex master's unit's first year of delivery to identify strengths and areas for improvement. We supported students to contribute to data analysis, who surfaced unexpected insights for the next unit iteration.

Description

Introduction:

Fashion Practices for Social Change is an elective unit embedded within the Master's programme at London College of Fashion, UAL. Designed by Unit Leader, Dr Mazzarella, the unit delivery entails a combination of taught lectures, seminars and group project work responding to live creative briefs set by external partners. Students are asked to consider key principles and concepts relating to climate, racial, and social justice, and embed relevant practices into their work.

Evaluation approach:

In the academic year 2024-2025, we piloted a collaborative evaluation approach to explore how students experienced the unit during its first year of delivery. We drew on Ward et al.’s (2021) work on embedded research in health care settings to pilot a collaborative approach to embedding a culture of evaluation in universities delivering creative education. Our key aim in this evaluation was to identify strengths and weaknesses in the content and delivery of the unit to provide timely constructive feedback that would enable effective improvements in the next academic cycle and beyond. Through conversations between the Evaluation Lead (Dr Thompson) and the Unit Leader, we agreed on a qualitative approach that would sit alongside the delivery of the unit while causing minimal disruption. The core methodology involved a combination of some observations, with one-to-one semi-structured interviews with staff, students and external partners who were involved in setting live creative briefs.

Key adaptations:

The crucial adaptations within our approach concerned data analysis and feedback. We employed a small team of UAL students who had held student advocate roles relating to climate, racial and social justice to contribute to the analysis and interpretation of the data from the interviews. They did this through a guided series of thematic analysis meetings supported by the Evaluation Lead. This analysis was then curated onto a Miro board and fed back to the Unit Leader via a one-to-one meeting at the point in which he began planning for the next academic cycle, with later meetings scheduled with other members of the delivery team. The Unit Leader and Evaluation Lead agreed on an action plan for writing up the findings, in which the latter would write a first draft, and the former would then layer in his team’s reflections and correct key details around unit development and delivery through iterative discussions.

Key learnings:

• Student researchers identified several themes as being important to student experience that did not come to the immediate attention of the Evaluation Lead, enriching the analysis and feedback.

• The timing of feedback allowed the Unit Leader to have access to, and reflect on, the key messages in time to embed relevant changes into the curriculum for the planned unit delivery in the next academic year.

• This collaborative approach, that centred staff and student voice, was felt to be supportive and constructive.

Conclusion:

This unit and collaborative evaluation demonstrate how staff and student voice can be embedded in the curriculum and support student learning, through producing timely and constructive feedback resulting in effective iterative curriculum change.