Weaving Visuals and Language into Fashion Learning
This project develops a multimodal digital glossary to help students learn technical drawing for fashion design. It specifically addresses the needs of learners with English as a second language, neurodivergent students, and students with disabilities. By offering simplified definitions, visual, video and audio support, multilingual functionality, and interactive note-taking spaces, the glossary aims to promote inclusive learning practices that align with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles (CAST, 2018).
A prototype and initial reflections on this concept are published on my blog: Visual Glossary for Inclusive Digital Learning.
Grounded in my experience as a designer, illustrator, educator and technician, this project responds to persistent classroom challenges. Students often struggle with discipline-specific language and symbolic conventions especially when these are communicated exclusively through text-heavy or culturally narrow formats. This glossary acts not only as a pedagogical support tool but also as a site of intersectional, sustainable, and decolonial transformation, shaped by my own positionality and values as an inclusive practitioner.
Positionality and Identity as an Inclusive Practitioner
This intervention is shaped by my identity and experience as an international educator, creative practitioner, and former English as an Additional Language (EAL) student. I often think visually and spatially, and I’ve observed during my 1-2-1 sessions, that many students, particularly in art and design disciplines, do too. As someone who is visually impaired (though not formally classified as having a disability), I have a heightened awareness of how visual information is processed and the kinds of adjustments that can support accessibility and clarity. This perspective informs my sensitivity to students’ diverse needs and my commitment to creating inclusive learning experiences.
In my sessions, I’ve seen students hesitate to ask questions due to fear of judgment, peer pressure, and cultural norms that discourage speaking up. With some struggling to follow fast-paced technical explanations in a second language. Additionaly some are unfamiliar with certain visual references or Western design conventions. Disabilities are often undisclosed, so as tutors we can’t always identify who might need extra support. This is why it is important to create inclusive platforms.
Watching Kim Sum’s work on visual cultures and inclusive representation also challenged me to question who is visible in digital-technical education. Many standard glossaries presume fluency in language, technicality and cultural conventions. The glossary I am proposing disrupts this by integrating diverse visual examples and removing the expectation that students conform to one way of knowing or learning by centering their needs and providing a tool that supports rather than corrects.
Institutional, National, and Global Perspectives on Equality and Diversity
Inclusion in education is not optional; it is a legal, institutional, and ethical imperative. National policies, such as the Equality Act (2010), mandate that higher education institutions make reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities and remove barriers related to language and cultural background. Institutional frameworks like UAL’s Inclusive Teaching and Learning toolkit and sector-wide guidance from Advance HE (2021) urge educators to design inclusive curricula that are accessible and representative of diverse learners.
This glossary is aligned with these mandates. Drawing on CAST’s (2018) UDL Guidelines, it supports multiple means of representation (text, image, video, audio), engagement (interactivity, student feedback), and expression (student-generated content). Globally, digital learning tools are becoming more inclusive, but many still fail to account for the full spectrum of student experience, especially in specialist creative disciplines like fashion. This intervention addresses that gap by offering a customisable, multilingual, culturally aware resource that can evolve with student contributions.
Ahmed (2012) warns against institutions “doing diversity” without challenging underlying structures. This glossary resists such performativity by embedding co-creation: students can suggest terms and reflect on concepts in their own words. This participation makes the glossary a living tool.
Understanding Inequity and Responding Through Practice
The recurring issues I’ve witnessed, students hesitating to ask questions, encountering unfamiliar technical terms, or quietly navigating confusion, reflect structural inequities, not individual deficiencies. These challenges are particularly pressing for students with learning differences such as dyslexia, ADHD, or autism, and for those for whom English is an additional language. The difficulty often lies not in their ability to learn, but in the way information is presented and the assumptions it carries. This is especially relevant at institutions like UAL, where, according to UCAS data for the 2025 study year, nearly 55% of students come from outside the UK (48% international and 7% EU). The linguistic, cultural, and academic diversity within this majority student group highlights the urgency of adopting more inclusive, accessible teaching practices that don’t rely on assumed norms of communication or comprehension.
Percentage breakdown of UK, EU, and International students at University of the Arts London, based on UCAS data for the 2025 entry cycle.
The glossary is informed by the principles of the Social Model of Disability at UAL and is intended as an inclusive resource that supports equitable access to information. Rather than addressing or singling out particular groups, it takes a universal approach that benefits all users. By embedding inclusivity into its structure and language, the glossary avoids tokenism and stereotyping, fostering a shared understanding and accessibility for everyone. This approach focuses on accessibility as a collective benefit in line with UAL’s values and aims “to identify barriers that could be removed for the benefit of all students”.
Drawing on Bruner’s (1960) idea that any subject can be taught honestly to any learner, the glossary offers layered access through simple definitions, visuals, audio, and short videos, supporting diverse learning styles. Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development highlights how students benefit from guidance beyond immediate classroom interactions, the glossary acts as a “more capable peer” accessible anytime without judgment. Piaget’s (1952) emphasis on concrete learning supports the glossary’s multimodal approach, leading with clarity rather than abstract assumptions.
Recognising epistemic injustice (Rekis, 2023), the glossary challenges Eurocentric norms by encouraging students to personalise terms through annotations in their own language or style. Exclusion operates silently in many design classrooms, often through assumptions about students’ prior knowledge or familiarity with Eurocentric standards. Rekis (2023) explores how epistemic injustice manifests when students are expected to express understanding through Western academic norms, disregarding other valid forms of knowledge. The glossary’s open notes section allows students to annotate each term in their own language or cognitive style, promoting flexibility and ownership.
Sustainability, Intersectionality, and Decolonising the Curriculum
This glossary is a sustainable digital resource – open, reusable, and expandable. It is designed to evolve with time and with users as students can suggest new terms and definitions. This collaborative process not only keeps the content current but creates a living archive of knowledge that reflects a broader, more inclusive canon. In time the glossary can be created for different subjects and tailored to spefic classes too. By dividing the glossary in different subjects we avoid it having to be too heavy and overwhelming with terms, instead it would focus around 10/15 main terms.
The glossary engages with intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) as it recognizes that students don’t experience exclusion through a single lens: linguistic, neurodivergent, or disabled identities intersect with gender, race, and class. By offering multimodal entry points and co-creation opportunities, the glossary adapts to these layered identities and respects each learner’s context.
Rekis (2023) argues that true inclusivity in design education requires confronting whose knowledge is seen as “technical” or “professional.” This glossary refuses to universalise the Western canon and instead diversifies both form and content. Students can tag, annotate, or question the terms presented, turning the glossary into a space for critical reflection as much as technical learning.
It also serves a formative function: it can be introduced at induction, used across modules, and updated as a cumulative class artefact. This not only makes the resource pedagogically engaging, but builds community. As Gravett (2022) argues, student–staff partnerships in co-creation can improve not just tools, but entire learning cultures.
Inclusive Design Features: Accessibility in Visual and Textual Elements
The glossary would feature responsive design making it available in browser or as a mobile app. To ensure the glossary is not only content-inclusive but also visually and cognitively accessible, its interface design is grounded in established accessibility principles. According to CAST (2018), learners benefit from materials that reduce perceptual barriers including those caused by poor contrast, non-readable fonts, or reliance on a single sensory modality. In line with UDL Guideline 1.1 (“Offer ways of customizing the display of information”), the glossary uses sans-serif fonts such as Arial and Open Dyslexic, both of which support improved legibility for students with dyslexia or cognitive processing differences. Users can adjust font size, line spacing, and background contrast to personalise their experience and reduce cognitive load.
The glossary also reflects best practices from Advance HE’s Inclusive Curriculum Framework (2021), which recommends the use of simple layouts, accessible navigation, and multimodal content formats. Definitions are presented in concise, supported by visual icons, diagrams, and optional audio/video playback.
Importantly, colour accessibility is integrated into the glossary’s visual design from the outset. Following guidance from Jenny and Kelso (2007), the glossary avoids problematic colour combinations (such as red–green), ensures that information is never conveyed by colour alone, and uses patterns, icons, and text labels to provide visual familiarity. The interface has been designed and tested using Color Oracle simulation tools to ensure built-in accessibility for users with color blindness. This approach aligns with WCAG 2.1 standards and supports the principle of inclusive design by ensuring accessibility is not an add-on but a foundational aspect of the tool’s development.
These inclusive visual and interaction design choices ensure that the glossary aligns with UDL’s commitment to multiple means of perception, offering an equitable learning experience for all students, including those with visual impairments or learning differences.
annotations are just for illustratative purpose (2025)
Barriers & Benefits
A key barrier is the need for moderation to review student submissions and ensure content is appropriate, accurate, and copyright-compliant, especially if image uploads are allowed. Language accessibility also poses a challenge, as auto-translators can be unreliable, meaning human translation may be needed. Producing and translating video content also takes time and effort. Another consideration is the platform used to host the glossary. It may require funding for hosting. Finally, as tools like Illustrator receive regular updates, the glossary and related resources will need periodic review to remain current and useful.
Despite these challenges, the platform offers a range of educational benefits. It improves communication between staff and students by acting as a central point of reference, where answers can be accessed in real time. This encourages student agency, as learners can independently seek support and revisit materials at their own pace. The platform supports self-directed learning and scaffolds student understanding, particularly for those with different learning preferences. In the long term, it promotes inclusivity, digital literacy, and greater autonomy, key skills for both academic success and future professional development.
Evaluation through Peer & Tutor Input & Reflection
The feedback received from my tutor, peers, and my own reflections has been invaluable in refining this intervention. My tutor highlighted the practical and inclusive nature of the glossary, noting how it not only supports technical learning but also addresses linguistic and cultural barriers. The suggestion to foreground sustainability and intersectionality has encouraged me to consider ways to involve students actively in the glossary’s growth, such as contributing terms or examples as part of peer-learning activities. This would enhance the resource’s relevance and foster student agency, helping to decolonise the curriculum by reflecting diverse cultural and professional practices beyond Western-centric perspectives.
Following this, I have decided to implement a feature where students can share their opinions and feedback in a dedicated space, rather than uploading images, which poses copyright and moderation challenges (see barriers section). This approach supports student voice while maintaining control over content quality and legal compliance. I am still exploring the best methods to further decolonise the curriculum, balancing inclusivity with practical constraints. For example, the glossary could incorporate global design references to resist Eurocentric dominance and affirm diverse cultural heritages as valid technical knowledge.
Peer feedback echoed these points, affirming that the intervention addresses key inclusivity issues students face and will be a valuable learning tool. However, peers also emphasized the importance of prioritising content to avoid overwhelming students. Starting with techniques students find most challenging and gradually expanding the glossary based on ongoing student feedback will help manage workload and maintain focus. Colleagues could also be invited to contribute to the glossary over time, sharing responsibility and embedding it into wider academic practice.
Conclusion
The Visual Glossary for Digital Technical Drawing offers a concrete, inclusive, and sustainable response to the systemic exclusions observed in fashion education. Creating the Visual Glossary for Digital Technical Drawing has taught me a lot about the hidden barriers many students face in fashion education. Beyond just accessibility, I’ve learned the importance of designing tools that challenge dominant norms and include diverse voices through collaboration.This glossary is more than a reference, it’s a living, adaptable platform that promotes equity and decolonisation.
This process deepened my commitment to creating educational spaces where every student feels represented and empowered to contribute. I’m inspired to continue developing resources that reflect and respect diverse ways of knowing. Its multimodal design, collaborative functionality, and decolonising visual strategy make it more than a glossary it is a platform for shared knowledge, epistemic justice, and student empowerment.
Bilbiography
Ahmed, S., 2012. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press.
Advance HE, 2021. Inclusive Curriculum Framework. [online] Advance HE. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/inclusive-curriculum-framework [Accessed 28 June 2025].
Bruner, J.S., 1960. The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CAST, 2018. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2. [online] Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ [Accessed 27 May 2025].
Crenshaw, K., 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp.1241–1299.
Gravett, K., 2022. Student–staff partnerships and the construction of belonging in higher education: A co-constructed conceptual exploration. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(1), pp.44–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839740
Jenny, K. and Kelso, J., 2007. Design for the Colour Impaired: A Colour Design Guide for the Colour Vision Impaired. [pdf] Color Oracle. Available at: https://colororacle.org/colororacle/resources/2007_JennyKelso_ColorDesign_hires.pdf [Accessed 27 June 2025].
Piaget, J., 1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.
Rekis, J., 2023. Epistemic Injustice in Design Education: Language, Legitimacy, and the Studio. Journal of Inclusive Design Pedagogies, 2(1), pp.31–45.
Shen, M. and Sanders, S., 2023. Small Changes, Big Impact: Micro-Inclusive Interventions in Higher Education. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (26), pp.1–14.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
UCAS. (2025). University of the Arts London – Entry requirements and statistics. [online] UCAS. Available at: https://www.ucas.com/explore/unis/9928464e/university-of-the-arts-london/stats?studyYear=2025 [Accessed 15 Jul. 2025].
University of the Arts London (n.d.) Disability Service: Our Values. [PDF] Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/28829/Disability-Service-Values-PDF-1080-KB.pdf [Accessed 10 Jul. 2025].
UAL, 2021. Inclusive Teaching and Learning Toolkit. [online] University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/teaching-and-learning/inclusive-teaching-and-learning [Accessed 2 July 2025].
Image bibliograhy
UCAS. (2025). Student statistics for University of the Arts London (visual data image). UCAS. Available at: https://www.ucas.com/explore/unis/9928464e/university-of-the-arts-london/stats?studyYear=2025 [Accessed 15 Jul. 2025].
Bodea, A. (2025). Prototype of Visual Threads (work in progress): A glossary for digital fashion drawing in Adobe Illustrator [illustration].