Intervention Reflective Report

Introduction and Positionality

Identity, intersections, and lived experiences shape how people perceive themselves and how others perceive them. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s seminal work on intersectionality showed how overlapping identities of race, gender, class, and disability can create layered experiences of privilege and marginalisation (Crenshaw, 1991). These dynamics are further complicated by intersectional stereotyping, where multiple identities influence how individuals are categorised (Petsko et al., 2022).

This report supports my Inclusive Practices Unit by reflecting on my own positionality, detailed here in a separate post. Bayeck (2022) defines positionality as the standpoint from which one engages with others, shifting depending on time, place, and context. My positionality informs my practice in two main ways: first, by recognising that students arrive with diverse, intersecting identities; and second, by committing to design activities and assessments that allow for different ways of participating. My aim is to build a classroom culture where lived experiences are recognised and multiple ways of engaging with knowledge are valued.

Context

I am a Lecturer in Fashion Marketing at London College of Fashion, teaching on several postgraduate units and leading Consumer Insights for Communication (CIC), which runs across three postgraduate courses. In 2024–25, CIC enrolled 173 students, with numbers projected to rise to 190. While courses grow, staff numbers remain relatively static, and recruitment brings increasingly diverse cohorts with varied learning styles and academic preparedness.

My priority as a unit leader is to maintain consistent attainment across this large and diverse cohort. UAL’s 2024 EDI Report shows a persistent attainment gap at undergraduate level: 82% of white students achieved a 2:1 or above compared with 69% of BAME students. At postgraduate level in the Fashion Business School, the gap appears reversed: 77% of BAME students achieved A/B grades compared to 73% of white students, but this likely reflects the high proportion of international students. Granular data is lacking, particularly distinctions between home and international students or breakdowns by ethnicity.

From experience, those who face the greatest challenges are international students with English as a second language and students with learning difficulties. Postgraduate data confirms this: 55.6% of disabled students achieved A/B grades compared with 67.8% of those without declared disabilities. These disparities underline the importance of interventions that address barriers across multiple dimensions.

Inclusive Learning

The proposed interventions, detailed in this post, are designed to work across multiple layers of diversity, inclusivity, and equity. They have been influenced by the KLOB framework proposed by Khelifa and Mahdjoub in 2021. This framework considers that academic success can be understood through four key areas: Knowledge Exchange, Language, Obligation, and Bias (Khelifa and Mahdjoub, 2021). 

The framework provides a flexible approach to evaluating areas for change at a macro institutional level, the publication of journals, as well as individually for students. Diversified reading lists and student-generated resources contribute to knowledge exchange and mitigate bias. The inclusive Assessment Menu allows for optionality, which supports areas of language and obligation, serving adaptive needs by catering to both synchronous and asynchronous presentation formats and a spectrum of creative outputs. The revision library of theory videos provides knowledge exchange from experts who record them, while supporting those with language needs and learning difficulties, which the authors categorise as an adaptive need under the barrier of obligation.

Figure 1: Khelifa & Mahdjoub, 2021

Reflection

Looking across the interventions I’ve proposed, three key reflections stand out:

1) Inclusive Curriculum Design

Diversifying reading lists and embedding diverse case studies is conceptually simple, but the impact is harder to measure. It raises the question of what “success” looks like – simply adding authors of colour or from the Global South is insufficient if they are tokenised or not critically integrated. Student co-creation of resource lists also requires careful facilitation, as students already face heavy workloads. However, updating lectures and embedding diverse perspectives into the core unit content makes inclusion visible in ways students consistently appreciate.

2) Accessible Teaching Practices

The revision library of theory videos has already proven valuable. Students, particularly those with English as a second language, find the short videos accessible and useful for revision. Embedding them into Moodle makes them easy to locate, and their format fits hybrid learning preferences. Access check-ins are newer and carry some risks—students may identify issues I cannot resolve at unit level—but they create a space for transparency and provide data for broader institutional change.

3) Assessment and Feedback

Flexibility in formative assessments increases student agency. While the summative assessment must remain fixed due to course validation, piloting flexibility in formative assessments is both feasible and impactful. Choice of format allows students to play to their strengths – whether verbal, visual, or written – while still addressing the same learning outcomes. This empowers students and makes assessment feel less like a one-size-fits-all exercise.

Action 

I propose that the interventions be actioned in the following ways:

Inclusive Curriculum Design

Students will be encouraged to contribute to a Miro board that highlights diverse perspectives on the unit content. As unit leader, along with my teaching team, we will include a broader range of scholars in the reading list for the unit. The teaching team and I will review and augment case studies within the unit content to consider issues of race, gender, disability, or socioeconomic status.

Accessible Teaching Practices

a) Revision Library of Theory Videos
Within the context of my CIC unit, these will be embedded into a separate tile on Moodle and organised according to theme, such as Marketing Communications, Communications Theory, and Consumer Behaviour. Videos are approximately 5 minutes long and comprise both the theory and an explanation by me, which will be expanded upon by experts within the Fashion Business School.

b) “Access Check-Ins”
A survey to understand accessibility needs will be sent in week 4 of the 15-week unit. This will allow time to implement changes for the remainder of the unit.

Assessment and Feedback

The formative assessment for CIC occurs in the final week of teaching in December before the winter break. At this point, the students are expected to have completed the data analysis and are asked to present their findings and elicit key insights. This academic year, the students will be given the option to either:

a) Discuss their findings and insights through a live oral presentation.
b) Submit a video recording in advance with a recorded presentation of the analysis and insights.

Whether presented live or prerecorded in Panopto, students will be asked to discuss their work alongside visual evidence, for which optionality is also available as below.

Format of the Visual Evidence

a) Slide deck (PowerPoint/Keynote/Canva).
b) Poster (InDesign: especially suited for design-oriented students).
c) Written executive summary to accompany visuals, allowing students who are less confident speaking to foreground analysis in writing.
c) Interactive media (e.g. Padlet, Miro board)

Evaluation

Measuring success is not straightforward. Some interventions, like videos or surveys, generate direct feedback and usage data, while others, like curriculum diversification, are harder to quantify.

Inclusive Curriculum Design: Evaluated through student engagement with resources and lecture updates.

Accessible Teaching Practices: Monitored through verbal and written feedback, Moodle analytics (views of the theory videos), and survey responses.

Assessment and Feedback: Evaluated by uptake of different assessment options, student reflections, and attainment patterns.

Overall impact: Judged by end-of-unit evaluations and attainment tracking across cohorts.

As with any inclusion initiative, the work is iterative: success means embedding small, sustainable practices that build momentum for larger institutional change.

Conclusion

This process has deepened my understanding of inclusive teaching and highlighted how my positionality shapes my practice. For the first time, I have critically examined how my own identity and circumstances influence the classroom. At times, completing this Inclusive Practices Unit has been personally challenging, but this struggle has helped me empathise with students negotiating both structural inequities and individual pressures.

What I have learned is that inclusion is not achieved by grand gestures but by consistent attention to detail – designing curricula that represent multiple perspectives, embedding accessible teaching materials, and offering choice where possible. These changes are modest but meaningful. They signal to students that their identities and needs are recognised and valued, and they contribute incrementally to reducing barriers.

Inclusive practice is therefore best understood not as a finished product but as an ongoing, reflective process. The challenge now is to sustain these interventions, evaluate their impact, and continue to evolve them so that all students, whatever their background, have the best possible opportunity to succeed.

References

Bayeck, R.Y. (2022) ‘Positionality: The interplay of space, context and identity’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, pp. 1–9. doi:10.1177/16094069221114745. 

Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp. 1241–1299.

Bibliography

Lukkien, T., Chauhan, T. and Otaye-Ebede, L. (2024) ‘Addressing the diversity principle–practice gap in Western higher education institutions: A systematic review on intersectionality’, British Educational Research Journal, pp. 1–32. doi:10.1002/berj.4096. 

Malcolm, F. (2021) ‘Silencing and freedom of speech in UK higher education’, British Educational Research Journal, 47(3), pp. 520–538. doi:10.1002/berj.3661. 

Petsko, C.D., Rosette, A.S. and Bodenhausen, G.V. (2022) ‘Through the looking glass: A lens-based account of intersectional stereotyping’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(4), pp. 763–787. doi:10.1037/pspi0000382. 

Schiffer, A. (2020) ‘Issues of power and representation: Adapting positionality and reflexivity in community-based design’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(2), pp. 419–431. doi:10.1111/jade.12291.