Introduction
This report explores a practical intervention I developed as part of the Inclusive Practices unit of the PGCert, focusing on accessibility and inclusive learning within technical software demonstrations. While much of the inclusion discourse focuses on curriculum content, my intervention emerges from observing barriers within teaching delivery, particularly in digital tools training. The project is framed through an intersectional lens, recognising that access to learning is shaped by overlapping identities, with a focus on gender, disability, linguistic background and class.
My positionality, as a non-native English speaker from a multicultural background, with a strong interest in logic and computational processes, gives me both empathy for the challenges learners face and an awareness of the need to rethink my own pedagogical assumptions.
I initially considered another intervention idea, which focused on developing a reflective framework for reviewing studio references in design teaching, following my temporary role on a unit structured around Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino. While that idea aligned more directly with theories of intersectionality and curriculum decolonisation, I chose to pursue this second idea, which is more grounded in my current practice and allows me to implement immediate, tangible change. That said, intersectionality remains central to this project, as it seeks to address how overlapping factors, language, neurodivergence, gendered classroom dynamics, and technological literacy, can compound to exclude learners from accessing key skills.
At the University of the Arts London (UAL), accessibility guidance is available for lecture slides and presentations. This includes font size, visual contrast, simplified language, image descriptions and structured pacing. However, these practices exclude technician-led software demonstrations which form the biggest part of my contact with students. Sessions often rely heavily on screen sharing, rapid verbal instruction and small interface elements, which can make them inaccessible for many learners. My intervention aims at correcting part of this issue.
Context
In my role as Specialist Technician in Digital Design and Fabrication, I support students from across disciplines, delivering sessions on a wide range of tools. These include Rhino 3D, Grasshopper, Twinmotion, the Adobe Suite and fabrication workflows. For this intervention, I focus on Rhino 3D, which is the most widely used and technically complex software I teach.
Until recently, I approached the teaching of Rhino with a degree of rigidity. I strongly believed that students needed to memorise typed commands and internalise the logic of the software. I often repeated commands out loud and insisted on text-based learning, even with students who were visibly struggling to follow. This belief stemmed from my own learning style. I have a mind that retains information well through logic, repetition and language. However, I now realise that teaching software effectively requires more than knowing how to use it myself. It requires understanding how others learn, process, and use it, and offering multiple ways in.
Being a non-native English speaker, I understand the pressure of operating in a second or third language. At the same time, I believe that becoming familiar with software commands in English is important. But this familiarity should not come at the cost of exclusion or overwhelm. Additional helpers such as visual cues, colour-coded references, tactile objects; can support memorisation and ease anxiety. They can particularly help students who tend to sit further back, avoid eye contact, or hesitate to ask questions. In my experience, these learners are often, though not exclusively, women or gender non-conforming students, students who struggle with anxiety, and ones who are neurodivergent and have a hard time focusing on long demonstrations. These characteristics can intersect, leading to vicious circles where students give up on learning essential skills. Although the set of tools I plan to test might seem simple, I believe that it could have a positive impact on all students.
Many of the design software interfaces use small characters, low-contrast UIs, and colour-coded tools. These present visual accessibility issues for students with attention or sensory processing differences. According to the British Dyslexia Association (2022), around 10 percent of the population is dyslexic, and approximately 1 in 7 students in UK higher education identifies as neurodivergent. Neurodivergent learners often respond better to visual cues and repetitive reinforcement, rather than linear verbal explanations (Rapp and Gazzaniga, 2009). Addressing this through inclusive design is also an intersectional concern, as neurodivergent students are more likely to experience compounding forms of marginalisation.
Inclusive Learning: Rationale for the Intervention
This intervention is grounded in the principles of Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018), which promote multiple means of representation, engagement and expression. It is also informed by the concept of reinforcement in education: repeating key information across different formats to increase retention and confidence (Miller, 2011). I learnt about this concept in the first unit of the PGCert and I researched it further.
My microteaching session during the previous term also encouraged me to test object-based learning and visual aids. I introduced physical props, printed materials, and animated GIFs, and I saw how these supported students in different ways. These methods helped students feel more anchored and less anxious in the software environment. Importantly, they benefitted all learners, not only those with disclosed needs.
Seale (2006) reminds us that accessibility must be proactive, not reactive. bell hooks (1994) encourages us to create spaces where students bring their full selves to learning, and are not left behind by one-size-fits-all approaches. Intersectional inclusion in this context means addressing overlapping forms of disadvantage and recognising that inclusive design is not neutral.
Reflection: Decision-Making and Peer Feedback
As part of the Inclusive Practices unit, we shared our ideas in a peer session on Teams. We used the “One Star, One Wish” feedback model, although the conversation evolved organically. I presented both intervention ideas, and explained my initial hesitation. While the first aligned with broader institutional questions of decolonising the curriculum, this second one felt more authentic to my current experience and more achievable.
Charline noted that the intervention might seem small but had the potential to shift embedded practices. Xiyao raised the idea of student-led learning spaces and encouraged me to think of learners as co-knowledge holders. Their comments reassured me that small, carefully designed interventions can still promote inclusive values, especially if they are embedded into everyday practices. The session also highlighted how we, as a group, modelled inclusivity: flexibility in timing, compassion, and shared support throughout the unit. This spirit of inclusion mirrored intersectional practice, as we collectively adapted to one another’s constraints and capacities.
Action: Description of the Intervention
The intervention proposes a toolkit to support accessibility in Rhino 3D demonstrations, including:
- Visual command overlays, using tools like Carnac or KeyCastr to make keyboard inputs visible in large, readable text
- Looped demonstration GIFs, with captions, to show steps that students can review asynchronously (initiated in the previous term and proved efficient)
- A progressive visual command dictionary, combining icons, colour codes, images and command-line equivalents. I found that a similar ressource is available on the Rhino website, but is not easy to navigate for students. I would be organising it by workflow and adapt it to each session.
- Digital annotation, using a drawing tablet and tools like Epic Pen or OpenBoard, to circle, point and highlight areas in real time
- Physical prompts, like printed sheets and 3D props, to anchor abstract commands in tangible objects
- Multiple workflows, offering several ways to perform tasks (typed, clicked, or menu-based) so that students can choose the method that works best for them
Although I use slides, they are not central in my sessions. This intervention complements spoken instruction with more accessible, inclusive, and layered support. It also integrates intersectional thinking by acknowledging that students’ access needs could exclude them from learning essential skills.
Evaluation of the Process
This intervention is modular and scalable. I plan to:
- Pilot the toolkit in one session and gather feedback via anonymous forms and short verbal reflections
- Observe which tools students use independently and whether there is greater engagement or fewer repeated questions
- Share the toolkit with colleagues and reflect collectively on adaptations for other platforms
- Reflect on my own teaching to notice whether more students appear confident and autonomous
The process will require investment, including time, equipment (such as a tablet), and preparation of materials. However, it offers long-term benefits by creating more equitable access to digital skills and reducing structural exclusion. Accessibility must respond to multiple, overlapping forms of marginalisation, this form of teaching and learning mirrors this.
Conclusion
This intervention represents a shift in my own approach to software teaching, which spans from my own positionality: from a singular logic to a plurality of pathways. I have learned that inclusion is not only about adjusting the environment for others, but also about training myself to see learning from multiple angles. Knowing how to use software is not the same as knowing how others learn to use it.
By layering visual cues, reinforcing through repetition, and diversifying input modes, this intervention supports a broader range of learners. It challenges the assumption that software literacy must follow a fixed pattern, and instead invites flexibility, experimentation and care.
This is not a finished solution, but a starting point that I hope will grow into a shared resource among staff. Inclusion is relational, contextual and evolving. Attention to detail, responsiveness and curiosity are essential.
References
Ahmed, S. (2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, Duke University Press.
British Dyslexia Association (2022) Dyslexia and Inclusive Practice. Available at: https://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/
CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2. Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org
hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York, Routledge.
Miller, M. (2011) Mind at a Time: Reinforcement in the Classroom. Education Digest, 77(3), pp. 46–50.
Rapp, B. and Gazzaniga, M. (2009) Principles of Brain Organization for Cognition: The Modularity of Mind. In: Gazzaniga, M. (ed.) The Cognitive Neurosciences. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Seale, J. (2006) E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice. London, Routledge.
UAL (n.d.) Accessible Presentations Guidance. Internal staff resource.