This report concerns the planning for my proposed glossary of 3d printing terms which intends to help students get over the initial hurdle of industry specific terminology which can be a barrier to access and understanding. As a technician in the LCC 3D Workshop, I am always hyper aware of the language we are using – particularly considering that we have such a large body of international students for whom English is an additional language (EAL). I intend for the glossary to make the language of 3D printing more accessible, thus promoting greater confidence, independence, and inclusivity in the workshop environment.
In the 3D Workshop we regularly use terminology that is technical and specialised—words like boolean, mesh, and voxel can be deeply confusing to newcomers. This confusion places an additional burden on students’ cognitive processing, especially for those already navigating a new educational culture. Drawing on Cognitive Load Theory, we can see how excessive technical language can overload working memory and reduce a learner’s ability to focus on understanding core concepts or processes (Sweller, 1988). The glossary, therefore, serves to reduce this load, allowing learners to dedicate more attention to developing skills and experimenting creatively.
This intervention also connects with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, which argues that learners achieve more when supported through scaffolding mechanisms such as guided explanations or tools that help bridge gaps in understanding (Vygotsky, 1978). The glossary is designed precisely as such a scaffold; giving students a reference that promotes autonomy while supporting comprehension. This will hopefully enable them to engage more confidently and independently in their practice without relying on technician support.
My commitment to accessible language has roots in my own experience living and working in China for a year teaching in a secondary school. Navigating day-to-day life and classroom communication without being fluent in Mandarin was a challenge that gave me insight into the struggles faced by EAL learners, and teaching English to large classes of up to 60 students required me to learn how to modify my speech, syntax, and vocabulary to match their varying levels of language proficiency. Through this I gained a sort of intuitive ability to match and adapt the language I use in spoken conversation, and wanted to find a way to implement this skill to aid in our taught content. I am aware however of how such a claim could be seen to be presumptious, so even as I plan this I take my perception of my own skills with a pinch of salt and will be continuously checking in with students and other colleagues to make sure I am on track.
Student engagement with workshops and understanding of taught content becomes even more important when considered alongside the UAL attainment gap statistics. These statistics consistently show significant attainment gaps between white British home students and other student groups—including Black home students, international students, and those categorised as ‘Other’. Many of these students are also more likely to be EAL speakers. In this context the glossary becomes more than a convenience; it is an educational intervention with the potential to reduce inequality by improving access to workshop resources and, in turn, boosting academic outcomes.
An important consideration in this project is how language-based barriers can affect access to workshops and practical learning spaces. UAL’s assessment criteria values experimentation, testing, and skills development – activities that are often dependent on physical access to tools and spaces like the 3D Workshop. If a student is hesitant to ask for help, intimidated by unfamiliar jargon, or confused by basic instructions, they may delay or entirely avoid using the facilities available to them which can ultimately do harm to their grades by not allowing for marks to be given in the experimenting and testing criteria. By addressing terminology early and accessibly, the glossary can reduce this barrier and encourage wider and more confident participation.
My approach is also informed by Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality, which posits that individuals often experience overlapping systems of disadvantage – such as race, gender, disability, socio-economic status, or neurodivergence – that interact in complex ways (Crenshaw, 1989). A student in one of the attainment categories achieving lower grades than the white british group may also be navigating mental health challenges, working part-time, or managing a disability. These overlapping factors can further reduce the time and energy a student has available to decipher complex or unfamiliar information. Although a single glossary cannot dismantle all of these barriers, it aims to remove one: linguistic inaccessibility. By doing so I hope to improve access to the workshop, enabling students to work independently and increase their confidence in engaging with 3D printing processes.
The principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Rose and Mayer, 2002) also supports this strategy; UDL suggests that when we design with the most vulnerable users in mind, everyone benefits. By making terminology clearer and easier to understand for EAL students or those with communication difficulties the glossary will also serve native english speakers who are new to 3D printing and experienced users who may need a refresher. A shared understanding of language can foster more inclusive peer-to-peer learning and stronger collaboration across groups.
Feedback significantly changed my idea – I was originally going to create a series of leaflets on how to book and access the workshop, but decided to focus in more on just the glossary after speaking to my tutor carys and my blogging group. Their combined feedback made me see that focusing specifically on the glossary would provide the most long-term value – unlike a booking leaflet which might become outdated, the glossary could exist beyond my time at UAL and potentially be adapted and adopted by other campuses and workshops. Feedback from Carys also challenged me to think more deeply about accessibility; in addition to producing the glossary as a large-format poster for the workshop and a take-home leaflet, I will also ensure it is available digitally. The digital version will include alt text for all images, be compatible with screen readers, and be offered in large-text formats (both in print and digitally).
In the peer-to-peer blogging session my group also suggested having the glossary available in multiple languages on moodle to promote even easier understanding for the students. The intention to create a multilingual glossary also aligns with the principles of culturally responsive pedagogy, which emphasise the need to acknowledge and incorporate students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds into teaching practices (Gay, 2000). Providing terminology in multiple languages is not just a practical inclusion – it reflects a pedagogical stance that sees linguistic diversity as a strength rather than a deficit. This is especially important at a university with a large international student body where catering to EAL learners can have a positive impact on inclusion and attainment, particularly for the groups that fall behind in the attainment stats.
Additionally, from the perspective of linguistic relativity, the language we use does not simply describe knowledge – it actively shapes how it is perceived and understood (Whorf, 1956). By demystifying technical jargon, the glossary not only aids comprehension but also shifts students’ perception of 3D printing from something inaccessible to something within reach- again, hopefully increasing workshop access for students who would benefit from evidencing practical skills to see an improvement to their grade.
A concern I had during development was the risk of making incorrect assumptions about what students do or do not understand. As a native English speaker I may not fully grasp the nuances of what constitutes a linguistic barrier for others. After our peer-to-peer feedback session my blogging group reassured me that even if my assumptions are imperfect, the glossary is still a valuable tool. It’s also based on my own experience of what terms commonly cause confusion for students, based on things that have cropped up again and again. Even for those who do understand the words, having a glossary to refer to can serve as a confidence-boosting resource that supports independent learning.
My implementation plan for the glossary is already underway; during summer I will begin to design the printed poster version ready to then be adapted for the different formats. After this I’ll focus on developing the digital version for Moodle, ensuring it is accessible in-line with best practices and procedure at UAL. I also plan to gather feedback from fellow technicians and students – especially the masters students here over summer – so that I can refine the glossary based on real user input.
Through the process of designing this glossary-based intervention I have learnt that your initial idea may not always be where the project ends up. It also got me thinking a lot more about accessibility of content, and learning more about the attainment gaps means that in all aspects of my teaching I’ll be thinking of ways to adapt what we do to try and help in closing the gap.
I think to the best of my abilities I have designed an educational asset that is as useful as it can be. My understanding of the frustrations of not knowing technical specifics in another language combined with my passion for helping students learn how to help themselves via independent understanding (instead of relying on me to fix their 3d modelling issues) will hopefully help aid in making this glossary asset promote independent learning and problem solving skills and be as useful as possible.
(1,565 words)
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.
Gay, G., 2000. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rose, D.H. and Meyer, A., 2002. Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Sweller, J., 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), pp.257–285.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whorf, B.L., 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by J.B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.