My question is based around thinking about my role as a 3D workshop technician at LCC, and how linguistic barriers created by specialist vocabulary can inhibit access to workshop spaces – and what we as technicians can do to change that.
ActiveDashboards (n.d.) ActiveDashboards. Available at: https://dashboards.arts.ac.uk/dashboard/ActiveDashboards/DashboardPage.aspx?dashboardid=c04b6e35-6d26-4db8-9ea0-5e27d30e3402&dashcontextid=638985459734562108 (Accessed: 6 January 2026).
British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2024) Ethical guidelines for educational research (5th ed.). Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-fifth-edition-2024 (Accessed: 24 September 2025).
Çiftçi, H. and Üster, S. (2009) ‘A comparative analysis of teaching vocabulary in context and by definition’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), pp. 1568–1572. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248606614_A_comparative_analysis_of_teaching_vocabulary_in_context_and_by_definition (Accessed: 12 November 2025).
Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2017) ‘Thematic analysis’, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), pp. 297–298. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613.
Converse, J.M. and Presser, S. (1986) ‘The tools at hand’, in Converse, J.M. and Presser, S. Survey questions: handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 48–75.
Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2007) ‘Interpreting the map: methods of evaluation and analysis’, in Gray, C. and Malins, J. Visualizing research: a guide to the research process in art and design. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group.
Jones, T.L., Baxter, M.A.J. and Khanduja, V. (2013) ‘A quick guide to survey research’, Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 95(1), pp. 5–7. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3964639/ (Accessed: 19 November 2025).
Kara, H. (2015) Creative research methods in the social sciences: a practical guide. Bristol: Policy Press. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ual/detail.action?docID=6193498 (Accessed: 18 November 2025).
Kara, S. and Kucuk, T. (2023) ‘The effects of picture dictionaries in promoting vocabulary development of EFL learners at tertiary level’, Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 17(2), pp. 80–94. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1409292.pdf (Accessed: 12 November 2025).
Koshy, E., Koshy, V. and Waterman, H. (2010) What is action research? London: SAGE Publications.
Nasrollahi, K. and Daneshfar, S. (2018) ‘The effect of visual contextual support and glossary of words on guessing meaning of new vocabulary items in English by pre-university male EFL students’, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(3), pp. 561–572. doi:10.17507/jltr.0903.16.
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.
Sahebkheir, F. (2019) ‘The effect of visual representation, textual representation, and glossing on second language vocabulary learning’, Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 7(2), pp. 185–200. Available at: https://journal.azaruniv.ac.ir/article_13990.html (Accessed: 12 November 2025).
Tjora, A.K. (2006) ‘Writing small discoveries: an exploration of fresh observers’ observations’, Qualitative Research, 6(4), pp. 429–451. doi:10.1177/1468794106068012.
Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T.W. and Fu, Y.-c. (eds.) (2016) The SAGE handbook of survey methodology. London: SAGE Publications.
nb: was checking through and the link to the Sahebkheir article is now no longer live 🙁
below are my presentation slides:
and just in case / for reference here are the bullet points i wrote against each slide to learn to say:
Due to the prior mentioned limitations in data collection, I do not have an incredibly large sample size – as visible in the results of my survey.
With the data collected from the 7 questions I have actually found the best way to visualise it is microsoft form’s own pie charts. I tried making bar charts on excel using the exported data, but for ease of understanding and presentation I am attaching below screenshots of the data from Microsoft Forms.
What we see in question one above is a mixed bag of prior knowledge to 3d printing terminolgy, which is good as it doesn’t swing the survey into bias for people who either already know everything or have never heard any of the terms.
Question two is slightly expected, in an art school we would expect most people to respond well to visual learning. I included it though to be able to track the answers of anyone who had answered otherwise. The results will make us think about having more visual resources in the future though, as opposed to text based results.
It is interesting that 6 out of 7 respondents said they learnt something from the poster in question 3, especially given that there was a mixture including respondents who already knew about 3d printing, showing that this type of resource can be useful to all levels of learning. The ‘no opinion’ answer could be someone who rushed the survey without looking at the poster, or someone who wanted to answer ‘no’ but was too shy.
I am obviously happy with the answer to question 4, that all respondents thought the resource was useful. I had included the question so that respondents would have the option to say that it was just repeating things that they’d already seen, was too overwhelming, or was too much. However it must also be noted that there could be a bias in those answering wanting to please the workshop and knowing that this would be the preferred answer.
Question 5 was an optional open text box to fill in an opinion about the poster, which got 5 proper responses – mostly positive but one pointing out that there was a lot of text. It was a balance between knowing that in person / in workshop usage would be mostly pointing at the images, but for independant learning explanations would be needed.
The responses to question 6 were interesting – with the majority of respondents indicating that they prefer talking to a technician / tutor in person. While this resource had been catered to being useful for both in person guiding through with us technicians and independant study online, the need is clearly there for wanting more in person guidance and support. This is probably the most eye opening from the research – as it indicates that instead of focusing purely on resources and content there is a remit for perhaps offering more one-on-one tutorials (both in person and online, for access reasons) instead of developing the project and creating further resources tailored to independent learning.
The final question was again just so I could situate/contextualise the answers, and most of the respondents were students who were my target demographic.
Finding literature on the topics I have been focusing on for this research project has been interesting, particularly because it is already an incredibly established subject, that yes, illustrations do tend to help people learn things more effectively. This aspect of my project is neither groundbreaking or new, but will help us in the 3d printing department develop and tailor our resources going forwards.
Of some of the most interest to me were the studies by Nasrollahi and Daneshfar, who published their study on the acquisition of English vocabularly words by students of Kurdish descent who already had Persian as their second language. Their students were tested in two control groups, one who had no visual contextual support and one who did. They quote Çiftçi and Üster stating that visual contextual support works better as a memory aid, and the results of their study prove this as the group with the visual aids performed better. Çiftçi and Üster had published their own study with control groups, one learning vocabularly in context and one learning vocab only by definitions – however interestingly they concluded that between the two there was no remarkable or statistically significant difference.
Both those studies also used surveys to test the effectiveness of their teaching, which appealed to me as I knew I wanted to use surveys. Both also were testing the learning of English vocabularly words to students learning English as an additional language, which is relevant to my project. Looking at Çiftçi and Üster’s results made it clear to me that alongside the illustrations I should also include definitions – so the terminology I aim to teach is both explained by its written definition, but also the visual context provided by the illustration, hitting both points.
The studies by Sahebkhier (2019) which concluded that learning vocabularly with a glossary out-performed learning by just visual or just text, and by Saban and Turgay (2023) where picture dictionaries were used alongside tertiary teaching for EFL learners were also both of interest to my project.
When it comes to survey design itself the SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology (Wolf et al, 2016) and selected chapters within it were very useful. The previously referenced Introduction helped situate the origins of survey design through history and track how it has evolved from face to face questions, telephone surveys, and how surveying has changed alongside the development of technology.
On reading Converse and Presser (2011), again published by SAGE, I was able to gain an understanding of how surveys can be really used accurately and professionally to get statistically significant results, however due to time limitations and ability to reach a wide enough pool of students I was unable myself to go through any rounds of pre-testing my survey and its effectiveness.
Reading Kara (2015) on analysing data I was given much to think about, including the ethics of colleting data (which spurred my decision to go for anonymous responses) and an understanding of qualitative vs quantitive data.
495 words
Nasrollahi, K. and Daneshfar, S. (2018) ‘The Effect of Visual Contextual Support and Glossary of Words on Guessing Meaning of New Vocabulary Items in English by Pre-university Male EFL Students’, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(3), pp. 561–672. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0903.16. accessed: 12 nov 2025
Çiftçi, H. & Üster, S., 2009. A comparative analysis of teaching vocabulary in context and by definition. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), pp.1568–1572. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248606614_A_comparative_analysis_of_teaching_vocabulary_in_context_and_by_definition accessed: 12 nov 2025
Sahebkheir, F., 2019. The Effect of Visual Representation, Textual Representation, and Glossing on Second Language Vocabulary Learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 7(2), pp.185–200. Available at: https://journal.azaruniv.ac.ir/article_13990.html accessed: 12 nov 2025
Kara, S. and Kucuk, T., 2023. The effects of picture dictionaries in promoting vocabulary development of EFL learners at tertiary level. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 17(2), pp.80–94. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1409292.pdf accessed: 12 nov 2025
Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T.W. & Fu, Y.-c., eds., 2016. The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology. Chapter: Survey Methodology: Challenges and Principles. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available at: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-survey-methodology/book242251 accessed: 19 nov 2025
Jones, T.L., Baxter, M.A.J. & Khanduja, V., 2013. A quick guide to survey research. Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 95(1), pp.5–7. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3964639/ accessed: 19 november 2025
Converse, J.M. and Presser, S., 1986. The tools at hand. In: J.M. Converse and S. Presser, Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 48–75. Available at: SAGE Research Methods https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412986045 (available there, however was downloaded from Moodle). Accessed: oct 1 2025
Kara, H., 2015. Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide. Bristol: Policy Press. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ual/detail.action?docID=6193498 accessed: nov 18 2025
I was aware while planning my project that I would be heading down the survey route – since the resource I wanted to question students about was a poster and not linked to any specific time or place I needed a way to capture data when and where the students interacted with it. It was important for me to be able to capture data from the students themselves rather than relying just on my own judgement on the successes of the project, and in order to allow the students a safe space to express their genuine opinions I made sure to host the survey on Microsoft forms so that it could be anonymised.
Survey design goes back throughout human history, gathering public opinion and information from censuses to post war telephone surveys (Joye et all, 2016). They go further, stating that surveys are an efficient and cost effective way to gather statistically significant data from a population. In designing the survey questions, Jones et al (2013) note the importance of having a ‘clear idea of what you are looking for’ – using the data that you want to dictate your questions and avoiding seeking irrelevant information.
With this, I set about making a survey that would not take too long for students to complete as they are often quite time poor. The information I want out of the survey can be stripped down to two things – 1) are the illustrated glossaries effective ways of communicating information and terminology, and 2) do students want more of this type of content. To situate the answers to these two questions I added in a question about their existing 3d printing knowledge, and wether they were student or staff.
To avoid creating a positive bias in my answers by only asking positive questions, I made sure that each question had both ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘no opinion’ and ‘other’ options available for survey respondents to type in their own answers.
For thinking about how to move the project forward beyond just this poster and action research project I also included a question about how respondents prefer to learn (eg, talking to a technician in person, using resources like the poster on their own time, or doing their own independent research) so that I can think about where to head next.
I distributed the survey via email (with the poster as an attachment) to all the students who had made a 3D booking during the first term of this academic year, via teams to staff members to pass on to their students, and had a QR code next to the poster in the workshop for students to scan who had seen or used it in person.
I knew going into this that a poor response rate would be my biggest potential downfall – I had looked into ways of potentially bribing students to complete the quiz, however I did not get the approval to offer discounts on 3D printing in exchange for survey responding in time. As it was towards the end of term and students were working towards hand ins, degree shows and heading home for the break this also affected responding rate and as such I did not receive a great deal of responses.
536 words
Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T.W. & Fu, Y.-c., eds., 2016. The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology. Chapter: Survey Methodology: Challenges and Principles. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available at: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-survey-methodology/book242251 accessed: 19 nov 2025
Jones, T.L., Baxter, M.A.J. & Khanduja, V., 2013. A quick guide to survey research. Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 95(1), pp.5–7. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3964639/ accessed: 19 november 2025
For context, the survey questions are included below as a PDF:
In making the illustrated glossary I had to choose in what format I’d have it accessible to students. I started off dreaming big – thinking that I could have it both in print and online, have the online version be interactive, create screen reader friendly versions, translate the glossary into multiple languages however due to the time scale of the project have had to minimise that down. That’s not to say it can’t expand in the future, but just had to scale down for now.
Within the workshop there are already a series of other leaflets for laser cutting, vinyl cutting, etc, so I wanted to stick with the graphic design language of these so that the whole workshop was unified in visual style. I initially hoped to create both the online versions and the handout leaflets that the students take with them, however after deciding on how many terms to define it quickly became clear there would be too many words for just an A4 fold in half leaflet if avoiding having the text too small.
I ended up focusing on the A1 poster, and accompanying large print laminated booklet that would remain in the workshop. I chose orange as the accent colour to differentiate from other guides in the workshop, and for the poster I grouped the illustrations and terms into definition groups with clearly signposted headings to make it easier to navigate the poster. I kept the illustrations in black and white so as not to clash with the orange and they are a mixture of illustrations done on Illustrator, and screenshots from 3D printing and modelling softwares.
I decided to include text as well as the illustrations as this gives it life beyond just me pointing to the poster in the workshop – students are able to take ownership of their own learning and independently work through the poster themselves. Having a large print document available in the workshop also helps with this – through the principles of UDL (Rose & Meyer, 2002) the large format print booklet will benefit all students to learn independently in the workshop instead of relying on me pointing at the posters.
I chose the bust of Nefertiti as my 3D model sample because of its prominence in the 3D print and scan community. The original bust, displayed in a Berlin museum under strict security, sparked controversy when two artists falsely claimed to have secretly scanned it using scanners hidden in their scarfs and coats. This hoax later inspired another artist to legally challenge the museum, eventually leading to the public release of the official scan data. The bust has since become a widely used 3D printing sample, prompting discussion about ownership, digital access, and cultural heritage. I mentioned this in my TPP microteach and wanted to reference it again here.
467 words
References:
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).
The poster:
Below is my signed off Ethics Action Plan, outlining the methods of research for this project and some research sources.
The total word count is 941 words, including the writing on the form (so probably around 650 words total).
The driving force behind how my ARP shaped up started off with the UAL attainment statistics – every year student grades are grouped by course, college, gender, disclosed disabilities, financial status and race. Year on year, when looking at attainment stats sorted by race, it is consistently white British home students who achieve the highest scores while other categories (names dictated by the stats office) such as black British, Asian, even ‘other’ consistently achieve lower attainment scores.
I began thinking about how technical workshops could factor into this – visiting and working in workshops encourages students to develop their skills, experiment with processes, and develop their project ideas – all of which are things that can help evidence key marking criteria and therefore improve students grades if done. It would be a disservice to say that all, but many students falling into race categories other than white British – particularly international students – have English as an additional language to their mother tongue. In my specialism – 3D printing – there is a plethora of industry specific terminology and words used in a different context to their dictionary definition that could be confusing to someone trying to get into it. I began to wonder if this was creating a hurdle that could be acting as a barrier to accessing the workshop – the linguistic complexities putting people off before even walking through the door.
We work in an arts based institution where many of our students and staff are visual thinkers. Rather than creating more text heavy inductions I began to think about creating an illustrated glossary of common terms needed to understand both the beginnings of 3D printing, and common terms that me and my colleague find ourselves struggling to explain to students. I decided to go for an illustrated glossary approach so that we could have the visuals in the workshop to refer to with students, and the text would be alongside so that students could also use it as a resource for self learning and take ownership of understanding. Visual contextual support has been found to improve students vocabulary acquisition (Nasrollahi and Daneshfar, 2018) and in theory this resource can be something that can continue to be edited as softwares change and we release what is missing, or what isn’t needed.
376 words
References:
ActiveDashboards. Available at: https://dashboards.arts.ac.uk/dashboard/ActiveDashboards/DashboardPage.aspx?dashboardid=c04b6e35-6d26-4db8-9ea0-5e27d30e3402&dashcontextid=638985459734562108 (Accessed: 12 November 2025).
Nasrollahi, K. and Daneshfar, S. (2018) ‘The Effect of Visual Contextual Support and Glossary of Words on Guessing Meaning of New Vocabulary Items in English by Pre-university Male EFL Students’, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(3), pp. 561–672. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0903.16.
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.
