I felt that the most underexplored and unexplained aspect to my IP Intervention Project, and indeed teaching pratice, is how I have found experientially that ‘Thinking through Drawing’ is a very useful activity for student understanding and learning in both my creative and technical sessions, and is related to how students understand and assimilate subjects through different means.
This process of learning as a dynamic process rooted in experience references Kolb’s seminal work, ‘Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development’ (1984). Kolb defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38). His model emphasises the cyclical nature of learning, comprising four stages: Concrete Experience (CE), Reflective Observation (RO), Abstract Conceptualisation (AC), and Active Experimentation (AE).
Kolb’s theory integrates these stages into the Experiential Learning Cycle, where learners engage in a concrete experience, reflect on it to form observations, develop abstract concepts or theories based on their reflections, and test these theories in new situations. This iterative process enables deep, adaptive learning that connects theory to practice.
A significant contribution of Kolb’s work is the concept of learning styles, which align with individuals’ preferences for engaging in different stages of the learning cycle. These styles – Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, and Accommodating – highlight how personal tendencies influence learning.
Kolb’s approach underscores the importance of active engagement and reflective practice, stating, “Learning is not the result of teaching, but the result of a learner’s own discoveries” (Kolb, 1984, p. 43). This humanistic perspective has helped me in bridging theory and practical application, particulary in my Adobe sessions.
The theory of Learning Styles is not without critics. Pashler et al.’s article, Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence (2008), examines the validity of learning styles and their application in education. The authors address the approach that individuals learn best when instruction matches their preferred learning style, such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. They refer to this idea as the “meshing hypothesis” and argue that while the concept is widely accepted, it lacks robust empirical support. Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals’ learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly.
The article defines learning styles as “the view that different people learn information in different ways, and that instruction should be tailored to an individual’s style to be most effective” (Pashler et al., 2008, p. 105). To evaluate this claim, the authors outline a rigorous research methodology: studies must randomly assign learners to instructional methods based on their learning styles and assess whether matching the style leads to better outcomes.
Their analysis reveals that most studies fail to meet these criteria, and those that do generally do not support the meshing hypothesis. Instead, they find that factors such as the nature of the material and general cognitive abilities play a more significant role in learning outcomes.
Pashler et al. conclude that “no adequate evidence base currently exists to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice” (Pashler et al., 2008, p. 116). They caution against relying on unproven theories and encourage focusing on evidence-based instructional strategies to improve learning for all students.
Although there is doubt about the efficacy and relative worth of accomodating students’ learning styles, I am a reflective practitioner and like to use ‘Active Listening’ to respond dynamically to students’ responses during sessions.
From my sessions with Bespoke Tailoring Year 1 students in which we focus on learning Adobe Illustrator to produce digital manufacturing Technical Packs, I found experientially, that the act of Analogue drawing at the beginning of the session opened a dialogue between the physical and digital realms, bridging intuition and computation. By embracing ambiguity and abstraction, Analogue drawing allows for the emergence of new narratives and meanings, an approach which stayed with students when they started the practical Adobe Illustrator part of the sessions, and which emphasised the relevance and context of digital learning within a professional creative context.
I found that In ‘Drawing Ambiguity’, the introductory chapter of the book Drawing Ambiguity: Beside the Lines of Contemporary Art (Russell Marshall & Phil Sawdon [eds.], London, IB Taurus Press. ISBN 978-1784530693) David Horton explores how ambiguity in visual art, particularly drawing, can facilitate the emergence of multiple interpretations and new meanings. Horton argues that ambiguity, rather than hindering understanding, invites a more complex engagement with the viewer, allowing them to project their own experiences and interpretations onto the work. I hope that this is taken on by students from the Analogue Drawing exercise to give them ownership and personal meaning and reference in the Adobe technical exercises. “the absence of clear resolution in the drawing creates space for personal meanings to emerge” (Horton, 2017, p. 124).
Horton highlights that ambiguous drawings challenge the viewer’s cognitive expectations and encourage a deeper, more reflective engagement. He asserts, “By withholding definitive answers, ambiguity in drawing fosters a process of active meaning-making, rather than passive reception” (Horton, 2017, p. 128). This underscores the idea that the openness inherent in drawing fosters an interactive relationship between the artwork and the artist / viewer, which I think can increase student engagement with Adobe programmes.
Analogue making at the beginning of a Digital Programme session helps contextualise Digital learning in a Creative workflow, by encouraging an open, messy and imperfect approach to allow creative thoughts to develop physically rather than expecting them to appear as perfect pre fromed concepts. For the Fashion Tech Packs the process can seem mechanical and skill centred, and although we are aiming for the result of a perfect stylised rendering of a garment which can be objectively interpreted by a manufacturer, there is room for a student’s Designer Identity to flourish within this process and final rendering.
Referring to Rohlfs, A Art, Algorithm, and Ambiguity (2023) Heidelberg University Publications, Rohlfs states that ambiguity allows “a multiplicity of responses that emerge from the viewer’s own experiences and cognitive processes” (Rohlfs, 2023, p. 30). I could use ambiguity as a teaching strategy, so rather than just focusing on the technical accuracy of their work, students could engage in the iterative process of discovery and interpretation, which would lead to the creation of more original designs. In building confidence and encouraging creative risk-taking in Adobe Illustrator, students may initially be hesitant to use advanced tools or experiment with layering and effects but students can develop a mindset that views mistakes as opportunities for growth – a Growth Mindset. This promotes Reflective and Iterative Learning. Instead of just following a step-by-step tutorial or aiming for an end result, students could engage in reflective practice where they continuously modify and refine their designs. This aligns with the idea of ambiguity allowing for “continuous re-interpretation” (Rohlfs, 2023, p. 22), as students reassess their work, develop new interpretations, and enhance their design skills. It encourages students to move beyond rigid technical proficiency and discover their own artistic paths within the software.
The Analogue Drawing activity emphasises that the Process is more important than the Result, in which the drawings are open, each mark is like a question rather than an answer, and that the unepexpected nature of the final drawing can suggest further directions to follow. I want students to bear this in mind when working with Adobe Illustrator, even if the final result needs to perfectly render digitally their created garment. This also resonates with my proposed approach to my Intervention for Cultural Appropriation, in which the focus would be on Process rather than Result to keep the dialogue open.
There is a resonance here with Action Research theory, in which the Process is more important than the Result, in the sense that by doing an action we can discover ways forward, either expected or unexpected. And in many ways the unexpected results can help us more than the expected, by highliting areas to work on rather than simply confirming that an Action works as intended.
I have been helped enormously by Daniel Poulsen, head of Bespoke Tailoring, who supported and encouraged me to formally develop my inclusion of Analogue drawing in my sessions, which include open drawing sessions, Graphic Layout sessions and Adobe Illustrator sessions, and has also been very supportive in allowing me to work with Bespoke Tailoring students for this PgCert.
In fact all of the Bespoke Tailoring team have been incredibly supportive of my efforts to bring some open Analogue drawing into the curriculum. In particular Azleen Henry Marsh’s engagement with my approach to bring Analogue Drawing more closely into the Year 1 students’ curriculum, and Alex Hall’s support of my Analogue Drawing at the beginning of Year 3 Graphic Presentation sessions has been fundamentally valuable, and his positive engagement with the resistance from some Year 3 students and the enriching dialogue among students and staff that it promoted (‘it’s great – like being back at Primary School! I never went to Art School so this collaborative drawing is fantastic! Let’s get it on the wall!’ was one response, another was ‘why are we wasting time when our submission deadline is 2 weeks away?’).
Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development’ (1984).
David Horton in Sawden P and Marshall, R (eds), 2015, Drawing Ambiguity: Beside the Lines of Contemporary Art, London, Bloomsbury Visual Arts
Rohlfs, A Art, Algorithm, and Ambiguity (2023) Heidelberg University Publications
Another detail from students’ collaborative drawing