Textile & Material Research

Proof required

Submit your fabric sample set (photographs of each sample, labelled with fibre content and weave structure) alongside test records for each of the four performance criteria per sample.

What gets checked

• Six fabric samples present, spanning at least three distinct fabric categories
• All four performance criteria tested for every sample — not selective testing
• Test records include photographic evidence for drape and opacity tests — not just written descriptions

Common mistakes

• Sourcing samples from one supplier — missing the range needed to make informed material decisions
• Performance criteria are too vague — 'feels nice' is not a drape assessment
• Skipping the durability test because it takes time — this is often the most important for final garment selection

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Count: six samples minimum spanning three fabric categories — fewer or narrower fails the milestone
• Check all four performance criteria are tested for every sample — selective testing shows the student chose comfortable results
• Ask student which fabric they would select for their garment and why — inability to justify using their own test data reveals the testing was mechanical, not analytical

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your material research report as a PDF including: test results summary, fabric recommendations with rationale, supplier information (name, contact or URL, MOQ, cost/metre), and a fabric selection decision (which fabric you will use and why).

What gets checked

• Report makes a specific fabric selection decision — not 'any of these could work'
• Supplier information is real and verifiable — not invented
• Fabric recommendation rationale directly references your test results, not generic properties

Common mistakes

• Recommendations are based on aesthetics alone — test data collected but not used in the decision
• Supplier information is hypothetical — 'a fabric supplier would charge approximately...'
• Report is a list rather than a synthesis — no argument for why these fabrics serve the concept

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check supplier information is real — verify at least one supplier name and URL
• Confirm fabric selection decision is specific — if the student 'could use any of three', the decision is not made
• Ask student to justify their selection using their own test data — if they can't reference their own results, the report is not grounded in the testing

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) critique session record (date, reviewer, specific feedback points), (2) revision note explaining what changed and why.

What gets checked

• Critique record documents specific material challenges raised — not 'feedback was generally positive'
• Revision note addresses at least two specific points from the critique
• Revision note identifies whether the fabric selection changed as a result and justifies the final decision

Common mistakes

• Treating the critique as validation rather than challenge
• Revision note is a summary of what the reviewer said, not a response to it
• Fabric selection unchanged after critique without explanation of why critique feedback was considered and rejected

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm critique was live (not written feedback alone)
• Check revision note addresses at least two specific points with rationale — not just 'I considered the feedback'
• Ask student: did your fabric selection change after the critique? Why or why not? Inability to answer shows critique was not engaged with analytically

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.