University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining how faculty educators believed they supported faculty in higher education institutions

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining how faculty educators believed they supported faculty in higher education institutions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Examining How Faculty Educators Believed
They Supported Faculty in Higher Education Institutions

by

Wan-Ju Lee

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Wan-Ju Lee 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Wan-Ju Lee certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Derisa Grant
Darla Deardorff
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

iv

Abstract
This study applied intercultural competence (ICC) and teacher education literature to investigate
and understand the way faculty educators supported faculty’s capacities toward interculturally
competent instruction in 4-year institutions of higher education. The research participants were
referred to me by nominators through purposive and snowball sampling. Seven faculty educators
all had minimum of three years of experience in the field of faculty development despite their
varying career paths and disciplines. This study utilized a qualitative multi-site case study design
with one-on-one (scenario-based) interviews using a semi-structured interview protocol to gather
information on the participants’ perspectives and experiences regarding the way they
incorporated ICC into their instruction. The analysis revealed three findings: First, each
approached their work with the goal of supporting the learning of both faculty and their students,
and yet they were held back due to a range of constraints: Some believed they could only
accomplish so much and adopted tips-and-tricks approach (Loughran, 2006), while the others
saw constraints as growth opportunities to move the faculty forward and develop their practice.
Second, these faculty educators had certain ICC attributes and believed that those attributes
contributed to their work and they connected ICC with student motivation and faculty reflection.
Third, there was a spectrum of ways the faculty educators construed their roles based on how
they perceived others experienced their racial identities (i.e., historically marginalized groups
and predominantly White groups), which had andragogical implications. The study disclosed the
way faculty educators wrestled with their work within the institutional context.

v

v

Dedication
To my wise and loving parents, my father Wen-Chung Lee and my mother Ai-Chu Chen: You
have devoted most of your lives to working in a fabric factory in Taoyuan City, Taiwan so as to
provide the education you did not have a luxury to have for your three daughters. While neither
of you ever had a chance to pursue higher education, you inspire me to be the best I can be and
support me to pursue my dreams of studying abroad. I am forever grateful to you for this.

vi

vi

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Julie Slayton for her incredible patience
and dedication working with me on this journey. Without her, this study would never have been
possible. Her level of detail and encouragement have provided me valuable insights and inspired
me to keep moving forward in my academic pursuit and in life. My sincere thanks also go to Dr.
Darla Deardorff for serving on my committee out of the kindness of her heart and inspiring me to
dive into this academic process with her intercultural competence model. I would also like to
express my lasting gratitude to Dr. Derisa Grant for serving on my committee and providing
insightful feedback and meticulous editing.
My grateful thanks are also extended to those who provided a helping hand along my
EdD journey: I thank my school principal Yun-Ching Huang, my NTNU professor Dr. Charlotte
Chang, and my NTU thesis advisor Dr. Lily I-wen Su for writing letters of recommendations that
enabled to enter this amazing EdD program at USC Rossier and start a new chapter in my life. I
appreciate all of my instructors at USC Rossier, especially Dr. Alison Muraszewski and Dr.
Artineh Samkian, who managed to make the whole process of learning so engagingly fun and
deeply reflective. I also want to express my thanks to the most kind, friendly, and fantastic
people in my cohort, particularly Jennifer Quezada, Shenishe Kelly, Dieuwertje Kast, and
Shirleen Oplustic. Speaking of peers, I also thank my loving sisters Yi-Tsui Lee and Sheri Yi-
Xue Li as well as some of my colleagues and friends in Taiwan, including Anna Wei-Pong
Chung, Daphne Hsu, Hui-Ling Chen, Penny Wen, Ju-Hui Chen, Wei-Chuen You, Tzu-Jung
Chang, Connie You, Jenny Yu-Ting Huang, Jenny Chih-Ying Huang, Amber Wang, and Sandy
Kuo for their all-time emotional support that is far beyond what I deserve. In addition, I
gratefully acknowledge all the kind help and support from those who I reached out for referrals

vii

vii

via emails and phone calls, and I will pay this kindness forward whenever I can. My thanks are
also due to my seven research participants, who indulged me with opportunities to draw on their
experiences and perspectives and made every interview valuable learning experience for me.
Lastly, to my caring, loving, and supportive husband, Stephen Yu: my heartfelt gratitude.
You have supported me in every way you can, and you always show enormous faith in my
ability to get to the finish line. It was a great comfort and relief that you were more than able to
take great care of our baby Kai whenever I needed to focus on my study. Thank you for being
my dream teammate!

viii

viii

Table of Contents
Chapter One: Overview of The Study 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 9
Significance of the Study 10
Organization of the Study 11
Chapter Two: Literature Review 13
Intercultural Competence 13
Intercultural Models 15
Cultural Humility 26
Faculty Development and Instructional Strategies 30
Professional Learning for Faculty 31
Andragogical Principles 70
Pedagogy Drawn from Teacher Education Literature 82
Antiracist Pedagogy 89
Critical Reflection 99
Conceptual Framework 105
Faculty Educators 107
Faculty Members 111
Interactions Between Faculty Educators and Faculty Members 114
Potential Outcome of Faculty Educators’ and Faculty’s Interactions 120
Summary 121

ix

ix

Chapter Three: Methods 123
Research Design 123
Sample and Population 124
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols 127
Data Collection Procedures 128
Data Analysis 132
Credibility and Trustworthiness 134
Ethics 137
Limitations and Delimitations 139
Limitations 139
Delimitations 141
Conclusion 142
Chapter Four: Findings 143
Participants 144
Finding 1: Faculty Educators’ Ways to Attain Instructional Vision 149
Theme 1: Instructional Vision 150
Theme 2: Similar Constraints and Limitations 162
Theme 3: Different Responses 174
Finding 2: ICC Attributes and ICC-Infused Practice 189
Theme 1: ICC Attributes Faculty Educators Believed They Had 190
Theme 2: How They Described the Way ICC was Connected with Their Practice
199
Finding 3: A Continuum of Faculty Educators’ Racial Identities 203

x

x

Theme 1: Historically Marginalized Group 205
Theme 2: Predominantly White Group 213
Theme 3: Border Crossers 222
Summary 228
Revised Conceptual Framework 229
Challenges and Constraints 231
Racial Identity 233
Instructional approaches 233
ICC 234
Conclusion 235
Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations 236
Summary of Findings 238
Implications and Recommendations 240
Practice 241
Policy 244
Research 246
Conclusion 248
References 250
Appendix A 266
Appendix B 271

xi

xi

List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of the Faculty Educators’ Basic Information 145

xii

xii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Overview of Intercultural Competence Models 16
Figure 2: The Process Model of Intercultural Competence 21
Figure 3: The Questions for Further Exploration in Putting ICC to work 24
Figure 4: Aspects of Professional Learning for Teacher Educators 33
Figure 5: Four Dimensions of Multicultural Teaching 38
Figure 6: Intercultural Facilitator Competencies 49
Figure 7: Components of Intercultural Teaching Competence 59
Figure 8: Content-level and Instructional Strategies that Support the Learners 67
Figure 9: Content-level and Instructional Strategies that Challenge the Learners 69
Figure 10: The Stages and Tasks of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development 73
Figure 11: Summary of Tasks in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development 75
Figure 12: Characteristics and Effective Practices of the Adult Learning Method 81
Figure 13: Conceptual Framework 107
Figure 14: Revised Conceptual Framework 231

1

1

Chapter One: Overview of The Study
My personal interests in international education and cross-cultural communication, coupled
with my past work experiences as an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher and an
administrator in Taiwan brought me to the investigation of intercultural competence (ICC), which I
interpreted as an individual’s capacity to manage cultural difference in a way of valuing and relating
after I referred to Bennett (1986) and Deardorff (2006). Working as an educational administrator in the
Office of Academic Affairs in a prestigious senior high school in Taipei, Taiwan, I used to assist with
the development of curricular, co-curricular, and foreign language programs, particularly the
international cultural exchange programs. The school took the position that cosmopolitanism was a
preferable personal attribute for those living in a globalized world (Igarashi & Saito, 2014), and
believed it was necessary to cultivate students’ cosmopolitan dispositions and competencies, or the
“symbolic capital” (Bourdieu, 1991, as cited in Igarashi & Saito, 2014). This was done through
international cultural exchange programs that catered to popular interest and the parents’ desires to
be globally competitive. Implicit in these programs were the idea that students could be better equipped
to engage in the globalized world if they had exposure to intercultural learning, or the opportunities to
understand and interact with people from different cultures, which is consistent with Cohn and
Mullennix’s (2007) notion that globalization demands that educated individuals be cognizant of
diversity and function in a culturally competent manner. While featuring intercultural learning, the
program also reflects cosmopolitanism ideology, as suggested in Sobre-Denton (2013) that the
prominent values of cosmopolitanism are inherently intercultural in that they all orient toward creating
connections with the cultural Other.
The school’s efforts in international education and the pressure parents were experiencing (from
getting their children globally competitive) were consistent with the policies and curricula in Taiwan

2

2

that reflected neoliberal and cosmopolitan ideologies in the era of globalization (Burke, 2005; Igarashi
& Saito, 2014; Kirby & Stecher, 2004). The international cultural exchange programs, most of which
were led by EFL teachers at school, provided opportunities for the selected students to experience
short-term, one-on-one homestays with culturally different peers from international partner schools
located in Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Germany, and France. My experience leading a group of
students to Berlin, Germany for 2 weeks led me to question whether the program served the educational
purpose of intercultural learning. The experience also caused me to examine my own professional
identity as an EFL teacher and my readiness to facilitate students’ intercultural learning throughout the
process.
In my reflection, I asked myself: How cognizant was I of cultural diversity? How could I
promote students’ intercultural learning? What could I have done to operate and how could I have
taught in a more interculturally competent way? As I embarked on the journey of the USC Rossier EdD
program, the teacher education concentration I chose equipped me to look back at these questions from
the lens of a teacher educator, motivating me to conduct this study to uncover and reconcile the
seeming incongruities between theory and practice regarding ICC. In the remainder of this chapter, I
explain the background of the problem to set the context for the study, present the statement of the
problem and the purpose and significance of the study, and end this chapter by presenting the
organization of the dissertation.
Background of the Problem
The increasingly diverse higher education campuses call for intercultural competence to
enhance both White students’ and students from historically marginalized communities’ learning
opportunities. Tanaka’s (2003) nationwide quantitative study surveying 25,000 White students at 159
institutions revealed that White students’ cultural competence and racial understanding are not

3

3

necessarily enhanced by a culturally diverse environment; instead, they need to have direct cross-
cultural interaction and experiences, so do they need to be taught explicitly to communicate across
cultural difference in the classrooms. Also, White students find value in the opportunity to be exposed
to and learn about difference, as it is a desired part of their college-going experience and they are not
satisfied with college if denied the opportunity to learn about diversity. This means that universities
have to introduce as well as cultivate and develop intercultural competence in students to respond to the
wider societal needs and help them to be culturally astute enough to work effectively across difference
domestically and thrive in the global market environment (British Council, 2013; Tanaka, 2003).
Cultivating intercultural competence also matters for non-White students. The U.S. Census
Bureau (2015) projected that groups of color will make up 50.3% of the U.S. population by 2044.
Corresponding to these changes in the national population, higher education institutions across the
U.S., which could be viewed as microcosms reflecting broader demographic changes in society with
dramatic growth in cultural diasporas, have also experienced a rise in the percentage of racial and
ethnic minority students (Gleditsch & Berg, 2017; Murray, 2016). In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau
(2018) showed that among all the undergraduate students, 15% are Black, 8 % are Asian, and 20% are
Hispanic. On top of that, Choy (2001) showed that approximately 24% of students enrolled in
postsecondary education are first generation, and most of them are disproportionately students of color
and are more likely to be low-income, single parents and nonnative speakers of English. Jehangir’s
(2010) longitudinal qualitative study suggested that creating opportunities for first-generation students
to tell their stories and lived experiences and have culturally validating encounters in the learning
spaces, where they are validated as knowers and participants in knowledge construction, not only
helped cultivate their sense of ownership in educational spaces but also enriched and informed the
academy. Jehangir (2010) further argued that they need opportunities to develop intercultural

4

4

competence— “one that is attuned to skills necessary to navigate majority cultural but is grounded in
and validates one’s own cultural capital as necessary and valuable to them and their institutions” (p.
543).
The increasing culturally diversity in higher education classrooms requires that educators, who
have the potential for enabling and hindering student development (Gleditsch & Berg, 2017), to
become more aware of how their own worldviews, their types of interactions with students, and their
instructional practice could have profound impact on shaping learners’ concept of self (Gleditsch &
Berg, 2017; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004; Howard, 2003; Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003). However, the
majority of the teaching faculty remain remarkably homogenous. The study conducted by Li and
Koedel (2017) presented a faculty representation gap by race-ethnicity during the 2015–2016 academic
year at 40 selective public universities ranked highly by the 2016 U.S. News & World Report.
Consistent with the faculty diversity data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) in 2014, their data showed that the vast majority of faculty members in universities are still
White (78.9%) and male (65.2%), in contrast to Black (4.7%), Hispanic (4.1%), and female (34.8)
professors (Li & Koedel, 2017). Similarly, the statistics from U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) showed that of all full-time faculty (accounting for 7.95
million) in degree-granting postsecondary institutions in Fall 2016, 41% are White males and 35% are
White females while 10 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% percent are Black, and 5% Hispanic,
and fewer than 1% are American Indian/Alaska Native; those who are of two or more races each make
up 1% or fewer of full-time faculty in these institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).
Naturally, the ethnic/racial mismatch between White faculty and students from historically
marginalized communities are likely to contribute to systemic and institutional racism, thereby creating
the likelihood of low retention and graduation rates. For example, with little to no awareness of their

5

5

students’ cultural backgrounds, experiences, or communication norms, many educators might view
difference as deficit, underestimate their students’ academic potential, and misinterpret students’
behavior as negative and disruptive, which could have devastating effects on student learning and
resulted in educational inequalities reflected in the educational disparities in ethnic/racial communities
(Duckworth et al., 2005; Fry, 2015; Godley, 2012; Milner, 2011; Murray, 2016). This highlights the
criticality of faculty’s integrating intercultural competence in their classrooms in order to generate a
more accurate understanding of increasingly heterogenous student population and to support their
educational outcomes
(Banks, 2007b; Gay, 2010; Godley, 2012; Ng et al., 2007)
Intercultural competence does not develop naturally for most people (Deardorff, 2010b, 2012a;
Yershova et al., 2000). In order for intercultural competence to be developed by students, it must first
be understood by educators (in this case, faculty), as they play critical roles in facilitating meaningful
intercultural interactions and learning (Cushner, 2015c; Deardorff, 2010b, 2012a; Reynolds et al., 2017;
Yershova et al., 2000). Notwithstanding this reality, faculty are hired for their expertise in specific
discipline rather than their ability to teach (Post, 2011). Recent writings in higher education indicate
that faculty struggle with incorporating the notion of intercultural competence in their teaching due to
perceived lack of necessary skills, knowledge, and guidance from the institutions regardless of their
self-reported willingness and openness to interculturalism and engaging in diversity in their classrooms
(Bigatti et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2012; Samuels, 2014a). This signals the need for post-secondary
institutions to adequately prepare faculty to teach diverse student populations and to educate students to
their fullest capacity (Garson et al., 2016; King & Baxter-Magolda, 2005; Lee et al., 2012). It means
that higher education institutions must have faculty development programs in place for faculty to bring

6

6

interculturally competent ways of knowing and being to their classroom (Murray, 2016; Teekens,
2003).
Stockley et al. (2015) contended that at the core of faculty development is the shared goal of
improving teaching and learning and ultimately enhancing the students’ educational experiences. Along
the similar line, Taylor and Rege Colet (2010) framed the process of faculty development as
educational development process from the perspective of faculty educators, as all the work that is
systematically carried out is meant to help faculty members develop their learning and teaching
capacity to foster student learning. It is well documented that all faculty in higher education need a
deeper understanding of how to effectively engage diversity, employ and teach strategies for productive
intercultural communication to all students, adopt contextually appropriate attitudinal and andragogical
behavior, and collaborate with those who are different from themselves to ensure a positive, supportive,
and affirmative student experience (Bigatti et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2012; Kinzie et al., 2008; Murray,
2016; Reynolds et al., 2017). Through professional development programs, faculty might be able to
enlarge their repertoire of teaching methods that foster respect for cultural differences, improve their
andragogical skills and responsiveness to student needs, and foster their awareness of their cultural
underpinnings of their perceptions of students (Duckworth et al., 2005; Murray, 2016; Otten, 2003).
Based on these notions, faculty educators need to nurture a facility in faculty that not only fosters
sufficient intercultural sophistication reflecting an understanding of the cultural contexts from which
their students, their families and communities come (Cushner, 2015a; Murray, 2016; Yershova et al.,
2000) but also a heightened cultural self-awareness and intercultural sensitivity toward difference
(Bigatti et al., 2012).

7

7

Statement of the Problem
Despite the context mentioned above, studies point out that the institutional structures, faculty,
administrators, and staff do not always keep pace with the dramatic change of student make-up in
today’s hyperconnected and diverse world (Cartwright, 2015; Warren, 2002). Consistent with the
nationwide statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics report, the faculty serving
increasingly ethnically diverse student bodies at many of California’s universities are predominantly
White (Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2018). For example, in the school year 2016-2017 at the University of
California (UC), 26% of students were White, 39% were Asian American-Pacific Islander, 26% Latinx
and 4% Black whereas 70% of UC tenured faculty were White, 16% Asian-Pacific Islander, 7% Latinx
and 3% Black (Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2018). Similarly, at the California State University (CSU)
system, 25% of students were White, 43% were Latinx, 18% Asian-Pacific Islander, and 4% Black
while 62% of CSU tenured faculty were White, 18% Asian-Pacific Islander,10% Latinx and 4% Black
(Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2018).
Faculty’s attitudes toward the overall student population are found to differ by students’ race
and ethnicity (Gleditsch & Berg, 2017). For instance, White faculty have been found to be unsure about
what part they could play in making ethnic/racial minority students want to learn and enhancing their
educational experiences (Gordon, 2007); worse still, they tend to hold the belief that students from
historically marginalized communities are academically underprepared (Gleditsch & Berg, 2017).
Perception of inadvertent discrimination, prejudice, and isolation by other students, faculty, or staff
could have negative impact on students from historically marginalized communities. For instance, their
academic and social adjustment to college, their academic achievement, and their persistence in college
might be subjected to the racial attitudes they experienced on campus (Carter, 2006; Creighton, 2007;

8

8

Hernandez & Lopez, 2004), which results in the long-term educational inequity reflected in the
statistics below.
Students from historically marginalized communities tend to have a higher probability of
leaving postsecondary education than White students, and they do not graduate at the same rate as
White students (Carter, 2006; Creighton, 2007; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). The NCES report showed
that 25% Black, 25% Pacific Islander, 26% American Indian, 18% Hispanic, and 12% Asian American
students completed some college but did not earned a bachelor’s degree in 2016 (de Brey et al., 2019).
Moreover, consistent with Carter’s (2006) finding that it typically took students from historically
underserved groups longer to earn an undergraduate degree, the NCES report showed that the 4-year
graduation rates for first-time, full-time undergraduate students was 50% or less for each ethnic/racial
group: 21% Black, 23% Indian American, 31% Pacific Islander, 32% Hispanic, 45% White, and 50%
Asian (de Brey et al., 2019). In addition to students from historically marginalized communities’ low
persistence and graduation rate, they also suffer academic disparities in the attainment of bachelor’s
degree. While 65% of White students have a bachelor’s degree, only 11% of Black and 13% of
Hispanics have attained bachelor’s degrees (de Brey et al., 2019).
Regardless of the above-mentioned data, Ng et al. (2007) argued that racialization of
foreignness and alienation are not measured by statistics and might not emerge in rates of academic
persistence or grade point average. The discourse analysis of the diversity action plans in 20 U.S.
universities revealed that the students of color are viewed as outsiders to the institution, at risk before
and during their participation in education, and dependent on the universities for success in higher
education (Iverson, 2007). Students from historically underserved groups continue to perceive “being
treated differently than their White peers” (Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003, p. 272) and perceive their
campus less supportive compared to their White peers (Kinzie et al., 2008).

9

9

Bensimon (2007) suggested that faculty and staff behavior are key variables in assisting
students from underrepresented groups to succeed in college. To enhance persistence, faculty play a
key role in both their decision-making related to course design, teaching methods, and instructional
materials that can directly influence students (Quaye, 2012). Moreover, studies showed that high level
of faculty-student interaction was strongly related to student persistence and college satisfaction
(Barbatis, 2010; Carter, 2006; Creighton, 2007; Museus & Quaye, 2009). Universities are
recommended to train faculty to employ a variety of pedagogies that acknowledge and honor the
experiences of learners (Carter, 2006; Creighton, 2007; Jehangir, 2010; Kinzie et al., 2008) and make
the most of diverse perspectives and student backgrounds in their classrooms (Bennett, 2001) to reach a
range of student abilities and needs. Meanwhile, Brown and Kysilka (2002) indicated that faculty’s
beliefs and attitudes, often unthinking responses in the present based on past experiences, continue to
influence, consciously or unconsciously, present and future teaching and learning situations. This
means that it is important to sensitize faculty through “cognitive irritation, emotional imbalance, and a
disruption of one’s own cultural worldview” (Otten, 2003, p. 15) in order to confront historically
entrenched structures. Based on Warren’s (2002) notion that pedagogies are designed to create change,
both personal and systemic, I investigated how faculty educators described the way they bolstered
faculty’s capacities to teach in an interculturally competent way.
Purpose of the Study
Given the above-mentioned notions that faculty need intercultural competence to teach an
increasingly diverse student population, the purpose of this study was to examine faculty educators’
perspectives on the way they guide faculty to support all students’ diversities and potentialities and to

10

10

explore the role their racial identities
1
played in their andragogical relationships with faculty. I
conducted cross-site multiple case studies to better understand how faculty educators described the way
they promoted faculty’s professional learning toward intercultural competence.
The research questions I sought to answer were the following:
1. How do faculty educators describe the approaches they use to guide faculty to teach in an
interculturally competent way to meet the needs of their diverse learners in 4-year institutions
of higher education?
2. How do faculty educators describe the influence of the faculty’s interpretations of their
(faculty educators’) racial identities on the ways they operate
2
?
Significance of the Study
Similar to Muijs et al.’s (2014) notion that becoming a skilled professional involved
progressively learning a set of knowledge and skills relevant to that profession, one of the most
important factors shaping teacher knowledge and growth was on-the-job training and experience
(Oleson & Hora, 2014), which foregrounded the importance of the role faculty educators played in
facilitating professional learning. This study was important because it allowed for an understanding of
the andragogical approaches that faculty educators believed they employed to help faculty cultivate and
incorporate intercultural competence in their instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners.

1
By racial identity, I meant a surface-level manifestation based on what we look like (e.g., our skin color), which has deep
implications in how we are treated, as it seems most often to be a frame in which individuals categorize others (Chavez &
Guido-DiBrito, 1999). Similarly, building on the notion that race is socially constructed and dynamic and that the self is
relational that extends the concept of identity beyond the individual, Way and Rogers (2015) indicated that racial identity is
not merely reflective of one’s membership in the racial category of, for example, Black, but also by the social meaning of
being Black within a particular context (e.g., United States).
2
The notion of racial identity emerged from the data and became finding three, not from my literature review or conceptual
framework, although this study set out with a research question centering around ICC. I revised the research question
accordingly.

11

11

The cross-site multiple case studies I conducted of faculty educators provided a glimpse of the
way faculty educators wrestled with their work in the way they helped foster faculty’s intercultural
competence. This study broadened my perspectives on the professional practices in the field of faculty
development in postsecondary institutions, because it enabled me to dive in an extensive literature
review of both theoretical frameworks and empirical studies relevant to intercultural competence and
andragogy. Moreover, I had the chance to learn from the first-hand accounts of the faculty educators’
professional work. I expect to use the insights I harvested from this study as I look for jobs related to
faculty support and/or diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education institutions. I believe this
study will inform my professional trajectory as a prospective educational leader.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter one provided the context of the
problem by describing the background and statement of the problem; the chapter then outlined the
purpose of the study and its significance. Chapter two presents two bodies of literature on intercultural
competence as well as faculty development and instructional strategies; it also provides the original
conceptual framework that synthesized the various concepts from the literature and informed the study.
Chapter three outlines the methodology for the study, including the procedures that were used to collect
and analyze the data along with attending to issues of credibility and trustworthiness, ethics, and
considerations of limitations and delimitations in this study. Chapter four presents the findings that
answered the research questions of this study. It also includes my revised conceptual framework with
concepts that emerged as a result of what I learned through the data collection and analysis process.
Revisions to the framework were made to address faculty educators’ beliefs of their instructional
approaches and their responses to the institutional context. Chapter five presents a summary of the

12

12

findings for the study and discusses the implications and recommendations for practice, policy, and
future research.

13

13

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This study examined how faculty educators described the ways they promoted faculty
professional learning toward intercultural competence and asked the following questions:
1. How do faculty educators describe the approaches they use to guide faculty to teach in an
interculturally competent way to meet the needs of their diverse learners in 4-year institutions
of higher education?
2. How do faculty educators describe the influence of the faculty’s interpretations of their
(faculty educators’) racial identities on the ways they operate?
To answer these questions, I drew on two bodies of literature. The first focused on intercultural
competence and the second focused on professional learning and a myriad of instructional strategies
that support faculty’s professional learning. I conclude this chapter with my conceptual framework,
which guided my research design, my data collection, and my data analysis approach.
Intercultural Competence
Although the basic phraseology of intercultural competence calls for what makes successful
human interactions across difference (Deardorff, 2015a), each term culture, intercultural, and
competence encapsulates a range of aspects variously understood by different commentators. Thus, it
was necessary to define each term so that I could focus my efforts and make the scope in this study
manageable. First, drawing on Spitzberg and Changnon’s (2009) and Murray’s (2016) notions, I used
the term culture in the traditional sense of ethnicity, community, convention, and behavioral norms
people were born into and acquired over time and structurally created and maintained by moment-to-
moment actions and interactions between social groups.
Consistent with Murray (2016), I determined intercultural was a superordinate, encompassing
linguistic, cultural, socio-economic and educational aspects. Following Cushner’s (2015b) notion, I

14

14

used the term intercultural to focus on the interpersonal dimension at the interface between people of
different cultural backgrounds as they worked toward deepened solidarity and collaboration with
others.
Lastly, Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) argued that since the 1950s the standard core
components of competence involved motivation (i.e., affective, emotion), knowledge (i.e., cognitive),
and skills (i.e., behavioral, actional) as well as context (i.e., situation, environment, culture,
relationship, function) and outcomes (e.g., perceived appropriateness). Based on Barrett et al.’s (2014),
Spitzberg and Changnon’s (2009), and Stone’s (2006) notions, for the purpose of this study,
competence was understood as a combination of attitudes, knowledge, and skills applied in ways that
were likely to meet certain demands within a given context.
According to Arasaratnam-Smith (2017) and Cushner (2015b), research in intercultural
competence could be traced back to the 1960s, when the Civil Rights Movement called for a more fully
understanding and integration of the experiences and contributions of the many diverse groups that
made up the fabric of U.S. society. From then on, the study of intercultural competence had continued
to mature and grow into a rich interdisciplinary pursuit, reflected in the abundance of research-oriented
publishing outlets such as International Journal of Intercultural Relations (Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017).
Despite decades of scholarly work, the definition of intercultural competence (ICC) had its myriad
iterations (Cushner, 2015b; Deardorff, 2006, 2008, 2012a; Deardorff & Jones, 2012; Spitzberg &
Changnon, 2009). Deardorff (2012a) drew on Moosmueller and Schoenhueth’s (2009) notion that “the
discourse on intercultural competence is multifaceted and often confusing” (p. 209). While there might
not need to be an agreed-on terminology, Deardorff (2012b, 2015b) pointed out that it was important to
recognize that many different terms were indeed used for the same concept and that it was critical to
understand more fully exactly how terms were defined, what frameworks were being used, and how

15

15

these terms were translated into practice in particular disciplines and subjects so that the academy could
move beyond ambiguous and lofty terms to substantive and meaningful practice. Drawing on
Deardorff’s (2006) framework, along with Bennett’s (1986) developmental framework, both of which
had a cognitive focus to allow for a conceptually integrated understanding of intercultural competence,
I conceived it more broadly and understood it as an individual’s capacity to manage cultural difference
in a way of valuing and relating.
In the following pages, I present the literature concerned with intercultural competence models.
I first present Spitzberg and Changnon’s (2009) review of five significant models relevant to
intercultural competence studies, followed by Deardorff’s process model (Deardorff, 2006, 2009), and
Cushner’s (2014) review of intercultural sensitivity framework. I also present “epistemic humility”
(Medina, 2013) and “cultural humility” (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998), which broadened the
understanding and application of intercultural competence.
Intercultural Models
Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) reviewed selective theories and models regarding intercultural
competence on the basis of their significance to the field, evidenced by the number of citations
referencing them. According to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009), conceptualizations of intercultural
competence all presupposed that they were envisioning a process, which implied ongoing change over
time, functional interdependence, equifinality (i.e., different paths to the same outcome), and
multifinality (i.e., one path to multiple outcomes). They divided selected models of intercultural
communication models into five types, including compositional, co-orientational, developmental,
adaptational, and causal process, as can be seen in Figure 1.

16

16

Figure 1
Overview of Intercultural Competence Models
Type Definition Examples
Compositional
Identify the hypothesized elements of
intercultural competence (e.g., traits and
skills) but does not specify conditional
relations among the components
(Deardorff, 2006;
Hamilton, Richardson, &
Shuford, 1998; Hunter et
al., 2006; Ting-Toomey &
Kurogi, 1998)
Co-orientational
Concerned mainly with the interactional
achievement and intercultural
understanding (e.g., communicative
mutuality and shared meanings)
(Byram et al., 2001;
Fantini, 1995; Kupka,
2008; Rathje, 2007)
Developmental
Emphasize the evolutionary nature of
interaction and relationships and recognize
that competence evolved through ongoing
interaction, specifying phases of
progression or maturity over time
(Bennett, 1986; Gullahorn
& Gullahorn, 1962; King &
Baxter-Magolda, 2005)
Adaptational
Highlight the interdependence of multiple
interactants and focus on the process of
mutual adjustment; adaptability is seen as
foundational to achieving ICC.
(Berry et al., 1989; Gallois
et al., 1988; Kim, 1988;
Navas et al., 2005)
Causal Process
Detail the explicit hypothesis in the
interrelationships among components of
ICC through a theoretical linear system
leading to ensuing outcomes
(Arasaratnam, 2008;
Deardorff, 2006; Griffith &
Harvey, 2000; Hammer et
al., 1998; Imahori &
Lanigan, 1989; Ting-
Toomey, 1999)
Adapted from The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 3-52), by B. Spitzberg &
G. Changnon (2009), Durham, NC: SAGE Publications, Inc. Copyright 2009 by SAGE Publications,
Inc.

After introducing the above intercultural competence models, Spitzberg and Changnon (2009)
discussed four sets of theoretical issues and considerations. First, they noticed the theories displayed
both considerable similarities in their broad brushstrokes (i.e., motivation, knowledge, skills, context,
outcomes), yet whether motivation, knowledge and skills were separable states and processes remained
a concern. In addition, the extensive diversity at the level of more than 300 specific conceptual

17

17

subcomponents suggested that there might be greater commonality across models than initially
assumed. Also, given the absence of potentially relevant concepts like physiological and emotional
aspects of interactants, the interactants were construed as largely cognitive, rational, conscious and
intentional beings.
Secondly, adaptation was defined on two levels: micro and macro, also construed as state
versus trait. Micro-level adaptation had to do with the interdependence and alteration of behavior in
episodes of interaction, whereas macro-level adaptation referred to the notion that the communicator
was skilled at making adjustments to the host culture across episodes and contexts of interaction within
that culture. Although adaptability seemed to be central to virtually all models of intercultural
competence, the concept of adaptability had not been measured validly, nor had the subcomponents of
adaptability like sensitivity and empathy been operationalized with much specificity or demonstrated
validity.
Thirdly, most of the models were developed in Western contexts, which raised the concern of
potential ethno-centricity of these models and limited the cross-cultural generalizability. A final
consideration was whether or how the best models should be identified. On the one hand, cultural
diversity implied a range of models; on the other hand, it was commonly agreed that a minimum core
theoretical constructs for any model relevant to intercultural competence should involve motivation,
knowledge, skills, context, and outcomes.
Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) concluded that there was a rich conceptual and theoretical
landscape from which many models had emerged as a result of five decades of scholarly activity on
intercultural competence. Regardless of the extensive commonality across the models, there were still
hundreds of theoretically distinct constructs related to intercultural competence. The authors contended
that it was necessary to develop a more parsimonious model that could integrate such diversity. In

18

18

addition, they also suggested that more efforts be made to systematically test the validity and cross-
cultural generality of the models postulated to date.
Deardorff (2006, 2009) used a grounded-research approach to documenting a consensus
definition of intercultural competence among leading scholars from various disciplines. Deardorff
(2006, 2009) employed the Delphi technique, which is an interactive process for structuring anonymous
communication within a larger group (a panel) of individuals with the goals of achieving consensus
among group members (Deardorff, 2004a, 2006, 2009). Deardorff (2006) identified the panel through
informational questionnaires of 24 administrators at U.S. postsecondary institutions, recognized by the
Association of International Educators and the American Council on Education (ACE) as an
internationalized institution, recommendations of other scholars, and the extensive literature review.
Among the 37 intercultural scholars receiving multiple nominations and invitations to participate in the
study, 23 nationally and internationally known scholars in the intercultural field agreed to participate in
the Delphi study over a 3-month period, during which they determined the essential elements of
intercultural competence and appropriate assessment methods of measuring the competence.
Based on the data generated from intercultural scholars through the Delphi study, Deardorff
defined intercultural competence broadly, as “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately
(emphasis in original) in intercultural interactions based on one’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes”
(Deardorff, 2004b, p. 198). She adopted the definitions of effectiveness and appropriateness from
Spitzberg’s (1989) work. Effectiveness (emphasis in original) referred to the extent to which the
individual’s valued objectives were achieved whereas appropriateness (emphasis in original) referred
to the avoidance of violating valued rules, or the manner and context in which those goals were attained
(Deardorff, 2006, 2015a); on the other hand, effectiveness could be determined by the interlocutor
whereas the appropriateness could be determined only by the other person, as it was directly related to

19

19

language fluency, cultural sensitivity, and the alignment to cultural norms of that individual (Deardorff,
2012a; Deardorff & Jones, 2012).
In regards to specific components of intercultural competence, the scholars strongly believed
that one component alone was not enough to ensure competence (Deardorff, 2006, 2008) and generated
22 essential components of the consensual definition of intercultural competence, which Deardorff
(2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2008, 2015a) outlined in her research and categorized them into attitudes,
knowledge, and skills, which were foundational to an individual’s internal and external outcomes of
intercultural competence. She asserted that understanding the desired outcomes of intercultural
competence was crucial in delineating the specific requisite elements of this concept (Deardorff,
2015a). The attitudinal elements included openness, respect, and curiosity/discovery; the cognitive
elements included cultural self-awareness, sociolinguistic awareness, cultural-specific knowledge, and
deep cultural knowledge. The specific skills include analyzing, interpreting, relating, listening, and
observing. The desired internal outcomes included adaptability, flexibility, an ethno-relative view, and
empathy whereas external outcomes included effective and appropriate communication and behavior in
an intercultural situation. The following sections delineate each dimension.
The attitudes of openness (refraining from judgment and making assumptions about others),
respect (valuing all cultures), and curiosity/discovery (wanting to know more about others and other
cultures and seeking to understand) were viewed as the most critical fundamental starting point to
further acquisition of knowledge or skills needed for the development of intercultural competence
(Deardorff, 2006, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2012a). This argument highlighted that everything that could be
taught or learned depended on an individual’s attitude.
Deardorff (2008) asserted that the knowledge necessary for intercultural competence involved
both awareness of one’s own cultural norms and sensitivity to those of other cultures (Deardorff, 2008).

20

20

The knowledge areas identified in the Delphi study included cultural self-awareness (how one’s culture
had its impact on one’s identity and worldview), sociolinguistic awareness (how an individual used
language within a societal and social setting), cultural specific knowledge (the underlying cultural
values and communication styles), and deep cultural knowledge (a thorough understanding of other
worldviews, influences on cultural development, and the role and impact of specific cultures in the
world) (Deardorff, 2006, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2012a).
Deardorff (2004b, 2006, 2008, 2012a) emphasized that awareness and cultural knowledge were
gained through the development of key cognitive and communication skills, including listening,
observing, analyzing, interpreting, and relating. She argued that it was important for individuals to use
these skills to be able to acquire and apply cultural knowledge on an ongoing basis (Deardorff, 2008);
meanwhile, individuals should be cognizant of the processing of knowledge, foregrounding the
importance of reflection (Deardorff, 2008) and critical self-reflection (Deardorff, 2015a, 2015b).
The above-mentioned skills in combination with prerequisite attitudes and the resulting
knowledge acquisition ideally entailed an internal outcome, involving an internal shift in frame of
reference, that consisted of adaptability, flexibility, ethno-relative perspective, and empathy (Deardorff,
2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2012a, 2015a). At this point, despite varying degrees of success depending on the
amount of knowledge and skills acquired, an individual would be ideally capable of beginning to see
from others’ perspectives and responding to others in accordance with the way the other person desired
to be treated (Deardorff, 2010a).
The summation of attitudes, knowledge, skills, together with internal outcomes were manifested
through the visible appropriate and effective behavior and communication of the individual in an
intercultural situation (Deardorff, 2006, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2012a, 2015b). These observable
behaviors and communication were the external outcomes that formed the basis of intercultural

21

21

interaction, predicated on the above requisite components of knowledge, skills, and attitudes
(Deardorff, 2006, 2008, 2010a, 2012a, 2015b).
Deardorff (2004b, 2006) presented the components of intercultural competence in the process
model, as presented in the Figure 2 below. The process model was a cyclical framework that moved
from individual level (i.e., attitudes, knowledge, and skills) to interactional level (outcomes) with more
of the movement occurring between the various elements (i.e., each part of the model can impact the
others directly), with degrees of appropriateness and effectiveness being optimal when the entire cycle
was completed (Deardorff, 2006, 2008).

Figure 2
The Process Model of Intercultural Competence

Reprinted from “Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome
of internationalization,” by D. K. Deardorff (2006), Journal of studies in international
education, 10(3), p. 256. Copyright 2006 by D. K. Deardorff.

22

22

The process framework found resonance across cultural contexts (Deardorff, 2012a) and
provided a structured way to conceptualize the experts’ consensual definition of intercultural
competence (Deardorff, 2008). Its nonlinear nature demonstrated the ongoing process of intercultural
competence development, meaning that it was a continual lifelong process of improvement (Deardorff,
2006, 2010b), as intercultural competence occurred in varying degrees over a lifetime (Deardorff,
2010a). Additionally, this particular model of intercultural competence occurred within a much larger
context, which meant it was intended to be used in juxtaposition and combination with other
frameworks, including ones that dealt with the developmental, psychological, ethical and interpersonal
aspects of human interactions (Deardorff, 2012a; Deardorff & Jones, 2012).
Deardorff (2010b, 2012a) suggested that intercultural competence did not naturally happen for
most people and it had to be intentionally addressed and cultivated. With that in mind, she (2008,
2010a) argued that educators played a key role in addressing the intentional intercultural competence
development of future generations, especially for the purpose of graduating global ready students in
post-secondary institutions (Deardorff, 2010b). In particular, Deardorff (2010b, 2012b) called attention
to the fact that faculty were integral in shaping the student experience if they could understand the
complex concept of intercultural competence, infuse interculturally competent practices in their
curricula, and be well prepared to provide feedback to students in their intercultural journeys. Deardorff
noted that the use of the process model would help guide faculty’s curricular and co-curricular efforts
and ensure a more comprehensive and integrated approach in developing students’ intercultural
competence (Deardorff, 2010a, 2010b).
Given the critical role educators played in developing students’ intercultural competence,
Deardorff (2010b) recommended that educators utilize the process model framework for educators to
engage in self-reflection. Deardorff (2010b) offered a set of assessment questions inclusive of each

23

23

dimension described above (i.e., attitudes, knowledge, skills, desired internal outcomes, and desired
external outcomes) as a reflection guide:
3
(1) attitude (e.g., “How truly open am I to those from
different cultural, socioeconomic, and religious backgrounds?,” p. 93), (2) knowledge (e.g., “Can I
describe my own cultural conditioning?,” p. 94), (3) skills (e.g., “Do I engage in active reflection on my
teaching practice and on my interactions with those from different cultural backgrounds?,” p. 94), (4)
internal outcomes (e.g., “Am I able to adapt my behavior and communication style to accommodate
students from different culturally conditioned communication styles?,” p. 94), and (5) external
outcomes (e.g., “How culturally appropriate have I been in my interactions with my students?,” p. 94).
The above-described questions served as indicators of intercultural competence that faculty could use to
reflect on their teaching practice in facilitating students’ global preparedness (Deardorff, 2010, 2012b).
In reviewing literature on intercultural competence from various cultural perspectives,
Deardorff (2009, 2010b, 2012a) acknowledged that the intercultural competence in the Process Model
was discussed from the Western perspective; that is, it was likely that people in different cultures and
countries interpreted and demonstrated intercultural competence in a totally different manner. Based on
this notion, Deardorff underscored the necessity of accounting for historical, social, and economic
contexts regarding the role of colonialization on intercultural contact within societies, emphasized the
importance of relationship-building and the interconnectedness within intercultural dialogue and
competence, and identified self-awareness/identity, adaptation, and cultural humility (emphasis added)
as the skills with broader applicability in recognizing multiple perspectives and valuing others from
diverse cultural backgrounds. Deardorff (2012b) also noted that the key to using any tool and method to
further intercultural understanding was that it remained relevant and appropriate to the context where it

3
In Deardorff (2010b), she offered four to six questions for each dimension. Due to the scope of this dissertation, I only
cited one question from each dimension for readers’ reference.

24

24

was used. To achieve that end, Deardorff (2012b) offered questions for further reflection and
exploration in putting intercultural competence to work and provided criteria that needed to be taken
into consideration when exploring methods for developing intercultural competence within
communities. For the purpose of this dissertation, the questions suggested in Deardorff (2012b) were
reprinted in Figure 3 below to inform the conceptual framework and the research process.

Figure 3
The Questions for Further Exploration in Putting Intercultural Competence to Work
1.
Who needs intercultural skills/competence within communities? Who are the
stakeholders and why is this important to them?
2. What are the specific needs of those involved?
3.
What are we missing by focusing exclusively on skills? What else should be addressed
within intercultural understanding?
4.
Which methods are most appropriate for those involved in further intercultural
understanding and development?
5. What resources are available for utilizing the selected methods?
6.
What do we anticipate as the challenges in conveying intercultural skills/learning in
this context and how can those challenges be addressed?
7.
What attributes, based on the cultural context, are needed in those who facilitate the
acquisition of these intercultural skills?
8.
What are the specific goals and intended outcomes of conveying intercultural
competence? In other words, what should participants be able to know or do that they
were not able to do before? What are the priorities upon which to focus?
9.
What needs to be put in place for facilitating the development of intercultural
competence? Specifically, what content support the stated goals and outcomes?
10. Which processes are best to use to convey the content within this context?
11.
What are the underlying assumptions about the participants? Content? Processes? How
can different perspectives be incorporated into the methods used?
12.
What will be the evidence that these skills have been successfully addressed? In other
words, how will these skills be assessed?
Reprinted from Creating cultural synergies: Multidisciplinary perspectives on interculturality
and inter-religiosity (pp. 15-16), by D. K. Deardorff (2012b), Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge
Scholars Pub. Copyright 2012 by D. K. Deardorff.

25

25

Cushner (2014) discussed an array of developmentally appropriate teaching strategies based on
Bennett’s (1993) developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS), which suggested a
continuum of six stages, including denial, defense (also known as polarization), minimization,
acceptance, adaptation, and integration, reflecting individual’s underlying cognitive orientation toward
cultural difference. Moving from ethno-centric to more ethno-relative orientations, the first three stages
(i.e., denial, defense/polarization, and minimization) were characterized by an individual’s worldview
of avoiding difference whereas the latter three stages (i.e., acceptance, adaptation, and integration)
reflected an individual’s predisposition of seeking difference.
Denial referred to an individual’s incapability of making perceptual distinctions of cultural
difference, evident in their tendency to reduce culture to stereotypes, maintain physical and
psychological isolation from differences, and dehumanize culturally different others. Defense was
concerned with the dualistic us-them thinking, in which a person’s own culture was experienced and
asserted as the superior one, leading to surface-level recognition of objective cultural difference and
negative reaction and evaluations of other cultures. Minimization had to do with an individual’s
proclivity for neutralizing other cultures and obscuring and cultural differences by assuming universal
absolutes with an emphasis on similarities of people and shared basic values. Acceptance, the next
stage along the continuum, referred to recognition and appreciation of other cultures and their value
relativity with a beginning capacity to interpret phenomena within a cultural context. Adaptation
referred to the ability to consciously shift different cultural perspectives in interpreting phenomena and
yield perception and behavior appropriate to another culture. Lastly, integration involved the capability
of internalizing two or more cultures in one’s identity, allowing for lively interaction in a variety of
cultures. As achieving the stage of integration took significant time and was not a stage most learners
would achieve, Cushner (2014) concurred with Bennett’s (2003) notion that most people should aim for

26

26

acceptance and adaption stage as their ultimate goal of intercultural learning. Cushner (2014) proposed
that teacher educators could integrate the teaching strategies in their curricula in accordance with
teacher education students’ developmental readiness, which is introduced in the next section.
Cultural Humility
Despite the existence of multiple and various theoretical constructs of intercultural competence,
Tervalon and Murray-Garcia (1998) offered insight from the multicultural medical education’s
perspective in arguing that cultural humility should be a more suitable goal than cultural competence.
Tervalon and Murray-Garcia (1998) proposed that cultural humility required individuals to commit
themselves to becoming lifelong learners as well as reflective practitioners who were flexible, honest,
and humble enough to take a critical perspective on how their cultural identities and backgrounds
influenced their thought patterns and attitudes, to carry out a critical appraisal of the ways in which
power imbalances played out in the dynamics of physician-patient communication, and to develop and
maintain mutually respectful partnerships with diverse community members and organizations.
Tervalon and Murray-Garcia (1998) proposed that it was through an ongoing process of self-reflection
and self-critique that individuals could embody cultural humility and change their attitudes toward
diverse cultural groups. Hook and Watkins (2015) concurred with Tervalon and Murray-Garcia’s
(1998) notion of cultural humility from the perspective of psychological service provision and argued
that cultural humility was an important component of multicultural competence and multicultural
orientation, as it involved a willingness to reflect on an individual’s own self as an embedded cultural
being with limitations. Hook and Watkins (2015) wrote that taking a culturally humble stance, manifest
in individuals’ openness to, respect for, and valuing others’ cultural perspectives, was an essential start
point to interact with culturally different individuals.

27

27

Medina (2013) argued that social injustices bred epistemic injustices. Social injustices such as
racist and sexist ideologies had a negative impact on the epistemic relations interpersonally and
personally. In other words, in a society full of social injustices, people were inclined to epistemic
distortions and biases that had consequences in multiple aspects of their lives, particularly manifested
in their impaired capacity to obtain and impart testimonial knowledge (i.e., the knowledge being
expressed and transmitted via a wide variety of communicative exchanges in everyday practices).
However, differently situated groups accumulated different epistemic gains and losses. For example,
ostensibly the economically and socio-politically privileged had access to information and educational
institutions, capacity to publicize knowledge and to command epistemic authority, and had a credible
voice; notwithstanding, the privileged were also too epistemically spoiled to find out their own
limitations and learn their mistakes and biases, leaving them more at risk of developing epistemic vice,
a set of corrupted attitudes and dispositions that get in the way of knowledge. In the discussion of how
differently positioned groups accrued epistemic traits and how epistemic advantages and disadvantages
permeated among members of society, Medina (2013) presented a framework identifying three
epistemic vices: epistemic arrogance, epistemic laziness and epistemic close-mindedness, as well as the
corresponding epistemic virtues (i.e., a set of attitudes and dispositions that facilitate the acquisition
and dissemination of knowledge): epistemic humility, intellectual curiosity/diligence, and open-
mindedness, all of which will be illustrated below.
According to Medina (2013), active ignorance required the person being intentionally ignorant
of their social positionality out of self-protecting defense mechanisms. The epistemic flaws
contributing to active ignorance were the attitudinal structures grounded in the epistemic character of
the individuals and were constitutive of the social identity those individuals had acquired. For instance,
epistemic arrogance was characteristic of the economically and socio-politically privileged people,

28

28

who were more likely to develop cognitive self-indulgence or cognitive superiority complex to the
extent that such undisrupted cognitive authority, unquestioned cognitive reputability and delusional
cognitive omnipotence prevented them from acknowledging any mistake and limitation in their
knowledge. The privilege of knowing or being assumed to know led to the accumulation of oversights,
errors, and distortions undetectable to the privileged individuals, whose epistemic perspective and
agency were compromised, rendering them immune to contestation and insensitive to contrary evidence
and to alternative perspectives. On the other hand, Medina (2013) also wrote about the privilege of not
needing to know and of needing not to know. The former was ignorance out of luxury whereas the latter
was ignorance out of necessity; the former, epistemic laziness, was socially produced and carefully
orchestrated lack of curiosity while the latter, epistemic closed-mindedness, was an avoidance
mechanism resulting from person’s effort of ignoring a whole range of experiences and viewpoints that
could destabilize their own perspective. Similar to epistemic arrogance, epistemic laziness and
epistemic close-mindedness eroded the individual’s cognitive dispositions and constrained their
cognitive agency, therefore compromising their learning potential and further pursuit of knowledge.
Based on this notion, those who were epistemically ignorant, lazy, and close-minded were actively
ignorant, who not only had limited learning capacities but also had constrained epistemic involvement
in their community. According to Medina (2013), the lack of familiarity and critical awareness of one’s
social positionality contributed to the phenomenon of normalizing and homogenizing tendencies of a
privileged perspective that protected itself by blocking the recognition of differences, such as color- and
gender-blindness.
In contrast to three epistemic vices described above, Medina (2013) contended that structural
active ignorance could be corrected only by developing its counterparts—epistemic virtues: epistemic
humility, intellectual curiosity/diligence, and open-mindedness. Epistemic humility laid in a humble and

29

29

self-questioning attitude toward one’s cognitive repertoire and the attentiveness to one’s cognitive
limitation and deficits. Intellectual curiosity/diligence was the motivation to meet more cognitive
demands, to face epistemic challenges head-on, and to fill cognitive gaps. Open-mindedness was the
attentiveness to the viewpoints of differently situated others and to cognitive and interpretative
differences. Medina (2013) asserted that those who were epistemically humble, curious/diligent, and
open-minded were better equipped for subversive lucidity, manifested in an individual’s potential to see
the limitations of dominant ways of seeing and to engage in an inversion of perspectives, or a radical
questioning of fundamental ways of available framework.
Medina (2013) furthered his argument by introducing epistemic resistance as the opposing
forces reacting against each other. Epistemic resistance was grounded in the social positionality and
relationality of embodied agents. As a person’s cognitive trajectory was propelled along a myriad of
cognitive powers and authorities and perspectives of diverse force, impulses, and compulsions,
epistemic equilibrium was maintained through an individual’s exertion of epistemic resistance. Medina
(2013) foregrounded the importance of attuning to the operations and effects of epistemic resistance, as
the absence or denial of epistemic resistance promotes epistemic vices whereas the acknowledgement
and engagement with epistemic resistance facilitate epistemic virtues. The special attunement to
epistemic resistance required an individual’s epistemic responsibility, consisting of the individual’s
epistemic orientations toward themselves and toward others. From Medina’s (2013) viewpoint,
epistemic agents were responsible not only for the cognitive actions, practices, and products their
psychological structures produce, but also for the epistemic character they had developed over time,
which involved understanding one’s social trajectory and social positionality. In this sense, it merited
notice that such self-knowledge that was required for responsible epistemic agency involved the
understanding and awareness of how one’s life and social identity were bound with others. Responsible

30

30

epistemic agency, then, required minimal understanding of those social others with whom we
interacted.
Medina (2013) contended that overcoming active ignorance required a complex process of self-
transformation (i.e., the reconfiguration of the self that required the development of new epistemic
habits and the destruction of old ones) as well as social change. Subversive lucidity, supported by
epistemic humility, intellectual curiosity/diligence, and open-mindedness, motivated critique and
cognitive transformation. Likewise, beneficial epistemic friction through interacting with significantly
different epistemic others was also contributive to the restructuring of the self, as epistemic resistance
helped subjects see things afresh and redirect their perceptual habits. Lastly, Medina drew on Fricker’s
(2007) vision and brought forth the key point that epistemic injustice could be avoided if epistemic
agents took a critical stance in considering how identity power functions in the society and how
hegemonic perspectives were maintained and protected.
The above review of seminal scholarship of intercultural competence, epistemic humility, and
cultural humility offered good reason to incorporate intercultural competence in the teaching and
learning, as intercultural competence allowed for multiple ways of knowing and being that valued and
related to others across differences. However, I needed to review literature regarding faculty
development and instructional strategies to add another layer to my understanding of how faculty
educators believed they engaged faculty members in teaching in interculturally competent way and to
better understand the intercultural dynamics that operate at the interface of teaching and learning.
Faculty Development and Instructional Strategies
In order to understand how faculty educators enacted intercultural competence in their
instructional practices with faculty at the faculty development sessions, I needed to understand the
ways in which faculty educators conceptualized diversity issues associated with intercultural

31

31

competence as well as the pedagogical implications behind the definitions (i.e., the instructional
strategies) that had been studied and applied in the professional learning settings.
I structured my examination of faculty development and instructional strategies to look first at
the ways in which professional learning for faculty had been researched. Thus, I drew on teacher
education literature, as faculty members could be compared to teacher candidates with the primary
difference being the age of the students they would ultimately teach (i.e., the teacher candidates
teaching K-12 and the faculty member teaching young adults, slightly older than high school students)
although I acknowledged that there were significant differences between faculty members and teacher
candidates in terms of teaching requirements and teaching skills (e.g., K-12 instructors tended to have
to meet national content standards while faculty usually did not; in K-12, teaching skill was
emphasized, while in higher ed, depending on the institution type, teaching was usually an add-on.) (D.
Grant, personal communication, September 4, 2019).
Next, I examined how intercultural competence was fostered and the ways in which
interculturally competent instructors supported learners’ opportunities to develop intercultural
competence. I also drew on adult learning principles as well as teacher education literature to examine
the pedagogical tools for enhancing faculty’s, as adult learners, learning. Next, I furthered my
understanding of transformative learning by turning to antiracist pedagogy and critical reflection.
Professional Learning for Faculty
Lawler and King (2000b) drew on Gaff’s (1976) definition of faculty development: “enhancing
the talents, expanding the interests, and improving the competence and otherwise facilitating the
professional and personal growth of faculty members, particularly in their roles as instructors” (as cited
in Lawler & King, 2000b, p. 3). Lawler and King (2000b) pointed out the fact that faculty today remain
predominantly middle-class White male teaching students from a broad spectrum of racial and ethnic

32

32

groups to foreground the importance of faculty development that aids faculty in adapting student
learning to teach effectively. The underlying assumption was that faculty’s participating in the
professional development altered teachers’ knowledge, which in turn altered their practices, which in
turn altered student learning (Kennedy, 2016). For the purpose of this dissertation, I used Webster-
Wright’s (2009) notion of professional learning (PL) (emphasis added) instead of professional
development (PD) (emphasis added) on the ground that professional learning was continuing, active,
socially situated and constructed, and related to individuals’ professional practice (Webster-Wright,
2009). The term faculty development and professional learning were used interchangeably, as they
reflect my belief that educators needed to approach their work as a “life-long journey of
transformation” (Nieto, 2000, p. 184, as cited in Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p. 463), as
workplace learning was implicated in the continuing construction of the self and predicated on
individuals’ cognitive effort (Webster-Wright, 2009).
Ping et al. (2018) provided a systematic review of educational studies on teacher educators’
professional learning in terms of the content of professional learning (PL), the learning activities
teacher educators undertook, and their reasons for learning at work. Given a lack of a systematic
overview of studies on teacher educators’ professional learning, Ping et al. (2018) conducted a
literature search with search terms teacher educator(s) AND professional development (emphasis in
original) and teacher educator(s) AND professional learning (emphasis in original) in Web of Science,
ERIC, and SCOPUS. Given the fact that the research on teacher educators only emerged in the early
2000s, Ping et al. (2018) limited the search time frame to the period 2000 to 2015. With a specific focus
on teacher educators working in higher education institutes and a heightened attention to three aspects
of professional learning (i.e., what, how, and why teacher educators learn), Ping et al. (2018) extracted
75 research articles from their initial search result of 1701 articles. In their analysis of the selected

33

33

articles, the labels and overarching themes with respect to content, activities, and reasons of
professional learning were identified, agreed upon by three authors, and then grouped into major
categories and subcategories, as could be seen in the Figure 4, in which the numbers in parentheses
indicated the frequencies of the studies.

Figure 4
Aspects of Professional Learning for Teacher Educators
PL content
Pedagogy of teacher education
(46)
Learning about teaching (19)
Teaching about teaching (22)
Mentoring and supervision (5)
Research and reflection (22)
Research (10)
Reflection (12)
Professional Identity (20)
Teacher educator identity (12)
Researcher identity (8)
Knowledge base (15)
Different kinds of knowledge needed to
prepare student teachers for their future
profession (7)
The profession of teacher education (8)
PL activity
Learning through academic engagement
(33)
Learning through doing research (30)
Engaging in academic activities (3)
Learning through collaborative activities
(32)
Getting input from significant others (15)
Learning communities (17)
Learning through attending PD
programs (16)
Attending research-related PD programs (9)
Attending educational PD programs (7)

Learning through reflective activity (9)
Collaborative reflection (6)
Individual reflection (3)
Reasons for
PL
External requirement (12)
Changes in teacher education
policy/program (9) Assessment of institutes in higher education
(3)
Personal ambition (29)
Personal interest (13)
Personal responsibility (16)
Professional role transition (5)
Adapted from “Teacher educators’ professional learning: A literature review,” by Ping et al.
(2018), Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, pp. 93-104. Copyright 2018 by Ping et al.

34

34

Regarding the professional learning content topics, four major themes emerged: pedagogy of
teacher education, research and reflection, professional identity, and knowledge base. Pedagogy for
teacher education involved the knowledge and skills necessary for teacher educators to understand both
how to teach and how student teachers learn to teach (learning about teaching), the capacity for making
explicit the implicit pedagogical reasons underlying their teaching practices to student teachers
(teaching about teaching), and the ability to provide supervision, support, and feedback to scaffold
student teacher learning (mentoring and supervision). Research and reflection involved teacher
educators’ capability of strengthening their professional knowledge with both theoretical and
methodological knowledge (research), and their capacity to reflect on and analyze their own teaching
practices for increased awareness and to support their student teachers to engage in similar reflective
act (reflection). Professional identity included the fact that teacher educators positioned themselves as
professionals fostering future teachers (teacher educator identity) and as researchers with an inquiring
mind (research identity). Knowledge base involved the teacher educators’ acquisition of subject
knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of curriculum necessary for helping
student teachers navigate education landscape (different kinds of knowledge needed to prepare student
teachers for their future profession) and the understandings of specific characteristics and culture in the
context of teacher education (the profession of teacher education).
In view of professional learning activities, four major themes arose: learning through academic
engagement, collaborative activities, attending professional development programs, and reflective
activities. Learning through academic engagement included teacher educators’ engagement in
practitioner research to improve practice as well as in academic research to contribute to theoretical
knowledge (learning through doing research), and their journal article reading/writing and conference
attendance (engaging in academic activities). Learning through collaborative activities involved

35

35

exchanging and discussing ideas about professional practice with their trusted colleagues, student
teachers, mentors, and teachers in schools (getting input from significant others), and learning from
other teacher educators with shared professional interests (learning community). Learning through
attending professional development (PD) programs involved partaking in PDs focusing on academic or
practitioner research and supporting teacher educators’ research expertise (attending research-related
PD programs), taking part in PDs supporting specific aspects of teacher educators’ profession
(attending educational PD programs). Learning through reflective activity included undertaking and
sharing personal reflections with colleagues or student teachers (collaborative reflection), and personal
reflection on the past events, critical incidents, or teaching practices (individual reflection).
With regard to reasons for professional learning, one category “personal ambitions,”
exemplified teacher educators’ internal motivation while two categories “external requirement” and
“professional role transition” indicated teacher educators’ external motivations. Personal ambitions
involved teacher educators’ desire to learn and improve their practice (professional interest), and their
need to acquire new knowledge and skill so as to better support their student teachers (personal
responsibility). External requirement involved the urge teacher educators felt to update their knowledge
and skills to align with new demands or policy change (changes in teacher education policy/program),
and the need to conduct research and publish research articles in response to evaluation of higher
education institutes (assessments of institutes in higher education). Professional role transition referred
to new challenges and expectations teacher educators encountered after their transitions from school
teachers to teacher educators in higher education institutes. Ping et al. (2018) concluded that the
involvement of many elements that played a role in teacher educators’ learning demonstrated the
complexity of this issue.

36

36

Stanley (2010) presented a framework identifying factors to consider regarding multicultural
faculty development activities at the course, program, and institutional levels. Building on Anderson’s
(1995) and Wlodkowski and Ginsberg’s (1995) notion that a multicultural classroom embodied a
teaching and learning environment where “independence is valued, racism is confronted, differences
are affirmed, communities are strengthened, knowledge is presented from multiple perspectives, and
equity and social justice are maintained” (Stanley, 2010, p. 10), Stanley underscored the need for
faculty educators to be knowledgeable and mindful about diversity so as to be able to assist faculty in
designing inclusive curricula, heightening their own multicultural self-awareness, expanding their
repertoire of instructional approaches, examining how sociocultural diversity issues were manifested in
the learning environments, and fostering their understanding of students’ cultural heritages. Such
purposeful multicultural faculty development effort required faculty educators to reflect on their social
positions, investigate their assumption and entrenched beliefs, and examine their thinking and reactions
regularly in and beyond educational contexts.
Stanley (2010) argued that taking into account institutional commitment, program rationale,
theoretical and pedagogical rationale, domains of multicultural teaching, and roles and responsibilities
of the faculty developer (emphasis in original) could add to the effectiveness of multicultural faculty
development effort. First, Stanley (2010) contended that it was a central rallying point that the
multicultural faculty development program promoted faculty ownership of their professional
development sessions that undergirded campus-wide diversity initiatives. Toward that end, Stanley
(2010) pointed out that seeking institutional commitment, resources and verbal support from senior-
level administrators was necessary, and so was collaborating with associated liaisons such as student
affairs and international student services. Regarding program rationale, Stanley (2010) stated that the
recognition and articulation of the rationale was essential for the support, coordination, implementation,

37

37

and evaluation of faculty development activities, because communicating the meaning of diversity and
multicultural teaching provided grounding in what changes could be made to enhance the quality of
teaching and learning. Besides, Stanley (2010) also called attention to the need to ground faculty
development activities in a theoretical and pedagogical framework, such as cultural pluralism and
social justice education practice, that could reflect the goal of the program. Another factor to consider
was domains of multicultural teaching. Stanley (2010) drew on Jackson and Holvino’s (1988) and
Marchesani and Adams’s (1992) framework to highlight the four dimensions of the learning and
teaching process operative in a diverse classroom that faculty members might encounter, as presented
in Figure 5. These dimensions provided a basis for faculty to reflect on the format and content of
multicultural teaching from different perspectives.

38

38

Figure 5
Four Dimensions of Multicultural Teaching
Domains of
multicultural
teaching
Tasks
Faculty
Know oneself.
Develop mono-cultural/multicultural socialization.
Examine assumptions and stereotyped beliefs.
Mentor students.
Teaching Methods
(implicit messages)
Examine the culture of the classroom.
Broaden repertoire of teaching methods to address multiple learning
styles.
Establish classroom norms that emphasize respect, fairness, and
equity.
Course Content
(explicit messages)
Use a curriculum of inclusion.
Represent diverse perspectives.
Draw examples and illustrations from diverse life experiences.
Students
Know your students.
Develop mono-cultural/multicultural socialization.
Examine assumptions and stereotyped beliefs.
Reprinted from Conceptualizing, designing, and implementing multicultural faculty
development activities (p. 207), by Stanley, C. A. (2010), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Copyright 2010 by Catherine A. Stanley.

Lastly, Stanley (2010) spelled out the aspects regarding roles and responsibilities of the faculty
developer, including knowledge of self, knowledge of scholarship, audience awareness, managing
conflict, professional allies, and contributing to campus policies. The author wrote that faculty
educators modeled reflection to faculty members by looking critically at their own identity and cultural
biases that might have an impact on how they interacted with faculty, how they conceptualized
diversity issues and delivered faculty development units, and how they perceived faculty whose
perspectives and experiences were totally different from their own. The author also wrote that faculty
educators addressed social and cultural aspects of faculty development by broadening their knowledge

39

39

of and taking a critical stance toward how multicultural teaching, diversity and oppression were defined
in academia as well as the pedagogical implications behind the definitions within the institution’s
culture and initiatives. Another key point of the role and responsibilities of faculty developer was to
identify the makeup of faculty development participants’ identity characteristics, such as race, ethnicity,
age, gender, class, and sexual orientation, just to name a few, to better meet their needs, engage them in
active learning, and increase the likelihood of success. Additionally, Stanley (2010) also highlighted the
importance for faculty educators to be capable of recognizing and managing conflicts when
encountering faculty resistance to change in teaching and learning. The author recommended that
faculty educators utilize Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument to
determine five specific conflict modes, including competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising,
and collaborating, in order to facilitate difficult conversations around diversity and improve
relationships between and among different social groups. In addition, Stanley (2010) also encouraged
faculty educators to seek and learn from effective allies, who might be faculty members, other faculty
educators, or staff members, to exchange ideas, garner resources, and continue on their own
professional development. Lastly, Stanley (2010) urged faculty educators to develop campus
partnerships by serving on key campus committees that had to do with multicultural initiatives to make
possible institutional transformation in attitudes and behaviors toward multicultural learning.
In discussing the design of multicultural faculty development programs, Stanley (2010) argued
the importance of relevance and practicality of the content, which should not merely raise awareness
about multicultural issues but also identify organizational resources to create affordance for continuous
learning and growth. Stanley (2010) concluded with examples of multicultural faculty learning
activities suggested from the literature, involving case study and self-assessment exercise workshops,
individual consultation on course review and syllabus design, and 4-level course and curriculum design

40

40

approaches: the contributions approach, the additive approach, the transformation approach, and the
action approach.
Samuels (2014a) measured faculty preparedness to build cultural inclusiveness using a survey
she had developed and tested. The survey was comprised of 27 items representing five components of
preparedness, including faculty’s attitudes about diversity, consideration of social group memberships,
self-awareness of biases and behaviors, intention/self-efficacy, and inclusive behavioral outcomes, and
all of which were measured on a 7-point Likert scale and concluded with demographics questions
(Samuels, 2014a). The instrument was disseminated to a random national sample of 8,861 part-time
and full-time faculty members across various disciplines in 2- and 4-year colleges, universities and
academies. A total of 637 faculty members completed the emailed survey in its entirety and the
response rate was about 7%. Of the 637 respondents, 79% identified as White and 12.4% people of
color, similar to the national average of 80% White faculty and 17% faculty of color. Female
respondents accounted for 54% while male respondents 45.5%; the national average was 42% for the
former and 58% for the latter. The age range of the 637 respondents was from 23 to 83. To analyze the
data, the author split the sample into two random groups. The author then conducted exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) on the first subsample (N=319) to identify factor structure, which was found consistent
with the theoretical framework. Next, the author employed structural equation modeling (SEM) on the
second subgroup (N=318) to confirm the EFA findings and to evaluate the resulting structural model.
The author found the structural equation model (i.e., by correlating error terms to improve the model)
produced a good fit to the data and that the survey instrument showed strong internal consistency. The
results demonstrated high scores on each of five constructs of preparedness, suggesting that faculty
members considered themselves prepared to build cultural inclusiveness, which was in contrast to what
was theorized in the previous relevant research. Samuels argued that the discrepancy between faculty’s

41

41

self-perceived preparedness and what was actually the case. The faculty’s overestimated confidence
level on the factors of preparedness, which might have had to do with social desirability theory, which
maintained that survey respondents had a tendency to present themselves in a favorable light to align
with the current cultural expectations of diversity and inclusiveness in the classroom. On the other
hand, Samuels (2014a) argued that the reason the respondents might have perceived themselves as less
prejudiced than they likely could have been was that the social pressures motivated people to control
their feelings of prejudice, which were socially undesirable.
The survey results were presented and discussed separately in terms of the aforementioned
component of faculty preparedness (Samuels, 2014a). With regard to attitudes about diversity, the
author found that on average, the respondents somewhat agreed that social inequalities existed and that
they were personally accepting of diversity; it was possible that faculty members were unaware or
unsure of unequal social systems and their consequences and it was likely that they did not see their
social statuses as maintaining privilege, making it less likely for them to create inclusive learning
environments for their students. Regarding consideration of social group memberships, the survey
results demonstrated that on average the respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they were
comfortable interacting with differently positioned groups on campus, meaning that they had a high
comfort level in interacting with those who were different from them. Nevertheless, the author argued
that this relatively high mean (i.e., the highest of all five factors) could also indicate faculty members’
color-blindness or identity-blindness, leaving them ignoring the differences of those in non-dominant
groups. With regard to self-reflection on biases and behaviors, the result of the survey showed that on
average, the respondents “agreed” that they consciously treated diverse campus members with respect
and acceptance. Regardless of the faculty’s belief and confidence in how they treated those who were
culturally different from them, the author cautioned that it was probable that they might not realize they

42

42

might have unknowingly and unintentionally perpetuated covert forms of oppression like micro-
aggressions. In discussing intention/self-efficacy, the author found that on average the respondents
agreed that it was their responsibility to build campus inclusiveness, that they could have an impact on
campus inclusiveness, and that they intended to do so; however, the author contended that faculty
members were more likely to recognize the accountability to build campus inclusiveness than to assert
that they had the skills to make it happen. Last but not least, concerning inclusive behavioral outcomes,
the author found that on average, the respondents somewhat agreed that they engaged in culturally
inclusive behaviors. Based on the high scores on the intention and relatively low scores on behavior, it
was possible that the faculty did not have the knowledge or skill to be inclusive despite their
willingness. Samuels (2014a) argued that the results suggested the need for faculty development, as
evidenced by the respondents’ testimony that they were not explicitly educated on the relevant topics,
nor did their current institutions provide professional learning opportunities on diversity and
inclusiveness.
Samuels (2018) argued that the results pointed to the importance that culturally inclusive
educators should take the courage to admit their cognitive limits and to examine their biases and
behaviors when answering “how prepared are we to build cultural inclusiveness in and out of our
classroom?” (p. 135). As a corollary to the above-mentioned question, Samuels (2014b, 2018) proposed
an 8-step transformative process for faculty to build authentic multicultural inclusiveness through a
social justice lens based on the literature and her personal experience. The steps included: discovering
our biases, reflecting on our socialization, challenging our assumptions, reflecting on our identities,
contemplating our emotions, reflecting on our behavior, considering our purpose, and committing to
this work. The following section summarizes the steps proposed by the author.

43

43

With respect to discovering our biases, the author provided resources for faculty to learn about
and raise awareness of their implicit biases, such as the Implicit Association Test (i.e., behavior-
predicting instrument measuring attitudes toward specific groups based on quick judgment of various
social group members’ images and words) (Greenwald et al., 1998; McConnell & Leibold, 2001), and
priming (i.e., the active construal of counter-stereotypic information such as “a strong woman”) (Blair
et al., 2001; Powell, 2012). The author also suggested that increased intergroup contact and cross-
cultural friendships could help reduce and overcome bias.
Regarding reflecting on our socialization, Samuels (2014b, 2018) argued that relinquishing
stereotypes was contingent upon examining our past experiences and how these experiences might
influence our attitudes about those who were different from us. Specifically, with a view to breaking
away from stereotyping and to unlearn our preconceived notions, she suggested that we should seek to
understand how stereotypes were socially constructed, perpetuated, and affected our belief systems.
Discussing challenging our assumptions, Samuels (2014b, 2018) suggested using the following
questions: “Is it true? Can we absolutely know that it is true? What happens when we believe that idea?
What would our life, thoughts, and actions be like without that idea?” (Samuels, 2018, p. 137). She
contended that applying these questions to the assumptions we made about ourselves and others created
opportunities to defy our unconscious biases and had the potential to liberate us from long-held
assumptions. In addition to these four questions, Samuels (2018) thought it might be necessary to add
the fifth one: “What might be a truth that supersedes the myth you just debunked?” (p. 137). She
reminded us that asking ourselves these questions might allow us to treat others as individuals like us
without socially imposed judgments.
In reflecting on our identities, Samuels (2014b, 2018) brought forth the sociological terms
internalized privilege and internalized oppression in the discussion of how our social identities

44

44

influenced our assumptions about ourselves and about others. The author argued that oppression and
privilege were interwoven with exclusion and inclusion, parallel to the example of media bias
portraying people of color as lawbreakers whereas White people were portrayed as law defenders.
Samuels (2014b) argued that internalized privilege bred entitlement and created norms against which
everyone else was measured and named. To be cognizant of the systemic ways privilege and oppression
operated in our lives, the author proposed that we diligently should reflect upon how our social
identities contributed to our ideas about ourselves and others.
Regarding contemplating our emotions, Samuels (2014b, 2018) underscored the importance of
acknowledging and attending to the feelings and emotions we had toward various social groups. As
separation and fear were mutually perpetuating, implicit assumptions and emotions could contribute to
our exclusion of others. Samuels (2014b, 2018) suggested that becoming aware of our negative feelings
when they arose, reflecting on how the feelings were tied to socially constructed misinformation we
systematically received, and choosing to let go of these feelings created opportunities for learning how
to act inclusively and connect with others.
In reflecting on our behavior, Samuels (2014b, 2018) pointed to literature replete with examples
of the excessive discipline of Black students as a result of false beliefs and assumptions of students of
color, and suggested that faculty’s implicit deep-seated beliefs, assumptions, and stereotypes might
manifest in their resulting actions in the form of micro-aggressions, which continually perpetuated in
the education settings through jokes, comments, and behavior. She drew on Sue’s (2010) work that
these micro-aggressions often went unnoticed and unchallenged to highlight the need for faculty to
reflect on their own assumptions and actions to minimize and eliminate the micro-aggressions they
might unknowingly carry on in their classrooms with diverse student body.

45

45

When discussing the next step, considering our purpose, Samuels (2014b, 2018) underlined that
recognizing how the systems of inequality affected us at a personal level made easier the pursuit of
social justice ideals and practices. She provided her positionality, a White Jewish woman, as an
example and asked how racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, disability, religious intolerance affected
her. As the author realized she has been socialized in a deeply rooted system of inequality and injustice,
she deeply felt the pain, which she viewed as a reminder to renew her objective to dismantle the
systems, to show up and build relationships across differences, and to stand up against injustice with
purpose and compassion. The author argued that confronting and disrupting White supremacy was a
lifelong commitment, but it was worth the effort.
In light of how we might have missed out on learning about others in the course of our
education, Samuels (2014b, 2018) foregrounded the last step, committing to this work by suggesting
that faculty commit to learning about diversity and build inclusiveness by first recognizing we all had
limited perspectives. This entailed the importance of perspective-taking, particularly through
understanding the perspectives and experiences of others, especially students. Samuels also drew on
Johnson’s (2006) notion that we could not escape biased thoughts as long as we were part of a system
of inequality to call attention to the lifelong endeavor of unlearning misinformation. The author
concluded with the emphasis of the ultimate goal of developing relationships across difference, which
was the linchpin to developing cultural inclusiveness and becoming a culturally inclusive educator.
Garson et al. (2016) studied faculty perceptions of the effect of an intensive professional
development (PD) program they created and implemented to meet the intercultural learning strategic
initiative at Thompson Rivers University, Canada. Interculturalising the curriculum was a 4-day PD
program for intercultural training and curricular revision. Faculty members who attended this program
in the spring (i.e., May) were invited to try out their renewed curriculum and instructional approaches

46

46

during the fall semester, and to reconvene in the winter (i.e., December) to share their successes and
challenges.
To gain an understanding of faculty perceptions of the influence of the program, the authors
asked: How do faculty perceive the impact of their participation in Interculuturalising the curriculum of
the PD program? At the time of the research, the program had been delivered to four interdisciplinary
cohorts in the year 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2013 with a total of 60 faculty participants, 20 of whom
responded to an online questionnaire and consented to join one-on-one interviews. These participants
were almost equally represented across the four cohorts and they taught from 10 different departments.
The online survey included 15 aspects of intercultural learning, ranging from developing intercultural
self-awareness to addressing real life intercultural issues, with three single-answer multiple-choice
questions: not on my mind, has impacted me professionally, and has impact me personally. On the
other hand, the interview included six specific open-ended questions such as “which aspects of the
program most influenced you” (Garson et al., 2016, p. 465) and “what do you need to continue this
work?” (Garson et al., 2016, p. 465). The interviews were transcribed, uploaded into Nvivo, and coded.
The length of the interviews was not provided by Garson et al. (2016).
From the interview, many participants reported personal and professional growth as a result of
their participation in this PD program. Three themes emerged in the analysis of the interview data, each
of which contained two sub-themes, as can be seen in the parentheses below: pedagogy (student focus
and shift in practice), PD (reflective practice and increased confidence), and personal development
(increased awareness and advocacy). With respect to pedagogy, a number of respondent responses
demonstrated that they were more cognizant of creating intercultural learning opportunities tailored to
their students. The respondents also discussed that such awareness and focus on the diversity of
students prompted them to make changes to the curriculum (e.g., presenting learning materials in multi-

47

47

modal ways) and their teaching practices (e.g., incorporating more interactive and collaborative
learning activities and peer feedback in class). Regarding the PD theme, participant responses showed
that they continued to reflect on their social positions and cultural biases (e.g., stepping back from their
own assumptions on how they went into class); moreover, many respondents reported continued
learning through research, additional courses, and professional growth opportunities after they
participated in Interculturalising the curriculum, as paralleled by their enhanced confidence in working
with culturally diverse learners and addressing the topic of culture in their classrooms. As for the
personal development theme, several participants reported that the participation in this PD program had
raised their self-awareness as well as the awareness of their students (e.g., realizing how little
intercultural materials they had had throughout their teaching experience); furthermore, it enhanced
their advocacy roles on campus and inspired their long-term commitment to intercultural practices
beyond the classroom.
The survey results confirmed that 95 to 100 percent of respondents perceived that their
participation in the PD program had an impact on their attitude, knowledge and skills. In particular, all
of the participants agreed that this PD had impacted them professionally in understanding culture-
general frameworks, roles of one’s own culture in the world, ability to consider other worldviews,
recognition of role of values in equity, and addressing real life intercultural issues. Similar findings
from the interview confirmed that the professional and personal impacts took place in different ways:
Participants moved from minimizing difference to identifying, investigating, and leveraging difference,
as evidenced in their re-structuring of course design and evaluation processes, which invited students to
approach discipline learning from multiple angles.
Pedagogy for Intercultural Competence

48

48

Deardorff and Jones (2012) argued that it was necessary to incorporate intercultural competence
within broader institutional goals of engagement, 21
st
-century skills, and global citizenship within
higher education. They contended that the first step for postsecondary institutions to take was to define
intercultural competence on the basis of the literature and the institutional mission before developing
plans to address and assess intercultural competence. They also suggested implementation strategies
such as providing opportunities for faculty to explore intercultural competence frameworks and how
those frameworks translated into specific intercultural learning outcomes within curricula and courses
(Deardorff & Jones, 2012; Deardorff, 2012b).
Deardorff and Jones were not alone in arguing the importance of capitalizing on intercultural
competence to prepare undergraduate students for the global world. However, for the purposes of this
presentation, I only focused on how intercultural competence factored into faculty’s professional
learning context. To understand how intercultural competence was fostered and enacted by faculty, I
explored the literature that provided insight into how intercultural competence could be intentionally
addressed and cultivated.
Based on a basic instructional design model from Hodell (1997), which detailed the essential
steps required for creating new learning experiences involving analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation, Bennett (2012) highlighted two of the critical steps, development and
implementation, that were ultimately about facilitation, which entailed the important role qualified
facilitators played in contributing to effective learning. In the context of intercultural learning, Bennett
(2012) argued that effective intercultural facilitators were both sages and guides who could readily
recognize learner needs and readiness and employ a variety of motivational strategies in the course of
the program to help learners make sense of and integrate their experiences. Bennett (2012) drew on

49

49

Paige (1992) to suggest a number of intercultural facilitation competencies expected of intercultural
facilitators, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6
Intercultural Facilitation Competencies
The effective intercultural facilitator has the ability to perform the following:
comprehend the role of training and facilitation in the host culture;
communicate clearly to nonnative speakers of the language used in the program;
facilitate multicultural groups (including taking turns, participation, use of silence,
etc.);
“code shift” from one communication style to another;
paraphrase circular or indirect statements for linear and direct group members;
express enthusiasm for the topic in culturally appropriate ways;
suspend judgment of alternative cultural norms;
recognize culture-specific risk factors for trainees (loss of face, group identity, etc.);
develop multiple frames of reference for interpreting intercultural situations;
demonstrate good judgment in selecting the most appropriate interpretation in a
transcultural situation;
ask sensitively phrased questions while avoiding premature closure;
avoid ethno-centric idioms, slang, and aphorisms;
interview a cultural informant to obtain needed information on subjective culture;
recognize ethno-centrism in goals, objectives, content, process, media, and course
materials, as well as group interaction;
motivate learners based on their own values;
deliver programs in a variety of methods;
interpret nonverbal behavior in culturally appropriate ways;
monitor the use of humor for cultural appropriateness;
display cultural humility;
operate at ethno-relative stages of development; and
be culturally self-aware.
Reprinted from “The development of intercultural facilitation,” by Bennett, J. M. (2012),
Building cultural competence: Innovative activities and models, p. 14. Copyright 2012 by Stylus
Pub.

In addition to the aforementioned facilitation skills, Bennett (2012) also discussed three core
adaptations to successful learning that intercultural facilitators needed to make in order to create a

50

50

culturally responsive learning environment, including adaptation to: (1) balancing challenge and
support, (2) various cognitive and learning styles, and (3) culture-specific preferences. First, adaptation
to balancing challenge and support had to do with facilitators’ engagement of risk management and risk
reduction in order that learners could develop equilibrium between the teaching content and the
teaching methods. Bennett (2012) asserted that effective facilitators recognized any topic could push
learners outside their comfort zones; therefore, they tactfully and discreetly raised and lowered
learners’ thresholds of uncertainty and anxiety so as to reduce resistance, limit frustration, and created a
better potential of positive learning outcomes. Second, adaptation to various cognitive and learning
styles was concerned with facilitators’ identification, assessment, and response to learners’ culturally
influenced thinking and communication modes. Bennett (2012) suggested that facilitators be thoughtful
about and attentive to learners’ thinking and learning styles, inherent in which were distinctly different
logics and learning needs to respond to them accordingly and effectively. Third, adaption to culture-
specific preferences involved sufficient understanding about the value orientation of learners’ cultures
to adjust their facilitation roles to meet learners’ expectations. Bennett (2012) recommended that
facilitators keep abreast of current issues in learners’ cultures to place their comments in context and
avoid misinterpretation of their ways of behaving.
Additionally, Bennett (2012) also highlighted the criticality of systematic and thoughtful setups
of learning activities as well as intentional debriefing at the end of the course. Keeping in mind the
level of language proficiency, cultural norms, positive learning climate, and the availability of authentic
cultural materials, facilitators introduce the learning activity, stress cultural concept to be explored,
establish relevance of the planned activity, preface their teaching with well-developed inoculations
(e.g., “Nobody is going to force you to like working with different people. What we want to do here
today is to get you to a comfortable place in working with other people”) (Bennett, 2012, p. 20) to

51

51

address potential resistance and anxiety, clearly state objectives and express expectations, provide
learners with necessary learning materials as appropriate, and outline the debriefing questions that will
be addressed after the activity. With regard to debriefing, Bennett (2012) wrote that facilitators not only
focused on the anticipated learning by attending to the stated objectives, indicated concepts, and the
established debriefing questions in the setup, but also structured opportunities for unexpected insights
derived from different cultural perspectives and the spontaneous remarks emerged in intercultural
groups. Bennett (2012) concluded that intercultural facilitation was becoming increasingly specialized
as the world demanded highly sophisticated programming that addresses specific professional
functions, which required facilitators to aim for professionalization of intercultural facilitation. This
meant facilitators needed to be comfortably familiar with global and domestic intercultural issues,
competent enough to move adeptly among many concerns, and cautious about making assumptions
about learners they approached to dance to the many tunes the world played.
Lee et al. (2012) identified and spelled out pedagogical components in intercultural pedagogy
that fostered inclusive engagement with diversity across the curriculum and support intercultural
competence development in higher education classrooms. Lee et al. (2012) drew on Harper and
Quaye’s (2009) definition that diversity was the visible and invisible forms of human difference that
impacted identity development and interpersonal interactions and pointed out that diversity was
concerned with individual difference as well as group or social differences. Based on this notion, Lee et
al. (2012) argued that every individual student brought diversity resources to the classroom that could
enrich learning experiences for both students and faculty alike. Drawing on Allport’s (1954) notion that
both frequency and quality of interaction with diverse student body yielded significant educational
benefits in student development and learning, Lee et al. (2012) foregrounded the importance of
engaging diversity in the classroom, defined as “intentional, comprehensive efforts to develop and

52

52

implement pedagogy that leverages the diversity resources of a campus for the benefit of students’
learning and development” (p. 6). Lee et al. (2012) wrote that engaging diversity had to do with faculty
capacity to intentionally design and actively facilitate intercultural pedagogical practices that supported
students’ development of intercultural competence. They contended that pedagogical capacity to
support intercultural competence and intercultural competence itself were similar in that both were
processes that developed over the course of time, practice, and reflection. Just like students’ need of
ongoing practice and multiple opportunities to develop intercultural competence, faculty also needed
substantiated learning about pedagogy and instructional design that utilized diverse perspectives in
productive and rewarding ways across the curriculum to support intercultural learning outcomes.
Toward that end, deliberate reflection and special attention to pedagogy were essential in developing
intercultural pedagogical capacity. In other words, effective intercultural pedagogy required that faculty
take a critical stance to reflect not only on what knowledge was presented but also how the
assignments, lesson plans, lectures, and learning materials engaged and supported diverse learners.
Lee et al. (2012) cited Deardorff’s (2009) process model of intercultural development and
pointed out that the components in the model were the places where faculty could intentionally
structure opportunities to support the holistic process of intercultural competence development for
students of all backgrounds and cultures. In addition, Lee et al. (2012) also drew on Kolb’s (1984)
learning cycle, which involved concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization,
and active implementation, to highlight the importance of active and reflective learning. Active and
reflective learning depended on how faculty implemented activities, content, and assignments and
created learning environments. Therefore, Lee et al. (2012) developed three intercultural pedagogical
principles based on synthesis of research to inform the course design and implementation of
intercultural pedagogy, as described below.

53

53

Lee et al. (2012) defined intercultural pedagogy as the instructional actions that “intentionally
target cognitive, affective, and behavioral growth processes that contribute to developing the capacity
to consciously value complex and integrated differences in ourselves and others” (p. 65). The three
foundational principles for intercultural pedagogy reflected the core premise of engaging diversity
described above. Regarding “principle 1: Intercultural pedagogy maximizes and facilitates purposeful
interactions” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 55), Lee et al. (2012) built on developmental theories, which stated
that social interaction was essential in drawing out the kind of cognitive disequilibrium that stimulated
growth and that the acquisition of critical thinking skills might rest on collaborative learning. Based on
this notion, Lee et al. (2012) suggested that faculty needed to create purposeful opportunities for
students to engage in different cultural, epistemological and experiential perspectives for the benefit of
student learning and development. With respect to “principle 2: Intercultural pedagogy values the assets
students bring to classroom” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 56), Lee et al. (2012) highlighted the value of
leveraging students’ intellectual strengths, lived experiences, situated perspectives to enrich or contest
academic knowledge, to stimulate critical reflection on one’s own biases and assumptions, and to
support empathic connection between culturally diverse identity student groups. This view signaled the
need for faculty to assume value in students’ perspectives and insights and scaffold and invite dialogic
engagement of multiple viewpoints in the classroom. When describing “principle 3: Intercultural
pedagogy balances support and dissonance” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 57), Lee et al. (2012) turned to
evidence from developmental psychology to contend that significant learning and personal growth
could take place when students were exposed to dissimilar ideas or experiences. This notion indicated
that facilitating student intercultural competence required affective, cognitive and behavioral unsettling,
since acts of disruption could work to break apart the old, entrenched notions and invite openness to
new information. However, Lee et al. (2012) reminded that faculty should mindfully balance the level

54

54

of anxiety in the classroom and model to their learners how dissonance could be experienced in an
effective and productive way.
Lee et al. (2012) contended that the aforementioned principles, together with their extensive
review of contemporary literature, informed the following five pedagogical practices during the course
design phase (p. 67):
1. Provide opportunities for perspective-taking and reflection.
2. Structure opportunities for collaboration and interaction with diverse peers.
3. Provide opportunities for application of knowledge.
4. Explicitly identify relevant intercultural skills, behaviors, and attitudes.
5. Establish an environment that supports engaging diversity.
As course design components, such as a syllabus, assigned readings, learning activities, and
assessment, conveyed the priorities and the goals of the course and instructor expectations for student
participation and effort, Lee et al. (2012) argued that faculty must reflect on the extent to which
multiple dimensions of a course aligned with intercultural pedagogical principles and adapt the
elements of intercultural pedagogy to the particular context so as to achieve intended intercultural
learning outcomes. Specifically, they pointed to the importance of instructors’ purposefully creating
relevant and substantive opportunities for students to explore diverse viewpoints and practice
communication skills in varying contexts.
Fundamental to the development of intercultural competence was a course where students
engage in interactions that stimulated the cognitive and relational work. Given the complex,
unpredictable, and fluid dynamics in the learning environment, it could be challenging for faculty to
implement intercultural pedagogy despite careful course design. Thus, Lee et al. (2012) provided four
specific suggested pedagogical practices that were constructive for cultivating student intercultural

55

55

competence. First, “acknowledging anxiety and offering support” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 84) had to do
with managing uncertainty and anxiety associated with cognitive or emotional disequilibrium. The
authors asserted that it was instructors’ job to offer mechanisms to normalize students’ anxious
responses and support students’ capacity to move beyond or through affective barriers to their learning.
To do that, Lee et al. (2012) suggested faculty “be mindful of different thresholds of anxiety (Lee et al.,
2012, p. 85). Another way to relieve student anxiety was to “affirm students’ self-identity” (Lee et al.,
2012, p. 86). The authors suggested that instructors validate students’ identities as expressed in the
classroom and encourage them to look deeper into the identities of others. For instance, the use of
learning journal was one way to help faculty affirm students’ unique backgrounds, gain a nuanced
understanding of students’ comfort level, and proactively facilitate activities that engaged the range of
identities within the learning space. Still another way to manage anxiety was to “model tolerance for
ambiguity” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 87). Lee et al. (2012) contended that when encountering tension and
anxiety in class, it was helpful for faculty to pause the learning activity and directly address the anxiety
present in the classroom in a way that communicated respect. By naming the anxiety in open and
authentic conversations, instructors modeled to their students that it was natural to feel discomfort
when addressing topics or learning materials that challenged prior experiences, assumptions, or beliefs.
Such act not only showed students that they could handle dissonance productively but also sustained a
healthy learning climate where dissonance was anticipated, ambiguity was tolerated, and anxiety was
respectfully recognized.
Second, “disrupting social relations in the classroom” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 89) was concerned
with productively and ethically interrupting self-segregation within classrooms to support student
substantive interaction with culturally different others. Toward that end, the authors suggested that
instructors first “respond to triggers and biased comments” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 89) made by students.

56

56

The authors drew on Weinstein and Obear’s (1992) multipronged approach, in which instructors were
advised to suspend the discussion of the trigger in order to create reflective space for the class to focus
on the concept instead of the individual who gave the trigger. Another way for faculty to disrupt social
relations in the classroom was to “challenge self-grouping habits” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 90). The authors
suggested that faculty actively mitigated against self-forming student groups by intentionally
assembling groups in ways that promoted productive interaction and positive connection on an equal
status basis; meanwhile, the authors also reminded that not all forms of cultural and experiential
diversity were apparent and made public by students. Another way to disrupt student social inhibitions
was to “facilitate purposeful small groups” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 91), which indicated that faculty
provided multiple opportunities for frequent interaction and repeatedly assessing whether student
groups were functioning as intended. Still another way to address students’ social relations was to
“assign collaborative tasks” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 92), which facilitated productive understanding among
diverse peers and promoted positive peer communications. The authors contended that social relations
in the classroom could be restructured in constructive ways as students engaged in collaborating
learning, inherent in which were tangible shared goals and an observable alignment of interests.
Third, “modeling the balance between suspending judgment and constructive critique” (Lee et
al., 2012, p. 94) involved the ability to seek comprehensive understanding of an issue within a context
before making judgment and giving critique. Lee et al. (2012) contended that faculty modeled a mature
suspension of judgment to their class by explicitly verifying comprehension before they evaluated the
claims and points of view and provided a critique. They also pointed out that instructors’ critique must
not elicit shame by making a point to distinguish between the issue at hand and the recipient of the
critique. Lastly, “facilitating conditions to support inclusive dialogue” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 98) had to do
with faculty’s structuring a learning environment where students felt heard, comfortable, and trusted

57

57

one another as they engaged and explored various perspectives and interpretations among culturally
different peers. One way to facilitate such space was to “manage the stages of interaction” (Lee et al.,
2012, p. 98). Lee et al. (2012) suggested faculty give students time to know each other before giving
them concrete tasks, emphasize listening and interpreting before asking them to express evaluative
comments, and facilitate group discussions without presiding over the conversations, all of which
would help build students’ sense of community where students felt connected with each other. Another
way to create conditions for inclusive engagement was to “welcome different styles of
communications” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 99). Pointing to the necessity for faculty to be mindful of
communication styles of diverse student populations, Lee et al. (2012) suggested that instructors could
provide a brief period of time for learners to collect their thoughts before responding. In addition,
faculty was also advised to invite their students to reflect on and self-assess their level of participation
around mid-semester based on the notion that introverted and extroverted students had different
communication patterns.
Lee et al. (2012) concluded that developing intercultural pedagogy was an ongoing and
interactive process that took time and commitment and that the development of student intercultural
competence rested on faculty’s intercultural knowledge acquisition in conjunction with their capacity to
implement that knowledge across contexts. With a deep belief that all students brought great value to
classrooms, Lee et al. (2012) heightened the attention focused on faculty’s abilities to realize and
expand such value through active engagement in diversity.
Dimitrov et al. (2014) defined intercultural teaching competence (emphasis in original) (ITC)
as an instructor’s ability

58

58

to interact with students in a way that supports the learning of students who are linguistically,
culturally, socially, or in other ways different from the instructor or from each other and that is
effective and appropriate in the context of teaching (p. 89)
as they identified the overlapping best practices between reflective educators and interculturally
competent teachers from the existing literature in the development of graduate teaching assistants.
Informed by the research literature across disciplines, including culturally relevant teaching,
intercultural competence (ICC) models, intercultural training research, inclusive teaching work, and
international education research, Dimitrov et al. (2014) proposed 13 abilities an interculturally
competent teacher encompassed. Dimitrov and Haque (2016a) expanded, revised the model, and
presented an intercultural teaching competence (ITC) model consisting of 20 competencies grouped
into three interrelated categories for intercultural teaching: foundational skills, facilitation skills, and
curriculum development skills, with the latter ones building on the former ones, as shown in Figure 7.
The ITC model identified specific teaching skills, behaviors, and strategies that enabled
instructors to facilitate learning and promote student engagement, allowing for instructors’ navigation
of the complex landscape of cultural issues and identities in the context of a culturally diverse
classroom (Dimitrov et al., 2014; Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a). Aside from the specifications of teaching
skills, the ITC model also served as an analytic lens as well as a tool for instructor reflection allowing
for faculty’s further development of ICC and instructional approaches (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a,
2016b). In addition, similar to the lifelong development of ICC, Dimitrov and Haque (2016a)
contended that the development of ITC required a lifetime of ongoing learning and that interculturally
competent instructors would persist in adapting their practice to the changing needs of the students they
worked with.

59

59

Figure 7
Components of Intercultural Teaching Competence (ITC)

Reprinted from “Intercultural teaching competence: A multi-disciplinary model for instructor
reflection,” by N. Dimitrov & A. Haque (2016), Intercultural Education, 27(5), p. 439. Copyright
2009 by N. Dimitrov & A. Haque.

According to the ITC framework, interculturally competent instructors were capable of
enhancing student learning by bridging differences in the classroom and fostering meaningful
relationships with and among students, pointing to instructors’ foundational competencies (Dimitrov &
Haque, 2016a). They were able to model intercultural competence and facilitate dialogues about global
issues on the basis of the ITC framework, as instantiated in instructors’ facilitation competencies
(Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a, 2016b). Furthermore, interculturally competent instructors were open to
multiple ways of knowing, reflective in their approaches to assessment and curriculum design, and
were able to promote multiple perspectives in their selection of readings and learning activities, which

60

60

were manifested in their curriculum design competencies. The detailed description of each competency
would be presented in the following paragraphs respectively.
With respect to foundational competencies, at the heart of foundational competencies were the
instructors’ awareness of their positionality, their ability to respond to difference, and their capacity to
model intercultural competence for their students (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a, 2016b). Toward that end,
Dimitrov and Haque (2016a) noted that interculturally competent instructors were able to perform the
following:
1. Develop an awareness of their own and disciplinary identities and positionality in the
classroom
4
(p. 443). Often referred to as self-reflexivity, this skill is an awareness of how an
individual is perceived by cultural others and an understanding of the degree to which the
perceptual lenses created by an individual’s race, power, social-economic status, sexual
orientations, ability to speak dominant language, and discipline-specific culture, can
influence classroom dynamics and impact teaching and learning.
2. Anticipate, value and accept differences among learners and ways of learning in order to
create cultural safety and trust (p. 444). Effective instructors value learner difference as an
asset; they approach learners with an expectation that learners’ diverse worldviews,
backgrounds, assumptions, and approaches to learning can contribute to the learning as a
whole. In addition, interculturally competent instructors are also mindful of the differences
of how they, as master learners in the discipline, approach knowledge in comparison with
their students as novice learners.
3. Model and encourage perspective-taking in the classroom (p. 444). As the ability to analyze

4
I have taken the original language of each competence directly from Dimitrov and Haque (2016a) and each competence is
italicized in its original presentation.

61

61

incidents, social phenomena, and motivation from multiple viewpoints is a fundamental
component of ICC and an important intended outcome of global education, interculturally
competent instructors encourage students to take into account alterative explanations when
approaching and interpreting global issues. They also model openness toward multiple
perspectives by demonstrating how to respectfully critique Euro-centric paradigms in the
discipline.
4. Model and encourage non-judgmental approaches to exploring cultural, social, or other
types of difference (p. 445). Interculturally competent instructors prompt students to
withhold judgment by modeling the skill of observing and seeking to understand differences
first when encountering difference. They also observe and manage their own and their
students’ emotional responses to challenging or biased student comments during the class
period and seize these teachable moments to create learning opportunities through careful
debriefing.
5. Model tolerance for ambiguity and help learners deal with the uncertainty involved in
exploring difference (p. 445). Interculturally competent instructors create opportunities to
break their students’ dichotomous ways of seeing and thinking and to foster their tolerance
for ambiguity through simulations involving culture-crossings, such as model UN or
international criminal court.
Facilitation competencies focused on instructional skills necessary to recognize learner needs,
create a safe and inclusive learning environment, and facilitate dialogue and active learning with
diverse learners. Within this category, interculturally competent instructors were able to perform the
following:
6. Facilitate discussion among students with a variety of communication styles (p. 445).

62

62

Interculturally competent instructors recognize and welcome differences in patterns of
communication and help learners appreciate the characteristics of circular (i.e., indirect,
storytelling communication style) and linear contributions from their culturally different
peers.
7. Provide feedback across cultures in a variety of ways (p. 446). Interculturally competent
instructors recognize differences in the way feedback is provided and received in learners’
home cultures and therefore adjust their feedback style to the needs of each learner.
8. Tailor messages to audiences with different levels of linguistic ability (p. 446).
Interculturally competent instructors are capable of not only explaining complex ideas to
novice learners in simple language with analogies and concrete examples, but also
conveying the same information to experts with more technical language and higher context
approach that requires a higher level of prior knowledge. When speaking to diverse
audiences, instructors limit the use of jargon and colloquialisms, explain discipline-specific
use of terms, paraphrase and repeat difficult concepts to add to learners’ understanding of a
message.
9. Recognize the barriers students may face in participating in class (p. 446). Interculturally
competent instructors recognize cross-cultural reasons behind learners’ lack of interest in
class participation and help their students overcome the barriers to participation through
instructional strategies, such as highlighting the role of active participation in learning and
utilizing discussion models like think-pair-share or quescussion (i.e., discussion through
questions).
10. Identify risk factors for learners that might surface during classroom activities (p. 447).
Interculturally competent instructors recognize the fact that every active learning activity

63

63

involves a certain amount of risk for every participant. They are cautious when discussing
about culture, identity, and traumatic events in a classroom setting where students may feel
threatened by loss of face, loss of group identity, potential conflict, and self-disclosure
related to culture, religion, sexual orientation, or socio-economic status. Instructors may
reduce the level of risk for classroom participation by allowing learners to volunteer their
experiences and by sequencing learning experiences in a way that moves from concrete to
abstract concepts, structured to unstructured learning activities, personal to institutional
examples, and low to high emotional intensity topics.
11. Create opportunities for peer learning and interaction among diverse learners (p. 447).
Interculturally competent instructors acknowledge the difference in the classroom so much
so that they purposefully and mindfully design and scaffold meaningful interactions among
diverse students, who can share the wealth of cultural knowledge each brings to class.
12. Build and navigate relationships with students who have different perceptions of power
distance (p. 447). Interculturally competent instructors are aware of how their own as well
as students’ varied perceptions of power distance may play out in the classroom. Instructors
carefully examine their initial attributions of student behavior and are cognizant of how their
expectations of respect and authority influence their interaction with learners.
13. Articulate and mediate differences in the roles of teachers and learners across cultures (p.
448). Interculturally competent instructors are aware that cultural difference in teacher and
student roles can influence teacher-student interaction to great extent, such as the differing
expectations regarding learner initiative and different student orientations to rules and rule
following.
14. Mentor students during their transition to new cultures and new disciplines (p. 448).

64

64

Interculturally competent instructors socialize their learners to the norms of academic and
disciplinary cultures by explicitly elucidating discipline-specific writing styles and research
processes, sharing exemplars of academic writing, explaining what constitutes scholarly
excellence in the field, and clarifying assessment criteria.
15. Articulate the meaning of academic integrity in their discipline (p. 448). Interculturally
competent instructors recognize the fact that norms around attribution of authorship and
academic rigor may vary from culture to culture and from discipline to discipline. Thus,
they familiarize students with disciplinary discourse and provide concrete examples of
appropriate academic practice to help all of their students learn academic attribution norms
and avoid unintended plagiarism.
In discussing curriculum development competencies, Dimitrov and Haque (2016a) argued that
interculturally competent instructors enriched the curriculum with multiple perspectives through careful
selection of content, learning activities, and assessments, which were aligned across the curriculum. In
this category, interculturally competent instructors were able to perform the following:
16. Include concrete learning outcomes related to intercultural or global learning at the course
and curriculum levels (p. 449). Interculturally competent instructors align university-level
strategic learning goals with the learning outcomes at the course level and make explicit
these learning goals to students in order to make progress toward these goals.
17. Incorporate content and learning resources that represent diverse perspectives, paradigms,
or disciplinary approaches (p. 449). Interculturally competent instructors include readings
and learning materials that challenge dominant narratives in the discipline.
18. Create learning activities that allow students to explore difference and practice perspective-
taking (p. 449). Interculturally competent instructors use role-plays, simulations,

65

65

human/living library, and experiential learning activities to foster students’ perceptual
flexibility in considering multiple perspectives on important issues and develop empathy.
19. Design assessments that recognize and validate cultural differences in writing and
communication styles (p. 449). Interculturally competent instructors build flexibility and
inclusivity at the assessment level by prioritizing student mastery of learning over the
perfect use of language, being open to indigenous or non-Western approach of presenting
knowledge and consenting alternative formats of assignments other than traditional essays.
20. Provide opportunities for students to reflect on and gain a better understanding of their own
multiple cultural, personal, and disciplinary identities (p. 450). Interculturally competent
instructors not only engage in reflection themselves, but also encourage their students to
reflect on how their own cultural identifications impact what they are learning and how they
relate to others with a view to developing learners’ cultural self-awareness.
Cushner (2014) argued that the acquisition of intercultural competence was evolutionary,
necessitating a well-planned curricular structure that provided both support and challenge to effectively
move students along the intercultural continuum. Therefore, he provided a number of stage-appropriate
intercultural learning content and instructional strategies for teacher educators to support intercultural
learning, as can be seen in Figure 8. While recognizing that teacher educators could leverage these
strategies to support students’ intercultural learning in the first five DMIS stages, Cushner (2014)
pointed out that recent research using the intercultural development inventory (IDI) had found most
teachers and teacher candidates fell into denial/defense as well as minimization stage, resulting in his
groupings of suggestions of both content-level and process-level strategies that challenged learners to
grow into three major categories presented in Figure 9, including (1) denial and defense, (2)

66

66

minimization, and (3) acceptance and adaptation. The developmental tasks for each major category are
described below:
1. Denial and defense (Cushner, 2014, p. 118):
(1) To recognize the existence of cultural difference and emphasize common humanity
and cultural similarities.
(2) To become more tolerant of differences and understand all cultures have both good
and bad aspects.
2. Minimization (Cushner, 2014, p. 121):
(1) To develop cultural self-awareness.
(2) To learn to avoid projecting one’s own culture onto everyone else’s experience.
3. Acceptance and Adaptation (Cushner, 2014, p. 125):
(1) To refine analysis of cultural contrasts.
(2) To develop capacity to shift perspectives and frame of reference.
(3) To develop a deep understanding of at least one other culture.

67

67

Figure 8
Content-level and Instructional Strategies that Support the Learners
Stage Intercultural learning content Instructional strategies
Denial
• Focus on objective culture (e.g.,
heroes and holidays, clothing, food,
art, artifacts, and music)
• Identify the similarities with others.

• Present ideas with user-friendly
activities
• Embed difference in non-threatening
contexts.
• Promote an inclusive, non-blaming
climate.
• Address learner anxieties in time
existing categories, but limit time.
• Build on what students already know.
Defense
• Consider universality of ethno-
centrism (in-group/out-group
distinctions).
• Introduce distinction between
objective and subjective culture
(e.g., values, attitudes, and norms of
behavior).
• Explore existing differences within
learner’s own group.
• Address affect-something for each
person to identify with.
• Avoid cultural contrasts.
• Provide reassurance and information
about similarities.
• Allow ample time for structured
opportunities to share concerns.
• Focus curiosity and inquiry on the
culture of learner’s own group.
• Develop a safe context that promotes
cooperative activities.
Minimization
• Develop more sophisticated
definition of culture, race, ethnicity,
stereotypes, and generalizations.
• Develop an understanding of how
culture influences people’s
perceptions, worldviews, and
behaviors.
• Enhance distinction between
objective and subjective culture.
• Give increased attention to
subjective cultural differences (e.g.,
nonverbal behavior and
communication styles)
• Avoid excessive stress on cultural
contrasts.
• Expand curiosity from one’s own
culture to that of other cultures.

68

68

Stage Intercultural learning content Instructional strategies
Acceptance
• Understand more complex
subjective cultural differences.
• Elaborate on the categories for
cultural contrast and comparison.
• Understand the relationship between
cognitive and communication styles.
• Understand models of culture shock
and cultural adaptation.
• Focus on cultural difference while
deepening cultural awareness.
• Prepare learners for cultural frame-of-
reference shifting.
• Facilitate opportunities for learners to
practice behavior in known cultures.
• Modify instruction to accommodate
differences in learning and
communication style.
Adaptation
• Analyze advanced cultural topics
that require intercultural empathy
(e.g., appreciation of humor)
• Build rapport and establishing effective
interpersonal relationships with
students and families from cultures
different than one’s own.
• Prepare learners to learn autonomously
through the use of cultural informants,
independent research or interpersonal
interaction.
Adapted from “Strategies for enhancing intercultural competence across the teacher education
curriculum,” by Cushner, K. (2014), Internationalizing teacher education for social justice: Theory,
research, and practice, p. 139-162. Copyright 2014 by Information Age Publishing, Inc.

69

69

Figure 9
Content-level and Instructional Strategies that Challenge the Learners
Stage Intercultural learning content Instructional strategies
Denial
• Developing an understanding of the
socialization process within a
cultural context.
• Develop notions of subjective
cultural differences regarding
culture-specific values, beliefs, and
behaviors.
• Acquire a constructive vision of
intercultural interaction (e.g.,
benefits of cooperative learning
group).
• Focus on commonalities, including
shared needs and goals between the
in-group and out-group.
• Arouse curiosity about difference
through films/videos, children’s
literature, and TED Talks.
• Administer and reflect on learning style
inventories in homogeneous and
heterogeneous groups.
• Facilitate structured contact with other
cultures (e.g., panel discussions).
• Promote cooperative activities and team
building.
• Stress conflict mediation and cooperative
learning.
Defense Minimization
• Introduce students to categories and
frameworks for understanding their
own and other culture’s values,
beliefs, and practices.
• Examine the privilege of dominant
groups.
• Use authentic materials from their
own culture that illustrate evidence
of bias, minimization, or
marginalization.
• Facilitate meaningful and structured
engagement with people representing a
range of cultures.
• Focus on cultural self-awareness and
attribution process operating during
interaction.
• Help students learn to suspend judgment
with classic exercise “Description,
Interpretation, and Evaluation)
• Develop capacity to make isomorphic
attributions.
• Engage students in cross-cultural
simulations.
Acceptance
• Continue the use of culture-general
and cultural-specific categories.
• Distinguish issues of cultural
relativity from moral or ethical
relativity.
• Analyze cultural identity
development from diverse
viewpoints.
• Provide guided experiential learning
opportunities (e.g., homestays and field
placements in different cultural settings).
• Further participation in cross-cultural
simulations and role-plays associated
with intercultural empathy.
• Provide opportunities to interact
extensively in previously unexplored
cultural contexts.
• Address deeper anxiety issues (e.g.,
identity conflicts).
Adaptation

70

70

Adapted from “Strategies for enhancing intercultural competence across the teacher education
curriculum,” by Cushner, K. (2014), Internationalizing teacher education for social justice: Theory,
research, and practice, p. 139-162. Copyright 2014 by Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Cushner (2014) contended that the DMIS helped teacher educators assess and address learners’
intercultural developmental needs and focused their efforts on the coordinated and sequential
intercultural teaching strategies in fostering students’ intercultural competence, thereby laying the
foundation of fostering culturally competent and effective citizenry and creating the potential for
learners’ social justice orientation, which was deemed necessary for democracy in modern society.
Andragogical Principles
Lawler and King (2000b) argued that it was critical to view faculty development as adult
learning process, see faculty as adult learners, and regard faculty educators as adult educators. Based on
this notion, they presented a framework entitled the adult learning model of faculty development
(emphasis in original) identifying four stages —preplanning, planning, delivery, and follow-up
(emphasis in original) —for faculty educators to apply both adult learning principles and adult
education program planning principles to faculty professional development in higher education settings.
The model was grounded in five overarching themes for adult education program planning, including a
nonlinear approach, organizational context, continuous evaluation, inclusion of fundamental elements
(e.g., need analysis, learning objectives, delivery, evaluation, and follow-up), and ethically and socially
responsible planning as well as six adult learning principles (Lawler & King, 2000b, pp. 21-22)
presented below:
1. Create a climate of respect.
2. Encourage active participation.

71

71

3. Build on experience.
4. Employ collaborative inquiry.
5. Learn for action.
6. Empower participants.
With regard to creating a climate of respect, Lawler and King (2000b) recommended that faculty
educators create a physical and social climate beneficial for adult learning by taking into account
faculty characteristics, their learning styles, their academic and educational training, and their
understanding of their professional perspective. Lawler and King (2000b) wrote that, in showing
respect to faculty’s professional expertise and appreciating who they were, faculty educators were more
likely to invite active interchange and collaboration in the learning events, making meaningful learning
more likely to take place. The principle of building on experience presupposed the value of faculty’s
experiences, expertise, and worldviews, making it essential for faculty educators to engage the faculty
and tap their experiences in the faculty development programs. Regarding the principle of employing
collaborative inquiry, Lawler and King (2000b) suggested that faculty educators leverage the
opportunity to involve faculty in various tasks in planning and delivery, thus acknowledging faculty
expertise and experience. Another principle of learning for action demanded that faculty educators
design PDs with application in mind and provide their adult learners with options for application in
order that experimentation and implementation could take place. Finally, Lawler and King (2000b)
explained the principle of empowering participants based on Brookfield’s (1986) notion that adult
learners were able to understand their range of possibilities with the capacity to make decisions based
on this awareness and understanding. Supporting faculty to initiate a change within themselves or
influence their work environment led to empowerment.

72

72

The four stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development were preplanning,
planning, delivery, and follow-up. Each stage recommended specific questions to pose, answer, and
reflect upon by faculty educators; each stage also included to-be-completed tasks grounded in adult
learning theory and adult education program planning that related to issues and concerns faculty
educators might encounter in practice. Lawler and King (2000a, 2000b) framed the questions and the
associated tasks in a way that offered faculty educators substantial direction in systematically
approaching faculty development. In addition, they depicted the interrelated adult learning principles
and adult education program planning principles as the tracks on which the four stages of a faculty
development program travel and progress, as presented in Figure 10. Each of these stages were
illustrated in conjunction with their associated questions in the following paragraphs.

73

73

Figure 10
The Stages and Tasks of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development

Reprinted from Planning for effective faculty development: Using adult learning strategies. (p.
33) by Lawler, P. A., & King, K. P., 2000, Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Copyright 2000
by Patricia A. Lawler and Katherine P. King.

First, the preplanning stage paid special attention to organizational goals, needs, and climate as
well as faculty needs, requiring faculty educators to scan the social and political context within which
the PD took place and collect information on financial, physical and human resources. The following
questions were designed to inform the faculty development programming process (Lawler & King,
2000b, p. 34):
1. What is the purpose of faculty development?
2. What is the purpose of this specific development initiative?
3. How is faculty development tied to the mission of the institution?
4. What resources are available to support a faculty development initiative at this time?

74

74

Second, the planning stage was concerned with the structured preparation for what specific
elements would be involved during the PD, which required faculty educators to adopt a positive and
learner-centered approach rather than implicitly communicate a deficit-oriented message that faculty’s
educational practice needs to be fixed. Lawler and King (2000a, 2000b) argued that involving faculty in
the planning process and valuing their input helped faculty educators build faculty ownership and
increase their motivation to attend the PD. Three important questions to be addressed during the
planning stage are listed below (Lawler & King, 2000b, p. 35):
1. What will happen during the faculty development initiative?
2. Who will be involved—faculty, developers, and presenters?
3. How will we [faculty educators] organize the effort-support, deliver, schedule, and market?
Third, building on preplanning and planning tasks, the delivery stage involved aligning PDs
with institutional goals and missions, using effective communication channels with the faculty, and
integrating adult learning principles and continuous assessment to support faculty professional growth
and the application of their learning. This required faculty educators to take into consideration faculty’s
varying learning styles, different discipline characteristics, and faculty work constraints during this
stage (Lawler & King, 2000a). The following four questions were designed to delineate important tasks
at this stage (Lawler & King, 2000b, p. 36):
1. Are we [faculty educators] continuing to build on our preparation?
2. How do we [faculty educators] effectively promote the program?
3. How are adult learning principles implemented?
4. How do we [faculty educators] monitor the program?
Lastly, the follow-up stage had to do with supporting faculty continuous learning and changes
in thinking and behavior, together with consideration of future PD activities through the use of both

75

75

formative and summative evaluation as well as faculty educators’ reflection on their roles, the entire
process, and the planning outcomes. Lawler and King (2000a) suggested that faculty educators go
beyond the traditional modes of workshops to promote faculty interest in future initiatives and promote
a positive climate for PD within the institution, as learning did not end when the faculty development
program ended. Three questions were raised to guide faculty educators through this final process
(Lawler & King, 2000b, p. 37):
1. What is our [faculty educators’] evaluation plan?
2. How will ongoing support be provided for what was learned?
3. What can we, as faculty educators, gain from reflecting on our role in this endeavor?
Inherent in the above-mentioned questions were a number of tasks that were informed by
research in adult learning, adult education, program development, and professional development.
Figure 11 provides an overview and summary of the tasks in each stage elaborated on by Lawler and
King (2000b).

Figure 11
Summary of Tasks in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development
Tasks Summary of the tasks
Pre-planning (p. 46)
Understanding
organizational
culture
Recognizing and understanding the culture of the institutions, the power
dynamics, and their significance by scanning the organizations for
political agendas, power relationships, value systems, and special
interests.
Identifying the
role of faculty
developer
Defining our [faculty educators’] role as faculty educators by reviewing
the responsibilities, assessing our connections with and how we are
perceived by constituents across the campus community, and reflecting
on how our experiences and perspectives influence what we are about to
do.
Assessing
needs
Uncovering what faculty want to learn by considering the faculty’s past
experiences, their professional needs, and their personal learning
interests as well as the cultural and political ramifications of PDs.

76

76

Evaluating
resources
Reviewing the availability and limitations of financial, physical,
technical, institutional and personnel resources and identifying all
anticipated costs, time, and institutional support.
Establishing
goals
Formulating the outcome goals and directional plans for what is to be
accomplished in faculty development as well as establishing
measurement tools with which they will be evaluated.
Planning (p. 65)
Selecting a
topic
Reviewing need assessment in the preplanning stage and identifying an
action-oriented topic that aligns with institutional directives, program
objectives, and faculty’s expressed needs and meets with faculty’s level
of expertise.
Identifying a
presenter
Finding an appropriate fit who will tailor the curriculum to the faculty
while taking into account of power issues within the institution, budget,
availability of the presenter, and credentials, expertise, and past
performance of the proposed presenter.
Preparing for
delivery
Working with the prospective presenter in modeling and implementing
adult learning principles with an experiential focus, communicating
much information about the faculty and their needs, and building
reflection, action plans, and follow-up in the program design.
Preparing for
support and
transfer of
learning
Collaborating with administration and advisory committee representing
faculty to determine what resources are available to provide support for
learners before, during, and after the PDs, as a supportive climate for
learning and change facilitates a transfer of learning to faculty’s daily
professional practice.
Scheduling the
event
Determining the appropriate time, duration, and calendar schedule that
not only fits into the faculty’s workload and the pace of the academic
year but also accommodates most of the faculty.
Beginning the
evaluation
Creating a plan on how the PD will be assessed in achieving its goals
and objectives throughout the entire faculty development process and at
its completion in light of time, instruments, and evaluation strategies.
Delivery (p. 87)
Building on the
preparation
Stepping back and examining how the tasks in preplanning and
planning stages contribute to the overall goals, objectives, and direction
by reconsidering how the proposed PD readily fits into the institution
initiatives and meet faculty needs.
Promoting the
program
Developing a marketing plan by establishing a timeline for announcing,
informing, preparing and informing faculty of the upcoming PD
sessions with the use of various promotional materials that emphasize
the relevance and provide clear structure of the format and objectives of
the prospective PD.
Implementing
adult learning
principles
Focusing on the application of adult learning principles by addressing
faculty needs and desire, encouraging active participation, tailoring the
learning to faculty experience, and stressing the application of learning
to their everyday work.

77

77

Monitoring the
program
Paying special attention to the room climate, the welfare of the
participants and the presenter, ensuring that the session format is
followed and the program is on schedule, troubleshooting technical
issues, and making contingency plans for unexpected situations.
Follow-u (p. 104)
Evaluating
Selecting the appropriate summative evaluation methods by
collaborating with both faculty participants and the administrators to
determine the effectiveness of the program, what actual learning may
have taken place as a result of the PD, and ways of improvement to
inform future efforts.
Continuing the
learning
Aligning faculty development sessions with the support systems and the
reward system available for faculty participants’ continuous learning
and initiating collaborative opportunities for faculty participants to
establish network teams in implementing their new learning.
Assessing the
faculty
developer’s
role
Self-assessing and reflecting on the faculty developer’s effectiveness of
planning and delivery in the entire PD process within the institutional
context with learning autobiographies which document experiences and
lessons learned.
Adapted from Planning for effective faculty development: Using adult learning strategies. (pp.
41-117) by Lawler, P. A., & King, K. P., 2000, Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Copyright 2000 by Patricia A. Lawler and Katherine P. King.

Lawler and King’s (2000b) adult learning model of faculty development framework spelled out
what should be considered in the process of faculty development and what was expected in faculty
educators from the perspective of adult education literature. Moreover, they also drew on Brookfield’s
(1995) vision of desirable faculty developer characteristics, including credibility, authenticity, respect,
consistency, and responsiveness, together with practical experience and an understanding of challenges
and issues the faculty faced in their daily work to establish a solid case that faculty educators also
served as reflective practitioners, in that they needed to not merely proactively find a balance among
conflicting demands, such as institutional agendas, budgetary concerns, faculty needs, and ethical
obligations, but retrospectively reflect upon their decision making process. Lawler and King (2000b)
concluded with the recognition that working with human beings demanded flexibility.

78

78

Trivette et al. (2009) conducted a synthesis analysis of 79 studies using randomized controlled
trials or comparison group designs to examine the extent to which the six adult learning method
characteristics suggested in Donovan et al.’s (1999) account for positive learning outcomes. Drawing
on the works of others, Trivette et al. (2009) defined adult learning as “a collection of theories and
methods for describing the conditions under which the processes of learning are optimized” (p. 1).
Trivette et al. (2009) first identified four commonly established adult learning methods from
contemporary education literature (e.g., Coscarelli & White, 1986; Davis, 2005; ; Hargreaves & Dawe,
1990; Meier, 2000), including “accelerated learning, coaching, guided design, and just-in-time training”
(Trivette et al., 2009, p. 2), and used these as the search terms (including their interchangeable concepts
used at different times) in conjunction with train, learn, educate, or instruct (emphasis in original) as
well as adult (emphasis in original) from online databases, websites, books, and Social Science Index
searches so as to locate studies of adult learning methods. Single-participant design studies and studies
in which the participants were secondary school students were excluded. Trivette et al. (2009) located
79 studies as a result of their search; however, the authors did not provide the time frame for their
search, nor did they report the total number of studies they identified and filtered out based on their
exclusion criteria described above.
Building on the findings in Donovan et al. (1999), which identified six adult learning method
characteristics for planning (introduction and illustration), applications (practice and evaluate), and
deep understanding (reflection and mastery), Trivette et al. (2009) performed analyses and coded the
studies with these characteristics to determine how the presence of the characteristics were associated
with the variations in learning outcomes. The Cohen’s d effect sizes were used to assess the
effectiveness of the adult learning methods: Trivette et al. (2012) computed the average Cohen’s d for
each of six adult learning characteristics and each type of practice for each characteristic to determine

79

79

which characteristics and practices accounted for the largest group differences between the
experimental groups and the control groups or comparison groups in the 69 selected studies. The
authors then made interpretation of the relationships between the six adult learning method
characteristics and the study outcomes based on the average effect size (i.e., .58) and 95% confidence
intervals (.45-.70). The findings suggested that each of the six adult learning method characteristics was
moderately to strongly relevant to the study outcomes. Specifically, a number of practices in
correspondence with the six adult learning method characteristics proved to be the most effective, as
presented in Figure 12. The pattern of the findings also suggested that the active learner participation in
judging learning experience, as manifested in characteristics like evaluate, reflection, and mastery, had
to do with the effectiveness of their learning outcomes. Furthermore, another statistical analysis
Trivette et al. (2009) conducted demonstrated that there were value-added benefits of the simultaneous
presence of multiple adult learning method characteristics; still another analysis on the studies’
moderator variables showed that adult learning method characteristics were more effective when they
were implemented with a small number of learners on different occasions where the learning
experiences took place for 10 plus hours.
In addition, Trivette et al. (2009) organized and grouped the learning outcomes of the selected
studies into four categories, including knowledge (e.g., learner mastery of course content; second
language learning), skill (e.g., learner teaching methods; interviewing skills), learner attitudes (e.g.,
satisfaction with the learning procedures; class attendance and completion), and self-efficacy (e.g.,
learner judgment of their competence and competence in the ability to produce intended outcomes).
Judging from the average effect size and the confidence level, the impact of adult learning method
characteristics on the four different learning outcomes showed that instructor illustration of the learning
topic was mostly strongly related to learner attitudes (d= .68; CI= .40-96) while learner evaluation of

80

80

and reflection on the targeted knowledge or practice was more strongly related to learner skill
acquisition (d=.66; CI= .43-.88).

81

81

Figure 12
Characteristics, Definitions, and Effective Practices of the Adult Learning Method
Adapted from “Characteristics and consequences of adult learning methods and strategies,” by
Trivette et al. (2009), Research Brief, 3, p. 3 and p. 7. Copyright 2009 by Winterberry Press.
Features
Characteristics Definition
Effective Practices (most strongly
related to study outcomes)
Planning
Introduction:
Introduction of
the learning
topic
Engage the learner in a
preview of the material,
knowledge of practice that is
the focus of the instruction or
training.
Out-of-class activities and self-
instruction
Warm-up exercises and pre-class
quizzes
Illustration:
Illustrating the
learning topic
Demonstrate or illustrate the
use or applicability of the
material, knowledge or
practice for the learner.
Instructor use of role playing or
simulations
Incorporating learner input into
demonstrating the applicability of the
new knowledge, material, or practices
Application
Practice:
Practicing the
use of the
learning topic
Engage the learner in the use
of the material, knowledge, or
practice.
A combination of real-life application
and role plays
Evaluate:
Evaluating the
consequences
of application
Engage the learner in a
process of evaluating the
consequence or outcome of
the application of the
material, knowledge, or
practice.
Assess learner strengths and
weaknesses related to the application
experience
Reviewing learner solutions to
problems or answers to quizzes about
their experiences
Deep Understanding
Reflection:
Reflecting on
learner
acquisition
Engage the learner in self-
assessments of his or her
acquisition of knowledge and
skills as a basis for
identifying “next steps” in the
learning process.
Engaging the learner in a process of
determining the next steps in learning
targeted knowledge or practice
(performance improvement)
Mastery:
Learner
assessment of
mastery
Engage the learner in a
process of assessing his or her
experiences in the context of
some conceptual or practical
model or framework, or some
external set of standards or
criteria.
Actively involving learners in some
type of self-assessment of their
mastery of learning topic
Having learners use a set of standards
or external criteria for assessing their
learning

82

82

Pedagogy Drawn from Teacher Education Literature
To understand how faculty educators fostered faculty’s intercultural competence through their
instruction, I needed to know how their role as teacher educators played out during professional
learning. Just like Kishimoto (2018) drew on K-12 references like Ladson-Billings (2000) to support
her study that was set in a higher education context, I drew on the literature in a K-12 context to talk
about a higher education context because I extrapolated from the teacher educator-to-teacher
relationship to imagine the faculty educator-to-faculty relationship. Faculty in higher education
institutions are not trained to teach adults and there is no equivalent program to equip faculty with the
skill set they need to work with undergraduate and graduate students to the Master of Arts in Teaching
or teacher education programs. Thus, when thinking about the role of faculty educator, this person does
serve the role of a teacher educator in a teacher education program when their primary responsibility is
to support faculty’s teaching capacities.
I consulted teacher education literature and learned that the complex teaching practice
necessitated knowledge bases, defined by Achinstein and Athanases (2005) as “a codified or codifiable
aggregation of knowledge, understanding, skill, and disposition” (p. 846) with a cumulative and shared
nature, allowing it to be continually verified and improved. The knowledge bases and skillset included
but were not limited to: (1) content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content
knowledge that provided for the planning and the delivery of the professional learning opportunities,
(2) “pedagogical learner knowledge” (Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992, p. 387) that allowed for
understanding learners from different cultural, social, and family backgrounds so as to support
effectively learners’ development in cognitive, social, physical, and psychological dimensions
(Darling-Hammond, 1998, as cited in Achinstein & Athanases, 2005, p. 858), (3) “adaptive expertise”
(Bransford et al., 2005, p. 48), (4) “professional vision” (Sherin & van Es, 2009, p. 22) focusing on a

83

83

teacher’s ability to notice and interpret significant classroom interactions, and (5) “instructional vision”
(Gibbons & Cobb, 2016, p. 247) that involved the capacity to interpret classroom actions and
interactions with a view to supporting both students’ and teachers’ learning from the perspective of a
teacher educator. The emphasis on student learning brought to bear one of the core practices for quality
instruction–ambitious teaching (emphasis added), manifested in equity-minded, student-centered
teachers with an asset mindset who treat students from diverse cultural backgrounds as sense-makers,
set high expectations for every student, and sharpen their responsiveness to critical moments and
particularities of students and situations (Horn & Campbell, 2015; Lampert et al., 2013; Stillman et al.,
2013).
Ball and Forzani (2009) argued against the dominant contemporary view of teaching as
improvisational and wholly context dependent. Calling attention to the unnatural and intricate nature of
teaching, the authors underscored the importance of using a disciplined approach to preparing novice
teachers in a professional training curriculum. They suggested that the unnatural orientation of teaching
required teachers to deliberately suspend some aspects of themselves for the purpose of acting in
learners’ interest and understanding their perspectives. They also argued that work of teaching was
intricate in that each episode of instruction comprised a number of tasks and materials, among which
teachers needed to make pedagogical judgment and choose particular instructional moves responsive to
the specific intended learning goals as well as diverse student needs. In other words, decisions about
what to do were not derived from teachers’ personal preferences or experiences; instead, they were
based on teachers’ professionally justified knowledge. That is to say, being able to teach well depended
on teachers’ flexible employment of high-leverage techniques and strategies with pedagogical
reasoning in alignment with the specific context.

84

84

As the work of teaching involved broad cultural competence and relational sensitivity, the
authors also argued that teachers, as professionals, needed not only to appreciate the historical cultural,
political, economic, and social milieus of their work, but to strive to delineate and modify their practice
to meet the needs of different populations of students. Specifically, teachers should pay explicit
attention to how race, class, gender, socioeconomic status, and other backgrounds and characteristics
interacted with their instruction and classroom dynamics. Drawing on the work of Lampert and
Graziani (2009), who contended that skilled responsiveness rested on substantial structure and practice,
the authors argued that complex practice, including techniques, judgments, and coordination, could be
specified and taught. With that in mind, they foregrounded the centrality of situating novices’ learning
in practice.
Taking a position about professional classroom teaching being specialized work, Ball and Forzani
(2009) contended that carefully designed learning was essential in order to make the most detailed
elements of instruction learnable. With the support of teacher educators’ explicit explication of
instructional approaches as well as multiple and repeated opportunities for novices to enact the
interactive work of teaching, novices were expected to develop the capacity for discretionary adaptation
and judgment with discrete behavior and action.
Lampert et al. (2013) examined their use of rehearsal across three teacher education programs.
They asked the following research questions: (1) What do teacher educators (TEs) and novice teachers
do together during rehearsal to prepare novices for the complex, interactive work of teaching; and (2)
where, in what they do, are the opportunities for NTs to learn to enact the principles, practices, and
knowledge entailed in ambitious teaching. They introduced rehearsal as an essential component in
preparing novice teachers (NTs) within a system of professional preparation for ambitious teaching,
which was in alignment with the Common Core State Standard Initiative. Drawing on the work of

85

85

others (e.g., Smylie & Wenzel, 2006), they defined ambitious teaching as practices that supported
student learning and advanced student understanding. They argued that NTs needed to adapt teaching
to learning by making situationally appropriate judgments about what to do when faced with something
unexpected. The improvement of improvised interactive performance required deliberate practice, or
cycles of repeated practice in the company of others, where learners learned to make judgments about
how to respond in principled and instructive ways in situations of uncertainty. The authors, therefore,
designed rehearsal as a social setting for NTs to practice teaching rigorous content and interacting
productively with every student using particular instructional activities (IAs). Rehearsal was also a
setting where TEs guided the collaborative examination of appropriate instructional moves.
The authors situated their work in the field of elementary mathematics and identified their
sampling sites at the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Michigan, and the
University of Washington, in which they taught master’s-level methods courses. They first identified
the common intended curriculum across these sites, including a set of teaching practices, normative
principles, and mathematical knowledge. Next, they developed a system of pedagogy incorporating the
Cycle of Enactment and Investigation (CEI) to teach NTs use the practices, principles, and knowledge
adaptively in relationships. The CEI comprised six stages, which were observation, collective analysis,
preparation, rehearsal, classroom enactment, and collective analysis. It began with the NTs observing
an enactment of an IA in a classroom setting. The TE then guided the class to collectively analyze the
practices, principles, and knowledge and examined how they were integrated in the demonstrated IA.
After the analysis, NTs were asked to prepare to teach the same IA in actual classrooms with what they
have observed and learned at the previous two stages. Next, selected NTs publicly rehearsed their plans
for enacting the IA in front of their peers. After rehearsal, the NTs taught actual students with the same
IA and video recorded their work. Following individual enactment, the group of NTs and TE

86

86

collectively investigated the records of the NT’s teaching act before moving on to the next cycle. The
authors regarded repeated CEIs, which required the NTs to constantly investigate teaching and enact
teaching, as deliberate practice critical for the development of adaptive competence. Specifically, the
authors paid special attention to rehearsals in the CEIs, where the TE acted as a simulated student
representing the intellectual and social range of actions that the NTs might encounter in an actual
classroom. During rehearsals, the TE deliberately made several interjections that briefly interrupted the
flow of enactment; the TE also took the coaching stance and led the discussion among the NTs on how
different moves could better align with specific and multifaceted student actions.
As the unit of analysis was centered on the interactional exchanges among TEs and NTs within
rehearsals, the authors drew 90 rehearsal videos from a larger pool of rehearsals taking place across a 3-
year period in their research. The 90 rehearsal videos they studied were proportionally distributed
across three sites and were varied across years, lengths, settings, TEs, and IAs. Using the software
Studiocode to capture the back-and-forth interactions between NTs and TEs, the authors coded the
structure of the exchange and its substantive focus. Structure codes included “TE gave directive
feedback”(i.e., when the TE directed the rehearsing NT by suggesting a next move), “TE gave
evaluative feedback” (i.e., when the TE made an evaluative comment that highlighted the strength or
the weakness of the rehearsing NT’s move), “TE scaffolded enactment” (i.e., when the TE intentionally
participated in the simulated activity by increasing or reducing the complexity of the ongoing
engagement), and “TE facilitated discussion” (i.e., when the TEs or NTs raised questions about
learning and instruction that turned into a reflective discussion). Substance codes included “eliciting
and responding” (i.e., eliciting, interpreting and responding to student mathematical work or talk),
“representation” (i.e., representing mathematical ideas in writing and making connections between
student talk and representation), “student engagement” (i.e., managing students’ intellectual and

87

87

behavioral engagement), “attending to IA” (i.e., drawing attending to structural aspects of IA), “content
goals” (i.e., addressing the particular mathematical content goals of the lesson), “student thinking” (i.e.,
addressing the details of student thinking), “mathematics” (i.e., helping NTs to understand
mathematical content), “student error” (i.e., surfacing and attending to student errors), “orienting
students” (i.e., orienting students toward each other’s mathematical ideas), “process goals” (i.e.,
addressing the particular mathematical process goals of the lesson), “launching the IA” (i.e., initiating
student engagement with the IA), “assessing understanding” (i.e., evaluating what a student knows and
understands about the mathematics), “manage timing” (i.e., attending to timing and pacing in moving
through the lesson), “manage space” (i.e., addressing issues of classroom space when engaging
students), “body/voice use” (i.e., paying close attention to how one uses body and voice while
teaching), and “closing the IA” (i.e., bringing the IA to an end) (p. 232).
Despite the variation of the 90 rehearsal videos, the authors found that on average rehearsals
lasted 12 to 15 minutes, in which NTs teaching the IA (56%) were approximately equal to that of
TE/NT exchanges (47%). The balance of the NTs leading the activity and interacting around the
teaching indicated how the rehearsal structure facilitated deliberate practice. Likewise, per rehearsal
there was an average of 14 TE/NT exchanges, 22% of which were initiated by the NTs, highlighting
how rehearsals functioned as deliberate practice in the learning of teaching.
In terms of substantive aspect of interaction, the authors found that 58% of the TE/NT
exchanges involved more than one substance code, suggesting that the simultaneous work in rehearsal
involved multiple aspects of practice and its interrelationships. The most prevalent contents were “elicit
and respond,” “representation,” “student engagement,” and “attending to IA,” all of which took up
more than 70% of all rehearsals. In particular, “eliciting and responding,” the most frequently occurring
substance code across all TE/NT exchanges, not only characterized a large portion of the collaborative

88

88

work of TEs and NTs within rehearsals, but it was also a salient component of ambitious teaching. This
indicated that TEs could work with NTs on the relational nature of teaching while positioning students
as competent sense-makers by attending to how an instructional dialogue could unfold through a
sequence of questions and responses.
As for structure of interaction, the most prominent type of rehearsal exchange was “TE gave
directive feedback” (61% of all TE/NT exchanges), followed by “TE gave evaluative feedback” (28%
of all TE/NT exchanges), “TE scaffolded enactment” (21% of all TE/NT exchanges), and “TE
facilitated discussion” (17% of all TE/NT exchanges). The frequency of structure codes entailed a
range of roles the TE took on in the development of NTs’ principled instructional decisions in
managing the complexities of student performance. The authors concluded that rehearsals as designed
pedagogies provided simulated practice for NTs, highlighted TEs’ roles in bridging theory and practice
through ongoing intervention and targeted feedback and enabled the approximation of ambitious
teaching during the deliberate practice of interaction around mathematics. Most importantly, NTs were
offered multiple opportunities in rehearsals to retry, reconsider, and receive feedback about how they
attended to situational demands arising from the structure of the IA with reference to principles,
practices, and content knowledge, allowing for the development of the NTs’ adaptive performance and
their commitment to ambitious teaching.
Despite the notion that the deep level of cultural awareness derived from cultivating
intercultural competence enabled individuals to make moral judgments and ethical choices towards
equity, social justice, and global connectedness (Cohn & Mullennix, 2007; Gregersen-Hermans, 2017;
Reynolds et al., 2017), I needed to supplement my understanding of how faculty educators guided
faculty to improve their instruction that promoted educational equity and social justice. To that end, I

89

89

consulted Antiracist Pedagogy literature, which, according to Blakeney (2005), ensured that diversity
was promoted and respected, but also created a context for promoting social justice.
Antiracist Pedagogy
As ambitious teaching pertained to leveraging a teacher’s understanding of their students to
adapt the teaching practice to support diverse students’ learning, it was important to note that the issues
surrounding teacher racial identity formation were essential means to help teachers be culturally
responsive, in that antiracism helped teachers examine how their relational social positions influenced
their racialized viewpoints and interrogate their pedagogical relationships from a larger social context
(Vavrus, 2002). Vavrus (2002) argued that it was crucial for teacher educators to problematize the
normalcy of color blindness, White privilege, and the unacknowledged racist attitudes of their learners
by heightening their awareness of the racialized society and the transformative possibilities.
Blakeney (2005) discussed Antiracist Pedagogy in terms of its definition, theoretical
perspectives, and the need for its implementation in professional developments. Blakeney (2005) first
defined Antiracist Pedagogy as “a paradigm located within Critical Theory utilized to explain and
counteract the persistence and impact of racism using praxis as its focus to promote social justice for
the creation of a democratic society in every respect” (p. 119). Though Antiracist Pedagogy had been
frequently used as an interchangeable term with Multicultural Education, Blakeney (2005) argued that
Antiracist Pedagogy distinguished itself from Multicultural Education by attending directly and
specifically to the problem of racism that bred inequalities and by challenging individuals and the
structural system that perpetuated racism.
From the theoretical perspective, Antiracist Pedagogy aligned with Critical Theory in terms of
the goal of eliminating social oppression through revealing its oppressive nature. As Critical Theory
drew on the methods of interpretative theory, which argued that people behaved based on perceived

90

90

meaning, Antiracist Pedagogy thus had a potential to bring about a paradigm shift in facilitating a
change in perceived meaning. Moreover, Blakeney (2005) wrote that Multicultural Education and
Critical Pedagogy lay a foundation for Antiracist Pedagogy, allowing for the development of a certain
kind of ideology reflective of an individual’s consciousness of how society operated in relation to race.
This type of ideology served as tool for analysis, as the development of the consciousness results from
an in-depth understanding of the impact of racism and the experiences of racism when individuals
navigated between the racist society and everyday life events. Blakeney (2005) drew on Freire’s notion
of conscientization and brought forth a key point that the level of consciousness allowed people,
particularly the oppressed, to view themselves as part of the world citizens, which in turn propelled
them to transform the world for the betterment. Notwithstanding, transformation could not be achieved
without praxis, defined as the use of knowledge, reflection and action. Praxis on racism created
affordance to the development of levels of consciousness relevant to critical perception of reality,
resulting in differing levels of antiracist behaviors. Blakeney (2005) contended that Antiracist
Pedagogy challenged individuals to take on a Deweyan perspective with regard to democracy through
inquiry, experimentation, and reflection, which represent Freire’s notion of praxis. Moreover, this
Deweyan perspective reflected in Antiracist Pedagogy was indicative of democratic citizenry by taking
into account the perspectives of others within the current contexts, which in turn created an expanded
knowledge base of others and identifies common interests. Coupled with its problem-posing
educational nature, Antiracist Pedagogy allowed for the transformation of the cultural and historical
conditioning of individuals based on the broadened, shared knowledge base and the status quos.
Blakeney (2005) called attention to the need for Antiracist Pedagogy by highlighting a number
of prevailing catalysts that permeated racism and its impact on the society, such as types of racism,
cultural discontinuity, perspectives of race, issues and concerns about race, and demographics.

91

91

Regarding types of racism, Blakeney (2005) wrote about the role of aversive racism, which was
composed of racial stereotypes and biases. In education, institutional racism was manifested in a way
that targeted groups were perceived as disadvantaged, subject to negative outcomes, and were therefore
systematically excluded from educational opportunities. This type of institutional racism intensified and
supported racism and necessitated Antiracist Pedagogy. Another catalyst was concerned with cultural
discontinuity as a result of the mismatch between the culture of students of color and the predominantly
Eurocentric school culture. A corollary to this cultural misalignment was misinterpretation and
miscommunication between teachers and students. Blakeney (2005) argued that Antiracist Pedagogy
was necessary to help members across different cultures better grasp verbal and nonverbal
communication. In addition, Blakeney (2005) also viewed negative perspectives of race as another
catalyst. For example, the commonly held misconceptions that race reflected one’s academic ability and
that academic success indicated the abandonment of racial integrity for whiteness call for Antiracist
Pedagogy that allowed for praxis, conscientization, and transformation of negative perspectives.
Another catalyst had to do with racial and cultural issues, which allowed for a natural flow of Antiracist
Pedagogy. Blakeney (2005) purported that the praxis used in Antiracist Pedagogy typically contributed
to consciousness raising, necessary for learners’ psychological and social development and
commitment to social justice. Still another catalyst involved the demographics of education. Blakeney
(2005) drew on the works of others and pointed out that the asymmetrical racial compositions of 90%
White teachers and increasingly diverse population of school children resulted in students’
underachievement, feelings of cultural deprivation, and inability for upward social mobility.
Demographics represented problems posed within context and called for the need for Antiracist
Pedagogy. In brief, Blakeney (2005) argued that the implementation of Antiracist Pedagogy was
theoretically capable of counteracting the aforementioned catalysts that persisted in perpetuating racism

92

92

as well as its negative influence in education. Furthermore, Antiracist Pedagogy not only ensured that
diversity was promoted and respected, but also created a context for promoting social justice, making it
possible for public education to serve its purpose—the preparation for democratic citizenry.
Blakeney (2005) then argued that the successful implementation of Antiracist Pedagogy was
predicated on professional development (PD), because lack of training would bring about superficial
understanding and misapplication of Antiracist Pedagogy. Effective PD would attend to the historical
and cultural perspective of racism, the impact of racist ideology, and the development of racial identity,
as a comprehensive understanding would enable teachers to deal with emotion-laden cognitive
dissonance associated with racism and provide them a solid ground for the implementation of Antiracist
Pedagogy. Meanwhile, Blakeney (2005) also cautioned against the reduction of Critical Theory to
method and technique. To effectively develop a critical perception of a racist and hegemonic society
and to participate in the analysis of hegemonic behavior, Blakeney (2005) suggested that teachers
anchor themselves to the ideology associated with Antiracist Pedagogy, which provided a praxis-driven
and problem-posing way to recognize and address issues of race, ethnicity, power, and class. In
particular, Blakeney (2005) underscored the importance of teachers’ awareness of their racial identity
before they transformed their assumptions and beliefs about people of color. For instance, children’s
literature was one of the effective means in professional development to expose people to the culture of
others, which not only facilitated discussion on issues of race and racism, but also allowed for
presentation of different perspectives and interpretations.
Additionally, Blakeney (2005) stated that effective Antiracist Pedagogy PD would also
encompass methods of teaching, preferably culturally responsive instruction, to prepare teachers to
respond adequately for teaching diverse populations. Characterized by fluid and equitable interaction
extending from classroom to community, the social relationships between teacher and student defined

93

93

culturally responsive pedagogy. This relationship existed within a learning community where the
teachers had high expectations of their students, refused to categorize their students based on academic,
socio-economic, or social performance, exhibited connection to all students, encouraged collaborative
learning, and used strategic planning to meet the needs of students. Blakeney (2005) argued that this
type of relationship was dependent on sufficient dialogue that created a level of consciousness, making
it possible for teacher to create a community of learners based on fluid and equitable interaction, which
thereby was indicative of Antiracist Pedagogy.
Grounding her study in a higher education context, Kishimoto (2018) discussed how Antiracist
Pedagogy was not just about the course content but also about instructors’ pedagogical approaches as
well as the organizing effort for institutional change. Based on her professional experiences and
analysis of key literature in anti-racist pedagogy, Kishimoto (2018) argued that Antiracist Pedagogy
called for an analysis of structural racism, power relations, and social justice, which began with
faculty’s awareness and self-reflection of their social positions. Furthermore, antiracist faculty sought
to foster critical analytical skills in their students when teaching about the socially constructed notion of
race and the power relations behind racism and developed awareness of students’ social positions and
self-reflexivity by making connections between students’ personal experiences and the larger context of
U.S. society.
Kishimoto (2018) stated that in order to effectively implement Antiracist Pedagogy in the
teaching, research, and university work, faculty must have awareness and critical self-reflection of their
social positions. Drawing on West’s (1993) perspective that “it is difficult to work for emancipation on
behalf of others until people are emancipated themselves” (as cited in Milner, 2007, p. 395), Kishimoto
(2018) argued that faculty needed not only to know their social identities in relation to race and power
but also to reflect upon how their intersecting identities, inclusive of both internalized racial superiority

94

94

and internalized racial inferiority, had influence on their professional practices. Furthermore, as
Antiracist Pedagogy underscored the importance of lifelong learning, the kind of critical self-reflection
she described required faculty to have the humility to acknowledge that both faculty and students were
in the process of learning and that faculty could learn from students and community members. The
humility manifested in faculty’s willingness of mutual learning enabled them to decenter power and
authority, reducing and equalizing the power differentials in the classroom. Such a move not merely let
students take responsibility for their own learning, but also paved the way to building a sense of
community in the learning environment, in which difficult conversations were made possible. The
notion of difficult conversations was built on a trusting safe space, in which students and faculty
willingly stepped out of their comfort zones, dealt with their vulnerabilities and fears, challenged their
assumptions, and acknowledged their complicity with oppression. Kishimoto (2018) recommended that
faculty focus on the process of antiracist teaching and learning and strive to facilitate these challenging
conversations throughout the semester by validating students’ lived experiences and emotions and by
engaging in self-disclosure.
Kishimoto (2018) suggested that racial content should be integrated throughout the curriculum
rather than as additive or tokenized unit, as Antiracist Pedagogy could be implemented in any course,
irrespective of content. For instance, through the provision of political, historical, and economical
contexts to the development of a discipline, faculty could discuss the intersectionality of race, racism,
power, and privilege in the classroom and their impact on knowledge production. She pointed to
Ladson-Billings (2000) and Collins (2009) who both spoke to the ways that Antiracist Pedagogy
disrupted epistemological assumptions and questioned what made legitimate knowledge, whose
knowledge mattered, and who had access to the knowledge. Faculty who adopted antiracist approaches
to teaching needed to convey how various disciplines and research epistemologies mighty be racially

95

95

biased and reflected the worldviews, interests, and powers of those who created them. Challenging
what was considered legitimate knowledge also involved looking at whose experiences and
perspectives had been neglected and why other forms of knowledge were excluded. Such analysis of
race and racism in knowledge production built students’ capacity for critical skills to understand power
struggles between dominant and subordinate groups. Kishimoto (2018) concluded that Antiracist
Pedagogy was not a prescribed method but an intentional and strategic organizing effort to apply
antiracist values to faculty’s different spheres of influence-their teaching, research, departmental,
university, and community work.
Miller and Garran (2017) discussed six ways to enhance effectiveness of teaching about race
and racism in higher education institutions, including developing an effective course and class
structure, co-creating a positive classroom climate, exploring instructor self-awareness, knowing the
students, employing specific teaching strategies and techniques, and anticipating challenging situations.
They argued that teaching and learning about racism was similar, in that both necessitated cognitive
understandings of facts and concepts, history, and social patterns and require personal insights gained
from self-reflection, introspection, and empathy, constituting an ongoing enterprise and lifetime
commitment to social justice. Miller and Garran (2017) recognized the value and reservoirs of
experiences both teachers and students carried and encouraged teachers to engage in interactive social
learning process with their students and to approach teaching race and racism in an open and inquisitive
manner.
To maximize the chances of success in teaching about race and racism, first of all, the authors
centered on the importance of having a clear structure and format for the course and each class.
Whether sequencing the content and activities in the progression from lower risk, less threatening, less
emotion-laden notions to higher risk and more challenging ones, or examining student social identity

96

96

associated with racism issues along with social and historical subjects on a parallel track, Miller and
Garran (2017) suggested that antiracist teachers continually link all areas of content with an ongoing
awareness and focus on learners’ social identities. They also found it useful to introduce critical
concepts such as racial identity and critical consciousness that function as critical lens through which
students view the learning materials and interpret their feelings and interpersonal interactions. Despite
the holding environment afforded by the specific course structure and meaningful concepts, the authors
recommended that instructors prepare for unanticipated issues and respond to the circumstances by
acknowledging highly charged classroom environment, recognizing the need for further dialogues and
validating students’ unresolved feelings to provide for tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty. Also,
Miller and Garran (2017) pointed to the need of maintaining clear boundaries with time management
by sticking to beginning and ending class on time; at times of tension and conflict, they suggested that
instructors create alternative venues like journals and online forums to allow for reflection time for
students to regain perspective before instructors brought back the unresolved issues to the actual
classroom.
Second, Miller and Garran (2017) underscored the importance of facilitating a positive learning
environment grounded in trust to enable fruitful discourse and inquiry and to cultivate inquisitive, self-
aware, and self-directed learners who were willing to speak honestly and take risks when learning about
themselves and gaining necessary knowledge and skills to engage in antiracism endeavors. They argued
that classroom safety, classroom norms, and caucus/affinity groups were critical in establishing trust in
the classroom. Classroom safety pertained to non-judgmental and tolerant stances teachers could
convey and model by asking students about their hopes, concerns, and their own goals for the course,
responding empathetically and validating their feelings and thoughts with clarification on the purpose
of the course. Classroom norms had to do with generating and discussing norms of conduct within the

97

97

whole class that recognized a range of needs, views, feelings, and aspirations learners have as they were
at different phases in their racial identity development and had diverse experiences of racism. Miller
and Garran (2017) also suggested instructors remind their students that what they were about to express
would have a potential impact on their classmates and that they should be gentle with one another and
with themselves when encountering painful interactions. Caucus/affinity groups were concerned with
the space that was opened up with the recognition that “learning for some should not come at the cost
of others” (Miller & Garran, 2017, p. 320). In other words, caucus groups, in which students who
identified as White could explore White privilege, power, and privilege and where people of color
could explore internalized racism and reactions to White racism, created a structure that encouraged
honesty and promoted self-awareness without placing students of color in unnecessarily vulnerable
positions. Miller and Garran (2017) suggested that instructors remain transparent about their reasoning
for why and how to break up classes into caucus groups and confront resistance by reiterating different
unique learning need of different students.
Third, Miller and Garran (2017) argued the criticality of instructor self-awareness of their social
identity and positioning, which involved knowing their own vulnerabilities and assets, confronting their
own assumptions and biases, taking stock of their trigger points and hot spots, and challenging their
doubts about competency and their need for student approval. Inherent in teaching about racism is
undertaking the task of difficult conversations, where instructors could teach by example by making
effective use of self-disclosure and their internal process as points of discussion and reflection. Miller
and Garran (2017) also wrote that antiracist teachers should expect student resistance manifested in
denial, anger, hostility, withdrawal, or direct challenge to the authority and credibility of the instructors.
The authors suggested institutional support be provided to instructors by offering multi-racial co-
teaching teams and facilitating strong support networks with antiracist professionals. Multi-racial co-

98

98

teaching partnership not only served as a buffer for the potential risks of teaching about racism but also
modeled for students how to capitalize on multiple viewpoints and experiences while expanding one’s
knowledge base around racism issues; on the other hand, antiracism support network created room for
antiracist educators to share experiences and process difficult emotions for themselves outside the
classroom.
Fourth, Miller and Garran (2017) pointed to the importance of antiracist instructors developing
a textured understanding of their students and responding to them differentially to increase
effectiveness of teaching about race and racism. They suggested instructors take into account
organizational culture, ethnic and racial identities of their students, and critical experiences students
already had in order to anticipate learner needs, potential sources of resistance, and group dynamics and
to adapt their teaching approaches to match with curricular goals and student needs. Fifth, Miller and
Garran (2017) brought a heightened attention to specific teaching strategies pertaining to effective
teaching as well as tailoring to antiracism courses, which were more likely to result in positive
meaningful classes, because at the heart of antiracism teaching was an artful balancing act between
process and content. For example, a lecture format with slides and handouts worked to convey
information; small discussion groups and in-class exercises aided in deepening student connection to
the content; videos and reading personal accounts humanized theoretical approaches; written exercise
and simulations provoked introspection and reflection; journals and web-based discussion groups
helped further dialogue and promote self-awareness; structured racial dialogues or caucus groups
helped learners explore their assumptions and the ramifications; instructor feedback and self-revelation
stimulated student thinking and solicited student reactions; pair interviews about aspects of social
identity helped build interpersonal connection and deepen empathy.

99

99

Lastly, Miller and Garran (2017) suggested that antiracist instructors anticipate and prepare to
respond effectively for challenging situations by inviting the class to predict instructor’s mistakes and
welcome criticism, which normalized and modeled openness and non-defensiveness. Alternatively, at
times of stress and uncertainty, instructors were advised to call a timeout, during which they could raise
a number of questions like “What was your immediate reaction?” and “What would be a helpful way to
follow up?” (Miller & Garran, 2017, p. 329) to offer structure and direction for students to address their
reactions and expand their perspectives. The authors concluded with the reminder that antiracist
instructors were also learners who could work together with their students toward a full understanding
of the racialized society so that the more instructors were able to be gentle with themselves and give
themselves time to regain their footing, the more likely they could turn challenging moments into
learning opportunities.
Critical Reflection
Lawler and King (2000b) built on Brookfield’s (1986) and Knowles’s (1989) views to contend
that faculty, as adult learners, were likely to be more interested in the development of self-insight rather
than general classroom methodology, as educators acknowledged that teaching emerged from their
inwardness and that their own worldviews could have profound effect on shaping learners’ concept of
self (Howard, 2003). Brown and Kysilka (2002) pointed out that educator’s beliefs and attitudes, often
unthinking responses in the present based on past experiences, remained to influence consciously or
unconsciously present and future teaching and learning situations. To understand how faculty educators
engaged faculty in thinking and behaving in more culturally sensitive and responsive ways to support
their students’ learning, I also needed to examine the way critical reflection worked because if faculty
educators wished to set the stage for faculty’s perspective shift and transformative growth, they must

100

100

find ways to systemically structure experiences that provided disorienting revelations that directed them
toward critical reflection into their pedagogy (Hunter, 2008; Szecsi et al., 2010).
Mezirow’s (1991) study focused on adult learners, which were not limited to faculty members
or teachers per se, and discussed the relationship among adult education, transformative learning, and
social action. He presented propositions about the roles of adult educators in helping adult learners
become more critically reflective, participating more fully and freely in rational discourse and action,
and moving towards more developmentally advanced meaning perspectives. At the heart of adult
education was helping adult learners construe experience in a way that allowed for heightened
awareness of posing and solving problems. This kind of problem awareness signaled the need of
andragogy, which had been defined by past literature as a structured and sustained effort to assist adults
in learning in a way that enhance their capacity to function as self-guided learners. Inasmuch as
transformative theory came into play, Mezirow’s (1991) notion of andragogy involved helping adults
reconfigure their meaning schemes (i.e., their beliefs, feelings, interpretations, decisions) through
critique and re-assessment of their content, the process by which they were formed, and the social
context, history, and consequences of their premises and assumptions. Drawing on Candy’s (1989)
observation that most of the time people presented their “espoused theories,” or what they thought they
believed, rather than their “theories in use,” or what their actions indicated that they believed, Mezirow
(1991) highlighted the criticality of professional adult educators, who helped learners see and grapple
with the discrepancies between their avowed beliefs and their actions and helped learners learn how to
take appropriate action resulting from transformative learning and critical reflection.
Mezirow (1991) argued that transformative theory was a theory of adult learning, as the process
of perspective transformation was a generic form of adult learning. As learning always occurred in the
context of a learner’s course of action and was reflective of their intention, purpose, and feelings,

101

101

transformative learning involved externalizing and contextualizing the assumptions, and reflectively
reexamining, questioning, validating, and changing the premises that constituted the learner’s meaning
schemes and perspectives, in which exists epistemic, sociolinguistic, or psychological beliefs and
preconceptions that might be distorted. Such premise reflection had the potential for the adult learner to
redefine their problem and acting upon their transformed insights.
To foster transformative learning, Mezirow (1991) suggested adult educators provide emotional
support and theoretical insight as empathic provocateurs and role models, who modeled critical
reflection and learned collaboratively with adult learners in considering alternative viewpoints.
Moreover, Mezirow (1991) further contended that adult educators functioned as guides who set and
enforced norms such as “bracketing biases” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 207) to cultivate rational discourse and
establish learning communities that encouraged solidarity and group support necessary for adult
learners when their comfortably established and taken-for-granted ways of knowing, feeling, and
believing were challenged. The learning communities of rational discourse, within which beliefs were
questioned and consensually validated, consisted of multiple learners who varied in their readiness for
transformative learning: “conventional learners, threshold learners, emancipated learners, and
transformation learners” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 218). Mezirow (1991) purported that the diversity of
dialogic communities increased the likelihood of the accretion of new layers of meaning and thereby of
transformative changes, as adult learners sought to be understood and to understand others in rational
dialogues facilitated by adult educators. In addition to the roles of adult educators as empathic
provocateurs, role models, and guides, Mezirow (1991) pointed out that taking action as a result of
critical reflection might be impeded by lack of information, situational or structural constraints,
psychological barriers, or the absence of needed skills. For this, Mezirow (1991) suggested that adult
educators also serve as activists, who not only helped learners link self-insights with social norms and

102

102

cultural codes to critique sociolinguistic beliefs, but also assisted all adult learners to overcome
constraints that prevented them from full and free participation in public initiatives in support of
political, economic, and social changes. Mezirow (1991) drew on Kieffer’s (1981) concept of
empowerment: “(1) a more potent and efficacious sense of self, (2) more critical understanding of
social and political relations, and (3) more functional strategies and resources for social and political
action” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 210) to underline the positive outcome of perspective transformation, that
was, potential personal transformation and corollary social transformation derived from a sense of
empowerment.
Setting the study in the higher education context, Brookfield (2010) distinguished “critical
reflection” from “reflection” in terms of purpose; he argued for the transformational difference in the
former, as the notion of criticality was derived from a critical theory perspective, thereby serving
distinct purposes and involving experiential challenges. Brookfield (2010) underscored the importance
of reflective learning in both pre-service education and in-service training on the grounds that reflective
inquiry aided in the exploration of the underlying assumptions on how problems of practices were
perceived and how the consequent problem-solving responses were generated. Such reflective practice
was considered useful and necessary for working more smoothly within an existing system but left
unquestioned the power relationships underlying social and political structures that framed a field of
practice. Brookfield (2010) argued that for reflection to be considered critical, there must have been an
explicit focus on calling into questions the power dynamics that framed practice as well as hegemonic
assumptions, for which critical theory provided a crucial foundation. Critical theory took a position
about dismantling dominant ideological manipulation that not only justified but also reproduced
political, economic, racial, and gender inequity. Seeing through the lens of critical theory, Brookfield
(2010) wrote that critical reflection involved “ideology critique” (Brookfield, 2010, p. 220), which was

103

103

partly a learning process and partly a civic action. Through ideology critique, people came to awareness
of how unquestionably accepted and unjust dominant ideologies shaped their belief systems and lurked
underneath their ostensibly intuitive and idiosyncratic ways of experiencing reality. Inasmuch as
ideologies were manifest in language, social conventions, and cultural forms, they were perceived as
commonsense understanding and were experienced as part of people’s personalities. Similar to
Mezirow’s (2000) systemic critical reflection focusing on probing sociocultural distortions, critical
reflection as ideology critique focused on assisting people in penetrating the commonly held ideas and
practices, or the taken-for-granted normal order of life that served to preserve the interests of the
privileged. Given the pervasiveness and persuasiveness of ideologies, Brookfield (2010) foregrounded
the importance of using critical reflection to reveal the socially constructed nature of reality people
experienced in their everyday lives and to uncover the oppressive aspects of practices that were
perceived neutral or even benevolent.
Based on the aforementioned notion, Brookfield (2010) contended that critical reflection served
two distinct purposes: externalizing and investigating power relationships and uncovering hegemonic
assumptions. The former had to do with acknowledging and becoming alert to the power people exerted
in their practice and engaging with others in deconstructing that power and analyzing the source of
authority whereas the latter was concerned with challenging the normalcy of hegemonic ideas and
practices through unveiling the internalized commonsense ways of seeing and assumptions permeated
by the powerful to maintain the status quo. Toward that end, Brookfield (2010) wrote that critical
reflection consisted of four interrelated phases, from identifying a discrepancy between assumptions
and perspectives, assessing the accuracy and validity of the assumptions, taking alternative perspectives
on thought or action, to taking informed cognitive/behavioral action based on an accurate assessment of
the context. Critical reflection began with cognitive dissonance, or disorienting dilemma in Mezirow’s

104

104

(2000) writing, in which people came to realize the limitation of their long-held assumptions and
sought out ways to scrutinize these assumptions for accuracy and validity by making judgment on
whether following the assumptions led to the intended consequences and what caused people to think
the assumptions represented an accurate reading of the situation. Next, viewing the situations through
the lens of others helped people make sense of the assumptions, as alternative viewpoints on thought
and action strengthened the scrutiny process. As people gained more experience characterized by depth,
breadth, and intensity, they were more likely to take informed action on the basis of their assessment of
the context and anticipated consequences of the action.
Brookfield (2010) furthered the understanding of the critical reflection process on the basis of
developmental psychology literature, which tied critically reflective thought to distinctively adult
capacity given the fact that dialectical thinking, emancipatory learning, and epistemological awareness
pertained to adult learning and reasoning. Brookfield (2010) also wrote about five themes
representative of how adult learners experienced critical reflection, from feeling a confusing sense of
impostorship, risking being marginalized and excluded from culturally close people, suffering
fluctuating moments of apparent regression, experiencing a loss of epistemic innocence and certainty,
to turning to emotionally sustaining learning community for peer support. For this, Brookfield (2010)
suggested that educators engage in full disclosure and alert adult learners to the imminent risks and
struggles as well as the likely consequences of the experiences that critical reflection involved.
The overlapping ideas in the above literature review on faculty development and instructional
strategies were concerned with the importance of positive classroom climate, instructor self-awareness,
knowing the students, and flexible and adaptable teaching methods, which were integrated into the
conceptual framework that drove my sampling, data collection, analysis.

105

105

Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), conceptual framework is a “constructed” (p. 41), “tentative
theory” (p. 39) that helps researchers anticipate and make sense of the phenomenon of interest. Derived
from the researcher’s orientation and stance they bring to the study, the conceptual framework consists
of concepts or theories that serve as the underlying structure or the scaffolding of the study, thereby
informing and guiding the whole research process (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Based
on the aforementioned notion, my conceptual framework, as represented in Figure 13 showing how I
investigated and interpreted the relationships of concepts in my research, enabled me to answer the
research questions presented in this study.
Building on the literature review in this chapter, I asserted that both faculty educators
(represented in the red circle) and faculty members (represented in blue circles) brought certain beliefs
and skillsets to the table in a faculty development session at a higher education institution. Drawing on
King and Lawler’s (2000) notion that faculty educators were adult educators and faculty members were
adult learners, I argued that effective faculty educators, as adult educators, showed predispositions
toward ethno-relativism (i.e., seeking difference) in terms of their intercultural capacity, had greater
critical self-awareness as a result of being reflective practitioners, carried “instruction vision” (Gibbons
& Cobb, 2016, p. 247), which enabled them to keep both faculty members’ and their undergraduate
students’ learning needs in mind while planning for professional learning activities. Meanwhile,
effective faculty educators encompassed multiple solid knowledge bases that they could flexibly
employ to meet situational needs across contexts.
For the purpose of this dissertation, I defined effective faculty educators as those who had the
capacities to produce the intended result: They moved faculty members from ethno-centric to ethno-
relative orientations on the intercultural continuum, increased faculty’s level of consciousness

106

106

regarding their positionality, deepened faculty’s understanding of their students, and bolstered their
preparedness to engage in diversity during professional learning sessions.
Toward that end, I proposed that effective faculty educators established a positive learning
climate, stroke an artful balance of content-level and process-level andragogical strategies, promoted
collaborative learning among faculty members, and guided critical reflection during their interactions
with faculty members at faculty development settings. The bi-directional arrows represented the
interactions between faculty educators and faculty members as well as the interactions between faculty
members. The green rectangle represented the institutional context that might potentially create
affordance or unwittingly set boundaries upon faculty’s professional learning, depending on
institutional commitment, administrative support, and organizational resources, etc.
Lastly, I argued that the professional learning opportunities, manifest in faculty educators’ and
faculty’s interactions, created the potential for faculty members’ transformative learning, in which
faculty members shifted their perspectives, reconfigured their meaning schemes, and strived toward
culturally humble and socially just practices in and beyond their classrooms. In the following pages, I
delineated and discussed each part of my conceptual framework in the order of faculty educators,
faculty members, the interactions between faculty educators and faculty, and the potential outcome of
their interactions.

107

107

Figure 13
Conceptual Framework

Faculty Educators
As the purpose of this dissertation was to capture faculty educators’ perspectives on the way
they developed faculty’s ability to engage ICC in their instruction, I argued that effective faculty
educators demonstrated ethno-relative perspectives that allowed for “kaleidoscope consciousness”
(Medina, 2013, p. 21) characterized by epistemic open-mindedness, built heightened self-awareness
derived from their ongoing engagement in critical reflection, developed instructional vision that took
into account both faculty’s and students’ learning needs as they formulated learning activities for
faculty development sessions, and encompassed strong knowledge bases in theory and practice that
they could adaptably draw on to meet contextual demands. I consulted the literature reviewed in this
chapter and explained each dimension in detail below.

Ethno-relative orientation

108

108

Based on the research by Deardorff (2010) and Cushner (2014), ethno-relative perspectives
reflected an individual’s predisposition of seeking difference, manifested in their ability to
accommodate alternative viewpoints and to shift cultural frames of reference. As this dissertation
sought to observe the best practices in intercultural learning and teaching practices, I argued that faculty
educators had already ascribed to ethno-relativism as interculturally competent professionals, who not
only encompassed differentiated and sophisticated cultural worldviews (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009),
but also moved adeptly among different cultural frames when interacting with culturally different
others and interpreting global and domestic issues (Bennett, 2012; Deardorff, 2010).
Critical self-awareness
Educators acknowledged that teaching emerged from their inwardness and that their own
worldviews could have profound effect on shaping learners’ concept of self (Howard, 2003),
underscoring the criticality of instructor self-awareness. The importance of self-awareness was also
highlighted in Deardorff (2010b, 2012a), who suggested that educators made use of the intercultural
competence process model framework as well as a set of assessment questions as a guide to engage in
critical self-reflection for the purpose of developing cultural self-awareness. Similarly, Miller and
Garran (2017) highlight that instructor self-awareness also encompassed knowing their own
vulnerabilities and assets, taking stock of their trigger points and hot spots, confronting their own
assumptions and biases, and challenging their doubts of competency and the need for student approval,
which necessitated faculty educators’ making deliberate efforts to seek deeper level of self-awareness
by committing themselves to engaging in critical reflection. As critical reflection helped individuals re-
assess their cultural and historical conditioning in relation to bigger social context and ramifications to
the extent that they were able to reconfigure their meaning schemes and obtain a newfound insight
about self and the world (Blakeney, 2005; Mezirow, 1991; Stanley, 2010), I argued that faculty

109

109

educators gained an increased level of consciousness and self-insight as a result of critical reflection
and such heightened self-awareness helped them step outside of their existing cognitive frameworks,
redirect their perceptual habits, and make discretionary adaptation and judgment with discrete actions
in and beyond educational contexts.
Instructional vision
Contrary to “professional vision” (Sherin & van Es, 2009, p. 22) focusing on a teacher’s ability
to notice and interpret significant classroom interactions, “instructional vision” (Gibbons & Cobb,
2016, p. 247) involved the capacity to interpret classroom actions and interactions with a view to
supporting both students’ and teachers’ learning from the perspective of a teacher educator. Drawing on
Gibbons and Cobb’s (2005) notion, I argued that faculty educators with instructional vision knew both
faculty learners, student learners, and the contexts well enough to formulate professional learning
activities and adapted their andragogical decisions to meet their needs and support their learning. This
means faculty educators structured faculty’s learning opportunities with an eye toward supporting
ambitious teaching practices, defined by Lampert et al. (2013) as practices that supported student
learning and advanced student understanding. The basic premise of ambitious teaching was that equity-
minded, student-centered teachers with an asset mindset treat students from diverse cultural
backgrounds as sense-makers, set high expectations of every student, and sharpened their
responsiveness to critical moments and particularities of students and situations (Horn & Campbell,
2015; Lampert et al., 2013; Stillman et al., 2013). In a similar train of thought, Blakeney (2005) argued
that culturally responsive teachers built social relationships with their diverse students on the basis of
fluid and equitable interactions. As Deardorff (2010b, 2012a) suggested that intercultural competence
did not naturally happen for most people and it must be intentionally addressed and cultivated, I
contended that it was critical for faculty educators with instructional vision to cultivate faculty’s

110

110

intercultural competence and model the enactment of intercultural competence in their instruction at the
faculty development sessions to create affordance for faculty’s ambitious and quality instruction to
support all students’ learning.
Diverse knowledge bases
Knowledge base was defined by Achinstein and Athanases (2005) as “a codified or codifiable
aggregation of knowledge, understanding, skill, and disposition” (p. 846) with a cumulative and shared
nature, allowing it to be continually verified and improved. Building on Ping et al.’s (2018) notion that
teacher educators’ knowledge base involved their acquisition of subject knowledge, pedagogical
content knowledge, knowledge of curriculum, as well as the understandings of specific characteristics
and culture in their professional contexts, I argued that faculty educators were equipped with an array
of solid knowledge bases, which included but did not limit to (1) “content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8) that provided for the planning
and the delivery of the professional learning opportunities, (2) “pedagogical learner knowledge”
(Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992, p. 387) that allowed for understanding learners from different cultural,
social, and family backgrounds so as to support effectively learners’ development in cognitive, social,
physical, and psychological dimensions (Darling-Hammond, 1998, as cited in Achinstein & Athanases,
2005, p. 858), and (3) “adaptive expertise” (Bransford et al., 2005, p. 48) that enabled faculty educators
to make judgment appropriate to the intended learning outcomes and adjust their behaviors to the
contextual demands (Ball & Forzani, 2009). In addition, King and Lawler (2000) argued that it was
essential to view faculty educators as adult educators, faculty members as adult learners, and faculty
development as adult learning process, entailing the inclusion of adult learning, defined as “a collection
of theories and methods for describing the conditions under which the processes of learning are
optimized” (Trivette et al., 2009, p. 1), as well as andragogy, an structured and sustained effort to assist

111

111

adults in learning and enhance their capacities to function as self-guided learners (Mezirow, 1991), in
faculty educators’ knowledge bases. I argued that faculty educators with the above-mentioned
knowledge bases at their disposal had the capacity to flexibly deploy a repertoire of strategies to attend
to contextual needs.
Faculty Members
In this section, I identified four focal points that faculty educators needed to pay special
attention to with an ongoing awareness of their learners–faculty–so as to adjust their instructional
approaches and increase the likelihood of achieving the intended learning outcomes. Informed by
studies I had consulted in this chapter, I argued that it was essential for faculty educators to recognize
the stage of intercultural development at which the faculty operated, to foster faculty self-awareness
through guided critical reflection, to promote faculty understanding of their students through facilitated
collaborative learning, and to consolidate faculty preparedness for engaging in diversity through
balanced content and process/andragogy. Each focal point is explained and illustrated respectively in
the following pages.
Ethno-centric/ethno-relative Orientation
According to Bennett’s (1993) developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS), an
individual’s underlying cognitive orientation toward cultural difference could fall on a continuum of six
stages, ranging from denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, to integration (Bennett,
1993; Cushner, 2014). Moving from ethno-centric to more ethno-relative orientations, the first three
stages were characterized by an individual’s worldview of avoiding difference whereas the latter three
stages reflected an individual’s predisposition of seeking difference (Cushner, 2014). In other words, an
ethno-centric perspective represented a mono-cultural worldview whereas ethno-relative perspective
represents a differentiated, sophisticated multicultural worldview (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). The

112

112

ideal internal intercultural learning outcome, according to Deardorff (2010a), pertained to an ethno-
relative orientation, manifest in an individual’s capability of beginning to see from others’ viewpoints
and responding to others in accordance with the way the other person desired to be treated. Based on
this notion, I argued it was essential for faculty educators to identify the stage of intercultural
development that faculty operated so as to implement stage-appropriate instructional strategies that
moved them along the intercultural continuum.
Self-awareness
According to Medina (2013), an individual’s lack of familiarity and critical awareness of their
social positionality contributes to the phenomenon of normalizing tendencies of a privileged
perspective that protected itself by blocking the recognition of differences, such as color- and gender-
blindness. Research had pointed out the criticality of instructor self-awareness in relation to their
professional practices, because their social positions (e.g., race, ethnicity, power, social-economic
status, and sexual orientation.) shaped their perceptual lenses that were very likely to influence the way
they perceived and interacted with their students, thereby impacting teaching and learning (Ball &
Forzani, 2009; Blakeney, 2005; Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a; Garson et al., 2016; Kishimoto, 2018;
Miller & Garran, 2017; Samuels, 2018). Drawing on Dimitrov and Haque’s (2016a, 2016b) notion that
interculturally competent instructors were aware of how their own and their students’ varied
perceptions of power distance might play out in the classroom, I argued that it was necessary for faculty
educators to foster faculty self-awareness through guided critical reflection, which would be introduced
in the section depicting the interactions between faculty educators and faculty.
Student Understanding
An existing body of research suggested that developing a textured understanding of the
students, including their cultural backgrounds, social identities, intellectual strengths, lived experiences,

113

113

situated perspectives, linguistic abilities, and approaches to learning, could help instructors anticipate
learner needs and group dynamics, identify risk factors and potential sources of resistance, structure
opportunities that not only tap learner experience in stimulating critical reflection on their biases and
assumptions but also engage learners in active learning with culturally different student groups, adapt
their teaching approaches to match with curricular goals and learner needs, and provide targeted
feedback supporting learners’ long-term growth and development (Deardorff, 2010a; Dimitrov &
Haque, 2016a; Lampert et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2012; Miller & Garran, 2017; Stanley, 2010). According
to Dimitrov and Haque (2016a) and Lee et al. (2012), interculturally competent educators anticipated,
valued, and accepted learner differences with an expectation that every learner contributed to learning
as a whole. I argued that faculty educators foregrounded the importance of pedagogical learner
knowledge (Grimmet & MacKinnon, 1992, p. 387) and encouraged faculty to better understand their
students in the context of a culturally diverse classroom through facilitated collaborative learning, in
which faculty educators modeled their audience awareness and leveraged such understanding to engage
faculty in learning from culturally different others.
Preparedness for Engaging in Diversity
Stanley (2010) argued that communicating the meaning of diversity provides grounding in what
changes could be made to enhance the quality of teaching and learning. For the purpose of this
dissertation, I borrowed Lee et al.’s (2012) definition of diversity (emphasis added) as the visible and
invisible forms of individual/social difference that impacted identity development and interpersonal
interactions. Also, this dissertation used Lee et al.’s (2012) notion of engaging in diversity (emphasis
added), manifested in faculty’s “intentional, comprehensive efforts to develop and implement pedagogy
that leveraged the diversity resources of a campus for the benefit of students’ learning and
development” (p. 6).

114

114

Engaging in diversity and building cultural inclusiveness involved developing relationships
across difference (Samuels, 2014b, 2018) and improving relationships between and among different
social groups (Stanley, 2010). Based on this notion, the diversity resources every learner brought to the
classroom had the potential to enrich and stimulate learning experiences, which necessitated the
intentional intercultural pedagogical practices that facilitated active interactions and dialogs between
diverse learners (Blakeney, 2005; Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a; Lee et al., 2012). Given Allport’s (1954)
research that both frequency and quality of interaction with diverse student groups yielded significant
educational benefits in student development and learning (Lee et al., 2012), I contended that faculty
educators were responsible for strengthening faculty preparedness to respond adequately for teaching
diverse populations in the context of multicultural classroom through establishing positive learning
climate and a balanced content and process, which was elaborated in the next section.
Interactions Between Faculty Educators and Faculty Members
Lampert et al. (2013) drew on Weick’s (1998) notion that improvised interactive teaching
practices were not simply created in the moment but involved extended preparation in the mutual and
collective understandings between the teacher and the students. Along similar lines, Ball and Forzani
(2009) suggested that the unnatural orientation of teaching required instructors to deliberately suspend
some aspects of themselves to act in learners’ interest and understand learner perspectives in order that
they could choose particular instructional moves that were not only responsive to learners’ needs but
also corresponded with the intended learning goals as well as their professionally justified knowledge.
Based on this notion, I proposed that faculty educators anchored their professional practices with the
following foci during their interactions with faculty, including fostering a positive learning climate,
achieving a balance of content-level and process-level andragogical strategies, encouraging
collaborative learning among faculty members, and guiding faculty to engage in critical reflection, so

115

115

as to help them improve the caliber of their work with diverse students and create the potential for
faculty’s transformative learning.
Positive Professional Learning Climate
The bodies of literature I consulted in this chapter established a solid case of the educational
benefits for creating a positive and supportive learning climate grounded in trust and respect (Bennett,
2012; Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a; Kishimoto, 2018; Lawler & King, 2000b; Lee et al., 2012; Miller &
Garran, 2017; Stanley, 2010). Despite the complex, unpredictable, and fluid dynamics in the learning
environment, studies showed that instructors could facilitate a safe and inclusive learning climate by
creating a specific course structure that took into account learner needs and contexts (Lawler & King,
2000; Lee et al., 2012; Miller & Garran, 2017), conveying a humble, emphatic, and nonjudgmental
stance showing instructors’ willingness of mutual learning and understanding (Miller & Garran, 2017;
Mezirow, 1991), engaging in humanistic affirmation of learners that values learner self-identity and
validates learner emotions (Brookfield, 2010; Kishimoto, 2018; Lawler & King, 2000b; Lee et al.,
2012), developing classroom norms that recognize and respect a range of learner needs, views, feelings,
and aspirations (Miller & Garran, 2017; Stanley, 2010), modeling tolerance of ambiguity and
uncertainty in a way that instructors demonstrate perspective taking (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a; Lee et
al., 2012; Miller & Garran, 2017), addressing learner anxiety and resistance in open and authentic
conversations with the effective use of instructor self-disclosure as points of discussion and reflection
(Bennett, 2012; Lee et al., 2012; Miller & Garran, 2017), and bracketing biases in a way that instructors
suspend judgment to critique the issue rather than criticize the person making the claim (Lee et al.,
2012; Mezirow, 1991; Miller & Garran, 2017).
A positive learning climate, where differences were affirmed, diversity was promoted,
dissonance was anticipated, ambiguity was tolerated, anxiety was emphatically recognized,

116

116

communities were strengthened, and power differentials were equalized, created affordance for critical
discourse and collaborative inquiry, and cultivated self-aware and self-directed learners who willingly
stepped out of their comfort zones, spoke honestly, confronted their vulnerabilities and fears, and took
risks, therefore making meaningful learning more likely to take place (Cushner, 2014; Kishimoto,
2018; Lee et al., 2012; Miller & Garran, 2017; Stanley, 2010).

117

117

Balanced Content and Process
Similar to Miller and Garran’s (2017) notion that at the heart of antiracism teaching was an
artful balancing act between process and content, evidence from developmental psychology showed
that significant learning and personal growth could take place when learners were exposed to dissimilar
ideas or experiences, which suggested that facilitating learners’ intercultural competence development
required affective, cognitive and behavioral unsettling (Lee et al., 2012). However, as such disruption
acts could work to break apart the taken-for-granted beliefs and invite openness to new information, it
could also induce learners’ anxious responses and create affective barriers to their learning, which
necessitated a well-planned curricular structure that provided both support and challenge for learners to
develop equilibrium between the teaching content and the teaching methods (Bennett, 2012; Cushner,
2014; Lee et al., 2012).
The literature reviewed in this chapter suggested that instructors should strive for coherence of
content-level and process-level strategies to reduce resistance, limit frustration, and create a better
potential of positive learning outcomes and growth (Cushner, 2014; Lee et al., 2012). For instance, if
the content and learning activities were sequenced in the progression from lower risk, less threatening,
less emotion-laden notions to higher risk and more challenging ones, instructors could tactfully
formulate the complementary instructional strategies from user-friendly activities such as free-form,
small discussion groups to highly structured ones like a lecture format or written exercises so as to
discreetly raise and lower learners’ thresholds of uncertainty and anxiety and support student growth
and the application of their learning (Bennett, 2012; Miller & Garran, 2017). In addition, the literature
also suggested that to support intercultural learning, learning content should represent multiple
perspectives and paradigms, draw examples and illustrations from diverse life experiences, connect to

118

118

learners’ personal experiences and larger social and political contexts, and challenge the dominant
narratives (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a; Kishimoto, 2018; Miller & Garran, 2017; Stanley, 2010).
Facilitated Collaborative Learning
The developmental theories stated that social interaction was essential in drawing out the kind
of cognitive disequilibrium that stimulates growth and that the acquisition of critical thinking skills
might rest on collaborative learning (Lee et al., 2012). Likewise, the research I reviewed in this chapter
showed an established need for educators to purposefully and mindfully initiate and provide multiple
collaborative learning opportunities, in which learners worked toward tangible shared goals with an
observable alignment of interests; such interactive social learning process enabled learners to expose
themselves to different cultural, epistemological and experiential perspectives, and thereby shared the
wealth of cultural knowledge their peers bring to class (Blakeney, 2005; Cushner, 2014; Dimitrov &
Haque, 2016a; Lee et al., 2012; Miller & Garran, 2017).
To support collaborative learning, Lee et al. (2012) suggested that intercultural educators could
disrupt and restructure learners’ social relations in constructive ways by “challenging self-grouping
habits” (p. 90), “facilitate purposeful small groups” (p. 91), and “assign collaborative tasks” (p. 92).
The frequent interpersonal interactions among diverse peers facilitated by instructors could help
facilitate productive understanding of difference, support positive connection and rational dialogs,
stimulate learners’ cognitive and relational dissonance, and promote learners’ mutual alteration of
actions, attitudes, and understandings (Lee et al., 2012; Medina, 2013; Mezirow, 1991; Spitzberg &
Changnon, 2009), thus increasing the likelihood of the accretion of new layers of meaning and creating
affordance for transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991).
Guided Critical Reflection

119

119

Critical reflection involved the experience of undertaking sustained inquiry into the premises
behind an individual’s sociolinguistic, epistemic, and psychological beliefs (Mezirow, 1991),
interrogating an individual’s underlying assumptions that are unquestioningly accepted as representing
dominant ideologies in light of social, political, and moral implications and consequences (Brookfield,
2010), and taking a critical stance to examine how an individual’s racial identities (Blakeney, 2005;
Samuels, 2018), social positions (Garson et al., 2016; Medina, 2013; Miller & Garran, 2017), and
intersecting identities (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a; Kishimoto, 2018) influenced their ways of seeing,
knowing, and behaving.
Dimitrov and Haque (2016a, 2016b) wrote that interculturally competent instructors not only
engaged in reflection themselves, but also encouraged their students to reflect on how their own social
positions and cultural identifications impact the way they learned and related to others with a view to
developing learners’ cultural self-awareness. Along the same line, Kishimoto (2018) and Mezirow
(1991) also underscored the importance of helping learners become more critically reflective and
developing their self-reflexivity by helping students see and grapple with the discrepancies between
their avowed beliefs and their actions, and assisting them in making connections between their personal
experiences and the larger social contexts. According to the literature, educators could guide learners’
critical reflection by intentionally structuring opportunities that produced positive tension and provoked
discordant thinking in learners’ logic and argument, stimulating learners to bring into focus their
comfortably established and taken-for-granted ways of knowing, critiquing the social and historical
context and the consequences of their premises and assumptions, and calling into questions the power
dynamics and hegemonic assumptions underlying their belief structures, thereby inviting the inner
reworking of the structure of knowledge (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Brookfield, 2010; Mezirow, 1991).

120

120

Potential Outcome of Faculty Educators’ and Faculty’s Interactions
The aforementioned research substantiated the notion that consciousness raising derived from
critical reflection was necessary for learners’ psychological and social development toward becoming
culturally competent and effective citizenry as well as their ongoing enterprise and lifetime
commitment to social justice (Blakeney, 2005; Cushner, 2014; Miller & Garran, 2017), as simply
recognizing how the systems of inequality and injustice impacted individuals at a personal level made
easier the pursuit of social justice ideals and practices (Samuels, 2018). I argued that faculty educators
employed all their understandings of teaching and learning through the lens of social justice to create a
context where transformative learning was made possible, which involved critical reflection,
consciousness raising, and perspective transformation (Blakeney, 2005; Mezirow, 1991).
According to Mezirow (1991), transformative learning was concerned with externalizing and
contextualizing the assumptions, and reflectively reexamining, questioning, validating, and changing
the premises that constituted the learner’s meaning schemes and perspectives, in which existed
epistemic, sociolinguistic, or psychological beliefs and preconceptions that might be distorted. The
premise reflection enabled adult learners to raise their awareness of sociocultural issues, redefine their
problems, and to act upon their transformed insights (Mezirow, 1991; Stanley, 2010). In addition,
Medina (2014) and Samuels (2014b, 2018) wrote that perspective transformation entailed an important
recognition that all individuals had limited perspectives, which not only underscored the criticality of
taking a humble and self-questioning attitude toward an individual’s cognitive repertoire and the
attentiveness to their cognitive limitation and deficits, but also necessitated understanding and
appreciating the perspectives and experiences of others. Medina (2013) asserted that those who were
epistemically humble, curious/diligent, and open-minded were better equipped for subversive lucidity
(emphasis in original), manifested in the individual’s ability to see the limitations of dominant ways of

121

121

seeing and to engage in an inversion of perspectives, or a radical questioning of fundamental ways of
available framework.
As adult learners came to realize their range of possibilities and knew that they had the capacity
to learn freely and decide, with the best information available, whether to initiate a change within
themselves and their actions and, if so, how and when to act, they were empowered (Lawler & King,
2000b; Mezirow, 1991). Mezirow (1991) drew on Kieffer’s (1981) concept of empowerment:
(1) a more potent and efficacious sense of self, (2) more critical understanding of social and
political relations, and (3) more functional strategies and resources for social and political action”
(Mezirow, 1991, p. 210)
and argued that adult learner’s sense of empowerment could lead to personal transformation and even
social transformation. Medina (2013) concurred with Mezirow’s (1991) notion and contends that
subversive lucidity (emphasis in original) motivated individuals’ cognitive change and societal critique,
which in turn created the potential for self-transformation and social change.
Summary
My conceptual framework was grounded in a synthesis of theoretical and pedagogical literature
on intercultural competence, professional learning, adult learning, intercultural competence pedagogy,
Antiracist Pedagogy, and critical reflection. I argued that faculty educators with ethno-relative
orientations, critical self-awareness, instruction vision, and solid knowledge bases had the capacity to
enhance faculty’s intercultural development, their self-awareness, their student understanding, and their
preparedness for authentic multicultural inclusiveness through their pedagogical practices that
facilitated positive learning climate, collaborative learning, and critical reflection with a variety of
instructional strategies that supported and challenged faculty’s growth.

122

122

As this dissertation sought to afford an understanding of how faculty educators described their
approaches to enact faculty’s intercultural competence in their instruction through the professional
learning opportunities so as to support and celebrate all students’ diversities and potentialities, I
conducted interviews in order to explore the ways in which faculty educators enacted their
understanding of intercultural competence and worked toward developing faculty’s ability to engage
ICC in their instruction. I explained the research methodology of this study in further detail in chapter
three.

123

123

Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis
methodologies that I used to conduct this study. The purpose of this study was to examine faculty
educators’ beliefs of the way they promoted professional learning toward intercultural competence and
to explore how they described their racial identity played out in their andragogical relationships with
faculty. The qualitative approach helped me answer my research questions: How do faculty educators
describe the approaches they use to guide faculty to teach in an interculturally competent way to meet
the needs of their diverse learners in 4-year institutions of higher education? How do faculty educators
describe the influence of the faculty’s interpretations of their (faculty educators’) racial identities on the
ways they operate?
Research Design
I chose qualitative methods for this study based on the following: First, according to Creswell
(2014) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the interpretive/constructivist theoretical orientation assumes
that reality is socially constructed and context-bound; that is, individuals construct reality in interaction
with their social worlds, in which meanings are negotiated socially and historically. Qualitative
methods focus on how meaning is constructed, how people make sense of the physical events and their
experiences, and how their understanding influences their behavior (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Second, the inductive, open-ended investigative strategy of qualitative methods enabled
me to understand “how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what
meaning they attribute to their experiences” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 6). The qualitative methods
assisted me in uncovering how faculty educators interpreted their own instructional practices that
promoted intercultural competence in the context of faculty’s professional learning and how they
believed their racial identity played out in their andragogical relationships with faculty.

124

124

This study employed a qualitative multi-site case study approach to data collection because it
provided me with insight into what faculty educators believed they did in facilitating faculty’s
professional learning sessions toward ICC with a “richly descriptive” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 37)
end product. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a case study is a bounded system with in-depth
description and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In a case study, the unit of analysis is the focus of
the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the context of my research topic, I identified a faculty educator
as a bounded system and as primary unit of analysis (a case). I used both semi-structured and scenario-
based interviews to collect data because they represented a first-hand account of participants’
experiences (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles et al., 2014). The following sections
explains how I learned more about these cases.
Sample and Population
For this study, I used “purposive sampling” (Palys, 2008, as cited in Maxwell, 2013, p. 97) or
purposeful sampling as my sampling strategy for the identification and selection of my research
participants. I used two levels of purposive sampling strategy to narrow the sample on the university
level
5
with two criteria first and then I used snowball/network sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to
help me identify nominators who were able to refer me to potential participants for this study. The
sampling strategies and participant selection are described in detail below.

5
As this study sought to investigate how faculty educators described the way they promoted faculty’s professional learning
toward intercultural competence, the purpose of which was to enhance student learning through building up faculty’s
capacities to support diverse students, I envisioned seeing the diverse student populations at my potential research sites.
Therefore, the first criterion was that the site(s) must serve student populations that were diverse in race, ethnicity, cultural
backgrounds, and nationalities. For the current purpose, a “diverse” student body meant that Caucasian/White students were
outnumbered by non-Caucasian, or students from historically marginalized groups. In addition, the other criterion was that
the research sites must offer at least 5-hour university-initiated workshops, and/or faculty professional development
opportunities. To “reach a point of redundancy or saturation” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 101), which means “no relevant
or new information seems to emerge as more data are collected” (Johnson & Christensen, 2014, p. 273), my original plan
was to observe the faculty’s professional learning activities for at least 5 hours and that was why I focused on the
institutions that only met this standard at the beginning of my data collection. I ended up disregarding this particular
criterion when the Covid-19 pandemic hit, and everything came to a halt as most of the workshops and professional learning
sessions were canceled or rescheduled.

125

125

Using Snowball/Network Sampling to Identify Nominators and Participants
Snowball/network sampling involves identifying key participants who fit a researcher’s
selection criteria, interviewing those participants and asking for their referrals to others that fit the
selection criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through the use of snowball sampling, over the course of
4 months
6
I solicited nominations from 316 nominators who were institution site administrators,
educational development scholars, teacher educators, or faculty members. They either had scholarly
backgrounds in intercultural competence and/or antiracist pedagogy and worked in teaching and
learning centers in 4-year higher education institutions, or were affiliated with Society for Intercultural
Education, Training and Research, Association of International Educators (NAFSA), The Professional
and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education, or Lily Conferences
(International Teaching Learning Cooperative). I reached out to each nominator via email, LinkedIn, or
over the phone and asked them to recommend people they knew. To optimize the sampling, I not only
pursued more than one nomination within the same institution, but also ensured that the nominators had
the same understanding of the potential participant I needed in this study and could make
recommendations accordingly by providing them the following information:
I am currently looking for faculty educators (i.e., those who facilitate professional learning
opportunities at higher education institutions to improve faculty’s instructional practices)
to study to complete my dissertation. I plan to do a qualitative case study of faculty educators
who have reputations for enacting intercultural competence (i.e., multiple ways of knowing,
being, and doing that enable them to value and relate to others across difference) to engage
faculty in learning and support their instructional improvement.

6
Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, most of the nominators communicated weeks and months later to me that they were in
fact preoccupied and overwhelmed with assisting their faculty in transferring their courses online and did not have spare
time to even open my email request.

126

126

Among the 316 potential nominators I contacted, only 138 people replied. Among them, only
83 people agreed to recommend candidates. I looked for the recurrent names from the recommendation
lists and reached out to 183 people via email. In the email, I briefly introduced my study and the time
commitment required for the participation of this study; I also provided the specific criteria for them to
make sure they self-identified as the people I was looking for, which are presented below:
• Have reputations for enacting intercultural competence to engage faculty in learning and
support their instructional improvement.
• Self-identify as faculty/educational/academic developer/educator.
• Have 3 years of relevant experience in the field.
• Have experiences of facilitating a change process.
• Offer at least 5 hours of PL sessions during Spring 2020 and Summer 2020
There were seven interested faculty educators who responded to me via email. To locate on the
ideal participant, I followed up with these seven people with the information sheet of my research, and
I scheduled a screening interview to have a sense of whether the potential participants were ideal fits
for my study. During the process, I made sure that not only their professional knowledge and
facilitation experience matched my research needs but they also had availability and willingness to
participate in this study. Three of the seven interested faculty educators did not match my research
needs and were therefore not taken into consideration: Two of them specialized in Universal Design
Learning and one hosted a professional learning community with two faculty members and a number of
undergraduate students. One of them showed interest in the study at first but lost contact. In the end,
four research participants were recruited and each of them was recommended to me by at least one
nominator and the institutions they worked at served diverse student populations (For the current
purpose, a “diverse” student body meant that Caucasian/White students were outnumbered by non-

127

127

Caucasian, or students from historically marginalized groups). I started my data collection with them
and stayed in the field for 3 months and finished collecting semi-structured interviews with these four
participants as well as partial observation data from three of them.
However, due to the pandemic, some of the participants’ workshops were cancelled and there
was no way for me to collect enough observations data points for the data analysis. After consulting my
dissertation chair, I decided to use scenario-based interviews to compensate for the incomplete
observation data. Therefore, I re-connected with these four research participants and invited them to
participate in the second round of the interviews. Fortunately, they all agreed to continue with my
study. Meanwhile, I decided to go back to my recommendation list and reached out to four people who
had shown interest in taking part in my study but did not meet the criterion “Offer at least 5 hours of PL
sessions during Spring 2020 and Summer 2020.” Three of them agreed to participate in my study and
one did not reply, which meant that I had seven participants in total from the nomination list. These
participants differed in their race/ethnicity and disciplinary backgrounds and the institutions they served
distributed across the U.S. Brief introduction and basic information about them, including their
race/ethnicity, disciplines, location of their institutions, student diversity ratio, and faculty diversity
ratio, can be found in Table 1 in Chapter Four. Pseudonyms for the faculty educators, and their
institutions’ names were created to ensure anonymity.
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
Due to the pandemic, I was not able to conduct qualitative observations as planned. I employed
the use of interviews and scenario-based interviews as the methods of data collection in this dissertation
to understand what faculty educators believed they did in their instruction at faculty’s professional
learning that helped support faculty’s development of intercultural competence and what they believed
their racial identity played out in their andragogical relationships with faculty. My conceptual

128

128

framework served as the foundation for the questions that were included in my interview protocols. I
spent approximately 6 months in the field collecting data.
Meanwhile, aware that I was “the primary instrument for data collection” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p. 264), I kept in mind how my theoretical position and biases might have influenced the way I
collected data. I documented my emergent thoughts and feelings in the reflective memos throughout the
data collection process. I also took into consideration Locke et al.’s (2010) notion that the researcher-
participant relationship had an effect on what would be collected as data and paid special attention to
how I presented myself in the field. Through the interview process, I intentionally refrained from
getting off-topic or developing the interview into conversational chitchats by sticking to the interview
protocol and creating enough time for the participants to finish their response. I also wrote thank-you
emails to my participants every time I finished an interview and answered every question they had
throughout the process.
Data Collection Procedures
As illustrated through my conceptual framework, in this study I was looking to develop a better
understanding of what faculty educators believed about the approaches they used to teach faculty to
teach in an interculturally competent manner and what they believed about the ways their racial
identities played out in their andragogical relationships with faculty. The qualitative interview afforded
the study in that they helped me gather descriptive data and capture the faculty educator’s experiences
and perspectives. Interviewing gives a window on people’s interior experiences (Weiss, 1994), settings
that would otherwise be closed to us (Weiss, 1994), things researchers cannot directly observe (Patton,
2002), past events which are impossible to replicate and might otherwise be lost (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Weiss, 1994), and situations which preclude the presence of an observer (Patton, 2002).
Adjusting my research methodology under the circumstances, I decided to conduct scenario-based

129

129

interviews to make up for the fact that I was not able to observe the professional learning sessions as I
had planned. As my research participants were located in different states, every interview was
conducted via online meeting software Zoom and the procedures were illustrated in detail below.
Interviews
Qualitative interviews “allow us to enter into the other person’s perspective” (Patton, 2002, p.
341). This meant that through eliciting detailed descriptions in the participants’ own words and learning
their terminology and judgments, I could develop insights on how they view and interpret their world
and capture the intricacies of their individual perceptions and experiences. To learn more about the
participants’ beliefs of what they did to help faculty work towards intercultural competence, I
conducted approximately 2-hour, one-on-one, semi-structured formal interviews with the participants.
The interview protocol in this study was developed into a semi-structured interview guide (see
Appendix A) in line with Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Patton (2002). The literature pertaining to
semi-structured interviews suggests that the flexible framework of interview guides serves as a basic
checklist during the interview, allowing researchers to achieve optimal use of interview time by
keeping the interview focused on the desired track of conversation with minimal constraints on
respondents’ responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Following Maxwell’s (2013)
suggestions that there should be direct logical connection between research questions and interview
questions, I drafted the interview questions based on my conceptual framework. Drawing on Patton’s
(2002) and Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) recommendations of interview questions, I asked the faculty
educators experience and behavior questions (emphasis added) to afford an understanding of why they
chose certain behaviors, experiences, actions, and activities at the professional learning sessions (e.g.,
What, if any, were the techniques/strategies that you used to establish norms?), opinion and value
questions (emphasis added) to explore their goals, intentions, desires, and expectations for faculty’s

130

130

professional learning (e.g., How do you see your role as a faculty educator?), and hypothetical
questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 119) (emphasis added) to further unravel the faculty educator’s
perspectives and the reasons behind their andragogical strategies (e.g., What do you think an ideal PL
would be like?). During the interview, I took notes and asked clarifying and follow-up questions to
make sure I understood clearly what my participants intended to communicate. For instance, one of my
participants communicated that he believed his job was to help advance university’s mission for overall
faculty success. I probed and invited him to elaborate with a follow-up question: “When I heard you
say overall faculty success, can you try to elaborate on that more? How do you define, like, faculty
success?” and he said,
Faculty development, for me, is everything from faculty retention, wanting to keep them there,
to faculty success wanting them to thrive in their professional activity, so the success is thriving
and being effective in their professional activity for teaching, services, and scholarship.
From his response, I learned that asking follow-up question was essential because it helped me get a
better understanding of my participants’ beliefs and perspectives.
Scenario-based Interviews
As explained at the end of the snowball sampling strategy, because of the pandemic, I was not
able to gather enough qualitative observation data from my participants to capture the instructional
interactions between the faculty educators and the faculty. In order to simulate the planned observations
that I was not able to complete, I designed six scenarios to discuss with my research participants as a
second interview. Four of the seven participants joined this second round of interview after about 6
months, and three of them completed the semi-structured interviews and the scenario-based interview
within the same month.

131

131

As my intent for observing each faculty educator was to ascertain how they enacted intercultural
competence in their instruction, I designed the scenarios as “real life situations” to act as a substitute for
seeing them in action. Referring to racial dialogue and courageous conversation in Chung (2018),
Kaplowitz et al. (2019), and Singleton (2014), I developed the scenarios (see Appendix B) that helped
me understand what these faculty educators believed they would do in response to the hypothetical
situations: Two of my scenarios were designed as problems of faculty resistance, two were designed as
problems of faculty’s colorblindness, one was designed as problem of a faculty member’s lack of
accountability, and one was designed as problem of a faculty member’s malpractice despite their good
intention. As I presented my scenarios, I invited the respondents to draw on their own experiences to
imagine how they would behave in each scenario as if it were happening in real time. I also asked each
participant questions about what informed their thinking process and their responses. For instance, in
scenario one where their learner challenged them with the comment, “Who are you to teach me about
race?,” I asked them “Imagine if this comment comes from a White faculty, how would you respond?”
After they answered, I continued to ask them, “Now imagine if this comment comes from a Black
faculty, how would you respond to the comment?” And then I asked them what informed their similar
or different approach in their response. Additionally, to make the process smooth, I shared the e-file
with descriptions of the six scenarios; meanwhile, as soon as my participant and I were connected on
Zoom, I shared my screen of Microsoft PowerPoint slides of the description as I read through the setup
for each scenario. The scenario-based interview ended with an open-ended question to give these
faculty educators a chance to speak to other experiences they perceived to be relevant to the research.
The time range for each scenario-based interview fell between 1 hour and 1.5 hours and each scenario-
based interview took place in one sitting.

132

132

Data Analysis
All data were transcribed verbatim and cleaned up after they were collected from the field. They
then were filed electronically with captions of the data sources (i.e., interview or scenario-based
interview), the collected date, and the participant’s name. Before I embarked on data analysis, I
reviewed relevant literature and readings suggested from Inquiry I and Inquiry II courses and took
detailed notes of the key points, and I watched data analysis demonstration videos provided by my
dissertation chair on the shared Dropbox.
Following Creswell’s (2014) advice, I developed a qualitative codebook with Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets. Through the use of codebook, in which I created separate tabs for each participant’s
interview and scenario-based interview for ongoing analysis, I could keep track of the definitions for
codes and maximize coherence among codes. I also kept a separate tab that documented a list of
predetermined codes or a priori codes (e.g., “instructional vision” and “instructor self-awareness”)
informed by my conceptual framework.
To “make sense out of the data” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 202), I engaged with “open
coding” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 204) by trying to look at the raw data for cues relevant to my
research question. Following Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007), Harding’s (2013), as well as Miles et al.’s
(2014) suggestions, when I first approached the data, I jotted down my intuitive thoughts and fleeting
speculations of meaningful data segments in the margin on the transcripts I printed out.
Keeping in mind Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) advice of using techniques strategically,
purposefully, and discretionally to get at the essence of data, I adopted various analytical tools during
the process of data analysis. The analytic tools I used most were “making constant comparisons”
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Lichtman, 2014), and “look[ed] at language” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 82).
For instance, I identified “time constraints” as a commonly shared challenged articulated by my

133

133

research participants with “recurring regularities” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 203) in the data across
cases. I also explored the way these faculty educators made sense of their work by looking at their word
choices or their use of figurative languages like metaphors or similes. One example of that was the war
metaphors that involved “arsenal of knowledge” and “defensiveness” when one of the participants
described the way she countered the faculty member’s argument. I also “use[d] my knowledge and
judgment of other transcripts to decide which material should be coded” (Harding, 2013, p. 83) to
derive a number of empirical codes, or in vivo codes (e.g., “resource hub” and “change agents”).
Then, I revisited the transcript on Microsoft Word document and used the comment adding
function to mark specific data segments with a priori and in vivo codes. After that, I transferred both a
priori codes and in vivo codes onto the codebook along with their corresponding data segments, which
I also color-coded on the transcripts for ease of reference.
Moving from open codes, I then tried “axial coding” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 206) and
linked the initial codes to one another in different conceptual taxonomic classes through the tables I
created on my codebook, as the existing literature pertaining to the use of visual devices indicated that
displaying visual representations of potential components of a study could be helpful for researchers to
visualize and capture the relationships in the data for analytical purposes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Harding, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles et al., 2014). For instance, I categorized several in vivo
codes like “resource hubs” and “change agents” under the category “self-perceived roles and job
responsibilities” as they were communicated to me as what these faculty educators believed were part
of their faculty development work. Another example was that across cases there were consistencies in
these faculty educators’ expressions that they resorted to “research,” “institutional missions,” or
“statistical data” as a way to convince faculty what they were teaching mattered. I coded these
expressions separately under the big umbrella code “appeal strategies.”

134

134

Focusing on one participant/case at a time, I coded each case study on its own, and I did not
start to code the second case until I had finished the first. I approached analysis the same way for all the
cases, approaching the interview and scenario-based interviews for each faculty educator first and then
analyzed data across cases. After all of the seven cases were analyzed, I looked across cases to find
recurring patterns through comparisons and contrasts. I employed “pattern coding” (Miles et al., 2014,
p. 86). As suggested in Harding (2013), Merriam and Tisdell (2016), and Miles et al. (2014), looking
for explanatory or inferential codes as well as recurring patterns that characterized the data helped me
identify emergent conceptual themes and directional processes, which helped me answer my research
questions. For instance, from the “appeal strategies” described above, I noticed that across the board,
some of these faculty educators mentioned them consistently as a way to legitimize their roles. I then
double checked the commonalities across the cases and found that faculty educators of color showed
tendency to rely on appeal strategies than their White counterparts, yielding an emergent theme that
faculty educators of color approached their work differently and it had to do with the way they
perceived how others experienced them, which led to one of my findings.
In addition to the codebook, I also wrote case-by-case analytic memos as I was coding to
document my frame of mind and points of clarification and reflected how I could connect the data to
larger theoretical, methodological and substantive issues, as suggested in Bogdan and Biklen (2007).
The analytic memos also helped me conduct cross-case analysis so that I could move from coding to
writing, which eventually served as the foundation of chapter four.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Both Creswell (2014) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) underscore the importance of presenting
a holistic account of what is happening in the findings to help readers understand the perspectives of
those involved in a contextual framework. I ensured the credibility and trustworthiness of my study

135

135

through the careful planning of the interviews. I also made use of the tactics introduced in Creswell
(2014), Corbin and Strauss (2008), Merriam and Tisdell (2016), and Miles et al. (2014), including
triangulation, audit trail, researcher reflexivity, and “discrepant case analysis” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p. 249).
To begin with, I gathered multiple forms of data to “provide repeated verification and
corroboration” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 299) of the emergent findings on the basis that triangulation is
considered “a principal strategy to ensure validity and reliability” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 246)
and that different foci and strengths of triangulation sources can complement each other (Miles et al.,
2014). I used semi-structured interview to understand my research participants’ perspectives on how
they approached their work and I used scenario-based interview as a second tier to confirm what they
said they would do in the real-life situations.
Secondly, I used “audit trail” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 252), which involved a detail
account of how the study was analyzed and how the data were analyzed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I
kept a record of my contacts with my research participants before, during, and after data collection. All
semi-structured interviews and scenario-based interviews were recorded and transcribed for accuracy. I
printed out all the transcripts and started case by case analysis by jotting down my emergent thoughts in
the margins on the paper. I then used color codes as well as labels to organize my data in both of my
codebook and the transcript during the second round of coding. Before I moved on to analyze the
second case, I revisited my data and the codes in preparation for the analytical memo draft. I was
concerned that I might not be critical or analytical enough and meeting with my dissertation chair was a
way for me to be sure I was seeing beyond the surface of the data. I discussed my analytic memo with
my dissertation chair through our individual meeting online and revised it after I reviewed the
meeting’s recordings.

136

136

All seven cases went through a similar process before I looked for recurrent patterns across
cases through the correlation charts that I created on the Excel spreadsheets. I also copied and pasted
data segments on a different document and highlighted the phrases that stood out and supported my
tentative arguments. By identifying similar notions and collecting data segments from the seven cases, I
then determined my findings and themes through discussing with my chair. To ensure the data
supported my findings, I went back into the data and looked at them again through the lens of my
findings and themes. As indicated in Merriam and Tisdell (2016), this process not only helped me
authenticate the findings of my study through the explanation of how I arrived at the results, but also
built confidence for my study by showing that my findings were the best account possible.
Third, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) indicated that “researchers are the primary instrument of data
collection” (p. 147), which meant researcher’s values and dispositions might affect the conduct and
conclusions of the study (Maxwell, 2013). Along similar lines, Bogdan and Biklen (2007) provided a
scholarly lens through which researchers could engage in reflective practices in the course of the study:
They took a firm position that qualitative researchers needed to make deliberate effort to take into
account and reveal who they are and how their think might affect the data collection and analysis, and
doing so would not only help researchers better “handle themselves” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 95) in
negotiating fieldwork relations, but “control bias” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 101) and “assess
untoward influences” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 122) in interpreting data.
As a rookie researcher, I was aware that I might be leaning toward indulging myself in learning
everything I could from my research participants instead of approaching my study with a critical eye.
Following the literature’s suggestions (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2014; Corbin & Strauss,
2008; Locke et al., 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles et al., 2014), I tried to monitor my own
subjectivity, and stay mindful of bidirectional researcher effects throughout the research process by

137

137

taking reflective memos on a regular basis. Doing so allowed me to be intentionally watchful about my
thinking process and feelings. For instance, I knew I was invested in this study because of my own
experiences as an EFL teacher trying to develop ICC for my students and as a student learning the ways
that teacher educators operated. Meanwhile, as an international student and non-native English
speakers, every interaction with my participants was indeed intercultural communications. I accounted
for what I brought to the table by paying special attention to the researcher-participant dynamics and
making sure there was no miscommunication throughout the process. In addition, I worked closely with
my dissertation chair by meeting with her two times every week to ensure I was guided and trained to
detect and confront the intrusion of my researcher bias into the research process. All of our meetings
were recorded, and I reviewed the meetings afterwards as I revisited my coding and analysis as well as
my writing to ensure I was not blindsided by my subjectivity.
Lastly, adhering to Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) and Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) suggestions
of using analytic tool as heuristic to increase sensitivity and provoke alternative interpretations of data,
I purposefully “check[ed] out rival explanation” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 308) and “negative case”
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 84) to seek variations in the data, which was marked as validity threat at
the beginning stage of data analysis, which challenged and disconfirmed what I thought was true. For
example, for each of my findings, I went back to the data and checked whether there was evidence that
did not support my assertions. Doing so enabled me to sidestep my researcher biases and provide better
interpretations of my findings.
Ethics
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), in all research, what readers can do is trust that the
study is conducted with integrity and that it involves researcher’s ethical stance, manifest in rigorous
thinking. Along this vein, Glesne (2011) suggests that the ethical practice in research depends on

138

138

researcher’s personal ethical choice throughout the study. Throughout the design and implementation
of the research study, I intentionally remained conscious of ethical principles and stayed reflective of
my own values, sensitivity, and philosophical orientation, especially in the “researcher-researched
interactions” (Glesne, 2011, p. 162). As an interpretivist researcher of the qualitative inquiry, I made
sure that my interactions with the research participants fell within the range of codes of ethics. For
example, taking into consideration the reminders from Glesne (2011), Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and
Miles et al. (2014) as well as the requirements and guidelines of the Institutional Review Board (IRB),
my intentions was made clear to the participants prior to data collection phase, confidentiality was
guaranteed and protected during the research process, and information sheets (in which I explained the
purpose of the study, what was involved in the study, the rights of the participants, and my contact
information) was provided so that participants were made aware that the participation in the study was
totally voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any point. As suggested by Patton
(2002), I also asked for the participants’ permission to record (via Zoom) before I started each
interview.
In addition, the use of analytical tools in data analysis allowed me to increase the chance to
bypass potential ethical pitfalls, such as influences of my own theoretical position and biases (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). I ameliorated the ethical concerns of the potential identification of participants by
assigning pseudonyms to the participants and I thought about the ethics of representation and how they
would see themselves if they were to read my study, as suggested in Glesne (2011). During the write-
up phase, I was thoughtful about how I presented the findings so as to not diminish or minimize my
participants. I also continually sought advice from my dissertation chair as a source of knowledge for
accepted methods and practices of qualitative research throughout the process.

139

139

Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations, or external factors inherent in the data collection methods of this study
that the researcher cannot control (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012). On the other hand, delimitations are the
conditions that the researcher can intentionally impose and control (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012).
Informed by my conceptual framework as well as the data collection and analysis methods, below I
described a number of limitations and delimitations for my study that I was aware of.
Limitations
For this study, I set out to locate my research participants within Northern California, for the
sake of geographical proximity to where I lived, in order that I could conduct observations in person.
However, I had difficulty locating my research participants as I did not hear back from many of the
nominators for more than 2 months and I had time pressure to get into the field to meet the EdD
timeframe. On top of that, because the pandemic hit, I could not stick to the original plan of doing the
observation as most of the professional learning sessions in higher education institutions were canceled
or rescheduled. By that time, I knew I needed to cast my net wide enough to include every state in the
U.S. to increase the possibility of finding my research participants. This meant that I was forced to
adapt my research methodology under the circumstances: I had to give up on conducting observations
and designed scenario-based interviews instead. It also meant that I spent too much of my time locating
my research participants.
In addition, the pandemic as well as the geological distribution of the participants prevented me
from conducting interviews in person; instead, I had to conduct all the interviews via the online
meeting software called Zoom, which was limited in a way that some participants preferred to turn off
their screen so that I was not able to discern their facial expressions as they responded to my questions.
There were also connection issues during some interviews: Some participants were disconnected and

140

140

went offline while others made garbled sentences because of the bad connection (they did not have
enough Internet bandwidth as their kids were taking classes online during the pandemic). Additionally,
this study relied solely on the interview data, and yet I could not control the truthfulness of the
participants when they were being interviewed. As I was made aware by Mezirow (1991) that most of
the time people presented their “espoused theories” (what they thought they believed) rather than their
“theories in use” (what their actions indicated that they believed), I could only take participants at their
words.
The availability of the research participants was not within my control. Some participants did
not make themselves as available as I would have liked. Despite the convenience of Zoom, there was
time differences across states, which meant I had to start some of the interviews as early as 6 am PST to
accommodate some of the participants’ personal schedules. This constrained the study in a way that I
was nervous about not being able to finish the interviews in time, which meant that I did not probe as
much as I should have because of the time pressure.
Another limitation was that all of the literature and the ICC models presented in chapter two
were written in English, developed in Western contexts, and discussed from the Western perspective.
This meant that I might inadvertently exclude different perspectives in the other areas of the world.
Another limitation was that while I set out to center ICC as the focus of the study, the emerged data did
not fully support the intercultural instructions I intended to look into, which might partly be attributed
to the lack of observation data. Meanwhile, the reason might also lay in the sampling, instrumentation,
and/or analysis problems in this study, and perhaps the way in which this theoretical construct was
initially conceptualized and operationalized was not complete enough for my participants to
understand.

141

141

Delimitations
Since I was a beginning researcher, I did not instinctually know to probe for the appropriate
emergent questions that came up during the interviews. Despite the use of the interview protocol to
help me get close to the most appropriate questions throughout the process of the interviews, I later
found out that I missed out on the opportunities to dig deeper and understand what my participants
really meant when they said words like “effective” or “good teaching.” In addition, as I stuck to asking
the questions designed in the interview protocols, the information I was not looking for was missed. For
instance, across cases there was absence of the faculty educators’ frustrations of institutional leadership.
I did not come to this realization until I left the field.
Another delimitation of this study was that I excluded any institution that required me to go
through IRB process, as it significantly delayed my ability to get into the field and start the data
collection process because I intended to fit into the time constraints within the EdD program at USC.
Still another delimitation of this study was the positionality of me as a researcher, as I brought certain
biases and perspectives that impacted how I saw and interpreted the data. To keep researcher bias at
bay, I kept a reflective memo to make sure that I was not just seeking what I was looking to prove. I
implemented strategies that addressed these delimitations in the following section on credibility and
trustworthiness.
Still another delimitation of this study was that as I looked for nominators’ recommendations, I
specified that I was looking for individuals who “ha[d] reputations for enacting intercultural
competence to engage faculty in learning and support their instructional improvement.” In doing so, I
shaped my sample in a way that may have prevented me from locating people who were actually doing
the work but may not have had a reputation for what they were doing. I acknowledged that this
criterion in my sampling may limit the study and I propose a future study that removed this criterion.

142

142

This limitation may have excluded faculty educators from historically marginalized groups as they may
be less likely to be identified as “successful” than their White peers.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to understand how faculty educators describe the approaches they
used to help faculty teach in a way that meet the needs of diverse students in higher education
institutions. The unit of analysis for this study was the faculty educator. Data were collected through
semi-structured interviews and scenario-based interviews. The data were analyzed at the beginning of
and throughout the data collection process using a combination of open coding, axial coding, and
pattern coding. As a novice researcher, I was aware of my positionality, limitations, and how these
represented constraints of this study. I used audit trail, researcher reflexivity, and discrepant case
analysis as well as analytic and reflective memos to constantly monitor my inherent biases. I also
acknowledged the study’s limitations at the end of this chapter.

143

143

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate faculty educators (FE)’ beliefs of the way they
promoted professional learning toward intercultural competence and to explore the role how their racial
identity played in their andragogical relationships with faculty. In this chapter, I present the findings of
the study in which my research questions were: How do faculty educators describe the approaches they
use to guide faculty to teach in an interculturally competent way to meet the needs of their diverse learners
in 4-year institutions of higher education? How do faculty educators describe the influence of the
faculty’s interpretations of their (faculty educators’) racial identities on the ways they operate?
The first three chapters of this dissertation were grounded in the literature that discussed the
andragogical strategies with which interculturally competent instructors (in this case, faculty educators)
with instructional vision can adopt to support their learners (in this case, faculty) in developing
intercultural competence during the professional learning opportunities, manifest in their instructional
interactions. Three findings emerged from the interview data to help explain instructional approaches
the faculty educators took as a way to attain their instructional vision, that is, to support the learning of
both the faculty and the students they served. Finding one reveals the way faculty educators approached
their work in three themes. The first theme is what they considered their job responsibilities were in
pursuit of the instructional vision. The second theme is the constraints and limitations they universally
identified that interfered with their abilities to attain that vision. The third theme is two different ways
these faculty educators chose in response to those constraints and limitations.
The second finding presents what ICC attributes (attitudes, knowledge, and skills) these faculty
educators believed they possessed with reference to Deardorff’s process model (Deardorff, 2004, 2006)
and the way they associated ICC with teaching and learning. The third finding presents a continuum of
the way that these faculty educators constructed their roles on the basis of how they thought others

144

144

experienced their racial identities. There are three themes pertaining to this finding, and each is related
to faculty educators’ racial identity and its implications on how they presented themselves, how they
engaged their learners, and how much they believed they could push their learners.
The remainder of this chapter presents a summary of the research participants’ information and
their institutions, the three findings and their themes. The data are revealed in such a way that all seven
faculty educators are represented by their responses in quotes and several participants’ responses fit
within multiple findings and themes.
Participants
The table below provides an overview of the relevant information of the faculty educators who
participated in this study, which is organized by alphabetical order. Most of the information was
obtained in their response to the questions asked during the semi-structured interviews and the
scenario-based interviews. The research participants self-identified their race/ethnicity, academic
background/discipline, and institutions they serve. The remaining information, including the student
and faculty diversity ratios, was obtained on the website www.collegefactual.com. None of the
responses were independently verified.

145

145

Table 1
Summary of the Faculty Educators’ Basic Information
Faculty
Educators
Gender Discipline Race/
Ethnicity
Institution
Type
Location Student
Diversity
Ratio
a
(%)
Faculty
Diversity
Ratio
b
(%)
Mr. Atherton M Theatre White Public West coast 13/52 4/24
Dr. Osburn M Math White Public Midwestern 1/21 4/19
Dr. Sankey F Math White Public West coast 8/66 2/33
Dr. Sarker F Literature Indian Private East coast 21/41 5/22
Ms. Singh F English Indian Public Western 11/34 5/20
Dr. Thomas F STEM Black Private East coast 10/17 6/16
Dr. Wilson M Education Black Public East coast 9/75 0/72
a International students/students of color
b International faculty/faculty of color

Dr. Thomas was a female FE with a STEM education background (with a master’s degree in
science and a PhD in science education). When asked what ethnicity/race she identified with, she said,
“As an African American woman, so I guess I’m considered a minority.” Before engaging in full-time
faculty development work, she taught at the undergraduate level for 10 years. She thought her teaching
experience had prepared her in a way she “knew exactly what professors did.” Transitioning her career
path from a teaching faculty member to a faculty developer, she placed an emphasis on experiential
learning (“learning by looking at others and by hearing from others”) and communicated that her
facilitation skills were mostly self-taught. As the director at the Teaching and Learning Center
7
at a
private liberal arts institution on the East coast (10 percent of the students were international with non-
U.S. citizenship, and 17 percent of the U.S. students identified as students of color; 6 percent of the

7
To protect the research participant’s privacy, I decided to use “Teaching and Learning Center” as a general term to refer to
the faculty development programs in the institutions they worked at, the title of which could vary from Center for Faculty
Advancement, Center for the Advancement of Teaching, and Center for Teaching/Educational Innovation, just to name a
few.

146

146

faculty were international, and 16 percent of the faculty were members of minority groups), she
communicated that being a faculty educator was a significant part of her identity.
Dr. Sankey was a female FE with a mathematician background (with a PhD in math and a post-
doc fellowship in mathematics education). When asked what ethnicity/race she identified with, she
responded, “I have a very fluid sense of my own identity. … I was going to be forced to pass as White.”
She believed that her discipline training in math as well as her PhD experience familiarized her with the
culture of mathematics and prepared her in a way that she knew how to make use of this understanding
to create conditions for math faculty to learn. In addition to the insider knowledge of the disciplinary
culture, she also attributed her past experience in acting and her training in intercultural competence to
her initial understanding of her learners. Working in a public higher education institution on the West
coast (8 percent of the students were international with non-U.S. citizenship, and 66 percent of the U.S.
students identified as students of color; 2 percent of the faculty were international, and 33 percent of the
faculty were members of minority groups), she communicated that she found teamwork critical to her
faculty development work.
Dr. Osburn was a male FE with a mathematician background. When asked about what
ethnicity/race he identified with, he said, “As a gay White male, I definitely can identify with being the
other.” He considered that understanding of otherness one of his strengths that he could put to good use
at work. In addition, he communicated that given his academic background and professional experience
in the field of mathematics, he believed he had a decent understanding of math culture, which he
thought was basically a “White males’ club” with “strong Asian American component.” The insider
knowledge of math culture (“From a mathematicians’ culture, when they’re arguing with me, they’re
doing exactly what they’re supposed to be doing. That’s what math is about, right? That's what we do.
That’s how we establish truth.”) allowed him to anticipate what math faculty tended to think and

147

147

behave as he facilitated professional learning. Working in a public high education institution in
the midwestern United States (1 percent of the students were international with non-U.S. citizenship,
and 21 percent of the U.S. students identified as students of color; 4 percent of the faculty were
international, and 19 percent of the faculty were members of minority groups), he communicated that
he sought to guide faculty’s attention to pursuing equity and justice in their classrooms.
Ms. Singh was a female FE with a background in teaching English. When asked about what
ethnicity/race she identified with, she said, “I am Indian American. My dad immigrated here from India
in the late 60s. He’s been here about 50 years. My mom is American, so I grew up pretty much in that
both ends. … there was a lot of feeling of otherness.” She communicated that her childhood cross-
cultural experiences trying to navigate both ends informed her practice in a way that she believed both
ends could meet. In addition, she expressed that she was “largely self-taught in this area [of faculty
development]” although she had extensive English teaching experience and had “worked with so many
different students from different backgrounds.” Working at a public higher education institution (11
percent of the students were international with non-U.S. citizenship, and 34 percent of the U.S. students
identified as students of color; 5 percent of the faculty were international, and 20 percent of the faculty
were members of minority groups) in the western United States, she conveyed that she did not want to
do the work alone and sought to solicit campus partnership among faculty members.
Mr. Atherton was a male FE with a background in theatre and arts. When asked about what
ethnicity/race he identified with, he responded, “I’m not sure which aspect of my identity we want to
talk about, whether it’s being male, being Irish, being German, being gay, being married, [laugh] being
over-educated, probably at least having many degrees, being middle-class, being um…I mean, all of
those things have helped shape me.” Having strong interest in all the other ways that people could
learn, he communicated that he had 20 years of freelance experience in which he used the arts as a way

148

148

to facilitate conferences by having his learners use all of their bodies’ information to “re-train, or
relearned, or just rediscover, make new connections, find new things out.” Working at a public
university on the West Coast (13 percent of the students were international with non-U.S. citizenship,
and 52 percent of the U.S. students identified as students of color; 4 percent of the faculty were
international, and 24 percent of the faculty were members of minority groups), he communicated that
he believed that the transformational change as a result of his faculty development work involving
awareness building, skill-building, and coaching should happen at the institutional level across all
strata, not just on the part of faculty.
Dr. Wilson was a male FE with a background in education. When asked about what
ethnicity/race he identified with, he said, “So my race, being an African American in America, like that
part of my identity probably shapes me even more so because and maybe it’s like my class, class being
number one, um, lived experiences, um, being number two.” He communicated that his coming from a
lower-class family informed his practice in a way that he strived to advocate and uplift individuals who
“may be disenfranchised or not as well-resourced.” Holding the belief that “faculty success is student
success,” he expressed that he wanted to help faculty “advance themselves as a professional and
improve outcomes for their learners.” Working at a public historically Black university on the East
coast (9 percent of the students were international with non-U.S. citizenship, and 75 percent of the U.S.
students identified as students of color; none of the faculty were international, and 72 percent of the
faculty were members of minority groups), he communicated that while he knew what was important
from his research and his experience, he was still expanding his consciousness through what he did.
Dr. Sarker was a female FE with a background in (post-colonial) literature. When asked about
what ethnicity/race she identified with, she answered, “As a woman of color, as a daughter of
immigrants [from India], I had to become interculturally competent because I was always navigating

149

149

White space.” In addition, having spent three years living in a dorm with undergraduate students, she
communicated that she learned a lot about what challenges that students were encountering, and she
brought that aspect to her faculty development work to help faculty imagine how to do things
differently. At the time of the interview, she worked as the director at the Center for Teaching and
Learning at a private university on the East coast (21 percent of the students were international with
non-U.S. citizenship, and 41 percent of the U.S. students identified as students of color; 5 percent of the
faculty were international, and 22 percent of the faculty were members of minority groups). She
communicated that part of the work she did was constantly translating experiences and worldviews
based in different cultures for faculty to understand.
Finding 1: Faculty Educators’ Ways to Attain Instructional Vision
Stockley et al. (2015) suggested that at the core of faculty development was the shared goal of
improving teaching and learning and ultimately enhancing the students’ educational experiences. Along
the similar lines, Taylor and Rege Colet (2010) framed the process of faculty development as
educational development process from the perspective of faculty educators, as all the work that was
systematically carried out was meant to help faculty members develop their learning and teaching
capacity to foster student learning. As these seven faculty educators saw themselves as teacher
educators who could support the learning of their teachers and the students whom those teachers
served, they communicated the “instructional vision” (Gibbons & Cobb, 2016, p. 247) in the way they
described their job responsibilities. To be more exact, they thought they were responsible for preparing
faculty to be aware of the role culture played in student learning, to tackle issues of student motivation,
engagement and belonging, to create more accessible learning opportunities for their students, and to
engage in diversity. While they shared this instructional vision, they identified constraints and
limitations to what they could accomplish and their ability to attain that vision, which involved time

150

150

constraints, faculty’s lack of accountability, difficulty of paradigm shift, and distinctive disciplinary
culture. Despite the acknowledgement that they were limited in what they could accomplish, they
responded to these challenges and constraints in different ways: a subset of faculty educators (two of
seven) considered learning opportunities fixed and adopted tips-and-tricks approach (Loughran, 2006).
In addition, they called on collective wisdom as they were attuned to being helpful and solving
problems. On the contrary, the other faculty educators (five of seven) saw growth opportunities in the
face of constraints, and they sought to build on faculty’s existing knowledge and skills to develop their
practice. On top of that, these five faculty educators were present enough to faculty learning that they
were being adaptive in their instructional process, similar to Bransford et al.’s (2005) notion of adaptive
expertise: On the one hand, they lowered the cognitive demand to motivate faculty to move forward; on
the other hand, they developed intellectual challenges that required faculty to do a heavy lifting of
learning to see their own practice.
Theme 1: Instructional Vision
All of the participants communicated “instructional vision,” defined by Gibbons and Cobb
(2016) as “the capacity to interpret classroom actions and interactions with a view to supporting both
students’ and teachers’ learning from the perspective of a teacher educator” (p. 247). As these seven
faculty educators saw themselves as teacher educators who could contribute to student learning by
supporting the faculty who taught those students, they communicated the instructional vision in the way
they described their job responsibilities. More specifically, they communicated that their job was to
prepare faculty to:
1. Be aware of the cultural factors in student learning.
2. Tackle issues of student motivation, engagement and belonging.
3. Create more accessible learning opportunities for their students.

151

151

4. Engage in diversity (teach diverse students).
Sub-theme 1: Be aware of the role culture plays in student learning.
Just as Bennett (2012) acknowledged that intercultural facilitators (in this case, faculty
educators) needed to account for the culture-specific preferences of their learners in order to support
their learning (or meet their learners’ expectations), most of the faculty educators (five of seven)
communicated that they saw it as their responsibility to help faculty at their institutions understand that
they needed to adapt their practices to meet their students’ (undergraduate and graduate) needs based on
their own cultural differences. For example, Dr. Sarker expressed that it was her responsibility to
prepare faculty to understand the role cultural factors had in student learning. In explaining her
approach to teaching faculty the role culture played in student learning, she described how using
metaphors might only help some students make connections to the content and build on what they
already knew. She said,
I would say that learning is not just learning, right, because our mental frameworks, our
reference points, everything that we think we know is tied to our own cultures and our own
ways of thinking and behaving and seeing the world. And so I don’t think it’s separate. I think
it’s entirely related [laugh] to culture and cultural differences. So one example that I can give is
when I talk to faculty about that metaphors that are used in class, right? So if you’re explaining
the concept and you use one metaphor and that metaphor only makes sense for a handful of
your students. That is a really good example of how our cultural differences impact our ability
to learn, right? … everything that we talked about, even though you know singular words that
we use are tied to particular ways of thinking and we need to attend to those differences in the
ways that we think, because otherwise we won’t be able to embed new knowledge into students’

152

152

prior knowledge, right? We won’t be able to help them make sense and connections in the ways
that we want to.
In this statement, Dr. Sarker communicated her belief that learning was inextricably connected to the
learner’s culture as she said, “learning is not just learning, right, because our mental frameworks,
reference points, and everything that we think we know is tied to our own cultures and our own ways of
thinking and behaving and seeing the world.” She suggested that faculty needed to understand this
relationship if they were going to support their students’ acquisition of new knowledge. By offering
that only a “handful of your students” would be able to grasp the concept from the metaphor faculty
used because of cultural differences, she was pointing to the way that faculty might not be aware of the
role their own culture played in their instructional choices or how those instructional choices might
impede learning for some students in the classroom. She then highlighted the necessity of a heightened
consciousness around how culture impacted students’ opportunities for meaningful learning when she
spoke to the way failing to attend to culture prevented students from “embed[ding] new knowledge into
prior knowledge,” and “mak[ing] sense and connections.” This could be connected to Dimitrov and
Haque (2016a), where they suggested that instructors limit the use of jargon and colloquialisms, explain
discipline-specific use of terms, paraphrase and repeat difficult concepts to add to learners’
understanding of a message when they speak to diverse audiences. Blakeney (2005) also noted that it
was necessary to help members across different cultures better grasp verbal and nonverbal
communication.
Relatedly, Dr. Thomas also communicated her perspective that she was responsible for helping
faculty understand the role culture played in student learning. Similar to the notion of creating a
culturally responsive learning environment in Bennett’s (2012) work on intercultural facilitation, she
believed that working with faculty with different cultural backgrounds in an interculturally competent

153

153

way would help faculty be thoughtful about and attentive to their own learners’ culturally influenced
thinking and ultimately help them learn. She said,
Knowing that if I can have this intercultural competence and I can work with faculty who come
with different perspectives, different beliefs or cultures, different, you know, ways of doing and
seeing and believing, I can actually be more effective in how to work with them on these things
because they, they, you know, they are ultimately going to have to teach students to that and
help their students learn. So I think all of that really is important for me to be able to be good at
as well and to help diverse pool of students, right? So if I can help them, I can help their, their
students.
In her statement “I can work with faculty who come with different perspectives, different beliefs or
cultures, different, you know, ways of doing and seeing and believing,” Dr. Thomas articulated her
recognition that faculty brought to their classrooms different belief systems associated with their
cultural backgrounds. When she said, “they are ultimately going to have to teach students on things,”
she implied that faculty’s culturally influenced thinking might not be the same as their students’ and
that they might not be aware of the inconsistencies, which might possibly pose a threat to how their
students learned in their classrooms. This was consistent with Dimitrov and Haque’s (2016a) idea that
cultural difference in teacher and student roles can influence teacher-student interaction to great extent.
She thought it was crucial to work with faculty in an interculturally competent way, as teaching in ways
that were responsive to “diverse pool of students” require that faculty be able to account for their needs,
and maybe she could support faculty to achieve that. She highlighted her instructional vision she sought
to attain in her statement “if I can help them [i.e., the faculty], I can help their, their students,”
suggesting that she operated as a teacher educator who wanted to support both faculty’s and their
students’ learning.

154

154

In another instance, Ms. Singh communicated her belief that she was responsible for helping
faculty understand how culture played a part in student learning as she instantiated the way faculty
could increase student engagement. She said,
I have seen when faculty engaged in the behaviors, models, by intercultural competence, there’s
a giant shift of student engagement. When faculty learn to incorporate more global examples,
when they learn how to facilitate learning, or honor different learning styles and you know,
model group work for students who may not have experience of group work before, faculty set
the example for them, being more explicit about their expectations, providing more guidance to
students to understand. You know, students come to office hours to do this and students can go
to tutors. This is not a sign of failure but a sign of excellence. You know if faculty understands
some of the cultural nuances and are able to speak not necessarily to the difference but to the
importance of the why. We always talk about the whys. Why is it important to go to the office
hours? Why is it important to get tutoring if it’s important? Why are these things important? If
the faculty can express these things to students and students can rise to the occasion and then of
course in creating inclusive classroom environment.
Ms. Singh spoke to her previous experience of the ways faculty actually contributed to student
engagement and promoted inclusivity, which included “incorporat[ing] more global examples,
facilitat[ing] learning, honor[ing] different learning styles, model[ling] group work, set[ting] the
example, being more explicit about their expectations, and providing more guidance to students to
understand.” Implicit in her statement was the idea that faculty were teaching students who had not
previously had exposure to these kinds of experiences (e.g., first-generation students or students who
came from historically marginalized groups who had fewer people in their families that had access to
higher education experiences or more rigorous academic culture). She pointed out that faculty’s

155

155

abilities to recognize these students’ “cultural nuances” and to explain to them what supports (e.g.,
office hour, tutoring) were in place for them might heighten the probability of “creating an inclusive
environment,” where these students could “rise to the occasion.” This suggested she believed that
faculty were capable of strengthening student engagement and assisting with their learning as long as
they were open to continually learning about their students’ cultural differences and adjusting their
instructional practices accordingly.
Sub-theme 2: Tackle Issues of Student Motivation, Engagement and Belonging
As Gleditsch and Berg (2017) acknowledged that with the increasing culturally diverse student
populations in higher education classrooms, educators (in this case, faculty) had potential for enabling
and hindering student development and could have profound impact on shaping learners’ concept of
self, some faculty educators (four of seven) communicated that they were responsible for preparing
faculty to tackle issues of student motivation, engagement, and sense of belonging. One example of the
faculty educator’s doing that was Dr. Sarker. She communicated her belief that she could potentially
support faculty in strengthening student engagement by helping faculty improve the caliber of their
teaching. She said,
I felt like I could have a broader impact working with faculty on their own teaching and making
changes at kind of the both the departmental and institutional level when it comes to helping
faculty really reach all of their students through the learning process.
Implicit in Dr. Sarker’s statement “helping faculty really reach all of their students through the learning
process” was the recognition that faculty did not meet all of their students where they were. This
suggested that faculty might not be sensitive or thoughtful enough to attend to student engagement in
their instruction, which could have consequences on students’ abilities to learn and understand. She

156

156

sought to attain her instructional vision by “working with faculty on their own teaching” to afford better
understanding of the appropriate strategies necessary for fostering student engagement.
In a similar train of thought, Ms. Singh articulated that it was her responsibility to support
faculty in cultivating student engagement and sense of belonging. She stated that “Yes, students are
responsible for engagement and for some outcomes but on the other side, on the flip side, my
responsibility is to help faculty create environments so that students can do that.” While she recognized
that students had a responsibility for their own learning and should hold themselves accountable for
being engaged through self-regulation, she attributed the primary responsibility to the faculty to
establish the learning environment that foster engagement and a sense of belonging. Her statement was
indicative that students’ everyday classroom experience started with and depended on faculty’s
instructional moves in how they cultivated a learning climate.
In another instance, Dr. Thomas expressed her perspective that she was responsible for helping
faculty foster students’ sense of belonging as she described the result of a student survey that presented
faculty as a deciding factor in shaping students’ sense of belonging. She said,
At XXX [my institution], we had a, they sent a student survey Student Affairs sent a survey last
year to the class, to one of the classes, and asked them, “What is the most important thing that
helped you feel, like a sense of belonging at the school?” At the top five is their classes and the
professors. So how can we deny, you know, in my mind, like, how can we deny that, like, you
know, our professors need to have this intercultural competence and be sensitive to the students,
different students’ needs, and what they bring to the classroom, and their cultures and
backgrounds to make them feel as if they belong, and to make an equitable experience for all
their students as well. So I think our job is to basically, it should be paramount, in like what we

157

157

do and embedded within even all of the good practices of teaching and learning because it’s one
part of it, so I see it as a crucial part.
Dr. Thomas referred to the result of a student survey indicating that faculty played a key role in
cultivating students’ sense of belonging, which, in her viewpoint, substantiated the need for faculty to
“have this intercultural competence and be sensitive to the students, different students’ needs, and what
they bring to the classroom, and their cultures and backgrounds.” She suggested that faculty might not
be readily prepared to be sensitive and responsive to diverse students’ needs, which might compromise
and limit certain students’ opportunities to learn, which is consistent in Samuels’ (2014b, 2018) notion
that faculty’s implicit deep-seated beliefs, assumptions, and stereotypes might manifest in their
resulting actions in the form of micro-aggressions. She believed it was her responsibility to incorporate
intercultural competence into her faculty development practices so that she could support faculty in
creating “equitable experience for all their students.”

158

158

Sub-theme 3: Create More Accessible Learning Opportunities for Their Students
As had been indicated in the existing research that the ethnic/racial mismatch between White
faculty and historically marginalized students were likely to contribute to culturally based
misunderstandings, thereby creating the likelihood of low retention and graduation rate that resulted in
educational inequalities (Duckworth et al., 2005; Fry, 2015; Godley, 2012; Milner, 2011; Murray,
2016), some faculty educators (three of seven) considered it their responsibility to support faculty to
create more accessible learning opportunities for their students. For instance, Dr. Wilson communicated
his belief that his role was to help faculty thrive in their professional activities, which involved them
structuring opportunities for their learners to be successful. He said,
It is our responsibility to do our due diligence and creating structures that allow for learners to
be as successful as possible. And, you know, move from retention, right? Efforts for learners,
student success efforts, right, that we have. Same thing for faculty. Faculty development, for
me, is everything from faculty retention, wanting to keep them there, to faculty success, wanting
them to thrive in their professional activity, so the success is thriving and being effective in their
professional activity for teaching, services, and scholarship.
He thought of his faculty development responsibilities as promoting faculty success, and he defined
faculty success as “thriving and being effective in their professional activity for teaching, services, and
scholarship.” According to him, faculty’s professional activities involved “do[ing] their due diligence
and creat[ing] structures that allow for learners to be successful as possible.” Implied in his statement
was the notion that, through his faculty development work, one of the things he could accomplish was
to support faculty to work toward establishing structures in their instruction that helped create
opportunities for their students to learn.

159

159

Expressing similar views, Ms. Singh thought she was responsible for guiding faculty to provide
more accessible learning opportunities for their learners as she described her perspective on the
ultimate outcome she sought to achieve in her faculty development work. She said,
I think for me it’s [i.e., the ultimate outcome I seek to achieve] seeing faculty apply empathy
when they’re engaging with their students. And that comes before they even meet the students.
So I’ll have them been explicit in their materials. Are they providing enough examples? Do they
have, are they uploading handouts so students who are either new to English or students who
need a little bit more direction can not only hear it but also see it? Are they putting in a lot of,
enough structure in place to hold up academic integrity by reminding students of the policy, by
giving them examples, by reminding them of consequences, and by providing alternate tests?
You know what? I mean so often, um, you know, faculty can be doing so much to just assist
students and even take away one more roadblock. You know, if you know that your version of
the test is different than the person next to you, it might take away that temptation. And I think
that’s helpful. And so that’s the kind of thing. Having faculty be more empathetic, more aware,
and more action-oriented when it comes to providing students more, uh, more assistance and
still keeping the caliber of their courses. I’m not asking them to make things easier. I’m asking
them to make things clearer.
From her statement, Ms. Singh expressed her viewpoints that faculty were able to offer more
accessible learning opportunities to their students if they were more thoughtful about the instructional
choices they made and implement supports for their students, from “[being] explicit in their materials,”
“putting in enough structure in place,” to “tak[ing] away one more road black.” Consistent with Lee et
al.’s (2012) notion that effective intercultural pedagogy required that faculty take a critical stance to
reflect not only on what knowledge was presented but also how the assignments, lesson plans, lectures,

160

160

and learning materials engaged and supported diverse learners, Ms. Singh suggested that faculty might
not understand the way their instructional practices could impede student learning and her job was to
support faculty in working toward addressing learner variability. She then instantiated reminders of a
range of actions that she thought were helpful for faculty to be “more empathetic, more aware, and
more action-oriented” in creating students’ access to learning opportunities.
Sub-theme 4: Engage in Diversity
Consistent with the existing research’s notion that post-secondary institutions needed to
adequately prepare faculty to teach diverse student populations and to educate students to their fullest
capacity (Garson et al., 2016; King & Baxter-Magolda, 2005; Lee et al., 2012; Ng et al., 2007), some
faculty educators (three of seven) communicated that their job was to prepare faculty to engage in
diversity, defined as “intentional, comprehensive efforts to develop and implement pedagogy that
leverages the diversity resources of a campus for the benefit of students’ learning and development”
(Lee et al., 2012, p. 6). For example, Dr. Sankey thought it was her responsibility to support faculty to
teach diverse students by exposing them to the notion of intercultural competence. She said,
I think it’s important for faculty to have awareness of intercultural competence, regardless of
what they teach, because of the diversity of the students who typically are in the room. … I
think intercultural competence is important in a facilitator and a designer of faculty
development, both to be as responsive as possible to the faculty who are being developed and to
open the door to the idea of intercultural competence to the faculty so that they can use that idea
in their own instruction.
Dr. Sankey communicated her belief that faculty needed to have consciousness around students’
cultures regardless of the content area they were teaching. She indicated that faculty might not be
cognizant of how students’ cultural orientations anchored the way they learned and that might impose a

161

161

roadblock to their being adaptive to student needs and teaching for all cultures. She thought it was her
responsibility to ensure that she engaged faculty in a culturally competent way during professional
learning sessions and she believed that if she demonstrated and modeled intercultural competence to
them, maybe she could create the opportunity for them to see what it looked like so that the faculty
would be capable of transferring and enacting the notion in their own instruction.
Similarly, Dr. Osburn thought he was responsible for preparing (math) faculty to understand
what it was like to be the other in order for them to support diverse students’ learning. He stated,
How is intercultural competence connected to how faculty learn about instruction? Um. So
again, it’s that sense that you want to start with faculty beginning to think what it’s like to be the
other in the situation. And that’s a real challenge for a lot of them because, right, a lot of them
have had success in math. That’s why they are math faculty, right? So that’s a challenge for
them to work with people who have not had that success, right? Um. So it’s, it’s getting them in
that mindset of what it’s like to be the other in the situation, and then start thinking about now
that you understand there’s an other in this situation, how do you use the fact that “there is an
other” as a tool in learning in the classroom, right?
In his statement, Dr. Osburn began with the recognition that (math) faculty who “have had success in
math” tended to have difficulty identifying with their students “who have not had that success.”
Inherent in the statement was the notion that faculty might not be able to understand why their students
had a hard time learning math, which made it less likely for them to break down the barriers to student
learning and therefore had negative implications for their learning outcomes. He believed it was his job
to help math faculty to put themselves in the shoes of their students by thinking about “what it’s like to
be the other” and to use this idea to identify and remove potential roadblocks for their students in order
to support their learning. This was similar to Blakeney’s (2005) notion of Deweyan perspective that

162

162

democratic citizenry is indicated by an individual’s taking into account the perspectives of others
within the current contexts, which in turn created an expanded knowledge base of others and identified
common interests.
Theme 2: Similar Constraints and Limitations
While these faculty educators all shared this instructional vision and had similar ideas of what
their job responsibilities were, they identified and communicated the challenges and constraints in
teaching and learning that they universally faced, as presented in the following:
1. Time constraints
2. Lack of accountability
3. Paradigm shift
4. Disciplinary culture
Sub-theme 1: Time Constraints
Literature indicates that developing intercultural competence or intercultural andragogy was an
ongoing and interactive process that took a time and commitment (Deardorff, 2006, 2010b; Dimitrov &
Haque, 2016a; Lee et al., 2012) and that learning does not end when the faculty development program
ends (Lawler & King, 2000a). Consistent with the literature, most of the faculty educators (six of
seven) conveyed that they oftentimes felt pressed for time, not only because they could accomplish so
much in the short span of time within the professional learning sessions, but also because what they
intended to achieve extended beyond a few professional learning sessions over the course of time. For
example, Dr. Wilson communicated the time constraints he thought that had imposed on his work as he
described his outcome-based approach. He believed that the limited amount of time for one
professional learning session gave him little choice but to select only a few instructional activities

163

163

strongly tied to the learning outcomes, which required beyond more than one professional session to
achieve. He stated,
I just practice what we preach and that is backward design. Just being like outcome and learning
focused, you know. What is it that I want them to walk away with? And sometimes it’s more of
that, like, hey, even beyond the session like 3 to 5 years down the road. So, but, you know,
there’s only so much you can do in a few hours. So I do the outcomes for goals according to
whatever the…um, sometimes I’m a little bit more objective. “This is what I'm going to do in
this session and not focused on there,” but I’m rarely that. I’m more so, like, “These are goals
and their outcomes.” So, um, what I do is I review the [pause] I make sure that whatever
activities I have within a time frame can effectively promote whatever those, those you know
goals are and if it doesn’t, then I leave it out, you know, even if I really want it, you know. So
that’s kind of my approach usually. It’s a good litmus test for me.
Dr. Wilson started with the recognition that developing faculty toward the desired outcomes (i.e.,
“What is it that I want them to walk away with?”) often exceeded the bounded timeframe of
professional learning sessions, as stated in “sometimes it’s more of that, like, hey, even beyond the
session like three to five years down the road.” He suggested that, while he had a large learning
endeavor in mind as to what he hoped to teach faculty, the time constraints also translated into a
compression of what he could afford to do within one professional learning session. Acknowledging
the limited amount of time provided for professional development, as expressed in “there’s only so
much you can do in a few hours,” he had to adopt the outcome-based learning approach by thinking
backwards in terms of the most essential learning outcomes he intended to produce. This meant he
needed to sift through his instructional activities to closely match and “promote those goals.” Implied in
the statement “if it doesn’t, then I leave it out, you know, even if I really want it, you know” was the

164

164

notion that he was so constrained by time that he could not operate as willfully as he hoped. Dr.
Wilson’s challenge of time was supported by Trivette et al.’s (2009) study, as their statistical analysis
showed that adult learning method characteristics were more effective when they were implemented
with a small number of learners on different occasions where the learning experiences took place for 10
plus hours.
In another example, Dr. Sarker expressed the time pressure she faced within professional
learning sessions as she described the use of established norms for discussion. She stated,
With faculty, I do a lot, you know, I spend a little less time co-creating them just because we
don’t have as much time together, but I definitely encourage them to co-create them with their
students and many of them have come back and told me that they do, that they have, and it's
worked really well.
Dr. Sarker articulated that she did not have the latitude in constructing discussion norms with faculty
during a professional development session under a time constraint. This suggested that like Dr. Wilson,
she had to be really selective in what to do and what not to do, given the limited time available. On
another occasion, Dr. Sarker also communicated that what she really wanted to accomplish with faculty
exceeded the amount of time that she had with them when she described the way she had evolved as a
faculty developer. She said,
I would say when I started out in this field, um, about a decade ago, I would say that I wasn’t as
patient or maybe I didn’t see, I didn’t have as good of a sense about institutions at the time,
right? So I knew, I knew what needed to change, I knew what I was hearing, I knew what I was
experiencing, so I kind of was able to synthesize all of that and I wanted it to change
immediately, right? And so I think over the course of my career, I’ve learned to be more
strategic in the ways that I talk about the work, but also engaged in the work and also have

165

165

learned that just because something’s not changing overnight doesn’t mean that it’s not worth
pursuing, right? So, so I think I’ve been able to think through a little bit more clearly, you know,
what are short-term and long-term goals. For me, but like, both personally, you know, within
my career and my career development, but also when I’m working with faculty and institutions,
I can’t, you know, there’s no possible way that, just like I tell faculty, they can’t do everything
at once, like we can’t do everything at once. It’s just not gonna work that way, because you
need to spend the time to create the buy-in, you need to spend the time to really roll out a plan
for it to be successful.
Dr. Sarker spoke to her experience feeling the urge to change the way institutions worked but learned to
be “more strategic” in the ways she talked about the work and “engaged in the work” with a recognition
that “just because something’s not changing overnight doesn’t mean that it’s not worth pursuing.” This
realization enabled her to think with clarity and prioritize her personal and professional development
objectives. Applying this idea to her faculty development work, she advised faculty against “do[ing]
everything at once” because “it’s just not gonna work that way.” Implied in this statement was the
notion that developing faculty required much more time beyond one professional learning session.
In another instance, Ms. Singh also talked about her fleeting moment with faculty given the
limited time available for a professional learning session. She said,
You know, a lot of times I come in, I can set up 15 minutes before presentation, I start the
presentation and an hour later, I’m gone. So a lot of times it’s just this, you know, making sure I
facilitate the clearest presentation possible, you know.
From her statement, she communicated that she needed to set up in advance and present the
information to faculty as clearly and efficiently as possible because all she had was an hour. Implied in
her words was the notion that she was constrained in what she could do because of the brief period of

166

166

time. In describing an ideal scenario, she communicated her belief that faculty development should be a
progressing endeavor that lasted at least for a semester long. She stated,
I think ideal professional development would be consistent and not just a one-time deal. Um, I
think that it would be kind of where, you know, like a, not a, well I guess, like a course where
you know faculty have a foundation and then they maybe build on that coursework as we go.
And we’re able to have several workshops, maybe one on micro aggressions handling them and
handling them in the classroom. I think that would be ideal to have whether that’s facilitated
online or in person. … So ideally, I would say maybe a semester long course with maybe four
or five sessions where faculty are really working to, to rethink adding intercultural competence
strategies within their coursework and their pedagogy.
Just like what the other participants indicated, Ms. Singh believed that faculty development should not
be just “a one-time deal” but an ongoing process that was not bounded by professional development
sessions or workshops. In an ideal scenario, she thought of professional development as a course that
should last “maybe a semester long” to allow for “rethink adding intercultural competence strategies
within their coursework and their pedagogy.” This indicated that she might be constrained by the
amount of time she currently had with faculty because what she intended to accomplish might exceed
beyond the time that was available. The juxtaposition of the existing situation (what was) and an ideal
faculty development (what should be) crystallized her recognition that what she would like to be true
and what was true for faculty development were not the same thing, indicating that she was constrained
by what was available to her. The theme of continuous learning and growth was also evident in the
literature like Dimitrov and Haque (2016a), where they contended that the development of ITC required
a lifetime of ongoing learning and that interculturally competent instructors would persist in adapting
their practice to the changing needs of the students they worked with.

167

167

Sub-theme 2: Lack of Accountability
Despite the notion that all faculty in higher education were expected to improve teaching and
learning and ultimately enhance students’ educational experiences through faculty development
(Stockley et al., 2015), many faculty educators (five of seven) communicated that one of the biggest
challenges they encountered at work was a lack of accountability on the part of faculty who would
rather maintain status quo. For instance, Dr. Thomas expressed her concerns about faculty’s apathetic
attitude towards change as she recalled her experience working with faculty. She said,
I’m trying to think through this but apathy or not really wanting to try, you know, to do this at
all because “I just don’t care because nobody’s, you know, paying. I have no, I don’t have the
time [laugh] to actually do this and I don’t want to.” You know they have so many reasons why
they don’t do this. Or “I’m not rewarded for it, like who’s gonna, who’s going to give me tenure
because of this or something.” ... If there’s no accountability, you know, the why-should-I-care
attitude. So maybe just a little bit of a stronger, not necessarily the fault of the student. But more
of the apathy of the faculty member, like “I just don’t want to do it.”
She communicated her observation that faculty showed indifferent attitudes and came up with excuses
for not being willing to adjusting their instructional practices, from “I don’t have the time,” “I don’t
want to,” “no body’s paying,” to “I’m not rewarded for it.” She believed that faculty’s absence of
accountability was evident in their “why-should-I-care attitude.” She implied that faculty did not hold
themselves accountable to anyone but themselves. Additionally, there was no evidence of faculty’s
internalized responsibility for student learning or advancing institutional mission from the data,
suggesting a lack of Elmore’s (2003) internal accountability within the institution. Furthermore, in
another part of the interview, she even pointed out that some faculty shied away from their educator
responsibilities and attributed the responsibilities to the administrative offices on campus, as indicated

168

168

in “faculty don’t think it’s their responsibility. It’s the Office of Multicultural Affairs’ [responsibility]”
or their belief that “it’s the DEI offices’ role, not my roles of faculty member to do this.” What the data
suggested was that she did not believe faculty held themselves accountable and might choose to
maintain status quo at the cost of overall student learning experience.
Expressing similar views, in his description of what an ideal professional learning would be
like, Mr. Atherton indicated that it was challenging for him to do his job when faculty lacked
accountability and thought of faculty development as something to be checked off. He said,
I would require a lot of in-person training [for the ideal professional learning]. So, to me, that’s
where I find it most valuable. … And I’m not saying this is the only way to do it. There’s
probably 30 other ways that people have imagined doing trainings and whether that’s through
small groups getting together every month and practicing and doing things. They’re called like
“intentional communities” or “ongoing learning communities.” There’s one more word,
“communities of practice.” And so they actually get together in small groups. And so the people
who self-initiate or who can maintain after a really positive founding of experiences either
through online and or live trainings, then you put them into a community of practice so that it’s
considered ongoing lifelong learning. And it’s no longer just, “Oh, yeah. Knock that out. Stay
out of the way. Check. And I’m done.”
He believed that an ideal scenario for professional learning involved “a lot of in-person training” and
self-initiated small groups that formed “communities of practice” aiming for “ongoing lifelong
learning” instead of a once-and-for-all deal, as indicated in the expression “Oh, yeah. Knock that out.
Stay out of the way. Check. And I’m done.” He indicated that he would like to course-correct faculty’s
perspective on thinking of professional learning as something they could check off their to-do list once
and for all as if it was okay that they did not need to take faculty development seriously. The data

169

169

indicated that Mr. Atherton believed there was a high likelihood that there was no accountability on the
part of the faculty based on his experience.
Ms. Singh expressed a similar challenge concerning faculty’s lack of accountability as she
described faculty’s reluctance to change their practices. She said,
You know the biggest one [i.e., challenge], I think, again, this did not happen very often, but
every once in a while, would be faculty wondering why they have to change. “Why do I need to
change my teaching? Why can’t ‘they’ [i.e., students] change?”
While she emphasized the rarity of the occurrences, she admitted that faculty’s critical attitude reflected
in their rhetorical questions like “Why do I need to change my teaching?” was “the biggest” challenge
she had encountered. It was probable that faculty’s resistance to adapting their teaching to meeting
students’ needs and their demand for students to accommodate their teaching instead had to do with
their lack of accountability, making it less likely for Ms. Singh to exert her influence through
professional learning.
Sub-theme 3: Paradigm Shift
Despite Brown and Kysilka’s (2002) research that faculty’s beliefs and attitudes, often
unthinking responses in the present based on past experiences, remained to influence consciously or
unconsciously present and future teaching and learning situations, many faculty educators (five of
seven) communicated that they found it challenging to help faculty shift their paradigms. One example
of that was Dr. Wilson’s saying that he did not see much paradigm changing in faculty despite their
high receptivity to professional learning he facilitated. He said,
You know, what’s interesting is that they’ve been very receptive, but sometimes it’s been just
more surface level because it’ll be where they’re like, “Oh, here’s some strategies” [pause]
They’re eager, they’re very receptive, very eager! Very receptive and very eager but the

170

170

eagerness doesn’t always kind of equate into high quality practices. Just more so either people
who mean well and they want to be like ahead, like a favor mentality, like, “Okay, let’s do this
because it’s the right thing to do.” And I applaud those people because they’re trying to do the
right thing but, um, how receptive people are to their actual paradigms changing, like your
mind, that has been very [pause] it hasn’t been much, I mean, I found that to be tougher for
folks.
Dr. Wilson pointed out that while faculty demonstrated eagerness and recognized the value of
professional learning, they stopped on the “surface level” and fell short of transferring their
understanding into “high quality practices.” He attributed the phenomenon to faculty’s “favor
mentality” and he still “applaud[ed] those people” for showing up for professional learning and their
good intentions “to do the right thing;” however, he acknowledged that it was difficult for faculty to
actually change their mindsets. He appeared to suggest that securing faculty buy-in for professional
learning did not necessarily translate into a desired transformation in their instructional practices that
faculty educators sought to attain. Garson et al. (2016) might imply a similar challenge: From the
survey result, 95 to 100 percent of respondents perceived that their participation in the PD program had
an impact on their attitude, knowledge and skills. And yet it was hard to tell whether the relationship
self-perceived impact translated into their professional practice.
In another instance, Dr. Sarker expressed a similar perspective on how challenging it could be
to change faculty’s mindsets. She said,
Um, I’d say the last challenge is really changing mindsets, right? You know, so for faculty who
have been in the system for so long as learners themselves and have been teaching for so long,
they’re used to doing things in a certain way and disciplines organized like that as well. And so
really helping change mindsets is this hard. It’s challenging. It requires, you know, small steps

171

171

to get there and I would say, I’ve had some success. I think that’s the larger challenge that most
faculty educators are facing is how do we get folks to change their own mindset and
acknowledge that, you know, maybe they don’t know everything and that’s okay. Maybe there
are other ways to do things and that’s okay and kind of acknowledging that, you know, in order
to change that mindset. Then they need to put in the time, too. And that’s difficult when, you
know, when faculty don’t have that much time.
Dr. Sarker began with a recognition that it was not easy for her to change faculty’s mindsets because
they were entrenched “in the system” and had developed habitual way of “doing things in a certain way
and disciplines organized like that.” She communicated her belief that changing faculty’s paradigms
required faculty educators taking “small steps” suggesting to faculty that there were alternative ways of
doing things and that it was okay for them not to “know everything.” Additionally, it also required
faculty’s “put[ting] in the time” that they struggled to find in processing and enacting the information
they picked up from professional learning. She indicated that it could be challenging to help faculty
change their mindsets as it took time and commitment on both sides to work toward that.
Sub-theme 4: Disciplinary Culture
Consistent with Dimitrov and Haque’s (2016a) as well as Lawler and King’s (2000a) notion that
faculty’s discipline-specific culture could come into play in classroom dynamics and impact teaching
and learning, some faculty educators (four of seven) found it challenging to address distinctive
disciplinary culture entrenched in faculty’s professional identities. One example could be found in Dr.
Thomas’s description as she communicated that she had a hard time talking faculty into seeing a bigger
picture outside of their disciplines. She stated,
So one thing I’ve actually found to be quite challenging is to convince faculty of that, because
they are so embedded and rooted in their disciplines as their culture that it’s really hard to break

172

172

them out of that thought, and to say that there are bigger things, [pause] things like race,
ethnicity, things like that might, you know, country of origin, all of these things might come
into play, but I feel like that is so powerful and predominant in their minds that I think that’s
actually been the biggest challenge.
She spoke to her experience that it was challenging for her when faculty’s worldviews were intertwined
with their own disciplinary culture to the extent that it went beyond “race, ethnicity, [and] country of
origin” and therefore “it’s really hard to break them out of that thought.”
Her statement signified that faculty tied their professional identities with their disciplines in a way that
it might be less likely for them to be receptive to alternative viewpoints or things they learned in
professional learning. This was indicated in Lawler and King’s (2000a) notion that faculty developers
take into consideration faculty’s different discipline characteristics to support their professional growth
and the application of their learning.
Relatedly, Dr. Sarker articulated the challenge concerning disciplinary culture as she recalled
her experience of facilitating inclusive teaching for health professionals. She said,
I have facilitated sessions on inclusive teaching for health professionals and sometimes what
winds up happening and it happens in STEM classrooms sometimes, but in the health
professions, it’s even trickier. So some folks, you know, when I’m presenting information, will
tell me something like this has nothing to do with my clinical practice. This has nothing to do
with, you know, my curriculum, because it’s not about, you know, maybe what I’m presenting
is new to them and they’ve never thought about it in that way. So I have one particular example
of working with dental faculty, where a White male faculty members said to me in a session I
was facilitating, you know, “This has nothing to do with dentistry, you know.” And so what I
had to do there was to kind of draw on my own arsenal of knowledge and to say, “Actually, it

173

173

has everything to do with dentistry” because, you know, the scenario was around students in a
classroom talking about a clinical setting, but what I shared with this faculty member was that,
you know, when we’re thinking about administering medication, Black women are not trusted
as much as White patients, right? They tell their doctors they’re in pain. The doctors expect
them to just suffer through it, often to their death and detriment, right? Like Serena Williams [a
famous American tennis player] wrote about this, you know, and she’s someone who has a lot
of privilege in a lot of ways, but even she had to advocate for herself when she was given birth
and had a lot of complications because her doctors didn’t trust her to know her own body better
than they did, right? So, so I think I had to draw on a different set of my own knowledge but
also really check my own defensiveness because I did get, I think I did in that situation, raise
my voice a little bit and kind of say, “No, actually. I think, you know, this has everything to do
with what we’re talking about here today.”
Dr. Sarker shared her experience that facilitating professional learning for health professionals
or STEM faculty could be really challenging and tricky, as they did not associate “inclusive teaching”
with their “clinical practice.” This signified that it was likely that these faculty members showed some
degrees of resistance to engaging in professional learning as they did not find inclusive teaching
relevant to their disciplines. This connected to Lawler and King (2000b), where they suggested that
faculty educators emphasize relevance to promote learning.
She further described an incident she had with a White male dental faculty member, who confronted
her by saying “This has nothing to do with dentistry.” In that scenario, to respond to that faculty
member with a counterargument, she said that she had to draw on her own “arsenal of knowledge”
while holding her “defensiveness” in check. Her word choice of war metaphors suggested that she

174

174

found it necessary to stand up for what she believed in by breaking down the barrier to cross-
disciplinary approaches to understanding.
Theme 3: Different Responses
Stockley et al. (2015) suggested that faculty educators consist of a wide array of professionals
with varied educational backgrounds, pathways into the profession, academic ranks, and personal and
professional identities. This meant that faculty educators came into this profession from varied
disciplines with different trainings and there was no clear structure showing them how to engage in
their work. Ball and Forzani (2009) pointed out that faculty educator’s pedagogical reasoning mattered
and that decisions about what to do should be based their professionally justified knowledge rather than
derive from their personal preferences or experiences. Despite the shared acknowledgement that they
were limited in what they could accomplish, the faculty educators responded to these challenges and
constraints in different ways: A subset of faculty educators (two of seven) considered learning
opportunities fixed and adopted tips-and-tricks approach (Loughran, 2006). In addition, they called on
collective wisdom as they were attuned to being helpful and solving problems. On the contrary, the
other faculty educators (five of seven) saw growth opportunities in the face of constraints, and they
sought to meet faculty where they were. On top of that, they were present enough to faculty learning
that they were being adaptive and flexible in their instructional interactions with them: They
intentionally lowered the cognitive demand to motivate faculty to move forward and they purposefully
created cognitive challenges that required faculty to do a heavy lifting of learning to really develop
their practice. These faculty educators’ different responses were elaborated with five sub-themes, as
shown below:
1. What learning opportunities they were creating for faculty (fixed mindset vs. growth
mindset).

175

175

2. How they approached their learners (bags of tricks vs. ZPD).
3. The purpose behind their lowering cognitive demand (to apply solutions vs. to learn).
4. How they took up the space (academic rigor).
5. How present they were to their learners.
Sub-theme 1: What Learning Opportunities They were Creating for Faculty (Fixed Mindset vs.
Growth Mindset)
From the interview data, these faculty educators communicated different approaches to learning
opportunities in the face of constraints: Some limited themselves with what they could do that ended in
fixed learning opportunities while the others saw constraints as an opportunity to engage in
andragogical moves to move forward progressively in professional and personal growth, which was
consistent with Lawler and King’s (2000a, 2000b) notion of faculty educators’ taking positive and
learner-centered approach. A subset of these faculty educators (two of seven) seemed to interpret the
constraints as limitations and thought that the learning opportunities for faculty were fixed. For
instance, as Dr. Thomas described her perspective on faculty’s lack of accountability, she seemed to
accept the fact that faculty’s thinking could not be changed, and she was confined to what she thought
she could do with them. She said,
So we did have a couple of sessions where one of our fellows ran and did a great job and did
this, this, this one teaching practice that was good and shared it with everyone and there were
faculty that said, “Oh, I can’t do that. It takes too much time in my class.” So you know,
countering that, what I would say is, like, “So what are the parts of it that you could do? What
about the overall goal of it? Is there another way you could do this, but it doesn’t take much
time?” So it would be involving us to like really drill down and think about like what makes this
seem a lot. And if they only do have a little bit of time, you could actually do it in this other

176

176

way. So troubleshooting with them alternatives, I think is big. Now it's really great when we
have sessions that give them alternatives, too. … But I think the response is usually, “How can
you do this given these conditions?” Like if you don’t have that much time, do it this way or do
that, you know, that type of thing. I think that would be, that would be one of them. Sometimes
you can’t address those directly because it’s really a belief that they have, and it’s like, “I can’t
change that.”
From the data, when she encountered faculty resistance to change, such as faculty’s telling her that
“Oh, I can’t do that. It takes too much time in my class,” she attempted to by asking them what they
thought they could do to achieve “the overall goal.” Implied in her problem-solving stance was the
notion that if she thought there was room for negotiation, she would seek to reach a short-term
agreement with faculty. On the other hand, “if they only do have a little bit of time,” she then opted for
“troubleshooting with them alternatives” under given conditions. Implicit in her response was the
notion that she did not jostle faculty from their complacency but went with the flow (i.e., “if you don’t
have that much time”) by offering easy solutions directly (i.e., “do it this way or do that”) to the
faculty. Additionally, when she said, “it’s really a belief that they have,” it indicated that she did not
think it was possible to change faculty’s belief systems through professional learning and stopped short
of her expectations of the faculty so that the learning opportunities were fixed.
On the contrary, the other faculty educators (five of seven) seemed to see constraints as learning
opportunities for them to investigate faculty’s sense-making and thinking process. For example, in the
scenario-based interview, Dr. Osburn responded to the hypothetical problem (a faculty member said,
“who are you to teach me about race?) in a way that opened a conversation. He said,
I don’t know what it’s like to be a Black male walking down the street and have to worry about
getting shot in the back by police just because I’m White or just because I’m Black, right? I

177

177

can’t, I’ll never have that experience, but what I can do is learn what that lived experience is
like from those who live it every day. And then we can start to have those discussions about
how we move forward. You know, “how do we move forward together? What does it take, what
does it take from each, from each person to contribute meaningfully to combat racism in all its
forms?
Dr. Osburn communicated that if he was confronted by faculty about his eligibility of teaching
antiracist pedagogy, he believed he would acknowledge that he could not fully understand what the life
was like to be an African American man living in the States, as indicated in “I don’t know what it’s like
to be a Black male.” However, he believed that he would use that acknowledgement as an opportunity
to demonstrate his willingness to learn from his learners when he said, “what I can do is learn what that
lived experience is like from those who live it every day.” From the change of pronouns from “I” to
“we” in his statement “We can start to have those discussions about how we move forward,” he seemed
to be inviting his learners to have a conversation with him. This indicated that he did not confine
himself to the constraints (in this case, his Whiteness and his racialized experience different from his
Black learners); instead, he seized the moment to create opportunities to start a conversation around
how they could “combat racism in all its forms.” Implicit in his statement was the idea that he believed
together, he and his learners could make some progress even if it was incremental.
Similarly, when encountering a hypothetical problem (a faculty member said, “I’ve already
done that [antiracist pedagogy] in my class”) in the scenario-based interview, Mr. Atherton thought of
it as a learning opportunity to engage his learners in brainstorming more possibilities of how antiracist
pedagogy could be taught. He stated,
I think I would also want to say something like. “Everyone is already doing this in class at the
level that they’ve become aware of it, at the level that they’re able to integrate their content or

178

178

with the students that they have. There’s always more to learn and there’s always a chance to be
better at it. I think that the opportunities to be together here today is to find out if we can find a
hundred ways more that we could do it and a hundred different ways to do it so that we’re
prepared that when we have different classes with different student body representation, that we
will be able to be somewhat more practiced and prepared to imagine talking with a huge
different student, huge different and diverse student body, perhaps not just the student body that
we’re dealing with this semester.”
In the face of hypothetical faculty resistance, Mr. Atherton communicated that he would respond by
first recognizing that everyone was doing this in varying degrees and that he would emphasize “There’s
always more to learn and there’s always a chance to be better at it.” Implied in his statement was the
notion that he believed that there was always room for improvement no matter how satisfied faculty
thought about their own instruction. On top of that, he communicated that he would invite his learners
to “find out if we can find a hundred ways more that we could do it and a hundred different ways to do
it” in preparation for “different student body representation” they might encounter in the following
semesters. This indicated that he was using faculty’s challenge (“I’ve already done that in my class”) as
an opportunity to expand faculty’s perspective by opening up the possibility that there were various
ways of teaching antiracist pedagogy and that he was developing a big picture thinking to motivate
faculty to brainstorm multiple ways of instructional strategies by guiding them to envision potential
diverse student populations the faculty were going to teach soon.
Sub-theme 2: How They Approached Their Learners (Bags of Tricks vs. ZPD)
The way the faculty educators responded to constraints also varied in how they approached their
learners: Some opted to provide a bag of tips and tricks to their learners directly while the others sought
to meet faculty where they were within the developmental level of their learners. Contrary to

179

179

Loughran’s (2006) idea that teacher educators needed to make tacit explicit instead of delivering tips,
tricks, and procedures to their learners, a subset of the faculty educators (two of seven) responded to the
constraints through providing quick fixes directly for the faculty members. One example of that was
Dr. Thomas, who expressed her belief that she could not shift faculty’s paradigms, but she could
provide tools for them. She said,
I know that my job isn’t to necessarily, I can’t change everybody, right? I can’t change people’s
mindsets. All I can do is give them tools and ways of thinking that feel better, that are better for
them and better for us to move forward in these efforts.
From her statement, she believed that it was not her job to “change people’s mindsets” and she thought
“all I can do is give them tools and ways of thinking” that were “better” for both parties to move
forward. Inherent in her statement “all I can do” was the notion that she did not believe faculty could
change and that she thought she could only do so much as providing resources for faculty as if they
were empty silos to be filled instead of active participants in learning.
Expressing similar views, Ms. Singh also approached faculty with the belief that all she could
offer to faculty was the toolbox that might come in handy for faculty one day. She said, “I give them
this theory and then I give them these activities and then strategies, so I give them, I give them the why,
then I give them the what, and then I give them the how.” She believed that she had a lot to offer to
faculty, including “theory” (the why), “activities (the what),” and “strategies (the how).” She implied
that she believed that faculty needed these resources and that by providing them with all the things she
thought were important, faculty would not have difficulty copying and pasting them in their instruction.
Similar ideas could be found in another part of the interview data when she said, “My job is to give
them the strategies and their job is to incorporate those strategies and to actually do them.” This
suggested that she thought of her job as serving as a resource hub and she assumed there would be a

180

180

smooth transfer from knowing (getting the materials from professional learning she facilitated) to
performing (using these strategies in their classrooms).
On the contrary, consistent with Mezirow’s (1991) transformative learning theory and
Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of zone of proximal development (ZPD) as well as Bennett’s (1993)
developmental model of intercultural sensitivity, the other faculty educators (five of seven) sought to
find out where their learners were and built from there. For instance, Dr. Osburn communicated that he
would acknowledge and build from learners’ developmental stages as he expressed his response to a
hypothetical problem in the scenario-based interview. He said,
It [the comment “Who are you to teach me about race?”] really doesn’t affect me. Um, I’m used
to hearing things like that. … I’m like, they are where they are in their development and that’s
the whole point of the professional development, [which] is to help them move along in their
own, their own development.”
From his statement, Dr. Osburn articulated that he would not be affected by faculty’s confrontation as
he had experienced similar challenges before. Instead, he believed “they are where they are in their
development.” Implied in this statement was the notion that he understood that his learners were
developmentally different in their intercultural competence development, reflected in Bennett’s (1993)
developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS), although they showed up in the same
professional learning space. With that in mind, he then shared his thought that professional learning
was meant to “help them move along in their own, their own development.” This suggested that he
believed he could help faculty build on the area where faculty were ready to grow by understanding
where they were coming from.
In the same vein, Dr. Sankey communicated that she would build from faculty’s existing
knowledge and beliefs in her instructional approach. She stated, “my strategy is to rely on the faculty

181

181

members’ existing cultural competence and cultural value sets to do a kind of jujitsu with them, um,
letting them overturn themselves rather than me doing anything.” She was saying that her instructional
strategy that involved doing “jujitsu” with faculty would be based on her understanding of where she
thought faculty were coming from in relation to their “existing cultural competence and cultural value
sets.” In her use of “jujitsu” metaphor she insinuated that she could maneuver faculty into holding up a
mirror to see themselves and their own practices and realizing what should be changed.
Sub-theme 3: The Purpose Behind Their Lowering Cognitive Demand (to Apply Solutions vs. to
Move Forward)
Bennett (2012) argued that effective facilitators were both sages and guides who could tactfully
and discreetly raise and lower learners’ thresholds of uncertainty and anxiety so as to reduce resistance,
limit frustration, and created a better potential of positive learning outcomes. Likewise, Lee et al.
(2012) pointed out that it was instructors’ (in this case, faculty educators’) job to offer mechanisms to
normalize learners’ anxious responses and support their capacity to move beyond or through affective
barriers to their learning. While these faculty intentionally lowered the cognitive demand from their
learners during professional learning, the purpose behind this particular instructional move was
different: Some used the low-hanging-fruit strategies to motivate faculty to apply a solution from the
bag of tricks they provided while the others used them to motivate faculty to learn and move forward.
A subset of faculty educators (two of seven) communicated that all they wanted was to invite
faculty to think about trying out some strategies they provided. One example of that was Ms. Singh,
who expressed her standpoint that all she wanted from faculty to take away was something she offered.
She said,
I think my coming in with the understanding that I am not expecting faculty to put down who
they are or to change who they are. I’m asking them to consider a new way of looking and

182

182

presenting their materials to make it most accessible to a wide audience. And I think that helps
them realize I’m not here to come and mess, mess, mess you up or mess up your things or to
challenge your expertise. I’m here to just give you a new lens from which to display your
expertise.
She communicated her perspective that she did not intend to change or challenge faculty who showed
up in the professional learning sessions and that she just wanted faculty to “consider” alternative ways
of presenting their materials and by giving them “a new lens” to “display their expertise.” Implied in
her non-confrontational stance was the notion that she thought faculty was fine the way they were and
there was no harm in encouraging faculty to apply the tricks she provided to their instruction.
Similarly, Dr. Thomas indicated that she would provide faculty with toolkits directly in her
instruction. She said, “I think the response is usually, ‘How can you do this given these conditions?’
Like if you don’t have that much time, do it this way or do that, you know, that type of thing.” She
responded to faculty’s perceived time constraints by offering her bag of tricks, as suggested in “do it
this way or do that.” Implied in her statement was the notion that she was filling the empty vessel; she
was not asking her learners to learn so much as motivating them to apply a solution to their problem.
On the contrary, the other faculty educators (five of seven) lowered the cognitive demand as a
motivational strategy (Bennett, 2012) to encourage faculty to learn and move forward. For example,
Mr. Atherton communicated that through modelling, he could make sure that he made his learning
content easy enough for faculty to incorporate into their existing courses. He said,
Um, to the extent that we do that thing with the pronouns at the beginning, where we make sure
that we’re modeling that as a behavior that’s fairly easy for people to take on as a thing to
include in their work or their courses or their teaching or with their groups. It’s just again, we’re
just kind of modeling all the different ways where you [faculty] can suddenly and simply add

183

183

things to your existing work that aren’t gonna kill you. This is not going to be rocket science.
You can actually make some quick adaptations that will make a BIG [emphasis] difference to a
lot of people over the course of your time in teaching.
From his statement, he articulated his perspective that by “modeling all the different ways,” he could
motivate faculty to “simply add things to your [their] existing work” or “make some quick
adaptations.” This suggested that he thought of modeling as a subtle approach that could indirectly
motivate faculty to follow suits. In addition, through highlighting “This is not going to be rocket
science” and emphasizing how faculty could “make a BIG [emphasis] difference,” he seemed to
suggest to faculty that learning was burdenless and that they could just take on something small first
and see what (potentially positive outcomes) might happen next.
Relatedly, Dr. Sarker put her learners at ease with some extent of self-disclosure and the
promise that they only needed to take small steps. She said,
I also, you know, think that acknowledging with faculty that it’s an ongoing process of learning
for ourselves that we’re all, we’re all always learning and growing and trying and
implementing, and that they don’t need to do everything all at once. So usually what I
recommend is that they make no more than two changes in the semester.
She communicated that she made sure that faculty understood “it’s an ongoing process of learning for
ourselves” during which “we’re all always learning and growing.” Implied in this statement was the
notion that she was admitting to faculty she, too, was still learning and that there was space for all of
them to make mistakes and grow together. Additionally, she also told faculty that “they don’t need to
do everything all at once” but “make no more than two changes in the semester.” In her message was
the idea that she did not expect them to change overnight, and it was okay for them to take baby steps
toward their goals. This suggested that she believed by lowering the cognitive demand and attending to

184

184

faculty’s affective filter of learning, faculty might feel less of a burden on their shoulders and showed
more willingness to engage in professional learning. Dr. Sarker’s motivational strategy was consistent
with Lawler and King’s (2000b) principle of empowering participants: Adult learners were able to
understand their range of possibilities with the capacity to make decisions based on this awareness and
understanding; supporting faculty to initiate a change within themselves led to empowerment.
Sub-theme 4: How They Took up the Space (Academic Rigor)
Despite Lee et al.’s (2012) and Otten’s (2003) notion that facilitating learners’ intercultural
competence development required cognitive unsettling/dissonance, or disorienting dilemma in
Mezirow’s (2000) writing, these faculty educators showed difference in how they took up the space
during the professional learning: Some relied heavily on collective wisdom (the participants’ sharing of
their existing knowledge and experience) with little consideration for academic rigor while others
operated as knowledgeable other and created intellectual challenges to ensure that their learners grew to
a level that they were not at previously. A subset of faculty educators (two of seven) resorted to
collective wisdom by drawing on faculty’s already existing personal experiences as the primary content
of their learning. For instance, Dr. Thomas communicated that she believed that everybody in the room
had something to share. She said,
We could all actually learn as a community, because in this professional development
experience because there’s the various races present as well and different experiences. I
probably have it be more communal than just me telling them like an authoritative like going
down, but also them contributing from their experiences as well.
From her statement, she believed that everyone could “learn as a community” because people of
“various races” with “different experiences” could contribute to the discussion. She communicated her
belief that by making learning “communal,” she did not need to act like an “authoritative” who told

185

185

people what to do. Implied in her statement was the notion that she made an assumption that everyone
had the knowledge or insight to share, and learning would take place naturally even though there was
no effort to interrogate their own practice. This suggested that she was not asking her learners to stretch
or learn anything beyond what they already knew. Also, her not acting like an “authoritative” suggested
that she devalued the role of an expert, who would potentially introduce research-grounded practice in
the best interest of their learners.
On the contrary, the other faculty educators (five of seven) operated as knowledgeable other and
created intellectual challenges that demanded more cognitive load on the part of their learners. For
instance, Dr. Sarker communicated that she asked for her learners’ input and led from where she saw fit
to help them think about their own practice. She stated,
I made sure as much as possible that I’m leading from their expertise, right, so I’m not coming
in and saying, “I’m telling you what to do or I have all the answers,” but “Tell me about, you
know, let’s talk about your particular contexts and what do you all want to dig into a little bit
more?” So, for this first session, for example, I had them generate strategies in their small
groups so that they have a document where, you know, now they have a ton of strategies
already there, but it also gave me a sense of what they need me, they would like more time to
work on. So, I would say leading from that place is generally how I approach it, so I’m coming
in not saying, “You know, I have the answers. Here’s all the frameworks and strategies you’ll
need.” But “Here’s how I’ve come to my own practice and, you know, my goal is to help you
think about your own practice and what frameworks and strategies make sense.”
Dr. Sarker communicated that she ensured that she was “leading from their expertise” and made clear
to faculty that she did not “have all the answers.” By “leading from their expertise,”, Dr. Sarker was
building on faculty’s experience, which presupposed the value of faculty’s experiences, expertise, and

186

186

worldviews (Lawler & King, 2000b). She believed she facilitated professional learning from a position
of humility and that she was learning with and from them at the same time. Additionally, she said that
she had faculty come up with strategies in small groups at the first session of professional development
so that she could not only gauge what “they would like more time to work on” but also shared “Here’s
how I’ve come to my own practice.” She offered that she took it upon herself to make tacit explicit for
her learners by sharing with them how she made sense of and took advantage of the frameworks and
strategies to help faculty think about how they could apply the frameworks and strategies to their own
practice. This signified that she was sharing her expertise and operating as an expert in the space to help
faculty investigate or explore their practice.
Similarly, Dr. Wilson communicated that the way he helped faculty learn was to strengthen
their capacities to be present and help teach each other. He said,
So, I’ve learned that in order to do that [really helping them understand, “This is really for
you.”], you really draw from the faculty members strengthened expertise and have them more
so present to each other and increase their capacity to help educate each other, more so than
always just doing it as a faculty developer, but the faculty educators like as like train the trainer
or the facilitator of those things on campus. It's like an ideal situation when, you know, when
thinking about that.
Dr. Wilson communicated his belief that in an ideal situation, he would facilitate learning by
“draw[ing] from the faculty members strengthened expertise,” “hav[ing] them more so present to each
other,” and “increas[ing] their capacity to help educate each other.” This suggested that he would
operate at a level that extracted faculty’s knowledge and skills, mobilized faculty’s conscious thoughts
from autopilot modes, and reinforced reciprocal learning. Implied in his statement was the notion that

187

187

he was so intentional in developing faculty’s practice that he required his learners to actively engage in
the process and do a heavy lifting of learning.
Sub-theme 5: How Present They were to Their Learners
Consistent with Ting-Toomey and Dorjee’s (2018) connection of ICC with
mindfulness/presence, in which she argued that “mindful effort, astute observational ability, and pliant
verbal and nonverbal interactional skills” were required to understand, respect, and affirm others, these
faculty educators showed varying degrees of the act of being present to their instructional interactions.
That meant the extent to which they demonstrated their own presence was connected to how they
described their own actions as revealing intercultural competence. Some communicated that their
heightened awareness served as preventative measure (those who were less attuned demonstrated less
awareness of or an inclination to enact interculturally competent approaches) while others expressed
that they purposefully demonstrated “unnatural orientation toward others” (Ball & Forzani, 2009, p.
499) (those who demonstrated they were more attuned to themselves and their audiences expressed
more intercultural competence in their description of their practice). A subset of faculty educators (two
of seven) reported that they made conscious attempt to let their learners know that they were here to
help instead of messing with them. One example of that was Ms. Singh, who explained to faculty that
she was not going to waste their time. She said,
And I also try not to waste any time and make it clear to them that I’m not here to waste their
time. And I think just that that level of respect that we have, sometimes allows them to engage a
little bit more deeply.
Constrained by the time available, Ms. Singh communicated that she needed to make efficient use of
the time she had with faculty and also ensured that faculty knew that “I’m not here to waste their time”
in hopes of creating a “level of respect” for faculty to engage “a little bit more deeply.” This indicated

188

188

that she made conscious efforts to prevent faculty from thinking that she was not being helpful, and she
thought that by doing so, faculty were more likely to engage in learning. Implied in her statement was
the notion that she directed her attention to taking preventative action for fear of losing out on faculty
buy-in.
On the contrary, the other faculty educators (five of seven) communicated that they
demonstrated intentionality in their instructional process and took into consideration how their
positionalities played out in the professional learning space. For instance, Dr. Sarker reported that she
was attuned to how she showed up in the space and how she adjusted her actions in order to help
faculty learn. She said,
Knowing that, you know, my positionality does impact other people’s perception of a session or
impact the conversation, right? And I don’t want to, I think I’m always mindful of not centering
myself and my experience in this space, but only using it when I need it to kind of move the
conversation forward or to encourage other people to do the same.
Dr. Sarker recognized that the way faculty perceived her had implications on group dynamics and how
they learned. She said she was always mindful of “not centering myself [herself] and my [her]
experience in this space” unless she deemed it necessary for the sake of promoting faculty’s learning,
like “mov[ing] the conversation forward” or “encourag[ing] other people to do the same.” Implied in
her statement was the notion that she was present to their learning as she demonstrated “instructor self-
awareness” (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a) and purposefully presented “deliberate suspension of aspects
of one’s self [herself]” (Ball & Forzani, 2009, p. 499).
Similarly, in her response to a hypothetical problem (a White female faculty said, “How have I
not helped? All voices matter in my class.”), Dr. Sankey communicated that she would be cognizant of
how she took up the space to promote everyone’s learning. She said,

189

189

It’s a White female faculty [member], I would have to know more about her discourse style and
her status, like if she was a contingent faculty member, I would definitely do what I just said [“I
agree. It’s wonderful. You’re looking for all voices to matter in your class”]. If she was a senior
faculty member, I might address it more directly, but probably not. Because there’s this
maintaining this, trying to acknowledge the power I have in these conversations for supporting
the perception of others in the room, of the importance of the other people in the room, and the
value of what others in the room have to say.
Dr. Sankey expressed her thought that her understandings of this faculty member, such as “her
discourse style and her status,” would influence the way she responded to her comment because she
was self-aware of “the power” she had in moving the conversation forward and managing other
learners’ perception and contribution to the topic. Implied in her statement was the notion that she
believed she would intentionally keep in mind how she showed up and who was present in the space in
order to promote learning. This suggested that she was present to her learners.
Finding 2: ICC Attributes and ICC-Infused Practice
Drawing on Deardorff’s (2006) framework, along with Bennett’s (1986) developmental
framework, I interpreted intercultural competence (ICC) as an individual’s capacity to manage cultural
difference in a way of valuing and relating. For the purpose of containing the focus to a manageable
scope, I referred to Deardorff’s scholarly work, in which ICC was defined as “the ability to
communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural interactions based on one’s knowledge,
skills, and attitudes” (Deardorff, 2004b, p. 198); I also referred to Cushner’s (2015b) notion of
“intercultural” (interpersonal dimension) as well as Barrett et al.’s (2014) and Spitzberg and
Changnon’s (2009) notion of “competence” (a combination of attitudes, knowledge, and skills applied
in ways that are likely to meet certain demands within a given context).

190

190

As this study set out to look for faculty educators who self-identified as highly competent in
ICC, I explicitly stated my understanding of ICC as “multiple ways of knowing (knowledge), doing
(skills), and being (qualities) that enable people to value and relate to others across difference” in my
email requests for recommendations of “faculty educators who have reputations for
enacting intercultural competence to engage faculty in learning and support their instructional
improvement.” The interview data suggested that the faculty educators I recruited from this process
generally agreed with this definition and believed that they had certain ICC attributes that helped them
work effectively as faculty educators; they also connected ICC with student motivation and infused
ICC into their practice as a thinking tool.
Theme 1: ICC Attributes Faculty Educators Believed They Had
In Deardorff’s (2006, 2008) intercultural competence process model, there are 22 essential
components of ICC under broad brushstroke categories like attitudes, knowledge, skills, internal
outcomes and external outcomes. Interview data indicated that all of the faculty educators believed they
had certain ICC attributes that helped them work effectively, most of which concentrated on the
attitudinal aspect. I delineated each indicator of ICC respectively in the following.
Sub-theme 1: Attitudes
In Deardorff’s process model (Deardorff, 2006, 2008), attitudinal components like curiosity
(wanting to know more about others and other cultures and seeking to understand), openness
(refraining from judgment and making assumptions about others), and respect (valuing all cultures) are
viewed as the fundamental starting point before everything else. The faculty educators communicated
that they believed they had these ICC qualities, and those qualities went hand in hand with their faculty
development work, which was presented below.

191

191

Curiosity. Most faculty educators (six of seven) communicated that their curiosity helped them
work effectively as a faculty educator. One example of that was Dr. Wilson, who expressed his
proclivity for seeking to understand others’ perspectives. He stated,
So, for me, I like to know, um, I have a way of a thirst and interest in knowing across the
spectrum. So that’s helped with cultural competency. For example, right now, with the elections
coming up, people are like, “Oh, let’s get Trump out of there. I hate him!” And I’m like, “I
understand you hate them, but I want to know what conservative folks think!” Right? I want to
know just as much as liberal and everybody in between. So, for me, it’s like a real serious thing.
And I understand that there’re, you know, all types of reasons why people don’t necessarily
[laugh] like our president.
He communicated that he had “a thirst and interest in knowing across the spectrum” and he gave an
example of his willingness to understand different political views from his own. He believed he did not
limit himself to his comfort zone to the extent that he wanted to extend beyond his own echo chamber
so as to understand alternative perspectives and expand his worldviews. This quality was also
manifested in his teaching approach as he communicated that one of the pet phrases he liked to use was
“Tell me more,” as indicated in his statement “through the ‘tell me more,’ I can understand where
they’re coming from, and sometimes I can use whatever they tell me to actually explain where I’m
coming from.” Implied in his sentence was the notion that he believed he always sought to understand
first as he interacted with faculty.
Similarly, Dr. Thomas expressed that she had a tendency to want to know more about others, as
indicated in “Um, I’m always very curious about, you know, people in their identities and who they are
as people. So I think my own like, out of curiosity, you know, I just enjoy interacting with, you know,
others.” Implied in her statement was the notion that she learned more about the world through

192

192

understanding where people were coming from in her everyday interactions. This quality was also
manifested in her teaching approach as she described that she would ask questions to gain
understanding and get to the end goal. She said,
So if there is potentially like a difference where I may not understand the person or some
cultural difference that I’m having trouble maybe communicating, then I think I probably would
maybe just ask questions and more actually say like, “You know I don’t really know this” or
when I say, you know, and maybe speak in terms of more of myself, what I am saying what I
don’t understand, where I failed to connect or I’m not understanding, and maybe lots of
clarification if there was like a kind of a disconnect, so that we can seek to reach kind of that
understanding and also just to understand where they’re coming from. So maybe ask them
clarifying questions as well, so that we can, you know, get to the end goal.
From her statement, she believed she stayed curious about potential cultural differences that she did not
understand by asking questions for clarification. Implied in her statement was the idea that it was more
important for her to understand the difference than staying in her comfort zone in ignorance of the
difference.
Openness. Most faculty educators (six of seven) believed that their openness helped them work
effectively as a faculty educator. For instance, Dr. Sarker communicated that she would refrain from
making assumptions about people before she knew more as she responded to a hypothetical problem in
the scenario-based interview. She said,
I think, because I don’t know these folks yet, right? And I think that, you know, email is
complicated. [laugh] You only know so much about someone. And I try not to, I try not to
assume information, you know, as much as I can, you know. There's of course a knee-jerk
assumption that I made about who this email is coming from just based on my experience. But I

193

193

would say that, yeah, my approach would probably be pretty similar across the board until I get
to know the person and try to give them the benefit of the doubt and, you know, try to learn
more from them in that session.
She said that she would refrain from “assum[ing] information” about people as much as she could and
gave people “the benefit of the doubt” despite her “knee-jerk assumption.” Implied in her statement
was the notion that she intentionally chose not to jump to the conclusion by focusing on collecting
more information about the current situation.
Another example was Mr. Atherton, who communicated that he sought to take into
considerations others’ perspectives rather than judge people for what they did. He said,
Identities are perspectives and each perspective is a gift. And how do we come to see those gifts
in each of our [pause] in each of our own lives? So I have many perspectives. And then again,
how do I then consider everyone’s perspective at all times? So for those four people [who stared
at their cell phones throughout the workshop I facilitated], each has a perspective. And I have to
be thinking about all of their perspectives at the same time while I have my own perspective.
And then then maybe I’ll have something to say if I’ve actually reflected on “How did this
impact all five of us?” And so then I could speak because I thought about others.
He expressed that “each perspective is a gift” and he thought he needed to think about “everyone’s
perspectives” while he had his own perspective. Implicit in his statement was the idea that he was
cognizant that he could be biased by his own frame of reference and that he needed to stay mindful of
all kinds of possibilities behind people’s behaviors as a way to respect and value their individuality.
Respect. Some faculty educators (four of seven) believed that they showed respect and value all
cultures. For instance, Dr. Thomas communicated that she valued diversity as she described her
programming work. She said,

194

194

I think with regards to, just like my views of seeing students, seeing diversity as an asset, I think
that’s one of my ways of, I guess, knowing or whatever. [laugh] One of those, one of those
areas. And in seeing that, that capitalizes on the fact that I’m going to look for that diversity,
and I’m going to think about it and all of the things in which I do around that in terms of also as
a faculty developer are going to actually have that principle in mind, right? So the programs that
I implement will acknowledge that diversity is an asset, you know.
From her statement, Dr. Thomas believed that her keeping in mind that diversity was as an asset was
translated into “all of the things in which I do.” Implied in this sentence was the notion that she was
anchored to this value of diversity and that guided her work.
Sub-theme 2: Knowledge
The cognitive areas in the process model included cultural self-awareness, socio-linguistic
awareness, cultural-specific knowledge, and deep cultural knowledge (Deardorff, 2006, 2008). The
data suggested that these faculty educators possessed cultural self-awareness and cultural-specific
knowledge, which would be illustrated below.
Cultural Self-awareness. All of the faculty educators believed that they were cognizant of how
their culture had its impact on their identity
8
and worldview. For instance, Dr. Sarker communicated
that she was aware the way her positionality impacted her emotional responses as she responded to the
hypothetical problem in the scenario-based interview. She said, “I think my emotional responses are
tied to, of course, my own positionality and feeling affinity towards certain groups more than others
and trying to balance that it for myself.” From her statement, she expressed that she was mindful of the
way her identity played out in making her “feel affinity towards certain groups more than others” and

8
As mentioned in chapter 1, this study set out with a research question centering around ICC and yet the data emerged
showed that faculty educator’s identity played out in their professional practice, generating finding three. I revised the
research question accordingly.

195

195

she needed to purposefully balance that. Implied in her response was the idea that she consciously
reminded herself of the potential influence of her cultural identity so that she could do something about
it, which was consistent with Miller and Garran’s (2017) idea of instructor self-awareness of their
social identity and positioning.
Likewise, Dr. Thomas communicated that “I think what I tell other people is that, like, you
know, I could be quick to judge, or I could think this about certain groups or something like that.”
Implied in her statement was the idea that she knew she showed tendency of judging others out of her
cultural orientations. And she acknowledged later that she asked herself questions as a mechanism to
monitor her thoughts derived from her natural inclination. She said,
Probably thinking in my head like, “Oh, wait a minute. That doesn’t seem right.” When that
happens, because, you know, you don’t want to be this kind of person who like, “Oh yeah, I
have no biases” And then like, you know, everybody does, and nobody’s perfect. So I would
say, like, in my head, kind of thinking about my thoughts, “Is this really correct? Should I have
that thought?”
From her statement, she conveyed that she would pause and think about whether her spur-of-the-
moment thought was a bias that had to do with her cultural backgrounds. This meant that she was
aware of the impact of her culture on her worldviews and her behavior. This was connected to Samuels
(2014b, 2018), who suggested that individuals could apply questions like “Is it true? Can we absolutely
know that it is true? What happens when we believe that idea? What would our life, thoughts, and
actions be like without that idea?” (p. 137) to the assumptions they made about themselves and others.
Doing so created opportunities to defy their unconscious biases and had the potential to liberate
themselves from long-held assumptions.

196

196

Culture Specific Knowledge. Few (two of seven) faculty educators believed that they had
culture specific knowledge that helped them work effectively in the field of faculty development. One
example of that was Dr. Sankey, who communicated that she leveraged her substantive understanding
of math culture in facilitating the professional learning in a way that math faculty could benefit from
doing what they were good at. She stated,
Math faculty particular are really good at identifying failure because math faculty had been
trained disciplinarily to validate everything. It’s their job to find the holes in every argument, to
find the shortcomings in everything. That’s what a mathematician does…. As mathematicians,
they shared certain values and common principles about what it meant to teach and to learn and
to have evidence of learning from the students. So in that interaction, I created opportunities for
them to experience the, I’m going to use a big word dis-collaboration, the tension, the conflict,
that kind of conflict between what they thought good teaching was and what was possible in
zoom.
She was saying that one way math faculty established truth was to argue, as indicated in “math faculty
had been trained disciplinarily to validate everything” and she was using that knowledge when she
purposefully structured opportunities for them to debate what good teaching was. Implied in her
statement was the notion that she took advantage of her culture specific knowledge and incorporated it
as a high-leverage practice in her work.
Sub-theme 3: Skills
Deardorff (2004b, 2006, 2008, 2012a) highlighted that knowledge elements of ICC were gained
through the development of key skills including listening, observing, analyzing, interpreting, and
relating. Deardorff (2009, 2010b, 2012a) later added that self-awareness, adaptation, and cultural
humility are skills with broader applicability in recognizing multiple perspectives and valuing others

197

197

from diverse cultural backgrounds. Data suggested that these faculty educators possessed skills of
listening, relating, as well as cultural humility.
Listening. One of the faculty educators, Mr. Atherton, explicitly communicated that his
listening skill helped strengthen the way he worked. He said,
And I was taught to be slow to speak and then the second rule is be slow to speak and then the
third rule is be slow to speak. And that has helped me, I think, through many, many, many
things, because if you really do let the other person reveal and unfold as much as they’re
willing, then I’ll have more to say and I’ll have a better sense of what to say. And that doesn’t
mean that I don’t believe there’s partnership and dialogue and that it should be fair. And if
that’s the kind of person that is speaking with me, then I think that we do dialogue. But my
experience is that many people just need to be listened to and need to be seen, need to be heard.
And if someone doesn’t feel like they have to be seen or heard [laugh out loud], they still speak
for some more airtime. And that seems to be helpful. So I think that’s partially something that I
think a teacher, if they bring that, I think that’s a strength for sure, the listening skill.
He suggested that his being slow to speak in an interaction increased the quantity and quality of his
response (I’ll have more to say, and I’ll have a better sense of what to say) and that he learned from his
experience that people “just need to be listened to and need to be seen, need to be heard.” Implied in his
statement was the notion that he believed his sensitivity and awareness of others were increased by
slowing down to listen to them, which also helped him meet his learners’ needs.
Relating. Dr. Wilson communicated that he sought to relate to his learners on the personal level
to help with their learning as he described the way he fostered a learning climate. He stated,
Well, I intentionally, you know, learning climate is important to me. Um, I intentionally make
sure or made sure…um, I made sure to, like, let them know that I’m like a real human being,

198

198

you know, try to be less robotic and more warm because when I’m… from the research and
everything that I kind of at least tried to, you know, adhere to is that when you are in the
affective domain or when you stimulate, uh, this is from the universal design for learning
perspective, when you connect with the person and their emotions in a positive way, um, the
state of how they are when they’re learning is not only helpful for deep learning but helpful for
them as an actual person who has feeling.
From his statement, he expressed that he ensured he took advantage of “the affective domain” where he
could “connect with the person and their emotions in a positive way” to assist in their learning, and he
grounded this approach on research. He believed he was using this relating skill to enhance faculty’s
capacities to learn.
Cultural Humility. Cultural humility involves a willingness to reflect on an individual’s own
self as an embedded cultural being with limitations (Hook & Watkins, 2015). Dr. Sarker expressed this
notion indirectly as she described the way to become interculturally competent. She said,
In order to become interculturally competent, we need to learn about other people and cultures,
but there’s not one way that any culture operates, right? So, so kind of making sure those
complexities are still there and that folks don’t feel like I now have the answer, right? I now
know everything I need to know about how to interact with this person. So I think that’s hard.
That's tricky. I think the ways to do that best is to always have, is to always operate from the
understanding that you can’t ever know everything about a person, right? Or what they might
need from their learning experience, what they might be thinking, what may be resonating with
them, and what may not, right? So I think operating from that assumption that I can never
actually know everything there is to know about my students or my colleagues or, you know,
when am I fully going to be able to understand other people? It’s just not, you know, humans

199

199

are not made that way. So, so I think always kind of knowing that, kind of keeping that critique
in your mind as you’re investigating through that intercultural lens. I think is really important so
that we’re not categorizing, stereotyping and all of those things that are detrimental to actually
building relationships.
From her statement, Dr. Sarker communicated her belief that culture entailed complexities and the best
way to become interculturally competent was “to always operate from the understanding that you can’t
ever know everything about a person.” She further underscored the importance of keeping this notion in
mind “as [people] are investigating through that intercultural lens” so that people would not fall into the
traps of “categorizing, stereotyping” people. Similar to Medina’s (2013) notion that epistemic humility
laid in a humble and self-questioning attitude toward one’s cognitive repertoire and the attentiveness to
one’s cognitive limitation and deficits, Dr. Sarker acknowledged that she was operating from the
standpoint of humility by recognizing that she was limited to her understanding of people and culture
and that she resisted understanding people with one single story.
Theme 2: How They Described the Way ICC was Connected with Their Practice
In addition to the ICC attributes these faculty educators believed they had, data also showed that
they connected ICC to teaching and learning in terms of student motivation and faculty reflection.
Sub-theme 1: ICC is Tied to Student Motivation
All faculty educators connected ICC with student learning, especially student motivation (three
of seven). One example of that was Dr. Thomas, who expressed her belief that ICC-infused instruction
could go a long way in motivating students to learn. She said,
Another thing in intercultural competence we think about is tied to again like students’
motivation and relevancy of the material to their lives. So if they can actually see themselves in
the material, if they can identify it with in various ways, they’re going to be more motivated and

200

200

they’re going to want to explore it further. So I think another area that’s really useful, especially
for faculty to think about, and these are like the pedagogy is like culturally responsive
pedagogy, what’s the other one I want to say, culturally responsive and culturally sustaining and
culture. Yeah. All of those pedagogies [laugh] that really put it at the forefront, you know, know
your students’ background and culture, design instruction that will actually make this resonate
with their cultural background, they will be more motivated to learn. And there’s also, like, you
know, I think there’s a lot of science of learning aspects that’s embedded in that [ICC]. …We
know that it’s [ICC] important, we know it’s important for their learning. We know that we
need to also think about ways in which we support all of our learners who are diverse, give
them all the tools they need to succeed. And so if we don’t think about culture, we won’t be
able to give them their tools to succeed. ... So I think we definitely need to go against those
models of colorblindness in not seeing importance of culture and students’ culture.
From her statement, she spoke to the way that faculty “designed instruction” and made their teaching
materials relevant to “students’ background and culture” could motivate their students to learn. Also, by
connecting to literature like Ladson-Billings (2014)’ culturally relevant pedagogy in her language, she
was saying that learning was tied to culture and faculty’s pedagogies should reflect this understanding
so as to support their students’ learning.
Along similar lines, Dr. Wilson communicated his belief that ICC played a big part in
increasing student motivation to learn. He stated,
I think it [ICC] plays a huge role, um [pause], because it becomes easier, in my opinion for
students to learn from educators who are more [inter]culturally competent, because they are able
to leverage, tug on, you know, really much leverage certain skills that make it more motivating
or even clear, transparent, um, and foster even a sense of belonging in a classroom for learners,

201

201

right? So when you talk about [inter]cultural competence, it gets into like the transparency
literature, the sense of belonging, you know, if one is doing those things. And then motivation
theory is a big one for me, like making, if a learner sees value in something and then they see
that they can do it, so value is promoted through the cultural cues, or whatever, sometimes. But
the self-efficacy of being able to do it, sometimes it’s through being able to say, “Okay, this is
something that I’m familiar with.” And you kind of feel supported by a teacher, a teacher, if
you’re a student. So I think that all of those else can allow one learner to be more successful
versus it not being there.
He drew on research and expressed that interculturally competent faculty could make a difference in
motivating students to learn, as they understood how to “leverage” the “cultural cues” their learners
valued. Implicit in his statement was the notion that if faculty made use of certain cultural nuances in
their teaching that learners could easily associate with and connect to, they could help their students
feel reaffirmed and motivated to learn. This was in line with the research that developing a textured
understanding of the students, such as their cultural backgrounds, social identities, and situated
perspectives, could help instructors anticipate learner needs and structure opportunities that engage
learners in active learning (Deardorff, 2010a; Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a; Lampert et al., 2013; Lee et
al., 2012; Miller & Garran, 2017; Stanley, 2010).
Sub-theme 2: ICC can be used as a tool of thinking
Some of these faculty educators (three of seven) communicated that they thought of ICC as a
tool they could use to help faculty investigate their practice. One example was Dr. Sarker, who
communicated that ICC could be used to interrogate the issues of knowledge construction process. She
said,

202

202

For me, it can, but again [pause] it [ICC] can [be connected to whether faculty improve their
instruction] if it’s not done in a tokenizing way, right? So for example, if a faculty member is
bringing in, you know, diverse authors into their classroom context, but then is using them as a
token to represent an entire group of people, that’s definitely not going to work, and probably
will marginalized students even further and feel like, you know, make them feel like they’re not
able to participate because this teacher thinks that this one person can stand for a whole group.
So I think, again, it’s an intercultural competence through that lens of “How can I activate
different worldviews and empower my students to think in those ways as well?” and I think that
involves questioning right? Um, how do we know what we know. Why do we think we know
that the way we think we know that, right? I think it can work but then it’s not just a, “these
group of people think this way or this, you know this scientific discovery was made, you know,
because of this particular culture’s way of doing something, right?” but a, you know, “How do
we think about that complicated web of how culture interacts with our own knowledge
production?” Right?
She started with the recognition that faculty should not mistakenly use ICC “in a tokenizing way” and
assume “one person can stand for a whole group.” She further argued that the understanding of ICC
might help faculty improve their instruction if they could keep questioning their own thinking process
and their ways of knowing “through that lens of ‘How can I activate different worldviews and empower
my students to think in those ways as well?’” Implied in her statement was the notion that the
framework of intercultural competence serves as a tool for people to engage in reflection of how culture
influenced the way they learned so that they could interrogate and have more consciousness around
their own thinking process. This is consistent with Deardorff’s (2010b) notion of reflection guide,
which derived from the intercultural competence process model.

203

203

Similarly, Dr. Osburn communicated that he incorporated ICC into his professional practice as a
thinking tool. He said,
For math faculty, that is, that is, thinking about in intercultural competence is essential. A lot of
times the way the inequities in math classrooms propagate is through the discourse, right? It’s a
very, it’s a very Western Europe centric discourse and of course, White male dominated. And
so, for faculty, [inter]cultural competence is key in getting them to think about, right, getting
them to think about classrooms with a more equitable, you know, getting them to think about
who is, who is the center of the classroom, right, who gets to talk and why, right, what
constitutes math, who gets assigned what math is and is not, right? Those types of questions
because then, especially if you’re talking about working with teachers, right, because if you, if,
if you want to have, you know, if you want to produce teachers who are going to help challenge
the historical norms in the teaching of mathematics, right? If you want them to be teacher, if
you want them to go out the classrooms where, right, it’s not White male dominated.
Dr. Osburn first acknowledged that math culture was “White male dominated” with “Western Europe
centric discourse” and he found it critical to get his learners to think about issues around equity, such as
the process of knowledge construction (who is the center of the classroom, right, who gets to talk and
why, right, what constitutes math, who gets assigned what math is and is not), through the lens of ICC.
Implied in his statement was the notion that he believed intercultural competence was a vehicle for
promoting equity in the learning spaces and he made conscious effort to include that in his professional
practice.
Finding 3: A Continuum of Faculty Educators’ Racial Identities
It was generally regarded as most useful to cultivate the intercultural competence of faculty
through teacher training and professional development programs, as one of the most important factors

204

204

shaping teacher knowledge and growth was on-the-job training and experience (Duckworth et al., 2005;
Murray, 2016; Oleson & Hora, 2014; Otten, 2003). Among a number of structural, cultural, and
personal factors promoting or hindering faculty’s uptake of professional development opportunities,
faculty educators’ undertaking of professional learning was considered of paramount importance
(Lawler & King, 2000a). However, as the broader landscape of higher education in North America was
a mostly White community (According to Li and Koedel (2017) and Beach et al. (2016), while 79% of
all college and university faculty members being White, 89% of educational educators were White‐
identified), the existing studies indicated that microaggressions, discrimination, and overt racism were
not isolated events in faculty development spaces (Henry and Tator, 2009; Sotto-Santiago, 2017;
Victorino et al., 2013). In other words, structural racism perpetuated from the racialized society, from
the normalcy of color blindness, White privilege, to the unacknowledged racist attitudes or implicit
bias, might factor into faculty educators’ andragogical relationships with their learners. Vavrus (2002)
foregrounds the importance of examining how instructors’ (in this case, faculty educators’) relational
social positions influenced their racialized viewpoints and interrogate their andragogical relationships
from a larger social context.
Based on the interview data, these faculty educators conveyed varied degrees of social identity
awareness, defined as “the analysis of one’s multiple and interacting social identities as well as one’s
identity statuses and the impact of those identities and identity statuses on various dimensions of one’s
classroom practice” (Adams & Love, 2009, p. 11). Similarly, Dimitrov and Haque (2016a) and Ball and
Forzani (2009) also suggested that instructors pay explicit attention to how race, power, class, gender,
socioeconomic status, sexual orientations, and other backgrounds and characteristics interacted with
their instruction and classroom dynamics. Data showed that there were consistencies in the way that
these faculty educators constructed their roles on the basis of how they thought others experienced their

205

205

racial identities. There was a continuum among these faculty educators’ racial identities: Some of them
were from historically marginalized communities (who were conscious about how their racial identities
were being interpreted by people as a statement about them), some of them were predominantly White
(who might be equally sensitive to the way they were perceived but had the privilege of not thinking
about their race), and the others were border crossers who straddled in between the two ends (who were
members of a historically marginalized group but were internally more affiliated with the White group,
making them more resistant to externally imposed projections on them). This had implications on how
they approached their work, reflected in the way that they presented themselves, how they engaged
their learners, and how much they believed they could push their learners.
Theme 1: Historically Marginalized Group
At the one end of the continuum, while there was a subset of people (four of seven) whose
racial identities were of historically marginalized groups, only two of them communicated that they
were very conscious of the way people experienced them and that set them up in a certain way.
Knowing that they were on the receiving end of other people’s perceptions of them as a result of their
projected assumptions on them about their skin color and who they might be, they were responding to
the reproduction of a structure that were systemic racist (and sexist).
Sub-theme 1: Ms. Singh
One example of that was Ms. Singh, an Indian American female, who communicated that she
felt insecure from how she thought she was perceived by her learners. In her response to a hypothetical
problem (a faculty member said, “Who are you to teach me about race?”), she communicated that she
would doubt how others perceived her in terms of her gender, age, and skin color. She said,
I’m a Brown female and they don’t know how old I am, right? I mean, I don’t think I looked
that young anymore, but who knows what they think. … And so yeah, so those are, but those

206

206

are my own insecurities. … Gender might matter in my internal dialogue. Um, I might, I might
have to feel through internal processes of “Does this have to do with sexism? Does this have to
do with my own skin color as a woman of color myself?”
Ms. Singh conveyed that she might feel insecure if she was challenged by faculty and she would
wonder whether that confrontation had to do with her being a “Brown female” and a “woman of color.”
Implicit in her statement was the notion that she associated her racial identities with how people
thought about her eligibility as a faculty developer. It seemed that her social identity awareness was
activated in a way that she found it necessary to legitimize her role as a faculty developer. For instance,
she articulated that if she thought people were questioning her eligibility, she would appeal to research
and her successful facilitation experience in an attempt to convince faculty that she was qualified for
her role. She said, “Maybe I would reiterate my experience, my research and perhaps what people have
already reported that they’ve received from antiracist workshops they’ve taken from me.” She appeared
to think she needed to established legitimacy in serving as a faculty developer in light of the way she
thought she was perceived by others. Similar issues had been discussed in Adams et al. (2016), who
underscored the importance of being cognizant of how participants’ (in this case, faculty’s) projections
can trigger instructors’ (in this case, faculty educators) vulnerabilities around competency and
authority, because instructors may be susceptible to internalizing external constructions as who they are
if they do not consciously examine how they deal with the reactions from others.
Additionally, Ms. Singh’s consciousness around the way that she was experienced as a person
of color might have played out in her instructional choices in four ways. First, she communicated that
she had a tendency to operate in a way that avoided potential challenges or conflicts. She said, “I think I
always just try to diplomatically, say, ‘Well, you don’t have to. This is totally up to you. This is a
choice. And these are strategies.’” She offered that she did not take a confrontational stance to demand

207

207

faculty to learn or change themselves; instead, she gave her learners options and resources and let them
determine whether they would like to learn or implement strategies in their instruction. Second, she
expressed that she operated very quietly to the extent that she worked as if she was behind the scenes.
She said, “I have to be more covert, meaning you know, presenting all of my stuff as strategies, not
necessarily as directives … coz I never want this to seem punitive.” From her statement, she indicated
that she did not intend to be in the spotlight pushing faculty to work towards the institutional missions
or changing their practice; instead, she would serve as a resource hub providing strategies that might
come in handy for them one day. Implied in her sentence was the notion that she avoided taking
ownership and did not want to come across as condescending in front of her learners, which might have
to do with how she perceived others thought of her marginalized identity. Third, she communicated that
she could model vulnerability through disclosing her cross-cultural experiences. She said, “I think in
my kind of being vulnerable with some of the stories and the techniques. I think my teaching
background, my being open allows them to be a little bit more open.” She was suggesting that she
could take advantage of her cross-cultural background to model and enact vulnerability. Implicit in her
words was the belief that her racial identity allowed her to reach her learners in a way that opened a
conversation on a personal level. Fourth, she expressed that she found people of color more trusting,
and that she felt safer around them, reflecting Miller and Garran’s (2017) notion of instructor self-
awareness, which enabled educators to know their own vulnerabilities and assets, take stock of their
trigger points and hot spots, and confront their own assumptions and biases. For instance, she reported
that she was well aware of her proclivity toward women of color in her practice. She stated,
Sometimes I probably trust, I recognize that I implicitly trust Black women. And sometimes I
give them probably more credit. Not that they deserved. I think everybody deserves credit, but
sometimes I might elevate them more than I maybe should.

208

208

From the interview data, she articulated that she had a higher level of trust of “Black women,” who she
might “elevate” more than she should. Implied in her statement was the notion that she was cognizant
of how her racial identity translated in her biased instructional choice.
In addition, her racial identity also informed her level of comfort, which played out in how
much she believed she could push her learners. For instance, she communicated that she did not want to
require faculty to feel they needed to share everything. She said,
I want them to feel safe and if they share everything that they feel like they have to share
everything, they probably are not going to be as honest and that’s my perception. And so, but if
I just say, “Hey, you don’t have to share, you can just kind of think about it. You don’t even
have to write it down. But think about some of these things in connection to what I’m going to
be teaching you as we go.” So I think that’s kind of how I facilitate it indirectly.
She communicated that she wanted faculty “to feel safe” so that she did not require them to “share
everything” or “write it down” but just “think about” what they learned from her. Implied in her
statement was the notion that she lowered the cognitive demand on the part of the faculty and showed
little willingness to push into her own discomfort to challenge faculty. This suggested the likelihood
that she prioritized her own comfort level over investigating her learners’ thinking as a way to protect
herself from externally imposed perceptions.

Sub-theme 2: Dr. Wilson
As a Black male growing up in a lower-class, single-parenthood family with multiple siblings,
Dr. Wilson communicated that he was fairly sensitive to the way he was perceived by others to the
extent that he seemed to feel locked in by his skin color. He stated,

209

209

I identify as an African American male. And I mean, I kind of, it’s, this is interesting. It’s kind
of funny in my mind at least, I have to identify as Black in this context. … It shapes my
experience in that I know how I’m perceived, right? And I know that, you know, my
experiences that I bring into the setting based off of, like, the groups and experiences that I’ve
been allowed due to my skin color and culture.
His word choice, “I have to identify as Black” and “I’ve been allowed due to my skin color and
culture” suggested that he believed he was imposed upon certain socially constructed expectations that
he could not ignore but accept. In addition, he also communicated that to his disappointment, he came
to realize the way faculty had been socialized to perceive a Black young man, regardless of their ethnic
backgrounds. From the interview data “I am to an Asian person or to a Latino person, the same thing as
I might be to a White oppressive person. They can just be looking at me just the same,” he conveyed
his irritation of the way people perceived him by his skin color. He indicated he was once quite
frustrated by the socially imposed projection that he had little control of. And yet, he seemed to come to
terms with his racial identity and responded to racism that he experienced by resorting to research (e.g.,
“I’ve verified it through, you know, the research. … It really helped me feel like, ‘Wow you know
what? You are on the right track or a good track for faculty.’”), recognizing faculty’s developmental
stages (e.g., “I’m not shocked at these things anymore. … But I don’t take it personally because I just
know people, you know, they come to what they come with, so.”), and making sure faculty
development work was not about himself (e.g., “I really do think in order for me to do this work in a
way that benefits everyone, it can’t be about me.”), which aligned with Ball and Forzani’s (2009)
notion that teaching is unnatural work that requires “unnatural orientation toward others and deliberate
suspension of aspects of one’s self” (p. 499). In another data set for the scenario-based interview, he
further shared his experience of how he reconciled himself to the racist circumstances. He said,

210

210

You know, it’s interesting because I am excited about anyone sharing, but at the same time,
people in general can dominate things and make it about them, and particularly a White male
can do that because of like, “Hey, I know it all.” And I’ve had people like that. This happens to
me a lot. You got people who want to ask questions and they continue to, like, say things, and
I’m like, “Yeah. Great. Thanks.” You know, because some of it, some of that stuff, it’s kind of
like a cognitive dissonance for them. For me, as a Black male, to be saying something that they
haven’t considered is like, “Oh, they can’t, they can’t fathom how as a Black man because they
know something that they couldn’t know.” And it’s very apparent in the comments. And I’m
like, “Goodness”, but, you know, I love these folks. I care for them all. I have this love, like,
default for people. I’m like, “Wow, this person is asking these questions or making these
statements because they can’t fathom. And I don’t know if it’s connected to my race or my age
or both the intersection is like, it seems as if they can’t really, there’s a, there’s a malfunction in
their, their thought process to where they’re like, “Okay, this person can’t be providing me
something I don’t already know.” So they exist in a determinant, deterministic type of state
versus a curious state. And you know it is what it is. But I noticed that a lot. I’m like, “Oh,
goodness, this is happening again.” And I kind of chuckle now, but when it used to happen, I
used to get mad. I used to get like teed off. I’m like, “Oh, goodness question”, but I’m like,
“Okay this I’ve understood these things to be more of the person’s issue and not mine.” And
that’s what really helps me.
He communicated that more often than not he had encountered faculty members, especially White male
faculty members, who liked to dominate the conversations and made it all about them and from his
standpoint, his attempt to redirect the conversation seemed to create “cognitive dissonance” to them
because he was perceived as just “a Black male” who might not be able to “provide me something I

211

211

don’t already know.” Dr. Wilson communicated that his initial reaction to their implicit bias was
“Goodness” with emotional turbulence reflected in his statement “I used to get mad. I used to get like
teed off” and yet out of his educational love he managed to shift his attention from himself to “more of
the person’s issue.” Implied in his mindset shifts was the notion that he was accepting the racist context
and the unconscious biases around him as he could make use of these strategies as a protective factor to
help him justify himself and confirm his legitimacy for his role.
In addition, consistent with Stanley’s (2010) writing that faculty educator’s own identity and
cultural biases might have an impact on how they interacted with faculty, Dr. Wilson’s consciousness
around the way that he was experienced as a person of color might have played out in his instructional
approaches in two ways. First, he communicated his commitment to surfacing different perspectives as
he responded to a hypothetical problem (a White faculty member said, “Who are you to teach me about
race?”) in the scenario-based interview. He said,
If you do this work [antiracist pedagogy] in a way that doesn’t allow all voices, then you are
actually somewhat part of the thing that you seek to try to alleviate. So like this person, a White
person. It’s like you have a voice as well. I don’t want to, this isn’t suppressing White people to
uplift everyone else, but I do know that that happens, and it is unfortunate, and I’m not aligned
with that type of work, um, you know, definitely, uplifting certain groups and never should be
suppressing another group. And I know that’s a hard balance to strike for some people, but I’m
super committed to being part of constructive, you know, outcomes for folks, you know, versus
inadvertently harming and damaging, injuring certain, certain individuals, so.
In his response, he highlighted the importance of “allow[ing] all voices,” including that of a White
faculty member, because he considered it unfortunate that “suppressing White people to uplift everyone
else” was not uncommon and he said he did not “align with that type of work” as he believed “uplifting

212

212

certain groups and never should be suppressing another group.” Although he acknowledged that the
suppressed and marginalized ethnic group sometimes did not get enough voice to be a part of
conversation, he believed that there was a middle ground for both marginalized and dominant groups to
achieve constructive outcomes. This belief was manifested in his statement in another interview when
he said, “Nothing, you know, nothing is totally either-or. Everything can exist at the same time to a
constructive end.” This signified that he was responding to the fact that he had experienced racism or
unconscious biases himself, which went into the way that he approached the discussion with somebody
who he wanted to help grow. Second, his racial identity seemed to allow him to model vulnerability
with ease. He communicated that within the context of higher education institutions, it was “not a
culture of vulnerability”, where “you have experts that, you know, they’re not used to not knowing”
and “faculty members aren’t always going to admit when they don’t know something, right?” Knowing
that, he articulated that he tried to communicate to his learners that it was okay that “they don’t
necessarily have to have a right answer;” on top of that, he said that he made mistakes intentionally
during professional learning to make making mistakes itself more acceptable for faculty, as indicated in
“I make mistakes so that they can and I’m vulnerable about those so that they can embrace making
mistakes so that it has to learn it.” He suggested that by modeling vulnerability of his making errors, he
created room for faculty to be vulnerable and begin to accept the fact that they did not need to be right
or perfect all the time. This andragogical move was consistent with Miller and Garran’s (2017) notion
that antiracist instructors anticipate and prepare to respond effectively for challenging situations by
inviting the class to predict instructor’s mistakes and welcome criticism, which normalized and
modeled openness and non-defensiveness.
Dr. Wilson’s racial identity also informed his level of comfort, which was translated in how
much he believed he could push his learners. He communicated that he did not usually call people out,

213

213

as indicated in “I don’t usually like counter people’s stuff;” instead, his default response was always to
invite his learners to share more about what they were thinking about as a way to meet faculty halfway.
For instance, he said, “through the ‘tell me more,’ I can understand where they’re coming from, and
sometimes I can use whatever they tell me to actually explain where I’m coming from.” Implied in his
statement was the notion that he maintained curious and sought to understand first as a way to avoid
creating tension in his instructional interactions with faculty. On the other hand, he also communicated
that if he really needed to disrupt faculty’s thinking process, he would make sure that the process was
smooth. He said, “I try not to like disrupt in a very abrupt way because that causes some types of
visceral reactions, so I try to make sure that the disruption is more, uh, casual, well not casual, smooth
as possible.” He expressed that he would ensure that he created cognitive dissonance in a way that
brought about the least “visceral reactions” from faculty, which meant that he would avoid provoking
visceral response or emotional distress from his learners throughout his instructional process. Implied
in his statement was the notion that he might prioritize keeping harmonious andragogical relationships
over creating discomfort that learning entailed.
Theme 2: Predominantly White Group
At the other end of the continuum, there was a subset of people (three of seven) who identified
themselves as White and thought of faculty development work as simply “doing their jobs.” As faculty
in higher education institutions were predominately White, they did not need to think about how their
racial identities were experienced, nor did they need to demonstrate their legitimacy. By and large, they
were more comfortable with investigating into their learners’ sense-making process and pushing their
learners to interrogate their own identities and the way their identities played out in their instructional
practice.
Sub-theme 1: Dr. Sankey

214

214

As a White CIS female bouncing between her racial identity (White) and her acquired identity
9

(“pink/transcultural”) in a multicultural environment, Dr. Sankey communicated that she often thought
of herself as “chameleon.” On the one hand, she recognized that her Whiteness might serve as a safe
cover that not only protected her from racism (e.g., “I was going to be forced to pass as White and that I
didn’t have an option because I was not [pause] I was not African American in the ways that society
was treating my friends.”), but also enabled her to appeal to the common ground with her White
learners (e.g., “I take that we-ness when the group is mostly White.”). On the other hand, she seemed
unwilling to be identified as being White by her learners, as indicated in her telling of her learners in
the scenario-based interview that “Speaking to someone who you perceive as White, I will say there’s
privilege that comes with being looking the way you look and the way you think I look in this world.
… Well, you probably look at me and think I’m White. I think most people in the room do. And that’s
fine.” She was aware how her skin color affected the way she was perceived and she would accept that
before she got a chance to say more about what made her different from just being a White faculty
developer. To be more specific, she was leveraging the socially imposed projections of her racial
identity while she was at work, but she believed she was more than being White. This suggested that
she had an ambivalent relationship to her racial identity, which was a privileged position to be in as she
got to ignore the color of her skin.
Her consciousness around her White identity seemed to influence her instructional approach in
a way that she seemed fearless, unlike the faculty educators of color. When asked about what she hoped
that her learners would describe regarding the professional learning she facilitated, she conveyed that
she would want them to depict their overall learning experience as taking a roller coaster ride. She
stated,

9
By acquired identity, I meant the self-certified identity or the way people think about who they were.

215

215

There’s this thrill of anticipation about going on it. There’s this terror about being on it. There’s
some terror experience during it, some stomach wrenching thrilled during it, and a feeling of
exhilaration when you get off of it. And you want to go again. So there’s this cognition that’s
happening. There’s this meta affect that’s happening. There’s this metacognition that’s
happening.
The analogy of comparing her instructional process to a roller coaster ride with a highlight of the
accompanying emotions such as “thrill,” “terror,” “stomach-wrenching,” and “exhilaration” made the
work she undertook stand in stark contrast to that of the faculty educators of color described above.
Implied in her word choices was the notion that she intended to create enough cognitive and affective
dissonance that she expected her learners to be uncomfortable with her acts of disruption, which was in
line with Mezirow’s (2000) disorienting dilemma. This signified that she believed she was more willing
and probably ready to challenge her learners’ prior experiences, assumptions, or beliefs. Similarly, in a
different part of the interview, Dr. Sankey communicated that she set her goal that she would challenge
her learners’ beliefs or resistance to change at the very beginning of the professional learning. She said,
In a very short order, in the first week or two, of all the professional development that I’m
doing, I have pushed each person in the room up against a conflict, because that’s my goal. [My
goal] is for me to push them up against something that they say, “This I can’t change. This I
believe. This, you know, you can’t change my mind.”
She reported that her goal was to “push each person in the room up against a conflict” at the first few
sessions and made sure that she challenged faculty’s comfortably established and taken-for-granted
ways of knowing, feeling, and believing, which was consistent with Cochran-Smith’s (2003) notion of
unlearning. Implied in her statement was the notion that she believed she was doing her job when she
pushed faculty out of their comfort zones and that she was not intimidated by the idea of confronting

216

216

and disrupting her learners’ thinking process. This was consistent with her self-perceived responsibility
of “exposing everyone’s truths.”
While she said she was comfortable challenging her learners, she also communicated that it was
okay that if she was challenged by her learners. She expressed that she usually would encourage faculty
to “call me out in front of everyone else if you think what I’m doing is not appropriate.” Implied in her
statement was the notion that she was holding herself accountable and she modeled what it was like to
be in Arao and Clemens’s (2013) notion of a brave space by asking her learners to push back when they
saw fit. In addition, from the data, she also communicated that she was aware of how her
confrontational stance influenced the group dynamics when she said, “I acknowledged, I know I’m
making other people uncomfortable.” In her response to a hypothetical problem in the scenario-based
interview, she expressed that she would make it clear to her learners what discomfort represented in the
process of learning. She stated, “I know this conversation or this, witnessing this is going to make
people uncomfortable, but that discomfort means we’re IN [emphasis] the moment of an opportunity to
learn something.” Implicit in her statement was the notion that she encouraged her learners to stay
open-minded and embrace discomfort as learning opportunities for them to grow. This indicated that
she was confident in what she thought she was doing; unlike the faculty developer of color, she did not
think she needed to prove to anyone the legitimacy of her role as she undertook her work.
Sub-theme 2: Dr. Osburn
As a gay White male growing up in poverty, Dr. Osburn communicated that it was important for
him to create equitable classrooms. He stated,
A lot of the work I do in math education is a personal, is a personal reflection of myself,
because I’m a gay White male who grew up in poverty, and so equity is a big deal with me,
right?

217

217

From his statement, he expressed his awareness of the way his identity was connected with his work
and his pursuit of equity. Relatedly, in a different section of the interview, he communicated that he
was annoyed by the fact that there was an achievement gap in LGBTQ nineth graders. He said,
A lot of people don’t realize the recent stats show that, right, LGBTQ nineth graders are three
times less likely to finish an Algebra I course when compared to their hetero-normative
students. That bothers me. [laugh] It bothers me even more that we haven’t dealt with it yet.
Why? We don’t know why that is, right? I have my own, I have my own thoughts on why, but
the literature hasn’t really dealt with LGBTQ identity itself and how that comes into play in the
math classroom. We’ve looked at other identities like gender, right, racial, but we haven’t yet
looked at LGBTQ particularly and how that, how that identity, that culture interacts with the
math, mathematician’s culture.
He expressed his frustration that students’ LGBTQ identities were associated with their performance in
the math classroom and to his dismay, not much literature had addressed this problem. Inherent in his
statement was the notion that he considered it critical to look into the ways to bridge the gap of the
LGBTQ students’ learning outcomes in math. The pursuit of a more equitable classroom was also
reflected in his faculty development work, as he described how he facilitated faculty’s nuanced
understanding in math. He said,
And so, you know, part of, part of the professional development has to be thinking about ways
in which they can begin to engage in cultural competence in its myriad of forms. And for me,
my, one of my biggest things is in the discourse, right, providing opportunities for them to start
thinking about who gets heard in the classroom, right, who gets to decide what counts as a
mathematical idea.

218

218

He communicated that he believed he would focus on encouraging faculty to come up with multiple
ways to engage diversity and he would also “provide opportunities” for faculty to think about the way
math knowledge was constructed. Implied in his statement was the notion that by simply doing his job
(that he did not need to reaffirm himself like faculty educators of color did), he was able to guide his
learners to a new territory that they might not have stepped on.
There was another example of the way his racial identity got translated into his work. In
response to a hypothetical problem (a faculty member said, “Who are you to teach me about race?”) in
the scenario-based interview, Dr. Osburn responded that he did not think he would be affected by
faculty’s confrontation. He said,
It really doesn’t affect me. Um, I’m used to hearing things like that or, or, um, having students
question me on that, so I’ve answered this type of question so many times, but it really doesn’t
[laugh] affect me anymore. It, you know, it’s just one of the things I realized that people who
are not comfortable or may not be ready yet to engage in social justice questions and issues of
racism more deeply.
He expressed his thought that he would not falter in the face of faculty’s challenge and he
acknowledged that there were several occurrences in his past experience. The way he interpreted his
learners’ confrontation was to recognize their level of readiness to engage in the conversation related to
social justice. Implied in his statement was the notion that he was not acknowledging his privilege at
all; instead, he was just acting his privilege. Similarly, his White identity seemed to inform his level of
comfort in pushing faculty to learn. He conveyed that “I’m okay with being uncomfortable” and that he
established a learning climate where being uncomfortable was expected. He said,
We reinforce those discursive norms. One of the things we always reinforced, right, is be
prepared to be uncomfortable and we’re okay with that being uncomfortable but always keeping

219

219

in our safe space, you know, being, being, reinforcing that there’s always an assertation that
we’re in a learning environment, so we’re going to expect to be uncomfortable at all times.
In describing the online synchronous professional learning sessions he facilitated, he communicated
that he made it clear that he reinforced the assertation that learners should prepare themselves and
expected to be “uncomfortable” as they learned. Implied in his statement was the notion that he did not
have difficulty pushing learners to step out of their comfort zones.
Sub-theme 3: Mr. Atherton
As a White gay male in his early 60s working in dance and theatre industry as well as in faculty
development field, which were usually considered more of a “women identified” professions, Mr.
Atherton communicated that he was sensitive to when he got identified as “other than male.” He further
stated that “as a White 62-year-old guy, we certainly know what first impressions will do. … Anytime
I’m in front of people, I think I’m aware of who I am and who I am not, who’s not there and who is
there.” His statement indicated that he had some level of consciousness around his racial identity that
led him to be aware of his similarities and differences between him and his audience, which was
consistent with Medina’s (2013) notion that self-knowledge (which involved understanding of one’s
social positionality) involved the understanding and awareness of how one’s life and social identity
were bound with others.
Similarly, in the scenario-based interview, he communicated that he was cognizant of the way
socially constructed notions factored into different aspects of his life. He said,
We know how strongly, how strongly impacted social constructions affect us. How, how we are
socially impacted by social constructions such as race, gender, and sexual orientation. As a gay
man, I would feel a duty to think about all three of these questions and I struggled with them all

220

220

my life to try to understand our realities and how those factors come into our classrooms and
into our teaching and to our learning, to our research.
He expressed his awareness that “race, gender, and sexual orientation” were social constructs that had a
strong effect on people’s lives. As a gay man, he acknowledged that he “struggled with them” all his
life and he found it necessary to figure out how these social constructs factored into “teaching,”
“learning,” and “research.” He was mindful that there was a conflict between his self-perceived
identities and the socially imposed projections of what he was alleged to be in different aspects of his
life.
Despite his sensitivity to the way he was perceived, he communicated that his upbringing
inspired him “to serve as a way to model that everyone has the capacity to be a teacher and everyone
has to.” This indicated that he thought of teaching as an act of service and a way to model. In another
dataset, he communicated a similar idea that he was teaching kids and their teacher to model how they
could translate their curriculum into other forms of representations. He said,
I’m working with the little people, kindergartners first through second graders. But I’m also
working with the teachers of each of those classes. And so I’m trying to create an arts
curriculum with those teachers each day so that I’m modeling ways that they could build dance
or theater or the arts into their own work.
He expressed his belief that by serving as a teacher educator, he was “modeling ways that they could
build dance or theater or the arts into their own work.” Implied in his statement was the notion that he
was confident at showing others what he knew, and that he was convinced that his learners would
follow his framework without his needing to build a legitimacy.
Additionally, he communicated that he set his personal goal as a “change agent” who could
facilitate “transformational change of, um, institutional groups.” Implied in his words was the notion

221

221

that he believed he could exert influence at the institutional level by doing his job. Given his
background in art, he communicated that he would “try to guide the whole conference by using arts as
facilitation process.” This suggested that he sought to flip the notion of professional learning through
dance and theater. He further explained,
Dance and theater, of course, again, is this magical world where so much can be done by
follow[ing] the leader and by visual learning that you just…you don’t…it’s not always required
that there be words. And so that often breaks down barriers and things very quickly if you’re in
a situation with a faculty that has already got that predilection to do those kinds of things. But to
the extent that they don’t, then you’re always inviting them to imagine stepping out of their
comfort zone so that they can say, “What else could I do in my classroom that would allow as
many people to learn as many ways possible?” so they all reach as many folks as they can
today.
He communicated his belief that dance and theatre was “a magical world” where participants were
invited to “imagine” alternative ways of helping their learners learn. He appeared comfortable with
using his expertise of art as a way to get people to think in a different way. In addition, like Dr. Sankey,
he was not afraid of challenging his learners. When asked to explain a different approach that he
adopted in a scenario-based interview in his response to an African American faculty member’s and a
White faculty member’s comment of “Who are you to teach me about race?,” he communicated that he
would take into account their lived experiences and the context before he pushed his learner further. He
said,
Speaking to the majority or versus speaking to a minority or underrepresented minority. I think
there is a consciousness of the perspectives that need to be taken in context of the question and
trying to be aware of what experiences have filled this person’s life, and to the extent that

222

222

someone has traveled through life on an often more privileged and more presumed White,
Whiteness and White privilege in the world, there are different questions to be asked to each
person, different invitations, I believe, to be made to each person where we respect those
journeys thus far. … I would want to have a further dialogue with that person just to find out if
it’s actually a personal need versus a fear-based moment that they’re constructing or feeling that
they’re being challenged within that moment just so that we can continue to push the, um, being
comfortable, being uncomfortable, model of things.
He communicated that his understanding of the majority’s and minority group’s “journeys” informed
his approach (“different questions to be asked to each person, different invitations, I believe, to be
made”) and he believed he needed to learn more about the faculty member’s intent through “a further
dialogue” before challenging them. Implied in his statement was the notion that he was comfortable
with investigating his learners’ sense-making process despite the discomfort his learners might
experience throughout the process.
Theme 3: Border Crossers
At the middle of the continuum, there was a subset of people (two of seven) who were border
crossers. Although they were both historically marginalized members, they adapted and managed how
people might experience them differently, as compared to the other two faculty developer of color. One
saw herself as having a marginalized identity in light of the mostly White community she worked with
and considered it necessary to establish her legitimacy in front of faculty; in spite of that, she was
managing proactively what she knew to be the racist and possibly sexist context differently in order to
accomplish what she believed was her goal. On the other hand, the other did not see herself as having a
particularly marginalized identity, because it was like she had swum in this water her whole life, so

223

223

despite her Blackness she identified with the larger community and was oriented more towards the
White end of the continuum.
Sub-theme 1: Dr. Sarker
Coming from an Indian immigrant family, Dr. Sarker communicated that she needed to develop
intercultural competence as she navigated the White space so as to situate herself within the US context
since young. She said,
As a woman of color, as a daughter of immigrants, I had to become interculturally competent
because I was always navigating White space, you know, our teachers or educators, the people
with power, the people in charge were mostly White folks, right? And so you kind of have to
learn what those norms are you have to learn what that culture is in order to want to survive, but
to thrive.
From her statement, she believed she needed to familiarize herself with White culture and norms so as
to “survive” and “thrive,” as she was well aware that “the people with power, the people in charge were
mostly White folks.” She framed herself as an outsider in light of the White community and deemed it
necessary to be interculturally competent enough to break down structural barriers. Such understanding
was also reflected in how she approached her work: She acknowledged that her racial identity was
manifested in the way she presented herself. She communicated that there were a lot to consider before
she agreed to facilitate a workshop. She said,
I have to ask the questions around, you know, “Where would I encounter resistance? What do I
need to know up front so that I can prepare myself for those situations? And, you know, what
potential micro-aggressions might come my way? How I might have to present myself and my
expertise to a particular group so that, you know, it’s more meaningful and productive for the

224

224

whole group?” It’s unfortunate that I have to do that. But we, you know, we know that women
of color have to do that.
She communicated that she would want to know the audience composition in preparation of potential
“resistance” and “micro-aggressions” that might come up. She was mindful of what might trigger her as
she worked with faculty of different cultural orientations in the context that was potentially racist. It
also indicated that she might have had some negative experiences before so that she wanted to be
mentally prepared to take stock of her emotional response. Implicit in her comment “It’s unfortunate
that I have to do that” was the notion that her understanding of the socio-cultural context of her work
environment made her believe that it was necessary for her to be proactive in order to protect herself.
In addition, similar to other faculty developer of color, she communicated that she needed to
legitimize her faculty developer role as she interacted with her learners. She said, “anytime I interact
with the faculty member, I usually do draw on not only my experiences in faculty development, I’m
kind of expert now, but also just in terms of even my own research and scholarly background.” This
indicated that she believed that her professional experiences as well as her knowledge base would serve
as shields and tools that enabled her to fend for herself in the face of challenges in faculty development.
However, unlike the other faculty educators of color, she was more willing to take a confrontational
stance and provide counterargument against her learners, which was evident as she responded to a
hypothetical problem (a faculty member said, “I don’t see color. Everyone bleeds in red.”) in the
scenario-based interview. She said,
I would correct her, right, and say, “You know, that’s a really harmful way to think about race.
Actually, you know, when someone says that they’re colorblind, it actually negates the lived
experiences of people of color. So, you know, I know that you’re probably coming from a space
where you’re trying to think about our shared humanity and try to think about, you know, our

225

225

responsibility to each other as human beings, but the colorblind ideology is a really harmful
myth and actually not something that the research has backed up as something that we’re
capable of doing anyway, right, because we all have biases that creep into our interactions with
each other.” So I would say, again, making sure I’m not letting that comment kind of sit in that
space without being responded or, you know, not being responded to or let someone else
respond to it because I think my responsibility as a facilitator would be to course correct and
say, “you know, kind of, kind of talk about the ideology, the research, to talk about why it’s
harmful” so that folks, you know, I’m dealing with that conflict head on in that moment.
She communicated that she would confront the faculty directly (i.e., “I would correct her”) by pointing
out their thinking flaw (i.e., “that’s a really harmful way to think about race” or “colorblind ideology is
a really harmful myth”) while giving her learner benefit of doubt (i.e., “I know that you’re probably
coming from a space where you’re trying to think about our shared humanity.”). She believed she
would lean into her own discomfort to address the biased comment because she did not want to be
complicit in the reproduction or participate in the perpetuation of a dominant ideology that reproduced
marginalization. She then articulated that she would ensure she did not “let that comment kind of sit in
that space without being responded” because she believed she was responsible for guiding the
conversation to the right track. This suggested that she refused to see herself as being complicit in the
perpetuation of the status quo because leaving the comment stand without response would have
implications for everybody in that room.
Similarly, in another dataset when she responded to a hypothetical problem (a faculty member
said, “Who are you to teach me about race?”), she communicated that she would lean into her own
discomfort and take on the challenge. She said,

226

226

I think for me, my goal as a facilitator is not to shut down the conversation, but to try it out as
much as possible, to lean into my own discomfort, you know. Um, I’m probably going to go
into the session already a little nervous about the dynamics of the faculty, but that doesn’t mean
I can’t do my job and it doesn’t mean that I would, it doesn’t mean that I would change my
approach necessarily. I think for me it’s a matter of figuring out what that space feels like and,
like I said, just making sure that I’m equipped with the strategies that I need to take that on.
She communicated that she believed that her job was to facilitate learning and despite being “a little
nervous” about the confrontation, she would try to figure out “the dynamics of the faculty” and “what
the space feels like” to make sure she was proactive with strategies that would prevent her from
“shut[ting] down the conversation.” She suggested she would do what she thought was important to do
that benefit the faculty’s learning even if it meant she needed to manage and regulate her emotional
reactions.
Sub-theme 2: Dr. Thomas
Dr. Thomas, an African American female “growing up in a pretty homogenous [White]
community in many ways” communicated that her parents had encouraged her to “see everybody and to
interact well with everybody, to appreciate all people.” Implied in her statement was the notion that she
might be so assimilated by the way she constructed her identity that she identified with White
community despite her skin color. This notion was also evident when she said, “as an African
American woman, so I guess I’m considered a minority.” She suggested that although she had an
awareness of how people projected on her based on her skin color, that was not how she saw herself.
Despite the conflict between externally imposed perception (being Black) and internally
situated orientation (being more White than Black), she communicated that she could teach race just by
sharing her experience and thoughts because of her race. She said, “I’m an African American woman

227

227

who experienced thinking about antiracism, who’s experienced racism, so I can obviously say, from the
perspective, you know, from my own perspective and my background, I could obviously talk about race
in that way.” She believed that she could leverage her racial identity to teach faculty about race as if her
Blackness made her more eligible to have a voice. Similar notion could be found when she articulated
that “sometimes if you’re of a non-majority group, you might have experiences that can help change
that mindset.” Implicit in her statement was the notion that she believed her being Black helped
confirm her legitimacy in doing her work, especially for antiracist pedagogy.
In addition, unlike other faculty educators of color, she did not try to maintain her level of
comfort by playing safe. Instead, she communicated that she thought of her job responsibility as
challenging faculty’s sense-making process in several ways. She said,
I personally think that my job, I feel like I have to do a lot of, “What is the rationale? What is
the reason we’re doing this, like, why is this important, right?” I think I challenge it [faculty’s
thinking process] with multiple ways.
From her statement, she communicated that she unsettled faculty’s thinking by posing questions.
Implied in her statement was the notion that she was willing to lean into her own discomfort to confront
with her learners and challenge them to step out of their comfort zones. Relatedly, she also
communicated that one of her instructional approach was to identify faculty’s thinking errors. In her
response to a hypothetical problem (a faculty member said, “White people supporting BLM are nothing
but traitors.”) in the scenario-based interview, she said,
I’d probably let them say something and then hopefully I can kind of understand their thinking a
little bit more like why are they thinking that and then I probably aim, again, to have a teachable
moment, where if there is something obviously faulty in the thinking that, so the next step was
saying, “Okay, well, White people supporting black lives matters are traitors, why do you think

228

228

they’re traitors? What’s going on here with that?” So, then I’d have, I probably would, you
know, see any holes in the thinking there.
She expressed that she would want to know more about the reason behind this comment and try to point
out the faulty thinking on the part of the faculty member who made this comment. Implied in her
statement was the notion that she made an assumption that there was a problem in faculty’s thinking
process and she sought to bring up the deficits as “a teachable moment.” Her teaching move was
consistent with Blakeney’s (2005) notion of Antiracist Pedagogy, which differed from Multicultural
Education as antipedagogy racist educators attended directly and specifically to the problem of racism
that bred inequalities and challenged individuals and the structural system that perpetuated racism. In
doing so, she seemed to position herself as an expert or authority who had the privilege to right the
wrong.
Summary
There were three findings that emerged from the interviews with the seven faculty educators.
Finding one revealed the ways these faculty educators approached their work from the standpoint of
what they thought their job responsibilities were, what constraints and limitations they encountered that
interfered with their abilities to support the learning of both faculty and their students, and the
instructional approaches they chose to respond to those obstacles. Finding two pertained to ICC
attributes these faculty educators believed they possessed and the way they associated ICC with their
professional practices. Finding three revealed a continuous spectrum of the way that these faculty
educators construed their roles based on how they thought others experienced their racial identities
(from historically marginalized groups, border crossers, to predominantly White groups), which had
implications on how they showed up, how they interacted with faculty, and how comfortable they were
with stretching their learners in the professional learning spaces.

229

229

Revised Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), conceptual framework is a “constructed” (p. 41), “tentative
theory” (p. 39) that helps researchers anticipate and make sense of the phenomenon of interest.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) further points out that the conceptual framework consists of concepts or
theories that serve as the underlying structure or the scaffolding of the study. Before I started data
collection, my focus was on the instructional interactions between the faculty developer and the faculty
and how that led to building faculty’s capacities of intercultural instruction. Even though the questions
in my interview protocol were designed to dig deeply into how faculty educators (who self-identified as
highly competent in ICC) taught faculty to teach in an interculturally competent way, the data did not
support what I intended to find. Instead, the data revealed that the faculty educators were wrestling with
their work intertwined with the institutional context to the extent that they believed they were held back
from doing what they could really accomplish. In the following section, I present the revised
conceptual framework which visually represents what I learned after I finished collecting, analyzing,
and interpreting the data from the field.
In designing my original conceptual framework, I expected to see separate elements of faculty
educators and faculty members interact through professional learning to work toward improving
faculty’s intercultural teaching capacities. My original conceptual framework listed the elements, such
as instructional vision and knowledge base, that I expected to see from faculty educators and the
elements like self-awareness and student understanding that I expected to see from the faculty
members. My framework listed each item as separate qualities that each of them put forward in the
learning space. In addition, between them there was instructional interactions I expected to see, such as
positive professional learning climate and facilitated collaborative learning, etc.

230

230

My revised conceptual framework does not involve any of the elements described above
because I did not have observation data to support the andragogical moves I expected to investigate,
which prevented me from discovering whether there was evidence of certain instructional moves as
suggested by the literature. However, through conducting semi-structured and scenario-based
interviews with faculty educators, I understood from the interview data that the faculty educators were
wrestling with their work and they were responding to the constraints and challenges within the
institutional context. As demonstrated in Figure 14, the green arrows represent challenges and
constraints the faculty educators encountered as they engage in their work, including distinctive
disciplinary culture, time constraints, faculty’s lack of accountability, and difficulty of changing
faculty’s paradigms. The green arrow with dotted line represents the subtle institutional racism that
permeated in the institutional context. The orange circle represents the faculty educator’s racial identity,
or the identity they were assigned by others (faculty) on the basis of their skin color. The light orange
circle represents faculty educators. The blue circle represents the instructional approaches the faculty
developer employed to support faculty learning. The small light blue circle represents the intercultural
competence attributes.
The conceptual framework can be used to explain the phenomena reflected in the three findings
in this study by pointing to the interactions of the elements in it. Finding one reflects the phenomenon
that faculty educators (light orange circle) were imposed by the constraints (green arrows) and they
responded to the constraints with different instructional approaches (blue circle). Finding two is
represented in the overlapping areas between faculty educators (light orange circle), ICC (small light
blue circle), and faculty educator’s instructional approaches (blue circle), as data showed that faculty
educators believed they possessed some ICC attributes, which were infused in their professional
practices. Finding three reflects the phenomenon that structural racism permeated the institutional

231

231

contexts and influenced FEs’ (light orange circle) interpretations of how their inherited identities
(orange circle) were experienced, which in turn influenced their instructional approaches (blue circle)
as they responded to the socially imposed projections differently.

Figure 14
Revised Conceptual Framework

The revised conceptual framework is grounded in and supported by literature. The following
explicates the connection of the conceptual framework to the existing research and the literature review
in chapter two.
Challenges and Constraints
I argued that the faculty educators were wrestling with their work and they were responding to
the constraints and challenges within the institutional context, including disciplinary culture, time
constraints, faculty’s lack of accountability, difficulty of shifting faculty’s paradigms, and implicit

232

232

structural racism. Regarding disciplinary culture, both Dimitrov and Haque (2016a) and Lawler and
King (2000a) showed that faculty’s discipline-specific culture could come into play in classroom
dynamics and impact teaching and learning, underscoring the importance for faculty educators to take
into consideration faculty’s different discipline characteristics as they plan for professional learning.
Regarding the time constraints, Trivette et al.’s (2009) study showed that adult learning method
characteristics were more effective when the learning experiences took place for 10 plus hours, which
is in contrast with what is usually available for professional learning sessions. Also, Lawler and King
(2000a) pointed out that learning does not end when the faculty development program ends, which
implies that professional learning should is not bounded by a certain time frame. Regarding the lack of
accountability, Stockley et al. (2015) suggested that all faculty in higher education were expected to
improve teaching and learning and ultimately enhance students’ educational experiences through
faculty development, highlighting the importance of Elmore’s (2003) internal accountability within the
institution, where faculty are able to take internalized responsibility for student learning. Regarding
paradigm shift, Brown and Kysilka’s (2002) research suggested that faculty’s beliefs and attitudes,
often unthinking responses in the present based on past experiences, remained to influence consciously
or unconsciously present and future teaching and learning situations. However, Garson et al. (2016)
indicated in their survey result that while 95 to 100 percent of respondents perceived that their
participation in the PD program had an impact on their attitude, knowledge and skills, it was hard to tell
whether the relationship self-perceived impact translated into their professional practice. Lastly,
regarding implicit structural racism, as the broader landscape of higher education in North America was
a mostly White community (According to Li and Koedel (2017) and Beach et al. (2016), while 79% of
all college and university faculty members being White, 89% of educational educators were White‐
identified), studies suggested that structural racism perpetuates from the racialized society, from the

233

233

normalcy of color blindness, White privilege, to the unacknowledged racist attitudes or implicit bias,
and that microaggressions, discrimination, and overt racism were not isolated events in faculty
development spaces (Henry and Tator, 2009; Sotto-Santiago, 2017; Victorino et al., 2013).
Racial Identity
I argued that faculty educator’s self-awareness of their intersecting identities, especially their
racial identities, can go a long way in their professional practices in teaching and learning. This is
supported by the existing literature, which underscored the importance of instructors paying explicit
attention to how race, power, class, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientations, and other
backgrounds and characteristics interacted with their instruction and classroom dynamics (Ball &
Forzani, 2009; Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a; Miller & Garran, 2017), and it applies to faculty educators as
well. Medina (2013) argued that self-knowledge (which involved understanding of one’s social
positionality) involves the understanding and awareness of how one’s life and social identity were
bound with others. Similarly, Stanley (2010) pointed out that faculty educator’s own identity and
cultural biases might have an impact on how they interacted with faculty. As racial identity is the one
that is given (e.g., skin color) beyond an individual’s control, Adams et al. (2016) underscored the
importance of being cognizant of how participants’ (in this case, faculty’s) projections can trigger
instructors’ (in this case, faculty educators) vulnerabilities around competency and authority, because
instructors may be susceptible to internalizing external constructions as who they are if they do not
consciously examine how they deal with the reactions from others.
Instructional approaches
While the faculty educators had different approaches in the face of the constraints and
challenges, their instructional choices were either consistent with or contrary to the existing research.
For instance, a subset of the faculty educators adopted tips-and-tricks approach that is contrary to

234

234

Loughran’s (2006) notion of making tacit explicit while the other subset of the faculty educators
demonstrated more of the “adaptive expertise” (Bransford et al., 2005, p. 48): Consistent with
Mezirow’s (1991) transformative learning theory and Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of zone of proximal
development (ZPD), they met faculty where they are and attended to their affective barriers (Lee et al.,
2012) to their learning. For instance, they lowered the cognitive demand as a motivational strategy
(Bennett, 2012) to encourage faculty to learn and move forward and facilitate faculty’s investigation of
their own practice through cognitive unsettling/dissonance (Lee et al., 2012; Otten, 2003), or
disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 2000), which was consistent with Lawler and King’s (2000b)
empowerment principle, with which faculty educators support faculty to initiate a change within
themselves; they also showed “unnatural orientation toward others” (Ball & Forzani, 2009, p. 499) as
they were more attuned and present (Ting-Toomey & Dorjee, 2018) to themselves and their audiences
in their description of their practice.
ICC
I argued that faculty educators’ intercultural competence attributes were translated into their
work and helped them work effectively. For the purpose of containing the focus to a manageable scope,
I referred to Deardorff’s scholarly work, in which ICC was defined as “the ability to communicate
effectively and appropriately in intercultural interactions based on one’s knowledge, skills, and
attitudes” (Deardorff, 2004b, p. 198). In Deardorff’s (2006, 2008) intercultural competence process
model, there are 22 essential components of ICC under broad categories like attitudes, knowledge, and
skills. The faculty educators communicated that they believed they possessed attitudinal attributes
(curiosity, openness, and respect), knowledge aspects (cultural self-awareness and culture specific
knowledge), and skills (listening, relating, and cultural humility). Some faculty educators also
mentioned their understanding of Bennett’s (1993) developmental model of intercultural sensitivity

235

235

helped them understand their leaners’ developmental stages and could design their instruction that
better met the needs of the faculty.
Conclusion
The revised conceptual framework provides the way I interpreted the findings that emerged
from the data. While it looks nothing like my original conceptual framework, the literature review I
conducted in chapter two still anchored the way I approached the data and informed how I arrived at
the findings.

236

236

Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations
This study focused on the perspectives and experiences of seven faculty educators who worked
in 4-year higher education institutions in the United States. This study examined faculty educators’
beliefs of the way they promoted professional learning toward intercultural competence and
investigated how they described their racial identity played out in their andragogical relationships with
faculty.
The increasingly diverse higher education campuses called for intercultural competence,
conceived more broadly and understood as an individual’s capacity to manage cultural difference in a
way of valuing and relating (Bennett,1986; Deardorff, 2006), to enhance both White students’ and
students from historically marginalized communities’ learning opportunities. However, recent research
in higher education indicated that teaching faculty (who were predominantly White) struggled with
incorporating intercultural competence in their teaching due to perceived lack of necessary skills,
knowledge, and guidance from the institutions regardless of their self-reported willingness and
openness to interculturalism and engaging in diversity in their classrooms (Bigatti et al., 2012; Lee et
al., 2012; Samuels, 2014a). This entailed the need for post-secondary institutions to adequately prepare
faculty to teach diverse student populations and to educate students to their fullest capacity (Garson et
al., 2016; King & Baxter-Magolda, 2005; Lee et al., 2012). It also meant that higher education
institutions must have faculty development measures in place for faculty to bring interculturally
competent ways of knowing and being to their classroom (Murray, 2016; Teekens, 2003), which was
the focal point of this dissertation.
I used qualitative methods for this study to uncover how faculty educators described the
instructional practices they employed that promoted intercultural competence in the context of faculty’s
professional learning. To be more specific, I utilized a qualitative multi-site case studies to address the

237

237

following research questions: How do faculty educators describe the approaches they use to guide
faculty to teach in an interculturally competent way to meet the needs of their diverse learners in 4-year
institutions of higher education? How do faculty educators describe the influence of the faculty’s
interpretations of their (faculty educators’) racial identities on the ways they operate?
To answer my research questions, I used purposeful sampling (Palys, 2008, as cited in Maxwell,
2013, p. 97). I used snowball/network sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to identify nominators who
could refer me to potential participants who fit the selection criteria for this study. After reaching out to
316 potential nominators via email correspondence, only 138 people replied to me. Among them, 83
people agreed to refer potential candidates, whom I contacted via email or phone calls in which I
introduced my study and the time commitment required for the participation of this study. The
interested faculty educators responded to me via email, and I followed up with them with the
information sheet of my research and I answered questions they had raised. Seven research participants
were recruited through this process.
To better understand the faculty educators’ experience and insights, I conducted one-on-one
semi-structured interviews with an interview protocol that Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Patton
(2002) suggested. I also conducted a scenario-based interview with six scenarios that helped me
understand what these faculty educators believed they would do in response to those hypothetical
situations. The time it took for semi-structured interview and scenario interview was approximately 3
hours in total for each participant.
Every interview was conducted via online meeting software Zoom and was transcribed verbatim
afterwards for the purpose of data analysis. The data were analyzed at the beginning of and throughout
the data collection process using a combination of open coding, axial coding, and pattern coding.
Following Creswell’s (2014) advice, I developed a qualitative codebook to provide definitions for

238

238

codes and maximize coherence among codes. In addition, I also worked on analytic memos to move
from coding to writing. Pseudonyms for the research site, the faculty educators, and their colleague’s
names were created to ensure anonymity. This final chapter is a culmination of insights gained as a
result of this study. It was organized as follows: Summary of findings, implications and
recommendations for practice, policy, and future research.
Summary of Findings
Research like Oleson and Hora (2014) showed that one of the most important factors shaping
teacher (in this case, faculty) knowledge and growth is on-the-job training and experience, which
highlighted the importance of the role faculty educators played in facilitating professional learning. As
the study examined faculty educators’ beliefs about the way they promoted faculty’s intercultural
instruction, three findings emerged from the interview data provided insights of faculty educators’
professional practices within the present academic milieu in U.S. higher education institutions.
Finding one revealed that these faculty educators thought of themselves as teacher educators
and they communicated their “instructional vision” (Gibbons & Cobb, 2016, p. 247) that they would
support the learning of both the faculty and their students. To attain that instructional vision, they
conveyed what they believed were their job responsibilities, which involved preparing faculty to
understand how culture played out in student learning, getting faculty to address issues of student
motivation, engagement and belonging, supporting faculty in creating more accessible learning
opportunities, and developing faculty’s capacities to teach diverse students. Reflected in their self-
perceived responsibilities were their beliefs that learning was inextricably connected to the learner’s
culture, that faculty’s facilitation of a positive learning environment helped foster student engagement
and development, that faculty’s instructional choices were an important enabling factor for accessible
and equitable learning opportunities, and that faculty’s consciousness around their students’ cultural

239

239

orientations could go a long way toward supporting student learning. Meanwhile, they universally
recognized constraints and limitations that hindered their abilities to do their work, including challenges
of time, lack of accountability, paradigm shift, and disciplinary culture. To be more specific, they
communicated that they oftentimes had the challenge of time, not only because they could accomplish
so much in the short span of time within the professional learning sessions, but also because what they
intended to achieve extended beyond the bounded timeframe of professional learning sessions. Another
challenge they believed they encountered was a lack of accountability on the part of faculty who would
rather maintain status quo, as indicated in a faculty member’s confrontation “Why do I need to change
my teaching?” Another challenge they faced was the difficulty in changing faculty’s mindsets despite
high receptivity on the surface level. The other challenger they met was the faculty’s discipline-specific
culture that was so entrenched in their professional identities that sometimes prevents them from being
receptive to alternative viewpoints. Despite the above-mentioned challenges, these faculty educators
approached them differently in terms of how they construed learning opportunities for faculty, how
they approached their learners, the purpose behind their lowering cognitive demand, how they took up
the space, and how present they were to their learners. A subset of faculty educators (two of seven)
communicated their belief that they were doing what they could to be helpful using tips-and-tricks
approach (Loughran, 2006) and resorting to collective wisdom for communal learning. On the contrary,
the other faculty educators (five of seven) saw constraints as growth opportunities in which they sought
to build on faculty’s understanding to move forward and develop their practice.
Finding two revealed that these faculty educators believed they possessed ICC components
corresponding to the categories of attitudes, knowledge and skills in Deardorff’s process model
(Deardorff, 2004, 2006) and they thought these attributes, especially attitudinal aspects like curiosity,

240

240

openness, and respect, helped them work effectively. Also, these faculty educators connected ICC with
teaching and learning with an emphasis on student motivation and faculty reflection.
Finding three revealed that as structural racism perpetuated from racialized society ran through
these higher education institutions, there were consistencies in the way these faculty educators
perceived how others experienced their racial identities (their skin color) and there was a continuum
among these faculty educators’ consciousness around their own racial identities: Some of them were
from historically marginalized communities (who were conscious about how their racial identities were
being interpreted by people as a statement about them), some of them were predominantly White (who
might be equally sensitive to the way they were perceived but had the privilege of not thinking about
their race), and the others were border crossers who straddled in between the two ends (who were
members of historically marginalized group but were internally more affiliated with the White group,
making them more resistant to externally imposed projections on them). Their responses to the racist
higher education context factored into their instructional choices and andragogical relationships in the
professional learning spaces in terms of the way that they presented themselves (e.g., whether they
needed to resort to research and institutional missions to establish and confirm their legitimacy), how
they engaged their learners (e.g., whether they were willing to take a confrontational stance and provide
counterargument against their learners), and how much they believed they could push their learners
(e.g. whether they leant in their own discomfort to create cognitive dissonance for their learners to
examine their own practice).
Implications and Recommendations
The interviews conducted in this qualitative study with seven faculty educators revealed
experiences and commonalities that could inform policy and practice and suggest areas for additional
research. In this section I present both implications and recommendations in relation to each area. Each

241

241

area starts with a discussion, followed by the implications that can and should inform what we think
about faculty educators’ role as well as professional learning in the faculty development programs, and
concludes with recommendations that complement or extend the work completed in this study.
Practice
Implied in the participants’ articulations of their job responsibilities (i.e., they believed they
were responsible for strengthening faculty’s preparedness to understand the role culture played in
student learning, to address issues of student motivation, engagement and belonging, to create more
accessible learning opportunities, and to engage in diversity) is the notion of ambitious teaching,
manifested in equity-minded, student-centered teachers with asset mindsets who treat students from
diverse cultural backgrounds as sense-makers, set high expectations for every student, and sharpen their
responsiveness to critical moments and particularities of students and situations (Horn & Campbell,
2015; Lampert et al., 2013; Stillman et al., 2013). The revelation that faculty educators communicated
in this study is in line with Kennedy’s (2016) and Lampert et al.’s (2013) views that teacher educators
(in this case, faculty educators) engage teachers (in this case, faculty) in learning, which in turn alters
their practices, which in turn supports student learning and advances student understanding. The
implication is that these faculty educators believed that through engaging faculty in professional
learning, they would be able to support student learning indirectly. Yet, learning did not take place
naturally as if all faculty needed to do was to show up at the professional learning sessions.
Added to the fact that they were not taught to be faculty educators because on the one hand,
they might be able to emulate best practices without having the consciousness around how to teach; on
the other hand, the institutions did not have expectations that they continued to learn. In addition,
Stockley et al. (2015) suggested that faculty educators consist of a wide array of professionals with
varied educational backgrounds, pathways into the profession, academic ranks, and personal and

242

242

professional identities. This suggests that faculty educators came into this profession from varied
disciplines with different trainings and there was no clear structure showing them how to engage in
their work. Ball and Forzani (2009) pointed out that decisions about what to do should be based on
teachers’ (in this case, faculty educators’) professionally justified knowledge rather than derive from
their personal preferences or experiences, highlighting the importance of pedagogical reasoning.
From the finding, only two faculty educators communicated that they intentionally explicated
how they came to their practice, which was in line with Loughran’s (2006) notion of teacher educators
(in this case, faculty educators) showed “what they do, how they do it, and the manner in which they
come to know and develop their own professional knowledge and practice” (Loughran, 2006, p. 14) in
order for their learners to “make informed decisions” (Loughran, 2006, p. 61) in professional practice.
Loughran (2006) pointed out that that if teaching was to be understood as “complex, interconnected,
dynamic, and holistic” (p. 62), then teacher educators (in this case, faculty educators) needed to be at
the frontline of developing insights into better articulating, describing, and portraying professional
knowledge to make tacit explicit for their learners (in this case, faculty). Therefore, as suggested in
teacher education literature, a recommendation for practice is that the faculty educators make their
professional knowledge “clear, articulable, and accessible” (Loughran, 2006, p. 62) for faculty to be
better informed about practice and navigate “the socially and intellectually complex demands of
teaching” (Lampert et al., 2013, p. 238). One way of doing that is thinking aloud, which was considered
an important way of making professional knowledge of practice accessible to learners (Berry, 2004, as
cited in Loughran, 2006, p. 47). Another way is to decompose high-leverage practices into constituent
parts and articulation of the work of teaching, which is believed to offer affordances for learning the
work of teaching, as indicated in Ball and Forzani (2009).

243

243

In addition, the existing research has documented that an individual’s racial identities
(Blakeney, 2005; Samuels, 2018), social positions (Garson et al., 2016; Medina, 2013; Miller &
Garran, 2017), and intersecting identities (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a; Kishimoto, 2018) influence their
ways of seeing, knowing, and behaving (e.g., how they perceive and respond to others, and vice versa.).
As this study found that two of the faculty educators from historically marginalized groups, Ms. Singh
and Dr. Wilson, were conscious about how their racial identities were being interpreted by people as a
statement about them and showed tendency to establish their legitimacy of their role by resorting to
research, the implication was that they were constantly dealing with both conscious and unconscious
racist projections that were at play in the professional learning spaces, which might hinder their abilities
to operate fully and facilitate change at the institutional level. Adams et al. (2016) underscored the
importance of being aware of how participants’ (in this case, faculty’s) projections can trigger
instructors’ (in this case, faculty educators) vulnerabilities around competency and authority, because
instructors may be susceptible to internalizing external constructions as who they are if they do not
consciously examine how they deal with the reactions from others. Similarly, Miller and Garran (2017)
highlight the criticality of instructor (in this case, faculty educators) self-awareness of their social
positioning, which involved knowing their own vulnerabilities and assets, confronting their own
assumptions and biases, taking stock of their trigger points and hot spots, and challenging their doubts
about competency and their need for student (in this case, faculty) approval. Based on the research,
faculty educators’ having consciousness around their racial identities and dealing with participant
assumptions do not seem enough or sustaining.
A recommendation for practice is to have faculty educators seek and learn from effective allies
for peer support, with whom they can engage in sustained “collegial/collaborative inquiry” (Drago-
Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p. 242), which is similar to Mezirow’s (1991) learning

244

244

communities of rational discourse and Brookfield’s (2010) emotionally sustaining learning community,
where they can experience critical reflection by taking a critical stance to monitor their thoughts and
biases, exploring their frames of reference and mindsets, and extending their limited perceptions from a
myriad of alternative standpoints (Adams et al., 2016; Kishimoto,2018; Medina, 2013; Miller &
Garran, 2017; Stanley, 2010; Vavrus, 2002) so as to discern what is really true about themselves and
understand the way their relational social positions play out in their professional practices. Professional
organizations like Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research, The Professional and
Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, or Lily Conferences (International
Teaching Learning Cooperative) may help faculty educators to locate their allies and sustain their
practice.
Policy
Drawing from the findings, these faculty educators universally communicated the presence of
constraints and limitations they encountered. However, implied in the absence of what they did not talk
about is an organizational constraint that runs across these seven cases, and that from the very
beginning can limit what they think they can accomplish: The higher education institutions do not set
these faculty educators up for success because there is barely institutional leadership that supports their
work. If professional learning was to be considered active, situated, social and constructed (Putnam &
Borko, 2000, as cited in Webster-Wright, 2009), it has implications for what it means to be professional
and the role of school and system leaders (Muijs et al., 2014). There was no evidence of institutional
leadership or internal accountability from the interview data, indicating that there was a silence about
the institutions’ commitment to pushing for the ideal or creating partnerships in the social improvement
processes (Mehta, 2013). These individuals only got as far as they could, and they were not able to do
more because there was not an institutional structure in place that supported their work. The faculty

245

245

educators need the institution to do more than give them the freedom to do what they want; they need
the institution to stand behind them and say,
This is something we hold up as essential. And we expect that everybody is going to
demonstrate intercultural competence, and these are the people who are here to provide you
with supports and to scaffold your learning in that process.
No evidence showed that and there was a lack of accountability to make their work matter. By and
large, they are constrained to their work because of the nature of opportunity that they are afforded, as
none of them have authority and they could not impose accountability on faculty. Therefore, these
faculty educators are sandwiched between some vaguely set goals that the institutions want for their
faculty to accomplish. Contrary to Elmore’s (2002) notion that institutional leaders engage school
personnel in systematic, cumulative, collective learning about how to reach progressively higher levels
of quality and performance through collaborative work, most of these faculty educators’ work is
relegated and it is not owned collectively. The implication of the interpretation of lack of institutional
leadership leads to policy recommendations. A policy recommendation is that educational leaders take
a critical stance toward reevaluating how faculty development and professional learning are defined in
academia as well as the andragogical implications behind the definitions within the institution’s culture
and initiatives.
In addition, as this study found that faculty educator’s consciousness around their racial identity
factored into their andragogical relationships with faculty and that historically marginalized group
members could proactively fend for themselves with their professional experiences as well as their
knowledge base in the face of challenges in faculty development work. In addition to relying on
personal resources, research of antiracist pedagogy points out that multi-racial co-teaching partnership
not only can serve as a buffer for the potential resistance but also creates room for educators (in this

246

246

case, faculty educators) to share experiences and strategies that make possible institutional
transformation in attitudes and behaviors toward multicultural learning (Miller & Garran, 2017;
Stanley, 2010; Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998). A policy recommendation is that institutional
support be provided to faculty educators by offering multi-racial co-facilitating teams and initiating
strong support networks and mutually respectful campus partnerships with other professionals to
sustain these faculty educators’ practice.
Research
Given the findings revealed in this case study, I present implications for future research and
recommendations to provide additional insight into the areas of faculty development. One area that
would benefit from more research is the qualitative observation of the faculty educators’ instructional
practices, which will serve to further knowledge on issues participants may not be aware of or are not
willing to report (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to make up for the limitation of this study, in which every
piece of evidence was collected from faculty educators’ self-reported statements. It is possible that
these participants presented their “espoused theories” (what they think they believe) rather than their
“theories in use” (what their actions suggest that they believe) (Candy, 1989, as cited in Mezirow,
1991, p. 221). Conducting qualitative observations would illuminate what andragogical practices
faculty educators actually adopt that might help improve the caliber of faculty’s instruction.
Another area that would benefit from more research is that both faculty educators and faculty
members could undertake qualitative interviews in order to gain a richer and multi-layered
understanding of their overall professional learning experience. The study calls greater attention to the
need to conduct detailed research on the andragogical relationship between faculty educators and
faculty, as instructional interactions required both sides and faculty educator’s “pedagogical learner

247

247

knowledge” (Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992, p. 387) of their learners can be further confirmed if
faculty members are involved in the same study.
Another area that is worth pursuing is to examine the way faculty educators guide faculty to
teach ICC to their students. As a body of research indicated that while graduates from postsecondary
institutions need to acquire knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with intercultural competence to
be able to interact effectively with those who are perceived to have different cultural affiliations from
their own and venture forth into a pluralistic world where diversity and different cultures are the norm
(Banks, 2007b; Cohn & Mullennix, 2007; Stone, 2006), universities have not yet purposefully and
systemically prepared students to live and work in culturally diverse environments (Yershova et al.,
2000) despite the wide-ranging initiatives to internationalize university curricula and institutional goals
of intercultural engagement, 21
st
-Century skills, and global citizenship (Deardorff & Jones, 2012; Lee
et al., 2012).
Still another area that is worth studying is to examine the way faculty educators employ the
teaching materials to engage faculty in learning to further their development of ICC and instructional
approaches. Trivette et al. (2012) suggest that learner evaluation of and reflection on the targeted
knowledge or practice was more strongly related to learner skill acquisition, signaling the need to
engage learners in a process of assessing their experiences in the context of some conceptual or
practical model or framework, or some external set of standards or criteria. In this study, only one
research participant mentioned that she made reference to Tanner’s (2013) 21 teaching strategies as a
point of reflection. However, based on the literature review in this study, there is definitely more for
faculty educators to take advantage of: Intercultural Teaching Competence model is suggested to be
used as a tool for instructor reflection (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a, 2016b); the process model
framework of intercultural competence is also recommended by Deardorff (2010b) for faculty to

248

248

engage in self-reflection on their teaching practice. Deardorff even (2010b) offered a set of assessment
questions as a reflection guide. These may constitute the object of future studies.
Another area that opens door for future research is the adjustment of the sampling strategy, as
indicated in the delimitation in chapter three. As I looked for potential candidates who “have
reputations for enacting intercultural competence to engage faculty in learning and support their
instructional improvement,” I shaped my sample in a way that might have prevented me from
identifying faculty educators from historically marginalized groups who were actually doing the work
but may not have a reputation for what they were doing. Although my sample was comprised of four
faculty educators from historically marginalized groups, there is a high likelihood that White faculty
educators will be named as “successful” whereas members from historically marginalized groups will
be overlooked.
In addition, as past literature suggested that faculty educators do not operate independently of
the contexts in which they work (Stanley, 2010), more research is needed in examining how
institutional culture and leadership shape the faculty development program and the faculty ownership
of their professional learning. Evidence can be collected from the presence and absence of institutional
commitment, resources and verbal support from senior-level administrators as well as associated
liaisons or campus partnerships like student affairs and international student service offices.
Conclusion
This study explored the perspectives and experiences of seven faculty educators in 4-year higher
education institutions on how they developed faculty’s capacities to teach in an interculturally
competent way. The findings suggested that faculty educators’ abilities to facilitate change were
hampered by a number of factors, despite their self-perceived responsibilities in relation to ambitious
teaching, which had implications on what they believed they could accomplish through their faculty

249

249

development work. Recommendations for practice, policy, and further research were made at the end of
this chapter.

250

250

References
Achinstein, B., & Athanases, S. Z. (2005). Focusing new teachers on diversity and equity: Toward a
knowledge base for mentors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 843-862.
Adams, M. E., Bell, L. A. E., & Griffin, P. E. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice.
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Arasaratnam-Smith, L.A. (2017). Intercultural competence: An overview. In D. K. Deardorff, & L.A.
Arasaratnam-Smith (Eds.), Intercultural competence in higher education: International
approaches, assessment and application (pp. 7-18). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Banks, J. A. (2007a). Preparing teachers for citizenship education in global times: Ethnicity, social
science research, and education. In J.A. Banks (Ed.), Educating citizens in a multicultural
society (pp. 19-53). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Banks, J. A. (2007b). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global world. In J.A.
Banks (Ed.), Educating citizens in a multicultural society (pp. 151-161). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Banks, K. H. (2009). A qualitative investigation of white students’ perceptions of diversity. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 2(3), 149.
Barbatis, P. (2010). Underprepared, Ethnically Diverse Community College Students: Factors
Contributing to Persistence. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(3), 16.
Barrett, M., Huber, J., & Reynolds, C. (2014). Developing intercultural competence through education.
Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from

251

251

https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/-/developing-intercultural-competence-through-
education
Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age
of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of educational
research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bennett, J. (2012) The development of intercultural facilitation. In J. Berardo & D. Deardorff
(Eds.), Building cultural competence: Innovative activities and models (pp. 13-22). Sterling,
VA: Stylus Pub.
Bensimon, E. (2007). The Underestimated Significance of Practitioner Knowledge in the Scholarship
on Student Success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441–469. Retrieved from
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/216928
Bigatti, S. M., Gibau, G. S., Boys, S., Grove, K., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Khaja, K., & Springer, J. T.
(2012). Faculty perceptions of multicultural teaching in a large urban university. Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 78-93.
Blakeney, A. M. (2005). Antiracist pedagogy: Definition, theory, and professional development.
Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 2(1), 119-132, DOI: 10.1080/15505170.2005.10411532
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). Boston, Mass: Pearson A & B.
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. (2005). Theories of learning and
their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a
changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 40-87). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

252

252

Brayboy, B. M. (2003). The implementation of diversity in predominantly white colleges and
universities. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 72-86.
British Council. (2013). Culture at work. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/research-
policy-insight/policy-reports/culture-work-intercultural-skills-workplace
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In Lyons, N. (ed.) Handbook of
reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry
(pp. 215-236). New York: Springer
Brown, S. C., & Kysilka, M. L. (2002). Applying multicultural and global concepts in the classroom
and beyond. London, United Kingdom: Pearson
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and
market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1-24). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bustillos, L. T., & Siqueiros, M. (2018). Left Out: How Exclusion in California's Colleges and
Universities Hurts Our Values, Our Students, and Our Economy. Campaign for College
Opportunity. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED582669
Carter, F. D. (2006). Key Issues in the persistence of underrepresented minority students. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2006(130), 33–46. https://doi-
org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1002/ir.178
Cartwright, C. (2015). Higher education intercultural campus. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of intercultural competence (pp. 382-384). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483346267.n133
Chavez, A. F., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1999). Racial and ethnic identity and development. New directions
for adult and continuing education, 84, 39-44.

253

253

Choy, J. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary, access, persistence and
attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics.
Chung, R. C. Y., Bemak, F., Talleyrand, R. M., & Williams, J. M. (2018). Challenges in promoting
race dialogues in psychology training: Race and gender perspectives. The Counseling
Psychologist, 46(2), 213-240.
Cohn, E. R., Mullennix, J. W. (2007). Diversity as an integral component of college curricula. In J.
Branche, J. W. Mullennix, & E. R. Cohn (Eds.), Diversity across the curriculum: A guide for
faculty in higher education (pp. 11-17). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creighton, L. M. (2007). Factors affecting the graduation rates of university students from
underrepresented populations. International electronic journal for leadership in learning, 11(7),
1-15.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.
Cushner, K. (2014). Strategies for enhancing intercultural competence across the teacher education
curriculum. In J. Phillion, S. Sharma and J. Rahatzad (Eds.), Internationalizing teacher
education for social justice: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 139-162). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cushner, K. (2015a). Intercultural or multicultural classroom. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of intercultural competence (pp. 515-516). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483346267.n168

254

254

Cushner, K. (2015b). Multicultural education. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
intercultural competence (pp. 642-644). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
10.4135/9781483346267.n208
Cushner, K. (2015c). Teacher education. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural
competence (pp. 785-788). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
10.4135/9781483346267.n264
Cushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2009). Developing the intercultural competence of educators and their
students: Creating blueprints. In D.K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural
competence (pp. 302-320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16, 523-545.Deardorff, D. K. (2004a). In search of intercultural
competence. International Educator, 13(2), 13-15.
Dawson, D., Britnell, J., & Hitchcock, A. (2010). Developing competency models of faculty educators:
using world café to foster dialogue. To improve the academy, 28(1), 3-24.
de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A., Branstetter, C. &
Wang, X. (2019). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018.
(NCES 2019-038). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Deardorff, D. K. (2004b). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of international education at institutions of higher education in the United
States. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of internationalization. Journal of studies in international education, 10(3), 241-266.

255

255

Deardorff, D. (2008) Intercultural competence: A definition, model, and implications for education
abroad. In V. Savicki (Ed.), Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory,
research, and application in international education (pp. 32-52). Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Deardorff, D. K. (2010a). The process model of intercultural competence. Global University Network
for Innovation Newsletter. Retrieved from http://www.guninetwork.org/articles/process-model-
intercultural-competence
Deardorff, D. K. (2010b). Intercultural competence in higher education and intercultural dialogue. In S.
Bergan & H. Land (Eds.), Speaking across borders: The role of higher education in furthering
intercultural dialogue (pp. 87-100). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub.
Deardorff, D. K. (2012b). Intercultural competence in the 21
st
century: Perspectives, Issues,
Application. In B. Breninger, & T. Kaltenbacher (Eds), Creating cultural synergies:
Multidisciplinary perspectives on interculturality and interreligiosity (pp. 7-21). Newcastle
upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Pub.
Deardorff, D.K. (2012, Spring). Building interculturally competent faculty. IIENetworker, 39.
Retrieved from http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/IIEB0112/index.php#/40
Deardorff, D. K. (2015a). Definitions: knowledge, skills, attitudes. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of intercultural competence (pp. 217-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483346267.n79
Deardorff, D. K. (2015b). A 21st Century Imperative: integrating intercultural competence in
Tuning. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 3(1), 137-147.

256

256

Deardorff, D. K., & Jones, E. (2012a). Intercultural competence: An emerging focus in international
higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
of international higher education (pp. 283-304). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dimitrov, N., Dawson, D. L., Olsen, K. C., & Meadows, K. N. (2014). Developing the intercultural
competence of graduate students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(3), 86-103
Dimitrov, N., & Haque, A. (2016a). Intercultural teaching competence: A multi-disciplinary model for
instructor reflection. Intercultural Education, 27(5), 437-456.
Dimitrov, N., & Haque, A. (2016b). Intercultural teaching competence in the disciplines: Teaching
strategies for intercultural learning. In G. García-Pérez & C. Rojas-Primus (Eds.), Promoting
Intercultural Communication Competencies in Higher Education (pp. 89-118). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
Duckworth, R. L., Levy, L. W., & Levy, J. (2005). Present and future teachers of the world’s children:
How internationally-minded are they?. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(3),
279-311.
Fry, G. (2015). Educational intercultural leadership. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
intercultural competence (pp. 281-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
10.4135/9781483346267.n99
Gallois, C. & Liu, S. (2015). Intercultural relations and globalization. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of intercultural competence (pp. 517-519). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483346267.n169
Garson, K., Bourassa, E., & Odgers, T. (2016). Interculturalising the curriculum: Faculty professional
development. Intercultural Education, 27(5), 457-473.Gesche, A., and Makeham, P. (2008).
Creating conditions for intercultural and international learning and teaching. In M. Hellstén and A.

257

257

M. Reid (Eds.), Researching international pedagogies: Sustainable practice for teaching and
learning in higher education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Springer.
Gibbons, L. K., & Cobb, P. (2016). Content-focused coaching: Five key practices. The Elementary
School Journal, 117(2), 237-260.
Gleditsch, R. F. & Berg, J. A. (2017). Racial Attitudes of University Faculty Members: Does Interracial
Contact Matter? Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39, 104-116. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/90007874
Godley, A. J. (2012). Intercultural discourse and communication in education. In C. B. Paulston, S. F.
Kiesling & E. S. Rangel (Eds.), The handbook of intercultural discourse and communication
(pp. 449-481). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Gordon, J. (2007). What can White faculty do?. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 337-347
Grimmett, P. P., & MacKinnon, A. M. (1992). Chapter 9: Craft knowledge and the education of
teachers. Review of research in education, 18(1), 385-456.
Gregersen-Hermans, J. (2017). Intercultural competence development in higher education. In D. K.
Deardorff, & L.A. Arasaratnam-Smith (Eds.), Intercultural competence in higher education:
International approaches, assessment and application (pp. 68-82). Abingdon, United Kingdom:
Routledge.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Henry, F., & Tator, C. (Eds.). (2009). Racism in the Canadian university: Demanding social justice,
inclusion, and equity. University of Toronto Press.
Hernandez, J. C., & Lopez, M. A. (2004). Leaking pipeline: Issues impacting Latino/a college student
retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 6(1), 37-60.

258

258

Hook, J. N., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2015). Cultural humility: The cornerstone of positive contact with
culturally different individuals and groups? American Psychologist, 70, 661– 662.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0038965
Horn, I. S., & Campbell, S. S. (2015). Developing pedagogical judgment in novice teachers: mediated
field experience as a pedagogy for teacher education, Pedagogies: An International Journal,
10(2), 149-176.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory
Into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.
Igarashi, H., & Saito, H. (2014). Cosmopolitanism as cultural capital: Exploring the intersection of
globalization, education and stratification. Cultural Sociology, 8(3), 222-239.
Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university
diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586-611.
Jehangir, R. (2010). Stories as knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first-generation college
students into the academy. Urban Education, 45(4), 533-553.
Kaplowitz, D. R., & Griffin, S. S. S. R. (Eds.). (2019). Race Dialogues: A Facilitator's Guide to
Tackling the Elephant in the Classroom. Teachers College Press.
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural
maturity. Journal of college student development, 46(6), 571-592.
Kinzie, J., Gonyea, R., Shoup, R., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). Promoting persistence and success of
underrepresented students: Lessons for teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2008(115), 21-38.
Kishimoto, K. (2018). Anti-racist pedagogy: From faculty’s self-reflection to organizing within and
beyond the classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(4), 540-554.

259

259

Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., Cunard, A., &
Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of
ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226-243.
Lawler, P. A., & King, K. P. (2000a). Refocusing faculty development: The view from an adult
learning perspective. Adult Education Research Conference. Vancouver, Canada: New Prairie
Press. Retrieved from https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2000/papers/48/
Lawler, P. A., & King, K. P. (2000b). Planning for effective faculty development: Using adult learning
strategies. Professional practices in adult education and human resource development
series. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Lee, A., Poch, R., Shaw, M., & Williams, R. (2012). Special issue: Engaging diversity in undergraduate
classrooms: A pedagogy for developing intercultural competence. ASHE Higher Education
Report, 38(2), 1–132. https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1002/aehe.20002
Li, D., & Koedel, C. (2017). Representation and salary gaps by race-ethnicity and gender at selective
public universities. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 343-354. doi:10.3102/0013189X17726535
Lichtman, M. (2014). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2009). Reading reports of qualitative research-
critically: Things the reader should expect. In L. F. Locke, S. J. Silverman, & W. W. Spirduso
(Eds.), Reading and understanding research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles:
Sage Publications.

260

260

Medina, J. (2013). Active ignorance, epistemic others and epistemic friction. In J. Medina (Ed.), The
epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant
imaginations. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Fostering transformative adult learning. In Transformative dimensions of adult
learning, (pp. 196-226). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, J., & Garran, A. M. (2017). Teaching about race and racism. In J. Miller & A. M. Garran (Eds.),
Racism in the United States: Implications for the helping professions (pp. 309-334). New York,
NY: Springer Publishing.
Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of
the art-teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 25(2), 231-256.
Murray, N. (2016). Dealing with diversity in higher education: Awareness-raising and a linguistic
perspective on teachers' intercultural competence. International Journal for Academic
Development, 21(3), 166-177. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2015.1094660
Museus, S. D., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and ethnic minority
college student persistence. The Review of Higher Education, 33(1), 67-94.
Ng, J. C., Lee, S. S., & Pak, Y. K. (2007). Chapter 4 contesting the model minority and perpetual
foreigner stereotypes: A critical review of literature on Asian Americans in education. Review of
research in education, 31(1), 95-130.

261

261

Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of
teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching
practices. Higher Education, 68(1), 29-45.
Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 7(1), 12.
Ouellett, M. L. (2010) Overview of diversity issues relating to faculty development. In K. H. Gillespie
& D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (pp. 185-201). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ping, C., Schellings, G., & Beijaard, D. (2018). Teacher educators’ professional learning: A literature
review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 93-104.
Post, P. A. (2011). Trial by hire: The seven stages of learning to teach in higher
education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4(12), 25-34. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.19030/cier.v4i12.6659
Quaye, S. J. (2012). Think before you teach: Preparing for dialogues about racial realities. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(4), 542-562.
Reid, L. D., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2003). Race matters: The relation between race and general campus
climate. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(3), 263.
Reynolds, R., Ferguson-Patrick, K., & Macqueen, S. (2017). “Players in the World”: Action for
Intercultural Competence in Classroom Pedagogy. In S. Choo, D. Sawch, A. Villanueva, & R.
Vinz (Eds.), Educating for the 21st Century (pp. 47-71). Singapore: Springer.

262

262

Samuels, D. (2018). Becoming a culturally inclusive educator. In M. Kozimor-King, & J. Chin
(Eds.), Learning from each other: Refining the practice of teaching in higher education (pp.
134-142). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional
vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(1), 20-37.
Singleton, G. E. (2014). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in
schools. Corwin Press.
Sobré-Denton, M., & Bardhan, N. (2013). Cultivating cosmopolitanism for intercultural
communication: Communicating as a global citizen. Routledge.
Sotto-Santiago, S. (2017). What gets lost in the numbers: A case study of the experiences and
perspectives of Black and Latino faculty in academic medicine. [Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Denver].
Spitzberg, B., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. Deardorff
(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 3-52). Durham, NC: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Stanley, C. A. (2010) Conceptualizing, designing, and implementing multicultural faculty development
activities. In K. H. Gillespie & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (pp. 203-
224). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 1-7). Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/

263

263

Stillman, J., Anderson, L, Arellano, A., Wong, P. L., Berta-Avila, M., Alfaro, C., & Struthers, K.
(2013). Putting PACT in context: Teacher educators collaborating around program-specific and
shared learning goals. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(4), 135-157.
Stockley, D., McDonald, J., & Hoessler, C. (2015). Nudges, pulls, and serendipity: Multiple pathways
to faculty development. Journal of Faculty Development, 29(3), 61-6.
Stone, N. (2006). Conceptualising intercultural effectiveness for university teaching. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 10(4), 334–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287634
Szecsi, T., Spillman, C., Vázquez-Montilla, E., & Mayberry, S. C. (2010). Transforming teacher
cultural landscapes by reflecting on multicultural literature. Multicultural Education, 17(4), 44-
48.
Tanaka, G. (2003). Chapter three: Why white students still want diversity. Counterpoints, 97, 69-120.
Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement
and cultivate classroom equity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322-331.
Teekens, H. (2003). The Requirement to Develop Specific Skills for Teaching in an Intercultural
Setting. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 108–119.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315302250192
Tervalon, M., & Murray-Garcia, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical
distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of health
care for the poor and underserved, 9(2), 117-125.
Timmermans, J. A. (2014). Identifying threshold concepts in the careers of educational developers,
International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 305-
317, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2014.895731
Ting-Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2018). Communicating across cultures. Guilford Publications.

264

264

Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., & O’Herin, C. E. (2009). Characteristics and consequences of
adult learning methods and strategies. Research Brief, 3(1), 1-33.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). New census bureau report analyzes U.S. population projections. Retrieved
from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). School Enrollment in the United States 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/P20-584.html
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The Condition of
Education 2018 (NCES 2018-144), Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61
Vavrus, M. (2002). Transforming the multicultural education of teachers: Theory, research, and
practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Victorino, C. A., Nylund-Gibson, K., & Conley, S. (2013). Campus racial climate: A litmus test for
faculty satisfaction at four-year colleges and universities. The Journal of Higher
Education, 84(6), 769-805.
Warren, L. (2002). Methods for addressing diversity in the classroom. In Wadsworth, E. C., Hilsen, L.
R., & Gillespie, K. H. (Eds.), A guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and
resources (pp. 214-226). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
Way, N., & Rogers, O. (2015). They say black men won’t make it, but I know I’m gonna make it’:
ethnic and racial identity development in the context of cultural stereotypes. The Oxford
handbook of identity development, 269-285.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New
York, NY: Maxwell Macmillan International.

265

265

Yershova, Y., DeJaeghere, J., & Mestenhauser, J. (2000). Thinking not a Usual: Adding the
Intercultural Perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(1), 39–78.
https://doi.org/10.1177/102831530000400105

266

266

Appendix A
The formal interview protocol
Faculty Educator’s Name: _________ Date & Time: ____________ Location: ___________

Introduction
Thank you so much for meeting with me and consenting to participate in this interview for my
study. [beginning of elevator pitch] As you may already know, my study is about examining the way
that faculty educators, who are known by others to engage in ICC, engage in these practices when they
provide PLs to faculty as well as how they support faculty’s ability to develop ICC in their own
instruction. I am investigating this phenomenon through two case studies where I will explore the
interaction between faculty educators and faculty during PL sessions [end of elevator pitch].
Today, I am going to ask some open-ended questions that will help me understand your
perspectives and experiences. Before we begin the interview, I would like to remind you that
participating in this study is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any questions that you do not
want to answer; you also can stop the interview at any time. More information can be found in the
information sheet.
Would you mind if I use this digital recorder during the interview? It will help me keep an
accurate record of your experiences along with my notes to track along with the interview. (If there is
anything you would rather not be recorded, I am also happy to turn the recorder off.) As I mention in
the information sheet, the identity of the participants in this study will remain strictly confidential at all
times. Do you have any questions or concerns before we begin?

Transition: I am going to begin our interview by asking you questions that focus on your pathway to
your current position as a faculty educator.

1. How is it that you came to become a faculty educator? [CF: faculty educators – knowledge
bases, self-awareness]
a. How would you describe your career pathway to this profession?
b. What was it that facilitated your entry to this field?
c. Think about a recent interaction you had as a faculty educator. How would you say your
educational background prepared you for that interaction?
d. Think about something that happened recently in your work as a FE, how would you say
your discipline training prepared you for that experience? (How did you use what you
learned in your discipline training in that interaction/experience?)
e. How does your own identity shape you professionally?
a) How does your own identity impact your work with people who you perceive are
different from you? Give me an example.
b) What are some ways your personal identity, including race, ethnicity, religion,
gender, primary language, occupation, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation,
has been a major influence in your life?
c) For example, have you made choices or developed life priorities based on your
personal identity/identities?

267

267

2. What is it like to work as a faculty educator? [CF: faculty educators – self-awareness]
a. How do you see your role as a faculty educator (e.g., mentor, facilitator, change agent,
and so on)?
b. What do you think are your job responsibilities as a faculty educator?
c. Think about a recent day that you consider to be typical. Walk me through that day.
d. Describe a situation that required you to consider a different perspective from your own
when exploring an issue. Give me an example of how you walk in the shoes of a faculty
member you were responsible for teaching.
e. Describe an instance when you and another staff member worked really well together.
What do you think helped make that experience a positive one?
f. What, if any, are some of the challenges that you encountered during faculty development
sessions?
a) How did that come about?
b) How did you address those tensions?
c) How did the faculty members respond?
(I’m afraid I need to stop you at this point so that I can get down exactly what you said because I
don’t want to lose that particular quote.)

Transition: Now I want to shift gear a little bit and I am going to ask a set of questions that focus on
your understandings and beliefs about the role of intercultural competence (ICC) in working with
faculty. I am going to ask questions that explore your thoughts about the role ICC plays in your own
instruction as well as the ways in which you work to build faculty’s ICC capacities for their teaching
with their students.

3. You have been identified by others or have identified yourself as highly competent in
intercultural competence (ICC). Why do you think is it important to operate in
interculturally competent ways as a faculty educator? [CF: faculty educators – ICC,
instructional vision,]
a. What is the importance of engaging in interculturally competent ways with faculty?
b. How is it, if at all, connected to how faculty learn about instruction?
c. How, if at all, is it connected to whether faculty improve their instruction?
d. How, if at all, is it the FE’s responsibility to build faculty’s capacity to engage their
students in interculturally competent ways?
e. What role, if any, does intercultural competence play in whether students (undergraduate,
graduate) learn in their classes at X university?
f. Some would say that we should not need to worry about cultural differences when we
teach because learning is learning. What would you say to that?
g. What … in relation to ICC do you think you have that help(s) you work effectively as a
faculty educator?
a) qualities/dispositions (being)
b) knowledge (knowing)
c) skillset (doing)

268

268

4. What opportunities have you had working and collaborating in multicultural settings?
[CF: faculty educators – self-awareness; interactions between the faculty educator and faculty
– collaborative learning]
a. Talk about a time that you successfully adapted yourself to a culturally different
environment as a faculty educator. What strategies, if any, did you use?
b. What strategies, if any, have you used to monitor your own biases and assumptions?
c. When interacting with a person from a different culture than your own, how, if at all, do
you ensure that the communication between the two of you is effective?
d. Walk me through a situation in which you encountered a conflict with someone from a
different cultural background than yours. How did you handle the situation?
e. Think about a time when you worked with faculty who were of different races/ethnicities.
What did you do, if anything, to help them work together?
a) Think about a time when you worked with faculty who were of different cultures.
What did you do, if anything, to help them work together?

Transition: It’s great to hear from you about your experience. You have been telling me something
really important. Before I ask you more questions, do you have any questions? In this next section I
am going to focus on your professional experience in terms of coordination and facilitation of the
PL sessions.

5. What, if any, is the institutional initiative that faculty development program aligns with?
[CF: institutional context]
a. What ideals, if any, are most important to you and your institution? Tell me more, if you
will, about your thinking on that.
b. How, if at all, has the institutional initiative influenced the way you operate as a faculty
educator? Give me an example of that.
c. How, if at all, has your institution shaped your decision making in deciding what to
include and exclude in the faculty’s professional learning?

6. Walk me through a PL experience where you intentionally set out to foster faculty’s
capacity to engage in interculturally competent instruction. [CF: faculty educators –
instructional vision; faculty members; ideal outcome]
a. Tell me about a professional learning experience, where ICC was not the focus of the PL,
but you infused it into the PL experience.
b. How receptive have you found faculty to be in developing intercultural competence as a
part of their instructional approach?
c. Describe an instance where you have worked with someone who didn’t see the value of
developing this knowledge and skill at the beginning of the PL and changed his/her/hir
mind by the end. What was that process of working with that person like? (What, if
anything, did you do to address faculty’s resistance?)
d. Tell me about a time when you worked with someone (or set of people) who wanted to
adopt interculturally competent approaches and were better able to explain their
importance than they were to actually adopt the practices.
e. Tell me about a time when you were unsuccessful. What changes, if any, would you make
to improve that PL?

269

269

(That’s helpful. I’d appreciate a bit more detail.)

Transition: Thanks for providing me with detailed description of your experiences. Next, let’s talk a
bit more about the interactions between you and faculty during the PL. Is that okay for you?

7. Think about the recent faculty learning session you facilitated. How did you facilitate a
learning climate that contributed to faculty’s learning? [CF: interactions between the faculty
educator and faculty – positive PL climate]
a. Think about a recent one and tell me what, if anything, did you do to build rapport with
faculty.
b. Also, think about this experience. What would you say, if anything, was connected to
your efforts to engage in interculturally competent ways with the faculty?
c. What, if any, were the techniques/strategies that you used to … norms?
a) establish
b) maintain
c) reinforce

8. What do you usually do to promote faculty’s learning? Walk me through the process. [CF:
interactions between the faculty educator and faculty – content & process]
a. Think about a recent PL and tell me about the general course structure you have for PLs
you have facilitated (i.e., the outline of what is usually involved in the PL).
b. Think about a recent PL and tell me about what learning activities, if any, that you
incorporated in the PL to help engage the faculty in learning (e.g., pair discussion, group
discussion, role-play, etc.).
c. Think about a recent PL and tell me about what instructional strategies, if any, that you
utilized to engage faculty in learning.
d. Think about a recent PL and tell me about how you monitor faculty’s learning during the
PL.

9. How, if at all, do you wrestle with challenging faculty’s thinking process? [CF: interactions
between the faculty educator and faculty – guided critical reflection]
a. What, if anything, have you done to provoke/sensitize faculty’s thinking?
b. What, if anything, have you done to raise faculty’s self-awareness?
c. How, if at all, do you disrupt faculty’s notions of their unconscious bias (e.g., the
unconscious bias toward historically marginalized students)?
d. How, if at all, do you moderate faculty’s pre-conceived notions (e.g., the
preconceived notions of students of culturally different backgrounds)?

10. What do you think an ideal PL would be like? [CF: ideal outcome]
a. What do you want faculty learning to look like on your campus?
b. What is the ultimate outcome that you seek to achieve?
c. In this ideal PL, how would the faculty members describe their overall learning
experiences? Why do you think so?

270

270

Transition: Thanks for sharing me with detailed description of your experiences. I really appreciate it.
Before we talk about the last question, do you have anything to add? In this next set of questions, I am
going to focus on your evolution as a faculty educator.

11. Take a moment to look back at your past experiences working as a faculty educator as a
whole. Tell me about how, if at all, you have grown/evolved as a faculty educator. Take me
through that experience. [CF: faculty educators]
a. What are the opportunities that arise that allow you to evolve as a faculty educator?
b. What role, if any, do you think your personal qualities (being) have played in helping
you navigate your role as a faculty educator?
c. What role, if any, do you think your knowledge bases (knowing) have played in
helping you navigate your role as a faculty educator?
d. What role, if any, do you think your facilitation skills (doing) have played in helping
you navigate your role as a faculty educator?
e. What role, if any, do you think the institution you work at has played in helping you
navigate your role as a faculty educator? What would be a recent example of this?
a) What institutional support, if any, have you enjoyed?
b) What would be a recent example where you experienced a constraint imposed by the
institution (intentional or not)?
(Tell me more about your thinking on that. Why do you feel that way?)

Transition: Before we end the interview, I’d love to ask you a few short demographic questions. It is
possible that I have already asked some of the questions above but just in case I miss the information.

12. Demographic questions:
a. What is your current position/academic status at this institution?
b. How long have you served at this institution?
c. What do you identify yourself as in terms of race, ethnicity, and nationality?

Lastly, is there anything I have not asked or we have not talked about that you think we should have
discussed that would help me understand your approach to being interculturally competent when
working with faculty here at X university or the way you foster faculty’s ability to engage in
interculturally competent ways with their students?

Closing Statement
Thank you for spending your valuable time to interview with me today. Your input is very
important to this study and I will follow up with additional questions during the remainder of the data
collection period. Please feel free to share with me any additional thoughts at any time. I’d love to
confirm our next interview/observation time. Would …(date) work for you?

271

271

Appendix B
Scenario-based/Situational interview protocol
Introductory narrative
To understand your complicated and nuanced work as a faculty educator, I’m going to provide you
some hypothetical scenarios. I’d love you to share with me how you would navigate the situation if you
were in those specific scenarios. Also, try to think aloud and tell me what strategies or andragogical
moves you want to model for the participants in those situations.

Context
Due to a mandated institutional guideline on social justice education, you’re facilitating a 3-hour-long
PL on anti-racist pedagogy in the online environment for your own institution. The faculty may be
stressed because they are busy transitioning their courses online for the new semester. The participants
consist of 6 White male faculty, 4 White female faculty, 1 African American male faculty, 3 African
American female faculty, 2 Latina female faculty, and 1 Asian male faculty members.

Scenario #1
Before the PL, you initiate an email correspondence with the participants, in which you write a
welcome message to encourage participants to engage in rich discussion during the upcoming PL. You
also introduce yourself by sharing with them your educational background along with a photo of
yourself.

One of the participants uses the reply-to-all function to your email thread with the following questions:
“Who are you to teach me about race? What can I learn from you?”

If you do not know anything about this person’s race, how would you respond to this question?

Suppose you do have a roster of participants’ basic information, including their race/ethnicity,
discipline, and whether they are tenure/tenure-track faculty or clinical, practice, or teaching faculty.
Imagine it is a White faculty member who sends this comment back to you and the rest of the
participants. How would you tackle the situation before the PL starts? Why? How, if at all, would
gender matter?

Now, imagine this question comes from an African American faculty member, how would you
respond? Walk me through your thought process. How, if at all, would gender matter?
- I noticed differences in your approach. OR I didn’t hear any differences in our approach.
Would tell me about that. What would you say informed your choices?

Scenario #2
During the PL, you highlight the importance of anti-racist pedagogy in relation to your institution’s
initiatives on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. However, before you get into the course content, one of
the participants says, “I already do that in my class.”

Now, imagine it is a White male faculty member who says this. What would be something you want
to say out loud at the moment? What would be something you do not want to say out loud at the

272

272

moment? What might be the competing things you’re thinking about at the moment? What are the
questions you might have in response to this comment? Why is that? Tell me a little more about that.

What if it is an African American female faculty, who states, “I already do that in my class”? What
would you do or say? Why is that? Walk me through your thought process.

What if it is a Latina female faculty member, who expresses the same notion? How would you
respond to her? Why?

What if it is an Asian American male faculty member, who says that? What would you do?

- I noticed differences in your approach. OR I didn’t hear any differences in our approach.
Would tell me about that. What would you say informed your choices?

Scenario #3
In the same setting, as you finish introducing anti-racist pedagogy, a White female faculty member
says, “I don’t see color. We all bleed red. I share no responsibility for oppression and discrimination
on campus.” How would you respond to this comment? Why?

What if this comment comes from an Asian American male faculty member? What would you do?

How, if at all, does the racial composition of the participants (the whole group) influence the way
you respond to this comment?
- I noticed differences in your approach. OR I didn’t hear any differences in our approach.
Would tell me about that. What would you say informed your choices?

Scenario #4
During small group discussions, you overhear a White male faculty member lash out about what he
thinks about #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) Movement and comment that “Nowadays, White people are
the ones being discriminated against. For those White people supporting #BlackLivesMatter, they are
nothing but racial traitors!”

How would you respond to this comment? Why? Tell me more about what you are thinking.

Scenario #5
Before the end of the PL, a White female faculty avidly shares her seemingly well-intentioned “anti-
racist” instructional approach, in which she uses online polls for discussion prompts and immediately
demonstrates every single response after the poll. She raises the question, “How have I not helped? All
voices matter in my class.”

What would be something you want to say out loud at the moment? What would be something you do
not want to say out loud at the moment? Why?
Scenario #6
After the PL, you invite the participants to connect anti-racist pedagogies to Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion and student learning and share their thoughts on the discussion forum, one of the participants

273

273

leaves the following comment: “It’s students’ fault that they don’t feel like they belonged and could not
learn in my class.”

Imagine it is a Latina female faculty member who makes this comment. What would you do in
response to her comment? Tell me more.

What if it is an African American male faculty member who makes this comment? What would you
do? Why?

What if this comment comes from a White female faculty member? What would you do to respond to
her?

- I noticed differences in your approach. OR I didn’t hear any differences in our approach.
Would tell me about that. What would you say informed your choices?

Wrap-up
Finally, is there a scenario that you have experienced but we haven’t discussed in this interview?
Walk me through that experience and help me understand you better. Thank you for your time and
input.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied intercultural competence (ICC) and teacher education literature to investigate and understand the way faculty educators supported faculty’s capacities toward interculturally competent instruction in 4-year institutions of higher education. The research participants were referred to me by nominators through purposive and snowball sampling. Seven faculty educators all had minimum of three years of experience in the field of faculty development despite their varying career paths and disciplines. This study utilized a qualitative multi-site case study design with one-on-one (scenario-based) interviews using a semi-structured interview protocol to gather information on the participants’ perspectives and experiences regarding the way they incorporated ICC into their instruction. The analysis revealed three findings: First, each approached their work with the goal of supporting the learning of both faculty and their students, and yet they were held back due to a range of constraints: Some believed they could only accomplish so much and adopted tips-and-tricks approach (Loughran, 2006), while the others saw constraints as growth opportunities to move the faculty forward and develop their practice. Second, these faculty educators had certain ICC attributes and believed that those attributes contributed to their work and they connected ICC with student motivation and faculty reflection. Third, there was a spectrum of ways the faculty educators construed their roles based on how they perceived others experienced their racial identities (i.e., historically marginalized groups and predominantly White groups), which had andragogical implications. The study disclosed the way faculty educators wrestled with their work within the institutional context.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

The dearth of learner-centered teaching methods in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate

PDF

The transference of continuous intergroup dialogue skills to the classroom by participating faculty: an evaluation study

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

Following the leader: leadership and the enculturation of the involuntarily transferred teacher to their new school site

PDF

Representation matters: the ways in which African American faculty support African American students in higher education

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees

PDF

Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

A phoenix first must burn; how Black women in higher education administration at a private, historically White institution in Southern California implement the reactionary principle of profession...

PDF

Foreign language education for the 21st century: developing intercultural competence in an online intercultural exchange

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Will school-based online faculty development be an effective tool for their professional growth?

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Wan-Ju (author)

Core Title Examining how faculty educators believed they supported faculty in higher education institutions

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/27/2021

Defense Date 04/19/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag faculty development,faculty educators,intercultural competence,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning,Teacher Education,teaching and learning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Deardorff, Darla (committee member), Grant, Derisa (committee member)

Creator Email veasnayu168@gmail.com,wanjulee@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-455182

Unique identifier UC11668658

Identifier etd-LeeWanJu-9554.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-455182 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeWanJu-9554.pdf

Dmrecord 455182

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lee, Wan-Ju

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA