University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Opening interpretations: visual literacy and teaching for inclusion, first-year studio faculty innovate for improvement

(USC Thesis Other)

Opening interpretations: visual literacy and teaching for inclusion, first-year studio faculty innovate for improvement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Opening Interpretations: Visual Literacy and Teaching for Inclusion
First-Year Studio Faculty Innovate for Improvement
by
Katherine C. Rosenberg

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2020

Copyright 2020 Katherine C. Rosenberg

ii

Dedication

To my son Estivido Marcel Ramos.
You inspire me daily; I love you so.

iii
Acknowledgements

This study was developed during a shelter in place order. While I researched, through my
windows, I could hear an enraged Bay Area, as our fragile democracy has been confronted
creating a tipping point of violence and outrage for the social and racial injustices endured by
Black Americans. The toppling removals of Confederate sculptures during these unprecedented
times shows the power of visual language and reaffirms art as a platform for ethics, arguing its
purpose, and igniting its beauty as essential, not an accessory. The imperative for the visual arts
is to visibly help create a platform for silenced and oppressed critical voices. The imperative for
higher ed arts education is to amplify, heal, and foster new narratives by students sanctioned to
uncertain futures. As a researcher, I acknowledge and honor the scholarly work of Black,
Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC). In particular, I credit Black women scholars for their
research, including an insurmountable amount of history on collectives. I thank BIPOC scholars
for providing evidence for supporting grassroots efforts, building faculty communities, forming
coalitions with shared leadership, recognizing lived experiences, and engaging in mentorship.
Though all the scholars in the reference section are cited throughout the research, I recognize the
gesture as humbly insufficient, as it melds all scholars into an academic system that has unjustly
erased so many voices. I am committed to changing educational systems for diversity, equity and
inclusion and will continue to be an ally and accomplice for anti-racist work.
As I worked and toiled over these pages, I recall the lasting impression of being ten years
old, watching my mother with her glasses low on her nose, studying for her law exams, divorced,
with four children in the 1970’s. She empowered her feminist self, and visibly represented her
educational efforts to her children. All while suspecting the cancer within would take her life
shortly after her achievement. Today, as my son heads to his first years of college, I hope that

iv
education will inspire him. It was important to me that he experienced my belief in the endeavor
of ambitious learning.
My journey as an artist saved my life by locating a discipline through the arts. Going to
art college directed me towards education. While earning my MFA at UC Davis, I recognized
that I was also good at teaching. Through teaching I found leadership, and while honing my
leadership knowledge at USC Rossier School of Education, I found scholarship. I am grateful for
the causality of my life. There has never been a time that I have felt such immense pride in my
education as with this achievement.
I express profound gratitude to the leadership of the organization of focus at all levels,
which made the research possible. To the first-year studio faculty who confirmed your positive
influence on the students, it was an honor and incredibly moving to hear your teaching stories,
thank you for your time. To my fellow Cohort Ten of the Organizational Change and Leadership
Program (OCL), what an inspiring set of people. Ginny DeFrank, my swimming buddy, you
helped me to stay afloat, with laughter and tears. To the OCL faculty, your guidance was an
invaluable gift that will live on in my leadership. Thank you to Amy Carmack for your patience
in coaching and editing. To the dissertation committee, Chair, Dr. Courtney Malloy, I never
wanted our conversations to end, thank you for empowering my self-confidence. To Dr. Kathy
Stowe and Dr. Eric Canny, thank you for encouraging my voice.
I know my Dad is proud and watching over me. To my sisters, brother, and all of my
family thank you for your love, and support. To my stepmother Lynn MacCuish, thank you for
finding art college, and keeping me on course. To all of my best friends Juliette, Kate, Barbara,
and Ed for your editing, and cheerleading, and to Modesto Covarrubias, my art collaborator in
RoCoCo, your patience meant everything. I look forward to the return of more joy together.

v

Table of Contents

Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ix

Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
Organizational Context and Mission ....................................................................... 2
Organizational Performance Status/Need ............................................................... 3
Related Literature .................................................................................................... 3
Importance of Addressing the Problem .................................................................. 6
Organizational Performance Goal ........................................................................... 8
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................... 8
Stakeholder Group for the Study ............................................................................ 9
Stakeholder Performance Goals ............................................................................ 10
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................... 10
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ........................................................ 11
Definitions ............................................................................................................. 12
Organization of Study ........................................................................................... 13

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ............................................................................ 15
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 15
Influences on the Problem of Practice .................................................................. 15
Educational History and the Influences on Inclusion in Art Colleges ...... 15
Critical Components of Visual Literacy in Higher Education .................. 20
Application of Visual Literacy through the Interaction of Critique .......... 24
A Research Framework for the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Analysis
................................................................................................................... 27
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .................. 29
Knowledge Influences ............................................................................... 29
Motivational Influences ............................................................................ 35
Organizational Influences ......................................................................... 42
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of First-Year Faculty Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context .......................................................... 49
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 51

Chapter Three: Methods .................................................................................................... 52
Participating Stakeholders ..................................................................................... 53
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................... 53

vi
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................... 54
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation ...................................... 54
Interviews .................................................................................................. 54
Document Analysis ................................................................................... 55
Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................ 56
Ethics ................................................................................................................... 58
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................... 59

Chapter Four: Results and Findings .................................................................................. 61
Participating Stakeholders ..................................................................................... 61
Interview Participants ........................................................................................... 61
Results and Findings ............................................................................................. 63
Knowledge ................................................................................................ 63
Motivation ................................................................................................. 76
Organization .............................................................................................. 88
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 99

Chapter Five: Discussions and Recommendations ......................................................... 101
Introduction and Overview ................................................................................. 101
Discussion ........................................................................................................... 101
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ............................. 103
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................... 103
Motivation Recommendations ................................................................ 107
Organization Recommendations ............................................................. 111
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ................................................. 119
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ................................... 120
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ................................................. 120
Level 3: Behavior .................................................................................... 122
Level 2: Learning .................................................................................... 125
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................... 127
Evaluation Tools ..................................................................................... 127
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 129

References ................................................................................................................. 131

Appendices ................................................................................................................. 150
Appendix A: Questions for Interview ................................................................. 150

vii
List of Tables

Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals10

Table 2. Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Gap Analysis ......... 35

Table 3. Motivation Influences and Assessment for Gap Analysis ........................ 42

Table 4. Organizational Influences and Assessment for Gap Analysis .................. 48

Table 5. Participating Faculty with Color Assigned Pseudonyms .......................... 62

Table 6. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .................. 104

Table 7. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ................... 108

Table 8. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................ 112

Table 9. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .. 121

Table 10. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ......... 122

Table 11. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ..................................... 123

Table 12. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program .................. 126

Table 13. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ................................ 136

viii
List of Figures

Figure 1. Instructional development for first-year studio faculty at IADI ............... 50

ix
Abstract

This study focused on first-year studio (FYS) faculty to converge and plan improvement for
student visual literacy as an inclusion strategy for the learning environment at an art college. The
qualitative case study included interviews from fourteen FYS faculty. The Clark and Estes Gap
Analytic Framework (2008) was applied for an innovation model that identified influences in the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. The data found faculty adamant in their
desire to eradicate exclusion. However, the findings indicated a lack of self-regulatory skills to
reflect on instructional practices. Motivational influence gaps included problems in faculty
collective efficacy which blocked collegiality. A lack of commitment to convergent spaces and
interdisciplinary collaboration was found within the organization. The data uncovered needs to
address faculty isolation, exclusion, elitism, and unhealthy competition within the systems of
higher ed art education. Organizational change theories and the New World Kirkpatrick
Evaluation Model were applied to create recommendations for the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational solutions needed to improve teaching for inclusion with visual literacy as a
strategy in the first-year studio learning environment.
Keywords: visual literacy, teaching for inclusion, first-year students, collective efficacy,
collective agency, action research, instructional development, lateral peer mentorship

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Each moment someone chooses to start a new educational path is a courageous moment
for the student, and an opportunity for a faculty to help. As college students begin their learning
experience, many traditionally underserved and minoritized students will search for signs of
safety, kinship, and respect amongst their peers and faculty (Glass, Kociolek, Wongtrirat, Lynch,
& Cong, 2015). Multiple factors contribute to a shaky start in college, such as a low sense of
belonging, microaggressions in the classroom, and a lack of culturally relevant pedagogy
(García-Ros, Pérez-González, Cavas-Martínez, & Tomás, 2018). Initially, weak interactions
between faculty and students can affect the learning experience, create barriers to an inclusive
atmosphere, and lower learning responses in underserved subgroups (Van Horne, Lin, Anson, &
Jacobson, 2018). In the meantime, a requirement for students is to immerse themselves in the
rigor of novel learning interactions, where they may see signals of exclusion in their courses
(Bensimon, 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; MacCabe, 2009; Walton, Cohen, Cwik, & Spencer,
2012). Complicating the signals in the learning atmosphere is a lack of visual literacy that brings
insufficient interpretation skills (Bleed, 2005). As a result, misinterpretations and social context
blockades can create uneven engagement in the classroom.
The social engagement within the first-year studio atmosphere relies on the physical
aspects of a lab space and the interaction of the learners. Potentially, studio learning can have
misunderstood processes, and behaviors of participants can be overlooked (Salazar, 2013a).
Consequently, the retention of first-year students to the second year is a critical goal, and
miscommunications in the learning environment can diminish academic achievement, affecting
continued persistence and graduation from college (Bensimon, 2004; Walton et al., 2012).

2
Integral to the studio atmosphere are interpretation skills of visual literacy, which engage
social and cultural learning affecting perceptions of inclusion (McKenna, 2011). According to
the Association of College and Research Libraries (2011), visual literacy is a foundational set of
competencies that enable a person to interact with visual culture by finding, interpreting, and
creating meaning while evaluating images. A visually literate person can apply analysis for
understanding multiple perspectives of context, ethics, aesthetics, and technical components,
such as the use of materials and media (Charland, 2011). An individual who is visually literate
imbues a criticality to consuming visual culture and contributes to constructing a critical voice
through visual images, actions, and events (Castro & Batorowicz, 2017). Visual literacy is an
evidenced-based student learning outcome (SLO), inter-reliant on communicative learning in the
socio-cultural atmosphere of the learning environment (Franco & Unrath, 2014). The purpose of
this dissertation was to conduct a gap analysis at The Institute of Art, Design, and Innovation,
focusing on the first-year studio faculty who will converge and plan to improve student visual
literacy as an inclusion strategy for the learning environment by December 2020.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Institute of Art, Design, and Innovation (IADI, pseudonym) is located in a major city
in California. The context is urban and globally known for a rich history of creative thinking,
social activism, and environmental consciousness. IADI is a nonprofit, private, and independent
art college affiliated with American Independent Colleges of Art and Design. First-year studio
courses, also known as foundational studio courses, include four courses that are required for
students earning a Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA), Bachelor of Architecture (BARCH), or
Bachelor of Arts (BA). Enrollment of international students as first-time freshmen has increased
by 52% since 2016, with first-generation student enrollment increasing by 32%. The region and

3
the institution’s inclusive philosophy attract a wide range of identities, abilities, ideologies, and
orientations (e.g., gender, sexual, religion); therefore, the school’s student population has various
diverse voices beyond traditional classifications.
Organizational Performance Status / Need
The College questions whether a visual arts school should be complacent with the SLO of
visual literacy plateauing at a predominantly mid- to lower-average overall, with a 68% mean of
students advancing and measuring at capstone achievement levels. The following are the
measured influencing factors for visual literacy: (a) the comprehension of formal qualities, (b)
the comprehension of a work’s context, and (c) the application to analysis to a social context
such as an audience. At the 200 level, 68% of students were advancing past capstone level. Yet,
when examining the disaggregated breakdown in student groups, Caucasian students reached a
74% achievement level, while, on average, international students measured at a 52% level, first-
generation students averaged 59% level, and African American students averaged a 42% level.
The evidence highlights that, overall, there is an underachievement of visual literacy for all
students. Further substantiated is proof that several subgroups who are traditionally underserved,
including African American students, international students, non-native English speakers, and
first-generation students, show significantly lower percentages in achievement (WASC, 2017).
Related Literature
Visual literacy has risen in importance in the 21st century as populations increasingly
rely on text and words combined with digital images and sounds (Bleed, 2005). The Pew
Research Center reports that 95% of teens have a smartphone or access to one, and 45% of those
teens are online constantly (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). At Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Brumberger (201l) found that, by using images to collect data from first-year

4
students, millennial learners were inconsistent in and are not adept at finding factual clues from
visual information. The need to look at the levels of depth in visual information and their effects
increases with the abundance of visual sources on social media platforms, such as Instagram and
YouTube.
The literature highlights actions such as detecting shallow images, which are innocuous
internet images such as gifs of fluffy dogs, memes, and big-eyed character animations
(Thompson, 2019). There is the level of interpretation skills for deep images, which may have a
critical voice or may have manipulative agendas that need more careful analytical determination
(Castro & Batorowicz, 2017). Multimedia images can be used as visual texts that help critically
analyze misrepresentation and socio-cultural perspectives, which offer students the opportunity
to enhance their media literacy, self-reflect, and make connections based on what is displayed on
the electronic screen (Bleed, 2005). Potentially, social media is a rich platform to provide
important insights into multiple channels of discussion (Martínez-Cardama & Caridad-Sebastián,
2019).
The argument to address the rapid learning of visual literacy in the first year can be
paralleled to occupations that see an urgency in misinterpreted situations. These occupations
have been consulted to use art and photos for fast visual interpretive exercises, such as using
flash teaching methods to educate teachers, biology students, and business management students
on how to interpret images to learn social responsibility, behavioral signs, comparative studies,
and creative associations (Brumberger, 2011; Castro & Batorowicz, 2017; Hartwell et al., 2017;
Hooks, 2010; Tatum, 2020; Yenawine, 2013).
Recent developments in neuroscience have revealed the value of art and its contribution
to increasing tolerance for stress caused by uncertainty (Bentwich & Gilbey, 2017).

5
Neuroscientists have discovered that art images can trigger mirror neurons for an empathic
response, and humans can imagine physiologically living through the artist’s experience to
understand their story and how something is made (Jeffers, 2009; Kahn & Zeidler, 2016;
McGregor, 2012). Bentwich and Gilbey (2017) argue that teaching through art images increases
medical technicians’ empathy for patients and enhances their ability to manage stress. The
authors also found that a medic’s tolerance for ambiguity stretched, enhancing their ability to be
more settled while in high-stress situations (Bentwich & Gilbey, 2017). Being tolerant with
ambiguous and undefined meaning within the interpretive process is also important to
interactions between students and applies to the studio classroom environment (Orr & Shreeve,
2017; Rockenbach & Fabian, 2008).
The problem of low visual literacy at a college of art and design is central to the concerns
about students' abilities to value evidence-based reasoning and engage in critical thinking
(Franco & Unrath, 2014). IADI presents criteria similar to ACRL’s leading standards. IADI
measures visual literacy in three major components: (a) the comprehension of the object/work’s
formal quality, (b) the comprehension of the work’s context of production, and (c) with the
application of observations and contextual knowledge to the analysis of the object/work (WASC,
2017).
The lack of visual literacy and the inability to interpret critically challenges the cultural
and social interactions for an inclusive learning climate (Beaudoin, 2016; Grimm & Meeks,
2017; Shoen, 2015). Students’ perceptions of a non-inclusive classroom can lead to feelings of
isolation, which can lead to loneliness and a reduction in IQ (Walton et al., 2012). The lack of
visual literacy also affects a student’s ability to develop a critical voice and self-confidence
experimenting with visual arts materials, media, and events (Castro & Batorowicz, 2017). A lack

6
of visual literacy is a rising problem in first-year students who are on edge and vulnerable
(Stebleton, Rost-Banik, Greene, & DeAngelo, 2017). There is very little empirical research that
examines visual literacy as contextually connected to the learning environment, but the
interpretation and interactions are well theorized (Dewey, 1934; Vygotsky, 1980). The
phenomenon in context can include the actual use of materials (formal) and further the
interaction of critique (contextual) which is a central interaction that engages visual literacy in
the art studio.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Visual literacy is one of many student learning outcomes that contributes to a well-
rounded first-year learning experience for students attending a liberal arts college and art
program. Art students at a visual arts college are underperforming in the college-wide learning
outcome of visual literacy. Faculty may also be unaware that the lack of visual literacy can be an
indicator of possible inequities in the classroom, including access to culturally considered
material (Charland, 2011). This dissertation focused on uncovering solutions to improve first-
year students’ visual literacy as it is interlocked to the problem of improving teaching for
inclusion. The problem of practice considers the changing demographics at IADI, revealing a
need to investigate how faculty can create more culturally responsive approaches to teaching
visual literacy (Harris III & Bensimon, 2007; Lombard, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011).
Students in the art studio classroom could be overexposed to images yet underexposed to
critical analysis skills that can create misinterpretations. New visual producers can continue
unconscious stereotypes, creating an imbalance in the learning environment. The problem is not
limited to how it affects students as they progress through their educational experience; rather, it
will impact how students make and interpret visual work and the world (Brumberger, 2011;

7
Castro & Batorowicz, 2017; Freedman, 2000). Until this new college experience, art students
may not have had the social opportunity to sit near or interact in a studio atmosphere amongst
many types of people, including a college instructor (Astin, 1984; Orr & Shreeve, 2017; Salazar,
2013b; Tinto, 2005). IADI claims that the culture of critique at the College is held close in the
values of the College (NASAD, 2018). Students are asked to care about other students and listen
intently, but they may not have the confidence to speak with critical voices about their work or
work of others (Barrett, 2000).
Visual literacy in the studio classroom is not just a count of how many images are shown
from various backgrounds; it is a nuance of social conditions and interactions between all of the
participants, including the faculty (Charland, 2011; Hartwell et al., 2107). The faculty must
transcend and connect potentially ambiguous moments in the classroom to numerous viewpoints
and lead students who have never been in the art classroom in discussions (Motley, Chick, &
Hipchen, 2017). Understanding the transitional climate of the first-year student brings forward
the essential skills from a studio classroom as a vehicle to improve the gap of visual literacy and
an urgency and evidence of visual arts education as a tool for interpretation and inclusion
(Hartwell et al., 2017).
The importance of students’ first interactions with college teaching requires faculty to
build on student’s existing capacities (Astin, 1984; Vygotsky, 1980). The faculty must shift their
perceptions and rearrange their expectations as students come into the learning environment
(Neumann, 2014). Unaggregated evidence from IADI shows uneven rates of performance and a
gap in visual literacy that points to a lack of inclusion for students, which further impedes
equitable academic achievement (Bensimon, 2004). Subsequently, throughout the student’s
college life, this could affect persistence towards graduation rates (Tinto, 2005). If first-year

8
studio faculty do not address new pedagogies for visual literacy, these students may misinterpret
interactions with a less positive response, endangering retention (Bensimon, 2007). Ultimately,
the few first interactions in the visual arts learning environment can block new talent from
growing in the creative profession (Oakley & Banks, 2015).
Organizational Performance Goal
By January 2021, IADI’s first-year studio faculty will use an instructional development
plan to obtain new knowledge for teaching to improve student visual literacy and inclusion in the
first-year studio courses. Though the first-year studio instructional development plan does not
isolate any one student group, it will help address an overall organizational goal to improve
teaching the growing diverse needs of the students in selected subgroups, including international
students, first-generation students, and students with various abilities. The organization will
collaborate between stakeholders to confirm the phases of the instructional development plan and
address support for faculty while they update and integrate the new knowledge. The first-year
studio program will work to improve instruction for visual literacy as a strategy to teach for
inclusion in the first-year studio courses, improving first-year visual literacy from 68% to 100%.
To accomplish this goal, plans for the improvement of visual literacy and teaching for inclusion
will be established by December 2020.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are four groups of stakeholders who have an investment in the first-year studio
faculty learning new pedagogy for inclusion and using strategies of visual literacy at IADI. One
stakeholder group includes the first-year studio student. In 2018, IADI enrolled 379 first-year
diverse students in cohorts, comprising 27 majors that interact with the faculty in a new
environment while learning to interpret visual art. The second group, and the primary

9
stakeholder of this study, are campus-wide practitioners and first-year faculty who teach the
required first-year studio courses. The faculty is responsible for improving inclusion and
teaching visual literacy to a mix of majors to further students' abilities as contributing peers in
the process of making and interpreting visual art. The third group of stakeholders are the chairs
of the First Year Studio (FYS), along with the Dean of Humanities and Sciences (H & S). These
stakeholders are the supervisors of the first-year studio faculty and are responsible for reporting,
regularly reviewing instruction, reflecting programmatic goals of teaching for inclusion, with
tools such as visual literacy. The fourth stakeholder group is Academic Affairs, which includes
the Associate Provost of Instructional Learning, who develops and administers instructional
development, and the Associate Provost for Educational Effectiveness, who designs and collects
assessment strategies for the College and reports to the Provost, who initiates contracts with the
faculty and directs the academic path of the College (WASC, 2017).
Stakeholder Group for the Study
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was the first-year studio faculty at IADI
who teach four required courses of studio foundations in visual arts. This group was selected
because improving teaching for inclusion is needed as is practicing strategies such as visual
literacy (Charland, 2011). Many first-year studio faculty are contemporary creatives who work in
multiple disciplines, that align with the skills needed to teach a studio foundations curriculum
that is delivered to 27 majors (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). The first-year studio faculty and courses
are housed under the Humanities and Sciences division, where the general education program
requirements for all undergraduate students reside.

10
Stakeholder Performance Goals
By December 2020, the first-year studio (FYS) faculty stakeholders will create a plan to
improve student visual literacy and enhance teaching for inclusion. The faculty will discuss
benchmarks and goals towards a collective commitment that includes assessment strategies for
visual literacy in the first-year studio courses. Table 1 outlines the organizational mission, global
goals, and identified performance goals for each stakeholder group.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
IADI educates students to shape culture and society through the practice and critical study of
art, architecture, design, and writing. Benefiting from its urban location, the College prepares
students for lifelong creative work by cultivating innovation, community engagement, and
social and environmental responsibility.
Organizational Performance Goal
By January 2021, IADI’s first-year studio faculty will work to improve instruction for visual
literacy to teach for inclusion in the first-year studio courses.
Stakeholder 1 Goal Stakeholder 2 Goal Stakeholder 3 Goal Stakeholder 4 Goal
FYS Faculty
By December 2020,
studio faculty will
develop a plan to
improve student
visual literacy from
68% to 100% as an
inclusion strategy for
the learning
environment in first-
year studio courses.
FYS Chair and Dean
of H&S
By December 2020,
H&S will work with
FYS studio chair to
communicate a plan
to improve student
visual literacy from
68% to 100% as an
inclusion strategy for
the learning
environment in first-
year studio courses.

Academic Affairs
By December 2020,
Academic Affairs and
the associate provosts
will support enhanced
teaching to improve
student visual literacy
from 68% to 100% as
an inclusion strategy
for the learning
environment in first-
year studio courses.

FYS Students
By May 2021, FY
studio students will
improve their visual
literacy from 68% to
100% as an inclusion
strategy for the
learning environment
in first-year studio
courses.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis at IADI, focusing on the first-
year studio faculty who will converge and plan to improve student visual literacy as an inclusion

11
strategy for the learning environment by December 2020. The following research questions
guided the needs analysis to uncover knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
resources and solutions within the dissertation.
1. What is the first-year studio faculty’s knowledge and motivation to improve student
visual literacy as an inclusion strategy for the learning environment at IADI?
2. What is the interaction between IADI’s culture and context and the faculty knowledge
and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions needed
to improve visual literacy as an inclusion strategy for the learning environment at IADI?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The following research and analysis for this study used the framework of Clark and Estes
(2008) to identify the gaps in the existing performance of the organization determining the
knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences (KMO) as the first-year studio
program at IADI develops a plan to improve visual literacy and teaching for inclusion by
December 2020. The analysis framework recognizes an interdependent triadic stakeholder
system between the faculty, the College, and the students. First, it is essential to identify the
knowledge and skills needed by the faculty stakeholders to improve student visual literacy. Then,
by understanding the faculty’s motivational influences and enmeshed psycho-social factors of
self-efficacy and group collective efficacy, it can be possible to observe the commitment to
improve (Mayer, 2011). Critical to the triadic system of analysis is the identification of
motivational influences determining how much an organization’s participants will contribute to
new plans (Rueda, 2011). Important to an art, design, and architecture learning environment is
how visual literacy is also linked to teaching for inclusion through the opportunity of the culture

12
of critique within the art classroom (Costantino, 2018; Schein, 2004). The organization's culture,
processes, and resources connect in the triadic relationship of the faculty, the organization, and
the students as interrelated stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008). The College’s cultural model and
cultural settings determine the resources and support by acknowledging and creating a rewarding
climate for desired changes needed for faculty to achieve the organizational goal.
Definitions
Teaching for inclusion: There is a lack of agreement over a common interpretation of
inclusive education. The literature from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) focuses primarily on inclusion for students with differing abilities
(Reindal, 2016). For the purpose of this study, the term teaching for inclusion operationalizes
the term inclusion in the academic climate, and pertains to conscious instructional approaches in
methodologies and pedagogies as they relate to the socio-context of the learning environment
(Davis, 2016; Hartwell et al., 2017; Kumar, Zusho & Bondie, 2018). The space, visual design,
media, tools, and course content may need differentiated teaching for the climate between faculty
and students and between peers to actively avoid the minoritization of some learners (Pantić &
Florian, 2015). Intentionally incorporating inclusive teaching strategies helps students view
themselves as people who belong to the community of learners in a classroom and university
(University of Delaware, 2019). Inclusive teaching strategies are intended to ensure that all
students feel supported, in learning spaces so they freely learn and practice new ideas, feel safe
to express their views in a civil manner, and are respected as individuals and members of groups
(University of Delaware, 2019).
Visual literacy: A set of abilities that enables an individual to effectively find, interpret,
evaluate, use, and create images and visual media. Visual literacy skills equip a learner to

13
understand and analyze the contextual, cultural, ethical, aesthetic, intellectual, and technical
components involved in the production and use of visual materials (ACRL, 2011).
Student Learning Outcome (SLO): Mutually agreed upon specified competencies that
demonstrate measurable learning evidence, by student performance in a summative assessment;
created and reviewed by faculty, the college, and review board for the accreditation process.
Discipline-specific: Disciplines are groupings of ideologies and professional affinities,
creation of identities within formalized pedagogic environments, legitimized knowledge within
departments, and majors in an academic organization; being discipline-specific would be
directing an ideology specifically rooted in a particular profession such as engineering, graphic
design, and architecture (Orr & Shreeve, 2017).
Collective agency: Collective agency is defined as enacted when professional
communities exert influence, make choices, and take stances in ways that affect their work and
their professional identities (Hökkä, Vähäsantanen & Mahlakaarto, 2017).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces a gap in visual literacy
and the need to strategize for inclusion within the first-year studio learning experience, linking it
to problematic interactions such as critique within the climate of the classroom. Chapter Two
reviews theoretical and empirical literature and analyzes the causal effects of below standard
visual literacy. The literature review uncovers the need to understand the social conditions of
interpretation as problematic while teaching for inclusion linking visual literacy as a tool.
Chapter Three discusses the methodology of inquiry used to explore innovation within the
organization, including the selection of participants, data collection, and a proposed process for
analyzing the data from IADI’s first-year studio faculty. Chapter Four compiles the data and the

14
results of the analysis from the literature. Chapter Five correlates the data findings and related
literature for insights and strategies of the innovation underway and recommends ways to
improve teaching visual literacy as a strategy for inclusion.

15
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter reviews literature related to visual literacy as a strategy for inclusion in the
first-year studio art learning environment. The first part of the chapter reviews the literature on
the history of art colleges in the United States, higher education, and the structural pattern that
created liberal arts education in the United States. The literature considers the reason visual art
education may have hurdles for its newer, diverse student enrollment and presents curricular
growth of visual literacy as it becomes a key strategy for creating community in the learning
atmosphere. The second part of the chapter highlights the foundational components of visual
literacy, with interpretation and the implications of making meaning and relational learning
specific to art education and the interrelated skills of social and cultural literacy with visual
literacy (Burton, 2000). The third section of the chapter addresses the culture of critique, the
studio atmosphere, and interaction where visual literacy is applied. The conclusion of the chapter
provides a gap analysis of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that the faculty
and the College must collectively address to support the goal of improving visual literacy and
strengthening teaching for inclusion, working towards equity in IADI’s first-year studio learning
environment.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
Educational History and the Influences on Inclusion in Art Colleges
Liberal arts colleges in the United States are known for being small in class size, and
there is a predominance of students studying subjects in the arts, humanities, social sciences, or
sciences, which follows a model different than larger research institutions (Caskey, 2018). The
literature describes the ideology of liberal arts education as significant to understanding the

16
history of independent art colleges in the United States higher education system (Baker &
Baldwin, 2015). The Yale Report of 1828 declared that the purpose of a liberal arts college was
to lay a broad, deep, and a solid foundation for a thorough, life-long education (Herbst, 2004;
Salazar, 2013b). The pressure of national learning agendas in the 20
th
century led to humanistic
agendas that broadened the liberal arts with numerous advances in philosophy, art, and
psychology. In the 1920s, there was a rapid increase in the number of students who enrolled in
liberal arts colleges, which grew from 600,000 at the start of the decade to 1,100,000 by 1930
(McCaughey, 2019).
Workforce pressures. The pressure to train a workforce of people in new industries
throughout the 20
th
century have pressured liberal art colleges that generally offered little or no
preparation in vocational or professional fields. After World War I, Western European education
influenced the critical discussion of what role education should play in overall economic
development. A heavy need for the United States to compete in industrialism began an argument
between educational organizations and the United States government for support and jobs (Gee,
2015; McCaughey, 2019). In the visual arts, there was interest to embrace industrialism, and the
Arts and Crafts movement incorporated new ingenuities in the arts (Oakley & Banks, 2015).
Art schools in the United States were populated by cultural producers who fled the threats of
Nazi Germany. Awareness of psychological learning in the liberal arts colleges worked with a
philosophy to create well-rounded students who could respond to workforce needs and look
beyond immediate trends, building the habits of mind needed to be resilient as lifelong learners
(Baker & Baldwin, 2015). Elite art colleges split into a faction and defined themselves as the
Alliance of Independent Art Colleges in 1991 (McKenna, 2011). Some of these colleges were
trades schools or guilds that melded with liberal arts curriculums in a lengthy evolution. The

17
balance between the academic liberal arts education lived in combination with some “vocational”
or applied learning, which has since been renamed “design” education, while independent art
colleges schools defined themselves as cultural producers solving contemporary problems
through practice and theory (Ghanbari, 2014).
As the history of art education in the United States grew, so did the exuberant pursuit for
art departments and colleges to have more freedom of voice in American education (McKenna,
2011). There are historical testimonies of bohemian and avant-garde subcultures that brought a
new emphasis on the socio-political, philosophical, and psychological interactions of art,
particularly after the Vietnam War (McKenna, 2011).
The systematic guarding of artistic intellectualism. The historically biased and
hierarchical structure of the 20th century higher education art colleges forged clubs of men with
the western male archetypes of “artist as genius.” Building the elitist world around intellectuals,
the structures excluded women and students of color from particular departments, such as
painting (Chicago, 2014; Raby, 2019). Walter Gropius, the head of the Bauhaus, glorified a myth
that art and design cannot be taught or learned, and that technique is the only teachable aspect.
Consequently, the construction of mystery around artistic voice, expression, and cultural
production became only for the few, and educational spaces and the rigor of intellectualism
became protected as white and gendered spaces (Raby, 2019).
Continual pressures on first-year studio art curriculum. Many studio foundations and
general required humanities courses in the first year are influenced by the history of the Bauhaus,
as its curriculum of interdisciplinarity for materials and technique remains partly applicable to
visual literacy (Chung, 2019; Orr & Shreeve, 2017). The curriculum of the foundation for studio
art and design has often shifted to whether the arts should or should not be more vocational

18
(Enwezor, 2009; Ghanbari, 2014). Current changes in the enrolled student demographics have
driven changes in the curriculum with pressures from multiple stakeholders. The average art
student has shifted to a younger first-time freshman (18-20 years old), predominantly female
(60%), international (59%), and first-generation (32%) (WASC, 2017). The literature reveals that
foundational courses receive scrutiny from multiple stakeholders as the students in a first-year
situation are still heavily influenced by parents, ideas of industry, and the idea of return on
investment (Ghanbari, 2014). As examples, these reconstituted norms passed on from the world
of Eurocentric art and design need to be deconstructed to create equitable access and new
interpretations so that new students can thrive (Bensimon, 2007; Hooks, 2014).
Discipline-specific teaching. The early departmentalizing of art, design, and architecture
programs developed as a legacy of technical knowledge in artistic practices, intellectualism, and
theory. One possible cause that impedes instructional development for visual literacy and
teaching for inclusion in higher education institutions are high amounts of discipline-specific
practitioners who primarily teach part-time to preserve time for professional endeavors
(McKenna, 2011). Design and architecture fields live out the embedded implications of the
industry within their professions through accreditation boards and certifications, developing
discipline-specific curriculum within the liberal arts organizations (Chung, 2019; McKenna,
2011; Oakley & Banks, 2015). The fine art fields have to fight to ensure visibility and
applicability to a demanding and expensive educational package (Chicago, 2014).
Therefore, the model of including primarily practitioners to teach in the first-year studio
atmosphere speaks to students and parents who want role models who can inspire and help make
connections for students in the future (Oakley & Banks, 2015). However, many faculty
practitioners are not trained to teach and rely on how they were taught (Oleson & Hora, 2013).

19
Discipline-specific teaching can be complicated by the possibilities of repeating problematic
historical premises, such as outdated visual examples, verbal language, and potentially
colonized, patriarchal attitudes (Chicago, 2014; Hooks, 2014).
As first-year students move into their next academic levels, the forecast of what awaits
them in their majors can appear as narratives and expanded into myths, instilling exclusive
ideologies and intimidating students before they start, which can be disruptive to feelings of
belonging (Van Horne et al., 2018; Walton et al., 2012). For instance, STEM programs still have
romanticized groupings of people who create perceived favoritisms and opportunities for a few
students. The data shows women left out of group meetings and internal sexual harassment in
courses amongst peers and faculty (Johnson, 2012). Chicago (2014) recounts that limited
examples and relegating of women artists’ works with feminist concerns to minoritized edges
decentralize the content of minoritized groups. What materials or visuals are included or
excluded in a classroom communicates who or what is valued (Girabay &Vincent, 2016; Walton
et al., 2012). When faculty model limited examples for new students, it can weaken students’
interest even within their own group as they live out and perform the limited views and
potentially bias within the practice of art and design (Chicago, 2014; Kennedy, 2016). Within the
less than diverse professional world, there are grossly low percentages of successful models that
do not reflect the incoming interest in the arts (Bleed, 2005; Chicago, 2014; Oakley & Banks,
2015).
Teaching for inclusion in a discipline-specific learning environment requires conscious
actionable curriculum design, working on deconstructing the unbalance of power structures
(Bensimon, 2007). Overall, content that makes little effort to connect to relevant topics for a
variety of student groups will risk low engagement; moreover, it can become inequitable for

20
student achievement (Bensimon, 2007; Johnson, 2012). The lack of inclusive teaching used in
these approaches can block the transfer of knowledge for new students (Budge, 2016; Oakley &
Banks, 2015).
Critical Components of Visual Literacy in Higher Education
According to Diket, Xu, and Brewer (2014), who correlated data from a 2008 National
Assessment of Educational Progress report, described visual literacy as a developmental path
from art knowledge to technical knowledge to aesthetic knowledge, interrelated to cultural
context and critical to meaning-making. John Debes coined the term visual literacy and
described the concept as a set of competencies connected to the vision that takes the human act
of seeing and integrates multiple sensory experiences interpreting visible actions, products,
symbols, situations, and events (Dewey, 1934; Fransecky & Debes, 1972). With this in mind,
Schöen (2015) states that due to the complexity of immersing into a deeper understanding of the
effects of visual literacy, multiple participants will provide different lenses for reading,
interpreting, and producing visual production, such as visiting lecturers, librarians, mentors,
faculty, and peers.
In truth, the whole higher education institution contributes to building students’ visual
literacy (Schöen, 2015). Similarly, studio practice relies on the participants' social interactions
and the interpretation of visual encounters (Rockenbach & Fabian, 2008). As the collection of an
audience participates in active learning, the expectation is connected to multiple levels of
literacies, such as social and cultural literacies and critical thinking connecting learning
outcomes (Rockenbach, & Fabian, 2008). As a student begins to gain visual literacy, a newly
developed level of learning increases in their interpretation skills, the ability to form meaning

21
and their relation to learning through material space (Bleed, 2005; Orr & Shreeve, 2017;
Thompson, 2019).
Interpretation. Before alphabets and the utterance of words were images, visual
production is the oldest form of communication known to humans, as age-old as cave drawings
(Burton, 2000; Jeffers, 2008). Dewey (1934) spoke of artifacts as interpretation tools to form
meaning and information. The literature discusses interpreting visual culture and its artifacts can
require reaching past a singular image to a broad scope of visuals that sometimes read in a
singular frame, on a moving screen, in space and place, through media and material, within an
event, in daily life, and throughout history (Freedom, 2003). Dewey had a deep understanding of
the connection between education and visual learning. He considered visual art products created
from human desire; a need to express to one another as a cycle of communication (Goldblatt,
2006). The juxtaposition of the literature of a 20th-century philosophy by Dewey (1934) to
current literature on teaching visual literacy magnifies the changes of interpretation, which once
were introverted poetic learning of visual contemplation to a more extroverted communication of
visual practice (Grimm & Meeks, 2017).
Today’s artifacts have constant visual interaction through screens firing information and
reaching into multi-sensory experiences making our interaction with images ubiquitous (Seglem
& Witte, 2009; Thompson, 2019). Therefore, it might be assumed that a digital learner in the
new social scape knows what they are reading in the fragmented tempo of information
(Brumberger, 2011; Thompson, 2019). Yet, studies show that students will grab what they need
when they want it, and the need for deep understanding and intellectual stimulation may not be
useful (Grimm & Meeks, 2017; Thompson, 2019).

22
The phenomena of why a visual exists deeply connects visual literacy with critical
thinking skills (Hooks, 2014). Interpreting visual culture and interacting during communication
creates a situation for social and cultural questioning amongst the participants. In foundations
studio, teaching interpretation often becomes a split between objective and subjective modalities,
creating a pendulum argument of the order of importance between the conceptual or formal
content (Freedman, 2000). Orr and Shreeve (2017) discuss stepping out of the binary pendulum
to accept a more ambiguous space. Enwezor (2009) declares a responsibility to break colonial
hierarchies in interpretation that institutional artistic spaces have upheld. The overwhelming
evidence is that information emerges with the opportunity in teaching formats to engage in the
interpretation of multiple perspectives (Bleed, 2005; Burton, 2000; Charland, 2011; Hooks,
2014; Orr & Shreeve, 2017).
Making meaning. At the root of interpretation is the process of making meaning, which
is about defining, ordering, and prioritizing importance; all of which are and being influenced by
social conditions, situations, and context (Burton, 2000). Social conditions such as the cultural
makeup of the participants, group and language dynamics, levels of developmental capacities,
and life experiences will influence the complexity of the meaning that is formulated through
visual literacy in a learning situation (Burton, 2000). Castro and Batorowicz (2017) argue that
active interpretation, criticality, and making meaning may come after the image has been
created; yet, the process of making the work is also important. The intensity of defining meaning
in the design and production of first-year studio learning often starts as identity-driven (Barrett,
2000). Common teaching practice can be a new prompt to engage in work connecting a student
to their previous knowledge (McKenna, 2011). First practices of making meaning might appear
as a confident voice expressing power or sheltered protection from curious new peers (Caldwell

23
& Gregory, 2016). However, it is the match of the intention of the meaning of a work to the
interpretation of the meaning that occurs in a live situation that creates value, particularly during
a class critique (Hartwell et al., 2017; Motley et al., 2017).
Relational learning. Learning through doing is the base of relational learning. Dewey
(1934) recognized the need for an embodied learning; the communication between making and
viewing. The relationship between participants starts with an interpretation of the materials, the
process, and formulating concepts and meaning. Key to foundational studio philosophies and
important to visual literacy are technical skills, formal shapes, and material processes resulting
from the making, craft, and media of studio work (White, 2011). Connecting the making practice
to the meaning in the work is an added level of understanding (Charland, 2011). Researchers
discuss “shallow” or “deep” interpretation, the depth of interpretation that occurs, and how the
brain connects critical making with a critical voice (Castro & Batorowicz, 2017; Orr & Shreeve,
2017; Thompson, 2019). The maker embodies and captures the message through physical and
visual memory before it becomes tacit or ingrained (Budge, 2016; Costantino, 2018; White,
2011).
The research of relational learning has neuroscientists exploring exciting new aspects
providing scientifically, empirically supported research that has only been readily available in
the 21
st
century (Jeffers, 2008, 2009; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Huotilainen, Mäkelä, Groth, &
Hakkarainen, 2016; Tyler & Likova, 2012). First, the literature speaks to learning through a
visceral aspect of the body by the experience through making, materials, and media (Jeffers,
2009; Orr & Shreeve, 2017; White, 2011). In learning a craft or skill, the embodiment of tools
and methods and the experiential transfer of knowledge is significant to both design and craft
practices (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2016). Tyler and Likova (2012) state that the role of

24
visual art in neuroscientific hypotheses concerns the effects of activities such as drawing, visual
esthetics, and dance observation. Studies show that audiences have an empathic neurological
relationship when watching a person draw. When no one is drawing, it can invoke a visceral
reaction in an audience and people can imagine themselves engaged in the action of drawing
(Jeffers, 2009; Tyler & Likova, 2012). As a result, mirror neurons respond as empathy is
engaged through artmaking and the action of drawing (Jeffers, 2009).
A connection particularly important to this study is the relation of empathy through visual
literacy in foundational artmaking (Jeffers, 2009). Social interaction is both interior and exterior
relations. This can be seen as problem-solving, play, experimentation, and concentration of a
material or media (Budge, 2016). Moreover, the situational context, the material, touch and
hearing, and listening are considered part of visual literacy. For a first-year studio course,
relational learning appears in the classroom in form and space with social political and economic
factors of identity. The creative practice of material and form engages metaphors to a more
relational activity as it transforms the information, recognizing a vastness and the larger context
of oneself, the person next to you, the group you are with, and the groups that are not you
(Hartwell et al., 2017). Relational social understanding occurs through discourse in the art
critique format, students understand how their context changes by who they interact with, which
can reach outward in a global cultural understanding (Chung, 2019; Davis, 2016; Freedman,
2003).
Application of Visual Literacy through the Interaction of Critique
The culture of art critique. The interaction of the art critique (also known as the crit) is
a vital cycle in studio art learning that reviews the process and product of participants, applying
observations and contextual knowledge to the analysis of the object/work (WASC, 2016). The

25
interactive event is often the first step in learning how to apply visual literacy. The event of the
crit can happen during production, afterward in groups, as a whole class, individually, or
between the student and teacher. Students learn to discuss their perspectives of an image and the
ability to listen and converse with others’ interpretations (Barrett, 2000; Chung, 2019). The
literature indicates this moment as a fertile place for learning about aesthetic and cultural
differences (Budge, 2016; Caldwell & Gregory, 2016). There is an added element of risk, as
participants communicate and interpret newly produced works of fellow students (Barrett, 2000;
Motley et al., 2017). What happens in the critique space is situational and builds knowledge
through human interaction (Burton, 2000; Castro & Batorowicz, 2017; Charland, 2011; Salazar,
2013).
The social condition of the critique format. The moment someone is sharing their work
could bring viewers into the social condition of a very ancient format of storytelling. One main
learning opportunity of critique is providing feedback for the producer, amongst peers, and with
faculty presenting an opportunity for reflection fostering important metacognitive learning for
the individual and the group (Motley et al., 2017). A highly positive outcome of critique in the
studio classroom happens when students and faculty leave inspired (Barrett, 2000). All
participants can be moved by a classmate’s comments and generate growth for the community of
the course (Jeffers, 2008; Motley et al., 2017).
Conversely, current media conditions might create viewer fatigue or overuse of images,
possibly hindering the reading task of the participants (Bleed, 2005). Chung (2019) regards
critique as a challenge, placing students to defend their case, testing the student’s conviction and
viability of their ideas, with a follow up regarding structural integrity and craftsmanship. Many
participants may not have the experience to listen and watch for behavioral clues in the social

26
environment including students and faculty (Jeffers, 2008). Davis (2016) argues that there is
more to a product than the transactional end game, and that the teaching and learning of design is
a community of transformational practice that requires the faculty to step back to allow students’
knowledge to flourish.
Visual literacy as a strategic vehicle for inclusion. It has been established that while
students and faculty engage in the act of critique, visual interpretation and meaning making
activate the social climate of the classroom (Franco & Unrath, 2014; Hartwell et al., 2017).
Consequently, the atmosphere of institutionalized learning within a studio classroom can be
intimidating, signaling elitism and possible limitations of acceptance (Enwezor, 2009; Freedman,
2003). Incidentally, myths of stereotypic information about what the critique process is supposed
to entail often arrive with the participants, which pushes for visual literacy skills redirecting for a
process to enable an inclusive atmosphere (Grimm & Meeks, 2017; Palu-ay, 2016). Critique can
also generate judgments and ethics, creating the potential for negative interactions between
faculty and students (Barrett, 2000; Orr & Shreeve, 2017; Salazar, 2013b; White, 2011). The
critically tenuous event can be misconstrued by any participant causing alienation, boredom, and
micro-aggressions festering complications of a subjective moment; an interpretive moment that
can be unconscious or conscious yet the perceiver is the person gauging the situation (Castro &
Batorowicz, 2017; Hooks, 2014; Jurecic, 2011; White, 2011).
The components of visual literacy can engage social and cultural abilities, such as
watching for nuances in a person's work or about their life that are not easily definable. For
instance, empathy is required by participants while learning about the differences and beliefs of
others (Jeffers, 2008; Jurecic, 2011; White, 2011). Orr and Shreeve (2017) describe a signature
pedagogy of ambiguity in art and design learning, which is the interpretive ability to suspend

27
judgment and hold space for ambiguity, especially to observe all of the perspectives that can
occur during a critique. Cautiously, ambiguity can be seen as an attempt at unbiased facilitation
or it could be claimed as a strategic way to neutralize a hot topic, which could then leave a
student feeling their personal, political, and critical voice does not matter (Caldwell & Gregory,
2016; Castro & Batorowicz, 2017; Orr & Shreeve, 2017). Calwell and Gregory (2016) also point
out that there are international cultures that are not accustomed to the signature pedagogy of
ambiguity as seen in Eurocentric art and design education and that students request more close
contact for clarification from faculty to gain confidence. The awareness of the facilitator is key
for the climate of the art critique and the learning of visual literacy becomes the vehicle for
inclusion that is situational to the social condition of the moment (Barrett, 2000; Hartwell et al.,
2017; Hooks, 2014; McGregor, 2012; Orr & Shreeve, 2017).
A Research Framework for the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Analysis
This study used a framework that is systematic and analytic to distinguish the
improvement goals of the organization and the faculty stakeholder’s performance. The
framework of Clark and Estes (2008) assisted in identifying and analyzing the gaps in the
knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences (KMO). Furthermore, the study
detected what is needed to meet the goal of using visual literacy as a strategic tool for improving
an inclusive learning environment in the first-year studio program at IADI by December 2020.
The framework recognizes an interdependent triadic stakeholder system between the
faculty, the College, and the students. First, it is essential to identify the knowledge influences
and skills needed by the faculty stakeholders. Anderson and Krathwohl (2009) outline a
knowledge structure that identifies a taxonomy for teaching, learning, and assessment as it
categorizes four different dimensions of knowledge: (a) factual, (b) conceptual, (c) procedural,

28
and (d) metacognitive. Creating a nomenclature for the knowledge influences helps to indicate
whether stakeholders know how to accomplish their goals of performance (Rueda, 2011). By
understanding the faculty’s motivational influences and enmeshed psychological factors, it is
possible to observe the commitment to improve (Mayer, 2011). Critical to the triadic system of a
KMO gap analysis is identifying organizational influences, such as the cultural setting and
climate, workplace patterns and processes including reflection, and the resources or allocations
of support (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The KMO gap analysis will aid in the analysis for the improvement of IADI’s visual
literacy from 68% to 100%, implementing visual literacy as a strategic vehicle to enhance
teaching for inclusion in the first-year studio courses by December 2020 (NASAD, 2018). Visual
literacy as a student learning outcome is important to art, design, and architecture learning
environments because it pertains to interpreting, interacting, and making meaning through visual
language, and is linked to cultural and social literacy, critical thinking, and oral communication
(Orr & Shreeve, 2017). Visual literacy in first-year studio courses cannot improve without the
consideration of teaching for inclusion as the components of visual literacy affect the culture of
critique within the art classroom (Bleed, 2005; Caldwell & Gregory, 2016; Costantino, 2018;
Davis, 2016).
Determining problem-solving for teaching and learning can be found in understanding
the two dimensions of knowledge and motivation within cognitive science (Rueda, 2011). Within
the first dimension in knowledge, it is helpful to organize knowledge into influences for
analyzing how to help faculty learn (Mayer, 2011). The first section of the study established an
overall discourse around what knowledge influences the faculty stakeholders will know to
improve student visual literacy as a strategic vehicle to teach for inclusion in the learning

29
environment. Next, the motivational influences of the faculty were identified. The faculty’s
motivational influences to teach and learn strategies for visual literacy may indicate problems
with the learning environment’s climate for inclusion which may expand the study, further
connecting the faculty to the culture of the college (Schein, 2004). The next set of influences
relates to the organization’s role in the development of the first-year studio faculty collectively
improving inclusion in studio courses while strengthening the instructional use of visual literacy
as a strategic tool. The organization's culture, processes, and resources connect to the triadic
relationship of the faculty, the organization, and the students as interrelated stakeholders (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
It is important for the organization to identify and confirm the needed knowledge and
skills for improving instruction. This section reviews literature that identifies knowledge-related
influences that are key for faculty to attain a collective goal of improving visual literacy as a
strategic vehicle to gain inclusion in the studio learning environment. For this study, there is one
knowledge influence each in the metacognitive, procedural, and declarative knowledge spaces.
Knowledge Influences
Metacognitive knowledge. The first type of knowledge influence identified is
metacognitive knowledge, which internalizes and extracts a relational aspect of understanding of
oneself. The recognition of one’s learning helps in problem-solving internally and externally
(Baker, 2006). Faculty need to use reflection to improve their self-efficacy and collective
efficacy (Deans for Impact, 2015; Pintrich, 2003). Faculty who reflect on their everyday actions,
social context, and situational dynamics within the classroom can grow to break the patterns of
institutionalized inequities (Bensimon, 2007). Furthermore, Anderson and Krathwohl (2009)

30
added knowledge dimensions to Bloom's taxonomy, specifically placing metacognitive
knowledge as informative for strategic thinking (Rueda, 2011). Faculty can make self-regulatory
action plans to alter patterns of bias for differential learners that can arise during teaching by
improving metacognitive strategies (Mayer, 2011).
First-year studio faculty need to articulate self-regulatory strategies to mitigate
bias. First-year studio faculty need to know how to use reflection in teaching to improve their
ability to use inclusive pedagogies in the learning environment. The facilitation of an inclusive
environment starts with the recognition of the hierarchical educational structure and the socio-
context of all the participants, including the faculty (Kumar et al., 2018). Hartwell et al. (2017)
found that metacognitive structures for inclusion teaching are useful in studio teaching.
Metacognitive knowledge employs a process for detecting bias in oneself and learning
recognition of one's own cultural make-up need for an inclusive environment. Inclusion becomes
noticeable through learning visual literacy in the studio atmosphere (Bentwich & Gilbey, 2017).
Thereby, the third dimension in teaching for inclusion is representative through skills employing
the ability to interact justly and effectively with people from various cultures and backgrounds
(Bauman et al., 2005; Bensimon, 2007; Kumar et al., 2018; Harwell et al., 2017; Hooks, 2014;
Ladson-Billings, 1995). This type of learning is mostly behavioral (Harwell et al., 2017; Ladson-
Billings, 1995). Until faculty can reflect on their own biases and participation in the learning
environment's power structure, inclusion will not occur, and further, equity for educational
outcomes in a first-year learning experience is unattainable (Bensimon, 2007; Bauman et al.,
2005; Glass, 2018; Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Vertstichele, & Andries, 2017; Hartwell et al.,
2017; Johnson, 2012; MacCabe, 2009). Using self-regulatory strategies to mitigate bias can
transform teaching for inclusive studio learning.

31
As part of the reflection process, educators may need to re-evaluate their foundational
biases, such as questioning their knowledge concerning advocating for literacy. The notion of
literacy has an unfortunate long-standing history as a colonial practice of oppressive idealism
with an agenda to make groups of people understand a system of thought (Gee, 2015).
In comparison, Friere (1970) believed that literacy empowers learners. Subsequently,
visual literacy could be empowering through the humanness of using visual guides which can
show the learner how to participate and activate visual communication as examiners of their
social reality (Dewey, 1934; Freire, 1970; Hooks, 2014). Furthermore, Hooks (2010) argued that
decolonizing the structure of mind in faculty and students by recognizing the positionality of
power modernizes teaching with outmoded oppressive material. There is a continual need to
keep learning pedagogy that is relevant to the learner (Neumann, 2014).
In a higher education study, predominantly white faculty were asked to self-report on
their attitudes for inclusive instruction. They revealed that they do not always feel they have the
knowledge to understand the challenges that can occur in their classrooms, such as teaching for
physical or learning disabilities, working with multilingual students, or teaching students with
cultural differences (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017; Lombard et al., 2011). Bensimon (2007)
suggests that faculty consider a paradigm shift by changing the classroom dynamics from faculty
delivering information to faculty acting as research-practitioners who learn and respond while
they facilitate.
Critical constructivism also applies, a learning theory that contends that individuals make
meaning based on their interactions inside the context using prior knowledge and new ideas
(Kincheloe, 2005). Stringer (2014) discusses an action-research model of shared knowledge and
decision making in the learning environment. Further, viewing students as active researcher-

32
practitioners, instead of just vessels for information, changes the interactive exchange of the
learning (Bensimon, 2007; Hooks, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Similarly, shifting visual
literacy away from a singular transactional skill to a strategic vehicle for inclusion creates the
opportunity for the social context of the visual art critique as interactive and transformational for
all participants (Barrett, 2000; Castro & Batorowicz, 2017; Davis, 2016; Hooks, 2014; Tinto,
2005).
Procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something, such as
how to teach a technique or apply pedagogies and teaching methods (Rueda, 2011). Procedural
knowledge influences build understanding and create consistent procedures for evaluation. Clark
and Estes (2008) explain that knowledge and improvement of skills are needed in an
organization when people do not know how to implement a performance goal. Through
procedural learning, a structured collective agreement amongst faculty can occur (Dee & Daly,
2009). A step-by-step knowledge gathering process that involves more than one person creates
consistency and effectiveness through the structure of procedural knowledge (Mayer, 2011).
First-year studio faculty need to know how to assess visual literacy and teaching for
inclusion in the learning environment. When examining equity in the classroom, the ways in
which assessment operates as it intends to gather data, review, reflect, and improve teaching and
learning are important. Yet, only examining summative and demonstrated students outcomes
puts the onus on student performance, which can create a dangerous cycle of focusing on student
deficiencies, such as student preparedness or underperformance, rather than recognizing cultural
bias and lack of teaching to differentiated needs, and the need for equitable access to knowledge
within the classroom (Bensimon, 2004; Neumann, 2014). Hence, instead of seeing the lack of
visual literacy as a problem that is exclusively related to student attainment or acquired skills, it

33
is also necessary to see it as a problem of institutional and faculty responsibility (Bauman et al.,
2005; Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Contributing to the inequity can be normalized outdated practices of assessment as well
as dangerously unreliable trends of measurement (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017). Since 2008,
government pressures to connect education to technical workforce-related learning outcomes
with return on investment mentalities are contradictory to the mission of the organizational goal
of inclusion. Art studio courses grapple with ways to measure more obscure outcomes, such as
risk-taking or the tolerance for ambiguity connected aspects of visual literacy and inclusion
(Ghanbari, 2014; Orr & Shreeve, 2017). It is up to the faculty to detect the didacticism of
assessment that can set up blockades in student learning and its effects on the ability to teach for
inclusion (McKernan & McPhail, 2012).
Research shows that assessment as a collective agreement highlights a variety of faculty
contributions (Terosky & Gonzales, 2016). Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that when there is a
prediction of impending challenges that need new knowledge, such as a new first-year studio
curriculum and coordinating education, motivating faculty for instructional development is
imperative. Though it is unlikely that assessment heavy initiatives will disappear, it is incumbent
upon organizations to find the best match of assessment practices that mix measuring
performance of student learning outcomes with multi-model assessment practices (Darling-
Hammond, Wilhoit, & Pittenger, 2014). For example, a variety of classroom climate measures
through observation, group assessment of interactions, student reflexivity practices, and faculty
self-regulatory reporting can be used (Dee & Daly, 2009).
Declarative conceptual knowledge. Declarative knowledge is a constant knowledge
influence that can be factual or conceptual and can be stored in memory (Krathwohl &

34
Anderson, 2009). Declarative conceptual knowledge can include terminology, information, and
classifications with constructs such as theories, models, and principles (Rueda, 2011). This
knowledge can be agreed upon, such as shared pedagogies and methodologies that can assist in
the attainment of visual literacy strategies to improve teaching for inclusion (Parker, Morrell,
Morrell, & Chang, 2016).
Faculty know what teaching for inclusion is and why it is important. Bensimon
(2007) states that faculty are institutional agents in student success who can contribute or block
the transfer of new information from the student's existing knowledge. Researchers claim that
there are three areas for faculty to consider while implementing inclusive teaching practices: (a)
planning (curriculum), (b) delivering (instruction), and (c) evaluating (assessment) instruction
(Girabay & Vincent, 2016; Kumar et al., 2018). Bensimon (2004) argues that ongoing
adjustments in curriculum design are critical to have equitable educational outcomes for
changing subgroups of students. At IADI, all faculty will need to know why teaching for
inclusion is important for the climate within the learning environment for multiple subgroups
(Caldwell & Gregory, 2016).
For example, students may perceive biases to be creating limitations and exclusivities;
therefore, they internalize the bias as micro-aggressions (Bensimon, 2007; Neumann, 2014).
Micro-messages could also be sent by the tone in people’s voices, which are unrecognized by the
enactor, such as responding differently when there is a difference in the room (Parker et al.,
2016). Faculty knowledge of facilitating critique formats that are inclusive is a point for
improvement (Motley et al., 2017). The facilitation requires leadership skills, such as listening,
structure, creative insight, charisma, and the ability to keep a flow in the conversation (Barrett,
2000; Motley et al., 2017; White, 2011). Educators can consciously be more equity-minded in

35
the ways in which visual literacy is strategically used or obstructed (Artze-Vega et al., 2013;
Bensimon, 2007). Table 2 shows the three identified knowledge influences for this study.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
IADI educates students to shape culture and society through the practice and critical study of
art, architecture, design, and writing. Benefiting from its urban location, the college prepares
students for lifelong creative work by cultivating innovation, community engagement, and
social and environmental responsibility.
Organizational Performance Goal
By January 2021, IADI’s first-year studio faculty will innovate using a new instructional
development plan for obtaining integrated knowledge for teaching to improve student visual
literacy and inclusion in the first-year studio courses.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
First-year studio faculty need
to articulate self-regulatory
strategies to mitigate bias.
Metacognitive Interviews and supplemental
document analysis
First-year studio faculty need
to know how to assess visual
literacy and teaching for
inclusion in the learning
environment.
Procedural Interviews and supplemental
document analysis
Faculty need to know what
teaching for inclusion is and
why it is important.
Declarative Interviews and supplemental
document analysis

Motivational Influences
Motivation is the second dimension of learning and is an interrelated psychological
system and cognitive science. Analyzing motivational influences determines how much an
organization’s participants will contribute to new plans, including various assessment protocols
used for decision making and generating change (Rueda, 2011). The following literature focuses
on motivation-related influences that are integral to the success and opportunity for IADI’s first-

36
year studio faculty stakeholders to strive for improvement such as retaining new instructional
knowledge. Motivation is what generates effort for work tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
knowledge part of the possible interaction is as individual as the motivation that exists. Indexes
that can activate motivation include active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011). Three specific motivational theories will be used in this study: (a)
expectancy-value theory, (b) self-efficacy, and (c) collective efficacy. It is important to recognize
that beliefs and perceptions of acquired knowledge and ability are interrelated to assessing a
truth, though it originates from a subjective situation (Bandura, 2000). The evidence of the
ability in knowledge gained or blocked can be examined through the social context of the
situation (Pintrich, 2003). Meaning, if there’s an environmental, psychological, or sociological
phenomenon that builds the response as a level of efficacy in an individual, the believability and
reasoning can be assessed through data drawn from studies, such as experimental, correlational,
field observations, ethnographic interviews, and building case studies (Maxwell, 2013; Pintrich,
2003).
Expectancy-value theory. Expectancy-value theory links motivational influence with
social elements of the desirable outcome of the achievement, determining whether the learner
wants to do the task (Eccles, 2006). Recognizing the value to achieve the task, the learner weighs
the outcomes and values, such as the long-or short-term results (Rueda, 2011). There are four
subcategories that impact choice. First, intrinsic value connects to fulfillment or fruition. The
fulfillment one receives in doing the task helps with long-term decisions (Pintrich, 2003; Rueda,
2011). Second, the perceived value of a task depends on the cost of participating in the activity.
The cost can also be conceptualized by the condition of the loss of time and a push for competing
for priorities (Eccles, 2006; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Markova & Ford, 2011). Finally, Eccles

37
(2006) describes attainment and utility value as connecting a task to a person’s perception of
themselves and their own identity, including how they see their competence and ability to
accomplish the task. Utility value considers whether the task fits in alignment with personal
goals and future plans (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010).
Utility value also includes the freedom to make individual choices (Rueda, 2011). When
considering attainment and utility value, the inherent human tendencies that influence a person
are to search for how things are related to oneself, how those elements can be influenced by how
the individual sees their role within their group, and if the task aligns with cultural expectations
(Kumar et al., 2018). Further, attainment and utility value may also be influenced by people's
reasons to participate in certain situations, and the value would be weighed out for the number of
opportunities and the quality of experience within the social context (Wigfield & Cambria,
2010).
Expectancy-value theory and first-year studio faculty. First-year studio teaching is
known for continually shifting to the needs of the students and the organization (McKenna,
2011; Orr & Shreeve, 2017). With instructional adjustments, such as curricular demands or
pedagogical shifts, the first-year studio faculty may weigh out the expectations for change,
determining the perceived value for attainment and utility (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Faculty
will search for opportunities and resources offered within the workplace to improve their ability
to achieve new tasks, adding to their perception that they are valued for their time (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007; Ecceles, 2006). The faculty might find two questions worth asking: "Can I do
the task?” and “Do I want to do the task?” These important questions will determine each
instructor’s motivation (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Attainment of competencies and the
demands for change are also intertwined with the freedom to choose how to improve.

38
Likewise, the quality of the expectation of the learning atmosphere throughout multiple levels of
group dynamics, such as faculty allegiances and the image of their personal identity, can
determine motivation (Kumar et al., 2018). Faculty will search to align their values with future
plans and goals while they consider change (Campbell & O’Meara, 2014).
If faculty perceive the group dynamic as hostile while they are finding new teaching
approaches for addressing inclusion in the classroom, it could impede their choice not to work
for improvement (Mårtensson, Roxå, & Olsson, 2011). Faculty will induce if their effort to learn
new pedagogies for inclusion and visual literacy is worth the value (Lombard et al., 2011;
Oleson & Hora, 2013; Parker et al., 2016; Young, 2010). If the expectancy of the value is
unfulfilled, faculty might return to an individualistic response choosing not to change their
curriculum, which is a delicate tipping point regarding the motivational influence and the
teaching goal (Dallas, Upton, & Sprong, 2014; Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Pintrich, 2003).
Self-efficacy theory. The concept of self-efficacy was uncovered by Bandura in 1977,
and concerns the motivational influence that goes to the core internal belief of whether the
person believes they are capable to do the task, actions, or accomplishment they set out to
achieve (Pintrich, 2003). If people do not believe that they can accomplish the task, this
motivational influence addresses the possibilities of self-doubt and self-debilitating perceptions
(Bandura, 2000). Contrarily, the overestimated belief in one's capabilities can affect the efficacy
of a goal as well (Pajares, 2006). These beliefs are not necessarily true in the judgement of
capabilities but exist just the same as motivators and detractors for goals and tasks (Goddard,
Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). Self-efficacy theory is connected to the larger theoretical area of social-
cognitive theory. Self-efficacy becomes the human part of the process that relies on behavior
functions within a triadic interconnected relationship involving cognition, behavior, and the

39
environment (Pintrich, 2003). Learners evolve with this motivational influence via a combination
of observing others, reasoning from their observations, and responding to their elements of the
environment (Bandura, 2000). Other interrelated individual-level constructs in this theory are
self-regulation and self-motivation, and attitudes towards change which are associated with
social cognition (Bandura, 2005).
Research shows a direct correlation to faculty self-efficacy regarding faculty
development reform, teaching for inclusion and other culturally specific teaching initiatives
(Stanton, Cawthon, & Dawson, 2018). The ability of each member to believe they can increase
social-emotional learning in student engagement and build agency in their students will find the
faculty looking for the value of their professional time to spend on the goal (Dee & Daly, 2009).
Concurrently, faculty will search for signs in their professional development to build the belief
that they can influence students, gauging the rewards for change through student outcomes and
important feedback be it formative or summative review from students, from a chair or peer
mentorship and review (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2015).
Self-efficacy and first-year studio faculty. Research by Hartwell et al. (2017) showed
low faculty self-efficacy appears in studio teaching regarding the pedagogies of inclusion. It is
essential to provide a teaching structure that enables the strengths of the faculty and confirms
their efforts (Schalkwyk, Leibowitz, Herman, & Farmer, 2015). When faculty are asked about
their motivation to learn, research shows that when they are left to learn on their own, such as
how to teach the socio-contextual problems of inclusion in the classroom, the individual’s self-
efficacy about the knowledge they are acquiring and their confidence to apply the skills becomes
weaker (Alvarez & Towne, 2016; Artze-Vega et al., 2013; Dallas & Sprong, 2015; Dee & Daly,
2009). Faculty motivation may also be hindered by teaching to the test and the list of learning

40
outcomes needed in the course (Pintrich, 2003). Overwhelmed by the enormity of how many
ways one could address inclusion daily, and the belief that one faculty member cannot do it all
(Artze-Vega et al., 2013; Young, 2010). Multiple studies uncover that it might make faculty
reluctant to ask for help in the classroom because they do not want to appear ignorant or
incompetent in their teaching scholarship (Lombard et al., 2011; Mårtensson et al., 2011; Oleson
& Hora, 2013; Parker et al., 2016; Young, 2010). First-year studio faculty might avoid the
difficult task to avoid or minimize failures in the learning environment (Eccles, 2006).
Collective efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy and collective efficacy beliefs are very
similar in processes yet differ by the number of participants that expand the agency and are both
rooted in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2005; Goddard et al., 2004). Social cognition theory
connects to the choices the individual makes within the organization. Human agency is the
decisiveness and the level of control people have over their lives, adding to the importance of
collective efficacy as a motivational influence (Pintrich, 2003). Clark and Estes (2008) discuss
the connection of knowledge, motivation, and the organization are interrelated, and collective
efficacy as a motivational influence is closely tied to the group, organization, and the set of
people working to achieve a goal.
Collective efficacy and first-year studio faculty. The key motivational indicators of
collective efficacy are in meeting the values of faculty and bolstering the collective efficacy that
can generate effort from faculty (Goddard, Goddard, Sook Kim, & Miller, 2015). The orderly
prospect of learning influences will help identify the connection of what needs to be known with
how motivated faculty are to complete a task (Rueda, 2011). Collective efficacy builds not by the
voice of one authority as initiatives for inclusion are implemented, but on the meaning and the
dialogue between and among individuals, which is interpreted by those who are asked to achieve

41
the goal (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Results from Campbell and O’Meara (2014) showed that
faculty perceptions of certain departmental contexts do matter and change faculty perspectives
and faculty agency, such as connection to career, work-life balance, the fit with the members of
the group, and professional development resources. Also, teaching an initiative that has strong
idealism may show that the faculty group has a closed ideal or regime state, which can affect the
confidence to speak out in the group and weaken the trust with the group (Mårtensson et al.,
2011).
Faculty teaching the first-year studio courses need to understand their connection in
shared motivational belief will build their collective agency (Goddard et al., 2015). That shared
motivational belief will contribute to the goals for improvement of visual literacy as they learn to
use it as a strategy for inclusion within the learning environment. Moreover, the collective
efficacy of the faculty will allow the group to examine their belief that they can also accomplish
inclusion and equity goals within the organization (Ninković & Knežević Florić, 2018).
Research connects the higher achievement of a student learning outcome as vital to the collective
motivation of the group facilitating the learning goal (Stanton et al., 2018). What faculty learn
and what keeps them engaged in teaching scholarship and their beliefs in the organization
matters (Neumann, 2014).
Through a gap analysis on a racial academic achievement gap and measuring the effort of
faculty development, Young (2010) claims that when actualizing socially relevant content in
courses, colleagues who engaged in collective discussions across the teaching community
became the motivator for faculty to approach race biases in the curriculum. Therefore, a
collectively built instructional development plan that supports IADI’s first-year studio faculty to
use visual literacy as a strategic vehicle for improving the inclusion in the learning environment

42
needs organizational support (Kumar et al., 2018). The following table shows that three
motivational influences could help the first-year studio faculty at IADI. Expectancy value, self-
efficacy, and collective efficacy become critical for the assuredness, confidence, and solidarity
that occurs when these motivation influences are activated. Included in Table 3 are suggested
assessment methods for the motivational influences.
Table 3
Motivation Influences and Assessments for Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
IADI educates students to shape culture and society through the practice and critical study of
art, architecture, design, and writing. Benefiting from its urban location, the college prepares
students for lifelong creative work by cultivating innovation, community engagement, and
social and environmental responsibility.
Organizational Performance Goal
By January 2021, IADI’s first-year studio faculty will innovate using a new instructional
development plan for collectively building faculty knowledge to improve student visual
literacy and inclusion in the first-year studio courses.
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivational Influence Assessment
Expectancy Value Theory: First-year studio
faculty need to value sharing teaching
scholarship and inclusive pedagogy.
Interviews
Self-Efficacy: First-year studio faculty need
to be confident in the ability to use
pedagogies of inclusion.
Interviews
Collective Efficacy: First-year studio faculty
need to believe that their group effort would
accomplish the organizational goals.
Interviews

Organizational Influences
Cultural models and settings. By determining the interchange of the organizational
culture with the knowledge and motivational influences, the gap analysis can be completed in the
KMO triadic framework. Identifying the levels of organizational influences as either cultural
models or cultural settings can aid more successful change efforts (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizational culture is both a product and a process that encompasses the overall beliefs of the

43
members in a group, as well as varied stakeholders (Bolman & Deal, 2013). In this context,
culture is what a group learns throughout the growth of the organization, including problem-
solving for outside world needs and internal organizational cares (Benbow & Lee, 2019).
Erez and Gati (2004) describe a cultural model as an abstract philosophical formation, which
evolves in a social context, forming the norms and values of a collection of people that is multi-
leveled and complex. The cultural model of an organization can be viewed as a nested structure,
which can encompass an internalized individual level, reaching extrinsically outward to groups,
organizations, nations, and the global culture (Erez & Gati, 2004). A cultural model interacts in a
dynamic dimensional system that has various levels of culture that impact each other (Rueda,
2011; Schein, 2017). Within the cultural model are cultural settings that are constrained to the
ecological system.
Cultural settings are more affected by climate, organizational steps, and daily practices
that have worked their way through the philosophical beliefs into a norming pattern. Cultural
settings can change more rapidly than cultural models. For example, as leadership changes at an
organization, the cultural setting will shift to the next leader’s design, but the cultural model will
be less likely to change as fast (Burke, 2017; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Within this study,
there are two identifiable cultural models and one cultural setting. The cultural models identified
include a commitment to collegial culture, therefore, valuing the collective agency of faculty,
and an organizational belief in the scholarship of teaching. The cultural setting concerns
accountability standards and resource opportunities for teaching development.
The organization must make a commitment to collegial culture and value the
collective agency of faculty. An organization’s culture forms its values, beliefs, and holds the
consistency of its members and the organization’s identity (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). A

44
faculty value at IADI is a commitment that teaching excellence requires a balance between
internal organization's local teaching and learning needs with the external views of industry
expertise and discipline-specific research. As a result, IADI retains its beliefs and values as a
liberal arts college. Values can be shared from generation to generation of faculty through social
learning, individual action, and collective actions (Bandura 2000; Erez & Gati, 2004). One
cultural model that has been identified for change is that IADI needs to make a commitment to
collegiality and value the first-year faculty’s collective agency, collaborative interactions, and
shared knowledge which could be codified for essential curriculum changes, such as visual
literacy, and pedagogy, such teaching for inclusion (Artze-Vega et al., 2013; Dee & Daly, 2009).
The collective knowledge of the organization and faculty can align to the organizational
mission and the global goal of inclusion through collaborative processes that investigate
sustainable, equitable practices (Hartwell et al., 2017). Learning between faculty, staff, students,
external institutions, neighboring colleges, and alumni fosters allegiance to the organization with
inclusive philosophies throughout college and in teaching (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).
Within the literature, there are international examples of systems for teaching quality that
highlight the importance of collaborative leadership of curriculum between the administration
within the organization and the faculty (Mårtensson et al., 2011). Finland utilizes a large amount
of collaboration with faculty knowledge and in Singapore, faculty work to develop teaching
skills for leading instructional development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Jenset, Klette, &
Hammerness, 2018).
Collective processes, such as mentorship, observational review, community learning
groups, and reflective assessment are proven methods to improve teaching excellence (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017; Dee & Daly, 2009). By elevating their teaching to a place of importance,

45
faculty receive professional benefits. They improve their teaching because of their involvement
in teaching-related activities (e.g., learning new pedagogical methods, learning new philosophies
of teaching). They improve the design of their teaching as they think seriously about how to
construct a career that nurtures teaching while fulfilling other professorial demands (e.g.,
designing office hours, training students in questioning skills). They become regarded as serious
teachers, and in turn, broaden their networks of people who encourage their teaching efforts
(e.g., receiving grants or teaching assistants for teaching projects) (Terosky, 2005). Campbell
and O’Meara (2014) found that distinct conditions in departmental culture can lead to active
goals of change. By helping faculty to believe that their work is valued and working proactively
to help faculty build shared knowledge, they can form a culture in the college that values their
collective agency.
The organization must develop an organizational belief in the sharing of scholarship
of teaching. The scholarship of teaching is about creating a level of engagement by updating
knowledge through research, pedagogy, sharing knowledge, mentoring faculty on instruction,
and providing leadership roles for the growth of experienced teachers (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2017). It can be seen in formats such as faculty learning communities, symposiums, publications,
and faculty development workshops and retreats. Boosting the value of the scholarship of
teaching as a professional practice within an art institution could create a deeper level of
participation from the faculty (Mårtensson et al., 2011). There are faculty hierarchies and biases
inside the academy, and according to Korać and Gajić (2017), it is not always safe to have
opinions that differ from colleagues about teaching or professional goals. There may be a stigma
to focusing more on teaching rather than an extensive career in the field. If faculty need to
consider the climate in the learning environment and how this affects student achievement, so

46
too does the organization. IADI has a goal for teaching excellence. Yet, it may not be recognized
that the commitment for the research of teaching is viable for the faculty who focus on teaching
scholarship as a major emphasis for their professional portfolio.
The organization must create accountability standards and a commitment to
resources. The organization must create accountability standards for all levels of stakeholders,
not just the faculty or the students. Accountability includes the ways in which the organization
learns by collecting evidence, entails reflexive practices, including stakeholders’ feedback, and
shapes commitments, actions, and ideals of the cultural setting and its individuals (Lewis, 2011).
These systems of data can create shared understandings by building a narrative for change and
innovation in the cultural setting which is more likely to be successful with commitment to a
procedural learning process (Clark & Estes, 2008; Lewis, 2011).
Curricular design is seen as part of IADI’s cultural setting as it aligns itself and puts into
action the values and beliefs of the mission of the college (Kezar, 2001). Subsequently, a planned
shift in the IADI’s first-year studio program’s curriculum will need a system for accountability.
Accordingly, data-driven decision making can create informed and accountable processes, and
transparency for collectively agreeable language (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006). For instance,
a collection of multiple forms of data and a public, a well-managed site with software support for
visibility can help create communication streams for transparent and broadly active information
dissemination (Jones, 2001). Part of accountability is to create shared levels of criteria within the
curriculum and organizational policies including multiple stakeholders (Burke, 2017). For the
inclusion of newer faculty and staff is procedural processes that are discussed regularly with the
opportunity to refresh in collective, curricular agreements (Kumar et al., 2018).

47
Paths of communication can help to confirm and re-instill the agreed narrative when there
are questions and feedback about the norms that a set of contracted full-time faculty begin to
form. Also, it is important to hold space for divergent questioning about systems of assessment
between all levels within the organization and creative innovation from diverse alternatives, thus
creating accounterability (McKernan & McPhail, 2012). The literature suggests addressing
systemic blockages and adopting a more holistic view for organizations that are striving to shape
the quality of teaching in a changing world (Mårtensson et al., 2011). Multi-directional
communication with equitable options for stakeholders is a significant resource often weighed
through human capacity and needed infrastructure (Lewis, 2011).
The second fold within the cultural setting relies on the allocations of resources that are
most effectively directed when connected to accountable evidence that indicates the need for the
resources (Marsh et al., 2006). The organization is called upon for the commitment of resources
to co-develop, organize, assist, and inform with faculty standards, expectations, and
opportunities for instructional development. Resources can be in the form of time, money,
community, and expanding knowledge provided through instructional development. Clark and
Estes (2008) state that by gaining educational information, faculty expand their conceptual,
theoretical, and strategic knowledge which can help faculty handle more complicated change and
unexpected future problems. Kezar (2013) found that opportunity, as a resource, is a source of
motivation for the faculty of non-tenure track part-time professionals. In the study, non-tenured
faculty distilled two significant factors that create the willingness to learn new pedagogy: (a)
workplace atmosphere (i.e., interaction with staff and facilities) and motivation (i.e., self-efficacy
and confidence); or (b) expectancy-value for faculty time. For example, a faculty would merit
more teaching or gain professional visibility for research efforts (Mårtensson et al., 2011).

48
Darling-Hammond et al., (2017) collected global data that shows expanding leadership roles for
faculty can create mentorship resources and opportunities for faculty learning communities.
Multiple stakeholder’s behaviors also change due to increased attention and resources, such as
new instructional initiatives and leadership positions for teaching scholarship (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017).
Time and opportunity are also needed to create training and incorporate learning (Kezar,
2013). Though it can be difficult to navigate various faculty contracts and different professional
disciplines, IADI must create time for faculty to work collectively by sharing teaching material,
mentoring, and compensating for collaborative work during the semester. As Kezar (2013) notes,
the opportunity can bring out unexpected discoveries. Faculty motivation, equity, academic
freedom, flexibility, professional growth, autonomy, and collegiality were also identified as other
opportunities for faculty to grow (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007).
The organization can provide resources, including equitable opportunities for collectively
developing curriculum and knowledge, to improve inclusion in the classroom and innovate to use
visual literacy as an integration tool in first-year studio courses. Table 4 includes the
organizational influences identified for this study.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Assessments for Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
IADI educates students to shape culture and society through the practice and critical study of
art, architecture, design, and writing. Benefiting from its urban location, the college prepares
students for lifelong creative work by cultivating innovation, community engagement, with
social and environmental responsibility.
Organizational Performance Goal
By January 2021, IADI’s first-year studio faculty innovate using a new instructional
development plan for collectively building faculty knowledge to improve student visual
literacy and inclusion in the first-year studio courses.
Assumed Organizational Influence Assessment

49
The organization makes a commitment to
collegial culture, and value the collective
agency of faculty. (CM)
Interviews
The organization develops an organizational
belief in the scholarship of teaching. (CM)
Interviews
The organization creates accountability
standards, and a commitment to resources.
(CS)
Interviews and supplemental document
analysis

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of First-Year Faculty Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to construct a system of concepts,
assumptions, and theories informing the inquiry with full design for the research. The research
uses a qualitative approach to inquiry (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The framework guides the
choices of the researcher through an interactive inquiry process of influences in knowledge and
motivation, and in an organizational context that operates from a defined problem of practice
based on an indicated gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). The graphic provides a visual narrative of the
relationship of the faculty, students, and the organization with the predominant factors of the
study. The framework is a live document as it considers an active situation (Maxwell, 2013).
Figure 1 illustrates a triadic interactive model between organizational influences, knowledge
influences, and motivation indicators that affect each of the stakeholders differently though the
focus of this framework is on the IADI faculty. The first-year studio faculty stakeholders are
indicated in the conceptual framework as nested inside the organization.
The organization’s cultural model and cultural setting must be in alignment with the
organizational goals. The organizational influences of the cultural setting are more pliable and
can change faster than the cultural model. The three knowledge influences and motivation
influences are nested inside the organizational structure and recognize the importance of

50
understanding the problem of practice and the identified stakeholders to produce innovative
change. The evaluation of these three indices is cyclical, as they must be enacted routinely to
achieve the stakeholder and global goals.

Figure 1. Instructional development for first-year studio faculty at IADI.

51
Conclusion
Chapter One focused on the role that faculty play in the climate of the learning
environment. Chapter Two focused on the factors of a triadic interaction between knowledge
influences, motivation indicators, and organizational influences creating a research path of
literature towards finding possible solutions to close the gap of the problem (Clark & Estes,
2008). Chapter Three describes the study of the IADI first-year studio faculty stakeholders and
includes the methodology, criteria, population, sampling, data collections, and data analysis to
discover the actual gaps for IADI and confirm the critical issues concerning faculty instructional
development for improving visual literacy as connected to teaching for inclusion with numerous
opportunities for recommendations (Creswell, & Creswell, 2018).

52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this dissertation was to conduct a gap analysis at IADI, focusing on the
first-year studio faculty who converged and planned to improve student visual literacy as an
inclusion strategy for the learning environment by December 2020. A qualitative methodology
was used, which is the most beneficial to this inquiry because the structure works best for the
researcher to dig deeper in ways that only a qualitative inquiry can support with the unique
stories of the sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, qualitative questioning is a
more flexible format for the nature of meaning-making (Maxwell, 2013). Therefore, the
qualitative method enabled the study to understand the social phenomena of meaning, context,
and process of the first-year studio learning environment (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews,
and document analysis were used to explore the experiences of the faculty stakeholder group and
how their knowledge and motivation about teaching for inclusion and visual literacy pair with
the organization’s efforts to meet the global goal.
The researcher was an internal participant at the educational institution, and as stated by
Malloy (2011), practitioner-led research can be useful if there is a collective, carefully curated,
diverse team of stakeholders with institutional memory, varied experience, and contributing
levels of faculty and leadership status. This method supports gathering alternate perspectives in a
more naturalistic setting of the faculty and the organization at IADI (McEwan & McEwan,
2003). Recommendations follow from the analysis of the data for the improvement of faculty
instruction for visual literacy.
The use of pseudonyms protects the anonymity of participating individuals (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). The faculty responses and their statements are selected carefully to protect
the faculty's anonymity by substituting anonymous names with hues of color and using the

53
pronouns they, their, and them throughout this chapter. The participants' information is
randomized to ensure additional anonymity and confidentiality. No aligning of identifying
information appears in the narratives.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder for this study was IADI’s first-year studio program faculty, who are a
collection of discipline-specific practitioners who teach required foundation courses at the art
college. Pseudonyms were used to protect the anonymity of participating individuals (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). An open request was sent to 25-35 first-year studio faculty who met a set of
criteria for a purposeful selection process. The researcher selected participants who have diverse
cultural identities and intersectional perspectives to match the intended goals of the study,
theory, and the problem of practice for improving instruction of visual literacy and teaching for
inclusion. Furthermore, the selected participants included a sampling range that provided for
college-wide representation of faculty who teach with varying studio-making outputs such as
architecture, design, and fine arts practices. The sampling informed the research by gaining
insight into the need for an impact from an instructional development program, policy, or
intervention (Creswell, 2014).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. All participants had at least six years of teaching.
Criterion 2. The faculty were a mix of ranked non-tenured, tenure status, and senior
adjunct status depending on the contractual availability.
Criterion 3. The faculty represented different disciplines in the College from the
divisions of architecture, design, fine art, and the humanities depending on the availability.
Criterion 4. The faculty were a mix of diverse cultural identities, and perspectives.

54
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy was to recruit 10-16 faculty in an open call email to the entire first
first-year faculty group asking for volunteers to meet individually for interviews online in a
private conference meeting. The criteria for six years or more teaching experience was stated in
the posting. The open call email created less bias and avoided selecting faculty who the
researcher knows. The selection of the faculty was purposeful in helping to answer the problem
of practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher logged notes about behaviors from the
interviews (Creswell, 2014).
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data collection included conducting interviews with IADI first-year studio faculty and
document analysis of relevant materials. The qualitative methods provided insights into how the
knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences interact for the first-year studio faculty
to develop instructional improvement for teaching visual literacy as a strategy for inclusion.
Triangulation of data occurred from the responses to the interviews and information collected
from relevant documents (Bowen, 2009). The triangulation raised the credibility of the study by
collecting multiple sources of data and used cross-validated findings to reduce systematic bias
(Maxwell, 2013). The following section outlines the protocols used for the interviews, as well as
the processes of the document analysis.
Interviews
Interview protocol. In a semi-structured set of twelve questions, the researcher
interviewed first-year studio faculty. The semi-structured format created flexibility for the
researcher and participants during the interviews to reroute a direction in the questioning as
needed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The types of questions were designed to pull out stories from

55
the faculty’s teaching experiences. There were a few planned probing questions for follow-up.
Initial questions substantiated how faculty understood visual literacy and teaching for inclusion
and how they were directed to implement these in a studio atmosphere at IADI. The remaining
questions asked faculty about what they felt they need to know to improve teaching for inclusion,
and how they perceived the resources and the interactions within the organization which affect
the goal. The questions were aligned with the conceptual framework of knowledge, motivational,
and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). The questions are included in Appendix A.
Interview procedure. The interviews which lasted 45 minutes in duration took place
through an online meeting format which was private. The location was convenient so that the
faculty could choose their space and quickly attend. The researcher was in a private office. The
privacy of the space ensured that people felt free to interact with the researcher. However, it was
important that the faculty did not feel overly comfortable due to the researcher’s insider
positionality as a faculty member. Therefore, it was essential to create a level of professionalism;
otherwise, long-time colleagues may have had a hard time focusing on the study (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003).
Document Analysis
The researcher also collected documents from the organization that included private and
public information. The agreement with the College allowed the researcher to request data on
enrollment, retention, historical faculty meeting notes, and assessment material. All documents
collected were only used as a source of the supplemental material, used for a triadic research
analysis between faculty interviews, documents, and literature review (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The document information included first-year program assessment collection, such as
accreditation documents, student digital portfolios, meeting notes, and calendar timing. The

56
documents applied the information as supplemental to the interviews, as there is no way to
substantiate the process that went into retrieving and developing the past information (Patton,
2002). The documents were part of the College’s academic records used for accreditation
purposes and data-driven decision making within the organization. The researcher acknowledged
and stayed true to the research sources by logging the more specific use of documents when used
(Bowen, 2009).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The researcher worked diligently with the analysis of substantiated evidence for the least
amount of bias (Maxwell, 2013). The challenge was that the researcher has role inside the
organization as both faculty and past administrative leadership. Interviewing colleagues for
information was a definite asset to the study because the researcher had long-standing integrity
and collegial relationships which positively impacted the rapport needed to work with
participants. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) offer that it is a benefit to the qualitative data collection
process if participants well regard the trustworthiness of the researcher. Academic Affairs was
aware of the study and approved the interviews. This is necessary to ensure the trustworthiness
of data collection and the process of the analysis (O’Leary, 2014).
The researcher addressed the commitment and care to submitting credible work by
creating consistent information such as matching recorded faculty perceptions to the procedural
faculty guidelines of the first-year studio program. The researcher addressed the documentation
and steps that were taken to ensure they are used as supplemental information to compare to
comments that arose from the interviews and were in alignment with data found within the
literature review (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

57
It is important to establish the positionality of the researcher, if needed, to maintain
credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a faculty member with more than 20 years of
experience teaching within the first-year studio program, the researcher interacted with many
first-year students through generational changes, led curriculum overhauls, and implemented
various initiatives at IADI. Currently, the researcher is an associate professor within the first-
year studio program and is not in administrative leadership of the first-year studio program or at
the College. Moreover, the researcher was not a supervisor of the first-year studio faculty who
are the stakeholders of the study. Stringer (2014) speaks to an action research method of
qualitative inquiry and the strength when the insider researcher is invested, but who will not
exploit participants and who takes extra steps to maintain the social and interpersonal
relationships. That person, according to Stringer (2014), is a very credible person to gather data.
The faculty interviewed in the interviews were informed that the researcher was taking every
effort to ensure they understood the care and consideration used to uphold the integrity of the
faculty contribution to the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
It is not enough for the researcher to state their credibility; they must also demonstrate the
ways they will make a concerted effort to ensure all of the information, interviews, people, and
analysis will be dependable (Maxwell, 2013). The use of triangulation between the interviews
and document analysis kept the information better informed and filtered through a compare and
contrast model which lowered the possibilities of bias (Bowen, 2009). The research needed to
have a positive effect on gathering first-year studio faculty without alienating the overall
program participants. The trustworthiness and relationship between the researcher and the
participants added to the collective discussion and problem-solving about using visual literacy as
a strategy for teaching for inclusion by the first-year studio faculty’s stakeholder group.

58
Ethics
Ethics played a significant role in the study. The researcher was situated inside the
organization, so attempting to create an anonymous study for both the organization and the
individual participants was crucial (Glesne, 2011). The researcher worked to achieve a favorable
rapport with the supervisors of the organization, and the College leadership was aware of the
study and approved all requests for interaction with the faculty in the first-year studio program.
By submitting the study and information to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at The
University of Southern California and following the rules and guidelines of the IRB, the
researcher worked diligently to protect the rights and welfare of the participants of the study.
Informed consent is an essential part of ethical research (Glesne, 2011). Participants, were
assigned pseudonyms, informed that participating in the study was voluntary, and were not
connected to any binding employment agreements with the organization. It was particularly
important for contingent faculty to be aware that all conversations were kept completely
confidential and identities were protected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participants could withdraw from the study at any point without penalty. In order to
minimize the potential for participants to feel coerced or pressured, the researcher disclosed to
each participant that she had been in a leadership position within the first-year program, but that
this research was conducted independently. It was important that faculty understood the study
was not related to the supervision of their positions, that their identities were protected, and no
raw content or identifying information was going to be shared with anyone, including the
leadership team from Academic Affairs or the Humanities and Sciences Division. Though the
researcher was an individual who worked within the institution and taught for the program,
investment in the data was to further the research of instructional development and improve the

59
first-year learning experience. All data, files, and transcripts were stored on a computer and
external drive in a private server that was password protected.
Additionally, pseudonyms were used on the interview transcripts and in this study to
protect the identity of each participant. No incentives were used, and each person interviewed
participated freely. In accordance with the mission to be a researcher, any bias based on
race/ethnicity/socioeconomic status and/or the fact that the researcher worked for the
organization, had experience as a leader, and faculty in the field within the study took priority to
protect each participant in the study. While analyzing the data, the researcher recognized where
bias occurred in the translation of the data and worked for the integrity of the information to be
as transparent and impartial as possible (Weiss, 1994). One way to assure more impartial
analysis was to measure the information for similar patterns and create codes within the
qualitative information gathered. By systematizing for similar responses, the information was
delivered in a less biased manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Limitations and Delimitations
The following are the identified limitations of the study. The study depended on the
truthfulness of the respondents. Interviewees self-reported and people will often over report
positive information. To mitigate the possibility of over self-reporting, the researcher used
triangulation to help balance the reality of the data. Second, the study was conducted in a
relatively brief period of time, making the data from interviewees less representative of
experiences across multiple semesters and calendar years. This may have enriched results had the
researcher been able to address them more than once over time. Moreover, the study was
conducted within one organization and a specific teaching population within one school. The
researcher used a convenient sample of fourteen participants. Additionally, the researcher had

60
lower capacity to ensure representation of all the disciplines at the college as one goal was to
represent across the college divisions. This study had to suffice with faculty who are designers,
but not faculty within the division of design who were invited yet were unable to participate.
The delimitations of the methods and the findings considered the context of this study
and are acknowledged as conditions to expand upon for future research. It may be that further
study could administer a quantitative survey of inquiry across numerous organizations to see if
there are similarities. It could be that the combination of visual literacy and teaching for
inclusion is particular to art studio and foundation practice, and might need to include a more
comprehensive sample base in a broader context. The delimitations, however, may have
provided data shared generously and respectfully due to the relationship the researcher built over
time while involved in the organization. Notably, the criteria could be less stringent. The criteria
that faculty had six years or more teaching in FYS pushed the researcher to include two faculty
with five years of experience, and thus did not meet the full criteria limit.

61
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This section details the findings from the following research questions:
1. What is the first-year studio faculty’s knowledge and motivation to improve student
visual literacy as an inclusion strategy for the learning environment at IADI?
2. What is the interaction between IADI’s culture and context and the faculty knowledge
and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions needed
to improve visual literacy as an inclusion strategy for the learning environment at IADI?
The section begins with a description of the participants and each research question is answered
by the findings and results that emerged during qualitative interviews with IADI’s experienced
first-year studio faculty.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was the first-year core studio (FYS) faculty
at IADI, who teach four required courses of studio foundations in visual arts.
Interview Participants
There were 14 interview participants. Five participants taught for six years to 12 years,
with seven faculty teaching between 13 to 19 years. Two participating faculty had more than 20
years of experiencing teaching at the College. All of the faculty showed a dedication to teaching
foundation studio and developmental aspects of first-year teaching. Seven faculty members had
senior adjunct status and six faculty were considered ranked faculty. All the participants taught
in FYS and fulfilled an interdisciplinary maker ability, which matches terminal degree, or a
professional equivalent level of practitioner's knowledge expected to teach in higher education.
The faculty taught studio-making outputs such as architecture, design, fine arts, humanities, and

62
science. Seventy-nine percent of participants also taught in other divisions and programs. Table 5
contains a breakdown of participating faculty, as well as their assigned pseudonyms.
Table 5
Participating Faculty with Color Assigned Pseudonyms
Pseudonyms FYS H&S Arch Design Fine
Arts
Sr.
Adjunct

Ranked

6-12
Years
Teaching
13-19
Years
Teaching
20-26+
Years
Teaching
Red x x x x
Yellow x x x x x
Blue x x x x
Green x x x x x
Orange x x x
Violet x x x
Magenta x x
Pink x x x x
Gold x x x x
Silver x x x x
Aqua x x x x
Indigo x x x x
Sepia x x x x
Ochre x x x x
TOTALS 14 3 2 0 8 8 6 5 7 2

63
Results and Findings
This section reports on the results and findings from the interviews of FYS faculty who
responded to the research questions within the conceptual framework focused on knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences.
Knowledge
The results in the knowledge section and the findings from the inquiry provide details
about three knowledge influences, initially identified as gaps in metacognitive, procedural, and
declarative knowledge. Overall, faculty demonstrated assets in metacognitive awareness
regarding differentiated needs for first -year students and their own behavior and biases towards
cultural differences as they teach. However, they lacked the more considerable self-regulatory
reflective processes that consider actions for instructional improvement and benchmarking
change. Additionally, there were gaps in knowledge regarding how to assess visual literacy and
inclusion in learning environments. Further, faculty confirmed teaching for inclusion is needed,
and emergent from the data were advanced commitments from faculty to address equity,
diversity, and inclusion by innovating while teaching art studio.
First-year studio faculty need to articulate self-regulatory strategies to mitigate
bias. The data that emerged from the faculty demonstrates metacognitive awareness regarding
their own biases. However, they lacked the more considerable self-regulatory skills to strategize
and transform bias to improve for teaching effectiveness. Therefore, the metacognitive influence
was determined that self-awareness is an asset, but there is definitive gap for articulating self-
regulatory strategies to mitigate bias for inclusive teaching.
The reflection focused on experiences with past instructors, both good mentors and bad

64
instructors. All 14 faculty members declared the asset of basic metacognitive knowledge that
showed awareness of their bias within the context of the learning environment. The faculty had
early experiences and specific knowledge influence from teacher-mentors, and more than half of
the faculty came from families of educators. As Blue commented about the imparted experience,
they had “a tool kit of approaches for reflecting” for improvement in teaching and specified “the
knowledge shared with mentors, guiding communities, and revisiting educational experiences
were critical factors” that informed their teaching process.
Moreover, while analyzing the recollections of reverence for family or mentors,
interviewees also credited bad teachers for building their most robust awareness through their
witnessing of poor examples of bias in the learning environment. Nine participants reflected on
what they witnessed as lack of inclusion and an absence of culturally relevant resources for their
learning and how it affected them. Gold recalled:
I wanted to make sure that my students, their lives, and their communities are represented
in what I’m teaching, and that was kind of a pivot for me that was like, oh, I could teach,
I could go do this it has really shaped me.
Gold experienced a lack of cultural representation in their learning experience that moved them
to adjust for these absences with their students. Similarly, Magenta reflected on past negative
experiences that helped them shift to recognize their own biases and challenges with teaching,
stating, “I can remember a learning circumstance that showed me what not to teach, such as
situations where my education didn’t go well, like horrible critiques and how not to conduct
one.” The imprint of missed opportunity operated as a metacognitive reflection that became the
impetus necessary to eliminating bias in their teaching.

65
Faculty also used recall to adjust, renew, and regenerate. Five participants showed they
used recall to improve their teaching and used indicating words such as “renew” and
“regenerate” for improvement that applied metacognitive reflection. Orange speaks of renewing
by “questioning things to rework and learn new methods,” which showed that faculty considered
a consistent change for enriching teaching. Magenta reflected, “Teaching is like making art;
constantly learning.” Magenta used metacognition and employed a positivity for rejuvenating
and improvement. Similarly, Yellow recalled a challenge and the process in their teaching with a
student, “I thought about it again, and it started me thinking about improvement.” The
participants showed they adjusted their disposition and philosophy for improvement.
Faculty reflected on their own biases and how the biases affected their classroom
instruction. When asked, nine faculty showed a direct ability to recognize an awareness of bias
within the learning environment. Of the faculty who were self-aware, six faculty indicated that,
over time, they gained experience and re-evaluated teaching methods to balance possible bias in
a course. Gold declared:
I’m gonna try very hard not to push my dog like dogma, but what I do try to do is try to
broaden. Because they’re coming in so savvy now, like I try to broaden what they may
not be aware of, especially, where we are situated, and teaching material also from who’s
not in the room.
Gold built their shifting bias by pulling from situational experience while teaching students in
context. Gold demonstrated that they made choices within the context of introduction studio
teaching and were informed by their perception of the prevailing cultures amongst their students.
Similarly, Magenta spoke to working against tendencies and providing diverse resources for
students:

66
I’ll bring up Western artists and then will turn my tendency and find somebody that’s
contemporary from a completely different culture, a completely different background and
say, these two things are going on synonymously and these two, they are just as valid.
Magenta acknowledged the limitations of a one-sided perspective and made a conscious decision
to represent a variety of works as equal in validity within a primarily Eurocentric studio
atmosphere. Thus, FYS faculty showed the asset that they reflect on cultural relevance and
address their biases and how it effects their teaching for inclusion.
Consistent with artistic practice, faculty employed teaching strategies that promote
metacognitive thinking. Ten faculty members spoke of their knowledge for adjusting and
reflecting that they learned from within the disciplines of art, design, and architecture, engaging
the use of materials through “learning by doing.” The process was described as key to
adaptability and found in creative making and creative thinking. When asked about a time that
they had to switch gears in a critique with a student, Pink answered:
I’ve had to navigate the interpretation of materials used by students that ultimately send
people (audience) off in different directions of meaning. Sometimes it is literally about
walking to another point of view to see a change in the narrative. We are continually
connecting to form and content because the maker sees it one way, and the audience sees
it another.
Pink spoke to navigating through interpretation using analogies available through physical,
material processes of art and design practices. Using differentiated instruction, Pink utilized
teaching practices that attempted to meet students’ interpretations relative to content taught and
helped them toward engagement with inclusive teaching strategies (McCarty et al., 2016). These
responses showed the capacity faculty had to help shift bias in the learning atmosphere.

67
Curiosity and divergent thinking generally fostered the development of metacognitive
knowledge. All of the interviewees connected metacognitive knowledge and awareness of bias
with the term “curiosity.” FYS faculty referred to themselves as highly curious, using identifying
words such as “constantly questioning,” “interrogating,” and “experimenting.” Sepia expressed:
There was no permission given anywhere but the human spirit’s capacity to seep into
cracks and invent. It’s liveliness. It’s part of the human spirit. Some of us really were
made to teach, to be curious about it, made to be around other people, and maybe some of
us aren’t.
Sepia saw those in foundations studio teaching as curious people more likely to ask questions
and probe into things they fear.
Similarly, four faculty members made a direct link about teaching art as a profession to
being open-minded which can assist metacognitive reflection to counter bias in the learning
environment. In a discussion, of their passion for teaching, Ochre contended:
Artists who teach have a natural curiosity and passion for understanding the world and
people. Because we’re artists and teachers, we know that being open-minded is a way of
being. We want to question, have new experiences, and be challenged by things.
Ochre referenced that being openminded as an art instructor added to the applicable ways artists
can mitigate bias. A similar asset emerged from the architects and designers in the faculty who
spoke about divergent thinking. Three participants discussed testing, experimenting, and
designing an iterative process that uses divergent thinking, which engages metacognitive
knowledge.
Faculty were unable to articulate self-regulatory practices or strategies transforming
bias for teaching effectiveness. Nine participants commented that they were not trained to teach,

68
as an MFA studio practitioner (or equivalent). An exception showed that five faculty obtained
some cognitive learning information during training from graduate assistantships and graduate
teaching studio practicum courses. Otherwise, the inquiry revealed a sparse mix of faculty with
formal teaching instruction, using indicating words such as not knowing “instructional
principles” and “structured learning processes.” One faculty member supplemented their MFA
degree with a teaching certificate. One faculty member mentioned starting an educational path in
psychology, which turned into an MFA. In contrast, three faculty acknowledged the trial and
error of learning to teach and not understanding cognitive sciences, such as the importance of
recording reflection in teaching. Aqua affirmed:
Basically, my teaching experience was teaching at summertime art school as a teaching
assistant for my colleagues assisting technical studio aspects. And then, teaching at the
nonprofit arts facility, with a few core classes at my MFA school. I had that kind of
rubber on the ground experience. But otherwise, I would say it was just ad hoc, and you
know on the job type of learning.
Aqua argues that they were not distinctly trained to strategically investigate bias in the learning
environment as a teaching faculty with a terminal degree in studio art because they focused more
on the discipline-specific practice of studio. These findings reinforce the importance of teaching
practicums for graduate students that include the science of learning while earning an MFA
degree.
To summarize the metacognitive knowledge influence, the participants reflected on
experiences from their past teachers, revering good mentors and denouncing bad instructors.
Faculty voiced self-awareness regarding their own cultural biases. Consistent with artistic
practice, faculty used strategies to encourage the development of metacognition in students. The

69
practitioners described the ability to pivot and switch gears through materials and processes. The
participants also described curiosity and divergent thinking, and the opportunities to create
iterations that could potentially suspend conclusions important for interpretation and diverse
perspectives. However, despite awareness of their own biases and teaching strategies that
fostered metacognition, there was no concrete evidence that faculty were deeply reflective or
worked to self-regulate in ways to mitigate their own biases in their courses.
First-year studio faculty need to know how to assess visual literacy and teaching for
inclusion in the learning environment. Minimal consensus regarding what visual literacy is
emerged from the interviews, and participants described a process of visual literacy assessment
that occurs in a format that extends outside the program’s group responsibility of first-year studio
faculty. Without connected processes and faculty adopted procedures for visual literacy
assessment, it was difficult to determine what procedural knowledge may be needed. Faculty
attested that direction for assessment was undefined and that their role in the assessment process
was unclear. Blue stated:
The direction is mostly left up to me to interpret, there’s a lot of different learning
outcomes. The expectation is that you will hit them throughout the semester. So, in terms
of the programmatic direction, I am obligated, and I would be doing it, even if I weren’t
obligated. I don’t feel like anyone is mainly asking me to talk or demonstrate how I’m
doing it.
Blue claimed how they, as faculty, are held accountable to assess the SLO, but that it is up to
them. Yellow commented:

70
I don’t think that the faculty understand learning outcomes at IADI across the board. I
think some have unpacked their FYS courses to identify each outcome, and others have
not. The starting point should always be a very basic rubric of some sort.
Yellow comment about the need for a basic rubric is important. Supplemental documents showed
that students were assessed in a summative capstone review, but the documents showed uneven
levels of achievement overall by minoritized students from the capstone review data. The
multipronged evaluation process of visual literacy emerged through the inquiry. It revealed that
faculty members had not learned critical pieces, such as creating a norming process about the
levels of student achievement and activating faculty groups by providing feedback loops for
continual improvement.
There is little consensus amongst first-year studio faculty regarding what visual
literacy is. When asked what visual literacy is, faculty could not confirm a definition that
matched the school’s documentation and faculty guidelines. Nevertheless, the answers confirm
faculty were knowledgeable about many parts of visual literacy. The most commonly used terms
indicated two components as descriptors of visual literacy. Eleven faculty used “interpretation”
and “meaning-making” most frequently. Ochre offered:
There is a relationship between visual literacy being able to move beyond the strict
definition of language as linguistic and moving into the idea that language or that literacy
of a visual language is first and foremost, visual. So, we’re looking at symbols, metaphor,
sign, texture, color, and all of the visual language components.
Ochre talked about looking for signs and signals, cues, building descriptors, interpretation, and
meaning. The use of interpretation and a meaning-making process as components of visual
literacy was the most widely shared viewpoint. Blue maintains that visual literacy is an

71
interactive strategy for facilitating knowledge for historical images and adding cultural aspects
through storytelling.
Some faculty described visual literacy as cultural understanding and connected to
teaching for inclusion. Six faculty stated that they used visual literacy as a tool for inclusion.
Silver stated:
Students might try to understand the visual culture they grew up. Then also, I have
examples of using my own language. These are two things: my presentation and also
their presentation or work. We then try to find the common languages. I ask them to
understand what I’m trying to say and then ask myself to understand what they’re trying
to say. Finding a way to talk together is my understanding of teaching visual literacy.
Faculty expand literacy to learning other perspectives through visual strategies in the act of
sharing, which shows the interactive nature of visual literacy. Magenta spoke of the process and
social interchange that assists interpretation and community meaning. The visual information can
aid all participants’ interactions, including the faculty, contextualizing points of view within the
classroom climate (Hartwell et al., 2017).
Faculty showed they know about varying components of visual literacy. Interviewees
mentioned faculty guidelines as a directive from the program. However, they were imprecise
when they described visual literacy as an SLO. Moreover, the accountability for studio faculty to
know how it is measured is low.
First-year studio faculty have little to no direction for implementing and assessing
visual literacy. Faculty do know what visual literacy is as they described a wide variety of
versions. However, faculty have little to no direction how to implement and assess visual literacy
in an FYS course. When asked how the FYS directed them to teach visual literacy, 62% of

72
faculty discussed student learning outcomes (SLOs) as a long list of all prioritized items with
little direction, and visual literacy being one SLO on the list. Gold considered their onboarding in
FYS and contemplated the SLO priorities. Gold stated:
Visual literacy is at the bottom, I haven’t, quite frankly, been given any instruction on
how to teach visual literacy for FYS. They gave me a set of learning outcomes. Also, the
course program learning outcomes, and when I think about it, I don’t think I’ve ever had
a workshop or a slide deck unless maybe I missed something.
Gold revealed that the list of learning outcomes is open to interpretation. When asked about
learning outcomes and the priority of visual literacy to FYS, Aqua stated:
Visual literacy has stumped us for forever, but it’s been fun. I’ve used a couple of tools in
the classroom in the last couple of years to help me and help the students with that. So,
the laundry list of learning outcomes changes every year.
Aqua’s comment divulged the fatigue of assessment when they referenced a laundry list of
learning outcomes. Moreover, Aqua eluded to the many directions they have approached
implementing SLO visual literacy. SLOs are closely interrelated, yet no thorough conversation
seemed to help define the outcomes for assessment.
Similarly, another participant notes the minimal direction for the SLO. Indigo reported:
It’s a lot of information in a small bag. I say the learning outcomes in my own words, as
opposed to the first-day handout of lists. Then later, I’ll explain to them when I use the
project sheet that actually asks you what learning outcomes to use. It seems like visual
literacy has been around for ten years.
Indigo, Aqua, and Magenta all acknowledged that FYS attempted to follow through on
the overall priorities of a list of learning outcomes, but the lack of direction diffused attention to

73
the particular importance of visual literacy. Yellow addressed the follow-through of assessment
reinvestigating the SLO’s measurement, which is a critical discussion for further investigation as
FYS builds future curriculum. Furthermore, Pink expressed an opportunity to innovate for future
contemplations, suggesting that assessment may need a different mode.
Subsequently, the gaps in visual literacy as a procedural knowledge are not confirmed by
this inquiry, because there is no definitive agreement on the definition of visual literacy and
faculty would require a directive to indicate an exact way on “how to” teach it. Moreover, the
procedural knowledge influence showed measuring the SLO of visual literacy was unclear to
faculty. Supplemental documents revealed little change in improving student achievement of
visual literacy over eight years. The inquiry confirmed the faculty lack of procedural knowledge
of how to assess visual literacy. Moreover, no evidence emerged that faculty know how to assess
teaching for inclusion and therefore, the research finding cannot be determined.
Faculty know what teaching for inclusion is and why it is important. Originally
detected as a gap in declarative knowledge yet confirmed as an asset, the faculty demonstrated
they know what teaching for inclusion is and why it is crucial. Seven participants strove for
equitable teaching practices that are culturally responsive in the studio environment. Ninety-eight
percent of faculty believed “meeting students where they are” was important to create a learning
environment that fostered teaching for inclusion. Six faculty members spoke of facilitating a
mutually built community agreement to build trust in the learning environment as it shifts the
power dynamic to create student agency. Further, faculty discussed the need to establish
moments to address “the role of [the] facilitator to advocate for individual cultural voices” and
“studio experiences” making learning more meaningful. Faculty shared several strategies that
exemplified what teaching for inclusion might include. Despite the innovation that faculty

74
described, they also argued that the endeavor of inclusion is a persistent gap as enrollment
changes occur and a new set of students arrived with differentiated needs each year.
Faculty assert the need to address exclusion beyond inclusion. More than 60% of
faculty wanted goals that teach for inclusion and eliminate exclusion in studio learning. When
participants responded to the question about what teaching for inclusion entails, participants
argued about the language of “teaching for inclusion” chosen by the researcher. Met by a
threshold of consensus, faculty argued that the language was too basic and not strong enough to
express their desire for eradicating exclusion and striving for total equity in the classroom. Green
adamantly stated:
Students show up in specific ways because there is no other option. It’s an unlearning
because their previous knowledge is that they have been excluded. From an
understanding of lived experience, their previous knowledge is of what it feels like to be
excluded; it’s not about inclusion. It’s actually about exclusion. Many students bring
these feelings of exclusion, not belonging. It can be described as some previous
knowledge.
The realities of the social context between the faculty and the students in the studio classroom is
to be available, to surround a new class of students, and to hold their concerns and previous
knowledge as relevant, meeting them with instructional tools, including unexpected strategies.
Green’s response to the word “inclusion” came with an added desire for accountability
from the faculty for acquiring the knowledge to address bias strategies and building equitable
new paths for students. Faculty stated that language is crucial as they dissected the word
“inclusion.” Yellow pointed out, “That there is an overuse of the word inclusion, which possibly
deactivates the actions and weakens intentions, diminishing the potential for real change.”

75
Yellow critiqued the language and pointed to the overuse of a term potentially perceived as
ingenuine. Yellow continues, “The student is asked to come into the classroom and assimilate
rather than the classroom begin as the student’s arena.” The concern was that “inclusion”
emphasized the Eurocentric structure of the academic studio space. Therefore, Yellow’s
comment confirmed that faculty know the importance of inclusion yet asserted more advanced
goals for the classroom climate.
Conclusion of knowledge inquiry. The faculty were aware of their bias and different
student contexts but did not have specific self-regulatory strategies for transformational change
in language and methods to improve teaching for inclusion. The challenge ahead is to harness the
strategic and planned aspects that metacognitive knowledge that can bring FYS and further the
college’s heightened innovation and improvement in pedagogy. The faculty showed a lack of
procedural knowledge about visual literacy assessment. It could not be confirmed whether
faculty know how to assess teaching for inclusion. The faculty’s lack of procedural knowledge
complicates a process-based interaction and misses the opportunity for accounting for the
transformational aspects that faculty and students encounter. As an asset, participants did
understand what teaching for inclusion is and why it is important. The inquiry uncovered the
autonomy of interpretation and how visual literacy components are an asset to teaching for
inclusion as they allow varying perspectives, and cultural and social interactions in studio
learning.
The study found the knowledge influences had more assets than gaps, and determined
that the FYS first-year studio faculty are in the middle of innovating for inclusive learning
environments. Considering the identified concerns about race and social justice in higher
education, the transformational process within the knowledge influences needs to become a

76
pedagogical focus for student-centered voice and questioning. Teaching to eliminate exclusion is
not a one-stop fix, and it is a process that must be integrated into the learning environment for
both faculty and students. The investigation continues for best practices in mitigating bias with
conscious work among IADI educators that highlights a process, not a destination.
Motivation
The findings and results provide details concerning the three motivation influences
initially identified as gaps for the stakeholder group. Through the study, some assets were also
found in FYS faculty motivation to innovate and improve teaching for inclusion. The data found
assets and gaps in expectancy value that block participants' time investment to engage and
determine their connotations gauging the worth to learn new pedagogy. The inquiry uncovered
the asset of high self-efficacy in the faculty members, as they cited ways in which their singular
ability influenced students. The innovation in individual motivation segues to collective efficacy,
finding both assets and gaps within the overall group goals, leaving room for improvement.
First-year studio faculty believe their effort is worth the value to learn inclusion
pedagogy, but not in sharing teaching scholarship. The motivational influence of expectancy
value theory involves weighing doing a task by the faculty’s time or other costs, such as their
value of engaging in meaningful work. The inquiry found assets in the value that faculty believe
that teaching for inclusion and learning pedagogy are meaningful work. The gaps in expectancy
value appeared as first-year studio faculty did not show they believed in sharing teaching
scholarship.
Faculty believed in meaningful interactions and learning inclusion pedagogy in the
studio environment. Nine faculty believed they engaged meaningful work with first-year

77
students and learned pedagogy in while teaching for inclusion. Faculty affirmed a deep interest
in inclusive pedagogy and an effort to move beyond it to eradicate exclusion. Gold asserts:
It’s teaching from a place of empathy without really teaching, like coming from a place
of humaneness that we should be thinking about in the world because inclusion is to me
is, is very much tied to ethics, but not in the Western sense. Not like in the Western
philosophical sense, but I am there, I am part of their first experience in college. I want
them to feel welcome. I want them to feel challenged. I want them to feel like they are
fearless.
Gold enumerated that they value their student’s first-year experience to engage in ethical
formation and the value of the faculty presence is perhaps “without really teaching.” This
philosophy questions the role of the facilitator to learn while teaching. Green takes a
philosophical stance as to their personal investment in inclusion and how they learn from their
teaching. Green shared:
What I wanted, I guess, was not just teaching the material, but teaching in the way that
has been super empowering for me, to empower others. Delivering the material in a way
that really resonates with my values, with who I am as a person has been like the biggest
kind of aha moment.
Green, who has twelve years of experience, talks of new and transformational experiences
gained from teaching. Metaphors of building and deconstructing demonstrated that pedagogical
learning exists inside the learning environment. Adding Pink stated:
I learn from doing, mostly from the students, I look at how to get out of my own way.
Like beat out some of the structure and rigor that I once valued as a way to
succeed. Undo my learning, I offer that out of me, so that I can observe and engage with

78
the students in a much more meaningful way. When my learning is at that place, it's
actually so much more fun. That has turned into motivation for me.
Pink’s ‘learning by doing’ revealed values of belief in the learning environment that all
participants are learners. Dewey (1910) considered ‘learning by doing’ and described the process
of teachers ‘training the mind.’ This leads to embodied knowledge, valuing a situational process
and reflecting while doing, similar to action research (Rogers, 2002; Stringer, 2009).
Sixty-four percent of participants voiced that they valued teaching for inclusion with
interactions that pushed their daily teaching practice to consider teaching as ‘unlearning.’ Faculty
spoke of meaningful connections, gained new perspectives, engaged in discourses of ethics, and
cared for new art students. The expectancy value created the faculty motivation and are retrieved
from within the learning environment.
Sharing teaching scholarship was not valued by art practitioners. Sharing teaching
scholarship appeared as a gap as six first-year studio faculty commented in various forms that
teaching scholarship was mismatched and stifling to their creative methods as practitioners, and
that the scholarship and pedagogy that they had witnessed was not engaging. Sharing in teaching
scholarship has been found to support inclusive teaching and instructional improvement and also
build group values for programmatic consistency. However, when asked about teaching
scholarship and sharing it, the interviewees revealed that they did not feel compelled to engage in
scholarship.
First, faculty saw the term teaching scholarship as purely academic. Red confessed, “I
don't really enjoy reading that kind of material that much. I like experiential learning better. I
think that of the scholarship as a practice which is more experientially based.” As an artist, Silver
explains why they would not engage in the output of the scholarship of teaching:

79
I don't want to be the specialist of scholarly issues only. I'm a practitioner and I'm an
artist, and I'm always in my classroom as an artist. Which doesn't mean I don't like
teaching; I am trying to be a really good teacher. I'm definitely interested in the pedagogy
and the methodologies and all that. But also, I'm trying to balance between this teacher
versus practitioner life. Being a practitioner is really the fundamental part, especially in
art world and in art education.
A perception that teaching scholarship diverted from their artistic practice was evident in the
interviews, and as Silver remarked, it is possibly not of worth to the ‘artworld.’
This perception also explains that teaching scholarship does not come in innovative
conceptual or visual formats. Pink expounds:
There's no examples that I'm excited about out there about teaching and pedagogy as
professional practice. I think any artists doing scholarly work are doing it wrong right
now. Like dissertations into books, whatever, about teaching, it is so boring and so dry.
And it's a whole bunch of blah, blah, blah. Without enough images, it's not beautiful, and
I’ve thought, you were artists. Why are we emulating the forms of somebody else?
As the faculty point out, artist scholars who write about pedagogy have yet to provide formats
that engage artist teachers. The gap in engaging artist practitioners in improving pedagogy has
not been confirmed; in fact, the interviewees state that they are very involved in learning
pedagogy while in their classrooms. FYS participating in teaching scholarship, though, may need
to consider other approaches of presenting and engaging in the research.
FYS faculty have self-efficacy and confidence in their ability to influence students.
Eighty-seven percent of faculty revealed a strong sense of self-efficacy in their individual ability
to influence students. The participants believed they influence students in three ways that are

80
assets. They affirmed their confidence by years of experience guiding first-year students in
meaningful process through art practices, by self-confidence influencing students ‘ethical
compass’, and by mentoring students’ cultural voices all of which apply to student understanding
belief that they important and included.
Fifty percent of faculty who had 13-20 years of experience showed confidence in
influencing students as artist-designers. Indigo described teaching confidence through
scaffolding methods. Indigo noted, “I’ve gotten better at doing things in stages, reflecting on
students’ last steps of learning. It molds their foundation in first-year teaching. I’ve definitely
changed over the years.” The faculty’s self-efficacy and confidence was motivated by a critical
desire to guide students through the artistic practice.
The data also revealed faculty’s confidence to influence students’ morals and ethics. Red
spoke of the morality of bringing joy within the teacher-student relationship. Red described:
I let it be known that it is my pleasure to be there with the students that we are both
getting something out of it. I understand the value of the students feeling that and my
ethical responsibility is to find the joy, every day.
Both Indigo and Red showed confidence in creating interactions for learning to occur as an
ethical service, saying it “brings joy” and “honesty” to teaching and learning.
Faculty affirmed their confidence to mentor students’ cultural voices. When asked about
a time when participants lacked the confidence to touch on a diverse topic, 70% of faculty
affirmed that although there were rough times, they believed in their ability to facilitate a
culturally responsive atmosphere. Green spoke to the endeavor to teach for a set of voices that
may operate in different communication modes of storytelling by using studio teaching to build
community and mitigate communication challenges. Green expounded:

81
Since our education system is biased towards white European education, that viewpoint
of visual literacy is really baked into all of our learning and our processes. Many students
have not seen themselves, their voices or their cultures, their perspectives represented in
the work. I think about how everything is learned from reading, and actually you know in
marginalized communities that so much knowledge is done through storytelling. I also
see that most of the students are not learning that way.
Green showed confidence to advocate and mentor student’s cultural voices. This is important
because strong individual beliefs will extend on how long they will persevere when confronting
obstacles, and help faculty be resilient in the face of adverse situations (Eccles, 2006). The
inquiry confirmed that individual faculty have confidence and self-efficacy that motivates their
support to mentor cultural voices.
Faculty stated they had confidence and self-efficacy while shifting bias in teaching. Their
individual statements acknowledge strength, which will contribute to the collective efficacy as an
asset for FYS program goals for teaching for inclusion. FYS faculty presented a solid asset of
self-efficacy that will serve as motivation in the commitment for the continued demand of
mitigating bias in the learning environment.
First-year studio faculty need to believe that their group effort would accomplish
the organizational goals. There were gaps and assets concerning collective efficacy as a
motivating factor for FYS faculty. In particular, the research indicated that faculty do gain some
personal knowledge and self-efficacy from each other and that, overall, they believe in FYS as a
group. There are systems at IADI for faculty to share course content, but this does not constitute
building the motivation needed for collective efficacy. Consequently, in a time of change at

82
IADI, gaps in motivation were uncovered for collective efficacy that were affected by the trust
and collegiality by people in a program, but also in discipline practices.
Faculty had confidence in their peers but did not demonstrate a sense of collective
efficacy. When asked of their confidence in the FYS program faculty's ability to achieve
teaching for inclusion in the classroom, faculty reported confidence in their fellow faculty to
achieve inclusion goals, programmatic understanding of syllabi sharing and projects, and organic
sharing for quick motivational support.
All faculty admired FYS faculty and their vital role of caring for the retention of first-
year students. Interviewees used words like "hardworking," "nimble," and "caring." Red
affirmed, “I feel confident in FYS faculty, it's a solid group of educators and human beings, I'm
always humbled at our faculty meetings. I'm in good company with talented people." Sepia
shared, "First, I want to say we have an incredible faculty in first-year, not only do we have
seasoned teachers, and they are teachers that really care. They have been very flexible and light
on their feet." These comments show overall confidence as an asset for a unified belief in FYS
faculty.
When asked about sharing teaching practices, six faculty confirmed that they shared
teaching practices. Aqua said:
There's a culture in FYS. I think of relative openness in that I've been able to look at other
faculties' syllabi and assignments and that's helpful so that you're just not out there alone.
College documentation has an electric archiving system, and faculty have access to past
syllabi. The faculty's overall message is that the division's syllabi are openly shared by
administrators for a culture of teaching laboratory, particularly for the first-year studio.

83
Aqua mentions a formal system as a format of "a culture of a teaching laboratory." The shared
system is a syllabi archive available for teaching knowledge, but that exchange is not always
accompanied by the faculty who created it. Nevertheless, there are times the formal system
encourages faculty exchange, or the chair coaches the learning for new entering faculty.
The asset of organic, non-planned situations was prevalent. Five faculty members relayed
that they encountered organic sharing in "convergent spaces" and "passing in-between class
times" that shared teaching experiences. When asked about sharing best practices, Green noted it
is unusual to talk about how well teaching is going. Green elucidated, "I don't reach out to tell
people how good something is. Most often, the conversation happens at a social encounter or a
casual stop and talk in the parking lot." Green described organic encounters, yet also relayed that
most people do not spend time reviewing their successful work as it can sound like "bragging"
and is presented as unwanted information. Similarly, Blue stated, “It's not really sharing best
practices when I'm asked. It's more likely it has a problem-solving tone to it. Like advice to work
with students in collaboration to make sure that people don't rip each other's faces off.” Blue
related that sharing appeared when another teacher is grappling with complications. The positive
support for a faculty member in a difficult situation is a significant asset that emerged from the
inquiry and shows the faculty's capacity to foster colleagues under challenging times.
The inquiry uncovered the asset of sharing and collegiality in small instances during
organic or unplanned moments. Organic encounters are often high in empathy and resource
direction for an individual. The discussions are not necessarily optimal as collaborative
production, as these conversations are known to diffuse due to the informal unrecorded nature of
the sharing (Mårtensson et al., 2011). Therefore, it is unclear if the organic encounters raise the
confidence of the group.

84
Pressing gaps in collegiality has impeded collective efficacy for improving teaching for
inclusion. Overall, FYS faculty have a good foundation of confidence for the program and to
improve the institutional goal of inclusion. However, participants indicated that collegiality was
not used a regular support process at IADI and effected collective efficacy. One gap that
appeared was prioritizing a transactional exchange over transformational interactions for
learning. A second gap that emerged divulged weak links in the collegial strength of
practitioners, marred by competition and lack of trust with deep roots in the structural system of
the arts. Prioritizing transactional exchange between faculty and leadership over transformational
interactions overshadows collective motivation and learning can get stymied and can re-ignite
alienation in people that previous experience of being excluded. When learning for teaching and
curriculum is exchanged without engaging learners, handing lists and pamphlets, it can be a seen
as a transactional exchange. Eight participants reported dehumanizing approaches to disseminate
learning for teaching. The interviewees ascertained the process of learning was devoid of
meaningful exchange that blocked their knowledge for teaching initiatives and impacted their
confidence in the amount they retained as knowledge and diminished motivation to work
together.

Learning without a transformational process between colleagues lowered their
motivation. When asked about sharing more than archives of syllabi to learn pedagogy, the gap
appeared in the sharing and exchange of information in FYS. Green described:
There is certain information that's just delivered. My best way of learning and defining is
not writing and not reading and even listening. I would say it's in collaboration. That, to
me is the best learning it is about expanding my own perspectives and my teaching

85
through working with others. So, learning to me is not necessarily this transactional thing
where it's like okay I learned this, check that off I'm done.
Green's remarks uncovered prefer learning in collaboration as it expanded their knowledge.
Transformational learning is relational and is best learned in pairs, teams, or groups and connects
to pedagogies for mitigating bias such as anti-racist and decolonial learning. To build collective
efficacy, the motivational influence and confidence of the group, though collegial interactions,
are needed for people to want to work together.
Gaps in the collegial strength of practitioners found a lack of trust through the inquiry. A
significant gap emerged, as 50% of faculty identified overall behavior in practitioners and artists
while interacting within their disciplines as a professional community lacking. The following
behaviors emerged as identified by words like “guarded,” “competitive,” and having “a lack of
trust.” The comments confirmed a much more distrusting side of faculty. Sepia stated:
Every academic field is competitive in its own way, you know, artists are the worst.
They’re the worst at the competition, they’re not pals, and don’t always come in as good
teachers, they don’t come in as good allies, a lot of times. After all, we don’t meet all as
colleagues very often. We don’t get to share a lot because we’re all sequestered in our
little classrooms. I think that we have not been offered a platform actually to break out of
those habits.
Sepia revealed collegial sharing, such as breaking habits of operating as an individual and
connecting as a faculty group, is desired but not offered. Moreover, Sepia’s comments reveal that
faculty do not support individual work efforts and there are concerns about congeniality.
Lencioni (2012) states that individual loyalties can underscore how a team works together. Sepia

86
contends that “people cannot be nice with each other.” Building trust and breaking down
allegiances makes it more likely faculty will share to help their collective efficacy.
Other instances of diminished trust were revealed, as four faculty spoke of their aversion
to share different ideas and values within the group. They shared that they do not pay attention to
some of their colleagues’ ideas. Ochre stated that they listen to “information that matches their
own” and Magenta said, “they have little trust for faculty who don’t match their values.” The gap
shows a weakness in the collegial atmosphere with a wearied behavior that could be perceived as
exclusionary amongst colleagues. This blocks the potential for helping the collective efficacy
that fosters confidence in individual motivation and harnesses team contributions.
Three interviewees made a direct connection of the collective motivation of faculty and
the motivation of students. Silver made a direct link between faculty inclusion problems and
climate in the classroom. Silver attested:
Ranked faculty, have let me know that I’m in some kind of inferior category as an
unranked faculty and that I shouldn’t be speaking out of my place, but, um, I can actually
take that experience and I can have empathy for the students that might feel the clique is
not accepting them.
Silver revealed a culture of cliques and exclusions for unranked faculty that connect with
organizational influences. Nevertheless, the collective motivation was damaged by faculty not
gaining support and knowledge from the group.
The inquiry found the faculty recited a solid baseline acknowledgment of confidence for
FYS program faculty to achieve inclusion goals as a definite asset. However, a substantial gap in
the collective efficacy for FYS emerged as an untapped motivating influence by the lack of
collaboration, relational learning, and transformational interaction. Further, collegial support is

87
needed between faculty to improve motivation to learn new pedagogy for inclusive atmospheres
and ultimately creating equity in the curriculum.
Conclusion of motivational influences. The motivational influence of expectancy value
theory determined some assets, as faculty described their perspective of the intrinsic value and
fulfillment to learn pedagogy for inclusion. They expressed a more pronounce goal of eradicating
exclusion for first year studio courses. The gap in sharing teaching scholarship found some
faculty did not accept teaching scholarship as interesting enough to affect the visual literacy and
inclusion efforts in their teaching, rather, they maintained prioritizing their cultural production in
the visual arts over exploring scholarship for teaching. Additionally, FYS faculty affirmed assets
of self-efficacy and confidence in their ability to influence students. Interviewees stated they had
confidence in their individual experience for guiding others, influencing student’s ‘ethical
compasses’, and mentoring students’ cultural voices. Collective efficacy, the third motivational
influence, was relayed by interviewees as having a baseline confidence in their fellow FYS
faculty to achieve improvement in the areas of visual literacy and inclusive teaching. Evidence
emerged that interviewees recognized formal sharing of syllabi and positively emphasized
organic sharing encounters. However, significant gaps in collective efficacy for group motivation
emerged as the interviewees divulged a lack in activating collegiality effecting the belief that the
teaching learning environment is inclusive. The interviewed faculty perceived more prioritized
transactional exchanges over interactive transformational learning, therefore, it eroded collegial
strength, and lack of trust amongst artists. Likewise, these kinds uninviting signs in the overall
community spurred on important alliances of smaller factions of faculty seeking support yet
complicates the unity of collective efficacy for the whole group.

88
Organization
This section considers the organizational influences needed for improving visual literacy
and inclusive teaching, which includes a commitment to collegial culture, the value of the
collective agency of faculty, the development of an organizational belief in the scholarship of
teaching, and the creation of accountability standards and a commitment to resources. The data
highlighted a gap in the cultural model at IADI and a need to strengthen the commitment for
collegiality and collective agency in faculty for an inclusive learning atmosphere, as well as the
belief in the scholarship of teaching. Additionally, within the cultural setting, IADI needs to
create accountability standards with a commitment to resources for supporting collective agency
to improve teaching for inclusion.
The organization still needs to commit to collegial culture and value the collective
agency of faculty. The study revealed a cultural model concerning collegiality at the college.
Although 50% of interviewees enjoy working with each other, 40% of participants claim that
collective agency is lacking due to elitism and exclusion, and that there is not a shared norm of
convergent spaces or collaborative work. Findings indicate that organizational DEI efforts need
to address the gaps that cause competition, elitism, exclusion, and mistrust within the visual arts
professions. Faculty expressed frustration with a lack of reciprocity between the divisions and
programs as they desired cross-pollination with FYS faculty. Faculty also revealed the need to
model faculty collaboration and mentorship for students so they can witness the process of
collective efficacy and agency.
The organization needs to support interdisciplinary collaboration across divisions. The
wealth of institutional memory emerged during the interviews, particularly when discussing the

89
commitment to collegiality. Nine faculty members confirmed a lack of formal mechanisms
between the college’s divisional communities and FYS faculty. Magenta stated:
The relationship isn’t reciprocal; it doesn’t go the other way outward from the program,
divisional programs should make a commitment to faculty who are only in first year and
see what they can offer for that cross-pollination, and that just isn’t there. It does not
allow the camaraderie to happen in a way, that would I think benefit everybody,
especially the students. Definitely, the programs themselves could see the different ways
of teaching from FYS faculty and get clued in who is coming their way.
Magenta referred to the inconsistencies in comradery by the college faculty and observed that
there are few opportunities for FYS faculty to connect with their peers for interdisciplinary
collaborations. Since the College does not actively support the first-year faculty’s collaboration
between the divisions and programs, the organization demonstrates a lack of commitment to FYS
faculty collective agency.
Conversely, there were four faculty who specified that committee work was a formal
mechanism that moved them into more collegial aspects within the College and aided FYS’s
faculty collective agency. Gold spoke to mitigating exclusions in groups as new FYS curriculum
formed and as newer faculty immersed into the College. Gold attested:
Um, as time has gone. Um, I have felt more confident in where there’s an openness to it,
but there really isn’t an understanding of what that means right. In terms of inclusion in
terms of equity in terms of who’s on in the room. And there have been moments where
people are like, oh, oh, oh, right. There was still some resistance there. So, the ability of
FYS faculty to begin to push the needle happens in the program, and in committees.

90
Where inside the group, we can’t push back against everything as we can when planted at
the tables.
Gold stressed the importance of FYS faculty on college-wide committees. The insights showed
the benefit to the collective agency of faculty by contributing to the College. Silver, who teaches
outside of FYS, reinforced Gold’s statement, arguing:
Cohorts, peers inside, and outside the first-year program are huge for feeling connected at
the college. This is where I find much of my support, I can talk with them more closely
about advancing students and we talk how we want to affect the professions, how we
guide the students, I feel like I am innovating for professional practice.
Silver recognized the meaningful connection to their research and to a consistency that Magenta
remarked on as well. The value is by building formal mechanisms that generate motivation and
collective agency that help faculty believe they are included. The faculty can also gain
professional practitioner networks from their colleagues if collegiality is strong. The organization
benefits by fostering FYS relationships.
Sixty-nine percent of faculty contend that there is a need for space to promote
opportunities for collaborations and cross-pollination through hiring. Violet observed:
First-year is very interesting that there’s are people from other programs who teach in
first-year. However, what I find interesting is it doesn’t go the other way, every now and
then one of those programs could take somebody who’s only in first year and benefit.
What an experienced FYS faculty can offer in that cross-pollination is teaching expertise.
It doesn’t allow the camaraderie to happen.
Violet described an imbalance for FYS faculty to share knowledge within the divisional
programs. Six faculty believed they were “under-recognized” for what they could contribute

91
through their teaching knowledge and practice, and “that divisional leaders and above didn’t
advocate for FYS faculty and collaborative opportunities between FYS and the divisions.”
Nine faculty asserted that partnering with FYS faculty and divisional faculty across campus
is critical for collegiality, coalition building, and faculty collective agency recognition. To build
collegiality for the college, FYS faculty and the divisions need to cross-pollinate, and collaborate
for teaching knowledge across campus. Orange predicated:
IADI, at both the senior and first-year levels, can benefit from the continuity and
presence of modeling faculty interactions in convergent ways. I don’t like thinking FYS
is separate from the rest of the school because it is integral to the school.
Convergent space can be seen as a potential opportunity for collaboration in the college
community. Collegial projects that are important to teaching for inclusion goals can recognize
the importance of teaching scholarship through the cross-pollination of divisions. Also, an
essential recognition during a campus unification and curriculum change that compares the FYS
teaching space to the rest of the college curriculum will allow faculty to discuss different
disciplines and relate new knowledge to the programs they teach. Yellow provided an example
of this:
My teaching outside of the first year is deeply tied to my teaching first-year students. So,
I don’t just connect the two I test things out in the first year to use in the upper level I use
all platforms for all of my courses.
Yellow experienced a rare opportunity that proved how essential it is for faculty to engage in
sharing their teaching knowledge across campus communities.
Elitism and exclusion characterize the cultural model at IADI. Six faculty contended
that there is a need to diversify the disciplines, and address elitisms and exclusions in faculty

92
groups and for students. The faculty remarked the curriculum model, which features “a
Eurocentric” viewpoint, needs to change to make space for global aesthetics and cultural
productions to decentre knowledge systems critical for an inclusive atmosphere. The six faculty
spoke of their observation of instruction by fellow teachers and their perceptions of the effects on
students. Green described their first teaching days at IADI:
I believed I had to suppress my lived experience to start teaching because there’s nobody
who looks like me teaching in the design professions. There’s nobody who looks like me,
who taught me, so I pretended to teach like a white guy because that’s the only model I
had. So, what I’m seeing now is that students who are perceiving their lived experience
as erased by their faculty coming to me saying ‘I don’t feel understood I feel
marginalized. My white professor is not listening to me. I believe they think I have to be
white. I have to choose between my identity and being a designer, and they are not the
same. For the most part, that kind of sums up everything. That is a lived experience of
identity, and then the design field is like a white supremacy construct.
Green pointed to a lack of diverse models in the faculty and exclusions in the world of art and
design. They reported that racial structural problems created a waterfall effect for the students.
Interviewees remarked that the atmosphere needs to digress from the cannon that promotes
elitism and consider new models of knowledge systems for expansive socio-contexts of new
communities. Expanding ideologies and working to build collegiality is needed to create an
inclusive learning atmosphere.
The organization still needs to develop an organizational belief in the scholarship of
teaching. Overall, only three faculty noted that they had active engagement in teaching
scholarship. Eleven faculty revealed a gap of no allegiance to the mode of research for teaching

93
scholarship as they used perspectives of artists and designers. Studio faculty believed that the
premise of the scholarship of teaching did not match their purpose. Faculty believed teaching
scholarship might not help them advance in the organization, and they remarked about the
difficulties of keeping teaching scholarship networks alive at an art college.
Studio faculty struggled to find the connection between scholarship and their own
interests or advancement in the organization. Overall, seven faculty stated they were not
interested in writing for teaching scholarship. Two faculty had no desire to participate in the
hierarchical process of academic writing. Green commented:
There is a certain way of sharing that counts you as an expert and that's the scholarship of
teaching, right? It's being able to show up as the expert through writing it and to stake a
claim ‘That this is what I know’ it validates your work. The format is just one way that
prioritizes and privileges people who have access to language and writing and institution
and, you know, all of those things. I mean, just lived experiences, in essence, is
discounted. There are so many incredible people, especially women of color who do all
this incredible work because their lived experience is rich and have so much insight and
so much knowledge and such amazing teachers, yet they may never publish very much;
verses some guy at some career pinnacle of leadership who has a book and never even
lived it.
Green sought to be a voice of lived experience and believed the academic format was not
inclusive to that experience. The systemic bias in academic scholarship is questioned as Green
disinvests from citational power structures to engage in teaching scholarship (Appleton, 2019).
Those who have immense knowledge can contribute to teaching communication at the College.

94
The research supports that the endeavor can be empowering, provide a format for recognition,
strengthen the collective efficacy of groups, and provide learning for organizational change.
Three faculty members expressed that when they searched for their position with teaching
scholarship, they found they were not interested in scholarly practice. The three faculty spoke of
staying connected to learning by doing – a legacy for the craft. Indigo remarked:
Initially, it has always been very much about making things and learning the craft of
things. Whatever you learn, you learn how to do this, mostly techniques. It's a lot
teaching a first-year class is like twice as much if not more than a regular class.
Amazingly, the school survived until I taught in first-year how limp the teaching was.
Limp, in terms of learning, learning pedagogy. It didn't even exist this pedagogy in art
school; after all, it was all about just making things. Now we have to remember bringing
in more of our brains and how that works may not fit our values.
Indigo narrates an ideal that shows the history of artists pushing against teaching
scholarship and perhaps holding myths but indeed noting differences in values of
interests associated with being a practitioner.
Indigo divulges they are not motivated as a pedagogue to share scholarship. The gap in the
usefulness of the scholarship to artists leaves room to further understanding of teaching research
in the organization.
Violet also shared that while their teaching has technical aspects that that could be
“scholarly”, they spent more time improving teach in the classroom as that is more valuable to
students and the organization. Violet explains:
I'm interested in elevating my technical teaching tools and what is on the cutting edge. I
keep abreast of how the artistic field is evolving and developing. Curatorial sides of

95
things, where people are in museums, how they are showing in galleries, and connected
but not specific to teaching, the theory of what's being interpreted in the world.
Violet's enthusiasm to engage is unmotivated for sharing teaching scholarship, yet reminds the
organization that FYS has other assets, noting the balance of ideologies needed in an
organization that has teaching practitioners. The gap in the belief and importance of teaching
scholarship at the college needs to change in the cultural model.
Four faculty revealed that they were wary to engage in scholarship of teaching because
the merits might not hold weight in their promotional process. Orange responded, "I've felt that
this kind of output wasn't going to be, seen too much in promotion and maybe you know, sort of
held against me as an artist." Orange hinted that the organization does not value teaching
scholarship for artists based on how it communicates with FYS faculty. The organization does
not have clear messaging for teaching scholarship that encourages the innovation of pedagogy in
the arts. Communicating that they are investigating in teaching as research could be used to build
collective agency. The findings reveal that IADI needs to reinforce the merits of practitioners
who are teaching scholars to further build a new narrative about the value for foundations
teaching. As faculty invest in teaching research, the networks that they build not only helps the
College's visibility as a learning organization, but also invite more innovators of pedagogy to
join the collective of teaching scholars.
There is low commitment to resources and no measure for accountability. Faculty
claimed the need for resources (time) as a fiscal support and the importance of evaluating time
expectations for FYS faculty. Time is also needed for accountability within the organization to
assure that teaching inclusion in the FYS studio classroom is occurring when no viable
observational evidence, supporting documentation, or data from the interviews emerged. Funds

96
that support external research and pedagogy were also cited. The accountability for teaching for
inclusion in the FYS program remains unmeasured and leaves room for further investigation.
This section covers the gaps in the commitment from the organization for resources.
Organization needs time as a resource for faculty to improve teaching for inclusion.
Blue explained a chain reaction of inclusion disruption by not supporting faculty for their time as
they gain advanced knowledge, and contended that compensation in combination with
recognition is an issue. Blue expounds:
Whether or not one faculty’s time and knowledge is valued within a program, the degree
they’re compensated or not compensated for their work matters. It is really the group of
faculty that needs the consideration by not considering the extra hours and how that
translates into the classroom and ultimately to the students adds to inclusion fires. Hot
topics such as race, or increased mental health issues might need specific attention from
faculty but the degree to which faculty will or won’t invest in their knowledge for
teaching? If faculty believe the college, doesn’t invest in the time in the group of faculty
for expanded levels of information beyond simple fixes, faculty will not reach for the best
learning.
Blue acknowledged that increasing levels of specialization in diversity and inclusion practices
takes time to learn, share, and apply inside the learning atmosphere. Moreover, Blue argued that
underestimating the collective agency by only recognizing singular faculty for simple fixes in
complicated organizational problems lowers the quality of buy-in the organization will receive
from faculty.
In addition to believing they are not being utilized, Blue articulated that lower
compensation can diminish the faculty’s belief of their worth within the organization. The

97
findings showed that the organization needs to re-evaluate compensation for development time
and reconsider how time is used the faculty. Faculty who share their valuable lived experiences
and pedagogical knowledge should be rewarded with time for community interactions. The
empowerment of time for collective agency benefits the group and the College. There are many
barriers, yet, the organization’s accountability for equity is not solely for the students.
Resources for funding for pedagogical research is needed. The faculty remarked that
they felt they did not have the funds to work on projects related to pedagogy research, such as
publishing and presenting opportunities. Red commented:
I used to apply more rigorously to development grants at the college
There are some limited funds available for faculty travel and money for faculty
scholarship and pedagogy, but it’s quite challenging to get a full amount, and I’ve had to
turn down opportunities for conferences because I couldn’t match the funds.
Red described frustrations with finances, both for pedagogy and professional content, which adds
to their research as a practitioner. Orange commented:
You know, you just aren’t going to have the quality faculty that you need here. If you can’t
help them invest in curricular development and professional practice development, I think
that there are specific curricular development changes and funding that’s improving still. I
think that’s a positive direction the school’s taking.
Orange spoke of retaining faculty with professional research and scholarship ambitions.
As previously mentioned, studio faculty can help advance innovative pedagogy for a
learning organization. Yet, the faculty also voiced limitations with their hiring contracts. Silver
reported:

98
It’s difficult for adjunct faculty because we’re cut and pasted into whatever is needed at
the time. For example, I’ve only taught the same class twice in a row once or twice. The
timeframe is all over the map different days, time slots, it’s something different every
semester. I can’t really go deep because of that, a lot of times, and my teaching suffers.
Also, if I revisit a class from two years ago, improving it is different from the opportunity
every semester.
Silver contends that inconsistencies in resources negate the motivation to dive deeper into
learning. Time, recognition, and equity are intertwined for all faculty. In this case, the study
cannot account for the contractual complexity within the organization. Nevertheless, the faculty
confirmed this resource as a strong concern at IADI.
The results and findings from the organizational influences showed that the organization
still needs to commit to the collegial culture and value the collective agency of FYS faculty.
Participants who are teaching and mitigating bias can share the organizational philosophy in a
trusted collective atmosphere. Nevertheless, faculty described obstacles within the organization
regarding interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to eliminate elitism and exclusion in the
arts. The organization's cultural model also has a gap in the belief in teaching scholarship and
pedagogy research, and needs to generate support and utilize the resource of faculty researchers
and pedagogues. There was no proof, observation, or reliable review that showed faculty were or
were not accountable for teaching for inclusion. Sixty-two percent faculty commented about the
need for time in convergent teaching spaces, for interdisciplinary collaboration that creates
collegiality, and for sharing knowledge.

99
Conclusion
The study showed a path of inquiry about knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences identified in the gap analysis. From the findings emerged results that turned what
were thought to be gaps based on the related literature into assets. Most of those assets are part of
the tacit knowledge of art practitioners who further need to apply that knowledge to close gaps
for inclusion within the learning environment. A unique inquiry of first-year studio art faculty
uncovered that, though visual literacy was initially determined to be a gap, it was identified as an
asset for teaching strategies as it supports multiple perspectives and interpretation. Curiosity,
divergent thinking, and the ability to pivot were also acknowledged as a through line in art
practices that could consciously apply to creating a more inclusive atmosphere. However, faculty
did not possess self-regulatory reflective practices regarding how to mitigate bias in this
instruction. Teaching to eliminate exclusion is not a one-stop fix; it is a process that must be
integrated into the learning environment for both faculty and students.
Faculty stated that they were motivated based on the value of meaningful exchanges and
confidence in their influence, but there were gaps in collective efficacy and collective agency.
Faculty perceived prioritized transactional exchange over transformational interactions for
learning, which eroded collegial strength and a lack of trust amongst artists. Faculty described
obstacles within the organization that diminished interdisciplinary collaboration and an effort to
address elitism and exclusion within the arts. The findings affirmed the need for collegiality in
the campus community and specified that convergent spaces, interdisciplinarity, and recognition
would help inclusion efforts. When discussing resources, faculty said time and compensation
needed re-evaluation as they revealed ways that intersects with the collective agency to share and

100
learn together. The investigation continues for faculty learning that strengthens mitigating bias
with conscious work among IADI educators, highlighting the process, not the destination.

101
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction and Overview
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis at IADI, focusing on the first-
year studio faculty who will converge and plan to improve student visual literacy by utilizing it
as a strategic tool for teaching for inclusion in the learning environment by December 2020.
Three research questions guided the needs analysis to uncover knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational resources and solutions within the dissertation. Chapter Four presented the
results and findings from the inquiry of FYS faculty and the gap analysis, which allowed for the
identification and prioritization of resources needed to support faculty to engage in learning
visual literacy as a strategy inclusive pedagogy for instructional improvement in first-year studio
courses. Chapter Five discusses recommended solutions as informed by the inquiry of FYS
faculty and the use of supplemental documents that identified knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs. The chapter also introduces implications for practice and future research.
Discussion
This study found that first-year studio faculty were experienced practitioners,
knowledgeable and nimble. The inquiry showed faculty were concerned about challenges for
new pedagogical learning due to multiple factors of curricular change. The changes press on the
need for faculty to have strategies for inclusion in the first-year student learning atmosphere as it
expands diverse cultural socio-contexts, differentiated learning challenges, and increased issues
of equity. All 14 participants displayed a self-awareness of their biases as teachers; yet, they
agreed that strategies for inclusion remain an ongoing effort. Additionally, interviews revealed
that community inclusion issues that affected the faculty also affected the students. Faculty
indicated they would not ignore new instructional learning, but that they did not understand what

102
new learning would look like in the studio environment. Although this study intended to focus on
instructional improvement and support for teaching for inclusion, findings emerged indicating
faculty have the ability to adapt to many challenges occurring in first-year studio learning which
showed a rich and innovative place to begin.
Themes emerged in this study regarding faculty knowledge gaps. The findings showed a
need for faculty self-regulatory reflection strategies within their teaching practices to mitigate
bias. The study identified a gap in faculty procedural knowledge requiring further discussion and
research. Faculty lacked clear direction and accountability methods for measuring visual literacy
in the studio atmosphere, including unclear benchmarks, appropriate measurement tools, and
communication of through narratives for teaching goals. There was a gap in faculty
understanding of expected knowledge for teaching for inclusion. Faculty did not quickly adopt
procedural learning as they remarked on the need for transformational learning for meaningful
interactions between colleagues in learning.
Though motivated by an expectancy value for the well-being and meaningful learning of
their students, faculty motivation to learn from each other was low, which revealed low
collective efficacy. Interviewees spoke of problems concerning trust and competition between
peers as motivational problems.
The findings validated organizational influence gaps concerning collegiality and
supporting collective agency. Six of 14 faculty commented about a cultural model that showed
collegiality as a challenge, as they cited elitism within the arts and exclusion in the professions
adding to unhealthy competition at the College.
Accountability for visual literacy and teaching for inclusion, with needed resources for
aspects of time that affect faculty learning, also emerged as a gap. The findings did not support

103
whether faculty do or do not know how to assess teaching for inclusion, which ultimately, is a
gap in the organization’s accountability to measure inclusion in the learning environment. The
inquiry revealed that faculty and administration have limited feedback loops for accountability
and revealed a need to collaborate for peer-based and standards-based benchmarking, creating a
norming process with observed, reliable data. Compensation and support for faculty
collaboration in the classroom and across campus remains a gap. Furthermore, time for external
research for pedagogical knowledge was not supported financially, nor was faculty learning for
inclusion. Based on the discussions throughout the inquiry of the participants, the need to create
an instructional improvement plan for FYS is supported.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Clark and Estes (2008) state that improving knowledge and skills are
needed when the stakeholders either do not know how to accomplish the performance of their
goals or when insights signal future undefined challenges that will need problem-solving and
innovation. Four types of development can be suggested for the College to support their faculty
in knowledge building: (a) information, (b) job aids, (c) training, and (d) education (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Providing information states what individuals need to know to do their job. A job
aid can be a detailed step-by-step method or formula. However, it does not provide experiential
or real-time learning. Conversely, training builds on existing knowledge and can be beneficial as
a scaffolding for information. Training can incorporate the information, job aids, and
opportunities for collective interactions, feedback, and guidance from an experienced facilitator.
Education has a level of theoretical and conceptual complexity, and occurs over a more extended

104
period. Education can elevate understanding and connect strategies, and in-depth learning
provides possibilities for innovation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This study recommends an educational model that encompasses all of the aforementioned
modes through the instructional improvement plan, focusing on continuous learning through
lateral peer mentorship for faculty within the classroom. A flexible education plan of
instructional development with iterative reflections over time is needed to support the unknown
factors in the curriculum change. Teaching for inclusion will transfer into the faculty’s daily
work, and visual literacy will improve as it is the strategic vehicle for inclusion. Table 6
summarizes the knowledge influences and the recommendations.
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
First-year studio faculty need
to articulate self-regulatory
strategies to mitigate bias. (M)
Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners set
goals, monitor their
performance, and evaluate
their progress towards
achieving their goals. (Mayer,
2011).
Provide training to develop
effective self-regulatory
metacognitive strategies
through peer mentorship for
individual and collective
reflection.
First-year studio faculty need
to know how to assess visual
literacy and teaching for
inclusion in the learning
environment. (P)
Individuals must acquire
component skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply what they
have learned as well as
account for the evidence of
such learning (McCrudden,
Schraw, & Hartley, 2006).
Provide job aids that connect
the assessment for visual
literacy with knowledge for
strategies of teaching for
inclusion.
Faculty need to know what
teaching for inclusion is and
why it is important. (D)
Social Cognitive Theory:
Modeled behavior is more
likely to be adopted if the
model is credible, similar
(e.g., gender, culturally
integrated), and the behavior
Provide training to establish
mentoring and collective
agency in faculty and address
the importance of teaching for
inclusion; presented by
experienced, credible

105
has functional value (Denler et
al., 2009).
speakers, including existing
faculty.
*Note: D = Declarative, P = Procedural, M = Metacognitive
First-year studio faculty need to articulate self-regulatory strategies to mitigate bias
for inclusive teaching. This study found a gap in the way faculty use their reflective skills to
assist in improving their knowledge of teaching for inclusion. A recommendation based on
metacognitive theory has been selected to close this gap (Baker, 2006). Mayer (2011) describes
learning and motivation strategies as enhanced when learners set goals for their improvement,
monitor their performance, and evaluate their progress towards achieving their goals. The
metacognitive theory suggests that if faculty, both individually and as a group, focused on self-
regulatory reflection strategies to teach for inclusion, they could mark their growth and
challenges in teacher-student communications, as well as self-monitor their performance (Kumar
et al., 2018). The recommendation is to provide faculty training for collectively building ways to
use self-regulatory metacognitive knowledge for ongoing programmatic reflection, focusing on
mitigating bias and teaching for inclusion (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2015).
By creating a reflective action research method for teaching, data is more organically
developed through individual faculty reflections and collected, and informs the collective
progress (Stringer, 2014). Faculty can continue to transfer knowledge as a group by observing
and reflecting on how they operationalize the training material (Dee & Daly, 2009). This type of
reflection raises the likelihood of reinforcing the critical behavior needed to achieve the goal of
creating a fully inclusive learning atmosphere (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Peer support
can encourage the critical behaviors of investigating bias needed from metacognitive knowledge
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Metacognitive knowledge is best used for unexpected
situations, during innovation, or new plans (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). While change is

106
occurring, faculty can mentor each other to form the new curriculum with an iterative
communicative structure (Dee & Daly, 2009).
First-year studio faculty need to know how to assess visual literacy and teaching for
inclusion in the learning environment. The inquiry revealed that the lack of procedural
knowledge in faculty complicated process-based interactions and missed an opportunity for
accounting for the transformational aspects that faculty and students encounter. The
recommendation is rooted in information processing theory, which states that individuals must
acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have
learned, as well as account for the evidence of such learning (McCrudden et al., 2006). The
recommendation is to provide training pamphlets on action-research and collective agency,
which can also establish methods for the assessment of inclusion in the learning environment.
The initial training will confirm procedural knowledge within a collaborative teaching model and
launch an ongoing educational system of lateral peer mentorship (LaMPS).
Clark and Estes (2008) argue that job aids or short instructional pamphlets are the best
choices when people need to apply new procedures in a job they already have and are useful
when onboarding new faculty. In combination with the training, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) outline the importance of setting up specific expectations related to after-training roles
and responsibilities of each group; specifically, creating a post-program plan for substantial
learning utilizing reflective assessment and sustaining LaMPS. Collectively designing the system
is key to adopting faculty assessment insights and for the transfer of procedural knowledge;
hence, closing the gap for the procedural knowledge needed for assessing teaching for inclusion
(McKernan & McPhail, 2012).

107
First-year studio faculty know what teaching for inclusion is and why it is important
to elevate the goals. The data from the inquiry found that FYS faculty confirmed they know
what and why teaching inclusion is important, but due to a variety of interpretations, there was
less agreement as to what conceptual knowledge is needed, which calls for sharing knowledge
and finding common grounds. The principles of social cognitive theory offer a recommendation.
Social cognitive theory encompasses the agency of individuals and groups as producers of their
own experiences and events (Kezar, 2001); therefore, the faculty need to know strategies to
optimize human interactions (Bandura, 2005). One principle is that modeled behavior is more
likely to be adopted if the model is credible and similar (e.g., gender, culturally integrated), and
the behavior has functional value (Denler et al., 2009). These functional values and meaningful
actions suggest that creating training to demonstrate social behavior and providing faculty with
examples of why it is important to teach for inclusion will close the gap in the classroom. Initial
training is recommended as a starting point for a more comprehensive instructional support
system with credible modeling experience, such as a LaMPS (Dee & Daly, 2009).
There is evidence that mentorship and support of differentiation for faculty subgroups
needs additional nuance in the collective agency, recognizing different sets of knowledge,
curating for optimum positive interactions (Zambrana et al., 2015). It is important to utilize a
range of established knowledge in the organization from a variety of faculty (Darling-Hammond
et al., 2017). This can be a meaningful resource as the faculty’s tacit knowledge can generate
interest by sharing knowledge and building collective efficacy (Bandura, 2005).
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. When an organization is undergoing rapid change, the need for new
complex knowledge challenges the capacity for faculty learning (Clark, 2015), as in the case at

108
IADI for first-year faculty. While researching a gap analysis, it is imperative to connect gains to
improve knowledge in teaching for inclusion with cultivating faculty motivation. This study
singled out the motivational influences of expectancy-value, self-efficacy, and collective efficacy
as factors that challenged faculty as they obtained knowledge. Accordingly, by identifying
motivational theories in the research, it is possible to prioritize key principles and build strategic
points for recommendations, specifically for IADI’s faculty to improve student visual literacy
and create inclusive learning atmospheres. Table 7 indicates the motivational theory and
principles in a path of connected recommendations.
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Expectancy Value Theory:
First-year studio faculty need
to believe their effort is worth
the value when they invest in
sharing in teaching
scholarship and inclusive
pedagogy to improve student
visual literacy.
Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance
of the cost value of the work
or learning can help learners
develop positive values
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003).

Feedback and actual success
on challenging tasks
positively influences people’s
perceptions of competence
and utility value of the work
(Borgogni et al., 2011).
Recommendations include
rationales during lateral peer
mentorship discussions of how
faculty time is worth the cost
of the value investing to share
teaching scholarship to learn
inclusive pedagogy which will
meet the organization's values
to influence student’s
motivations for more
meaningful improved
outcomes.

The recommendation is to
track improvement in faculty
expectancies as part of the
mentorship program and share
student success stories to
highlight that faculty can help
to contribute to success.
Self-Efficacy: First-year
studio faculty need to be
confident in the ability to
influence students.
Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have
positive expectancies for
success (Pajares, 2006).
Provide goal-directed practice
for peer interchange to set
close, concrete goals for
integrated frequent checks on

109
progress for accountability
with pre-assessment,
formative assessment, and
summative data.
Collective Self-Efficacy: First-
year studio faculty need to
believe that their group effort
would accomplish the
organizational goals.
Feedback and modeling
increase self-efficacy (Pajares,
2006).
When developing a lateral
peer mentorship system
(LaMPS), build in
opportunities for groups of
faculty to share examples with
one another and discuss the
challenges, successes, and
build future iterations.

Combining peers with varying
experience can help faculty
perceive the ability to achieve
competency and allow faculty
to experience group success in
accomplishing challenging
tasks.

Increase the value of learning new pedagogy in first-year studio faculty. The study’s
findings show that there is a concerted agreement that faculty should engage in pedagogy and
share in teaching scholarship with the belief that it will increase teaching for inclusion and
further enhance the level of ability to eliminate exclusion. The gap in motivation is rooted in
expectancy-value theory. Though two principles apply to expectancy-value theory, the priority
goes to sharing knowledge through relational skills. Johnson (2015) presents evidence that high-
quality mentorship generates relational skills, which Kumar et al. (2018) identify as needed for
culturally responsive pedagogy, such as emotional awareness, empathic listening, and socio-
cognitive reflections. The recommendation include rationales during LaMPS discussions of how
faculty time is worth the cost of the value by investing in sharing teaching scholarship to deepen
inclusive pedagogy.

110
The recommendation emphasizes the benefit of harnessing organic and inorganic ways
for a teaching system to motivate faculty (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). These techniques can
include collaborative teaching, faculty learning communities, adjacent teaching, action-research
reflexivity, and peer mentorship (Boyer et al., 2019; Dee & Daly, 2009; Mårtensson et al., 2011).
The value of a lateral peer mentorship system for faculty motivation is the transmission of
knowledge, social capital, and psychosocial support (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007). Collaborative
interactions of peer mentors amongst faculty can generate new knowledge as part of an otherwise
formal relationship of inequities within organizations, and professions (Hansman, 2002). If
faculty can build strong relationships with other faculty, the set of relational and shared tools can
affect their students, which balances the values of time and money, and matches purpose and
value for their students meeting the organizational goal (Dee & Daly, 2009). Teaching
scholarship is also a way for faculty to pursue research for improving pedagogy and contribute to
organizational learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Presenting teaching success stories
motivates the collective faculty, supports the stakeholder goals, and meets the organization’s
goals for informing teaching for inclusion by creating teaching networks (Martensson et al.,
2011).
Faculty recognize that self-efficacy and confidence are key in the ability to influence
students. A self-efficacy theory principle indicates that learning and motivation are enhanced
when learners have positive expectancies for success (Pajares, 2006). This suggests that
providing faculty with tools to reflect often on teaching for inclusion and logging their
experiences would clarify progress and challenges. The recommendation is to provide goal-
directed practice for peer interchange to set close, concrete challenging goals with frequent self-
reflection on the progress and learning accountability for performance with small interval

111
reflection in pre-assessment, formative assessment, and summative inquiry modes (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016; Krathwohl & Anderson, 2009).
Ladson-Billings (1995) points out the vital work that all faculty need to build self-
confidence. Stern and Seifert (2009) present a system for measuring and making evidence visible
of inclusive learning in an art museum. Participants perceive an increase in their self-efficacy to
interpret art, growing those perceptions to extend to visual literacy skills (Yenawine, 2013). The
specific tasks necessary for initiating social change were attributed to modeled experiences and
interactions from other participants in the room (Stern & Seifert, 2009). These studies further
support the recommendation that faculty can reflect by observing students individually.
First-year studio faculty believe in a group effort and collective self-efficacy. Though
faculty remarked about collegiality in the first-year program, they still believed they were on
their own to solve their classroom problems. With the principle of collective efficacy theory,
teachers work together to improve instruction. Together with leadership, teacher collaboration
contributes to school effectiveness by strengthening collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004).
The principle suggests LaMPS for faculty, including those who hold leadership roles, participate
for a more shared collegial interchange. When developing LaMPS, opportunities for groups of
faculty to share examples with one another should be built-in to discuss the challenges,
successes, and future iterations (Stringer, 2014). Combining peers with varying experience can
help faculty perceive the ability to achieve competency in an ever-changing social-scape of
exclusions and allow faculty to experience group success while accomplishing challenging tasks.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Clark and Estes (2008) argue that organizational culture is essential for
any change effort to be successful. The culture of the organization has two permeable cultural

112
constructs, cultural models and cultural settings, that help identify recommendations to close the
gap for the organizational goal. The organizational influences identified for this study were to
collectively build faculty agency, which is tied to group decisions and beliefs that the FYS will
improve student visual literacy and inclusion in the first-year studio courses. The prioritized
influences form an argument for the following recommendations. Table 8 indicates theoretical
principles to guide the recommendations to close the gaps that impede reaching the
organizational goal and influence the stakeholder goal of improving visual literacy as a strategy
for inclusion in the learning atmosphere.
Table 8
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization must make a
commitment to collegial
culture, and value the
collective agency of faculty.
(CM)
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
encourage open lines of
communication (Kegan, 1994;
Mezirow, 2000).

The two greatest
yearnings in the human
experience is to be
included and to have a
sense of agency (Kegan, 1994;
Mezirow, 2000).
Academic Affairs leadership
can regularly connect to the
H&S Dean and FYS Program
Chairs as middle management
to develop high “situational
awareness”, know the
undercurrents of the
organization and use this
information to anticipate and
address the potential problem
and closely monitor workplace
conditions.

Develop a system for
collecting formal and informal
“organizational intelligence”;
know what stakeholder
concerns are at any given
point.

To influence stakeholders'
efforts within the situation,
recognize top-down

113
initiatives, and start by
soliciting input for agenda
items in meetings from faculty
about changes in workplace
conditions and pedagogy.
Acknowledge comments from
the people who could be
negatively impacted by the
decision. Communicate the
why, not just the what, of any
decision.
The organization must
develop an organizational
belief in sharing the
scholarship of teaching. (CM)
Organizational culture is
created through shared
experience, shared learning
and stability of membership. It
is something that has been
learned. It cannot be imposed
(Schein, 2004).

Focusing the work on the
school’s vision was correlated
with improvements in student
learning outcomes (Waters,
Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).
By modeling a commitment
for sharing learned
experiences, long-term faculty
and newer faculty can find
ways to share knowledge
through lateral peer
mentorship.

FYS program leadership
chairs work to stabilize faculty
membership by establishing a
more meaningful productive
format of an interprofessional
education curriculum for
faculty interchange.

LaMPS furthers the college’s
mission and builds a model for
students to observe
collaboration and collegiality,
enhancing inclusive activity in
the learning space.

The organization must create
accountability
standards, and a commitment
to resources. (CS)
People are more productive
when goal setting and
benchmarking are essential to
evaluating progress and
driving organizational
performance in
accountability.

Systems of accountability are
evolving (Conner &
Rabovsky, 2011; Darling-
Hammond & Snyder, 2015).
Distinguish between peer-
based and standards-based
benchmarking as two ways to
benchmark organizational
performance.

The recommendation is to
collectively engage in an
action-research methodology
by creating LaMPS for

114

Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.) needed
to do their job, and that if
there are resource shortages,
resources are aligned with
organizational priorities (Clark
& Estes, 2008).

Work on standards, metrics,
and accountability standards
for measuring visual literacy
and inclusive teaching.

Related: Design of incentive
structure and use of incentives
are more important than the
types of incentives used
(Elmore, 2002).

reflective accountability for
teaching for inclusion.

Leadership must support the
difficult nature of changing
curriculum and studio
facilities. The most
challenging aspect for
changing the culture of the
faculty at IADI is providing
the time and resources. The
recommendation is to
experiment with faculty time
usage within the course hours
to gain interaction and
knowledge for teaching for
inclusion.

The recommendation is for
FYS with in LaMPS to
collectively develop group
process of reflection,
observation, and iteration for
measuring visual literacy as a
strategy for inclusion and
planning improvement in the
studio learning atmosphere.

Collectively design visual
literacy strategies and apply
faculty peer mentor
observations during a course
critique using an action-
research model. Acknowledge
collective innovations,
highlight alignment to the
organizational goal for
inclusion, diversity, and
equity.

115
The organization must make a commitment to collegial culture and value the
collective agency of faculty. The results of this study indicate that first-year studio faculty
believed their program is collegial. However, the inquiry revealed that FYS faculty feel a lack of
commitment to interdisciplinary collaborations from external programs and FYS faculty. A
principle rooted in leadership theory has been chosen to close the interchange gap for FYS
faculty. The principle notes that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders encourage
open lines of communication to support (Lewis, 2011), which would further IADI’s first-year
studio faculty’s connection to the college at large. The recommendation is that faculty
community learning would reach beyond the first-year program for opportunities for
collaboration. The goal is to gain insight and understand the undercurrents of the organization
amongst the faculty, using this information to anticipate and address potential problems, closely
monitor and sustain productive workplace conditions, and address inclusion and equity
challenges amongst the faculty.
The interprofessional education curriculum of LaMPS can create a collegial culture that
values the collective agency of faculty (Anderson, Smith, & Hammick, 2016). Furthermore, a
stronger organizational belief in faculty education, transformative pedagogy, and engagement in
scholarship will create a stronger organizational belief in teaching excellence (Campbell &
O'Meara, 2014). Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) state that interprofessional educational systems
within an organization can create moments to acknowledge the elevated teaching and learning of
those who mentor and share their knowledge within the college and to external communities.
The organization must develop an organizational belief in the sharing of scholarship
of teaching. The findings show a complication amidst the relationship between studio
practitioners and scholarly research. A principle rooted in leadership theory has been chosen to

116
close the gap to innovate and improve teaching for inclusion within IADI. According to Schein
(2004), organizational culture is created through shared experience, shared learning, and stability
of membership. It is something that has been learned; it cannot be imposed (Schein, 2004). The
suggestion is that by modeling a commitment for shared learned experiences, more experienced
faculty can engage learning goals and newer faculty can offer an important role in exchanging
knowledge through LaMPS that is not based on hierarchy. It is recommended that FYS program
leadership works to stabilize faculty membership by establishing a more meaningful productive
format of faculty interchange and to develop LaMPS to build a model for students to observe
collaboration and collegiality, thus enhancing inclusive activity in the learning space.
Boyer et al. (2019) write about using action-research models to innovate collectively as
an influence to shift an organization towards the scholarship of teaching and learning. Terosky
(2005) stated that giving more opportunities to mid-career faculty, in leadership, faculty learning
communities, awards such as grants, or teaching assistants for teaching projects, creates returns
for the organization through strengthened, experienced commitment to organizational goals of
inclusion. Further teaching for inclusion would improve as substantiated by the relational
interchange of participants in the learning environment modeled by faculty (Hartwell et al.,
2017; Kumar et al., 2018). The more meaningful format, as described with the principle of
leadership theory, could support faculty on how to elevate their pedagogical practice to levels of
achieving professional output.
The organization must create accountability standards and a commitment to
resources. The data collected for this study showed limited shared understanding of an
assessment and accountability process. Faculty recognize that the list of outcomes is more
permeable than the assessment process implies. A principle rooted in accountability theory can

117
help close the gap of misaligned markers for the faculty. People are more productive when goal
setting and benchmarking are essential to evaluating progress and driving organizational
performance in accountability (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The recommendation is for
IADI to innovate as a learning organization with strong collaboration between faculty,
administration, and staff for accountability standards and resources to create evidence-based
management (Rousseau, 2006).
Reflective accountability through an action-research model can further the organization's
goals for inclusion. Lewin (1946) first used the term "action-research," specifically studying how
action can change groups. Through the LaMPS system, faculty continue creating reflection and
accountability in their research about teaching for inclusion since it operates as an action-
research method that relies on the recognition of interrelated work hours to advance the
stakeholder goal through as many organic touchpoints that faculty can find to initiate interaction
with ease. The balance of accountability for interaction, benchmarking, and healthy reflection
becomes the next subset requiring accountability and resources.
A commitment to resources. Effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the
resources (equipment, personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job and that, if there are resource
shortages, resources are aligned with organizational priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008). Faculty
expressed discontent with the organization for the lack of support in providing time to learn new
and more in-depth content about teaching. The most challenging aspect of changing the culture
of the faculty at IADI is providing time and resources. The recommendation is to experiment
with faculty time within the course hours to gain interaction and knowledge for teaching for
inclusion.

118
Many K-12 models have created teaching systems with embedded time initiatives for
faculty development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). In LaMPS, faculty can generate reflective
data and classroom observations during the courses, while students can also contribute their
voice in a reflection of a classroom community event or critique. Adjusting time as a resource
can change the cultural setting and further the cultural model’s goal of a commitment to time
resources for faculty and students. At IADI, the autonomy of the faculty is a constant balance of
trying to uphold procedural knowledge and administrative decisions with situational and
independent choices that are enacted while facilitating a learning space. However, in a system
such as this, faculty can self-monitor in collaboration, and the organization can put a robust
effort into resourcing LaMPS that sets the path for changes to a larger inclusion problem in the
cultural model at the school (Riel & Rowell, 2017).
Formative accountability methods. The results of the findings show a predominant
ability by faculty to identify exclusions and imbalances in the classroom atmosphere. A
recommendation rooted in accountability theory has been chosen to close the gap by measuring
the organizational goals for inclusion with the cultural setting of the classroom. Bensimon (2007)
stated that accountability is increased when organizations adopt a system of measurement. Using
a formative survey during student critiques could be beneficial for multiple stakeholders and the
organization to learn. The recommendation is for FYS to develop process of faculty reflections
to adjust and work to eliminate exclusion in the studio atmosphere. The formative observations
can create needed adjustments to be applied quickly.
Action research can add to accountability. According to Stringer (2014), action research
requires a systemic and reflective process in collaboration with others. Such pedagogies are
adjustable, and can model activating reflexivity, operationalize transformative language,

119
diversify perspectives, foster collective efficacy, and devalue hierarchies and aid organizing
shared leadership, forwarding goals for equity in the learning environment (Appleton, 2016;
McNair et al., 2020). Dallas and Sprong (2015) studied faculty using a self-reported
questionnaire about Universal Design methods to measure faculty attitudes towards inclusive
teaching, and revealed that hesitant faculty made positive adjustments from the process of
reflection. As a result of building metacognitive knowledge tools, formative questioning can
create a measurement and a summative tool can develop more relevant in-depth discourse for
faculty learning can occur.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Studio faculty are creative problem solvers who practice iterative processes as they create
a curriculum that might experiment with goal blind outcomes, yet they are also versed at design
strategies with the end in mind (Budge, 2016). Thereby, the use of the framework by Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016), the New World Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation, will be a process that
studio practitioners will recognize as it also operates by keeping the end in mind. The New
World Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation utilizes a variety of different measures throughout the
learning initiative to check progress rather than solely relying on final outcomes and stagnate
endings (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The integrated implementation and evaluation
framework has four levels. The fourth level surveys, studies, and measures the results of the
amount of success in which the stakeholders achieve organizational goals. Level Four also
determines what would be expected to change in Level Three behaviors. Level Three observable
behaviors include identifying important required drivers to support or build desired behaviors
and performance. Level Two defines the amount of learning that has occurred in the areas of
knowledge through measuring skills, commitment, confidence, and attitude. The evaluation part

120
of Level Two requires a distance of time from the initial learning to see what knowledge
transferred and was fully adopted by participants. However, the evaluative marker at Level One
will occur directly after training for participants’ reactions in a post-evaluation plan (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). For further discussion of the implementation plan, see Appendix B.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
By January 2021, IADI’s first-year studio faculty will work to improve studio learning
for first-year students, strengthening visual literacy as a strategy for improving inclusion in the
learning environment. The stakeholder, first-year studio faculty, holds an important role to
establish learning connections with first-year students. As students enter college, the faculty are
called upon to support the mission and values of IADI with goals for diversity, inclusion, and
equity. Therefore, the stakeholder goals are most effective when aligned within the organization
goal. The study sheds light on faculty learning for new pedagogical knowledge and the need for
motivational engagement with the College and their colleagues. Their desire to stay diligent and
ready to address ever-changing targets of exclusion is strong based on the findings of this study.
The desired outcome is to improve the classroom climate for all students, but particularly for
students from minoritized groups as those groups shift each year.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
As FYS faculty work to develop a supportive lateral mentorship system to collectively
innovate, observe, and reflect on annual improvement targets, the indicators in Table 9 can help
measure faculty learning. The indicators are for both internal outcomes, such as the faculty peer
observing, reflecting, and external outcomes related to student performance. The following
shows the outcomes metrics and methods for external and internal outcomes.

121
Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Improved visual literacy for
sub-groups of students who
are currently underperforming.
Students demonstrate
competency based on faculty
reviews and feedback.
Student capstone conducted
three times during the program
(Freshmen, Junior, Senior).
Student cohorts feel more
considered and part of the
community.
The percentage of students
report feeling supported by the
faculty and the program.
End of year student
satisfaction survey for
inclusion in first-year learning
experience.
Increased student retention. Student retention numbers
stay strong and grow stronger
for diverse populations.
Enrollment services tracks and
reports student retention data,
disaggregated by student sub-
groups.
The organization and FYS
faculty become more visible
campus-wide, in academic and
professional communities.
Number of faculty presenting
at conferences and publishing
in journals.

Number of faculty conducting
community outreach both
inside and outside the college.
Faculty report their conference
attendance and publications in
the faculty record report every
three years.

Faculty self-report for the
inclusion of activities in the
newsletter published bi-
annually (newsletter staff will
solicit inputs).
Increased recruitment of new
faculty from across the
College into the program.
Number of faculty from
outside of the program
collaborating with FYS
faculty.
Annual review of course
staffing conducted by the chair
of the first-year program.
Internal Outcomes
Faculty feel more confident in
their ability to connect visual
literacy and teaching for
inclusion.
Faculty self-report regarding
their confidence in connecting
visual literacy and teaching for
inclusion for students.
End of year faculty
satisfaction survey for
inclusion for first-year faculty.
Faculty improve collegiality
and build collective agency.
Self-reported faculty
reflections and leadership
reflections analyzing data for
interactions amongst faculty
and the organization
measuring the influence of
collective agency for inclusion
in the learning environment.
Peer mentorship reflections on
the collective agency report
out at faculty meetings about
the state of the collective
influence, data collection (pre-
assessment, formative, and
summative each semester).

122
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The most challenging part of implementation and evaluation happens
in Level Three, after the initial training, whereby individuals implement what they have learned
and change behavior. The critical behaviors of faculty stakeholders can be evaluated by
observing ways that they facilitate the goals (Livingston, 2003). Table 10 outlines each of the
critical behaviors, the related metrics, methods, and timing suggested for Level Three.
Table 10
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Faculty can
facilitate a critique
that activates visual
literacy strategies
and demonstrates
inclusive
interaction.
Faculty and students
report the ability to
activate visual literacy
strategies during
critique for inclusion.
Formative reflection
session during critique
for faculty and students
that includes peer
observation for faculty
using a collectively
designed action-research
methodology tool.

Submitted to the faculty
mentor and program
leadership.
One time per
semester; reporting
by end of the
semester
2. Faculty show
confidence and
ability to shift the
learning
atmosphere to
mitigate exclusive
situations.
Faculty peer-mentor
and collaborate to
adjust their courses
for differentiated
learning.
Using a collectively
designed action-
research methodology
and incremental
formative metrics.

Report back from teams
for programmatic
faculty discussion on
pedagogy as an annual
agenda item.
Mid-semester

Once a year spring
3. Faculty are able
to establish
connections more
3a. Percentage of
faculty self-report
being able to establish
3a. Faculty self-
reporting through the
recommended
scorecard.
3a. Once per
semester

123
effectively with
their students.
genuine connections
with students.

3b. The percentage of
students report that
their faculty are
culturally responsive.

3b. Students provide
feedback through the
critique event scorecard.

3b. Once per
semester
4. Faculty engage
in sharing their
teaching
knowledge across
campus
communities and
beyond to external
communities.
Faculty report
interaction with
divisional and cross-
campus communities
due to pedagogical
sharing.
Faculty and Chair
ensure cross-connection
with divisional activities
and external forums as
logged in the faculty
record report used for
promotional advances.
Ongoing

Required drivers. The research shows that critical behaviors cannot be sustained on
their own or rely solely on newly generated interest. The desired behaviors require support,
which are called drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) indicate that there are four types of
drivers: (a) reinforcing, (b) encouraging, (c) rewarding, and (d) monitoring. For emphasis and the
importance of knowledge transfer to move into a fully adopted behavior, a reinforcing driver is
needed (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 11 outlines required drivers to support critical
behaviors to achieve stakeholder and organizational goals.
Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Faculty and the support team
share visual literacy strategies
and ongoing new pedagogies
for shifts for inclusion during
a lateral peer mentor system.
Ongoing 1,2
FYS leadership facilitates
interaction between divisional
leaders and lateral peer
Annual 3

124
mentors to discuss and devise
annual inclusion goals and
strategies for first-year
students for cross-pollination
throughout college programs.
Encouraging
First-year studio faculty pair
up for reflective action-
research sessions during
critique with student’s art to
implement visual literacy and
inclusion teaching strategies.
Semester 1,2
FYS creates a lateral peer
mentorship system with
opportunities amongst faculty
to share social and cultural
issues that apply to
professional and teaching
practices.
Ongoing 4
Rewarding
The first-year studio program
highlights peer mentor
collective interactions
dedicated to visual literacy. It
also includes opportunities for
recognition on listserv, social
media, and program awards.
Hard copy examples highlight
the accomplishment of
students in the building.
Semester 3
First-year studio faculty peer
mentors share teaching
scholarship and writing
projects that collectively
approach pedagogy research
with publishing and
presenting opportunities that
the college helps support.
Ongoing 3,4
Monitoring
The first-year program
collectively designs an
accountability system in a
formative process for faculty
peer reflection on teaching
and inclusion.
Semester 1,2,3

125
A formative student reflection
process for student visual
literacy outcome observations
from faculty and class
atmosphere perceptions from
students.
Semester 2, 3

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of collectively forming a lateral peer
mentoring system, the faculty stakeholders will be able to:
1. Demonstrate self-awareness for diffusing biases and strengthen collective consciousness
in the learning environment and student learning (metacognitive knowledge).
2. Make curricular choices by comparing teaching, discussing different disciplines,
recognizing socio-cognitive perspectives, acknowledging collective innovations, and
relating new knowledge to the organizational goal (procedural knowledge).
3. Increase confidence for new teachers' self-efficacy and depth for continuing faculty’s
pedagogical development and collective agency (self-efficacy and collective efficacy).
4. Collectively design an accountability system for faculty reflections to adjust and record
improvement for inclusion in the studio learning atmosphere (procedural knowledge).
5. Collectively design and share visual literacy strategies that creates accountable data by
using an action-research model of classroom observation and peer reflection of visual art
critique (procedural knowledge).
6. Analyze, observe, and measure situational, socio-cognitive classroom patterns; detect
exclusive barriers and identify differentiated learning in student subgroups (conceptual
knowledge).

126
7. Lead and advance inclusive pedagogies in visual arts foundations studio through faculty
peer support to share teaching scholarship, collaborate on research projects, and create
collective visibility and advancement with meaningful engagement to eradicate inequities
in visual arts professions (conceptual knowledge).
Program. The program plan suggested is a multi-dimensional educational system for
faculty development that includes job aids, a training event that is a facilitation to develop a
collective learning system, and assessment plan through the implementation of a lateral peer
mentorship system. Table 12 provides an overview of the evaluation that could occur to measure
level 2 outcomes related to learning.
Table 12
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Formative assessment of inclusive pedagogy and
visual literacy strategies
In the middle of the first semester 8 weeks
after the training.
Procedural Skills “We can do it right now.”
Faculty engage in self-regulatory assessment for
inclusive teaching, reflect, plan, and adjust
actions in mentorship groups.
In the middle of the first semester 8 weeks
after the training.
Levels of inclusion are observed by faculty and
students during critique. Quick formative data is
collected to benchmark and adjust plans for
differentiated teaching.

In the middle of the first semester 8 weeks
after the training.
Attitude “We believe this is worthwhile.”
Self-reported assessment of the level of faculty
collective influence on students using Likert
scale
In the middle of the first semester 8 weeks
after the training.
Teams report back live at faculty meetings
to show what they value in student progress and
share teaching innovation.
At a close down meeting in the spring
semester
Confidence “We think we can do it on the job.”

127
Self-reported assessment of self-efficacy and
collective efficacy to facilitate visual literacy
strategies for inclusion Likert scales
In the middle of the first semester 8 weeks
after the training
LaMPS reports from classroom observations for
the confidence in facilitating culturally
responsive discourses.
In the middle of the first semester 8 weeks
after the training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Self-reported assessment of commitment to
collaborate for collective knowledge sharing
At the conclusion of the mentorship
training program

Level 1: Reaction
Level One measures the participants' reactions to the training. The program will measure
the faculty’s response to the initial training session, which will be combined with building
collective action plan about how first-year studio stakeholders want to define a lateral peer
mentorship system for faculty. Table 13 outlines a chart of Level One reaction components that
are best used after a new team of faculty is established for the year. Measuring immediate
responses at this level can capture the collective data useful to guide any quick adjustments that
may be needed (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
The faculty training building the collective
action plans for LaMPS programming using
Likert scales with agrees-disagree regarding
the engagement of faculty.
After the first gathering.

Formative during the semester.

Summative at the end of the semester.
Relevance
Faculty satisfaction within the first phase by
measuring engagement, relevance, and
motivation in Likert scales to adopt the
learning system.
After the first gathering.

Formative during the semester.

FYS program provides communication to
the divisional deans about annual
completion of LaMPS and the next relevant
Using faculty meetings and divisional
announcements.

128
learning goals and trends for inclusion in
FYS faculty action plans for first-year
students.

Customer Satisfaction
The faculty's sense of collective agency
Likert scale measuring if LaMPS supports
faculty confidence with motivation for
learning inclusive pedagogy.
Mid-semester peer review reflection.
Surveying satisfaction using Likert scale
measuring levels of collegial contact by
faculty reflection. Simultaneously surveying
student satisfaction of the learning
atmosphere between all participants.
During a critique event for observed behavior.
Also, giving a satisfaction survey at end of
semester.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the implementation of launching a lateral peer mentorship
system. Immediately following the training and after the first steps in agreement to collectively
building LaMPS, a short online survey will be administered with questions that will uncover
engagement, relevance for faculty interactions.
Delayed for a period after the LaMPS implementation. Once the semester is
underway, the LaMPs teams will engage during their teaching times, self-coordinate group
critiques, and overlap with the students and the faculty. The next set of questions will happen in
a survey mid-semester as FYS faculty will focus on level 2 evaluation, measuring the possibility
of transfer learning that has been adopted for their gain in knowledge. Each level of mentor
survey has a parallel student survey. The lateral mentorship will continue to develop action items
and goals to match FYS faculty learning in consideration of the first-year students’ situational
events.

129
Conclusion
This study conducted a gap analysis at IADI, focusing on the first-year studio faculty
who will converge and plan to improve student visual literacy as an inclusion strategy for the
learning environment. Through the research, several knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs were uncovered. By using self-regulatory reflections, faculty need to use metacognitive
knowledge to transform their teaching in a systematic process to adjust their bias for inclusion
continually. There will be a need to create an assessment process for visual literacy as a strategy
for inclusion. The motivational influences found that collective efficacy is critical in aligning to
the goals of inclusion. Next, after establishing collective efficacy, the organizational gap of
creating collegiality to support collective agency was needed. Through a commitment to
accountability benchmarks, faculty collaborate with administrative leadership, making decisions
for new changes that respond to clear evidence available to all stakeholders. By implementing
visual literacy as an inclusion strategy in the studio learning atmosphere, IADI can work for
restorative actions to mitigate bias in arts education and discipline-specific modes in art, design,
and architecture.
The recommendations identified the resources necessary for the intentional design of a
comprehensive lateral peer mentorship system (LaMPS). LaMPS relies on continual reflexive
learning and interactions to improve teaching for inclusion at IADI. This model is intended to
occur amidst organizational change and support FYS faculty while unifying campuses. By
running LaMPS inside the foundations’ studio course structure, the intervention creates the
opportunity to support faculty and model faculty collaboration with students.
LaMPS would assist faculty reflections for implicit bias and integrate a process to affect
the designs for student-centered learning strategies fostering faculty and students’ meaningful

130
engagement. The demographics, the situations, and current pedagogy is considered as faculty
create an action plan to strategize for inclusion collectively. The organizational influences
confirmed that a commitment to collegiality is needed through interdisciplinary collaboration
across the campus. Also, a more explicit narrative supporting teaching scholarship needs to
occur, as those collaborators, faculty, and staff who innovate and research pedagogy are critical
to the changing cultural model and the health of IADI operating a learning organization. The
resource of time appeared to support the faculty’s collective agency to reflect, plan, and innovate
in LaMPS. By supporting the collective agency of FYS faculty, all stakeholders in the
organization welcome students at a vital entry point, effecting both the faculty and students.
The comprehensive educational model recommended systematically provides concrete
steps for creating holistic conditions for an inclusive learning environment. These
recommendations offer educators the opportunity to rise as creators and collaborators with the
administrative leadership, interacting between IADI’s culture and context. The growth will result
in achieving the organization’s goal for inclusion with increased student learning and meaningful
engagement for all participants.

131
References
Alvarez, R. R., & Towne, V. S. (2016). Academic advisors as adult educators: First-year
experience instructors. Journal of Adult Education, 45(1), 10-15.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Pearson.
Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research
Center, 31.
Anderson, E., Smith, R., & Hammick, M. (2016). Evaluating an interprofessional education
curriculum: a theory-informed approach. Medical Teacher, 38(4), 385-394.
Appleton, N. S. (2019). Do not ‘decolonize’... if you are not decolonizing: Progressive language
and planning beyond a hollow academic rebranding. Critical Ethnic Studies, 4.
Artze-Vega, I., Bowdon, M., Emmons, K., Eodice, M., Hess, S. K., Lamonica, C. C., & Nelms,
G. (2013). Privileging pedagogy: Composition, rhetoric, and faculty development.
College Composition and Communication, 65(1), 162-184.
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2011). ACRL visual literacy competency
standards for higher education. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/visualliteracy
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/

132
Baker, V. L., & Baldwin, R. G. (2015). A case study of liberal arts colleges in the 21st century:
Understanding organizational change and evolution in higher education. Innovative
Higher Education, 40(3), 247-261.
Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University.
Barrett, T. (2000). Studio critiques of student art: As they are, as they could be with mentoring.
Theory into Practice, 39(1), 29-35.
Bauman, G. L., Bustillos, L. T., Bensimon, E. M., Brown, M. C., & Bartee, R. (2005). Achieving
equitable educational outcomes with all students: The institution’s roles and
responsibilities. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Beaudoin, J. E. (2016). Describing images: A case study of visual literacy among library and
information science students. College & Research Libraries, 77(3), 376-392.
Benbow, R. J., & Lee, C. (2019). Teaching-focused social networks among college faculty:
exploring conditions for the development of social capital. Higher Education, 78(1), 67-
89.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(1), 44-52.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469.

133
Bentwich, M. E., & Gilbey, P. (2017). More than visual literacy: Art and the enhancement of
tolerance for ambiguity and empathy. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 200.
Bleed, R. (2005). Visual literacy in higher education. Educause Learning Initiative, 1(1), 1-11.
Bolman L. G., & Deal, T. D. (2013). Reframing organizations (5
th
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Boris, E., & Currans, E. (2017). Feminist currents: Decolonial responses to the neoliberalization
of the university. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 38(2), 210-219.
Boyer, N., Thomas, C., Neuman, N., Jernigan, K., Jones, J., Gollery, T., & Thompson, G. (2019).
Using action research to innov8: Facilitating culture shifts in the scholarship of teaching
and learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(8), 556-572.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27.
Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2007). Toward a useful theory of mentoring: A conceptual
analysis and critique. Administration & Society, 39(6), 719-739.
Brumberger, E. (2011). Visual literacy and the digital native: An examination of the millennial
learner. Journal of Visual Literacy, 30(1), 19.
Budge, K. (2016). Teaching art and design: Communicating creative practice through embodied
and tacit knowledge. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15(3-4), 432-445.
Burton, J. M. (2000). The configuration of meaning: Learner-centered art education revisited.
Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 330-345.

134
Burke, W. W. (2017). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Caldwell, E., & Gregory, J. (2016). Internationalizing the art school: What part does the studio
have to play? Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 15(2), 117-133.
Campbell, C. M., & O’Meara, K. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in
faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 49-74.
Castro, J., & Batorowicz, B. (2017). Critical images, critical voices: The artwork of vernon ah
kee. Australian Art Education, 38(2), 304.
Caskey, J. P. (2018). The awkward economics of private liberal arts colleges. Cornell University
Higher Education Research Institute Working Paper, 181.
Charland, W. (2011). Art integration as school culture change: A cultural ecosystem approach to
faculty development. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 12(8).
Chicago, J. (2014). Institutional time: A critique of studio art education. China: The Monacelli.
Chung, W. C. (2019). The praxis of product design in collaboration with engineering. New
York: Springer.
Clark, A. (2015). Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Conner, T. W., & Rabovsky, T. M. (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the
recent trends in higher education policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 93-112.
Costantino, T. (2018). STEAM by another name: Transdisciplinary practice in art and design
education. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 100-106.

135
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dallas, B. K., & Sprong, M. E. (2015). Assessing faculty attitudes toward universal design
instruction. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 46(4), 18-26.
Dallas, B. K., Upton, T. D., & Sprong, M. E. (2014). Post-secondary faculty attitudes toward
inclusive teaching strategies. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(2), 12-20.
Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, A. L., Hammerness, K., Low, E. L.,
... & Zeichner, K. (2017). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape
teaching quality around the world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2015). Meaningful learning in a new paradigm for
educational accountability: An introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23, 7.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career
readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(86).
Davis, M. (2016). "Normal science" and the changing practices of design and design education.
Visible Language, 50(1), 7-23.
Deans for Impact. (2015). The science of learning. Austin, TX: Deans for Impact.
Dee, J. R. & Daly, C. J. (2009). Innovative models for organizing faculty development programs,
pedagogical reflexivity, student learning empathy and faculty agency. Human
Architecture: Journal of The Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 7(1),1-22.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from www.
education.com.

136
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121-127.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch, and Company.
Diket, R. M., Xu, L., & Brewer, T. M. (2014). Toward an aspirational learning model gleaned
from large-scale assessment. Studies in Art Education, 56(1), 397-411.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy-value motivational theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Secondary lenses on learning participant book:
Team leadership for mathematics in middle and high schools, 313-344.
Enwezor, O. (2009). Studio, lab, study, and the world. FATE in Review, 31.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro-level of
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 53, 583–598.
Franco, M., & Unrath, K. (2014). Carpe diem: Seizing the common core with visual thinking
strategies in the visual arts classroom. Art Education, 67(1), 28-32.
Fransecky, R. B., & Debes, J. L. (1972). Visual literacy: A way to learn--A way to teach. AECT
Publications.
Freedman, K. (2000). Social perspectives on art education in the US: Teaching visual culture in a
democracy. Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 314-329.
Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. [Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos]. New York:
The Continuum International Publishing Group.

137
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36,
45–56.
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education's
strategic imperative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
García-Ros, R., Pérez-González, F., Cavas-Martínez, F., & Tomás, J. M. (2018). Social
interaction learning strategies, motivation, first-year students’ experiences and
permanence in university studies. Educational Psychology, 38(4), 451-469.
Garibay, J. C., & Vincent, S. (2018). Racially inclusive climates within degree programs and
increasing student of color enrollment: An examination of environmental/sustainability
programs. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(2), 201.
Gee, J. P. (2015). Literacy crisis, social linguistics, and literacies: Ideology in discourses.
London: Routledge.
Ghanbari, S. (2014). Integration of the arts in STEM: A collective case study of two
interdisciplinary university programs (Doctoral dissertation, University of California-San
Diego). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9wp9x8sj
Glass, C. R. (2018). International students' sense of belonging: Locality, relationships, and
power. Peer Review, 20(1), 27.
Glass, C. R, Kociolek, E., Wongtrirat, R., Lynch, R. J., & Cong, S. (2015). Uneven experiences:
The impact of student-faculty interactions on international students' sense of belonging.
Journal of International Students, 5(4), 353-362.
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.

138
Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Sook Kim, E., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical
analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective
efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4),
501-530.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3),
3-13.
Goldblatt, P. (2006). How John Dewey's theories underpin art and art education. Education and
Culture, 17-34.
Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Verstichele, M., & Andries, C. (2017). Higher education
students with disabilities speaking out: perceived barriers and opportunities of the
Universal Design for Learning framework. Disability & Society, 32(10), 1627-1649.
Grimm, S., & Meeks, A. (2017). Break the stereotype! Critical visual literacy in art and design
librarianship. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America,
36(2), 173-190.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15, 103–120
Hansman, C. A. (2002). Diversity and power in mentoring relationships. Critical Perspectives on
Mentoring: Trends and Issues, 39-48.
Harris III, F., & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to
assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New Directions for
Student Services, 2007(120), 77-84.

139
Hartwell, E. E., Cole, K., Donovan, S. K., Greene, R. L., Storms, S. L. B., & Williams, T.
(2017). Breaking down silos: Teaching for equity, diversity, and inclusion across
disciplines. Journal of Social Relations, 1(39), 16.
Herbst, J. (2004). The Yale report of 1828. International Journal of the Classical Tradition,
11(2), 213-231.
Hökkä, P., Vähäsantanen, K., & Mahlakaarto, S. (2017). Teacher educators' collective
professional agency and identity–Transforming marginality to strength. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 63, 36-46.
hooks, b. (2010). Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. New York: Routledge.
hooks, b. (2014). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge.
Jeffers, C. (2008). Empathy, cultural art, and mirror neurons: Implications for the classroom and
beyond. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 26, 65-71.
Jeffers, C. S. (2009). Within connections: Empathy, mirror neurons, and art education. Art
Education, 62(2), 18-23.
Jenset, I. S., Klette, K., & Hammerness, K. (2018). Grounding teacher education in practice
around the world: An examination of teacher education coursework in teacher education
programs in Finland, Norway, and the United States. Journal of Teacher Education,
69(2), 184-197.
Johnson, D. R. (2012). Campus racial climate perceptions and overall sense of belonging among
racially diverse women in STEM majors. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2),
336-346.
Johnson, W. B. (2015). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. London,
Routledge.

140
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T.,
& Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year
undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(5), 525-542.
Jones, M. L. (2001). Sustainable organizational capacity building: Is organizational learning a
key? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 91-98.
Jurecic, A. (2011). Empathy and the critic. College English, 74(1), 10-27.
Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Using our heads and HARTSS: Developing perspective-taking
skills for socioscientific reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(3), 261-
281.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kennedy, C. (2016). Institutional time: A critique of studio art education by Judy Chicago.
Radical Teacher, 104, 78-81.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 1-177.
Kezar, A. (2013). Examining non-tenure track faculty perceptions of how departmental policies
and practices shape their performance and ability to create student learning at four-year
institutions. Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 571-598.

141
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism primer (Vol. 2). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang
Publishing.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Korać, I., & Gajić, O. (2017). Art teachers’ competencies in the context of their involvement in
schoolwork and proactive role in society. Journal of the Institute of Educational
Research, 49(2).
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2009). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. London: Longman.
Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving cultural relevance and achievement
motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78-96.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The five dysfunctions of a team: Team assessment. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic
communication (Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Livingston, J. (2003). Helping faculty help themselves: A collaborative approach to peer
mentoring. Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference.
Lombard, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction:
Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to universal design. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 4(4), 250–261.

142
MacCabe, J. (2009). Racial and gender microaggressions on a predominantly white campus:
Experiences of lack, Latina/o and white undergraduates. Race, Gender & Class, 16(1/2),
133-151.
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 6(4), 1-20.
Markova, G., & Ford, C. (2011). Is money the panacea? Rewards for knowledge workers.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(8), 813-823.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making
in education. RAND Papers.
Mårtensson, K., Roxå T., & Olsson, T. (2011) Developing a quality culture through the
scholarship of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(1),
51-62.
Martínez- Cardama, S. & Caridad-Sebastián, M. (2019). Social media and new visual literacies:
Proposal based on an innovative teaching project. Education for Information, 35(3), 337-
352.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McCarty, W., Crow, S. R., Mims, G. A., Potthoff, D. E., & Harvey, J. S. (2016). Renewing
teaching practices: Differentiated instruction in the college classroom. Journal of
Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leadership in Education, 1(1), 5.
McCaughey, R. A. (2019). Still here: Change and persistence in the place of the liberal arts in
American higher education. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Retrieved from

143
https://mellon.org/news-blog/articles/still-here-change-and-persistence-place-liberal-arts-
american-higher-education/
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 74(4), 291-310.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
McGregor, C. (2012). Art-informed pedagogy: Tools for social transformation. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(3), 309-324.
McKenna, S. R. (2011). Art school consequential: Teaching and learning in the first year of art
school. New York: Teachers College.
McKernan, J. F., & McPhail, K. (2012). Accountability and accounterability. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 23(3), 177–182.
McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M., & Malcolm-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity
walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Motley, P., Chick, N. L., & Hipchen, E. (2017). A conversation about critique as a signature
pedagogy in the Arts and Humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 16(3),
223-228.

144
The National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD). (2018). Accreditation
institutional report for campus visit.
Neumann, A. (2014). Staking a claim on learning: What we should know about learning in
higher education and why. The Review of Higher Education, 37(2), 249-267.
Ninković, S. R., & Knežević Florić, O. Č. (2018). Transformational school leadership and
teacher self-efficacy as predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 49-64.
Oakley, K., & Banks, M. (2015). The dance goes on forever? Art schools, class, and UK higher
education. The International Journal of Cultural Policy, 22(1), 41-57.
Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2013). Teaching the way, we they were taught? Revisiting the
sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty
teaching practices. Higher Education, 68, 29-45.
Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values,
and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Palu-ay, L. (2016). Portraiture of racial/ethnic and cultural identity among students of color at
an institute of art and design: A post-colonial and critical race theory study (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umb.edu/doctoral_dissertations/266/
Pantić, N., & Florian, L. (2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice.
Education Inquiry, 6(3), 27311.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/

145
Parker, C., Morrell, C., Morrell, C., & Chang, L. (2016). Shifting understandings of community
college faculty members: Results of an equity-focused, professional development
experience. New Forums Press, 30(3), 41-45.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Raby, G. (2019). Teaching Bauhaus principles: On the importance of questioning why some
things work too well. Theatre and Performance Design, 5(1-2), 43-60.
Reindal, S. M. (2016). Discussing inclusive education: An inquiry into different interpretations
and a search for ethical aspects of inclusion using the capabilities approach. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(1), 1-12.
Riel, M. M., & Rowell, L. L. (2017). Action research and the development of expertise:
Rethinking teacher education. In The Palgrave International Handbook of Action
Research (pp. 667-688). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rockenbach, B., & Fabian, C. A. (2008). Visual literacy in the age of participation. Art
Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 27(2), 26-31.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? The Academy
of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269.

146
Salazar, S. M. (2013a). Laying a foundation for artmaking in the 21st century: A description and
some dilemmas. Studies in Art Education, 54(3), 246-25
Salazar, S. M. (2013b). Studio interior: Investigating undergraduate studio art teaching and
learning. Studies in Art Education, 55(1), 64-78.
Schalkwyk, S. V., Leibowitz, B., Herman, N., & Farmer, J. (2015). Reflections on professional
learning: Choices, context, and culture. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 4-10.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5
th
ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19
Schoen, M. J. (2015). Teaching visual literacy skills in a one-shot session. VRA Bulletin, 41(1).
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Huotilainen, M., Mäkelä, M., Groth, C., & Hakkarainen, K. (2016).
How can neuroscience help understand design and craft activity? The promise of
cognitive neuroscience in design studies. FORMakademisk.
Seglem, R., & Witte, S. (2009). You gotta see it to believe it: Teaching visual literacy in the
English classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(3), 216-226.
Stanton, K., Cawthon, S., & Dawson, K. (2018). Self-efficacy, teacher concerns, and levels of
implementation among teachers participating in drama-based instruction professional
development. Teacher Development, 22(1), 51-77.

147
Stebleton, M. J., Rost-Banik, C., Greene, E., & DeAngelo, L. (2017). “Trying to be
accepted”: Exploring foreign-born immigrants’ interactions with faculty and
practitioners. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(4), 357–370.
Stern, M. J., & Seifert, S. C. (2009). Civic engagement and the arts: Issues of conceptualization
and measurement. Animating Democracy. Retrieved from
https://animatingdemocracy.org/sites/default/files/CE_Arts_SternSeifert.pdf
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tatum, A. W. (Ed.). (2020). The fumbles and foibles of the race toward equity: Selecting texts
with greater aims. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(4), 473-478.
Terosky, A. L. (2005). Taking teaching seriously: A study of university professors and their
undergraduate teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New
York, NY.
Terosky, A. L., & Gonzales, L. D. (2016). Re-envisioned contributions: Experiences of faculty
employed at institutional types that differ from their original aspirations. The Review of
Higher Education, 39(2), 241-268.
Thompson, D. S. (2019). Teaching students to critically read digital images: A visual literacy
approach using the DIG method. Journal of Visual Literacy, 38(1-2), 110-119.
Tinto, V. (2005). Moving from theory to action. In A. Seidman (Ed.) College student retention:
Formula for student success. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Tyler, C. W., & Likova, L. T. (2012). The role of the visual arts in enhancing the learning
process. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 8.
University of Delaware. (n.d.). Diversity and inclusive teaching. Retrieved July 15, 2020
https://ctal.udel.edu/resources-2/inclusive-teaching/

148
Van Horne, S., Lin, S., Anson, M., & Jacobson, W. (2018). Engagement, satisfaction, and
belonging of international undergraduates at US research universities. Journal of
International Students, 8(1), 351-374.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwik, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of
social connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 513-532.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (pp. 1-19). Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
WASC Senior College and University Commission (WASC). (2016). WASC action letter.
Retrieved from www.acswasc.org
WASC Senior College and University Commission (WASC). (2017). WASC institutional
records. Retrieved from www.acswasc.org
Weiss, R. S. (1994). In learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies. New York: The Free Press.
White, B. (2011). Embodied aesthetics, evocative art criticism: Aesthetically based research.
Studies in Art Education, 52(2), 142-154.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Expectancy-value theory: Retrospective and prospective. In
The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (pp. 35-70).
New York: Emerald Group Publishing.
Yenawine, P. (2013). Visual thinking strategies: Using art to deepen learning across school
disciplines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

149
Young, E. (2010). Challenges to conceptualizing culturally relevant pedagogy: How viable is the
theory in classroom practice? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 248–260.
Zambrana, R. E., Ray, R., Espino, M. M., Castro, C., Douthirt Cohen, B., & Eliason, J. (2015).
“Don’t leave us behind”: The importance of mentoring for underrepresented minority
faculty. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 40-72.

150
Appendix A
Questions for the Interviews
The following questions are for interviews with the first -year studio faculty.
1. Knowledge (D): Describe to me how your knowledge for teaching was formed? How
much of how you teach is like you were taught? Probe for role models descriptions. How much if
at all have you changed your teaching knowledge?
2. Knowledge (D): When you think of teaching visual literacy to first-year studio students
what do you think this entails? Describe some previous knowledge you may have. Probe: How
do you know you are teaching visual literacy and what does it look like when it is successful?
3. Knowledge (D): When you think of teaching for inclusion in foundations studio,
describe some previous knowledge you may have? What do you think it entails? Probe: How do
you know you are teaching for inclusion what does it look like when it is successful?
4. Knowledge (P): How does the first-year studio program direct you in teaching the student
learning outcome (SLO) of visual literacy? Probe: What is your understanding of the importance
of visual literacy amongst the other list of SLOs in the first-year program? If you have received
guidance describe what format have you used most? Probe, how are you held accountable to
teach this?
5. Knowledge (M): Walk me through an instance in a critique that may have made you
consider adjusting your teaching for inclusion? Tell me the order of instances of the moment that
spurred the change?
6. Motivational (CE): Describe an instance when you have shared best practices, and/or
relied on a mentor or peer to help you through a teaching problem around the climate of your
classroom.

151
7. Motivational (EV): What is the value for you to study how to teach? What kind of
learning is worth your time and effort? Probe example training, job aids what has received your
best attention to learning?
8. Organizational (CM): What are your beliefs about the importance of scholarship of
teaching or pedagogical learning?
9. Organizational (CM): Can you describe what the level of importance or belief in the
scholarship of teaching is as a professional endeavor at the college?
10. Motivational (SE): Talk me through a time when you felt you did not have the
confidence to touch on a diverse topic or when you struggled to support a student who differed
from your cultural ideals?
11. Motivational (CE): How confident are you in the faculty as a group or program to change
the colleges goals for teaching goals for inclusion? Talk to me about how you might envision
this?
12. Organizational (CM): What steps has the college taken to facilitate your change, growth,
and development as a collective and collaborative group of faculty.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study focused on first-year studio (FYS) faculty to converge and plan improvement for student visual literacy as an inclusion strategy for the learning environment at an art college. The qualitative case study included interviews from fourteen FYS faculty. The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008) was applied for an innovation model that identified influences in the knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. The data found faculty adamant in their desire to eradicate exclusion. However, the findings indicated a lack of self-regulatory skills to reflect on instructional practices. Motivational influence gaps included problems in faculty collective efficacy which blocked collegiality. A lack of commitment to convergent spaces and interdisciplinary collaboration was found within the organization. The data uncovered needs to address faculty isolation, exclusion, elitism, and unhealthy competition within the systems of higher ed art education. Organizational change theories and the New World Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model were applied to create recommendations for the knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions needed to improve teaching for inclusion with visual literacy as a strategy in the first-year studio learning environment.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study

PDF

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

Improving workforce diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership

PDF

News media literacy among communication majors at Christian University: an evaluation study

PDF

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

Exploring the effectiveness of continuing medical education for physicians enrolled in an MBA program

PDF

Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study

PDF

Factors and forces of impact: teaching students with disabilities in Mexican universities

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Women of color senior leaders: pathways to increasing representation in higher education

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

The impact of advanced technologies on the workplace and the workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition

Asset Metadata

Creator Rosenberg, Katherine C. (author)

Core Title Opening interpretations: visual literacy and teaching for inclusion, first-year studio faculty innovate for improvement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 09/20/2020

Defense Date 07/31/2020

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

Tag action research,collective agency,collective efficacy,first-year students,instructional development,lateral peer mentorship,OAI-PMH Harvest,teaching for inclusion,visual literacy

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney Lynn (committee chair)

Creator Email kcrosenberg@cca.edu,kcrosenberg@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-372886

Unique identifier UC11666385

Identifier etd-RosenbergK-8989.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-372886 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RosenbergK-8989.pdf

Dmrecord 372886

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rosenberg, Katherine C.

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