Michelle's PgCert

Here are some draft research questions that could be explored based on my outcome on cultural exchange, intersectionality, and diversity in arts education:

• How do students from diverse backgrounds experience belonging and inclusion within arts education programs? What barriers do they face?
• How do different aspects of identity (race, gender, class, sexuality, disability status, etc.) intersect to shape arts students’ experiences, opportunities, and creative expressions?
• In what ways do arts curricula, pedagogies, and learning environments embrace and promote intersectional perspectives? Where are the gaps?
• What are effective strategies for fostering intercultural exchange, empathy, and collaboration among arts students? How can programs facilitate meaningful cross-cultural dialogue?
• How knowledgeable and responsive are arts educators to issues of positionality, bias, and creating inclusive environments? What kind of training or development could be beneficial?
• What are the perspectives of staff from minoritized backgrounds regarding institutional culture, policies, and practices affecting diversity, equity and inclusion?
• How do admission and hiring policies and practices in arts institutions perpetuate or mitigate racial disparities? What reforms are needed?
• What initiatives aimed at improving representation and inclusion of minoritized groups have been successful? What best practices can be identified and shared?
• How can arts programs give greater visibility and voice to intersectional identities and experiences that have traditionally been marginalized?
• What are effective strategies for making arts institutions more equitable and anti-racist in their governance, policies, pedagogies, and practices?

Welcome to my Action Research Project.

“How can I foster intercultural exchange and critical reflection on intersectionality and positionality among university art students?“

The aim of this enquiry is to generate new ways for students to understand the cultural diversity in UAL community and understand how intersectionality and positionality influence artistic practice.  The workshop will allow cultural exchange among students to foster belonging in the classroom and creating inclusive artistic environment.

Research aims:

• Foster intercultural exchange among university art students through sharing of personal experiences, artistic influences, and creative work.
• Explore the concept of intersectionality and how different aspects of identity intersect to shape individual experiences and creative expressions.
• Examine positionality and how one’s social, cultural, and historical context informs artistic practice.
• Create inclusive artistic environments that embrace diversity and intersectionality.
• Promote understanding of how diverse identities and intersectionality influence artistic practice.

Bibliography

Bhagat, D. and O’Neill, P. (2011) ‘Inclusive Practices, Inclusive pedagogies: Learning from Widening Participation Research in Art and Design Higher Education’. Croydon: CHEAD.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. Thematic Analysis – an introduction (2018) Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zFcC10vOVY (Accessed 20 December 2023)

Braun, Virginia, and Clarke V.. ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, no. 2 (January 2006): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Bunting L., Hill V., ‘How do we foster belonging in creative education space?’ ,(2021),https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/16659/1/IJADE%20Conference%2026%20M arch%202021.pdf (Accessed 28th May 2023) 

Burke, P. J. and McManus, J. (2011) ‘Art for a few: Exclusions and misrecognitions in higher education admissions practices’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(5), pp.699-712. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/art-few-exclusion-and- misrecognition-art-and-design-higher-education-admissions (Accessed: 10 July 2023). 

Clarke, V. What is Thematic Analysis? (2017) Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4voVhTiVydc (Accessed 20 December 2023)

Friere, P. (1970) ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’. London: Continuum 

Freire, P. and Macedo, D., 1995. A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. Harvard educational review, 65(3), pp.377-403

Hahn Tapper, A.J. (2013) ‘A pedagogy of social justice education: Social identity theory, intersectionality, and empowerment’. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(4), pp.411-445 Available at: https://certainlycert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/files/2017/04/A_Pedagogy_of_Social_Justice_Education_S.pdf(Accessed 28 May 2023) 

Hill V., Bunting L, Arboine J., ‘Fostering belonging and compassionate pedagogy’ ,(2021), https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/223417/AEM3_FBCP.pdf accessed 27th May 2023

Kaufmann, J.J., 2010. The practice of dialogue in critical pedagogy. Adult education quarterly, 60(5), pp.456-476.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2007). The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Koshy, E., Koshy, V., & Waterman, H. (2010). Action Research In Healthcare. London: SAGE Publishing.

Koshy, V. (2010). Action Research for Improving Educational Practice: A Step-By-Step Guide.London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Lelkes, H (2019) How inclusive is object-based learning?. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning. Journal Vol 4 / Issue 1 pp.76-82 

Richards, A. and Finnigan, T. (2015) ‘Embedding Equality and Diversity in the Curriculum: An Art and Design Practitioners Guide’. York: Higher Education Academy Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/eedc_art_and_design_online.pdf (Accessed: 20 Dec 2023). 

Shades of Noir [website] (2010) Available at: www.shadesofnoir.org.uk (Accessed: 10 April 2023). 

Shades of Noir (2017) ‘Intersectional Film’. Available at: https://shadesofnoir.org.uk/journals/intersectional-film/(Accessed: 1 July 2023). 

Shades of Noir (2017) ‘Who am I an exploration of the arts community’. Available at: https://shadesofnoir.org.uk/journals/who-am-i-an-exploration-of-the-arts-community/ (Accessed: 1 July 2023). 

UAL Guiding policy [website] (2023) Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/strategy-and-governance/strategy/guiding-policy-3 (Accessed: 6 July 2023)

UAL Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Annual report 2021/22 [website] (2021) Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/?a=38942 (Accessed: 7 July 2023)

UAL Services 

Data dashboard, https://dashboards.arts.ac.uk 

Disability services, https://www.arts.ac.uk/students/student-services/disability-and-dyslexia

Assessment, https://www.arts.ac.uk/study-at-ual/academic-regulations/course-regulations/assessment

Research Methods:

In reflection looking back at the ARP research methods, there are variety of definition and models to guide its implementation (Koshy, Koshy, & Waterman, 2010).  My initial idea was following the Spiral Model by Kemmis and McTaggart.  This model follows a simple, spiral logical flow in the category of planning, acting, observing, reflecting and re-planning.  This was perceived as a non-rigid research model by Koshy (2010).

In reviewing my project findings, I came across O’Leary’s “Cycles of Research”, which highlight experiential learning for change.  The unique approach has initial focus on observation and data collection prior to planning the action research.  This method is more scientific with a rigid research structure.  However, O’Leary’s model also has limitations with this research methods (Stringer & Genat, 2004).

I realised that my research methods has used the Spiral Model by Kemmis and McTaggart and part section of the O’Leary’s Cycles of Research. My observation and data collection started with the CSS survey on the CerHE course. The Social justice issue emerged through my observation and student engagement in the classroom setting.

Thematic Analysis – Method and Results
This project used Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phase approach for thematic analysis:

1. Data Familiarization: The full response data set was read closely to become immersed and intimately familiar.
2. Initial Code Generation: Interesting segments of text were identified and initial codes or labels assigned using an inductive, data-driven approach.
3. Searching for Themes: Codes were analyzed for overlap and redundancy. Broader patterns of meaning were identified to form initial theme groupings.
4. Reviewing Themes: The candidate themes were checked in relation to the coded data and full data set. Thematic maps were created to refine the themes.
5. Defining & Naming Themes: Each theme was clearly defined and named to capture the overall conceptual significance.
6. Writing Up: Selection of vivid, compelling extract examples relating back to analysis of the research question and literature.

Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phase approach guided the analysis: data familiarization, code generation, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing up findings. The analysis aimed to identify patterns related to the workshops’ effects on awareness, attitudes, preparedness and actions related to EDI.

Central Organizing Concepts
Four central organising themes from the analysis:

1. Knowledge Gained
   Most participants (90%) reported gaining new knowledge about EDI topics through the workshops. This encompassed learning definitions of key concepts like equality, equity and inclusion as well as diversity dimensions such as race, gender, culture. Many (70%) also described increased self-awareness and reflection on their own identity, privileges and positionality.
2. Comfort Sharing
   A majority (72%) felt comfortable sharing personal experiences and backgrounds during the workshops, seeing it as an open, welcoming intercultural exchange. Some described appreciating hearing diverse perspectives. However, a few felt unsure about sharing their intersectionality.
3. Awareness of Inequities
   Many participants (81%) enhanced their awareness of discrimination and representation gaps in the arts. Common issues included systemic barriers and biases related to gender, race, culture and disability. A few noted the need for better equity policies and practices in the arts.
4. Preparedness for Inclusion
   Most participants (84%) felt better equipped to foster inclusion after the workshops, through enhanced communication, cultural sensitivity and embracing diversity. Some described feeling more empowered to create welcoming classrooms. A few expressed wanting more concrete tools to counter discrimination.

Here is a summary of themes based on the analysis:

Participant response data in full (CSV format):

Quantitative Analysis Findings:

– Calculating the percentage of each response option (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) for the Likert scale questions (e.g. “I am more aware of my own privileges and disadvantages after this workshop”). Some students chose the “Neutral” option, which therefore removed some insight what they would have chosen on the spot.

The anonymous nature of the questionnaire removed the ability to further investigate e.g. gender and nationality, which is also due to group inconsistencies with mixing varying quantities of international students.

Improvement: remove the “Neutral” option to ensure participants have to make a choice.

Qualitative Analysis: 

– Thematic coding of the open-ended text responses to identify common themes and patterns. For example, categorizing the descriptions of participants’ intersectionality and analysing the most frequent identity dimensions reported.

This has put a context around the qualitative analysis and created focal themes, which can be used for the next cycle in the action research.

In summary – both quantitative and qualitative analysis provided value and complemented each other. The open-ended responses enable richer exploration of emergent themes and also show points that were not considered before. 

Moving forward – explore data visualisation to link in with dashboard e.g.

• Charts to communicate results on Likert scale questions
• – using Interactive diagram showing question response flows
• – Word cloud or tree illustrating common word pairs in responses

Key Takeaway 1: Age, gender identity, and ethnic background make up significant parts of respondents’ intersectionality – highlights prominence of these identity dimensions for this sample.

Key Takeaway 2: While workshop increased some awareness of equity issues, responses indicate there are still gaps in knowledge around discrimination faced by marginalized groups. Follow-up education may further enhance understanding.

Conclusion
Overall, quantitative and qualitative findings suggest the workshops improved participants’ competencies around diversity awareness, cultural sensitivity and inclusion. Some areas of the workshop need further development, ensuring comfort in sharing for all and providing actionable tools to promote equity. Follow-up workshops could find longer-term changes in attitudes and behaviours.

Future Work
The workshops were largely successful at building competencies, however there are opportunities for improvement. For example, a minority expressed hesitation sharing their intersectionality during sessions. Future iterations could integrate small group discussions before larger disclosures to enhance psychological safety. Additionally, a few participants expressed a desire for more actionable tools to counter discrimination in arts contexts. Follow-up workshops could provide resources to promote inclusion tailored to students’ disciplines and leadership levels. Longer-term evaluation would assess actual behavioural change beyond intentions.

Reflection on the Workshop

Key Findings

• The use of Padlet enabled effective sharing of student work and data collection for research purposes across workshops. However, the “map of the world” Padlet with excessive information became messy and confusing. Simplifying it to just display students’ intersectionality made it more usable.
• Student cultural background diversity within each workshop group heavily impacted group dynamics and effectiveness of cultural exchange. Placing students strategically to maximize diversity could enable more fruitful intercultural interactions.
• Extending workshop duration to 1.5 hours instead of 1 hour could enable more in-depth discussion of artists’ works per student feedback requests. The additional time could enrich sessions.

Method Reflections

• Adjusting seating arrangements to circular tables promoted an inclusive, engaging setting that put students at ease during sessions.
• Amending delivery method by having the tutor sit with students instead of standing separately further contributed to a comfortable, collegial environment to aid participation.
• Continued refinement of Padlet use for sharing and data gathering balanced research and teaching needs with student understanding and engagement.

Moving forward:

• Strategically organise student group composition by cultural background to better enable diversity and intercultural exchange during workshops.
• Extend workshop duration from 1 hour to 1.5 hours to enable longer discussion and interaction per student feedback, as well as available time to fill in the survey.
• Promote circular, collaborative seating arrangements to encourage open participation.
• Continue using Padlet effectively for research data gathering while simplifying content.

Final Version

From the findings, the following could be mentioned or included in the slides:

Thematic Analysis result and key figures

1. Enhanced Awareness

• 90% gained knowledge of key diversity concepts
• 70% described increased self-reflection on identity

2. Comfort Sharing Experiences

• 72% felt open & welcomed sharing backgrounds
• But a few hesitant to discuss intersectionality

3. Recognizing Inequities

• 81% more aware of discrimination issues in arts
• Especially related to gender, race, and culture

4. Building Inclusion Skills

• 84% felt better prepared to foster inclusion
• But wanted more tools to counter biases

5. Overall Effective – With Room to Grow

• Strong impacts on attitudes, knowledge and motivation
• Follow-up needed to track and sustain outcomes

Notes:

In summary, quantitative and qualitative findings suggest generally positive impacts but with some areas needing refinement. Small group discussions may allow students to open up. Tracking long-term development would require one or several further follow-up workshops.

Previous Version

This the first draft of my presentation. I had accidentally burned my hand making tea on the day I was creating this. Therefore it was a very brief presentation. This was delivered during tutorials with Frederico and Seb. I felt that the key points below could be expanded in the presentation.

original context / background – done

rationale for selecting the topic – done

reflection on research method/s used – expand further

summary of project findings,- make the image/text readable to the view

references to relevant literature (using the Harvard method), – Need to add

Here is the Key points that I take away from the tutorial.

Think about your narrative – there is 10mins for Q&A

Revisit the unit brief.

Think about less is more.

Why you are doing it

Provide reading reference

Reference – for the presentation

Methodology – what did you looked and how it influence

Give a sense of data collection/ try to answer some questions and what methods you look

A good overview/ A sense of what your tutor about your project.  Aim for a general over view…the tutors might not know everything and give the audience a sense of why we did and how.

I done this because of that and what you done.

Good to provide a sense of rational/ context positionality/ personal voice/

This is me in 2023 and in this context – thinking about your methods of presentation

Interview/ consider the narrative

It doesn’t need to be formal/ animation/ water/ ice

Sing!! Painting…..

It is not a literature review/ couple of reading on the methodology/review

Action plan – do we need to show all of our details – the blog is a place where you place your thoughts and a gantt chart..screen shoot.

Methodology. Rational, analysis is important.

Presentation – data – analysis / big presentation.

Blog – think about what intersectionality is/ why is important

Final outcome of the unit.

Intervention/ data Anaya why you have done what you done with methodology.

The blog needs to portray/ to show the intervention/ need to write a blog after the session.

The blog can be a very personal representation – add images and so on so forth.

This is the process, and this is how …. – when I find how the best way to address how intersectionality for the student.  A blog a student’s – to share with your peer to I tried something else – 

What the question you encounter the stopping blog and successful. If that works for you.

Review the unit brief and learning outcome and make what you will.

Something exciting – to presenting – to see the outcome….tutor is exciting….

Prep question for Friends to ask!!

The students would work with a Workshop Padlet which includes instructions and background information. I have used Padlets for this, as student are used to this form of delivery of information, which is also used to record students’ interactive work during normal tutorials as well. An example of the workshop Padlet that was used for Action Research is seen below. The additional information for students is about their session being part of the Action Research as well as a link to the questionnaire.

Action Research Padlet links:

Group 1 (Pilot) Group 2 (Mon) Group 3 (Tue) Group 4 (wed) Mapping Activity

The questionnaire form was created with Microsoft Forms, as it was readily available and allowed a quick way of collecting the data.

The full form for this can be found here:

PGCert Microsoft Questionnaire form

My ethics approval form went through some versions before arriving at the approved version. It started with the draft:

Which I then worked on myself to arrive at the first version, which received some feedback.

20th Oct 2023 tutorial with Lindsey about Ethics:

Pre-Workshop Questionnaire with a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”:

1. I am knowledgeable about diversity, equity, and inclusion principles.
2. I actively reflect on my own social identity and positionality.
3. I understand what intersectionality means. (What does intersectionality mean to you?)
4. I am aware of my own privileges and disadvantages in society.
5. I am comfortable discussing my cultural background with others. 

Rewording the research question:

“How effective is an arts-based workshop at fostering intercultural exchange and critical reflection on intersectionality and positionality among university art students?”

“How can I foster intercultural exchange and critical reflection on intersectionality and positionality among university art students?”

Consideration about consent and how students participate in the research.

Whether if you get the honest responds from students.  How would the student evaluate their understand of their positionality and how can they assess that.  A better way of putting the questionnaire is ask students: What is Positionality to you with a big box.  Therefore, the researcher will assess it when evaluating the data.

Research Question 5 is perfect to keep.

Lindsey suggested consider different methods of the questionnaire – try it out.

As regarding to permission – it would be good for students opt- to attend the workshop, but not participate in the questioner as this would be a Gold standard. They can keep the questionnaire as sources of reference as they have the Permission to withdraw.

Feedback from Lindsay:

A couple of quick questions:
How will you document the workshop? Will you record student outputs in some way? Or is the plan to limit data collection to the questionnaires?

How will you get students to complete the pre- and post- questionnaires. Is there another, more reliable, way of getting the data you seek? For example, can some of the information in the post-survey be gathered from the activities?

One issue with having the pre- and post-questionnaires anonymous is that any comparison will have limited validity because the two samples may not have much overlap. A more valid way of evaluating an activity or workshop is to build iterative self and peer assessment into the workshop activities so that the outputs reveal the learning that is taking place. This kind of method is more aligned with action research, whereas pre- and post- testing is more aligned with quantitative and traditional research.

HOWEVER… your questions are really good (some are bit leading, as in, it’s obvious what the right answer is!) and it would be really interesting to see what comes from asking them. I like the mix of scored and open ended questions. Neither the pre- nor the post- questionnaires are easy or quick to answer. That’s not a bad thing provided they have time and support to think about their answers and complete their forms. Getting them to do them in small groups, in-session, with a small gift (chocolate?) for finishing, would get you a much better response rate, and fit well with the theme of intercultural exchange. It might require some rewording of the questions to accommodate a group response. 

The session design is strong (was this your IP intervention? I can’t remember if you said!)

This is an exciting project Michelle, and you’ve got plenty of detail here. Consider it ethically signed off!

Responses to the feedback:

The workshop will be documented on an Action Research Padlet. Student will post activities on the Padlet and share their work. Base on the feedback I decided to embedded the Pre-Workshop Questionnaire  into the workshop session as part of activities asking students to post answers on the Action Research Padlet. I have consider to include iterative self and peer assessment during the workshop activities. The post questionnaire was amended slightly to ensure a good responds from the students. This was indeed inspired from my IP intervention!

And the final version of the Ethical Enquiry Form