Tammy Lockett

Teaching Statement 

My teaching philosophy is grounded in two commitments: creating an inclusive learning environment where students can take thoughtful risks, and maintaining clear standards that help them turn curiosity into capability. I learned early in my career that even the most talented people struggle to produce meaningful work in a negative environment. In my classroom - online or in person - I cultivate psychological safety, transparent expectations, and frequent feedback so students can experiment, revise, and build confidence in their ability to learn through iteration.

I teach innovation and entrepreneurship as repeatable practices rather than innate traits. Students learn to move through an iterative cycle of observation, problem framing, prototyping, testing, and refinement, supported by feedback and reflection. I structure courses around authentic problems and project-based work so students practice moving from ideas to prototypes to evidence. Whether students are designing a learning experience, a digital artifact, or a service concept, they are expected to document their assumptions, test them with real people, and revise based on what they learn. Human-centered design and customer discovery are foundational in my teaching. Students learn to investigate context and audience through interviews, observation, and basic usability testing, and to connect ideas to real needs and constraints. I also ask students to study comparable solutions and competitions so they can identify patterns - what has worked, what has failed, and why - and apply those lessons to strengthen their own projects. This approach builds disciplined creators: imaginative, but evidence-driven.

My courses are informed by studio pedagogy. I design structured critique cycles where students share work in progress, articulate intent, and receive constructive feedback grounded in criteria. Peer review is not an add-on; it is a core learning practice that develops students’ ability to communicate, collaborate, and revise with purpose. In online and hybrid courses, discussion forums and shared workspaces ensure every student has a voice and an opportunity to practice evidence-based feedback. In face-to-face settings, I often incorporate online critique components so students can revisit feedback, reflect, and track growth over time.

I use technology deliberately, always in service of learning outcomes. Having taught through multiple waves of change, I encourage students to avoid “tech for tech’s sake” and evaluate tools by reach, accessibility, iteration speed, and learning impact. Generative AI fits within this framework: I integrate it when it strengthens learning—accelerating prototyping, enabling practice through simulations, and helping students generate drafts they can critique and refine. I pair these opportunities with clear expectations for responsible use: transparency about process, attention to bias, and boundaries that protect original thinking and prevent dependence.

My assessment approach reinforces iteration. I use clear rubrics, milestone check-ins, and formative feedback on research plans, early prototypes, and revisions. Summative evaluation includes the final product, but also the evidence behind it: user research, testing results, reflection, and the rationale for decisions. I favor portfolio-based assessment because it helps students leave a course with tangible artifacts and a documented process they can communicate to future collaborators, employers, or graduate programs.

Ultimately, I want students to leave my courses with practical skills and a durable mindset: the confidence to ask better questions, the discipline to test ideas with evidence, and the ability to collaborate across differences. Whether they pursue entrepreneurship, social innovation, research translation, or creative practice, they should be prepared to develop solutions that are thoughtful, accessible, and responsive to the people and communities they aim to serve.

Leadership Statement 

My approach to program leadership is grounded in a simple belief: innovation and entrepreneurship are learnable practices. When students are given a clear process, authentic problems, mentorship, and an environment where iteration is expected, they develop the confidence and capability to move ideas from concept to evidence to impact. Across 20+ years in higher education and consulting, I have led curriculum development, assessment, faculty support, and learning innovation initiatives, with a consistent focus on building programs that are rigorous, inclusive, and responsive to emerging opportunities.

Artist’s statement

Design thinking is a foundational skill in my work, less like a “creative method” and more like a form of literacy. It’s how I make intent explicit, clarify what matters, and design experiences and systems that serve real needs. I’m guided by the principle of form follows function: when the purpose is clear; the structure becomes rational, the experience becomes usable, and the outcomes become measurable.

This mindset extends beyond the design of objects or interfaces. It applies to the systems that shape how we learn, work, and interact; curricula, communication channels, civic structures, and the digital platforms that influence our behavior and identity. Design is never neutral. The choices embedded in a system; what it rewards, what it hides, who it includes, and who it excludes—shape participation, belonging, and opportunity.

In both education and industry, meaningful design is iterative. We learn by testing ideas early, gathering feedback, and revising with discipline. Whether I’m developing learning experiences, building media-rich environments, or integrating emerging tools such as generative AI, I return to the same questions: Who is this for? What problem are we solving? What evidence do we have? What constraints do we need to honor? How do we ensure accessibility, clarity, and equitable impact?

At the center of my philosophy is the belief that recognizing a need is a catalyst for action, and that creativity is a practical capability we can strengthen through practice. That belief informs everything I do: teaching, mentoring, design, and development. I aim to help people move from ideas to outcomes through human-centered research, intentional structure, and repeated cycles of prototyping and refinement.

If you’d like to explore how I apply design thinking in more immersive environments, visit Section 3: Immersive Gaming & VR, where my work focuses on interactive, experiential learning and narrative-driven exploration.

Recorded  Critiques & Lectures

View recorded examples of lectures, critiques and training materials done in Voicethread, Snagit, Jing, and Screencast-o-matic. 

Institute Service

This area outlines institute service as a Full-time, Senior and Lead Faculty member for the Art Institute of Pittsburgh's Online Division from 2007-2012.  Also included are segments from performance reviews for 2012-2016 for my position as an Assistant Online Program Director. 

FAculty Management

This area highlights my management of the 26 faculty assigned to me - 6 full-time faculty and 20 adjunct faculty - over the course of approximately 5 years starting as a Lead Faculty member and then, as an Assistant Online Program Director. This responsibility entailed guidance and support, training, performance reviews and intervention, timecard and expense report approvals.