Teaching and Service

My teaching philosophy is guided by the insight that instruction is the expression of subject mastery. To be able to communicate key concepts with accuracy, brevity and enthusiasm requires a high degree of subject awareness. In that sense, teaching is an opportunity to learn how I can improve as a researcher and community member. It is integral to being a well-rounded scholar. In practice, my approach to instruction is grounded by three principles.

First, courses should be designed to be accessible and adaptable. While universal design is an admirable goal, it is impossible to fully anticipate barriers to learning. Instead, I have a responsibility to adapt instruction habits, materials and assignments to meet students where they are. What works for one cohort may not work for another. This is not to say one cannot be proactive. For me, taking initiative and setting up an accessible learning environment includes:

• Choosing readings/materials that minimize pre-requisite knowledge;
• Allow for multiple pathways to complete assignments;
• Posting lectures (to the extent possible) on a shared site;
• Monthly check-ins on course progress; and
• Avoiding loaded (high % of grade) assignments.

Second and related, learning environments should be inclusive, particularly in content. Historically, the political science canon has minimized the thoughts of some scholars over others, reproducing particular knowledge systems. In my teaching, I have a role to play in redefining this canon to be more inclusive. I support diversifying course syllabi and including more works from racialized, women and gender-minority, Francophone, Indigenous, under-resourced and geographically-spanning (ie. not clustered) scholars.  To be clear, course diversification is one step in inclusivity. I have a responsibility as an instructor to learn from marginalized scholars and bring their insights into my lectures and research. Making inclusive spaces does not just mean platforming various perspectives but also engaging them through adapting content, topics and pedagogy.  

Third and last, instruction should be engaging to students. For me, engagement is not just about interest but also involvement. Do students see their own role in learning outcomes? Student involvement can come in different forms. It can translate into offering options for course completion, inviting recommendations for material and topics, and building in participatory components. To the latter, I especially welcome perspectives that build on (without demanding) personal experience. Likewise, I find that students who take ownership over their learning are more likely to share what they want to see. This serves as a crucial accountability mechanism.

Relatedly, over the last decade, there has been a warranted push for experiential (or service) learning opportunities. I welcome these opportunities providing they are well conceptualized. I am particularly excited by service learning that promotes reflections on citizenship and community engagement. As political scientists, we can and should be natural leaders in this type of learning. We need to be careful, however, in treating these opportunities as merely professional development.  There can be a gap between how university administrators frame (or rather advertise) experiential learning to the public and how we see it as instructors. Experiential learning is directed and rigorous – not merely work studies and networking.