My teaching philosophy is designed to equip students with the technical and cognitive skills to succeed in the 21st century, whether they pursue a career in social science or not. Three principles guide this philosophy. They are (1) the use of evidence-based methods, (2) the creation of practical assignments, and (3) the willingness to adapt as an instructor, within and across courses.
I enact these principles in ways that help students achieve their goals as undergraduates, as independent thinkers, and as future professionals.
1. Evidence-Based Methods
My teaching relies on evidence-based methods. These methods include offering frequent feedback that is detailed and specific (Hattie & Timperley 2007), maintaining regular low-stakes assessments (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik, 1991), and presenting activities and test questions in multiple formats (i.e., not just lecture and multiple-choice tests) to account for the varied pathways through which different students learn and perform. When live demonstrations are possible, we take advantage. For instance, instead of lecturing on eyewitness identification in PSY420 “Psychology and Law,” I staged a mock robbery during class and asked students to identify the suspect using a live poll. The following week, a police officer joined us to discuss what photo lineups look like in real life, as well as common interrogation and police questioning tactics.
While much changes from class to class, for me, grounding course operations in educational research remains constant. For example, studies show traditional lectures can fail to sustain student engagement (Freeman et al., 2014), and in their place my class time tends to be spent breaking into smaller groups, working through applied problems in real-time, and coming back together to discuss and share experiences. This physical movement helps break up mental stagnation, too. Offering 20 minutes of lecture in cooperation with problem-based activities fosters a “blended learning environment” that better engages students and sustains their attention (Delialioğlu, 2012). We mix and match who we speak with when breaking into small groups, and getting students intermingling with one another (and especially with people of different backgrounds) promotes healthy social interaction, seems to enliven discussion, and aids critical thinking.
2. Practical Assignments
Because my class is not the end but a beginning for students, I try to assign projects with legs. This means creating assignments that students find worthwhile, relevant, and open to continuation after class ends. For example, in an upper-division seminar I designed and titled, “From Psychology to Evidence-Based Policy,” one student used her final project on implicit bias to pursue conversations with LMS organizations about implementing anonymization tools to promote equity through blind grading. Another student who was volunteering at a health education nonprofit used her coursework to pilot persuasive messaging ideas that would allow the organization to better frame communications with target audiences. A third student built online material to add to an existing sexual education program and approached university administrators about integrating these scientifically-informed lesson plans into freshman orientation programs. That is the kind of practical application we work toward in many of my classes, especially in upper-division seminars.
3. Adaptability
Since 2013 I have had the opportunity to work in dozens of classroom settings as large as an introductory double-decker lecture hall of 500 students and as small as a seniors-only seminar with a narrow focus and ten students sitting around a single table. I have taught foundational methods courses (Research Methods; Scientific Thinking) and upper-division courses on applied or niche topics (Psychology and Law; From Psychology to Evidence-Based Policy). With this variability comes the constant need to adapt—to tailor lessons and course material to each unique group of students. Slowly but surely, I am gaining the ability to discern which strategies best suit a particular environment. If a class is especially large, we regularly divide into smaller groups. If a planned lecture is failing to engage, we change course and try a problem-solving activity. Interspersing different pedagogical techniques, having a large enough repertoire of activities to pull on, and knowing when to deploy certain tools in the kit are skills I continue to refine through experience. I also take student feedback seriously and continually alter my classes based on new information and the suggestions of those around me.
While some undergraduates plan for law school, others want a career in business, or don’t yet know yet, or just want to pass. Everyone is different. Variability from student to student is inevitable, and this presents challenges and requires constant adjustment. It also motivates me to find creative ways to serve diverse needs. If a student is shy in a participation-heavy seminar, they can email me notes after class to demonstrate their engagement. If a student has their own ideas for a final paper topic, I tend to oblige. Balancing this adaptability with prescriptive standards can be difficult, but I think these challenges are worth meeting so that students, teachers, and everyone involved can walk away from a course feeling their time was well-spent.
My goal is to make sure every student can find something meaningful in the classes we share together, even if that’s something different from the student sitting next to them.
To all students past and present, I invite you always to get in touch if there is anything I can do to help in your journey.
I enact these principles in ways that help students achieve their goals as undergraduates, as independent thinkers, and as future professionals.
1. Evidence-Based Methods
My teaching relies on evidence-based methods. These methods include offering frequent feedback that is detailed and specific (Hattie & Timperley 2007), maintaining regular low-stakes assessments (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik, 1991), and presenting activities and test questions in multiple formats (i.e., not just lecture and multiple-choice tests) to account for the varied pathways through which different students learn and perform. When live demonstrations are possible, we take advantage. For instance, instead of lecturing on eyewitness identification in PSY420 “Psychology and Law,” I staged a mock robbery during class and asked students to identify the suspect using a live poll. The following week, a police officer joined us to discuss what photo lineups look like in real life, as well as common interrogation and police questioning tactics.
While much changes from class to class, for me, grounding course operations in educational research remains constant. For example, studies show traditional lectures can fail to sustain student engagement (Freeman et al., 2014), and in their place my class time tends to be spent breaking into smaller groups, working through applied problems in real-time, and coming back together to discuss and share experiences. This physical movement helps break up mental stagnation, too. Offering 20 minutes of lecture in cooperation with problem-based activities fosters a “blended learning environment” that better engages students and sustains their attention (Delialioğlu, 2012). We mix and match who we speak with when breaking into small groups, and getting students intermingling with one another (and especially with people of different backgrounds) promotes healthy social interaction, seems to enliven discussion, and aids critical thinking.
2. Practical Assignments
Because my class is not the end but a beginning for students, I try to assign projects with legs. This means creating assignments that students find worthwhile, relevant, and open to continuation after class ends. For example, in an upper-division seminar I designed and titled, “From Psychology to Evidence-Based Policy,” one student used her final project on implicit bias to pursue conversations with LMS organizations about implementing anonymization tools to promote equity through blind grading. Another student who was volunteering at a health education nonprofit used her coursework to pilot persuasive messaging ideas that would allow the organization to better frame communications with target audiences. A third student built online material to add to an existing sexual education program and approached university administrators about integrating these scientifically-informed lesson plans into freshman orientation programs. That is the kind of practical application we work toward in many of my classes, especially in upper-division seminars.
3. Adaptability
Since 2013 I have had the opportunity to work in dozens of classroom settings as large as an introductory double-decker lecture hall of 500 students and as small as a seniors-only seminar with a narrow focus and ten students sitting around a single table. I have taught foundational methods courses (Research Methods; Scientific Thinking) and upper-division courses on applied or niche topics (Psychology and Law; From Psychology to Evidence-Based Policy). With this variability comes the constant need to adapt—to tailor lessons and course material to each unique group of students. Slowly but surely, I am gaining the ability to discern which strategies best suit a particular environment. If a class is especially large, we regularly divide into smaller groups. If a planned lecture is failing to engage, we change course and try a problem-solving activity. Interspersing different pedagogical techniques, having a large enough repertoire of activities to pull on, and knowing when to deploy certain tools in the kit are skills I continue to refine through experience. I also take student feedback seriously and continually alter my classes based on new information and the suggestions of those around me.
While some undergraduates plan for law school, others want a career in business, or don’t yet know yet, or just want to pass. Everyone is different. Variability from student to student is inevitable, and this presents challenges and requires constant adjustment. It also motivates me to find creative ways to serve diverse needs. If a student is shy in a participation-heavy seminar, they can email me notes after class to demonstrate their engagement. If a student has their own ideas for a final paper topic, I tend to oblige. Balancing this adaptability with prescriptive standards can be difficult, but I think these challenges are worth meeting so that students, teachers, and everyone involved can walk away from a course feeling their time was well-spent.
My goal is to make sure every student can find something meaningful in the classes we share together, even if that’s something different from the student sitting next to them.
To all students past and present, I invite you always to get in touch if there is anything I can do to help in your journey.
Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
Every student is different, and these different experiences add to the diversity of the classroom. That diversity makes us stronger as a group (Maznevski, 1994; Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007). My aim is to make sure all voices are brought into the room, and to do so early on in the term. I especially work to embolden minority voices and opinions—occasionally bringing in guest speakers, if necessary, and encouraging students to speak their mind even if their views may be unpopular. A formal learning goal in many of my upper-division classes is developing the ability to converse not just with peers or other like-minded individuals, but with people from a wide range of backgrounds, experiences, interests and orientations. We practice this together in all my classes.
This push for an inclusive classroom involves actively working to build up those who have been historically discriminated against. As an Armenian-American whose ancestors immigrated to the US and started new lives here, I care deeply about the struggles of those for whom the path toward success is lined with obstacles. This commitment drives my formal research agenda (projects explore attitudes toward refugees, understanding ideological barriers to international resettlement), although I feel strongly that more important than anyone’s research is simply how we act toward one another every day. I strive to bring kindness, patience, and an open mind with me to work every morning, and to channel these values during interactions with students.
Every student is different, and these different experiences add to the diversity of the classroom. That diversity makes us stronger as a group (Maznevski, 1994; Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007). My aim is to make sure all voices are brought into the room, and to do so early on in the term. I especially work to embolden minority voices and opinions—occasionally bringing in guest speakers, if necessary, and encouraging students to speak their mind even if their views may be unpopular. A formal learning goal in many of my upper-division classes is developing the ability to converse not just with peers or other like-minded individuals, but with people from a wide range of backgrounds, experiences, interests and orientations. We practice this together in all my classes.
This push for an inclusive classroom involves actively working to build up those who have been historically discriminated against. As an Armenian-American whose ancestors immigrated to the US and started new lives here, I care deeply about the struggles of those for whom the path toward success is lined with obstacles. This commitment drives my formal research agenda (projects explore attitudes toward refugees, understanding ideological barriers to international resettlement), although I feel strongly that more important than anyone’s research is simply how we act toward one another every day. I strive to bring kindness, patience, and an open mind with me to work every morning, and to channel these values during interactions with students.
References and Inspiration
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1991). Effects of frequent classroom testing. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(2), 89-99.
Delialioğlu, Ö. (2012). Student Engagement in Blended Learning Environments with Lecture-Based and Problem-Based Instructional Approaches. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (3), 310–322.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of diverse work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(2), 79.
Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47(5), 531-552.
Delialioğlu, Ö. (2012). Student Engagement in Blended Learning Environments with Lecture-Based and Problem-Based Instructional Approaches. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (3), 310–322.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of diverse work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(2), 79.
Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47(5), 531-552.