Courses

POL320 | Modern Political Thought | Spring 2026
University of Toronto | Department of Political Science

---

Statement of Teaching Philosophy, Goals and Interests

Statement of Teaching Philosophy

The COVID-19 pandemic, followed closely by the rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence into academic practice, has fundamentally reshaped the conditions of teaching and learning.

Universities were first required to transition quickly to online environments and are now grappling with the implications of AI-assisted work—at times attempting to restrict its use, and at other times reconsidering what constitutes meaningful assessment and authorship.

These developments have not only altered the delivery of education, but have also raised deeper questions about knowledge production, intellectual responsibility, and the relationship between process and output in student learning.

In navigating these shifts, I found myself increasingly drawn into conversations about pedagogy, student engagement, and assessment design. Teaching through the pandemic and into an AI-mediated learning environment has required me to articulate my pedagogical commitments more explicitly, to systematize my methods, and to reflect critically on both successes and failures. I write this statement while actively re-evaluating my teaching practices so that they respond not only to changing technologies, but also to the evolving intellectual and ethical demands placed on students.

A foundational value guiding my teaching is fostering meaningful student engagement—engagement that supports deep learning while cultivating an environment of compassion, equity, and inclusion. In the current context, this requires recognizing that students are learning under conditions shaped by both disruption and augmentation: the dislocations of remote learning and the increasing presence of tools that can generate, summarize, and even simulate understanding. My aim is therefore not simply to transmit content, but to design learning environments in which students actively encounter, interpret, and contest ideas.

Engagement as Process, Not Product

Reflecting on my early teaching experience, I realized that I had never been formally trained to teach in higher education. As a Teaching Assistant, I initially modeled the instructors I admired without systematically evaluating whether those practices were effective for my students. Over time, however, I have become increasingly committed to active learning approaches that foreground engagement as a process rather than an outcome.

In my lectures and tutorials, I combine short lectures with structured discussion-based activities. I develop targeted questions that require students to interpret key arguments and work through conceptual tensions in small groups. During these sessions, I listen for recurring obstacles and guide students back to the text, encouraging them to resolve difficulties through close reading rather than relying on simplified summaries. Small group discussions create low-stakes environments in which students can test ideas and build confidence. After these sessions, we reconvene as a class, and each group presents its interpretations. This process allows students to move from tentative, collaborative understanding toward more refined articulation, reinforcing the idea that knowledge emerges through engagement rather than passive reception.

The shift to online learning during COVID-19 required adapting these practices. While breakout rooms enabled group work, they often produced a fragmented sense of engagement. To address this, I incorporated shared documents that allowed students to collaborate in real time while also generating a persistent record of their thinking. This approach not only improved continuity, but also made the learning process more visible—to both the students and myself.

In the context of AI, this emphasis on process has become even more central. When students have access to tools that can generate coherent responses, the pedagogical challenge shifts from evaluating outputs to cultivating intellectual practices. My approach therefore prioritizes activities that require students to articulate reasoning, engage in dialogue, and revise their understanding in response to others. Rather than attempting to eliminate AI use entirely, I focus on designing tasks where learning is demonstrated through participation, iteration, and critical reflection—forms of engagement that cannot be easily outsourced. At the same time, I have become more aware of uneven engagement across students. Time constraints often limit my ability to address all questions, and students arrive with varying levels of confidence and preparedness—differences that may be amplified in an AI-mediated environment. To address this, I have expanded my use of active learning techniques that diversify how students engage with material.

Activities such as “ticket in the door” allow students to submit questions or reflections at the beginning of class, enabling me to identify patterns and tailor the session accordingly. The “3-2-1” exercise—three key ideas, two limitations, one question—encourages structured critical reflection. Similarly, the “say something” activity invites students to pause during a reading and articulate their understanding, questions, or reactions in a low-stakes setting. These methods share a common goal: making student thinking visible. By foregrounding interpretation, uncertainty, and revision, they create opportunities for students to engage meaningfully with course material while also developing the intellectual habits necessary to navigate an environment where information is increasingly mediated and generated.

Universal Design and the Ethics of Assessment

My commitment to engagement is closely tied to a broader commitment to universal design and equitable assessment. Over the past several years, I have observed how different students excel under different modes of evaluation. In courses that included both written and oral assessments, some students who struggled with written work demonstrated strong understanding orally, while others performed better in written formats. This reinforced for me the importance of designing assessments that allow for multiple forms of expression.

In the context of AI, this diversity of assessment becomes even more important. Traditional written assignments no longer reliably capture student understanding if they can be significantly shaped by external tools. Rather than responding by restricting student access to AI, I advocate for rethinking assessment in ways that emphasize explanation, application, and dialogue. Oral components, in-class activities, and iterative assignments provide opportunities to evaluate not just what students produce, but how they arrive at their conclusions.

To support inclusive participation, I also provide multiple avenues for engagement. Weekly discussion questions posted online allow students who are less comfortable speaking in class to contribute in writing. Activities like “ticket in the door” enable anonymous participation while also helping students situate their questions within broader course themes. These practices are designed to lower barriers to participation while maintaining intellectual rigor.

Universal design, in this sense, is not simply about accommodation, but about rethinking the structure of learning environments so that they are inherently inclusive. It involves recognizing diverse learning needs, addressing structural barriers, and creating conditions in which all students can engage meaningfully. In an AI-mediated context, it also involves fostering critical awareness of how knowledge is produced, mediated, and evaluated.

Concluding Reflections

I remain early in my teaching career and continue to develop my pedagogical approach through reflection and experimentation. The dual disruptions of COVID-19 and AI have accelerated this process, requiring me to engage more explicitly with questions of pedagogy, assessment, and intellectual practice.

Teaching in this context demands more than adaptation; it requires rethinking what it means to learn, to know, and to demonstrate understanding. I am committed to continuing this work—developing teaching practices that are responsive to changing conditions while remaining grounded in the principles of engagement, equity, and critical inquiry. These practices have consistently produced high levels of student engagement and strong evaluation outcomes across courses of varying size and level.