Teaching

I teach because I believe engineering is, at its core, a human endeavor: we use rigorous thinking to improve lives. That belief shapes my pedagogy and my responsibility as an instructor. My goal is not simply to “cover” content, but to build a learning environment where every student can develop durable understanding, confidence, and professional identity—especially in courses that students often experience as gatekeepers. In my classroom, excellence and inclusion are not competing values. They are mutually reinforcing commitments that create the conditions for all learners to thrive. I design my courses around a simple premise: students learn engineering by doing engineering. That means class time is not dominated by uninterrupted lecture. Instead, I structure learning as a cycle of preparation, active engagement, feedback, and reflection. I use short explanations to introduce core concepts, then shift quickly to structured practice—think-pair-share, annotated problem walkthroughs, quick polls, mini design challenges, or “explain your reasoning” prompts that reveal what students understand and where misconceptions hide. This approach aligns with strong evidence that active learning improves student learning and can particularly benefit students from backgrounds underrepresented in STEM. In practical terms, I aim for students to leave each class having used the idea we studied: applying a model, interpreting data, debugging a solution, or communicating a design tradeoff. When students experience repeated, low-stakes opportunities to practice thinking like engineers—with coaching rather than judgment—they grow. They also begin to trust the learning process and their place in it.

A thriving learning environment is not accidental; it is engineered. I begin with explicit learning outcomes and build backward to align instruction, practice, and assessment. The syllabus and course site are not just administrative documents—they are learning tools, designed for clarity, transparency, and student success. Georgia Tech’s Center for Teaching and Learning emphasizes syllabus design and course policies that support effective learning environments, and I take that guidance seriously. Alignment also shapes assessment. I use a mix of formative and summative assessments to measure what matters: conceptual understanding, problem-solving process, and the ability to communicate decisions with evidence. I incorporate frequent checks for understanding (short quizzes, reflective prompts, “one-minute papers,” or quick problem sets) so students can calibrate their learning early rather than discovering gaps at the exam. In engineering education, we often reward correct answers more than correct thinking. My assessments are built to honor both. I treat participation as a pedagogical practice: the intentional design of experiences that communicate, repeatedly, “You can succeed here—and you do not have to succeed alone.” I do this through norms and structures that protect dignity while inviting intellectual risk. I establish expectations for respectful collaboration, teach students how to give and receive feedback, and use group work strategically so that it becomes a tool for learning rather than a mechanism for inequity.

I also practice “transparent teaching”: I explain why we are using a particular method, how students should engage it, and what success looks like. When students understand the purpose behind active learning, they participate more fully and are more willing to persevere through productive struggle.

Accessibility is part of participation. I strive to provide multiple entry points into complex material—visuals, narratives, worked examples, and opportunities to practice with guidance. I encourage students to use office hours and peer learning spaces early, and I normalize help-seeking as a hallmark of professionalism. In engineering, where collaboration is the norm, learning in community should not be treated as weakness. My deepest aim is to develop engineers who can reason under uncertainty: define problems, make assumptions explicit, evaluate tradeoffs, and communicate with integrity. To support that goal, I emphasize sensemaking over memorization. When students are stuck, I do not rush to rescue them with answers. I coach them toward strategies: draw a diagram, test a boundary case, name what you know, identify what is missing, and choose a next step. Over time, students internalize these moves as habits of mind. I also connect concepts to authentic contexts—real datasets, contemporary engineering applications, or design constraints that mirror professional reality. Authenticity strengthens motivation and helps students see that the work is not arbitrary; it is preparation for real impact. When students recognize the relevance of what they are learning, they invest more deeply and persist longer.

I treat teaching as iterative design. I gather feedback through mid-semester check-ins, short anonymous prompts, and careful analysis of assessment patterns. If many students miss the same idea, I assume the learning environment needs adjustment—not that students “weren’t ready.” I refine pacing, add scaffolded practice, and develop targeted support materials (short videos, example banks, guided worksheets, or optional review sessions). This continuous improvement mindset mirrors the engineering process: observe, diagnose, prototype, test, and refine.Reflection is equally important for students. I build in brief metacognitive routines—exam wrappers, self-assessments, and goal-setting prompts—so students learn how they learn. When students can articulate what strategies helped and what did not, they become more autonomous, resilient learners.

I aspire to teach in a way that is rigorous, humane, and consequential. I want students to leave my classroom not only stronger in technical skill, but also more confident in their ability to learn hard things and contribute meaningfully. My teaching statement can be summarized in one commitment: I will design learning experiences where excellence is reachable through effort, support, and clear expectations—so that every student who enters willing to work can thrive.

I