My teaching is grounded in the belief that students learn best when they feel respected as individuals (V1), challenged as thinkers, and supported as learners. As a clinical psychology scientist working in global mental health, I view teaching as an inquiry-driven and relational practice. I want students to understand psychological science not only as a body of knowledge but also as a tool for examining inequities, interrogating assumptions, and improving people’s lives. This philosophy has developed through my undergraduate teaching, through mentoring research students, and through the structured pedagogical training offered by Duke’s Certificate in College Teaching. These experiences helped me integrate my core values (V1, V2) with knowledge of how students learn (K1) and with purposeful course design strategies (A1). 

Creating Active, Inclusive Learning Environments 

Decades of learning research demonstrate that students learn more deeply through active engagement, discussion, and problem solving than through passive listening (Freeman et al., 2014), and this evidence guides how I structure learning across the courses I have supported as a teaching assistant (V3). Whether facilitating discussions in Clinical Psychology, guiding applied exercises in Mental Health, or supporting other psychology courses, I aim to make learning active and inclusive (A2) by designing opportunities for students to work with ideas, test their reasoning, and learn collaboratively. I have found that active learning succeeds only when participation is structured to be inclusive, so I pay careful attention to how students enter discussions and how their contributions are supported (V1, V2). To meet the needs of students with varied communication styles and processing preferences, I build in supports that make participation predictable and accessible. Rotating roles, such as facilitator, summarizer, or presenter, distribute leadership and ensure that no single voice dominates. Structured turn-taking allows every student to prepare a written response before discussion begins, reducing the pressure to speak spontaneously. I also start sessions with written warm-up prompts, such as asking students to note one idea that surprised them or one question they are still grappling with, which gives quieter students a clear entry point into the conversation. 

I also design course activities that require students to apply psychological concepts to complex, real-world examples (A2). For instance, during weekly discussion sections, students worked together to analyze clinical case scenarios through different therapeutic frameworks. One activity asked students to interpret the same vignette from cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, and humanistic perspectives; another required them to identify potential ethical dilemmas in a case involving overlapping family and school pressures. These tasks created a learning environment that invited diverse perspectives (V1) and helped students see how theoretical commitments shape clinical reasoning. This approach became even more intentional after an early teaching moment that highlighted the need for clearer guidance. In my first review session, I asked students to “apply today’s models to the case,” assuming the open-ended prompt would encourage deeper thinking. While a few students immediately began debating diagnostic hypotheses, others stared at the page, unsure how to start. I realized that freedom without structure can unintentionally disadvantage some learners, particularly those who benefit from stepwise entry points. In response, I introduced a structured six-question scaffold (K2) that walked students through identifying presenting problems, generating alternative explanations, selecting relevant theoretical constructs, and articulating next steps for intervention. I also asked each group to share one insight and one uncertainty, which normalized the idea that thoughtful questions are part of competent clinical reasoning. With this structure in place, I noticed that students participated more confidently, and their analyses became more precise, coherent, and grounded in course concepts.

This experience reinforced the value of intentional scaffolding and the importance of adjusting instruction to students' needs in the moment. It also deepened my understanding that effective teaching is not about controlling the direction of learning, but about creating the conditions in which students can explore ideas, take intellectual risks, and refine their thinking through practice.

Assessing and Giving Feedback for Learning 

I view assessment as a natural continuation of instruction rather than something that happens after teaching has ended. Thoughtful assessment helps students understand their current level of mastery, what deeper understanding looks like, and which steps will move them forward. This perspective aligns with Sadler’s (1989) argument that meaningful feedback is central to learning, as students can only improve when they know how their thinking aligns with the course's goals. In my teaching assistant roles, I graded essays, short-answer responses, and exams using detailed rubrics collaboratively designed by the teaching team to promote fairness, transparency, and consistency (K5, V2). Just as importantly, I treated the patterns in students’ work as information about my own instruction. When several students struggled with cognitive-behavioral case formulation, I recognized that my approach needed more structure. I responded by creating a scaffolded revision activity that asked students to analyze an intentionally flawed case formulation, identify the reasoning errors, and then rewrite the formulation step by step (A3, K1). This process encouraged students to slow down, articulate their thinking, and practice applying the model with greater intention. The quality of their written reasoning improved, but more meaningfully, students reported feeling more confident in their ability to break down complex clinical problems. My written and verbal feedback emphasizes strengths, identifies specific areas that need attention, and provides clear next steps that students can practice. During office hours, I take time to walk students through examples of strong reasoning, helping them see not only what a high-quality response looks like but also how they can get there. I noticed that these conversations often become important moments of growth, as students build self-regulation, academic confidence, and a more nuanced understanding of their own learning processes (A4, V1).

Supporting Students Beyond the Classroom 

Supporting students outside the classroom is an essential part of my teaching practice, because learning does not happen only within structured class sessions (A4). I held weekly office hours where I tailored my explanations to each student’s needs. Some students benefited from step-by-step reviews of foundational concepts, while others are eager to explore how course theories connect to their emerging research interests. These one-on-one conversations allow me to meet students where they are, help them clarify their thinking, and build their confidence as learners. I also provided digital support by answering questions via email, posting clarifications when needed, and maintaining an organized Canvas site that allows students to access readings, assignments, and updates at any time (K4). One small adjustment early in one semester reinforced the importance of this kind of support. After noticing that office hours were underutilized, I began sending a brief pre-class email with sample questions and reminders about upcoming topics in the Clinical Psychology undergraduate class discussion section.  I observed that some students who had previously struggled to engage began coming regularly, often sharing that the preview helped them feel more prepared and less intimidated. This experience affirmed for me that supporting students beyond the classroom is not an optional add-on, but an expression of respect for who students are and what they need (V1). I believe that when students feel acknowledged and supported, they are more willing to take intellectual risks, ask questions, and challenge themselves. In my experience, meaningful academic growth often begins with trust, and trust is built through consistent, thoughtful interactions that extend beyond the classroom walls. 

“Yvonne helped me so much in reviewing my exam results and preparing for the next tests. She was consistently encouraging, ran a productive section, and was always available to help when needed.”

“Very willing to help and always gave in-depth summaries and explanations.”

Mentorship as extended teaching

Mentorship is central to my identity as an educator, and I approach it with the same intentionality and care I bring to my teaching. I have mentored one master’s student and three undergraduate researchers, guiding them through literature synthesis, qualitative coding, analytical decision-making, and manuscript preparation. Involving students directly in these tasks has allowed them to participate authentically in global mental health research and to see themselves as contributors to meaningful scholarly work. My mentoring is grounded in relationship-building and transparency, as I want students to understand both the intellectual processes behind research and the practical steps involved in carrying it out (V1). I also strive to be responsive by tailoring my expectations and guidance to each student’s level of experience. For early-stage undergraduates, this often means breaking research tasks into clear, sequential steps and providing scaffolded supports (K2) such as coding guides, sample memos, or structured reflection prompts. For more advanced students, mentorship becomes increasingly collaborative as we revise codebooks together, interpret thematic patterns, or refine the structure of a manuscript (A4). I also recognize that academic success is intertwined with well-being, particularly for students from historically underrepresented backgrounds. Many students share concerns about imposter syndrome, uncertainty about research careers, and navigating the expectations of academic spaces. I create space for these conversations while maintaining appropriate boundaries, because understanding and addressing these challenges is essential for supporting students as whole learners (V2). My goal as a mentor is to help students build confidence in their skills, develop their scholarly identity, and see themselves as capable contributors to scientific knowledge.