next »

[rubylaz]

How do people feel about putting all of your teaching narrative (i.e., both background and philosophy) in the teaching statement (when a separate one is requested) versus putting in a paragraph about your teaching background in the cover letter?

Also, for a teaching-oriented job, is it absolutely necessary to start with teaching in the first paragraph or two?
I've generally started all my letters introducing myself as a scholar (i.e., research interests) and then a paragraph summary of my dissertation. At that point, I either go to teaching stuff (LA college) or to future research plan (research univ).
I don't think the SC's take this the wrong way, i.e., I don't care about teaching because I don't open with it, but what are your thoughts?

[mended_drum]

I work at an SLAC, and I rather prefer the teaching to come first, though I don't dismiss letters that don't do that.  If the teaching doesn't come first, I strongly suggest that the teaching section of the letter not be significantly shorter than the research section.  The very first line, of course, should identify your specialties, current position (if any) and date of degree completion or statement of highest degree earned.  These need to come first and are the first things scanned for.

If a teaching philosophy is requested, then you still include a paragraph about teaching in your letter, referring to the statement of teaching philosophy for more detail.  I've not heard the word "narrative" used before, but I like to see specific examples of what a candidate has done (or can do) in the classroom as support for whatever more abstract ideals the statement contains.  I wouldn't want a "narrative" if it starts from your very first day in the classroom and recounts your development, but maybe this is field-specific or just new since I was on the market.

[jacaranda_]

It seems like you are trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be.  Have two versions of your cover letter, one geared towards research-heavy institutions, and a second that is targeted for teaching-oriented institutions.  As others have suggested, the latter includes  a second paragraph or just a longer description of teaching matters.  Order isn't really that important.

The one place where you want to tailor your teaching information is to match what is posted in a specific job ad.  So if they want someone in Field X with possible subspecialties in Fields Q, Y and Z, you explain in a sentence or two which of those fields you have already taught and those in which you are prepared to teach a course (and prove it by having a sample syllabus ready to hand over to a SC).

Save the micro-level teaching techniques / strategies for the teaching statement -- what techniques do you use in the classroom, how do you use various technologies, which teaching platforms have you used (Blackboard, e.g.), have you designed your own websites for your classes, etc.

And we really need to stop calling a "Statement of Teaching Philosophy."

[squidward]

I'm on a search committee at a research-oriented university, and my eyes totally glaze over when letters go on and on about teaching philosophy.  A lot of the stuff included just sounds like regurgitated phrases and buzz words.  For this kind of job, you definitely want to save that stuff for a separate teaching statement, if they ask for it.  Instead, in the cover letter, I want to hear about which classes you are prepared to teach, and see if you address the courses mentioned in the ad, and maybe you could elaborate some on your teaching experience and how it is relevant to our program.

[pink_]

I'm on a search committee at a research-oriented university, and my eyes totally glaze over when letters go on and on about teaching philosophy.  A lot of the stuff included just sounds like regurgitated phrases and buzz words.  For this kind of job, you definitely want to save that stuff for a separate teaching statement, if they ask for it.  Instead, in the cover letter, I want to hear about which classes you are prepared to teach, and see if you address the courses mentioned in the ad, and maybe you could elaborate some on your teaching experience and how it is relevant to our program.

I'm at an SLAC, and though I am not currently on a SC (we're still frozen), I would react the same way.  I can't remember if I had to send a teaching statement for this job, but my letters for both research and teaching positions were much more like what is described above.

The philosophy stuff is all well and good, but it doesn't give your audience a sense of what you would actually be like in the classroom or what kind of experiences you have had.  Those are more important than the buzzwords and catchphrases, which often litter statements of teaching philosophy.

[threefive]

I am currently chair of one search committee and I have been on four other search committees in the last three years. I am at a teaching-focused comprehensive. We look for you to address teaching first in your letter, though, if you don't you aren't necessarily blowing it. We get a LOT of cover letters that drone on and on about research and how super awesome they are at it, and then one sentence about the courses they have taught. Those apps get trashed. Briefly describe your teaching experience, tell us about your research, and if you want to really impress us, tell us about how you have/would incorporate undergraduates into your research agenda.

For the statement of teaching philosophy, if you start droning on about "constructivism" and your "educational epistemology" I am going to get REALLY grumpy. Yes, I know we call it a statement of teaching philosophy, but what we really want is a statement of teaching experiences. I want to read about SPECIFIC experiences. I want to know what you have done that has worked and how you know that it worked. I want to know what you have tried that did not work, and what you learned from the experience.

For each search committee I have been on, we have gotten around 50-70 applications. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4 actually do what I said we look for.

[hermance]

I teach at a SLAC in an MLA field.  As a department, we are generally split on whether we prefer teaching or research to come first in a letter.  I am on the side that would prefer research to come first.  Research is very important at our SLAC, and when candidates describe teaching at length first, I (and others) worry that they don't understand the research requirements for tenure at our institution.  (We frequently get letters that provide endless lists of courses taught, examples of pithy assignments, etc., and then a brief discussion of an article with no sense of an active research agenda.)  We also use research projects/interests as a gauge to determine whether the candidate is a good fit for the specializations of the advertised position.  A lot of candidates have taught widely, but we want someone who really fits the particular slot of our position, which is generally (not always) determined by research interests.

That said, we pretty much exclusively look at candidates who can talk in concrete detail about their teaching experience.  Ph.D. candidates from the Ivies are impressive, but often end up further down the list because of their lack of teaching experience.  We need assistant faculty to hit the ground running right away.  That said, I agree with pink_'s assessment that the "philosophy" stuff can often sound boilerplate and trendy.  We are looking instead for someone to talk about how they actually work in the classroom; that shows that they've been actually doing it--rather than thinking about it--for awhile.

In sum, candidates impress with letters that are made up of about 40% research, 45% teaching, and 15% "I get what kind of school you are and actually want to work there."  We don't stress too much about the order of those things.

[hegemony]

I agree with squidward -- I want specifics.  The whole idea of a "teaching philosophy statement" induces a kind of apprehensive nausea.  Some of our applicants are so corporate-ized that I'd expect them to recite their mission statements from memory with their hands over their hearts.  And somehow they all begin, "I believe in learned-centered education where students learn to discover for themselves..."  Well, who doesn't?  Who's going to write, "I believe in professor-centered education where students, or as we now call them, serfs, learn to obey without questioning and toil away on my private research projects which bear no relationship to anything they'll ever deal with in the rest of their pitiful careers at Jiffy Lube..." ?

Just tell us what you can teach, and give some nice examples if they're really true and they really work.

Also, do not, as one current applicant has done, say "The students always find eighteenth-century literature boring, so I tell them, 'It really doesn't have to be as boring as you think!'"

[rubylaz]

These are all very helpful suggestions - I was aware of many of them already but the opinions on specifics of teaching "philosophy," or rather our teaching practices, is useful.

[cgfunmathguy]

Okay, time for a contrarian point of view concerning "philosophies."

We all have teaching "philosophies," and we all pursue the practice of teaching based on those "philosophies." In a statement on teaching philosophy, I want to see your philosophy (without all the stupid buzzwords because if I score "Bingo" while playing buzzword bingo with your statement, your app goes in the circular file). I also want to see how you've implemented that philosophy in your classroom and what your experience was with it. Did it work? Completely? Are there things you would change? Why?

This does not need to be the seminal treatise on teaching. Pick three (maybe four) truly important points and elucidate their meanings for your classroom for me.

[der_gadfly]

Yes, I know we call it a statement of teaching philosophy, but what we really want is a statement of teaching experiences. I want to read about SPECIFIC experiences. I want to know what you have done that has worked and how you know that it worked. I want to know what you have tried that did not work, and what you learned from the experience.

Um, really silly question: if you WANT something, would it not be advisable to ASK for it? OR do we expect applicants to use psychic powers to read our minds?

[jacaranda_]

Yes, I know we call it a statement of teaching philosophy, but what we really want is a statement of teaching experiences. I want to read about SPECIFIC experiences. I want to know what you have done that has worked and how you know that it worked. I want to know what you have tried that did not work, and what you learned from the experience.

Um, really silly question: if you WANT something, would it not be advisable to ASK for it? OR do we expect applicants to use psychic powers to read our minds?

This is why I said we need to take the damn word "philosophy" out of the item name.  As for whether 3/5's expectations are unreasonable?  No.  If you've done your research about job searches (here! for example), you should hopefully have figured this out by now.  But it is true that grad students tend to get less guidance about this item from their mentors, esp. at R1 institutions, because it's likely many of those faculty never had to write such a thing.

[threefive]

Yes, I know we call it a statement of teaching philosophy, but what we really want is a statement of teaching experiences. I want to read about SPECIFIC experiences. I want to know what you have done that has worked and how you know that it worked. I want to know what you have tried that did not work, and what you learned from the experience.

Um, really silly question: if you WANT something, would it not be advisable to ASK for it? OR do we expect applicants to use psychic powers to read our minds?

We expect applicants to make themselves look good. Parroting eduspeak without actual substance demonstrates a lack of philosophy.

My statement of teaching philosophy conveys my actual philosophy nicely without ever using the word "constructivism." Sprinkled throughout you may find the word "student-centered" and "guided-inquiry," but in each instance, actual examples from specific classes are used to show exactly what I mean by those words. In my field, most educators would tell you that they have a "student-centered" classroom. However, if you sat in on their class, you would find that they spend 90% of their time lecturing, and 10% of their time walking around while students work in groups on end-of-chapter textbook exercises. That is not student-centered or guided-inquiry by a mile. So just saying those buzz words doesn't mean that you know what in the hell they mean.

Also, I want applicants to tell me how they know that what they do in their classroom works. The plural of anecdote is not data. How do you assess student learning? How do your students compare to other students? For me, student evals mean absolutely nothing unless they are really low (and then, why in the world would you mention them in an application?!)

Suppose you submit a grant proposal full of what you think are great ideas. You use a lot of cool buzz words like "nano-technology" or "sustainability." However, you fail to demonstrate what research had been done before and how what you do ties into that research. You also present zero preliminary data, or even a plan to obtain data.  Would you actually be shocked when you find out that the proposal wasn't funded. Most scientists wouldn't be shocked. They would never write a grant proposal like that. However, they frequently treat statements of teaching philosophy exactly in that way.

Hegemony complains of statements such as the following:

"I believe in learner-centered education where students learn to discover for themselves..."

I would not be grumpy if that sentence was followed by:

"What I consider learner-centered is ... Pedagogical research in ____ field shows ... Specifically, my students do ... I assess learning gains via ... My students score X% on the Field Assessment, which compares well with the national average score of Y%."

Unfortunately, when a phrase such as the above is used, very rarely is it followed with substance. Again, out of 250-300 SoTP that I have read in the past three years, maybe 20-30 (~10%) had ANY substance. At my school, those are usually the same people that get phone interviews.

[kedves]

Also, I want applicants to tell me how they know that what they do in their classroom works. The plural of anecdote is not data. How do you assess student learning? How do your students compare to other students? For me, student evals mean absolutely nothing unless they are really low (and then, why in the world would you mention them in an application?!)...

"I believe in learner-centered education where students learn to discover for themselves..."

I would not be grumpy if that sentence was followed by:

"What I consider learner-centered is ... Pedagogical research in ____ field shows ... Specifically, my students do ... I assess learning gains via ... My students score X% on the Field Assessment, which compares well with the national average score of Y%."

Unfortunately, when a phrase such as the above is used, very rarely is it followed with substance. Again, out of 250-300 SoTP that I have read in the past three years, maybe 20-30 (~10%) had ANY substance. At my school, those are usually the same people that get phone interviews.

How would applicants obtain data for their students compared to other students?  I would be putting my job in jeopardy if I asked for it within my department.  It sounds as if you saying that I should find a nationally-given exam in my field (assuming one exists) and administer it to my students, regardless of its pedagogical utility, in order to get this number showing that my students are smarter than the national average.  What would that demonstrate if selection effects such as students' SAT scores entering college were not controlled for?

[threefive]

How would applicants obtain data for their students compared to other students?  I would be putting my job in jeopardy if I asked for it within my department.  It sounds as if you saying that I should find a nationally-given exam in my field (assuming one exists) and administer it to my students, regardless of its pedagogical utility, in order to get this number showing that my students are smarter than the national average.  What would that demonstrate if selection effects such as students' SAT scores entering college were not controlled for?

I put my job in jeopardy by NOT measuring this stuff, since SACS requires such measurements.

I'm using standardized exams as an example of how to show efficacy. For some fields this may not be feasible, but for mine it most definitely is feasible. (BTW, they most certainly do not measure "smartness" in any way. Typically, conceptual understanding of specific material is measured. My students beat the pants off of students at, say, MIT, and as a group those MIT students are probably more intelligent by far.) Either way, you should demonstrate efficacy in SOME way. I'll be happy with specific examples from someone's teaching, though. Since of those 250-300 SoTP, maybe 1% convincingly demonstrate efficacy for their classrooms. Some tie what they do to the literature, which is pretty good. Some just describe specifics that mirror what is found in the literature, which is also not bad. Most don't provide ANY specifics above bromides.