BoQ Critical Element: Lesson Plans for Teaching Expectations.
Teaching philosophies reconsidered:A conceptual … · These parameters include institutional...
-
Upload
vuongkhanh -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Teaching philosophies reconsidered:A conceptual … · These parameters include institutional...
This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida]On: 07 May 2013, At: 10:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal for Academic DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rija20
Teaching philosophies reconsidered:A conceptualmodel for the development and evaluation ofteaching philosophy statementsDieter J. Schönwetter a , Laura Sokal b , Marcia Friesen c & K. Lynn Taylora University of Manitobab University of Winnipegc University of Manitoba, CanadaPublished online: 10 Dec 2010.
To cite this article: Dieter J. Schönwetter , Laura Sokal , Marcia Friesen & K. Lynn Taylor (2002): Teaching philosophiesreconsidered:A conceptual model for the development and evaluation of teaching philosophy statements, InternationalJournal for Academic Development, 7:1, 83-97
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13601440210156501
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
IntroductionAcross higher education institutions world-wide,applicants to academic faculty positions, teachingawards, teaching grants, academic facultypromotion and tenure are increasingly required topresent not only a curriculum vitae thatdemonstrates research and teaching expertise, butalso a teaching portfolio or dossier, together with astatement of teaching philosophy (SEDA, 2002).This trend is particularly strong in the UK, wherethis requirement has become an importantnational development (ILT, 2002). For prospectivecandidates, many of these critical applicationcomponents can be quite daunting. This is
especially the case with the statement of teachingphilosophy (Richlin, 1995). For instance, one study(Perlman, Marxen, McFadden & McCann, 1996)examined cover letters, curricula vitae, andteaching statements of 82 doctoral candidates and74 PhD applicants for an assistant professorposition. Although the job advertisementrequested a specific statement on teaching, mostcandidates failed to emphasize teaching. Manycandidates reported that they have never reflectedon what they do when they teach and that theyhave never systematically written about theirteaching philosophies and goals. Moreover, theyreceived little or no guidance from their academicadvisors on this matter because most advisors have
Teaching philosophies
reconsidered:A conceptual model
for the development and
evaluation of teaching philosophy
statements
Dieter J. Schönwetter,University of Manitoba,Laura Sokal, University ofWinnipeg, Marcia Friesen,and K. Lynn Taylor University ofManitoba, Canada
ABSTRACTIncreasingly, the requirements of applicants to academic faculty positions, promotion and tenure procedures,nominations for teaching awards, or other application processes for innovative teaching grants worldwide includea teaching portfolio or dossier or a statement of teaching philosophy. Current literature provides a spectrum ofapproaches to constructing a teaching philosophy statement. While these resources provide practical utility, thisliterature generally lacks conceptual models that provide clear operational definitions and comprehensiveframeworks for the process of generating or evaluating a teaching philosophy statement. However, this literaturedoes illustrate the complexity of the task. Each teaching philosophy statement reflects not only personal beliefsabout teaching and learning, but also disciplinary cultures, institutional structures and cultures, and stakeholderexpectations as well. This synergy among self, discipline, and institutional context guided the development of aconceptual model for constructing a teaching philosophy statement. Based on the authors’ survey of the literature,a conceptual model was developed, and then refined in a series of three workshops that included input fromgraduate students, academic faculty, faculty developers, and academic managers (administrators). The resultingconceptual framework includes the six dimensions commonly found in a survey of faculty teaching philosophies:the purpose of teaching and learning; the role of the teacher; the role of the student; the methods used; evaluationand assessment of teaching and learning; and also includes two framing devices – a metaphor or a critical incidentand a device for acknowledging the impact that contextual factors have on teacher decision making. This paperdescribes the development of this conceptual model, and provides an evaluation rubric that can be applied toassess teaching philosophy statements generated using the proposed framework.
The International Journal for Academic DevelopmentISSN 1360-144X print/ISSN 1470-1324 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/13601440210156501
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 83D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
not generated teaching philosophy statements intheir own academic careers.
While many articles focus on teaching portfolioor dossiers, less is known about statements ofteaching philosophy. Even articles describing theteaching portfolio or dossier frequently fail todescribe how to develop a teaching philosophystatement (Day, Robberecht & Roed, 1996).Current literature provides a spectrum ofapproaches, together with the reasons for utilizing,and the processes required for developing, ateaching philosophy statement. Articles that doprovide readers with guidance on how to create astatement of teaching philosophy often do so withfew clear operational definitions, or little analysisof the components identified in a definition. Insome cases, the definitions have to be derivedindirectly from a larger definition of a teachingportfolio or dossier. As a result, even though theseresources provide practical utility, they often lackthe academic rigour provided by strong conceptualunderpinnings. What is missing in the currentliterature is a conceptual model that provides theuser with a clear operational definition andcomprehensive guidelines for the processes ofgenerating and evaluating teaching philosophystatements.
In order to provide effective guidance forcreating a teaching philosophy statement, it isimperative to provide a clear operational definitionand an analysis of its key components. Once a cleardefinition is articulated, specific guidelines can bedeveloped for both the writers (e.g., future andcurrent faculty) and the evaluators (e.g., students,colleagues, and academic managers) of theteaching philosophy statement. This paperpresents a working model that will provide theguidance, academic rigour, and practical utilityrequired to generate and evaluate teachingphilosophy statements in contemporary hiring,tenure and promotion contexts. The description ofthis working model provides an operationaldefinition, identifies key functions of teachingphilosophy statements from the literature, setsforth a conceptual model, demonstrates themodel’s practical utility, and poses some questionsfor future development.
Operational definitionBased on a comprehensive literature review, thefollowing operational definition is proposed: Ateaching philosophy statement is a systematic and critical
rationale that focuses on the important componentsdefining effective teaching and learning in a particulardiscipline and/or institutional context. Severalcomponents of this definition are elaboratedbelow.
First, a teaching philosophy statement issystematic, connecting the writer’s thoughts onteaching and learning in a logical fashion. Giventhat the development of a teaching philosophystatement involves a complex process of gathering,assimilating, analysing, reflecting upon, andevaluating and adapting thoughts on effectiveteaching and learning, it is helpful to express thisthinking in some organized fashion for both thewriter and the reader.
Second, a teaching philosophy statement is acritical rationale. At its centre is a distinctive set ofaims, values, beliefs and convictions that provide anorganizing vision of the teacher’s direction and arationale towards which his or her efforts aregeared (Ebel, 1983; Symth, 1986). These aimsshould show literacy in, as well as an alignmentwith or commitment to, teaching and learningtheories that are appropriate to the students’characteristics (such as age, goals and motivation),the institutional context (such as the specificdiscipline culture and the institutional mission),and to oneself (one’s teaching identity, manifestedin particular teaching strengths and natural ‘fits’).As well, a critical rationale will exhibit congruencebetween these various components of the teachingphilosophy statement, demonstrating thesignificant amount of assimilative, analytical andevaluative thought that precedes the articulation of it.
Third, a teaching philosophy statement focuseson specific components that the writer defines ascritical to the teaching and learning processes in aparticular post-secondary setting. Differenttheoretical perspectives on teaching and learningidentify a broad range of possible components. Forteaching, they could include teaching behaviours,teaching methods, content structure, andassessment (Feldman & Paulsen, 1998; McKeachie,1999). For learning, these important dimensionscould include student learning styles, learningcontexts, cognitive structures, learning strategiesand student motivation (Bruning, 1994;McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, & Smith, 1986; Svinicki,1991). An explanation of the writer’s conception ofthe teaching and learning dynamic will provideinsights about how they teach and how theirteaching has an impact on student learning.Subsequently, the criteria for judging the extent to
84 IJAD 7:1
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 84D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
which a teacher’s practice exhibits features that areessential to good teaching should be considered inthe context of this critical rationale.
Finally, a teaching philosophy statement needsto be sensitive to contextual factors such as theparticular discipline in which the teaching andlearning takes place and the ‘organizationalnecessities, student experiences, and politicalclimates’ (Brookfield, 1990, p. 196) thatcharacterize an institution. The context withinwhich one works presents both opportunities andconstraints, and one’s teaching will to some extentreflect the characteristics of an individual situation.Just as disciplinary culture influences teachingbeliefs and conventions (Stark & Latucca, 1997), sodo institutional contexts. For example, teachingsociology in an undergraduate denominationalcollege will manifest itself differently from teachingsociology in a graduate research institution, as theenvironment sets parameters for the teacher.These parameters include institutional mission andthe role of teaching within the institution; theexpectations of students and the goals forgraduates of the programme; faculty academics’workload; the physical, financial, and humanresources; the support available for teaching; andthe worldview of the institution. Effective teachingresults from a synergy among learning principles,personal characteristics, and discipline andinstitutional cultures. A teaching philosophystatement can be critical to illuminating thiscomplex interaction.
The purposes of a teaching philosophy statementA review of the literature demonstrates that ateaching philosophy statement has been assignedmany purposes:
• clarifying what good teaching is; providing arationale for teaching;
• guiding teaching behaviours; organizing theevaluation of teaching;
• promoting personal and professionaldevelopment;
• encouraging the dissemination of effectiveteaching.
Together, these components support theimportance of a teaching philosophy statementand contribute to the development of acomprehensive model.
Clarifying ‘good teaching’
A teaching philosophy statement provides aconceptualization of a teacher’s approach toteaching by laying the foundation for articulatingand clarifying teaching and learning beliefs,student learning goals, and personal development(Brookfield, 1990; Day et al. 1996; Goodyear &Allchin, 1998; Kreber, 2001; McKeachie, 1999;McLoughlin, 2000; Murray, 1995). Articulating aconceptualization of how teaching and learningprocesses occur and how they contribute to oneanother is fundamental to the teaching philosophy(Chism, 1998). This function of the teachingphilosophy statement involves a goodunderstanding of current teaching and learningtheories and can include values important to ateacher’s beliefs about education (Atkinson, 2000).Next, defining teaching excellence takes intoaccount student learning goals such as ‘contentgoals, process goals, and career and life-long goals’(Chism, 1998, p. 2). Finally, this perspectivefrequently describes both teaching intentions andpersonal development goals.
Providing the rationale for teachingand guiding teaching behaviours
The teaching philosophy statement can alsoprovide the rationale for the writer’s teachingbehaviour (Brookfield, 1990; Goodyear & Allchin,1998; Kreber, 2001). As a broad philosophicalstatement of teaching practice, it translates theconceptualization of teaching into action byproviding a set of principles that justifies how oneteaches (Chism, 1998). For instance, this caninclude
how teachers conduct classes, mentor students,develop instructional resources, or gradeperformances . . . instructional strategies used . . .display creativity, enthusiasm, and wisdom . . . whatthey want a student to experience in their classroom,the labs they oversee, the independent projects theysupervise . . . their energy level, the qualities they try toexhibit as a model and a coach, the climate they try toestablish in the setting in which they teach (Chism,1998 p. 2).
Part of a teacher’s political survival strategy is alsofound in the security of a teaching philosophystatement, in that it explains the relation betweenteaching and other academic purposes (Goodyear& Allchin, 1998). According to Brookfield (1990),a teaching philosophy statement provides the
TEACHING PHILOSOPHIES RECONSIDERED 85
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 85D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
stability and direction during the storms ofambiguity most teachers face in their teachingcareers. Without a clear sense of purpose, theteacher is often left to the direction of others as tohis or her roles, aims, and functions within theinstitution. A well-developed and carefullyconceived teaching philosophy statement willstrengthen the teacher’s ability to confidentlyexpress his or her opposition to inappropriate orunethical institutional decisions and/or directives.
Organizing the evaluation of teaching
A teaching philosophy statement becomes the‘foundation by which to organize evaluation’(Goodyear & Allchin, 1998, p. 103) by giving theteacher an opportunity to articulate aconceptualization of teaching for administrativedecision-making (Murray, 1995). For the teacher,this becomes significant in that there are manysituations in which teaching is evaluated inacademic careers: applying for facultyappointments, promotion and tenure procedures,nominations for teaching awards, or otherapplication processes for innovative teachinggrants (Chism, 1998). As an important componentof a teaching portfolio or dossier (ILT, 2002;Lyons, 1998; Murray, 1995; O’Neil & Wright, 1997;SEDA, 2002; Seldin, 1998), the statement ofteaching philosophy should emphasize ‘theproducts of good teaching’ and highlight the ‘solidevidence about the quality of teachingeffectiveness’ (Millis, 1991, p. 221). The teachingphilosophy statement becomes the thesis for theteaching portfolio or dossier, in that it provides theconceptual framework for the teaching evidencerevealed through reflective explanations of samplesof effective teaching (Shore et al., 1991). Providedwith the teacher’s statement of teachingphilosophy, evaluators (e.g., academic managers)are better able to focus on the specific teachingqualities viewed as important by the particularteacher. In other words, it gives the evaluators acontext in which to assess the teacher’s teachingachievements. As a result, the degree of theteacher’s accomplishment of his or her own goalscan be more meaningfully assessed.
The responsibility of supporting and rewardingthe teaching efforts of academic faculty belongs, inpart, to academic managers (Seldin, 1993), who inturn can have a direct impact on the valuing of theteaching role at a particular university campus(Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Goodyear & Allchin,1998). Moreover, having access to teaching
philosophy statements provides academicmanagers with the current teaching trends amongacademic faculty (Seldin, 1993). Thus, a clearteaching philosophy statement defines theparameters of effective teaching, thereby guidingacademic managers in making decisions of hiring,promotion and tenure, and increasing theirawareness of current teaching trends.
Promoting personal and professionaldevelopment
A teaching philosophy also promotes personal andprofessional growth, development, and renewal(Baker & Mezel, 1988). In essence, it is a livingdocument that changes and is refined over time. As part of the teaching portfolio or dossier, it ‘actsas a stimulant to self-improvement’ (Seldin &Annis, 1990, p. 201). Personal and professionaldevelopment includes going beyond teachingtechniques by becoming more aware of and in tunewith one’s inner teacher and by discovering one’strue identity and integrity in the teaching role(Palmer, 1998). It promotes the ‘reflectivepractitioner’ (Schön, 1987) and may engage theteacher in the scholarship of teaching byencouraging the teacher to discover, integrate,apply, and reflect on the impact that teaching ishaving on students (Boyer, 1990). For instance, itincludes reflecting on ‘how one has grown inteaching over the years, what challenges exist atpresent, and what long-term goals are projected . . .how one’s concepts and actions have changed overtime’, and ‘a vision of the teacher one wants tobecome’ (Chism, 1998, p. 2). Part of this dynamicand reflective process requires the teacher torecord in the teaching philosophy statement whathe or she has discovered, learned, and created(Botstein, 1990). This, in turn, leads to a reneweddedication to and a stronger ownership of the goalsand values that the teacher holds and a morepositive attitude toward teaching (Chism, 1998;Millis, 1991).
Dissemination of teaching
The teaching philosophy statement alsoencourages the dissemination of effective teachingto students, colleagues and institutions (Goodyear& Allchin, 1998). Students exposed to the teachingphilosophy statement are more likely tounderstand the teacher’s priorities and rationale,the intended impact on student learning, and thus
86 IJAD 7:1
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 86D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
feel a sense of control over their learning in theclassroom environment. Points of exposure to theteaching philosophy statement include theteacher’s introduction to the course, the coursesyllabus and explanation of assignments, and theapproaches to teaching and learning. The student-teacher relationships also benefit from thisinteraction (Zubizarreta, 1995), which is thoughtto increase student retention (Braskamp & Ory,1994). Moreover, this interaction is thought toprovide an ‘important element of credibilitystudents seek in their teachers’ (Brookfield, 1990,p. 19). In other words, it helps a teacher’s ‘studentsfeel that they are under the influence of someonewho is moved by well-thought-out convictions andcommitments’ (Brookfield, 1990, p. 195).
When provided with the opportunity to shareformally with colleagues, the teaching philosophystatement has the potential of promotingprofessional dialogue, growth, and development(Goodyear & Allchin, 1998; Lyons, 1998). Asteaching philosophy statements are exchanged,scholarly dialogues on teaching may beencouraged. With campus-wide discussions, theexpectations of effective teaching and innovativeteaching are enhanced, and the valuation and roleof teaching on campuses may be affected. This inturn provides the foundation that ‘contributes todeveloping a productive culture of teaching’(Goodyear & Allchin, 1998, p. 104). Professionally,opportunities to develop a collective identity withother academic faculty even in diverse contexts,provide a common context for the pursuit of ashared purpose of effective teaching. This commonpurpose is particularly effective if the statedinstitutional goals include effective teaching.Academic faculty members who are aligned withthe mission statement of the university are morelikely to receive support for their teaching. ‘It isthis definition of relationship to the communitythat will support their work and help them surviveand flourish in the university’ (Goodyear &Allchin, 1998, p. 110).
As a narrative description of one’sconceptualization of teaching, the teachingphilosophy statement takes on many purposes. Indoing so, it has both personal and communityutility, enhancing the scholarship and professionaldevelopment of the teacher as well as the culture ofteaching through engagement of students,colleagues and academic managers. Thus,constructing a ‘personal portrait’ of one’sperception of teaching (Goodyear & Allchin,1998), becomes a potentially powerful process.
In addition to its potential to optimize success inhiring, tenure, promotion and teachingcompetitions, a well-designed teaching philosophystatement also provides opportunities to engage in‘the scholarship of teaching’ (Hutchings &Shulman, 1999; Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin, &Prosser, 2000). Increasingly, the scholarship ofteaching is defined as a systematic inquiry aboutteaching that is guided by clear goals, an explicitdesign, assessment of outcomes, and reflectiveanalysis, and that is shared with peers in ways thatcan contribute to the development of teaching(Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Trigwell et al.,2000). These characteristics are at the heart of the proposed framework for developing andevaluating teaching philosophy statements. Thisframework advocates a critical assessment of thecongruence of teaching beliefs, practices and goals,and of how teaching develops over time, inresponse to this assessment. Furthermore, theteaching philosophy statement is articulated in aformat that can be peer reviewed and shared withcolleagues. As such, the teaching philosophystatement serves as a powerful guide in fourimportant domains of the life of a teacher-scholar:the personal, the public, the professional, and thepedagogical.
Writing guidelines for a teachingphilosophy paperRequiring a teaching philosophy statement ofgraduate students and faculty academics is onething, but explaining how to implement aconstruct such as a teaching philosophy statementis quite another. Given that there are few generalprescriptions for its construction, developing ateaching philosophy statement is perceived as achallenging task. The main reason is that theevaluation standards for teaching philosophystatements are so elusive. In a workshop on thetopic of teaching philosophy statements during theSociety for Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation conference in 2001, approximately 35faculty academic members, academic managersand faculty developers indicated a generalfrustration with the lack of precedent and guidancein knowing how to approach their respective tasksof constructing and evaluating teaching philosophystatements (Schönwetter, Taylor, Sokal, & Friesen,2001).
It is ironic that that many faculty academics havesuccessfully worked through a philosophical
TEACHING PHILOSOPHIES RECONSIDERED 87
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 87D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
defence of their research, yet experience difficultyin producing a statement that bears evidence oftheir teaching practices. Is it possible to develop a process or protocol that would guide writersthrough a stepwise reflective process of expressing their teaching philosophy? Theliterature provides ample guidance to assist facultyacademics in gathering information about theirteaching and interpreting its meaning, and insynthesizing and expressing this interpretation in ateaching philosophy statement (Figure 1). Asystematic analysis of the literature on teaching philosophies also offers answers to
commonly asked questions about teachingphilosophy statements.
How much effort does it require?
Developing a teaching philosophy statement takestime and effort. For most it is a life-long process. Asa fluid and dynamic process, evolving over timeand requiring continuous reflection, the teachingphilosophy statement must be revisited throughoutone’s career (Chism, 1998).
88 IJAD 7:1
Figure 1 Evolution of a Teaching Philosophy Statement
Fundamental Questions (e.g. Goodyear & Allchin, 1998)
Gathering and Reflectionin a context of collegiality and
collaboration
Assimilation andExpression
Reflection, Analysisand Evaluation
Use andApplication
– What is the role of my teaching philosophy?– What is my motivation in teaching?– Under what opportunities and constraints do I
learn and do others learn?– What outcomes do I expect of my teaching?– What student–teacher relationship do I strive for?– How do I measure successful teaching?– What habits, attitudes, methods mark my
successful teaching achievements?– What values do I wish to impart to students?– What code of ethics guides me?– What themes pervade my teaching?– Under what practical opportunities and constraints
do I carry out my role?
Teaching philosophystatement, mindful of style,length, language
Refer to Table 1 foran evaluation rubric
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 88D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
Should a teaching philosophy statement be a private or a sharedenterprise?
Several authors (Edgerton, Hutchings, & Quinlan,1991; Seldin, 1990; Watkins, 1990) recommenddeveloping a teaching philosophy statementthrough a consultation process with a colleague, aprofessional development officer or even inconsultation with the department chairperson. Incontrast, Richlin (1995) recommends that facultyacademics work on course portfolio or dossiersprivately in order to minimize professional risk,and that the teaching philosophy statement bewritten last, not first. These differences reflect thediversity in academic communities and suggest thata range of approaches can be successful,depending on individual preferences and on localdiscipline or institutional cultures.
Should a teaching philosophy statement follow a particular format?
Various sources have suggested different forms ofexpression for teaching philosophy statements.These include a value system, a policy statement, alist of objectives and how they are achieved, anessay, or an art form (Atkinson, 2000; Goodyear &Allchin, 1998; Lyons, 1998; O’Neil & Wright, 1997;Rodriguez-Farrar, 1997; Seldin, 1993; Weber, 1997;Zubizarreta, 1995). Ideally, having a standardformat would provide consistency for evaluationand promotion/tenure decisions. However, suchstandardization would not accommodate diversedisciplinary cultures and would come at theexpense of creativity. Conceptual models forgenerating a teaching philosophy statement, suchas the one in Figure 2, offer the utility of having astandard framework for teaching philosophystatement development that allows for the
TEACHING PHILOSOPHIES RECONSIDERED 89
Definitions of Teaching: beliefs about teaching, themeaning of teaching in my context, personal view of post-secondary teaching
Definitions of Learning: beliefs about learning,understandings of how students learn, discussion of learning parameters (styles, diversity, difficulties)
View of the Learner and Student Development
Student–Teacher Relationship: goals and expectations, personal skills and strengths
Teaching Methods: personal view of post-secondaryteaching, connection between content andmethodology, personal skills and strengths
Evaluation/Impact on Learner: evaluating the outcomes of effective teaching
Components of a TPS
Philosophical/theoreticalorientation
Manifestation of belief;evidence of past growth
and development; presentactions
Planned future growthand development
Belief (normative): Practice: Goals:
Dimensions of Each Component
Evaluate TPS forcongruence along each
column
Evlauate TPS forcongruence across each row
Critical incidentor metaphor
Awareness of Context
Critical incidentor metaphorAwareness of Context
Figure 2 Model for developing a Teaching Philosophy Statement
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 89D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
persuasive expression of different personal andcultural views, while insuring consistent categoriesof information across statements. As such, themodel in Figure 2 is offered as a framework forarticulating the teaching philosophy statement thatreflects the influence of the research literature aswell as the views of the workshop participants.
Within this general framework, there are somemore specific format guidelines. The literaturerecommends that each teaching philosophystatement should be maintained in two formats:one for personal reflection and growth, and theother to be provided to students and academicmanagers for evaluation (Boyer, 1990; Chism,1998). There are also suggestions on therecommended length of the document. Chism(1998) and Kreber (2001) suggest that teachingphilosophy statements be relatively short, with alength of one to two pages. As a part of a teachingportfolio or dossier, the writer may feel that he orshe can clearly represent his or her philosophywithin this length constraint given the support ofother portfolio or dossier content. Althoughteaching portfolio or dossiers are increasinglyfinding a place within hiring, promotion, andtenure processes, the authors have observed adisconcerting trend. Traditionally, teachingportfolio or dossiers contain a wide range ofvarious types of information regarding one’spersonal teaching career, including courseoutlines, student evaluations, special honours andrecognition, as well as a brief statement of teachingphilosophy. However, in the hiring process inparticular, there is a growing trend to request thesubmission of teaching philosophy statements asstand-alone indicators of past teachingachievement, current competence, and futurepotential. While this use was not originallyintended and may no longer be preventable, thepotential for misuse of teaching philosophystatements may be reduced by promotingwidespread understanding and consensus on clearand comprehensive definitions and guidelines fordeveloping and evaluating teaching philosophystatements. In light of the current expectation thatthe teaching philosophy statement may be the onlyrepresentation of the applicant’s teaching, thesuggestion of one to two pages of text might beinadequate.
What kinds of language are appropriate for a teaching philosophystatement?
Those experienced in evaluating teachingphilosophies ‘favor language and concepts that canbe broadly appreciated’ and recommend avoidingtechnical terms (Chism, 1998, p. 1). In most cases,‘a straightforward, well-organized . . . narrative, firstperson approach is preferred’ (Chism, 1998, p. 1).While technical terms should be avoided, a writershould be aware of the language and terminologythat is meaningful within a particular discipline.
With a general framework, such as the one inFigure 1, and these more specific guidelines fromthe literature on teaching philosophy statements, itis possible to develop a process or protocol thatwould guide writers through a stepwise reflectiveprocess of expressing their teaching philosophy.Furthermore, this approach accommodatespersonal preferences and different discipline andinstitutional cultures.
Evaluation guidelines
A review of the literature illuminates the disparitybetween the copious suggestions for developingteaching philosophy statements and the paucity ofcriteria by which to evaluate them. Those in aposition to evaluate the teaching philosophystatements of others through processes such ashiring, tenure, promotion, honours andrecognition, or simply as peer feedback on works-in-progress are faced with a unique challenge. Theyneed to be cognizant of separating their evaluationof the specific views represented in the teachingphilosophy statements of others from theirevaluation of the quality of the teaching philosophystatement. Evaluation of the teaching philosophymay be difficult if the evaluator’s personal teachingphilosophy varies significantly from the onereflected in the writer’s teaching philosophystatement. Evaluation of the teaching philosophyreflected in the writer’s teaching philosophystatement is justified when the focus is to assess theextent to which it is grounded in teaching andlearning theory and demonstrates fluency withtheory. In some situations, congruence with aprogramme, departmental or institutional visionfor teaching and learning may also be considered.However, negative evaluation of the teachingphilosophy based simply on personal disagreement
90 IJAD 7:1
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 90D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
or difference of worldview and teachingorientation is unjustified.
Table 1 presents a rubric based on valid andcredible evaluation criteria for teaching philosophystatements that transcend specific paradigms,orientations or worldviews reflected in the contentof a teaching philosophy statement. Grounded inthe literature on teaching philosophy statementdevelopment, reflecting some of the categories ofdescription of approaches to scholarship ofteaching (Trigwell et al., 2000), and validatedthrough the authors’ work with graduate students,faculty academics, academic managers and facultydevelopment professionals from post-secondaryinstitutions across Canada, the criteria included inTable 1 were identified as critical criteria for theevaluation of each component of the teachingphilosophy statement. This rubric has beendeveloped to rectify our criticism of the lack ofevaluation models as well as to increase thepractical utility of our proposed model fordeveloping teaching portfolio or dossierstatements. Furthermore, in providing anevaluation rubric to academic managers, facultyacademics, faculty and academic developers andpotential faculty, the assessment criteria becomeexplicit and transparent, fostering greaterunderstanding and cohesiveness in the process aswell as maximizing perceptions of fairness.
The proposed rubric allows academic managersto evaluate the quality of the teacher philosophystatement with regard to its level of development. Awell-developed teaching philosophy statement willdemonstrate not only knowledge andcomprehension of teaching and evaluationstrategies, but will also demonstrate analysis,synthesis and evaluation of the strategies within thecontext of the academic faculty member’s ownbeliefs. As such, the teaching philosophy statementwill demonstrate critical thinking as proposed byBloom (1956) rather than simply listing techniqueswith no critical reflection. As an academic facultymember’s knowledge and understanding of thedynamics of teaching and learning increase andchange, so too will the teaching philosophystatement change, constantly entertainingopportunities for improvement. As such, it is anevolving statement (Seldin & Annis, 1990),‘reflecting on the choices that result in exemplaryteaching’ (Millis, 1991, p. 271). The proposedrubric therefore centres on the cohesion andintegration of the writer’s knowledge, beliefs andpractices and provides the academic manager withcriteria by which to evaluate the level of critical
reflection (Bloom, 1956) evident in the teachingphilosophy statement.
Model for constructing a teachingphilosophy statementThis synergy among self, discipline andinstitutional context combined with the researchliterature reviewed above, guided the developmentof a model for constructing a teaching philosophystatement (Figure 2). An earlier version of themodel was ‘workshopped’ with graduate students,faculty academics, academic managers, and facultydevelopment professionals from post-secondaryinstitutions across Canada. These discussionscontributed to refining the model for developingteaching philosophy statements outlined in Figure2, and to the rubric for evaluating teachingphilosophy statements outlined in Table 1. Themodel and the evaluation rubric remain works-in-progress and are set forth for further reflection,analysis and modification. They are not presentedas exhaustive or conclusive criteria for developing ateaching philosophy statement. However, in mostcases, they parallel the six dimensions found in arecent study on faculty academics’ teachingphilosophies (Scott, Chovanec, & Young, 1994):
• the purpose of teaching and learning; the roleof the teacher;
• the role of the student; the methods used;• evaluation and assessment of teaching and
learning; • contextual factors that influence decision
making.
Scott and her colleagues (1994) interviewed 14 professors about their teaching philosophies.While their study demonstrated wide variety in theteaching philosophies stated by the professors, italso demonstrated great similarity in thecomponents addressed across them. For example,while some professors viewed themselves as expertsin the classroom and others viewed themselves asco-learners in the classroom, both groups felt that astatement regarding the relationship between thestudent and the teacher in the learningenvironment was necessary to their teachingphilosophies. As seen in Figure 2, the currentmodel features the following six components andtwo framing devices.
TEACHING PHILOSOPHIES RECONSIDERED 91
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 91D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
Tab
le 1
Rub
ric
for
eval
uati
ng
Tea
chin
g Ph
iloso
phy
Stat
emen
ts
Co
mpo
nent
sR
atin
gs
Defi
nitio
ns o
f tea
chin
g Su
peri
or: T
he w
rite
r cl
earl
y an
d pe
rson
ally
defi
nes
and
disc
usse
s th
e te
rms
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
and
thei
r re
latio
nshi
p, w
hile
gro
undi
ng
and
lear
ning
the
disc
ussi
on w
ithin
an
exte
nsiv
e kn
owle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
. Ext
ensi
ve a
nd a
ppro
pria
te e
xam
ples
, and
refl
ectio
n on
exp
erie
nces
with
othe
rs a
re d
iscu
ssed
.
Ave
rage
: The
wri
ter
defin
es a
nd d
iscu
sses
the
ter
ms
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
and
thei
r re
latio
nshi
p, w
hile
gro
undi
ng t
he d
iscu
ssio
n w
ithin
so
me
know
ledg
e of
the
lite
ratu
re. S
ome
appr
opri
ate
exam
ples
and
refl
ectio
n on
exp
erie
nces
with
oth
ers
are
disc
usse
d.
Poor
: The
wri
ter
neith
er d
efine
s no
r di
scus
ses
the
term
s te
achi
ngan
d le
arni
ngan
d th
eir
rela
tions
hip,
and
/or
does
not
gro
und
the
disc
ussi
on w
ithin
kno
wle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
. The
exa
mpl
es a
nd r
eflec
tion
on e
xper
ienc
es w
ith o
ther
s ar
e in
appr
opri
ate
or m
issi
ng.
Vie
w o
f the
lear
ner
Supe
rior
: The
wri
ter
clea
rly
artic
ulat
es h
is o
r he
r vi
ew o
f the
lear
ner
with
in t
he c
lass
room
or
othe
r le
arni
ng e
nvir
onm
ent,
and
grou
nds
this
vie
w w
ithin
an
exte
nsiv
e kn
owle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
. The
wri
ter
dem
onst
rate
s su
peri
or u
nder
stan
ding
of t
he le
arne
rs’
char
acte
rist
ics
and
thei
r in
fluen
ce o
n hi
s or
her
suc
cess
in t
he le
arni
ng e
nvir
onm
ent.
Ave
rage
: The
wri
ter
artic
ulat
es h
is o
r he
r vi
ew o
f the
lear
ner
with
in t
he c
lass
room
or
othe
r le
arni
ng e
nvir
onm
ent,
and
grou
nds
this
vi
ew w
ithin
som
e kn
owle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
. The
wri
ter
dem
onst
rate
s so
me
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
lear
ners
’ cha
ract
eris
tics
and
thei
r in
fluen
ce o
n hi
s or
her
suc
cess
in t
he le
arni
ng e
nvir
onm
ent.
Poor
: The
wri
ter
fails
to
artic
ulat
e hi
s or
her
vie
w o
f the
lear
ner
with
in t
he c
lass
room
or
othe
r le
arni
ng e
nvir
onm
ent,
and/
or g
roun
ds
this
vie
w w
ithin
litt
le o
r no
kno
wle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
. The
wri
ter
dem
onst
rate
s lit
tle u
nder
stan
ding
of t
he le
arne
rs’ c
hara
cter
istic
s an
d th
eir
influ
ence
on
his
or h
er s
ucce
ss in
the
lear
ning
env
iron
men
t.
Goa
ls a
nd e
xpec
tatio
ns
Supe
rior
: The
dis
cuss
ion
of t
his
rela
tions
hip
is c
ongr
uent
with
the
wri
ter’
s de
finiti
ons
of t
each
ing
and
lear
ning
and
with
his
or
her
view
of
the
stu
dent
–tea
cher
of
the
lear
ner.
Gro
unde
d in
an
exte
nsiv
e kn
owle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
, exa
mpl
es a
nd r
eflec
tions
str
ongl
y ill
ustr
ate
both
the
nat
ure
of
rela
tions
hip
the
stud
ent–
teac
her
inte
ract
ions
as
wel
l as
the
iden
tified
cri
tical
ele
men
ts o
f the
rel
atio
nshi
p.
Ave
rage
: The
dis
cuss
ion
of t
his
rela
tions
hip
show
s so
me
cong
ruen
ce w
ith t
he w
rite
r’s
defin
ition
s of
tea
chin
g an
d le
arni
ng a
nd w
ith h
is
or h
er v
iew
of t
he le
arne
r. G
roun
ded
in s
ome
know
ledg
e of
the
lite
ratu
re, e
xam
ples
and
refl
ectio
ns il
lust
rate
eith
er o
r bo
th t
he n
atur
eof
the
stu
dent
–tea
cher
inte
ract
ions
and
the
iden
tified
cri
tical
ele
men
ts o
f the
rel
atio
nshi
p.
Poor
: The
dis
cuss
ion
of t
his
rela
tions
hip
show
s lit
tle c
ongr
uenc
e w
ith t
he w
rite
r’s
defin
ition
s of
tea
chin
g an
d le
arni
ng a
nd w
ith h
is o
r he
r vi
ew o
f the
lear
ner.
Gro
unde
d in
litt
le o
r no
kno
wle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
, exa
mpl
es a
nd r
eflec
tions
illu
stra
te n
eith
er t
he n
atur
e of
th
e st
uden
t/te
ache
r in
tera
ctio
ns n
or t
he c
ritic
al e
lem
ents
of t
he r
elat
ions
hip.
Tea
chin
g m
etho
ds a
nd
Supe
rior
: Gro
unde
d w
ithin
an
exte
nsiv
e kn
owle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
as
wel
l as
disc
iplin
e-sp
ecifi
c ex
pect
atio
ns a
nd le
arne
r ev
alua
tion
char
acte
rist
ics,
the
wri
ter
clea
rly
dem
onst
rate
s ev
iden
ce o
f his
or
her
supe
rior
abi
lity
to u
se a
wid
e va
riet
y of
tea
chin
g an
d as
sess
men
t st
rate
gies
. Sel
ectio
n of
spe
cific
str
ateg
ies
are
cong
ruen
t w
ith t
he w
rite
r’s
defin
ition
s of
tea
chin
g an
d le
arni
ng, v
iew
s of
the
lear
ner
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
stu
dent
–tea
cher
rel
atio
nshi
p.
cont
inue
d..
.
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 92D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
Tab
le 1
(co
ntin
ued)
Rub
ric
for
eval
uatin
g T
each
ing
Philo
soph
y St
atem
ents
Co
mpo
nent
sR
atin
gs
Ave
rage
: Gro
unde
d w
ithin
som
e kn
owle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
as
wel
l as
disc
iplin
e-sp
ecifi
c ex
pect
atio
ns a
nd le
arne
r ch
arac
teri
stic
s, t
he
wri
ter
dem
onst
rate
s ev
iden
ce o
f his
or
her
abili
ty t
o us
e a
vari
ety
of t
each
ing
and
asse
ssm
ent
stra
tegi
es. S
elec
tion
of s
peci
fic s
trat
egie
s ar
e so
mew
hat
cong
ruen
t w
ith t
he w
rite
r’s
defin
ition
s of
tea
chin
g an
d le
arni
ng, v
iew
s of
the
lear
ner
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
st
uden
t–te
ache
r re
latio
nshi
p.
Poor
: Gro
unde
d w
ithin
litt
le o
r no
kno
wle
dge
of t
he li
tera
ture
and
with
litt
le e
vide
nce
of c
onsi
dera
tion
for
disc
iplin
e-sp
ecifi
c ex
pect
atio
ns a
nd le
arne
r ch
arac
teri
stic
s, t
he w
rite
r fa
ils t
o de
mon
stra
te e
vide
nce
of h
is o
r he
r ab
ility
to
use
a va
riet
y of
tea
chin
g an
d as
sess
men
t st
rate
gies
. Sel
ectio
n of
spe
cific
str
ateg
ies
are
inco
ngru
ent
with
the
wri
ter’
s de
finiti
ons
of t
each
ing
and
lear
ning
, vie
ws
of t
hele
arne
r an
d un
ders
tand
ing
of t
he s
tude
nt/t
each
er r
elat
ions
hip.
Pers
onal
con
text
of
Supe
rior
: Thr
ough
use
of d
isci
plin
e ap
prop
riat
e la
ngua
ge, t
he w
rite
r cl
earl
y ill
ustr
ates
bot
h an
ext
ensi
ve k
now
ledg
e of
a s
peci
fic
teac
hing
inst
itutio
nal c
limat
e an
d ar
ticul
ates
how
his
or
her
teac
hing
fits
into
tha
t se
ttin
g. T
hese
con
side
ratio
ns a
re e
vide
nt in
all
othe
r co
mpo
nent
s of
the
TPS
. The
sta
tem
ent
refle
cts
an a
ppro
pria
te b
alan
ce o
f per
sona
l vs.
inst
itutio
nal g
oals
and
sty
le.
Ave
rage
: Thr
ough
use
of s
ome
disc
iplin
e ap
prop
riat
e la
ngua
ge, t
he w
rite
r ill
ustr
ates
bot
h hi
s or
her
kno
wle
dge
of g
ener
al in
stitu
tiona
l cl
imat
es a
nd a
rtic
ulat
es h
ow h
is o
r he
r te
achi
ng fi
ts in
to t
hese
typ
es o
f set
tings
. The
se c
onsi
dera
tions
are
evi
dent
in s
ome
of t
he
com
pone
nts
of t
he T
PS. T
he s
tate
men
t re
flect
s so
me
bala
nce
of p
erso
nal v
s. in
stitu
tiona
l goa
ls a
nd s
tyle
.
Poor
: With
litt
le u
se o
f dis
cipl
ine
appr
opri
ate
lang
uage
, the
wri
ter
illus
trat
es p
oor
know
ledg
e of
gen
eral
or
spec
ific
inst
itutio
nal
clim
ates
and
fails
to
artic
ulat
es h
ow h
is o
r he
r te
achi
ng fi
ts in
to t
hese
typ
es o
f set
tings
. Con
side
ratio
n of
the
con
text
of t
each
ing
is n
ot
evid
ent
in m
any
com
pone
nts
of t
he T
PS. T
he s
tate
men
t do
es n
ot a
ddre
ss a
ny b
alan
ce o
f per
sona
l vs.
inst
itutio
nal g
oals
and
sty
le.
Org
aniz
atio
nSu
peri
or: T
he w
rite
r ha
s fr
amed
the
TPS
with
in a
hig
hly
illus
trat
ive
met
apho
r or
cri
tical
inci
dent
tha
t de
mon
stra
tes
man
y lin
ks t
o th
e va
riou
s co
mpo
nent
s of
the
tea
chin
g ph
iloso
phy
stat
emen
t. Fo
r ea
ch c
ompo
nent
of t
he m
odel
, the
wri
ter
pres
ents
a c
ongr
uent
pr
ogre
ssio
n th
roug
hout
bel
iefs
, pra
ctic
e, a
nd g
oal d
imen
sion
s. In
add
ition
, the
wri
ter
prov
ides
con
grue
nce
betw
een
com
pone
nts
of t
hem
odel
. Cri
tical
and
refl
ectiv
e th
inki
ng a
s w
ell a
s sp
ecifi
c ex
ampl
es a
re in
evi
denc
e in
the
wri
ter’
s ar
ticul
atio
n of
his
or
her
belie
fs,
actio
ns a
nd g
oals
.
Ave
rage
: The
wri
ter
has
fram
ed t
he T
PS w
ithin
a m
etap
hor
or c
ritic
al in
cide
nt t
hat
dem
onst
rate
s so
me
links
to
the
vari
ous
com
pone
nts
of t
he t
each
ing
philo
soph
y st
atem
ent.
For
som
e co
mpo
nent
s of
the
mod
el, t
he w
rite
r pr
esen
ts a
con
grue
nt p
rogr
essi
on
thro
ugho
ut b
elie
fs, p
ract
ice,
and
goa
l dim
ensi
ons.
In a
dditi
on, t
he w
rite
r pr
ovid
es c
ongr
uenc
e be
twee
n so
me
com
pone
nts
of t
he
mod
el. R
eflec
tion
as w
ell a
s so
me
exam
ples
are
in e
vide
nce
in t
he w
rite
r’s
artic
ulat
ion
of h
is o
r he
r be
liefs
, act
ions
and
goa
ls.
Poor
: The
wri
ter
has
not
fram
ed t
he T
PS w
ithin
a m
etap
hor
or c
ritic
al in
cide
nt t
hat
dem
onst
rate
s lin
ks t
o th
e va
riou
s co
mpo
nent
s.
For
man
y co
mpo
nent
s of
the
mod
el, t
he w
rite
r fa
ils t
o pr
esen
t a
cong
ruen
t pr
ogre
ssio
n th
roug
hout
bel
iefs
, act
ions
and
goa
l di
men
sion
s. In
add
ition
, the
wri
ter
fails
to
prov
ide
cong
ruen
ce b
etw
een
som
e co
mpo
nent
s of
the
mod
el. R
eflec
tion
as w
ell a
s ex
ampl
es
are
lack
ing
in t
he w
rite
r’s
artic
ulat
ion
of h
is o
r he
r be
liefs
, act
ions
and
goa
ls.
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 93D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
Components of the teaching philosophy statement
1. Definition of teaching and 2. Definition of learning
Grounded in the relevant literature (Atkinson,2000), the writer should engage in a discussionabout the relationship between teaching andlearning (Ebel, 1983) by defining teaching andlearning, providing examples, and drawing onpersonal experience and views as well as those ofcolleagues, and/or mentors. The discussion mayencompass what teaching and learning means tothe writer (Scott et al., 1994), and where priority, ifany, is placed.
3. View of the learner
Extending the discussion on teaching andlearning, the writer should engage in a discussionof his/her personal beliefs about the learner (Scottet al., 1994) and the learner’s characteristics (for adiscussion of relevant characteristics see Bruning,1994; McKeachie et al., 1986; Svinicki, 1991), andthe place and role of the learner in the learningenvironment.
4. Goals and expectations of thestudent–teacher relationship
The definitions and discussion of teaching andlearning should articulate the writer’s view of theroles of learners in the classroom, should recognizethe characteristics and realities of the students inthe particular class or programme, and shouldprovide evidence with specific examples andreflection. The discussion may encompass thefactors that the writer identifies as critical elementsand/or goals of the relationship (Chism, 1998;Scott et al., 1994). Examples may includecollegiality, formality, trust and communication.
5. Discussion of teaching methods and 6. Discussion of evaluation
The writer should discuss various ways of teachingin the content area (Feldman & Paulsen, 1998;McKeachie, 1999; Scott et al., 1994), providingevidence of consideration of the diversity amongstudents. The statement should provide evidenceof interest in whether learners are learning and ina variety of ways of assessing student learning
(Gardner, 1983; Scott et al., 1994). The writershould be prepared to discuss her/his personalapproaches in an articulate manner.
Framing devices of the teachingphilosophy statement
1. Clear and realistic articulation of thepersonal context in which one teaches
The writer should engage in a discussion of howshe/he and her/his teaching fits into institutional-, faculty-, and programme-specificmission, goals and objectives (Brookfield, 1990).The statement should reflect terminology andlanguage easily understood within the specificteaching context (Chism, 1998). The entirety ofthe discussions and themes developed in theteaching philosophy statement should exhibitawareness of the specific teaching context of thewriter.
2. Critical incident or metaphor
Where appropriate and supported by the writer’sdiscipline, the writer can use a critical incident or ametaphor as a building block for organizing thethemes of the teaching philosophy statement, or asa summary of the themes developed through theteaching philosophy statement (Chism, 1998).1
The critical incident or metaphor should be shortand should be a starting point or summary point,rather than the focus of the teaching philosophystatement content.
In Figure 2, the ‘awareness of context’ and the‘critical incident or metaphor’, permeate the maincomponents of the teaching philosophy statement.In addition, the model is configured to encouragewriters to evaluate their statements for internalconsistency. The model directs a writer’s attentionto the critical construction and analysis of teachingphilosophy statements. Within each component,the congruence across beliefs, practice and goalsshould be evident, as indicated by the arrowsshown across columns in Figure 2.
Furthermore, beliefs, practices and goals shouldalso demonstrate congruence across components,as demonstrated by the arrows within each column.For example, within the ‘belief’ column for each ofthe six proposed components of a statement, onemight expect a definition of teaching that reflects asocial constructivist belief system. This systemwould probably be supported by a view of learners
94 IJAD 7:1
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 94D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
as active participants in their own learning, byteaching strategies such as active or cooperativelearning and by assessment that uses criterion-based methods. When used in this way, the modelprovides a ‘meta-structure’ for generatingcomprehensive and internally consistent teachingphilosophy statements.
The workshop consultations based on the modelin Figure 2 provided a number of specificrecommendations for articulating teachingphilosophy statements. In discussing the variouscritical components in relation to the beliefdimension of the teaching philosophy statement,the writer should be able to articulate theconceptual basis upon which a personalorientation is based, and articulate a focus if oneexists (examples may include subject-centred,learner-centred, teacher-centred or somecombination). The writer also should be able toarticulate what the students may expect from theteacher in a specific learning situation. In relationto the practice dimension of the teachingphilosophy statement (Brookfield, 1990; Goodyear& Allchin, 1998; Kreber, 2001), the writer shoulduse the first-person voice to provide clear evidenceof past and current practice, and the evolution ofpractice and of professional growth anddevelopment. In the form of short anecdotes, thewriter may discuss influences, new strategies, andchallenges that have been overcome (Shore et al.,1991). In relation to the goals dimension of theteaching philosophy statement, the writer mightprovide evidence of interest in confronting currentand future challenges, present clearly identifiedareas for future growth and development, orindicate a general focus or theme along whichdevelopment is planned to occur (Chism, 1998).Examples may include expanding one’s repertoireof teaching methods, integrating technology intoteaching, expanding one’s repertoire of assessmentand evaluation tools, or working toward analternate teaching–learning orientation. Thesespecific suggestions help to elaborate how themodel can be effectively utilized.
This literature clearly illustrates the complexityof the task of constructing a teaching philosophystatement. Each teaching philosophy statement willreflect not only personal beliefs about teachingand learning, but also disciplinary cultures,institutional structures and cultures, andstakeholder expectations as well. The teachingphilosophy statement needs to reflect anunderstanding of the multiple parameters andexpectations of the teaching context – both in its
opportunities and in its challenges – if it is toprovide a sustainable framework for understandingand developing teaching excellence.
ConclusionTo address a lack of clear, consistent andcomprehensive guidelines for developing teachingphilosophy statements, this paper presents a modelcharacterized by scholarship and practical utility.This model is intended to be specific enough toprovide concrete guidance, yet generic enough tobe valuable to writers in most disciplines andinstitutional contexts. Once a measure ofconsistency is achieved in the development ofteaching philosophy statements, it will beinteresting to see whether further natural evolutionresults in dramatically different forms of teachingphilosophy statements in different disciplines,where ‘teaching goals are visibly and legitimatelydifferent’ (Cross, 1990, p. 16). Furthermore, it isappropriate to continue to monitor the trend ofusing the teaching philosophy statement in hiringprocesses, and the increasing use of teachingphilosophy statements as indicators of teachingachievement, competence and potential. Withcontinuing development, additional guidelines canbe offered and existing guidelines modified, inorder to esure that writers achieve both learningand career advancement advantages from theirteaching philosophy statements and that evaluatorstake a systematic and fair approach to assessingthem.
Note1. Chism (1998) cites two excellent resources onthe exploration of metaphors to explain teachingand learning (Grasha, 1996; Scheffler, 1960).
AcknowledgementsThe research for this article was supported by aUniversity of Manitoba Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada SmallResearch Grant (329-4501-03) to the first author,and a Professional and OrganizationalDevelopment Network in Higher EducationInternational Research Grant (2001-2002) to thefirst and fourth authors, and by a Social Sciencesand Humanities Research Council of Canada
TEACHING PHILOSOPHIES RECONSIDERED 95
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 95D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
Doctoral Fellowship to the second author (752-99-2122). The authors would like to acknowledge thecontributions of the participants from theUniversity of Manitoba University TeachingServices workshop (2001), the Society for Teachingand Learning in Higher Education workshop(2001) and the Professional and OrganizationalDevelopment Network in Higher Educationworkshop (2001).
ReferencesAtkinson, M. (2000). Your teaching philosophy.
STLHE: Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,29, 9–11.
Baker, G., & Mezel, H. (1988). Empowering facultythrough institutional involvement. The Journal ofStaff, Program, and Organization Development, 6,99–105.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives.New York: David McKay.
Botstein, L. (1990). The college presidency:1970–1990. Change, 22, 34–40.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of theprofessoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundationfor the Advancement of Teaching.
Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing facultywork: Enhancing individual and institutionalperformance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (1990). The skillful teacher. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bruning, R. (1994). The college classroom from the perspective of cognitive psychology. In K. Pritchard & R. Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of college teaching. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Chism, N. V. N. (1998). Developing a philosophy ofteaching statement. Essays on Teaching Excellence:Toward the Best in the Academy, 9, 1–3.
Cross, K. P. (1990). Teaching to improve learning.Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 1, 9–22.
Day, R., Robberecht, P., & Roed, B. (1996). Teachingdossier: A guide. Edmonton, Canada: University ofAlberta.
Ebel, K. E. (1983). The aims of college teaching. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Edgerton, R. S., Hutchings, P., & Quinlan, K. (1991).The teaching portfolio: Capturing the scholarship inteaching. Washington, DC: American Associationfor Higher Education.
Feldman, K. A., & Paulsen, M. B. (Eds.). (1998).Teaching and learning in the college classroom (2ndedn). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory ofmultiple intelligences. New York: Harper and Row.
Goodyear, G. E., & Allchin, D. (1998). Statements ofteaching philosophy. In M. Kaplan (Ed.), To
improve the academy (Vol. 17, pp. 103–122).Stillwater, OK: New Forum Press and theProfessional and Organizational DevelopmentNetwork in Higher Education.
Grasha, A. (1996). Teaching with style. Pittsburgh:Alliance Publishers.
Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). Thescholarship of teaching: New elaborations, newdevelopments. Change, 31 (5), 10–15.
ILT. (2002). The Institute for Learning and Teachingin Higher Education. Available:https://www.ilt.ac.uk/ [Accessed 2/05/02].
Kreber, C. (2001). Designing teaching portfoliosbased on a formal model of the scholarship ofteaching. In D. Lieberman & C. Wehlburg (Eds.),To improve the academy (Vol. 19, pp. 285-305).Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
Lyons, N. (Ed.). (1998). With portfolio in hand:Validating the new teacher professionalism. New York:Teachers College Press.
McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies,research and theory for college and university teachers(10th edn). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y.-G., & Smith,D. A. F. (1986). Teaching and learning in theclassroom: A review of the literature. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan.
McLoughlin, C. (2000). Creating partnerships forgenerative learning and systemic change:Redefining academic roles and relationships insupport of learning. The International Journal forAcademic Development, 5, 116–128.
Millis, B. J. (Ed.). (1991). Putting the teaching portfolio incontext. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
Murray, J. P. (1995). Successful faculty development andevaluation: The complete teaching portfolio(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 8).Washington, DC: The George WashingtonUniversity, Graduate School of Education andHuman Development.
O’Neil, C., & Wright, A. (1997). Recording teachingaccomplishments: A Dalhousie guide to the TeachingDossier. Dalhousie, NS: University of Dalhousie.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring theinner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Perlman, B., Marxen, J. C., McFadden, S., & McCann,L. (1996). Applicants for a faculty position do notemphasize teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 23,103–104.
Richlin, L. (1995). A different view on developingteaching portfolios: Ensuring saftey while honoringpractice. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6,161–178.
Rodriguez-Farrar, H. B. (1997). The teaching portfolio: Ahandbook for faculty, teaching assistants and teachingfellows (2nd edn). Providence, RI: BrownUniversity, The Harriet Sheridan Center forTeaching and Learning.
96 IJAD 7:1
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 96D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013
Scheffler, I. (1960). The language of education.Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner:Toward a new design for teaching and learning in theprofessions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schönwetter, D. J., Taylor, K. L., Sokal, L., & Friesen,M. (2001). Teaching philosophies reconsidered:Balancing academic rigor with practical utility.Paper presented at the Conference of the Societyfor Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s,Newfoundland, June.
Scott, S. M., Chovanec, D. M., & Young, B. (1994).Philosophy in action in university teaching. TheCanadian Journal of Higher Education, 24, 1–25.
SEDA. (2002). Teacher accreditation scheme underpinningprinciples and values. Staff and EducationalDevelopment Association. Available:http://www.seda.demon.co.uk/taccred.html[accessed 2/05/2002].
Seldin, P. (1990). The teaching portfolio. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Seldin, P. (1993). Successful use of teaching porfolios.Bolton, MA: Anker.
Seldin, P. (1998). The teaching portfolio: A practical guideto improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions.(2nd edn). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Seldin, P., & Annis, L. F. (1990). The teachingportfolio. Journal of Staff, Program, andOrganizational Development, 8, 197–201.
Shore, B. M., Foster, S. F., Knapper, C. K., Nadeau, G.G., Neill, N., & Sim, V. W. (1991). The CAUT guideto teaching dossier: Its preparation and use. Ottawa,Canada: Canadian Association of UniversityTeachers.
Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the collegecurriculum: Academic plans in action. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Svinicki, M. (1991). Practical implications of cognitivetheories. In R. Menges & M. Svinicki (Eds.), Collegeteaching: From theory to practice. New directions forteaching and learning (Vol. 45, pp. 27–37). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Symth, W. J. (1986). A rationale of teachers’ criticalpedagogy. Victoria, Australia: Deakin UniversityPress.
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M.(2000). Scholarship of teaching: a model. HigherEducation Research and Development, 19 (2), 155–168.
Watkins, B. (1990). New technique tested to evaluatecollege teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education, May16, pp. A15–A17.
Weber, J. A. (1997). Preparing a portfolio: A personalview. In P. Seldin (Ed.), The teaching portfolio: Apractical guide to improved performance andpromotion/tenure decisions (2nd edn). Bolton, MA:Anker.
Zubizarreta, J. (1995). Using teaching portfoliostrategies to improve course instruction. In
P. Seldin (Ed.), Improving college teaching. Bolton,MA: Anker.
The AuthorsDieter Schönwetter is the Associate Director ofUniversity Teaching Services, a facultydevelopment unit at the University of Manitobaand the Coordinator of the Introduction toUniversity Program. His research focuses on theimpact of effective teaching on student learningand on evidenced-based effectiveness of Certificatein Higher Education Teaching Programs for futurefaculty.
Laura Sokal is an assistant professor in the Facultyof Education at the University of Winnipeg,Manitoba. Her research interests include thedevelopment of teachers’ beliefs and the study ofboys at risk of school failure.
Marcia Friesen is a professional engineer and agraduate student in engineering education at theUniversity of Manitoba.
Lynn Taylor is the Director of University TeachingServices at the University of Manitoba. Herresearch and academic interests include thedevelopment of teaching expertise and academicleadership.
Address: Dieter J. Schönwetter, PhD, UniversityTeaching Services, Centre for Higher EducationResearch and Development, The University ofManitoba, 220 Sinnott Building – 70 Dysart Road,Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada.Email: [email protected]
TEACHING PHILOSOPHIES RECONSIDERED 97
IJAipost 20/11/02 2:37 pm Page 97D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Sout
h Fl
orid
a] a
t 10:
50 0
7 M
ay 2
013