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.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rija20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13601440210156501

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

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


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


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


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



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


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


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 9D

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 0D

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.



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..

.


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.


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


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



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


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]



ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Sout

h Fl

orid

a] a

t 10:

50 0

7 M

ay 2

013

teaching philosophies reconsidered:a conceptual … · these parameters include institutional...

Documents