by Robert J. Eierman

In a recent Chemical and Engineering News (1), more than 40% of position advertisements for new college chemistry faculty members included a request for candidates to provide a teaching philosophy statement as part of the application file. Another 20% requested a statement of teaching plans or interests. Almost all primarily undergraduate institutions requested a teaching philosophy statement. These statements are included in the application file along with a curriculum vitae, research plans, and letters of reference. As the application files are reviewed by the search committee and other participants in the search process, the teaching philosophy statement is used as part of the evaluation of the potential of the candidate to serve as a faculty member, particularly the candidate’s potential as a teacher.

Variability in Evaluation of Teaching Potential

For evaluation of research potential, the chemistry community has come to some consensus about what should be presented and how it will be reviewed. However, the presentation and evaluation of materials to evaluate teaching potential is less mature. It has been my experience that the value of the teaching philosophy statement is not as high as it should be and that candidates and reviewers have a wide variety of expectations and understandings of what that statement should include.

This post discusses the purposes of a teaching philosophy statement and suggests what should be included. The goal is to encourage candidates and reviewers to reflect on this important part of an application file in order to make it more effective. Teaching represents a significant fraction of the workload in most academic positions. Recruitment of qualified and dedicated individuals is a critical activity for both the hiring institutions and the candidates. The teaching philosophy statement holds a key position in the hiring process and could become much more effective with some reflective dialog.

In recent decades, issues of teaching and learning have been studied systematically at a variety of levels and models of teaching and learning have developed rapidly (2). The combination of brain imaging studies, educational psycholog y, and pedagogical developments in the disciplines is changing the way people think about teaching. As a result, a variety of literature-based books on best practices in teaching chemistry have been written (3–5). In addition, many graduate programs have recognized the advantage of helping their students learn some fundamentals about teaching. The result is that candidates for faculty positions have some resources available to help them prepare to enter the world of teaching. It is hoped that this article will help focus their teaching philosophy statements and make the candidates more viable for employment.

Purposes of the Teaching Philosophy Statement

To establish what should be included in a teaching philosophy statement, it is logical to discuss what it will be used for. Its purposes to both the reviewer and the candidate are discussed.

Reviewer Expectations

Reviewers are trying to assess the teaching potential of candidates in three areas:

1. Experience in and commitment to teaching

2. Understanding of models of learning and methods of teaching and assessment

3. Examples of applying that understanding in teaching situations

Experience and commitment are evaluated by reviewing the amount and types of teaching experience, including the amount of control the candidate had in designing the instruction. Being a TA is a valuable experience, but typically the professor retains control of most aspects of the curriculum. Experience as instructor of record clearly has higher value. A candidate’s commitment can be evaluated from the record of activities in developing teaching skills and the statements of the candidate’s enthusiasm and plans for teaching.

Then reviewers will evaluate whether the candidate has thought and/or read about teaching and learning. Candidates should demonstrate knowledge of models of how students learn, how best to encourage learning , and how to assess whether learning has occurred. The candidate’s ability to structure and articulate ideas on learning and teaching is also important.

Third, can the candidate demonstrate how to apply the stated philosophy in the classroom and lab? Linking philosophy and practice of teaching is a challenging part of being an effective instructor, as is being a reflective practitioner. Effective candidates should be able to show that they are able to do both.

Candidate Opportunities

For a candidate, the philosophy statement represents an opportunity to formally articulate personal ideas about teaching. This may be the first time a candidate has ever done this—even a candidate with significant teaching experience. This statement should accurately reflect the candidate’s ideas about teaching and not be overstated. Writing it forces the candidate to organize, express, and justify ideas about teaching. It requires literature work. Candidates should reflect on their teaching for examples of where their philosophy developed and was applied. This is a difficult task for someone who is new to teaching , but it is also a task that can help focus ideas and reasons for initiating a career in which teaching plays a major role.

The Organizational Structure

A suggested organizational structure for the teaching philosophy statement appears at the end of this post. Individual statements may emphasize or omit certain sections, but the overall structure is designed to help candidates and reviewers achieve a thorough presentation and review of teaching experience and potential. There could be many effective variations on the order of the topics, but the issues mentioned should be considered for inclusion.

As with other parts of the application file, candidates should present their philosophy in a positive, but truthful manner. Ideas and beliefs should be presented clearly and are best if backed up by experience or literature references. In addition, the teaching philosophy statement should be connected to the CV, reference letters, and research interests where appropriate. If acceptable, supporting documentation (teaching materials, teaching evaluations, etc.) can be included or at least mentioned as being available upon request. Consistency in organizational structure will make preparation and evaluation of the teaching philosophy statement easier and more effective. A clear teaching philosophy statement will demonstrate that the candidate has developed good ideas about teaching and learning through reading , teaching experience, and reflection. Reviewers will be able to more effectively compare candidates’ teaching experiences and understanding. They will see how well the candidates have recognized important aspects of teaching and applied that knowledge in the laboratory or classroom. Reviewers should realize that less experienced candidates will have less developed teaching philosophies, even if they have strong potential.

1. Experience in and Commitment to Teaching

A specific statement of experience and interest in teaching is important. Although the curriculum vitae will have information on experience, this statement can flesh out the experiences to give the reviewer a clear picture of what and when the candidate has taught, and the level of organizational control the candidate had.

• Did the candidate choose the topics and select the educational objectives?

• Did the candidate design the teaching activities and select homework and other assignments?

• Did the candidate design assessment tools and do the grading ?

The answers to these questions relate a great deal about the value of the teaching experience.

In addition, the candidate should state clearly his or her level of interest in teaching. If possible this statement should be supported by activities the candidate has done in teaching and development of teaching skills. Student evaluations, awards, or other indications of reviews of past teaching may be used to support these statements.

2. Philosophy of Teaching and Learning

The philosophy statement should address at least three separate issues.

a. Learning models: a prepared, reflective teacher will have developed ideas about how students learn. These will include cognitive models that describe what happens in a learner’s brain as well as ideas about the activities that prompt learn- ing. Ideas about variations in learning styles, preconceptions, conceptual changes, and impact of factors such as motiva- tion and level of cognitive development might be part of this section.

b. Teaching models: statements on how learning can be encouraged should be included.

Consider teacher activities:

• Communication of expectations (are they explicit or are students responsible for finding them?).

• Choice of learning environments and classroom management (individual vs. group work, level of instructor support, etc.).

• Choice of content presentation and materials (lecture, discussion, reading , lab work).

• Definition of the student/teacher relationship.

Consider student activities:

• What are the student’s responsibilities?

• What does the student do in the class or lab?

• What sort of practice and feedback is the student assigned?

c. Assessment: include comments on modes of assessment of learning.

• Are formative and summative assessment differentiated and discussed?

• Are written or performance-based assessments appropriate?

• Are the standards clear and appropriate?

• Are the assessments explicitly linked to the expectations?

These statements should be consistent with the learning models described above.

3. Teaching Interests

Describe courses that you are qualified to teach and are interested in teaching . Review the courses taught at the institution where you are applying and mention existing courses that are of interest. Suggest a new course or two that you would be interested in developing that would utilize your abilities and diversify the institution’s course offerings.

4. Summary

A summary statement should tie together the thoughts expressed previously since it will help the reviewer form a final picture of your teaching philosophy. The statement should be a clear and succinct restatement of the main ideas expressed above. This statement will have the highest probability of being read.

5. References

The reference section should be as complete as possible to give reviewers an indication of the sources of information drawn upon in developing the teaching philosophy statement. It should include literature references, other sources such as TA manuals or teaching instructor notes, as well as any of your publications related to teaching.

Continuing the Discussion

This post describes the purposes and an org anizational structure of a teaching philosophy statement. A docu ment that has been written following this structure will improve communication about the teaching accomplishments and potential of an applicant for a faculty position.

It is my hope that this guide will help candidates and reviewers as they engage in the important process of determining who will teach the next generation of chemistry students. I also hope that this commentary will stimulate the chemistry community to engage in a dialog to move toward a consensus regarding what should be included in these important documents. By way of beginning the dialog , I

am putting forward two things:

• My own Teaching/Learning Philosophy Statement (see below) to provide an example of what I have described above.

• This post, which I hop will encourage you to submit your ideas about what a teaching philosophy should be and to read what others think.

===================================

Organizational Structure: The Teaching Philosophy Statement

1. Experience in and commitment to teaching

2. Philosophy of teaching and learning

a. Learning models

b. Teaching models

c. Assessment

3. Teaching interests

4. Summary

5. References

===================================

Literature Cited

1. Academic Positions Open. Chem. Eng. News 2007, 85 (4), 49–54.

2. How People Learn ; Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking , R . R ., Eds.; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000.

3. Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching; Pienta, N. J., Cooper, M. M., Greenbowe, T. J., Eds.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005.

4. Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice; Gilbert, J. K., de Jong, Onno, Justi, Rosária, Treagust, David F., Van Driel, Jan H., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, 2002.

5. Herron, J. D. The Chemistry Classroom: Formulas for Successful Teaching ; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1996.

Robert J. Eierman is a member of the Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54701; reierman@uwec.edu

=============================

Teaching/Learning Philosophy Statement

By Dr. Robert J. Eierman

I have been a chemistry professor at UW-Eau Claire for 24 years, and during that time I have taught all of our general chemistry courses, two analytical chemistry courses and two science teaching methods courses. Since the early 1990’s, my program of scholarly activity has focused exclusively on education issues. I have redesigned and evaluated college curriculum, have coordinated professional development activities for K-12 and college teachers, and worked to improve standardized assessment tools. My journey through education mainstreams and backwaters has helped me gain the following perspective and philosophy on issues of teaching and learning.

My late friend, mentor and golfing buddy, Dr. Richard DeGrood, expressed it well when he said of teaching “The longer I’m in this business, the more I realize, it’s all about the students.” In particular, I believe that it is all about student learning. I am committed to creating environments that enable all students to learn well. Students are responsible for their learning and when I teach well, I serve my students’ needs; I enable and empower them.

Robust models of how learning occurs are being developed [1] through multifaceted approaches that include educational psychology, physiological studies of brain function and increasingly sophisticated efforts in research on learning within various academic disciplines [2]. These learning models are a necessary foundation for creating effective environments for teaching and learning. Learners move through developmental levels that dictate the types and complexity of learning that are possible. Everyone has acquired, through experiences and other learning, conceptions about how the world works. Since the brain is an organ that seeks and recognizes patterns, conceptions are frequently strongly held ideas, connected to other related (or unrelated) chunks of knowledge. These conceptions must be addressed during learning because they are frequently at odds with accepted models and ideas. Learners must actively engage in processing new material, to discover and absorb it, to compare it to existing knowledge and to express ideas and hear others do the same, all in a safe and trusting environment [5]. The context of learning is important in relating it to other knowledge and it has a strong impact on the learners’ ability to recall it. Learners also have aptitudes or intelligences for various types of information that will favor certain learning situations over others. A learner who has developed a deep understanding of a topic must be able to explain, interpret and apply it, and to demonstrate multiple perspectives about it. Finally, good learners develop the ability to reflect on their own learning (metacognition), a vital step in achieving a deep understanding of a topic.

I believe that the best way to effectively utilize the models of learning is to systematically design curriculum and select instructional strategies to create a coherent approach to activities of teaching, learning, and assessment. I try to be a scholarly teacher, using published teaching and content selections methods [3, 4]. I have used a “backward design” strategy [6] to design course curricula. That includes first, deciding what a successful student will “look like” (goal setting), second, deciding how I will recognize the successful student (designing assessments), and third, deciding how I will get students there (designing teaching and learning activities). For example, my backward design of Quantitative Analysis (QA) made the teaching and learning activities more focused and appropriate [7]. I refocused the course to concentrate on three overarching themes. I expanded the assessment to include student-centered projects at the end of each unit, which challenge students to solve authentic problems using concepts and techniques they’ve developed earlier in the course. While teaching the course, I am driving with a roadmap. Evaluation of the reorganized curriculum shows that it is more coherent, helps students make connections more effectively, particularly lecture to lab, and leads to improved assessment of learning. The evaluation also shows that the reorganized curricular content has produced an improved approach to teaching one of the most difficult chunks of content in the course, experimental error and statistics.

In teaching and learning activities, I am focused on helping students actively engage with the material, often in cooperative groups. Students are routinely asked to briefly discuss the ideas in a piece of lecture or are asked to solve a problem using lecture concepts. They frequently do this in pairs or small groups using cooperative structures [8] and talk aloud strategies [9]. The cooperative group work gives students the opportunity to articulate their thinking about the concept and construct knowledge with relatively rapid feedback provided. In order to make up for lecture presentation time that is used for in-class processing, guided reading assignments are made where students are given a reading assignment and a set of questions to answer during the reading. This enables them to be prepared for the problems and discussions in class. Students who don’t keep up with the reading struggle during class, which encourages them to read. In addition, cognitive processes are explicitly discussed with students in order to help them learn about learning. Explicit reading strategies (how to read the chemistry textbook) and problem solving strategies are presented and encouraged. In addition, the cooperative structures are explained and justified based on simple learning models.

I believe that in order to recognize when deep learning has occurred, a range of assessment types should be employed [10]. I use classroom assessment techniques formatively [11] to help me and my students recognize what has been learned and what hasn’t. These assessments support homework, lab reports and quizzes in engaging and motivating students. Exams represent larger, more summative assessments. Beyond exams, I use academic prompts and performance tasks [6]. In my QA and General Chemistry courses, these assessments have taken the form of presenting students with authentic problems to solve or questions to answer, along with a set of resources to use, usually in lab. Students have flexibility and options in carrying them out, and they report on their process and the solution to the problem. Prompts and tasks enable me to assess deep understanding of concepts and processes more effectively than exams. Academic prompts and small performance tasks are excellent additions, both in terms of adding challenge and interest to the students, and in enhancing my ability to recognize students who really “get it”.

Is my chemistry teaching better than it was 24 years ago, when I first stepped in front of a class? I believe the best way to answer that question is to use research methods to investigate issues of teaching and learning in my courses [2]. A typical “scholarship of teaching and learning” study involves the creation of a focused question regarding an issue of teaching and learning in a course I’m teaching. Next, the types of evidence necessary to answer the question are identified and the tools needed to gather the evidence are designed. Typically, evidence is gathered regarding impacts of the teaching/learning structure on student learning and on student attitude toward the structure or the material. The course is taught, evidence is gathered and analyzed, and conclusions drawn regarding answers to the focused question. The results must be disseminated and critiqued by other teachers and scholars, particularly those in the researcher’s discipline. I have completed two studies in the past several years that have helped me improve my teaching. I have been presented results from these studies in seminars at local and national meetings and I am preparing them for publication. I find that treating my classroom as a lab designed to improve learning (and teaching) is an excellent way to move teaching from being a private, trial-and-error activity to a scholarly effort that builds, confirms and improves effective models of teaching and learning.

In summary, I believe that students have the responsibility for learning, but must be provided with the appropriate environment and support to enable them to learn. Assessment of learning must be tied to learning goals and selected to appropriately match the type of assessment to the depth of learning. Systematic and scholarly processes are important in continuing to develop the best possible learning environments.

I must give credit to the many colleagues who have helped me learn about teaching, including UWEC Chemists and my science education colleagues Dr. Bob Hollon, Dr. Mickey Kolis, Dr. Erik Hendrickson and Dr. Karen Havholm. I am also grateful to the Wisconsin Teaching Scholar and the UWEC NET Teaching Scholar Programs for their support.

References

1. National Research Council, How People Learn, 2^nd ed., Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000.

2. Hutchings, P. ed., Opening Lines, Stanford, CA: Carnegie Publications, 2000.

3. Gilbert, J. K. et al, Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

4. Pienta, N. J.; Cooper, M. M.; Greenbowe, T. J., Chemist’s Guide to Effective Teaching, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.

5. Palmer, P., The Courage to Teach, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1998,

6. Wiggins, G.; McTighe, J., Understanding by Design, Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 1998.

7. Eierman, R. J., in Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences, Mabrouk, P. A. ed., Washington, DC: ACS, 2007.

8. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A., Cooperative learning : increasing college faculty instructional productivity, Washington, DC : School of Ed. and Human Development, George Washington University, 1991.

9. Whimbey, A.; Lochhead, J., Problem Solving and Comprehension, Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute Press, 1982.

10. Suskie, L., Assessing Student Learning, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 2004

11. Angelo, T.A.; Cross K.P., Classroom Assessment Techniques 2^nd ed, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1993.

Teaching Philosophy