I've been struggling to write a new teaching philosophy, which is sometimes fun but mostly not.
No, I'm not on the job market, but I've been nominated for a teaching prize and I have to include a teaching philosophy in my portfolio so an outside committee can determine whether I'm worthy.
Yes, I've written a teaching philosophy before but it's been a few years and I've learned a thing or two about teaching since then. And yes, I've even led workshops on writing an effective teaching philosophy and I frequently coach junior faculty members on writing teaching philosophies for their tenure files, so I think I know a little bit about the subject.
Knowing doesn't make writing any easier. It's not easy to put everything I believe about teaching into a mere 500 words, especially when I want those words to stand out from all the other teaching philosophies buzzing around the academosphere.
How many teaching philosophies have I read over the years? I've served on search committees attracting dozens and sometimes over a hundred applicants and their teaching philosophies, and I've read many more teaching philosophies submitted in portfolios to our tenure and promotion committee. In all that time I can't put my finger on a single memorable idea I've gleaned from reading teaching philosophies. In my mind they all resolve into a few common buzz-words: student-centered teaching, "guide on the side not sage on the stage," enhancing student engagement. If 99 percent of teaching philosophies name-check Paulo Freire, the name loses its potency and resolves into cliche.
So instead I'm relying on a different pedagogical authority: Steve Martin.
Yes, that Steve Martin--comedian, actor, and author of, among other things, Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life, from which I draw the foundational principles for my teaching philosophy. Teaching, I claim, employs the same skill set (ooh, another buzz word!) as comic improvisation: structure, collaboration, assessment, adaptation. I use brief passages from Born Standing Up to illustrate these concepts along with examples illustrating how these concepts shape my teaching.
I'm pretty pleased with the results--until the second-guessing starts up: Will the committee be annoyed by the absence of Paulo Freire? Will they take offense at my comparing teaching to comic improvisation? Will they think I'm a lightweight, a flake, an uninformed nincompoop who refuses to take pedagogy seriously?
I hope not. What I really want is to give the committee a picture of what I do in the classroom and why I do it that way, and if Steve Martin helps me make it memorable, all the better. Taking inspiration from a comedian doesn't mean I don't take pedagogy seriously; it just means I take teaching seriously enough to want to communicate pedagogical concepts in clearly, effectively, and memorably.
But that doesn't mean I intend to stand in front of the class with a fake arrow sticking through my head.
3 comments:
You should use "sprezzatura" and mention Castiglione's name... set up the same idea of being really prepared and working without a net all at the same time to take advantage of opportunities to get students to develop insights!
(I just like typing "sprezzatura.")
All you need to say is:
"I is a gud teacher and I writ this filosofy 4 U." The committee will appreciate the brevity and lack of "fluff," I am sure.
I think that the inventive approach is always the best - especially if it really is what you believe. I think it's fresh and engaging (just like your lectures).
And anyways, as a former student, I would hope that this committee would weight the portfolio appropriately - yes, your teaching philosophy is important, but let's be honest, anyone can create a teaching philosophy (maybe not one using Steve Martin, but...). It takes much more to be that teacher who lives and breathes that philosophy. The committee should look at your work as a whole and the people whose lives you made better, minds you've opened, etc. and base their decisions on those factors.
Post a Comment