STLHE 2015

Teaching philosophy statements have become a vital document that allow people to quickly know an individual's beliefs about teaching and learning, along with their intended practices. Research on teaching philosophy statements (e.g., Kaplan et al., 2007; Schönwetter, et al., 2002) reveals a range of criteria and resulting rubrics and frameworks to develop and evaluate quality statements. These rubrics outline criteria for graduate students to use for self-assessment during the writing process as well as for those hiring, mentoring, and giving feedback. In this presentation, we report on an interdisciplinary research project that looked for evidence in a sample of 80 teaching philosophy statements of a deep learning/student focused approach to teaching (Trigwell & Prosser, 2004) as well as disciplinary differences. Statements were written by graduate students from a range of disciplines participating in a 35-hour seminar on teaching and learning. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in coding and analyzing the same data set with agreement and disagreement found in the data. We are now at the stage of verifying core categories that emerged during qualitative analysis and seeking explanations in the literature. The aim of our session is to present ways of evaluating an individual’s beliefs about teaching from a learning perspective.

Kaplan, M., Meizlish, D., O’Neal C., & Wright M. C. (2007). A research-based rubric for developing statements of teaching philosophy. In D. R. Robertson & L. B. Nilson (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty instructional and organizational developers, 26, 42–262. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Schönwetter, D.J., Sokal, L., Friesen, M. & Taylor, K.L. (2002) Teaching philosophies reconsidered: A conceptual model for the development and evaluation of teaching philosophy statements, International Journal for Academic Development, 7(1), 83-97.

Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and Use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409-424.