Answering 'how would you teach intro?'

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, Sissy Fuss writes:

What do you do when you get the "how would you teach intro" question? I can see at least three ways of answering this:

1) give the "classic" intro syllabus, heavy on M+E and historical texts, with some value theory thrown in

2) an intro syllabus substantially based around your AOS/whatever teaching needs they have advertised

3) a bold thematic or topic-based course on something that you've been thinking about but isn't necessarily represented in your AOS/AOC. I'm thinking something that might be really cool but also might seem completely off-the-wall to some, e.g. an intro course that has a weekly viewing of a horror film and organizes readings and discussions around the themes of these films.

These aren't the only strategies, but these are the ones I'm considering (I'm not considering the horror film one seriously...yet.) There are benefits and drawbacks to each strategy it seems, and a lot will depend on who is interviewing you. But in any case: thoughts on what strategy is best? Experiences with the "intro question?" Or other thoughts about how to answer that question?

In response, Vampire Killer wrote:

Sissy Fuss,
At many places, your horror film suggestion would be the nail in your coffin. Some questions are asked during interviews that give unstable or ... candidates a chance to tip their hands. This saves the department from having to deny them tenure later.

I'll be curious to hear what readers think--but I can't help but wonder whether Sissy Fuss and Vampire Killer might both be thinking about this issue a bit too narrowly. Allow me to explain.

First things first. I will say that I don't think it's a good idea to base your Intro course on your AOS. That, in my experience, is just not how people at hiring institutions generally think intro courses should go--and I think it runs the risk of making you look like someone who really only knows or cares about your AOS. Especially at teaching schools, departments tend to be looking to give their undergraduates a well-rounded education--and in intro courses this usually means some kind of 'survey course.' 

Second, although I think I agree with Vampire Killer that an intro course focusing on horror films might not be the best idea--in part because of the nature of horror films specifically (which are really not everyone's cup of tea)--I am not at all certain that a super creative intro course of some sort would be a bad idea. For example, I did a Pop Culture & Philosophy special topics course this fall that I've given some thought to simply converting into my Intro course--since it basically went over my standard intro course material but paired it with movies, songs, television episodes, public essays, and so on. Although some search committee members at some schools might react negatively to this sort of intro course (specifically, people who are 'traditionalists' of a sort), I don't think it is at all obvious that it would be a negative everywhere. On the contrary, given how difficult it can be to tell candidates apart as teachers (given how many candidates appear to teach roughly the same kinds of stuff in roughly the same kinds of ways), I would not be surprised at all if a candidate who teaches their intro course in super-creative ways might be at a real advantage with respect to other search committee members or institutions (specifically, places where people really prize teaching creativity). Consequently, I'm actually inclined to think that maybe the best thing to do is have a "standard" intro course (to please traditionalists) but also a super-creative course (which might interest non-traditionalists, of whom there seem to be many these days).

However, whichever way one chooses to go as a candidate, I think Sissy Fuss's approach to answering the "how would you teach intro?" course is overly focused on content. Content is important. However, as Al pointed out in the same thread, the "how would you teach intro course?" is almost certainly concerned with how you actually teach intro:

When people ask that question I think it is easy to hear it as 'what would you cover'. I don't think that is the way it is typically met. That's not how my previous institution meant it and when I was a first-time job seeker I asked a number of SLAC friends about a question like this. I think something like the following is a better strategy. Do mention some of the topics you might cover but use this as an opportunity to talk about your values and methods as a teacher.

Indeed, these seem likely to me to be the most important things to hit in an answer to the "how do you teach intro?" question. The people who are asking the question almost certainly want to get a better picture not of the content of what you teach, but rather how you teach it: what you do in the classroom on a daily basis, which kinds of assessments you use, why you use them, how you get non-majors interested in philosophy (and indeed, in becoming majors--as this is really important for the viability of departments these days). 

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[Adam]

I'm inclined to think that the question that really matters isn't "how do you teach intro?" but "why do we teach intro at all?" How I answer the latter pretty much determines how I answer the former.

Given that the majority of students in an intro class only encounter academic philosophy once in their lives and it's during that class, what should we hope that they take away from it? I suppose that you could answer this question in ways that would alarm the search committee though (like if you didn't care about producing philosophy majors).

To add to Al's point: it seems like there's a difference between the practical question of "how do you actually teach?" in terms of specific values or methods in the classroom, and the more abstract question of what values are relevant in course design for intro specifically. I'm not sure which thing search committees care about more, though.

[Mike Titelbaum]

While admittedly coming from an R1 search perspective (so the answer may be different for other types of schools), the "How would you teach X?" question is always for me first and foremost about finding out what kind of teacher you are. How you answer reveals how you think about structuring a course, what you think is the best approach to getting students engaged, and what your in-class strategies are for presenting material. Whatever you say about the syllabus is just (for me at least) an indicator of those broader points, and maybe also whether you're pitching your teaching to students like the ones we have at our school.

Sometimes we also ask the intro question because we've got a candidate without much teaching experience, or experience only at higher levels, so we want to check that you are capable of and thoughtful about teaching to that level. However impressive you are in other ways, it's important that we can trust you with our first-years!