Job-Market Boot Camp, Part 27: common mistakes with teaching statements

Last week, we had a new thread in this series examining common mistakes in research-statements. In today's post, I'd like to discuss common mistakes in teaching statements. Then, in my next post, we will examine teaching portfolios more broadly. I will begin by sharing my sense of what some common mistakes are, based on my experiences on search-committees and as a job-market mentor. I will then open up the thread for further discussion, and hopefully some other search-committee members will weigh in.

Without further ado, here's my sense of some common teaching-statement mistakes:

Verbose teaching statements: Search-committee members are very strapped for time. They typically have hundreds of applications to review. Consequently, overly long materials can frustrate them, whereas nice and concise materials can come across as 'sparkling' and thoughtful. I have read some very good 2-3 page teaching statements--so it is certainly possible to have an effective teaching statement that long. However, my sense is that many teaching statements are far longer than they need to be, in ways that don't reflect well on a candidate. They not only make things more difficult on the reader. Given that most of us think it is important to teach our students to write concisely, a verbose teaching-statement may make it look like one has a bad sense of what writing effectively involves--a bad first-look for a teacher! Anyway, I was advised by a job-market consultant to keep my teaching statement to one-page, and it served me well. So, I think this is one common mistake. Try to err on the shorter side of things. 

Generalities without concrete examples: As I've mentioned before, I learned from my consultant that the single biggest error that candidates make in teaching statements is writing in generalities (e.g. 'I diagram arguments and have students do group work in class'). Given that the vast majority of other candidates write more or less the same thing, statements like these do these do little to help a candidate stand out or enable a search-committee to form any kind of clear picture of what the person is actually like in the classroom. Give concrete examples: of actual in-class assignments you have given, how the assignment led to a productive discussion, and so on.

Overly-emotive language: Saying you are a 'passionate' teacher 'strongly committed' to such-and-such may seem rhetorically effective, given that as a candidate you want to impress upon readers that you have these qualities. In practice, however, these kinds of rhetorical moves can come across as banal cliches. Just about everyone regards themselves as a passionate teacher committed to X, Y, and Z--or, if not, just about everyone can say they are in a teaching statement. The problem, again, is that so many people say these kinds of things, without giving a clear picture of how they actually are these things. I was taught by my consultant to "show, not tell". Just explain in concrete detail the things you do as a teacher and the pedagogical rationales for why you do those things. My sense is this will show (and illustrate) one's passion for teaching and commitment to students and student-learning in ways that saying one is passionate or committed don't do. 

Little to no discussion of assessment: Many teaching statements talk about what candidates do in the classroom (e.g. Socratic dialogue, group assignments, and so on), how they structure courses, and the readings they assessment, but say very little about forms of assessment or their rationale. Like it or not, many people at teaching-focused institutions--ranging from people on hiring committees, to administrators, to tenure-and-promotion committees--care a lot about assessment, taking it to be pedagogically important. You don't need to discuss every form of assessment you use: quizzes, exams, term-papers, and so on. That would probably come across as pedantic in teaching statement. What I do think is a good idea is briefly explaining at least one assessment central to your courses, and the rationale for it. In my statement, I explain briefly but in detail the several components of daily reading responses, along with the pedagogical rationale for each component. I also mention--in a single sentence--another form of assessment I use to develop student meta-cognition. My sense is that these kinds of brief but clear illustrations of assessment pedagogy can be important, as there are some people on the hiring side of things who care about these things.

Underdeveloped pedagogy: My final sense is that too many teaching statements come across as though relatively little thought has been given to pedagogy. In today's intensely competitive job-market, my sense is that candidates for jobs at teaching-focused jobs cannot expect to be very competitive with teaching statements that say (more or less): "I stand in front of the class, diagram arguments, and engage students in Socratic dialogue." If you mostly use Socratic techniques, that's fine--but my sense is that candidates need to find some way to distinguish themselves, illustrating (again, through concrete examples) that they are particularly thoughtful about how they do it, in ways that have given serious thought to pedagogy and assessment.

Anyway, these are just a few things that I suspect are common mistakes in teaching statements. What do other people who have served on search-committees think? Is my list mostly accurate in your experience? If not, what do you think I have gotten wrong? And are there any other common mistakes you think candidates should be aware to avoid?

Comments

[Amanda]

As I said earlier, being negative is something to avoid (i.e. criticizing students, other teaching styles, etc.)

Being short is so important, one to 1.5 pages.

Sounding arrogant, i.e. like you have figured out this special teaching method that solves a problem that has existed for decades and all philosophy teachers have handled wrong.

I think simply being dry and hard to read is a common mistake. It is impossible to over emphasize that search committee members are human beings with human flaws, and so boring matters. Try to think, "If I had just read 83 teaching statements and was tired, hungry, and struggling to keep my eyes open, would these opening sentences grab my attention?"

[Charles Perkins]

One question I have, as someone who has not yet gone one the job market, or ever even read a philosophy teaching statement (having never served on a search committee) is what does a concrete example in a teaching statement look like? I guess I would like a concrete example of a concrete example. I can see how teaching statements might lend themselves to generality. Especially if someone is applying to a community college, or any other school that has a general humanities division with maybe only one other philosopher. How can you be concrete about how you teach without getting concrete about what you are teaching and risk alienating the committee members? Do have to sort of teach them through your statement?

[Amanda]

Hello Charles Perkins. Here are some examples:

(1)"The last few days of class are set-up like a philosophy conference, where students present their paper, and the presentation is followed by a Q and A session from the audience of their peers."

(2)"On essays I give each student exactly 5 comments. I have found this results in students who are both happy with concrete advice but also not overwhelmed or discouraged."

(3)"I distribute handouts to each student, and each handout has several moral claims that range from mildly controversial to highly controversial. Each student must write both a few sentences in support of each claim and also a few sentences challenging the claim. This is followed by small group discussions about the activity."

(4)"I have weekly quizzes on the reading, but quiz style varies from week to week. For example, quiz formats include, (1) simple multiple choice, (2) writing a two paragraph summary, and (3) having a brief one on one discussion with myself about their personal thoughts (while the rest of the class is engaged in a group activity).

I don't think any of the above examples required getting too concrete about what I was teaching, and most of them could apply to almost any type of philosophy and/or humanities course. I do agree it is important to not be controversial. So do not, for instance, ever explain your activity in a way that criticizes other teaching styles. And if you do anything far out of the norm, you should probably not mention these as your examples. (For instance, if you don't give traditional grades, or have some type of ethics assignment that would raise eyebrows, etc.)

It is also best to use examples like the ones above which can be applied to various class types (unless you are really aiming for a specific school and go through the trouble of coming up with examples that are a perfect fit for their type of classes. But this is unnecessary. Teaching examples do not need to be where you prove you are a good fit for the particular school, but they also should not *disprove* this.)

[Marcus Arvan]

Charles: Here's another example, "I typically end my courses with in-class presentations where students apply course material to real-life cases of their choice. This not only requires them to demonstrate proficiency with course material, but to see how philosophy is relevant to everyday life and world events. For example, I close Philosophy of Law by having students in groups of two use philosophical theories of what the law is, what the law ought to be, and legal procedure to 're-litigate' recent Supreme Court cases of their choice, with one student playing prosecutor and the other the defense. Similarly, in Morality of Warfare students use theories of just cause (jus ad bellum), just means (jus en bello), and justice in resolution (jus post bellum) to evaluate whether a historical war was justly waged and by whom."

[Charles]

Marcus and Amanda, Thank you so much!

[anon]

I am confused by part of Charles' query.

Is writing about what you teach in a teaching statement a bad thing?
As in specific texts, examples of assignment questions, etc?

If so, why?

[Charles Perkins]

When I wrote my question, I was thinking of the possibility of getting too far in the weeds with topics that might not be as interesting to people who aren’t in philosophy— or topics that people who aren’t in philosophy might have a hard time understanding. For example, if the best class I had ever taught were centered around the (possible) heterogeneity of mereological simples (which is a favorite topic of mine, so no shade here) I would worry about being specific while not alienating committee members. But I think Marcus and Amanda’s examples show how it can be done. I guess I wouldn’t worry about this if I could explain what I was teaching in detail briefly and then get to _how I taught it_ pretty immediately.

[Marcus Arvan]

Charles: exactly!