Content uploaded by Larry Owens
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Larry Owens on Sep 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Western Kentucky University]
On: 23 June 2014, At: 08:14
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Teaching in Social Work
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20
Activating a Teaching Philosophy in
Social Work Education: Articulation,
Implementation, and Evaluation
Larry W. Owensa, J. Jay Millerb & Erlene Grise-Owensb
a Department of Social Work, Western Kentucky University,
Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
b School of Social Work, Spalding University, Louisville, Kentucky,
USA
Published online: 19 Jun 2014.
To cite this article: Larry W. Owens, J. Jay Miller & Erlene Grise-Owens (2014) Activating a Teaching
Philosophy in Social Work Education: Articulation, Implementation, and Evaluation, Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 34:3, 332-345, DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2014.907597
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.907597
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34:332–345, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0884-1233 print/1540-7349 online
DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2014.907597
Activating a Teaching Philosophy in Social
Work Education: Articulation, Implementation,
and Evaluation
LARRY W. OWENS
Department of Social Work, Western Kentucky University, Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
J. JAY MILLER and ERLENE GRISE-OWENS
School of Social Work, Spalding University, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
This article describes how to develop a comprehensive teaching
philosophy from articulation through implementation to evalua-
tion. Using literature and teaching-learning experiences, we dis-
cuss pragmatic steps for using a teaching philosophy to inform,
engage, and evaluate teaching-learning. We promote an integrated
teaching philosophy to ensure competent practice in social work
education.
KEYWORDS social work education, teaching-learning, teaching
philosophy
Increasingly, statements of teaching philosophy are required for faculty
applications and for promotion and tenure reviews (Meizlish & Kaplan,
2008). Sometimes, new faculty members are stymied as to how to develop
a teaching philosophy statement (Grundman, 2006). Similarly, too often
these documents only are exercises for employment purposes rather than
purposefully employed statements that critically inform teaching and learn-
ing. As Pratt (2005) commented, these statements sometimes “make better
boxes than ladders” (p. 32). In particular, faculty members lack concep-
tual models for evaluating a teaching philosophy (Schonwetter, Sokal,
Friesen, & Taylor, 2002). Sustained competence in teaching and learning
requires engaged scholarship that critically explores evidence and expands
Address correspondence to Larry W. Owens, Western Kentucky University, Owensboro
Regional Campus, 4821 New Hartford Road, Owensboro, KY 42303, USA. E-mail:
larry.owens@wku.edu
332
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
Activating a Teaching Philosophy 333
frameworks (Grise-Owens, Cambron, & Valade, 2010; Roche et al., 1999;
Weime r, 2006, 2011; Witkin & Saleebey, 2007).
Through a synthesis of literature and autoethnographic evidence, we
document the importance of a teaching philosophy as “the foundation by
which to clarify goals, to guide behavior, to seed scholarly dialogue on
teaching, and to organize evaluation” (Goodyear & Allchin, 1998, p. 103)—
all toward the promotion of competent practice. Further, we provide a
framework for developing a meaningful and applicable teaching philoso-
phy (Coppola, 2002; Grise-Owens & Owens, 2009; Office of Instructional
Consultation, n.d.; Pryor, 2004). As authors, we bring complementary per-
spectives. One author is an experienced practitioner who recently began
full-time teaching. One author is a new faculty member, currently in a
PhD program. One author has taught in higher education for more than a
decade, whose developed teaching-learning philosophy has been (re)tested.
We explore our differing perspectives and progress (along with challenges)
with teaching-learning philosophies.
This article describes how to develop a comprehensive teaching phi-
losophy and seeks to stimulate interest and investment in doing so—both
as engaged scholarship and effective practice. Further, we suggest that artic-
ulating a teaching philosophy is necessary, yet not sufficient. Competent
teaching must involve the implementation and evaluation of that philosophy
in the classroom and through teaching-learning activities.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Effective teaching-learning requires an activated teaching philosophy.
Schönwetter and colleagues (2002) defined a teaching philosophy as “a
systematic and critical rationale that focuses on the important components
defining effective teaching and learning in a particular discipline and/or
institutional context” (p. 84). A teaching philosophy statement is a personal
document that reflects the educator’s beliefs and thoughts about teaching,
learning, and instructional methods (Grundman, 2006). Seldin (1991) noted
that educators often are hesitant about crafting a teaching philosophy due
to a lack of guidance and structure in doing so. In addition, he observed
that educators often hesitate to create a teaching philosophy statement out
of concern about what they might discover. Yet, Seldin asserted, “we best
prepare our students when we prepare ourselves” (p. 110).
Crafting a teaching philosophy is a reflective process. Chism (1998)rec-
ommended that a teaching philosophy be written in the first-person and “be
reflective and personal” (p. 1). Wang (2012) noted the importance of rela-
tionship and reflective practice in both social work practice and education.
Beatty, Leigh, and Dean (2009) added that the process of developing a teach-
ing philosophy statement is as important as the content of the final product.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
334 L. W. Owens et al.
Grundman (2006) warned that the educator should “be careful that the word
philosophy doesn’t lead you to using a dry, passive writing style. Express
with enthusiasm!” (p. 1331). In general, developing a teaching philosophy
offers educators an opportunity to step back from focusing solely on their
field of study and to consider their thoughts and beliefs about teaching and
learning.
There is no consensus on the exact structure and format of a teaching
philosophy statement. Due to its personal nature, “the teaching philosophy
statement can be crafted in whatever form best communicates the appli-
cant’s beliefs and strengths” (Grundman, 2006, p. 1329). Generally, such a
statement includes at least four areas of focus: (a) conceptualization of how
learning occurs, (b) conceptualization of an effective teaching and learning
environment, (c) expectations of the student–teacher relationship, and (d)
student assessment, and assessment of learning goals (Chism, 1998; Coppola,
2002; Eierman, 2008; Goodyear & Allchin, 1998; Grundman, 2006;Kearns&
Sullivan, 2011; O’Neil, Meizlish, & Kaplan, 2007; Schönwetter et al., 2002).
In addition to these four general foci of a teaching philosophy statement,
Chism (1998) recommended a personal growth plan, and Eierman (2008)
included teaching interests and references. Goodyear and Allchin (1998)
stressed the internal integration of teaching, scholarship, and service. Also,
the use of metaphors can be effective in illustrating aspects of the educator’s
teaching philosophy (Bulik & Shokar, 2007;Chism,1998; Coppola, 2002;
Schönwetter et al., 2002). Some scholars, such as Grundman (2006), empha-
sized that the teaching philosophy document should be “student-centered.”
We contend that the teaching philosophy statement should be learning cen-
tered—which addresses the current problematic trend of viewing students as
“consumers” (Miller & Grise-Owens, 2008).
At the same time, the process of crafting a teaching philosophy state-
ment is varied and personal. Beatty et al. (2009) provided a practical,
step-by-step facilitator’s guide. They suggested the use of guided imagery
and a card-sorting exercise that links what the teacher believes about teach-
ing with prominent educational theories. Thus, the crafting becomes a
personal statement of the instructor’s teaching philosophy that is grounded
in educational theory. Beatty and colleagues provided several sample teach-
ing philosophy excerpts. Likewise, Teater (2011) noted that “just as social
work students and practitioners are to apply theories and methods to partic-
ular situations, social work educators should equally be held accountable for
their incorporation of particular teaching and learning approaches” (p. 572).
Kearns and Sullivan (2011) stressed the importance of faculty mentoring
when graduate and postdoctoral students craft their own teaching phi-
losophy. These authors provided practical steps in developing a teaching
philosophy. They recommended a five-paragraph teaching philosophy
model that incorporates learning goals, teaching methods, learning assess-
ment, and teaching assessment. They synthesized several other teaching
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
Activating a Teaching Philosophy 335
statement models, such as the teaching cube (Center for Teaching Excellence,
Duquesne University, n.d.) and a self-reflective interview exercise (Ellis &
Griffin, 2000).
The preceding literature review provides examples of attention to the
initial articulation of a teaching philosophy. Less evident within the literature
is attention to the actual implementation and evaluation. Notably, Goodyear
and Allchin (1998) stated, “Ideally, professors share their philosophies with
their students” (p. 5), and Mandernach (2009) suggested developing a “syl-
labus version” of the teaching philosophy that is shared with students in each
course along with the syllabus. However, most articles do not provide this
extent of attention to implementing the philosophy.
Even less evident was the variable of evaluation. Reber (2011) suggested
conducting a midcourse evaluation that includes an evaluation of elements
of the teaching philosophy. The evaluation component of the teaching phi-
losophy mirrors competent social work practice, which involves conducting
needs and resource assessment for developing interventions and programs.
This practice must be grounded in a clear mission, goals, and objectives.
Bulik and Shokar (2007), although not social workers, stressed that “it there-
fore seems essential to take the time to reflect on our practice (clinical or
educational)” (p. 169).
A teaching philosophy typically incorporates broad scholarship on
pedagogy/andragogy. Eierman (2008) opined that teaching philosophy state-
ments “are best if backed up with experience and literature references”
(p. 338). The social work educator is compelled to model ethical and
effective competence. The articulation, implementation, and evaluation of a
teaching philosophy offer a way to evidence this competence. Yet the social
work literature provides limited guidance. Specifically, a search of Social
Work Abstracts yielded no articles on this topic.
EXAMPLES OF THE CORE PHASES: ARTICULATION,
IMPLEMENTATION, EVALUATION
In the following sections, we provide examples of key steps and strategies
in each of the core phases of activating a teaching philosophy. Notably,
although these aspects—articulation, implementation, and evaluation—
are described as distinct phases, the activated teaching philosophy uses
them organically. That is, implementation and evaluation further inform
articulation and vice versa; these phases are mutually informing and
symbiotic.
Each of the following three sections highlights a different author’s
teaching philosophy statement. Author A describes the articulation phase,
Author B describes implementation, and Author C describes evaluation. For
ease of reading, each section uses the first person. The descriptions of the
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
336 L. W. Owens et al.
phases overlap in content as each author fully explains the development of
that phase of the process. This overlap illustrates the organic connections
between the phases of an activated teaching philosophy.
Articulation
As indicated in the preceding literature review, the articulation phase receives
the most attention in the literature. Key considerations in articulating a
teaching philosophy include (a) identifying core values and beliefs about
teaching-learning roles and purposes, (b) interpreting inductive experiences
in teaching-learning, (c) incorporating pertinent literature about teaching-
learning, and (d) elucidating goodness of fit between teaching philosophy
and context and mission (Kearns & Sullivan, 2011). These considera-
tions are attained through critical reflection and through Scholarship of
Teaching-Learning.
Author A uses alliterative “E”s to encapsulate her teaching-learning phi-
losophy statement. My core teaching philosophy statement is summarized
on my syllabi: “I believe teaching-learning should be empowering, engaging,
encompassing, energizing, and evolving. I will elaborate on this approach
in the first class and invite you to join me in developing a healthy and
sustainable teaching-learning community.”
These alliterative descriptors succinctly convey my core values in
teaching-learning. Notably, I typically refer to this statement as a teach-
ing and learning philosophy. This emphasis reflects my belief that unless
learning is taking place, all teaching is moot: a core value.
Identification of core values requires critical reflection, which is an
essential element of articulating a teaching-learning philosophy. In my ini-
tial articulation, I reflected on my own experiences as both a learner and
teacher. Some of the critical questions I considered included, What did I
find effective in my learning when I was in the student role? How did I see
teachers adapt for different learning styles? When did I experience moments
of deep, meaningful learning-teaching—both as student and teacher? What
were core values for me—and by extension, my chosen profession of social
work?
Through reflection on these kinds of questions—and because of my
propensity to alliterate—I determined my core values with alliterative “E”s.
Empowering teaching-learning means everyone has equitable power, which
includes accountability and responsibility. Deep, significant learning is
meaning-making (i.e., energizing). Meaningful learning engages relation-
ships between the teacher-learner—the lessons and “real” life. Deep learning
encompasses contexts and roles beyond the classroom, that is, a teaching-
learning community in a broader world. Finally, teaching-learning is evolving:
My co-learners and I must constantly evaluate the processes and products of
our shared teaching-learning community.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
Activating a Teaching Philosophy 337
Notably, these core values are compatible with those of social work,
such as empowerment. Similarly, articulation of my teaching philosophy
included considering how my own teaching-learning approach fit with the
university where I have taught for most of my career. My core values are con-
gruent with the mission of the university. For example, I link “empowering”
with the university mission’s “peace and social justice” focus.
Another important element of articulation is the Scholarship of Teaching-
Learning (SoTL). A term coined by Boyer (1990), SoTL involves research
designed to investigate effective teaching and learning. Boyer (and oth-
ers who have built on his work) contended that SoTL is an essential
arena of scholarship for responsible educators. SoTL is purposeful, reflec-
tive, documented, and shared in public evaluative forums, which contribute
to the knowledge base (e.g., Shulman, 2000;Wang,2012;Weimer,2011).
In essence, SoTL is active learning about teaching, which is shared with
others with the intent of enriching the teaching-learning experience.
I am chagrined that for the first few years of my teaching I did not real-
ize that a whole world of resources awaited me in the arena of SoTL. When
I began participating in SoTL through literature, workshops, and confer-
ences, I discovered resources that resonated with my initial teaching-learning
philosophy—which I had begun to articulate inductively through my expe-
riences. Then, as I began contributing to SoTL through my own scholarship,
my teaching-learning became more viable and meaningful.
I have been teaching for more than a decade and have used a teaching-
learning philosophy statement to ground my practice for much of that time.
So, my initial articulation continues to deepen as it is tested through my expe-
riences and participation in the scholarship of teaching-learning. In moving
through the promotion and tenure process, I used my teaching-learning phi-
losophy as an ongoing, central mechanism to describe my practice. In my
promotion and tenure documents, as well as my annual reviews, I further
articulated my teaching-learning philosophy. As Goodyear and Allchin (1998)
advised, I described my teaching, service, and scholarship through the inte-
grated lens of my philosophy. This strategy provided a consistent and engag-
ing way to communicate my contributions, commitments, and competencies.
Pragmatically, I believe it impacted my achieving full rank and tenure.
More important, having an articulated teaching-learning philosophy has
kept me grounded during some difficult times in my academic career.
Without belaboring the vicissitudes of academia, I (like most long-term
faculty) have experienced various challenges. Particularly in these times,
however, my engaged teaching-learning philosophy provided both a touch-
stone and compass—keeping me grounded in my core values and providing
direction for continued contribution and growth.
Most important, having an activated teaching-learning philosophy keeps
the focus on engaged student learning. The ultimate measure of an effective
and meaningful teaching philosophy is student learning.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
338 L. W. Owens et al.
Implementation
The next phase involves implementing a teaching philosophy. Pragmatically,
this transition encapsulates moving beyond articulating a teaching philoso-
phy to putting the philosophy into praxis. Thus, implementing a teaching
philosophy requires taking the philosophy out of the “box” and using it
as a “ladder.” Key considerations in this phase include (a) sharing the
teaching philosophy with colleagues and students, (b) designing and devel-
oping a classroom culture that is congruent with the teaching philosophy,
and (c) identifying specific assignments and activities that demonstrate the
philosophy.
I describe my teaching philosophy as a Liberatory Teaching-Learning
philosophy. This approach is rooted in Transformative, Active Learning,
Experiential, and Criticalist learning perspectives and has been influenced
by seminal works of Dewey (1938), Freire (1998), Kolb (1984), Mezirow
(1990), and Roche and colleagues (1999). My philosophy emphasizes co-
constructed knowledge (e.g., teacher-learner partnerships), makes power
dynamics explicit, and views the classroom as a microcosm of the broader
world (e.g., Goldstein, 2001; hooks, 2003; Saleebey & Scanlon, 2005). That
is, knowledge is co-constructed through “shared ownership” of the power
of learning-teaching. For example, when we discuss a reading in class, I
emphasize that every participant (student, faculty, author) has power in con-
structing the meaning of that reading. Every person brings different life
experiences, positionalities, and so forth, to the reading. In the broader
world, some “knowing” is privileged above others; left unchallenged, the
classroom can mimic that power dynamic. However, justice requires chal-
lenging that hegemony through co-constructing knowledge. The ultimate
aims of my philosophy are a re-visioned classroom, empowered learning
community, and enacted social justice.
The initial step in implementing my teaching philosophy is sharing it
with learners and faculty colleagues. Just as social work practitioners dis-
cuss their treatment modalities with clients and colleagues (DuBois & Miley,
2011), likewise, social work educators should share their philosophy of
teaching with learners and other faculty members (Goodyear & Allchin,
1998). Several weeks prior to the beginning of a new course, I post a copy
of my teaching philosophy on learning management system (LMS) software
(e.g., Blackboard, Moodle, etc.), making it accessible to the learning commu-
nity. In addition, I share my teaching philosophy with faculty colleagues by
making it part of my professional development and evaluation documents.
Sharing my teaching philosophy in these ways not only serves as the impetus
for actualizing this approach but also fulfills two distinct, yet interconnected
purposes.
First, being explicit and open about my teaching philosophy affords
me credibility among learners and faculty colleagues. In my experience,
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
Activating a Teaching Philosophy 339
students often perform classroom tasks and assignments at the behest of the
instructor without knowing or considering why they are performing these
activities (Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005; Potts, 2005). Being transparent about the
foundation of my teaching philosophy, and the impact this philosophy has
had on the development of the course activities, helps students understand
why we are performing certain learning tasks and approaching these task in
particular ways.
Second, sharing my teaching philosophy serves as an accountability
mechanism for all those in the learning community. From the student’s
perspective, being transparent about the teaching philosophy assists stu-
dents in understanding the expectations of the course. In turn, students
are able to hold me accountable for fulfilling the expectations expressed in
the teaching philosophy. For example, my philosophy articulates the impor-
tance of discussion and dialogue in the learning process. Hence, students
are empowered (and encouraged) to let me know if I use too much lec-
ture and do not permit adequate time for discussion. Similarly, because my
colleagues are aware of my philosophy, they are able to hold me account-
able and offer critical feedback and discourse about assignments or activities
that are not congruent. Ideally, this increased accountability allows for
more cohesive learning experiences for the learning community across the
curriculum.
After the teaching philosophy has been made public, the instructor must
ensure all aspects of the course are designed in accordance with the philoso-
phy. The overall culture of the class (including course objectives, guidelines,
and selection of course materials) is based and rooted in the philosophy.
Therefore, all of my courses begin with a presentation and explicit discus-
sion about the teaching philosophy and how it will likely impact the course.
This discussion allows for critical dialogue related to the approach. At the
end of the discussion, the learning community establishes group guidelines
delineating how we will operate and move forward with learning experi-
ences. These guidelines are posted on LMS software and are revisited, as
needed, throughout the course. Developing these guidelines, in the context
of discussing the teaching philosophy, ensures a classroom culture consistent
with the central premise of my philosophy.
Another pertinent aspect of implementing a teaching philosophy is
developing congruent class tasks, exercises, and assignments. For example,
my liberatory teaching-learning approach views social action assignments as
an empowering learning experience for students. As such, one task that stu-
dents take part in is a social action “Meta” project. This assignment, which
occurs in the context of a graduate-level practice course, requires that stu-
dents research a global social justice issue, educate the community about
that issue, and participate in an activism initiative aimed at addressing it
(Grise-Owens, Miller, & Owens, 2014). This assignment encourages students
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
340 L. W. Owens et al.
to venture beyond the physical space of the classroom and to explore global
connections that span several social work practice contexts.
An additional example of an assignment consistent with my teaching-
learning philosophy occurs in my undergraduate research class. This
assignment requires that students begin to think about and conceptualize
their own “research agenda.” Aspects of this assignment require that stu-
dents select an area of social work and population(s) they are interested in
knowing more about, articulate research question(s), and delineate explicit
sources and strategies for gathering literature pertaining to their expressed
area of interest. Then subsequent class exercises and assignments are based
explicitly on this agenda. Such work allows students to grapple with concepts
such as sampling, research design, data collection, and statistical analysis in
a context that not only interests them but that was created by them. This
assignment is consistent with my philosophy of empowering students to
take ownership of not only what they learn but how they learn it. In turn,
this investment promotes a systematic understanding of research concepts
and fosters an increased synergy in the teaching-learning community.
Furthermore, my philosophy manifests itself in the way I evaluate
assignments in my courses. As noted, my teaching philosophy values the
ideas of co-constructed, and thus co-evaluated, knowledge. Consequently,
the overall grades for most assignments are calculations composed of instruc-
tor, peer, and self-evaluation scores. This approach to designing assignments
and subsequently evaluating assignments is specifically connected to my phi-
losophy. In sum, my teaching philosophy provides a foundational basis for,
and is an explicit theme of, all aspects of the classroom tasks and assign-
ments, particularly the development and assessment of pertinent learning
practices and outcomes.
Implementing a teaching philosophy requires intentionality. Inherently,
being intentional about utilizing the teaching philosophy, and sharing that
philosophy in the learning community, requires the instructor be vulnerable,
flexible, and open to critical feedback. Although it is important to be com-
mitted to the teaching philosophy, it is expected that it will be living and
fluid.
As a relatively new full-time faculty member, and current doctoral stu-
dent, I have had the opportunity to practice and refine the implementation of
my teaching philosophy. With each course, I gain another level of clarity on
and how to better activate this philosophy in the classroom. Further, I have
realized that implementing MY philosophy is not all about ME. Rather, it has
become about engaging the learning community and actions that make it
likely that we can all meet our educational goals and appreciate diverse
experiences. For me, actualizing my teaching philosophy has become a
mechanism for my own learning. As I continue to grow as an educator,
my philosophy, and its implementation, will change to reflect this growth.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
Activating a Teaching Philosophy 341
Evaluation
Finally, an often overlooked consideration is evaluating a teaching philos-
ophy. Key considerations in evaluating a teaching philosophy include (a)
explicating desired outcomes, (b) linking with specific items on evalua-
tions (both standardized and individually developed to evaluate a teaching
philosophy), and (c) operationalizing teaching portfolios.
Most social work education programs seek student feedback on courses,
usually near the conclusion of the course. This evaluation or feedback infor-
mation often is used in instructor annual evaluations as well as promotion
and tenure decisions. However, rarely are students provided an opportunity
to specifically evaluate instructors’ fulfillment of their teaching philosophy.
Hence, we advocate that teachers incorporate this evaluative component in
their overall evaluation of the course.
An evaluation of the teaching philosophy can take several forms. Author
C uses a formal evaluation process for students to provide anonymous and
voluntary feedback. My teaching-learning philosophy is summarized in a
one-page document that identifies five core values: Integrative Philosophy,
Relevant Application, Supportive Mentoring, Communication Emphasis, and
an Interactive Approach. Each of the core values has a brief narrative.
On the first day of class, I provide the students with a copy of my
teaching philosophy along with the course syllabus. I also post a copy of my
teaching philosophy on LMS software and we then discuss the philosophy
in class. I share with the students that their having a copy of my teaching
philosophy lets them know what to expect from me as an instructor and
what they can hold me to if I am not fulfilling my stated goals. I also suggest
that having this clarity in our working relationship is similar to how they
should practice with clients.
I inform students that they will have an opportunity to provide feed-
back on the core components of my teaching philosophy at midterm of the
course. The midterm course survey is not intended to give an exhaustive
evaluation of my teaching. Rather, the survey provides preliminary feedback
on whether, at that point in the course, I am meeting the expectations of
my teaching philosophy. As I describe next, this formative feedback allows
for me, as the instructor, to engage the class in modifying our teaching-
learning. Furthermore, I explicitly describe this evaluation process as an
essential aspect of “best practice.” That is, I am modeling the importance
of evaluating practice—in formative and summative ways.
In the week before fall and spring semester breaks, I remind the students
in class that I will be seeking their feedback on how well the course is going
so far and how well I am fulfilling the core components of my teaching
philosophy. Then I send the students an e-mail with a link to an online
survey. The survey is anonymous and voluntary, and is available to students
for approximately one week. The survey has three sections: items from the
university-wide Student Input to Teaching Evaluation (SITE) report, items
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
342 L. W. Owens et al.
from the departmental SITE report, and the five core values of my teaching
philosophy. Students rate each item using a 5-point Likert scale. In addition,
a comment box is provided at the end of each section of the survey.
After the survey rating period is complete, I compile the survey results.
I analyze the results, giving particular attention to items rated both partic-
ularly high and particularly low. Then I discuss the survey outcomes with
students in class. In addition, I use the survey results to make any needed
adjustments to the course material, content, and/or delivery.
The midterm surveys meet five primary objectives. First, having this for-
mal document, with both numerical ratings and comments, provides a way
to track my desired outcomes. That is, I am able to identify areas with accept-
able to excellent outcomes and areas that need improvement. Second, this
evaluation provides the students an opportunity to be more engaged in the
course by providing feedback on the course before it is completed. Students
are empowered and thereby take greater ownership in the course due, in
part, to providing their feedback. Third, the midterm survey provides stu-
dents an opportunity to communicate their thoughts directly with me. They
often make specific comments about my teaching and instruction, as well as
about dynamics occurring within the student cohort. Fourth, the midterm sur-
vey results provide me with an opportunity to make any needed adjustments
to the course. In a recent course, for example, several students commented
on their desire for more in-class activities and scenario discussions. By that
means, I was able to incorporate more of this material in the second half of
the course. Finally, by conducting a midterm survey, I am able to model the
importance of evaluation in social work practice.
I also provide a summary of the midterm survey results in my Annual
Faculty Activity Report. The survey results are a complement to SITE
reports conducted by the university at the end of the semester. Notably,
the midterm survey includes feedback on my teaching philosophy, whereas
the university-conducted reports do not address teaching philosophy at all.
Further, I plan to include the information from the midterm surveys in my
portfolio for promotion and tenure. This process is helping me build my
promotion and tenure documentation in a meaningful and measurable way.
The evaluation of teaching philosophy can take many forms. For exam-
ple, teachers may have ongoing dialogue with students throughout the
course about how the course is progressing and whether expectations are
being met. Instructors can use formative evaluations after each class meeting
for an ongoing assessment of the course and fulfillment of the instructor’s
teaching philosophy. Regardless of the method, instructors should system-
atically seek feedback on how well they are meeting the elements of their
teaching-learning philosophy.
This evaluation phase feeds back into deepening articulation of the
teaching philosophy, which informs ongoing implementation. This organic
process keeps the philosophy activated.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
Activating a Teaching Philosophy 343
TEACHING-LEARNING PHILOSOPHY: ESSENTIAL FOR
COMPETENT PRACTICE
Teaching philosophies parallel our engagement of students’ learning, that
is, the interactive evidence of education. How can we expect our students
to engage effectively in learning if we do not examine and evaluate our
teaching? In effect, how do we ensure that we, as social work educators, are
demonstrating competent practice?
Finally, this activation readily mirrors the Council on Social Work
Education (2008) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards emphasis
on competency-based practice, which presently guides social work educa-
tion in the United States. An activated teaching philosophy helps educators
stay grounded in evidence-based practice.
In summary, faculty interested in the consistent integrity and constant
renewal of their teaching-learning will find articulation, implementation, and
evaluation of their teaching philosophy meaningful and essential. This arti-
cle provides the philosophical underpinnings and pragmatic steps for social
work educators to activate a teaching-learning philosophy. This founda-
tional framework can be adapted by other educators in developing their
own distinctive teaching-learning philosophies. Our invitation to social work
educators: Step up your teaching-learning ladder through activating your
philosophy.
REFERENCES
Beatty, J. E., Leigh, J. S. A. & Dean, K. L. (2009). Finding our roots: An exercise
for creating a personal teaching philosophy statement. Journal of Management
Education,33, 115–130.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bulik, R. J., & Shokar, G. S. (2007). “Coming about!”—A faculty workshop on
teaching beliefs. Teaching and Learning in Medicine,19, 168–173.
Center for Teaching Excellence, Duquesne University. (n.d.). Writing a statement
of teaching philosophy: The “Teaching Cube.” Retrieved from http://www.duq.
edu/cte/
Chism, N. V. N. (1998). Developing a philosophy of teaching statement. Essays on
Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy, 9(3), 1–3. Retrieved from
http://www.cofc.edu/∼cetl/Essays/DevelopingaPhilosophyofTeaching.html
Coppola, B. P. (2002). Writing a statement of teaching philosophy: Fashioning
a framework for your classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching,31,
448–453.
Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational Policy and Accreditation
Standards (Rev. ed.). Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/41865.
aspx
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
344 L. W. Owens et al.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier.
DuBois, B., & Miley, K. K. (2011). Social work: An empowering profession (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Eierman, R. J. (2008). The teaching philosophy statement: Purposes and organiza-
tional Structure. Journal of Chemical Education,85, 336–338.
Ellis, D., & Griffin, G. (2000). Developing a teaching philosophy statement: A spe-
cial challenge for graduate students. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant
Development,7, 85–92.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage.
New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Goldstein, H. (2001). Experiential learning: A foundation for social work education
and Practice. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Goodyear, G. E., & Allchin, D. (1998). Statements of Teaching Philosophy. Retrieved
from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/404
Grise-Owens, E., Cambron, S., & Valade, R. (2010). Using current events to enhance
learning experiences: A social work curricular case example. Journal of Social
Work Education,46, 133–146.
Grise-Owens, E., Miller, J. J., & Owens, L. W. (2014). Responding to global shifts:
Meta-practice as a relevant social work practice paradigm. Journal of Teaching
in Social Work,34, 46–59. doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.866614
Grise-Owens, E., & Owens, L. W. (2009, November). From teaching philosophy to
transformative learning: Articulation, implementation, and evaluation.Paper
presented at the Lilly International Conference on College Teaching, Miami-
Oxford, OH.
Grundman, H. G. (2006). Writing a teaching philosophy statement. Notices of the
American Mathematical Society (AMS),53, 1329–1333.
hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope.NewYork,NY:
Routledge.
Kearns, K. D., & Sullivan, C. S. (2011). Resources and practices to help gradu-
ate students and postdoctoral fellows write statements of teaching philosophy.
Advances in Physiology Education,35, 136–145.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mandernach, B. J. (2009). Writing a “syllabus version” of your philosophy of teach-
ing. Philosophy of Teaching Statements: Examples and Tips on How to Write a
Teaching Philosophy Statement. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com
Meizlish, D., & Kaplan, M. (2008). Valuing and evaluating teaching in academic
hiring: A multidisciplinary, cross-institutional study. The Journal of Higher
Education,79, 489–512.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. New York, NY: Jossey-
Bass.
Miller, J., & Grise-Owens, E. (2008, November). Teaching-learning empowerment
in a consumerist culture. Paper presented at the Council on Social Work
Education/Annual Program Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Empowering participants or corroding learning?
Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher
education. Journal of Education Policy,20,267–281.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
Activating a Teaching Philosophy 345
Office of Instructional Consultation. (n.d.). Guidelines for writing a Statement of
Teaching Philosophy. Retrieved from http://oic.id.ucsb.edu/creating-teaching-
portfolio-certificate-college-university-teaching/portfolio-guidelines
O’Neil, C., Meizlish, D., & Kaplan, M. (2007). Writing a Statement of Teaching
Philosophy for the academic job search (CRLT Occasional Paper No. 23).
Retrieved from http://www.crlt.umich.edu/publinks/CRLT_no23.pdf
Potts, M. (2005). The consumerist subversion of education. Academic Questions,17,
54–64.
Pratt, D. D. (2005). Personal philosophies of teaching: A false promise? Academe,
91, 32–35.
Pryor, C. R. (2004). Writing a philosophy of education statement: An educator’s
workbook (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Reber, J. (2011). The under-examined life: A proposal for critically evaluating
teachers’ and students’ philosophies of teaching. College Teaching,59, 102–110.
Roche, S. E., Dewees, M., Trailweaver, R. Alexander, S., Cuddy, C. & Handy, M.
(1999). Contesting boundaries in social work education: A liberatory approach
to cooperative learning and teaching. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work
Education.
Saleebey, D., & Scanlon, E. (2005). Is critical pedagogy for the profession of social
work possible? Journal of Teaching in Social Work,25(3/4), 1–18.
Schonwetter, D. J., Sokal, L., Friesen, M., & Taylor, K. L. (2002). Teaching philoso-
phies reconsidered: A conceptual model for the development and evaluation
of teaching philosophy statements. The International Journal for Academic
Development,7, 83–97.
Seldin, P. (1991). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance
and promotion/tenure decisions. Boston, MA: Anker.
Shulman, L.S. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learn-
ing? The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1, 48–52, Retrieved
from http://www.iupui.edu/josotl/Vol 1/No 1/Shulman Vol no 1.html
Teater, B. A. (2011). Maximizing student learning: A case example of applying teach-
ing and learning theory in social work education. Social Work Education,30,
571–585.
Wang, D. (2012). The use of self and reflective practice in relational teaching and
adult learning: A social work perspective. Reflective Practice,13, 55–63.
Weimer, M. (2006). Enhancing scholarly work on teaching and learning:
Professional literature that makes a difference, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weimer, M. (2011). Inspired college teaching: A career-long resource for professional
growth. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Witkin, S. L., & Saleebey, D. (Eds.). (2007). Social work dialogues: Transforming the
canon of inquiry, practice, and education. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social
Work Education.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 08:14 23 June 2014
