
Ghostface is buried in a snowdrift in Green-Wood Cemetery. He’s seen better days.

Ghostface is buried in a snowdrift in Green-Wood Cemetery. He’s seen better days.

I’m giving a presentation today on the Teaching Philosophy and Teaching Methodology at City Tech’s Teaching Portfolio Workshop. It’s part of a series of events to support faculty who are preparing their portfolios before applying for promotion.
You can find a copy of my Teaching Portfolio here.
Below are my presentation notes and bibliographic citations for readings that might be helpful.
As with everything in your PARSE and Teaching Portfolio, the key is considering your audience. The audience for these documents are our colleagues across the campus representing very different intellectual disciplines, ways of approaching teaching, and styles for communicating information. Each reader brings different knowledge, expertise, ways of reading, and ways of thinking about teaching. While it’s impossible to accommodate every conceivable possible reader, it pays to address the needs of a general academic audience outside of your field. To do this, unpack concepts, explain the importance of people, theories, or approaches, and use an approachable writing style. If you are unsure or want additional feedback on whether colleagues outside your discipline can get what you are trying to say, ask someone in another department to read an excerpt or section of your portfolio. Avoid dumping your whole portfolio on someone to provide you feedback on unless they have offered to do that for you in advance!
Also, I think it should be said that while it might seem that the work you put into the Teaching Portfolio is a bureaucratic hurdle for promotion, it actually serves a few different important functions. Of course, it is something to check off for your promotion package. However, it’s also a way to reckon with the teaching that you’ve done, the kinds of teaching that you want to do, and how to achieve your ideal teaching in the future. Without it being a requirement, many of us might not take the time to do this necessary professional work that helps us become better educators. Also, it’s valuable for yourself to create a Teaching Portfolio and its individual documents to keep your professional portfolio fresh and up to date. None of us knows what the future holds, but having these documents at the ready help you face change and seek opportunities.
To write an effective Teaching Portfolio, I would suggest reading as many examples as you can given your time and energy. A good starting place is the portfolios of your departmental colleagues who have most recently gone up for promotion successfully. But, you can get lots of good ideas about what to write, how to write it, and how to organize what you write by looking at portfolios from faculty across the college. Reading others’ Teaching Portfolios is what helped me write mine.
For today, I was asked to talk about two sections of the Teaching Portfolio today: the Teaching Philosophy and Teaching Methodology, which provide your readers with the framework to understand everything that you do in the classroom as an instructor. You can think of the Teaching Philosophy as the “why,” and your Teaching Methodology as the “how.” Another way to think about them is that the Teaching Philosophy is your strategy or the military general’s overarching battle plan, and the Teaching Methodology is your tactics or the smaller actions that added together help you achieve your larger battle plan. While these two documents are separate, they should be in dialog with one another and might even repeat or rephrase some of the same information but in service to the purpose of the respective document. They are simply a reflection of the work that you do in the classroom—your theory of teaching and your praxis of teaching.
Alexander, Phill, Karissa Chabot, Matt Cox, Dànielle Nicole DeVoss, Barb Gerber, Staci Perryman-Clark, Julie Platt, Donnie Johnson Sackey, and Mary Wendt. “Teaching with Technology: Remediating the Teaching Philosophy Statement.” Computers and Composition, vol. 29, no. 1, Mar. 2012, pp. 23-38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.12.002.
Carnegie Mellon University, Student Academic Success Center. Writing Your Teaching Philosophy Statement. CMU, SASC, 2022, https://www.cmu.edu/student-success/other-resources/handouts/comm-supp-pdfs/teaching-philosophy-statement.pdf.
Eierman, Robert J. “The Teaching Philosophy Statement: Purposes and Organizational Structure.” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 85, no. 3, Mar. 2008, pp. 336-339, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed085p336.
University of Michigan, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. “Teaching Philosophy & Statements.” U-M, CRLT, 2021, https://crlt.umich.edu/resources-publications/teaching-philosophies-statements.
Brookfield, Stephen D. The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom. John Wiley & Sons, 2015, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/citytech-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1895929.
Misseyanni, Anastasia, Miltiadis D. Lytras, Paraskevi Papadopoulou, and Christina Marouli, editors. Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education: Teaching for Leadership, Innovation, and Creativity. Emerald Publishing Ltd., 2018, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/citytech-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5116698.
University of San Diego. The Complete List of Teaching Methods. USD, 2021, https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/USD_Complete-List-of-Teaching-Methods.pdf.

While Spring 2025 semester classes began this past Saturday at City Tech, my teaching schedule begins today. I’ll be teaching two classes in the Professional and Technical Writing Program: Introduction to Language and Technology (ENG1710) and Introduction to Professional and Technical Writing (ENG2700).
In Introduction to Language and Technology, I have students read an article (though, we begin with Ted Chiang’s “The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling), which they write about in the following class and we discuss it. We work out what we mean exactly when we say “language” and “technology” before looking more closely at how these two aspects of humanity interrelate, interoperate, and influence one another. In parallel to our class discussions, students research and write a paper about one specific technology and its relationship to language. I’ll include a past final exam review below, which will need updating due to some additions to the reading list.
For Introduction to Professional and Technical Writing, I developed a dual approach that combines theory and praxis as a general welcoming of students to what the field they are entering is like. For each class, students read about the history, work, and deliverables created by technical communicators, which they write about in short in-class assignments and we discuss together. The final readings in the class include one paper about how reading Science Fiction can make you a better technical writer and William Gibson’s “Burning Chrome.” Additionally, students are given short deliverable assignments (e.g., write an email, a letter, a memo, a technical definition, an instruction manual, etc.) each week or so. They receive one grade on these first drafts, and they revise them and write reflections on them for creating a final portfolio, which receives a separate grade.

Brian Porter and Edouard Machery’s “AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably,” which appears in the open-access journal Scientific Reports, is a fascinating study about how human-made and Generative AI-made poetry is rated by non-expert humans. Interestingly, the study participants rated more of the Generative Ai-made poetry as more “human” than the poems actually written by humans, which included works by Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, Samuel Butler, Lord Byron, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, T.S. Eliot, Allen Ginsberg, Sylvia Plath, and Dorothea Lasky. While this quantitative approach provides some interesting talking points about the products of Generative AI, it seems like it might be saying more about the participants than the computer-generated poems. What might the results look like from experts, literature graduate students, and undergraduate students who had taken a class on poetry? What might be revealed by analyzing the AI-penned poems in relation to the work by the respective poets, considering that the prompt was very generic?

Over the weekend, I added a pile of books to the Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Pedagogy Bibliography and Resource List.
Also, I added some must-read open-access articles and online guides: