In the comments section of our "Ask a search committee member", Postduck writes:
How does it look to have pedagogical training from one's institution (e.g. teaching certificates, courses, etc.)? And is it worth doing more than one of these things?
'junior faculty' then added:
Related to the previous comment (re: pedagogical training), what about pedagogical research? Sometimes I get the sense that some view the scholarship of teaching and learning as not 'real' research, so I wonder how search committees respond if they see a candidate who has a research program in pedagogy. To be clear, this would be research related to teaching philosophy (even if it has wider implications).
Lauren offered up one answer:
Re: pedagogical training, it would count in your favor as far as I'm concerned. But how much depends a lot on what it is, how significant it is, etc. One workshop isn't worth much; a substantial course, on the other hand, is stronger. Earning a teaching certificate very much depends on what is required, and I tend to be skeptical about how much those are worth unless the candidate gives me reason to believe otherwise–my own PhD institution originally had a "certificate" but it could be achieved simply by attending a certain number of 1 hour teaching sessions. If your training was more substantive than that, you should indicate that in some way.
My answer is different. Having worked at and hired three times at a "teaching" school–a mid-sized liberal arts university that takes teaching very seriously, as well as research–my sense is that every little thing here helps.
First, my experience is that one major thing people at my institution care about is enthusiasm for teaching. With a lot of candidates, the following question arises, "Does this person really want to work at an institution like ours? Do they value teaching? Or do they see themselves as primarily a researcher–and would they maybe want to move on to an R1?" This question is often very difficult to answer, as the most competitive candidates typically have a good publishing record and good teaching reviews, etc. One thing that can really make the difference here, in my experience, is a sense from a candidate's dossier that, yes, they really do care about teaching. A candidate who has gone out of their way to get additional pedagogical training, or who does pedagogically-related research (i.e. publishing about teaching), gives at least some additional evidence that they really do care about a teacher and are willing to "go above and beyond" what other people do.
Second, another thing that can matter at schools like mine is adaptibility in teaching. I've noted in the past that transitioning as a teacher to my current university was really difficult. The standard "chalk and talk" practices I had learned in grad school, and which I had used in teaching at my first not-TT job at an R1, just didn't translate to the job I now have (our 4-credit classes are much longer than more standard 3-credit classes, and student and faculty expectations are different). I literally had to revamp my entire teaching style to teach effectively here–and it took me a few years to figure it out. Consequently, a candidate who shows they have actively sought out pedagogical training, etc., once again provides some additional evidence that they may be more prepared for the job than people who haven't.
But these are just my thoughts, as someone who works at a mid-sized liberal arts university. If you are on a search committee (or have been on one in the past), what is your sense? What kind of school do you work at, and how (if at all) might additional pedagogical training or research in pedagogy affect how you judge candidates?
Leave a Reply