The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Discussing AI-related strategies in teaching statement?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Thanks to AI, I'm fairly convinced that we cannot assign term papers or out of class writing assignments anymore. Online classes probably have no value whatsoever. In-class writing assignments and other AI mitigation strategies will be a part of any course I teach in the future. My question concerns whether and how I ought to express this in my teaching statement. Will search committees expect to see AI mitigation strategies somewhere in our application materials? Perhaps in our teaching statements? My inclination is to use part of the teaching statement to say something about this, but I am unsure what it should look like.

These are really good questions, but I'm not sure what the answers are. From what I can tell from online and offline discussion, it seems like many faculty have strong views about how to handle AI in teaching. Some seem to feel strongly that AI usage should be banned altogether, whereas others think students should be able to use it or be taught to use it in various ways. So, there may be some risk in discussing one's strategies in a teaching statement. Then again, it might be very strange in this day and age to say nothing about it in a teaching statement or to not explain how one deals with it. So I'm really not sure what is advisable here.

What do readers think?

Posted in

10 responses to “Discussing AI-related strategies in teaching statement?”

  1. AI or IA

    I think this is one of those situations where, no matter what you say about AI you will offend someone. Those who hate AI will love that you are against it as well, but those who have embraced it, will think you are an out-of-touch luddite. You just have to go forward with what you believe in.

    Reply
  2. anon

    It seems like there’s a clear option to minimize the risk here, and it’s an option that was always the right one to take with statements of teaching philosophy (I think).
    You just need to present your own approach to things in an interesting concrete way, and you don’t need to write out – or imply – argumentative takedowns of other approaches.

    Reply
  3. teaching

    I think Marcus makes some good points here. In my experience, faculty are divided on this question. At my institution, there’s actually a push to use these AI tools in the classroom. This has usually come from higher ups, but some faculty appear to be on board as well (I know…). As far as what to convey in your materials, you could have descriptions of assignments and various policies in your syllabi. Just be prepared to justify/explain them in the context of an interview. I would exercise caution when it comes to overtly expressing your (warranted) attitudes towards AI in your teaching materials.

    Reply
  4. H

    It’s worth reflecting on the fact that one’s AI policy could radically differ across different schools for a variety of reasons. At my large R1 in the Southern US, I’d say that at most 30% of my students use AI for any reason, and many of them would never consider it, so my policy of “the final words must be your original work, but some AI use is acceptable if disclosed” works fine here. At my partner’s community college, they have a blanket ban on all uses of AI for written work, so it’s moot to have a personal policy there. At a smaller R1 that I interviewed with last year in the Northern US, I was told that about 90% of their students use AI already, so I received some pushback on my current policy.
    Based on these three data points, I don’t think that it’s wise to have an AI policy in your teaching statement, since it could not be applicable for a particular school. However, I think you should have an AI policy in your syllabi in your teaching portfolio, and be ready to discuss it in an interview if it comes up, noting how your policy might change if the facts on the ground change.

    Reply
  5. Trevor Hedberg

    There are many ways to craft a strong teaching statement, but they will typically revolve around explaining what you do in the classroom and why. They’re short, so you can’t cover everything, and it may not be necessary to discuss one’s approach to AI in the statement. But since AI’s impact on teaching is such a relevant and significant topic, I would not be surprised to see candidates explain and discuss how it affects what they do in the classroom or how they design their assessments. The key is to explain the rationale for what you choose to do without being heavy-handed in suggesting that other approaches are flawed or cannot work. More like “I prefer to do X for these reasons” rather than “Approach Y is deeply misguided, so the only acceptable way to teach is with Approach X.” Ideally, the reasons offered are clearly connected to what the candidate has identified as their primary goals or objectives they have for their teaching.
    For what it’s worth, I think that presentation strategy should apply to almost any teaching methods a candidate discusses — not just their approach to AI.

    Reply
  6. Grant

    To me, this is less about the AI policies per se but more about the understanding of philosophical education: program learning outcomes, specific course learning outcomes, missions of the department, etc. What kind of students do we want to “produce” in the classroom of a philosophy course (sorry for the word choice…), and how might AI help with or undermine that goal?
    I think as long as OP is willing to talk about those questions (rather than just about AI and education generally), it would not hurt. After all, that is what the teaching statement is for, and your readers may or may not like it. I recently learned that a professor I knew really did not like the idea of treating philosophy as a set of skills (they think of philosophy as the real wisdom from human history etc..). Interestingly, a skill-based approach to teaching philosophy was the opening sentence of my teaching statement… so, you never know who will like what part of your statement.
    Btw, OP, I totally agree with your view on AI. This is partly because I no longer regard finishing a substantive term paper as part of the learning outcomes for my undergraduate courses; there is no way to effectively achieve and fairly assess that learning outcome due to AI. (I do not teach graduate courses.)

    Reply
  7. Bill V.

    Any real policy you have had in a class can stay in a syllabus you send as a sample. For a class you are projecting as one you want to teach, I don’t think there is much upside to including an AI policy in the sample syllabus. Different campuses and departments are handling these things so differently, you’ll never come up with one that everyone will think is good. Instead, I recommend being ready with a thoughtful answer if you get an interview question about it. Otherwise, in your teaching statement talk about your learning goals for students and your strategies for helping them get there. E.g.: I want my students to be able to deeply engage with philosophical texts, so I do X. I want my students to be able to give sophisticated reconstructions of arguments from texts, so I do Y. I want my students to be able to defend a thesis in writing, so I do Z.

    Reply
  8. Michel

    This is the defining teaching issue of the present, so I think you have to address it. Yes, it’s divisive, but at my undergrad-only institution (much closer to a community college), I can guarantee you we will ask you about it in the interview anyway. As anon says above, just be frank and tell us about your approach. We want to see that you’ve thought about it. It’s okay if you don’t have the answer, or even if your answer differs from ours; but we definitely need to see you taking it seriously. When we interview you, we’ll ask you to consider it in relation to our particular student population.

    Reply
  9. southerner

    I don’t know that it must to be in the teaching statement, but you should be prepared to answer it in an interview. It’s fine to say, “of course, I recognize institutional policies vary, this is just what I’m doing right now and why.” I don’t think hiring committees, generally, are looking for someone who agrees with them on every point. We’d never hire anyone doing it like that.
    In the interview, the answer you give might not make or break you. We asked about AI this summer during interviews for a visiting position. We hired the most qualified candidate, but that candidate also gave one of the bottom three responses to the AI question.
    Anyway, we’ve got a tt search coming up and will definitely be asking about AI.

    Reply
  10. optimist

    Perhaps this is just to demonstrate how other commenters are right in highlighting the disagreement in opinions on the matter, but I absolutely do not believe in the statement “we cannot assign term papers or out of class writing assignments anymore”. It depends on the class, the students, the structure, etc. Upper level classes (where paper topics are less generic exposition) with sufficient scaffolding assignments can absolutely still work.
    More to your precise question, I think what’s more important is to show that you have thought about the issue, preferably in a way that’s coherent with the rest of your teaching philosophy. I don’t think having a policy in the teaching statement makes much sense, because policies only make sense within context. Perhaps you can have something in your sample syllabi. Also, to echo what Michel said, it’s okay if your answer is different from mine, as long as the difference doesn’t simply boil down to that you think I’m naive or delusional. (I mean, I might be. But for the purpose of a job search it’d be great if I can’t tell that’s what you think.)

    Reply

Leave a Reply to southernerCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading