One course asks students to learn the basic language of a field. Another asks them to defend a research design. You work carefully in both, but when you summarize your teaching, they become two more lines in a course list. The difference in the work disappears.
The book's tenure example describes teaching across undergraduate and graduate courses, including classroom management, curriculum, and research methods. That range can help a reviewer understand a teaching record, but only if you explain what the different settings required from students and from you.
Start with the purpose of each course.
Course numbers and titles aren't enough. Explain where a course sits in the program and what students are expected to learn there. Is it an introduction, a bridge to advanced work, a professional application course, or a research experience?
Don't rely on assumptions that every graduate course is automatically more demanding or every introductory course is straightforward to teach. The teaching challenge depends on the goals, students, setting, and assigned responsibilities. Describe those features accurately rather than creating a hierarchy of importance.
A few clear sentences can help a reviewer outside your program understand why the teaching choices differ.
Show a common priority through different decisions.
Perhaps your teaching emphasizes reasoning with evidence. In a hypothetical introductory course, students might use a guided case to connect a concept with an example. In an advanced course, they might compare competing explanations and justify a methodological decision.
The shared priority gives the narrative coherence. The different tasks show how you adapt it. Explain the support you provide, the responsibility students take, and the criteria used to assess their work.
That account tells readers more than repeating the same teaching-philosophy paragraph under every course title. It also avoids suggesting that one favorite technique fits every learning situation equally well.
Keep format and timing visible when they matter.
An online offering, a face-to-face seminar, and a summer course may involve different schedules and opportunities for interaction. Describe relevant differences without assuming the format itself proves quality or difficulty.
For summer teaching, confirm how the assignment and reporting period should appear in the dossier. Don't let a compressed summary erase an actual teaching responsibility or imply that an unassigned period carried the same expectations as another term.
If you changed pacing, feedback, or activities for a particular offering, explain why and show appropriate evidence. Simply saying the course was online or taught in summer doesn't explain the instructional contribution.
Use evidence that fits the specific claim.
A syllabus can show planned goals and structure. An assessment prompt can show the intellectual task. Appropriate student work, peer feedback, or evaluation information may help examine different aspects of the experience. Keep those purposes distinct.
Avoid comparing course evaluation scores across very different settings as if the numbers alone rank your effectiveness. Provide the context required by your institution and keep conclusions proportional to the evidence.
Choose two contrasting courses from your record. For each, write the learning goal, the main teaching challenge, one consequential decision, and the evidence you can offer. Then add a sentence explaining the connection between them. You'll have the beginning of a teaching narrative that shows range while preserving the differences that make the work meaningful.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, chapter 17, pp. 305–307.
