# Education Statement > Write a Statement on Education (Teaching Statement / Teaching Philosophy / Teaching Vision / "onderwijsvisie") for an academic faculty application, especially in Computer Science / AI / Data Science at research universities. Covers structure (1–3 page format), evaluation rubrics, evidence-based pedagogy, supervision frameworks, US vs Dutch/EU framing, TU Delft programme curricula (BSc CSE, MSc CS, MSc DSAIT) with verified course mapping, real-world example anatomies, and a section-by-section drafting workflow that produces a credible, specific, non-generic statement. Use whenever an applicant must write or revise a teaching statement, education statement, teaching vision, teaching philosophy, or onderwijsvisie — particularly for TU Delft, ETH, KTH, Cambridge, Imperial, or any EU/NL CS faculty position. - Skill: `drunkcoding/education-statement` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 8 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add drunkcoding/education-statement` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/drunkcoding/education-statement/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: drunkcoding (https://skillmd.com/u/drunkcoding) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/drunkcoding/education-statement --- # Education Statement ## Core Purpose Produce a **credible, specific, non-generic** Statement on Education for a research-university CS faculty application. The statement must convince a search committee that the applicant (a) has a coherent vision of CS education, (b) enacts that vision through specific practices with evidence, (c) understands supervision as a distinct competence, and (d) maps cleanly onto the target curriculum. **Guiding principle**: every paragraph must do at least one of: state a principle in your words, show a specific practice with evidence, or commit to specific courses/contributions at the target institution. **If a paragraph does none, cut it.** The most common failure mode is **abstraction**: a page of beliefs with no classroom detail, indistinguishable from any other applicant in the subfield. The fix is the *show-don't-tell* loop: principle → specific activity → outcome. ## Final delivery: humanize the output **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL (run before returning any draft to the user).** Load the `humanizer` skill (via the skill tool) and run the finished text through it as a final editing pass. It removes AI-writing tells (inflated significance, copula avoidance like "serves as", rule-of-three, overused AI vocabulary such as "delve"/"testament"/"landscape", filler phrases, sycophancy, and em/en-dash overuse) without inventing any fact, name, number, date, or citation. Preserve the format and conventions this skill requires (length cap, required headers, course-mapping specifics), and if the user supplied a writing sample, pass it so humanizer matches their voice. ## Workflow ### Stage 1 — Triage the prompt Before drafting, read the vacancy text carefully and answer four questions: 1. **What does the prompt explicitly ask for?** (Length cap, supervision emphasis, "vision", course-mapping, specific programmes.) Match the headers and emphasis the prompt uses. 2. **Which programmes must the statement address?** Name them and read their curricula. 3. **Is this US-style or EU/NL-style framing?** See [references/dutch_context.md](references/dutch_context.md) for the differences. TU Delft, ETH, KTH, and most EU R1s lean toward "education vision" / *onderwijsvisie* with explicit supervision and institutional-fit components. 4. **What is the applicant's actual teaching record?** A statement promising practices the applicant has never used is detected immediately. Match claims to evidence. If the user has not provided a CV / teaching record, ask for it — at minimum a list of courses TA'd or taught, students supervised, teaching workshops attended, and any UTQ/BKO progress. ### Stage 2 — Draft the structure Use the **standard 6-section skeleton** unless the prompt requires otherwise: 1. Opening hook (~120 words) 2. Philosophy / vision — 2–4 named principles (~150 words) 3. Methods in action — 1–3 specific course/practice narratives (~300 words) 4. Supervision / mentorship — explicit, with practice details (~150 words) 5. Courses to teach — three-tier mapping to the target programmes (~120 words) 6. Closing — forward vision tied to the institution (~80 words) **Total: 700–1000 words ≈ 1–1.5 pages single-spaced.** Stay under the prompt's length cap with margin to spare. See [references/structure_and_pitfalls.md](references/structure_and_pitfalls.md) for paragraph-level guidance, opening/closing patterns, and the cliche-strip checklist. ### Stage 3 — Build each section with evidence Apply the **show-don't-tell loop** to every claim: > Principle → Specific action → Outcome / evidence For methods, draw on [references/pedagogy.md](references/pedagogy.md) — an evidence palette of CS-specific pedagogy (active learning, pair programming, live coding, POGIL, constructive alignment, cognitive load, threshold concepts, Parsons problems, GenAI/LLM positions, specifications grading, code review as assessment, inclusion frameworks). For supervision, use [references/supervision.md](references/supervision.md) — covers BSc / MSc / PhD differentiation, concrete supervision practices, and CS-specific sample paragraphs. **Rule**: cite at most 1–2 frameworks, and only ones the applicant *actually* applies. Theory-parade openings (Foucault, Vygotsky, Freire, Bloom, Biggs all in two paragraphs) are a documented red flag. ### Stage 4 — Map to the target programmes The **courses-I-could-teach** section must reference real courses by name (and ideally code), verified against the current study guide. Invented or outdated courses are a credibility-killer. For TU Delft (BSc CSE, MSc CS, MSc DSAIT), use [references/tu_delft_curricula.md](references/tu_delft_curricula.md) — verified course lists, themes, and a mapping table from common applicant expertise to credible TU Delft course choices. **Always advise the user to re-verify against [studyguide.tudelft.nl](https://studyguide.tudelft.nl/) before submission.** Use the **three-tier mapping**: - Tier 1: courses you can teach now (existing in the curriculum). - Tier 2: courses you could contribute to (team-taught). - Tier 3: **one** new course you propose (with a 1-sentence rationale tying it to a real curriculum gap and your research). ### Stage 5 — Apply institutional framing (Dutch/EU only) For TU Delft and other Dutch institutions, weave 1–2 institutional anchors *only if they reflect the applicant's actual practice*: - **UTQ / BKO** — acknowledge if the applicant is certified, in progress, or planning. - **Constructive Alignment** — name only if the applicant genuinely aligns ILOs, activities, and assessment. - **CDIO / project-based learning** — name only if the applicant has run client-coupled or project-based courses. - **TU Delft Vision on Education** themes — challenge-based learning, two-way feedback, AI engagement, sustainability — pick one that matches a real practice. See [references/dutch_context.md](references/dutch_context.md) for ready-to-adapt phrasing and the full UTQ competence model. **Anti-pattern**: stacking all four institutional frameworks reads as cargo-cult. One or two, applied concretely. ### Stage 6 — Self-critique against the rubric Before finalising, run the statement through [references/rubric.md](references/rubric.md): - Score each CRLT-rubric category (Goals / Enactment / Assessment / Inclusion / Structure-Rhetoric). - Run the section-by-section self-critique pass. - Run the seven mock-reviewer questions. - Run the cliche-strip search (passionate, open door, real world, diverse learners, critical thinking ×2+). - Verify length, course names, institution name, applicant name. ### Stage 7 — Iterate with the user - Show the draft. Ask which paragraphs feel like the applicant's voice and which feel generic. - Replace generic claims with applicant-specific examples (request data points: outcomes, student quotes, project numbers). - Tighten any section that exceeds its word budget. - Final pass: read aloud. Cut any sentence that does not earn its place. --- ## Universal Drafting Principles 1. **First person, mostly present tense.** "I do X when I teach Y." Past tense for prior teaching, future tense only for explicit plans. 2. **Show, don't tell.** Every principle paired with a specific practice and an outcome. 3. **One voice, one document.** The statement should sound like one coherent person, not a stitched committee. Read aloud to check. 4. **Specificity beats theory.** Citing a few practices the applicant genuinely uses beats citing five educational theorists. 5. **Supervision is a section, not a sentence.** Especially for EU/NL applications. 6. **Map to real courses, not invented ones.** Verify against the current study guide. 7. **Match the applicant's record.** Claims must be supportable by the CV/teaching dossier. 8. **Reflect, don't boast.** A growth note (what you are still developing) signals reflective practice — a top-three criterion in committee surveys. 9. **Differentiate.** Ask: "could this be signed by another candidate in my subfield?" If yes, rewrite. 10. **Cut ruthlessly.** A tight 1-page statement beats a baggy 3-page statement. --- ## What to Do When Information Is Missing | Missing | Default action | |---|---| | Vacancy text | Ask for the prompt. Do not assume length, supervision emphasis, or programme list. | | Applicant's CV / teaching record | Ask for it before drafting. At minimum: courses TA'd/taught, students supervised, UTQ status, teaching workshops/awards. | | Specific programmes | Ask which programmes the position serves. For TU Delft, default to BSc CSE + MSc CS + MSc DSAIT only if the prompt names them. | | Applicant's research area | Ask. Course-mapping cannot be done credibly without knowing the research area. | | Applicant's stance on contested questions (LLM use, lecture vs flipped, exam vs project) | Ask. The statement must take positions; the assistant must not invent stances. | | UTQ / BKO status | Ask. Certified, in progress, planned, or not yet engaged — phrasing differs. | When information is genuinely unavailable and cannot be obtained, draft with **placeholders** marked clearly (e.g., `[INSERT: specific outcome from your COMP-201 project assignment]`) — do not fabricate. --- ## What to Do, What Not to Do **Do**: - Open with a sentence only this applicant could write. - Pair every principle with a specific practice and an outcome. - Differentiate supervision style across BSc / MSc / PhD. - Map to real courses with codes, verified from the study guide. - Take a stance on contested CS-pedagogy questions (LLM use, group work, assessment style). - Acknowledge a development area — committees value reflective candidates. - End with a forward vision tied to the specific institution. **Do not**: - Use "passionate", "open door", "real world", "diverse learners", or "critical thinking" more than once. - Cite more than 1–2 educational theorists. - List courses without surrounding philosophy. - Skip the supervision section in EU/NL applications. - Invent TU Delft courses or themes. - Stack every Dutch framework (UTQ + Constructive Alignment + CDIO + Vision-on-Education) into one statement. - Promise practices the applicant has never used. - Exceed the prompt's length cap. - Restate the opening in the closing. --- ## References This skill loads reference material on demand. Read the files relevant to the current stage. - [references/structure_and_pitfalls.md](references/structure_and_pitfalls.md) — Paragraph-level structure, length budgets, voice/tense, opening/closing patterns, cliche-strip checklist. Read in Stage 2 and Stage 3. - [references/rubric.md](references/rubric.md) — CRLT evaluation rubric, search-committee priorities, section-by-section self-critique, mock-reviewer questions. Read in Stage 6. - [references/pedagogy.md](references/pedagogy.md) — Evidence-based CS pedagogy palette: active learning, pair programming, live coding, constructive alignment, cognitive load, threshold concepts, Parsons problems, GenAI/LLM positions, inclusion frameworks, specifications grading. Read in Stage 3 when drafting methods/philosophy. - [references/supervision.md](references/supervision.md) — Supervision section drafting guide: 4-element template, BSc/MSc/PhD differentiation, concrete practices, sample paragraphs. Read in Stage 3 when drafting supervision. - [references/dutch_context.md](references/dutch_context.md) — US vs NL framing, UTQ/BKO competence framework, Constructive Alignment, CDIO, TU Delft Vision on Education, Q-system, English-medium teaching, ready-to-adapt phrasing. Read in Stage 5 (and Stage 1 if uncertain whether the framing is US or EU/NL). - [references/tu_delft_curricula.md](references/tu_delft_curricula.md) — Verified course lists for BSc CSE, MSc CS, MSc DSAIT; faculty department structure; expertise→course mapping table; three-tier mapping template. Read in Stage 4. - [references/examples.md](references/examples.md) — Anatomies of 9 real CS faculty teaching statements with verbatim openings, structural patterns, and three TU Delft-oriented skeleton outlines (ML/AI, SE/Systems, Theoretical CS). Read in Stage 2 to ground the structural plan.