|
 |
–
Angels are made in the details
August 7, 2010
Creating a sculpture is simple enough, Michelangelo once explained. If you see an angel in the marble, carve until you set the angel free.
This is an explanation of a sort, but it does little to help the novice carver create art. In practice, sculptors use a repertoire of skills to coax meanings from stone.
We who lead theological schools want to shape religious leaders. That's why it is important for us to pay attention to research about how schools actually shape students into ministers. The Association of Theological Schools (ATS) provides some tools for discovering how the process works -- like the "Graduating School Questionnaire" -- that point to key factors in the process. It will come as no surprise to learn that, according to students, faculty and field work are important components of their seminary education.
Researchers who study the culture of seminaries have documented that theological education is a kind of contest between (on the one hand) the commitments and ideas that students bring with them to seminary and (on the other hand) the school's vision of what matters. Upon graduation, most students leave seminary with new information about the Christian tradition, tools for reading the Bible, and insights about working with people. Many of them also leave with a different take on what it means to be a Christian and to do good in the world.
In the July 2010 issue of Teaching Theology & Religion, I proposed a model of students-in-seminary that seeks to map the complex educational journey that seminarians take. The model takes seriously what we have learned about the difficult lives of seminary students, who frequently are simultaneously students, spouses, parents, and workers.
The way it is for people going to seminary today is not the way it was in the 1970s or 80s. And there is no going back -- just as there is no going back to the funding patterns that schools enjoyed two generations ago. It is important for trustees to educate themselves about the nuts and bolts of how their schools shape students into pastors today, lest we default to thinking that what works in 2010 is the same as what worked in 1980.
We want our schools to train angels in the Gospel sense -- those who proclaim God's good news. We know that students are not stones and the process of shaping a minister is more complex than making a sculpture. Trustees would also be wise to learn how some pedagogies transform students, while others don't.
Read an abstract of the article in Teaching Theology & Religion here.
Guest blogger Timothy D. Lincoln is associate dean for seminary effectiveness at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
Image credit
Posted By:
Timothy Lincoln
Topics: Academic Programs/Accreditation
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
–
The board's role in accreditation
September 30, 2009
 Broach the topic of accreditation with any senior administrator and you'll be met with a groan, a grimace, and possibly a complaint of sudden heartburn.
Raise the same issue with a member of the board, and you may receive a blank stare in return.
Most anyone associated with higher education knows minimally that accreditation is an external validation of internal effectiveness. But the extent to which a board should be concerned about this process is variable and at times controversial.
The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation released a joint statement this week about the roles that boards should play in accreditation. Why is it notable that these two, relatively obscure organizations issued such a statement?
Accreditation is certainly not without critics, even at the highest levels of government. In an opinion piece earlier this year, U.S. secretary of education Margaret Spellings suggested that accrediting agencies are often "insular, clubby and accountable to no one but themselves." It is notable, therefore, that an accreditation advocacy group voluntarily joined forces with a board development organization to seek more accountability and effectiveness.
The joint statement explains:
At its heart, accreditation is a process through which an institution holds itself accountable to the academic community and the larger public. . . . Thus, as stewards of an institution, and in conjunction with the president, administration, faculty, students, and staff, governing boards are obligated to ensure mission achievement as part of their fundamental fiduciary responsibility.
The statement is commendable because it asks governing boards to pay attention to, and take increased responsibility for, the success of the accreditation process. But even more, accreditation at its best is about institutional learning and organizational improvement, which speak to the core vision and values of In Trust. Only through cultivating awareness about our institutions, their contexts, and the people who comprise them can we improve our seminaries for the sake of the churches and cultures they serve.
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Topics: Academic Programs/Accreditation
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
End the university as we know it ... or maybe not
April 29, 2009
 An article by Mark C. Taylor, the religion department chair at Columbia University, has been at the top of the New York Times list of most-read articles for the last couple of days. In the article, called "End the University as We Know It," Taylor decries the specialization that is endemic even in his own small department: Of 10 faculty members, the scholars represent eight sub-fields with little overlap. And the specialties seem intensely arcane and inapplicable to modern life, he laments. "A colleague recently boasted to me that his best student was doing his dissertation on how the medieval theologian Duns Scotus used citations."
Taylor's proposal is to completely restructure higher education:
- Restructure the curriculum
- Abolish permanent departments
- Increase collaboration among institutions
- Transform the traditional dissertation
- Expand the range or professional options for graduate students
- Impose mandatory retirement and abolish tenure
Read the entire article here.
But wait just a darn minute, replies "Dean Dad," my favorite anonymous blogger at InsideHigherEd. "Dean Dad" calls Taylor's article "a frustrating piece, since it moves quickly from 'insightful' to 'crackpot' and back again." He continues:
As is often true of faculty who have never worked in administration, Prof. Taylor takes existing institutions for granted, even as he claims to move past them. For example, if colleges redid their curricula every seven years or so -- his suggested lifetime for the project-based constellations he favors -- that would involve every seventh year putting entire new programs through the shared governance process, coming up with entirely new job descriptions, hiring committees, student learning outcomes, assessment mechanisms, articulation agreements, catalog copy, advisor training, and the rest. Who, exactly, would do all this in the absence of departments or permanent faculty goes unmentioned.
My interpretation is this: In the New York Times article, Mark Taylor is saying that university education is too bureaucratic and institutional. On the other hand, "Dean Dad" argues that we need these structures. "Yes, the existing structures are clunky and overtaxed and frequently asinine," he admits. But "they survive because they address certain problems."
The way around them is not to wish those problems away or to postulate a world in which every college is modeled on a graduate seminar at Columbia. It's to come up with alternatives that solve those problems better. Prof. Taylor's model could be a lot of fun on a very small scale, like a think tank. But as a blueprint for higher ed across America, it's a farce.
This debate is currently simmering in theological education, too. I'll reflect on it more in the future.
Read the refutation of Taylor's article by "Dean Dad" here.
Photos courtesy Moravian College & Seminary
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: Academic Programs/Accreditation | News/Trends
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Online education a cash cow? Not so fast
March 22, 2009
In theological education, forward-thinking people are predicting the increasing importance of online courses. Online classes take education to where students are -- at home, or in their offices. And perhaps it's easier to fill a course with 15 or 20 students from literally around the globe than to get these same students into the door of the brick-and-mortar classroom.
 Of course, dectractors of online education have their points, too -- the educational experience isn't the same. As Ben Stein recently wrote today in his business column, describing the advantages of face-to-face meetings over teleconferences:
Technology is wonderful and indispensable. But for finding out the tricks of the trade, the way business runs in bad times and good, the latest developments in business and the economy, nothing can replace the spark of intelligence that travels from person to person at meetings.
The same certainly applies to learning. Nevertheless, I'm sure the online education will continue to grow.
But boards need to think about the finances of online education as well. And some people are hanging on to a belief that online education is cheaper to deliver than traditional teaching. Is that really so? I imagine that the situation will vary according to setting: If you've got a lot of empty classrooms, an online course may not be any cheaper than having a class on campus. But if you're considering new construction, more online classes may be able to eliminate the need for a new multi-million-dollar classroom building.
This topic is being discussed on the BlogU section at Inside Higher Ed. Although the BlogU post is actually addressing community college education, it's not difficult to make the jump and apply the same thinking to theological education.
Here's a highlight from the column:
Anyone who has taken, or taught, or even closely observed an online class knows that it's far from automated. The burden on the instructor to get through as effectively in two dimensions as in three is considerable, and requires both effort and craft. That means paying for course development, and offering training and support, and aligning the student support services with the very different expectations of online students. Some of us believe that it's a worthwhile enterprise for educational reasons, even allowing for an unfortunate institutional learning curve in the early going. But it's not a cash cow, and done right, it won't be.
Read the entire column here.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: Academic Programs/Accreditation
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Professors ambivalent about online instruction
March 13, 2009
Last month the Chronicle of Higher Education reported on one of those stories that make you say, "Of course! Is this supposed to be news?"
 The story: Professors think that teaching online courses requires more work from teachers, and they think that students don't learn as much as they learn in traditional classroom settings. The survey was conducted by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
As the article puts it:
Instructors' extra time and effort aren't being rewarded financially or professionally, and what's more, online education doesn't translate into better learning outcomes, said respondents in the faculty survey.
It's hardly surprising that 70 percent of faculty think the educational outcomes for online learning are lower. But here's a tidbit that was buried in the report: Of faculty who have actually taught an online course, only 48 percent think the educational outcomes for students are lower!
The full study results are expected in April. But in the meantime, you can read the article in the Chronicle here.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: Academic Programs/Accreditation | Technology
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Academic freedom at a Christian institution
March 2, 2009
Today's edition of Inside Higher Ed has an article about academic freedom at religiously affiliated universities. Their example school is Azusa Pacific University. One of the graduate schools of Azusa Pacific is the Haggard School of Theology, which is one of In Trust's member institutions.
 Read the article here.
As far as I know, academic freedom is not a hot-button issue at most theological schools. But I think Azusa Pacific's board has acted with wisdom and foresight by looking at academic freedom in light of the institution's mission. This moves the focus from "threats to academic freedom" to "what are we as a school trying to accomplish?"
Incidentally, I'm not impressed with the quotations from the director of the AAUP's Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance. Perhaps in editing his comments, Inside Higher Ed has misrepresented him. But he sounds petulant to me, rather than appreciative of the concern that Azusa Pacific has shown for balancing what might be seen as competing goals -- academic freedom vs. the mission of a self-consciously Christian institution of higher learning.
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: Academic Programs/Accreditation
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
|
 |
|
|
