In 1966 Jerome Bruner, Harvard psychologist and educator, wrote:

There is a dilemma in describing a course of study. One must begin by setting forth the intellectual substance of what is to be taught, else there can be no sense of what challenges and shapes the curiosity of the student. Yet the moment one succumbs to the temptation to “get across” the subject, at that moment the ingredient of pedagogy is in jeopardy. For it is only in a trivial sense that one gives a course to “get something across,” merely to impart information. There are better means to that end than teaching. Unless the learner also masters himself, disciplines his taste, deepens his view of the world, the “something” that is got across is hardly worth the effort of transmission.*

Bruner’s challenge relates to education in a global sense, but he provides a challenge that is at the heart of Christian education. The phrase “there are better means to that end than teaching” suggests that at the heart of teaching is the relationship between teacher and student that “shapes” the persons involved in the enterprise of learning.

[Read more...]

I often start my workshop presentations by saying, “Don’t take notes. It won’t help you.” (in fact, I start out most of my seminary class sessions that way). I tell the participants to trust themselves to learn what they need to learn during our time together, and that what they need to learn is probably just ONE thing. But it will be the one thing they need, so that’s all that really matters.

Most folks are able to relax and settle in for the presentation without pen in hand. A few are not able to break old “schooling” habits and try to scribble down every word I say or every point on the presentations slides. My hunch is that those are the ones who’ll likely not learn much of anything. At the end of the presentation they’ll walk away with copious notes which will get filed away somewhere in their studies and never looked at again until the next cleaning day. Then those notes, never read, get thrown out with the rest of the clutter.

[Read more...]

Concepts are some of the most powerful components of learning. In fact, concepts attainment is necessary for deep understanding—if you don’t grasp the concept, you don’t really understand. This is a challenge in teaching in part because most people don’t recognize a concept when they see it. Further, concepts are abstract and therefore, hard to grasp. And yet, the “stuff” of faith is comprised of abstract concepts.

Concepts consist of a category (a class or a set) and attributes by which to tell whether or not an object belongs in the category. Concepts, then, require the ability to build taxonomies, discern likeness and difference identify qualities, and to name or create categories. No small feat for any learner, yet even young children are doing this when they learn a new concept.

[Read more...]

In a previous post (“On metaphors, analogies, and rigid thinking”(April 20th, 2007) I wrote about the limitations inherent in metaphors. I stated that while metaphors can be helpful to introduce a concept we do people a disservice in leaving them with the metaphor and not moving on to a more rigid understanding of the concept or principle under consideration. I wrote that when teaching a concept or principle we should avoid the trap of providing anthropomorphic, normative, and teleological explications—all of which lead to “fuzzy” thinking or confuse cause with reason.

My friend Bill asked that I provide examples of those three categories of explications we should avoid. Avoiding these three traps is most important when teaching principles (or what are called “Law-like statements” or “Law-like principles”). It’s easy to fall into these traps because principles, by nature, are causal.

[Read more...]

I had a conversation a few weeks ago with a couple of church leaders who wanted to “mobilize” their church members into ministry. They wanted to turn around the situation in their church (common to many congregations) where 20% of the people do 80% of the work, where most members were “pew warmers” and where the underlying assumption is that ministry is the work of the clergy, not the work of the people.

As so often happens in these conversations the talk turned to “spiritual gifts.” The working assumption in these matters seems to be that if we can get people to discover their spiritual gifts they’ll get off the pew and do something more than just attend church and let others do most of the ministry in the congregation. So they’ll ask about a spiritual gifts inventory that’s “easy to use” and doesn’t take too much effort to administer.

[Read more...]

How good are you at multiple object tracking? Here’s an interesting little vision test from the University of Guelph website. This is from Dr. Lana Trick, Associate Professor of Psychology at Applied Cognitive Science department. See how well you can do—and let me know by posting your results below.

I remember a study some years ago about eye movement and fighter pilots and race car drivers. The study came out shortly after eye-scanning technology became available. They found that while engaged in those high speed activities, drivers and pilots had LESS eye movements than non-professionals doing the same thing or engaged in simulations of the action. It seems the professional drivers and pilots were able to discern what to “focus” on and so didn’t waste time “scanning” around for things of little consequence.

[Read more...]

Someone asked me, “How do you know when you are being critical and when you are pointing out errors?” When I asked her to clarify what she was asking she thought for a moment and said, “I’m wondering about how I can tell when I’m being critical or disparaging and when I am raising valid issues?”

My first response was to be impressed that she asked the question related to herself—most people ask those kinds of questions about other people. I don’t think there’s an inconsistency between criticism (being critical) and pointing out errors. That is, I don’t think there’s a necessary choice between one over the other. If you’re pointing out errors you are engaging in criticism. But I don’t think that’s what this person was asking. She was concerned about “criticizing,” which may be a form of pursuit or a willful gesture, both of which are forms of reactivity. In other words, she was struggling to discern the difference between content and emotional process.

[Read more...]

Recently some pastors were challenged by my description of how my former church handled membership. As a “covenant community” church there was no “voting” on membership. You became a member of the congregation by entering into covenant with the congregation and signing the “book of covenant”—the defining, living document and confession of the congregation. Specifically, the conversation was an attempt to help them get clear about their understanding (and assumptions) about membership, participation, and belonging.

[Read more...]

In the past two weeks I’ve had three conversations with people wanting to “learn how to write.” In a future blog I may compile some thoughts about that since the conversation comes up regularly (and the other day, a former student expressed appreciation for having learned “how to read” in my classes–but that’s another post, too). Often I get asked by students about turning their doctoral dissertations, theses, or D.Min., projects into a book. Below is what has become my standard response.

[Read more...]

I recently had a conversation with a couple of professors from other seminaries about our Christian education (C.E.) curriculum at BTSR. One was in the midst of creating an M.A. program in religious education and the other was in the midst of curriculum review. I hate to admit it, but there are few things I enjoy more than talking theory and curriculum development with fellow educators. Sad, isn’t it? Maybe I should take up my son’s suggestion and take up rock climbing—although I suspect he suggested that for reasons other than my need to “get out more.”

Some time ago a group of the C.E. students jokingly started talking about their experience at “Galindo University.” I interpreted that as an intuitive awareness of the particular “way” the methodology and frame of reference their C.E. courses were beginning to shape their thinking. Their playful banter was gratifying because that is exactly what the C.E. curriculum is intended to do. (Besides, as student comments go, it sounds more positive than “Galindo Purgatory,” a possibility given that I’m the only full time C.E. professor they get). The first thing I mentioned to my colleagues is that our C.E. emphasis is not separate from the classic M.Div. core curriculum. This is philosophically intentional. The rationale being we believe that a congregational educator worth his or her salt can preach well, is a responsible Bible scholar, can practice effective pastoral care, knows the history of the church, understands a theology of worship, and can engage in critical theological thinking.

[Read more...]