| |
Compilation of AVLN Listserv Discussion on Integrating Faith & Learning:
These messages are published as written from July 30 - August 21, 2000, without editing. Please bear in mind the "talking" nature of a listserv and forgive any spelling or grammatical errors. This may seem like a long reading, but you'll find that you are quickly caught up in the spirited liveliness of this discussion!
July 30: Janine Lim started the discussion by asking for help:
Hi Everyone,
I'm working on two courses to give to AVLN. They are intended to be offered for teachers at the graduate level for their technology requirement for recertification.
*Internet in the Curriculum* I'm actually teaching right now and have several Adventist teachers who are hoping the class will count for recertification.
*WebQuests* was chosen as exemplary in the WebCT study this winter and presented at the WebCT conference in Georgia in July.
Both of the courses I've been teaching in my current job - in the public schools in Berrien County. Obviously they currently have no faith integration (unless you count teacher compassion and helpfulness as faith integration).
I'm going to list the modules here - and I'd appreciate any ideas any of you have on how to integrate faith in these topics.
Thank you!!
--------------------------
Internet in the Curriculum
--------------------------Module 1: Searching the Internet, search strategies, four ways to search: category searches, keyword searches, specialized search engines, site guides/lists compiled by other people.
(I have two thoughts here: Jesus said to "search" the Scripture - and Marilyn suggested having them search the Bible Gateway, the EGWestate site, etc.)
Module 2: 10 Quick Paths to using the Internet in the Curriculum, class routines, email projects, etc.
(My idea here is to link them to my online worship/praying for the 10/40 window site http://www.janinelim.com/1040window )
Module 3 & 4: Using Filamentality http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/fil/ and creating research projects for students and also how to structure Internet research when students each research their own topic.
(Marilyn suggested here that I ask them in a bulletin board discussion how they would have students integrate faith in their research)
Module 5-7 they have a choice. Either 3 modules on web pages or to create 3 more projects on Filamentality that are higher level than just a hotlist.
(My idea here is to somehow write up how choice is a God-Principle - how He gives us choice etc.)
Do you have any other ideas? Do you think these will work? Is it *really* integrating faith? I'm new to this - I'm very open to your ideas.
--------------------------
WebQuests
--------------------------I don't have any ideas here yet - open to yours!
First off, in case you haven't heard of a webquest, it's an inquiry oriented activity that uses mainly resources from the Internet and requires students to
create/do something with the information they find. (not just fact finding)Visit The WebQuest Page at: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/webquest/webquest.html
This is how we divided the work:
Mod. 1: Do a cooperative group evaluation of several webquests. Learn what a webquest is.
Mod. 2: Select topic with teammates and search for good sites.
Mod. 3: Design the task for webquest.
Mod. 4: Design the evaluation for the webquest.
Mod. 5: Design the webquest process (how students will accomplish the task).
Mod. 6: Continue to work on pages, begin to evaluate own work. Write introduction and conclusion.
Mod. 7: Finish webquest and teacher instructions (so another teacher can use it).
Mod. 8: View and comment on/give feedback to classmates on their webquests.
I'm not sure at all how to "add" faith to this course without it being "tacked on". I would very much appreciate your ideas! -
(Maybe the readings and the group discussion would be the place - we use the book Growing Up Digital by Don Tapscott as a textbook.)
Thanks so much for your input!
Janine
July 31: Jim Tucker responded:
Janine, the ongoing discussion of the integration of faith and learning intrigues me. I believe that the concept has become a catch phrase for something that has really not been defined. For example, before I can give you any particular suggestions, I need to know what it means to integrate faith and learning. As I stated in my opening remarks at the avll sessions at Andrews, I don't know how to separate the two concepts. In fact, in my view, any idea that separates them is a form of dualism, a philosophy that is not consistent with a Christian worldview. So, if "faith" and "learning" can't be separated, then why would we want to put them together?
My guess is that we are talking specific behaviors: statements of faith and statements of learning. If that be the case, then we might get caught up in a debate on how many statements of faith should be inserted into our statements of learning in order to say that our faith and our learning have been integrated. If I mention that I am a Christian at the beginning of class, have I integrated my faith with the learning? Or do I need to present every concept in "Christian" words? What are Christian words? How many of them should be included and in what form should they be included?
Is it possible for a Christian (read "real" "true" Christian here, if you like) to speak, write, or gesture without expressing his or her faith? Aren't a Christian's words Christian words, regardless of what words they are, or does the name of Christ have to be invoke in order to make them Christian words? On a practical level, I readily understand that I, as a Christian, would be hard pressed to avoid using direct and indirect references to my Christian worldview. Such references are as natural as eating and drinking. If we really believe in the injunction, "Let this mind be in you which is in Christ Jesus," then how do we calculate the inclusion of behaviors that demonstrate our Christian-ness. We are what we are, and when we create a product--be it a meal, a work of art, or a curriculum, we put all of who we are into that product. Our faith, whatever it is, is there, and the learning that will or will not occur is not more spiritual by our arbitrarily infusing it with additional behaviors in order to satisfy an unwritten, and probably undefinable proportion of faith behaviors and learning behaviors.
These are my thoughts, and they are not intended to be critical of any views at all. I continue to be concerned about what appears to me to be a mechanical solution to a spiritual problem. What do you think?
Jim
July 31: Later that day, George Akers wrote:
Janine, Jim, et al: I appreciate being included in your significant discussion regarding IFL, since I've been emphasizing the topic here at Andrews--and around the world --for the last 20 years, and genuinely enjoy the dialogue!
1. To me IFL is an issue in philosophic PERSPECTIVE--the belief lens the teacher is looking through as he/she mediates the content of the course. It is a "slant" (all presentational treatments have one; none is totaly neutral). It is NOT another "piece" or "half" of the puzzel to be worked in somehow, or tacked on somewhere. Indeed, such is a dualism to be avoided, one which distorts and artificializes the subject. It is not supplemental content; neither is it a specialized instructional modality; it is the teacher's way of LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT MATTER.
2. It's all about VALUE PRESUPPOSITIONS which undergird the course. These are "faith" statements, in a very real sense, for they reflect BELIEFS which the teacher embraces as important. They can be philosophic "GIVENS," or they can be APPLICATIONS of selected principles.
3. I see these presuppositions as presenting themselves in TWO CATEGORIES: ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS. (Recognized, these ideological twins certainly resemble each other, and are nearly "Siamese" twins in some respects for they are not inseparable, but we'll leave that debate up to the purist philosophers. . .)
4. In secular school settings, the ETHICAL presupositions pervade, as they are convenient and appropriate (the classic humanistic maxims apply). In religious settings, the SPIRITUAL connections prevail.
5. For the ethical/humanistic focus, the basic presuppositions about the MEANING of the subject matter can be lifted to the conscious level. That is, the ethical USES (and abuses) OF THE DISCIPLINE, or subject. Here lies an excellent opportunity for student subjectivity, creativity and critical thinking). It is geared to man. Man at work in his world--as revealed in all knowledge. Easily utilized in the public, or non-religious instructional setting.
6.In a religious setting, "Faith" can be clearly THEISTIC (as distinct from the humanistic cited in #5 above). Is geared to GOD. God at work in HIS world, as "revealed" in experience and "revelation." I see three kinds of religious "faith" :
* personal faith in God--the interior, mystical dimension
* faith in a religious dogma (purity of "doctrine")
* faith in a religious movement, or church
Easily (and appropriately) nurtured in the religious school.&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
........This is all I have time for today. Perhaps at another time we can discuss how these two "slants" can be made inherent and NATURAL to the subject matter at hand, and lifted to the conscious level. They must never be a tack-on insertion or a lamination that bends the discipline. Must be pervasive! (I see this aspect being achieved in the TEACHING THEMES that thread their way through the course).
There is no IFL "cookbook" available--nor should ever be; these are selective CONCEPTS that each teacher embraces and applies in his or her own individual teaching style. (--Has a whole lot to do with CREATIVE teaching! 'Is NOT a new "curriculum" or instructional method).
George
July 31, later that evening, Jim Tucker wrote:
Wow, Janine, we woke the sleeping giant!
George, I always appreciate your reasoned treatment of such heavy issues. Your commentary is sufficiently sprinkled with the cautions against mechanical treatment of IFL so that I have no problem with your treatise. You imply that when a Christian teacher teaches, she or he will always make it clear what the issues are and from what world view the teaching is being drawn, but that this emphasis will be natural and not contrived. I agree.Jim
July 31, much later than evening, Janine wrote:
These are great thoughts - they are - but what do I need to do! I'm giving a course that someone else may teach - so is the faith in how I write it down - or is it something I tell them in the teacher's guide suggestions for doing? or should I just assume that because I'm a Christian it will show through??
How do I apply the principles you both suggest?
:)
Janine
p.s. Dr. Akers - can I quote what you wrote here on the pages I'm making on how to meet the standards for AVLL online courses?
July 31, half an hour later, Randy Siebold wrote:
Could Janine's call for help have inspired a philosophical dialogue on the integration of faith and learning from two very articulate SDA
educators?Yep...
I appreciate and enjoy the foundational discussion. It is crucial to examine the roots of your beliefs, and how they effect what and how you teach.
What I wonder now is, how Janine is going to "integrate" that conversation into the courses that she is developing?
She has noted that since they have been taught at a public school and that they "currently have no faith integration (unless you count teacher compassion and helpfulness as faith integration)." She then goes on to list some thoughtful ideas at attempting to teach the course from the perspective of a Seventh-day Adventist Christian.
I would echo the call for help by Janine. Many educators have content that is void of explicit spiritual or religious content and they are trying to understand, or maybe even more importantly, they are trying to DO -- integrate faith and learning.
How do you think that this has been done successfully in your teaching? Have you reviewed your understanding of IFL and what it means to be a "true" Christian? Have you taken pieces of content and put Bible assignments to them?
How have you done it?
Everyone???
This could be a most beneficial conversation!!!
-randy
July 31: an hour and a half later CC (Constance C. Nwosu) wrote:
Hi Janine,
After reading Dr. Akers' comments, I'm not sure what else to say to you. He is the guru. I am sure his suggestions and counsel will help you and all of us who are struggling with IFL whether face-to-face or online.
CC
August 1: early morning, Janine wrote:
Ok, everyone, I have another question. Is IFL something you can see and observe? Is it something a person could say yes that's happening or no it's not in your class? Is it observable, concrete? :> It seems to me that if we have Faith as a standard for our online courses, it must be observable - and if a committee will review the courses to see if they meet the standards, they must be observable.
But can you do that with faith? :>
I'd really like to hear from all of you out there!
Janine
August 1: mid morning, Jim Tucker wrote:
You ask good questions, Janine. They force us to stretch in an area where we have not had a lot of exercise. I will add my thoughts (see below, following your questions) for what they are worth, but I join you in an eager invitation for everyone to join in the discussion.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Janine Lim wrote:
> Ok, everyone, I have another question. Is IFL something
> you can see and observe? Is it something a person could say
> yes that's happening or no it's not in your class?
> Is it observable, concrete? :>Apparently it is, because "faith without works is dead." "By this shall men know that you love me, if you keep my commandments." Etc. Faith is where we start. Peter advises us to ADD to our faith (II Peter 1: 5-7) a whole bunch of really obvious behaviors like being virtuous, being temperant, being patient, being kind, and even being godly, and finally filled with agape'. But such behaviors are in how we relate to life and other people. You can't add them to the words of a syllabus and have them mean a whole lot. You can, however, behave in those ways as you present the course. And you can provide opportunity in the course to explore the degree to which you are consistent with the faith that underlies those behaviors.
For example, our faith provides for both justification and sanctification. How is that reflected in our grading for the class? Our faith (II Corinthians 10:12) holds that we dare not compare one student to another. So, why then do we grade from highest score to lowest by grades A to F? Do we establish a clear standard and allow sufficient time and resources for everyone to achieve in their own way, according to the way God created them to learn best? Such behaviors would be faith-based.
> It seems to me that if we have Faith as a standard for
> our online courses, it must be observable - and if a committee
> will review the courses to see if they meet the standards,
> they must be observable.
Perhaps what I am proposing is that faith is not the standard for the course. It is the standard for the instructor. A course can't have faith, but it can present the instructor as a person with faith. If that is the case, then you can't add faith to a course when the instructor may not have faith.> But can you do that with faith? :>
I believe that faith pervades what we do in delivering the course. It is not the course itself, and it is not the words themselves, though I can express in words what my faith principles are. If someone else is going to teach the course that I design, however, they will add their faith not mine.Janine, the following comment is not directed at you at all, but why do I have the fear that sometimes what we are really wanting to do in IFL is add our "doctrine" to the class instead of infusing our course with our living and abiding faith. We can, of course, lace every course with doctrinal statements, and have no faith involved. Maybe we are hoping to do both. If that is the case, then we should be up front about it and state as one of our class objectives, "Students will learn (or be exposed to) the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." To try to sneak the doctrines into the course under the guise of IFL is to bear false witness, and to do that goes against my faith.
Jim
P.S. What follows are random thoughts that occurred to me as I was thinking about Janine's questions and her plea for response. It is rather long and somewhat personal, so please don't feel obligated to read it. If you do read it, however, understand that we are exploring a whole new medium of conversation--on line dialog, and, as such, the conversation is subject to all sorts of new pitfalls, such as the lack of facial expressions, tone of voice, and opportunity to interrupt for clarification and disagreement. It is also a permanent record of what is in traditional conversation lost forever.
I suspect that the reason some of us are reticent to enter this conversation is because we really have not resolved the issues around IFL. We have been a culture of behavior based on decree. We are emerging as a thinking profession, but we have not developed our thinking foundation yet. We are given to quoting others, most prominently Ellen White, and she is eminently worth quoting. But it was she who advised that we become thinkers ourselves and not mere reflectors of the thoughts of others, as good as those thoughts might be. The key word there is "mere." There is nothing wrong with quoting, but the quote should be part of our own thinking, not the end in itself. Think, dialog, quote, dialog, wrestle with the issues reflectively and in honest conversation.
If all we do is quote the platitudes, we have not really thought through the issues for ourselves. Perhaps we are afraid that if we share our own thoughts, everyone will realize that we don't know it all; that we are vulnerable; that we aren't perfect. That we aren't the persons that we want them to think we are. If we just quote those who have wisdom and knowledge, we will appear to have it also. Could that be true? These are just my thoughts. They may or may not ring true with you, but I won't know whether they do or not until I state them and you respond.
We are also often afraid to disagree for fear it won't be proper, and yet by disagreeing (without being disagreeable, of course), we make further exploration possible. That doesn't mean that one has to disagree with everything, but when you do not agree with a statement, say so, and give your reasons.
Now, if you have read this far, I would like to think (no pun intended) that there is both faith and learning involved in what I have just said. In my world of consciousness the Bible plays a very prominent role, and I draw from it as often as I draw from any other literature. When I speak to a secular audience, I will quote scripture as supporting what I have to say. I am not intending to beat anyone over the head with my faith, but I am drawing on what I believe and on commonly held belief to support what I have to say.
A presenter recently challenged the group that I was in to come up with a statement that we would like to have on our gravestone. I have been thinking about that, and what I have come to so far is this: "He was a compassionate learning engineer." Now I admit that I probably stole the word "compassionate" from George W. Bush, but it fits what I want to become as a Christian professional involved in learning. All of my faith premises are bound up in that word. I have thought about it, and I am willing to experience the vulnerability of putting the statement on line for everyone to see.
For me, that is the evidence of IFL, I am what I claim to be, but it is my own presentation of myself that tells whether that is true or not. So, the evidence (the works) is in the life of the person with faith, and it is demonstrated in everything that person does.
When God created the world, He wrote on every flower, every animal's eye, and on every molecule, what He was all about--His faith if you please. His mark is there. Such is our faith in the works that we produce.
I hadn't intended to write an essay, but if anyone has read this far, thank you.
Jim
August 1: midafternoon, George Akers wrote:
Why of course "teacher compassion & helpfulness" is an expression of your faith integrated into your instruction, Janine! It is an eloquent "hidden curriculum" factor (hidden curriculum not always negative) nonverbal expression of your faith in (your commitment to) impartial service to your fellow man, as per The Good Samaritan's "faith." Such caring and service is "spiritual" in the highest sense of the word (exactly what Jesus was trying to get across to the works-oriented legalists in the Jewish heirarch!)
Whoever suggested that the faith of a Christian can only be weighted in terms of a religious verbal statement of some sort (ie the 27 fund. Beliefs? --Or the notorious quick-fix "4-steps to conversion" witness package? Or the need to be on-record "Christianly" at every whipstitch? True, such a doctrinal testimony somewhere in the teacher-student transactions along the way may be appropriate and Spirit-directed, but only HE can communicate to us as Christian teachers how to BALANCE divine opportunism and reverence for a student's soul "space." In the final analysis--and I've taught this for years, integration is primarily in the teacher more than the materials. Bear in mind that this does not rule out curricular "intentionality." The Apostle Paul said somthing about our being "in season, and out of season. . .", did he not? That suggests that there are times when the Christian witness could be "out of season" (out of place). And cetainly there are times when it is definitely "in place." The Spirit-directed Christian teacher will know which is which, don't you think?
IFL "intentionality" is an ever-present state of readiness to care, to encourage, to serve, to emphathize, and to witness & exhort --even at times evangelize (yes, there are progressive levels of integration) and the Christian teacher is not ashamed to include in his or her course planning spots where each of these might be opportune--always subject, of course, to the Sprit's on-site unction, or veto.
Planning for faith transactions in the course does not a imply perfunctory, mechanistic, artificial by-the-numbers verbal insertions, but rather LIKELY juncures where the that ethical/religious dimension may be reflected upon, by both teaher and student. The Holy Spirit, I believe, instructs us when to follow the "script" and when not to.
Teachers who don't want to be involved in any way with the ethical or religious dimensions and issues of their discipline, are quick to do a
copout by saying, "I'm caring and helpful; that's my christian witness. I stop there." That's a POWERFUL personal witness, to be sure, and I
mever want to knock it, exept to add: "Why limit your witness? Is that the end and all of it? God may show you ways that you never dreamed of
to use your subject to highlight or illustrate great ethical & spiritual lessons, if you will open yourself to the prospect, by examining your discipline to see where that might conveniently and appropriately happen."Prayer at the beginning of class (with NO ethical/spritual treaments thereafter), merely as a minuet for the record's sake, can be an unmistakable psychological statement of SEPARATION, and at the deepest subliminal level say to a student, "Well, now that we've got this religion thing out of the way, let's get on with reality, and respectable, uncomtaminated scholarship..." (Maybe prayer in the middle of class sometimes--or at the end, would be quite powerful, and naturally INTEGRATED with the class experience of the day, depending the ethical/spiritual overtones of the class that day).
I have always, dear AVLL colleagues, felt that "spirituality" and "faith" reside primarily in the teacher, and IFL is modeled in all kinds of teacher behavior, and each teacher should be free to express it, covertly & overtly, in the manner most comfortable to him/herself--to retain authenticity and credibility. It must never be feinted or contrived. (That's a sure backfire!)
But I have felt as equally as strong that every discipline has SOME ethical and spiritual nuances waiting to be tteased out (some more than others)that a committed and opportunistic teacher is eager to explore and experiment with. A posture of ethical/spiritual neutrality in teaching is a statement too, you know, a very powerful one, and I believe that every Christian teacher who wants to bring EVERYHING under the Lordship of Jesus in his or her professinal ministry is OPEN to reflection and experimentation.
I am reminded of Ellen White's assertion that "the strongest argument in favor of the Gosprl is a loving and lovable Christian" (MH 470). ('sounds like a faith statement to me. . .
You just KEEP ON KEEPING ON, Janine; your non-verbal IFL is "right on" -will be God-used, and will most certainly register there in the secular
environment!George
August 1, early evening Janine wrote:
I apologize to everyone - you're missing a piece of the conversation - I wrote again twice today but somehow it went only to Dr. Tucker and not to the whole group. We're trying to recover! :>
Janine
Here are the two messages Janine wrote during the day, August 1:
Dr. Tucker,
I really appreciate your response. I plan to read and response to it even more carefully tonight - but here's my first quick reaction - it IS about how you teach the course - like I think my courses have non-explicit faith in them - in how I write cheery notes to my students encouraging them, and giving them a quick response to their email, being friendly in the course, helpful and reachable... that's faith! it's being thoughtful and Christlike. It IS in the instructor.
On the other hand, could a textbook have "faith" in it? My Internet in the Curriculum class doesn't use a textbook, and I have written down the things I "say" in a face to face version. So in that sense, the "course" could have faith in it, couldn't it?
ALso, I don't think we should be afraid of text only. The Bible is only text - it's not online, but it is words without facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. - and it expresses emotion, faith, hope, love, etc... all well-written books can do that, right? So we should be able to do it online quite easily with just words, don't you think?
But it's a different kind of writing - more like a letter than an academic paper - is that a bad thought? *(grins* it's a "talking" kind of writing as opposed to a formal writing...
Anyway, gotta get back to work, those are my quick thoughts..
Janine
Here's the second one from Janine, responding to Jim Tucker:
Ok, I'm on my lunch break now so I have time for more thoughts - I have to say I'm really enjoying this exchange - I hope the rest of you get a chance to put in your thoughts too! and aren't getting too frustrated with these long posts!
> For example, our faith provides for both justification and
> sanctification. How is that reflected in our grading for the class? Our
> faith (II Corinthians 10:12) holds that we dare not compare one student
> to another. So, why then do we grade from highest score to lowest by
> grades A to F? Do we establish a clear standard and allow sufficient
> time and resources for everyone to achieve in their own way, according to
> the way God created them to learn best? Such behaviors would be
> faith-based.I like this thought - sometimes I feel guilty for giving everyone an A - but I look for them to be struggling, learning, wrestling with the content, and going beyond their level. I don't grade people against each other, but look to see if they have improved in the class - I like the thought that this attitude--stance is faith...
> I believe that faith pervades what we do in delivering the course. It is
> not the course itself, and it is not the words themselves, though I can
> express in words what my faith principles are. If someone else is going
> to teach the course that I design, however, they will add their faith not
> mine.Yes - this is exactly what I'm struggling with - if someone else is teaching it, I can't tell them how to do it in my class - they have to do it their own way so it is authentic.
> Janine, the following comment is not directed at you at all, but why do I
> have the fear that sometimes what we are really wanting to do in IFL is
> add our "doctrine" to the class instead of infusing our course with our
> living and abiding faith. We can, of course, lace every course with
> doctrinal statements, and have no faith involved. Maybe we are hoping to
> do both. If that is the case, then we should be up front about it and
> state as one of our class objectives, "Students will learn (or be exposed
> to) the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." To try to sneak the
> doctrines into the course under the guise of IFL is to bear false
> witness, and to do that goes against my faith.I think that is a reasonable fear/concern. I agree that it should be living abiding faith. It occurs to me that this conversation could be had about witnessing too - are you "talking/sharing words/doctrine" or actually sharing your life/your faith/your walk with God...
*snip*> that we become thinkers ourselves and not mere reflectors of the thoughts
> of others, as good as those thoughts might be. The key word there is "mere."
> There is nothing wrong with quoting, but the quote should be part of our
> own thinking, not the end in itself. Think, dialog, quote, dialog,
> wrestle with the issues reflectively and in honest conversation.!!! This is a "thing" I can do!!! I can come up with a topic/question/issue that the students can dialog about in the course. Related to quotes, one of the weekly discussion topics for my webquest course is a quote about technology: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and then we discuss what technology is magic to us. Similarly, we could pose a quote from the Bible or EGW, dialog and think about it - and that would be integrating faith and learning because we are wrestling with the issues and trying to apply our faith to our lives... right?
> If all we do is quote the platitudes, we have not really thought through
> the issues for ourselves. Perhaps we are afraid that if we share our own
> thoughts, everyone will realize that we don't know it all; that we are
> vulnerable; that we aren't perfect. That we aren't the persons that we
> want them to think we are. If we just quote those who have wisdom and
> knowledge, we will appear to have it also. Could that be true? These are
> just my thoughts. They may or may not ring true with you, but I won't
> know whether they do or not until I state them and you respond.I think when we ARE vulnerable, and show that we're human - it shows that we're in need of Christ, that we're all walking on this path together toward heaven, and that we can be helping each other along the way - understanding our faith and applying it and dialoguing about how to do it, just like we are here - THAT is IFL too, isn't it!
> We are also often afraid to disagree for fear it won't be proper, and yet by
> disagreeing (without being disagreeable, of course), we make further
> exploration possible. That doesn't mean that one has to disagree with
> everything, but when you do not agree with a statement, say so, and give
> your reasons.THis is another "thing" we can do - teach students, and model ourselves - how to disagree "nicely" - I don't think we do very well as a church at this - but it's a skill we need badly, don't you think?
> Now, if you have read this far, I would like to think (no pun intended)
> that there is both faith and learning involved in what I have just said.Yes! Yes! Yes!
> In my world of consciousness the Bible plays a very prominent role, and I
> draw from it as often as I draw from any other literature. When I speak
> to a secular audience, I will quote scripture as supporting what I have
> to say. I am not intending to beat anyone over the head with my faith,
> but I am drawing on what I believe and on commonly held belief to support
> what I have to say.This is very helpful for me, as having gone through school never imagining that I would work outside the church, I'm constantly wondering where the balance is - when jokes are made at work about someone getting sued for trying to convert someone on the job, etc. etc. It's challenging - and very helpful to hear from others how their faith is shared naturally and appropriately in their profession...
> "He was a compassionate learning engineer." Now I admit that I probably
> stole the word "compassionate" from George W. Bush, but it fits what II don't think he owns the word, do you? *laughs and grins* It was Jesus who "had compassion on the people".
> my faith premises are bound up in that word. I have thought about it,
> and I am willing to experience the vulnerability of putting the statement
> on line for everyone to see.And THAT is faith!
> I hadn't intended to write an essay, but if anyone has read this far,
> thank you.I think it is VERY helpful.. what do you all think?
Janine
August 1, early evening, Jim Tucker responded to Janine's first message of that day:
See below:
> On the other hand, could a textbook have "faith" in it?
> My Internet in the Curriculum class doesn't use a textbook,
> and I have written down the things I "say" in a face to face
> version. So in that sense, the "course" could have faith in it,
> couldn't it?Absolutely, just as this conversation is heavily laced with faith in our dialog. And if you present a suggested dialog for the instructor and students, you can always suggest that topics that involve the spiritual dimension not be avoided and even give suggestions about how to deal with that in the public arena.
> ALso, I don't think we should be afraid of text only.
> The Bible is only text - it's not online, but it is words
> without facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. - and it
> expresses emotion, faith, hope, love, etc... all well-written
> books can do that, right? So we should be able to do it online
> quite easily with just words, don't you think?Again I agree. Personally, when I read your material above, I hear your voice and even see you speaking. I don't think that there is a substitute for f2f dialog, but between opportunities for that option, the on-line printed words can substitute nicely.
> But it's a different kind of writing - more like a letter
> than an academic paper - is that a bad thought? *(grins*
> it's a "talking" kind of writing as opposed to a formal
> writing...Yes! And it is what I do most on line, as you already know. So, for me the IFL is a matter of relationships, rather than isolated facts and/or content to be learned.
> Anyway, gotta get back to work, those are my quick thoughts..
I love your quick thoughts. I am glad you started this dialog.Jim
August 1, evening, Larry Burton wrote:
I a methodist, I mean a methodologist. And my reply will reflect my pedagogical slant. Since we live in a post-modern, secular society I think dualism is rampant, and perhaps inevitable. Because of that, most of us have to take specific steps to help IFL occur in our classes. These specific steps are pedagogical -- teaching methods. There are methods of teaching that can be taught directly to teachers; we do not have discover effective teaching practices on our own.
When we try these new ways of teaching (and inclusion of new types of "content"), it typically feels awkward, mechanical, and artificial at first. But that is normal in learning a new process. Research by Bruce Joyce & associates indicates it takes up to 30 practices with a teaching strategy before a teacher will start feeling comfortable.
I would also argue that a teacher must have deep understanding of their content before they can integrate (particularly if the person was trained in an institution which promotes a different worldview than the individual -- I could say a "secular" institution).
Constance Nwosu, Bill Green, Rita Henriquez-Green and I have developed a training manual for a pedagogical approach to IFL. This is because we believe if IFL occurs in the classroom, it happens because teachers facilitate it with specific, deliberate action.
As far as specific suggestions, Janine, here are a few suggestions:
** Identify biblical themes which connect to the content you are presenting.
** Develop questions based on these themes asking students to analyze specific events/actions in the Bible and generalize principles for your content's related theme.
** Identify ethical issues related to your content and ask students to abstract biblical principles for action.
** Use a post-modern approach (adapted from Rebecca Manley Pippert)-- Students or teacher does the following: (1) identify issues/conflicts in the content area, (2) connect the modern issue/conflict to a Bible event which addresses the same issue/conflict, (3) abstract principles of action from the Bible event, (4) identify an experience in your life when you encountered this type of issue/conflict and followed these principles of action, and explain how that worked out.
** Use metaphor. Have students explain similarities between the content and the Creator. For example, How is the Internet like God? Don't think "That's trite." I use this technique with adults and children and it has the power to move us to fresh perspectives of our content and our God.
** Use the evidence approach (adapted from the new FFT TV series). Ask students to identify, within your content, evidence of a Creator God.These are general guidelines which need to be applied by the content expert. Hopefully some of them will help someone.
LBAlso in the evening on August 1, Marilyn Eggers wrote:
Janine, Jim, George, Randy, Larry, and everyone,
First of all, Jim, I read eagerly clear to the very end of your last post. Thank you so much for taking the time and the risk to share your passionate convictions with us. I resonated with what you had to say.
However, Janine has asked practical questions that many Adventist educators are also asking and in particular those in AVLL as we try to find our way to develop distributed education courses that have a unique difference from all the others that are out there.
I don't think that the point of wanting our courses to have IFL, Jim, is to knock people over the head with our church's 27 fundamental beliefs. Certainly this is not my intention or desire. I would rather aim for courses that are permeated with Christ and show compassion. Obviously, this means not to take the humanist approach that so often pervades our own courses and institutions.
So, what would Christ-centered courses look like? Would it mean merely having a worship thought and a prayer at the beginning of class? Would it mean preaching--even in a math class--and not covering the necessary content? Would it mean having to mention Christ every 5-10 minutes or in online learning courses mention His name on every page? Would it mean having one activity per lesson/unit that mentions IFL in some way? Is there a formula for IFL or Christ-centered learning? No! A thousand times no! There is no set formula for IFL...which is why it is seems so nebulous at times.
I continue to wrestle with these issues but have come to a similar--though not as scholarly or artful--conclusion that both Jim and George have come to: It is the teacher and his/her personal relationship with God that makes the difference. If the teacher has a vibrant relationship with Christ, then God will be reflected in creative ways throughout the course and with the students. However, I would quickly add that this does not mean that we should judge others by their courses' IFL or lack of it!
Janine gave great examples of integrating IFL even into public school settings where IFL cannot be overt. Beautiful!! I also appreciated her explanation that in an online course we have to write what we would normally say in a f2f course. Since we are writing it down, we can and should be more intentional. Online teachers will also use Janine's methods of responding compassionately, cheerfully, and promptly to students. Prayerfully we can search for effective IFL methods.
I liked Larry's thoughts that we need to be intentional about IFL--have a method, and I also liked his practical suggestions. We are learning new instructional attitudes and skills for sure. It is like learning to ride a bike for the first time...it may be a bit wobbly at first.
Perhaps we are just learning ourselves how to view our own content area in God-centered ways. Once we start seeing things this way, then I believe that God will help us find ways of infusing it naturally and beautifully into all that we do whether we are in or out of a course.
Marilyn
August 2, afternoon, Garland Dulan wrote:
Hello everyone:
I read a lot of your e-mail conversations as I get the chance, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to speak to this one. Sometimes the only realistic way to integrate faith and learning in a class is through the methods used by the instructor or by the living example provided by the instructor's life. This challenge becomes much more formidable in technologically taught courses, because all subject matter does not easily lend itself to the straightforward integration of faith. Christ's example of a spirit-filled life was the best way to enrich the lives of his followers and often the best argument to defeat the plans of those who most opposed Him.
Garland Dulan
Associate Director, GC Educ Dept.August 2, evening, George Akers wrote:
Greetings , Garland.
I was to delighted several years ago when I learned of your joining the GC Education team--and now your continuance. How fortunate for the Church! And welcome to "The Great Conversation" going on ihere n the AVLL chat. I feel honored that they'd let me in!
Yes, the IDEOLOGICAL disciplines such as the arts & the humanities are just begging for a Christian, IFL treatment ("piece-of-cake"), whereas the TECHNOLOGICAL classes pose a very real challenge, because they obviously are scarcely VALUE-laden material. One centers on abstract ideas, issues, and values, the other on discreet concrete operations.
That doesn't mean, of course, that the latter are devoid of IFL opportunity; it's just that the opportunities don't present themselves as often, and these subjects require that the teacher be more opportunistic and creative, driving him/her to the basic presuppositions of the body of knowledge, and learning how to identify and skillfully interpret its inherent themes. 'May call for a more generic approach.
This is the crux of Janine's problem--as Christian instructors in the math-based technofields (ie engineering) all well know . They tell us how constantly challenged they are by their disciplines, to give them a Christian context, and critique. Computer science is only the newest entrant to the struggle.
And as you point out, Garland, the impersonal nature of the distance ed medium further complicates things, because the whole teaching-learning enterprise-in these technological disciplines is reduced to mere content, and the personna of the teacher ends up being greatly repressed. (That's why I am inclined to favor the teaching video for distance ed, even short modules), just to give this important human dimension half a chance to burn through!) Teaching is "selling," and the personality of the salesman, if you please, deserves fair shrift.
Janine, I have inundated you with a lot of palave, I fear, with arcane philosophical dialogue about what true IFL is, and is not. So I especially appreciated Drs. Tucker and Burtons' practical suggestions! Excellent. If you give me a call, I'd like to move now over to the applicational side with you too, and let's see if we can identify together some of the BASIC PRESUPPOSITIONS of your field, and it's ORGANIZING THEMES, in order to constrct a few appropriate teaching-learning activities of ethical/spiritual substance (the "both sides of the desk" considerations).
I will need to discuss in considerable depth with you the actual content you're mediating, so that we can avoid shallow links and paste-ons. Finding really solid stuff for critical thinking and creativity is not child's play; as we both know; in fact, it usually ends up as some pretty hard work! Too often, unfortunately, efforts to establish Scriptural corollaries IN ORDER to sound like IFL end up as mere window dressing, and come off as deep as an oil slick at that. It gives IFL a bad name with serious scholars. We must avoid that in the courses you're developing.
I appreciated your sharing your teaching units with us all (looks good!), but I haven't sufficiently gotten the feel of the "factoids" of your course to see how they all relate.
Best wishes always,
George
Much later in the evening, August 2, Janine wrote:
>Yes, the IDEOLOGICAL disciplines such as the arts & the humanities are just begging for a
>Christian, IFL treatment ("piece-of-cake"), whereas the TECHNOLOGICAL classes pose a very
>real challenge, because they obviously are scarcely VALUE-laden material. One centers on
>abstract ideas, issues, and values, the other on discreet concrete operations.Dr. Akers - I think there is *value* - are values?? in what I'm teaching - there are ethical issues - here are just two readings that I send my teachers to read - I think we could go a lot farther in the discussion of the ethics than we do in my current mostly public school teachers' class:
The Amazing Modemless Man - this is in the last module - and my discussion question is How do we find balance in our use of technology?
http://www.wired.com:80/wired/archive/7.01/amish.html
Copyright and Ethics:
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtindx.htm
plus a few other sitesAnd my question for discussion is:
How do you teach your students ethics in their computer use?Those are definitely VALUES, right!
This is really helpful, because I'm starting to identify things I'm already doing that are really faith integration.
Janine
Midmorning, August 3, Jim Tucker wrote:
As I read your comments, I couldn't help but be reminded of an observation made by Larry Burton in Sabbath School several years ago. We were talking about this very issue, and he commented that when Jesus returned to Heaven and left us with the Holy Spirit to "teach you all things" he was using "distance education." Or is it "distributed learning?" It further occurs to me that in a course on technology, you could bring up the subject of non-verbal communication, which includes everything from visual cues to extrasensory communication, aka prayer. The research on prayer, for example, has been carried on outside of the religious dogma arena and has presented us with some really interesting "evidence" of communication that cannot be accounted for by any previously explainable phenomena. So, prayer also is a form of distance learning. No? Imagine where a dialog could go from that base. Not only is faith implied, but it becomes essential in the discussion.
Jim
Midafternoon, August 3, George Akers wrote:
Janine, I read the Amish article with a great deal of interest and profit. Thanks for sharing! Great. It has instructional handles all over it!
Yes, the human ISSUE, "Does this technology pull us together, or draw us apart?" does indeed revolve around a social ETHIC, on the premise that the cohesiveness of the community (family/larger group) is the ultimate priority to these folk: PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONVENIENT GADGETS (!). (Implication--and should it be for, us?)
This is a "faith in. . ." presupposition, and although not a base line morality or religious tenet, it can by extension end there. Readings like this, as "links," certainly could serve as excellent thought questions for short essay assignments, or group topics. Ideal for critical thinking and debate.
I'm sorry I must have given the impression, Janine, that your discipline was without values. (none are!) I need to say better that they do not lie so closely to the surface there as they do in the arts and humanities, and need more "digging out," as you are doing so well here. This journalistic piece on the Amish dilemma--that you will use in the course you are buildiong--is anexcellent exapmle of how social psychology and the technology interface and call for decisions about priorities in "community."
With just a little prodding and appropriate lead-in, the distance ed students can be ushered into the SPIRITUAL issue of the faith community as seen in the O.T. and N.T. With a simple staging plan, this can be parlyed into a religious faith issue.
In your teachers' manual, you might want to elaborate on your own broadened definition of "faith," (OK) and how that brand of is nurtured in the course, as an aspect of IFL.
You know, parents and teachers all know about "seizing the teachable moment". It just occurred to me that IFL in the virtual classroom might have to do more with that than scripting it. And the instructor's participation in the chat room becomes his/her turf for ensuring that a critical teaching moment is "siezed."! But the trick in the D.E. PLANNING, seems to me, is guessing where and when that is likely to come, and as teacher, BE THERE (!). ??????
George
August 3, evening, Merlin Wittenberg wrote:
Right ON! Jim.
Merlin
August 3, evening, George Akers wrote:
'Appreciate so much, the CLIMATE of genuine collabortion you foster here in the AVLL, Marilyn.. Superb leadership! You make it safe for all to weigh in, at whatever their levle of technical or philosophical expertise--or their engagement with the legitimacy or viability of the whole IFL notion.
I can hope that we can settle on a definition of IFL that all are equally comfortable with. . .from "intentional" scripting it in the course planning and syllabus presentation, to the simple intent of just opportunistically nurturing Christian faith (in ways peculiar to each individual teacher) throughout the course of the instructional encounter--always timely and appropriate and in reverence of the student's soul space, of course. As you probably have deducted, I have through the years migrated to the latter generic approach. Faith is nurtured, not scripted. Although Jim and I seem to come in
on the topic from a different set of "givens," I believe we are essentially of the same school of thought.Sometime when it is convenient for both of us, I'd like to have a walk-through together of that handout (the green sheet)I I utilized in the 15-minute segment I was privilige to have with your workshop here at Andrews in late June (thanks!). It's the "guts" of the whole IFL course I used to teach, and I think it has merit in that it endeavors to lay out the degrees/levels of integration and is quite permissive and inclusive of a variety of integration philosophies and pedagogys.
Janine is doing just great (our AVLL 2000 pioneer!), isn't she?
Again, KUDOS to Eggers for "empowering" us!
George
August 6, evening, Jim Tucker wrote, responding to George Akers:
> You know, parents and teachers all know about "seizing the teachable
> moment". It just occurred to me that IFL in the virtual classroom might
> have to do with more of that than scripting it. And the instructor's
> participation in the chat room becomes his/her turf for ensuring that a
> critical teaching moment is "siezed."! But the trick in the D.E.
> PLANNING, seems to me, is guessing where and when that is likely to
> come, and as teacher, BE THERE (!). ??????Speaking of a "teachable moment!" As he does so often, George has modeled that concept right before our eyes. Bravo. I resonate with that application and description of IFL. I am not sure that we can ever really "guess" when the moment might occur, but we CAN set up some of the conditions (like asking a leading question) that will allow the resulting discussion to develop into one that will most likely explore the faith-based issues.
Jim
August 8, evening, Janine Lim wrote:
Hi everyone,
I want to thank you all for such great ideas and thoughts that you shared in response to my question on how to integrated faith and learning. I got some great ideas from your thoughts and practical suggestions.
It was really neat for me to notice just a couple days ago that our discussion really confirmed the draft standard for faith for AVLL:
Courses developed shall be faith-driven and mission-oriented
focus on balanced and wholeness as part of a healthy lifestyle
values focus/moral development
creation of a safe learning environment
integration of biblical principles
focus on joyful service to God and othersFor example, one of my thoughts about online classes is this:
I think it is important to plan routines into your class, to require the same kinds of activities for each module/week. Routine or structure in the online class is like the walls of the classroom. It creates familiarity and comfort for the students. They become comfortable with the class because they have learned the routine.This fits under the creation of a safe learning environment.
This was an "aha" moment for me.
I hope that this discussion keeps on, because I'd still like to hear opinions and thoughts from more of you!! :>
Janine
August 20, afternoon, Janine wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here's a webquest I created to "model" in my WebQuests class how to integrate faith and learning. What do you think?
http://www.janinelim.com/1040window/webquest/
Since the WebQuests class is all just creating one of these, I'm working on the discussion questions and then this model.
Do you think that meets the standard?
I'd also be very interested in hearing from other instructors out there - what do you think IFL *looks like* in your class?
Janine
August 21, Jim Tucker wrote:
Janine,
I have checked out your "model" and I love it. It is a wee bit too denominationally tranditional for my tastes, but those are MY tastes and have nothing to do with the quality of what you have produced. I see great potential here, and I am talking about the faith/learning connection. Good work, my friend. I continue to be impressed by the practical applications of technology that you display.
Jim
© 2001 AVLN. Active Online Learning course prepared by Marilyn Eggers, Shirley Freed & Janine Lim.