Religion is all too often presented as incompatible with good educational values. Part of my 2004 research thesis reviewed the literature of religious education (RE) for evidence of an overlap in values.
Among the questions briefly covered:
- How has RE developed in Britain, and what does it seek to achieve?
- What motivates people to teach and learn about religion?
- Is religious teaching necessarily indoctrination?
- How do different teaching and learning styles affect the picture?
- How can we assess growth in religious understanding?
The appendices contain expanded versions of most of the lists and explanations.
INTRODUCTION
It is axiomatic that in Britain at least, religious nurture
and education are rooted in distinct epistemological systems. As Hull observes:
“To find a common ground in
Christian faith for both nurture and education, without destroying the distinction
between the processes or the unity of the faith, is the major theoretical
problem confronting the churches in their dialogue with modern education. What
we are dealing with here is thus not a semantic problem but a conceptual
problem.” (Hull, 1984,
p.39)
As part of my research thesis, “Can
Religious Education and Christian Formation Co-Incide” (University of Brighton
School of Education, 2004), I undertook a search for evidence of the kind of common
ground between religious nurture and education proper that Hull regards as “the
major theoretical problem confronting the churches in their dialogue with
modern education” (Ibid.)
The literature review that formed the
infrastructure for this project is appended here with its original chapter and
section numbering.
CHAPTER 2:
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0: Introduction and Overview
A central theme in this enquiry is the extent to which a
programme of instruction in a confessional context – i.e. a catechetical[1]
programme – can fulfil the goals of religious education (RE). However, there
are sharp differences of opinion on what the goals of catechesis and RE should
be, and while some theorists like Warren (1983, p.379) argue for “a more
deliberate convergence”, others regard them as fundamentally incompatible.
The purpose of this literature review is thus not so much to
clarify the distinction between catechesis and RE – that has been thoroughly
argued from all angles – but rather to substantiate a hypothesis that there is at
least some common ground, to search for language that can mediate a dialogue
between them, and finally to suggest criteria for assessing the educational
validity of a specific programme.
The first two sections (2.1 & 2.2) comprise a survey of
approaches to RE in search of common ground between religious and educational concerns.
Section 2.3 attempts to establish guidelines as to what constitutes
‘indoctrination’. Sections 2.4 - 2.6 deal with adult religious education,
focusing respectively on motives, evaluation, and the needs and attributes of
adult learners. Finally, section 2.7 draws some conclusions and suggests five
principles or criteria for assessing the educational validity of a given programme
of religious instruction.
2.1: Historical Trends in English Religious
Education
Copley (1997) reviews the history of RE in England and Wales
since the Education Act of 1944, showing that it was only with the
proliferation of new British faith communities in the early 1970’s that RE aspired
to be anything more than a loose package of religious, national and moral precepts.
From that point on, RE developed quickly and of necessity into a coherent educational
discipline aimed at promoting mutual understanding between faith communities. However,
under the guidance of a series of influential texts, e.g. Smart (1968),
Grimmitt (1974), it developed a rigidly descriptive methodology in which any exposure
to spiritual experience or recommendation of a specific faith or world-view was
liable to be condemned as indoctrination.
This
value-free, phenomenological approach to RE prevailed for most of the seventies
and eighties, but there were dissenting voices even then, notably Holley (1978),
Hulmes (1979) and Hay (1985). For Holley, religious understanding “in breadth
and depth” is vital because there is a non-physical, non-rational, and dynamic
dimension “necessarily rooted in and directly concerned with the mysterious in
life” in which all need to be stimulated to participate (Holley, 1978, p. 50). Hulmes
observed that efforts to be 'neutral', regardless of good intentions on the
part of the teacher, seem to be doomed to become initiations into agnosticism
(Hulmes, 1979). And Hay advocated the use of RE to raise awareness of personal
experiences that could be classified as religious but are essentially spiritual,
over against the “hermeneutic of suspicion”[2] that
predisposes our culture to interpret experience in rigidly secular terms (Hay,
1985, pp. 141-142).
By
the late eighties such concerns had begun to enter the mainstream. There remains
a tendency on the part of educationalists to see different faiths as essentially
fungible expressions of a universal experience, but there has been a growing
respect for the distinctiveness and coherence of each faith in its own cultural
context. There is also a broad agreement, as stated in one agreed syllabus for
RE, that the learner needs to participate in the experience of a faith
community in order to understand what a commitment to that faith might mean for
his/her own developing beliefs and values (East Sussex County Council, 1993).
2.2: Models of Religious Education
Wickett (1991) describes a number of models of adult education
commonly encountered in a Christian context. A selective overview of five of
these models follows, and each is described at greater length in Appendix A:
a) The
Traditional or Andragogical Model
Andragogy
was defined as recently as the early 1980’s, but in essence it is an adult
version of the traditional pedagogical learning model. It remains the most commonly
recognised form of adult education in both religious and secular spheres
(Wickett, 1991, p.45)… However, it shows limited potential as a bridge between
the religious and educational disciplines, being geared like pedagogy to the
vertical transmission of knowledge. (Knowles, 1983; Knowles 1980 cited in
Wickett 1991, pp.45‑51.)
b) The
“Tip of the Iceberg” Model
In this
approach, a small amount of shared learning as a group is counterbalanced by a
larger weight of individual research outside the classroom. Its key strength is
an emphasis on reflective learning that orients it to personal growth and the
development of a mature and coherent world-view – whether religious or
non-religious in inspiration. (Tough 1979; cited in Wickett 1991, p. 111.)
c) The
Interdependent Group
This
approach helps individual learners work towards personal goals within a
mutually supportive group structure. A balance between authority and
independence is found in an interdependence
that is strongly formative of both community and personal autonomy – a
juxtaposition found in few places outside the religious domain. (Wickett, 1991,
p. 119; citing personal correspondence with V. Griffin.)
d) The
‘Scandinavian’ Study Circle
This
most democratic of all learning strategies consists of a formally constituted
group or cell under the chairmanship of a non-teaching moderator. Study circles,
like andragogy, tend to focus on life experience rather than subject-centred
learning, but unlike andragogy they tend to develop a very firm agenda for
social, political and/or religious activism – indeed the distinctions between
religious and other ideological motives may be quite blurred. (Oliver 1987;
cited in Wickett 1991, p. 129.)
e) A
Freirian Model: ‘Pedagogy’ for Adult Religious Education
The
Brazilian educationalist Paolo Freire developed pioneering adult literacy
programmes, rooted in the liberation theologies of Gutiérrez, Boff and others, and
designed to change society by educating and mobilising the faith community as a
whole. His learning models have thus emerged from communities in which faith,
education and the struggle for dignity are intimately related to one another,
and provide persuasive evidence that religion and education can live a
complementary and even interrelated existence. (Freire 1970, cited in Wickett
1991, p. 138; Groome, 1980, pp. 207-209.)
It will be seen that I have selected from Wickett’s survey,
in addition to the traditional approach, two models (Iceberg & Interdependent) that
originated in the academic world but address typically religious themes, and
two (Study Circle & Freirian) which originated in Christian communities but
are geared to bringing about positive change in the person and society. I
believe that taken together these models not only refute a null hypothesis that
“there is no possible common ground between religion and education”, but offer
clues to the kind of language that might mediate between them.
The recurring theme in all four of the non-traditional models
– variously expressed in the language of mature world-view, community and
autonomy, activism for change, and liberation – is the kind of concurrence in personal
and societal development that religion and education each claim to foster. The
work of Freire alone is enough to show that Christian teaching can be educational in the richest sense
of the word; and in the wider language of reform and liberation some, like Whitehead,
have found hope of a synthesis in which all education is in a sense religious[3]
and religion in turn can be truly educational.
A leading modern Whiteheadian, Dwayne Huebner, has continued his
mentor’s search for a mutually affirmative but challenging linguistic
relationship between religion and education, and he may be allowed the final
word on this theme:
“The otherness that informs and
accompanies education is the absolute Otherness, the transcendent Other . . . Education
is the lure of the transcendent. . . . Education is the openness to a future beyond
all futures. Education is the protest against present forms that they may be
re-formed and transformed. Education is the consciousness that we live in time
pulled by the inexorable Otherness that brings
judgement and hope to the forms of life which are but vessels of the present
experience. To interpret the changingness of human life as ‘learning’ . . .
is a paltry response to humankind’s participation in the Divine or the
Eternal.”
(Huebner,
1985, p.463)
2.3: What is Indoctrination?
Chazan (1983)
notes that RE has been regarded by many educationalists as the paradigmatic case
of indoctrinating activity. In order to evaluate this common perception it is
necessary to ask (i) what constitutes indoctrination, and (ii) whether in the
light of such reasoning RE is intrinsically indoctrinatory.
Chazan
describes three theories of indoctrination, a more detailed account of each of
which is given in Appendix B:
1. The Method argument holds that indoctrination is the transmission of ideas by methods aimed
at guaranteeing their acceptance.
2. The Content argument holds that indoctrination is implicated in teaching any integrated world-view
or system of belief about the basic issues of human existence, including religion,
politics or morality.
3. The Intention argument holds that indoctrination is rooted in the intention to
implant unshakeable beliefs or to inhibit the ability of people to think for
themselves.
The debate
between supporters of these three positions has been quite polarised, but
according to Chazan (pp. 420-423) it is in juxtaposition that they provide the most
balanced understanding:
·
There
is always the potential for indoctrination in the communication of those
comprehensive belief systems that become true, valid or acceptable only when
freely accepted by a thinking individual;
·
indoctrination
nonetheless requires an intention to transmit such ideas in a way that
thwarts or represses such rational acceptance;
·
such
a combination of intention and content implies certain methods that have
proven effective in thwarting free will, but which merely reflect an intention
to secure unthinking acceptance.
This framework
helps clarify why topics like religion, politics and morality are so hard to
disentangle from indoctrination, but it supports a verdict that neither
religious content nor insensitive methods can justify charges of indoctrination
in the absence of an intention to override or subvert the learner’s free will.
2.4: Motives for Adult Religious Education
Why Learn Religion?
Wickett (1991, pp. 11-17) identifies five main adult learner
types which will be used in classifying observation and interview data, and a
paragraph on each of these is provided in Appendix C:
· Developing skills for ministry;
· Learning for personal growth;
· Learning for social change;
· Learning for social reasons;
· Learning for the sake of learning.
Why teach Religion?
In addition to learner types, it is important to consider the
motives of teachers or facilitators. The following four aims are abstracted
from a fuller discussion by Andrew Wright (Wright, 1993, pp.24-25); they are
clearly neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, but allowing for nuances they
cover most religious teaching:
·
To
provide the social “glue” to hold society together in a moral consensus.
·
To
promote deeper understanding and respect between faith communities.
·
To
impart concrete beliefs, values or norms.
·
To
socialise individuals within a community and pass on its traditions.
2.5: Evaluation in Adult Religious Education
Wickett
notes that evaluation is of critical importance to any educational programme;
quite apart from its diagnostic role in relation to the individual learner, it
provides the basis for significant decisions about programme development and
change (Wickett, 1991, p. 66).
Internally,
my main concern will be to ascertain whether information on individual learning
outcomes is being fed back into a continuing process of programme evaluation. Externally,
however, I will need some objective criteria with which to assess the learning
outcomes for individual participants, and I propose to use the following
developmental models where appropriate:
a)
Stages
of Faith Development (Fowler);
b)
Stages
of Critical Thinking Growth (Perry);
c)
The
Modified Engel Scale.
a) Fowler’s Stages of Faith Development
James W.
Fowler (1981; 1976 cited in Groome 1980 pp. 66-73) observed that the way in
which an individual expresses his/her faith tends to follow a set pattern
regardless of the specific religious context. He identified six stages of faith
development, of which stages 3 to 6 (each described in greater detail in
Appendix D) would normally relate to adult experience:
Stage 3. Synthetic-conventional faith: Usually beginning at about secondary
school age, this stage marks a growing independence of parental or familial
values but a largely uncritical acceptance of external authorities (conventional)
and a compartmentalised response to the expectations of different peer groups
(synthetic).
Stage 4. Individuative-reflective faith: At this stage, an individual begins to
develop an autonomous, integrated identity and to choose companions to match.
It implies greater freedom, but also a more acute personal responsibility for
decisions and choices.
Stage 5. Conjunctive faith: At this stage, unusual before mid-life, “one’s
own system is seen as porous and incomplete even in the midst of strong commitment
to it. . . . One’s symbols are looked to
and affirmed, but also ‘seen through’ to the possibility beyond them.” (Groome,
1980, p.72).
Stage 6. Universalizing faith: This stage is the hardest to
describe objectively, but Fowler suggests in rather lyrical language that by
this point self-awareness and self-interest are no longer to be paramount for
the individual – that there is a transcendent sense of oneness with God and
humankind.
The
difficulties faced by Fowler in describing this final stage are a clue to the system’s
chief limitation: it can only be validated by personal experience; the stages
beyond have be taken on testimony and trust. Nevertheless, his work can provide
a kind of road map with which to diagnose a pupil’s or even one’s own position
and developmental needs.
b) Perry’s Stages of Critical Thinking Growth
Various psychologists
and educationalists have attempted to build on the pioneering work of Piaget
and Vygotsky in the sphere of cognitive development. Perry (1981) describes epistemological
positions grouped into four
broad stages of cognitive development which are summarised here and amplified
in Appendix E:
Stage 1. Dualism: The most primitive phase of knowing
divides meaning into two clearly defined realms: Right vs. Wrong, Us vs. Them,
etc. This mode of knowing tends to imply the existence of a Right Answer to
every question and to attribute authority to those who appear to hold the
answers (cf. Fowler’s conventional faith).
Stage 2. Multiplicity: The inevitable realisation that there
are some areas in which the right answers cannot (yet) be known splits the learner’s
world into two domains: (i) a zone of certainty in which apparently competent
authorities can still provide concrete answers; and (b) a domain of
indifference in which it is believed that each person’s intuitive answers are
valid for him/her.
Stage 3. Contextualised Knowing: At this stage the learner begins to
recognise recurring strategies in the way more experienced thinkers approach
areas of uncertainty, e.g. designing experiments, weighing evidence, comparing
interpretations. The climax of this phase is an awareness of the extent to
which interpretation is governed by context (cf. Fowler’s synthetic faith).
Stage 4. Committed
Knowing: At the summit of Perry’s scheme is the ability to commit oneself to opinions
and ideologies with a sober awareness of one’s own fallibility and an
acceptance of others' right to their own interpretations (cf.
Fowler’s conjunctive faith).
Perry’s stages of development are rather artificial – little
more than arbitrary points on a continuum of development – and were based
purely on research among Harvard undergraduates. However, in classifying the
epistemologies on which logical thought is based they offer in embryonic form a
non-religious language for discussing faith issues.
c) The Modified Engel Scale
The Engel Scale was developed in its
classic form c.1973 by Dr. James Engel, then director of the Billy Graham
graduate programme in communications at Wheaton College, Illinois. It has been
modified several times by his successors, and one widely used version is shown
in Appendix F (Hazelden, 2001).
This tool needs to be used with sensitivity because it is
based on an understanding of Christian mentorship that some would regard as manipulative
or indoctrinatory—it’s critical Tier 0 (“Repentance and faith”) can reflect an
unquestioning propositional acceptance whose closest affinities are with
Fowler’s stage 3 (conventional-synthetic) faith. However, it will be useful in
assessing the effectiveness of the DC course from a confessional viewpoint since
it is rooted in the same evangelical-revivalist tradition.
2.6: The Needs and Attributes of Adult Learners
…. As
author of the andragogical model….Knowles (1983, pp. 55-63) describes four key
characteristics of adult learners:
a)
A characteristic self-concept: Adults generally perceive themselves as do-ers rather than
learners, and this shapes the way they expect others to relate to them in the
family, the workplace, and the learning environment.
b)
An accumulating body of experience. Experience provides an ever-growing resource for both
learning and mutual instruction, and is instrumental in defining the
individual.
c)
Receptivity oriented to social roles. Adults are most receptive to the kind of learning
that will help them develop not so much in physical or psychological maturity
but in their social roles.
d)
A time perspective geared to the immediate application of knowledge. Most adults perceive learning as a
means of solving immediate life problems, and study units should similarly
focus on practical problems rather than the logical development of subject
matter.
These
characteristics….are analysed in greater detail in Appendix G.
2.7: Implications for the Proposed Enquiry
The aims of this review have been to substantiate a
hypothesis that there some common ground between RE and catechesis, to search
for language that can mediate a dialogue between them, and finally to suggest
criteria for assessing the educational validity of a specific programme.
I believe I have refuted the null hypothesis that there is no
such common ground and established that the categories of personal and social
reform can provide challenging but appropriate objectives for both catechism
and religious education. It remains to suggest a set of practical criteria by
which to assess the educational validity of….programmes with an
evangelistic-formative priority.
Watson (1992) brings together a collection of intelligent and
sensitive essays that offers (according to the cover notes) “some real hope of
reconciliation between the so-called confessional and phenomenological views of
RE”, and three of these (Wilson, Nichols and Hulmes) have been helpful in
formulating appropriate principles for a course that aspires to straddle the
epistemological divide between them:
· Principle 1: Objectivity
It should help learners become
well-informed, understanding and reasonable in the sphere of religion (Wilson,
1992, p. 11).
· Principle 2: Openness
It should awaken them to the reality
of a spiritual dimension to life (Nichols, 1992, p.115) and encourage
reflection on the significance, if any, of certain beliefs for their own
developing beliefs and values (East Sussex SACRE).
· Principle 3: Protection
It should not project a false veneer
of neutrality, but should avoid indoctrination or persuasion. (Wilson, 1992,
pp. 17-18; Hulmes 1992, 1997; Hay, 1985.)
· Principle 4: Respect for Diversity
It should promote respect for other
faith communities (Consensus view).
· Principle 5: Professionalism
It should use appropriate learning
models and teaching methods, and carry out a systematic evaluation of individual
learning experiences as an aid to continuing programme development (Educational
‘best practice’).
These principles nos. 1 – 5 will guide my choice of research
methods, shape the questions I ask and provide a thematic framework for the
presentation of results.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALEXANDER, H.A. (2003) “Education as spiritual critique:
Dwayne Huebner’s ‘Lure of the Transcendent’”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 35, no. 2.
ASTLEY, J., Ed. (2000)
Learning In the Way: Research and Reflection on Adult Christian Education Leominster,
Gracewing.
Bailey, K. D. 1978 Methods of Social Research in
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education 5th Ed. London,
RoutledgeFalmer.
BERKHOF, L. (1938) A
Summary of Christian Doctrine Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust
BERKHOF, L. (1958) Systematic
Theology Carlisle PA, Banner of Truth Trust.
BUCKLER, G. (1998) Planning
to Learn: Adult Christian Education in the Local Church Leominster,
Gracewing.
CHAZAN, B. (1983) “ ‘Indoctrination’ and Religious
Education” in Source Book for
Modern Catechetics (vol. 1) Ed. Warren, M., Winona MN, Saint Mary’s Press.
COHEN, L., MANION, L. and MORRISON, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education 5th
Ed. London, RoutledgeFalmer.
COOLING, T. (2002) “Commitment and indoctrination: a dilemma
for Religious Education?” in Issues
in Religious Education Ed. Broadbent, L. and Brown, A., London, RoutledgeFalmer.
COPLEY,T. (1997) Teaching Religion: Fifty Years of Religious Education in England and
Wales Exeter, University of Exeter Press.
Cremin, L. 1977 Traditions of American Education in Groome,
T.H. (1980) Christian Religious
Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
CROTTY, R. and WURST, S. (1998) Religious Education in a Religiously Pluralist Society
[online] Available HTTP://www.aare.edu.au/98pap/cro98119.htm
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 1994 Handbook of Qualitative Research in Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching 2nd
Ed. London, Sage Publications.
East Sussex County Council (1993) Religious Education in the Basic Curriculum
Lewes, East Sussex County Council.
Fowler, J.W. 1976 Stages in Faith: The
Structural-Developmental Approach in Groome, T.H. (1980) Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our
Story and Vision San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
FOWLER, J.W. (1981) Stages
of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning New
York, Harper & Row.
Freire, P. 1970 Pedagogy of the Oppressed in
Wickett, R.E.Y. (1991) Models of Adult
Religious Education Practice Birmingham AL, Religious Education Press.
GALLAGHER, J. (1988) Our
Schools and Our Faith London, Collins Liturgical Publications.
GRIMMITT, M. (1974) What Can I Do In RE? Great Wakering, Mayhew-McCrimmon
GROOME, T.H. (1980) Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
GROOME, T.H. and HORELL, H. D., Ed. (2003) Horizons & Hopes: The Future of
Religious Education Mahwah NJ; Paulist Press
HAY, D. (1985) “Suspicion of the Spiritual:
Teaching Religion in a World of Secular Experience”, British Journal of Religious Education, Vol. 7, no. 3.
HAZELDEN, P. (2001) The Modified Engel Scale: Working with God in Evangelism
[online] Available
HTTP://www.hazelden.org.uk/pt02/art_pt068_modified_engel_full.htm
HOBSON, P.R. and EDWARDS, J.S. (1999) Religious Education in a Pluralist Society: The Key Philosophical
Issues London, Woburn Press.
HOLLEY, R. (1978) Religious
Education and Religious Understanding London,
outledge and Kegan Paul.
HORNSBY-SMITH, M. (1993) “Gaining Access” in Researching Social Life, Ed. Gilbert,
N., London, Sage Publications.
Houle, C.O. 1961 The Enquiring Mind: A study of the adult who
continues to learn in Wickett, R.E.Y. (1991) Models of Adult Religious Education Practice Birmingham AL,
Religious Education Press.
HUEBNER, D. (1985) “Religious metaphors in the
language of education”, Religious
Education, vol. 80, no.3.
HULL, J.M. (1984) Studies in Religion & Education Lewes, The Falmer Press.
HULL, J.M. (1997) Utopian
Whispers: Moral, Religious
And Spiritual Values In Schools
London, Religious and Moral Education Press.
HULL, J.M. (2002) “Religion and Terror in the Modern World:
The Educational Responsibility of the Church” (a summary of the Church and
School Lecture 2002, sponsored by the Church of Scotland Committee on
Education) [online]
Available: http://www.johnmhull.biz/Religion&Terror.htm
HULMES, E. (1979) Commitment
and Neutrality in Religious Education London, Geoffrey Chapman.
HULMES, E. (1992) “Unity and Diversity: The Search
for Common Identity” in Priorities
in Religious Education: A Model for the 1990s and Beyond, Ed. Watson, B.,
London, The Falmer Press.
Knowles, M. 1980 The Modern Practice of Adult
Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy in Wickett, R.E.Y. (1991) Models of Adult Religious Education Practice
Birmingham AL, Religious Education Press.
KNOWLES, M. (1983) “Andragogy: An Emerging
Technology for Adult Learning” in Adult
Learning and Education, Ed. Tight, M., Beckenham, Croom Helm.
KRAFT, C.H. (1989) Christianity with Power: Your Worldview
and Your Experience of the Supernatural Ann Arbor MI, Servant Publications.
KÜNG, H. (1992) Credo:
The Apostles’ Creed Explained for Today London, SCM Press.
Kvale, S. 1996 Interviews in Cohen, L., Manion, L. AND
Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in
Education 5th Ed. London, RoutledgeFalmer.
MARSHALL, C. and ROSSMAN, G.B. (1995) Designing Qualitative Research 2nd Ed. London, Sage
Publications.
MASON, J. (2002) Qualitative
Researching 2nd Ed. London, Sage Publications.
MCCLOSKEY, M. (1985) Tell
It Often – Tell It Well: Making the Most of Witnessing Opportunities San
Bernardino CA, Here’s Life Publications.
NICHOLS, K. (1992) “Roots in Religious Education” in
Priorities in Religious Education: A
Model for the 1990s and Beyond, Ed. Watson, B., London, The Falmer Press.
O’DONOGHUE, J. (1998) Eternal
Echoes: Exploring Our Hunger to Belong London, Bantam.
Oliver, L.P. 1987 Study Circles: Coming Together
for Personal Growth and Social Change in Wickett, R.E.Y. (1991) Models of Adult Religious Education Practice
Birmingham AL, Religious Education Press.
PARSHALL, P. (1980) New Paths in Muslim Evangelism
Grand Rapids MI, Baker Books.
PERRY, W.G. (1981) “Cognitive and Ethical Growth:
The Making of Meaning” in The Modern American College: Responding to
the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society, Ed.
Chickering, A. and associates, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
PRIESTLEY, J. (1992) “Whitehead Revisited –
Religion and Education: An Organic Whole” in Priorities in Religious Education: A Model for the 1990s and Beyond,
Ed. Watson, B., London, The Falmer Press.
PRING, R. (2000) Philosophy
of Educational Research New York, Continuum.
RICOEUR, P. (1970) Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on
Interpretation New Haven CT, Yale University Press.
Schatzmann, L. and Strauss, A. 1973 Field research:
Strategies for a natural sociology in Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B.
(1995) Designing Qualitative Research 2nd
Ed. London, Sage Publications.
SLEE, N. (1992) “‘Heaven in Ordinarie’: The Imagination,
Spirituality and the Arts in Religious Education” in Priorities in Religious Education: A Model
for the 1990s and Beyond, Ed. Watson, B., London, The Falmer Press.
SMART,
N. (1968) Secular Education and the Logic of Religion London, Faber
& Faber.
SMART, N.
(1977) Background to the Long Search
London, British Broadcasting Corporation.
STRAUSS, A. and CORBIN, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded
theory procedures and techniques Newbury Park CA, Sage Publications.
THOMAS, G. L. (1999) Seeking the Face of God Eugene OR,
Harvest House.
TIGHT, M., Ed. (1983) Adult
Learning and Education Beckenham, Croom Helm.
Tough, A. 1967 Why Adults Learn in Wickett, R.E.Y.
(1991) Models of Adult Religious
Education Practice Birmingham AL, Religious Education Press.
Tough, A. 1979 The Adult’s Learning Projects: A
Fresh Approach to Theory and Practice in Adult Learning 2nd Ed. in
Wickett, R.E.Y. (1991) Models of Adult
Religious Education Practice Birmingham AL, Religious Education Press.
TRAVIS, J. (1999) “From
C1 to C6, Comparing approaches used in the Muslim world”, International
YWAMer, Oct. 1999 –
Jan 2000, p. 4.
(Original source credited as Evangelical Missions Quarterly,
issue not specified.)
VARDY, P. (2002) “Is Religious Education and ethical and
moral debate a contradiction?” in Issues
in Religious Education Ed. Broadbent, L. and Brown, A., London,
RoutledgeFalmer.
WARREN, M., Ed. (1983) Source Book for Modern Catechetics (vol. 1) Winona MN, Saint
Mary’s Press.
WATSON, B., Ed. (1992) Priorities in Religious Education: A Model for the 1990s and Beyond London, The Falmer Press.
WATSON, D. (1976) I
Believe in Evangelism London, Hodder and Stoughton.
WELZ, F. (2000) Identity
and Alterity in Sociological Perspective [online]
Available HTTP://www.zmk.uni-freiburg.de/Online_Texts/Welz_Identity.pdf
Whitehead, A. N. 1970 The Aims of Education in Priestley, J.
(1992) “Whitehead Revisited – Religion and Education: An Organic Whole” in
Priorities in Religious Education: A
Model for the 1990s and Beyond, Ed. Watson, B., London, The Falmer Press.
WICKETT, R.E.Y. (1991) Models of Adult Religious Education Practice Birmingham AL,
Religious Education Press.
WILSON, J. (1992) “First Steps in Religious
Education” in Priorities in
Religious Education: A Model for the 1990s and Beyond, Ed. Watson, B.,
London, The Falmer Press.
WING, K.A. (1997) “Adult Faith Development: Current Thinking”
in Recent Research on Adult Development [online]
Available: http://www.hope.edu/academic/psychology/335/webrep/faithdev.html
WRAGG, E.C. (1994) An
Introduction to Classroom Observation London, Routledge.
WRIGHT, A. (1993) Religious Education in the Secondary School: Prospects for Religious
Literacy London, David Fulton Publishers.
WRIGHT, A. (1998) Spiritual
Pedagogy: A survey, critique and reconstruction of contemporary spiritual
education in England and Wales Abingdon, Culham College Institute.
APPENDIX A
SOME MODELS OF ADULT
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Expanded description referred to in
section 2.2 (after Wickett, 1991)
The Traditional or Andragogical Model
Andragogy
was defined in its modern form as recently as the early 1980’s, but in essence
it is a version of the traditional pedagogical learning model. It is the most commonly
recognised of all approaches to adult education in both religious and secular
circles (Wickett, 1991, p.45), perhaps because many adult educators are
school-teachers by present or former profession. Classroom-based and
teacher-centred, it has been adapted to the needs and strengths of the adult
learner but inherits most of its strengths and weaknesses from the pedagogical
model on which it is based. (Knowles, 1983; Knowles 1980 cited in Wickett 1991,
pp. 45-51.)
The
andragogical model is thus strong on identifying needs, defining objectives,
programme design and evaluation. However, it is firmly rooted in the more
rigidly structured society of the mid-20th century, and while it
adheres to a problem-centred methodology that appeals to many adults it offers
little to facilitate the progress from dependence to self-directedness and
intellectual autonomy that is a key goal of all adult learning.
These
limitations are all the more exposed when the aim is spiritual or moral development
rather than cognitive knowledge. For a number of practical reasons the format of
“Discovering Christianity” is largely based on the andragogical model, but as a
bridge between the religious and educational disciplines – perhaps because it is geared to the vertical
transmission of cognitive knowledge – andragogy shows limited potential.
The “Tip of the Iceberg” Model
In this
less traditional approach, a small amount of shared learning as a group is
counterbalanced by a larger weight of individual specialisation outside. It is
thus incompatible with the present aims of “Discovering Christianity”, but its
key strength is an emphasis on reflective learning that clearly orientates it
to personal growth and change – Wickett notes that spiritual and religious
issues often arise spontaneously in this kind of group. (Tough 1979; cited in
Wickett 1991, p. 111.)
This model
is thus geared to the development of a mature and coherent world-view, and its
validity as a learning tool is independent of whether such a worldview is
primarily religious or non-religious. Indeed, my own experience from many years
as a Christian and a banker confirms that developmental language is highly
fungible: that business managers use explicitly evangelistic concepts like
mission, message, promise and belief as often as churchmen talk of corporate
goals, SWOT analysis and self-actualisation.
The Interdependent Group
This
approach is designed to facilitate working together to meet individual goals
within a mutually supportive group structure. It thus marks a genuinely
democratic move away from authority structures while moderating the demands it
places on the confidence and commitment of the individual learner – the balance
between extremes of authority and independence is found in interdependence. (Wickett, 1991, p. 119; citing personal
correspondence with V. Griffin.)
The beauty
if this approach is that learners who initially lack confidence in their
ability to meet individual objectives can be interactively led towards valuing
their own resources and experience. It can equally lead the abrasive
individualist into a more humble appreciation of the value others can bring.
This strategy is incompatible with the main objectives of “Discovering
Christianity”, but it is strongly formative of community and personal autonomy
– a precious juxtaposition of outcomes that is found in few places outside the
religious domain.
The Scandinavian Study Circle
The study
circle, which originated in Danish churches in the 19th century, is
the most classically democratic of all learning strategies, involving a
formally constituted group of adults making collective and binding decisions on
learning priorities with the help of a non-teaching moderator. (Oliver 1987;
cited in Wickett 1991, p. 129.)
Study
circles, like andragogy, tend to focus on life experience rather than
subject-centred learning, but unlike andragogy they tend to develop a strong
internal cohesion and a very firm agenda for social action. It is thus a model
not for communicating fundamentals like “Discovering Christianity”, but for
activists in the religious or political domain who wish to act in concert to
effect changes in the world. It is thus provides at very least a thematic link
between religious and social activism (whose goals and methods are often hard
to distinguish in practice).
A Freirian Model: ‘Pedagogy’ for Adult
Religious Education
The
Brazilian educationalist Paolo Freire developed pioneering adult literacy
programmes rooted in the liberation theologies of Gutiérrez, Boff and others,
designed to change society by educating and mobilising the faith community as a
whole. Emerging from communities in which faith, education and the struggle for
dignity are intimately related to one another, his work provides the most
conclusive evidence yet that religion and education can live an interrelated
and complementary existence. Indeed, they raise a question as to whether the
supposed dichotomy between them is the product of a particular cultural
disposition rather than the expression of some deeper epistemological
distinction. (Freire 1970 cited in Wickett 1991 p. 138; Groome, 1980, pp.
207-209.)
.
APPENDIX B
THE ARGUMENTS FOR INDOCTRINATION
Expanded description referred to in
section 2.3 (after Chazan, 1983)
The Method argument holds that indoctrination is the
transmission of ideas by undesirable methods. What is undesirable about these
methods is that they are aimed at guaranteeing acceptance of certain beliefs,
either by excluding alternatives or by wrapping them up in such a way as to
ensure their rejection. Techniques include stilted, incomplete or one-sided arguments,
deliberate falsification or suppression of evidence, charisma, repetition,
drilling, and sometimes physical or psychological brutality.
Opponents
of the method argument protest that such methods are not as distinctive as they
might appear at first sight. In fact all use of educational sources is
selective; techniques that appear indoctrinatory may arise from mere
incompetence. And force does not change thinking; someone may be persuaded to
affirm a proposition but not to believe it. The method argument thus fails
ultimately because it does not really distinguish indoctrination from other
activities and motives.
The Content argument holds that indoctrination is defined
by undesirable content – what is taught rather than how it is
taught. Proponents of this theory claim that indoctrination consists in
teaching (i) uncertain or speculative beliefs for which there is insufficient
evidence to satisfy a sane and sensible person, or (ii) integrated systems of
belief about basic issues of human existence and world-view, e.g. religion,
politics or morality.
Opponents
of this theory point out that it depends on a fixed idea of what is rational
and verifiable; in other words, it reflects a rigidly materialistic
epistemology that is itself an expression of unwavering faith in an
unverifiable hypothesis.
The Intention argument holds that what makes indoctrination
is not method or content, but the intention to implant unshakeable beliefs or
to inhibit the ability of people to think for themselves. There is a certain
undeniable logic to this theory, since it is generally agreed that the purpose
of education is to foster autonomous thought, whereas the point of
indoctrination is to subordinate some people to the thinking of others.
However,
the intention theory applies this logic in a naïve and simplistic way. Many
dimensions of the learning experience should be open to even a child’s
autonomous judgement, but there are some obvious areas (Chazan cites traffic
rules, hygiene and eating habits) where society cannot afford for each
individual to make up his or her own mind. And there are other more subtle
areas where the only alternative to a kind of benign indoctrination is exposure
to the arbitrary whims of immature fancy and peer group pressure that are themselves
obstructive to personal development.
The debate
between supporters of these three positions has been quite polarised, but
according to Chazan (pp. 420-423) it is in juxtaposition that they provide the
most balanced understanding:
·
There
is always the potential for indoctrination in the communication of those
comprehensive belief systems that become true, valid or acceptable only when
freely accepted by a thinking individual;
·
indoctrination
nonetheless requires an intention to transmit such ideas in a way that
thwarts or represses such rational acceptance;
·
such
a combination of intention and content implies certain methods that have
proven effective in thwarting free will, but which merely reflect an intention
to secure unthinking acceptance.
This
framework helps clarify why topics like religion, politics and morality are so
hard to disentangle from indoctrination, but it supports a verdict that neither
religious content nor insensitive methods can justify charges of indoctrination
in the absence of an intention to override or subvert the learner’s free will.
APPENDIX C
LEARNER TYPES IN
ADULT RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Expanded description
referred to in section 2.4 (after Wickett, 1991)
a) Developing skills for ministry
This
category would include not only those who are working towards some recognised
ecclesiastical order or qualification, but all those who, in response to their
experience of the divine, are equipping themselves for some form of active
service, e.g. in teaching, the mission field, or ministries of intercession.
b) Learning for personal growth
The
motivation to seek spiritual, emotional or intellectual growth is particularly
strong at certain points in life. For this kind of learner the symbolic
dimensions of the learning experience may be at least as valuable as the taught
content; the traditional model is far from being the ideal vehicle, but it is
tolerable provided it gives facilitators the space to help individuals clarify
how they wish to grow and change.
c) Learning for social change
As noted in the discussion of
educational models, many choose to learn in order to effect change and come
together because more can be achieved as a group. The traditional learning
model is rooted in a past status quo and quite powerless as a medium for
external change, but this is beyond the present aims of “Discovering
Christianity”.
d) Learning for social reasons
Many participation in learning
activities in the hope of forming closer relationships with others, and
sometimes with a specific other in mind. This often seems a self-centred
rationale to facilitators and co-learners, but it is owed their respect. Social
objectives are usually valid in the learner’s own mind, they are normally
combined (according to Tough 1967; cited in Wickett 1991 p.15) with other
reasons which may be at least as important, and with the right encouragement
the nature of the initial impulse need not stand in the way of a positive
learning experience.
e) Learning for the sake of
learning
Learning with no particular goal in
mind often brings a strong sense of fulfilment in itself. The “Enquiring Mind” (first
documented by Houle 1961; cited in ibid.) is generally highly motivated and
enthusiastic, and often works well in a traditional, didactic learning
environment. It can however present the facilitator with problems in
maintaining focus and a clear sense of direction.
APPENDIX D
FOWLER’S STAGES OF
FAITH DEVELOPMENT
Expanded description
referred to in section 2.5
James W.
Fowler (1981; 1976 cited in Groome 1980 pp. 66-73) observed that the way in
which an individual expresses his/her faith tends to follow a set pattern
regardless of the specific religious context. He identified six stages of faith
development, each of which is unlikely to be reached before a certain age, and
each of which may represent the pinnacle of any individual’s spiritual journey.
A curious but perhaps predictable aspect of Fowler’s work is that from the
viewpoint of each stage of development his description of the earlier stages
seems self-validating. Understandably, however, his description of later stages
than our own may look fanciful or even apostatic; as Groome notes, “the
transition from one to another can be protracted and painful, requiring
‘relinquishment and reconstruction’.” (Groome, 1980, p.69). This suggests that
credence in his system will always be an act of faith for many, but it does
offer an effective psycho-spiritual synthesis on which no one has significantly
improved.
Adult development is covered by stages 3 to 6 of Fowler’s scheme:
Stage 3:
Synthetic-conventional faith
Usually
beginning at about secondary school age, this stage marks a growing
independence of parental or familial values, but a relatively uncritical
acceptance of peer group attitudes. It is thus “conventional” in its submission
to the expectations of respected others; it is “synthetic” in that the
conflicts that arise between the expectations of different groups tend to be
dealt with by compartmentalising life into a number of theatres, each with its
own companionships, language and responses. Views and beliefs at this stage are
often stereotyped and rule-bound (Wing, 1997), and submissive to external
authority in terms of spirituality and religion as well as social life. This is
typically teenaged social behaviour, but Groome notes that as far as religion
is concerned it can last well into adulthood. Indeed many never develop beyond
it, and it is characteristic of authoritarian religious and political leaders
that consciously or otherwise they strive to keep their subjects at this stage
of development.
One
mark of a truly educational adult programme (church-based or secular) would be
to stimulate the kind of internal questioning that would initiate a journey to
the next stage of development. Whether the language used be psychological (as
in Perry, Appendix E) or social or religious, many of the questions and
concomitant changes will be identical.
Stage 4:
Individuative-reflective faith
This
stage does not usually begin before the late teens; for many it is postponed
until their own children begin to grow up or until the time of some mid-life
crisis; some never do. It is a critical stage in one’s faith journey, however,
because it entails the first assertion of true individuality; indeed it is
sometimes triggered by reflection on the “lack of congruence between the self
and the various conventional expectations of one’s different ‘groups’.”
(Groome, 1980, p.71). At the stage a person wants to find his/her real self
rather than being defined by the expectations of others and various external
authorities. It implies greater freedom, but also a more acute personal
responsibility for making decisions and choices.
This
more autonomous form of “faith” (whether religious or non-religious) generates
considerable pressure to resolve tension and ambiguities, and this can lead to
both anguish and radical changes in life expectations. Fowler lists some of
these tensions as “individual v. community; particular v. universal; relative
v. absolute; self-fulfilment v. service to others; autonomy v. heteronomy;
feeling v. thinking; subjectivity v. objectivity” (cited in Groome, 1980,
p.72). The characteristic behaviour in Fowler’s stage 4 is to collapse these
potentially creative tensions in favour of one side or the other; Groome notes
that it is not unusual for individuals in the early phase of stage 4 to
affiliate themselves to some society or community with a strong ideological
grounding and a lot of ready-made answers to life’s ambiguities. In other
words, the trend is to choose friends appropriate to one’s self-definition,
rather than defining oneself by reference to a peer group.
People
at this stage are very likely to join a programme like “Discovering
Christianity” in the hope of finding both answers about life and others like
themselves. A truly educational course would spot people at this stage and
attempt a double and in some ways contradictory goal: to help them develop
their autonomy, but at the same time to help them avoid the intellectual trap
taking refuge from life’s ambiguities in rigid ideological certainties.
Stage 5:
Conjunctive faith
This
stage is unusual before mid-life, as it is generally informed by reflection on
a great deal of life experience. At this point, the earlier strategy of
resolving tensions and ambiguities is seen to be ultimately futile; the
individual becomes accepting of a life in which there many shades of grey; able
sometimes to use these tensions in a truly creative way, and just occasionally
to grasp the higher truths that reside in the gaps between one certainty and
another. Far from being weakly relativistic, this stage is generally marked by
the closest thing yet to true autonomy: a renewed commitment to one’s own
position in the spectrum of beliefs and attitudes, accompanied by a receptivity
to the greater fullness of truth that may be attained with through dialogue
with others in different positions – implying of course a willingness to change
as a last resort. Groome puts this luminously:
“One’s own system
is seen as porous and incomplete even in the midst of strong commitment to it.
Particulars are valued but only because they hold the possibility of the
universal. One’s symbols are looked to and affirmed, but also “seen through” to
the possibility beyond them.” (Groome,
1980, p.72)
Stage 6:
Universalizing Faith
“When
Fowler speaks about stage six, his language becomes somewhat poetic.” (Groome,
1980, p.73). This stage is of all six the most speculative and the hardest to
describe objectively. Fowler cites examples like Mother Teresa, but even this
is hardly satisfactory; who can know what goes on in the heart and mind of a
true mystic? We can however say that
self-awareness and –interest evidently cease to be paramount for the
individual; that there is typically a sense of transcendence of the self, or of
oneness with God and humankind.
* * *
The difficulties faced by Fowler and his successors in
describing this final stage point to the limitation of the system as a whole.
The system can only be validated by personal experience; whatever lies ahead of
one’s present state of development has to be taken on testimony and trust. It
is nevertheless a potentially valuable tool: most people can attest to its
broad validity at least as far as they have personally travelled, and for those
who are willing to place some trust in the perceptions of others it provides a
kind of road map with which to diagnose one’s own position and developmental
needs. Finally, it provides an interdisciplinary framework with some milestones
and indicators that are useful to a spiritual mentor in discerning both needs
and progress.
APPENDIX E
PERRY’S LEVELS OF
CRITICAL THINKING GROWTH
Expanded description
referred to in section 2.5
Various psychologists
and educationalists have attempted to build on the pioneering work of Piaget
and Vygotsky in the sphere of cognitive development. The work of William G.
Perry, Jr. is not necessarily the most original or profound in its field, but
it is particularly useful in the context of this enquiry.
Perry (1981) elaborates a series of four
sequential stages in the development of critical thinking, subdivided into nine
finer positions. There is something a little artificial about his demarcation
lines; they seem to be arbitrary points along a continuum of development, and
since they were based on research among Harvard undergraduates they are not
necessarily representative of society at large. However, Perry went beyond
Piaget’s focus on the development of logical thought and attempted to classify
the very epistemologies on which logical thought is based – the most
deep-seated beliefs about knowledge, truth and reality. As such he offers the
embryo of a non-religious language for discussing issues of faith in which we
should expect to find resonances with Fowler’s faith-based developmental model.
Stage
1: Dualism
The
most primitive phase of knowing divides meaning into two clearly defined
realms, e.g. good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, Us vs. Them. In its early stages at
least, it tends to imply the existence of a Right Answer to every question, and
to attribute authority to those who appear to hold the answers. In formal
epistemological terms this type of thought is positivist-realist, favouring
quantitative knowledge over qualitative. There are both learners and teachers
in this category, and both tend the treat the classroom as a medium for the
teacher to pass on the body of authoritative truth he/she has received.
Transition
from this primitive level of critical thinking demands a recognition that
knowledge is permeated with uncertainty and that authorities are not always
trustworthy. An effective education will help the student explore the limits of
certainty and accept those areas in which understand the uncertainties that
exist in the discipline and in the teacher's own mind. There is room for some
development in critical thought within the dualistic framework even where the
learner is not ready to move beyond it.
Stage
2: Multiplicity
Perry
holds that by a series of steps the learner comes to accept that there are some
areas in which the right answers cannot yet be known, or where previously
accepted authorities may not be infallible; and that in these areas there is
room for diversity of opinion – at least until such time as suitably
authoritative answers do become available. However, opinions remain disjointed
and typically unburdened by coherent values, since in the absence of
self-validating answers to important questions this kind of mentality cannot
judge between opinions.
In
effect the learner’s world view is divided into two domains: (i) a zone of
certainty in which apparently competent authorities can still provide concrete
answers; and (b) a domain of indifference in which it is believed that each
person’s intuitive answers are valid for him/her. In this domain of indifference,
any claims to a higher authority may in fact be vehemently opposed.
To
move beyond stage 2 the learner has to address further questions about the
trustworthiness of authorities, but at the same time begin to accept the
inadequacy of unsubstantiated opinions – both issues point forward to the
critical assessment of ideas. A truly educational programme in almost any
discipline will encourage the learner to formulate balanced and documented
opinions, even if these are presented in a mildly cynical spirit of providing
(to use Perry’s own words) “what the professor wants”, since this kind of
self-conscious balancing act is the most direct route to acquiring the mental
tools for the next stage of development.
Stage 3: Contextualised Knowing or
Relativism
At this
stage the learner begins to recognise recurring strategies in the way more
experienced thinkers approach areas of uncertainty in their knowledge, such as
designing experiments, gathering data, weighing up evidence, and comparing
interpretations. There is no real progress, however, until the learner
recognises that these grey areas are the norm rather than the exception. The
crowning achievement in this phase is an awareness of the extent to which
interpretation is constrained by context. At this point, authorities are
recognized as fellow seekers of understanding, different primarily in that they
are experienced at making sense of the profusion of knowledge in their fields.
This
may be a period of confusion in which students are weighed down by the mass of
good evidence supporting each of several conflicting theories. They may be able
to explain and deploy the tools used to weigh up these theories yet have no
emotional ownership of these tools and be incapable of accepting personal
responsibility for their use of them. They will simply act in a certain way
because that is what is expected of them. In due course this can lead to a
chameleon-like constitution in which attitudes are conformed flexibly to
different circles of friends and colleagues.
In
short, relativism fails to provide the tools for making personal or
professional choices in the real world problems, and the learner cannot make
the transition without accepting that even the most rigorous analysis is
inadequate without an underlying system of values.
Stage
4: Committed Knowing or Commitment
in Relativism
In
Perry’s scheme, the reward of a liberal college education is the ability to
commit oneself to opinions, ideologies, values, and interests, but to do so
pursuant to a balanced interpretation of evidence, accompanied by a sober
awareness of one’s own fallibility, an informed acceptance of responsibility
for the consequences, and a willingness to accept others' right to their own
choices. There may be a sense of loss at the potentialities that each choice
eliminates, a sadness at the inevitable consequences of a necessary choice, as
well as fears or insecurities about the future, but these are part of the price
of autonomy.
Put in other words from Perry’s own,
committed knowing is an ability to hold contradictory ideas in tension for all
they are worth – to treat conflicting theories as models which may each yield
special insights into a global problem within their appropriate frames of
reference. This is a
healthy, constructive scepticism vis-à-vis absolute truth claims and simple
answers that nevertheless supports rather than undermining personal adherence
to a particular epistemology.
APPENDIX F
THE MODIFIED ENGEL
SCALE
Referred to in
section 2.5
Level
|
Description
|
God Is
|
Man's Task
|
-12
|
No God
framework
|
Confirming
|
Prayer
|
-11
|
Experience
of emptiness
|
Presence
|
|
-10
|
God
framework
|
Revealing
|
|
-9
|
Vague
awareness and belief in God
|
||
-8
|
Wondering
if God can be known
|
Preparation
|
|
-7
|
Aware
of Jesus
|
Guiding
|
|
-6
|
Interested
in Jesus
|
||
-5
|
Experience
of Christian love
|
Proclamation
|
|
-4
|
Aware
of the basic facts of the gospel
|
Convicting
|
|
-3
|
Aware
of personal need
|
||
-2
|
Grasp
the implications of the gospel
|
Power
|
|
-1
|
Challenged
to respond personally
|
Converting
|
|
0
|
Repentance
and faith
|
||
+1
|
Holy
Spirit and baptism
|
Transforming
|
Encouragement
|
+2
|
Functioning
member of local Church
|
Empowering
|
|
+3
|
Continuing
growth in character, lifestyle and service
|
||
+4
|
Part
of Team Leadership
|
Support
|
From “The Modified
Engel Scale: Working with God in Evangelism”
by Paul Hazelden
[online]
Available
HTTP://www.hazelden.org.uk/pt02/art_pt068_modified_engel_full.htm
APPENDIX G
ATTRIBUTES OF ADULT
LEARNERS
Expanded description referred to in
section 2.6
As noted
in section 2.2 (a) and 2.6, “Discovering Christianity” is largely based on the
andragogical learning model – an adult educational approach which has been
adapted by Malcolm Knowles and others from the traditional, teacher-centred
schoolroom model (see Appendix A for a more detailed description).
There is
no one correct model for a faith-based programme, but any course should be
geared to the attributes of its clientele. Knowles himself (1983, pp.55-63) refers
to four key characteristics of adult learners on which the andragogical model
is based:
i) A characteristic self-concept
A
school-based model represents a reassuring point of familiarity for many adult learners,
but is in some ways inappropriate to the way adults see themselves:
·
The
child’s natural sense of dependence and hunger for guidance are normally left
behind in adulthood;
·
Adults
generally perceive themselves as self-directed rather than dependent, and do-ers
rather than learners;
·
A
few individuals experience a sense of resentment at being ‘treated like children’
– especially if they associate school with underachievement or disrespect.
An
effective andragogical programme will thus maintain a creative tension between
(i) the clear sense of direction and confidence that a recognised teacher can
bring to a group, and (ii) the learner-empowerment and mutuality of respect
that go with some of the more democratic educational models.
ii) An accumulating body of experience.
Experience
provides an ever-growing resource for both learning and mutual instruction, and
is instrumental in defining the individual. This has three important
implications:
·
Adults
have much to contribute to the learning of others;
·
Adults
have a rich foundation to which to relate new experiences;
·
Adults
have rather fixed thought patterns and are thus less open-minded.
An
effective andragogical programme will build on the first two points and tackle
the third. The teacher will root the course content in experimental techniques
and personal experience, and provide a clear but flexible framework for students
to share insights with one another. At the same time, he/she will attempt to
foster a questioning culture in which no habitual way of thinking or perceiving
enjoys immunity from challenge.
iii) Receptivity oriented to social roles
Like
children, adults are most ready to learn what they need to advance to the next
phase of development. Unlike children, however, their “developmental tasks” are
oriented not to physiological and mental maturation but to the evolution of
social roles. This has important implications for the timing of adult learning,
and highlights the need for individual interaction to discern the developmental
needs of each participant.
iv)
A time perspective geared to the
immediate application of knowledge.
Pedagogy
is generally geared to the accumulation of theoretical knowledge and skills
that will be a passport to the future; it is typically subject-centred. In
contrast, most adults perceive learning as a means of solving immediate life
problems; the teaching strategy accordingly needs to be problem-centred rather
than subject-centred. This principle has important implications for the adult
classroom:
·
An
effective andragogical programme will focus not so much on teaching subject matter
as on helping people learn;
·
Units
should focus on problem areas rather than subjects – a good adult learning
experience will not end with the problems students bring, but will often start
with them.
[1] I use
the term ‘catechism’ and its derivatives warily in discussing nurture in the
evangelical tradition, as in these circles they can still carry connotations of
rote learning. In academic usage, however, the term refers in a broad sense to
“provision for the developmental needs of the faith community” (Dr. K.
Williamson).
[2] A phrase
Hay borrows from Ricoeur’s distinction between the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’
and the ‘hermeneutic of faith’. "Hermeneutics seems to me to be animated
by this double motivation: willingness to suspect, willingness to listen; vow
of rigor, vow of obedience." (Ricoeur, 1970, p. 27)
[3] A. N. Whitehead’s famous dictum, “the essence of
education is that it be religious” (Whitehead 1970; cited in Priestley 1992
p.27), is based on a belief that education must like religion consist in
relating the experience of the individual to the dogmas which express the
sytematised experience of the community (Priestley, 1992, pp.33-34).