Education

We can learn at any age!

And there are four basic ways that adults learn.

Shakespeare and Solomon show us how.

Introduction Shakespeare demonstrates his view of education in Act 1, Scene 1 of Taming of the Shrew.  In his conversation with Lucentio, manservant Tranio states, “I am, in all things, affected as yourself / And glad that you thus continue your resolve / To suck the sweets of sweet philosophy.”  Seemingly enamored with a broad array of studies including logic, rhetoric, music, mathematics, and metaphysics,  Tranio exhorts, “Fall to them as your stomach serves you; / No profit grow as where is no pleasure ta’en [sic]: / In brief sir, study what you most affect (Shakespeare, Taming 203).  In Act 4, Scene 3 of Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost, one of the lords attending to King Ferdinand wrapped in the allure of a woman’s eyes, also posits, “Learning is but an adjunct to ourself [sic], / And where we are, our learning likewise is” (Shakespeare, Love’s 271).

If there is one concern for adult learners, it is what the bard suggests: learn what remediation is necessary for the individual at the moment.  One’s experience or “phenomenological perspective” (Collins 257-59) is not a new idea.  As Shakespeare suggests through the Archbishop of Canterbury in Act 1, Scene 1 of King Henry V, people may learn in many “open haunts”; his conclusion is that the “art and practice of life must be the mistress” to theory (Shakespeare, King 533).  According to adult learning theorists, what one learns may only serve the needs of the individual as “situations” (not “subjects”) become paramount (Lindeman 33).  Ultimately, the drive is toward learning as transformation (Mezirow and Associates).

One canonical account that best mirrors the current interest in adult experiential, transformative learning is Ecclesiastes.  Qoheleth (“the preacher” in Hebrew) contends that he devoted himself to study, exploring “by wisdom all that is done under heaven” (Ecclesiastes 1:13).  He gave himself to pleasure (2:1-11), wisdom (2:12-16), work (2:17-26), justice (4:1-6), individualism (4:7-12), advancement (4:13-16), and wealth (5:8-17).  If there were a real person in Scripture who exemplified the adult learner’s interest toward changing one’s present satisfaction, it would be Solomon (1:12-16).[1]

If Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes after a life full of varied encounters, he might stand as the most impressive spokesperson for those who have taken in as much as one human could during a lifetime.  Speaking now as an authoritative adult learner, what Solomon could contribute to current theory and practice might add weight to adult learning theorists’ claims that individual, transformational experiences are crucial components to lifelong erudition.  In Solomon’s own words, he could contend: “Let me tell you what I’ve discovered through experience that has changed my life.”  By wedding past and current adult learning theory with Solomonic narrative style, autobiographical awareness, life experience, and reordered assumptions, we may establish an example of biblical, fully developed thinking and acting for people as they grow older.

Narrative Style: Knowledge as Transformation

Linkage between Solomon’s experience and adult learning begins in the arena of epistemology.  To some, knowledge is quantitative research (Mvududu); to others qualitative research needs to value people (St. Pierre 242).  John W. Creswell says, “Stating a knowledge claim means that researchers start a project with certain assumptions” (6).  Two important facets of knowledge claims and research design deal with the origin of knowledge and the interpretation of the researcher.  Robert Kegan and associates have developed the Subject-Object Interview which can ascertain “an individual’s underlying system of meaning making” (Erickson 68-69).

Christina Belcher maintains that one’s view of life is “an embodied language” (10).  Kegan’s question “What ‘form’ transforms?” posits that the method of acquiring knowledge supersedes the content of the information (35).  The form informs the meaning of anything (52).  Story is used consistently by scholars for transformative learning (Aalsburg-Wiessner and Mezirow 337-38).  Vigen Guroian believes, for instance, that businessmen learn ethics best by reading great literature (177-86).  At its core, story carries meaning, explaining how man must live before God.

Proverbs wrapped in narrative poetry might be an apt description of the literary style of Ecclesiastes connecting it to adult learning literature.  The form of narrative-poetry-wisdom lends itself to a broad view of knowledge; the literary type opens to a personal, experiential expertise.  Herein the teacher tells the tale journalistically.  He makes sure all people will identify with each category by engaging universal interests: work, wealth, wisdom, pleasure—all these just in Ecclesiastes chapter two.  Considering Solomon’s apologetic reach to various national leaders (cf. 1 Kings 9-10), the possibility exists that Ecclesiastes could have been intended as common truth for the common man in Old Testament evangelistic style (cf. Exodus 19:4-5; Deuteronomy 4:5-8).

Further evidence of an international, trans-cultural outreach is the use of “God.”  Citing no specific supernatural name—surely Yahweh would have been used were this written to Hebrews—could have a cosmopolitan appeal.  The generic term for deity—Elohim—was a nomenclature understood throughout the ancient Near Eastern world.  However, each time Elohim appears in the text (some 35 times), it is preceded by the direct article.  As people would read the words, it would be clear in the language of the day that Solomon referenced “the one and only true God.”  While Solomon was reaching out to a wide audience through his narrative, he was clearly making an exclusive theological claim.

Solomon’s narrational knowledge assertions leading toward a contemplative change in outlook, espoused by adult learning theorists, is compounded by his open-ended study.  Almost as if the sovereign of Israel were establishing research protocol, the following words are used about his investigation: he studied, devoted, explored, applied, and learned about wisdom and knowledge (Ecclesiastes 1:13, 16-17; cf. 8:9, 16).  Throughout Ecclesiastes, we find Solomon personally, practically testing his contentions.  As Summa Theologica declares, “Man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to desire and seek” (Aquinas 629).

Perhaps the personal story of the Hebrew researcher-king sheds light on current adult education praxis.  It seems clear that the “self-authoring mind” of Solomon satisfied both informative and transformative (what and how one knows) change (Kegan 50, 68).  In adult education, usage of story anticipates a ubiquitous audience, searching for common ground (Aalsburg-Wiessner and Mwzirow 333).  Key components of adult learning philosophy—human-, research-, change-centered concerns—are clearly cited throughout Ecclesiastes under the auspices of The God’s beneficence and common grace to all (St. Pierre 242).  “Biographicity”—encoding personal experiences over a lifetime for collective stories and structures (Glastra, Hake, and Schedler 300)—is found in Ecclesiastes.

Solomon’s narrative should not be left to arbitrary interpretation (Longman “Literary Approach” 392-95) where the application is left up to the reader’s perspective (Kaiser, “Inner” 44).  Ecclesiastes is historically, literally true (1 Kings 1-11; cf. Matthew 12:42).  The lessons from the forms of poetry and proverbs wrapped within the storyline of a man’s life makes the genre or form important in its educational application.  The Christian is committed to a personal narrative, interactive with this world and The Other.

Autobiographic Awareness: Assessment for Transformation

As it did with Solomon, learning about oneself within the social context of education might enlarge one’s viewpoint.  For teachers in particular, autobiographical efforts can improve instruction (Brookfield, Becoming 49-70).  The dignity and autonomy of the person is maintained, encouraging the student as an instrument of change (Collins; Freire).  Individual pupil transformation, learning styles, and interactive learning are all helped by the opportunity that one person has more than others for expansive experience, leading toward autonomous choice (Kiesling et al; Mezirow 26-27, 29).  Self-awareness utilizing self-assessment contributes to the educational autobiography (Taylor 172, 174).

Scholars refer to Ecclesiastes as a “royal autobiography” (Fox 153).  Introspection (Longman, The Book 37) drove Solomon’s seemingly insatiable urge toward a Renaissance Man’s awareness of things (cf. 1 Kings 4:29-34).  The king’s personal prayer to The God for “a wise and discerning heart” (1 Kings 3:7-9) is answered with a promise that there would be “no one else like him” (1 Kings 3:10-12).  Judging from the subsequent chapters’ historical notations, logic in human experience was but a “preparatory discipline… sharpen[ing] the mind in advance so that we shall see what there is to see” [emphasis his] (Trueblood 76).  Solomon’s personal investment noted by the use of “I” throughout Ecclesiastes demonstrates his dogged pursuit of earthly understanding.

As a king, David’s son was afforded a wonderful opportunity for educational freedom (Ecclesiastes 1:12-18).  He reigned during a time of peace, and his armies consolidated gains by his warrior predecessor (1 Kings 4:1-28), allowing him time to create the wonder of Jerusalem’s temple (1 Kings 5-9).  Given the unique liberties unhurried by military campaigns, Solomon took time, meticulously assessing life as a whole throughout Ecclesiastes.  In chapter two alone, the reader finds question after question, critically evaluating a panoply of concerns: “What does laughter accomplish?” and “What more can be done?” are but two of the many queries perplexing Solomon’s mind (Ecclesiastes 2:2, 12; cf. 2:15, 19, 22, 25).  Self-assessment includes transparency and honesty.  After pouring his life into various projects (2:19), Solomon concedes his feelings of hatred (2:18), despair (2:20), emptiness (2:21), anxiety (2:22), and grief (2:23).  Perhaps Augustine’s Confessions, considered by many to be the first autobiography, drew its inspiration of self-awareness from Ecclesiastes (Augustine).

Self-reporting, such as that done by Solomon, becomes “a person’s sense of spiritual construction” asserted by andragogy proponents (Kiesling et al256).  As older learners write about their life’s struggles, they may be “more motivated and self-directed in the learning process” (Williamson and Watson 40) while “imparting knowledge to the people” (Ecclesiastes 12:9).  The intrinsic motivation for learning—which may be more pronounced in older students—is encouraged for the young (Ecclesiastes 11:9-10) by an autobiographer who “searched to find just the right words” (12:10).  It seems Solomon consolidated frame of reference, displayed habit of mind, and created a point of view [emphasis his] (Mezirow 16-19)to establish an interpretation which is “upright and true” (Ecclesiastes 12:10).  The conclusion of Solomon’s memoirs will create the autonomous choice for all adult learners that he appropriated for himself.

Life Experience: Individuation as Transformation

Solomon’s personal learning processes are referred to by adult learning advocates as “individuation”: the development of one’s interiority (Cranton 188-189, 198).  Learner-centered, role modeling, experiential learning has been acknowledged as appropriate for teaching life skills (von Kotze) since life events do impact one’s practiced belief.  Self-involvement, which coincides with religious studies, has made others attend to the connection between existential and academic (Sabri et al).  Student-centered, situational points of view (Houle), developmental constructivism (Erickson), and phenomenological discovery (Collins 258-59) have been heralded in adult education circles.  Qualitative research in social science (Creswell) has further sought application in distance education conjoining “faculty lived experiences in the online environment” (Conceição).

Solomon’s lived life sets the standard for thoughtful, individual, transformational process.  Ecclesiastes 1:16 says the king had experienced, grown, and increased in all his endeavors.  The word “see” and its derivatives in Qoheleth are clear markers of personal life application (cf. 1:14; 2:3, 24; 3:22; etc.)  In fact, Solomon concedes, “I denied myself nothing my eyes desired” (2:10; cf. 2:14; 5:11; 6:9; 8:16; 11:7, 9).

Solomon both looked and took.  His accomplishments, such as in the detailed account of material acquisition (Ecclesiastes 2:4-11), exactly bespeak the promises God bestowed on His servant (1 Kings 3:13).  Beyond this, Solomon internalized thoughts and actions by the processes of interpretation and application (cf. Ecclesiastes 7:15) nowhere better stated than in chapter eight, verse nine: “All this I saw, as I applied my mind to everything done under the sun.”  Solomon makes an intrapersonal break from the collective context to “critically question the habits of mind” (Cranton 189) so that he could speak to mankind as a whole, applying true Truth to life (cf. Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:1-12).

The Christian educator might agree that acknowledging new truth may be uncovered outside the parameters of the scientific method.  Some Christian scholars have questioned and rejected “the science ideal” [emphasis his](Wolterstorff 101) as the paradigm for integration, instead calling for a reinvestigation of how a Christian view of knowledge is assimilated.  Qualitative research, controlled by Christian faithfulness, may demonstrate the authority of true Truth resident in childlike faith experience.  Indeed, Christian teaching is “a personal experience that is shared, not simply a set of facts or ideas” (Wilhoit and Ryken 52).  “As Christian educators, we need to engage both the heart and the mind of a person with interactive learning that embraces both cognitive and experiential understanding as well as reflection and application” (Beck and Campbell 108).  Solomon’s words elsewhere suggest overarching resolve: “Do not be wise in your own eyes” (Proverbs 3:7); “Preserve sound judgment and discernment; do not let them out of your sight” (Proverbs 3:21).

Reordered Assumptions: Reflection for Transformation

Characteristic of Qoheleth is reflection, “a report of an inner contemplation of an issue” (Fox 155).  “Wisdom reflections” lend themselves to the reader both as authorization and application (Arnold and Beyer 327).  For example, adult learners can make connections between belief and behavior concerning social justice (Clare).  “Premise reflection” should precede “a fundamental reordering of assumptions” ((Mezirow 20; Brookfield “Transformative Learning” 139).  Critical self-reflection of assumptions (CSRA) is an established taxonomy for adult learning advocates (Brookfield “Transformative Learning” 131-136).  “Transitional learning” (Glastra, Hake, and Schedler) should be the end result of deliberation.

“I reflected on all of this” (Ecclesiastes 9:1) is both a recurring and summary statement from Solomon.  “I thought to myself” (e.g., 1:16) and “I thought in my heart” (e.g., 2:1, 15) are constantly repeated.  Leaving no stone unturned “all this I tested by wisdom” (7:23), Solomon declares.  “Look, this is what I have discovered…this is what I have found” (7:27, 29): one can almost see the teacher lecture (12:9).  Ultimately, Solomon has more questions than answers (6:11-12).

All the king’s reflections begin to shift long held beliefs.  An “under the sun” (used over 30 times in Ecclesiastes; e.g. 1:3, 9, 13, 14) or purely naturalistic point of view (i.e., there is nothing above the sun or its authority) is called “meaningless” (used over 35 times in Ecclesiastes; e.g. 1:2, 14; 2:1, 11, 15) and a “chasing after the wind” (used over 12 times in Ecclesiastes; e.g. 1:14, 17; 2:11, 17, 26).  Every venue of life is examined and found wanting in and of itself apart from The God.  Satisfaction and sensibility on earth is vapid, empty, like condensed breathe in a cold climate—here and gone (the Hebraic concept of “meaningless” or “vanity” in the English).

Ecclesiastes turns on its head the “normative assumptions underpinning the values and expectations” (Mezirow 31) that most humans have believed since Eden’s garden (“it was not this way from the beginning,” Matthew 19:8; cf. Ecclesiastes 7:29; Acts 17:6; 1 John 3:8).  Solomon seems to suggest that power resides within cultural pressures to conform (e.g., Ecclesiastes 4:13-16).  Uncovering “dynamics and relationships” (Brookfield “Transformative Learning” 136) and “hegemonic assumptions” (137) that “actually work against us in the long term by serving the interests of those opposed to us” (138), is a necessary part of reflection leading to change.  Whatever else one learns from reflective reordering of assumptions is that “we cannot avoid reliance on some sort of authority” (Trueblood 67).

Conclusion Lifelong transitional learning seen through “self-actualization biographies” (Glastra, Hake, and Schedler 300) finds its replication in Ecclesiastes.  Looking at oneself in the mirror (cf. James 1:19-25) is metaphorically true both of Solomonic wisdom and adult learning.  Putting meaning in life is a key goal of andragogy (Lindeman), true also of Qoheleth.  “Intentional reflection” requires “renegotiation of older relationships and establishing new ones” (Mezirow 6), which is exactly what Solomon contends “is the conclusion of the matter” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).  Scriptural texts must be placed as a lens over current research as adult education theories develop.

The responsibility of the Christian scholar is to claim teaching outside the Church which is in “harmony with our faith…better adapted to the use of truth” (Augustine 655).  Christian scholars should seek a trans-disciplinary, as well as an interdisciplinary, perspective by using a Solomonic “comprehensive framework through which they see and interpret all of reality” (Sinnema 198).  Integrationists, for instance, must “bring Christian educators into a conversation with current identity theorists and researchers” (Kielsing et al241).

Yet, as a story of transformation, Ecclesiastes is unique, setting it apart from pagan adult education theories.  A lifetime committed to understanding life’s core message and meaning is summarized in the positive refrain running throughout the book: life is a gift of God (2:24; 3:12-13, 22; 5:18-20; 8:15; 9:7-9).  Ecclesiastes reflects a comprehensive, coherent view of the world and life by declaring the One and Only True God is beneficent toward His creation and creatures.  Appreciation of the present good and an expectation of more to follow is the common ground between people.  Solomon teaches that a repentant attitude, a will toward true transformation found in Proverbs 28:14-15, must be acted out by each learner as he concludes in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14.  As Pascal states in his treatise On Geometrical Demonstration, “We believe almost nothing unless it pleases us.  And this is why we are so loath to accept the truths of the Christian religion, which is entirely opposed to our pleasures” (440).

Solomon neither sidesteps difficult issues nor sets up straw men to make his point: being fallen and finite in this world is truly hard (cf. 1:15; 7:13).  There are possibilities without guarantees (11:1-6; 10:14).  Knowledge sometimes exists without understanding (11:5), and wisdom can come without accomplishment (9:13-18).  What is Solomon’s response?  He says there is a need to fear God (3:14; 5:7; 7:18; 8:12-13; 12:13) because judgment is coming (3:17; 8:12-13; 11:9; 12:7, 14).  As Henry Stob states, “To be educated is to have received an inner structuring of mind and life…. Education is the transformation of one’s person, the structuring of one’s being…. The student…will have been filled out and integrated by the larger reality which lies in, around, and beyond him” (265).

A Christian view of adult education should set standards from the above observations without apology in the following academic interests:

1. Incarnational theology—personal care in belief—must be enacted in the classroom.  Passionate scholars must learn to harness their own “meaning making” while encouraging students to appropriate their own.  Understanding that form informs meaning, professorial delivery systems should be monitored together with course content.  Story and poetry should be used more often in classroom instruction.  The time taken to prepare for any lesson should equal the time given for its presentation.  A teacher’s mantra should be communicating as simply as possible to as broad an audience as possible.  Online curricular components must work much harder to make the educational experience personable.  Ultimately, professors should build possibilities of interpersonal learning with their students to wed theory with practice.

2. Acceptance of research must depend on both its veracity and applicability.  Slow, thorough precision should be as much an assessment as quantity and quality of work.  Self-assessment measures should be part of any coursework.  Teaching the concept of “lifelong learning” means measured, steady growth—unlike the pressures consistent with usual academic settings.  Cultural and educational commonalities must be sought for universal use.  Motivation for learning must be consistently encouraged.

3. Historical biography must be read and written.  Students should be trained to think and teach biographically.  Character development should be the core of a liberal education model, building students from the inside out.  Reading classic literature presses the learner to appropriate lessons more by example than dogmatism.  To feed transformational agents, dietary parallels could be sought—consumption determines performance.  Such a suggested educational process demands time and opportunity for reflection.

4. Truth models must be proposed in academics.  An arbiter must exist in Christian higher education.  “Under the sun” should be subservient to “life is a gift of God.”  While human thinking changes, long-held beliefs may need adjustment; a standard of veritas should give finite, fallible humans a functional framework.  Caution against idolatry and pride must be part of a professor’s daily concerns.

The academy must strive for a holistic, integrated curriculum. Christian higher education should set the standard for true interdisciplinary studies, showing how all things cohere in Christ (Colossians 1:15-17).

In Act 4, Scene 1 of Shakespeare’s As You Like It,Rosalind—daughter of the banished Duke Senior—contemplates melancholy and sadness caused by experience which has been “extracted from many objects, and indeed the sundry contemplation of my travels” (Shakespeare, As You Like It 617).  Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine establishes a sober note in reply: “It is well to warn studious and able young men, who fear God and are seeking for happiness of life, not to venture heedlessly upon the pursuit of the branches of learning that are in vogue beyond” (654).  Adult learning theory untethered from the transcendent source of Truth can become a human-centered, self-centered exercise.  All theoretical constructs and qualitative research must be moored to the teaching of the One and Only True God in Christian Scripture with a constant desire for universal application.  Ultimately, the Story of transformation’s inception is external; its completion is internal (John 1:1-18; Romans 5:1-11; 1 Corinthians 15:1-9; Ephesians 2:1-10; 2 Peter 1:12-18).

Note

[1] Claims for Solomonic authorship must begin with his reign during a time of peace (1 Kings 4:25; 1 Chronicles 22:9); thus, he was able to pursue all interests of wisdom and wealth (1 Kings 3-4).  As a king (Ecclesiastes 1:1, 12), Solomon was not inhibited by cost or restriction (“whatever my eye desired,” 2:10).  Building projects (2:1-11), for instance, are strongly reminiscent of Solomon’s construction throughout the first ten chapters of the Hebrew book of Kings.  International relations drew people to Solomon (1 Kings 4: 9-10), another indication of his universal appeal.  Certainly considered by conservative exegetical scholars to be of Solomonic origin (Arnold and Beyer 330; Goldberg 22; Kaiser, Ecclesiastes 29), it is here Ecclesiastes most bears the mark of David’s son: Solomon writes for a non-Israelite audience.  God’s personal name Yahweh (“LORD” in the NIV) is absent.  There is no mention of Hebrew history in the book.  An “everyman” approach to world affairs resonates throughout (see, for instance, chapters seven through ten).  Indeed, it seems the wisdom of Ecclesiastes is meant for adult rulers who sought Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kings 10:23-24), no matter their age (Ecclesiastes 11:9-12:1) or the condition of their elderly body (12:2-7).  Solomon knew the conclusion to Ecclesiasties (12:13-14) in a very personal way: it was the injunction given him by his father David just prior to his death (1 Chronicles 28:5-9).

Giving added weight to claims for Solomonic authorship, academics consider Solomon’s work to be the pinnacle of his vociferous writing career.  Old Testament scholars conjecture that the Song of Solomon was penned while Solomon was a young man, Proverbs during his training of leaders during his middle years (Harrison 1073); indeed, Hebrew rabbis contend the same (Dell 3). Some believe that only at the end of the king’s life does he construct his universal appeal to all students of life everywhere (Kidner 14).  Song of Solomon, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (young, middle, old age) may suggest a progression of thought, of growth throughout life, a narrowing and at the same time, a broadening of focus: in understanding oneself, ordering one’s life, and explaining what was discovered.

This original paper was first written for a doctoral course in 2008 and then published as “A Story of Transformation: Ecclesiastes as an Example of Adult Learning Processes” in Intégrité 7:2, Fall 2008.

Works Cited

Aalsburg-Wiessner, Colleen, and Jack Mezirow.  “Theory Building and the Search for Common Ground.”  Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.  Ed. Jack Mezirow and Associates.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.  329-58.

Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer.  Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Aquinas, Thomas.  Summa Theologica.  Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province.  Ed. Mortimer Adler.  Great Books ofthe Western World.  Vol. 19.  Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1954.

Augustine.  On Christian Doctrine.  Trans. J.F. Shaw.  Ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins.  Great Books of the Western World.  Vol. 18. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952.

Beck, Cathy A., and Marla Campbell.  “Interactive Learning in a Multicultural Setting.”  Christian Education Journal 3 (Spring 2006): 101-18.

Belcher, Christina.  “The Place of Worldview in Christian Approaches to Education.”  Journal of Christian Education 48 (Dec. 2005): 9-24.

Brookfield, Stephen D.  Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

_______.   “Transformative Learning as Ideology Critique.”  Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.  Ed. Jack Mezirow and Associates.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.  125-50.

Clare, Robert C.  “Putting Faith into Action: A Model for the North American Middle Class Religious Education.”  Religious Education 101 (Summer 2006): 368-89.

Collins, Michael.  “Phenomenological Perspectives: Some Implications for Adult Education.”  Selected Writings on Philosophy and Adult Education. 2^nd ed.  Ed.Sharan B. Merriam.  Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1995.  31-36.

Conceição, Simone C.O.  “Faculty Lived Experiences in the Online Environment.”  Adult Education Quarterly 57 (Nov. 2006): 26-45.

Cranton, Patricia.  “Individual Differences and Transformative Learning.” Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. Ed. Jack Mezirow and Associates.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.  181-204.

Creswell, John W.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.  2^nd ed.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003.

Dell, Katherine J.  The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006.

Erickson, Diane M.  “A Developmental Re-forming of the Phases of Meaning in Transformational Learning.”  Adult Education Quarterly 58 (Nov. 2007): 61-80.

Fox, Michael V.  A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Freire, Paulo.  “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.”  Selected Writings on Philosophy and Adult Education.  2^nd ed.  Ed.Sharan B. Merriam.  Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1995.  31-36.

Glastra, Folke J., Barry J. Hake, and Petra E. Schedler.  “Lifelong Learning as Transitional Learning.”  Adult Education Quarterly 54 (Aug. 2004): 291-307.

Goldberg, Louis.  Ecclesiastes: Bible Study Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Guroian, Vigen.   Rallying the Really Human Things: The Moral Imagination in Politics, Literature, and Everyday Life. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2005.

Harrison, Roland Kenneth.  Introduction to the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Houle, Cyril O.  “The Design of Education.”  Selected Writings on Philosophy and Adult Education. 2^nd ed.  Ed.Sharan B. Merriam.  Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1995.  47-56.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr.  Ecclesiastes: Total Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

_______.  “Inner Biblical Exegesis as a Model for Bridging the ‘Then’ and ‘Now’ Gap: Hosea 12:1-6.”  Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Mar. 1985): 33-46.

Kegan, Robert.  “What ‘Form’ Transforms?  A Constructive-developmental Approach to Transformative Learning.”  Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress.  Ed. Jack Mezirow and Associates.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.  35-70.

Kidner, Derek.  A Time to Mourn, and a Time to Dance: Ecclesiastes and the Way of the World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

Kiesling, Chris, Gwendolyn T. Sorell, Ronal K. Colwell, and Marilyn J. Montgomery.  “Identity Research and the Psychological Formation of One’s Sense of Spiritual Self: Implications for Religious Educators and Christian Institutions of Higher Education.”  Christian Education Journal 3 (Fall 2006): 240-59.

Lindeman, Edward C.  “For Those who Need to be Learners.”  Selected Writings on Philosophy and Adult Education. 2^nd ed.  Ed.Sharan B. Merriam. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1995.  31-36.

Longman, Tremper, III.  The Book of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

_______.  “The Literary Approach to the Study of the Old Testament: Promise and Pitfalls.”  Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28 (Dec. 1985): 395-98.

Mezirow, Jack.  “Learning to Think Like an Adult: Core Concepts of Transformation Theory.  Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress.  Ed. Jack Mezirow and Associates.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.  3-33.

Mvududu, Nyaradzo.  “Challenges to Faithful Learning and Teaching: The Case of Statistics.”  Christian Higher Education 6 (Oct.-Dec. 2007): 439-45.

Pascal.  “On Geometrical Demonstration.”  Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 33.  Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc, 1954.

St. Pierre, Elizabeth Adams.  “Scientifically Based Research in Education: Epistemology and Ethics.”  Adult Education Quarterly 56 (Aug. 2006): 239-66.

Sabri, Duna, Christopher Rowland, Jonathan Wyatt, Francesca Stravrakopoulou, Sarita Cargas, and Helenann Hartley.  “Faith in Academia: Integrating Students’ Faith Stance into Conceptions of their Intellectual Development.” Teaching in Higher Education 13 (Feb. 2008): 43-54.

Shakespeare.  As You Like It. Trans. J.F. Shaw.  Ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins. Great Books of the Western World.  Vol. 26.  Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc, 1954.

_______.  King Henry V. Trans. J.F. Shaw.  Ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins. Great Books of the Western World.  Vol. 26.  Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1954.

_______.  Love’s Labour’s Lost.  Trans. J.F. Shaw.  Ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins.  Great Books of the Western World.  Vol. 26.  Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1954.

_______. Taming of the Shrew. Trans. J.F. Shaw.  Ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins.  Great Books of the Western World.  Vol. 26.  Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1954.

Sinnema, Donald.  “Beyond Integration to Holistic Christian Scholarship.” Marginal resistance: Essays Dedicated to John C. Vander Stelt.  Ed. John H. Kok, Sioux Center, IA: Dordt College Press, 2001.  187-207.

Stob, Henry.  Theological Reflections: Essays on Related Themes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Taylor, Kathleen.  “Teaching with Developmental Intention.”  Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress.  Ed. Jack Mezirow and Associates.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000.  151-80.

Trueblood, Elton.  The Logic of Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Harper, 1942.

Von Kotze, Astrid.  “Preaching to the Unconverted—Dialogue vs. Doctrine in the Ministry or: You Cannot Put Cucumbers into a Vinegar Barrel and not Expect Them to Emerge as Pickles.”  ERIC CE 065 096, 1992.

Wilhoit, Jim, and Leland Ryken.  Effective Bible teaching.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.

Williamson, Margaret F., and Roberta L. Watson.  “Learning Styles Research: Understanding How Teaching Should Be Impacted by the Way Learners Learn.”  Christian Education Journal 3 (Spring 2006): 27-42.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas.  “Can Scholarship and Christian Conviction Mix?  A New Look at the Integration of Knowledge.  Journal of Christian Education 47 (Sept/Dec. 2004): 99-117.

Weaving the internal fabric of students.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morris_Honeycomb_textile_1876.jpg

Abstract: While a plethora of articles and books have been written concerning faith-learning integration, less attention has been paid to the process of how the methodology should take place.  Beyond that, an evaluation of a professor’s integrationist propensities has few works from which to draw.  Beginning with seminal theory in theology, etymology, and pedagogy by faith-learning leaders in the Christian academy, a tentative list of evaluative assessment categories may be deduced.

Introduction

 

The bifurcation of claiming a Christian heritage while teaching subjects without Christian authority claims has been widely reported.¹ Teachers entering the field of Christian education kindergarten through higher education have had little and certainly incongruent instruction in faith-learning integration.² Contention over the paucity of faith-learning integration in Christian education as a whole might be understandable if all instructors were being trained solely in pagan institutions.  But Christian higher education struggles with its own lack of coherent, thoroughly Christian thinking in education programs.³ Student teacher programs lack developmental processes to empower new teachers just coming into the classroom (Sumsion).  The necessity of philosophical remediation for the Christian school teacher upon entering the classroom, then, is a necessity (Hagan 39, 48).  If Christian schools truly are to remain Christian institutions, faith-learning integration is to be the alpha and omega distinctive (Beck, Chiareli, Dockery, Holmes Building, Litfin, Poe).

But even if institutions document a clear Christian philosophical groundwork and hire teachers who can practice biblical integration4 in the classroom few evaluative tools exist to establish criteria for the appraisal of faculty competency in faith-learning practice (Hardin).5  Leaders in the faith-learning field have given direction for thoughtful engagement.6  Current literature will suggest baseline theories toward creating a specific, measurable assessment tool for classroom biblical integration in the following overview: (1) theological parameters for creating a foundation of Christian thought; (2) from the theological bedrock definitions of faith-learning integration are suggested; (3) meaning helps toward thoughtful reflection as to how faith informs learning in various disciplines; (4) intentional Christian thought can then possibly influence course construction in rationale, description, syllabi, objectives, synopsis, and ultimately day-to-day instruction; and (5) the process of evaluative criteria for Christian thinking and teaching in the classroom can then be deduced.

 

Foundation: Theological Parameters

“Integration of any kind can never arise from theological ignorance…Schools often hire faculty with little or no formal training in biblical and theological studies…” (Gangel 76).  Why is it that Christian institutions fall prey to a non-critical, Christian analysis of their disciplines?  Poe suggests “We tend to ignore the philosophy, or the worldview, out of which we operate, largely because we have grown so accustomed to it” (22).  Fragmentation of the academy (131) has caused the need for reminder that not any one discipline can adequately answer life’s questions (29).

Litfin notes the importance of the Christian antithesis by mapping the contrasts in the Corinthian epistles between diametrically opposed statements such as “of God” and “of the world” (184-188).  He suggests Paul’s teaching strategy was not one of dualism but of viewpoint (184).  The Second Corinthians 4:16-18 passage sets the delineations simply: what is seen and what is unseen (182).  Litfin recommits his reader to the other worldly revelatory Truth of God.  Any discussion of faith-learning integration for Litfin begins with a reliance upon revelation; for “faith requires revelation” [emphasis his] (188). As Litfin says later, “Our point here is that biblical faith inherently requires some sort of word from God, the presence of revelation of some sort.  If there is no revelation from God, there can be no faith, no taking God at his word” (194).  He concludes, “The language of faith and learning is simply another way of speaking of what the Apostle calls the worlds of the unseen and the seen” (195).

Following Augustine’s thinking in Soliloquies where he asked, “What do you want to know?” Holmes offers salient theological criteria for Christian epistemology including the eternal, origins, order, authority, reason, language, abstract thinking, and concrete thinking (Building) In addition, Holmes lists three distinguishing presuppositions for Christian higher education: (1) the objectivity of values, (2) the theocentric unity of truth, and (3) the nature of persons (Closing 113).  Epistemological questions are crucial.  Among those Holmes asks are: What are the assumptions currently operative in the various disciplines?  Are they consonant with a Christian view of things?  What is their logical basis?  What are their implications?  “Worldview analysis” belongs in every discipline at the Christian university level (116-117).

Definition: Understanding the Concept of Faith-Learning Integration

Holmes first delineated the strata for contemplating faith and learning in his book The Idea of a Christian College.  Four approaches Holmes suggested were (1) attitudinal, (2) ethical, (3) foundational, and (4) worldviewish (45-60).  Otto (35-37) updates and interprets Holmes’ outline of the four basic approaches to integrating faith and learning (Idea 34-37).

Peterson characterizes the happenstance of integration as knowledge inherently imbued in a Christian worldview.  That knowledge then permeates the presuppositions, perceptions, convictions, refinement, and service of the Christian (103).  The language of integration is said to have been unfortunate, however.  The term suggests forcing together two disparate things rather than seeing the unity of all truth together.  The original design of the word was to encourage a “reintegration” of what had been put asunder (Litfin 128-129).  So, Gangel defines “integration” as “the forming or blending into a whole of everything that is a part of a Christian student’s life and learning” [emphasis his] (viii).  Chadwick declares “Integration is the bringing together the parts into the whole” [emphasis his] (128).  For Beversluis integration is simply “wholeness” (21-22).

Korniejczuk defines integration as “the process of combining separate components into a unified whole.  Faith involves “(a) the truth, (b) a willingness and commitment to obey God, and (c) feelings and emotions in experiencing God.”  Learning helps “students acquire/modify knowledge, attitudes, skills, and other forms of intellectual functioning.”  Integration of faith and learning infuses “the formal, informal, non-formal curriculum with a God-centered, Christian worldview” (14).

Ream, Beaty, and Lion defined “faith” as “religiously motivated and grounded beliefs and practices of the founding or sponsoring religious community” (351) whereas “learning” meant “the standard academic practices that now constitute the modern university.”  The study focused on “religious influences on the academic mission” (352).

To Holmes “faith” is a response to God whereby the whole person sets out to explore the world’s unity (73).  Nelson makes sure “faith” becomes a verb (319).  Mannoia agrees with the need for active faith: integration must address “real world” problems—a consistent theme in his book (103-104).

After acknowledging few studies have explored faculty views of the faith-learning process, Ream, Beaty, and Lion (353) conclude “faith and learning shared a tenuous relationship in the minds of faculty members at selected religious research universities” (369). While the results spanned the extremes (e.g., complete separation to complete integration), the authors summarize that Christian thinking has some observable influence on campuses (367).

Nonetheless, Wolterstorff decries even the separation of faith and learning, instead vying for “faithful learning”; that is, teaching what is as it is in creation (76-80).  He says, “Faithful scholarship as a whole will be distinctive scholarship…But difference is to be a consequence, not an aim” [emphasis his] (p. 78).  True to the calls for community and pluralism to come, Downing uses the postmodern “imbrication”—overlapping vocabularies shingled around the core of Christian truth—acknowledging various traditions and disciplines in overlapping discourse (41).

Many have taken to remind the academy that limitations exist in faith-learning integration much less in its definition (Schulten).  Agee (9) suggests that discipline specialization and faculty compartmentalization of life inhibits conversations to begin even on campus: fragmentation and lack of collaboration are to blame.

Reflection: How Faith Informs Learning

Given the emphasis on unity of truth, one might rightly ask, “How can any homogenous approach to faith-learning integration be acceptable to disparate disciplines which have their own categories of constraints?”  Poe outlines seven reflective questions, elaborating on each, that every discipline must ask within a Christian context.  The interdisciplinary instrument7 understands that faith is the foundation of all human knowledge, exposing the core concerns of any discipline.  Poe’s questions are as follows: “(1) with what is your disciplines concerned?; (2) what characterizes the methodology of your discipline?; (3) on what other disciplines does your discipline build?; (4) on what values is your discipline based?; (5) over what values within your discipline do members of your discipline disagree?; (6) what is the philosophical basis for your discipline?; (7) when did your discipline come to be taught as a separate discipline within the academy?” (138-154).

Concluding the discussion, Poe makes this insight:

Why take so much time and space in a book that supposedly deals with faith?  Because these are the points at which the issues of faith arise in the pursuit of knowledge.  Faith does not stand opposed to knowledge and scholarship.  It may, however, stand in conflict with some philosophical interpretations of the nature of knowledge and reality” (153).

Robert A. Harris suggests contemplative questions about knowledge that should be asked: (1) Is knowledge discovered or constructed?; (2) Is knowledge limited to what is empirically verifiable?; (3) What is the role of reason in connection with knowledge?; (4) Does truth really matter in the creation of knowledge? (42-43).  Harris’ taxonomy of worldview integration gives the reader the ability to contextualize the knowledge claims, identify the foundations underlying the claim, and seek alternate approaches, interpretations, and claims (250).  Key to Harris’ work is his concern that students identify pre-theoretical assumptions behind any research or theory (258).

Christian teaching should be distinctive, according to Zylstra because “testing the spirits” (e.g. comparing worldview frameworks) is a constant enterprise (98).  Ramm agrees noting the Christian institution “must be expert in diagnosing the unchristian elements in pagan learning” (21).  Hood and Simpson maintain that creating integrative questions helps new teachers to think Christianly.  Broadened horizons include cross-cultural studies (Gill 107-108), extending student perspectives.

The criteria implicit in any worldview show application to life according to Holmes (Truth 121): rational coherence, empirical adequacy, and human relevance.  Succinctly, Van Brummelen says Christian teachers “teach with commitment since they want to teach for commitment” (Steppingstones 10).  Mentoring is a crucial component to faith-affirming education so that faith-based thinking creates lifelong learning agents (Van Brummelen Pursuing).  Van Dyk suggests that teaching Christianly consists of guiding, unfolding, and enabling, focused on a multi-dimensional approach within each person toward faith-learning integration (Curriculum).

As discussed in their Christian Perspectives on Learning, Calvin College has committed itself for years to an interdisciplinary approach to faith-learning integration with a course entitled “Christian Perspectives on Learning.”  Embedded in its explanation of why the course is necessary is the statement “to prepare the student to live the life of faith in contemporary society” (i).  Readings from pagans and Christians, theology and sociology, economy and ethnicity are the basis for reflective thought from a Christian point of view in Calvin’s course.  One of many examples, some Christian colleges are presenting a clear commitment to faith-learning integration with faculty and students on their websites.8

 

Construction: Course Description, Syllabi, and Instruction

The National Union of Christian Schools, predecessor to Christian Schools International, devised a Course of Study for Christian Schools in 1947 which established first the Christian philosophy of all courses to specific objectives to be accomplished throughout the year.  Since that time, there is no organization or publication that lays out a complete Christian school curriculum plan, though others have advocated the need (Van Til; North; Chadwick) while still more leaders realize curricular change will come through individual teachers (Graham).

Chadwick constructs detailed models of biblical integration beginning with revealed, then discovered truth, to all of life (128-132).  Chadwick maintains that the structure of the discipline (i.e., the principles, concepts, or framework) does not change from Christian to non-Christian instructors (129).

Van Brummelen lays out a full understanding of curriculum development from a decidedly Christian point of reference: everything from orientation, knowledge, learning, planning, to subjects taught.  Accordingly, he asserts, “all of life is religious in nature” (Steppingstones 63) since every aspect of knowledge and life “depends on God’s faithfulness in creating and sustaining the universe” (Steppingstones 37).  Van Brummelen establishes a fourfold approach to curriculum making sure to link thinking and living.  With very specific examples he suggests that teachers, principals, and the whole school community must commit to curriculum which is intentionally Christian.

Holmes proposes the broad range of thinking necessary to teach Christianly:

Integration applies to the presuppositions on which Christian higher education rests, to our institutional and departmental objectives, and to the objectives of my courses as a teacher.  It applies to curricular development and content, and therefore to faculty development, expectations, and programs.  If science is not presuppositionless and learning is not value-free, then integration affects the methodology of the teacher as well as his/her manner with students.  In student development work, Christianity must be integrated with developmental psychology.  The management theories and styles that administrators adopt should be deeply affected by Christian concepts of stewardly service, of equal justice for all, and of love.  All this is but the opening of the Christian mind to what is rightly expected of Christian higher education (112).

Perhaps Wolterstorff’s title speaks for the ultimate goal of course construction: Educating for Responsible Action.

 

Evaluation: Faith-Learning Criteria for Faculty Development

Faculty course creation in faith-learning integration is dependent upon professional development.  Nwosu composes the rationale, components, and design of such a program toward helping teachers practice faith-learning integration in the classroom.  “But much more than this I see professional development programs as a channel for perpetuating integration of faith and learning in our schools just as the gospel was perpetuated during the days of the apostles” (22).  Mannoia stresses faculty must be allowed to cull their disciplines in continued study (165-188).  The Idea of a Christian College directly requires faculty be enjoined with community purposes, committed values, and common tasks (Holmes 80).  Hodges concedes The Fall inhibits human abilities to know, yet says this is the very reason for peer review in community (135-136).

Mathisen (239) maintains pluralism is an essential component to the process of faith-learning integration within a faculty or inter-university collegiality throughout the disciplines.  Coe offers a model for faculty interface within the university setting.  Collaboration through recruitment, mentoring, and role recognition in the process is key (239).  Masterson agrees citing David Aiken’s work on pluralism at Gordon College relying on a network of religious traditions and gifted individuals (190).  Wuelfing says “living and learning require that we not limit” scholarship to one frame of reference group or source.  Instead, she calls for a “conversational character of dialogue” (39) allowing students to think with rather than acquiesce to uninvolved learning.

Agee directly states, “The best context for a serious faith and disciplines/faith and learning emphasis is within a comprehensive, systematic, and institutionally supported professional development program” (9).  Agee suggests various methods for interdisciplinary engagement including large group presentations by leading thinkers, development of a professional growth contract, faculty developed activities and conversations (10-11).  Fowler encourages a “communal interdependence” where the principal has oversight over the teaching-learning process, encouraging the faith-learning process (117).

“The ultimate test of the human capacity to integrate faith and learning relates to the degree to which people are able to allow the principles and the truths they have internalized to inform their daily practice” (Matthews and Gabriel 33).  Authentic praxis includes students’ ability to apply theories and principles toward solving community problems.  Further, students discover faith-consistent lives through teachers who model faith-learning in their person (34).  Students’ views of the restorative process given to humans by God are benefited when teachers show the cohesiveness of all things (36).  Alumni assessment could be a marker toward measuring the effectiveness of faith-learning integration.  While many limitations may inhibit precision responses from graduates, a continuum of Christian thinking and living may be perceived from such studies (Presnell).

Lawrence, Burton, and Nwosu studied student responses to integration of faith and learning discovering that while students recognized Christian principles in the teaching, the transfer to student learning did not necessarily take place (43).  In addition to Holmes’ four approaches, Burton and Nwosu contend that a fifth—pedagogical—be advanced as a crucial component in faith-learning evaluation (107).  Student attribution of Christian principles in the classroom greatly depends upon class atmosphere and learning methodologies which engage student interaction (Lawrence, Burton, and Nwosu 47).  Responses to the questionnaire used in the study begin to create evaluation markers: faith used as a foundation for learning; incorporating Christian views into the teaching; comparison of spiritual things in a subject area; teacher treatment of students reflects a faith commitment in teaching; seeing connections to instruction and future vocation; and exercises linking the academic discipline with Christian behavior (27-43).

While it has been suggested that faculty cross-disciplinary groups meet to discuss connection of studies to Scriptural analysis, having students write papers utilizing integration activities would be a profound pedagogy to engage young minds (Gustafson, Karns, and Surdyk 14).

Knowlton concurs that students owning ideas through discovery learning better understand connections between faith and learning (40-41).  Further, Knowlton’s narrative gives corroboration to Burton and Nwosu’s contention that a pedagogical grid must be seminal to the approach any integrationist professor uses.  Utilizing a constructivist learning theory, Knowlton concludes that both peer and self evaluations are necessary for students to accrue faith-learning understanding (52).  Holmes declares that the biblical word for knowledge is “to know for oneself, to interiorize what is learned” [emphasis his] (Truth 36).  Thinking and valuing affect a person’s projects (117).  Teachers must teach students how to practice integration (Gangel xi).

Chiareli contends that the principle outcome of Christian integrative social science teaching “is active and reflective, and thus valuably praxis based” (260-261).  The formation of future leaders via a Christian vocational perspective should be the future result (261).  And so it is that transformational learning has been acknowledged as the Christian educational model to pursue (Wilhoit; Fogarty, Perkins, and Barell; Richards and Bredfeldt).

Using the foundations, definitions, and reflections noted by faith-learning leaders from the academy noted above, a cursory, elementary listing of important assessment areas may be deduced:

1. Content of theological foundations should be in evidence including assumptions (Wolterstorff; Holmes Building) and knowledge (Holmes Closing).

2. Communication of the content through the professor should be in evidence including worldview comparison (Harris), pedagogy (Nwosu and Burton), discovery learning (Knowlton), and faith-learning writing assignments (Gustafson, Karns, and Surdyk).

3. Conduct of the professor in the classroom should be in evidence including professorial behavior (Matthews and Gabriel), safe classroom environment for discussion (Wuelfing), and student evaluation (Burton and Nwosu).

4. Continuance of teaching to learning should be in evidence including self evaluation (Poe), peer cooperation (Hodges; Ream, Beaty, and Lion), mentoring (Van Dyk; Van Brummelen Steppingstones), study groups (Nwosu 24-26), alumni surveys (Pressnell), and lifelong student learning (Van Brummelen Pursuing).

5. Collaboration with colleagues should be in evidence including administration expectation (Van Brummelen The Curriculum), and learning communities (Willimon and Naylor).

 

A Practical Application for the Classroom

Transition from curriculum to classroom, from professor to student, from analysis to synthesis, from memorization to ownership is the key to putting faith-learning scholarship into practice.  There is a need to encourage Christian faculty thoughtfulness through process and practice which can in turn prompt biblically integrative thinking in their students becoming markers of professorial evaluation.  Below are preliminary ideas in gaining traction for appraisal of faith-learning integration in the classroom.

A five-fold outline could direct faith-learning integration competencies from a Christian perspective: (1) identification of Scripturally erroneous powers, premises, and practices in the contemporary culture; (2) interpretation of pagan belief from a Christian perspective; (3) inductive study of Scripture as a basis for assessment of others’ faith systems; (4) interaction with current issues and icons in written as well as oral formats; and (5) investment in the tools necessary for students to make faith-learning integration in whatever their vocation, a lifelong practice.  Because we live in an age bombarded by media, a class could study both Scripture and culture in order to develop discerning Christian young people.  Film clips, musical selections, TV news, advertisements, video games and internet sites would be engaged preparing Christian students to become cultural apologists.9  Non-Christian professors, articles, and groups should also be examined based through a Scriptural lens.

A cursory rubric follows, enabling professors to be more specific in their quest for valid assessment based on numbers one and two in the outline above.  In this way, student work in faith-learning integration might be more objectively directed while demonstrating an instructor’s own faith-learning integration prowess for evaluative purposes in the academy.

Elucidation of Truth

• What biographical information exists about the thinker, author, or creator of the example being studied giving background to their worldview development?
• Are there pieces of true Truth to be found in the unbeliever’s writing?
• What creational norms are used which depend upon a transcendent source of truth to make the person’s argument?
• Is the nature or definition of the subject unconsciously built on a Christian perspective?

Exposure of Error

• What assumptions conflict with Christian truth?
• What systems of thought or worldview teaching affected the approach?
• What objectives contribute to anti-Christian understanding?
• What epistemological constructs create meaning for the approach?
• Does the writing suggest an ethical neutrality in research?  Explain.

Elaboration of Experts

• Is there an outside analysis of the subject from a different viewpoint?
• What is the worldview of the experts?
• Has the educational establishment reviewed the material?
• Are the experiments, evaluations, or applications designed objectively?

Evaluation of the Presentation

• Is there bias in (1) selection (e.g., word choice, purpose, omission) or (2) interpretation (e.g., tone, experience, personal/political agenda, statistical manipulation, conflict of interest) of the data.
• What methods have been selected for discovery of information?  Is there a philosophy that drives the person choosing the methods?  Is one methodology used more than another?  If so, why?
• What are the credentials of the author(s)?  Are they experts in their field?  Are they addressing the field in which they work?  What institutions have influenced their thinking?
• What is the scope of the appraisal?  Should more sources have been consulted?  How is the investigation limited in any way?  How might the study then skew results?
• How does the writing, creation, study, etc. correlate with the Christian view of reality in the following components?
  1. Philosophy: foundation and purpose
  2. Data: information or knowledge discovered
  3. Outcomes: results or production
  4. Scope/Sequence: the order or absence of any material
  5. Objectives: presuppositions in the study

A myriad of other questions can be offered to prompt the process moving students and professors alike toward faith-learning integration.  Perhaps this brief list will initiate Christian contemplation in dialogue, collaboration, and creation of documents for Christian higher education evaluation.

 

Conclusion

Trueblood’s early call for Christian scholarship (79) has been echoed through the summons of multiple volumes since.  If Schwehn’s critique of the modern research university is correct, academy ethos must be reordered from self-fulfillment toward student character creation (88).  Truly integrated Christian persons will then offer hope to a world as their vocations impact culture for the good based upon foundations found in The Gospel story (Newbigin 232).  William C. Spohn encourages Christian university professors to “look to the affections, the deep dispositions of the heart” to change their character by “active engagement with God and the world” (249).  It seems the life-long evaluation of faith-learning integration begins within the Christian faculty member, conditioned by The Holy Spirit (Van Dyk Craft 109), who then, in turn, participates in weaving the internal fabric of the students (Garber).

“Setting a Standard for Measuring Faith-Learning Evaluation in the Academy: Criteria Established by Christian Education Leaders for Faculty Development” was originally written for a doctoral course in 2007 and has since been published by the same title in Intégrité: A Journal of Faith and Learning 6:2 (Fall 2007): 15-28, by Dr. Mark Eckel.

Notes

¹ “Faculty are not automatically equipped to teach in an integrated manner because they have graduated from a Christian college or seminary.  Unfortunately, there are very few Christian graduate schools that teach the concept of integration…” (Johnson xvi-xxi).

² Benne (28-33) argues that both Enlightenment and postmodern paradigms in higher education have created curriculum and ethos that mitigate against the Christian mindset, thus ensuring graduates from these programs will be inundated by pagan philosophies and methodologies.  While celebrating the benefits of some institutions such as Wheaton in their intentional faith-learning faculty training, most schools are “hit-and-miss” when it comes to consistency in developing faculty mindset (i.e., Valparaiso, 138-139).  Harvey and Dowson concur that new teachers in K-12 Christian schools are, for the most part, unsure of how to integrate “their faith with their teaching practice” coming out of their universities.  Nwosu says the same integrative principles apply in both K-12 and university levels (23).

³ Patterson reports that the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) has retreated from faith and learning integration as a key distinctive.  A recent revision of the CCCU mission statement now contains the phrase “faithfully relating scholarship and service to biblical truth” (54).

⁴ The phrase “faith-learning integration” is generally used in contexts of Christian higher education.  “Biblical integration” is the nomenclature most recognized in Christian K-12 settings.  Since the essence of definition remains synonymous the phrases will be used interchangeably in this paper.

⁵ For the question in the survey, “Do you have a formal mechanism or process for insuring that faith is integrated into your teacher education program?” two out of thirteen responded in the affirmative.  For the question, “Do you have a process in place for evaluating the impact of faith-based teacher education preparation for your graduates?” one out of thirteen said ‘yes.’  The Nehemiah Institute has been using a test for worldview competency for a decade.  Critics charge, however, that the instrument is biased toward a politically conservative, American way of thinking.

⁶ Leaders who have set the baseline of thought for faith-learning integration include Larry D. Burton, David Dockery, Frank Gaebelein, Kenneth O. Gangel, William Hasker, Arthur Holmes, Constance C. Nwosu, et al.

 

⁷ Poe cautions that these questions have not been used in serious research and offer qualitative rather than quantitative analysis (138).

⁸ Various institutions of Christian higher learning provide links for faith and learning integration on their sites.  Examples include Baylor University (www.baylor.edu/ifl), Gordon College (www.gordon.edu/), Palm Beach Atlantic University (www.pba.edu/), and Missouri Baptist University (www.mobap.edu/).

⁹ Taken from Mark Eckel, “Practicing the Craft of Cultural Apologist,” https://www.biblicalintegration.com/ezine/sept2005/0905_2.php

Works Cited

Agee, Bob R.  “Christian faith and the academic disciplines: Finding the right context for discussion.” Integrite 3 (2004): 3-12.

Beck, William David.  Opening the American Mind: The Integration of Biblical Truth in the Curriculum of the University. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991.

Benne, Robert. Quality With Soul: How six premier colleges and universities keepfaith with their religious traditions.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.

Beversluis, Nicholas Henry.  Christian Philosophy of Education.  Grand Rapids: National Union of Christian Schools, 1971.

Burton, Larry D. and Constance C. Nwosu.  “Student perceptions of the integration of faith, learning, and practice in a selected education course.”  Journal of Research on Christian Education 2 (2003): 101-135.

Chadwick, Ronald P.  Christian School Curriculum: An Integrated Approach. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1990.

________.  “Christian School Education.” Toward a harmony of faith and learning:

Essays on Bible college curriculum, Ed. Kenneth O. Gangel. Farmington Hills, MI: William Tyndale College Press, 1983. 120-133.

Chiareli, Antonio A.  “Christian worldview and the social sciences.”  Shaping a

Christian worldview: The foundations of Christian higher education, Eds. David S. Dockery and Gregory Alan Thornbury.  Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002. 240-263.

Christian perspectives on learning: Readings. 7^th ed.  Grand Rapids, MI: Calvin College, 1985.

Course of Study for Christian schools. 2^nd ed. National Union of Christian Schools.              Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953.

Dockery, David S. and Gregory Alan Thornbury, Eds.  Shaping a Christian worldview: The foundations of Christian higher education.  Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002. Christian scholarship.”  Scholarship and Christian faith: Enlarging the Conversation. Eds. Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 33-44.

Fogarty, R., D. Perkins, and J. Barell.  Teach for Transfer. Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing, 1992.

Fowler, Stuart.  “Structuring the school for freedom.”  Christian schooling:Education for freedom. Ed. Stuart Fowler.  Potchefstroom, South Africa: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1990. 105-119.

Gangel, Kenneth O.  “Biblical integration: The process of thinking like a Christian.” The Christian Educator’s Handbook on Teaching. Ed. Kenneth O. Gangel and Howard Hendricks. Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1988. 156-157.

________.  Preface.  Toward a Harmony of Faith and Learning: Essays on Bible College Curriculum. Ed. Kenneth O. Gangel.  Farmington Hills, MI: William Tyndale College Press, 1983. vii-xv.

Garber, Steven.  The Fabric of Faithfulness: Weaving together belief and behavior during the university years. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Gill, David W.  The Opening of the Christian Mind: Taking every thought captive to Christ.  Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Graham, Donovan L.  Teaching Redemptively: Bringing grace and truth into your

classroom.  Colorado Springs: Purposeful Design, 2003.

Gustafson, Loren T., Gary L. Karns, and Lisa Klein Surdyk.  “Teaching through the

eyes of faith: An investigation of faith-learning integration in the business

classroom.”  Research in Christian Higher Education 7 (2000): 1-19.

Hagan, Lowell.  Second Sight: Renewing the vision of Bellevue Christian school for

the new century. Bellevue, WA: Bellevue Christian School, 2003.

Hardin, Joyce, John Sweeney, and Jerry Whitworth.  “Integrating faith and learning

in teacher education.” Extended Annual Meeting of the Association of

Independent Liberal Arts Colleges for Teacher Education, Abilene: Abilene Christian University. 24 Feb. 1999.

Harris, Robert A.  The Integration of Faith and Learning: A Worldview Approach.             Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004.

Harvey, Pamela and Martin Dowson.  “Transitional experiences of new teachers in             Christian schools: A case study.”  Journal of Research on Christian Education 12 (2003): 217-243.

Hodges, Bert H.  “Perception is relative and veridical: Ecological and Biblical             perspectives on knowing and doing the truth.” The Reality of Christian Learning. Ed. Harold Heie and David L. Wolfe. St. Paul, MN: Christian College             Consortium, 1987. 103-139.

Holmes, Arthur F.  All Truth is God’s truth.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977.

________.  Building the Christian academy. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.

________.  “The closing of the American mind and the opening of the

Christian mind: Liberal learning, great texts, and the Christian college.”

Faithful Learning and the Christian Scholarly Vocation. Ed. Douglas V. Henry and Bob R. Agee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. 101-122.

________. The Idea of a Christian College.  Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1987.

Hood, D. and P. Simpson. “Using integrative questions with preservice teachers to

integrate faith and learning.”  Conference of the Association of Christian

Educator Preparation Programs.  Abilene: Abilene Christian

University, November 1998.

Johnson, Wendell G. Introduction.  Toward a harmony of faith and learning:

Essays on Bible college curriculum. Ed. Kenneth O. Gangel. Farmington

Hills, MI: William Tyndale College Press, 1983. xvi-xxi.

Knowlton, Dave S.  “A constructivist pedagogue’s personal narrative of integrating

faith with learning: Epistemological and pedagogical challenges.” Journal of

Research on Christian Education 11 (2002): 33-57.

Lawrence, Terry Anne, Larry D. Burton, and Constance C. Nwosu.  “Refocusing on

the learning in integration of faith and learning.”  Journal of Research on

Christian Education 14 (2005): 17-50.

Litfin, Duane.  Conceiving the Christian college. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.

Mannoia, V. James Jr.  Christian liberal arts: An education that goes beyond. Lanham,

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000.

Masterson, David L.  Christian humanistic faith/reason integration in contemporary American Protestant Evangelical higher education: A case study. Ph.D. Dissertation.  Marquette University, 1999.

Mathisen, James A. 2003. Integrating world views with social roles: Supplying a missing

piece of the discussion on faith-learning integration. Journal of Psychology and

Christianity 22 (Fall): 230-240.

Matthews, Lionel and Elvin Gabriel.  “Dimensions of the integration of faith and             learning: An interactionist perspective.”  Journal of Research on Christian             Education 10 (2001): 23-38.

Newbigin, Lesslie.  The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.  Grand Rapids, MI:             Eerdmans, 1991.

North, Gary, Ed.  Foundations of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til             Perspective.  Vallecito, VA: Ross House Books, 1976.

Nwosu, Constance C.  “Professional development of teachers: A process for             integrating faith and learning in Christian schools.” The Annual Meeting of the

Michigan Academy of Arts, Science, and Letters, Alma College, February 27, 1998.

Otto, Paul. 2006. “Gotta serve somebody”: The challenge of Christian scholarship.             Integrite. 5 (Fall): 28-44.

Patterson, James “A.  Boundary maintenance in evangelical Christian higher        education: A case study of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.”          Christian Higher Education 4 (2005): 41-56.

Peterson, Mark.  Philosophy of education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Poe, Harry Lee.  Christianity in the academy: Teaching at the Intersection of Faith and Learning.  Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004.

Pressnell, Claude Oral.  Integration of faith and learning among Christian

Evangelical colleges and universities: An alumni assessment model.  Ed. D. Dissertation, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, 1994.

Ramm, Bernard.  The Christian College in the Twentieth Century.   Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1963.

Ream, Todd, Michael Beaty, and Larry Lion.  Faith and Learning: Toward a

typology of faculty views at religious research universities. Christian Higher

Education 3 (2004): 349-372.

Richards, Lawrence O. and Gary J. Bredfeldt.  Creative Bible Teaching.   Chicago:

Moody Press, 1998.

Schulten, Cordell P. “Some limitations on faith and learning integration.” Integrite

1 (2002): 38-46.

Schwehn, Mark R. Exiles from Eden: Religion and the academic vocation in

America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Spohn, William C.  “Finding God in all things: Jonathan Edwards and Ignatius

Loyola.”  Finding God in all things: Essays in honor of Michael J. Buckly. S. J. Eds. Michael J. Himes and Stephen J. Pope.  New York: Crossroad Publishing

Company, 1996.

Sumsion, Jennifer.  “Empowering Beginning Student Teachers: Implications for

Teacher Educators.”  Annual Conference of the Australian Teacher Education

Association.  Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: July 3-6, 1994. 1-20.

Trueblood, Elton. Alternative to Futility.  New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948.

Van Brummelen, Harro.  “The Curriculum: Developing a Christian View of Life.”

Christian Schooling: Education for Freedom. Ed. Stuart Fowler.

Potchefstroom, South Africa: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher

Education, 1990. 169-190.

________. Pursuing Faith-based and Faith-affirming Learning.  Marginal

resistance: Essays dedicated to John C. Vander Stelt.  Ed. John H. Kok.

Sioux Center, IA: Dordt College Press, 2001. 209-221.

________.  Steppingstones to Curriculum: A Biblical Path, 2^nd ed.   Colorado

Springs: Purposeful Design, 2002.

Van Dyk, John.  The Craft of Christian Teaching: A Classroom Journey.  Sioux

Center, IA: Dordt Press, 2000.

________. “The practice of teaching Christianly.”  Christian Schooling:

Education for Freedom. Ed. Stuart FowlerPotchefstroom, South Africa:

Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1990. 155-168.

Van Til, Cornelius.  Essays on Christian Education.  Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and

Reformed Publishing, 1971.

Wilhoit, Jim.  Christian Education: The Search for Meaning. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Willimon, William H. and Thomas H. Naylor.  The Abandoned Generation:

Rethinking Higher Education.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Educating for Responsible Action.  Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1980.

________. Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education.  Ed.

Clarence W. Joldersma and Gloria Goris Stronks.  Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 2004.

Wuelfing, Margaret A.  Comprehensive Curricular Integration: A rationale and

strategy for the articulation of distinctively Catholic concepts, values, and

competencies across subject areas in U.S. Catholic secondary schools. Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Dayton, 2002.

Zylstra, Henry.  Testament of Vision. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963.