Teaching Methodology

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by pugbelly, May 16, 2004.

Loading...
  1. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    Bill,

    We left off in the GSST discussion with your comments: "Among many other points , it makes these which are cognate to what I've trying to say: profs teaching students HOW to think, not what to think, asking questions, posing problems, encouraging debate, teaching students to think like professionals, teaching how to collect evidence, giving students feedback on initial writing assignments which is THEN incorporated into new writing. And, the article further makes what should be an obvious point : simply writing a lot is not learning. But rethinking with the guidance of the prof and rewriting is what causes learning."


    I agree with most of what you have said here. We may be in disgreement on one particular portion, or I may have misunderstood the thrust of what you were saying. I am speaking of the How to Think vs. What to Think comment. Yes, it is important for a student to know how to think, how to research, how to properly develope and defend an argument, etc. That being said, there are certain subjects, theology being one of them, where too much "free thought" can be, and frequently is, a very bad thing. I have seen seminaries, as I am sure you have, that have completely butchered doctrine, theology, even the reliability of the Bible itself. This is an example of what can happen when people are taught "too much how" and not enough "what" to think. There are certain fields where the "how to think" is crucial: business systems, management techniques, marketing strategies, communication, and technological area, etc. These fields are always changing and advancing, as they should be! On the other hand we have God's relationship with man, His revelation to mankind, and His established order of things on this earth. These things have not changed, nor should they, Too much "free thought" in these areas opens the door for bad teachers and false prophets.

    Pug
     
  2. menger

    menger New Member

    Too much free thought? hmmm...is that not part of what the USA (initially) was brought about to allow?

    Here is a short list of people who have believed there can be too much "free thought":

    Napoleon
    Rousseau
    Marx
    Pol Pot
    Mao
    Lenin
    Stalin
    Hitler
    Robbespierre
    Saddam Houssein
    Spartans
    and the list goes on and on and on...and funny these people also tend to be the most blood thirsty in the history of the world.

    The other point is that saying that there is "Too much "free thought'" implies that one knows what is better for another than that person himself...oh well so much for free will and self-determination but then again what do I know I have not been told what is correct to think (a little Orwellian no?)

    Enjoy
     
  3. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===



    Pug

    That is a point to consider. So let me exemplify what I am endorsing to put your point in perspective.


    First Example: A Class in 1 Corinthians


    The Book of 1 Corinthians in 11:3 addesses the relationship of men and women and God and Christ. It there uses the noun 'kephale' (Head) to define these relationships.

    Student writes a paper on the the subject of the passage, but does not interact with the literature and ideas in the field on this topic.

    It is too bad such a paper is written. For not too long ago there were in several ***Theological Journals a running dispute over the meaning of the Greek word 'kephale' , as used in 1 Cor 11:3. Does it mean "source of" or "authority over"? Glancing neither at translations nor at commentaries will settle the issue in a scholarly manner. These are inconsistent and provide but meager reasonings. A prof who just allows this is negligent.

    Now no one in this argument in the journals was disputing that an inspired Paul had written that text. Neither is the issue a "fundamental of the faith." So, your concern in this case is not at all applicable! The dispute was rather over the meaning of that text not its authority or inerrancy. How should kephale be defined?

    Possibly whether the school were egalitarian (affording women equal rights in marriage or church) or hierarchical would determine the prof's appraisal of a student paper on the subject. The prof might not challenge the paper if it fit the stance of the school. I am saying that being unchallenged would poorly equip the student to be a scholar.

    Possibly the prof himself regardless of any position by the school would not be personally equipped to evaluate a paper which expressed a point of view on this topic. Perhaps the prof has not kept up with the research or lacks the ability by his own substandard education to himself do research. I am saying that would poorly equip the student to be a scholar.

    The student should be referred to that debate in the journals. There he would see scholarship in action within the confines of an evangelistic agreement over an inspired text. He would see ,eg, one scholar there painstakingly defending his position on the meaning of kephale by his looking at 2500 occasions of the noun's usage in secular and religious authors as Herodotus, the Orphic Fragment, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, the Septuagint, Josephus, Philo, Plutarch and others using the Thesaurus Lingua Gracae at the Univ of Cal at Irvine to do so. The student should be required to evaluate such argumentation and incorporate into his writing. If he does not , that would poorly equip the student to be a scholar. But that should be the prof's goal: to produce scholars.

    Here's the thing: The DL prof of grad Theolgy and Bible, in the first place should be he himself be much cognizant of such scholarship and secondly must require the student to be. But if the prof has not been there and done that himself, then why would it be assumed that he could lead others through such
    processes?


    ***see see: The Journal of Theological studies, ns5, 1954; Trinity Journal, 6ns , 1985; Trinity Journal, Spring 1985; Trinity Journal, Spring, 1989; Trinity Journal, Spring, 1990.




    Second Example: A Class in Pneumatology


    Student writes a paper on Spirit Baptism

    The New Testament refers to a baptism of the Spirit. Yet there are wide ranging definitions of that. But these proponants of the various views generally are evangelical and concur on the inspiration of the texts which allude to it. Therefore, your point is not here applicable!

    Suppose the school is dispensational. Then likely the school will favor the position of such as Chafer or Ryrie that said baptism is the Spirit ,in a nonexperiential manner, placing each and every believer into the spiritual body of Christ at the time of conversion.

    So, if the student writes a paper regurgitating that opinion, his paper may pass muster. But it should not pass muster unless it energetically and extensively interacts with the other views on the Spirit's baptism within the evangelical tradition eg,:

    Mullins--it doesn't happen today

    Torrey--few Christians experience it, the effect is spiritual power

    Holiness (as Nazarene) only some experience it and it is entire sanctification

    Pentecostal--only some experience it and the evidence is glossolalia

    Now each of these traditions provide extensive Scriptural and logical support for its view. I am saying that the worthy prof has himself much interacted with the Biblical evidence and logical arguments of each tradition as represented by its various major writers and the prof will challenge also his students who write on this topic to interact with those authors and their arguments. If that is not required, then IMO the prof has failed to interact properly with the student.



    As these, and many other examples I could offer, indicate, "free thought" does indeed have a wide range of expression even within the boundaries of the conservative Christian viewpoint.

    IMO, therefore, the prof who does not challenge his students on to interact at a scholarly level with contrasting and conflicting viewpoints, either because the prof himself has not so interacted with them, not being required to in his own educational experiences, or because the poor level of the rigor of the school does not require that interaction, is doing a disservice to his students, his calling, and perhaps even to his God. I personally fail in many ways. I hope not to fail also in this regard.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2004
  4. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    While I agree with that, I wouldn't want to push it too hard. Taken too religiously, it might make independent study impossible. Of course, one could say that a student's thought is also being guided by the authors he/she reads.

    Perhaps one can distinguish between active learners and passive learners. An active learner thinks while he or she reads. There's an active internal dialogue going with the new material. Sometimes issues arise. Something is questioned. So the student might seek out additional writers on the question and try to learn how other thinkers have quieted the dissonance.

    I guess that one of the functions of professors is to push students into being active learners. But students can do it by themselves, I think.

    But active learning does seem to involve continual questioning, speculating and a reluctance to simply accept everything one hears passively, at face value. That can be dangerous to orthodoxies.

    That's true from a perspective that has already established particular articles of faith and doctrine as inviolate. But not all theology is practiced from that perspective, nor must it be.

    Ever since the reformation, and certainly since the scientific revolution, the nature and justification of divine revelation in an increasingly rationalistic, skeptical and secular environment has become a tremendous intellectual problem for Christianity. A great deal of theology written in the last few centuries has consisted of various proposed responses to that issue.

    But expanding your point beyond theology, I think that there is a free-thought/established-doctrine tension in every academic subject. Where the balance is set probably depends on the field of study.

    I'm an old philosophy major. In philosophy, free-thought is pushed very hard and established doctrine barely exists. Nothing is inviolate. If we are studying Aristotle or Kant, it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with these authors. But the disagreements have to be well-argued and sound.

    I'm also an old biology major. In biology, things are more complicated. Skepticism is a little more circumscribed and problematic. That's because many doctrines of biology are supported by a tremendous body of experimental evidence. It's also because biology has a better established methodology. It knows how to accumulate experimental evidence and how to go about evaluating its credibility.

    Some questions in biology are active areas of speculation, controversy and research. Other areas are believed to be pretty well nailed-down and supported by a lot of reliable evidence. So the speculation at the cutting edge takes place in terms of what is already better understood.

    That's not to say that the foundations can't shift occasionally. But the burden of proof on the scientific iconoclast is greater than it is in philosophy, and if that additional burden isn't met, the innovator appears to be merely a crank. That's not a good thing.

    The problem in theology seems to be that its methodology, decision criteria and body of established foundational doctrine have all been called into question by modernity. The Church used to wield authority, but the Reformation undercut that. Uncritical faith in the Bible in turn was undercut by rationalism. It isn't clear any longer just how divine revelation is recognized or belief in it is justified. Procedures don't exist for adjudicating between competing truth claims of rival religions in an ever-shrinking world. And it's harder and harder for many secular individuals to believe in the supernatural at all.

    Something that once seemed rock-solid, the queen of the sciences, now resembles philosophy, where everything is open to question and reinterpretation.
     
  5. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    Perhaps "Free Thought" was a poor choice of words on my part. Maybe it would have been better to say that "free thought is encouraged within a certain framework. Bill (Grover), your points are well taken and I agree with them. Let me provide an example of what I am referring to:

    Let's assume a student is assigned a paper on the creation of the world. This paper can, and should, go in several different directions. Acceptable directions of free thought: Literal 6 day creation, day/age creation, gap theory, old earth, young earth, etc. Unacceptable areas of free thought: Evolution, Theistic evolution. Why would these last two not be acceptable? Because they do violence to the rest of scripture. God revealed Himself to man in two ways: special revelation (the Bible, Christ Himself) and general revelation (nature). Because God can not contradict Himself we must accept the fact that the record of the Bible and the record of nature agree. Our interpretation of each may be wrong, at least in part, but the records themselves are perfect. Because each record is flawless but, at least at present, our interpretation of each is not fully reconciled with the other, free thought (within a particular framework) should be encouraged.

    Pug
     
  6. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Pug

    I understand you, and I value your clarification.
     

Share This Page