As a result, the message they communicated was that their approach to the integration of faith and learning can and should be applied generically, or simply with all Christians in mind (even though it had Reformed roots). The Jacobsens then proceed to argue that the earlier approaches to the integration of faith and learning, found in the work of scholars such as Arthur Holmes, Nicholas Wolterstorff and George Marsden, had at least two weaknesses.įirst, previous scholars did not acknowledge their debt to a specific tradition enough when talking about the integration of faith and learning. In fact, the particularities of our traditions can be construed as scholarly assets that allow us to discover or create things that others simply cannot see or do because their traditions are less attuned to those areas. There is nothing wrong with the fact that our academic work is shaped by the traditions of faith and learning that have shaped us as persons. 2 Their criticism of this influence does not stem from a concern that traditions should not or do not affect a faculty member’s efforts. According to one controversial telling of this story by Doug and Rhonda Jacobsen in Scholarship and Christian Faith, the faith and learning conversation in the Protestant context has been largely dominated by scholars who identify or sympathize with the Reformed theological tradition. Our interest in this topic stems from a recent scholarly conversation about the integration of faith and learning in Christian higher education to which the Smiths’ quote refers. Indeed, our hope is that this article can help professors appreciate and develop multiple approaches to creating classroom experiences infused with a vibrant Christian faith. They can determine the degree to which they are only relying upon one strand of a cord that requires multiple strands to maximize its strength. In light of this conclusion, we contend that this typology can provide a helpful guide for professors. Each one of the approaches, we suggest, has important strengths but each one also has possible weaknesses, especially if used in isolation. We discovered that professors take eight different approaches.
In particular, we analyze the results of a survey that sought to discover how professors working at member institutions of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) claim that their respective theological traditions influence one particular aspect of their teaching. This article attempts to provide an empirical basis for that conversation. The problem, they point out, is the paucity of scholarship related to the practice of teaching and the faith-learning conversation. Smith, “the central task of teaching almost completely dropped off the scholarly radar.” 1 We wish to note that the Smiths do not mean that teaching has dropped off the radar, since most Christian colleges and universities are primarily teaching institutions. “ funny thing happened on the way to the Christian university,” claim David I.
Guthrie is Associate Professor of Higher Education at The Pennsylvania State University. Glanzer is Professor of Educational Foundations at Baylor University, and David S. Alleman is Assistant Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at Baylor University, Perry L. In this article, they describe these eight approaches and suggest that weaving these various approaches together, and not practicing them in isolation, will create a robust and sophisticated approach to Christian teaching. Overall, they found that Christian professors integrate their particular theological tradition into their course objectives in eight different ways. Guthrie drew upon a survey of 2,309 faculty at 48 institutions in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.
To help provide an empirical understanding of current practices, Nathan F. Recently, the distinctive role that Christianity plays in shaping teaching has become an important focus of conversation in Christian higher education.
0 kommentar(er)
