At Sacred Journey, the question is posed: "What do you think is the proper posture for a student in seminary: passive receptor or interactive learner?" The author (whose name I didn't see on the post, perhaps because his seminary has owned up to "monitoring student blogs") elaborates:
During my time at Westminster Theological Seminary i have been presented with two different models of the ideal seminary student, each presented by different professors at the same institution. Some professors have encouraged me to think and interact creatively and critically with the material they are teaching. My challenges and questions are taken seriously, and I am not only permitted but often encouraged to pursue new ideas generated from lectures and reading, even if eventually they sometimes lead nowhere. Such journeys are seen as important components of my learning.
Other professors have stated or implied that my chief role as a seminary student is to be a passive receptor, diligently soaking in the knowledge receptus of my seminary’s tradition. One professor in particular explicilty stated that seminary was most definitely not a time to pursue any creative or critical thinking, rather it is a time to soak in as much as possible from one’s learned professors. Indeed, when one has the opportunity to learn from teachers of the caliber of those we have here at Westminster, the call to “shut up and take notes” can seem like a wise course! But does it promote learning?
Upon reading this article, I resisted the temptation to click away in frustrated silence. Instead, I left a comment:
I think that the degree to which I’ve enjoyed & benefited from seminary has been largely due to professors who are comfortable with a give-and-take dynamic, and invite students to do further learning on their own. The degree to which seminary makes me want to mutter silent oaths has to do with with professors who think that learning means stamping an imprint of their own ministry preferences onto quiescent minds...
Anyone else want to weigh in on the question of active vs. passive learning modes? Seems like blogs are square in the middle of the question, if you're a person who prefers to "learn" without putting your brain on pause. I wonder if anyone monitors student blogs at my seminary...
13 comments:
Good question Ariel.
I hate to be the guy who takes the middle ground on something like this, especially with the first post, yet that is where this will end up.
Being a fellow Seminary student with Ariel, I also rejoice with those who encourage healthy theological and methodological questioning and ache when confronted with some who would rather us noncritically consume all they are giving.
With these things being said however, it does trouble me when in class with the guy who has decided he doesn't really need to be here for any other reason than to get "the paper on the wall". Everyone knows him. He's the guy with his theology and method firmly planted, unwilling to consider what the professor may have to say. He is the constant questioner, challenging every propositional statement put forth by the professor.
One thing often forgotten is that the profs are profs for a reason. Most aren't theological "jacklegs" with no concept of real mission or ministry. Thankfully at our school most profs are currently involved in the ministry of a local church and speak with an "Old Man and the Sea" type knowledge and care. With this in mind, there is sound reason to at times sit and soak without getting our "back up", and letting "neck veins protrude".
Matt
I could write for days on this but because I need to close up shop (literally, I need to go home and get some dinner) I will simple say this:
I have never described of the 'shut up and take notes' method as 'learning' and I most likely never will. To be honest, this is largely why I am taking a year off from school. That attitude is so pervasive it drives me up the wall--or, at least, back to NJ.
Professors are (or atleast are supposed to be) more advance than their students. The reason why the teacher teaches and the student listens is because the teacher has more to say than the student. Many students do have more to say than their professors, but I would rather hear 10 words from someone who studied themselves silly to gain the creditials to teach as a profession, than 2 hours from someone who has to pay thousands of dollars a semester to an institution just to grab a seat. I do not pay to hear the doubts of my fellow students. I pay to hear someone who has proven themselves to be smarter than the average joe (pastor). If I ever feel that I am ahead of my professors, I know it is time to find a different school--or atleast a different professor.I do not despise those teachers who encourage questions. In fact, I love them. I am not hacking on them. I am merely defending those teachers who want the uninformed (students) to shut up and listen. I love the "sit down, shut up, and listen" type of teachers. If the "sit down, shut up, and listen" approach does not work for you then how do you read books? You know, those things that cannot hear, let alone respond to your questions and comments. How do can listening to a sermon (without interruption) be beneficial? How can watching a educational show on T.V. be beneficial? Maybe if we would all just "sit down and shut up" and let him finish, the teacher would address those "ground breaking" questions and comments(you know the ones that he has supposedly never heard or thought of before). We need to question and challenge everything that our teachers say, but why do we have to do so in the classroom? The goal of seminary is not to stump the professors, but rather to see the particular subject from the professors point of view. The professor emphasizes the things that, from his point of view, are most important. The questions and challenges you have are what you (the uniformed one) deem to be most important. He may be wrong, but considering who he is, it might be a good idea to atleast give him a chance.
It seems to me like the main point of an education is to a) acquire some knowledge so that you can b) intellectually wrestle with it with the goals of c) understanding it on its own terms and, then d) figure out what you make of it. How can one do the last three except through dialogue, with the text, the instructor, and with one's peers? Of course, those last three don't have to occur in class; they can take place in professors' offices and over coffee and into the wee hours (and on blogs, too), and can probably take place more easily in those more informal settings. But they should occur, even if they aren't figured into the tuition.
I think this is related so I'll post it. If you are a complementarian, this might make sense, if you are an egalitarian, you will probably think I'm a misogynist who doesn't know how to read the Bible.
1Co 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (35) And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
These verses suggest to my mind, that there is a time and a place for speaking and asking questions in the church. I think the "sit down and shut up" approach to teaching can be traced to the "sit down and shut up" (and often heavily scripted/choreographed) approach to preaching (knee-jerk reaction says think Catholicism, only priests can read the word, etc, but I haven't pursued this in detail so take this all with a big grain of salt - lithium if necessary ;).
I think the method that I can think of (and I'm talking more specifically about preaching, but could apply to teaching as well) would be one where questions come at the end of the sermon, are organized and done decently and in order. I think it would serve both to mature Christians and to keep the preacher humble, no building castles in the sky from a single verse (like what I'm doing here:)
Anyway, that was a good question. There are some interesting thoughts here.
I think you have a moral obligation to listen to what the dead have said and then a moral obligation to speak to those dead bones and see if the get up and dance! Especially at a theo-illogical cemetary. Ariel I think you have been sent there as a missionary and it would be a sin just like getting drunk or drinking a fine beer too fast if you don't hold this issue in balance, remember they are savages and you must first learn there language. G.K. said, "We must thank God for beer and burgandy by not drinking too much of them." My personal philosophy is professors and teachers are like beer, we must relish the good and spit out the bad, then offer our review. I also believe you will learn more truth from attending Chesterton University than your seminary. I learned more on how not to be a christian at mine. Sorry I couldn't log in..Patrick
My favorite times in the classroom are when some student hyped up on starbucks and systematic theology lobs a pointed, loaded question aimed at disarming what the professor has just said, and seeing the professor completely and systematically argue for his point of view as he comprehensively dismantles the faulty assumptions of the questioner. These are the times when the powerpoint gets switched off, the wipe-off marker starts to fly, all of the top of the profs head.
However, (and you knew this was coming), I also despise it. There is a difference between a "clarifying" question and a "condescending" question. I can accept any question that is asked because a student does not understand something. But, when some yay-hoo asks 4 minute questions, or offers us a sermonnette, or cites mathew henry, or provides the details from his latest "exegetical independent project" wherein he has split the theological atom, my blood starts to boil.
I think dialogue and active learning is an indispensable part of education, but I think sometimes that is associated with asking a bunch of questions and sidetracking the professor who is desperately trying to get through the course material. Some questions are best asked after class, by email, over the phone, at the coffee shop, or "on a blog." However, most of the "active learners" I know ask these loaded questions in class, and then go blog about how their interpretation is superior than the prof (who by the way alleges heresy!) A real active learner would seek actual dialogue in the actual dialogue channels!
Case in point. In my Philosophy of Religion class last year my professor would give handouts of his lecture. The profs strategy was to present this line of thought as accurately as possible and then refute it at the end. Well, many people could not discern this strategy and thought the professor was espousing the particular line of thought and try to refute the professor!The "active learners" in the class would flip over the handout, glance at the profs systematic refutation of this line of thought, and then start making those very observations! Class after class, we wouldn't get through the entire argument because someone's pet doctrine or texts were getting stepped on. Therefore, the alleged "active learners" had lessened the rest of the class' ability to learn.
This is worse than a freshman in a sophmore British Literature class with a used textbook.
Sorry for the long comment, I didn't realize till now that a nerve had been touched!
Here's to real active learning and dialogue.
Of course there is a time for questioning and commenting, but that time is not necessarily in the class room. Learning cannot be done without questioning or commenting. When I read a book by Piper I do not call him up so I can then dialogue about what he has written. No, I go out and pose my questions to other people (classmates, pastors etc.). Those teachers who do not want students to ask questions are not evil, they just realize that they know more than their students. Those teachers who don't know more than their students should not be teaching higher education. If you feel the urge (as I do) to question EVERYTHING the prof says, then wait till after class and pose your questions to your classmates and friends. The ideal situation of course is a 1-1 student/teacher ratio, but this simply is not thinkable. One teacher does not have the time or energy to deal with all of the students questions.
Feeling a bit overwhelmed by the amount of comments and their length, I have decided to skip their reading and leave my thoughts as they are from an initial reading of the post.
As a student at a progressive (read: liberal) seminary, I find it hard to assume that we, as students, should simply take the role of a sponge, soaking in everything our professors utter without any critical thinking. This leads to a class full of carbon copies who never really learn the full weight of thinking for themselves. While I do appreciate the vast wisdom shared by those who occupy the space at the front of the class, I also enjoy the opportunity to tackle an issue on my own, freely coming to my own conclusion through utilizing the tools which have been provided to me by the beloved professor. It is when this occurs that I feel I have gained the most from my seminary experience.
If the "sit down, shut up, and listen" approach does not work for you then how do you read books?
If I want to sit down and shut up then I will read a book. Lectures cannot cover the ground of a book. The only reason one sits in a class is to interact with a prof. The only reasons, personally, that I even attend an insitution is because I need a piece of paper which authorizes me. The signature of an institution which deems me fit to teach a subject.
I would not bother with educational insitution at all if I could read the books and interact with others who have done the same. The key, of course being interaction.
The 'sit down and shut up' method in antithetical to interaction and it is interaction that is the function of an institution. I may be paying money to sit in a seat but I refuse to be patronized by some tradition: teach me to think.
WOW! Got to admit I didn't expect such spirited and voluminous reactions. Apparently this issue struck a nerve with quite a few of you.
There were some good things said, but trying to respond to each point that caught my eye would be the kind of mistake that leads to a comment the length of a treatise. Guess I'll just make a few observations.
There are two levels to this debate, I think: 1) philosophy of education 2) classroom experience.
My "philosophy" of education is that I want to be trained how to think rather than how to parrot information. That means that I want an environment that encourages exploration, initiative, creativity, interaction, integration, etc. and frowns upon the copying and pasting of thought. I believe this kind of atmosphere can be fostered in a variety of ways that are honoring to both the teacher and the learners (think Jesus talking with the disciples, think Socrates questioning his novices, think Oxford forums...)
On the classroom experience front, I don't have a specific set of expectations. While I like to hijack--uh, I mean--create discussion in class from time to time, I'm very content to sit still while a smart, learned person holds forth, so long as that person expects me to personalize the learning process. I get riled up a prof acts as if there is no room for questioning/exploration because the students should be happy to just copy the power point slides word for word. That's just not learning.
No doubt more could be said...bottom line, I guess: it makes no sense when people who are eager to learn, ready to do the academic "leg work" of extra reading, research and writing come to class and feel stifled or condescended to.
Note that I'm not making excuses for the student who wakes up Monday morning with a creative new solution for theodicy and rushes in to enlighten his professor and the rest of the class...
Further thoughts? Feel free to comment more. I had a good time reading all this.
WOW! Got to admit I didn't expect such spirited and voluminous reactions. Apparently this issue struck a nerve with quite a few of you.
There were some good things said, but trying to respond to each point that caught my eye would be the kind of mistake that leads to a comment the length of a treatise. Guess I'll just make a few observations.
There are two levels to this debate, I think: 1) philosophy of education 2) classroom experience.
My "philosophy" of education is that I want to be trained how to think rather than how to parrot information. That means that I want an environment that encourages exploration, initiative, creativity, interaction, integration, etc. and frowns upon the copying and pasting of thought. I believe this kind of atmosphere can be fostered in a variety of ways that are honoring to both the teacher and the learners (think Jesus talking with the disciples, think Socrates questioning his novices, think Oxford forums...)
On the classroom experience front, I don't have a specific set of expectations. While I like to hijack--uh, I mean--create discussion in class from time to time, I'm very content to sit still while a smart, learned person holds forth, so long as that person expects me to personalize the learning process. I get riled up a prof acts as if there is no room for questioning/exploration because the students should be happy to just copy the power point slides word for word. That's just not learning.
No doubt more could be said...bottom line, I guess: it makes no sense when people who are eager to learn, ready to do the academic "leg work" of extra reading, research and writing come to class and feel stifled or condescended to.
Note that I'm not making excuses for the student who wakes up Monday morning with a creative new solution for theodicy and rushes in to enlighten his professor and the rest of the class...
Further thoughts? Feel free to comment more. I had a good time reading all this.
I love all types of professors. Yes, I even love those professors who look at you with a stern eye when you seem to go against what they say. I love their teaching style. Each style of teaching brings something different to the table. Teaching styles are sort of like writing styles--some writers cannot be specific about anything that they say, they can only hint and suggest, while other authors simply spit black and white information at you. There are certain things that you simply cannot get from those profs and writers who refuse to just tell you what it means and how wrong everyone else is. At the same time, if every professor was like this we would be in a lot of trouble. In the same way, if every professor were to follow the interactive learning model (where the students speak just as much as the professor) we would be missing out on a very important aspect of our education. Those professors who get all hot headed about their position do not create carbon copies, the carbon copy students are those who don't care to think hard--those who ONLY want to be told what to belive. Of course, I do believe that there are bad teaching styles--I just don't think the ultra hot headed approach is one of them. In fact, I think it is helpful.
Post a Comment