FIELD EDuQATION EXPERfiENCES Rs RN * ELEMENT IN THEOLGGECAL SEMiNARY PREPARATION FOR THE PARESH NN N 3m AS PERRENER BY PARESH NzNISTERs ‘ Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHiGAN STATE UNWERSWY KENNEEH LIWERN SMDER 1968 .‘ k If I I? R A R :1 Mfimw 'HHIIIIIIIWlllllilIHHI11HllllillllillillllilillllllJIIHII ' 3 1293 10411 2606 -.-.o This is to certify that the thesis entitled FIELD EDUCATION EXPERIENCES AS AN ELEMENT IN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PREPARATION FOR THE PARISH MINISTRY AS PERCEIVED BY PARISH MINISTERS presented by Kenneth Lavern Snider has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . degree in Ed ucat i on /fl . I , \ / ’ 4 ' '\ / Ir 4 / , /‘/&4 / . ejor professor Date May 16, 1968 0-169 - w- null-"5' ABSTRACT FIELD EDUCATION EXPERIENCES AS AN ELEMENT IN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PREPARATION FOR THE PARISH MINISTRY AS PERCEIVED BY PARISH MINISTERS by Kenneth Lavern Snider A present concern of theological educators is that theological seminary education is falling short in real- izing one of its major objectives, that of providing the kind of professional education which develops high levels of competence in the complex roles of the Christian minister. It has often been pointed out that a compre— hensive evaluation is needed to learn the particular contribution of each of several components to the prepara- tion of students for the professional Christian ministry. This study was undertaken as one component of such a comprehensive evaluation and is limited to the examination of the contribution of field education to the competence of the parish minister. The study was based on a sample of one out of eight of the 196“ graduates of 86 of the 92 accredited Protestant theological seminaries who agreed to cooperate in the study. Each of the A71 persons in the sample was mailed a question- naire which asked for information about his present position, his experience in field education while in seminary, I m "—— -—— *— Kenneth Lavern Snider and his judgment of the value and importance of it for seminarians and for his own professional preparation. Responses were received from 331 (70%) of the sample representing 81 seminaries. Since this study dealt only with the evaluation of field education of these graduates who were parish ministers three years after graduation, the findings are based on the responses of 2A9 such graduates or about 75% of the respondents. An analysis of the reSponses showed that most theo- logical seminary students participate in seminary field education programs, either as a requirement or as an elective, and that they perceive field education to be an important part of the preparation of students for the parish ministry. Little difference appears in their perception of the contribution of field education to the achievement of three general categories of objectives, though they rate them in this order: (1) professional growth, (2) personal growth, and (3) academic growth. They did, however, differentiate in their perceptions of the importance of specific objec- tives. Most important were: (1) providing of stimulation and Opportunity for creative thinking in real life Situations, (2) the develOpment of direction for their ministry, and (3) the providing of meaning and relevance for classroom learning. Very decidedly they perceived the providing of income for student needs as an unworthy objective for field education. Kenneth Lavern Snider The responses strongly suggest that a philOSOphy of field education needs to be develOped which will give it greater purpose and direction, and that the perceptions of parish ministers should be sought on the relative im- portance of Specific objectives, on the format of field experience, and on the nature of supervision and evaluation. The study leads the investigator to make the following recommendations: (1) field education should be required of all seminarians; (2) a fourth year should be spent in a parish internship under the supervision of a parish minister; (3) concurrent field experiences, both parish and non-parish, in the form of directed observation should be begun early in the seminary program; (A) a clinical non-parish intern- ship should be scheduled in the second or third year but not concurrently with classes; (5) the supervision of field education should be the c00perative responsibility of the seminary, selected parish ministers and laymen; and (6) all those concerned with improvement of professional training of parish ministers, including seminary faculty, ministers and laymen, should make some concerted effort to study the professional, personal and academic needs of graduates and to make necessary changes in theological education. FIELD EDUCATION EXPERIENCES AS AN ELEMENT IN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PREPARATION FOR THE PARISH MINISTRY AS PERCEIVED BY PARISH MINISTERS By Kenneth Lavern Snider A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education College of Education 1968 (,6 Mg" {viz 155/ /»‘é ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following people for their assistance in the study: To the Guidance Committee Chairman, Professor Russell J. Kleis, for his assistance and encouragement and to other members of the Guidance Committee: Dr. Jay Artis, Dr. George R. Myers, and Dr. Margaret Lorimer. To all those persons in theological seminaries who cooperated in the study by sharing information about seminary programs and providing names and addresses of seminary graduates. To the graduates of theological seminaries included in the study without whose help the study could not have been accomplished. To the General Missionary Board of the Free Methodist Church for making the study possible by providing for the author an extended salaried furlough from missionary service and underwriting eXpenses for the study. To my wife, Lois, and our children, Carol and Craig, whose sacrifice and patience made the undertaking of this study a much lighter task. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . v LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. 1 Statement of the Problem. 1 Objectives of the Study . 3 Questions Posed as a Guide to the Study. 5 Assumptions . . . . . . . . 7 Limitations . . . . . . 9 Organization of the Study . 9 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . ll Theological Education and the Practice of Ministry . . . . 11 Field Education in the Theological Seminary . . . . 14 The Purpose and Objectives of Field Education. . . . . . 19 Evaluation of Field Education . . . 27 The Parish Minister as a Participant in Evaluation . . . . . . . . 28 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 29 III. METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY . . . 31 Population and Sample. . . . . . . 31 Gathering the Data. . . . . . 33 Coding and Processing the Data. . . . 37 iii Chapter Page IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . A2 General Information About the Respondents. . . . . A2 Perceived Importance of Objectives for Field Education . . . 55 Kinds and Levels of Field Education Experiences . . . . 83 The Format of Field Education Experiences . . . 90 The Supervisors of Field Education . . 92 Perceived Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Objectives. . . 95 The Supervision of Field Education . . 135 Further Perceptions on Field Education. 154 V. GENERAL SUMMARY, MAJOR FINDINGS, IMPLI— CATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND A SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . 173 General Summary . . . . . . . . 173 Major Findings. . . . . . . . . 17A Implications . . . . . . . . . 182 Recommendations . . . . 185 A Suggestion for Further Research . . 19A BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21“ iv .wvww.va -— 'v— ‘7 Table 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Present Position of Respondents . . . . Age of Parish Ministers. . . . . . . . Religious Denomination of Parish Ministers Number of Parishes Served Since Graduation . Parish Location . . . . . . . . . Total Annual Remuneration of Parish Ministers from Their Parishes. Parish Ministers and Their Wives Engaged in Remunerative Work in Addition to Parish Service . . . . . . . . . . . Continuing Education of Parish Ministers Number of Seminaries Attended by Parish Ministers . . . . . . . . . . Time Spent in Completing Seminary and Reasons for Spending More Than Three Years. . . . . Reasons for Participation by Parish Ministers in Seminary Field Education Reasons for Non Participation by Parish Ministers in Seminary Field Education Relative Importance of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers Who Had Participated and by Those Who Had Not Participated in Semi- nary Field Education. . . . . . Page A3 AA A5 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 50 50 51 51 57 Table 1A. 150 l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2A. -_ i-_~ " Relative Importance of for Field Education Parish Ministers in of Minister . . . Relative Importance of for Field Education Parish Ministers in Location of Parish. Relative Importance of for Field Education Parish Ministers in Selected Objectives as Perceived by Relation to Age Selected Objectives as Perceived by Relation to Selected Objectives as Perceived by Relation to Remuner- ation from the Parish. . . . . . . Relative Importance of for Field Education Parish Ministers in ous Denomination . Selected Objectives as Perceived by Relation to Religi- Percentage of Ministers Who Reported Selected Kinds and Levels of Field Edu- cation Experiences as Part of Their Seminary Training . Format (Block/Concurrent) of Field Edu- cation Experiences. Extent of Time for and Locale of Block Field Education Experiences. . . Supervision of Field Education Experiences: Position and Degree Supervisor . . of Responsibility of Supervision of Field Education Experiences: Persons Responsible for Directing and Coordinating Experiences. . . . . Relative Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers. . Relative Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers in Relation to Age of Parish Ministers. . vi Page 6A 68 72 75 8A 91 91 93 9A 97 100 Table 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Relative Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers in Relation to Location of Parish . . . . . . . . . . . Relative Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers in Relation to Remuneration from the Parish . . . . Relative Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers in Relation to Time in Seminary . . . . . . . . Relative Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers in Relation to Format of Experiences . . . . . . Relative Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers in Relation to Locale of Experiences . . . . . . Relative Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers in Relation to Position of Person Directing and Coordinating Experiences . . . . . . . . . Relative Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Selected Objectives for Field Education as Perceived by Parish Ministers in Relation to Religious Denomination . . . . . . . . vii Page 103 106 110 116 119 122 126 Table Page 32. Relative Satisfaction of Parish Ministers with Selected Elements of Supervision of Field Education Experiences . . . . 137 33. Relative Satisfaction of Parish Ministers with Selected Elements of Supervision of Field Education Experiences in Re— lation to Age of Parish Minister . . . 139 3A. Relative Satisfaction of Parish Ministers with Selected Elements of Supervision of Field Education Experiences in Relation to Location of Parish . . . . . . . 1A0 35. Relative Satisfaction of Parish Ministers with Selected Elements of Supervision of Field Education Experiences in Relation to Remuneration from the Parish. . . . 1A1 36. Relative Satisfaction of Parish Ministers with Selected Elements of Supervision of Field Education Experiences in Relation to Time in Seminary. . . . . . . . 1A3 37. Relative Satisfaction of Parish Ministers with Selected Elements of Supervision of Field Education Experiences in Relation to Format of Experiences . . . . . . 1AA 38. Relative Satisfaction of Parish Ministers with Selected Elements of Supervision of Field Education Experiences in Relation to Locale of Experiences . . . . . . 1A6 39. Relative Satisfaction of Parish Ministers with Selected Elements of Supervision of Field Education Experiences in Relation to Position of Person Directing and Coordinating Experiences . . . . . . 1A8 AO. Relative Satisfaction of Parish Ministers with Selected Elements of Supervision of Field Education Experiences in Relation to Religious Denomination. . . . . . 150 A1. Adequacy of Orientation for Field Education Experiences as Perceived by Parish Ministers . . . . . . . . . . . 151 viii Table Page A2. Perceptions of Parish Ministers on the Required Standard of Performance for Field Education Experiences . . . . . 152 A3. Perceptions of Parish Ministers on the Amount of Time for Their Field Education Experiences in Relation to Time Spent in Seminary . . . . . . . . . . 156 AA. Kinds of Experiences Not Included in Their Field Education Programs Which Parish Ministers Cited as Having Contributed Toward the Realization of Important Field Education Objectives . . . . . 158 A5. Regret of Parish Ministers for Having Participated in Seminary Field Education. 160 A6. Regret of Parish Ministers for Not Having Participated in Seminary Field Education. 160 A7. Commendations, Criticisms and Recommen— dations of Parish Ministers for the Improvement of Theological Seminary Field Education Programs . . . . . . 162 ix Appendix A. B. C. LIST OF APPENDICES Page The Questionnaire Used in the Study . . 215 Letters Sent to Theological Seminaries . 222 Letters Sent to Theological Seminary Graduates. . . . . . . . . . 226 Supplementary Coding . . . . . . . 230 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem A present concern of theological educators is that theological seminary education is falling short in realiz— ing one of its major objectives, that of providing the kind of professional education which develops high levels of competence in the complex roles of the Christian minister.l Fitzpatrick notes that "we have not succeeded in the task for which the seminary is supposed to exist, namely, the task of confirming the student's identification with and scholarly and professional competence for the role "2 Feilding's recent and status of the ordained minister. three year study requested by the Accrediting Association of Theological Schools suggests that "ministry today is lTheological seminary education for the professional ministry includes preparation for the parish and other kinds of ministries such as teaching religion in universi— ties and chaplaincies. However, it is here assumed that a majority of the Bachelor of Divinity students, upon gradua— tion, will become parish ministers and that it is a primary function of Bachelor of Divinity curricula of theological seminaries to prepare parish ministers for their roles. 2Mallary Fithatrick, Jr., "The Seminary and Church Meet in Internship," Seventh Biennial Consultation on Seminary Field Work, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Austin, Texas, February 15, 1963. generally discontinuous with the preparation provided for it."3 As evidence Feilding cites the testimony of some ministers with whom he consulted that "theological educa- tion is mainly an obstacle race to be run before entering on a ministry with which it had little connection"u and that "in varying degrees the ministers regarded themselves as self educated after graduation."5 I A principal objective for field education experiences, an element in the theological seminary's preparation of stu— dents for the professional Christian ministry and in which nearly all present day theological seminary students are engaged during at least a part of their years in seminary, is the develOpment of competency in the professional roles of the Christian minister. The necessity for and educa— tional value of field education experiences in the student's preparation for the professional Christian ministry are recognized by seminary educators and others. Theological seminary field education programs, especially in recent years, have experienced considerable growth and develOpment with further growth and development continuing. A comprehensive evaluation of both theological semi- nary field education programs and theological seminary 3Charles R. Feilding, "Education for Ministry," Theological Education, Vol. III, No. 1 ( Autumn, 1966). “Ibid., p. 31. 5Ibid. students' field education experiences is needed to learn the particular contribution of field education to the prep- aration of students for the professional Christian ministry. Participants in such evaluation should include graduates who are engaged in the professional Christian ministry. However, there appears to be no evidence that parish ministers who constitute the majority of Bachelor of Divinity graduates from North American theological seminaries have been included in a comprehensive evalua— tion of theological seminary programs and of their own theological seminary field education experiences. This study has been undertaken, therefore, as one major component of a comprehensive evaluation of theo- logical seminary field education as an element in the professional preparation for the parish ministry. It solicited information from parish ministers, professionals by practice as well as by training, and who, from their particular perspective, might provide insights about theological seminary field education unobtainable in other ways. Objective of theStudy The general objective of the study was to engage a selected group of graduates of accredited North American Protestant theological seminaries—-the 196A Bachelor of Divinity (or equivalent)6 graduates who are now parish 6Most theological seminaries require three academic years following undergraduate education to complete ministers, in the task of evaluating their seminary field education7 experiences as having contributed to their pre- paration for the parish ministry. Specifically: l. The study solicited from parish ministers their present judgments concerning the relative importance of selected educational objectives for field education experi- ences, solicited from them their present judgments of the extent to which their own field education experiences con- tributed toward the realization of these objectives, and asked them to identify and evaluate the various means employed toward the realization of these objectives. 2. kamlthe data supplied by respondents,the selec- ted field education objectives were categorized according to ratings of relative importance, and the means employed toward the realization of those objectives were ranked in terms of their perceived effectiveness and efficiency. requirements for graduation with a Bachelor of Divinity degree. Some seminaries confer a degree other than Bache- lor of Divinity but equivalent to it, as for example, the Bachelor of Sacred Theology degree conferred at Wesley Theological Seminary. Canadian theological schools usually grant a diploma to graduates of a three year theo- logical program, and confer a divinity degree only after further theological education as for example, Emmanuel College. Each time the term, Bachelor of Divinity, appears in this study, the term's meaning should be extended to include equivalent degree or diploma. 7Operationally,in this study, the term field educa- tion denotes that part of the theological seminary cur- riculum which provides theological seminary students with experiences outside of the seminary classroom, usually, though not always, within a parish, and for the purpose of relating classroom learning to the practice of ministry. Only those field experiences provided or recognized by the seminary as field education experiences are included in the meaning of the term. Questions Posed as a Guide to the Study The following are Specific questions for which answers were sought from the data: 1. What were the kinds and levels of field education experiences which parish ministers had as theological semi— nary students in their field education programs? 2. What seminary, local church, or other officials supervised the field education experiences of respondents and what was the degree of their supervisory responsibility? 3. What do graduates of theological seminaries, who now serve as parish ministers, perceive as the relative importance of field education objectives in the following categories: academic objectives, personal growth objec- tives, professional growth objectives and the objective of providing income for student needs? A. Does the perceived importance of these objectives vary with the parish minister's participation or non parti— cipation as a seminary student in field education experi— ences, with age, with present church location and with religious demonination? 5. What do theological seminary graduates, who now serve as parish ministers, perceive as the relative extent to which these objectives were achieved through their field education experiences? 6. Does the perceived extent of contribution of selected experiences toward the realization of field education objectives vary: with the minister's present age, church location or annual remuneration from his parish, with the time required to complete seminary, with the format (concurrent and/or block) of field education experiences, with locale (parish and/or non parish related) of field education experiences, with position of the person responsible for directing and coordinating the minister's field education experiences and with religious denomination? 7. What rating do parish ministers give to selected elements of supervision in their field education experi— ences as having contributed toward the realization of field education objectives? 8. Does the rating of selected elements of super~ vision vary: with the responding minister's age, church location or annual remuneration from his parish, with time (number of years) required to complete seminary, with format (concurrent and/or block) of field education experia ences, with locale (parish and/or non parish related) of experiences, with position of the person responsible for directing and coordinating the minister's field education experiences and with the religious denomination? 9. How do parish ministers rate the amount of time given to their field education experiences as compared to time given for the rest of the curriculum? 10. Are there other experiences, not included in their field education programs, which parish ministers had prior to seminary or as seminary students which contributed toward the realization of field education objectives? 11. What types of experiences do parish ministers who did not participate in seminary field education pro- grams perceive as having possibility for contributing to the realization of field education objectives? 12. Do parish ministers regret having participated, if they did so, or not having participated, if they did not do so, in seminary field education programs? 13. What specific commendations and criticisms of theological seminary field education programs and what Specific recommendations for the improvement of these pro— grams do parish ministers make? Assumptions Basic Assumptions 1. Professional education for the parish ministry, like professional education for law, medicine, and teaching, for example, should include field practice in the profes— sion because some essential learnings are better accom— plished in field practice than in the classroom and certain essential learnings can only be accomplished in field practice. 2. Theological seminaries recognize field education programs as the principal means for providing field prac— tice for their students who, upon graduation, will engage in the professional Christian ministry. 3. The burden of responsibility for the improvement of theological seminary education rests with the seminary but persons outside the seminary may provide data and insights which are important to the accomplishment of such improvement. A. Ministers recently graduated from theological seminaries and now engaged in the parish ministry and who consequently are professionals both by training for and practice in the professional Christian ministry, constitute a legitimate and productive source of such data and insights. Operational Assumptions 1. That the Bachelor of Divinity curriculum is gen- erally oriented toward the professional preparation of students for the parish ministry and a majority of the Bachelor of Divinity graduates, following their graduation, enter the parish ministry. 2. That an apprOpriate population for the purpose of the study was the 196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates now in the parish ministry, since (a) recency of field education experiences would permit a relatively accurate recall of those experiences, and (b) three years of eXperience as a minister would permit the making of relatively valid and meaningful judgments by the minister about seminary field education which he experienced. 3. That both theological seminary personnel and parish ministers would cooperate in the study. Limitations The study relied upon the memory and perceptions of parish ministers rather than upon records for obtaining much of the data on field education programs and experi- ences. Limiting the population of the study to graduates engaged in the parish ministry excluded some graduates who would possibly have contributed valuable data as, for example, graduates who were engaged in other professional Christian ministries and those who had left the parish ministry to engage in other occupations. The control of the period of service since graduation precluded examination of the relation of length of time in the parish ministry to other variables. Organization of the Study This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter I, Introduction, includes a statement of the prob— lems, objective of the study, assumptions of the study, limitations of the study, and plan of organization. 10 Chapter II presents the background of the problem which, in large part, is a review of pertinent literature. Chapter III, Methodology and Sc0pe of the Study, identifies the population and sample of the study and describes the processes for gathering and analyzing the data. Chapter IV consists of a presentation and analysis of the data on theological seminary field education eXperiences as perceived by parish ministers. Chapter V consists of a general summary, major findings, implications, recommendations, and a suggestion for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Theological Education and the Practice of~Ministry4 The problem of how to best prepare theological students for the practice of ministry has been a persistent concern of theological education in America. In the 192A Kelley study such fundamental questions were asked as: "Are semi- naries as constituted today effective in furnishing the church with competent pastors and prophets?" and "Are the curricula of the seminaries covering the whole field of responsibility of the ministry today?"8 A decade later, in another general study of theologi- cal seminary education, May affirmed that "if the education given in the school, however excellent, bears no relation to the tasks and problems which will confront the practi— tioner when he graduates; while it may be a source of individual satisfaction to its recipient, it will have little effect in elevating the standards of the profession 8Robert L. Kelley, Theological Education in America (New York: George H. Doran Co., 192A), p. 12. The Kelley study was the first general study of American theo- logical seminary education. 11 12 as a whole."9 The study found that pastors were "not enthusiastic about their training" and "that their seminary training or their theological training . . . made its greatest contribution to their Spiritual lives, and its "10 least contribution to their practical skills. Blizzard, in his role studies of parish ministers, found that "ministers felt that they were being trained in seminaries more as scholars than practitioners" and "that the areas of inadequacy in the training (of ministers) are in the world of people rather than in the world of ideas."11 The Blizzard studies indicate that the traditional roles (preacher, teacher, priest) are those in which the minister feels most adequate and the roles that he finds most troublesome are those that are neotraditional (pastor) or contemporary (organizer and administrator).12 Niebuhr considers the essential role of the minister 13 to be that of pastoral director and that "this concept 9Mark A. May, The Education of American Ministers (New York: Institute of Social and Religious Research, 193A), Vol. I, p. 5.. lOIbid., p. 3A9. 11Samuel W. Blizzard, "The Roles of the Rural Parish Minister, The Protestant Seminaries and the Sciences of Social Behavior," Religious Education (Nov., Dec., 1955). 121bid. 13H. Richard Niebuhr, The Purpose of the Church and its Ministry: Reflections on the Aims of Theological Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), p. 79 ff. 13 of the minister seems to be emerging and to be gaining ground in the thought as well as the practice of minis- ters."lu However, he notes that theological education appears deficient in this aspect of the minister's prepara— tion for "when ministers reflect on their theological edu— cation they are likely to regret more than any other deficiency in it the failure of the school to prepare them for the administration of . . . a church."15 Hodgel.6 asked the fifty-eight younger Presbyterian ministers in his study to list those areas in seminary education which in their estimation needed improvement. Counseling and pastoral psychology, church administration, and practical field work with adequate supervision were the three areas most needing improvement, according to the frequency of mention by reSpondents. Adjustments have been made in the theological seminary curriculum to meet the demands of contemporary situations. A review of catalogs reveals that many theological semi— naries have "practical departments" which include subjects thought essential to the training of the minister such as public worship, homiletics, religious education, pastoral lulbid., p. 82. l51b1d., p. 83. 16Marshall B. Hodge, "Vocational Satisfaction of Ministers: An Introductory Experimental Study of Fifty- Eight Presbyterian Ministers" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta— tion, University of Southern California, 1960). 1A psychology, counseling and church administration. These have been added to the "classical" subjects taught in theological seminaries: biblical literature (including Hebrew and Greek languages), theology and church history. With both "classical" and "practical" subjects included in the curriculum, the concept of the minister as practi- tioner as well as scholar is acknowledged. But a rationale for the inclusion of certain practical subjects in the curriculum and instruction in them conducted at a high level does not insure their value in the curriculum. The result of adding piecemeal to the curriculum may result in the "lack of a unifying idea in the curriculum."17 Further, as Feilding has noted, there is a tendency in the practical departments to "replace practice with lectures about prac- Preparation for the practice of ministry requires more than adding "practical courses" to the curriculum. Field Education in the Theological Seminary Field work19 in which nearly all theological students are engaged during at least a part of their years in l7 lBFeilding, op. cit., p. 13. Niebuhr, Op. cit., p. 98. 19Field work, field service and field education, terms variously used by theological seminaries, in this study, are used as synonyms. It appears that the term, field education, may become the commonly accepted term as evidenced by the recent name change in the biennial con- sultation from "Biennial Consultation on Field Work" to "Biennial Consultation on Field Education." l5 seminary,2O provides practical experience through which, ideally, the student's academic preparation is sharpened in its relevance to human needs, and in which his maturity is furthered through his bearing responsibility for religious ministry. The kind and extent of field work in which theologi— cal students have engaged has been determined usually by economic necessity rather than by educational goalle—-and "the primary purpose of most field work is still the remu- "22 neration of students. Nevertheless, some American seminaries, at least by 1932, tried to make "educational capital out of remunerative employment"23 and endeavored "to make supervised field work a fully integrated aSpect "24 Thus field work was coming "25 of theological education. to be looked upon as the "seminary laboratory, and essential to the professional training Of ministers, just as out—of—the—classroom field experiences have been 2OSee H. Richard Niebuhr, Daniel Day Williams and James M. Gustafson, The Advancement of Theological Educa- tion (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 112 f. 21 Ibid., p. 113. 22Feilding, Op. cit., p. 219. 23Frank C. Foster, "The Seminary Laboratory: Field Work," in May, Op. cit., Vol. III, p. 2A3. 2”Ibid., p. 251. 25This is the title given by Foster to field work, Ibid., p. 192 ff. 16 considered necessary for training in such other professions as law, medicine, teaching and engineering.26 Morgan asked a selected group of seniors from eighteen theological seminaries: "In your Opinion, what has been the chief value you have received from your field work experiences?" and "In your Opinion what is the most impor- tant defect in the field work program of your seminary?" The chief values of field work, according to the seniors and summarized by Morgan, appear to have been: Opportuni- ties for practical experiences, integration of classroom experience, integration of classroom with real life, increased understanding of people and their needs, increased understanding of techniques of the ministry and increased understanding of the self. Likewise, the chief defects appear to have been: lack of adequate supervision, lack of variety and flexibility of the program, too much theory with not enough practice and lack of adequate integration with classroom work. There is no evidence that Morgan inquired of graduates Of theological seminaries as to their perceptions of the values and defects of their theological seminary field work.27 26See William J. McGlothlin, Patterns of Professional Education (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1960), p. 91 ff? for a listing of the various "beyond the campus" experi- ences of various professional educational programs. 27Carl Hamilton Morgan, "The Status of Field Work in the Protestant Theological Seminaries of the United States" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 19A2), p. 93 ff. 17 Morgan called attention to three unsolved problems of field work, namely: the need for an adequate basic philos— ophy of field work, the need for the establishment of field work activities with maximum educational value and the need for developing principles and techniques of supervision of field work.28 He also eXpressed the need for opportunity to "be given the seminaries for regular and adequate exchange of ideas and experience related to field work."29 30 ten years following the Morgan study, Duewell, found that "field work is still inadequately supervised, inadequately evaluated, and inadequately integrated with other aspects of the curriculum." For the improvement of 31 supervision, Duewell recommended that more time should be given to it by the field work director, that all faculty members should share in it, and that it Should be more per- sonalized and intensified. He pointed out the need for evaluation instruments and techniques if evaluation of field work is to be improved and a greater involvement Of faculty members if field work is to be integrated with the entire seminary curriculum. 281bid., p. 105. 291bid. 3OWesley L. Duewell, "Supervision of Field Work in American Protestant Theological Seminaries" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1952), p. 66. 31Ibid., p. 315 ff. 18 The biennial consultations on seminary field educa- tion which began in 19A6 now provide opportunity for field education directors to hear reports on field education and related subjects and to share ideas and experiences. Six area consultations on seminary field work were held in 1962 for the purpose of thinking through cooperatively the contribution that can be made by field work to greater excel- lence in theological education, with special attention to the goals, the common elements regardless of setting, and the critical role of supervision.32 Several participants at the Ninth Biennial Consultation on seminary Field Education33 which the writer attended, voiced the Opinion that the purpose of field education needs further clarification and that providing adequate supervision is a major problem of field education. The last several decades have witnessed change and development in theological seminary field education pro- grams so that today field education experiences in wide variety are provided for students. Some of these provide only superficial exposure and require little time involve- ment. Others, in contrast, are depth experiences providing opportunity to reflect upon and evaluate experiences and 32Milton C. Froyd, "Report to the American Associa- tion of Theological Schools on Seminary Field Work Con— sultations" held during the winter and spring of 1962. Unpublished document. 33Ninth Biennial Consultation on Seminary Field Education, Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, Indiana, January 19—21, 1967. l9 requiring considerable time. Some experiences take place within or in close relationship to a parish; the locale of others is outside of the parish. Some experimentation has taken place which has impli- cations for theological seminary field education programs. Two eXperimentS may be cited. Laubach's experiment on inducting students into ministry showed that a group field eXperience was highly supportive for students involved and facilitated experimentatiOn with new ways of functioning and change in patterns of behavior.3u The Yale experiment in in—parish pastoral studies concluded that faculty involvement is necessary in any creative development in field education and that if pastors are to be included in the supervision Of theological students in the in-parish field education programs, they must be trained in the work 35 of supervision. The Purpose and Objectives of Field Education If we accept the premise that field education is included in the curriculum of the theological seminary 3“Eugene E. Laubach, "Inducting Theological Students into Ministry: A Description and Analysis of a Pilot Project in Ministry" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 196A). 35Russell J. Becker, "The In Parish Pastoral Studies Program at Yale, Report of an Experiment, 1960-66," Ninth Biennial Consultation, op. cit. 20 36 because of its educational value, -then three fundamental questions must be asked: what are the educational objec— tives of field education; by what means are these Objec- tives pursued; and to what extent are these Objectives realized? The Objectives of field education, as for all other segments of the theological seminary curriculum, will proceed from the purposes for which the seminary exists. The extent to which the objectives of field education are realized may be fully known only through a comprehensive evaluation which includes a retrospective assessment of their own field education eXperiences by parish ministers after a period of professional practice. From an examination of statements of purpose included in seminary catalogs or the purpose implied in statements 37 of institutional characteristics, it is apparent that the theological seminary is an educational institution existing primarily to provide professional training for various Christian ministries, one of which is the parish ministry.38 36Froyd, op. cit., p. 20. 37Each seminary includes a statement of its institu- tional characteristics in the directory of the theological schools. Directopy of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada, 1966 Edition, American Association of Theological Schools, Dayton, Ohio. 38The term, parish minister, in the present study, denotes the professionally trained and usually ordained person, most commonly designated as clergy, who has general oversight and responsibility in the parish. Operationally in this study, the term includes professionally trained ministers whose principal work is in the parish and who may be designated by such terms as parish minister, 21 The purpose of field education, then, must arise from this primary purpose for which the seminary exists. The purpose for field education in the theological seminary, according to Wilson,39 is to give the student, through directed experience, an Opportunity to learn Skills, techniques and instruments or tools of his calling in a vital Situation where concepts and methods may be tested while adjustment and maturity are taking place and professional competency is being attained. For Christie“O the chief purpose of field education is to serve as "the nozzle . . . through which the total experi— ence of the theological course is communicated." Transition from the classroom to the professional ministry requires that the student's educational program include provision for facilitating this transition. Field education provides opportunity for relating classroom learn- ing to the professional ministry in actual experience; it exposes the student to the realities of the minister's work; and, to a limited extent, it inducts the student into the associate parish minister, assistant parish minister, minister of music, minister of education, minister of youth, etc. The term, parish, denotes a church congregation unit with a particular place of assembly, usually having a mem- bership roll and with an organizational structure and pro— gram develOped and administered by a denomination and/or a congregation. 39J. Christy Wilson, ed., Ministers in Training (Princeton, New Jersey: The Theological Book Agency, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1957), p. 3. uoHarriet Christie, "Bringing the Message Through Field Work," Report of the Third Biennial Meeting of the Association Of Seminary Professors in the Practical Fields, June lO—lA, 195A. 22 profession. Consequently, the purpose for theological seminary field education emerges from a recognition that "a complete professional education requires a laboratory in which relevance can be given to all studies and in which A1 related skills can be acquired." Some values to be derived from this laboratory experience are noted by Wilson:u2 1)field work incorporates the learning-by—doing principle Of education; 2) the classroom material is made relevant and better assimilated; 3) the actual work experience motivates classroom learn- ing; A) human affairs give content to theology and relevance to biblical and historical studies; 5) responsibility contributes to maturity in inter- personal relationships; 6) the distinctly personal Christian attitudes, beliefs, and skills are dis- covered and develOped, and conversely, negative elements are discussed and corrected; 7) the work gives practice in communication, in both oral and program form; 8) the field provides insights into church organization and procedures; 9) guidance within the wide range of church vocations results from a fuller discovery of personal interests and skills. A manual of field education for one theological semi- nary, following the statement of a three—fold purpose for its field education program aszu3 develOpment (personal and professional), service and training, indicates the values to be derived from the seminary's field education program. They are: ulWilson, Op. cit., p. 6. “21bid., p. 5. “3A Manual of Field Education at the Louisville Prespyterian Seminary, pp. 1, 2. 23 It stimulates subject matter in the concrete ministry of the church through direct involvement. It permits the student to integrate his theological knowledge through the practice of specific forms of ministry which themselves become a valid source for new theological insight. It enables the student to focus all the resources of his theological training to concrete experience where he can be stimulated to "think theologically" about all aspects of the church's ministry. Many specific objectives for theological seminary field education are stated or implied in the literature on theo— logical seminary education, seminary catalogs and other relevant literature such as that on the nature and ministry of the church.uu Summarizing the objectives, they fall into three general categories, namely: those which contribute to motivating, reinforcing and integrating classroom learn- ing, those which contribute to the clarification and prac- tice of and induction into professional roles and those which contribute to the spiritual, emotional and social growth of the seminary student. The means for striving toward the objectives of field education, like the statements of the Objectives them- selves, vary from seminary to seminary and within any par— ticular seminary. Lutheran theological seminaries, almost without exception, require a fourth year parish internship eXperience for theological students who plan to enter the uuRobert Clyde Johnson, ed., The Church and Its Changinnginistry (Philadelphia: Office of the General Assembly, the United Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, 1961). 2A parish ministry.l45 This internship constitutes a block field education experience}46 Other field education pro- grams provide block experiences during summer vacation periods or as the third year of a four year program.u7- Most field education programs provide also for concurrent field experiences.”8 Field education programs provide a wide range of experiences, both within the parish and beyond the parish, and at various levels-~from experiences of observation to those in which the student is given considerable responsi- bility. Where "service performed" is present in the field experience, there is often financial remuneration. Some theological seminaries, convinced that the remunerative element may seriously limit the educational value of the experience, are attempting to make provision for the finan- cial needs of students in other ways.“9 Time preferences for student field education experiences appear to vary, some students having these experiences in the junior year, A5 “6A block field education experience is one which is taken at a time when the student is not taking any classes in a regular seminary term. “7North Park Theological Seminary, for example, requires a third year parish internship. ”8A concurrent field education experience is an eXperi— ence taken concurrently with classes in a regular term. ”9E. g., Yale Divinity School and Colgate Rochester Theological Seminary. Information obtained from Directory, op. cit. 25 others in the middle or senior year, or still others in a fourth year which has been added to the traditional three years for seminary education. Some students' field educa- tion experiences are concentrated in a relatively brief period of time; others extend over a relatively longer period of time. Theological educators are becoming convinced that more adequate supervision of field education experiences may greatly enhance the educational value of the experience. 50 Furnas, in addressing seminary field education directors, asserted that "supervision is the most important 'ingredient' in field education" and reported to the directors the search for adequate supervision in which his seminary51 is engaged. The search had led the seminary to take positive steps toward: (1) giving primary supervision reSponSibility to the church and considering the seminary as having secondary responsibility; (2) selecting certain churches in which field education is to take place; and (3) providing a creative atmosphere both in the church and in the seminary for reflection, discussion and counsel. Supervision, as a principal means for maximizing the possibility of reaching the objectives of field education 50John Furnas, "A Search for Adequate Supervision," Seventh Biennial Consultation on Seminary Field Work, Austin Presbyterian Theological School, Austin, Texas, February, 1963. 51 San Francisco Theological Seminary. 26 programs, will take into consideration at least the follow- ing: provision for supervisory personnel, provision for the growth of supervisory personnel in the experience of supervision, and supervision of the student engaged in field education at every stage of each experience for him-- in planning his experience, in working through his experi- ence and in evaluating his experience. The answer to the question, "to what extent have the objectives of field education been realized?" will be found through an evaluative process. The actual outcomes of field education experiences in the learning, the life and the ministry of the persons for whom field experiences are provided may or may not be identical with the Objectives set for them, since theological educators, as educators in general, "seldom achieve all that they aim to achieve and they may even achieve something quite different from what they are seeking."52 The learning of the theological seminary student through field education experiences is the business of everyone in the theological seminary and not the business of one or several persons in it, as Froyd argues.53 It is also the business of the church, for the church is involved not only in the preparation of the student in 52Paul L. Dressel, The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963), p. 21. 53Froyd, op. cit., p. 20. 27 field education programs, for example, but the church receives the student following his graduation, provides for him a place of ministry, and depends heavily upon his per- formance as a minister for the functioning and growth of the church. Again, learning through field education eXperi- ences is of concern to the student himself--as student and later as minister-~since it is he for whom the field educa- tion program is planned and carried out and its outcomes will influence his ministry in direction and degree through- out his life. Evaluation of Field Education An evaluation process is needed for field education which will gather and utilize data from within the seminary, from the church (using resources of both clergy and laymen), from the seminary students and from the seminary graduates now in ministry. Such evaluation would provide helpful insight in the development of theological seminary curricula and particularly of field education programs to the end that students may be better prepared for the practice of ministry. Since the ultimate responsibility for field education programs rests with theological seminaries, the burden of the evaluation process, too, must rest ultimately with the seminary. A comprehensive evaluation of theological seminary programs will inquire into the objectives sought through field education, the appropriateness and worth of the 28 Objectives, the means employed toward the realization of the objectives, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the means. Stated in other terms, a comprehensive evaluation will ask if the Objectives are professionally and educa— tionally defensible and if defensible, attainable and attained by the means presently employed or attainable by other means. Again, a comprehensive evaluation might dis— cover new Objectives for field education which, if suitable means can be found and employed toward their realization, will result in improved preparation of theological seminary students for the professional ministry. The Parish Minister as a Participant in Evaluation May‘s report recognized that those who are reSponSible for the improvement of theological education have something to learn from the pastors themselves, that the pastors' ideas of how their training has helped or hindered them with their work, and their notions of its strength and weakness are valuable data for the revision of the seminary curriculum.54‘ Pastors were asked in May's study for a general appraisal of their theological education but there was no focus upon or evaluation of any particular area of the curriculum such as field work. The study did, however, recognize the sig- nificance of student field work since, as has been noted, an entire chapter in the report is given to the subject.55 5“May, Op. cit., p. 3A9. 55Foster, op. cit., Vol. III, pp. 192-251. 29 The Morgan study was "not concerned with questions of philosophy or with standards Of evaluation" and restricted as it was "to field work as an individual educational pro— cedure rather than to a consideration of field work as an integral part of the entire curriculum,"56 did not engage graduates in an evaluation of their field work experiences. Feilding, in the most recent general study on theological education, included a chapter on field work but there is no indication in the chapter that parish ministers were asked to share their perceptions Of their field work experiences as preparation for the ministry nor of the importance of such sharing in evaluation studies.57 He did assert that professional education Of-which field work must be an integral part . . . must focus always on the student as he moves along a well-planned educational course leading from college through seminary to the eventual practice . of his profession-—a Christian ministry.5 Summary Field education has become recognized by seminary educators and others as a necessary part of the student's preparation for the professional ministry. A philosophy of field education has been develOped which includes the purposes and objectives Of field education programs. Experimentation has been done in field education programs. 56Morgan, Op. cit., p. 5. 57Feilding, op. cit., pp. 218-251. 58Ibid., pp. 250-251. 30 Evaluation of theological seminary field education programs and field education experiences has included theological educators and representatives of the institutional church. To a more limited extent it has included students. The literature gives no evidence that graduates engaged in the parish ministry have been included. Parish ministers, constituting as they do the majority of Bachelor of Divinity graduates from North American theo- logical seminaries, and now experiencing the parish ministry for which their field education experiences were intended to contribute in preparation, may provide insights about field education programs unobtainable in other ways. Their identification and value scaling of worthy objectives for field education programs, their perceptions Of the extent to which their own field education experiences contributed toward the realization of field education Objectives, and the values they attach to the various means employed in their field education programs may differ from those of theological seminary educators and students. The particu- lar contribution of parish ministers is that they, profes- sionals by practice as well as by training, may provide data from an additional perspective by which to evaluate theological seminary field education. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY POpulation and Sample The population for the study was the_196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates from accredited Protestant theologi— 59 cal seminaries in Canada and the United States who are now in the parish ministry. Names of all 196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates were obtained by writing to the semi— naries.' Eighty—two of the ninety-one accredited Protestant theological seminaries cooperated by sending names and addresses of their 196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates.6oh From the lists Of graduates received from the eighty- two seminaries, the total number of Bachelor of Divinity graduates for all accredited Protestant theological semi—‘ naries-was calculated to be approximately 3670 persons. From this number a simple random sample representing one 59Theaccrediting agency of Protestant theological seminaries in Canada and the United States is the American Association of Theological Schools. Each year the accredit- ing agency publishes a directory which contains liSts of accredited and associate theological Seminary members. Directoryi op. cit. 6pTwo of the seminaries indicated that there were some graduates whosepresent addresses were unknown to them. It may be aesumed that this was the case with some Of the other seminaries also. 31 32 seventh Of the pOpulation was drawn. On the lists of graduates received from the seminaries, the graduates were numbered 1 to 7 and those numbered 7 were included in the sample. For each seminary which had not sent a list of gradu— ates, an estimate of the number of graduates in 196A was calculated from the total number of Bachelor of Divinity students attending those seminaries in the year 1966;61 the number of persons needed for the sample from each of» these seminaries was then calculated. A letter was sent to each of these seminaries with an eXplanation of the sampling procedure and a request to send names and addresses of graduates for the sample, these persons to be selected by random sampling. Four seminaries COOperated. The sample, thus constituted, included A71 persOns from eighty-Six seminaries or approximately one-eighth of all 196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates from accredited Protestant theological seminaries in Canada and the United States. Since the population for the study was Bachelor of Divinity graduates in the parish ministry at the time of the study, those graduates who reported in returned ques- tionnaires that they were not presently engaged in the parish ministry were deleted from the sample. It was then assumed that the remaining persons would comprise a 61 These were obtained from Directory, op. cit. 33 random sample of the population Of the study, that is, of 196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates who were engaged in the parish ministry in 1967. Gathering the Data Choosing an Instrument The principal deciding factors for using a mail questionnaire were the practical considerations of sample size and geographical distribution of persons in the sample which included the United States (AA states), Canada (5 provinces), and thirteen other countries.62 Construction Of the Questionnaire Since there was no suitable questionnaire or one which could be adapted for the study, a questionnaire was developed (Appendix A). The objectives of the study nec- essitated inclusion in the questionnaire of questions de— signed to gather factual data about the respondents them— selves and about their theological seminary field education experiences. Further, the objectives of the study required data from parish ministers in the form of their judgments concerning: (1) the importance of selected field education Objectives, (2) the extent to which their own field educa- tion eXperiences conbributed toward the realization of f 62The factors both for and against using a mail ques- tionnaire were weighed prior to making this decision. See Claire Selltiz, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), pp. 238-2Al. 3A field education objectives and (3) the appropriateness Of the means employed in their field education programs. The review of related literature, interviews with theological seminary personnel, consultation with members of the researcher's doctoral committee and personal back- ground experience in theological education provided infor— mation for both content and format of the questionnaire. Following three major revisions of the questionnaire, five graduate students in the College of Education, Michigan State University (four of whom has been parish ministers) and four persons closely related to theological 63 reviewed the questionnaire and sug- eminary education gested improvements in order to obtain more accurate data in harmony with the purpose of the study and in order to maximize the number of respondents and responses to questions. The questionnaire was pre—tested by Six ministers in the Greater Lansing, Michigan, area who approximated in both training and experience the pOpulation of the study. The pre—test revealed that parish ministers would more readily return a printed questionnaire which to them would appear less formidable than the mimeographed form of the pre-test. The final form of the questionnaire included parts A to D, part A to be completed by all 196A Bachelor of 63These four persons were: Charles R. Feilding, W. Curry Mavis, Edgar W. Mills and Jesse H. Ziegler. 35 Divinity graduates, parts B and C to be completed by all B.D. graduates engaged in the parish ministry, and part D by only those B.D. graduates who had.theological semi-' nary field education experiences. Most of the questions required responses in the form of a simple check (X); questions requiring written responses were kept to a mini- mum. For questions requiring evaluative responses, seven point scales were provided. For each item in the question, the response involved the circling of a number on the scale. A final question gave Opportunity to clarify responses and to make any general comments or suggestions for improving the field education program of the seminary from which the respondent had graduated. Administering the Instrument Three mailings were necessary to obtain a sufficient number of reSponses for analysis of the data. Each of the mailings included a covering letter (Appendix C) and a self addressed, stamped envelope for returning the question- naire. The third mailing was sent air mail. A cut Off date Of two weeks following the third mailing was established. Prior to the cut off date, 331 of the A71 graduates on the mailing list (70%) returned completed questionnaires. The remaining 1A0 graduates (30%) were accounted for as follows: completed questionnaires were received from 16 graduates following the cut off date but were not processed. Twenty-nine graduates' addresses were unknown (6%) as 36 evidenced by letters addressed to them which were returned. Two graduates were ineligible for inclusion in the study since they were not Bachelor of Divinity graduates.6u One graduate indicated an unwillingness to cooperate in the study. Addresses of nine graduates indicated residence in countries other than Canada and the United States. One graduate was known to be a chaplain in the United States Armed Forces.65 In order to assess the probability of bias produced by non-respondents and to better establish credence for generalizing from the sample to the population, a letter of appeal (Appendix C) and a further questionnaire were sent to a random sample of the non—respondents whose sup- plied addresses indicated North American residence. There were two responses. Telephone calls were made to a sample of five gradu— ates living in the state of Michigan and answers received on the following variables: religious denomination, present position, whether the graduate attended another seminary in addition to the one from which he graduated, parishes served since graduation, location of church, length of seminary program, and whether or not the graduate had field education eXperiences in seminary. 6A Letters were received from them with this informa- tion. 65This graduate was titled as a chaplain in the information supplied by the seminary. 37 The responses of graduates whose questionnaires were not processed66 together with the responses of the gradu- ates made by telephone were analyzed and found not to differ essentially from those graduates who questionnaires were processed. It was concluded that the graduates who did not respond and the graduates whose questionnaires were re- ceived too late for processing were not significantly different from the 196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates who responded and that inferences could be made about the population based upon the findings from processed ques- tionnaires. Coding and Processing the Data A code book and code summary Sheets were used for recording the data. Many of the items could be coded directly on the questionnaire. For the coding of free responses, a pattern of responses was established prior to the actual coding (Appendix D). Some of the data, it was found, could be processed by hand tabulation. Other data, it was found, could be processed more efficiently or only by card sorter or com- puter. For processing data by card sorter and computer, the data was recorded on code summary sheets and cards were punched from these. To insure accuracy of punching, the punched cards were verified. 66See page 35. ”We __,._—- .—o—-- 38 Religious denominations to which respondents belonged and theological seminaries from which respondents graduated were recorded in the data book. However, because of the desire to preserve anonymity of denominations and of semi- naries, the names Of specific denominations and of seminaries are not included in this report. Major denom- inational categories do appear in the report for purposes of analysis but without identiyfing Specific denominations. The procedure described below was used for calculat- ing the remuneration received by ministers from their parishes. Weaknesses in the procedure were recognized as the research progressed. However, the remuneration thus calculated was more accurate than if the annual cash salary only had been used for making comparisons. The annual remuneration of each parish minister from the parish he served was calculated by combining the re— ported annual cash salary and the cash value of other benefits received from the parish such as housing, pension, insurance and car allowance (Appendix A, questions 10, ll). Difficulty was encountered for coding when certain benefits were checked as received but the cash value of them was not reported. This difficulty was resolved by estimating housing at $1200.00 per annum, use of car at $1000.00 per year and pension at 10% of the reported cash salary interval reckoned at the lower limit. A further difficulty was encountered when the total real salary was calculated 39 by adding together annual cash salary and the cash value of other benefits received from the parish. This dif- ficulty was resolved by adding the total cash value of benefits to the lower limit of the reported annual cash salary of the parish minister. The extent to which parish ministers perceived their theological seminary field education experiences contributed to the realization of Objectives for field education-~a central purpose of the study--necessitated a recall of these experiences. A checklist on the kinds and levels of their seminary field education experiences (Appendix A, Question 23), checklists on supervisors of field education experiences (Appendix A, Questions 26, 28) and a question on the format of the eXperiences (Appendix A, Question 2A) assisted parish ministers in recalling their eXperiences and provided necessary information for analysis. The kinds and levels of selected field education experiences checked by parish ministers provided informa- tion for making comparisons in each of the general cate- gories of experiences: preaching, pastoral functions, priestly functions, teaching, church administration, social service and other selected eXperienceS and for making com- parisons among categories of experiences (Table 18). Other field education eXperiences added by parish ministers to the selected experiences were noted and categorized. HH-w‘. .—-.. MWN - ' AD In order to answer questions on perceived importance of twenty selected objectives for field education (Appendix A, Question 18), responses of ministers were processed by a computer to determine the number and percentage of response for each point on a seven point scale, the scale ranging from extremely important as an objective for field education (1) to extremely unimportant as an objec- tive for field education (7), with a neutral point of "uncertain" (A). The mean and standard deviation of ratings of importance for each of these objectives were also determined by computer. Comparisons were made of mean importance ratings, of rank order of these ratings and of standard deviations from means. Also for making comparisons, the twenty objectives were grouped into four categories: academic objectives, personal growth objectives, professional growth Objectives and the objective of helping to provide income for student needs. Atotal mean of ratings for all objectives in- cluded in each of the first three categories was calculated and comparisons were made of the total means of ratings for the four categories of objectives. Other objectives perceived as important for field education which parish ministers identified and rated were noted. Enumeration and ratings of these were hand tabulated. A1 The same procedure that was followed for processing data on the perceived importance of selected field educa- tion objectives was followed for processing data on the perceived extent of contribution of field education experi- ences toward the realization of these Objectives (Appendix A, Question 25). Ratings of parish ministers on their Satisfaction with Six selected elements of supervision (Appendix A, Question 29), were processed by a computer to determine the number and percentage Of response for each point on a seven point scale, the scale ranging from extremely satis- factory tO extremely unsatisfactory. The mean and standard deviation of satisfaction ratings for each element of supervision were also determined by computer. Comparisons were made of mean satisfaction ratings, of standard deviation and of rank order of mean satisfac- tion ratings. A total mean of ratings for the six selected elements of supervision was calculated. All of the data provided by respondents was processed. A presentation and analysis of it follow in Chapter IV. IV‘ a. as ..\ CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Two hundred forty-nine Bachelor of Divinity grad- uates for the year 196A from eighty-one accredited theological seminaries in Canada and the United States who were engaged in the parish ministry provided the data for this investigation. The utilization of general infor- mation about these ministers and their seminary field eXperiences and an analysis of their ratings of the importance of selected objectives for field education, of the perceived extent to which their own field education eXperiences were judged to have contributed toward the realization Of those objectives and of the effectiveness of the means generally employed toward their realization and their additional comments and recommendations enabled the answering of questions which were posed for the study. General Information About the Respondents Seminaries from which Respondents Graduated Eighty-six seminaries COOperated in the study by supplying names of graduates. The respondents were grad- uates from eighty-one Of these seminaries. Graduates of the remaining five seminaries were excluded either by the A2 q I! I ' ”_‘__,_ ”.4 A3 sampling procedure or by their failure to reSpond to the questionnaire. Position of Respondents Seventy-five percent of the 196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates (N : 2A9) were engaged in the parish ministry and serving in various positions (Table 1) whereas 25% were engaged in occupations other than the parish ministry. Eighty percent of the parish ministers designated their position as parish minister; 20% design- ated their position as that of associate or assistant parish minister, or as that of minister of education or Of youth. TABLE l.--Present position of respondents. Position N % Parish minister Parish minister 200 61 Associate parish minister 27 8 Assistant parish minister l6 5 Minister of education 5 l Minister of youth 1 0 Non parish minister 82 25 Total 331 100 Those persons, who by definition were not then engaged in the parish ministry, returned their question— naires without completing them beyond the section which called for basic personal data (see Appendix A). The description of respondents and the presentation and AA analysis of the data from this point includes only parish ministers, numbering 2A9 persons. Sex and Age of Parish Ministers Only one of the 2A9 graduates engaged in the parish ministry indicated sex as female. Forty-five percent of the parish ministers were under thirty years of age; A5% were between thirty and forty years of age and 10% were forty years of age or older. TABLE 2.--Age Of parish ministers. Age N % 25-29 112 A5 30-3A 82 33 35-39 29 12 A0 or older 26 10 Total 2A9 100 Denomination of Parish Ministers Parish ministers were members of and served parishes in twenty—three religious denominations. Twenty—three percent of the 2A9 parish ministers were Methodist, 22% were Lutheran, 1A% were Baptist and 1A% were Presbyterian (Table 3).67 The category "others" included thirteen religious denominations,68 no one of which accounted for more than 6% of the parish minister respondents. 67The denominational category includes any denomina- tion whose title includes the category name. 68These denominations were: Assemblies of God, Christian Church, Christian Reformed Church, Church of the Brethren, Congregational Church, Evangelical Covenant A5 TABLE 3.—-Religious denomination of parish ministers. m Denomination N % Baptist 35 1A Lutheran 5A 22 Methodist 57 23 Presbyterian 36 1A Others 65 27 Total 2A9 100 Parishes Served Since Graduation Forty-four percent of the parish ministers had served only one parish; A8% had served two parishes and 8% had served three or more parishes Since graduation from seminary in 196A (Table A). TABLE A.—-Number of parishes served since graduation. fiv— v, Number of Parishes N 7% One 110 AA Two 118 A8 Three or more 21 8 Total 2A9 lOO Parish Location Parish ministers, three years following their semin- ary graduation, were serving parishes in rural areas, in towns, in cities and in metropolitan areas (Table 5). Less than half of them (AA%) were serving in parishes Church Of American, Evangelical United Brethren Church, Mennonite Church, Protestant Episcopal Church, Reformed Church in America, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ. A6 located in rural areas or in towns, while more than half (56%) were serving in parishes located in cities and metropolitan areas. TABLE 5.—-Parish location. - ‘— Parish Location N % Rural 3A 1A Town 75 30 City, but not inner city 60 2A 50,000 or less . . . . . 38 50,000-250,000 . 8 250,000—500,000. . 8 more than 500,000. 6 Inner city of metrOpolitan area 21 8 50,000 or less A 50,000-250,000 . 8 250,000-500,000. . u more than 500,000. 5 Suburb of metropolitan area 58 2A 50,000 or less . . . . . 2A 50,000-250,000 . . . . . 21 250,000—500,000. . . . . 2 more than 500,000. . . . 11 Total 2A8 lOO Sixty-six ministers (27%) were serving parishes located in cities or their suburbs with less than 50,000 population. If the communities in which the parishes are located are divided into two general categories, namely, lesser population areas and greater pOpulation areas with lesser population areas denoting rural areas, towns and cities or their suburbs with less than 50,000 pOpulation, and greater pOpulation areas denoting cities or their PHI. try; - afl~ “L- ..-4 T. ~1. 1:. a A7 suburbs of more than 50,000 population, then 71% (N : 175) Of the ministers were serving in parishes located in lesser pOpulation areas and 29% (N : 73) of them were serving in parishes located in greater population areas. Remuneration of Parish Ministers from Parishes Served Seventy-six percent of the parish ministers received in total annual remuneration from their parishes between $6000.00 and $9000.00; 10% received less than $6000.00 and 1A% more than $9000.00 (Table 6). The range in remunera- tion from the parish which included the largest number of parish ministers (N : 87) was from $7000.00 to $8000.00. TABLE 6.——Tota1 annual remuneration of parish ministers from their parishes.* Annual Remuneration N % Under $5000.00 2 l $5000.00-5999.00 21 9 $6000.00—6999.00 57 23 $7000.00—7999.00 87 35 $8000.00—8999.00 A5 18 $9000.00-9999.00 19 8 $10,000.00-or more 16 6 Total 2A7 100 *Total annual remuneration includes cash salary and cash value of other benefits such as housing, pension, insurance and car allowance. Parish ministers are distributed, on the basis of annual remuneration from their parishes, into three groups of approximately equal size. Thirty-three percent of them received less than $7000.00; 35% received between $7000.00 and $7999.00 and 32% received more than $8000.00. A8 Not all of the parish ministers were engaged exclu— sively in the work of the parish and for which they received remuneration. Eleven percent of the parish ministers reported that they were engaged in remumerative work in addition to parish service for such reasons as: to enlarge income, to fulfill some self need (e.g., pleasure, self—fulfillment), as an extention of their ministry and because Of some external Obligation (e.g., election to an office) (Table 7). Twenty-two percent of ministers' wives were engaged in non parish activity and for which they received remun- eration. TABLE 7.--Parish ministers and their wives engaged in remunerative work in addition to parish service. Wives of Parish Ministers N % Parish Ministers N % Engaged 27 ll Engaged 52 22 Not engaged 220 89 Not engaged 187 78 Total 2A7 100 . ... Total 239 100 Continuing Education of Parish Ministers Less than fifty percent of the parish ministers reported that they had pursued any planned program of continuing education since graduation from seminary (Table 8). Brief descriptions by parish ministers of the con- tinuing education programs in which they had participated A9 permitted the establishment of three categories of such continuing education programs: advanced degree programs, formal non degree programs and informal programs. Forty parish ministers (16%) reported or described programs in the advanced degree category. Sixty-three ministers (25%) had not enrolled in advanced degree programs but had pursued formal and extensive programs Of continuing educa- tion--in seminars, clinics or institutes of over one week in duration. Twelve ministers (5%) had participated in less formal and extensive programs of continuing education-- in seminars, clinics or institutes of less than one week in duration. Fifty-four percent of the parish ministers reported that they had not enrolled in any planned program of con- tinuing education. TABLE 8.--Continuing education of parish ministers. Programs of Continuing Education in Which Ministers had Enrolled* N % None 13A 5A Advanced degree programs A0 16 Formal non degree programs 63 25 Informal programs 12 5 .Total 2A9 100 *See page A9 for description of programs. Number of Seminaries Attended Eighty-seven percent of the parish ministers attended only the seminaries from which they graduated (N : 216); «\V a: rig. ~ 50 13% (N : 33) had attended other seminaries in addition to those from which they had graduated (Table 9). TABLE 9.--Number Of seminaries attended by parish ministers. Number N % Attended only the seminary from which graduated 216 87 Attended another seminary in addition to the one from which graduated 33 13 Total 2A9 100 Time Spent in Completing Seminary Fifty percent of the parish ministers completed their seminary program in three years; 50% completed it in more than three years, the two principal reasons for taking longer than three years being an extended internship as a part of the seminary program and outside work activities (Table 10). TABLE lO.--Time spent in completing seminary and reasons for spending more than three years. ' Reason for Spending Number of Years More than 3 Years N % Three 12A 50 More than 3 An extended internship 58 2A More than 3 Outside work A7 19 More than 3 Other reasons 18 7 Total 2A7 100 51 Parish Ministers: Participants/Non Participants in Seminary Field Education Two hundred and eighteen of the parish ministers (88%) had participated in theological seminary field edu- cation as students (Table 11) and 31 had not (12%) (Table 12). Judged by their responses, field education was required in seminary for the majority Of them. Field education as a seminary requirement accounted for the participation in it of 17A out of 2A9 ministers. A sem- inary requirement for field education was waived for an additional seven ministers because of their age and/or eXperience. TABLE ll.--Reasons for participation by parish ministers in seminary field education. w Reasons N % Seminary requirement 17A 80 Chosen as an elective A0 18 Reason unreported A 2 Total 218 100 TABLE l2.--Reasons for non participation by parish ministers in seminary field ecuation. Reasons N % Not offered by seminary ll 35 Not chosen as an elective 12 39 Seminary requirement waived 7 23 Reason unreported l 3 Total 31 100 *Fmflvr 52 Some seminaries, though not having required partici— pation in field education, Offered it as a curriculum elective. Forty ministers had chosen field education as an elective and twelve had not. That field education was not Offered by their seminary was the reason reported by only eleven ministers for non participation in it. For only a limited number did there appear to be no Opportunity for participation. One may conjecture that within the next ten years all seminaries will have field education programs and all seminary students will have opportunity to participate in them either because of seminary requirement or their own elected participation. Summary of General Information About the Respondents The general Objective of the study was to engage a selected group of graduates of accredited North American Protestant theological seminaries--the 196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates who, three years following their sem- inary graduation, were parish ministers--in the task of evaluating their seminary field education eXperiences. Three hundred and thirty-one graduates from eighty-one of these seminaries provided general information about them- selves; 2A9 of these graduates, now serving as parish minishers, provided ratings of selected aspects of theo— logical seminary field education program. Following is a 53 summary of general information about parish ministers who were the participants in the study. Parish ministers constituted 75% of the 196A Bachelor of Divinity graduates from accredited Protestant theo- logical seminaries in Canada and the United States three years following graduation. Eighty percent of the parish ministers designated their position in their parishes as parish minister, which the researcher interpreted to mean the person in the local parish with overall responsibility for the parish. The remaining 25% designated their posi— tions in the parish as associate or assistant parish minister, or as minister of education or of youth. With but one exception, parish ministers were male. Forty-five percent of the parish ministers were under thirty years Of age; A5% were between thirty and forty years of age and 10% were A0 years of age or older. Parish ministers were members of and served in twenty-three religious denominations. Five major cate- gories of religious denominations were employed for grouping responses in the study: Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and "Others." Each of the first four categories includes all respondents, the official name of whose denomination includes the name of the cate- gory. "Others" includes respondents from thirteen religious denominations. Since their graduation in 196A, forty-four percent of the parish ministers had served only one parish; A8% PU a: “d. pH} (It. gr; ‘I... 5A of them had served two parishes and 8% had served three or more parishes. Less than half Of the parish ministers (AA%), three years following seminary graduation, were serving in parishes located in rural areas or towns; more than half (56%) were serving in parishes located in cities and metropolitan areas. With benefits such as housing, car allowance and pension included, 33% of the parish ministers received less than $7000.00 annual remuneration from the parishes they served; 35% received between $7000.00 and $7999.00; and 32% received more than $8000.00. Eleven percent Of the parish ministers and twenty- two percent of the parish ministers' wives were engaged in remunerative work in addition to service in the parish. Forty-Six percent of the parish ministers had engaged in some planned program of continuing education since graduation; 5A% had not. Sixteen percent of the parish ministers had enrolled in advanced degree programs; 25% had pursued a formal and extensive program and 5A% had pursued a less formal program Of continuing education. Eighty-seven percent of the parish ministers attended only the seminaries from which they graduated; 13% had attended other seminaries in addition to those from which they graduated. Fifty percent of the parish ministers spent three years in completing their seminary program; 50% spent more Io 1U. ~ NM.» 2... 55 than three years. Two principal reasons given for spend— ing more than three years were: an extended internship was a part Of the program and outside work. Judged from the responses of the parish ministers, field education was required of 218 of the 2A9 ministers and for an additional seven ministers a seminary field education requirement was waived. Forty ministers had chosen field education as an elective and twelve had not. For only a limited number did there appear to be no Opportunity to participate in seminary field education. Perceived Importance of Objectives for Field Education Two questions posed as a guide to the study were: (1) what do graduates of theological seminaries, now parish ministers, perceive as the relative importance of selected field education objectives in the following cate- gories: academic objectives, personal growth Objectives, professional growth objectives and the objective of providing income for student needs; and (2) does the per- ceived importance of these objectives vary with the parish minister's participation or non participation as a seminary student in field education experiences, with his age, with location of his parish, or with his religious denomination? Other objectives perceived as important for field education by parish ministers and which they added to the 56 selected objectives and rated in importance further enabled the answering of the question on the perceived relative importance of objectives for field education. Participants/Non Participants in SeminaryrField Education Selected objectives for field education were rated in importance by all parish ministers--both those who as seminary students had field education experiences and those who did not. A factor common to all parish ministers who rated the importance of these objectives was experience in the parish ministry. Thirty—one of the 2A9 parish ministers reported that they did not have theological seminary field education experiences as defined (Appendix A, Definitions). But, for whatever the reason for their non participation in seminary field education (see page 51) the perceptions of those parish ministers on the relative importance of Objectives for field education, as well as the perceptions Of those who had participated, it was assumed would contribute to the study. Comparisons were made between these two categories of parish ministers on the perceived relative importance of the selected objec- tives for field education (Table 13). The Six most important objectives for field educa- tion according to the rank order of mean importance ratings of the twenty selected objectives by all parish ministers were: (1 = most important) 57 :H ma OH mH.H mm.H mm.H mH.H o:.H wH.H :N.H :H.H mH.H mm.H mm.m mm.m mm.m m:.m ww.m om.m ma.m om.m mm.m >:.m mm.m mam :Hm mam mam .mam :Hm :Hm mam mam mam om OH OH mo.H wm.a Hm.H Hm.H wo.H mo.H Hm.H mo.H om. mo.H sm.m oa.m me.m me.m me.m sm.m em.m Hm.m om.m mH.m mm.m om am am am am am am am am am ma ma 2H ma OH :H.H wm.a mm.H NH.H om.a QH.H :m.H MH.H NH.H om.H Am.m em.m sm.m ms.m mm.m Ah.m mH.m mo.m mm.m m:.m mw.m mam mam 32m mam mam mam mam mzm ::m ::m e- haw-AN (-\\-\» . mhpchHE CH coauoopfip QOHO>OO OB zuumficfie Op AsHHmosv coapm>flpos meson Icfiop use mafiswao OB npzosm Hmfioom muoEosd OB npzomm HmQOHpoEo Oposopd OB zuzosm HOSBHLHQm ouoEOhd OB npzopu HmCOmsom ”Hmpoe coapmswmpcfi ESHSOHLLSO OUH>OLQ OB chapmnOQAH ea pew Eoommmmao or» CH poshwoa mpdoo 1:00 new mpoocp pmmp OB wcfichmoa Eoos Immmao Op mocm>oaom one wcficmme o>fim OB mafichmoa Eoosmmmao oomomcfios OB wcficpmoa EoomwmmHo mpm>apoe OB OHEmpmo¢ m N m x z m m N z mpSMQHOfipsmm musedHOprmmlcoz msopmficfiz nmfimmm HH< osaeoohho .COHpmosoo UHmHh msmcasom SH empdeOHpnmd no: no: or: chose an use pepdeOHpsmd no: on; mpoumficfie cmflsmd an eo>Hoosod mm coapmospo OHOHM pom mm>HpOOnno pepooaom mo mocmphOdEH O>Humammln.ma mqmee 58 zHoEOLuxo .oocmpLOOEH pouch no hoeso xcwm up mpcmupOOEH zHoeospxmqu mHmom OSHOO m e do mwcHums mocmOLOOEH mo and: .AOCSOLOQEHSS M ON NH NH HH OH m:.H m:.H NH.H mm.H mm.H mm.H mm.H mO.H OH.H mm.H mm.m ow.m mm.m mO.m mm.m HH.m mm.m HH.m mm.m HHm mHm mHm mHm MHN :Hm HHm MHm :Hm :Hm OH mH OH mH OH :H OO.H mm. :H.H mm.H om. Hm.H mH.H mm.H mH.H HO.H mw.m mm.m mm.m om.m mO.m mm.m ow.m m:.m mm.m mO.m mm.m Hm.m Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm om Hm Hm Hm ON OH NH HH NH H:.H O:.H NH.H mm.H mm.H :M.H mm.H HH.H OH.H mm.H mw.m ms.m wm.m OO.N om.m 2H.m Nm.m OH.m mm.m mzm mam 22m mam :zm mqm Ham :zm memo: OSOUSOm mom oEOocH OOH>OLO OHOQ OB oEOocH "Hmpoe OOH>pom smHumeno pom szCSOLOOOO OOH>OLQ mSOHpOSuHm OMHH Hemp CH COHum>occH use COHpmuCOEHLOOxO pom szCSpAOOOO Ode COHumHsEHum OOH>OLQ mOHom Hmeofimmomomd mo OOHpomsd esp Lou szQSQLOOdo OUH>OLQ mOHOp HSQOHmmomosd >MHHOHO OB OB OB OB nusosu HmCOHmmmmosm ”HmpOB OHOL ampchHEnXOOHOs acmezum SOLO SOHO IHmcmmu OOOOHHHomw wchsOOH OOSCHOCOO Oswsou Opm>HuoE ALOCOHOHpOmpO pew smHonom mm pep IchHEO SOHpmpmoucH HmcomsOO muoEOsd mam meoacesnah cuss Home CH wcchHzp O>Hpmopo pom szCSOAOOOO use COHpmHSEHpm OUH>OLQ mam wcchHzp pCOOCOQOOCH Log zpficzphoado ocm COHJMHJEHOm OUH>OLQ IT. OB 08 08 08 0O 1) 2) 3) A) 5) 6) 59 to provide stimulation and opportunity for creative thinking in real life situations (X : 2.16) to develOp direction in ministry (X : 2.27) to give meaning and relevance to classroom learning (X : 2.28) to promote personal integration (X : 2.37) to reinforce classroom learning (X : 2.A3) to promote emotional growth (X : 2.A5) Likewise, the six least important objectives, which ranked in importance from fifteen to twenty for all parish ministers were: 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) to clarify_and reinforce motivation to ministry (X : 2.96) to provide opportunity for Christian service (X : 3.0A) to motivate toward continued learning (X : 3.1A) to provide curriculum integration (X : 3.18) to promote social growth (X : 3.5A) to help provide income for student needs (X : 3.88) .The perceived importance of these selected Objectives for field education ranged from "very important" (X : 2.16) to "uncertain" (X : 3.88) as to the importance of the objective for field education. Parish ministers who as seminary students had not participated and those who had were in agreement that four objectives high on the scale of importance as objectives for field education are: 1) 2) 3) A) 60 to reinforce classroom learning (R :1-6) to give meaning and relevance to classroom learning (R : 2-3) to develop direction in ministry (R : 3—2) to provide stimulation and Opportunity for creative thinking in real life Situations (R : 6—1) Likewise, both non participants and participants perceived as low on the scale of importance, the objec- tives: l) 2) 3) A) 5) to help provide income for student needs (R : 19-20) to promote social growth (R : 20-19) to motivate toward continued learning (R : 18-16) to provide curriculum integration (R : 17-18) to clarify and reinforce motivation ("call") to ministry (R : 15-15) Other objectives for field education where there was no essential disagreement on importance between these two groups of ministers are: l) 2) 3) to clarify professional roles (R : 6-8) to test theory and concepts learned in the classroom and in literature (R : 9—10) to provide opportunity for the practice of professional roles (R : 10-12) For eight of the twenty selected Objectives for field education there was considerable disagreement between non participants and participants in field education on their importance as Objectives. Parish ministers who as siminary students had not participated in field education, 61 more than those who had participated, perceived as rela- tively important objectives for field education: 1) to provide opportunity for Christian service (R : A-l7) 2) to facilitate transition from student role to minister role (R : 5-11) 3) to motivate classroom learning (R : 6-13) A) to promote emotional growth (R : lO-lA) On the other hand, parish ministers who as seminary stu- dents had participated in field education, more than those who had not participated, perceived as relatively important objectives for field education: 1) to promote personal integration (minister as scholar and practitioner) (R : A-lO) 2) to promote emotional growth (R : 5-10) 3) to provide stimulation and Opportunity for independent thinking (R : 7—1A) A) to provide stimulation and opportunity for eXperimentation and innovation in real life Situations (R : 9—15) The greatest diSparity between participants and non participants was on the perceived importance as an Objec- tive for field education: pp provide ppportunity for Christian service (R : l7-A). Some of this disparity may be accounted for by the extreme ratings toward unimportance by some participants. Nevertheless there is a decided dif— ference in perception Of the importance of this objective for field education. The evidence appears to suggest for whatever the reason, that those who have participated in field education would tend in the direction of eliminating 62 this item as an objective for field education whereas it appears that those who have not participated in field education perceive this as one of the main reasons for the existence of field education in the seminary cur- riculum. The providing pf income for the seminarian is ranked for participants as the least important of all Objectives for field education; non participants also do not perceive this as an objective with any great degree of importance for field education. Curriculum integration, a commonly stated objective of field education programs, is ranked very low in importance by both groups (R : 20-19). Social growth, another commonly proclaimed objective, is perceived as relatively unimportant along with income as an objective for field education (R : 19-20) Non participants were more in accord on the ratings of importance than were participants. Standard deviations Of ratings by non participants ranged from .90 to 1.37 (median standard deviation : 1.12). For participants, standard deviations ranged from 1.09 to 1.65 (median stan— dard deviation : 1.23). Assuming that the selected objectives most appropri— ately belong in the categories where they have been placed, both parish ministers who were participants in field edu- cation and those who were not,judged the relative importance of the four categories of objectives as follows (1 = most important): 63 1) Academic objectives (X : 2.67) 2) Professional growth objectives (X : 2.76) 3) Personal growth objectives (X : 2.86) A) Helping_to provide income for student needs (X : 3.88) The small difference in mean values of ratings among the first three categories of Objectives, however, appears as insufficient evidence for concluding that parish ministers perceived any significant differences in importance among these categories of objectives. Age of Parish Ministers Since it was thought that the factor of age could conceivably influence the minister's perception of im— portance for field education of some of the selected objec- tives, and since an increasing number of students are entering seminary directly from college and a decreasing number are entering seminary after a lapse of years following college graduation, comparisons were made between younger (25-29) and older ministers (30 or over). Only minor differences in the perceived importance of field education objectives are associated with differ- ences in the age of ministers (Table 1A). There was close agreement among younger and older ministers that the five most important objectives are: l) to provide stimulation and Opportunity for creative thinking in real life situations (R : l-l) 6A H>.m _ OO.N "Hepoe a em.H He.m mmA NA cm.A om.m OHH cHos scchHsHs on eAOA OQeOSOm Sosa COHpHmcepp epepHHHoem OB mA AN.A sm.m AmA eH mH.A Ho.m 0AA wsHsnecH ocssHssoo onesoo chechos o9 s AA.A As.m mmH A so.A mm.m AHA AscsoAhAhoesd ode sernon he sepchHEO SOHpepwepeH Hecomned epoEOHd OB A om.H aH.m smA A HH.H mH.m AAA ecoApeseHn eMHH Heep :H wdecan e>HueehO pom . AOHCSpHOOOO one COHpeHSEHpm OOH>OHQ OB e mm.H mm.m mmA m mm.A me.m 0AA wsHacHsc csooscdcosH soc AQHQSpAOOOO one COHueHSEHpm eeH>opd OB m HH.H am.m SMH m HH.H mm.w 0AA sschHsHe sH soHeocsHo doHcsco oe mH As.A ma.m smH mH sm.H aa.m AHA asuanHs or A=HHeo=O COHpe>HpoE monomcHep use mMHpeHO OB aA mm.H am.m mmA aA mm.A ms.m aOH rezone AsHooh whososd oa a mm.A sm.m mmA s eo.A mm.m AAA rezone AesoAcosc coososd oe mA em.A Hm.m smA mH em.H em.m AAA snsosw AsansHoh ecososd oe nuzomw Hecommem me.m ee.m ”Aseoe AA mA.A AH.m smH mA om.A om.m AAA soHceswcnsH esAsoHssso coAsosd oa NA mm.A ms.m smA m sm.H me.m HHH assessceHH sA one sooshher the 2H peepeeH mpdeocoo use amoesp peep OB m eH.A om.m eMA m OA.H em.m 0AA wsHssscA EconmmeHO Op mose>eHem One wcAceeE e>Hw OB m mO.H ::.m mmH O HH.H m:.m OOH wchpeeH EoopwmeHo eohomcHeH OB AH om.A sm.m smH HA om.A ms.m 0AA msHssscH aooahher cessHeos o9 OHEeOeo< m m M 2 m m M 2 osHeocHoo scvo so om_cme amumm owe Hi .HepmHeHe no ewe Op QOHpeHep CH maepmHsHE cmHhed an ee>Heosed we SOApeOsee eHeHg pom me>Hpoehno eepoeHem mo ecceppOQEH e>HpeHemli.:H mqmee 65 mHeEeppxeum mpcepHOOEH zHeEehpxeNHO .eoceupOdEH pepep mo nmeho xcem N m .ApcepsOdeHds eHeom OCHOO n e co mwcHueH ecceppOQEH mo see: N M ON OH OH HH mm.H mm.H NH.H :N.H :N.H Hw.m Adam Ame se.m ae.m ere mMH OMH :mH mmH smH ON O:.H O:.H SH.H ON.H ON.H mm.m mm.m NH.m mm.m mw.m OO.N OOH OHH OHH OHH OHH meme: pceOSOm you eEoocH OOH>OLQ OHen OE esooeH ”Hepoe eOH>Hem :ermHHSO pom mpHsszOQdo eOH>OsQ OB chHpeepHm eMHH Heep :H :OHue>O:cH Use SOHpepceEHpedxe hoe AOHQSpHOOQO use QOHOeHSEHpm eOH>Ohd OB mmHos HeCOHmmemopQ mo eOHpOehd ecu pom mpHCSOHOQdo eOH>opQ OB weHoa HeCOHmmemomd AMAHeHO OB QOBOLO HeCOHmmewomm 2) 3) A) 5) 66 to develOp direction in ministry (R : 2-2) to give meaning and relevance to classroom learning (R : 3—3) to promote personal integration (R : A-A) to reinforce classroom learning (R : 6-5) There was Similar agreement as to the five least important objectives: 1) 2) 3) A) 5) to help provide income for student needs (R : 20-20) to promote social growth (R : 19-19) to provide curriculum integration (R : 18-18) to provide opportunity for Christian service (R : 17—16) to motivate toward continued learning (R : 16-18) Younger ministers perceived as more important than their older colleagues the three objectives: 1) 2) 3) to motivate classroom learning (R : ll-lA) to test theory and concepts learned in the classroom and in literature (R : 8-12) to promote emotional growth (R : A-7) Older ministers, on the other hand, perceived as more important than did their younger colleagues the two objectives: 1) 2) to facilitate transition from student role to minister role (R : 9-12) to provide opportunity for the practice of professional roles (R : ll—lA) For both age groups, academic and personal growth Objectives ranked first and second in importance as: 67 categories, but the range of rankings in each category is very wide. Objectives within the third ranked category, profes- sional growth, cover a comparatively narrow range of ranked importance, all near the midpoint on the overall importance ranking (7 to 17). The providing of income for the seminarian is deci— sively ranked by ministers in both age groups as the least important of all objectives for field education. One can speculate as to whether this objective is unworthy for field education but in any case it is clearly viewed as relatively unimportant. Location of Parish A common concern of theological seminaries and religious denominations is that the training of theological seminary students should have relevance for the world in which the students will minister following their gradua— tion. Comparing the perceptions of parish ministers, whose work is in different locations, on the relative im- portance of selected objectives for field education, it was felt, would provide some insights for relating field education programs to the world in which the seminarian serves following his graduation. Only minor differences in the perceived importance of objectives for field education were associated with parish location (Table 15). The perceptions of parish 68 mA.N NA.N “Ascoe HA ms.A om.N HA m AN.H He.N AAA vos scthsHe on eAOH pceeepm Eogm :OHpHmcehp epepHHHoem 09 AH AN.H mo.m NA mH ON.H mA.m aeA wsHssscH ocschsoo season chesAuos oA A AN.H ms.N NA s Ao.A mm.N NAH AscsoHanoond ode sersom he HepchHEO :OHpepweucH Hecomaed eponHQ OB A AA.H mo.N NA N 0A.A ON.N mAA hsoansan OMHH Hemp :H mcfixcHnu m>HpeeHo pom muHssuAOQOO One coHpeHSEHpm meH>opd OB e NN.A om.N NA a MN.H Ne.N mAA msHasAsp csooscdcosH sou mpchpHOQdo One COHpeHSEHpm eoA>OHQ OB m AN.H AA.N mA HY eo.H aH.N mAH AsansHe sH soHcocsAo doHcsco oe eH Hm.A mA.m AA mA Nm.H mm.N AAA sshanHe on AsAHsosv COHpe>HpOe monomcHeh use AMAneHO OB aA eH.H me.m AA AA mm.H om.m mAA rezone Hchoh whososd oA N mA.A os.N NA e mA.A es.N AAA spsosw AssoHsoEc whososd oA AA Nm.A oa.N AA AA mm.H om.N mAA scsosw Heansta cnososd oA npzono Hecomhem Nw.N Ne.N "Hence mA MN.A mm.m NA AH AH.A NA.m mAA coHpeswccsH ssAsoHssso coHsosd oe a Am.H AA.N NA 0A aA.A we.N mAA caseesceHA sH one sooshheHo the CA OespeeH epaeocoo Ode muoenp peep OB m AN.H AA.N mA m eo.H mN.N mAA wsHssscA EOOQmmmHo on mocm>mecH 62m wCchmE ®>Hw OH. m AN.H am.N AA m mo.A em.N mAH wsHssscA aoosnhcAo cosoechs oe mA ms.A Ao.m NA mA mN.A AA.N NAH msHssscH sooshhsAo chesHeos oA OHEepeo< m m x z m m A z eem< SOHpeH5dom Lepeepw cH ees< COHpeHSOom seemed CH csHeochho .anmed mo COHpeOoH.Op COHpeHeH CH whepchHE zmHHeQ an Oe>HeoHed me SOHpeozee eHeHw mom me>HpoeHOO eepOeHem mo eccepAOQEH e>HpeHemll.mH mqmde 69 .eocepHOOEH empes mo meeso xcem N m .ApeepHOdEHCS mHeEespxeNA mpcepHOQEH AHeEehpxeNHv eHeom OCHOO A e co mwcheL mocepHOQEH mo ceez N M om HH.H mm.m NA om m:.H OO.m OAH meme: OQOOSOm How esoocH epH>opd OHez OB eEOOcH :O.m mA.m ”Hepoe OH m:.H mA.m NA OH mm.A OO.m AAA eOH>sem cermHLSO Hog AOHQSQLOQOO eOH>opd OB A MH.H Hm.m HA HH OH.H OA.m MAH chHpeSOHm ewHH HemeH CH COApe>OscH Use COHpeOCeEHAere pom AOHCSOHOOOO Ode COHpeHSEHpm eOH>omd OB mA NN.H AA.N NA HA wH.A OA.N AAA meHos AscoHaheeosd so eOHpoesO esp mom AOHCSOAOQQO eOH>opd OH OH em.H AA.N OA A Hm.H Hm.m :AH meHO.H HecOHmmemosd AOHseHO OB LOSOHO HeCOHmmemosm H, A 3 3 - A C H. - m. a \. T x. m.” . H .A. .sb .. .,..... 2 std .. A I; 2...? i r- A WW. H w m m H m a A. w A ON . A 0 A . n N 3 1 3 AOL, MAC mcofips EGAN COHJ AN.H”..M June/MWMAWMGW -00. 7O ministers on the relative importance of field education objectives for five of the objectives did not vary with parish location. These were: 1) to give meaning and relevance to classroom learning (R : 3) 2) to promote personal integration (minister as scholar and practitioner) (R : M) 3) to provide opportunity for Christian service (R° U) to promote social growth (R : l9) 5) to help provide income for student needs (R : 20) In addition to perceiving two of the above named objectives (1 and 2), among the five most important objec- tives for field education, parish ministers in both lesser and greater pOpulation areas perceived the two additional objectives as sufficiently important to belong in this category to be: 1) to develop direction in ministry(R : l-S) 2) to provide stimulation and opportunity for independent thinking in real life situations (R : 2—1) Among the remaining objectives,differences in per— ceived importance of these for field education among ministers in relation to location of parish were not great. The two objectives for which perceptions of rela- tive importance differed the most between ministers whose parishes were located in lesser population areas and those whose parishes were located in greater population areas are: 71 l) to provide stimulation and opportunity for eXperimentation and innovation in real life situations (R : ll-7) 2) to motivate toward continued learning (R : 18-14) Comparisons of mean value ratings of responses gave no clear indication that there were any significant dif- ferences in perception of importance because of the factor of parish location among the categories of objectives: academic, personal growth and professional growth. Remuneration from the Parish Assuming that one's income does have some influence on perceptions, the factor of the minister's income re- ceived from the parish was included in the analysis of ministers' perceptions of the importance of objectives for field education. Only minor differences in the perceived importance of field education objectives are associated with differ- ences in remuneration from the parish (Table 16). For seventeen of the twenty selected objectives there was essential agreement on the importance of these for field education; the rank order of rated importance for each objective was the same or not more than three places removed each from the other (see Table 16). Greatest differences were noted for the objectives: 1) to promote spiritual growth 2) to clarify professional roles 3) to facilitate transition from student role to minister role 72 mm.m mo.m uHauoe m am.H am.m mmH MH :m.H om.m ow mHou nmpchHs 0» oHop pCoUSpm 80pm COHpHmcmnp mpwuHHHomm 09 AH mm.H NH.m omH . mH mH.H mH.m mA wchmmoH omscHucoo ppmzop mpm>Hpoe 0% : :H.H mm.m moH o mo.H ::.m om Apmcofipfipomwa new pmHonom mm gmpchHEV COHumnwmch Hmcompmd ouoEogg 09 H mm.H AH.m mmH H mm. mo.m om mGOHpMSQHm oMHH Hmmh 2H wCchHnu o>Hpmono pom Apchppoan 6cm COHpMHsEHpm moH>0LQ 09 A mm.H mm.m :mH m mo.H mm.m mA mcchan pcmucmamccH pom mpHCSpQOan paw COHumHSEHpm ooH>0LQ 09 m mm.H mm.m 30H m mm. 0H.m om appmficfie cH soHpompHu QOHm>mo oe mH m:.H mo.m moH 2H om.H :m.m om smuchHs on AaHHmozv COHuw>HuoE monomcHop cam zmHgmHo oe mH AN.H ::.m moH mH mm.H mm.m om nuzopw HmHoom mpoEopa 09 m mH.H H:.m :mH A mH.H om.m ow npzonm HmcoHpoEo opoEopQ 08 :H 0:.H Hm.m mmH m mH.H om.m om npzopw HmspHLHgm mpoeogg oe zpzopw Hmcomnom mo.m Hm.m "Hmpoe wH om.H Hm.m moH AH Ao.H HH.m ow coHpmhwmucH ESHSoHLLSO mcH>onQ oe HH mm.H wo.m mmH 0H :H.H A©.m om madamaouHH :H cam EoommmmHo on» CH postmoH muomo:00 paw known» ammo oe wchnmoH m wH.H Am.m :mH m mm. :m.m ow EoOmemHo op mocm>mHmh paw wchmoE o>Hw 09 m mH.H A:.m mmH : mo.H om.m mA wcHCLQmH Eoopmmeo monoucHou oe mH Am.H :m.m mmH mH mo.H HA.m mA wchpmmH EooammmHo mpm>HuoE OB OHEmUmo< m m M 2 m m N z 00.000Aw cmnp who: a oo.OOOA% swap mama m>Hpomeo .cmHmmd map Eomu coHpmpm::th on COHpmHoA CH mumpmHCHE anpma an Um>Hoopod mm COHpmosom UHon pom mm>Hpomhoo UmpomHom mo occupLOQEH m>HpmHmmnl.wH mqmopQ QHm: OB mEoocH AA.N NA.m "Hmpoe wH ©:.H mo.m 30H mH Hm.H mm.m om o0H>pom cmemHmno pom zuHQSpmoaao moH>omQ 09 m om.H Hm.m mmH HH mH.H mm.m ow mQOHpMSuHm oMHH Hmmp CH 20Hpm>occH paw COHuMpcoEHpoqxo Lou ApHCSpLOQdo cam COHumHSEHpm mUH>0hQ 09 NH Hm.H MA.N mmH mH mm.H om.m mA mmHop HchHmmmmopa mo moHpome mnp pom szCSppoodo mpH>opQ 09 OH Hm.H mm.m mmH m HH.H H:.m om mmHo.H Hm:0Hmmmmona AMprHo OB apzopo HMCOHmmmmopm 5 'r C. H.\ 7h The first two of these for ministers who received less than $7000.00 in remuneration from the parish were perceived as more important for field education than for ministers who received more than $7000.00 (R : 9-14); (R : S-lO). The third of these above named objectives for ministers who received more than $7000.00 was perceived as more impor- tant for field education than for ministers who received less than $7000.00 (R : 9-13). Comparisons of mean value ratings of responses gave no clear indication that there were any significant dif— ferences in perceptions of importance because of the factor of differences in remuneration from the parish among the categories of objectives: academic, personal growth and professional growth. Religious Denomination Historical and contemporary differences among religious denominations, it was judged, could influence the perception of parish ministers of the relative im- portance of objectives for field education. Among ministers when comparisons were made by religious denomination there was essential agreement on the relative importance of certain objectives; there was, however, quite pronounced disagreement on the relative im- portance of others (Table 17). Objectives which for all ministers were perceived as the six most important (Table 13), were among those 75 .mocmpsooEH stump mo compo xcwm u m . ucmpLooEHc: hHmEoLuxcun mu:mpLanH mHoEoproqu menm icHoo A m :o mwchmL cosmopooEH mo :mmz u x cm c:.H pm.m as am mm.H mu.m :m MH n:.H _:.m cm CH Hm.H mo.m mm cm 0H.H mA.x on mommc mnmwsum Lou ouoocH vcH>opo oHoc Oh whoocH rm.w m;.m -..u mo.m Am.m ”Hmaoa AH um.H mm.m ;. t u;.H cu.w on ;H :;.H ”H.m .. CH ss.H wn.m or -H H .H DA.m 2m ooH>pom emHamHLcu , pom mqunuLouuo wvH>OLQ 05 m 1H.H w..m 4. CH Am. 0A.w .m . .u.H .i.- . 4 Hm.” mu.m .; -a m..H mu.m mm mcoHpmstm mme Hmmh :H comam>cc H mum coHumacmE u.;1nxm Low muausonoaao ucw coHomHssHam oofi>opa 0H m vn.H mA.; 4. 2H .H.H a¢.m .A a _ .H :l. a . cm.H cc. h .M k,.H em.m so meOL ”maounnvuono go ooHpumnd on» pom Aawzsosooao moH>oeu ow n :m.H H_.u :. 1 - .H .u.. . . :... .. .. w mu.H .i.- . cH ...H Hm.x m; onop HmconwmhoLo AmHLmHo on :oxoco HmonwmveoLm ;N.. m;.- ._. on.u 1m.m ”HmNOH NH tm.H an.- .. . - .H ::.J .v A H:.. .. .. ”H _..H .,. . ...N ;..m mm oHoe LouchHC ow oHoL unlespm aged :oHaHmszp oumuHHHomm oe UH eu.H ...u .h 1H ... mi.m .n a” ...u _ .n - ...H oq.. . “H ...H Aw.m q: muHcsme nmucHucoo Unmzou opm>Hboe 08 u nc.H mm.. a. «H 2.- -_.m a. . H.. ...- . . .H J . .w t - . 0:.m gr mnwcongwomLa cam LmHozom mm houchHEv :oHp Imgmma:H Hanomamq vuofioha OH H HH.H o2.» h. ..H -;.. .A J ...H t.. .. i :v.. my. c. A -x. su.H :9 mcbupmanm opHH Hmwn :H ucchHLo o>HomoLo Low zorczpzoooo new coHumHSEHpm moH>0Lo Oh i AN.H ma.. cl HM as. wt.m ,. NH -l.fl . .. in n .J.H 7m. r. a H .4 Hu.m mm EqucHLu ucmoawqoecfi Lou zuchuLoaoo ozm :chmHsEHum opH>0La 0% m m .H H:.m a; 4 -m. wfi.u _H . HH.H :H.. .r : 04.H we. g; m ... nu.H q; mnpmHuHE CH :oHpooLHo uoHo>mU 0% NH mH.H HH.m .2 3H :m.H HA.N JV .H g..H :H.m .w :H HH.H 3H.m in 4H rm.H mu.m 2: mpuchHE on H:HHmo:v :oHum>Hpoe ooschzwcn new zuHLmHo 0H mH an.H ox.m s: 0H ,H.H y:.m .m :a :7.” w .m ;H 5» AH.H cm.w ;. AH mm.H om.m rm cpsocw HmHoom moofiopo 09 m n:. m4.m t: d ix.H ;,.m :e H .;.H .;.w C. A mx.H r».m .n 4H cc.H J:.m a; Luxoem HmcoHoosm mooEOLa oe 3H a¢.H mc.m n; m 3:. 4H.m ,2 4a o\.H : .m (V :H m:.H Hm.m Au 9H ac.H H:.m :m Luzona HmonaHom moosonu op cozogo Hmcompom Hp.m «J.w .c.w mm.w .o.m “Hmuoh nH 2g.H Cm.m :; AH -A.H mn.m .m ”H HH.H A4.m cm H mm.H Hm.w a. «H AA.H mm.w :n :oHpmpwoch ESHSUHupso mcH>opu 09 HH @H.H MA.m 2c HH om.H we.“ :A uH 2m.m Ac.“ am e 3:.H we.w w; m A". gm.m 4m ouspmemaHH :H 0cm EoonmmmHo on» :H Umcume muumocoo new hpomep meu 09 m on.H Hq.m a; H um. oo.w am m aq.H gm.m ;m m 3N.H Au.m Am m HA. 3A.H am wchpme EoosmmmHo o» oocm>oHoL 3cm wchmoE o>Hw 09 A co. mn.m :e m mm. ac.m :m OH H4.H Hw.m cm m mm.H mA.a mm : Hm. mc.m 2m wchgmmH soocmmmHo monoucHoL 09 MH :m.H cc.m mo A 00. A:.m :m 0H mm.H 0H.m wm MH mm.H mH.m am A mo. :m.m am uchpme EOOmewHo oum>Huos OB QHEQowo< m A z m m x z m m x 2 m m A m m mgmcoo pmHsamm :mHLoumomoLm uchocumz cmaonusq w>Huoonno .coHumcHEocoo msonHHou o» coHuwHeL :H mLoHanHE cmHLma an oo>HooLoa ma coHuMozvo UHoHu Lou mo>Huoowno oopooHom uo vocapuanH o>HumHomI|.AH mam¢9 76 perceived by ministers of each denomination to be among the nine most important with two expections. The objec- tive: to promote emotional growth, sixth in order of per- ceived importance for all ministers, was perceived as much less important by Lutherans (R : 12). The objective: to promote personal integration, fourth in order of perceived importance for all ministers, was perceived as much less important for Baptists (R : l3). Objectiveswhich for all ministers were perceived as the six least important, were among those perceived by ministers of each denomination to be among the eight least important with one exception. The objective: t provide opportunity for Christian service, which for all ministers was perceived as sixteenth in importance, was perceived as much more important for Baptists (R : 5). Other more prominent differences among religious denominations which were observed are: l) The objective: to promote spiritual growth, for Baptist ministers was perceived as more important (R : 3) than for other ministers (R : 10 to 1H). 2) The objective: to promote emotional growth, was perceived as first in order of importance for Presbyterian ministers but twelfth in importance for Lutherans. 3) The objective: to provide stimulation and opportunity for creative thinking in real life situations, perceived by ministers in three denominational categories as first in impor- tance, was perceived of lesser importance by Baptist ministers (R : 8). 77 u) The objective: to promote personal integration, perceived by ministers in four denominational categories as relatively important (R : 2 to 5), for Baptist ministers was relatively unimportant (R : l3). 5) The objective: to clarify professional roles was relatively unimportant for Lutheran ministers (R : 13) but relatively important for Methodists (R : 3). 6) The objective: to provide stimulation and opportunity for experimentation and innovation in real life situations, was relatively impor- tant for Methodists (R : U) but relatively unimportant for Baptists (R : 15). Difference in perception of the relative importance of selected objectives for field education has been observed both for the number of objectives and the magnitude of dif- ferences when comparisons were made among parish ministers of various religious denominations. It may be assumed that these differences in large part reflect denominational distinctions--both traditional and contemporary. Baptist ministers, for example, deviated considerably from ministers in the other denominational categories in their perception of importance of five objectives for field education. How— ever, essential agreement in perception of importance for a core of objectives has also been observed. Comparisons of mean response ratings showed that the perceived importance for Lutheran ministers of fifteen of the twenty selected objectives was greater than that of ministers in all other denominational categories, the mean value ratings ranging from "very important" (Y : 1.7U) to "important" (Y : 3.30) whereas the mean importance ratings 78 of these objectives for all other ministers were lower. This finding would indicate the high value that Lutheran ministers place upon field education as an element in their preparation for the parish ministry. Comparisons of mean value ratings of responses gave no clear indication that there were any significant dif- ferences in perception of importance among the categories of objectives: academic, personal growth and professional growth. Objectives Which Parish Ministers Added As Important for Field Education Objectives for field education which parish ministers added to the twenty selected ones numbered twenty. Sixteen of them were rated as extremely important for field educa- tion, two as very important and one as important. Fifteen of them focus on the personal growth of the student, and five on his professional growth. Typical objectives are reported here verbatim: "to mold the prospective minister into what the church people will accept." "to help one find his own identity as it relates to the ministry." "to provide a real taste of the good and bad of the ministry before ordination." "to learn to relate to colleagues." "to learn how to relate to persons in other professions and disciplines." 79 "a guided partnership in experiencing the mission and relevance of ministry." "to reveal how frustrating and irrelevant the traditional minister's role is and the necessity of developing a new role for the modern clergyman." "to develOp a sense of proportion and priority." "to see what is expected of you as a minister." Summary of Most Significant Findings on Parish Ministers' Perceived Importance of Objectives for Field Education Graduates of theological seminaries, as parish ministers three years following their seminary graduation, evidenced by importance ratings which they gave to twenty selected objectives for field education, perceived as the six most important of them, the objectives: (in order from most 1) 2) 3) U) 5) 6) important) to provide stimulation and Opportunity for creative thinking in real life situations to to develOp direction in ministry give meaning and relevance to classroom learning to to to promote personal integration reinforce classroom learning promote emotional growth These graduates also perceived the six least important objectives to be: (in order from least important) C\\J'l JI‘LA) [\J |—‘ VVVVVV to to to to to to help provide income for student needs promote social growth provide curriculum integration motivate toward continued learning provide opportunity for Christian service clarify and reinforce motivation to ministry Mean importance ratings which parish ministers assigned to the selected objectives for field education 80 evidenced their perception of the importance of these objec- tives to range from "very important" as an objective for field education to "uncertain" of importance as an objec- tive for field education. When these objectives were placed into four general categories of objectives, the rank order of total means placed these categories of objectives in the following order of importance: (in order from most important) 1) professional growth 2) personal growth 3) academic growth u) helping to provide income for student needs When comparisons were made to learn whether the per— ceived importance of these selected objectives varied with the parish minister's participation or non participation as a seminary student in field education experiences, with his age, with the location of his parish and with his religious denomination, the most significant findings reported in the following paragraphs resulted. The six most important objectives as perceived by all ministers were among the first ten in perceived importance regardless of participation or non participation in seminary field education programs as seminary students, age of parish minister, location of parish, annual remuneration from the parish, and religious denomination, with but two exceptions. For Baptist ministers, the objective: to promote integration (minister as scholar and practitioner) was perceived as much less important (R : 13). For M“ 81 Lutheran ministers, the objective: to promote emotional growth, was perceived as much less important (R : 12). The six least important objectives as perceived by all parish ministers were among the eight objectives per- ceived as least important by parish ministers regardless of participation or non participation in seminary field education programs for seminary students, age of parish minister, location of parish, and remuneration from the parish and religious denomination, with but with two ex- ceptions. The objective: to provide opportunity for Christian service, for non participants in field education as seminary students, and for Baptist ministers, was per- ceived as much more important (R : u-5). Seventeen of the thirty-one non participants:hiseminary field education as students were Baptist. The perception of importance varied considerably with whether or not the parish minister had participated in field education as a seminary student for the following objectives: (in order from greatest magnitude of differ- ence in rank order of importance) 1) to provide Opportunity for Christian service (17-14) 2) to motivate classroom learning (13-6) 3) to provide stimulation and Opportunity for independent thinking (7—1u) U) to facilitate transition from student role to minister role (ll-5) 5) to promote personal integration (H-IO) Only minor differences in the perceived importance of objectives for field education were associated with $3. I *I u'» ”h (I) ‘1‘. 82 differences in the age of ministers, parish location and remuneration received from the parish. There was essential agreement among parish ministers when comparisons were made by religious denomination on the importance of some of the selected objectives for field education; for other objectives there were minor differences; for still others there were major differences. More prominent disagreements observed were as follows: 1) Baptist ministers disagreed with their fellow ministers in most other denominations on the relative importance of the objectives: £9 promote emotional growth, 39 promote personal integration, £9 provide Opportunity for Christian service, to promote spiritual growth, and 29 provide stimulation and opportunity for creative thinking ip real life situations. 2) Presbyterian and Lutheran ministers disagreed on the relative importance of the objective: £9 clarify professional roles. 3) Lutheran and Methodist ministers disagreed on the relative importance of the objective: pg clarify professional roles. u) Methodist and Baptist ministers disagreed on the relative importance of the objective: 29 provide stimulation and Opportunity for experi- mentation lg real life situations. The perceived importance for field education was greater for Lutheran ministers than for ministers of all other denominations for fifteen of the twenty selected objectives. 23 help provide income for student needs was deci— sively rated by parish ministers as relatively unimportant and probably unworthy as an objective for field education. “p-. ._4i..... A. _——_—— ._L . . 83 Differences of perceptions among ministers for the three categories of objectives (both in total mean ratings and rank morder of these): academic, personal growth and professional growth, and differences of perceptions for individual Objectives within categories——these observed when all comparisons were made——have led to the conclusion that further investigation is necessary to determine whether there is any significant difference in the percep- tion of ministers on the relative importance of these three categories of objectives. Kinds and Levels of Field Education EXperiences Theological seminary field education programs most commonly provide depth experiences in preaching, pastoral functions and teaching. Fewer experiences and markedly lower levels of involvement are afforded in the priestly functions, church administration and social service. Exam— ination of Table 18 reveals major areas of emphasis and omission in their field education eXperiences as recalled by 218 parish minister respondents. Preaching.--For nine out of ten, parish preaching had been included at least to a limited degree. Six out of ten had depth eXperiences in parish preaching. Six out of ten had also done at least limited supply preaching. As might be expected, only about one in five had experienced evangelistic preaching and only one in four had preached on radio or television. (t) rd _ “.v-nuk nacv-u H Ya O “inn "1 -;F. «AN.H. \w 9.1h.-I.1.. ~ It»...- xn..-~ 4U- H..: .J u... ..~...~.. Huh A D“. H. awv H.‘ J ..~>a v ‘ ~ {H he a g A .4 U. ~ ~ .u. H. ..t\v\5-.... NHVE u h Ny‘.v ‘ NNAV N (N ~i.’vw~ |u..~ .‘.‘.\ N cunt 8h mH mH m mm m COHposooma Osman nopzno mm mH N Am A mmmHo HOOHOOQOOpmo mm m m om oH Hoonom cognac amp xomz no mm m m m Hoonom amoezm wcHsommE :m mH :m mm m mpmoEoE nopsno go COHuQmoom mH 0H :m m: : MCHpomz m wchosocoo 2m Hm 0H mm : Hapoczm m wchosocoo QCOHpocsm mm Am mH mm : mucoempomm on» wcHhmuchHEU< AHpmmem mH 0H m om m meHHomcsoo Q3090 2m Am m om OH EmHHowem>m Hmcompom H: mm : mH m wCHHomcsoo chommom om mN H HH : chszpHpmcH cH cOHpmpHmH> mcoHpocsc mm mm . H m m COHpmpHmH> mEom Hmpoummm m mH A mm 0H weHnomopo oHpmHHmwcm>m A NH 3 mm NH .> .9 go oHemp so wcHnommAN mm mm H om mH mcHsomopq AHQOSm HBQOHmmooo mm mm a m H wCHnomogd anpmm meHSmemm mum %w m mm mm m 833 2.33QO 8.3 mm”. as...“ g .N 3 Sang q I IITJ J a. a TrO O O TrA. A T. S um. UWWW m. w w moemHQOme E B 4...... T. 0 u . _ .Huo o e s . Du u e me H z mocmeoaxm mo Hm>oq pmmanm .mCHchpu zpmcwEmm hHmnp mo ammo mm woonHmmaxo COHpmospo pHmHm mo mHm>OH pew mocHx ompomHmm counoqon on: mpmuchHE mo owmpcmommmul.mH mqmHo w HMQHuHHom mmpmHeHE OOHONOLOOL a mxpmm zmpmHeHE mSQEmo Hoocom OHmsz EmHHmepsow OLNMHoz HmHoom coHpmNHcmwmo ApchEEoo mQSOLw AOHLOQHE QEmo poEESm musoom <02A .aozw AmVQOHpmNHcmmpo nogsno no OOHmH>Loosm mwmpm £09350 weHmH>me5m xmoz oouuHEEoo moememchme pcmHQ pew Appmaopa cohzso pcoEmmmcme OOHNAO memhwopo nopsno mo :oHpmsHm>m pO\Uem pcoEOOHo>mm ASHOHHnsa nohszo coHpmmmman pompsn nomsno Am>nzm mousse m wchozoeoo wchomE mmmchsn m mchosvcoo moo:OHpmdxm OOPOOHmm nonpo OOH>Lom HmHoom COHpmhp IchHEUw eohsno 86 Pastoral functions.--Considerable eXperience through field education had been gained in visitation of people in their homes and in institutions, over eight out of ten ministers having participated in these. Over half of the ministers experienced relatively involved participation in both of these. Almost the same proportion of ministers had eXperience in both personal counseling and personal evangelism, although the depth of involvement was less. Only one-half of the ministers had any experience in group counseling, a more recent counseling method than personal counseling. With increasing emphasis placed upon group counseling in the social science disciplines, one may anticipate that theological seminaries will provide greater opportunity for experience through field education in this counseling method. Priestly functions.--In this area of experience, both number and depth of experiences were reported as much lower. Only slightly more than half had participated in administration of the sacraments or conducting a funeral. Even fewer had participated in the reception of church members (40%) or in conducting a wedding. Approximately one in five had merely observed these functions and an even larger proportion reported no eXperience in any of the priestly functions. The more limited participation in priestly functions is understandable for several reasons. Certain religious 87 denominations permit the performance of certain priestly functions at any level only by the ordained clergy. Several parish minister respondents in their comments called attention to this fact. Again the infrequent occurrence of the tasks in this category diminishes the possibility of participation. It would appear that if through field education a greater number were given opportunity to participate in the priestly functions--at least on the level of observa- tion-~that there would be less complaint of inadequacy in this area both by ministers themselves and their parish- ioners. Teaching.-—Teaching in the parish Sunday school, the traditional beginning experience for seminarians, included nine out of ten of the parish ministers who reported field education eXperiences. Since only a few Protestant denom- inations (e.g., Lutherans) operate parochial schools it was expected that a limited number of persons would have had experience in teaching in them (37%). A relatively high number reported no eXperience in teaching church drama production (58%). Two reasons are offered for this high number of non participants: the significant contri— bution that church drama can make in the church's educa- tional program has only recently been recognized and/or accepted by large numbers of church members and the limited experience in church drama of seminary instructors would prevent many of them from venturing to instruct others in it. 88 Church administration.-—The role of the parish minister as an administrator is requiring today consider- ably more time than was required only a few years ago. However, parish ministers themselves, their congregations and their denominational officials express deficiencies in the training of seminarians in church administration. The number of possible tasks in which one may engage while a seminary student in order to gain experience is large and it appears from an examination of Table 18 that seminary students have gained experience in church administration through a variety of tasks though, for a majority, with only limited participation in any one of them. Almost half of the parish ministers reported having had no eXperience through seminary field education in: conducting a church survey (“9%), church budget preparation (aux), office management (U3%), church prOperty and plant maintenance (“0%) and supervising church staff (“6%). More than 66% of the ministers reported having had experience, even if only at the level of participation, in: conduct- ing a business meeting (66%), church publicity (66%), development and/or evaluation of church programs (71%), committee work (74%) and the supervision of church organ- izations (70%). There is increasing evidence that greater provision needs to be giventXDproviding for the seminarian opportun- ity for more and deeper levels of experience in various tasks of church administration in order that he may be 89 better prepared for his role as church administrator following his graduation. Social service and other selected experiences.-—In recent years the contribution that eXperience in non parish tasks may make toware preparing the prospective minister for his work in the parish has become more comA monly recognized. Consequently, included in seminary field education programs are many non parish activities in which students engage. Examination of Table 18 reveals that, although a fair number of parish ministers in their seminary field education programs have engaged in non parish activities, the majority of them reported that they had no experience in the following activities com- monly regarded as non parish: YMCA, YWCA, scouts, minority groups, community organization, social welfare, journalism, school campus ministry, parks and recreation ministry, political and civil affairs, ecumenical pro- jects, business and industry. Fifty percent reported having had experience in summer camps. Lay internship, a most recent innovation in field education(a term which several respondents reported they did not understand, thus possibly accounting for a 15% non response and a 71% "no eXperience reSponse) showed approximately one in ten as having participated at any level. 90 One may conjecture that there is relatively little participation in non parish field education experiences because there are few seminary administrators and in- structors who are convinced that the transfer values of non parish experiences are of more worth in the prepar- ation of the student for the parish ministry than direct experiences within the context of the parish. Other Experiences of Parish Ministers Other experiences of parish ministers which were added by respondents, numbered thirty-four and were distri- buted in the general areas of experiences as follows: preaching (8), pastoral functions (2), priestly functions (3), teaching (12), church administration (2), social Services (3) and "other" (A). All were depth level experiences with the exception of three preaching experi- ences which were at the level of observation and limited participation. The Format of Field Education Experiences The format of field education experiences may have included only concurrent, only block or a combination of concurrent and block experiences (see definitions, p.2u) Sixty-eight percent reported having had block field education experiences (Table 19). These men may have had concurrent experiences also but this fact was not reported. 91 Twenty—seven percent of the ministers, on the basis of their reporting, were assumed to have had concurrent experiences only. TABLE l9.——Format (block/concurrent) of field education experiences. Format Reported N % Block experiences were included in field program 148 68 Concurrent experiences only in field program 58 27 Format unreported 12 5 Total 218 100 Time spent on block field education experiences ranged from four weeks to more than one year (Table 20). TABLE 20.-—Extent of time for and locale of block field education experiences. Time N % Locale N % 4-8 weeks 7 5 Parish only 69 A7 8-12 weeks 26 17 Non parish only 25 l7 12 weeks- Both parish and 6 months 38 26 non parish 39 27 6 months- Locale not 1 year 39 26 clearly re- ported l“ 9 More than 1 year 38 26 Total 148 100 lu7 100 92 The locale of these experiences were within the context of the local parish, beyond the context of the local parish, or both. No attempt was made to learn the extent of time for and locale of concurrent seminary field education experiences. Among the 1A8 ministers who reported having had block field experiences, the extent of time for these experiences was less than 12 weeks for 22% of them and more than 12 weeks for 78% of them (Table 20). Block field education experiences of “7% of the ministers were within the context of the local parish only; for 17% of them, these experiences were beyond the context of the local parish and for 27% of them they were both within and beyond the context of the local parish. The Supervisors of Field Education Supervisors of seminary students' field education experiences (Table 21) include seminary personnel, parish personnel, denominational officials, institutional chap- lains (6), clinical training supervisors (5), a doctor, the National Christian Council staff, and the field work team. More field education directors or equivalent per— sons had minor responsibility (51%) than had major re- sponsibility (32%) for supervision of field education experiences of responding ministers. In contrast, more parish ministers had major responsibility (60%) than minor. For 10% of the parish ministers, seminary personnel other than the major responsibility and nary personnel had minor denominational officials infrequently involved in education experiences. 93 field education director had for “9% of them, other semi— responsibility. Parish committees, and denominational committees were the supervision of seminary field TABLE 21.——Supervision of field education experiences: position and degree of re sponsibility of supervisor. Position N Degree of Responsibility Minor Major None Responsi- Responsi- bility bility Field education director (or equivalent) 210 Other seminary faculty or staff 203 Parish minister(s) 208 Parish committee(s) 200 Denominational official(s) 202 Denominational committee(s) 200 17 51 32 11 49 10 20 2o 60 63 31 6 66 22 12 78 19 3 A greater percentage of parish ministers reported a parish minister as havi ng had major supervisory responsi- bility over their seminary field experiences than did those who reported their seminary field education director 94 (Table 21). However, it was assumed that a person having major supervisory responsibility may or may not have been the person having the general responsibility for direct- ing and coordinating the experiences. The responses of parish ministers showed that for a greater percentage of them, their seminary field education director exercised the general responsibility for directing and coordinating their experiences (53%) than did those who reported a parish minister as having this general responsibility (18%) (Table 22). For 29% of the parish ministers, some- one other than the seminary field education director or a parish minister exercised this general responsibility. TABLE 22.--Supervision of field education experiences: person responsible for directing and coordinating experiences. Responsible Person N % Field education director 113 53 Seminary office staff 23 ll Parish minister MO 18 Oneself 4 2 Others 18 8 No one _l§ __8 Total 21A 100 95 Included in the 29% are the responses of men who reported having had no one as the director and coordinator of their experiences. However, if no one person was charged with this responsibility, in practice, the student himself carried it. Perceived Extent of Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of Objectives Two questions about perceived importance of ob- jectives for field education which were posed as guides to the study have already been answered. Two further ques- tions were posed as guides to the study. The first was: To what extent do theological seminary graduates, who now serve as parish ministers, perceive these objectives to have been achieved through their field education experi- ences? The second was: Does the perceived extent of contribution of selected experiences toward the reali- zation of field education objectives vary: with the minister's age, church location, and annual remuneration from his parish, with the time required to complete semi- nary, with the format (concurrent and/or block) of field experiences, with position of the person responsible for directing and coordinating field education experiences and with religious denomination? These questions were answered by an analysis of responses of 218 parish minis— ters who had participated in field education experiences 96 as seminary students. Results of the analysis are re— ported in the following paragraphs. Perceived Extent of Contribution for All Parish Ministers The perceived relative importance of objectives for field education included both those who as seminary stu- dents had participated in seminary field education and those who had not. The perceived relative extent of contribution of field education experiences toward the realization of these objectives, on the other hand, could only include those who had participated in field edu- cation programs. The six selected objectives of field education toward Which seminary field experiences contributed the most, as perceived by all participant ministers were (Table 23): (1= greatest contribution) l. to provide stimulation and opportunity for creative thinking in real life situations (Y : 2.8“) 2. to develOp direction in ministry (Y : 3.06) 3. to provide opportunity for the practice of professional roles (X : 3.17) A. to provide stimulation and opportunity for experimentation and innovation in real life situations (X : 3.18) 5. to give meaning and relevance to classroom learning (X : 3.22) 6. to provide opportunity for Christian service (Y : 3.2M) 97 TABLE 23---Re1ative extent of contribution of field educa— tion experiences toward the realization of selected objec- tives for field education as perceived by parish ministers. Objective N X S R Academic To motivate classroom learning 213 3.40 1.50 12 To reinforce classroom learning 214 3.39 1.45 11 To give meaning and relevance to classroom learning 212 3.22 1.46 5 To test theory and concepts learned in the classroom and in literature 213 3.58 1.50 16 To provide curriculum integration 210 4.02 1.46 19 Total: 3.52 Personal Growth To promote spiritual growth 214 3.42 1.50 13 To promote emotional growth 213 3.27 1.47 8 To promote social growth 212 3.86 1.36 18 To clarify and reinforce motivation ("call") to ministry 213 3.69 1.68 17 To develOp direction in ministry 212 3.06 1.59 2 To provide stimulation and Opportunity for independent thinking 211 3.26 1.36 7 To provide stimulation and Opportunity for creative thinking in real life situations 213 2.84 1.50 1 To promote personal integration (minister as scholar and practitioner) 212 3.34 1.46 10 To motivate toward continued learning 211 3.45 1.44 14 To facilitate transition from student role to minister role 211 3.46 1.63 15 Total: 3.36 Professional Growth To clarify professional roles 213 3.28 1.62 9 To provide opportunity for the practice of professional roles 212 3.17 1.47 3 To provide stimulation and opportunity for experimentation and innovation in real life situations 212 3.18 1.54 4 To provide opportunity for Christian service 211 3.24 1.51 6 Total: 3.22 Income To help provide income for student needs 212 4.17 1.92 20 (l=extreme1y large; 7=extremely small). Y = Mean of extent of contribution ratings on a 7 pOint scale R = Rank order of rated extent of contribution. 98 Likewise, the six selected objectives of field education toward which seminary field experiences contri- buted the least, as perceived by the ministers as a total group, were: (20 = least contribution) 15. to facilitate tgansition from student role to minister role (X : 3.46) 16. to test theory and concepts learned in the classroom and in literature (X : 3.58) 17. to clarify_and reinforce motivation in ministry (X : 3.69) 18. to promote social growth (Y : 3.86) 19. to provide curriculum integration (Y : 4.02) 20. t2 help provide income for student needs (X : 4.17) The perceived extent to which field experiences contributed toward the realization of the selected ob- jectives ranged from "large" (Y : 2.84) to "small" (Y : 4.17). A comparison of extent-of-contribution mean ratings by categories (Table 23) revealed the following order of perceived contribution for the four categories: (1 = greatest contribution) 1. professional growth objectives (Y : 3.22) 2. personal growth objectives (Y : 3.36) 3. academic objectives (x : 3.52) 4. tp help provide income for student needs (X : 4.17) 99 Age of Parish Ministers Only minor differences in the perceived extent of contribution of experiences are associated with differ- ences in age of ministers. Comparisons of ratings re— vealed that for seventeen of the twenty selected ob— jectives, the perceived contribution of experiences toward their realization was essentially the same for both younger and older ministers (Table 24). Comparisons did reveal differences in perceived extent of contribution between younger and older ministers for these objectives. 1. The perceived extent of contribution was less for younger ministers than older toward the objective: to reinforce classroom learning L (R : 15, Y : 3.51 - R : 8,7Y : 3.27). 2. The perceived extent of contribution was less for younger ministers than older toward the objective: topprovide stimulation and opppr— tunity for independent thinking (R : 9, X : 3.39 -- R : 3,7X : 3.13). 3. The perceived extent of contribution was less for older ministers than younger toward the objective: tp_provide stimulation and oppor— tunity for experimentation and innovation in real life situations (R : 9, X : 3.28 -- R : 3, X : 3.08). Comparisons of total mean ratings showed the same rank order in perceived extent of contribution for the four categories of objectives for both younger and older parish ministers (greatest to least): professional growth objectives, personal growth objectives, academic ob- jectives and the objective, to help provide income for student needs. 100 Am.m Om.m HHmpoe :H OO.H A:.m OOH :H HO.H O:.m mOH mHoC pmumHCHs on mHop pCmpsum Coma CoHpHmCme mumpHHHomm 09 OH OO.H OO. OOH HH OO.H H:.m OOH wCHCCOOH UOCCHpCoo ppmsop mpm>HuoE 09 HH OH.H om.m OOH O m:.H mm.m :OH AecccHeHeccee one echncm mm COpmHCHEV COHpmmwmpCH HOCOOCOQ mpoEOCO 09 H. HO.H :A.N OOH H O:.H :O.N OOH mCOHpmspHm OQHH Hmmp CH wCHxCHCp O>Hummpo Com AuHCCppoado UCm COHpmHCEHpm m©H>oCO 09 m Om.H mH.m AOH O em.H mm.m AOH wcchHce ecceccchcH ace ACHCCCCOOQO pCm CoHpmHCEHpm OUH>OCO 09 N OO.H OO.m OOH N HO.H mO.m :OH mpumHCHE CH CoHpomCHc OOHo>mp 09 AH OA.H OA.m OOH OH OO.H OO.m OOH OpumHCHE op A=HHmo=v CoHpm>HpoE monomCHmC pCm AMHCmHo 09 OH Nm.H 00.: AOH OH Om.H NA.m OOH suscem Hchcm cecEcee 69 OH OO.H ON.m OOH O OO.H ON.m OOH szomw HmCOHuoEm 3.050.HQ OH OH OO.H H:.m OOH OH OO.H m:.m OOH szomw HOCCHCHOm mpoEond OB szoCO HmCoowm O:.m OO.m “Hapoe OH OO.H NO.: OOH OH OO.H NO.: :OH CoHmewmpCH ECHCOHCCCO m©H>OCd oe OH AO.H OO.m OOH AH OO.H HO.m OOH OCCOOCOOHH CH OCm EoopmmmHo me CH cmCCmmH mpOmoCoo pCm ACOOC» ammo 09 O O3.H HN.m OOH m me.H mN.m :OH wchemcH EoommmmHo on moCm>mHmC UCm mCHCmOE O>Hw OB O Am.H AN.m OOH OH OO.H HO.m OOH OCHCCOOH EoopmmmHo OO.HOLHCHOOH 09 NH OO.H Om.m OOH HH HO.H H:.m OOH wCHCCOOH EoopwmmHo mpm>HpoE 0% OHEmpmo< m m M 2 m m H z O>Hpomwoo emeHo ec om cma ONION ewe .hmpmHCHE CmHCmQ mo omm Op CoHpmHmC CH mmmumHCHE CmHCmO An pm>HOome mm COHpmozpm UHOHM Com mm>Hpomnoo UmpomHmm mo COHpmNHHmmC me phmzop mOoCOHCOQxO CoHpmonm UHOHM mo COHanHmpCoo mo pCOuxm O>HpmHmmln.zN mHmOCO OHOC OB mEooCH ”Hmpoe OOH>COm CmemHCCO COO AOHCCOCOOQO OUH>OCO OB mCOHmepHm OwHH HOOC CH CoHpm>OCCH OCm COHpmpCOEHCOOxO Com ApHCCpCOOOo OCO COHCOHCEpr mpH>OCO OB OOHOC HOCOHmmmmoCO Oo OOHOOOCO OCO COO ApHCCpCOOQo OOH>OCO OB mmHOC HOCOHmmOAoCO AOHCOHO OE COBOLO HOCOHmmmmoCm Location of Parish 102 Comparisons of ratings revealed that for seven of the twenty selected objectives there appeared to be some association between parish location and the extent of contribution of field experiences toward the realization of objectives (Table 25). Parish ministers whose parishes were located in lesser population areas perceived the contribution of field experiences to have been greater than did those whose parishes were located in greater population areas for the four objectives: 1. to to to to (R motivate classroom learning (R : 3-15) develop direction in ministry (R : 2-5) clarifypprofessional roles (R : 3-16) provide opportunity for Christian service 5-10) For the objective: to develop direction in ministry, difference in perception between these two groups of ministers was known, not by difference in rank order, but by difference in mean rating for the objective (Y : 2.93 - 3.35). Parish ministers whose parishes were located in greater population areas perceived the contribution of field experiences to have been greater than did those whose parishes were located in lesser population areas for three objectives: 103 A:.m Nm.m HHOpOB OH OA.H AO.m HO OH OO.H Nz.m OOH OHO.H pOpmHCHE op OHO.H pCOOCpm Eopm COHpHmCme OpOpHHHOmm OB A OO.H Om.m HO OH N:.H O:.m OOH OCHCCOOH OOCCHpCOO Opmzop OpO>HpoE OB NH AO.H OO.m NO OH O:.H AN.m OOH AcHOCOHpHpOO.HO OCO COHOCOO mm pOpmHCHEO COHpmprpCH HOComLOQ OpoEOCQ OH H OO.H OO.N NO H OO.H HO.N HOH mCOHpOCpHm OMHH HOOC CH OCHOCHCp O>Hpmmpo pom ApHCCpAOOOO OCO COHpmHCEHpm OOH>OCO OB m OO.H ON.m NO O ON.H ON.m OOH OCHxCHCp pCOOCOOOOCH Com ApHCCpCOOQO OCO COHpOHCEHpm OOH>OCO OB O OO.H Om.m NO N OO.H OO.N OOH OppwHCHE CH CoHpOOCHO OOHO>OO OB AH OO.H 3O.m NO AH OO.H OO.m HOH mepchHe op AeHHecev COHpO>HpoE OopOMCHOC OCO OOHLOHO OB AH NO.H :O.m NO OH ON.H mO.m OOH eezcew HeHecm cecEcee 09 O AO.H N:.m NO O N:.H HN.m HOH szo.HO HOCOHpoEO OpoEo.HQ OB HH OO.H Oe.m mO mH HO.H mm.m HOH Oczcem HespHeHam cecEOCO ce szopO HmComCOm HO.m AO.H ”Hmsoe ON AO.H OH.: NO OH AO.H AO.m OOH COHpOCwOpCH ECHCOHLCCO OOH>OCO OH :H OO.H OO.m NO OH OO.H OO.m HOH OCCpmpOpHH CH OCO EoopmmmHo OCp CH OOCCOOH mpamoCoo OCO OCOOCp mep OB O OA.H Om.m HO O Om.H OH.m HOH mcheemH EoopmmOHO Op moCm>OHOp OCO OCHCOOE O>Hm OB O OO.H ::.m mO NH OO.H Om.m HOH OCHCCOOH EoopmmOHo OopopCHOC OH OH OO.H OO.m OO O OO.H Hm.m OOH OCHCCOOH EoopmmmHO OpO>HpoE OB OHEOOOOO m m M 2 m m N z OOC< COHpOHCOom COpOOCO CH OOC< COHpOHOOom COmmOH CH cerccHOO .CmemO mo COHpOOOH Op COHpOHOC CH mCOpmHCHE COHCOO AC OO>HmopOO mm COHme:OO OHOHO pom mO>HpOOmOO OOpOOHOw mo COHpONHHOOp OCp OLOBOp mmoCOHCOOxO COHpOOsOO OHOHO Oo COHpCOHCpCOO OO pCOpr O>HpmHmmln.ON MHOOB .COHpSOHCpCOO mo pCOpr Ompmp no COOLO mem u m .AHHOEm OHOEOCpruA HOOLOH AHOEOCpruHO OHOOO pCHOO A O CO meHpOC COHpCOHCpCoo no pCOpr COO: u x 104 OA.H HH.: NO ON OO.H OH.: OOH mOOOC pCOOCpm Com OEooCH OOH>OCQ QHOC OB OEooCH O:.m 2H.m "Hepce AO.H O:.m HO O OO.H OH.m OOH OOH>pmm COHpmHCCO Com ApHCCpCOQOO OOH>OCQ OB HA.H HN.m NO A AO.H AH.m OOH mCOHpOOpHm OMHH HOO.H CH COHpO>OCCH OCO COHpOpCOEHCOOxO LOO ApHCCpCOOOo OCO COHpmHCEHpm OOH>OCO OB AO.H AN.m NO m e:.H MH.m OOH. mchC Hmcchchcea Cc OOHpOmCO OCp Com szCCpLOOOo OOH>OCO OB HA.H OO.m NO m OO.H MH.m HOH mche Hecchmmpcea AOHpch ca szonO1HmCOHmmmmopm 105 l. to provide stimulation and opportunity for independent thinking (R : 3-9) 2. to motivate toward continued learning (R : 7-15) 3. to provide stimulation and opportunity for experimentation and innovation in real life situations (R : 2-7) Comparisons of ratings also revealed that ministers whose parishes were located in lesser population areas quite consistently perceived the extent of contribution of their field experiences to have been greater towards the realization of objectives than did their colleagues in greater population areas. The only exceptions to a mean rating indicating perception of greater contribution were: 1. for the objective: to test theory and con— cepts learned in the classroom and in literature; and for the objective: tg proyide stimulation and Opportunity for independent thinki g. For these objectives, mean ratings of both groups were_the same for the same objectives (X : 3.58 and X : 3.26). 2. for the objective; to motivate toward con- tinued learning (X : 3.48 — X : 3.39). Remuneration From the Parish Comparisons of rank order of extent—of-contribution mean ratings showed only three appreciable differences between ministers who received an annual remuneration from the parish less than $7000.00 and those who received more than $7000.00 (Table 26). 106 Om.m Om.m "Hmpce NH OO.H O0.0 OOH OH OO.H O0.0 OO OHO.H COpmHCHE Op OHO.H pCOOCpm Eopm COHpHmCOCp OpOpHHHOOm OH OH HO.H O0.0 OOH OH HN.H N0.0 AO wCHCCmOH OOCCHpCOO Opmzop Opm>HpoE OB HH HO.H H0.0 OOH O OO.H HN.O AO THOCOHpHpOHu...HO OCO COHOCOm mm mOpmHCHEO COHpOCwOpCH HOCOOCOO OpoEopQ OB H OO.H OO.N OOH H OO.H HO.N AO mCOHpOCpHm OMHH HOOC CH OCHOCHCp O>HpOOCO pom mpHCCpCOOOo OCO COHpmHCEHpm OOH>OLQ OB O OO.H ON.O OOH A AN.H NN.m AO wcHOcHOp pcoeccamccH ecu szCspCOOQO OCO COHpOHCEHpm OOH>OLQ OB N OO.H OO.N OOH O OO.H HN.m AO AppchHe cH cchcmpHO qum>me ca OH OO.H OO.m OOH AH OO.H O0.0 AO AepmHsHe 6» HeHHmcev COHpO>HpOe OomOMCHOC OCO OOHCOHO OB OH OO.H OA.m OOH OH OO.H OO.m AO Oezcew Hchcm mpcscsa 09 O AO.H ON.O OOH O OO.H ON.O AO szopw HOCOHpoEO OpoEOCQ OH OH OO.H OO.m OOH N ON.H OH.m AO Opzcew HmspHeHOm mposopa ca szopo HOComCOm N0.0 A0.0 uHmpoe OH OO.H OO.m NOH OH ON.H OO.O AO cchmeOmecH esHscHeese OOH>csO 69 AH OO.H O0.0 OOH OH OO.H N0.0 AO OCOpOCOpHH CH OCO eOO.HmmOHO OCp CH OOCCOOH mpamoCoo OCO OCOOCp pmmp OH O OO.H ON.m OOH O NN.H OH.m AO OchCmmH accsmmch Op OoCm>OHOC OCO mCHCmOE O>Hw OB OH OO.H O0.0 OOH OH OO.H O0.0 AO wCHCCOOH EoopwmmHO OOOOMCHOL OH NH OO.H O0.0 OOH OH ON.H ON.O AO OCHCCOOH eoopmmmHO Opm>HpoE OB OHEOOmo< m m x z m m x z O0.000AO Cmnp who: O0.000AO cmnp mmOH m>HpcmHOO .anme map Eopm COHpOpOCOEOp Op COHpmHOp CH mpmpmHCHe COHOOO an OO>HO0COQ mm COHpOOsOO OHOHM Com mO>HpOOOOo OOpOOHOm mo COHpmNHHmOC mflp Cch30u. mmocwfihmflxm COHUNOdfim UHQH.H .HO COHQSDHLUCOO pHO pflmpxm ®>HDMH®mII.©N Mdmxwmc 107 .COHpCOHCpCOO mo pCOpr Ompmp mo COOCO mem u m .HHHOEm OHOEOCpruA OOOCOH OHOEOCpruHV OHmom pCHOO A O Co meHpOC COHpCOHCpCOO mo pCOpr COO: u M ON OO.H O0.0 OOH ON OH.N A0.0 AO mOOOC pCOOOpm Com OEooCH OOH>OCO OHOC OB OEooCH HN.O ON.O "Hmpoe O NO.H ON.O OOH O HO.H ON.O OO OOH>COm CmemHCCO Com OpHCCpCOOOO OOH>OCO OH O OO.H OH.O OOH O ON.H NH.O AO mCOHmepHm OmHH HOO:H CH COHpm>OCCH OCO COHpmpCOEHCOOxO Com szCOpCOOOO OCO COHpOHCEHpm OOH>OCO OH O AO.H NH.O OOH HH OO.H ON.O AO mche Hmcchmmpch Oc OOHpopr OCp Com mpHCzpCOOOO OOH>OCO OH O NA.H ON.O OOH NH OO.H om.m AO mchs HmechmmOcCO AHHech ca :pZOCO HOCOHOOOOOCO 108 Ministers who received less than $7000.00 in remuner- ationation from the parish perceived the contribution of their experiences to have been greater than did those who received more than $7000.00 for the objectives: 32 E32? mote spiritual growth (R : 2-15) and £p_promote personal integration (R : 5-11). On the other hand, ministers who received more than $7000.00 perceived the contribution of their experiences to have been greater than their colleagues who received less for the objective: 33 provide opportunipy for the practice pf professional roles (R : 3—11). Comparison of total mean ratings showed the same rank order in perceived extent of contribution for the four categories of objectives for ministers in both re— muneration categories. Time to Complete Seminary Fifty percent of the parish ministers completed seminary in three years; 50% required more than three years, almost half of these having taken more than three years because of an extensive internship and the remain- ing persons for other reasons (see p. 50). Since such a large number of parish ministers spent more than three years in seminary and for different reasons, comparisons were made of mean extent-of-contribution ratings and the rank order of those for parish ministers in three cate- gories: (1) those who spent three years in seminary, 109 (2) those who spent more than three years because of an extended internship, and (3) those who spent more than three years because of reasons other than an extended internship. Relatively large discrepancies were identi- fied both in mean ratings and in rank order of these (Table 27). Greatest discrepancies observed are noted below. Ministers who spent more than three years in semi- nary because of an extended internship perceived their experiences to have contributed more than did ministers in the other two categories toward the objectives: £9 clarify and reinforce motivation §p_ministry (R : 9; 18-18), pp facilitate transition from student role £2 minister gal; (R : 6; 15-16) and pg motivate toward Classroom learning (R : 7; 13-15). Ministers who spent three years in seminary per- ceived their experiences to have contributed more than did ministers in the other two categories toward the ob- jective: 32 provide stimulation and opportunity for experimentation and innovation in_rea1 life situations (R : 3; 8-10). Ministers who spent more than three years in semi— nary for whatever reason, more than those who spent only three years in seminary perceived their experiences to have contributed toward the objective: £2 clarify REE? fessional roles (R :3-4; 14). 110 O OA.H OO.O OO H ON.H OO.N OO O OO.H AH.O OOH ACpchHs CH COHpOOCHO QOHO>OO OB OH OA.H OO.O OO O OO.H NH.O OO OH AA.H OO.O OOH OppchHe op HeHHmeev COHpm>HpoE mono“ ICHOC OCO OOHCOHO OH OH HO.H NN.O OO OH HO.H OO.O OO AH OO.H OA.O OOH npzcgw HOHOom OpoEOCO OH O OO.H OO.O OO OH NO.H OH.O OO A OO.H ON.O OOH npzcnw HOCOHpoEO OpoEOCQ OB O OO.H OO.O OO AH OO.H OO.O OO OH OO.H HO.O OOH szcCO HOCpHCHOm OpoEOCO oe szoCO HmComCOm HO.O ON.O HO.O "Hmpce ON NO.H NO.O OO OH OO.H H0.0 AO OH OO.H OH.O OOH cchmeOmch ECHCOHCCCO OOH>OCO OB OH AO.H OA.O OO OH OO.H OO.O OO OH OO.H O0.0 OOH mpspmempHH :H OCO EoopmmOHo OCp CH OOCCOOH mpOOOCOO OCO OCOOCp mep OB OH OO.H OO.O OO O OO.H OO.N AO O OO.H OH.O OOH wchemmH aces ImmOHO Op OoCO>OHOC OCO wCHCmOE O>Hw OB NH OO.H O0.0 OO OH AO.H OH.O OO NH NO.H NO.O OOH OOHCCOOH EoopmmmHO monogCHOC OB OH AO.H OA.O OO A ON.H O0.0 OO OH AO.H OO.O OOH .OCHOCOOH . EOOCOOOHO Opm>HpoE OB OHEOOmo< O O O z O O O z m m R z mCOmmOm COCpO HfinmCCOpCH OOOCOpxm Op O>HpOOOOO lumpmmm O COCp OC02 OCO OCOOO O Cme OCoz mCOOO O mCOpmHCHE COHCOO Op OO>HOOCOO OCp OCOBOp mOoCOHCOOxO COHpm03OO OHOHO mo COHpCOHCpCOO no pCOpr O>HpmHOmla.AN MHOOB .OCOCHEOO CH OEHp Op COHpOHOC CH mm COHpmoCOO OHOHM Com mO>HpOOOOo OOpOOHOm mo COHpONHHOOC .COHpCOHCpCOO MO pCOpr Ompmp mo COOCO mem u m .AHHmEm OHOEOCpruA OOOCOH OHOEOCpruHO OHmOm pCHOQ A O CO meHme COHpCOHCpCOO mo pCOpr no COO: u M 111 OO.N O0.0 OO ON OA.H O0.0 OO ON OO.H O0.0 OOH mOOOC pCOOCpm Com OEooCH OOH>OCO OHOC OB OEooCH O0.0 OO.N AN.m HHOpOB OO.H ON.O OO OH OO.H ON.O OO O OO.H HN.O OOH mcH>Cmm COHpmHCCO Com OpHCCpCOOOO OOH>OCO OB OO.H O0.0 OO O OO.H O0.0 OO O AO.H A0.0 OOH mCOHpOCpHm OmHH HOOC CH COHpm>OCCH OCO COHpOpCOEHCOQxO Com OpHCCpCOOOO OCO COHpOHCEHpm OOH>OCQ OB OO.H O0.0 OO O OO.H HO.N OO O OO.H ON.O OOH mOHOC HOCOHmmOOOCQ mo OOHpOmCO OCp Com OpHCCpCOOQO OOH>OCO OB OO.H O0.0 OO O OO.H OA.N OO OH OO.H N0.0 OOH .wOHo.H HOCOHmmOMOCQ OOHCOHO OB CpBOCO HOCOHmmOOOCm NO.m OH.O O0.0 HHmpOB OA.H O0.0 OO O HO.H OO.N Am OH OO.H O0.0 OOH OHO..H CmpmHCHE Op OHOC pCOOCpm EOCO COHp :Hmcmep mempHHHcmC ca OO.H OO.O OO NH OO.H AH.O OO OH NO.H HO.O OOH OchCOmH Omschccc OCOBOp Opm>HpoE OB OO.H O0.0 OO OH ON.H OH.O OO O OO.H O0.0 OOH HCchHOHpcmeO OCO COHOCOO mm COpmHCHEO COHmewOpCH HOCOOCOQ OpoEOCQ OB OO.H O0.0 OO N OO.H OA.N OO H OO.H OO.N OOH mCOHpOCpHm OOHH HMO.H CH OCHOCHCp O>HpOOCO Com OpHCCpCOQQo OCO COHpmHCEHpm OOH>OCO OB AO.H OO.O OO OH ON.H AO.O AO N HO.H O0.0 OOH OOHOcHOO OcmecmOmOeH Com ApHCCpCOQOo OCO CoHpOHCEHpm OOH>OCO OB 112 Ministers who spent three years in seminary or more than three years because of an extended internship, more than those who completed seminary in more than three years for other reasons, perceived the contribution of experiences toward the realization of the objective: §p_giyg_meaning and relevance 22 classroom learning (R : 5-5; 13). As expected,for parish ministers who completed seminary in more than three years their field experiences contributed much toward providing them with income (R : 7); for their colleagues in both of the other categories they did not (R : 20-20). Perceptions of extent of contributions were widely divergent among the three categories of ministers for the objectives (see Table 27): l. to promote spiritual growth (R : 10—17-5) 2. to provide stimulation and Opportunity for independent thinking (R : 2-16-8) 3. to provide Opportunity for Christian service (R : 6-14-2) Since a specific objective of the study was to rate perceived effectiveness of the means employed toward the realization of objectives for field education, comparisons were made to learn the relative value of taking more than three years to complete seminary either because of an extended internship or for other reasons. 113 Comparisons among total means for all categories of objectives except that of providing income for student needs showed that parish ministers who spent more than three years in seminary because of an extended internship, perceived their field experiences to have made a greater contribution than did ministers in either of the other two categories. Likewise, for all three categories of objectives, ministers who spent three years in seminary, more than those who spent more than three years for rea- sons other than an extended internship as a part of the program, perceived a greater contribution toward ob— jectives through field experiences. Likewise, for all three categories of objectives, ministers who spent three years in seminary, more than those who spent more than three years because of reasons other than an extended internship, perceived a greater contribution toward objectives through field experiences. This evidence suggests that a directed field edu- cation program, more than extent of time, is closely associated with the perception of a greater contribution of experiences toward the realization of objectives. Ministers in all three groups had field education experi— ences as seminary students. An internship which required additional time beyond three years appears to have made a greater contribution of experiences toward objectives than field education experiences which were included in 114 either a three—year program or in a program which ex- tended over more than three years but lacked an extended internship. Spending more than three years in seminary for reasons other than an extended internship appears to yield lesser dividends from field education experiences than a three-year program which includes field edu- cation. An examination of mean ratings for each of the ob- jectives showed that for all but the two objectives: 39 provide stimulation and Opportunity for independent Epipkg ipg, and EQ provide opportunity for Christian service (difference of mean rating were very small for this latter objective), parish ministers who spent more than three years in seminary because of an extended internship, more than ministers in the other two categories, perceived the contribution of these experiences to have been greater. Likewise, for all objectives except that of promoting spiritual growth (difference in mean ratings was very small for this objective), and that of clarifying pro- fessional roles, parish ministers who spent three years in seminary, more than those who spent more than three years because of reasons other than an extended intern— ship, perceived their field experiences to have contri— buted more to the realization of objectives. The implication of this finding appears to be that additional time beyond a three—year seminary program, 115 if that additional time provides for a directed and coni centrated field education program such as is commonly provided in an internship, is closely related to an in— creased contribution of experiences toward the realization of objectives. Other experiences than those of a directed and concentrated field education program which necessitate the extension of time spent in seminary be- yond three years do not appear to have value for achieving the objectives set for field education. Eprmat (Concurrent/Block) of Experiences Comparisons of mean ratings for the twenty objectives showed that for all objectives the perceived contribution of field experiences toward the realization of field edu- cation objectives was greater for ministers who had block experiences than for those whose field experiences were concurrent only (Table 28). This evidence suggests that the perceived extent of contribution of field experiences is greater for those ministers, a portion at least of whose field programs had been scheduled at a time other than during a regular semi- nary term. This does not, however, discount the value of concurrent experiences; in fact, concurrent experiences may even contribute to an increased value for block experi- ences. The ideal field education program would probably include both concurrent and block experiences. 116 OH.O OA.O HHmpoe HH OO.H NN.O AOH OH OA.H A0.0 OO OHOC COpmHCHE Op OHOC _ . . - . . pCOOCpm Eopm COHpHmCOCp OpOpHHHOOm 09 NH NO.H AN.O AOH OH OO.H O0.0 OO wCHCCOOH OOCCHpCOO.OCOSOp Opm>Hpos OH OH OO.H AH.O OOH HH HO.H NA.O OO ACOCOHpHpOOCO OCO COHOCom mm COpmHCHEV COHmewOpCH HOCOmCOQ OpoEOCO 09 H ON.H HO.N OOH H AO.H NN.O OO mCOHpOCpHm OMHH HOOC CH wCHxCHCp O>Hpmmpo Com OpHCCpCoaao OCO COHpmHCEHpm OOH>OCO OB A AN.H OH.O AOH O OO.H O0.0 OO mstsHsp psmesmdmesH ecu . szCCpCOOOO OCO COHpOHCEHpm OOH>OCO OB N AO.H OO.N OOH A HO.H OO.O OO AspmHsHe sH schcmsHO OcHt>me cs OH OO.H OO.O OOH OH OO.N OH.O OO OspmHsHe op H=HHmc=O COHpm>HpoE OOCOOCHOC OCm OOHCOHO OH OH OO.H NA.O AOH OH OO.H OH.O OO spchw HmHecm mecscsd 69 A OO.H OH.O OOH OH OO.H N0.0 OO szopw HOCOHpoEO OpoEopO OB OH AO.H O0.0 OOH O OO.H OO.O OO seesaw HOOOHCHOO mpcscsd ca szoCO HmComCOm O0.0 OA.O ”HOpOB OH OO.H N0.0 OOH AH HO.H O0.0 OO COHpOCmOpCH ECHCOHCCCO OOH>OCO OB AH OO.H O0.0 OOH OH .OA.H O0.0 OO OCCpOCOpHH CH OCO EOOCmmOHO OCp CH OOCCOOH mpamoCoo OCO OCOOCp mep OB O HO.H NH.O AOH O AA.H OO.O OO wsHsCmmH accsmmch Op OoCO>OHOC OCO wCHCmOE O>Hw OH NH OO.H AN.O OOH O OO.H O0.0 OO msHssmmH Eccsmmch mcCcCsHms op NH OO.H AN.O OOH NH OO.H OA.O OO OCHCCOOH EoonmmmHO Opm>HpoE OB OHEOOmo¢ m m N z m m M 2 mOmmz O swap O>HpcmHsO mmoCOHCOOxm OOOHm p O .mmoCOHCOOxO mo pOeCOO Op COHpOHOC CH mCOpmHCHE CmHCmO Op OO>HO0COO mm COHpOOsOO OHOHM Cow mO>HpOOOOo OOpOOHOm no COHpONHHmOC OCp OCOBOp mmoCOHCOQxO COHpOoCOO OHOHO Mo COHpCOHCpCOO mo pCOpr O>HpOHOmII.ON mqmOCCH OpHCCpCOOOo OOHpoOCO OCp OOOOC Com OEOoCH OOH>OCQ QHOC OB OEooCH OOH>COO COO OpHCOpCOOOo OOH>OCO OE OCOHpOCpHm OMHH HOOC CH OCO COHpOpCOEHCOQxO Com OCO COHpOHCEpr OOH>OCO OB OOHOC HOCOHOOOMOCO mo Com OpHCCpCOOOo OOH>OCQ OB OOHOC HOCOHOOOOOCQ OMHCOHO OB CpSOCO HOCOHOOOOOCO A d 1—4 a o... Vi. 118 Locale (Parish/Non Parish Related) of Experiences The means employed in field education in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, the ratings of ministers in relation to locale of experiences were compared. Only the locale of block experiences was known and thus com- parisons of ministers based on locale of experiences in- cluded only those ministers who had block experiences. Comparisons of mean ratings on extent of contri— bution of experiences and the rank order of these ratings showed some differences of perception of ministers when they were divided into categories based on locale of field experiences (Table 29). Total mean ratings for the three categories of ob- jectives: academic, personal and professional, showed that for all three categories of objectives, ministers, the locale of whose block experiences were both parish and lion parish, perceived their field experiences as having Inade a greater contribution toward the realization of ob- .lectives than either those whose block experiences were Ioarish related only or non parish related only. An examination of the mean ratings of individual (ibjectives showed that for all objectives in the two cate- guories of objectives—-academic and professional growth-— arui for all but two objectives in the personal growth OO OB OH NO.H ON.O AO OH OO.H ON.O ON OH OO.H OO.O OO OppmHsHe op HsHHOosv COHpO>Hpos OOCOHCHOC OCO OOHCOHO OH OH OO.H HO.O AO AH OO.H O0.0 ON OH ON.H A0.0 AO spzcnw HOHccO upcscsd 09 NH AO.H OH.O AO N OO.H O0.0 ON OH NN.H OH.O OO nszcsw HOCOHpoEO OpoEOCQ OB AH OO.H A0.0 OO HH NO.H OO.O ON HH AO.H OH.O OO spzcum HOCpHCHOO Opoaopa OB szoCO HOCOOCOm ON.O O0.0 N0.0 "Hmpce OH HO.H OA.O AO ON OO.H OO.O ON OH OO.H AA.O OO schmswmpsH ESHCOHCCCO OOH>OCO 09 OH AO.H O0.0 AO OH OH.H N0.0 ON AH OO.H A0.0 OO OCOOOCOOHH CH OCO EOOCOOOHO OCp CH OOCCOOH OpQOoCOO OCO OCOOCp pOOp OE A OO.H OO.N OO O OO.H OO.O ON O HO.H OO.O OO wcHsCmmH secs ImmOHO Op OoCO>OHOC OCO wCHCOOE O>Hw OH O HH.H OO.O OO O OO.H O0.0 ON OH OO.H ON.O OO wsHssmmH EOOCOOOHO OoCOMCHOC OH OH NH.H O0.0 OO OH OA.H O0.0 ON NH NO.H OH.O AO msHsemmH EOOCOOOHO OpO>HpoE OB OHEOOO0< O O m z O O m z O O m z msHpemHOO OmoCOHCOOxm OOOOHOO OOHOOO 1:02 new OOHCOO Opcm OHCO mOoCOHCOOxm OOOOHOO OOHCONuscz OHCO OOoCOHCOOxm OOpOHOm COHCOm .mmoCOHCOOxO mo OHOOoH op COHpOHOC CH OCOpOHCHE COHCOO Op OO>HOOCOO OO COHpOosvm OHOHM Com OO>HpOOnOO OOpOOHOO mo OCp OCOzop OmoCOHCOQxO COHpOO:OO OHOHM no COHpCOHCpCOO mo pCmpr O>HpOHOm||.ON mHOOB COHpONHHOOC 120 .COHpCpHCpCOO mo pCOpr OOpOC mo COOCO xCOm .HHHOEO OHOEOCpruA mOwCOH OHOEOCpruHV OHOOO pCHOO A O Co OwCHpOC COHpCpHCpCOO mo pCOpr COOS OH. ON OH OO.H OO.H ON.H OO.H OO.H OO.H ON.H AN.H OO. OH.H O0.0 OO.N ON.O OA.N NO.N OA.N H0.0 O0.0 HO.N O0.0 OO.N NO.N AO OO AO AO AO AO AO AO AO AO OH OH HH ON.N OO.H AO.H ON.H HO.H OO.H HO.H OO.H OO.H OA.H N0.0 O0.0 O0.0 O0.0 O0.0 O0.0 H0.0 O0.0 O0.0 O0.0 OO.N O0.0 ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON. ON ON OH OO.H OO.H ON.H OO.H AO.H OO.H ON.H HO.H OO.H AH.H O0.0 OO.N AO.N OO.N AO.N OO.N OH.O O0.0 N0.0 OO.N OO.N OH.O AO AO AO AO OO AO OO OO OO AO OOOOC pCOOCpm Com OEooCH OOH>OCO OHOC OB OEooCH "HOpOB OOH>COO COHpOHCCO COM OpHCCpCOOQo OOH>OCQ OCOHpOOpHO OOHH HOOC CH COHpO>oCCH OCO COHpOpCOEHCOOxO Com ApHCCpCOOOo OCO COHpOHOEHpO OOH>OCO OOHOC HOCOHOOOOOCO mo OOHpoOCO OCp Com OpHCCpCOQOO OOH>OOO OOHOC HOCOHOOOOOCQ OQHCOHO OB OB 08 9H CpBOCO HOCOHOOOMOCN "HOpOB OHOC COpOHCHE op OHOC pCOOCpO EOCM COHp IHOCOCp OpOpHHHoOm OCHCCOOH OOCCHpCOO OCOSOp OpO>HpoE ACOCOHpHpoOCQ OCO COHOCOO OO COpOHCHEO COHpOCmOpCH HOCOOCOO OpoEOCO OCOHpOspHO OOHH HOOC CH OCHxCHCp O>HpOOCO Com OpHCCpCOOOo OCO COHpOHserO OOH>OCO OCHOCHCp pCOOCOOOOCH COO OpHCspCOQOo OCO COHpOHzerO OOH>OCO OB 9H. 08 08 QB 121 and non parish was greater than those of ministers in the other two categories. For all objectives in these three categories, except that of tne_promotion p£_emotional growth, the perceived extent of contribution for parish ministers whose block experiences were parish related only was greater than those whose block experiences were non parish related only. The objective: Ep_promote spiritual growth, in perceived extent of contribution of field experiences toward its realization was ranked second by ministers whose block experiences were non parish only. This was the only objective for which the mean ratings of extent Of contribution of experiences was greater for those whose block field experiences were non parish related only than for those of ministers in the other two categories. Position of Person Responsible for Directing and Coordinating Field Experiences For further exploration of the means employed in field education in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, the ratings of ministers in relation to the person re- sponsible for directing and coordinating field experiences were compared (Table 30). Comparisons of mean ratings on the extent of contri- bution of field experiences toward the realization of objectives showed that for all objectives except two in the personal growth category, ministers whose director 122 m Hm.a sfi.m mm m :H.H H:.m mm m mm.H wfi.m HHH appmacas CH :ofipommfin doam>mc oe wH ms.H mo.: mm :H mm.H mH.m 0: ma mo.a os.m HHH aspmflcfls 0» A=Hamo=v cofipm>fipos bosom Icfioh new mafipmao 09 NH mm.H mm.m mm m mH.H om.m on ma m:.H mm.m HHH epzopw Hmfioom opoEopa 09 m mm.H mo.m mm OH mm.H oa.m o: w mm.a ::.m HHH spzomm HmQOHpoEm ouoEopQ 09 OH o:.H mm.m mm ma mm.a ma.m o: :H H@.H mo.m NHH nuzonw HMSpfiLHQm ouothQ oe cpzopw Hmcompmm m:.m mH.m mm.m "Hmuoe ma H:.H wo.: mm m mz.a :©.m mm ma m:.H ma.: OHH coflpmpwopcfi EUHSoHLhdo o©H>opQ 0% ma mm.H mm.m mm :H mm.H mH.m on ma :m.H mm.m HHH mpzumuopfifi CH ocm Eoommmmao on» CH nonsmoa mpamocoo pcm mpoonp amp» 0% : Hm.H so.m mm : mm.H mm.m mm o om.H Hz.m HHH wcficpmma soon Immwao op mosm>oamg ocm wcficmme m>Hm 09 :H m:.a Hm.m mm m mH.H mo.m o: m mm.H ©:.m NHH measummfl Eoopmwmao monomcflop 09 NH mm.H :m.m mm :H mm.H mfl.m mm ma mm.fl. wm.m NHH weacpmma EoopmmmHo mpm>HpoE oe oHEoomo< m m R z m m R z m m M 2 scooopfia cospwozom m>fipommno mpmcpo pmumficfiz smfipmm . pamfim mstHEmm .oocmflpodxm wcflpmcflohooo new wcapomsflo compmd mo :ofipflmoa 0p cofipmaop CH mpmpmflcfle nmfipmd mp om>Hmopoa mm cofipmozoo pamfim pom mm>flooonno oopooaom mo :oflpmmfiammg mzp ohmsou moosmflpqum :oHpMosoo oaofim mo :oHpsoHchoo mo psopxm o>HpmHomlu.om mqmde 123 .COHanHCpCoo mo pCmpxm nome no Coomo mem .AaHmEm zHoEmexmuw moowH zHoEmexmqu mamow pCHoa m m Co meHme CoauCnHCpCoo mo pCmpxm no Cmmz M om OH ma mm.H m:.H H©.H 2:.H Hm.H HN.H H:.H wm.a mm.H m:.H mH.: mH.m wfi.m w~.m mm.m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm om NH NH OH :m.a am.a mm.H m:.a mm.a HN.H om.H mm.H :m.a :H.H ::.: :m.m mo.m mm.m mo.m mo.m mo.m mm.m om.m ma.m o:.m oa.m mm o: o: o: 0: mm 0: mm 0: mm om 0H ma NH OH nm.a mm.H mm.H om.H ON.H mw.H m:.a mm.H mm.a mm.a :H.: :o.m m:.m HHH moomC pCoonm Com oEooCH ooH>0CQ Cam: OB oEooCH "ampoe OHH moH>Com cmfipmfinno Coo ACHCCpCoaao ooa>ong oe HHH mCOapdSpHm mafia Hoop CH Coaum>oCCH oCm COHCMCCmEHCmme Com mpHCCpCoado UCm Cofipmasafipm moH>OCQ mmaom HmCOHmmmmopa no ooHpomCQ mCu Com mpHCCpCOQdo mofi>oma oHoC HHH HHH OB OB HmCOHmmomoCQ aMfiCmHo OB szoCc HwCOfimmmMOCm "Hmpoe OHH oHoC CopmHCHE op maop pCmozpm EoCm CoHp IHmCme opwpfiaaomm wCHCCmoH oodCHpCoo ommzop opm>fipos ACmCOHpHpomCC oCm CmHoCom mm CmpmHCHEV CoapmpwmpCH HmComCmQ mpoEOCQ HHH mCoflpmsuHm oMHH HmmC Ca wCHxCHCp o>fipmmCo Com zpflCspCOQdo UCm CoapmHCEHpm moH>0CQ HHH wcaxcfisp pcmecmameefl Com muHCCCCOQdo oCm CoapmHCEHpm moH>oCd OHH HHH OB OB OH OH OB 124 and coordinator of field experiences was the parish minister perceived their experiences to have made a greater contribution than ministers whose director and coordinator of experiences was the seminary field education director or some other person. Further, for four out of five objectives in the academic category of objectives, for eight out of ten in the personal growth category and for all in the profes- sional growth category, ministers whose director and coordinator of seminary field experiences was someone other than a field education director, perceived the extent of contribution of field experiences to have been greater than those whose director and coordinator of their field eXperiences was the seminary field education director. For ministers whose director and coordinator of field education was someone other than a parish minister or seminary field education director, the objectives: £9 provide stimulation and Opportunity for independent thinking and to promote emotional growth were ranked second and third in extent of contribution of experiences toward their realization. Religious Denomination The perceptions of parish ministers on the effective- ness of their field education experiences as having 125 contributed toward the realization of field education objectives were compared by religious denomination of ministers.69 Comparisons of rank order of mean extent-of- contribution ratings for denominations showed some marked differences of perceptions (Table 31). The ten most out- standing in magnitude of rank order are reported here. a. Rank order for the objective: to motivate classroom learning, was nineteenth for Presby- terians, but for Lutherans and Methodists, eithth, for Baptists seventh and for "Others,"70 eleventh. b. Rank order for the objective: £9 reinforce classroom learning, was second for Baptists, but for Lutherans, seventh; for Methodists, and "Others," fourteenth; and for Presbyterians, sixteenth. 0. Rank order for the objective: to give meaning and relevance 39 classroom learning, was six- teenth for Presbyterians; but for Lutherans, third; for Methodists, ninth; and for Baptists and "Others," fourth. 691t has already been noted that without exception each parish minister was a member of the same denomi- nation as the parish he served. 70See p. UM for listing of denominations included in this category. 126 .CoHuspHCpCOo mo pCmpxw vome mo CoUCo xcmm n m .AHHmEm mHmEmexonr mmmCmH aHmEmCuxmqu mHmom pCHOC w C no meHHmC COHpanCpcoo Co pcmuxo mo cmoz u N am @3.H mm.q em mH we.m cw.m on mH wa.H mm.m :m n ec.m mm.m s: cm NH.H mH.m Hm wwmmc uconzpm Cog oeooCH mCH>OCa Cam: ow ouooCH H:.m mc.m u:.m u;.m :H.m "Hmuoe 0H qw.H mn.m .m H om.H m4.m aw m a..H Hm.n w” 3 gm.. H:.m a: RH nm.H >H.m mm oothom.CmemHCCo Com mecspCooco muH>0La ob m 34 rim “a. . TH r -. £4 1.... i m S; H. 1-; 3C a... 2.5....SSPZ$2 :H :oHthoCCH wcm :oHnmuCoE IHCqub Lou mpflczpCoaao wum COprHCCHum on>oCa 09 m m:.H HH.m mm 2H .n.H cm.m en H H..H on.. in m L..H Hq.m we r gm.H am.m mm onOC ngofimmmdonu do mowpomCd mzn Cog mWH:CBCoaCo ovH>0Ca ow RH m..H mo.m a. CH aw.H mn.m :a m ;..H m..u 7H HH we.H me.m a? . am.H Ha.a mm mmHoz Hmcowmmmuopa CCCCmHo oe saxoCo HmconmoMOCm Tim ”AA #1... rim 6.2m "H38. mH NN.H Ho.m mm pH pm.H wn.m .m m mU.H gH.m :. .H cm.H Hw.m as m HH.H mm.m Hm wHOC CmBmHCHE cu wHOC ucmozpm SOC“ COHpHmcmCu oomnHHHomu 09 @ am.H mm.m on CH m:.H hm.» .H xH in.H at.n e. .H :m.H au.w on ;H Ln.H wu.m mm acHCCmoH nmsszCOQ omeoa opm>HnoE 08 a mh.H wq.m mm NH .4.H 3m.m :. “ H..H ;.n em rH ;J.H hi.m b: 3H m..H mH.m an HCmcoHuHoomCC ocm CmHOCow mm CopmHCHEa COHp umpmopCH HmCOmCoQ ouoEOCQ 09 H wa.H am.d mm L L..H CH.- {2 w ._.H qu.n :m H Hm.H cu.m a: m .M.H m..m Hm mcoHowsan mzHH HmmC CH wCHxCHCC w>HpmmCo Com muHusuLoaao ocm cofiasterm osH>0Ca oh w mm.H HH.m pm m mm.H 0H.m an ;H u..H .n.w 2m ; mr.H c;.m o: 3H 1H.H mn.m cm mCHxCHCC- ucoucmamUCH Con thcsoCoaoo nzm COHCmHCEHum wuH>0CQ 08 s ms.H Hn.m Cm m a..H ms.m s. H Hr.H sr.m :m a mw.H mm.m c: H LH.H qm.m mm mtuchHE CH COHpomCHU ooam>oo ob 0H mo.H o~.m em 3H om.H no.4 Cw HH .L.H gm.» :W cm :\.H Hx.: a: HH m:.H mH.m mm mppchfiE o» A:HHmo:v CoHHm>HuoE woCouCHmC UCm muHCmHu OH NH mm.H :a.m en on n..H mH.. ,u CH ...H 4m.m :n mfl cw.H mH.: as mH g..H mo.m mm cozon HmHoom mBoEOCa 09 n a;.H 0H.m em mH mm.H mm.m z . ...H HH.m :. @ FB.H ~$.m w: oH HJ.H mH.m an Cuzozm HmcoHuoEo muoEOCQ 08 NH OCH Sim mm. m WiH my.“ c... _.H ,.:..H cum 3 i EIH fim (2.. mi. mifH :A mm 52.3w H2323... 3253 PH. Luzopo Hmcompom cm.m wH.m ss.m s.m mm.m "Hmuoe mH om.H No.4 om NH m:.H we.m on cm lt.H mH.: mm :H .m.H mH.: a: mH nH.H mm.m Hm coHCMCwmucH EsHsofiCCCo mnH>OCQ OB mH om.H m:.m em mH om.H 0;.m on mH co.H :c.m am NH o:.H Oo.m on NH mq.H c:.m mm mCsomCmpHH CH ocm EOOCmmmHo on» CH UmCCmoH muaoocoo UCC 5ComCu pmmp 08 : ~:.H mH.m em : mm.H om.m cm oH Um.H mw.m am 0 cq.H sm.m a: m mm.H mm.m Hm mCHCCmmH EOOCmmmHo 0» moCm>oHoC UCw wCHCmoE o>Hw 08 :H ma.m om.m Fm m mo.fi os.m om 0H HN.H mo.m am 3H om.H :Nm om N oH.H oo.m mm wCHCCmoH EOOCmmeo ooCOMC«oC 09 HH mm.H ez.m em 5 OH.H mo.m cm wH ON.H mw.m 2m w e:.H om.m om m mm.~ :o.m Hm wCHCCmmH EoopmmmHo muw>fiuos oe OHEmvmo< m m N z m m w z m m k 2 m w w z m m N 2 o>Hpoonno mCmCuo umHuuwm cmHCmCanmem pmHUOCpoz CwCoCBCQ cHouu Cow mo>Huoonno vouoonm no .CoHmeHEococ msonHHoC o» COHpmHoC CH mCoumHCHE zmHCma an oo>HooLoa no COHuaozpo coHuwuHHwoC on» quzoa neocoHCoaxo coHumosnm onHC Co :oHusoHCpCOo no acepxo o>HuaHomIn.Hm mqmO Cog mOCCOOOOCm m m:.H mm.m OHH oz.H mm.m NOH mmoemHCmaxm Co wcHocmsemm o m:.H ma.m OHH NO.H OO.: mOH 55H30HCC30 one C0 smog map anz wooCOHCOQxO no COHmewOuCH m m:.H H:.m HHH mm.H m~.m mOH mmoCmHCmOxm eHmHC Com mHmom Co spHCmHo : mm.H :m.m OHH NA.H mm.m :oH mComHethsm Co QHme Hmspoa H HA.H .mm.m HHH w©.H mo.m mOH mComH>Cma5m Co COHHHanHm>< m m m z m M 2 COflmH>COQCm mo pCoemHm CmeHo Co om mwe mmumm mwa .CoumHCHE Cmfipma mo mwm Op COHpmHOC CH mOoCOHCOOxO Coapwospo OHOHM wo COHmH>COQCm mo mpCOEOHO OOBOOHOO Cpflz mCOpmfiCHE Chanda mo CoapomeHumm O>Hpmammtl.mm mqm¢e 140 .COHpommmemm OOOOC mo COOCO mem II (I: .AOOmeHpmmeO mHmEmexmuH HOOHMmemm szEmexmqu OHmom pCHOC s O CO meHme HRJBOOCmemm mo Cams u Ix m:.m oz.m ”Hmpoe m mm.H mw.m no w wo.H mm.m omH mOoCmHCOme OHOHM mCHmeHm>O Cow mOCCOOOOCm H :mHH om.m mm m HH.H Hm.m omH mmocmHCmaxm Ho mcHocmsumm m mm.H mo.: mm m ::.H mw.m omH ECHCOHCCCO 6C» mo meC OCH Cqu mooCmHCOme mo COHmewouCH m HH.H wm.m mm m mm.H om.m HmH mmocmHCmaxm eHmHC COC mHmow Co spHCmHo m mH.H wm.m mm : m©.H mm.m mzH mComH>CmQ5m Co gHme Hm5p0< m HH.H :m.m mm H mo.H mm.m HmH mComH>Cma3m Co HHHHHBMHHm>< m m H z m m m z mOC< COHpmHmmom mmC< COHpmHsgom COHmH>COOCm no pCOeOHm Cmpmmpw CH Commmq CH .CmHCmQ mo COHOOOOH Op COHpmHoC CH wmoCmHCOOxo COHpmoCOO OHOHC Ho COHmH>COCCm Co moCmEOHm OOOOOHOm Csz mCmpmHCHE CmHCmO Ho COHpommmemm O>prHmmnn.:m mqmO Com mOCCOOOOCm H Hm.H mm.m mzH m Hm.H mo.m mm mmoCmHCOon mo wCHoCOCUOm o mo.H mm.m 52H m o:.H m>.m mm ECHCOHCCCO OCH mo meC OCH Csz mOoCOHCOOxO mo COHmemOpCH m HO.H mm.m mHH H m:.H Hm.m Ho mmocmHCmaxm eHmHC COH mHmom Co HHHCmHo HN.H mm.m 52H am.H m:.m ow m.ComHezCmVQCm Ho OHOC HOOpo¢ me.H mo.m wsH OH.H OH.N Hm mComH>CmC3m Ho HHHHHBmHHm>< m M 2 m R z COHmH>COQCm mo pCoamHm oo.ooo>a Cme 6902 O0.000NH COCH mmmq .CmHCmO one EOCM COHmeOCCEOC Op COHpmHOC CH mOoCOHCOQxO COHOOOCOO OHOHH mo COHmH>COOCm mo mpC6EOHO OOCOOHOm SCH: mCOpmHCHE CmHCmO Ho COHpomMmemm O>HpmHmm||.mm mqmo Com mOCCOOOOCm m©.H m:.m m: H om.H mm.m mm OH.H mm.m HOH mmoemHCmaxm mo wCHoCOCOOm mo.H mm.m om w mm.H Hw.m mm mm.H :m.m ooH ECHCOHCCCO OCC mo pmmC 6C» Csz mooCOHCmQxO mo COHumaouCH Ho.H oe.m om : mm.H mm.m mm Hm.H ma.m HOH mmocmHCmaxm eHmHC Com mHmow mo mpHCmHo mH.H we.m om m OH.H Ho.m mm mm.H me.m moH mComH>Cmasm Co CH6: Hmspoe mm.H :w.m cm W NH.H m©.m mm OH.H HH.m HOH mComH>Cmgsm Co spHHHanHm>¢ m M 2 m m M 2 m M 2 COHwH>COQCm mo pCmEOHm mCommmm Cmeo OHCmCCouCH OOOCOpxm Op mCmmw m .zmmCHEOm CH oEHu Op COHCOHOC CH mooCmHCmCxo COHpmoCOO OHOHM mo COHmH>COQCm no mpCmEOHO OOOOOHmw Csz mCOCmHCHE CmHCmO mo COHpommepmm O>HpmHomll.mm mqm¢9 1AM .COHp0OMmemm Omme Ho COOCO mem II (I: .AOOHmmemmmHO zHOEOCpxm um mOOHMmemm szEOCuxmqu OHmom pCHOQ m O CO meHme COHpommmemm mo Cmoz u Ix om.m :w.m "Hmpoe m m©.H ms.m mmH m HH.H mm.m Hm mmoCmHCmaxm onHC wCHumCHm>O Com mmCCOOOOCm H mm.H m©.m wMH m Hm.H mm.m mm mOoCOHCOQxO mo wCHoCozwom m Hm.H ms.m ozH w Hm.H HN.H am esHsOHCCSO one CO meC one Csz mOoCOHCdeO mo COprCwOpCH m Hm.H mm.m OHH : m©.H mm.m mm mmoemHCmaxm eHmHH COH mHmom Co HHHCmHo : NO.H o:.m mmH m HO.H :©.m mm mCOmH>Cmazm Co aHme Heapoa m mm.H Hm.m 02H H HH.H om.m mm mLoni/COO:m mo mpHHHOmHHm>< m m M 2 m m M z COHmH>COOCm mo pCOeOHm Amxmmz w COCO OCOZIIOEHO mHCo mOoCOHCOme Hmpoev mOoCOHC6dxm xOOHm pCOCCCoCoo .mOoCOHCOQxO mo meCom Op COHOOHOC CH mmoCmHCOQxO COHCOOCOO OHOHH mo COHmH>COQCm Ho mpCoEOHO OOOOOHOm Csz mCOpmHCHE CmHCmO mo COHpommmemm O>HpmHmmll.mm mqm.m mm mo.H om.: mm mo.H m>.m mo mOoCOHCmQxO OHOHC wCHpmsHm>o Com mOCCOOOOCm ON.H :m.m mm mm.H mm.m Hm NH.H :H.N we mmoemHCmme Ho wCHoCOCUOm HO.H mm.m mm :m.H 20.: mm Hm.H mm.m mo ssHsOHCC30 me» me pmmp map Cqu mOoCOHCOQxO mo COHumCmmuCH Hm.H H:.m mm HO.H me.m mm mm.H mm.m mo mmocmHCmaxm eHmHC Com mHmom Ho mpHCmHo mm.H m:.m mm Hm.H mm.m mm mm.H m:.m Ho mComH>Cmasm mo OHOC Hmeo< OH.H mo.m mm mo.m NH.m mm NN.H mm.m mo mComH>Cmdsm Co HCHHHBmHHm>< m x z m x z m x z .Oxm OOCOHOm CmHCmm ICoz a CmHCmm Cpom zHCo mmoCOHCmme OmpmHOm CmHCmmlCoz zHCo mmoCOHCOme OmpmHmm CmHCmm ConH>COOsm mo pConHm .mOoCOHCdeO mo OHOOOH Op COHpmHOC CH mOoCOHCOCxO COHuwoCOO OHOHM mo COHmH>HCOQCm mo mpCoeoHo COCOOHOO CCHB mCOpmHCHE CmHCmQ mo COHpommmemm O>HpmHOmII.wm mqm<9 1H7 Position of Person Responsible for Directing and Coordinating Field Education Experiences Differences in satisfaction associated with the position of the person responsible for directing and coordinating field education experiences were observed (Table 39). A comparison of total means for rated satis- factions revealed that, for both ministers whose director and coordinator of seminary field education experiences was a parish minister and those whose director and coordinator was the seminary field education director (or equivalent person), satisfaction with these elements of supervision was appreciably greater than that of minis- ters whose director and coordinator of experiences was someone other than these (Y : 3.15—3.59-3.98). The com- parison further showed that the satisfaction with these elements of supervision was greater for parish ministers whose director and coordinator of seminary experiences was the seminary field education director than for those whose director and coordinator of seminary experiences was some- one other than the seminary field director or a parish minister. A comparison of mean satisfaction ratings for each of the six selected elements of supervision showed the following: Parish ministers whose director and coordinator of field experiences was a parish minister, for five of 1&8 .COHpommmewm OOpr no COOCO 3Com n m .AOmHmmemmmHO mHOEmexoum «OOHMmemm mHOEOCpNOuHV OHmOm pCHOQ u O CO meHme COHpommmemm mo COO: u M m~.m mH.m mm.m uHmpoe om.H mH.H mm m~.H m~.m mm m OO.H HH.m mHH mmocmHCmme OHOHM wCHmeHw>m Com mOCCOOOOCm mm.H mm.m mm mm.H Hm.m mm m OH.H Hm.m mHH mmoCmHCmaxm mo wCHoCmCdmm mo.H mm.m mm am.H om.m o: w mm.H mm.m mHH ECHCOHCCCO OCp Ho pmmC me Csz mmoCmHCmaxo no COHmewmpCH Hm.H mw.m om OH.H mH.m oz : Hm.H mm.m MHH mooCOHCmOxO OHOHM Com meow mo mpHCmHo HH.H HO.H mm mm.H HH.m o: m mm.H ms.m mHH mComH>Cszm Co aHmn Hmspoe Hm.H 0:.m om mm.H mm.m on H mm.H mH.m MHH mComH>Cmasm Co spHHHanHm>< m .M 2 m _M 2 m m H z 1 COHmH>CmQCm Mo pCoEOHm mCmeo COpmHCHz CmHCwm COpOOCHQ COHpmoCOm OHmHm zmeHEom g E .mmoCOHCoaxm wCHmeHOCooo OCm wCHpOOCHO ComCma no COHpHmoa Op COHpmHOC CH mooCOHCmaxm COHpmoCOm OHOHM mo COHmH>CmQCm mo mpCmEmHm OOpOOHOm Csz uCOpmHCHE CmHCwQ mo COHpowumewm O>HpmHmmnl.mm mHmCB 1M9 the six elements, were more satisfied than ministers of either of the other two categories; and ministers whose director and coordinator of field education experiences was the seminary field education director, for five of these elements, were more satisfied than those whose director and coordinator of field experiences was some- one other than the seminary field education director or a parish minister. Religious denomination.--Comparisons of mean ratings for the six selected elements of supervision of field edu- cation experiences, of the rank order of these ratings, and of total mean ratings, showed some appreciable differ- ences in satisfaction with these elements of supervision. These differences are noted in the following paragraphs (Table MO). Presbyterian ministers were the least satisfied with the actual help given 39 them by their supervisors (Y : 3.74). Baptist ministers were the most satisfied with the clarity 9£_g9§1§ which were established for their field education experiences (Y : 2.89). Methodist ministers were the least satisfied with the sequencing 2: their field education experiences (Y : 3.5“). Baptist and Presbyterian ministers, more than minis- ters of other religious denominations, were satisfied with the procedures for evaluating their field education experiences (Y : 3.37-3.38). J.) I‘ A L. 1. ..-e rv curricuiu l L- . ('1 Li D ’1; i n lug V 5‘. 1C0 k) F4 1 N» ’W 4 , .‘_‘ rser (T v 151 Baptist ministers were the most satisfied with five of the six selected elements of supervision. The one exception was for the element: sequencing g: experiences. Satisfaction With Two Selected Elements of Supervision Satisfaction ratings for two selected elements of supervision: orientation for field education experiences (Table U1) and required performance standards for field education experiences, revealed some appreciable differ— ences among ministers, a report of which is given in the following paragraphs. Orientation for field education experiences.-—The responses of parish ministers on orientation for their field education experiences showed that less than half of the parish ministers perceived the orientation to have been adequate (“7%) and more than half of them perceived it to have been inadequate (Table U1). TABLE Ml.-—Adequacy of orientation for field education experiences as perceived by parish ministers. N % Inadequate 114 53 Adequate 99 H6 Over adequate 3 1 Total 218 100 152 Required performance standard for field education experiences.--The responses of parish ministers on the required performance standard for their field education experiences revealed that 62% of them perceived that the standard of performance was about right (Table #2) and sixteen times as many ministers perceived it as too low as compared to those who perceived it as too high. TABLE u2.--Perceptions of parish ministers on the required standard of performance for field education experiences. N % Too high 5 2 About right 13a 62 Too low 78 38 Total 217 100 Summary of Significant Findings on the Supervision of Field Education For six selected elements of supervision in their seminary field education programs, parish ministers ex- pressed most satisfaction with the availability of their supervisors and sequencing of their experiences, less satisfaction with clarity of goals for their experiences and the actual help given to them by their supervisors, and still less with the procedures for evaluating their field experiences and the integration of their experiences with the rest of the curriculum. 153 No appreciable differences in rated satisfaction of these six selected elements of supervision were associ- ated with differences in age, parish location, or re— muneration from the parish of parish ministers. Appreciable differences in rated satisfaction of these selected elements were associated with: (a) time to complete seminary, (b) format of experiences, (c) locale of experiences, and (d) position of the person responsible for directing and coordinating field education experiences as follows: a. Parish ministers who spent more than three years in seminary because an extended internship was a part of the program were more satisfied than both those who spent only three years in semi- nary and those who spent more than three years for reasons other than an extended internship. b. Parish ministers who had block field experiences were more satisfied than those who had concurrent experiences only. 0. Parish ministers, at least some of whose block experiences were parish related, were more satisfied than those whose block experiences were non parish related only. d. Parish ministers, whose director and coordinator of seminary field education experiences was a parish minister, were more satisfied than those 15M whose director and coordinator was the seminary field education director or another person. Likewise, parish ministers whose director and coordinator was the seminary field education director were more satisfied than those whose director and coordinator of field education experiences was someone other than a parish minister or seminary field education director. Baptist parish ministers, among ministers of all religious denominations, with but one exception, were the most satisfied with these six elements of supervision. Over half of the parish ministers (53%) perceived the orientation for their field education experiences to have been inadequate. Further Perceptions on Field Education Four questions, yet unanswered, among those which were posed as guides to the study were: 1. How do parish ministers rate the amount of time given to their field education experiences as compared to time given for the rest of the curriculum? Are there other experiences, not included in their field education programs, which parish ministers had prior to seminary or as seminary students which contributed toward the reali- zation of field education objectives? 155 3. What types of experiences do parish ministers who were non participants in field education programs as seminary students perceive as having possibility for contributing to the realization of field education objectives? 4. Do parish ministers regret having participated, if they did so, or not having participated, if they did not do so, in seminary field education programs? 5. What specific commendations and criticisms of theological seminary field education programs, and what specific recommendations for the im- provement of these programs do parish ministers make? Information provided by parish ministers for the answering of these questions (Appendix A, Questions 19-22, 27, 30(a), 31, 33) was analyzed, a report of which is given in the following paragraphs. Amount of Time for Field Education Experiences For 65% of the parish ministers who were participants in field education as seminary students, the amount of time for their field education experiences when compared to the amount of time for the rest of the curriculum was about right; for 10% it was more than sufficient, and for 25% it was insufficient (Table 43). 156 OOH Hm OOH Om OOH OOH OOH OHN Hmpoe OH O O O OO Om ON Om OHOOHH 009 NH O O O O OH OH HN nose 009 NO NO NO O: HO mm OO HOH pOOHC OOOOO O 2 O 2 O 2 O z ACOpomm OO.... HOMO“. IImCmOw Op OCQ mpmmw OCOOO m IOWMWMMMmmw cm who cw meHO m Os 2 m ea 2 OOHCOO HHO OHOHC CHmOp COO .OCOCHEOO CH pCOOm OEHp Op COHpOHmC CH mOoCOHCOOxO COHpmoCOO OEHp mo pCCoEm me Co mCOpmHCHE CmHCOO mo mCOHpOmoCOmII.m: mqm<9 157 A much greater prOportion of ministers who spent only three years in seminary (40%) than of those who spent longer (9%-16%) perceived the amount of time for field education as having been insufficient. The evidence suggests that parish ministers would favor giving increased time to field education, either by curtailing time for other parts of the curriculum or by providing additional time in a fourth year added to the traditional three year seminary program. EXperiences Not Included in Seminary Field Education Programs Which Contributed Toward the Realization of Objectives for Field Education Work experiences not included in seminary field edu— cation programs, but which parish ministers cited as having contributed toward the realization of important field education objectives, included a wide variety of experi— ences, both religious and secular (Table 44). Religious work experiences cited were not essentially different from those included in seminary field education programs. The following are types of secular work experiences cited: teaching in public schools, writing, research, law, busi- ness, sales, agriculture, and work in such places as a funeral home, a’restaurant, a steel mill and a bar. Parish ministers who had participated in theological seminary field education cited, in about equal number, 158 religious and secular experiences they had prior to semi- nary and which they perceived as having contributed to- ward the realization of important field education ob- jectives. Non participants, on the other hand, cited a proportionately higher number of religious work experi- ences, both prior to and during seminary, than secular work experiences which they perceived as having contri- buted toward the realization of important field education objectives. TABLE 44.--Kinds of experiences not included in their field education programs which parish ministers cited as having contributed toward the realization of impor- tant field education objectives. Participants Non Participants Kind of Prior to Prior to During Experience Seminary Seminary Seminary N N N Religious work experience 102 12 19 Secular work experience 106 5 5 Military experience 17 3 NOTE: 162 out of 218 participants and 15 out of 31 non participants in seminary field education provided this information (Appendix A, Questions 21 and 27). 159 Regret for Having Had/Having Not Had Field Education Experiences Almost all (96%) of the parish ministers who participated in seminary field education programs did not regret having had field education experiences in their seminary programs (Table 45). In contrasn almost half (44%) of the parish ministers who had not partici- pated in seminary field education regreted their not having participated (Table 46). The evidence conse— quently suggests that those who participated in seminary field education were decidedly convinced of the worth- whileness of field education, whereas one of every two ministers who did not participate perceived that they had missed something of worth. Types of Experiences Whigh Might Contribute to the Realization of Field Education Objectives Types of experiences cited by parish ministers who were non participants in seminary field education which they perceived could contribute toward the realization of field education objectives were: (number of persons citing type of experience in parentheses) pastoral experiences (9) miscellaneous church experiences (6) clinical training (6) urban social center work (6) 160 OH OOH Hm "HOpOE 2: HH pOCwOm H EOCp Co pCOOO OEHp OCp OMHpOCO pOC OO COHpOoCOO OHOHm Mo OpHMOCOO OCH m EOCp pCOCsz OpOHQEoo OHpCOHOHHMCO Ow: ECHCOHCCCO OCOCHEOm mH COHpOosuO OHOHH OO OOOOOCCQ OEOO OCp OOCOHHQEOooO COHC3 OOoCOHCOOxO COCpo OOm om OH pOCwOC Oz z pOCwOm oz Com COOOOm O z EOpH .COHpOoCOO OHOHH OCOCHEOO CH OOpOOHOHpCOO wCH>OC pOC Com OCOpOHCHE COHCOO mo pOCwOmII.O: mqm<8 mH OOH :Hm HHOpOE H OCOOOOC COCpo O EOCp Co pCOOO OEHp OCp OMHpOCO pOC OO OOoCOHCOOxO COHpOost OHOHO mo OthOCOO OCB H EOCp pCOCsz OpOHOEoo meCOHOHmOCO mm; ECHCOHCCCO OCOCHEOm O COHpOoCOO OHOHM OO OOOOOCCO OEOO OCp OOCOHHQEoooO COHCB OOoCOHCOQxO COCpo OOm : w pOCwOm mm OON pOCwOC oz 2 pOCwOm Com COOOOm R z EOpH .COHpOospO OHOHH OCOCHEOO CH OOpOQHOHpCOO wCH>OC OOH OCOpOHCHE COHCOQ mo pOCwOmII.m: mHm1ressing no regret that they had participated. On tbs? other hand, half of the non participants indicated tIIELt: they had missed something of worth because of non part icipation. 3. There were certain major inadequacies in theological seminary field education as per- ceived by parish ministers. These were: a) insufficient time for field education b) inadequate orientation for the experiences c) weakness in procedures for evaluating field experiences d) lack of integration of experiences with other elements of the curriculum e) a continuing emphasis on income and "work" aspects in their field experiences f) personal inadequacies Observed in their supervisors, e.g., parish ministers were less satisfied with the actual help given by supervisors than with the availability of supervisors to consult with them g) lack of experience in certain areas where experience was felt necessary to perform important roles in the parish, e.g., in church administration. 178 4. There were relatively few significant differ- ences among ministers in perceived importance of objectives, and in perceived extent of con— tribution of experiences toward the realization of objectives. a) Importance of Objectives Comparisons of perceived importance of selected Obéieectives for field education in relation to age of the paiI‘i.sh minister, his parish location, remuneration re- ceived from his parish and whether or not he had field edillczation experiences as a seminary student, revealed Orllqy relatively small differences on age, parish location 01? :remuneration from the parish. On the other hand, tlleare were appreciable differences in relation to parti- 01IDation/non participation in field education. Non participants, more than participants, perceived tlieé following objectives to be relatively important: t9 EEEggyide opportunity for Christian service, to facilitate IiEggnsition from student role to minister role, and £2 Hflajgivate classroom learning. Participants, more than rNDrl participants, perceived the following objectives to ‘39“ relatively important: to promote personal integration ("Kinister as scholar and practitioner), to promote EEEEZEional growth, to provide stimulation and opportunity £31£L_independent thinking, and togprovide stimulation and SHEEngwunity for experimentation and innovation in real 2iI-LJZSEgsituations. 179 b) Contribution of Field Education Experiences Toward the Realization of (Objectives Differences in parish location, more than differences of sage and remuneration from the parish were related to perceived differences in extent of contribution of field edlxczation experiences toward objectives. Ministers whose parishes were located in lesser population areas, more triatri those whose parishes were located in greater popu- lfitzi.on areas,perceived their experiences to have made a re latively large contribution toward the objectives: t__o_ rr£3131vate classroom learning and to clarify professional Elgfilfigg. Ministers whose parishes were located in greater ‘p<>I>u1ation areas,more than ministers whose parishes were 1<>czated in lesser population areas, perceived their ex— periences to have contributed more toward the objectives: E12_gprovide stimulation and opportunity for independent Ehinking and to motivate toward continued learning. 5. The following means employed in field education were found to have a significant relationship to the perceived extent of contribution of field education experiences toward the realization of field education objectives: time to complete seminary, format (concurrent/ block) of experiences, locale (parish/non parish related) of experiences and position of the person who directed and coordinated the seminarian's field experiences. 180 a) Parish ministers who spent more than three years in seminary because of an extended internship, when compared to those who spent only three years or those who spent more than three years for reasons other than an extended internship, per- ceived their field experiences to have contributed more to the realization of field education objectives. Likewise, the perceived contribution was greater for those who spent only three years than for those who spent more than three years for reasons other than an extended intern- ship. b) Parish ministers whose field education programs included block experiences per- ceived their field experiences to have contributed more than did those whose programs included concurrent experiences only. c) The perceived extent of contribution of field experiences was greatest for ministers, the locale of whose block field experiences were both parish and non parish related, followed by ministers, the locale of whose experiences were parish related only, and last by those,the locale of whose block experiences were non parish related only. d) The perceived extent of contribution of field experiences was greater for parish ministers whose director and coordinator of seminary field experiences was a parish minister, followed by those whose director and coordinator of experiences was someone other than a parish minister or the seminary field education director, and least by those whose director and coordinator of field education experiences was the seminary field education director or equivalent person. Theological seminary field education programs most commonly provided depth experiences in the traditional areas of preaching, pastoral functions and teaching. Fewer experiences and 181 markedly lower levels of involvement were afforded in the areas of priestly functions, church administration and social service. Supervisors of seminary students' field edu- cation experiences most commonly included seminary personnel, parish personnel, denomi— national officials, institutional chaplains and clinical training supervisors. Among these the parish minister, followed by the seminary field education director, was the person who was cited more often as having major responsi- bility in the supervision of student field edu- cation experiences. However, the seminary field education director was cited more often than any other persons as having the general re- sponsibility for directing and coordinating student field education experiences. Seventeen of the thirty-one non participants were members of Baptist denominations. Eleven of these persons, representing four Baptist seminaries, gave as the reason for their non participation that field education was not included in the seminary curriculum. 182 Implications The findings of this study suggest certain impli- <1ations for theological seminary education: 1. The theological seminary which perceives as its major task the preparation of students for the parish ministry must accordingly provide a professional education which will issue in a high quality of professional performance by its graduates. The role of the seminary,consequent1y, is not primarily that of providing graduate education in the classical disciplines of the Christian Church--Biblical literature, theology and church history. Preparation of the seminary student for parish minister roles in the con- temporary world must comprehend continuing general education and professional education which reaches into other disciplines for the contribution they can make toward professional adequacy. If improved professional training is a desired goal of the theological seminary, more time for professional education and practice during the training period needs to be found. The best solution to a time squeeze to "get everything in" is not merely to add time to the present three or four years that a student spends in seminary, but to re—evaluate the seminary curriculum on 183 the basis of the contemporary role of the church and the ministry. This role can best be under- stood by inquiries, such as this study, and by open-minded reassessment of the relevance of theological education. The time has come when more serious consideration must be given to ways and means for integration of the seminary curriculum. Departmentalizing of the curriculum into the "theoretical" and "practical" is somewhat out of place for the theological seminary of today. If practical necessity demands that the curriculum be seg- mented, then adequate provision needs to be made for relating the component parts. Field education offers the possibility of contributing much toward bringing a needed synthesis to a fragmented curriculum and to fragmented learning. The theological seminary with its own limited resources will increasingly need to tap the unused resources of the institutional church, both at parish and denominational levels, and of the secular world in order that the best possible professional preparation may be pro- vided for seminarians who look toward the parish ministry. 184 In the institutional church there are many alumni Mnio serve in various capacities-—as denominational leaders 01° as parish ministers--who can contribute insight for tine improvement of theological education and who can clirectly assist the seminary in its teaching task. Itaymen in the institutional church who have attained Ilevels of proficiency in many disciplines have much to <3Ontribute to ministerial training and probably would inelcome opportunities for sharing in this task. If the church is to minister to the secular world, IDridges of communication must be built between the seminary Eind.the secular world. The resources of various edu- Céitional institutions, of business and industry, for encample, need to be tapped by the theological seminary to IDléovide exposure and training for the seminarian which VV1.11 enable him upon graduation to move into the secular ch>rld with greater ease and effectiveness for Christian U13_nistry. 5. The difficulty, if not impossibility, of achiev- ing fully all of the goalsof theological semi— nary education, including field education, dur- ing the brief span of time that the student is in seminary,is no excuse for mediocrity either on the part of instructors or students in the struggle toward reaching these goals. 185 Recommendations As a result of this study the following recommen— dations are made: 1. A philosophy of field education needs to be developed which will give primary consider- ation to the purpose for which the seminary exists and which will be reflected in the specific objectives established for field edu- cation programs. This task of developing a philOSOphy of field education, and the setting forth of specific objectives for field edu- cation experiences, should be the primary re- sponsibility of the theological seminary; but valuable insights may be provided by persons outside the theological seminary. Parish ministers, professionals in the Christian rniznistry both by preparation and by experience, may pro- \fi.de valuable insights for the improvement of theological EEducation; and these may possibly be unobtainable in Other ways. 2. In establishing objectives for seminary field education programs, parish ministers' per- ceptions on the relative importance of specific objectives for field education should be sought. In this study, the perceptions of parish ministers wrNJld suggest that high priority should be given to these ObJectives for field education: a) b) C) d) e) f) 186 stimulation and Opportunity for creative think— ing in real life situations the development of direction for their ministry giving of meaning and relevance to their class- room learning development of their own personal integration, i.e., there must be a harmonization between the dual roles of the minister as scholar and practitioner the reinforcement of classroom learning promotion of emotional growth Iaijxewise, on the basis of parish ministers' rankings, low IDITiority should be given to these objectives for field education: a) b) c) d) e) f) providing income for student needs social growth of the minister—in—training integration of the curriculum through field education motivation for continued learning providing Opportunity for Christian service clarification and reinforcement of the sense of call to the professional Christian ministry The contribution which field education experiences can make to the personal growth of the seminary student and the giving of greater meaning to other learning in seminary should not be over- looked. This study found that among the three categories of objectives for field education-- academic, personal growth and professional growth-—parish ministers perceived their field 187 education experiences as having contributed most toward their professional growth, less toward their personal growth and still less toward academic objectives. However, the evidence appears to suggest that parish ministers perceive no major distinction in importance for field education among these three categories of objectives for field education. 4. Those field experiences which are perceived by ministers as significantly related to the realization of field education objectives, should be taken into consideration when develop- ing field education programs, namely: (a) length of time to complete seminary, (b) the format and (c) locale of field experiences, and (d) the position Of each person having major responsibility for the supervision of field experiences. Because of the importance of each of these factors, a recommendation for each of them is offered. a) Theological seminary education for the parish ministry should cover a period of four years-and should include a directed internship as a part of the program. In this study, parish ministers who completed their theological seminary training in more than three years beCause an extended internship was a part of the program, ”KIPe than either those who completed their program in 188 'Hmree years or those who completed it in more than three years for reasons other than an extended internship, per- cuaived their field education experiences to have contri— tnited.toward the realization of objectives for field edu— cation. These ministers also consistently expressed grweater satisfaction, than did other ministers, with sealected elements in the supervision of their experiences: true availability and actual help of supervisors, the seequencing of their experiences, the clarity of field edu- Ceation goals, the evaluation of their experiences and the ixitegration of their experiences with the rest of the curriculum. The evidence would consequently suggest that a mere Eidding of time to a three—year program does not insure a Egreater contribution of field experiences toward preparation fkbr ministry. Rather it suggests that including a directed iJnternship in the program or similar meaningful use of the Eidditional time will serve that purpose. b) The format of field education experiences should include experiences at a time when the seminary student is not taking classes in a regular term. In this study parish ministers whose field education 13rograms included block experiences totaling more than eight Weeks, perceived their experiences to have contributed more tOward the realization of objectives for field education than those whose field education programs included concurrent 189 eocperiences only. They also consistently expressed gxweater satisfaction with selected elements in the sxxpervision of their experiences. c) The field education experiences of theological seminary students should be both parish and non parish related. Parish ministers in this study, whose block field eciucation experiences were both parish and non parish Iceelated, perceived the contribution of their experiences ‘tc3ward their preparation for the ministry to have been ggxreater than did other respondents. They were followed t>5r those whose experiences were parish related only. fDluis evidence would suggest that placing the student in cordly a non parish context or in only a parish context can lgimit the contribution of his experiences toward his IDIeparation for the parish ministry. d) Parish ministers and parish congregations should have major responsibility in the supervision of student field education experiences. Respondents in this study whose director and coordi- Iiertor of field education experiences was a parish minister, FHEIweived their field education experiences as having <3c>ntributed more to their preparation for the parish Unfi;nistry than did those whose director and coordinator C3f‘ experiences was the seminary field education director (31‘ another person. The recommendation arising out of t1’lis finding does not call for the relinquishing of IneiJflmr responsibility for supervision of student field 190 education by seminaries, but it does suggest a sharing of :reasponsibility between the seminary and the parish. 5. During a four-year theological seminary pro- gram, concurrent field education experiences at the level of directed observation, to include both parish and non parish related experiences, and to take place early in the second year, or even in the second term of the first year, are recommended. Having the student begin his field experiences early fi.r1 his seminary program, and providing for breadth of eeacperience made possible by limiting the level of experi- earlce to directed observation, will contribute to providing meaning and motivation for the seminary curriculum. This w21.111 also expose the student to the range of experiences E50 that at a later time he may more knowledgeably elect those areas of experience into which he should move at de eper levels . 6. At least two block field education experiences are recommended in a fOur-year program. It is recommended that the first of these be an internship in an institution other than the parish (e.g., hospital, social work, business, urban planning), for a minimum of eight con— tinuous weeks, and that it take place during the second term of the second year or the first 191 term of the third year. It is recommended that the second of these be a parish internship and covering a full year. The parish internship experience should be under the primary super- vision of a parish minister, the intern serving as assistant minister or as minister of his own parish but nearby the supervising minister. It is recommended that group field education experiences be provided periodically during each school year for values to be derived from on—the-job learning experiences with peers. In these experiences, more than in other experiences, adequate provision would be made for the students to establish their own goals for experiences, work their way through the experiences and take primary responsibility among themselves for evaluation at each stage of the experience and in a final evaluation. This would give oppor- tunity for taking first steps in creative think- ing, experimentation and innovation in real life situations. It is recommended that both the seminary field education director and the parish minister be the principal persons having supervisory re- sponsibility for field education. However, it is further recommended that each student have 10. 192 Opportunity during his four years in seminary to become acquainted with a number of parish ministers and parishes—-progressive and non progressive-~50 that he may be enabled to make comparative judgments and establish his own models. It is recommended that parish ministers and their congregations be carefully selected for engaging with the seminary in the field edu— cation of the seminarian. It is further recom- mended that the responsibilities of parish ministers be defined by the seminary; and that means be established for communication between seminary and supervising ministers and among supervising ministers joining them in the task of supervision. All persons who have any degree of responsibility for the supervision of students should share in orientation for and evaluation of field education experiences. This will require that goals be well developed, made explicit and made personal for students. It will also require that theo— logical seminaries keep abreast of evaluation research and methodology and engage in an evalu— ation of each student's progress during each experience and at the conclusion of it. 11. 12. 193 An increasing emphasis in theological seminaries should be given to preparing students for life- long learning which has implications for field education. This would contribute to releasing tensions which arise out of the problem of trying to "get everything in" during a relatively brief period of time spent in seminary. It would also serve to minimize and hopefully to eliminate the dichotomy in the seminary curricu- lum of the "academic" and "practical," and in Christian ministry between "preparation" and "practice." Field education should be required of all semi- nary students who anticipate becoming parish ministers regardless of age, experience, or necessity for working to provide income. The responses, in this study, of both participants and non participants in seminary field education, provide abundant evidence of the worth of field education. However, field education will need to be selected or tailored for individual differ- ences among students. Provision will have to be made by seminaries for income of students if field education tends to "rob" them of time necessary for making a living while in seminary. 194 13. Theological seminaries and other institutions which are involved in providing student field education experiences should guard against the development of passive-dependency while also being cautious about creating a premature in- dependency in students, either planned or in- advertent. Either can retard the progress toward field education goals. 14. Theological seminaries should explore new areas of non parish experience for field programs which will contribute to making theological education relevant in the contemporary world. A Suggestion for Further Research The recognition of the importance of field education 2111 the preparation of theological seminary students for ‘tlle parish ministry has increased over the last half cen- ‘tlary. The struggle to maximize the educational benefits 13c: be derived from it has resulted in improved programs EDIJt there is much yet to be done. Progress can come ‘tlurough insights gained through trial and error practice; CDI'it can come through directed experimentation and re- Esearch. If the findings of this study have in any way :Led.to the improvement of preparation for the parish ITllinistry, the study will have been worthwhile. Arising out of this study is one suggestion for f‘urther research. It is that a comparative study be 195 made of the perceptions of field education as an element in the preparation of students for the parish ministry, among representatives from the theological seminary, parish ministers, religious denomination officials, lay- men in the institutional church and laymen in the non church world. The judgments of other relevant groups vvc>uld supplement and correct perceptions of parish ministers revealed in this study. BIBLIOGRAPHY 196 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Appleby, James. Field Work and Evangelism. Richmond, Virginia: Union Theological Seminary, 1947. Ayers, Francis 0. The Ministry of the Laity. a Biblical Exposition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, Barr, Browne. Parish Back Talk. Abingdon, New York: The Lyman Beecher Lectures, 1963. ' Berger, Peter L. The Noise of Solemn Assemblies. New York: Doubleday, 1961. Bloom, Benjamin S. and Krathwohl, David R. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Cognitive-Domain; The. classification of educational goals by a committee of college and university examiners. London:. Longmans, Green and Co., 1956. Bloom, Benjamin S., Krathwohl, David R., and Masia, " Bertram B. Taxonomy of Educational Opjectives, Affective Domain. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1964. Bridston, Keith and Culver, Dwight W. (eds.).( The Making of Ministers. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964._ ' . Pre Seminary Education. Mineapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963. Caemmerer, Richard R., and Fuerbringer, Alfred 0,. Toward a More Excellent Ministry. St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1964. Cox, Harvey. The Secular City. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1965. lDirks, E. "The Priesthood of All-Believers," in Religion in Action. Silver Springs, Maryland:‘ Newbook, the Nationaerbserver, 1965. 197 198 IDressel, Paul L. Evaluation in Higher Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961. . The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Educa- tion, Inc., 1963. Edwards, David L. (ed.). Preparing for the Ministry of the 1970's. London: SCM Press, 1964. Fackre, Gabriel J. The Pastor and the World. Boston: United Church Press, 1964. Fallaw, Westminster. The Case Method in Pastoral and Lay Education. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963. Fisher, Wallace E. From Tradition to Mission. New York: Abingdon Press, 1965. Gable, Lee J. The Church and World Encounter. Phila- delphia: United Church Press, 1964. Gibbs, Mark, and Morton, T. Ralph. God's Frozen People. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964. Glen, J. Stanley. The Recovery of the Teachinnginistry. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. Gross, Neal, Mason, Ward 8., and McEachern, Alexander W. Exploration in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendenpy Role. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Grubb, Kenneth. A Layman Looks at the Church. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1964. Hofmann, Hans (ed.). Making the Ministrijelevant. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1960. .Hook, Sidney. Education for Modern Man,1 A New Perppective. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963. Iioule, Cyril O. Continuinngour Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964. Iiulme, William E. Your Pastor's Problems: A Guide for Ministers and Laymen. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966. 199 Hargraves, J. Archie. Stop Pussyfooting Through a Revolu— tion; Some Churches That Did. Philadelphia: United Church of Christ. Harkness, Georgia. The Church and_Its Laity. Abingdon, New York, 1962. Howe, Reuel L. The Miracle of Dialogue. New York: The Seabury Press, 1963. Johnson, Robert Clyde (ed.). The Church and Its Changing Ministry. Philadelphia: The United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., 1961. Keller, J. and Armstrong, R. (eds.)._ Apostolic Renewal in the Seminary. Boston: The ChristOphers, 1951. Kelley, Robert L. Theological Education in America. New York: George H. Doran Co., 1924.‘ Kenrick, Bruce. Come Out the Wilderness; the Story of East Harlem—Protestant Parish. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962. Kilbourn, William (ed.).- The Restless Church; a Response to the Comfortable Pew. New York:. Lippincott‘ CO. "19660 Kraemer, Hendric. A Theology of the Laity. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958' Lee, J. M., and Putz, L. F. (eds:). Seminary Education in a Time of Change. Notre Dame, Indianaz- Fides Publishers, Inc., 1965. Leiffer, Murray H. The Effective City Church. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1961. Lindgren, Alvin J. Foundations for Purppseful Church Administration. New York: Abingdon Press, 1965. Lorge, Irving, McClusky, Howard Y., Jensen, Gale.E., and Hallenbeck, Wilbur 0. Psychology of Adults.. Washington, D. 0.: Adult Education Association of the U. S. A., 1963.’ ‘ Marty, Martin. Bapylon by Choice. New York: Friendship- Press, 1965. ’ . The New Shape of American Religion. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. 200 . Second Chance for American Protestants. New York:~ Harper and Row, 1963. May, Mark A., et al. The Education of American Ministers. 4 vols. New York: Institute of Social and Religious Research, 1934. McGlothlin, William J. Patterns of Professional Education. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1960: Merkens, Guido A. Organized for Action. St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1959. Moore, Richard E., and Day, Duane L. Urban Church Break— through. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Morgan, Carl Hamilton.‘ The Status of Field Work in the, Protestant Theological Seminaries of tne United ‘ States. Philadelphiazv University of Pennsylvania, 1942.. ' Mullen, Thomas J. The Ghetto of Indifference. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.- ' . The Renewal of the Ministry. New York: Abingdonv Press,‘l963. Niebuhr, H. Richard, Williams, Daniel Day, and Gustafson, James M. The Advancement of Theologi ical Education.. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. O'Connor, Elizabeth. Call to Commitment. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Paton, David M. (ed.).. The Ministry of the Spirit, selected writings of Roland Allen. London: World Dominion- Press, 1960.! ‘ ' Poole, S. Seminary in Crisis. New York: Herder and- Herder, 1965. Rahner, Hugo. The Parish LFrom Theology to Practice.w Westminster, Maryland, 1958. Rahner, Karl. Christian in the Market Place. Nequork: Shied and Ward, 1966. ‘ ? Raines, Robert A. New Life in the Church. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961.‘ 201 Rodenmayer, Robert N. We Have This Ministry. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Rose, Stephen C. The Grass Roots Church; a Manifesto for Protestant Renewal. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Schalter, Lyle E. Planning for Protestantism in Urban America. New York: Abingdon Press, 1965. Sellers, James E. The Outsider and the Word of God; a Studygin Christian Communication. New York: ' Abingdon Press, 1961. Selting, Claire; Jahoda, Marie; Deutsch, Morton; and Cook, Stuart W. Research Methods in Social. Relations.- Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Vicedom, George F. The Mission Of,GOd. St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1965.“ W Visser 'T Hooft, W. A.. The Renewal of the Church.‘ Phila— delphia: The Westmifister Press, 1956. ' Wagoner, W. D. Bachelor of Divinipy. New York: Associa- tion Press, 1963. ' . The Seminary: Protestant and Catholic. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966. Weber, Hans-Ruedi. The Militant Ministry. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963. ‘ ’ Webber, George W. The Congregation in Mission. New_York: Abingdon Press, 1964. ' . God's Colony in Man's World. New York: Abingdon Press, 1960. Williams, Colin W. What in the World? Changing Forms of the Church's Witness. Office of Publication-and Distribution, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U. S. A., 475 Riverside Drive, New. York, 1964. . Where in the World? Office of Publication and Distribution, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U. S. A., 475 Riverside Drive, New York, 1963. 202 Wilson, J. Christy (ed.). Ministers in Training. Princeton, New Jersey: Theological Book Agency, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1957. Winter, Gibson. The Suburban Captivipy of the Churches; An Analysis of Protestant Responsibility in the Expanding Metropolis. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Co., 1961. Periodicals Amant,.Penrose St. "Theological Students Today," Religion in Life, Vol. 31 (1962). Bachmann, E. Theodore. "The Future of Seminaries in Light of Continuing Education: The L. C. A. Experience," Lutheran Quarteriy, Vol. XVIII, No. 4 (November, 1966). Berger, Peter. "Religious Establishment and Theological Edgcation," Theology Today, Vol. XIX, No. 2 (July, 19 2) "Better Training for a Better Clergy," Time (February 3, 1967) IBirtch, George M. "Theological Education: A Canadian Minister's View," Theological Education, Vol. II, No. 3 (Spring, 1966). Ellizzard, Samuel W. "The Minister's Dilemma," The Christian Century, Vol. LXXIII, No. 17 (April 25, 19567} ’Y . "The Parish Minister's Self Image of His Master Role," Pastoral Psychology, Vol. IX, No.189. (December, 1958). . "The Roles of the Rural Parish Minister, the Protestant Seminaries, and the Science of Social Behavior," Religious Education (Nov., Dec., 1955). .H. . "The Training of the Parish Minister,"-Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. XI, No. 2(January, 1956). E3(Duma,.Dona1d H. "Sociological Implications for Reformed Christianity," The Reformed Review, Vol. XX, No. 2 (December, 1966). 203 Briemeier, Kenneth H. "The Field Work Program at Concordia Seminary," Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. XXXV, No. 11 (December, 1964). Browning, Don. "Pastoral Care and Public Ministry," Christian Century, Vol. 83, No. 39 (September 28, 1966). Campbell, Ernest T. "The Changing Nature of the Ministry," The Reformed Review, Vol. XVII, NO. 2 (December, 1963). Cardwell, Sue Webb. "The MMPI as a Predictor of Success Among Seminary Students,".Ministry Studies, Vol. I, NO. 2 (August, 1967). Champion, Leonard G. "A Reflection Upon the Present Cur- riculum of Theological Colleges," The Baptist Quarterly, Vol. XIX, No. 6 (April,_l962). Clark, Walter Houston. "Do Seminaries Teach Religion?" The Christian Century, Vol. 82, NO. 17 (April 28, 1955). Coiner, Harry G. "The Pastor as Administrator of the- Christian Fellowship," Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. XXXV, No. 5 (May, 1964). Cooley, Frank. "The Integral Relation between Theory and Practice in Theological Education in Indonesia," South East Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. I, No. 4 (April, 1960). Cox, Harvey. "The Significance of the Church-«World Dialogue for Theological Education," Theological Education, Vol. III, No. 2 (Winter, 1967). Eenigenburg, Elton M. "The New Curriculum.at Western Seminary," The Reformed Review, Vol. XX, NO. 2 (December, 1966). Faber, Warren H. "Changing Concepts of the Ministry," Theolog, Vol. IV, No. 1 (Fall, 1966). Fallaw, Wesner. "Training Case Teachers," Andover Newton Quarterly, Vol. III, No. 4 (March, 1963). Feilding, Charles R., "Education for Ministry," Theological Education, Vol. III, No. 1 (Autumn, 1966). "Twenty—three Theological Schools: Aspects of Canadian Theological Education," Canadian Journal of Theology, Vol. XII, No. 4 (October, 1966). 204 Fry, John R. "Anti Intellectualism in the Church Today," Christian Scholar, Vol. XXXXV, No. 4 (September, 1962). Furgeson, Earl H. "Implementing the Doctrine of the Ministry in Seminary Education," The Journal of Pastoral Care, Vol. XV, No. 1 (Spring, 1964). Gunnemann, Louis H. "From Purpose to Curriculum," Theological Education, Vol. II, No. 3 (Spring,.l966). Hardin, Paul. "What We Expect from Young Ministers,". The Duke Divinity School Review, Vol. XXXI, No..3 (Autumn, 1966).* ‘ Hazelton, Roger. "The Face of Theological Education Today," The Educational Record, Vol. XLVI (Summer, Henry, Carl F. "Where are the Seminaries Going?" Christianity_Today, Vol. XI, No. 16 (May 12,.1967).' Hiltner, Seward and Ziegler, Jesse H.v "Clinical Pastoral Education and the Theological Schools," Journal of Pastoral Care, Vol. XV, No.-3 (Fall, 1961). Holcomb, Walter L., and Maes, John L.) "Functional Roles, Professional Identity and Theological Curricula,". Theological Education, Vol. II, No. 3 (Spring, 1966).: Hordern, William. "Renewal in the Seminary," (Review Article), Luthern Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, No.‘4 (November, 1966). Hwang, C. H. "A Rethinking of Theological Training for the Ministry-in the Younger Churches Today," South, East Asia Journal of Theology (October, 1962). Johnston, Ronald L. "Its Graduates Speak; the Seminaryv Listens," Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. XXXV, No. 11 (December, l964).~ Jones, Richard G. "Towards a New Theology of Mission,"fl The London Quarterly-and Holborn Review-(January, 1967). Jordan, G. Ray. "Mental Honesty and Seminary Recruitment," Christianity Today, Vol. VIII, No. 25 (September 25, 1964). 205 King, Robert H. "Pre Seminary Theology," Christian Century, Vol. 83, No. 17 (April 17, 1966). Lauby, Paul L. "A Theological Core Curriculum With Refer- ence to Asian Needs," South East Asia Journal of. Theology, Vol. III, No. 4 (April, 1962). Leiffer, Murray H. "Patterns of Ministry and Patterns of. Theological Education," South East Asia Journal of. Theology, Vol. VI, No. 4; Vol. VII, No. l (Aprila July, 1965). ' Lindsay, Le Roy R. "Letter from the Fringe: A Defense of. the Nonpastoral Ministry," Christian Century, Vol. 83, No. 36 (September 7, 1966). Lindsell, Harold. "Tension in the Seminaries," Christianity« Today, Vol..XI, No. 16 (May 12, 1967). Mackie, Steven G. "Patterns of Ministry and the Purpose of a Theological School, " Theological Education, Vol. II, No. 2 (Winter, 1966), Maier, Frederick C. "The 'Nature of Ministry{ Seminars: a Report and Evaluation," McCormick Quarterly, Vol. XVII, No. 3 (March, 19647T’ Marty, Martin E. "Ministry and Future: Contradictions and Hope," Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. XXXVII (July— —Aug. , 1966). McGrath, Earl J. "Observations on the Meaning of Academic Excellence," Liberal Education, Vol. XLVIII (May, 1962) MetrOpolitan, Leonty. "Theological Education in America,"' St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Vol. IX,_No. 2, (1965). Nunnally, Stuart. "Education for a Pastoral Ministry," Religion in Life, Vol. XXXI (Autumn, 1962).- "Preachers and their Making, An Editorial, " Christianity Today, Vol. VIII, No. 18 (June 5,11964). Redekop, Calvin.i "The Seminary as Participant Observer," ~Theologica1 Education, Vol..II, No. 3 (Spring, 1966). Repp, Arthur C. "Some Directives for the Education of a More Excellent Ministry," Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. XXXV, No. 11 (December, 1964).“ _ 206 Ridder, Herman J. "Theological Education and Today's Mission of the Church," The Reformed Review, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (December, 1963). Sanders, Albert J. "A North American Statement Concerning Theological Education in Southeast Asia," South East Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. VII, No. 1 (Aprilr July, 1965). ‘ Schuller, David S. "A Critique of Theological Education in the Light of Changing American Culture," Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. XXXV, (1964), pp. 687-700. Schuyler, Joseph B. "The Need for and Content-of:SociOr logical Study in the Seminary," National Catholic' Educational Association Bulletin, Vol. 55 (August, 1958) "Seminaries Not Training Properly, Trinity Man Says," The Toronto Globe and Mail, February 18,1967. Smith, Elwyn A. "The Evolution of Purpose in American Theological Education," Theological Education, Vol. II, No. 2 (Winter, 1966). Song, Choan-Seng. "The Christian-Ministry and Theological Education," (notes of an address), South East Asiar Journal of Theology, Vol. VI, No. 4; Vol. VII, No. l (April-July, 1965). ‘ Spitz, C. Thomas. "Theological Education and the Special Ministries," Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. XXXVI, No. 6 (June, 1965). "A Statement of the Second Consultation on Theological Education in Southeast Asia," South East Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. VI, No. 4 and Vol. VII, No. l (April-July, 1965). Stiles, Joseph.. "Toward a Recovery of.a Functional Approach to Theological Education or Field Work, a Renewed Dimension in Theological Education," Review and Expositor, Vol. LIX, No. 3 (July, 1962). "Theological Default in American Seminaries, An Editorial, " Christianity Today, Vol. VIII, No. -24 (September 11, 1964). Thurman, W. Peyton. "The Training of Ministers:- Old Problems--New Solutions," Review and Expositor,. Vol. LIX, No. 3 (July, 1962). 207 Vieth, Paul H. "The Recovery of the Teaching Ministry," Review and Expositor, Vol. LIX, No. 3 (July, 1962). Wagoner, Walter D. "Time, Tide, and Seminary Priorities," Christian Centugy, Vol. 83, No. 17 (April 17, 1966). Webber, George W. "The Christian Minister and the Social Problems of the Day," Theological Education, Vol. "What Kind of Ministry? What Kind of Training?" (Extract from a working paper on the Study on Patterns of, Ministry and Theological Education), South East Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. VI, No. A; Vol. VII, No. l (April—July, 19557T Williams, Colin. "Witness in a Secular Age," Andover-Newton Quarterly, Vol. VII, No. 3 (January, 1967). Wilson, 32 Christy. "The Seminary Moves into the Church,"- Christianiteroday, Vol. III (May 11, 1959). Winter, Gibson. "Theological Education for Ministry. Central Issues in Curriculum Construction," Theo- logical Education, Vol. II, No. 3 (Spring, 1966). Wolbrecht, Walter F. "What a Protestant Church Wants its Seminaries to Be and Do," Theological Education, Vol. II, No. 2 (Winter, 1966). Zahn, Jane C. "Differences Between Adults and Youth Affecting Learning," Adult Education, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (Winter, 1967). Ziegler, Jesse H. "The Education of the Ministry," The College of the Bible Quarterly, Vol. XLI, No. 1 (January, 1964). . "Ferment in Curriculum Study,"‘Theological Educa— tion, Vol. II, No. 3 (Spring, 1966). Miscellaneous Bulletin§4_Manualsi and Reports. Biennial Consultations on Field Education, Seventh, Austin Presbyterian Theological School, Austin, Texas, February, 1963; Eighth, Columbus Theological Seminary, Decatur, Georgia, January, 1965; Ninth, Christian‘ Thzological Seminary, Indianapolis, Indiana, January, 19 7O 208 A Bulletin on Field Education: for Churches, Institutions V and Students. Princeton Theological Seminary. Davis, Clifford E. Evaluating and Counseling Church Workers. Supplements I and II. Board of Christian Education, The United Presbyterian Church, 616 North Highland Ave., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Directory of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. The American Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada, 534 Third National Building, Dayton, Ohio, 45402. 1966 edition. Field Education Manual. Garrett Theological Seminary, 1963. Froyd, Milton C. The Educational Value of Field Work.. A Report to the American Association of Theological Schools on Seminary Field Work Consultations held during the Winter and Spring of 1962. Gamble, Connolly C., Jr. The Continuinngheological Educa- tion of the American Minister, report of*a survey conducted by Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, November, 1960. Gessell, John M. Learning Values in Supervised Field. Training. Sewanee, Tennessee: School of Theology, University of the South, 1964. A Manual on Field Education at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. Mills, Edgar W., Jr. Career Change Among Ministers: A Socio:psychological Study. Howard University: Center; for Research in Careers, Graduate School of Education, May, 1966. Report of a National Consultation on Theological Education in Canada. Port Credit, Ontario, December, 1966. Reports of the Biennial Meetings of the Association of Seminary Professors in the Practical Fields._ Sixth, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, June, 1960; Seventh, Trinity College, Toronto, Canada, June, 1962; Eighth, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, June, 1964. 209 Ziegler, Jesse H. '"Ferment in Theological Education," in Concerns, Clinical and Theological Education. Institute of Pastoral Care, Council for Clinical‘ Training, 1965 Fall Conference. Unpublished Materials Dissertations Ashbrook, James B. "Protestant Ministerial Attributes and their Implications for Church Organization." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1964. Duewel, Wesley L. "Supervision of Field Work in American Protestant Theological Seminaries." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1952. Foster, Frank C. "Field Work and Its Relation to the Cur— riculum of Theological Seminaries." Unpublished~ Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1932. Hodge, Marshall B. "Vocational Satisfaction of Ministers: An Introductory Experimental Study of Younger Presbyterian Ministers." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Southern California, 1960. Miscellaneous Colardarci, P. "What About that Word, Profession?" (Mimeo- graphed.) "Fieldwork Handbook," Drew University School of Theology. (Mimeographed.) Glasse, James D. "Fieldwork at Vanderbilt Divinity School." (Mimeographed.) "Pilot Project for Junior Field Education at Austin Theologi- cal Seminary." (Mimeographed.) A Report from the Special Committee to Study Field Work at Austin Theological Seminary. (Mimeographed.) Union Theological Seminary Internships. (Mimeographed.) 210 INTERVIEWS Theological Seminary Personnel at Their Respective Seminaries (December, 1966 to March, 1967) Anderson, Einar T., Associate Director of Field Education, Colgate Rochester Divinity School. Browning, Don, Instructor in Religion and Personality, University of Chicago Divinity School. Eads, Robert H., Director, Department of Church and Ministry, Colgate Rochester Divinity School. Feilding, Charles R., Director of Field Education, Trinity College Faculty of Divinity. Glen, J. Stanley, Principal, Knox College. Kildegaard, Axel C., Director of Internships, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Maywood Campus. Mavis, W. Curry, Chairman, Department of Practical Theology, Asbury Theological Seminary. Melchert, Charles F., Assistant Professor of Christian Education, Colgate Rochester Divinity School. Meyners, J. Robert, Director of Clinical Experience, Chicago Theological Seminary. Miller, Donald G., President, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Saunders, Earnest W., Dean, Garrett Theological Seminary. Wynn, John C., Director of Studies, Colgate Rochester Divinity School. 211 Theological Seminary Personnel at the Ninth Biennial Consultation of Field Education, Indianapolis,_Indiana. (January 19—21, 1967) Adams, Arthur M., Princeton Theological Seminary. Ault, James M., Union Theological Seminary. Becker, Russel J., Yale University Divinity School. Boyce, Greer W., Emmanuel College Crabtree, Robert E., Nazarene Theological Seminary. Dahlstrom, Earl C., North Part Theological Seminary. Fitzpatrick, Mallory, Hartford Seminary Foundation. Hedrick, Sam, Boston University School of Theology. James, Gilbert, Asbury Theological Seminary. Jamison, William G., Dubuque Theological Seminary. Others Carr, Aute L., Assistant Director, American Association of Theological Schools, at Dayton, Ohio, November 1966. Davis, Clifford E., Church Occupations Counselor, the United Presbyterian Church in the United States and Canada, at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, March, 1967. 212 CORRESPONDENCE: Adams, Henry 8., Director, Church Ministry Studies, National Council of Churches of Christ in the U. S. A. (February 14, 1967). Culver, Maurice E., Dean, Asbury Theological Seminary (May 5, 1967). Davis, Clifford E., Church Occupations Counselor, The United Presbyterian Church in the United States and Canada (June 16, 1967).. Ellzey, Charles L., Leadership Consulting Service, Boston University (December 6, 1966). Feilding, Charles R., Professor of Moral Theology, Trinity College Faculty of Divinity (June 14, 1967). Henderson, William H., Division of Vocation, Board of Christian Education of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (March 15, 1967). Glasse, James D., Professor of Practical Theology, Vander- bilt University Divinity School (December 19, 1966). Hodge, Marshall B., Clinical Psychologist, Claremont, California (June 16, 1967). Johnstone, Ronald L., Office of Research Statistics and Archives, Lutheran Council in the United States of America (April 6, 1967). Mavis, W. Curry, Chairman, Department of Practical Theology, Asbury Theological Seminary (November 27, 1967). Mills, Theodore, Ministry Studies Board, Washington, D.C. (November 29, 1967). Stewart, Charles W., Professor of Preaching and Pastoral Theology, Wesley Theological Seminary (June 19, 1967). 213 Windham, Lillian A., Board of National Missions of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States and Canada (March 14, 1967 and June 9, 1967). Ziegler, Jesse H., Director, American Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (November 28, 1967). APPENDICES 214 APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE STUDY 215 PARISH MINISTERS INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY FIELD EDUCATION EXPERIENCES PLEASE NOTE: for \‘dCh question, respond by check- ing I X )the appropriate category or answering the question as directed, COMPLETION TIME; approximately 30 minutes PART A I. From what seminary did you graduate? 2 What is your sex male ( ) female ( ) 3. What is your age? 25-29....( ) 30—34........( ) 35-39....( ) 40 or older..( ) 4. Which term best describes your present position? pariah minister. associate parish minister. assistant parish minister minister oim minister of education minister of youth other ( specify )_ AAAAAAA VVvVi—fu' IF YOU ARE NOT NOW A PARISH MINISTER AS DEFINED BELOW, DO NOT COMPLETE THE QUES- TIONAIRE, BUT RETURN IT TO ME. ALL OTHERS PLEASE CONTINUE DEFINITIONS WHICH YOU WILL NEED: Erish - a church congregational unit. with a par- tic ace of assembly, usually having a membership roll and with an organization- al structure and program developed and administered by a denomination and/or a congregation. Erish - miniseter -the professionallytrained minister princ ipalw in he par ris thiss estud the m kincsludes persons who may be designated by such terms as par- ish minister, assoc e parish minister, as- sistant parish minister, minister of music, minister of education, minister of youth, etc. EMILE PARISH MINISTERS CONTINUE HERE 5. What is the denomination of your present par- 6. In what denomination are youamember? 7. How many parishes have you served since your seminary graduation including your present one? nnn ( ) two ( ) three or more .. .... .. .............. ...........( ) 8 Whi ich of the fol lowing best describest he com- munity In which your church is located? (Check one) a) rural (opeon country 1.... ............( ) h) town (upto 5,000) ...... .( ) c) city but not "inner city . ( ) d) inner city .( ) e) suburb ............................. ( ) 9. I! you checked. c d, or e .in question number 8, Is " r r ‘u... c.., r mm!) 50, 000 or less ................................ ( between 50, 000 and 250 ,000. ( ) between 256 ,000 and 500, 000 ( ) more than ,000 ......................... . ....... ( ) 10 What is your present cash salary? $8 0, - 8090 . : 99000.0() - $0099.00 90.0001") '1" more no yes ( specify program and purpose)...................: ) II. In addition to cash salary. what else oi value oyou receivefrom your par sh? (Indicate annual cash value.) a tree house or house allowance... ............... ...( ) cash value _ use of car or car allowance .......... ( ) cash value—__ other things of value such as pension, insurance, etc i 1 cash value 12. Are you engaged in other remunerative work? no .................................................. yesIspecin type of work and principal reason(s)) for wnrkinol type of work reason(s) for \f'orking .— w . Is your wife engaged in other remunerative work? an I ) y“ i ) .— uh . Which of the following statements is true for you? I attended only the seminary from which I graduate ( ) I attended another seminary in addition to the one from which lgraduat ted. ( ) _. 9' Which of the following statements on the time taken to com our seminary program (B.D. or equivalent) is true for you? (Check one) <— fl completed by seminary program in three ars.............. ) I took more than three years because outside work necessitated fewer course hours per term . . . . . . . .( ) I took more than three years because lhad an ex- tended intershlp (parish, clinical, etc.) as a part of my seminary program . . . . .......( ) I took more than three years because ltook more courses than necessary for graduation . . . . . ( ) took more than three years because (specify) ( ) 16. Since your seminary graduation, have you enrolled in any formal educational program? (advanced training in an educational institution, seminar, clinical training, special institute) ) length of program program purpose 216 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION: field education - 18. 217 ART all field (out-of-classroom) learn- ing experiences, ggiminIStercd by the seminary [or the general purpo__s_c_oj__rolating classroom learning to the practice of ministrL ie education may be designated by such terms as field work, field practice, field service, clinical training, internship etc. Units of credit may or may not be given by the seminary for field 'education. . Check which of the following statements is true for you: (Check 9.05;) I did not have field education experiences in seminary because field education was net of- fered by my seminary ...... . . . . . . .( ) Since field education was optional in my sem- inary, I chose not to participate in the field education program . . . . . . . . . .( ) (See additional items in the next column) Whether or not you had field educationexperiences in seminary as a part of your program, indicate your present feelings of the importance each immunization for that objective. Field education was Optional in my seminary and I chose to participate in it . . . . . . . .f ) I had field education experiences in seminary because field education was required of all students. .......() The field education requirement of my seminary was waived for me because (specify the rea- son) ( ) by circling a number on the scale List other objectives which you feel are important and circle a number on role obgdve glguld have for theological seminary the scale for each of these also. importance of objective for field education ‘5 2 E s .. 8. In I: objectives 8. g g g E g g g z " E 5 L4 '5 E E {9; s g 3 e o >. 8. I; E >~ I". 3 “ U a :3 s: s 2 E S a > o I a) to clarify professional roles I 2 3 4 5 6 7 b) to reinforce classroom learning l 2 3 4 5 6 7 c) to help provide income for Student needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a) to provide stimulation and opportunity for inde- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 pendent thinking e) to promote spiritual growth I 2 3 4 5 6 7 f) to modvate classroom learning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g) to develOp direction in ministry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h) to give meaning and relevance to classroom learning I 2 3 4 5 6 7 i) to provide stimulation and opportunity for creative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thinking in real life situations 1) to test theory and concepts learned in the classroom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » and in literature k) to promote emotional growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l) to promote personal integration (minister as scholar l 2 3 4 5 6 7 and practitioner) , m) to provide opportunity for Christian service 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~ 7 n) to clarify and reinforce motivation (”call") to minis- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 try a) to provide opportunity for the practice of professional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 roles ' - p) to promote social growth I 2 3 4 5 6 7 q) to modvate toward continued learning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 r) to provide stimulation and opportunity for experimen- l 2 3 4 5 6 tation and innovation in real life situations it) to provide currICulum Integration ‘ , l 2 3 4 5 6 7 t) to facilitate transition from student role to minister l 2 3 4 5 6 7 other objectives: (write in numbers as necessary) 218 IF YOU J*___*_~__-__g EERIENCLb AS A PART OF YOL’R SEMINARY PROGRAM (even though other experiences may have satisfied a seminary requirment for the, or you have had experiences which might have been in— cluded in a field education program such as working with youth (in a local church) COMPLETE PART C; OMIT PART D; AND THEN RETURN THE QUEST.- IONNAIRE. IF YOU HAD I-"JELDERL’CAIIQN EXEEBIEL’QERIN SEMINARXALL ABLE. RAM OMIT THE REMAIINDER OF PART C; AND PROCEED TO PART D. 19. Do you regret that field education experiences were not a part of your seminary program? ye” oocsasoooaoooaovosuuoooouoooo-:oaoou-a-a-u-oasooo-aoa..( ) no .. OIOIOIOIOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOOO ( ) 20. If you answered “no" to Question number 19. check as many of the following reasons as apply: I had other experiences which accomplished the same purposes as field education ............................. ( ) The benefits of field education experiences do not justi- fy the time spent on them ....... . ......... . ..... . ....... .( ) My seminary curriculum was sufficiently complete with- out the addition of field education experiences ...... ( ) other (specify) 21. Think of the objectives which you rated as l, 2, 3 as important for field education. (See question number l8) List below the paid workI volunteer _i_litary service Her}; nces you have had which most contributed toward the realization of these obiectives. In each case, indicate by circling a number whether the experience was prior to, during, or following seminary. ELI“. flea prior during after l 2 3 l 2 3 — i 2 3 j 2 3 22. Think again of the objectives which you rated as l, 2, or 3 as important for field education. (See question number 18) List at least threem major t s of field education experiences which mi ht ave contributed most toward the realizati ion 0 these objectives. IF YOL‘ DID—‘NOT HALE FIE] D IzDL‘CATIUN EX- PERIENCES AS '\ P-\RI OF YOLR SEMINARY PRO- GR'\M \ND THIS ('(lMPlI-ITLD PART C THROUGH QUESTION NUMBER 22, Y(_)L‘WILI_-NOT DO PARTD AND ARE REQL'L.STI2D TO RETLRN THE QUESTION- NAIRE. IF YOU HAD FIELD EDUCATION EXPERIENCES AS A PART OF YOUR SEMINARY PROGRAM (admin- istered by the seminary), DO PART D. PA 219 RTD 23. For each of experience which you the specific tasks listed below, check (x) the highest level of field education had in your seminary field education program, (Check only (it; category for each task.) ind of experience level of experience general area of experience specific tasks no exper- ience obse rvat- ion only observat- ion and limited particip- ation experience in depth ( time, reSpons- ibility, repetition) preac hing Fpa rishrpreiac hing occaVSional supph- preaching ”"—‘ radio or preac hing on evangelistic preaching other (specify) pastoral functions jgme visitation _ ,__ _. ,VéslthQn in institutions personal counseling ___.. __- ’pefifinal evangelism ‘— ‘iir'gup Counseling , ot'he rw (specify) priestly functions [AQmjleSICI‘InK the sacraments {conducting a funeral shimmer Sweden?” Wrec option _of churchame‘rrlbers Lother (specify) ' teaching 1. . ,auagosshool L mm Lwcek day church schoiojgw catec hetic'iT cTa’s S“ L c fiu rch dram—Effo'dmztion" Tether" (specify) ‘ church dministra tion conducting a business meetirm co_n _ uctirig achurch survey {—Ehu rcF. budgetfipre para tion church publicity development and/or evaluation .pf churchiprograms L4,- loffi’ce management (choral props my 3 ml‘ Lla nt _maint_enance__ grimy) Ittee we rkr supervising cliurc‘li‘sta if H lsupervision of church (yrvgti—nization-(‘s , ., . _L, ._.___ .__,_.—_ .4». {are} (Specify it social service Y-M-C-é; ‘!'_.W_-,C_:'}__-. nAn-. n Sum m er ca—tTip lminsx'ifii'wups coliiiiiuliit ' Ot'gatLIfiTIU-rl 30cm T we are other (specify) miscellaneous journalism Lmusic ——~_.._J Lschool campus ministry _. {parks and recreation miniStry moliticaland civil affairs c‘umfehléiil proLects ‘ {business industry lay internship jother (Spec ify) 24. What field education expirie_n_c_e§_ have you had (administered by the seminary as a part of your field education program) when 19,}! were nottaking classes in a rc'gular___§emggary te_r_rn2 ( summer parish, clinical training, internship year, chap- laincy, etc.) and what length of time did you spend in each? experience (include where) time spent (in weeks) 25. Indicate the extent to which you now circling a number on the scale. his], your field education exiwrient‘es contributed town-d the realization of each i)i‘»_lL‘(llV¢.' listed below by Remt-mher, you 220 are rating the contribution of your fieltleti_u_t,_ation t-wtpt 1_i_g_1g1t cs toward the realization of th( 11th ct— h‘cs and not ihLirnwrtance oi Lhti._uhiLL_Ll‘” us." |1contrihution of your field education experiences toward ‘ itht- rt .ill7.itit)n of the objectives objectives | _______.. __..- Tl..-_._.1___-7___ ___ ._ ...... __ l extremely very l largei some small very extremely I 1 ’ ‘ large 3 large-l small small 1 , I L _ i i l 4' 7 T t T 1' .1) to clarify professional rules i 2 3 4 5 (1 7 ._____._ _ ___,.__ __. m4 ___ _ .A e-__ _ ._ —_e$ ‘ __ __. - __ 7 -W._-____ __.____.- a... _ ___- - _ _ b) to reinforce classroom 1t ir 11mg“ E l 2 3 4 5 (1 7 t ) to help provnde intome for l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Student nLI.’tlS d) to provide stimulation and optortunity for lildt‘l): 11(1- 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 cm thinki. 1g 3 0) to promote spiritual growth L l 2 3 4 5 6 7 f) to motivate class: oorn l('il'.".nl 1 2 1 4 5 o 7 .. . 1__ «— »-—--——--— ~- -— —--—-——- —-—————————+——— ——-—-v~ 4 L11 to develop direction in mini ;tr_\ 3 2 3 4 5 o 7 r _-__--__-_ -_—- _——--——— ———--- ———.—.-—.L . _ _ - __ _.1.-. -_. l.) to give meaning and rut-vantc to classroom learn- 1 i 2 3 4 5 o 7 ing I __ --- -.._ .4 i) to provide stlmul ition 1nd (7’113)3X1ifiilll) for crc‘ .'iti\e T l 2 3 4 5 6 "’ thinking in ieil llfi‘ situations , 3) to test theory and concepts learned in (he classroom ‘3 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 L and in literature ___ A It) to promote emotional growth - i 2 ti 4 5 6 7 l1 to promote personal integration (minister as scholar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1i nti practitioner) P-——_. _—_—>-—————or -— __._._. ___, _ - __—-_- 11)t11 [)'()\'1le'll,"*\u':i 1i\l1"‘.'3‘.i~'.1' 1,. l 2 3 l 5 t1 7 1) to clarify and ttiiifort e motivation ( ( ."ill )to 1' l 2 "i 4 S (1 " ministry l t1toi1rovideotpoitu i1t\ for (fit pmtt it t of 3:1 to til 1 2 5 4 5 b .. -__ roles . ,_ . -,_‘_.._ ._...-.H __ . --1 3»1to promote EU till 3:11:11. 1l- 1 l 2 i 4 5 (1 7 31w motintt ttnx1rdu1'11o1d itirninc 1 2 3 4 5 f, 7 r) to provide stimulation anti (111,;1t11t111itx 1111 LXpLillllLi 14 l 2 53 4 5 t1 7 tatlon and innovation in rLdl “it situiiio ‘m . 1- —— ——~—-— —- — a A.—_.... _-_---_- 4A is)" to provide currit 1.11151 lillL grill-1H l 2 ”i 4 5 6 7 .._ .. -_t.__-__._ _,_,_1 _-+ _V,_._ _-_____.___.,.e- t1tofacilitatc [ldilSillt'hl litiiii SILiIlL' (it it‘lt {(1i1ili‘l.-it : l 2 3 4 5 6 7 role ___ 1 , 3 w i __ _ ---_ other olgectiw (see question number )5) (write in numhet 's as net L‘s1ary) l 26. For each type of supervisory personnel listed below, check (X) the degree of supervisory te— sponsihility they exurcised over your ilt‘ld edu- cation experiences. supervisory personnel Degree of supervisory responsibility minor responsibility major responsibility field education director (or equivalent) Ether Stniinary faculty or staff taris h minister(s) r. _ “.— parish committee(s) denominational official (5) denominational committee (5) Other (specify) 221 27. Think of the objectives which you rated as l, 2 or 3 as' important for field education. (see question number» 18) List below the id work volunteer work. or mtilitary service experiences you h—ave WW which you feel contributed most toward the realization of these objectives. 28. Check (X) m of the items which best completes the following statement: The d{eneral responsibility for directing and coor hating my field education experiences was exercised by noone . . . . . .. exercised by theoffice staffof the seminary. . . .( ) exercised by the field education director (or nuivalent) . . . . . . exercised by (specify) 1 OOOUCOOIOO() esseesssss‘) ) 29. Please circle the number for each statement which best describes about the field education program you experienced. (I to 7) a) The availability of my sugrvisoris), when needed. was WW9” extremely satisfactory unsatisfactory I 2 3 4 5 6 7 b) The am: in which my field education ex- periences were taken (sequencing of experiences), . generally speaking, was mm“? extremely satisfactory unsatisfactory l 2 3 4 5 6 7 c) The edures for evaluati my field edu- cation experiences, generally speaking, were extremely extremely satisfactory unsatisfactory l 2 3 4 s 6 7 d) The in$ati§2 of my field education ex- periences extremely ‘ extremely satisfactory unsatisfactory l 2 3 4 5 o 7 e) The actual help of my sugrvisorgs) was extremely extremely satisfactory unsatisfactory l 2 3 4 5 6 7 f) 'Dte 82$ for my field education experiences were extremely extremely clear unclear ' l 2 3 4 3 6 7 (continue with next column) 33. Use the remainder of this page for eneral c m- ments or en stions for improving your EW%E- ‘ a sem as s e d education program. You 30. Check (X) the item for each statement which best describes how ou fe l w about ‘the field educa- tion program you exper enced. a) The W for my field education ex- periences compared to the amount of time for the rest of the curriculum was I100 much see. aaaaaaaaaaaa , ..................... possesseseee--e( m little I...l'..l...l.l 0"... about right ' ) OIIOOIOIlsoellssosceolnslooooIOOO( ) II a ) O IIDOOOOOOICDCOOIOOCCIICOCIOIO( b) The r uired s ndard for my field e ucation experiences, generally speak- ing, was too high ..... ‘ ( .mt mt ..... O0.0...IOOOICOOIIOOIO'OOUOOI0.0000000000000000. vvv c) The W my field educa- tion experiences, generally speaking, was too much -- - - - - ( ) m "ale OOIOOCIOOOOOIIOUOOIIOOIOOOOOI0.0.0.0...OCOOO'OOIDUODI. ( ) about right ) d) The M of my field education program ‘ was . too much on my professional preparation and not enough on my personal growth too much on my personal growth and not enough on my professional preparation . . . . . . . . . . ( ) about right between my professional preparation and my personal growth . . eeeeesse( sheeeeseosses‘) 31. Do you regret that field education experiences were a part of your seminary program? m 0......COCOOIIOIOIOOOC vge ' ”.00.... lllllllllllll .ll 32. if you answered "yes” to question number 31, - check as many of the following reasons as apply: I had Other experiences which accomplished the same purposes as field education - - ( ) The benefits of field education experiences do not justify the time spent on them - - g - .( ) My seminary curriculum was sufficiemly complete with— out the addition of field education experiences........ ( ) other ( specifyl l ) may also use this space for any clarmcgggn of mr respgnses you feel it necessary to make. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION APPENDIX B LETTERS SENT TO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES 222 APPENDIX B LETTERS SENT TO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES First letter 410 Park Lane, E. Lansing, Mich., A8823 June 9, 1967 Your help is urgently requested for a study which when completed will constitute the thesis requirement for my Ph.D. degree in Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University. The title of the study is: FIELD EDUCATION EXPERIENCES AS AN ELEMENT IN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PREPARATION FOR THE PARISH MINISTRY AS PERCEIVED BY PARISH MINISTERS. A questionnaire will be sent in the month of September to a random sample of the 1964 Bachelor of Divinity (or equivalent) graduates of accredited Protestant Theological Seminaries in North America. May I thus request a list of names and addresses of the 1964 B.D. (or equivalent) graduates of your institution? The timing of the study will be greatly facilitated if your list of graduates is sent to me by August 15. Be assured that the list of your graduates will not be used for any other purpose of this immediate study. For co-operating in the study, an abstract of the results will be sent to the participating institutions. Enclosed you will find a self-addressed envelope for your convenience. Yours sincerely, (Rev.) K. Lavern Snider, candidate for Ph.D. degree, - Michigan State University 223 22“ Second letter A10 Park Lane, E. Lansing, Mich., 48823, Sept. 5, 1967 On June 9 I sent the enclosed letter to all accredited theological seminaries in North America. To date I have received the 196“ Bachelor of Divinity (or equivalent) class lists from 70 of the institutions. This study will be most meaningful if all of the semin— aries are included in the study. It may be that you have already sent to me your 1964 class list but that your letter has gone astray, or with the pressure of other duties my request has been overlooked. However, since I am most anxious to send the research instrument for the study to parish ministers in the near future, I would very much appreciate receiving the 196“ Bachelor of Divinity (or equivalent) class list from your seminary at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours sincerely, (Rev.) K. Lavern Snider Third letter “10 Park Lane, E. Lansing, Mich., A8823 Oct. 30, 1967 Within the next two weeks I plan to mail the research instrument of my study, FIELD EDUCATION EXPERIENCES AS AN ELEMENT IN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PREPARATION FOR THE PARISH MINISTRY AS PERCEIVED BY PARISH MINISTERS, to persons in the sample of the population-~the 196A BaChelor of Divinity graduating class. Since I am anxious to include graduates of ALL of the 90 accredited (in 196“) theological seminaries in the study I am writing to you again to enlist your cooperation. It may be that my letter to you has gone astray or that you have inadvertently overlooked the request. Estimating your 196“ graduates to be approximately persons in number (1966 DIRECTORY OF THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS) I will need persons' names and addresses from your 1964 graduating class, selected as randomly as possible. For your information, from the lists already received, I have numbered the graduates in a series frOm l-7 and have selected #7 from each series as the person for the sample. May I hear from you in the near future? The study will be completed in the Spring of next year and an abstract sent to each of the 90 accredited seminaries. A self addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Yours sincerely, (Rev.) K. Lavern Snider 225 APPENDIX C LETTERS SENT TO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY GRADUATES 226 APPENDIX C LETTERS SENT TO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY GRADUATES First letter A10 Park Lane, E. Lansing, Mich., #8823 November 30, 1967 As a minister with experience in a parish and as a faculty member and administrator in a theological seminary, I am much interested in the field education programs of theological seminaries. I have chosen to study this rapidly developing part of theological education for my doctoral dissertation in Administration and Higher Educa- tion at Michigan State University. As a recent graduate from seminary you can make a valuable contribution to such a study. Therefore, I am imposing upon your time and generosity and inviting you to make a contribution toward improving seminary education. Will you please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to me by December 18? I have tried to keep it as short as possible without sacrificing essential informa- tion. Each participant in a pretest completed the form in 30 minutes or less. All responses will be analyzed and findings and conclusions will be shared with seminaries. Respondents, however, will be completely anonymous. Your name appears only on the return envelope. When your completed questionnaire is received you name will be checked off my list of recent graduates and the envelope destroyed. I hope that you will Join in this study by reviewing your experience both during and following seminary. I believe that you have something of real worth to contribute toward the improvement of seminary education. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this study. Sincerely, (Rev.) K. Lavern Snider 227 228 Second letter A10 Park Lane, E.-Lansing, Mich. #8823 January 2, 1968 In the midst of Christmas activities you may not have found time to complete the questionnaire on theological seminary field education which I mailed to you on November 30. However, I am still most anxious to receive your completed questionnaire since the findings of the ' study will be most meaningful with a maximum number of persons responding. I have enclosed another copy of the questionnaire. May I request that you complete the questionnaire and return it to me by January 15. Use the enclosed self addressed envelope for your convenience. Your help in this study is much appreciated. Sincerely, (Rev.) K. Lavern Snider 229 Third letter A10 Park Lane, E. Lansing, Mich., A8823 January 12, 1968 Dear Reverend The response from the 196A Bachelor of Divinity (or equivalent) seminary graduates for my current study of seminary field programs is gratifying. However, as I have written to you earlier, the study will be most meaningful when a MAXIMUM NUMBER of graduates participate in it. Thus, may I once again URGENTLY REQUEST that you complete the questionnaire sent to you and return it to me AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. If you wish another question- naire form, please do not hesitate to ask for one. I plan to send an abstract of the results of the study to all protestant theological schools in Canada and the United States which are members of the Accrediting Association of Theological Schools and to graduates who participate in the study. I May I count on your help? Please use the enclosed postage- paid, self addressed envelope for your convenience. Yours most sincerely, (Rev.) K. Lavern Snider P.S. You may have returned your questionnaire to me by the time this letter reaches you and if so, please ignore this further request. APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTARY CODING 230 2331 0LMCHEom mEHu puma 0:03 mcommmn msoHum> pom 0 mpmHoEoo on a .m .m mo mCOmmmu mLoE no 039 N mumoz m :02» mcommmp HmHoom LO\oc0 Hmcomnom 0 once wCmep mEmHoona 83H30HLL30 0 Lou mcommom mm m.H mH >Hco Amvcommou pocpo m Hmvcommou torso 0cm mEOQCH m wcHxsoz >Hco mEOQCH H Low mCOmmom 00 H NH umHzomm so msonHHon zHumoHo 002 m umHsomm zHoochmHQ m msonHHop meOCHomHQ H xgoz go @000 00 H mH mLoE no 00.000mH 0 00.000HH no 00.000HH m 00.0000H Op 00.0000H \ 00.0000 00 00.0000 0 00.0000 00 00.0000 0 00.000g oh 00.000s : cmssma 00.0000 co 00.0000 m one song 00.0000 0 00 00.0000 0 m coHomemczsmn 00.00000 twee: H Hmzccm Hence 0m m.H HH.0H stzg oco .czoo CH oco .mocogsro m 0H 000.000 can» mess 00H0 0 000 ocspsm 3H 000.000 0s 000.000 Asses 0 000 seesaw 0H 000.000 00 000.00 Henna 0 000 003030 NH mmsH to 000.00 Agsfio m 000 seesaw HH 000.00m coco oLoE .mpHo LoccH 0H 000.000 00 000.000 .ssho tween 00 000.000 00 000.00 .mpHo smccH 00 mmmH so 000.00 .spflo cmccH e0 000.00m cmcp ouoe .mecH no: 039 .szo 00 000.000 on 000.000 .mecH so: has .00H0 00 000.000 00 000.00 .cmccH soc 0:0 .ssno :0 mmmH Lo 000.00 .mecH no: 052 .on0 m0 egos m0 Hesse H0 coHQmOOH consco AH.0H m.H 0 .0 @000 EmpH .02 .oz .02 mpHm: .Hoo oumo IcoHuwmsa UZHQOO wmdezmzmqmmbm uncommon mHnmpoocs 0cm omCOQmop oc « 00.0 2323 H0::om:00 .500 :0: 0:0 0:0:HE00 :pom pomH>0003m H0:oH030Hpm:H MH000:O Lomm0mopa mp0:HE0m H0H0H000 00:3:0 L000HCHE :mHLOm 0000 H :0:0 000: :00» H :0:p mm0HI|m:0:oE 0 :0:0 00o: 0:0:0E 0 :0:0 mw0Hllmx003 mH :0:0 0002 0x00: mH :0:u mm0Hllmx003 0 :0:0 0:02 0x003 0 :00» wm0HuImx003 : :0:0 00oz 0x003 : :0:0 0000 000:0Hp00x0 0000H0p .000 :0: 0:0 .000 shop 00: 0H0HHch00 0000H0: .:00 :o: no .000 :0:00:3 HH00 on 0H30H00H0 0000H0: :mHm0Q :o: 0.0x0 HH< 0000H0: :mHL00 0.0x0 HH< H00000H0:Hv 00: H00000H0:HV 0>0: po: 0H0 :0H300m 0:0 m3onHH0: 0:0 0:00HHHZ :0H300m 0:0 0:00HHHE :0om m3onHH0: 0:0 0:00HHHE :0om :0H300m 0:0 m3onHH0: £000 :0H300m cho m3onHH0: 0H:0 HempHHHe 0Hc0 H00000H0:H0 0:02 m 0:0 0 0o :oH00cHQEoo m 0:0 H 00 :oH00:H0E00 m 0:0 H 00 :oH00:H0800 :oH000300 0H0H0 :H 0:0QH0HHL00 :oHp00300 0H0Hm :H 0:0QH0HHL00 :oz :0HHL00 00:0E0LH300: 0.50m no 0005 0000H0500 w:H>0: 00 0030000 ... 00:0Hu0ax0 0:0 0w0 00 0030000 ... 0:0:HE00 mcHu30 no \0:0 00 :oHpq .ax0 H0000000 00 0030000 ... Hcpwc0H :H x003 H :0:u mm0Hv Empmoua.H0:0H000300 0>choux0 mm0H Anew:0H :H x003 H :0:u 0:080 E0pwoua H0:0Hu00300 0>Hm:0px0 0:0: . 000w00 00oc0>00 pom r—lmmzmm :rmxowooox r—iN r—iNm LT Hmmzrmkowoo :TLDKO 000:0Hg00x0 .0300 0H0H0 w:H00:H0:ooo 0:0 m:H000gH0 pom ssHHHnHmcoammm 0EH0|m.:00x0 .0300 0H0Hm xoon 0000H0: :mHg0Q :o:\:mH:0mIm.0x0 .0300 0H0Hm xoon 000:0H00qx0 .0300 0H0H0 xooHn 00:\0>0: 00: 0H0 m0>H00000o .0300 0H0H0 00 :_NHH00: 00 00030H00:00 :0H:3 0:0:HE00 ou LoHLQ 000:0H000xm . 0H .o: 0LH0::oHpm030 :H :o:: w:H>0m 000 0:0000: 00:00 :oHp00300 0H0Hm :H 0:0QHOHQLOQ \0:0QH0HHL0Q 1:0: ">LOEE3m :oHu00300 0H0H0 :H 0.0000 :o:\p:0aHOHp:0m 0000030 0:0 E0uwoum m: mm mm 30 mm 0m mm 0m mm :m :m :m HN.HN 0m 0H 0H 0H nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 11111111111111 1|||1|11|W1|1||W|“IIWINIIWIH1| 31293104112606