m
.1

(11,1?

‘ ‘1

        
  

 
   
      

1
1"1',‘¢1l1

'M". V" 0_'_1 1 'll ‘7‘. 3'“ “;:.u"."" '1" n .' '5ng
g g, 2,.) 11' '. .11. d" ‘3‘,” 3c. ,“jfi 1‘. .,‘,' 1,1111.“ ;,1‘,,14,‘q§,\‘ 3'11 ',1'1. “1'2“!" ”'12; $91111: "15,13: {24“, )1
‘1‘.“ '1'v't’1"';l'3'1111l", " 5,11, ""1“....'."1.11‘"11114'-" "'1“; '- ' ' "1‘:
‘1‘1‘ " 11 ‘ If 11 ',"'c‘-"-:"\j1"‘4',."'"'-'1""'- -‘1' " ‘ 5‘Q“.,}1"31|CJ) '5'":
."3, 1011' :"1 ,1” 1, 11"”.pg: ,1. "-11" 1 :.;1;"1"'1'."§7. ' ”‘1', 1 1“" '1111,c11"."11

l :,'.‘\ h ' ' ‘ bl1"

 

. 1 1
"' " ’15‘““".3"1.."" ‘1 .'-111‘1 1' '_7'1'1.\.1--1-;
‘ ',",,).' 1| '1];:,"i .‘lkj’l :0’: 111,. . [1,“, 1lfiu“.' 1‘ S'Mbfl‘ "V",l"’:"; .‘ '1 q}. t , 4
'1.” {11'- 11.”,1', _,1 '1: 11,42“ a1. 1 )‘H'H . 1
‘ R 'l' )‘i' 1'3‘:1E" ' "" >111: ”xii; mkdk I9"1 "11";‘1flwk'1'

    
     
      

1W}
M1111. v1, 1.

11‘... .
'1' ~ 1 s ‘11”.
‘?,,l 11-7?"

 

’ ' 13-1111. . .' 1'11

 
  
    
  

      

        
     
   
  
    
     
     
    
   
  
         
     
          
    
      
  

  
 
    
  
   
 

     
  
   

' {'1' 1""!‘ 11 1'5‘ '
1‘1'3111'11'1. 11”..» 1:='-"..'. 11111“ 11111 ""1" .
“1‘11"1'11“‘1"5'11‘:"1‘~‘!-‘1‘1~'-‘"‘1"1‘1‘1:E11""'33‘3“!” , ' 1:111:11" '111‘31’1
" 11 1" '1 .-.' .11- 171. . ' 3.11. '1 1 » " 11 1....
., . .. .11 1 1"f11:«.-1..-11.1..1.1'111111-11- " '.21"1'1"1-'11:_.~1:1-.*":11;*.-1..,.111.1.1 111'} V1311-11-11:. “1-5 111,11
1, .1. 1. $9,111 1..., ' 1 ' 1 1 1 11.1. .IJJ‘: I ' ,1". '1', ‘ ‘ 4,»,- 1'11““
”"5"“ ' b '.¥:'.11$‘.'J~ 1'1Sfi' "'0 '.‘-' "' "$935) ' 1\9§1‘\'W3 ' ‘1'“ I"JV.1:::":-' t “ ". ' 1'1; rvf :f-jx‘i'” ”\xfifi
' "A n ‘ {1'6 ‘5' W . ‘ [a . ‘12:?" NJ \wfi‘an’x

'1:,.1, "'11", 2:! V2“: ,
111 111,1
#1

 

‘ ., ,L ,1,1"-' £1,1- 1-1 111111,,
' 1-? " %""“1%"". Wk"
1 ' 11.151111? 11.111111'
133$“ fiaw 1!“; 1231.1 ' ‘1- ‘1 (1.3","-
$81.31 "“1111 't,-'..'"' ‘9 '

var], “J’s‘fi “0:."
O 1' I \‘r
'11-'10“? "2133151
\.I. I

   
    

  

Ma. ‘ $14" #511325 '
'1 '1? '
I141“ 1.:
’ ., v \"_" 513.6 ’. '
“Us. ‘ ' F" I I-

:

   

~s

   

X4“:
#1“
334:1‘1:,1\ "'KW‘XF: -"

1
|
. . l‘. u.“
v " '|,| ." t1“,
, '1‘1'}¢¥r§"€' J1" 1 it. ”11.. V“1)1'\ 1 1;"
,( 4,11. .,,‘,vll '1! Njyh , | ': 1"“. 1%“ 1-1 V “flirt?! “3"”
' 3,21%. gas ".‘11 1' "' .111“ WI. 1', r' ’11.. 31""1'111‘ 151.111; M93
x'n‘ I'V " i‘)‘ :1? . 1| ‘1‘ ' . , a
12:71 511,1, 21.1111“ .. 11"“ '(11"1'11111-11121'1111 ‘°,\\1>'1:31:.1'11'é2,.~’=‘1.
"’1'" "5? ‘1'! in ‘ ' ""1319“ ' 71111333151311». '13 :. .-.~.1';‘1::-‘-‘;1‘1".t.1:=~"
1:11. 1"} 1 ‘ 4‘,“ 1',o1l 1, 'Nfil'fié)’ 3J-“h'.
1 , , 1-.
Y:

"" ”'1’ 1*] I 1 1'11"f {r:"'.‘:t: ’
.' ,J'.‘ ‘ .‘1 ‘ .k“ W ’ ' Lfkyxhé.§l%,\£ ,1“""|“1"“.

“" 191141" W11“”111-1193111551111;"...,f.{‘_?r‘r 1'3“, ‘
“‘ K: RL‘QQWW I‘\'>‘:‘ "' )("gfifi

1- ‘1‘“. '1-H‘1‘W1'1; 1“.“K

1:. 77"} ‘

  

      

. :1, .' “TM-(f
‘§.“'I1‘F‘.‘;;gk"" “'+\~:"1“1§}‘ 3"‘¢%&7gfi‘1 \ynjg
11: 1P§t.~1‘1“'££‘{ 1311~1§g11111111:..,%

         

:3
f " " fifi'fif'

 
 
  
   
 

  

 
 
 
 
 

 
  
  

‘5'1‘1'1.[\(’f.".,
'\ 35“

1}"r"~ ‘. “it", 11.1 3 . ,_ . 1 ' ' ,,', :1“. (.1
{:h ‘ ' 1 ,'-O 01‘!
”WW #1,?

34.: If.) "
, . “@1231
.-1 13 9112-14111, 1* "I‘ ‘ 3'
, .qh‘. 1,4,3" 1" ~ 1
161.35": 1:.‘11. V“ . '13,“;(3 '
11,13 ,1; 1 .3"ka 04$"? "
#3312, £11.11 -

      
   

4 . F);:‘ .

15::
"5'. 13:.""

  
 
 
 
  
  
   
  
  
    
    
  
   
    

 

     

«1:211
15%
1.5!“ -
33.33
V -1: I..-

3’ L"
325%"
:5, 4-31

' C _
I of-
._ : ‘
1
1- ._.
_ .
‘oit-It‘l.
.123 -:.->.
4011'-
:J
- _.
Y
1

"‘ 3111‘ka ‘53:}
1 111-1111111111.

r
5

  
   
    
    
 

1 11 . 7,,Q:1"'11,, ’é'yfi.‘
' 113} iti”£;"-,i:‘tf1fi,1 v"
r , 1 akin-Wm. 7 '-‘:1.1
. 1.' -.'.\~‘f".1 I“ " '1
1’1. ’1‘: -‘1”7£-1'11.‘ 1111411111-

1 , -
1v... ,
"1..'.“

           

 

I

1"

--
In,

   

”‘J 1‘ ' $19,133 "“‘7,
31‘ ‘13,” 111.1%“! “11:16,“

 
  
  
 
 
 

   
 
  
  
  

 

  
   
  
 
    

  
 

  

v I.‘ ' 1
.111
‘ .1 -\ .
, .
123'?) 111.1%
. 1 11,1,“
- . ,1
.. 'j'Ti: 5', , .‘1 LE‘E' 13‘1“ .-
113'!" ,. ‘ ".V'11I'1.‘|'1"1‘ 1 v,.. f “"1’:-’;1"""-'1 ,N,
13. ~1-11': '11-‘13 11.1'1"..-..1'11 .‘ 1:1. .1 '1‘1‘“--»1.1 '3':'-:”-.:<. 1112931.“:5 .
.5111» «111-1111'“. '1'. 11'.“ 13.2" “£1311- ' "9>""T"“ ' 1r 1";1" "1' "". "
=1: ' "<51? '1"~11.1':.-1 "‘1’1‘:2 1,1,1 1. -'.1 '1'}. 11- "'
. . . .. 5‘71.
‘1‘ " ' '1 A'- ‘l‘ 1 "1

  

(2:1:32‘315113'1'1‘

   
 
  

 

 

    

 

1 . .
'.‘L 1
, .1 I -
11.1 1'1’""-1 1‘11'11'11131'11’
".1"..n‘1.'.:1\:|'; "fh" 1";')<:,‘$".'- ' "1",.‘:‘,.
“17'1” "‘4 "N \11“ (1',- '1' '

,11(- ‘r‘

     
  

1,54. 1.. ‘
. ,.

1 " 1'1" :1‘,‘,',{“'§, 1'1". :1" ‘.1-. U1”; ”Hf («p.{ww 1&111,‘ ,5
l1"‘1'l:"1lfi'l I'll. .‘
.191} 1

     

4114'.“

 
   
 

.' ". ' :- 11",111-1:
V“. 0'“ lI

 
      
  

1311-1,

 
 

   
 
     

 
 
  

I."';IE \’u,‘.;"';‘." 151‘ "fl";

- {149?} ‘ 1‘1fl‘W
1:31.” , '1. ‘1?“
1.1.1,. “2“ ”511‘ 1 r'

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

RELATING EXPERIENTIAL AND CLASSROOM LEARNING—-A STUDY
IN BIBLE COLLEGE CURRICULUM

presented by

Charlotte Anne Kinvig

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

-4!
..-l '7'" ' '.

 

Ph.D. degreein Department of Educational

Administration

9,1914) MW

Major professor

Date May 21, 1987

“c"..._ 4:-_‘g_..: a: .L L. L . 042171

 

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
.—:_—.

 

 

.-

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. flfl§§_will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

. :w
.u 4 hi" 6"” -_ A‘

, . ““otd
““- ' A 24 9

"mu 0 '7 mm

1 '3‘. T‘Tfs. "fiwssi’ _' ‘

i’ I'. L:
4

2 9 e; 4

J)
W‘ J

 

 

RELATING EXPERIENTIAL AND CLASSROOM LEARNING--A STUDY

IN BIBLE COLLEGE CURRICULUM

BY

Charlotte Anne Kinvig

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1987

Copyright
by
CHARLOTTE ANNE KINVIG

1987

ABSTRACT

RELATING EXPERIENTIAL AND CLASSROOM LEARNING--A STUDY
IN BIBLE COLLEGE CURRICULUM
BY

Charlotte Anne Kinvig

Students bring to the formal educational setting a
lifetime of prior experience as well as current out-of-class
experiences that influence learning. The purpose of the
study was to identify and to describe the relationship
between the life experiences of students and classroom
learning in undergraduate theological institutions in Western
Canada. The intent was to discover what professors do with
the experiences of students as a potential curriculum
resource and how faculty seek articulation between the
classroom context and the out-of—class experiences of
students.

The data collection involved face-to-face interviews and a
learning style inventory. Interviews were conducted with the
chief academic officers as well as 60 students and 21 faculty
at two Bible colleges. Conclusions reached are as follows:
1. Collegians favor learning that moves beyond abstract

conceptualization to action and concrete realities.

Faculty believe they use the life experiences of students
more frequently than students acknowledge.

Faculty are willing to adapt curriculum for students, but
their actual use of the experiences of students as a
resource is minimal.

A high degree of correlation exists between faculty and
students on their perception of the roles of the professor.
Men are stronger on teacher centered and individualistic
approaches to learning, while women emphasize the personal
and interactive dimensions.

Kolb's (1985) Learning Style Inventory revealed that among
faculty, the preferred learning mode of women was concrete

experience and for men was abstract conceptualization.

DEDICATION

To My Family
Mom and Dad, Paul and Sharon, Milton and Sharon

for their constant love and support

To My "Second Family"
Margaret, Shirley, Signe, and Jean Sokvitne
for their consistent encouragement

in my growth endeavors

To My Friend
Dr. Leslie A. Andrews
for modeling and facilitating growth
and for practicing teaching as an

"improvisor's art"

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have been valuable companions along my
doctoral journey. My special appreciation goes to the

following people:

To Dr. Ted Ward, mentor and friend, for providing
significant guidance and giving me the opportunity to travel

with him for a time in the life-long learning process.

To Geneva Speas, Dr. Ward's secretary, for being

available and helpful.

To Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. Howard Hickey, and Dr. Dick

McLeod, committee members, for their assistance and insight.

To the administration, faculty, and students of Logos and
Rhema Bible Colleges for their full cooperation and

participation in the research.

To my colleagues and the administrators at Prairie Bible
Institute for their assistance and encouragement along the

way.

To Evvy Hay, Lori Lawson, Gray and Trish Poehnell, Hal
Wilson, and Danny, LeAnn, and Joshua Kinvig for being there

and understanding.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................ xv
Chapter 1
UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM ................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ................................... 1
Background of the Problem .............................. 2
Curriculum ........................................ 2
Theological Education ............................. 4
Research Questions ..................................... 6
Research Question #1 .............................. 6
Research Question #2 .............................. 7
Research Question #3 .............................. 7
Importance of the Research ............................. 7
Definition of Terms ................................... 10
Context of the Problem ................................ 11
Overview of Research Procedures ....................... 12
Selection of Subjects ............................ 13
Data Collection .................................. 13
Data Reduction and Analysis ...................... 14
Population ............................................ 14
Sample ................................................ 14
Delimitations ......................................... 15
Generalizability ...................................... 16
Overview of the Dissertation .......................... 16
Chapter 2
PRECEDENTS IN THE LITERATURE ............................... 17
Perspectives on Curriculum ............................ 18
Definitional Perspectives ........................ 19
Historical Perspectives .......................... 20
Orientations to Curriculum ....................... 20
The Student and the Curriculum ........................ 26
The Development of the Student and Curriculum....27
Involvement of the Student and Curriculum ........ 29
Models of Experiential Learning ....................... 34

viii

Relationship of Field Education to the

Institutional Curriculum .............................. 39
Dilemmas in Integration ............................... 42
The Teaching Process .................................. 47
Orientations to the Teaching Process ............. 48
Students and the Teaching Process ................ 51
Integration in Theological Education .................. 55
Strategies for Integration. ..... ... ................... 59
Summary ............................................... 62
Chapter 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................ 63
Research Design ....................................... 63
Research and Operational Questions .................... 64
Research Question #1 ............................. 64
Research Question #2 ............................. 65
Research Question #3 ............................. 66
Population ............................................ 66
Sample ................................................ 67
Institutions ..................................... 67
Subjects ......................................... 68
Students .................................... 68
Faculty ..................................... 68
Profiles of Participating Institutions ................ 69
Rhema Bible College .............................. 69
Academic Programs ........................... 69
Programs Included in the Research ........... 70
Logos Bible College .............................. 70
Academic Programs ........................... 70
Programs Included in the Research ........... 71
Faculty Subjects at Rhema and Logos .............. 71
Rhema ....................................... 71
Logos ....................................... 72
Faculty Demographic Data .................... 72
Student Subjects at Rhema and Logos .............. 80
Rhema ....................................... 81
Logos ....................................... 81
Student Demographic Data .................... 82
Response Rate .................................... 83
Non-response Rate ................................ 84
Instrumentation ....................................... 85
Interview Guides ................................. 85
Learning Style Inventory ......................... 88
Data Collection ....................................... 90
Recruitment of Subjects .......................... 90
Interview Procedures ............................. 91
Learning Style Inventory ......................... 92
Methodological Assumptions ............................ 92
Sample ........................................... 92
Interview Procedures ............................. 93
Data Reduction ................................... 94
Delimitations and Generalizability .................... 97

ix

Chapter 4

FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY .................................... 99
Analysis of Data ...................................... 99
Statistical Treatment ........................... 100
Demographic Variables ........................... 101
Faculty Variables .......................... 101
Student Variables .......................... 101
The Interviews ....................................... 101
Interviews with the Chief Academic Officers .......... 103
Rhema Chief Academic Officer .................... 103
Logos Chief Academic Officer .................... 104
Findings Related to the Research and Operational
Questions ............................................ 106
Findings Regarding the Explicit Curriculum ...... 106
Research Question #1 ....................... 106
Summary of Findings for Research Question #1....133
Findings Regarding Faculty Practices ............ 135
Research Question #2 ....................... 135
Findings Regarding the Learning Style
Inventory ....................................... 150
Research Question #3. ...................... 150
Summary of Findings for Research Question #3....161
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 163
Findings ............................................. 164
Demographic Variables ........................... 164
Findings Between Colleges ....................... 166
Findings Between Faculty and Students ........... 167
Findings Between the Sexes ...................... 173
Recommendations for Further Research ................. 178
Reflections .......................................... 180
Appendix A ................................................ 184
.Appendix B ................................................ 188
Appendix C ................................................ 192
Bibliography .............................................. 196

Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table
Table
Table

Table

wwww

.10

.11

.12

.13
.14
.15

.16

LIST OF TABLES

Faculty by Sex by College ................... 73
Faculty Age by Sex by College ............... 73
Highest Academic Degree of Faculty by Sex by
College ..................................... 74
Previous Years of Faculty Work Experience by Sex
by College .................................. 75
Present Faculty Teaching Load by College .... 76
Present Faculty Administrative Load by CollegeT7
Faculty Teaching Major by College ........... 78
Faculty Time in Years in Present Position by
College ..................................... 78
Faculty Time in Years at the College by Collegves9
Faculty Off-Campus Involvement by College ... 80
Students in Each Set of Majors by Class by
College ..................................... 81
Number of Students According to Sex by College82
Student Age in Years by Sex by College ...... 83
Faculty Response Rate by College ............ 83
Student Response Rate by College ............ 84

Faculty and Student Non-response Rate by College
............................................ 84

xi

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

.10

.11

.12

.13

.14

.15

.16

.17

.18

Statements Derived from Interviews by College by
Subjects ................................... 102

Years Between High School and College by Sex by
College ....... , ............................. 107

Student Work Experience by Sex by College .. 108

Students Who Entered College Immediately after
High School by Sex by College .............. 109

Student Differences by Sex for Entering College
Immediately after High School .............. 110

Students Who Studied after High School but
before Rhema or Logos by Sex by College .... 110

Statements of In-class Learning Experiences by
Subjects by College ........................ 115

Ways Students State They Have Been Able to Share
Their Experiences by College ............... 117

Methods Cited by Students that Professors Used
by College ................................. 118

Out-of—class Learning Experiences by Subjects by
College .................................... 120

Assignments Students Specify as Interesting by
College .................................... 121

Faculty Statements of Administrative Initiative
by College ................................. 123

Factors that Contribute to Using the Experiences
of Students by College ..................... 125

Factors that Hinder Using the Experiences of
Students by College ........................ 126

Statements Expressing the Ideal Use of the
Experiences of Students by Subjects by College
........................................... 128

Statements Expressing the Ideal Use of the
Experiences of Students by College by Sex “.129

Priorities Assigned to the Roles of the
Professor by Subject ....................... 131

Memorable Learning Experiences of Subjects by
College .................................... 136

xii

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table
Table

Table

Table

4.20

4.22

4.30

4.31

4.32

4.33

4.34
4.35
4.36

4.37

Memorable Learning Experiences of Students by
Sex ........................................ 138

Qualities of Significant Professors Identified
by Subjects at Rhema and Logos Colleges .... 139

Qualities of Professors Specified by Students by
Sex ........................................ 140

Faculty Awareness of Student Involvement Outside
of the Classroom by College ................ 141

Students and Professors Express the Frequency of
Using the Experiences of Students by College 143

Faculty Express Degree of Importance of an

Engineer or Missionary in Class by College . 145
Responses of Teachers to an Engineer or
Missionary in Class by College ............. 146

What Students Say Professors Have Done to Know
Them by College ............................ 147

Statements Students Make to Describe What

Professors Have Done to Know Them .......... 148

Ways Professors Incorporate the Experiences of
Students by College ........................ 150
Learning Styles Inventory Scales by Subject 152

Student Learning Styles Inventory Scales by Sex

........................................... 153
Faculty Learning Styles Inventory Scales by Sex

........................................... 154
Student Learning Styles Inventory Scales by
Program Major .............................. 155
Faculty Learning Styles Inventory Scales by
Program Major .............................. 156
Learning Style Type by Subject by College .. 157
Learning Style Type by Subject by Sex ...... 157

Learning Style Type by Subject by

Program Major
158

Faculty Learning Styles and the Use of the
Experiences of Mature Students ............. 159

xiii

Table 4.38 Student Type by Interesting Kinds of Assignments
....... . . ................................ 160

Table 4.39 In-class Methods Students Mention Professors Use
by Student Type by College ................. 161

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The Experiential Learning Model ............. 36

Figure 3.1 The Learning Cycle .......................... 88

XV

.
...“
‘u-

0L3

we.»

(0
(in

"w
U §

0 O
I V'
(I)

Chapter 1

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

In an information age characterized by rapid change, the
age-old dilemma within education of the integration of theory
and practice demands attention. This tension between the
theoretical and practical calls for a renewed assessment of
learning in our educational institutions. Focusing on
abstractions fails to recognize the incompleteness and
partiality of theory apart from the concreteness of life's
realities. The question needs to be asked, "How effective is
the articulation in learning between classroom and life?" The
classroom cannot be isolated from non-classroom experience.

The informational and experiential must intersect.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to identify and to describe
the relationship between the life experiences of students and
classroom learning in undergraduate theological educational
institutions in Western Canada. The experiences of students

include past and current interactions with life.

Background of the Problem
Relevant to the issue of articulation between the
classroom and life in theological education are concerns for

the curriculum and theological context.

Curriculum

Too frequently, curriculum (the substance of schooling)
has been limited to subject-centered and more measurable
designs (Klein, 1986, pp. 31, 32; Short, 1986, p. 7).

The stuff of theory is abstract or idealized
representations of real things. But curriculum in
action treats real things: real acts, real teachers,
real children [students], things richer than and
different from their theoretical representations.
Curriculum will deal badly with its real things if it
treats them merely as replicas of their theoretic
representations (Schwab, 1978, p. 310).

In his classic on curriculum, Tyler asserts that the
three data sources of society, students, and subject matter
must be used in curricular development and that reducing
curriculum to one aspect proves inadequate (1949). All three
proceed in a comprehensive approach for coherence and goal
attainment. Tyler further states, "Learning takes place
through the active behavior of the student; it is what he
does that he learns, not what the teacher does" (p. 63).

Some schools do include field-based education in the
curriculum to improve the experiential and concrete
components of the personal and social dimensions. Sheafor

and Jenkins point out though that the reality of field

instruction reveals that planned "linkage between classroom

and field content rarely occurs on paper and even more rarely
in practice" (1981, p. 19). With the knowledge and
technological explosion, however, an interactive model that
actively includes the student and society becomes even more
essential in today's and tomorrow's education.

Dewey, an influential 20th century educational theorist,
viewed education as the "laboratory in which philosophic
distinctions become concrete and are tested" (1916, p. 384).
Philosophy indicates desirable social values, and education
promotes them. "Education is life and not merely a
preparation for life" (Macrnnaedia, p. 69). The mission of
schools consists of providing experiences which promote
growth.

Dewey perceives every experience as characterized by
interaction and continuity. No person comes with a blank
slate to be filled with knowledge. Each person arrives with
needs, capacities, values, and interests that affect the
character of the individual's experience. Previous
experience tempers the subsequent experience with a
cumulative effect. Therefore, schools must know the problems
students confront, learn what dispositions are useful in
clarifying and coping with these problems, and understand the
sorts of experiences which will bring about those

dispositions.

4
Dewey obviously thinks that teachers should be

very influential in the governance of schooling. The

student also should be influential . . . note that

Dewey does not sanction the kind of absurd

permissiveness which came to be associated with

progressive education generally (Axtelle & Burnett,

1970, p. 287).

In fact, Dewey considers freedom to be the power to frame
purposes and execute them. He equates freedom with self—
control (1938, p. 67). Only one important freedom exists-
-that of observation and judgment exercised in behalf of
worthwhile purposes (p. 61). Teachers have a moral
obligation not to let the environment happen by thoughtless
chance. A key curricular component within the classroom
context then includes the life experience the student brings.
Both interaction and continuity compose experience (Dewey,
1938, pp. 33, 42). Interaction or transaction are used
interchangeably by Dewey to specify the give and take that
occurs between a person and his surroundings. Continuity on
the other hand, deals with prior experience generating
learned tendencies that affect subsequent situations and
responses.

IhenlnuicaLEducatinn

The articulation of the classroom and life experiences of
students along with interaction and continuity in learning
must also be embraced within much of theological education.
For a vocation claiming concern for the whole person, and
particularly the awesome responsibility of the spiritual

dimension of humanity, the principles of articulation between

theory and practice and continuity in learning remain basic

1'.

J

to improving competency as well as scholarship. Frequent
verbal affirmation of the relationships occur, but in
actuality a clear polarization often exists between the
theoretical and the practical, the content and the
experiential. Somehow the student's involvement, the demands
of the church, and the requirements of theological
institutions need to be rethought and coordinated so that the
cognitive dimension does not supersede wholistic preparation
for church vocation. The personal life and ministry skills
needed to serve within the church must also be developed.
Such take time, practice, and linkages between school, field,
and personal experience.

While increased incorporation of field-based education
gives evidence of concerns for the practical, further
rediscovery of the articulation of theory and practice
remains necessary. In addition, greater integration of
content and experience in the educational process needs
consideration.

The greatest defect in theological education today is

that it is too much an affair of piecemeal

transmission of knowledge and skills, and that, in

consequence, it offers too little challenge to the

student to develop his own resources and to become an
independent, lifelong inquirer, growing constantly

while he is engaged in the work of the ministry

(Niebuhr, Williams & Gustafson, 1957, p. 209).

How can this life-long learning perspective be promoted
effectively if the past and present life experiences of

students are not appropriately addressed within the

classroom? The issues of continuity and interaction,

therefore, demand consideration for the enhancement and
facilitation of learning and transformation.

Attending to the practical and integration aspects
persists as especially valuable when one considers the image
of the church as a community of believers exhibiting
interdependence among themselves. A one-way centralized
delivery system that fosters dependency and minimizes
participation, thereby hindering people's learning and
creating information overload, needs to be avoided. Within
the church as well as the classroom, learning cannot be
divorced from praxis, the reflection/action continuum. Not
only the end but also the means must be considered.
Otherwise, the tendency moves toward a banking concept of
Christian education that posits knowledge for future
consideration rather than present application (Freire, 1983,
p. 58). Since people tend to teach as they have been taught,
appropriate modeling of student participation must take place
in the college in order to promote interaction within

ministry contexts.

Research Questions
The inquiry will be guided by the following three
research questions:
WM
As seen by the administration, faculty, and students,
what elements of the explicit curriculum in a given

institution emphasize the experiences of students?

W
What do professors do to utilize learnings from the
experiences of students?
WW
How do the preferred learning styles of faculty and
students relate to the use of the experiences of students

within the classroom?

Importance of the Research

The "pursuit of excellence" has become the Shibboleth of
the day. As a result, a renewed search for quality is
characterizing education. Theological educators also reflect
a regard for excellence. This study fits into a number of
concerns in current discussion about theological education.
In particular it attempts to determine the extent and
methodology for including the experiences of students in the
classroom. The evident performance gap between the claim of
readiness for ministry and the actuality raises legitimate
concern.

With knowledge in a kaleidoscopic society mushrooming,
classical studies and intellectual discipline still prove
necessary but no longer sufficient. The fact persists that
"the questions a congregation raises about a potential
minister do not concern the number of courses completed but
revolve about such areas as wisdom and knowledge, pastoral
skills, psychological maturity, and the strength of faith"

(Schuller, Brekke & Strommen, 1975, p. vi). "Readiness for

ministry" involves professional and personal as well as
intellectual development. The "minimal correlation between
classroom proficiency and actual practice in the field" must
be overcome if people are to perform adequately in ministry
(Schuller et al, 1975, p. vii; Hill, 1986).

Fletcher suggests in "The Making of a Minister: What's
Wrong With the Process?" that there must be more than an
intellectual integration of the academic disciplines. In
reference to the seminary he calls for a "coherent
partnership of . . . shared responsibility between
judicatory, seminary and training congregration for
theological education" (1979, p. 6). The essential process
of continuous interchange between theory and practice must
present itself for reconciliation in the prevailing
relationship of alienation between theory and practice (Pinar
& Grumet, 1982, p. 50). While legitimate differences exist
between the world of thought and the world of action, both
are essential, and "educators must help their students make
connections between those two worlds" (Eaton, 1984, p. 3).

Others, however, question whether correspondence between
the classroom and field exists as a logical and pedagogical
possibility. Kraft, in fact, calls planned linkage between
the two a pseudo-problem and illusion (1982, p. 141). N9
would not go this far, but he does claim that field-based
training still seems to be an "extra" for the most part with
little articulation between the classroom and experiences of

life (1985).

One's conception of ministry and assumptions about people
connect closely with the growing concern for the articulation
process between theory and practice in the theological arena.
If one perceives ministry as top-down with the professional
as the expert, then a cognitive emphasis and isolationist
dimension tend to exist. Information rather than integration
and life transformation will receive priority. Students may
then be viewed as vessels to be filled, and the resources and
deficits that students bring to the educational process will
be ignored for the most part. As Fletcher points out, the
student is "viewed largely as an individual to be shaped in a
set of values and responses that begin, disconnectedly, from
the point of being recruited. The result is intellectual and
emotional isolation from previous personal, intellectual, and
ethical history" (1979, p. 4).

By virtue of ignoring experience, educators move contrary
to the integrative process and the development of meaningful
wholeness. Kierstead states, "With the exclusive use of
direct instruction, we prevent ourselves from getting the
full range of desired student outcomes" (1985, p. 26). Part
of enabling personal integration is planning curriculum that
includes the experiences of students and promotes the
interplay of abstract and concrete realities. Experience
cannot be seen as competing with subject matter but as an
integral part of classroom content. "Good theology and
authentic Christian experience go hand in hand" (Gasque,

1985, p. 33).

10

Definition of Terms

.Articulauion. The planned interaction and linkage of

cognitive (theoretical) and experiential learning.

Christian_Seruige. Involvement in church-related

activities such as teaching, preaching, and administration.

Curriculum. The consequence of clarifying what is taught
why, to whom, and under what conditions (Ward, 1985, Spring

Term).

Experience. The transaction between an individual and
his or her environment which includes the subjective,
internal, and personal as well as the objective and external
(Kolb, 1984, pp. 34-36). Dewey also emphasizes the concept
of continuity as well as interaction in experiences so part
of previous experience prevails in present experience and

influences subsequent experience (1938, pp. 42-48).

Experiential_Learning. Learning "in which the learner is

directly in touch with the realities being studied" (Keeton &

Tate, 1978, p. 2).

Eigld;hased_Learning. An experience-based learning
process functioning outside of the classroom context which
includes an educational focus as well as a service and

practical work component.

11

Life_Experience. The sum total of all that a person
encounters in each area of his or her life, which in turn may

be used for reflection in the learning process.

W For the purposes
of this study these terms are limited to undergraduate
schooling leading to the Bachelor of Theology or Bachelor of

Religious Education degrees (usually four-year programs).

Context of the Problem

Historically, the Bible college has educated for church—
related vocation. The Bible college movement began in the
early 18803 in part as a reaction against a more scholastic
emphasis and arose out of an awareness of the need for lay
and practical training. Witmer affirms the pragmatic
character of the Bible college as "an educational institution
whose principle purpose is to prepare students for church
vocations or Christian ministries through a program of
biblical and practical education" (1962, p. 26). While the
curriculum has grown to include general education as well as
biblical and professional studies, educators claim that the
purpose remains essentially the same (Barcalow, 1986, p. 23).

Theological education though has faced tensions similar
to other disciplines. With the growing emphasis on
accreditation of educational institutions and professionalism

in church-related careers, training became increasingly

12

academic. While the increased incorporation of field-based
education demonstrates some swing back to the practical,
greater integration of the classroom and life appears
necessary. In order to determine how the experiences of
students are utilized in the curriculum practices of
undergraduate theological institutions, two Bible colleges
called Rhema and Logos,1 were selected for study.

Rhema and Logos Bible Colleges are members of the
American Association of Bible Colleges and the Association of
Canadian Bible Colleges. Both colleges hold similar
doctrinal perspectives. Their primary curricular emphases
consist of Bible, theology, and church-related ministry

courses .

Overview of Research Procedures
The research was descriptive in nature and grounded in

qualitative procedures. With the views of both teachers and
students regarding the use of the experiences of students in
the classroom curriculum being of primary interest,
descriptive research makes a legitimate contribution to the
determination of facts and understanding of processes (Borg
and Gall, 1983, p. 31). As Isaac and Michael detail,

descriptive studies prove useful in the following ways:

 

1 For the sake of confidentiality, the pseudonyms Rhema and
Logos are used to describe the Bible colleges involved in the
study. .

13

a. To collect detailed factual information that
describes existing phenomena.

b. To identify problems or justify current conditions

and practices.

To make comparisons and evaluations.

To determine what others are doing with similar

problems or situations and benefit from their

experience in making future plans and decisions.
(1981, p. 46)

0-0

Selection.nf..$ub.ie.cts
The research was conducted at two Bible colleges in
Western Canada. Permission was secured to proceed with the
research in each institution. Lists of students and faculty
were then requested. A random sample of students and faculty
ensued according to discipline emphasis. Interviews were
conducted with students in the second through fourth years of
their studies. All students were enrolled in either the
Bachelor of Theology or Bachelor of Religious Education
programs. A sample of the faculty and the chief academic
administrator also participated in interviews concerning
their use of the experiences of students.
DataJnllection
Standardized interviews and a learning style inventory
furnished the primary means of collecting. A pilot study was
conducted at a third Bible college for the purpose of
refining the interview schedules and research procedures. The
interviews centered on the determination of planned and
unplanned linkages between content and experience in the
curriculum and the extent to which professors utilize the
<experiences of students. Both faculty and students took

iKolb's Learning Style Inventory in order to assess the

14

influences of learning style on the observations and
practices regarding the experiences of students as a resource
in the curriculum.
Data_Reductinn_and_Anal¥&is

Interviews concentrated on the interviewee's perception
of the role of the experiences of students in the classroom,
the methodologies used, and the faculty's inclusion of the
experiences of students. The data collected were content
analyzed (Krippendorff, 1980). Patterns and relationships
were identified in the data and then clustered as appropriate
into thematic units for coding and analysis. To assess the
findings and measure association, descriptive and
correlational statistics were the primary means of further

analysis.

Population

The population consisted of faculty and students of
member colleges of the American Association of Bible Colleges
and the fraternal Association of Canadian Bible Colleges.

Sample

Faculty and students from two Bible colleges associated
with the American Association of Bible Colleges were chosen
for conducting the research. Geographical location and
willingness to participate served as criteria for the college

selections.

15

Sophomore through senior Bachelor of Theology and
Bachelor of Religious Education students and ten to eleven
faculty at each of the two Bible colleges comprised the
subjects for the study. The choice of Bachelor of Theology
and Bachelor of Religious Education students or their
equivalent revolved around the professional status of these
degrees and their commonality within Bible college programs.
The elimination of freshmen students from the study removed
those with the least knowledge of the faculty and
institution. The basis for the selection of faculty
interviewees depended on whether the subjects they taught
focused primarily on the Biblical/theological/Pastoral or the

Christian education/missions areas.

Delimitations

The primary constraint of the research related to
choosing to carry out the descriptive study at only two Bible
colleges in Western Canada. As a result, the sample was
small. Further, the study explored happenings in the
educative setting based on each subject‘s perception.
Researcher bias also existed as a possibility in the
clustering procedure of subject responses, but other

observers were included to minimize this effect.

16

Generalizability

Due to the stated delimitations, data collected are
directed primarily to the participating institutions and the
Bachelor of Theology and/or Bachelor of Religious Education
programs for the possibility of informing administrative and
faculty curricular decisions. Institutions with similar
programs may find benefit in noting the place of the
experiences of students in the curriculum and the
articulation process that exists in ministry preparation.
Also, recognizing tendencies on the undergraduate level might
be suggestive of what occurs on the graduate level.
Nevertheless, because of the exploratory nature of this

descriptive study, generalizability will be limited.

Overview of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 clarifies the problem of articulation between
the classroom and experiences of students, specifies the
context, and overviews research procedures. Chapter 2
reviews precedence in the relevant literature while Chapter 3
describes the research design. Findings are presented in

Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 suggests the worth of the study.

Chapter 2

PRECEDENTS IN THE LITERATURE

Concern for the integration of action and abstraction
permeates history. Almost two centuries ago, Immanuel Kant,
the German philosopher, wrote that "we must seek insensibly
to unite knowledge with the carrying out of that knowledge
into practice" (Kant, 1906, p. 75). And long before Kant,
the Hebraic concept of knowing was established in the idea of
obeying and doing as well as thinking and understanding.

Jewish education was never something extraneous to

life or merely an instrument that served to prepare

for life and that later could be discarded when its

utility was exhausted. Jewish education was rather

synonymous with life. It unfolded life, giving it

direction and meaning (Drazin, 1940, p. 12).

Ideas and action converged into a harmonious whole, avoiding
dichotomization. Emphasis centered on conduct and character
rather than on the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.
Information aimed to affect life change. Even during the
ministry of Christ, His emphasis in learning related to truth
within the context of life experiences instead of to a formal
or remote cognitive mode.

With the rise of Greek thought in the sixth century B.C.,

a primary influence on Western civilization, the educational

focus became more conceptual and verbal. Rationality and

17

18

intellect were exalted. The behavioral, life-changing
component of learning was either assumed or considered
irrelevant. As formal schooling grew, content rather than
functionality continued to be central. Even within the
medical profession, not until the late 19th century did
medical schools begin to place students in real life
situations as part of their training (Houle, 1976,

pp. 26-30). Previously, an individual could become a doctor
without ever having any "hands-on" experience. Within this
century the recognition of the value of experiential learning
grew but not without tensions.

A notable proponent of experiential learning in this
century, John Dewey, wrote as early as 1904, "I will assume
without argument that adequate professional instruction of
teachers is not exclusively theoretical, but involves a
certain amount of practical work" (Dewey in Archambault,
1964, n.p.). The deep roots of the experiential tradition,
therefore, provide a foundation for a renewed emphasis in

contemporary society on the experiences of students.

Perspectives on Curriculum
Curriculum stands as the central dynamic that interfaces
with the educational and cultural context, yet diversity of
opinion exists on which curricular exemplars demonstrate
verifiable effectiveness. Kliebard mentions that even
Aristotle addressed the matter of curriculum and held that

curriculum relates to the question of values (1985,

19

pp. 31,32). Agreement on value issues can be difficult, and
value-laden orientations abound inherently in curriculum
designs. Huebner identifies five value frameworks for
categorizing curriculum systems in education: technical,
political, scientific, esthetic, and ethical (1975, p. 223).
In his view, curriculum defines an environment-producing
discipline rather than merely knowledge-producing.
Definitionalmsnectiues
The definitional aspect of curriculum proves problematic.
Definitions range from focusing on the subject matter to all
that students do in school. Unfortunately, most people
perceive the term as "that required, structured, inflexible
sequence of learning experiences determined by the teacher
and the school authorities" (Linskie, 1983, p. 61). Linskie
expands his thoughts as follows:
All these arbitrary decisions about which
curriculum a student must follow leave out the most
important factor, namely, what the learner is like.
What does he think he needs? What are his goals?
Does the plan fit her needs? . . . there are few
students who "fit" the norms and achievement levels
arbitrarily arrived at by the curriculum experts.
One comforting thought: regardless of the best
laid plans of curriculum builders, learners
generally follow their own curriculum. If it is not
possible for them to do this in a classroom, then
they rush to leave school at the earliest possible
moment to work on their personal curriculum
(pp. 61, 62).
Essentially, the root of the word curriculum means the

"nature of the course or journey on which we take those whom

we teach" (Schubert, 1984, p. xvii). This continuum needs to

20

include learner input in order to maximize the profit of that
journey.
Histnricaliersnectiues

Curriculum as a formal field of study per se began only
in the 1800's (Schubert, 1984, pp. 4, 5). A systematic
method of selecting, arranging, and organizing curriculum was
proposed by Herbart in Europe and later promoted in America
by the McMurray brothers. The Herbartian pedagogy specified
preparation, presentation, association, generalization, and
application as essential to teaching and impacted
instructional strategies for years to come. A more empirical
approach appeared in Bobbitt's work, Ihe_£ur;iuulum (1918),
considered the first major modern book in curriculum
(Schubert, 1984, p. 32). Other educators of influence during
this time included Whitehead and Dewey. A later significant
work of vast influence was Tyler's classic, Basic_2ringiules
Qf_Curriculum_and_1nsurucuion. He advocated a unified view
of curriculum and instruction and claimed that purposes,
experiences, organization, and evaluation stood foundational
to curriculum decisions and development (Tyler, 1949).

Wm

With the multiplicity of theorists promoting various
curriculum approaches, several authors have sought to clarify
the field by organizing curriculum proponents into various
orientations. Probably the most common discussion of
curriculum design relates to that which is subject-centered,

societal-centered, and individual-centered (Klein, 1986,

21

p. 32). In his historical chronology of curriculum books in
education, Shubert divides curriculum thought into the
intellectual traditionalists, the social behaviorists, and
the experientialists (1984, p. 6). The intellectual
traditionalists stress mental disciplines; the social
behaviorists, the scientific engineering of socially
acceptable conduct; and the experientialists, outside
knowledge/experience impacting the intellect (the accent
becomes method).

Pinar identifies three other categories--the
traditionalists, the conceptual-empiricists, and the
reconceptualists (In Giroux, Penna, & Pinar, 1981,
pp. 87-97). The traditionalists (Tyler, McNeil, Tanner &
Tanner, and Zais for example) value service to practitioners
in the schools above all else. The conceptual empiricists,
on the other hand, tend to be trained in the social sciences
and see research as the primary concern rather than the
practitioners or students. Posner and Bruner would be
representative of those who develop and test prescriptions
for the educational context. The third category of thought
delineated by Pinar, and the one with which he identifies,
portrays the reconceptualists' view. From their more
political and critical framework, they contend that education
needs a "fundamental reconceptualization of what curriculum
is, how it functions, and how it might function in

emancipatory ways" (p. 94). They avoid the technician's

22

mentality and call for a structural change in the culture
(see Apple, 1975; Kliebard, 1975; & Huebner, 1975).

A taxonomy of curriculum by Eisner and Vallance (1973)
suggests five orientations. Their first orientation pertains
to the development of cognitive processes. The emphases
focus on helping students learn how to learn and in providing
opportunities for students to develop their intellectual
faculties. Process rather than content, and student inquiry
instead of teacher delivery emerge as concerns. Bloom's
cognitive taxonomy reflects one application of cognitive
process.

Secondly, Eisner and Vallance specify the area of
academic rationalism which seeks to foster intellectual
growth. Hutchins' "great books" idea exemplifies this
approach. In addition to being exposed to the major
disciplines, students encounter the writings of the greatest
minds in each discipline. This assumes appropriately
organized knowledge as well as the growth of rationality with
exposure to reason's highest accomplishments.

Personal relevance covers the third grouping with its
search for personal meaning. Curriculum arises out of the
understanding interaction of teacher and student. Mutuality
of planning characterizes this joint venture. Teacher and
student walk together in their educational pilgrimage.

The fourth dimension profiles curricula as social
adaptation and social reconstruction. This more radical

concept holds that institutions exist to fulfill the needs of

23

society. Therefore, first determine the needs of society and
then plan pertinent programs; change schools to fit concerns.
Marxism would be representative of this view.

The fifth area regards curriculum as technology, a means-
ends orientation. School becomes more like a factory. Ends
are operationalized in terms of specific outputs.
Behaviorism would fit under this umbrella.

Vallance, co-editor with Eisner on Conflicting
Cgnceptigns_of_2urriculumu recently updated her view on this
five—part model (1986, pp. 24-30). She questions the
technological conception, and states that technology pertains
to means rather than purpose and does not fit with the other
four aspects of the model. Then she asserts that the
personal relevance/self-actualizing perspective has lost its
prominence with societal changes toward a practical and job
orientation. She proposes two complementary curricular
conceptions as goals of education that manifest a greater
student orientation-~personal success and a personal
commitment to learning. Within the personal success
framework the immediate practical end becomes the guiding
principle of curriculum design and course selection. The
focus of a personal commitment to learning moves beyond the
lifelong concept to an "underlying passion for the hard work
and.joys of intellectual exploration . . ." (p. 28).

Conditions of learning other than the formal curricular
expressions accompany curriculum. The learning environment

stretches far beyond the formal system. "Current conceptions

24

of curriculum are inadequate, in that they tie the educative
process only to the world of man's technique, and exclude
ties to the world of his spirit" (Huebner, 1966, p. 94).
Much learning proceeds indirectly and enjoys immeasurably
increased potency because of being unintended. Many
uncontrollable variables exist. Three categories suggested
for perceiving curriculum incorporate the explicit, the
implicit or hidden, and the null (Eisner, 1985,

pp. 87-107).

The explicit curriculum speaks of the conscious, planned
influences. The publicly advertised goals would be
expressive of the explicit aspect. The implicit or hidden
curriculum then corresponds to teaching that takes place by
virtue of the kind of place the school is. The rules,
expectations, and procedures of the classroom or school would
fall within this category. Environmental influences
eventuate in the socialization and enculturation of people
into certain life styles. The third consideration, the null
curriculum, refers to the untaught components, the unoffered
options, and the unknown alternatives and concepts. Eisner
states that the excluded may be at least as important as the
included
(p. 97).

Current brain research on the right and left hemispheres
holds that the intellectual functions of the brain can be
weakened or strengthened by use or disuse. The right brain

deals with the spatial, synthesizing, intuition, and arts

25

appreciation, while the left governs the verbal, sequential,
analytic, and rationale capacities (Sonnier & Goldsmith,
1985, pp. 26-30). Omissions, therefore, of particular
educational opportunities for development, whether by
ignorance or choice, imply life-affecting consequences.

Theories of curriculum and of teaching and learning

cannot, alone, tell us what and how to teach, because

questions of what and how to teach arise in concrete
situations loaded with concrete particulars of time,
place, person, and circumstance. Theory, on the other
hand, contains little of such concrete particulars.

Theory achieves its theoretical character, its order,

system, economy, and above all, its very generality

only by abstraction from such particulars, by omitting

much of them (Schwab, 1978, p. 322).

To zero in on a particular theory or fail to include the
practical, therefore, may mean learning only what that theory
tells us to see and blinding ourselves to other aspects.
This can enclose us in what Zais refers to as encapsulation-—
the distorting of our concepts of reality (1986, p. 17).
Clarity grows with recognizing the in-built limitations of
our humanness and culture and striving to transcend measured
systems for the authentic and liberating.

Becker suggests that reducing encapsulation involves the
comprehensive engagement of three broad content fields: the
individual dimension, the social and historical dimension,
and the theological dimension (1967, pp. 258-372). The
exercise of liberation results in "the freedom to bathe our
daily life in the highest possible intensity and scope of

meanings; and these must be divine, self—transcendent

meanings" (p. 273).

26

Instead of a content structure, Royce (1964) advocates a
process design organized around the four psychological ways
of knowing: rationalism (logical thinking), empiricism
(sensing), intuitionism (feeling), and authoritarianism
(believing). To avoid encapsulation, all four must interlock
in a balanced network. Mosher, however, accuses the
curriculum field of building models rather than doing
curriculum. Maintenance rather than reformulation functions
as the norm (1977, p. 82). Beyond the proliferation of
individual theories, the challenge continues to be how to
intersect the theoretical designs with the practical in

flexible dimensions in order to achieve maximum human growth.

The Student and the Curriculum
Discussions in curriculum tend to center around
objectives, content, and philosophy. The predetermining
nature of these facets often precludes attending to the
particular student's interests, abilities, or needs (Frymier,
1986, pp. 59, 60).
Whether programs are consciously designed as such,
education is a developmental intervention in adults'
lives, an activity that is by its very nature linked
to processes of growth, development, change, and
transformation (Weathersby & Tarule, 1980, p. 43).
Implicit to the curricular philosophy practiced and
strategies chosen are one's assumptions about learners.
Knowles (1978) has advocated the idea that a different

science of teaching needs to be considered in relation to

adults. Diversity characterizes adults, and the degree of

27

experience adults bring to each life phase far exceeds that
of children. Thus the organizing conceptions of andragogy
(the teaching of adults) and pedagogy (the teaching of
children) have been suggested. Cross identifies andragogy as
"probably closer to a theory of teaching than to a theory of
learning" (1981, p. 227).

Although disagreement exists on whether adult learning
demonstrates just a continuation of children's learning or
whether it contains its own discriminating differences, a
growing body of literature supports the idea of
distinctiveness. According to Knowles four crucial
suppositions differentiate adult learners from child
learners.

These assumptions are that, as a person matures,

(1) his self-concept moves from one of being a

dependent personality toward one of being a self-

directing human being, (2) he accumulates a growing
reservoir of experience that becomes an increasing
resource for learning, (3) his readiness to learn
becomes oriented increasingly to the developmental
tasks of his social roles, and (4) his time

perspective changes from one of postponed application

of knowledge to immediacy of application, and

accordingly his orientation toward learning shifts

from one of subject centeredness to one of problem

centeredness (1970, p. 39).

W

The life cycle and developmental stage theorists give
helpful frameworks for the education of adults. The life
cycle theorists tend to divide into those that develop their
models according to age-linked life periods and those that

think in terms of life structure and the way people construct

28

experience. Erikson (1959), for example, mentions eight
stages of psycho-social development related to age that
revolve around the resolutions of conflicts. The three
stages focusing on adults include young adulthood, intimacy
versus isolation; middle adulthood, generativity (the need to
mentor the next generation) versus stagnation; and later
adulthood, integrity versus despair.

Sheehy (1976) and Levinson (1978) developed their models
more around adult experience. Sheehy talks of adult passage
and marker events as transitions in development, while
Levinson portrays his stage of development around social
roles at work and within relationships. Cross in her CAL
paradigm mentions the situation characteristics of adult
learners in terms of the physiological/aging, the
sociocultural/life phases, and the psychological/
developmental stages (1981, p. 235).

The developmental stage approach promotes the idea that
stable periods exist, linked by transitions in terms of the
three dimensions of ego, moral, and cognitive development.
These stages are hierarchical which tends to the idea that
higher is better. Others disagree, however, and feel that
adults cope well in society at various stages. One of the
ego theorists is Loevinger (1976) who talks of the ego in
relation to people's search for deeper meaning in life
experiences. Kohlberg, on the other hand, has six sequential
stages reflecting ways of making judgments about moral

questions: punishment and obedience orientation, instrumental

29

relativist orientation, interpersonal concordance or "good
boy--nice girl" orientation, "law and order" orientation,
social-contract legalistic orientation, and universal
ethical-principle orientation (1980, pp. 91,92).

Perry's work on intellectual competence commands
particular interest because his research dealt with college
students (1981, pp. 76-116). He sought to account for the
wide variety of responses from students within the
educational context. Students tend to enter college in a
category he calls dualism. Such students respond within two
realms--either right or wrong or good or bad. Knowledge is
quantitative. Then they move on to multiplicity where
diverse opinions and values are considered legitimate. From
this point arises the possibility of the relativistic stage,
not in terms of license to do anything a person wants, but in
knowledge becoming qualitative and thought relating to the
context. The final phase, commitment, acts as a narrowing
aspect. Doubts and questions have been faced and choices
made and prioritized. The paradox of wholeheartedness and
tentativeness also characterizes the commitment aspect.
Growth can be deflected at any phase, however, by escape or

retreat.

W
In his book. AchiexinLEducatinnalecellence. Astin
;proposes a theory of student development that moves beyond
«developmental outcomes and the "what" to the "how," the

student involvement theory (1985, p. 143) . This theory finds

30

its roots in a longitudinal study of college dropouts (Astin,
1975). The five basic postulates comprising the theory at
this point consist of the following:
1. Involvement refers to the investment of physical
and psychological energy in various "objects." The
objects may be highly generalized (the student
experience) or highly specific (preparing for a
chemistry examination).

2. Regardless of its object, involvement occurs along
a continuum.

3. Involvement has both quantitative and qualitative
features.

4. The amount of student learning and personal
development associated with any educational
program is directly proportional to the quality
and quantity of student involvement in that
program.

5. The effectiveness of any educational policy or
practice is directly related to the capacity of
that policy or practice to increase student
involvement.

(Astin, 1985, pp. 135,136)

Involvement stands as an active term with the intent of
the theory comprising a comprehensive link between subject
matter, resources, individualized approaches, and the
learning outcomes of concern to the student and professor
(p. 141).

Education for knowing functions insufficiently for
informing one of the practices of life. The context within
which people understand knowledge must be enlarged. A
person's capacity "to enquire the virtues of the academic
disciplines will be enhanced by their placement in the

context of service. What is otherwise 'unreal' becomes

serious" (Green, 1981, p. 551). Competence always possesses

31

a context and involves the whole person, not just the
cognitive.

All too often we are giving our young people cut

flowers when we should be teaching them to grow their

own plants. We are stuffing their heads with the
products of earlier innovation rather than teaching

them to innovate. We think of the mind as a

storehouse to be filled when we should be thinking of

it as an instrument to be used (Gardner, 1964,

pp. 21, 22).

The emerging field of adult development, as well as the
growing percentage of older adults returning to college,
involves reevaluating the learning context, curriculum
content, and teaching process. According to Tough, life
events rather than age indicate an adult's readiness and
motivation to learn (1979). Adults want to make meaningful
contributions and select relevant learning opportunities.

It has been estimated that schools at best make a 15

to 20 percent contribution to the education of the

typical person. This means that 80 to 85 percent of

what the typical adult knows can be attributed to

other or community related learning experiences (Bush,

1974, p. 12).

Thus educational courses need to be integrative of real life
contexts so that a clear articulation exists between the
classroom and other life dimensions. As Perry found, even
younger adults (18-22 years) are trying to make meaning out
of their world (1981, p. 107). The concerns and expertise of
the learners and their wealth of experience must not be
neglected in the teaching process.

In addition, "Past experience may block, modify, or it

may affect perception, as well as how we solve problems and

make decisions" (Kidd, 1976, p. 46). All that a person

32

experiences remains part of him or her. Winn asserts that
youth today "come to school with a vast background of
fragmentary information, but have difficulties organizing
this knowledge into a coherent structure" (1985, p. 15).
Therefore, educators must not ignore the significant
influences a learner brings to the educational context--the
formal and informal ideas, actions, assumptions, and
expectations. Murphy mentions that possibly even on the
seminary level faculty have been too content to leave it to
students to "'put it all together,’ to arrange the pieces
into a meaningful whole" (1975, p. 289). Faculty frequently
feel an "acute need to create more proximate structures to
aid the student in the integrative process, although we may
yet be trying to identify what these structures can be" (p.
289).

In its final report in 1984, lnyglyemenu_in_LearningL the
Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in Higher
Education suggested the following:

The key to restoring the integrity of bachelor's

degree programs . . . is to engage students' interests

by treating them as fellow learners, including them

more fully in academic life, and increasing the ways
they can contribute creatively to their own and

others' education (Newell, 1984, p. 7).

Astin builds on the National Institute of Education

report on undergraduate education in his article,

"Involvement: The Cornerstone of Excellence."

33
At this stage in its development, the involvement

theory comprises two basic postulates. First, the

amount of student learning and personal development

associated with any educational program is directly

proportional to the quality and quantity of student
involvement in that program. And second, the
effectiveness of any educational policy or practice is
directly related to the capacity of that policy or

practice to increase student involvement (1985,

p. 36).

"The hidden fact about the teaching profession--perhaps not
too well hidden--is that learners complicate it enormously"
and yet "the key to good teaching is the student, and the
good teacher must respect that student" (Gullette, 1984,
PP- 8, 10).

Participation and dialogue prove crucial to an adult
learning context. Professors acknowledge this need.
Interviews of 29 faculty at one university found that 90
percent viewed student participation as important and
beneficial to both students and instructors (Forsberg &
Greenbaum, 1981, p. 388). Despite such verbalization, the
consensus seems to be that schooling everywhere stays very
much the same (Goodlad, 1984, p. 264). We allow ourselves to
be prisoners of the expected form of schooling. Both
teachers and students become socialized into classroom
expectations.

Data indicate that students become increasingly compliant
and conforming as they progress in school. While teachers
express the value of students becoming independent learners,
most still view themselves as needing to be in control of the

decision-making process (p. 109). The teacher comes through

as "coach, quarterback, referee, and even rule-maker. But

34

there the analogy must stop because there is no team" (p.
108). The value of cooperative achievement in classrooms
around shared purposes often absents itself in practice.

Also integral to curriculum concerns is the imperative of
developing lifelong learners. Tough found that "80 percent
of all highly deliberate learning is planned and managed by
the learner or by a friend" (Tough, 1981, p. 302). A
teacher-centered and transmission-oriented approach to
teaching evidences its inadequacies in a learning society
where knowing how to learn and access information keeps a
person on the cutting edge of relevancy. Education needs to
be reconceptualized with a view to the experiences of

students and lifelong perspectives.

Models of Experiential Learning

Various models and taxonomies to improve the planning,
implementation, and evaluation of curriculum have been
developed. The cognitive taxonomy of Bloom, Englehart,
Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956) and the subsequent
affective taxonomy of Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964)
serve as useful educational tools. The cognitive taxonomy
begins with knowledge as basic and then moves on to
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and finally
evaluation. The affective domain, on the other hand,
includes from receiving (attending) to responding, valuing,
organization, closing finally with characterization by a

value or value complex. This classification progresses from

35

awareness to internalization. More recently, Steinaker and
Bell proposed a wholistic experiential taxonomy compatible
with learning theory (1979). Their categories included the
sequential objectives of exposure, participation,
identification, internalization, and dissemination.

Kolb clarifies experience as the transaction between an
individual and his or her environment which includes the
subjective, internal, and personal as well as the objective
and external (1984, pp. 34-36). This shifts learning from
exclusively a classroom focus to the family, community,
workplace, and to all involved in living. Experiential
learning moves beyond the cognitive to a more wholistic
approach. Chickering claims the following:

Experiential learning leads us to question the

assumptions and conventions underlying many of our

practices. It turns us away from credit hours and
calendar time toward competence, working knowledge,

and information pertinent to jobs, family

relationships, community responsibilities, and broad

social concerns. It reminds us that higher education
can do more than develop verbal skills and deposit
information in those storage banks between the ears.

It can contribute to more complex kinds of

intellectual development and to more pervasive

dimensions of human development required for effective

citizenship. It can help students cope with shifting
developmental tasks imposed by the life cycle and

rapid social change (1977, p. 86).

Two paradigms that address the theory-practice tension
include the four-stage instructional design by David Kolb
(1984) and the interdisciplinary integration of Richard Logan
(1983). Kolb's Experiential Learning Model emphasizes the

role of experience in the learning process. The model

describes how "experience is translated into concepts which

36

in turn are used as guides in the choice of new experiences"
(Kolb, 1978, p. 2). The process operates in a circular and
continuous manner in competent learning. The four-stage
cycle consists of concrete experience, reflective
observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation. The first stage of the cycle, concrete
experience, involves the feelings and senses while the
reflective observation stage includes watching and reflecting
upon what happens. Abstract conceptualization focuses on
symbolic representations, thinking, and analysis. Actually

doing and testing theory is the active experimentation phase.

Figure 2.1. The Experiential Learning Model

CONCRETE EXPERIENCE \

TESTING IMPLICATIONS OBSERVATIONS AND
OFCONCEPTS IN REFLECTIONS
NEW SITUATIONS

FORMATION OF ABSTRACT J
CONCEPTS AND GENERALIZATIONS

(Kolb, 1978, p. 2)

All four patterns give direction to learning and are
incorporated by learners but with a variety of
configurations. According to Kolb even different disciplines

or tasks evidence variations. In reality people tend to

37

emphasize some learning abilities over others. Each phase
suggests a preferred learning style as well as a structure
for organizing learning settings. Kolb developed a learning
style inventory that measures the polar opposites in the
following dimensions:

Concrete Experience ---------- Abstract Conceptualization

Active Experimentation ------- Reflective Observation

Since teachers tend to teach as they learn unless they
discover a conscious reason to do otherwise, value exists in
revealing the relationships between teachers' and students'
learning styles. Significant growth can be facilitated
through understanding the need for a variety of learning
environments. Recognition, for instance, that "hands-on
experience may be as threatening for the abstract learner as
a lecture is frustrating for an active one" challenges the
creative planning of a teacher (Smith & Kolb, 1986, p. 2).
Acknowledging these various responses increases in importance
when students fail to learn because of too great a disparity
or mismatch between their learning style and the educational
context. Although people learn differently, schools tend to
teach people the same way, as analytic learners. Available
data indicate that approximately 70 percent of students do
not fall within this category (Smith & Kolb, 1986, p. 21;

McCarthy, 1980).

38

Logan advocates a "four-pole" model that seeks to bridge
the theoretical and practical foci. Instead of seeing the
traditional in opposition to the non-traditional (problem
solving and experiential), he views them as complementary.
Problems and information seldom fit neatly into the
institutionalized, disciplinary categories. Therefore, Logan
believes the interdisciplinary integration of the practical
and enriching as well as the objective and subjective in the
learning process will result in the following qualities of an
educated person:

1) Skilled for the World: One who has learned
practical reasoning and career-related skills
(practical pole).

2) Enriched by the World: One whose sense of
perspective, proportion, and values has been
nurtured by the enriching aspects of education, by
immersion in culture, history, and knowledge and
who has thereby developed a sense of the
historical and cultural context of life and
knowledge and an aesthetic appreciation of the
creations of the human mind ("non-practical"
pole).

3) Engaged in the World: One who is able and willing
to get involved in addressing the problems of
society and humanity, and who does so as both a
practical problem solver and as a compassionate
empathic individual (engaged pole).

4) Detached from the World: One who is capable also
of standing back and conceptualizing a problem,
reflecting dispassionately on the human impact of
different courses of action, and objectively
analyzing the possible outcomes of different
courses of action (detached pole).

(1983, p. 237)

The design of curricular models and taxonomies,

therefore, provides a foundation to integrative strategies.

39

Relationship of Field Education to
the Institutional Curriculum

Elements of experiential education find expression in a
variety of academic disciplines in higher education, but the
degree of harmonization between the field and institutional
curriculum can differ tremendously. In fact, some would hold
that experience regardless of "fit" or articulation gives
sufficient opportunity for growth. Others, on the other
hand, would carefully structure experiences to promote
learning of the "right things."

In their book on internship education, Zanville and
Markwood state that little agreement prevails over the extent
of articulation necessary between the field and academic
experience of the student. They suggest the ideal
articulation process occurs when internships integrate into
the total curriculum design. This avoids the "isolated
events" approach which can occur with those resulting from
student or faculty initiation (1982, pp. 16-21).

Furthermore, a classification system of internship programs
according to five different administrative types clarifies
their work--the college department/faculty-run model, the
college/university coordinated model, the college/university
centralized model, the academic external model, and the
external internship program model. Since agencies other than
the educational institution administer the latter two,

articulation would be more difficult to maximize.

4O

Institutions keep attempting though to overcome the
integration difficulty. For instance, in the Program for
Entry into the Educating Professions (PEEP) an interrelated
curriculum has been developed on the doctoral level with
"four basic components: general culture, special scholarship,
professional knowledge, and technical skills (developed
through rotating internships)" (Kane, 1984, p. 621). Such a
program concentrates on arranging for quality internships
with students placed near the top in an organization
hierarchy. Appraisal reveals that effectiveness relates to
the match between the intern and the learning opportunity,
the structuring of the experience, the specifying of the
intern-organization relationship, and the monitoring of the
student's progress. An element of mismatch must be evident
as well. "Every internship must have a certain amount of
disequilibrium, if it is to allow for growth, diversity, and
the acquisition of knowledge. Learning involves
discontinuity before new levels of equilibrium and
integration are achieved (Kane, 1984, p. 622).

Other non-traditional programs in higher education have
risen to address the disarticulation between academia and
reality. Nova University in Florida, for instance, offers
off-campus graduate programs with a variety of delivery
systems. One of their more innovative programs, a master's
degree for child care administrators, designs a two-year
period of studies without interruption of professional

responsibilities. In addition to modular coursework and a

41

problem-solving practicum, the degree requires a one-week
intensive conference interactive in nature (Manburg, 1984,
pp. 108-114). Other colleges offer weekend courses for
professional people. At one college in New York a two-
weekend course for three graduate credits meets Friday
evening through Sunday to provide teachers' needs for
inservice and on-going education (Lickona, 1978, p. 261).

Organizations such as the Council for the Advancement of
Experiential Learning (CAEL) as well as individuals have
risen to promote the experiential component (Keeton & Tate,
1978; Chickering, 1977). In addition, the focus on praxis
has aided linkage of the practice-theory dimension (Groome,
1980; Whitehead & Whitehead, 1980; Ward 1983). Building
awareness through the action/reflection dynamic furnishes a
valuable integrator.

Schooling too often supplies a defective approach to
education (Ward, n.d.) and gives reason for some educators to
react against the institutional context. Freire, for
instance, opposes the banking concept of formal education and
expresses more concern about the integrated person (1983,

p. 4). He believes that when peOple recognize their world
and what each brings to the situation, they can move forward
in reflection and action to transform their reality. Shor
affirms that his own schooling missed being rooted in reality
and suggests "an appeal to critical thought and a strategic
relation to daily life can help existentialize academic study

while intellectualizing experience" (1980, p. 32). Illich

42

rejects the institutionalizing of values entirely and
advocates the deschooling of society for transcending global

miseries (1971, p. 2).

Dilemmas in Integration

Overcoming the frequent dichotomy between life and
theory poses continuing challenges. Whitehead claimed,
however, that the one subject matter for education concerned
"Life in all its manifestations" (1929, pp. 6, 7). To him,
inert ideas were untenable as knowledge can "transform every
phase of immediate experience . . . education is not a
process of packing articles in a trunk" (pp. 32, 33).

This imperative to use knowledge rather than store it
grows with the realization that college no longer remains an
18-22 year old sphere or the terminus of post-secondary
schooling. In a knowledge intensive society, college more
often functions as the beginning of the continual updating
necessary to keep current and be competent. A wider
diversity in age and stages of adult development evidences
itself in the classroom. The polarization that often exists
between theory and practice appears anathema to the adult as
he or she looks for coherence and relevance in learning.
Weathersby and Tarule contend that unfortunately, "explicit
linkages among curriculum content, desired outcomes, and
teaching methods are rare in higher education. We are
usually content to leave unexamined the assumptions

underlying traditional practices" (1980, p. 16).

43

The issues of linear education and lock-step curriculum
that limit the flexibility adults desire pose other dilemmas.
People want functional as well as informational competence.
Accomplishing this within the classroom though stretches the
imagination and capability of students and teachers.

The classroom learning environment is a very efficient

one for information assimilation and for mastering

some aspects of this fundamental and distinctively

human activity. However, at the level of application,

learning in the classroom becomes less productive than

it does in a work-service setting (Duley & Gordon,

1977, p. 4).

The maxim, "Experience is the best teacher," seems
commonly affirmed, and numerous studies indicate in the
teaching field, for instance, that "student teaching is the
single most important and rewarding phase of professional
preparation programs (Nicklas, Black, & Simms, 1982, p. 2).
However, the availability of contradictory data reveal that
in actuality "field-based experiences seem to entail a
complicated set of both positive and negative consequences"
(Zeichner, 1980, p. 46). Zeichner regards the statement,
"Practical school experience necessarily contributes to the
development of better teachers" a myth (p. 45). Immersion in
field settings may primarily socialize teachers into the
status quo with an uncritical acceptance.

Some argue that too many experienced teachers develop a
utilitarian approach for solving immediate problems with
questionable long-range consequences for the teaching—

learning process (Hoy & Rees, 1977). Another problem can be

that familiarity with the classroom can encourage an over-

44

confidence that converges on a few techniques rather than a
conceptualization that considers alternatives and takes time
to view the larger picture. Such situations fail to fulfill
Dewey's concern for the quality experience.

The belief that all genuine education comes about

through experience does not mean all experiences are

genuinely or equally educative. Experience and
education cannot be directly equated to each other.

For some experiences are miseducative. An experience

is miseducative that has the effect of arresting or

distorting the growth of further experience (Dewey,

1938, p. 25).

For Dewey education and growth stand as interchangeable
terms. Miseducation occurs when anything thwarts growth and
the solving of fundamental problems or generates additional
problems. Experiences that produce growth are educative.
Education or growth involves developing skills that enable a
person to effectively cope and solve current as well as
subsequent problems. To Dewey the greatest pedagogical
fallacy implies the notion that only one thing is learned at
a time. Collatoral learning is much more significant (1938,
p. 48). He goes on to say in his treatise, Experience_§
Education, that the "most important attitude that can be
formed is that of desire to go on learning" (p. 48).
Education must continue rather than terminate. Failure to
recognize other learning creates a barrier to on-going
learning. Therefore, part of promoting a life-long style of
learning includes acknowledging the learning that has taken

place up to the present moment. Classrooms cannot be treated

as isolated contexts. Thus a crucial aspect of the

45

educational challenge means determining worthwhile
experiences that promote growth.

"Quality of experience resides both in the nature of the
experience itself and in the way in which it is guided"
(Stratemeyer, 1951, p. 1). One of the primary criticisms in
field education has focused on the supervision. The accepted
assumption has been that the student, cooperating teacher,
and university supervisor work closely together.
"Operationally, however, the cooperating teacher and
university supervisor . . . rarely spend much time working
together and rarely affect the same areas of teacher
development" (McIntyre, 1984, p. 42). Also, supervision must
"go beyond the 'tricks of the trade' by helping Student
teachers develop a framework to reflect on practice and
understand" (Gitlin, Ogawa & Rose, 1984, p. 46).

Recognition must also be given to the following fact:

. issues disconnected from the daily life of teachers

are not likely to enlighten. All such disjointed

instruction does is to convince beginning teachers that

educational theory is irrelevant to classroom teaching, a

belief already prevalent among experienced teachers (Tom,

1984, p. 199).

Theory must be grounded in practice, and as one instructor
said, "You've got to take knowledge for a road test to see if
it works for you" (Feiman-Nemser, Buchmann, Ball, &
Noordhoff, 1985, p. 4). Another factor relates to whether
the teacher accepts that he or she can learn important things

from the student. "Without that belief, the educator will be

rejecting student reality as a rich resource . . . will not

46

listen carefully to what students offer, and hence will
condition students into non-speaking" (Shor, 1980, p. 105).
In order for change to occur in the educational system,
teachers must lead the way to any reform. In fact Rudolph
states that professors hold awesome power over American
higher education, and for anything to be done "it is going to
be done by the professors or it is not going to be done at
all" (1984, p. 17). Since the 19605 teachers have lived
through an era of failed revolutions, and when new ideas
arise the disposition can be to respond with "This too shall
pass" (Postman 1983, p. 319). Postman goes on to say that
"if so great a divergence between theory and practice existed
in any other profession, it would most likely be considered a
scandal" (p. 319).

Conventional conceptions of teaching are almost all

based on models that emphasize the teacher's output

behavior: giving information, presenting a lesson,

illustrating an idea, asking a question, modeling a

behavior, or graphing a concept on the board.

Teachers who are skilled in meeting students' needs

tend to turn that model around. They are sensitive

observers and good listeners; they "draw students out"

(Frymier, 1986, p. 62).

So much of learning involves unlearning and relearning.
"How easy and tempting it is in designing a course to think
of the learner's mind as being as blank as the paper on which
we scratch our outline" (Kolb, 1984, p. 28). Yet this does
not accurately reflect the case. Students come with

preconceived ideas and a variety of background experiences to

any learning context. If professors fail to allow for the

47

experiential component in the learning process then effective
learning can be limited.

A related concern for teachers pertains to how to prepare
students for new learning. A key component in supporting the
learning process includes concern for old learning. The
schema of the old relates to the new more profoundly than we
usually recognize. Research by Roth on assessing text
processing strategies sought to determine how peOple handle
prior learning in dissonance with the text (1985).
Strategizing instructional environments that not only
explained old and new relationships but made both students
and teachers aware of students' misconceptions assisted in
guiding students to new perceptions.

difficulty arises from the need to assure that
every individual student completes the recall of

relevant prior learning . . . Yet it appears that

systematic attention to the recall of prerequisites

would have noticeable effects on ease of learning
(Gagne, 1980, p. 9).

The Teaching Process

Teaching tends to be an ambiguous process that makes
definition difficult. Theories of instruction and learning
often do not impinge upon one another (Langford & Bailey,
1981, p. 126). Dewey though specifies that the immediate and
direct concern of an educator or teacher centers on the
Situations in which interaction takes place (1938, p. 45).
Teaching consists of the "creation of learning environments,

and different environments are directed toward or nurture

48

different kinds of learning" (Joyce & Weil, 1986, 418). This

may be one reason why Eble claims teaching to be an

"improvisor's art" (1979, p. 3).
Qrientatinns_Ln_the_Teachina_Ezncess

Joyce and Weil have arranged models of teaching into four
families of orientations to teaching and learning (1986,
pp. 5-12). The information-processing family seeks to make
sense of the world by developing concepts and acquiring and
organizing data. The next family, identified as the
personal, focuses on the individual and each person taking
responsibility for his or her own learning. Carl Rogers'
statement that "Teaching, in my estimation, is a vastly
overrated function" would be one perspective characterizing
this orientation (1969, p. 103). The social family utilizes
cooperative study and the synergy that results from
collective processes. The behavioral systems family engages
in modification of conduct in response to information.

"Even the subject-matter specialist, whose
responsibilities may be confined to teaching a single
discipline to fairly mature students, faces teaching tasks
for which no one single model can be completely adequate"
(Joyce & Weil, 1986, p. 20). Wise teachers master a range of
teaching models in order to facilitate the learning of
students.

To balance the emphasis within the teaching-learning
process on accommodating the student and making the learner

comfortable, Thelen contends, "The learner does not learn

49

unless he does not know how to respond" (1960, p. 61). In
other words, significant learning is usually accompanied by
an appropriate measure of discomfort. Appropriateness would
be pertinent here as concern exists for productivity and
helping learners marginal to their context. When a learner
has difficulty relating to an educational environment and
profiting from it, barriers to learning arise (Joyce & Weil,
1986, p. 440).

Another reality consists of Musgrave's contention that
the predominant teaching methods today are teacher-centric
rather than student-centric. Students generally find
themselves in a responding role. A control rather than
growth orientation may be more predominant.

When teachers practice teacher-centric methods to the

extent that the teachers are the stars in the

classroom, then teachers become the active

participants during the teaching learning situation

while the students are passive learners until feedback

time. Even then feedback information is controlled by
the teacher. . . . Student-centric methods place
students in the spotlight so that they become active
learners and the teacher's role becomes more
diversified. Freeing the teacher from having to
present all the time allows him to assume the roles of
motivator, guide, evaluator, and helper to a greater

extent (Musgrave, 1975, pp. 2,3).

A reductionist posture that tends to treat every
classroom context the same permeates schooling. For
instance, "the lecture has persisted in college teaching
because it is the easiest thing to do; it is the accepted
thing; it is the safest" (Eble, 1979, p. 42). Estimates

suggest that "90 percent of all instruction occurs through

the lecture and the question and answer methods, and yet,

50

only between two and four students in each group of ten learn
best by listening" (Dunn & Dunn, 1978, p. 13). An analysis
of lecture in the college classrooms by Batchelder and Keane
indicated subject matter as a variable in classroom method
and revealed the following conclusions:

1. Lecture is the predominant behavior in the college
classroom, occurring for over 83% of the time for the 48
subjects in this subject.

Teachers in science lecture 92% of the time, in social
science 83% of the time, and in the humanities 74% of the
time.

2. College teachers are most concerned with factual
content while they are lecturing. Factual lecturing is

done through straight information giving and through the
use of the ideas of others.

(1977, p. 42)
As Eble points out, most teachers enter into lecturing too
lightly without considering what needs to be accomplished or
developing the skills essential to turning the occasion from
drudgery to a stimulating, renewing experience (1979, p. 44).
In his lectures, McWilliams aims not to transmit a
lot of basic information but to provide a "central
context" for later discussion. "The one great sin,"

he says, "is not to be interesting. A lecturer is a

performer; he uses hyperbole. In leading a discussion

group a teacher must be a choreographer. But in

giving a lecture he's on stage" . . . Even with bright

students, "attention spans are short" (The Power of a

Good Lecture, 1976, p. 69).

The issue does not revolve around the superiority of
lecture over discussion or simulations over audio-visuals,
but in determining how best to accomplish the integration of
the educational goals with the realities of the learners.
Unfortunately the modeling even for professionals frequently

proves inadequate and contradictory. One observer notes that

51

"experts often lectured to large groups of teachers on the
importance of individualizing instruction" (Hunt, 1978,
p. 239).

Argyris and Schon also wonder if people's trouble in
learning the new does not stem from existing ideas that
determine practices and the tendency to protect the old.
These authors call these "operational theories of action
theories-in-use to distinguish them from the espoused
theories that are used to describe and justify behavior"
(1974, p. viii). This suggests professors must attempt to
provide an environment where theories-in—use can be
expressed, reflected upon, and new understanding developed.

We

In an extensive analysis of research on college students'
views on teaching, Feldman found stimulation of interest and
clarity (understandableness) as the two dimensions most
consistently associated with superior college teachers or
teaching. When students freely describe their best or ideal
teachers, friendliness, helpfulness, and openness to others'
opinions (encouragement of class questions and discussion)
are mentioned most frequently.

. . these variables are less strongly associated

with overall evaluation of actual instructors than are

the instructor's stimulation of interest, clarity or

understandableness, knowledge of subject matter,

preparation and organization, and enthusiasm for the
subject and for teaching (Feldman, 1976, pp. 264—265).

52

Models of teaching exist as stimulators to constructing
learning situations rather than as recipes (Joyce & Weil,
1986, p. 21). In designing a plurality of learning
environments the teacher must be comfortable with a
repertoire of strategies. "The task of teachers is not
necessarily to possess the content and convey it to the
student, but is rather to enable the student to take
possession of the content wherever it is found"
(Fenstermacher, 1986, p. 40). Carkhuff reinforces these
ideas by his instruction to "teach students--not content" and
to remember that "all effective learning begins with the
learner's frame of reference" (Carkhuff, 1984, p. 6). Many
fail to recognize that "content is a vehicle on which life
skills should be taught. The exposure of an individual to
life situations is an endless variety of content" (Groves &
Groves, 1980, p. 86).

Findings from a study at a small liberal arts college
reinforce the need to address the centrality of the student
in the classroom. The researcher found that only about 4
percent of class time centered on the teacher's praising,
encouraging, and using students' ideas while student talk
accounted for a total of 14 percent of class time (Smith,
1977, 1980). This research parallels somewhat a study by
Foster in medicine that recorded teacher encouragement and
praise as approximately 4 percent, student responses at 10
percent, and students' initiations at 8 percent of class time

(1981).

53

The trends evident from these and other available studies
indicate students in higher education usually play passive
parts. Too often the end of education is seen as the
acquisition of knowledge and the value of learning how to
learn with a life-long commitment stays unrecognized. An
interesting insight in a study by Barnes (1980) found that
advanced courses included teacher acceptance or use of
students‘ ideas almost twice as often as beginning courses.
These patterns occurred three times as frequently in the
humanities as in the math/science disciplines. In research
on styles of lecturing, strong association occurred between
lecturing patterns and subject areas (Brown, Bakhtar, &
Youngman, 1982).

A study on curriculum change and stability covering the
1890 to 1980 period discovered little evidence of significant
change in teaching practices over that period of time. In
Spite of reform efforts to move toward more student-centered
instruction, teacher-centered instruction "seemed uncommonly
stable at all levels of schooling" (Cuban, 1983, p. 160).
Why do so few instructional innovations impact the classroom
context? While the espousal of various views abound, Waller
proposes the following:

. both theory and practice of education have
suffered in the past from an overattention to what

ought to be and correlative tendency to disregard what

is. When theory is not based upon existing practice,

a great hiatus appears between theory and practice,

and the consequence is that the progressiveness of

theory does not affect the conservatism of practice
(1967, p. 35).

54

One reason may be the sending of mixed messages.
Verbalizations regarding valuing students proliferate, but
"by overemphasizing test scores and continuing to suggest
that good scores result only from large-group direct
instruction, we paralyze teachers so that they are afraid to
move toward a more experiential approach" (Kierstead, 1985,
p. 30). In addition, Sternberg and Caruso suggest that the
procedural nature of practical knowledge does not lend itself
to a reading and listening approach to learning (1985,

p. 143). Teachers uncomfortable with a doing focus thus tend
to limit learning contexts to conceptualization and direct
instruction.

Another factor may be that many consider teaching a
personal art and the classroom sacrosanct as far as outside
intrusion. Actual knowledge about what takes place in the
classroom and the teaching and learning process continues to
be limited--particularly on the college level (Birnbaum,
1984; Doyle, 1979). In one university study Cross discovered
that only 28 percent of faculty were willing for colleagues
to visit their classes. Also, 94 percent of the faculty
rated themselves as above average and 64 percent placed
themselves in the top quarter of teaching faculty (Meeth,
1977, p. 4). Related findings indicate that teachers rate
their performance better than their students do (Wagner &
Freedman, 1985, p. 38). Perhaps then the barriers to
teachers increasing effectiveness rotate more around

perceptual issues.

55

"The key to good teaching is to involve students, to make
them participants not spectators" (Best in Rice, 1986,
p. 15). "People's learning interests are embedded in their
personal histories, in their visions of who they are in the
world and what they can do and want to do" (Weathersby, 1978,
p. 19). Cognitive knowledge can be sterile without the
vitality of active student involvement. Perhaps more
students than may be imagined feel like Winston Churchill who
said, "Personally, I'm always ready to learn although I do
not always like being taught" (In Murphy, 1978, p. 396).
Frequently students are relegated to a position as consumers
of knowledge rather than co-discoverers on the life—long

learning journey.

Integration in Theological Education

The growing disillusionment over the failure of
theological education to deliver on its promises has resulted
in fresh assessment and some innovations. Fletcher even
hypothesizes that the "arrangements of seminary life block
student opportunities of learning tasks of ministry by
experience," and thus calls for a shared partnership between
the seminary and church community (1979, p. 6). Wolterstorff

affirms renewed challenges for the Christian college.

56
. . . a college will have to be far more concerned

than ever before with building bridges from theory to

practice. Throwing some abstract political science at

the student along with some abstract economics and
sociology will not do the trick. The goal is not just
to understand the world but to change it. The goal is
not just to impart to the student a Christian world-
and-life-view--it is to equip and motivate students

for a Christian way of being and acting in the world.

And there is not a shred of evidence that simply

putting abstract theory in front of them will alter

their actions (1984, pp. 46, 47).

In his book, WW
Thenlngical.Educaticn, Farley asserts the difficulty in
theological training as more fundamental than theory and
practice. Too often in a "pragmatic, strategy oriented ethos
of theory-practice," ministry becomes a technology (1983,
p. 19). Education means preparation for ministerial
activities. A pastoral paradigm with a functional and
professional orientation tends to a specialized and
management occupied role. Such frequently misses the
theological wisdom and discipline essential for the laity as
well as the pastor in the mobilization of the church as a
redemptive community (p. 188). Theologizing must not be a
function preserved for the professional.

Part of the tension in theological education relates to
concerns between distinctive content and educational
principles. With the dedication to divine revelation, the
implicit assumption frequently practiced is that knowledge

exists as a sufficient condition for transformation. The

resulting accusation follows:

57
The issue facing evangelical education is the
development of a distinctive concept of education--not
defense of the distinctiveness of its content
Too long Christian educators have attempted to uphold
an antiquated system of education by appeal to the
truth value of their content (Mayers, Richards, &
Webber, 1972, p. 74).

On the other hand, Niebuhr and his associates would deny
the denouncement of the lecture method or promotion of
student centeredness as primary issues. Instead, they
believe that theological education needs to become
characterized by companionship in learning rather than
transmission of knowledge (1957, p. 209).

The question is whether teacher and student are
companions in inquiry into a challenging subject or
whether the teacher conceives of himself as a retail
distributor of intellectual and spiritual commodities.
The lecture system of classroom instruction is no more
tied to the latter idea than discussion methods and
group dynamics are in themselves representative of the
former (Niebuhr, Williams, & Gustafson, 1957, p. 209).
Part of the answer of the Association of Theological
Schools to the concern for preparation effectiveness has been
the establishment of "readiness for ministry" criteria and
assessment measures (Schuller, Brekke & Strommen, 1975). The
competencies established provide help in designing
curriculum. Seminaries and Bible colleges have also been
involved increasingly in field-based education. The theme of
the 1984 conference of the National Association of Professors
of Christian Education, for example, focused on field

education. Niebuhr warns though of the danger of stressing

the future aspect in field work.

58
All too often "field work" (why not call it

"church work"?) is regarded and directed as though its

purpose were the acquisition of skills for future use.

Students, it seems should teach Sunday School classes

because sometime in the future they will need to

organize Sunday Schools, to do "clinical work" in
hospitals because they will learn something beneficial
for their later practice as counselors, to practice
preaching so that in other times and other places they
may proclaim divine righteousness and mercy. When

such considerations are urged upon them an inner

contradiction comes to appearance; a kind of

professionalized self—love has been substituted for

love of God and neighbor. The children in the Sunday

School class, the patients in the hospital, the

hearers of the "practice sermons" have been put into a

secondary place; they have become means to a personal

end (1956, pp. 131, 132).

Others take a more innovative approach to the problem of
theory and practice integration. The most notable movement,
Theological Education by Extension (TEE), has been used on
both a professional and lay level. The best model portraying
this concept is the two-railed fence analogy used by Ward
(Ward & Rowen, 1972). Seminars act as the fence posts or
linkages between the two rails of cognitive input and field
experience. The interactive seminars function as
opportunities for reflection, evaluation, and integration.

Variations on the concept of the extension school are
increasing here in North America. The Ontario Bible Church
of Ames, Iowa, established a four-year Ministry
Apprenticeship Training curriculum integrating ministry,
character, and academic goals. The Seminaire Baptiste
Evangelique du Quebec (SemBEQ) in French Canada combines
brief residential educational periods with the extension idea
to prepare people for ministry (1984). A new seminary, The

Conservative Baptist Seminary of the East, seeks to answer

59

the integration question by having students deeply involved
in church ministry throughout the four-year program with the
possibility of classes only One day or so a week. The
curriculum and training process centers around the church
(1985).

Strategies for Integration

The literature does mention ways of bridging the gap
between theory and practice in institutional settings.
Basic, of course, is the necessity of awareness. An approach
that zeros in on context as well as theory will increase
understanding of the complexity of the learning phenomenon.
Concept and context must be intertwined into an interactive
whole (Williams, Neff, Finkelstein, 1981, p. 96). In his
claSsic on aims in education Whitehead exhorted, "Get your
knowledge quickly, and then use it. If you can use it, you
will retain it" (1929, p. 36).

Theory and practice must inform each other. A practical
focus alone can become technical and mechanical. The danger
then increases that students are "likely to use methods long
after they have become dysfunctional and are not able to
improve upon methods that no longer work" (Webb & Sherman,
1983, p. 24). Critical engagement with ideas and experience
must be encouraged, otherwise a narrow pragmatism and/or
conceptualization that limits people to reacting instead of
thinking and repeating rather than creating may be true.
Reflection serves as a necessary integrative skill, and the

interactive seminar can provide such an opportunity. As

60

reflection combines with a range of experiences, the quality
of the educational process will improve as well (Stratemeyer,
1951, p. 12).

Only experience that is reflected upon seriously will

yield its full measure of learning, and the reflection

must in turn aim at testing the newly refined
understandings by further experience. Our duty as
educators is both to provide the experiential
opportunity and make sure it can yield learning. That
is, we must provide a framework for regularly

analyzing the experience and forming new concepts and

theories, and then submitting these new concepts to

the test of experience (Doherty, Mentkowski, & Conrad,

1978, p. 25).

The seminar is usually considered as particularly
conducive to reflection and integration. Findings seem to
indicate, however, that the quality of the seminar exercises
influence on its articulating power. Having reflection in a
seminar "as a program goal does not insure its manifestation"
(Goodman, 1983, p. 48). If the seminar means merely an
opportunity to address technical concerns, then it becomes
socialization into current practice and "recipe knowledge"
(Zeichner, 1980, p. 12). On the other hand, if the seminar
penetrates issues on a deeper level then it potentially
functions as a "catalyst for substantive discussions"
(Goodman, 1983, p. 46). The classroom setting also needs to
provide reflective occasions. Learning to think critically
will help students move beyond a survival mentality and the

passive character of most classroom learning environments.

Reflection can assist in the improvement of practice.

61

Another way of improving the linkage involves the use of
ethnographic methodologies in a variety of settings (Gitlin &
Teitelbaum, 1983, p. 225). By students conducting their own
ethnographies, realities may be understood and critical
analysis and reflection encouraged. Thus classroom and field
learning begin to impact one another.

Peer teaching could also aid the integration process.
Most teachers would acknowledge the truth that "I never
learned so much about the subject until I had to teach it."
Having to organize knowledge in order to communicate it
assists learning (Warren, 1970, p. 10).

In addition, the Experiential Learning Incident Log also
operates as a useful technique. The purpose of the log as
detailed by Mentkowski reads as follows:

to make the student aware of the detail of her
experience, to reflect on her experience, to identify

her theory and her theory in use, and to test out her

new ideas in action. The log is designed to encourage

the student to become proficient at reflecting on

experience, at conceptualizing, at planning for new

actions and further experiences (1983, p. 13).
Communication between the field, student, and institution
must be another emphasis. Projects and papers which demand
integrative thought help people appreciate and understand
what has transpired. Growth portrays an interactive function
and "when environmental conditions are not optimal, then some
form of arrestation is assumed to occur" (Joyce, 1980,

p. 19). More attention needs to be paid to a nurturing

environment. Baltes and Schaie found the decline of IQ in

adults a myth (1970, p. 720-725), and the Sprinthalls suggest

62

that lack of growth may be due more to inadequate stimulating

interaction (Sprinthall & Thies-Sprinthall, 1983, p. 22).

Summary

In the more recent literature, concern for linking the
experiences of students and institutional learning is
evident, but actual articulation between the cognitive and
experiential is less apparent. Certainly, recognizing and
utilizing the experiences of students as a curricular
resource does not serve as a panacea for solving the tendency
toward a theory-practice polarization. Also, the issue lies
not in student experience versus subject content in the
classroom but in encouraging the creative interplay of both.
The dynamic processes of theory and practice not only find
integration through action and reflection, but as part of a
larger interpretive endeavor, "the recovery of meaning and
the development of understanding" (Macdonald, 1982, p. 56).
The capacity of the learner to make right decisions and grow
in wisdom will not be maximized if the reality of students'
experience is minimized. In his article, "Education for
Character," Martin states that the Christian college must be
characterized by a commitment to purpose:

above every other skill . . . is development in the

person of a capacity for good judgment. To judge

rightly is . . . the end of the education experience

to which everything else is means . . . The teacher

is the leader in making choices that influence the

development of the student's skill in making choices

. . There is moral seriousness to this interaction
(1986, p. 13).

Chapter 3

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the study was to identify and to describe
the relationship between the life experiences of students and
classroom learning in undergraduate theological institutions
in Western Canada. This chapter addresses research design,
the population, methodologies in instrument development, data

collection, and data analysis.

Research Design

Since the concerns focus on factors linking experiences
of students within and outside the classroom, a descriptive
study fulfills the purpose of the research. The emphasis
centers in qualitative research methods, rather than
quantitative.

The study identified the perceptions of students and
faculty regarding the use of the experiences of students in
the Bible college classroom and described current practices
pertaining to the same. Kolb's (1985) inventory which
assesses how people's learning styles may influence
preferences in relation to the use of the experiences of

students was employed.

63

64

The research proceeded as follows:

1. Selecting institutions to participate in the study.

2. Obtaining permission from the chief academic officer
of each college to conduct the study.

3. Developing the interview instruments.

4. Structuring a standardized interview protocol.

5. Pilot testing research methodology and refining
procedures and interview instruments at a Bible
college other than the two involved in the study.

6. Collecting data through institutional documents,
standardized interviews, and a learning style
inventory at two Bible colleges called Rhema and
Logos.1

7. Exploring and discovering patterns and relationships
in the data.

8. Coding and analyzing the data.

Research and Operational Questions
The following questions guided the research:
Researchfiuestinnil
As seen by the administration, faculty, and students,
what elements of the explicit curriculum in a given

institution emphasize the experiences of students?

 

1 For the sake of confidentiality, the pseudonyms Rhema and
Logos are used to describe the Bible colleges involved in the
study.

65

Querauignal_guestign_il. What post-high school and pre-
college experience do students bring to the formal education
context?

Operational_guesrion_12. What out-of-class educational
experiences are provided by the college curricular structure?

Queratignal_guestion_£3. What in-class educational

experiences are designed by professors?

Qneratinnal.guestinn_£4. What out-of—class educational

experiences are designed by professors?

Querational_quesuign_£fi. In what ways does the
administration encourage the inclusion of out-of—class
experiences of students in the curriculum?

Querauigual_guesuigu_£fi. What factors contribute to or
hinder the inclusion of out-of—class experiences of students
in the curriculum?

Researchmstinm

What do professors do to utilize learnings from the

experiences of students?

Operational_guestign_£l. How do professors become aware

of the involvements of students outside of the classroom?

Qperational_guestion_#2. Approximately how frequently is

class time devoted to utilizing the out-of-class experiences

of students?

Queratignal_guestign_£3. What do professors do to

include the experiences of students in classroom learning?

66
WW

How do preferred learning styles of faculty and students
relate to the use of experiences of students within the
classroom?

Queratignal_guesuign_£l. What are the preferred learning
styles of faculty and students?

QneIaLiQnal_aneSLiQn_£2. Do the preferred learning
styles of faculty relate to the kinds of experiences they
design and to the frequency with which they utilize the
experiences of students?

Queratignal_guestion_£3. Do the preferred learning
styles of students relate to their expectations regarding the
inclusion of the experiences of students within the classroom

or the kinds of experiences they suggest should be included?

Population

The population consisted of faculty and students in
undergraduate institutions affiliated with the American
Association of Bible Colleges in the United States and Canada
and the Association of Canadian Bible Colleges. Preparing
people for church-related careers constitutes the primary
purpose of Bible colleges. The vocational or professional
nature of the Bible college mandate requires a major in Bible
and theology and usually some form of practical training and
experience in "Christian service" during the student's
college days. Thirty hours in Bible and theology are

mandatory for members of the American Association of Bible

67

Colleges (Gangel & Benson, 1983, p. 362). Although both

denominational and interdenominational schools are members of

this organization, some similarity in theological and

educational objectives exists among faculty and students.
Sample

The sample consisted of a total of 60 students and 21
faculty at two undergraduate theological institutions.

Institutions

The sample consisted of faculty and students at one
interdenominational Bible college (Rhema) and one
denominational Bible college (Logos) located in Western
Canada. Variability of sample was reduced by selecting Bible
colleges that are members of the American Association of
Bible Colleges and Association of Canadian Bible Colleges.

Rhema and Logos Bible colleges were chosen on the basis
of their size and willingness to participate in the study. A
number of Bible colleges in Western Canada have less than 100
students, few full-time faculty, and limited program
offerings so were not considered for the study.

Other factors favoring a Western Canada location included
cost and proximity to the researcher. Doing the research at
two colleges assisted in overcoming some confounding
variables idiosyncratic to one setting that might have
impacted the results if the study were conducted at only one

college.

68

Sufism

The subjects selected at each institution consisted of
students, faculty, and one Chief administrative officer.
Student:

Thirty students were randomly selected according to major
(Bible/theology/pastoral or Christian education/missions)
from all full-time students in the sophomore, junior, and
senior classes at Logos. Since Rhema students did not enter
their degree major until their junior year, 30 students were
randomly selected according to major (Bible/theology/pastoral
or Christian education/missions) from all full-time students
in the junior and senior classes at Rhema. These subjects
were expected to have a high degree of knowledge of faculty
and the learning environments.

Facultx

Eleven faculty were randomly selected at Rhema from all
full-time faculty according to the program major
(Bible/theology/pastoral or Christian education/missions) in
which they taught. Ten faculty were randomly selected at
Logos from all full-time faculty according to the program
major (Bible/theology/pastoral or Christian education/
missions) in which they taught. Because of the few number of
full-time faculty in the majors selected and some subjects
refusing to participate, the remaining subjects at Logos no
longer constituted a random sample but volunteer subjects

(Borg & Gall, 19 p. 251).

69

Profiles of Participating Institutions

Both Rhema and Logos colleges are fully accredited
members of the American Association of Bible Colleges and
active in the Association of Canadian Bible Colleges.
Although one school is denominational and the other
interdenominational, their doctrinal statements are similar.
The primary curricular emphases at both of these schools
consist of Bible, theology, and church-related ministy
courses.

Rhema_Bible_Cnlleg.e

Rhema is an independent and interdenominational school
located in a rural setting. The college has an enrollment of
786 full-time and part-time students, with a full-time
equivalent of 733. The institution employs 23 full-time
faculty, 4 part-time faculty, 14 administrators, 4
counsellors, and 5 graduate study interns.
We

The college offers a three-year Bachelor of General and
Biblical Studies degree, plus two four-year degrees: a
Bachelor of Religious Education with majors in Bible,
Christian Education, World Evangelism, and Theological
Studies; and a Bachelor of Sacred Music. A Bachelor of
Theology Program, as well as a one-year Certificate and a
two-year Diploma Program are also available. The Bachelor of
Theology Program takes an additional year beyond the Bachelor

of Religious Education degree. The focus of this latter

70

program is practical as well as theoretical with a minimum of
six months field experience.
WW

Rhema Bible college offered a more comprehensive Bachelor
of Religious Education program which appeared to be
equivalent to the Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.)
and Bachelor of Theology (B.Th.) offered by Logos. Since the
B.Th. is a fifth year degree achieved following the B.R.E. at
Rhema, these students were not on campus at the time of the
study, but were involved in a minimum of six months of field
experience. In assessing the programs, however, the
Christian Education and World Evangelism majors at Rhema
seemed comparable to the B.R.E. at Logos, while the Theology,
Pastoral, and Biblical majors at Rhema appeared to fit the
B.Th. format at Logos.

LosnLBihleJnllege

Logos is a denominational school located in a city
context. The September enrollment for the 1986-1987 school
year consisted of 383 students with the full-time-equivalent
equal to 353. Faculty comprising this school include 15
full-time, 12 part-time, and 9 people with administrative
responsibilities.
We

Logos has designed three four-year professional degree
options in the Bachelor of Theology, Bachelor of Religious
Education, and Bachelor of Sacred Music degrees. A three

year Bachelor of Religious Education alternative is available

71

for registered nurses. Additional programs include the non-
professional three-year Bachelor of Biblical Studies and 24
semester hour Diploma in Church Ministry.
WWII

Logos subjects were involved in two programs, the
Bachelor of Theology (B.Th.) and the Bachelor of Religious
Education (B.R.E.). Both are professional degrees with
biblical studies but the B.Th. emphasizes theology, pastoral
studies and New Testament Greek while the B.R.E. focuses on
Christian education thought and practice as well as theology.

W

A random selection of faculty according to the study
program in which faculty taught was chosen.
Rhema

Due to uncertainty at Rhema whether one faculty member
would return from an off-campus business trip in time to meet
his interview appointment, an additional faculty member was
incorporated to assure a minimum of 10 faculty subjects. The
faculty person approached first returned on time,
consequently 11 faculty subjects participated in the research
at Rhema. At Rhema, professors teaching in Bible, theology,
and pastoral areas were in one subject grouping. Those in
Christian education and world evangelism (or missions) were

in another.

72

LQQQE

Random selection of faculty at Logos occurred according
to the program in which faculty taught (either the B.Th. or
B.R.E.), but due to the small number of faculty and three
faculty unable to participate, the sample is volunteer.
Where faculty taught courses common to both the B.R.E. and
B.Th., the criteria for whether faculty were included in one
program or the other depended on the number of practical
courses a professor taught. If the professor taught a
minimum of two courses with an applied and practical focus,
then that person was included in the Christian education
faculty. Traditionally, the B.Th. is considered a more
academic degree with its classical languages and theory
focused courses, while the perception of the B.R.E. is more
application oriented. This division also compares favorably
with the Rhema group of study majors mentioned earlier.
We

Demographic data solicited from faculty pertained to
variables that may influence faculty's use of the experiences
of students as a resource in the classroom.

Sex. Women faculty at both colleges fulfilled
professorial roles in the Christian education and missions
majors. No women at either college taught in the
Bible/theology/pastoral majors except for one part-time
instructor in New Testament Greek at Logos. Table 3.1 shows
that of the 21 professors constituting the faculty sample,

71.43 percent were male and 28.57 percent were females.

73

Table 3.1. Faculty by Sex by College

 

 

‘College
Sex Rhema Logos Total
N N %
Male 8 7 71.43
Female 3 3 28.57
TOTAL 11 10 100.00

 

Age. The mean age of the faculty at Rhema and Logos was
41.62 years (Table 3.2). Faculty ages range from 28 to 62
years. The higher mean of Logos indicates a slightly more

mature faculty with ages varying from 33 to 62 years.

Table 3.2 Faculty Age by Sex by College

 

College

Sex Rhema Logos Total
Mean in Years Mean in Years Mean in Years

 

Male 40.75 44.13 42.33
Female 38.67 41.00 39.83
TOTAL 40.18 43.20 41.62

 

Academic_Degrees. Of the faculty subjects comprising the
study, all had a minimum of a master's degree (Table 3.3).

Only three had doctorates, and no women were among this

group.

74

Table 3.3 Highest Academic Degree of Faculty by Sex by

 

 

College
College
Sex/Degree Rhema Logos Total
N N N

Male

Master's 7 5 12

Doctor's 1 2 3
Female

Master's 3 3 6

Doctor's 0 O 0
TOTAL 11 10 21

 

flQrk_Experiense. One variable was vocational experience
prior to joining faculty at the respective colleges (Table
3.4). Church-related experience of faculty focused primarily
on pastoral, youth, and Christian education ministries.
One professor at Rhema and two at Logos had served in other
countries as missionaries. A similar number and proportion
were previously involved in business ventures dealing with
restaurant managing and computers. The ther category
covered job backgrounds in social work, construction,
teaching, counselling, and public relations. A display of
the prior work experience of faculty in years (Table 3.4)
reveals women with higher mean years of experience in

Missions and ther while men average more Chuznh experience.

75
Table 3.4 Previous Years of Faculty Work Experience by Sex

 

 

by College
> College

Sex/Experience Rhema Logos Total
N Mean N Mean. Mean

Male 8 7
Church 3.06 5.29 4.10
Missions 0.00 1.43 0.67
Business 0.25 0.29 0.27
Other 2.81 4.36 3.53

Female 3 3
Church 3.00 2.50 2.75
Missions 6.67 3.33 5.00
Business 0.00 1.00 0.50
Other 3.17 5.00 4.08

TOTAL 11 10

 

A two-factor analysis of variance on each type of
experience in Table 3.4 yielded no significant difference
except on the missions variable. No significant difference
existed between colleges but an F-test score of 3.189 with a
p value of 0.092 existed on the sex factor. Women faculty
had significantly more experience in missions than men.

The consequence of amalgamating the church, missions,
business, and other experience for each person and school
resulted in an experience mean of 7.91 years for Rhema and
11.2 years for Logos. Even with one less faculty member in
the study, Logos had a total of 112 years to 87 years for
Rhema. Logos faculty demonstrated a 41.59 percent higher
mean than did Rhema faculty in vocational experience prior to

Bible college teaching.

76

Presenr_1eaghing_Lsad. Table 3.5 shows the response of
faculty when they were asked to specify their present
responsibilities and clarify the extent of their teaching

load according to Partiime, Halttime, or Primarxztime.

Table 3.5 Present Faculty Teaching Load by College

 

 

College Total
Teaching Load Rhema Logos %
Part-time 1 0 4.76
Half-time 6 0 28.57
Primary-time 4 10 66.67
TOTAL 11 10 100.00

 

Present_Administratixe_Load. A number of the Rhema
faculty spent half their time in administration (Table 3.6),
while all the Logos faculty considered teaching their primary
focus even though they may have other job demands such as

committee work or student committee advisor.

77
Table 3.6 IPresent Faculty Administrative Load by College

 

 

Administrative College Total
Load Rhema Logos %
None 1 5 28.57
Part-time 5 5 47.62
Half-time 5 0 23.81
TOTAL 11 10 100.00

 

None of the faculty interviewed considered administration
their primary purpose (Table 3.6). Only six had no
administrative responsibility, and five of these taught at
Logos.

Tssghing_najgr. Faculty were randomly selected according
to the major in which they taught--either the combination set
of Bible/theology/pastoral (B/Th/P) or Christian education/
missions (CE/M). Table 3.7 displays that with an additional
faculty member participating at Rhema, 52.38 percent of the
faculty interviewed at Rhema and Logos taught in the Bible,
theology, or pastoral majors while 47.62 percent taught in

Christian education and missions.

78

 

 

 

Table 3.7 Faculty Teaching Major by College
College

Teaching Rhema Logos Total

Major %

Bible/theology/ 6 5 52.38
pastoral

Christian education/ 5 5 47.62
missions

TOTAL 11 10 100.00
Time_in_P_r_esent_P_Qsitinn. The time of faculty in their

present position (Table 3.8) ranges from 0.2 - 11 years at

Rhema to 0.2 - 16 years at Logos.

Although Logos faculty are

in their positions longer, a t-test on the difference in

means did not yield significance.

 

 

Table 3.8 Faculty Time in Years in Present Position by
College
College

Sex Rhema Logos

N M S.D. N’ M S.D
Male 8 4.71 2.88 7 6.89 5.75
Female 3 5.33 4.93 3 6.07 5.46
TOTAL 11 4.88 3.30 10 6.64 5.37

 

79

Faculty time at the college (Table 3.9) varies from
1.25 - 33 years for Rhema to 0.2 - 16 years for Logos, but a
t-test on the mean times did not demonstrate significant

results.

Table 3.9 Faculty Time in Years at the College by College

 

 

College
Sex Rhema Logos
N M S.D. N M S.D.
Male 8 10.44 10.69 7 7.31 5.42
Female 3 7.18 5.35 3 6.73 4.41
TOTAL 11 9.55 9.38 10 7.10 4.90

 

Rhema faculty demonstrate more years working at the
college (Table 3.9), but a shorter time than Logos faculty in
their present responsibilities (Table 3.8).

er;gsmpus_1nyglyemenu. A potential variable in the use
of the experiences of students as a resource in the classroom
related to the professor's own involvement in off-campus
ministries (Table 3.10). The off-campus involvement
descriptor describes commitments that are not college
related. The most common response by faculty specified

church, seminar, camp, and retreat related responsibilities.

80
Table 3.10 IFaculty Off—Campus Involvement by College

 

 

College Total
Involvement Rhema Logos N %
None 3 2 5 23.81
Periodic 4 1 5 23.81
Regular 4 7 11 52.38
TOTAL 11 10 21 100.00

 

Although some difference is evident between Rhema and
Logos as far as off-campus involvement (Table 3.10), a chi-
square test did not produce significance. Faculty with no
involvement off-campus are 27.27 percent at Rhema as compared
to 20 percent at Logos. The claim by faculty of periodic
involvement is 36.36 percent at Rhema and 10 percent at
Logos. Logos faculty nearly double the claim of Rhema
faculty in regular off-campus involvement with 70 percent to

36.36 percent.

WW

Random selection of students at the two colleges occurred
according to program of study--Bible/theology/pastoral
(B/Th/P) or Christian education/missions (CE/M). Table 3.11
shows that 30 students from each major were selected between
the two colleges and 30 students from each college. At
Rhema, students do not enter their major until the junior
year, so when students were randomly selected according to

their major no sophomores from Rhema are included.

81

Table 3.11 Students in Each Set of Majors by Class by College

 

 

 

College Total
Class/Major Rhema Logos N %
Sophomore
Bible/theology/ 0 6 6 10.00
pastoral
Christian education/ 0 8 8 13.33
missions
Junior
Bible/theology/ 5 1 6 10.00
pastoral
Christian education/ 6 4 10 16.67
missions
Senior
Bible/theology/ 10 8 18 30.00
pastoral
Christian education/ 9 3 12 20.00
missions
TOTAL 30 30 60 100.00
Rhema

At Rhema, 15 students were selected from the Bible,
theology, and pastoral majors, and another 15 from the
Christian education and world evangelism or mission areas--
subject groupings comparable to the Bachelor of Theology and
Bachelor of Religious Education degrees at Logos.

LQsQfi

At Logos, 15 students were chosen from the Bachelor of

Theology program and 15 from the Bachelor of Religious

Education.

82
Student_nemnsranhic_nata

In order to discern influences and potential student
resources for the classroom curriculum, demographic data were
obtained from each student. In the collection of data
various demographic variables were considered.

Sex. Table 3.12 displays that 65 percent of the student
respondents were male and 35 percent were female. At Rhema,
73.33 percent of the sample were male, while 26.67 percent
were female. Logos' respondents consisted of a more even
balance between male and female with 56.67 percent and 43.33

percent respectively.

Table 3.12 ‘Number of Students According to Sex by College

 

 

College
Sex Rhema Logos Total
N N %
Male 22 17 65
Female 8 13 35
TOTAL 30 30 100

 

Age. Student ages ranged from 18 to 38 years. Rhema
students varied from 20 to 38 years of age, and Logos
students from 18 to 38 years of age. The mean age of
students was higher for men than women, but the mean age

between schools is similar (Table 3.5).

Table 3.13» Student Age in Years by Sex by College

 

Sex

 

 

Rhema Logos Total

Mean Mean Mean

Male 24.09 24.06 24.08

Female 22.00 22.15 22.10

TOTAL 23.53 23.23 23.38
W

One hundred fifteen student and faculty subjects were
approached to participate in the study, and 81 responded, or
70.43 percent. Table 3.14 shows the response rate for

faculty at 84 percent. Rhema had a higher response rate than

Logos.

Table 3.14 Faculty Response Rate by College

 

 

Number Number of % of
College Approached Responses Responders
Rhema 12 11 91.67
Logos 13 10 76.92
TOTAL 25 21 84.00

 

The mean response rate for students was 66.67 percent
(Table 3.15). The response rate among Rhema students was

higher than for Logos students.

84
Table 3.15 Student Response Rate by College

 

 

 

Number Number of % of
College Approached Responses Responders
Rhema 37 30 81.08
Logos 53 30 56.60
TOTAL 90 60 66.67
Nnnzresnnnse_8ate

Table 3.16 displays the non-response rate of faculty and
students at Rhema and Logos. Nearly 30 percent of faculty
and students approached to participate in the study did not
respond. Rhema had the largest faculty and student

population but the best response rate.

Table 3.16 Faculty and.Student Non-response Rate by College

 

 

Number of % of

College Non-responders Non-responders
Rhema (N = 49)

Faculty 1 2.04

Students 7 14.29
Logos (N = 66)

Faculty 3 4.55

Students 23 34.48

TOTAL (N = 115) 34 29.57

 

85

Due to the higher non-response rate at Logos (Table 3.16)
and in order to ascertain whether non-responders were clearly
different from responders, a minimum of 20 percent of Logos
college non-responders were randomly selected for follow-up
(2 faculty and 5 students). The reasons given by the faculty
were "too busy" while students specified "too busy,“
"inconvenient," and "illness." The events at the respective
colleges during the time that the researcher conducted
interviews may have had some bearing on the response rate.

At Rhema, exam week was in progress, and the faculty and
students had a less structured schedule. At Logos, classes
were suspended because of a conference, but participation in
the conference was expected and a number of optional

opportunities for involvement were available.

Instrumentation
Two instruments were employed in collecting data from the
subjects, face-to-face interviews and Kolb's Learning Style
Inventory (Gorden, 1980, p. 246).
merrieuuides
Moderately scheduled interview guides were developed for
each group of subjects--the faculty, students, and chief
academic officers (Appendices A, B, & C). Questions were
designed to gather demographic information and to meet the
specific objectives of the three research questions.
Collegians and faculty were usually operating under time

constraints so to improve the quality of response, two

86

factors were considered important: meaningfulness of items
plus brevity of the instruments (Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 422).

Some questions were worded identically on all three
interview guides, but other questions differed according to
the particular perspective of the group. Interview schedules
included closed form and Open form questions. The wording,
as well as sequence of questions, was considered (Payne,
1951, pp. 138-176; Gorden, 1980, p. 361). The first personal
interaction question was considered to be important for
setting the tone of the interview, so was developed to
contribute both to rapport and data analysis (Gorden, 1980,
pp. 229, 230). Where questions included forced choice
answers, a card with potential responses was given to each
subject to avoid misunderstanding. To minimize researcher
bias and variability in interview conditions, a standardized
interview protocol was produced and followed (Appendices A,
B, & C).

A pilot study to field test instruments and procedures
with faculty, students, and a chief administrative officer at
a third Bible college gave opportunity for further
development and refinement of the instruments as well as
assisting in ensuring clarity in communication (Borg & Gall,
1983, p. 419). One crucial aspect was to determine
terminology and ideas that fit people's classification
schemes. Both open-ended questions that allowed for neutral

probes and closed-ended questions were developed. Forced

87

choice and ranking order questions were also included (Isaac
& Michael, 1981, p. 142).

The final question of each interview was a rank order of
professor's roles. For ranking statements only one phrase
was typed per card to facilitate ease of decisions through a
card-sort exercise. These statements were grounded in the
taxonomy of curriculum suggested by Eisner and Vallance
(1973) along with the two additions suggested by Vallance in
1986. The taxonomy with the corresponding interview

statements follows:

Tammany InteruieLStatements
Cognitive processes To teach a student how to
think
Academic rationalism To master and

communicate knowledge

Social adaptation and To prepare the student

reconstruction for what the church
wants/needs

Personal success To develop each

student's potential

Technology To facilitate mastery of
technology
Personal relevance To emphasize life and

ministry usefulness

Personal commitment to To encourage a personal
learning commitment to on-going
learning

88

W

The Learning Style Inventory was derived from
experiential learning theory and consists of a 12 item self-
appraisal questionnaire. The respondent is asked to rank
four phrases for each item in the questionnaire according to
the way he or she learns best. The inventory assesses the
four individual learning abilities of concrete experience,
reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and
active experimentation. These four poles are then graphed to
identify the prevalent learning mode of each individual--

converger, diverger, assimilator, or accommodator.

Figure 3.1 The Learning Cycle

CCNCREI'E
EXPERIENCE

Accommodator Diverger

ACTIVE REFLE TIVE
EXPERIMENTATION OBSERVATION

 

Converger Assimilator

 

ABST RACT
CONCEPTUALIZATION

(Kolb, 1981, p. 9)

The converger combines the learning steps of abstract
conceptualization and active experimentation. The strength
of this type lies in the practical application of ideas.

Solving problems and making decisions reflect this

89

orientation. The diverger's strong points consist of
generating ideas, sensitivity, and imaginative ability. This
person learns best by reflective observation of concrete
experience. Abstract conceptualization and reflective
observation join together in the assimilator type. The
assimilator values abstract ideas and concepts and arranges
diverse information into concise, integrated form. Logical
analysis is esteemed over practical value. "Hands-on,"
however, portrays the learning style of the accommodator.
This action-oriented person likes new challenges and tends to
make decisions more by feelings than logical analysis.

The combination scores used to determine the dominant
style are "highly reliable indices suitable for most research
applications" (Kolb, 1978, p. 16). Correlations between five
different groups resulted in reliability coefficients of
about .80. One representative group of 50 M.I.T. Sloan
fellows (mid-career managers attending a one-year master's
program in management) demonstrated coefficients of .80 on
the abstract conceptualization and concrete experience (AC-
CE) score and .81 on the active experimentation and
reflective observation (AE-RO) score.

The ability of the inventory to predict behavior
consistent with experiential learning theory (validity) needs
to be viewed more cautiously until further correlation
between the inventory and specific vocational fields is

expanded and examined. A strong correspondence between the

90

individual learning styles and the careers people choose does
appear apparent (Smith & Kolb, 1986, p. 83).

The value of the learning style inventory lies in
understanding the dominant learning approach of people.
"Learning styles are important because they are the
education—relevant expressions of the uniqueness of the
individual" (Joyce & Weil, 1986, p. 435). How one learns
influences one's expectations and even educational

methodologies.

Data Collection

Data collection involved two parts: the interview and the

learning style questionnaire.
Wins-1mm

The chief academic officers of each institution were
asked to submit lists of students and faculty. The lists
classified students according to study major and faculty by
teaching major. A school catalogue was also obtained to
assist the researcher in understanding the college and scope
of its programs.

After a random selection of students and faculty, letters
were sent to 30 students and 10 faculty at each college
inviting them to participate in the research. Due to the
distance factor for the researcher plus the inefficiency of
the mail service, arrangements were made for a neutral
contact person at each locale to receive responses and

confirm mutually agreeable interview times. The researcher

91

required a minimum of 30 student and 10 faculty respondents
from each school (15 students and 5 faculty from the
Bible/theology/pastoral area and 15 students and 5 faculty
from the Christian education/missions field). When the
initial mailing failed to recruit sufficient respondents,
letters were sent to other potential subjects in the order of
the random selection until the needed sample was achieved.
Intemieumedures

An interview protocol was developed to ensure consistency
of approach and to aid in establishing rapport. Following
introductions, a brief time of informal interaction enabled
the subjects to relax and be comfortable. The purpose of the
study was explained and the appropriate consent form given to
each subject (Gorden, 1980, pp. 213-232). Confidentiality
was emphasized. All subjects still agreed to participate at
this point, so the interview proceeded according to the guide
relevant to the subject (See Appendices A, B, and C). With
permission from each participant, notes were taken for
accuracy of data collection. The interview progressed by
obtaining demographic information first of all. Then a card
with a definition of life experience was given to each
subject in order to facilitate mutual understanding of a key
descriptor in the study. Besides probes already recorded on
the interview guide, the following questions were used to
assure depth and clarity of response:

"Would you please explain that statement further?"

"Can you think of another situation?"

92

"Are there any additional ideas you would like to add?"

Time was taken at the close of each interview to answer
any questions or clarify any misunderstandings. Student
interviews ranged from 30 to 45 minutes in length. The
faculty interviews included two more questions and usually
lasted for 45 to 60 minutes. Additional time was allowed
between interviews for the researcher to amplify information
or impressions in handwritten notes.

WW

Following the close of the face-to-face interview,
subjects were given Kolb's Learning Style Inventory to
complete. Most participants took 12 to 15 minutes to finish

the questionnaire.

Methodological Assumptions

The data collection of any study is based on certain

assumptions.
Sample

The researcher established a minimum random sample of 60
students and 20 faculty with 30 students and 10 faculty from
each college. Although the sample size is limited, 30
subjects at each college does meet the minimum for
discovering the magnitude of relationship between two
variables (Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 257). A minimum of 20
faculty also allows for chi-square tests of 2 by 2 tables
with a cell frequency no smaller than 5 (Isaac & Michael,

1981, p. 177).

93
WW

Another methodological consideration involved the
acceptability of questionnaire and interview procedures
(Gorden, 1980; Borg & Gall, 1983). In the use of personal
interviews, validity of data relates to questions asked
fulfilling the purposes for which the study was intended
(Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 275). Pre-testing the questionnaires
and interview during the pilot study assisted in increasing
validity of measurement as well as reliability. As Payne
emphasizes, wording is key, so in the pre-testing phase the
follow-up question, "What do you mean by that?" was employed
to improve wording of questions (1951, p. 14).

In order to minimize interviewer and response effect in
the interviews, a standardized protocol was developed and
followed. The interviewer sought to establish rapport and an
atmosphere for honest replies. Different degrees of
structure in the questions assisted in maximizing the value
of the findings. Similarity of questions and approach with
the three groups of subjects, faculty, students, and chief
academic officers, aided in reducing variability.

The difficulties inherent in self-report are addressed
partially by using students, faculty, and the chief academic
officer from the same institutions--three groups of subjects
from differing perspectives. Also, simple random sampling
based on the generation of random numbers by computer meant
every member element in the universe had an equal chance of

being chosen (Gorden, 1980, p. 238). Then confidentiality

94

was assured, and the placement of potentially threatening
questions considered. In addition, an informal post-
interview helped to clarify any misunderstandings (Gorden,
p. 404).

W

Content analysis fits the present study because of its
context sensitivity. Such analysis remains "fundamentally
empirical in orientation, exploratory, concerned with real
phenomena, and predictive in intent" (Krippendorff, 1980,

p. 9). This research technique provides a practical guide in
less structured situations for "making replicable and valid
inferences from data to their context" (p. 21).

Due to the amount of data accumulated through the
research and the difficulty of individually listing all the
elements, groups of elements are used as sampling units
(p. 67). When concepts are similar and little detail lost,
clustering is done. For instance, when faculty and students
were asked about out-of-class learning experiences designed
for learning, 346 responses were given. In order to reduce
these data into a form suitable for analysis while retaining
all relevant information, content analysis was applied. The
frequency of responses such as "papers," "reading," "field
trips," and "ethnography" were recorded and then explored to
discover patterns and relationships. In this particular
illustration, "papers and "reading" seemed to cluster under
the theme of ideas or thinking while "field trips" and

”ethnography" clustered under doing. All responses were

95

considered. From the emerging theme units, statements were
then clustered under the final categories of abstract and
concrete (abstract pertaining to ideas and concrete to
doing).

Clustering seeks to group variables into mutually
exclusive classes. These categories describe the most likely
basic elements of the problem investigated. Summarizing
tables are used to display data. Where appropriate, data are
represented using frequencies and percentages.

An individual was trained to assist the researcher in
coding the data. In order to overcome researcher bias,
increase reliability, and validate the themes emerging out of
the data, five other coders were recruited to assign data
independently to categories. Statements were not admitted
for analysis unless their reliability was 0.8 or above
(Krippendorff, 1980, p. 147). Examples of the
unreliabilities encountered in the findings are specified
where appropriate to clarify their influence. Interrater
reliability on interview statements and categories varied
from 94.63 percent to 98.45 percent with an average of 96.54
percent so contamination by researcher judgments is minimal
(Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 480, 482).

The raw data collected through this study were grounded
in qualitative procedures. All the data were analyzed to
discover underlying uniformities in the verbal material. In
order to reduce the variety of alternatives to be tabulated,

similar ideas were clustered into a single category to

96

facilitate statistical investigation (Krippendorff, 1980,
p. 71).

Further analysis used primarily descriptive statistics
with summarizing data presented in displays with frequencies,
percentages, means, and standard deviations. Due to the fact
that much of the data accumulated were interpreted in
frequencies, additional statistical analysis employed mostly
chi-square tests (Isaac & Michael, 1981, p. 177). Where
interaction between and within groups seemed possible,
variability was explored through analysis of variance
(p. 182). When seeking to determine a significant difference
between sample means, t-tests were used (p. 176). For
assessing the ranking variables, the rank-difference
correlation or Spearman rho conveyed indices of relationship
(p. 172).

The level of significance for accepting or rejecting the
null hypothesis of no relationship was established at .05.
Because of the exploratory nature of the study and the small
sample size, the significance level of .10 was accepted for
some correlational analyses (Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 260).
These levels of significance were considered the maximum risk
in making a Type 1 error, in which the null hypothesis is
true but rejected, or a Type 2 error, in which the null
hypothesis is false but not rejected (Isaac & Michael, 1981,
p. 185). The probability of chance (p-value) gives the
actual probability of making a Type 1 error given the

obtained results.

97

Delimitations and Generalizability

The study pertains to faculty and students of
undergraduate schools that participate in the American
Association of Bible Colleges. The investigation was
restricted to 60 sophomore, junior, and senior Bachelor of
Theology and Bachelor of Religious Education students and 21
faculty from two Bible colleges. With a diversity of
denominational and interdenominational schools,
representation should be realistic. The only differences
between subjects considered in the random selection were the
teaching major for professors and study major for students.

With the research based on the self-report of respondents
and no random selection of participating colleges, the study
was limited. Colleges were chosen on the basis of proximity
to the researcher which had a minimum enrollment of 300
students. Also, only the Bachelor of Theology and Bachelor
of Religious Education programs were considered. Inclusion
in the study depended upon willingness to be involved. The
perceptions of subjects were accepted as accurate. Due to
the interview focus of the study, classroom observations were
not included to confirm or modify responses. The fact though
that both students and faculty comprise the study assisted in

clarifying the actualities in each situation.

98

Another factor which affects the generalizability of the
study is the small sample size. This study also did not
encompass perceptions from students and faculty in other
degree programs.

The data gathered were particular to the participating
colleges. A description of the current practices at the
institutions will be specified with the potential for further
curriculum considerations. While recognizing the limitations
of the research, the findings may be indicative of curricular
trends in classroom and institutional education in other
Bible colleges in North America, particularly Bachelor of
Theology and Bachelor of Religious Education programs.
Identification of current linking practices of student
experience with classroom content, as well as faculty,
administrator, and student perspectives, may be of help to

parallel situations in other institutions.

Chapter 4

FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY

The purpose of the study was to identify and to describe
the relationship between the life experiences of students and
classroom learning in undergraduate theological institutions
in Western Canada. Describing "what exists" based primarily
on the self-report of faculty and students formed the essence

of the study.

Analysis of Data

The descriptive nature of the research included
collecting detailed factual information that portrays
existing phenomena and determining what others do with
similar situations in order to benefit from their experience
in making future plans and decisions (Isaac & Michael,1981,
p.46). With these emphases, qualification of data was
stressed more in the study rather than quantification of
data.

Organization of the study revolved around the research
and operational questions. Interviews and-a learning style
inventory were the basic instruments for collecting data.

The interview schedules contained some of the same components

99

100

for all subjects, but questions were adapted and expanded as
necessary to fit the different perspectives of the students,
faculty, and chief administrators (Appendices A, B, and C for
Interview Guides).

The responses elicited from the interviewees were
submitted to content analysis to identify repeating patterns.
From the accumulated data emerged classifiable ideas that
were clustered into synthesizing themes (Krippendorff, 1980,
pp.115-117). In reducing raw data to recurring theme units,
the researcher derived categories. Organizing information
into data displays provided the basis for further analysis
and possible conclusions (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p.21).

This process provided a foundation to discover meaning,
interpret data, and make inferences. Because the study
included only one administrator at each school, the data
derived from the administrator are reported, but not
statistically analyzed. Pertinent demographic information
from the subjects and institutions was also included in the
research report.

SLaLiaLinal.IzeaLmenL

A content analysis of the 3003 ideas derived through data
reduction of the interviews was conducted from an
attributional point of view (Krippendorff, 1980,
pp. 112, 113). Data were categorized and then reported
primarily in frequency and percentage distributions. Where
appropriate, statistical tests were used to measure the

degree of association (Borg & Gall, 1983, p.559). The level

101

of significance used was .05 except when correlation between
variables was apparent. Then the .10 level of significance
was accepted (Borg & Gall, 1983, p.380).
nemmraphiuaziahles

In the analysis of data, various demographic variables
need to be considered.
W

The first set of variables concerned faculty: age, sex,
field of teaching major (whether faculty teach in the Bible,
theology, and pastoral areas or the more practical areas of
Christian education and missions), the number of years a
faculty member spent in another vocation before Bible college
teaching, educational training, vocational experience,
present responsibilities, time in present position, time at
the college, and the extent of his or her present involvement
in ministry vocation apart from the college setting.
Studentlariahles

The second set of variables related to students'
responses: the length of time spent in work between high
school and college, age, sex, year in college, major, years
between high school and college, other schooling and transfer

credit, and work experience.

The Interviews
Demographic data were examined in relationship to those
aspects of the interview guide based on the research and

operational questions. Data reduction occurred during the

102

interview. As the subject responded, the researcher wrote
down each idea as a word, phrase, or sentence. For example,
in answering the question, "What stands out about a
particular professor?" respondents cited words like
"sensitive" or "honest." Phrases such as "a good sense of
humor" or "willingness to listen" were mentioned as well as
sentences like "He really cares that you understand the
ramifications of what he is teaching and internalize it."
Each thought was recorded as a separate idea.

Between interviews the researcher added comments or
impressions missed during the actual interview time. The
number of statements given by subjects totaled 3003 (Table
4.1). Rhema students appear to be more verbal than Logos
students, but Logos faculty appear to be more verbal than

Rhema faculty.

Table 4.1 Statements Derived from Interviews by College by

 

 

Subjects
College N Mean Total Responses
%
Rhema
Faculty 448 40.73 14.92
Students 1104 36.80 36.76
Logos
Faculty 480 48.00 15.98
Students 971 32.37 32.34

TOTAL 3003 37.07 100.00

 

103

Interviews with the Chief Academic Officers

Arrangements were made during the study for the chief
academic officer of each participating institution to be
interviewed and to fill out the Learning Style Inventory.
Each interview covered about one hour of time (See Appendix
A.). Some similarities characterized the two male
administrators. Both men had completed their doctorates and
were 43 years of age. Each man had been in his present
position for approximately ten years and involved himself in
regular ministry apart from the campus context. The results
from the learning style questionnaire indicated that both men
were assimilators.

The Rhema officer had served at the college for 17 years
and was involved in teaching as well as administration. His
memorable learning experiences focused on the formal
educational environment. Enjoyment of research and
introduction to broader abstract concepts in a philOSOphy
course illustrate two. Another concerned the relational
skills developed through being in the role of academic dean.

When asked if having a 35 year old engineer in his class
would make any difference, his initial response was "no," but
then he qualified his answer by saying he would change the
application but not the content. A missionary in his class
would make a greater difference. In the case of the
missionary, the administrator would be more flexible with

assignments and probably vary the content. He felt that he

104

frequently took class time to utilize student life
experience.

Ways that Rhema's chief academic officer encouraged
professors to use the experiences of students in the
classroom setting included emphasizing "the total life of
students (application)" at faculty meetings, periodic surveys
of students for their feedback, review of professor's
syllabi, and requesting that courses be life related. If
faculty are too limited to the theoretical, he assigns roles
like counselling that enable them to get into real life
situations. In ranking the role of a professor in order of
importance, he established the following order (most
important first).

- to develop each student's potential

- to encourage a personal commitment to on-going learning

- to teach a student how to think

- to emphasize life and ministry usefulness

- to prepare the student for what the church wants/needs

- to master and communicate knowledge

- to facilitate mastery of technology

W

The chief academic officer at Logos had been at the
college for 14 years. His responsibilities were
administrative, and presently he was not teaching. Memorable
learning experiences for him centered around two formal
educational opportunities (an ancient history course and his

Ph.D studies) and informal learning situations (his

105

participation in planning and directing significant
activities--"occasions for moving from theory to practice").

His response to having a 35 year old engineer or
missionary in his class was that there would be no change in
the way he presented material, but he would encourage
different assignments. As far as advocating that professors
use the experiences of students in the classroom setting, no
specific action is taken. However, field education and
internship requirements do add an experiential component to
the structured curriculum. The "placing of internships
before the student's final year is a deliberate choice," and
"professors are encouraged to use the data from the
internship experiences in their classes." Also, students are
given opportunities within chapels and residences to share.
Then non-traditional education that includes practical and
experiential components receives support and is designed
within the curriculum structure.

When asked to rank the role of a professor from most
important to least, the Logos administrator listed the roles
as follows:

- to encourage a personal commitment to on-going learning

- to teach a student how to think

- to master and communicate knowledge

- to prepare the student for what the church wants/needs

- to emphasize life and ministry usefulness

- to develop each student's potential

- to facilitate mastery of technology.

106

Discrepancy of response between the two administrators
does not appear to be great except on two factors: the Rhema
officer ranks student potential much higher while the Logos

officer places mastery and communication of knowledge higher.

Findings Related to the Research and Operational Questions

The aggregate of the remaining accumulated data is
presented relative to the research and operational questions.

The findings of the first research question and its
corresponding operational questions portray the subjects'
views of the explicit curriculum in the respective colleges.
WM

As seen by the administration, faculty, and students,
what elements of the explicit curriculum in a given
institution emphasize the experiences of students?

Quererienel_guesrien_£l. What post-high school and pre-
college experiences do students bring to the formal
educational context?

The response of student subjects indicates that they
bring substantial experience as a potential contribution to
the college context. Table 4.2 shows that men bring more
years of experience to the classroom than women. More of the
women tend to enter college immediately after high school.
The mean for years spent between high school and college is

similar between Rhema and Logos students.

107

Table 4.2 Years Between High School and College by Sex by

 

 

College
College
Sex Rhema Logos
N M: S.D. 1N M S.D.
Male (N = 39) 22 3.03 5.11 17 3.50 4.98
Female (N = 21) 8 0.88 0.21 13 1.17 1.47
TOTAL 30 2.46 4.57 30 2.49 3.99

 

Table 4.3 reveals that more Logos students had work
experience before entering college than Rhema students. In
order to record a "Yes" response for subjects, the work
experience had to be more than the two or three summer months
between finishing high school and entering college. For
Logos, 80 percent of the students had work experience as
compared to 43.33 percent of Rhema students. In considering
all the male subjects from both colleges, 43.33 percent had
work experience between high school and college, while this
was true of only 21.67 percent of the female subjects.

To discover if the frequencies on the two dependent
variables were significantly different, a chi-square test
assessed the null hypothesis that there is no difference
between college and student work experience (Table 4.3). The
null hypothesis was rejected because a significant difference
was discovered (chi-square = 8.531, p = 0.0035, phi = 0.377).

The researcher may conclude that, 99 times out of 100, in

108

repeated tests the same results would be observed. Most
Logos students had significantly more work experience prior

to college than did Rhema students.

Table 4.3 Student Work Experience by Sex by College

 

 

College
Sex Rhema Logos Total
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Male (N = 39) 10 12 16 1 26 13
Female (N = 21) 3 5 8 5 11 10
TOTAL 13 17 24 6 37 23

 

Even though sophomores, juniors, and seniors were
included in Logos subjects as opposed to just juniors and
seniors at Rhema, more of the Logos students had previous
work experience (See Table 4.3). Twenty of the thirty Logos
students did not enter college immediately after high school
(Table 4.4). The opposite characterizes Rhema where 20 of
the 30 students did enter college immediately. With the
similar mean age of student subjects at Rhema 23.53 and Logos
a close 23.23 (Table 3.5), the fact that sophomores were
included at Logos and excluded at Rhema should not be a
confounding variable.

From Table 4.4 apparently twice as many Rhema students as
Logos students entered college immediately. The reverse is

true for Logos; two times as many students did not enter

109

college immediately after high school. Chi-squares tested
the hypotheses that no difference existed between college
attended and students entering college immediately after high
school, or between sex and students entering college
immediately after high school (Table 4.4). A significant
difference was evident between schools for those entering
college immediately after high school (chi-square - 6.667, p
= 0.0098, phi = 0.333). Thus, the researcher may conclude
that, 99 times out of 100, in repeated tests the same results
would be observed.

Table 4.4 Students Who Entered College Immediately after
High School by Sex by College

 

 

College
Sex Rhema Logos Total
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Male (N = 39) 14 8 5 12 19 20
Female (N = 21) 6 2 5 8 11 10
TOTAL 20 10 10 20 30 30

 

Table 4.5 reveals the results of the null hypothesis that
no difference exists between colleges for men and women
entering college immediately after high school. The null
hypothesis was accepted for females as p > .05. The
hypothesis was rejected for males, however. A far greater

than expected number of males at Rhema entered college

110

directly from high school, while more males at Logos deferred

their college entrance.

Table 4.5 Student Differences by Sex for Entering College
Immediately after High School

 

 

Sex Chi-Square p Phi
Male 4.496 0.034 0.340
Female 2.651 0.1035 0.355

 

Another experience factor concerned other education that
may have been taken since high school but prior to Rhema or
Logos (Table 4.6). Little variation is apparent between
colleges. At Rhema 6 people in the sample received transfer
credit for a mean of 37.00 credits. Two of these subjects
transferred 91 and 71 credits which raised the Rhema mean.
Seven Logos students obtained transfer credit for a mean of
12.29 credits.

Table 4.6 Students Who Studied after High School but before
Rhema or Logos by Sex by College

 

 

College
Sex Rhema Logos Total
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Male (N = 39) 8 14 5 12 13 26
Female (N = 21) 2 6 6 7 8 13

TOTAL 10 20 11 19 21 39

 

111

Quererienel_guesrien_£2. What out-of—class educational
experiences are provided by the college curricular structure?

An appraisal of the official documents of the school plus
information solicited from interviews revealed educational
experiences, other than those class-oriented, enhanced the
education of students. Both schools, for instance, required
participation in "Christian service“ and in an internship.
Because of this, follow-up interviews were conducted with
those directing these areas at the respective colleges to
clarify expectations in these programs.

Rhema stipulates six full semesters of Christian service
with one academic credit per semester. No class is involved
but a syllabus with assignments to complete and practice is
issued. The first year emphasizes evangelism. In the second
year, with a skill identification focus, students assess
strengths and weaknesses and are able to make a choice of
major. In the third year, the student develops the skills
relating to his or her chosen major, and before the senior
year an internship must be completed. In the view of the
director, these "ministry involvements are considered part of
the academic curriculum" and not separate entities. Those
participating in internships report regularly to their field
supervisor who has been sent a syllabus by the college. Both
supervisor and student send in evaluation forms to Rhema.

The student also does an extensive written project at the end

112

of internship. A follow-up interview occurs on campus and
further academic counselling is given as appropriate.

Logos students must also complete six academic credits in
Christian service as a prerequisite to their graduation. The
initial credit is a course focusing on personal counselling
and ministry preparation. The remaining five credits are
action designed. Students participate in various forms of
ministry with regular reporting and evaluating. Those on the
youth and children's teams receive more training integrated
with their practice. Although integrating field and
classroom education is the desire, the encouragement is
primarily informal. All students also participate in a
minimum three-month long internship program.

Both the students intending to intern and selected
pastors who will act as supervisors meet on [Logos's]
campus for the annual Internship Seminar during the
Spring semester. At this time pastors and students

are given guidelines for making the internship
experience as profitable as possible (;8§_1nrerim

We, p.20).

Weekly evaluation and feedback sessions are designed
between the intern and his supervisor. The internship is a
prerequisite for one course in the curriculum on philosophy
of ministry with the intention of articulation between theory
and practice.

Other out-of—class experiences provided by the curricular
structure include the daily chapel period and advisor-advisee
relationships. Faculty act as advisors to assist students as

necessary. Rhema also designs periodic advisor-advisee

113

chapels. Logos has established Covenant Groups. Students
sign up for a group led by a faculty member for the purpose
of mutual growth. A variety of topics and group size are
available. At Logos, up to ten credits may be obtained in
non-traditional education. For pertinent seminars that a
student may attend, for instance, an appropriate evaluative-
reflective activity can be designed in connection with that
opportunity to maximize learning and earn credit. The chief
academic office of Logos specified that chapels, prayer days,
and missionary meetings were all considered an integrated
part of the curriculum and learning environment.

Opererienal_guesrien_£3. What in-class educational
experiences are designed by professors?

From the statements of faculty and students regarding in-
class education experiences designed by professors three
categories emerged: Teasher_AcLixe, Greup_Aeuiye, and
ludiyiduel_Aerixe (Table 4.7). All in—class occasions are
usually structured by teachers to some extent, but the
emphasis here concerns where the action centers. Responses
from subjects submerged within Ieeeher_Aeriye include
"lecture," "guest speakers," "films," and "videos" since the
action focuses directly on the teacher or a presentation
oriented substitute. Greup_Aeriue refers to an interactive
orientation like "discussions," "small group work,"
"brainstorming," "role plays," and "games." "Student

involvement in presentations," "practice teaching" or in-

114

class "reaction papers" and "work sheets" reflect the
Indixidual_ACLixe or student orientation.

Some items mentioned by subjects like "exams" or "case
studies," for example, were not included in the categories
specified above as they failed to be validated because of
discrepancy of opinion over which category they fit.
Depending upon their usage, case studies and exams may
accommodate all three categories; therefore, they were not
included in the frequency count. Case studies can be
presented and analyzed by the teacher, given to student
groups for investigation, or assigned for the individual
student to analyze and present. Exams are usually carefully
developed and controlled by the teacher even though students
are usually active in writing them so validators vascillated
between Teeeher_Aeriye and Indixidual.Antixe experiences
designed by professors. One professor mentioned that she was

thinking of planning a group exam.

115

Table 4.7 Statements of In-class Learning Experiences by
Subjects by College

 

In-class College Total
Experiences Rhema - Logos N %
Faculty Students Faculty'Students

 

Teacher 13 58 24 62 157 42.43
Active

Group 23 69 21 54 167 45.14
Active

Individual 6 21 11 8 46 12.43
Active

TOTAL 42 148 56 124 370 100.00

 

Chi-square tests demonstrated no significant difference
between colleges or between faculty and students on the three
dependent variables of Teasher_AcLixe, Grgun_AQLi!e, and
ludiyiduel_Aeriye in Table 4.7.

Since the responses across subjects and colleges tended
to be similar on the group variable, tests were conducted on
just the Teeeher_Aeuiue and Indiyidual_Aeuiue variables. No
significant distinction was found between colleges, but
faculty and students deviated Significantly (chi-square =
3.267, p = 0.0707, contingency coefficient = 0.126). The
researcher may conclude, therefore, that in repeated tests,
93 times out of 100, the same results would be observed.
Compared to faculty, students view the teacher as far more

active than the individual student in class.

116

In the Ieaeher_Aeriue category, subjects stated"lecture"
53 times. Of these occurrences 13 subjects described the in-
class learning experiences designed by professors as "mostly
lecture." Two faculty at each college plus one student from
Logos and 8 students from Rhema gave the phrase "mostly
lecture."

The perception that the teacher is more central to the
action than the students is reinforced by further analysis of
the Teasher_Aeriue and Indiuidual_Aeriue categories on just
student responses alone (Table 4.7). Students observe a
significant difference between Teacher_AeLiue and Indiuidual
satire (student active) in-class learning experiences (chi-
square = 5.437, p = 0.0197, phi = 0.191). It may be
concluded, therefore, that in repeated tests, 98 times out of
100, the same results would be observed.

When students were requested to share ways they had been
able to use their own life experience within the classroom
(Table 4.8), most responded with "sharing an illustration."
Of the 113 statements pertaining to this question, 71 or
62.83 percent specified "sharing an illustration" with a
small group or the class, a Wresponse. The
professor "asking a direct question" of a student or using "a
poem I wrote as an example of existentialism" came within the
Teacher_AcLixe ways students were able to share their
experience. Indiyidual_Acti¥e responses of students centered
in "asking a question," "class presentations," "giving prayer

requests," and "sharing testimonies."

117

Table 4.8 ‘Ways Students State They Have Been Able to Share
Their Experiences by College

 

 

Ways ‘ College
Students Rhema Logos Total
Share N M S.D. N M S.D. N
Teacher 3 0.1 0.31 4 0.13 0.35 7
Group 32 1.07’0.14 .39 1.3 1.12 71
Individual 22 0.73 0.79 13 0.43 0.68 35
TOTAL 57 56 113

 

Analysis distinguished little difference between colleges
on any of the variables in Table 4.8. The major sharing
takes place within the group. The individual may become more
active by giving a class presentation or initiating comments.

Students were asked to delineate in-class teaching
methods professors used that facilitated their learning.

Some of the methods cited are as follows: "question and

answer," "films," "student class presentations," "small
groups," "discussion," "lecture," "debate," "forum,"
"panels," "audio/visual," "slides," "pop quizzes," "drama,"

"role play," and "agree/disagree statements." In order to
handle these responses statistically, methods were grouped
into categories that describe where the action centers:
leasher_seriye, Greup_Aeriye (interaction oriented), and
Indiyidusl_Aetixe (student oriented) methods (Table 4.9).

Lecture, films, audio/visual, pop quizzes, and question and

118

answer were included within the TeashsI_ACLilfi category.
Small groups, debates, forums, panels, drama, role plays, and
agree/disagree statements describe methods within Greup

Aeriue. Class presentations as well as practice teaching and

preaching fit the Indiuidual_Aeriue category.

Table 4.9 Methods Cited by Students that Professors Used by

 

 

College
College
Rhema Logos Total

Type Male Female Male Female N %
Teacher 37 25 30 24 116 47.35

Active
Group 46 12 24 27 109 44.49

Active
Individual 10 4 4 2 20 8.16

Active
TOTAL 93 41 58 53 245 100.00

 

In response to the question regarding in-class teaching
methods that professors use to facilitate learning (Table
4.9), no significant difference was apparent by college or
sex. Rhema males though do appear to speak more frequently
of group-centered methodologies than the other subjects.
Students mentioned the lecture method most frequently (48
times). Class discussion followed (43 times) and then small
groups (23 times). At Logos, lecture as a learning method
designated a negative connotation three times (e.g."not

lecture") and positive three times (e.g."Lecture with the

119

most information in the shortest time equals the best
method."). Eight Rhema subjects communicated a negative
attitude toward lecture (e.g."Lecture can be pretty boring.")
and four a positive response (e.g."I love lecture that uses a
lot of examples.").

Operarienal_guesrien_14. What out-of—class educational
experiences are designed by professors?

The categories arising out of the data concerning the
out-of—class learning experiences designed by professors
centered around the CQnQLELe and Ahsrreer (Table 4.10). A
concrete activity includes immersion in an experience and
actually applying and using concepts. gangrene incorporates
seeing, touching, smelling, and doing (e.g."field trips,"
"interviews," "church ministry projects," "preparation of
class presentations," and "journal keeping").

Aberrant activities, on the other hand, include reading,
research, and the study of concepts and ideas. Of the out-
of-class learning experiences described, 162 of the 323
statements specified "reading," "papers," "library research,"
or "exams"--all assignments fitting within the Abstraer
category. From student comments (e.g. "mostly reading and
papers," "just papers"), abstract experiences appear to fill

the majority of out-of—class learning designed by professors.

120

Table 4.11) Out-of-class Learning Experiences by Subjects by
College

 

In-class _College Total
Experiences Rhema Logos N %
Faculty'Students Faculty Students

 

Concrete 16 47 13 55 131 40.56
Abstract 25 72 37 58 192 59.44
TOTAL 41 119 50 113 323 100.00

 

While no difference exists between schools (Table 4.10),
a significant difference arises between faculty and students
on the CQnQIELe and Abstract variables (chi-square = 3.968;

p = 0.0464; phi = 0.111). The researcher concludes that, in
repeated tests, 95 times out of 100, the same results would
be observed and students will emphasize concrete learning
opportunities more frequently than the faculty do.

When asked to specify the more interesting kinds of
assignments that professors had given, student responses
clustered into Abstract and Gangrene categories (Table 4.11).
Some of the interesting Absrreet assignments included "papers
that allow freedom of choice," "a take-home exam where you go
through all the men in the 17th to 19th centuries who
influenced Old Testament theology today," "historical
timelines," and "research type of assignments that apply to
me." Assignments fitting the Cenerere descriptor involved

"creating a visual representation of my philosophy of

121

ministry," "an ethnographic field study," "planning and

directing a conference," and "going to different churches and

observing forms of worship." Other generere assignments
included a "camping practicum for one weekend," "creating a

song, picture, or painting portraying the life of Christ,"

and "making a class presentation."

Table 4.11 Assignments Students Specify as Interesting by

 

 

College
College
Rhema Logos Total
Assignments Male Female Male ZFemale N %
Concrete 36 17 24 27 104 57.78
Abstract 33 10 18 15 76 42.22
TOTAL 69 27 42 42 180 100.00

 

Table 4.11 makes clear that students favored the concrete
over the abstract. A significant difference on the two
variables was apparent (chi-square = 35.358; p = 0.0633;
contingency coefficient = 0.609). The researcher may be
confident that, 94 times out of 100 in repeated tests, the
same results would be observed.

Querarienel_guesrien_£5. In what ways does the
administration encourage the inclusion of out-of—class

experiences of students in the curriculum?

122

Although three Rhema faculty could not think of any
administrative initiative or voiced that no initiative was
apparent in advocating the use of the experiences of students
in the classroom, more common faculty responses reflected
such ideas as "encourage teachers to be in tune with student
life and involved," or "have workshops on the typical college
student."

A content analysis of all faculty responses (Table 4.12)
resulted in three categories pertaining to the college
_administration's promotion of the experiences of students in
the classroom setting: Eneeurege_Releyanee, Alleu_1nelusien,
and Exaluare_2eaehers. Encouraging relevance means
promoting education apropos to the students. Some direction
is given through such opportunities as workshops, faculty
meetings or verbal affirmations to foster a teaching-learning
process pertinent to the students. Additional guidance from
administrators included "professional development days,"
"encouraged to teach more than facts," and "xeroxing relevant
articles for us."

Allowing inclusion speaks to the passive dimension and
reflects a permissive environment. Statements included "hard
to say," "the administration is extremely flexible and gives
us free rein," or "talked about more informally, but not
formally so much." Faculty sense their freedom to include
the experiences of students, but directives or active support
from administration are missing. Evaluating, on the other

hand, means the direct interaction or assessment instituted

123

by administration to build in formal or informal

accountability relating to syllabi or teaching. Deviation

between colleges on the variables is absent except on Allen
Inelusien. Logos faculty specified environmental freedom

factors 13 times to only 5 for Rhema.

Table 4.12 Faculty Statements of Administrative Initiative by

 

 

College
College
Initiative Rhema Logos Total
(N = 11) (N = 10)

Encourage 10 10 20
Relevance

Allow 5 13 18
Inclusion

Evaluate 2 2 4
Teachers

TOTAL 17 25 42

 

Qnetational_questien_£§. What factors contribute to or
hinder the inclusion of out-of—class experiences of students
in the curriculum?

In considering what contributes to or hinders the use of
the experiences of students as a resource in the classroom
curriculum, four categories were derived from the data:
Institutional, Course. Eacultx. and Student factors (See
Table 4.13.). Deciding who bears the responsibility for the

contributions or hindrances characterizes these categories.

124

Institutienel factors reflect the way "things are set
up"--the design of the college context. Particulars from
subjects embrace such matters as "class size," "facility,"
"philosophy of the college," and "scheduled school
activities."

Ceurse factors refer to the structure of the course and
the nature of knowledge. The composition of this factor
includes the "subject matter," "the time-consuming
disposition of student experience," and the "tyranny of
completing the material (especially when the course is a pre-
requisite for subsequent courses in the curriculum)."

Details within Eatult¥ factors incorporate the "extent of
awareness and involvement with students," "the openness of
the teacher to share," as well as one's "personal philosophy
of education" and "commitment to growth." Also the expertise
and confidence of the professor and whether or not the
individual feels threatened have a bearing on willingness to
involve others.

The fourth factor takes into account the expectations,
willingness, feedback, and maturity of students. Some
Student aspects included "diversity of student backgrounds"
and "students that already have a foundation in Bible and

experience in ministry."

125

Table 4.13 Factors that Contribute to Using the Experiences
of Students by College

 

 

Contributing V College Total
Factors Rhema Logos N %
Institutional 3 6 9 13.04
Course 1 7 8 11.60
Faculty 24 14 38 55.07
Student 7 7 14 20.29
TOTAL 35 34 69 100.00

 

Analyzing the contributions and hindrances to using the
experiences of students as a resource in the classroom (Table
4.13) reveals a significant difference for the contributions
factor between colleges on the four variables (chi-square =
8.119, p = 0.0436, contingency coefficient = 0.324). The
conclusion is that, 96 times out of 100 in repeated tests,
the same results would be observed. Rhema faculty will speak

more frequently of the Faculty aspect.

126

Table 4.14 Factors that Hinder Using the Experiences of
Students by College

 

 

Hindering . College Total
Factors Rhema Logos N %
Institutional 4 9 13 14.77
Course 15 11 26 29.55
Faculty 18 20 38 43.18
Student 4 7 11 12.50
TOTAL 41 47 88 100.00

 

Analysis between the contributions and hindrances factors
(Tables 4.13 & 4.14) on the four variables of Institutienel,
Ceurse, Eeeulty, and Student also demonstrates a significant
difference (chi-square = 8.441, p = 0.0377, contingency
coefficient = 0.226). The researcher can be confident that,
94 times out of 100 in repeated tests, the same results would
be observed. Faculty speak of themselves more frequently as
the contributors and hinderers to the using of the
experiences of students. Contributions by faculty are
mentioned most frequently. Course factors are spoken of more
frequently as hindrances rather than contributions to the
using of the experiences of students.

When subjects were asked to express their ideal of how
the experiences of students should be used, responses were
tentative and general. Many commented on the difficulties

rather than contributing ways to use the experiences of

127

students. Several students reacted against the use of the
experiences of students as they felt they were "here to learn
and not to take the professor's role." One Logos professor
considered the use of the experiences of students as
"existential" and "not the best form of learning."

Again, the themes emerging from the data concerned the
center of action and consisted of leather_Aetiye, Greun
'Aetiue, and.1ndiuidual_Aetiue categories (Table 4.15 & 4.16).
Some of the Teacher_Aetiue suggestionsspecified "Work closer
with students on process and live more personal interchange,"
"Give a survey at the beginning of the course for background
information and keep this in mind as a person teaches," and
"Be flexible in curriculum plan according to struggles
observed."

"More small group discussions" typified Greup_Aetixe. A
student proposed "writing up personal case studies and then
having the professor give them to the class for analysis."
For Indiuidual_Aetiue, some advocated "have students present
a seminar on a researched paper," "allow students to do
teaching," "have teachers value our opinion and not be so

dogmatic," and "structure moments of growth reporting."

128

Table 4.15 Statements Expressing the Ideal Use of the
Experiences of Students by Subjects by College

 

Ideal College Total
Experience Rhema ‘ Logos N %
Faculty Students Faculty Students

 

Teacher 9 11 3 7 30 35.30
Active

Group 2 5 3 12 22 25.88
Active

Individual 5 12 1 15 33 38.82
Active

TOTAL 16 28 7 34 85 100.00

 

From Table 4.15 data, no significant differences were
discovered between faculty and students or between colleges
on the ideal use of the experiences of students within the
classroom. Logos students do tend to speak more frequently
of the group orientation, while Rhema students slightly favor
the teacher and individual. The trend of faculty responses
moves to the teacher orientation while students stress the
individual.

A correlation of male and female students on the three
dependent variables in Table 4.16 (Teaeher_Aetiue, Greup
.Actite, and Indiyidual_Actixe) produced a significant
difference (chi-square = 8.931, p = 0.0115, contingency
coefficient = 0.355). The researcher can be confident that
in repeated tests, 99 times out of 100, the same results

would be observed. Women affirm group interaction more

129

frequently and the teacher less frequently, whereas men note
the individual more and the teacher focus second.

Since the number of faculty (N = 21) was insufficient to
tabulate a 2 by 3 contingency table, male faculty were
combined with male students and female faculty with female
students. The results continued to show a noteworthy
difference (chi-square = 12.988, p = 0.0015, contingency
coefficient = 0.364). The researcher may be confident,
therefore, that 99 times out of 100 in repeated tests, men
will cite teacher and individual orientations more frequently
than women; women will cite a group orientation more
frequently than men. The combination of faculty and students
indicated a slight move on the part of the female sample
toward the teacher and even more on the part of the male
sample in the teacher direction.

Table 4.16 Statements Expressing the Ideal Use of the
Experiences of Students by College by Sex

 

Students Faculty Total
Assignments Male Female Male Female N %
(N = 39) (N = 21) (N = 15) (N = 6)

 

Teacher 13 5 10 2 30 35.30
Active

Group 5 12 2 3 22 25.88
Active

Individual 19 8 5 1 33 38.82
Active

TOTAL 37 25 17 6 85 100.00

 

130

Other elements influencing the utilization of the
experiences of students pertain to the perception of a
professor's role (See Table 4.17.). Both professors and
students were asked to rank the following roles in order of
importance:

- To teach a student how to think

- To master and communicate knowledge

- To prepare the student for what the church wants/needs

- To develop each student's potential

- To facilitate mastery of technology

- To emphasize life and ministry usefulness

- To encourage a personal commitment to on-going learning

One professor at Rhema refused to rank the professor
roles. He said he was "not open to rank as the roles are very
interrelated. . . . We fail by breaking life up into
segments." This same professor questioned the value of using
the experiences of students as a resource in the classroom;
and yet besides teaching, this professor was also the
Director of Christian Service, the practical aspect of the
curriculum. He stated, "Student experience was not of
primary importance. . . .Students come as consumers to buy
information. If we are not giving them their money's worth,

then we are failing."

131

.puox >ox pocaauopc: on» an uxou :« puwuwucopw aw acnnououd on» we odou one .

 

 

. . . . NDOHoflzuov
pv.« >~.« an a on a en a on a h p b p h n no huoanul on» oaauaaauau oh

 

. . avoocxnuaa:
oo.n nb.n an n co m wc.n mo.~ m m o o m o .mq~:zu on» was:
new acoesan on» uuuuoun 9h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . . . omvuanocx
on n an n on n co v hv n on v o o m a o m ouauanauloo one young: o9
unanucoa
o~.v nm.v o«.m o~.v ph.v mo.v v v N m r n anaconda o» unclualloo
announce a coausouco ob
. . . . . . naocaauon: huoowcal
PN v no v Om ¢ 00 m co v m9 v n N n N n N 66. Quad oudndfinlo OP
on no on
oo.m oo.v on.v oo.m on.m_mo.v « n v a a v n.a:ou:»a Anew mwnowoc ab
8... Sun. 84. 8... 8a.. 3.4. ~ a A n N a 3 :2. 553: a ”mum“ 8.
a S 9. 7. s s 9 9 a. ?
D o s: o o o b s« o
o o. o o aw o. o s l2. s o mw c .cmw
.w o 0 MW 6 s aw «W .0 o 0 av 6 a as
6 9 a 0 .WC 8 o _vls 6 9 s 0 AW a..u av a
cam _cgw o mvaw mrmw no .cmw c .0 mv 0 av
5V 00 SD \M RV 5V 90 9 ”to.
O O 0 3 \V O. O 0 s“ (a?
1M .M «4 .M rm 0
a: ...: a: a;

 

 

noduwuoaum permannd uo coo: nBJuMuOARE pocownnt uo nopuo xcum nonnOuORm on» we modem

muoownom xn uOmmououm on» no mmaom on» O» pocowmm< muauANOAum hfl.v manna

132

To calculate the degree of relationship between these
ranking variables, the Spearman rank-order correlation
coefficient (also called Spearman rho) was applied. With the
number of ranks equalling seven (N = 7), a correlation
coefficient of 0.714 must be obtained to be significant at
the .05 level.

Table 4.17 demonstrates that faculty ranked Thinking most
important with usetuiness next, while students considered
Pgtentiai the highest priority with Thinking and Usefulness
next. A high correlation was discovered between professors
and students on the ranking of roles (correlation coefficient
> 0.714, rho = 0.8125). Thus professors and students rank
the roles about the same.

Table 4.17 also describes the professors' ranking
judgments of the role of the professor at the two colleges.
Rhema faculty's ranking results in the top two roles,
Potential and Usefulness, tied, followed by Thinking and
Enemiedge tied. Logos faculty order the statements as
Thinking first with Learning next and then Usefulness. With
rho = 0.5357 (correlation coefficient > 0.714) insufficient
evidence exists to establish that professors ranked the roles
the same, and indicates a possibility that professors at the
two colleges ranked the roles separately.

For the ranking of the role of the professor by the
students at the two colleges, Rhema students moved from
Thinking to Usefulness and then Retentiei with the remainder

ranked the same as Logos students. Logos students, on the

133

other hand, stated Retential first and then progressed to
Thinking and Usefulness. The Spearman rho though indicates a
high correlation between students at the two colleges
(coefficient correlation > 0.714, rho = 0.8929). Basically
Rhema and Logos students ranked the roles the same.
W

In assessing the promotion by the administrations of
Rhema and Logos regarding the inclusion of the experiences of
students, faculty from the two colleges gave similar
responses (Table 4.12). Both college administrations
encourage relevant application of materials to students'
lives and do limited evaluation or interaction to assess
appropriateness of curriculum. The indirect fostering of
using of students' experience through the institutional
context appears to be higher at Logos than Rhema.

Students come to college with more life and work
experience at Logos than at Rhema. Only 33.33 percent of
Rhema students interviewed did not enter college immediately
after high school, while 66.67 percent of Logos students
deferred entrance. A significant difference existed between
colleges on men entering college directly from high school.
More male students at Rhema than Logos began college
immediately following high school. On other educational
experience between high school and their present college,

Rhema and Logos students were similar.

134

Both schools required participation in field education
and internship programs. The perception of the in-class
learning experiences differed significantly between faculty
and students, with students viewing the classroom as more
teacher centered than did faculty. Lecture was mentioned as
the most common classroom method with discussion and small
groups next.

In considering contributions and hindrances to using the
experiences of students as a classroom resource, faculty from
both schools viewed themselves as creating the primary
contributions and hindrances to the inclusion of the
experiences of students. Students and faculty communicated
limited perceptions of ideal ways to use the experiences of
students although faculty tended more toward a teacher
orientation than students. From the responses, however, a
significant difference was apparent between sexes in the
ideal use of the experiences of students. Women advocate
group interaction most and teacher active ways least. Men,
on the other hand, affirm the individual student most and the
teacher active focus second.

In specifying out-of—class assignments and assignments
found to be most interesting, students favor the concrete and
professors the abstract. In the ranking of professorial
roles though students and faculty are similar in their
expectations. Teaching a student how to think obtained a

strong rating by students and faculty.

135

Eindinoa_Eesardins_Eacult¥_£ractices

Findings from Research Question #2 articulate actual
faculty practices in integrating the life experience of
students as a resource in class-related learning.
W

What do classroom professors do to utilize learnings from
the experiences of students?

Part of understanding professors and students relates to
discovering their valued perceptions of teachers and
learning. When requested to share their most memorable
learning experiences since high school, subjects specified
"being a summer camp counsellor," "the birth of my kids," "a
canoe trip," "taking classes with other professionals," and
the "analysis and synthesis" ability of a professor. Out of
these and other responses emerged the thematic units of
Education, W, and Ministrx (Table 4.18).

The Education component included specific professors,
structured educational experiences like courses and seminars,
plus institution-related dimensions such as "dorm life" and
"yearbook staff." Within the personal life framework,
subjects mentioned "a death in the family," "breaking up with
my girlfriend," "marriage," and religious encounters.
"Working with people," "cross-cultural ministry," "church-

related responsibilities" and "job training" detail some

aspects of the JQhLMiniSttx area.

136

Items expressed by subjects and not validated for usage
within category frequencies included "internships,"
"friendships at college," and "a group discipleship study at
church." Some disagreement seemed to exist among the
validators on whether internships were more job or education
related, yet 10 students and one faculty member designated
"internship" as a meaningful learning period. Validators
also vascillated on whether friendship belonged to the
personal dimension or happened by virtue of being in the
educational context, or if a church study was an educational
or personal aspect.

Table 4.18 Memorable Learning Experiences of Subjects by
College

 

Memorable College Total
Experiences Rhema Logos N %
Faculty Students Faculty Students

 

Education 18 20 15 14 67 40.61
Personal Life 4 18 1 18 41 24.85
Job/Ministry 8 27 4 18 57 34.54

TOTAL 30 65 20 50 165 100.00

 

From Table 4.18 no significant difference was apparent
between faculty and students or between colleges on students
on the variables of Edugatign, Eersgnel_Lite, and
fighLMinistry. Faculty remember more learning experiences

137

within an educational framework, but students mention
memorable learning nearly equally in all three areas with
JehLMinistry mentioned more frequently. Although subject
matter obviously permeates the formal educational context,
only 6.67 percent of statements given by subjects expressed
particular content as noteworthy. Three Rhema faculty
mentioned specific content as being memorable, but no Logos
faculty stipulated content. Logos students referred to
content five times and Rhema students three times. Other
factors specified within the Edugatign category included
professors and more general statements about a school or its
programs.

Table 4.19 shows the emphasis on memorable learning
experiences according to sex. Differences between male and
female students are significant (chi-square = 7.823, p =
0.02, contingency coefficient = 0.252). Therefore, the
conclusion is that in repeated tests, 98 times out of 100,
the same results would be observed. Women students mentioned
educational memories most and male students mentioned
educational memories least. Men found their greatest
memorable experiences in job or ministry opportunities with

personal life next. Women Specified personal life the least.

138
Table 4.19 Memorable Learning Experiences of Students by Sex

 

 

Memorable Male Female
Experiences N M, S.D. N M S.D.
Education 16 0.41 0.55 18 0.86 0.73
Personal Life 27 0.69 1.00 9 0.43 0.87
Job/Ministry 33 0.84 0.71 12 0.57 0.68
TOTAL 7 6 3 9

 

Subjects were asked to identify a teacher since high
school they remembered most and to express what was most
significant about that person. Responses received were
reduced to three descriptors: Persenel, lnternersgnel, and
Prefessignal qualities. In other words, subjects think in
terms of who the professor is, who the professor is to me,
and who the professor is to my education.

The Eersgnal qualifies the innate characteristics, for
example, "humility," "personality," "godliness,"
"integrity," and "lifestyle." Internersgnal refers to the
professor's relational and people skills, for example,
"approachability," "acceptance," "encouragement," "personal
sharing," and "hospitality in homes." Prefessignel suggests
the vocational particulars, for example, "clarity,"
"challenge," "style of teaching," "intellectual rigor,"

"relevance," and "academic proficiency and qualifications."

139

Table 4.20 Qualities of Significant Professors Identified by
Subjects at Rhema and Logos Colleges

 

College Total
Qualities Rhema Logos N %
Faculty'Students Faculty Students

 

Personal 17 51 14 50 132 35.29
Interpersonal 11 40 9 33 93 24.87
Professional 19 58 20 52 149 39.84
TOTAL 47 149 43 135 374 100.00

 

Between colleges as well as between professors and
students Similar perceptions exist on the three variables
describing the prominent qualities of their professors (Table
4.20). Professors and students emphasize Erniesaional, then
Eersgnel, and finally interpersgnel characteristics in the
same order of importance.

In analyzing the data from Table 4.21, a significant
difference was discovered between male and female students on
the three variables (chi-square = 8.875, p = 0.0118,
contingency coefficient = 0.174). It can be concluded,
therefore, that in repeated tests, 99 times out of 100, the
same results would be achieved. Men speak more frequently of
the Pretessignel qualities with equal mention given to the
Persgnel and lnternersenel areas. Women speak more
frequently of the Eersgnel dimension, Professional second,
and lnternersgnel last.

140

Table 4.21 Qualities of Professors Specified by Students by

 

 

Sex
Qualities Male Female Total
(N = 39) (N = 21) N %
Personal 54 47 101 35.56
Interpersonal 54 19 73 25.71
Professional 75 35 110 38.73
TOTAL 183 101 284 100.00

 

Queretignal_guestign_il. How do professors become aware
of the involvements of students outside of the classroom?

Responses from faculty about how they know the
involvements of students outside of the classroom were
clustered into three categorizies: Prefessgr_lnitiated,
W, and When (Table 4.22) .
Contacting students through both the more formal classroom
situation and informal interactions come under the umbrella
of Preressgr_lnitieted. Articulations in this category
varied from "calling me by name" and "class discussion" to
"casual interaction" and "being invited to professors'
homes." Student_lnitieted means students made the first
approach. For example, one professor expressed that his
knowledge of students results from "a lot of their initiative
through classes." Institutignal‘Designed connotes assigned

or contrived interactions by virtue of the formal

141

institutional system or program. "Advisor-advisee
responsibilities," "committee advisor," "student newspaper,"

"school functions" and "student assistants" fit the

InstitutionaLllesigned function .

Table 4.22 Faculty Awareness of Student Involvement Outside
of the Classroom by College

 

College Total
Involvement Rhema Logos N %
(N = 11) (N = 10)

 

Professor Initiated 26 32 58 70.73
Student Initiated 1 2 3 3.66
Institutional Designed 12 9 21 25.61
TOTAL 39 43 82 100.00

 

Although a significant difference is not evident between
colleges on the three dependent variables in Table 4.22,
faculty do appear to perceive themselves taking the primary
initiative in awareness of students' involvements. Of the 58
statements relating to Pretesser_lnitiatiye, only 15 or 18.29
percent reflected professors going beyond the call of duty--
for example, further social involvement such as inviting
students to their homes or going out for coffee together.

The other comments under Prefessgr_lnitiated divided almost
evenly between casual interaction and class-related

interaction.

142

Qneretignel_guestign_£2. Approximately how frequently is
class time devoted to utilizing out-of-class experiences of
students?

Deciding on the frequency of devoting class time to
utilizing out-of—class experience demanded a choice between
Nestor, Seldom. roasionallx. Fromm, and Aluaxs (Table
4.23). Subjects were given a card with the possible
responses specified. No subjects chose Neger but five chose
.Aluays. Student subjects were asked two questions. The
first was, "How important is it to you that you be able to
share in classes out of your own life experience?" and the
second was, "Approximately how frequently do professors take
class time to utilize student life experience?"
Approximating how frequently they take class time to utilize
student life experience was the focus of the professors'

question.

143

Table 4.23 Students and Professors Express the Frequency of
Using the Experiences of Students by College

 

 

College Total
Frequency Rhema Logos N %
Students say they desire to
share their experiences
Never 0 0 0 0.00
Seldom 7 5 12 20.00
Occasionally 15 15 30 50.00
Frequently 8 7 15 25.00
Always 0 3 3 5.00
Students say Professors use
the experiences of students
Never 0 0 0 0.00
Seldom 9 11 20 33.33
Occasionally 16 12 28 46.67
Frequently 5 7 12 20.00
Always 0 0 0 0.00
Professors say they use the
experiences of students
Never 0 0 0 0.00
Seldom 2 0 2 9.52
Occasionally 4 4 8 38.10
Frequently 4 5 9 42.86
Always 1 1 2 9.52

 

Because of the small sample size of 21 faculty in Table
4.23, the five forced choice responses were collapsed into
just two for analysis, Occasionally and Frequently. Seldom
and Occasionally were combined under Occasionally, and
Ereguently and Always under Frequently. A substantial
difference was not found between colleges on what professors

say they use nor on what students say professors use.

144

Significance was discovered between students and
professors, however, on what students say professors use and
what professors say they use (chi-square = 8.022, p = 0.0046,
phi = 0.315). The researcher may be confident, therefore,
that in repeated tests, 95 times out of 100, the same results
will be observed. Only 20.00 percent of the students
perceive professors using the experiences of students
frequently, whereas 52.38 percent of the professors say they
utilize the experiences of students frequently. The
difference between what students desire to share and what
professors say they use was significant (chi-square = 3.39, p
= 0.0656, phi = 0.205). Thus it can be concluded that in
repeated tests, 94 times out of 100 the same results will be
observed. More students say they desire to share frequently
than students say professors use the experiences of students,
but the difference is not significant.

Operational_guestion_13. What do professors do to
include the experiences of students in classroom learning?

Professors were asked two questions relating to 35 year
old students in order to discern how they utilize a student's
background (Table 4.24). Because of the commitment of the
colleges to church-related vocation, the questions set in
opposition a missionary already in a religious career with an
engineer from a "secular" profession to detect any variation
in response. The questions focused on whether having a 35
year old misionary or an engineer in their class would make

any difference. Responses varied from "I already teach to

145

the serious student" or "depends on the class" to "material
would not be different but approach may be." Reponses were
grouped according to no difference (None) and some difference
(Some) for tabulating (Table 4.24). Faculty's acknowledgment
of the older student making some difference in the class is
slightly higher for the missionary than the engineer, but no
significant difference occurs between the missionary and
engineer or among the two colleges.

Table 4.24 Faculty Express Degree of Importance of an
Engineer or Missionary in Class by College

 

College Total
Degree of Rhema Logos N %

ImportancerlEngineer Missionary Engineer Missionary

 

None 5 3 3 4 15 35.71
Some 6 8 7 6 27 64.29
TOTAL 11 11 10 10 42 100.00

 

Following the question on whether an engineer or
missionary would make any difference in a class, professors
were invited to share how such a person would make a
difference (Table 4.25). Responses fit into three
categories: Teaohor_Rooosnizins_Stqunt. Teacher_Adaotino_to
Student, and Teaohot_fltilizing_3tndent. The teacher's
recognition of the student is more an awareness factor with
acknowledgement of his/her presence and possible influence.

The response of the teacher, however, is primarily passive.

146

In adapting to the student, the teacher actively changes
course procedures or assignments in the light of the older
student. The teacher may interact one on one with the
person, but any changes still leave the teacher central to
the class action. The actual utilization of the student
means that the teacher publicly involves the older student
within the class as a resource for the other students.
Again, faculty of both colleges are similar in their
reaction to the missionary and engineer (Table 4.25).
Greater adaptation and recognition appears to occur for the
engineer than the missionary. Comments indicate both the

missionary and engineer would be utilized about the same.

Table 4.25 IResponses of Teachers to an Engineer or Missionary
in Class by College

 

 

College Total
Response Rhema Logos N %
Engineer Missionary Engineer Missionary
Recognizing 4 4 8 2 18 21.69
Adapting 15 7 11 11 44 53.01
Utilizing 5 6 5 5 21 25.30
TOTAL 24 17 24 18 83 100.00

 

In reply to a question regarding what professors have

done to learn about you,

student subjects specified ideas

that have been grouped into W
IntfizagtiQn, CQQW. . . ' I

147

and Initiato_fiooial_flontaot(Table 4.26). Class-related
interaction includes "discussion," "personally-focused
assignments," "direct questions," and "allowing opportunities
for sharing." Cooperating with institutional functions may
involve "attending the all-school picnic at the beginning of
the year," "participating in athletic activities," or being
"my academic advisor." Initiating social contact could mean
just "casual interaction" or going beyond the call of
professorial duties to actions like "going out for coffee"
with students or "inviting them home."

Table 4.26 What Students Say Professors Have Done to Know
Them by College

 

 

College Total
Professors' Rhema Logos
Action N M S.D. N M S.D. N %
Facilitate 35 1.17 1.32 39 1.30 1.18 74 33.48
Cooperate 38 1.27 1.29 29 0.97 0.93 67 30.32
Initiate 38 1.27 1.08 42 1.40 0.86 80 36.20
TOTAL 111 110 221 100.00

 

From Table 4.26 the action on the part of the professor
in seeking to know students relates about equally to
classroom, institutional, and personal effort. The professor
initiates social interaction outside the classroom, but 36 of
the 80 statements describing social initiative referred to

casual interaction.

148

In Table 4.27 consideration of the student responses to
what professors have done to know them indicates a marked
difference between the sexes on the three dependent
variables. Findings were significant (chi-square = 6.42,

p = 0.0404, contingency coefficient = 0.168). The
researcher may be confident, therefore, that in repeated
tests, 96 times out of 100, the same results will be
observed. Men seem to believe faculty accomplish the
majority of their relationship building with students around
social interactions (Initiate). Women, however, contribute
professor initiative as primarily class-related (Eacilitate)
or institutionally designed (Cooperate).

Table 4.27 Statements Students Make to Describe What
Professors Have Done to Know Them

 

 

Students
Qualities Male Female Total
(N = 39) (N = 21) N %
Facilitate 44 30 74 33.48
Cooperate 38 29 67 30.32
Initiate 60 20 80 36.20
TOTAL 142 79 _ 221 100.00

 

When requested to give ways they integrate the
experiences of students into the teaching-learning process,
professors shared, "for contemporary illustration," "ask for

applications at times," "all teaching put into context of who

149

students are," and "go looking for student experience and ask
them for it." One professor commented that a person's
response to the question depended on one's philosophy of
education. "My task is to deliver content. Students need to
learn regardless of experience. We need more propositional
content in education."

Replies from faculty clustered into where the action
centered and subsequently the three categories of Teacher
Actiue, W. and IndixiduaLActixe (Table 4.28).
Most Teacher_Actiye statements concerned the teacher
soliciting illustrations from the students as appropriate.
Grouo_Actiye approaches included "simulation games," "role
plays," "class discussions," and "periodically allow sharing
at the beginning of class." Ways detailing indiyidual_Actiye
involved "encourage them in presentations to include life-
related experiences," and "a paper on current methods of
self-nurture."

A significant difference was discovered between colleges
(Table 4.28) in the ways that professors say they attempt to
incorporate the experiences of students (chi-square = 6.988,
p = 0.0082, phi = 0.399). The researcher may be confident,
therefore, that in repeated tests, 99 times out of 100, Logos
faculty will emphasize Tndiyidual_Actiye more frequently than
Rhema faculty. Rhema faculty will speak more frequently of

Teacher_Actiye approaches than Logos faculty.

150

Table 4.28 Ways Professors Incorporate the Experiences of
Students by College

 

College Total
Ways Rhema Logos N %
(N = 11) (N = 10)

 

Teacher 17 13 30 50.00
Active

Group 8 8 16 26.67
Active

Individual 2 12 14 23.33
Active

TOTAL 27 33 60 100.00

 

Each participant in the research project completed Kolb's
Learning Style Inventory in order to discover any
relationships that may be apparent between learning style and
the use of the experiences of students as a curriculum
resource.

WW.

How do preferred learning styles of faculty and students
relate to the use of experiences of students within the
classroom?

The Learning Style Inventory taken by all subjects
assesses the preferred learning style of each individual.
Four raw data scores are derived called concrete experience
(CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization

(AC), and active experimentation (AE) which show the relative

151

emphasis of the person in each area. In addition, the
combination scores (AC-CE and AE-RO) indicate the degree to
which the subject is abstract versus concrete and active
versus reflective. From this information, the dominant
learning orientation of the person is predicted-~diverger,
assimilator, converger, and accommodator.

Ooerational_guestion_£l. What are the preferred learning
styles of faculty and students?

In analyzing the data derived from the Learning Style
Inventory, t-tests for independent means and chi-square tests
were used. One student from Logos failed to complete all of
the questionnaire so his inventory results are not included
in the analysis.

From the data displayed in Table 4.29, a t-test for
independent means was used to analyze each item on the
inventory scale and test the hypothesis that there is no
difference between faculty and students on each dimension. A
strong difference was discovered on active experimentation
(AE) with t value = 2.343 , p = 0.0217 (two-tailed test). In
repeated tests, therefore, 98 times out of 100, students will
score higher than faculty on active experimentation (AE).

Difference between faculty and students was also
noticeable on the active-reflective (AE-RO) scores with a t
value of 1.911 and p = 0.0596 (two-tailed). This result
needs to be interpreted with caution since the standard
deviation varies extensively (students = 13.523, faculty =

12.68) and the mean for faculty is a negative at -1.762.

152

However, the indication is that faculty score higher on

reflection than students.

Table 4.29 ILearning Styles Inventory Scales by Subject

 

 

Learning Faculty Students

Style M S.D. M S.D.
Inventory (N = 21) (N = 59)

Concrete Experience 25.71 8.93 20.97 7.26
Reflective Observation 31.74 7.85 29.34 8.27
Abstract Conceptualization33.24 10.28 30.64 8.50
Active Experimentation 29.64 7.45 34.04 7.32
Abstract-Concrete 7.52 16.95 4.67 13.69
Active-Reflective —1.76 12.68 4.70 13.52

 

Table 4.30 Shows the results of students' learning styles
according to sex. A t-test between male and female students
disclosed a significant difference between the two on
concrete experience (CE) (t = -2.658, p = 0.0102, two-
tailed). The researcher may be confident that, 99 times out
of 100, in repeated tests the same results will be achieved,
and women will score higher than men on the CE scale. No

significant results were found among the other scores.

153
Table 4.30 Student Learning Styles Inventory Scales by Sex

 

 

Learning Male Female

Style M S.D. M S.D.
Inventory (N = 38) (N = 21)

Concrete Experience 24.20 6.47 29.19 7.65
Reflective Observation 30.18 8.62 27.81 1.64
Abstract Conceptualization30.87 7.81 30.24 9.82
Active Experimentation 34.75 6.74 32.76 8.43
Abstract-Concrete 6.67 12.44 1.05 15.35
Active-Reflective 4.57 13.73 4.95 13.46

 

Faculty learning styles scores corresponding to sex are
demonstrated in Table 4.31. A significant difference between
male and female faculty was revealed on concrete experience
(CE) (t - - 2.309, p = 0.0324, two tailed). The researcher
may be confident, therefore, that in repeated tests, 97 times
out of 100, women will score higher on concrete experience
(CE) than men.

Significance was also found on abstract conceptualization
(AC) (t = 2.799, p = 0.0114, two-tailed). The researcher may
be confident, therefore, that in repeated tests, 99 times out
of 100, men will score higher than women on the AC scale.

The abstract-concrete (AC-CE) dimension also results in
significance (t = 3.06, p = 0.0064, two tailed). The
researcher may be confident that, 99 times out of 100, men

will score higher than women on the AC-CE scores. For

154

females, however, the standard deviation is greater than the

mean so the curve is skewed.

Table 4.31. Faculty Learning Styles Inventory Scales by Sex

 

 

Learning Male Female

Style M S.D. M S.D.
Inventory (N = 15) (N 6)

Concrete Experience 23.13 6.19 32.17 11.92
Reflective Observation 32.37 7.75 30.17 8.61
Abstract Conceptualization36.37 7.41 24.67 12.06
Active Experimentation 28.30 7.34 33.00 7.21
Abstract-Concrete 13.53 10.81 -7.50 21.03
Active-Reflective -3.60 13.21 2.83 10.93

 

Student learning styles were examined in relationship to

the major program of the student in Table 4.32.

Results

demonstrate that no significant difference exists between

students according to academic program major.

155

Table 4.32 Student Learning Styles Inventory Scales by
Program Major

 

 

Learning Christian Education/ Bible/Theology/
Style ' Missions Pastoral
Inventory M S.D. M S.D.
(N = 30) (N = 30)
Concrete Experience 27.31 6.91 24.68 7.47
Reflective Observation 28.55 8.56 30.10 8.04
Abstract Conceptualization29.74 9.25 31.52 7.77
Active Experimentation 34.40 8.54 33.70 6.17
Abstract-Concrete 2.43 13.44 6.83 13.81
Active-Reflective 5.85 14.37 3.60 12.80

 

Table 4.33 displays faculty scores in relation to their
teaching major. No significant difference exists for faculty

according to teaching major on the Learning Style Inventory.

156

Table 4.33 IFaculty Learning Styles Inventory Scales by
Program Major

 

 

Learning Christian Education/ Bible/Theology/
Style Missions Pastoral
Inventory M S.D. M S.D.
(N = 11) (N = 10)
Concrete Experience 28.30 10.44 23.36 6.99
Reflective Observation 30.40 7.92 32.96 7.96
Abstract Conceptualization29.50 12.75 36.64 6.20
Active Experimentation 31.80 7.83 27.68 6.84
Abstract-Concrete 1.20 20.90 13.27 10.25
Active-Reflective 1.40 11.91 -4.64 13.22

 

The results of the Learning Style Inventory show the
preferred learning type of each subject (Table 4.34). The
diverger, assimilator, converger, and accommodator types are
displayed by college for faculty and students. No
significant difference on faculty and students exists between
colleges. The calculations in Table 4.34, however, shows
more divergers at Rhema and more accommodators at Logos. The

assimilator type embraces the greatest number of subjects.

157

Table 4.34 Learning Style Type by Subject by College

 

 

(College Total

Type Rhema Logos N %
Faculty Students Faculty Students

Diverger 4 7 1 3 15 18.75
Assimilator 3 11 5 9 28 35.00
Converger 3 7 2 7 19 23.75
Accommodator 1 5 2 10 18 22.50
TOTAL 11 30 10 29 80 100.00

 

From Table 4.35 an analysis between faculty and student
women and men was performed according to learning type, but

no significant difference was revealed.

Table 4.35 iLearning Style Type by Subject by Sex

 

 

Faculty Students Total
Type Male Female Male Female N %
Diverger 3 2 6 4 15 18.75
Assimilator 7 1 12 8 28 35.00
Converger 5 O 11 3 19 23.75
Accommodator 0 3 9 6 18 22.50
TOTAL 15 6 38 21 80 100.00

 

158

The results from the data in Table 4.36 of correlation
between the learning type items and teaching major or student

major disclosed no significant differences.

Table 4L36 learning Style Type by Subject by Program Major

 

 

Faculty Students Total
Type CE/M B/Th/P CE/M B/Th/P N %
Diverger 3 2 5 5 15 18.75
Assimilator 3 5 9 11 28 35.00
Converger 1 4 6 8 19 23.75
Accommodator 3 0 9 6 18 22.50
TOTAL 10 11 29 30 80 100.00

 

CE/M = Christian education/missions
B/Th/P = Bible/theology/pastoral

Ooerational_guestion_12. Do the preferred learning
styles of faculty relate to the kinds of experiences they
design and to the frequency with which they utilize the
experiences of students?

When asked to state their use of the experiences of
students in terms of Neyer, Seldom, Occasionally, Etccucntlxr
and Aluays (See Table 4.23), no professors said.Neyer. In
fact 47.62 percent stated Seldom or Occasionally and 52.38
percent chose Ereguently or Aluays. However, when the
professors were given two illustrations of potential older
students in their class, the engineer and missionary, 38.10

percent of faculty said the engineer's presence would make no

159

difference and 61.90 percent said some difference. In
considering professor response to the missionary or engineer
in their class according to learning type (Table 4.37),
variation is noted in the example of the missionary as
compared to the engineer, but the difference is not
significant. The presence of the missionary in the class
would have some influence according to 66.67 percent of
faculty, but 33.33 percent stipulated no difference.

Table 4.37 ‘Faculty Learning Styles and the Use of the
Experiences of Mature Students.

 

 

Engineer Missionary
Type None Some None Some
Diverger 3 2 3 2
Assimilator 3 5 2 6
Converger 1 4 2 3
Accommodator 1 2 0 3
TOTAL 8 13 7 14

 

Ooerational_guestion_£3. Do the preferred learning
styles of students relate to their expectations regarding the
inclusion of the experiences of students within the classroom
or the kinds of experiences they suggest should be included?

Consideration was given to the potential relationship in
Table 4.38 between student types and the interesting kinds of

assignments students mention, but no significant difference

160

was achieved. Accommodators and convergers mention more
concrete than abstract types of assignments. Divergers
stipulate both abstract and concrete about equally, while
assimilators are stronger on the concrete. 57.63 percent of
the students preferred concrete type of assignments, and 42.37

percent specified abstract as more interesting.

Table 4.38 Student Type by Interesting Kinds of Assignments

 

 

Type Concrete Abstract Total
Diverger 14 15 29
Assimilator 28 22 50
Converger 30 19 49
Accommodator 31 19 50
TOTAL 103 75 178

 

Students were given opportunity to express in-class
methods professors used that facilitated their learning. A
correlation from Table 4.39 of in-class methods described by
students and their preferred learning style indicated a
significant difference between student types and the in-class
methods students mention (chi—square = 12.691, p = 0.0482,
contingency coefficient = 0.218). The researcher may be
confident, therefore, that in repeated tests, 95 times out of
100, the same results will be observed. The diverger,

converger, and accommodator are strongest on the teacher and

161

group orientations. Assimilators are also strongest on the
teacher and group aspects, but they mention individual
student focused methods much more than the other types.

Table 4.39 In-class Methods Students Mention Professors Use
by Student Type by College

 

In—class Methods

 

Type Teacher Group Individual Total
Diverger 22 16 2 40
Assimilator 37 32 19 88
Converger 28 33 4 65
Accommodator 28 26 7 61
TOTAL 115 107 32 254

 

SummarLoLEindinoLfoLResoarohfiuostioLfl

The preferred learning styles of faculty and students
discovered through Kolb's Learning Style Inventory
demonstrated significance on several variables. Difference
was exhibited between faculty and students on the active
experimentation score (AE). Students are more oriented to
action and application than faculty. The active-reflective
scores also evidence difference. Faculty lean more toward the

reflective dimension than students.

162

Differences are also manifest between the sexes. Women
students evidence a stronger orientation toward concrete
experience. The same holds true among faculty as well. Men
faculty are higher on abstract conceptualization than women
faculty, but similar results are not apparent between men and
women students. On the abstract-concrete continuum (AC-CE)
as well, faculty men score higher than faculty women. Men
move more toward the abstract and women toward the concrete.
Although men and women students demonstrate the same trend,
the difference is not significant.

No difference was discovered between type and the
teaching major or study major of faculty and students. As
far as type is concerned, the results indicated that
assimilator was the preferred learning style of 35 percent of
the faculty and students. Converger, accommodator, and then
diverger followed in that order.

As far as learning type is concerned, the preferred style
of students indicated a significant difference between type
and the in-class methods students mention that professors use
to help them learn. Divergers, convergers, and accommodators
are strongest on Teacher_Actiye and Groun_Actiye approaches.
While the assimilators also stress teacher and group aspects
most, their verbalization of individual, student-focused

methods receives greater emphasis than the other types.

Chapter 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Within theological education the mission of communicating
divine truth and developing people for living out that truth
in human experience is commonly held. Thus value exists in
discovering the extent of the articulation between theory and
practice. Goodlad's claim that "schooling is everywhere very
much the same," and that the differences exist only in
degree suggests the need for research on whether or not
theological education, with its commitment to the development
of the whole person, merely repeats the schooling norms
(1984, p. 264). Rowen's response following a study of
seminaries bears repetition for the Bible college.

If we are entering an era of creative integrity in the

reformation of theological education, it must represent

more of the New Testament's "downward pull" toward the
engagement of orthodoxy (right thinking) and orthopraxis

(right practice). It will affect the development of the

entire community--faculty, students, and the church.

Significant curriculum reform does not occur apart from

the transformation of people. The desire for the

seminary [Bible college] to be a place of spiritual
formation demands that the vision involve the spiritual
formation of the faculty, the students and the community

of faith. Curriculum development is faculty development
and student development. . . (1981, p. 197).

163

164

One aspect of accomplishing the wholistic journey toward
life transformation is to relate the life experience of the
students to the classroom setting. Integration of theory and
practice and interaction between past and present experience
is essential to the process.

The purpose of this study was to identify and to describe
the relationship between the life experiences of students and
classroom learning in two undergraduate theological
institutions in Western Canada. The experiences of students

included both past and current interactions with all of life.

Findings

The major discoveries of the study revolved around the
demographic variables, findings between colleges, findings
between faculty and students, and findings between the sexes.

Domoomphiclariahlos

Two of the variables considered in the relationship
between the out-of—class experiences of students and
classroom learning included the program major of students and
the experiences of students after high school but prior to
college.
W

Program major was not a significant variable in the use
of experiences of students by professors. No significant
difference appeared between subjects in

Bible/theology/pastoral (B/Th/P) and Christian

165

education/missions (CE/M) areas in either learning style or
professors' use of the experiences of students.
The question was asked whether or not those with more
abstract learning styles would be attracted to the B/Th/P,
commonly presumed to be the more academic programs, and
whether or not those with more concrete learning styles would
gravitate toward the CE/M with their practical orientation.
Such did not occur at the colleges studied, suggesting that
one set of majors is not more practical than the other set of
majors. This could be influenced by the fact that all
programs have field experiences required within the formal
curriculum. No difference between program sets may also
indicate the significant impact inclusion of the experiential
component makes when part of the curricular structure.
WW

With the mean age of the students at nearly 24 years of
age and one half of the students taking opportunities for
other life and work experience prior to entering college,
obviously students bring to the classroom context a wealth
of experience. This background cannot but help influence
their present learning patterns and enhance their ability to
contribute to the course curriculum. Such indicates the
invaluable human experience available to faculty as a
curriculum resource. The possibility of the student as an
active contributor to curriculum, however, is overlooked by

faculty for the most part.

166

EindinoLBetueonJolleoos

While similarities in response from the faculty and
students of Rhema and Logos Bible colleges were evident, some
differences were also apparent.
WW5

Students at Rhema come to college with less life and work
experience than those at Logos. Only 33.33 percent of Rhema
students interviewed did not enter college immediately after
high school while 66.67 percent of Logos students deferred
entrance. The number of students entering college
immediately after high school proved higher than expected for
men at Rhema than for men at Logos.
Parsoectiueuudministrators

Both college administrators encourage relevant
application of materials to students' lives. Each does
limited evaluation of the curriculum himself or interacts
with faculty to assess the appropriateness of curriculum.
The indirect fostering of use of the experiences of students
through the institutional context or environmental factors
appear to be higher at Logos than Rhema. As far as
administrators promoting the inclusion of experiences of
students, faculty from the two colleges gave similar
responses.
Perspectixes_of_anult¥

A major difference appears evident between Logos and
Rhema faculty regarding the ways they report incorporating

the experiences of students. Rhema faculty stress teacher

167

active ways of making use of the experiences of students, but
Logos personnel place their greatest emphasis on the
individual student. The faculty/student ratio may be
influential to this emphasis at the respective colleges. The
ratio of full and part-time faculty to enrolled students
indicates a 29.1 to 1 ratio at Rhema as opposed to 14.2 to 1
at Logos. The higher faculty/student ratio at Rhema may
contribute to the teacher centered focus or it may be
indicative of administrative and/or economic emphases.
WW

The findings between faculty and students center around
class-related learning, faculty interaction with students,
the roles of professors, and learning styles.
W

The perception of the in-class learning experiences
differed significantly between faculty and students.
Students viewed the classroom as more teacher centered than
the faculty did. Faculty perceived themselves as using a
higher proportion of individual student-oriented learning
than students conceded. Part of this could be due to the
faculty's belief that they indeed teach specifically with the
students in mind so assume they teach in a student active
manner. Comments indicate that lecture ranks as the most
common classroom method followed by discussion and small
groups. Teachers tend to apply information by using
contemporary illustrations given by students or by applying

information to or for students. Little use of the experiences

168

of students is evident. For the most part, faculty appear to
ignore previous experience for further development of the
student.

Students are most likely to contribute within the group
context. The student role with action centered in the
individual is more limited. This coincides with the response
of faculty to the possibility of a 35 year old missionary or
engineer in class. Faculty specified awareness of the mature
student's presence and appeared most willing to do some
adapting. Various faculty expressed a willingness to adjust
assignments and some lecture material and to take interest in
individuals. As far as actually using the student as a
contributing resource for the class, faculty displayed more
reluctance.

Concern for covering content may be a factor in
professors' hesitation to use experiences of students. Also,
the fact that some people feel neither comfortable or
competent in situations in which they do not possess full
control may explain some of the aversion. Faculty seem
oriented primarily to classroom control and teacher-centered
approaches. The indication may be that more concern exists
for the person's ability to fit into the existing educational
model than any valuing of his or her experience.

This reluctance to use the experiences of students
coincides with faculty replies to what hinders or contributes
to using the experiences of students. Professors view

faculty themselves as the primary contributors and hinderers

169

to utilizing the experiences of students. Philosophy of
education, busyness, competence, and knowledge of students
were key determinates expreSsed by faculty in the use of the
experiences of students. A major hindrance may relate to
theological factors and fears on the part of some regarding
undermining divine revelation and advocating existentialism.
The issue of propositional truth for some professors may
contribute to a transmission mode of teaching that ignores
the value of learning continuity and tends to reinforce the
classroom as an isolated context.

For institutional and course hindrances, the size of
classes and facility limitations as well as subject matter
and the pressure to cover material merit mention. The
impression is that professors believe subject matter dictates
to some extent the use of the experiences of students. The
content issue seems to appear to some professors as an
external factor over which they have little control. The
expectations and willingness of students to be involved also
were cited as obstacles to utilizing their experiences.
Students, however, expressed a greater desire to share than
they believed class opportunities were available.
ErofessorsmouledgeiStudents

Students related most professor initiative to the
courses, the institution, or casual interaction. Although
faculty demonstrate interest in students, they appear to be
occupied with their professional roles with limited knOwledge

of the extensive experience students have to offer. Although

170

this could be due to professional demands and time
constraints, people tend to do what is important to them.
These could also relate to the discrepancy observed between
faculty and students' perceptions on the frequency of using
the experiences of students. Faculty perceive themselves as
using the experiences of students frequently while students
say professors only use it occasionally.
WW3

Faculty and students displayed evident hesitation in
their responses as well as an obvious dirth of ideas in the
ideal use of the experiences of students. This may indicate
that little deliberate thought and planning had been given to
the use of the experiences of students as a legitimate
resource in the classroom. Whereas faculty strongly related
their memorable learning experiences to the educational
realm, the memorable learning experiences of students were
not confined primarily to the educational realm. This
probably reflects the vocational commitment of faculty to the
schooling mode of learning. Faculty may also believe that
the schooling norm provides the best learning context.
Obviously, students do not perceive their schooling context
with the same significance. Thus faculty need to reevaluate
their views on how learning occurs with optimum
effectiveness. Possibly students are also discovering their

most meaningful learning outside of the classroom context.

171

Qut:of:Class_Assionments

A significant difference was observed between students
and faculty when describing out-of-class assignments designed
by professors based on their preferred learning style.
Students emphasized the doing more than faculty, while
faculty stressed the conceptual. In specifying interesting
kinds of assignments that professors have given, students
continued to favor those of a concrete nature.
W5

A high degree of correlation appeared between faculty and
students on the preferred roles of the professor. Such may
be indicative of similar values by professors and students.
Possibly students and faculty are closer in their
expectations than is sometimes thought.

Teaching a student how to think ranked highest by
faculty, while developing each student's potential ranked
highest by students. This may demonstrate students' concern
for their own development. Thinking does rank high for
students as well with the relative differences between
students and faculty minimal. This may mean both faculty and
students have been socialized into expecting a cognitive
development mode within the educational framework.

To facilitate mastery of technology ranked the lowest of
any of the roles of professors' statements. The institutions
studied exiSt to prepare people for church—related vocation,
so the low technological ranking is understandable. However,

the low rating assigned to preparing the student for what the

172

church wants/needs deserves special attention. The chief
academic administrator at the denominational school, Logos,
placed it as fourth, the highest ranking compared to the
students and faculty. At the interdenominational school,
Rhema, the chief academic office placed what the church
wants/needs as fifth. Thus the Logos administrator seems
more conscious of his ties to a church, but his faculty and
students do not appear committed to the denominational link
to the same extent. Possibly the feeling existed that
emphasizing life and ministry usefulness would ultimately
address what the church wants or needs. Several students
struggled with this statement as they were willing to be
prepared for what the church needs but questioned if what the
church wants is actually what it needs. The faculty between
the two colleges were inclined to disagree on the ranking of
professor roles. Logos faculty tended to give thinking a
higher priority and knowledge a lower priority than Rhema.
W

The learning style questionnaire disclosed a strong
difference between students and faculty on active
experimentation, and on the active-reflective continuum
faculty scored higher on reflection than students. Students
prefer the applied and useful. A philosophical tension may
exist here for faculty. Possibly faculty believe that
abstract and conceptual thinking needs further development
for young people or that education as faculty remember

experiencing it should be sustained.

173

Correlation between learning styles of students and the
kinds of assignments that they find interesting revealed the
diverger true to type with a near even division between
responses in the concrete and abstract categories.
Accommodators and convergers specify concrete assignments
more often than abstract ones as interesting. Although the
assimilator would generally find abstract assignments more
interesting than concrete ones, the reverse was true of these
subjects. This possible preference for the concrete
assignment may indicate the assimilator desires more variety

and action in assignments than he or she presently

experiences.
E I I O E I I 1 5
Responses from men and women indicated some significant

differences between them.

WWW

Evident differences are found between women and men
students on memorable learning experiences. Men's greatest
educational memories were wrapped up in their jobs or
ministries. Personal life came next, and formal educational
experiences were the least memorable. In fact, men placed
‘twiceeas much value on their job/ministry responsibilities as
on their education.

Women, though, mentioned educational opportunities first,
followed by job/ministry and personal life. Women appear to

derive more satisfaction from their learning than men.

174

MW

When asked to express the ideal use of their experiences
in the classroom, men stressed teacher active and individual
active methods. In the light of teacher_actiye describing
action and control centering in the teacher, the responses
show men 38.00 percent more dominance oriented than women.
Men are more dominent and individualistic, while women are
more concerned with the personal and interactive..
Learning—Stacie:

Men and women students and male and female faculty
differed significantly on the learning style scales. Women
scored higher on concrete experience, and men higher on
abstract conceptualization. Results from the abstract—
concrete continuum also indicated that male faculty rated
more toward the abstract than female faculty. The fact that
significance was not revealed between men and women students
on the abstract-concrete continuum may indicate that age and
educational experience could be factors in the extent to

which abstract thinking is developed.

Conclusions and Implications for Theological Education
In the light of the study, a number of conclusions and/or
implications may be drawn:
1. The use of the experiences of students as a classroom
resource is not yet a value subscribed to extensively by
most faculty. In curriculum and syllabi development a

general awareness of the typical experiences of students

175

seems encouraged. Public recognition and active
utilization of the valuable resources students can
contribute to peers as well as the professor are
practiced infrequently.

Teaching and learning objectives which take into
account students' experiences and actively plan
intentional use of them need to be developed. Students
desire to be more central to the action. Preparing a
list of methodologies for integrating the experiences of
students into the classroom context would serve as an
inventory and basis for creative expansion.

Faculty may need training in facilitating meaningful
group dynamics. As developing adults themselves, at
different stages in their lifewalk and skills, faculty
find themselves subject to the same processes of growth
as their students (Weathersby & Tarule, 1980, p. 49).
Teachers face a complex set of demands in the classroom
setting. Relationships are reciprocal, and students and
teacher impact one another (Doyle, 1979, p. 139).

An evaluation of faculty and classroom dynamics which
includes assessing the use of the experiences of students
as a resource may assist in improving its practice.

Seminars and workshops in faculty development should
use faculty themselves as a resource and thus model the

use of students as resources.

176

Faculty and students evidence similar perceptions on the
roles that professors should model. Both faculty and
students place high value on teaching a student how to
think.

This may reflect the strong socialization process
within the schooling mode. Teachers must integrate the
development of thinking with the working of those ideas
into the realities of life and ask the questions, "What
does my behavior provide as a role model for my students?
13 that model conducive to the greatest effectiveness of
students in ministry?" If teachers are not modeling the
active use of the experiences of students as a resource,
then how do the students view those they serve in church-
related ministries? Do students duplicate a model of
serving within the church that treats people as data
reservoirs? Such can discourage personal motivation
within the congregation to becoming life-long theological
learners--people able to discover, to apply, and then to
contribute to the church and global community.

Collegians desire learning assignments which prove
applicable and useful in skills as well as content.
Students want to move beyond the abstract conceptual
world to the concrete realities of life.

With the students' desire for a greater emphasis on
doing along with the various learning types present in
the classroom, teachers must face the challenge to expand

areas of competence instead of merely using methods and

177

giving assignments with which he or she feels personally
comfortable.

In-depth interaction with students is limited.
Fundamental to using the experiences of students is
knowing the student. Responses seem to indicate a
general and superficial knowledge of students with more
in-depth relationship limited.

Administrations may need to reassess faculty
responsibilities and look for meaningful ways to
encourage deeper faculty—student relationships and
develop a sense of community. Making time for deeper
faculty-student relationships may mean lighter teaching
loads and/or providing interpersonal and counselling
training for faculty. Other avenues of support to
address the increased cost would then have to be found.
Men remember their most significant learning in their
jobs or ministries, while women connect their most
significant learning within education.

Possibly men see education as a means to an end, and
maybe women have less job experience and more of their
world centers around their educational pursuits.
Faculty, therefore, need to integrate more experiential
components into the formal curriculum to increase the
articulation between the theoretical and practical and

broaden meaningful learning for both men and women.

178

6. Students bring to the classroom context a wealth of prior
vocational and educational experience, but the
possibility of the student as an active contributor is
ignored by faculty for the most part.

Faculty need to recognize students as companions in
the learning journey and be willing to learn from their
students. The experiences of students provide a rich
resource for enhancing the learning process.

7. Field education is a required part of the curriculum, but
it seems to be a separate entity within the curricular
structure. Little articulation between the academic and
experiential is evident. Logos has one course that
builds on students' internship experience, but the over-
all perception of students is that little actual
integration occurs between their experiences and the
classroom.

Administrators and faculy need to plan more direct
coordination between the experiences of students and the
classroom setting. Giving assignments that challenge
students to integrate in-class and out-of—class learning
would assist in bridging the experiential and

theoretical.

Recommendations for Further Research
The exploratory nature of this study suggests additional
areas needing research. Schwab is correct when he says, "We

need more reliable knowledge about what is going on in our

179

education institutions" (1978, p. 313). This would be true

of theological education as well. With this in mind, the

following recommendations are suggested:

1.

Replicate this study at other Bible colleges across
Canada and/or the United States to increase understanding
and reliability.

Expand the research to include other variables, such as
greater detail on subjects' previous work and life
experience. Knowing the prior experiences of subjects
could contribute more specific ideas of the resource
experience available and suggest ways those experiences
could be included within the learning process.

Enlarge the scale of the study to descriptive research
and surveys at institutions outside of the Bible college
tradition in order to yield further insight.

Generate hypotheses for experimental studies that test
learning between classrooms that ignore the experiences
of students and those which actually include the
experiences of students. Another study could determine
differences between colleges that have field-based
education and those colleges which do not.

Conduct longitudinal studies to determine the benefits
and difficulties inherent in incorporating the
experiences of students within the classroom

Pursue a study of people in vocational settings other
than education to research what leaders currently do to

involve other people as a resource. For instance,

180

research how students operationalize their concepts of
teaching and ministry within the church. How do they
involve individuals in the learning and growth process of
the church community?

7. Develop categories of life experiences that students
bring to the educational context and develop a proposal
for creative ways to integrate their history with present
theory and practice.

8. Do an observational study within theological education
classrooms to determine the actual practices of faculty
and students in relation to the articulation between the

life experience of students and classroom learning.

Reflections

The study of the relationship between the life
experiences of students and learning experiences in the
classroom has identified a desire on the part of Bible
college professors to adapt to students and be relevant to
their context. The actual practice, however, of using the
individual experiences of students as direct contributors to
curriculum is minimal.

Although the debate over the relationship of student
experience and classroom content will not terminate with this
study, the findings indicate that they should not be seen as
mutually exclusive and that schooling, even theological

schooling, is "too much the same" (Goodlad, 1984, p. 264).

181

Common, too, is the deliberate sustaining of a

socialization process believed essential to the

conduct of schooling. Very deliberate in the primary

grades, this process is fully established by and

rarely questioned after the upper elementary grades.

The dominant role of the teacher, limited opportunity

for student-initiated activity, and quiet passivity of

the class group become virtues to be reinforced.

Deviation may be tolerated but it is neither condoned

nor rewarded. Usually the socialization process, as

powerful among teachers as among students, simply
discourages or ultimately suppresses deviation

(Goodlad, 1984, p. 266).

The general theoretical intentions of subjects coincide
with Kierstead's contention that direct instruction and
experiential approaches should be found to be complementary
(1985, p. 25). Responses indicate, however, that in actual
practice integration is limited. Students reinforce the need
for greater articulation by expressing their desire for a
stronger emphasis on the doing. This may suggest the need to
be in line with Dewey's comprehensive view of every
experience as an interaction between a person and his
environment and continuous with prior and subsequent
experience. Such calls for rethinking the structure of our
learning environments. At issue lies not learning per se but
the kind of learning. Are the experiences educative or
miseducative? Does growth occur? In theological educators'
appropriate concern for communicating propositional truth,
teachers dare not be satisfied with valuing quantity of facts
and limiting quality of life change.

Kreider declares, "The Christian college carries in its

bosom all those biblical themes which suggest that meaningful

knowledge is for action, for transformation . . . "(p. 108).

182

Possibly more recognition needs to be given to the reality
that faculty and students walk as companions on the
transformation journey. Both can learn from the other. Each
brings invaluable assets to the schooling context.

Quality education is communal. The teacher is more than a
brilliant hit-and-run lecturer to a throng of note takers
in the outer reaches of an auditorium . . . Creative
solitude is essential, but most of learning is communal
(Kreider,1986, p. 104).

Although generalizability is limited primarily to the
participants in the two colleges involved in the research,
this descriptive study can provide a basis for critical
reflection at other Bible colleges with similar programs. In
some measure the research may stimulate theological educators
to avoid educating students to merely becoming "the best-
informed generation in history—-guantitatiyely," but "one of
the worst-educated generations--gualitatiyely" (Fuller, 1982,
p. U-17).

One of the most difficult problems we face is to make
it possible for young people to participate in the
great tasks of their time. Alexander might conquer
half the known world in his early twenties, and
nineteenth-century New England lads might be sailing
captains in their late teens, but our age lays
enormous stress on long training and experience. We
have designed our society in such a way that most
possibilities open to the adolescent [student] today
are either bookish or frivolous. And all too often
when we do seek to evoke his moral strivings the best
we can do is to invite him to stand sentinel over a
drying reservoir! What an incredibly dull task for
the restless minds and willing hearts of young people
[students]! (Gardner, 1964, pp. 155, 156).

The challenge of the study for theological educators may
well be for a fresh synthesis of content and experience in an

enriched and stimulating environment--to continue the search

183

for creative ways to enhance the educational process through
the contributions of students and to involve students not
only in information but in transformation. Valuing the human
resources in the classroom as well as integrating scholarship
and service values is imperative to meeting the growth
demands of the church and global community. "We need
excellence not merely for the sake of excellence, but for

enabling us to give greater service" (Van Gilst, 1983-1984,

p. 5).

APPENDICES

Appendix A

School: Logos Code:

 

Rhema

I 1. I E l' E El . . I I' I I .

 

 

 

1. Sex Male
Female
2. Educational Training Bachelors
Masters
Doctoral
Other
3. Vocational Experience Pastoral
(Approximate time) Christian Education
Business
Missions
Other (
Other (
4. Present responsibilities Teaching
Administration
Field Education
Other (
5. Time in present position (approx. years)
6. Time at the college (approx. years)
7. Age years
8. Involvements in ministry
outside of the college campus?
When?

How long?

****************

184

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.

Learning Style Inventory Scores

CE

RO

AC

AE

AC - CE =

AE - R0 =
Diverger
Converger
Accommodator

Assimilator

bWNI—l

185

186

El I . I l' I I . E i1

1. What are some of the more memorable learning experiences
you have had since High School? Why?

2. What teacher do you remember most since High School and
what stands out about this person?

3. You have a 35 year old engineer in your class who is taking
one year to study Bible and ministry related courses. Would
his/her being there make any difference in your class?

[__ Yes, __ No, __ Some] If it would, how and why?

4. Would it make any difference if this 35 year old were a
missionary taking refresher courses? [___Yes, __ No, __ Some]
If it would, how and why?

5. How do you become aware of students' involvements outside
of the classroom?

6. Approximately how frequently do you take class time to
utilize student life experience? (Pertinent only if the
administrator teaches. If he/she does,then hand the respondent
the card with the following categories.)

Never

Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Always

7. In what ways do you try to incorporate student experience
into the teaching-learning process?
(Pertinent only if the administrator teaches.)

8. What kind of in-class learning experiences do you design
for your students?
(Pertinent only if the administrator teaches.)

187

9. What kind of out-of-class learning experiences do you
design for your students?

10. To what extent and in what ways to you encourage student
experience in the classroom setting?

11. What contributes to the use of student experience as a
resource in the classroom curriculum?

12. What hinders the use of student experience as a resource in
the classroom curriculum?

13. Ideally, how would you like to see student experience
included within the classroom?

14. Which of these do you consider most important to the role
of a professor? Please rank and sort the following cards in
order of importance (the top card as most important). ( Hand
the respondent the cards with one of the following categories
on each card.)

to teach a student how to think

to master and communicate knowledge

to prepare the student for what the church
wants/needs

to develop each student's potential

to facilitate mastery of technology

to emphasize life and ministry usefulness

to encourage a personal commitment to on-going
learning

Thank you!

Appendix B

Logos Code:
Rhema

School:
1. Age
2. Sex
3. Year in College

10.

11.

12.

 

years

Male
Female

Sophomore (33-64)
Junior (65-97)
Senior (98-130)

 

 

Other:
Degree: B.R.E.
B.Th.
Other:
Major: Pastoral
Theology
Christian Ed.
Missions

 

Did you enter college
immediately after H.S.?

If no, how many years
between H.S. & college?

Biblical Studies Music

Yes
No

years

 

Have you had any educational

experience since H.S. but
prior to CBC/BBC?

If "yes," what kind?

Yes
No

 

How much transfer credit
did you receive here?

Have you had work
experience since H.S. but
prior to CBC/BBC?

If "yes," what kind?

Yes
No

 

188

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.

Learning Style

CE

RO

AC

AE

AC - CE =

AE - R0 =
Diverger
Converger
Accommodator

Assimilator

189

Inventory Scores

DWNH

190
StuoonLIntorxicujuide

1. What are some of the more memorable learning experiences
you have had since High School? Why?

2. Identify a professor from whom you have learned a great
deal. What stands out about this professor?

3. What are some of the more interesting kinds of
assignments professors have given you?

4. What kinds of in-class teaching methods have professors
used that have facilitated your learning?

5. What have your professors done to find out about you?
In Class:

Out-of—class:

6. How important is it to you that you be able to share in
classes out of your own life experience? ( Hand the
respondent the card with the following categories.)

Never

Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Always

7. Approximately how frequently do professors take class
time to utilize student life experience? (Hand the
respondent the card with the fOllowing categories.)

Never

Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Always

191

8. What are some ways you have been able to use or share
your own life experience within the classroom?

9. What in-class experiences have professors designed for
your learning?

10. What kind of out-of—class learning experiences have
professors designed for your learning?

11. Can you think of ways you wish professors would use your
life experience in their classes?

12. Which of these do you consider most important to the role
of a professor? Please rank and sort the following cards in
order of importance (the top card as most important). (Hand
the respondent the cards with one of the following categories
on each card.)

to teach a student how to think

to master and communicate knowledge

to prepare the student for what the church
wants/needs

to develop each student's potential

to facilitate mastery of technology

to emphasize life and ministry usefulness

to encourage a personal commitment to on-going
learning

Thank you!

Appendix c

School:

Logos Code:
Rhema

E 1' I E I' E E II I I i

1. Sex

2. Educational Training

3. Vocational Experience
(Approximate time)

4. Present responsibilities

5. Time in present position
6. Time at the college
7. Age

8. Involvements in ministry

Male
Female

Bachelors
Masters
Doctoral
Other

Pastoral

Christian Education
Business

Missions

Other ( )
Other ( )

 

Teaching
Administration

Field Education

Other ( )

 

(approx. years)

(approx. years)

years

outside of the college campus?

When?
How long?

****************

192

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.

Learning Style Inventory Scores

CE

RO

AC

AE

AC - CE =

AE - R0 =
Diverger
Converger
Accommodator

Assimilator

.5me

193

194

E II I I . G 'I

1. What are some of the more memorable learning experiences
you have had since High School? Why?

2. What teacher do you remember most since High School and
what stands out about this person?

3. You have a 35 year old engineer in your class who is
taking one year to study Bible and ministry related courses.
Would his/her being there make any difference in your class?
[__ Yes, __ No, __ Some] If it would, how and why?

4. Would it make any difference if this 35 year old were a
missionary taking refresher courses?
[__ Yes, __ No, __ Some] If it would, how and why?

5. How do you become aware of students' involvements outside
of the classroom?

6. Approximately how frequently do you take class time to
utilize student life experience? (Hand the respondent the
card with the fo110wing categories.)

Never

Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Always

 

7. In what ways do you try to incorporate student experience
into the teaching-learning process?

8. What kind of in-class learning experiences do you design
for your students?

9. What kind of out-of-class learning experiences do you
design for your students?

195

10. To what extent and in what ways does the college
administration encourage you to include student experience in
the classroom setting? '

11. What contributes to the use of student experience as a
resource in the classroom curriculum?

12. What hinders the use of student experience as a resource
in the classroom curriculum?

13. Ideally, how would you like to see student experience
included within the classroom?

14. Which of these do you consider most important to your
role as a professor? Please rank and sort the following
cards in order of importance (the top card as most
important). ( Hand the respondent the cards with one of
the following categories on each card.)

to teach a student how to think

to master and communicate knowledge

to prepare the student for what the church
wants/needs

to develop each student's potential

to facilitate mastery of technology

to emphasize life and ministry usefulness

to encourage a personal commitment to on-going
learning

Thank you!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angus, E. I. (1974). Evaluating Experiential Education. In
NeuiroctioanoLHiohoLEduoation. Vol. 6. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Apple, M. W. (1975). Michael W. Apple, Personal Statement. In
W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculuthoorinngtho
Reconceotualists. (pp. 89-93). Berkeley: McCutchan.

Archambault, R. (Ed) (1964). Wain;
Selected_flritings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Argyris, C. , & Schon, D. (1974). Theory_in_Eracticei
IncreasinLProfessionalJffectiuenoso. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Astin. A. W. (1985). AchieuinLEducationaLExcollonco San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1985, July/August). Involvement: The
Cornerstone of Excellence. change, 35-39.

Astin, A. w. (1975). W.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Axtelle, G. E., & Burnett, J. R. (1970). Dewey on Education
and Schooling. In J. Boydston (Ed.), Guide_to_the_florks
of_dohn_Deuey. (pp. 257-305). Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.

Baltes, P., & Schaie, W. (1970, June). On the Plasticity of
Intelligence in Adulthood and Old Age. American

tholooist. 3.1. 720-725.

Barcalow, D. A. (1986). ' ' '
CollegeJlouementJJJistoricaJ—StudeLEiuLSelected
Institutions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern
Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois.

Barnes, C. P. (1980. April). Questioninssmmntanood

Resource. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Boston.

196

197

Batchelder, A. S., & Keane, F. (1977). An Analysis of Lecture
in the College Classroom Through Systematic Observation
Systems. The_Journal_of_Classroom_Intoraotion, 13(1). 42.

Becker, E. (1967). Bayond_Alicnation. New York: Braziller.

Best, J. A. In E. Rice. (1986, July/August). Those Who Gladly
Serve. Change. 14—15.

Beyer, L. E. (1984). Field Experience, Ideology, and the
Development of Critical Reflectivity. Journal_of_Teacher
Education. 35(3), 35-41.

Birnbaum, M. L. (1984, Winter). The Integration of Didactic
and Experiential Learning in the Teaching of Group Work.

Journal_of_Education_for_Social_Work .ZQ(1). 50- 58

Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H.,
Krathwohl, D., & Krathwohl, R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy

E El I. J :I' I' , T] C] 'E' II E

Educational_Goals_1Handbook_1l_Coonitixe_Domainl. New
York: David McKay Company.

Bobbitt, F. (1918). The_Ourriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Borg. W. R.. & Gall. M. D. (1983). Educational_Besearohi_An
Introduction (4th ed.). New York: Longman Inc.

Brown, G. A., Bakhtar, M., & Youngman, M. B. (1982). Touard_a

Txoolooy_of_Lecturino_Stxles. University of Nottingham,
England.

Bush, D. (1974, November/December). Planning for Community
Education. Communit¥_Education_Journal 4(6). 12-17.54.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental_and

cuasi:Ernorimental_nesions_for_Researoh. Chica90= Rand
McNally.

Carkhuff. R. R. et al. (1984). The_Productiue_Ieaoher_li_An
Introduotion_to_Currioulum_Dexelooment. Amherst, MA:

Human Resource Development Press.

Chickering, A. W (1977). Exoerionoe_and_Loarninol_An

Introduction_to_Exooriential_Learnino New Rochelle. NY:
Change Magazine Press.

Chickering, A. W., & Associates (1981). The_Modern_American
college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

198

Conner, R. F. (Ed.). (1981). Methodological Advances in

Evaluation Research. Saoe_Researoh_2rooress_Series_in
Byaluation_lO. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

The_consorxatixo_Baotist_Seminar¥_of_the_East. (1985

brochure). Dresher, PA: Conservative Baptist Seminary of
the East.

Cronbach, L. (1963). Evaluation for Course Improvement.

Teachers_Collooo_Record, 54, 672-683.

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults_as_Learners. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Cuban, L. (1983). How Did Teachers Teach, 1890-1980. Theory
Into.£raotioe, 22(3), 159-165.

Dewey. J. (1916). Demooraox_and_Eduoationi_An_Introduotion_to
the_Philosoohy_of_Eduoation. New York: Macmillan

Dewey. J. (1938). Experienco_and_Education. New York: Collier

Books.

Dewey. J. (1960). Thoorx_of_tho_Moral_Lifo. New York: Holt.
Rinehart & Winston.

Doherty, A. , Mentkowski, M. M. , and Conrad, K. (1978). Toward
a Theory of Undergraduate Experiential Learning. Neu

Diroctions_for_£xneriontial_LoarninsI (1), 23- 35

Doyle, W. (1979). Classroom Effects. Theory_lnto_2raotico,
18(3), 138-144.

Drazin. N. (1940). History.of_Jowish_Education_Erom_515
SlOlEl_to_ZZO_OlEl. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Duley. J r & Gorden. S. (1977) Collooo:Soonsorod
Experiential_Loarnino::A_Cael_Handbook. Columbia. MD:

Cooperative Assessment of Experiential Learning.

Dunn. R-p & Dunn. K. (1978). Teaohino_Students_Throuoh_thoir

Indiyidual_Learning_StyleSi_A_Practical_Aporoach. Reston,
VA: Reston Publishing Co.

Eaton, J. (1984). Teacher Education: Is Experience the Best
Teacher? Communication_cuartorl¥ .§(2). 3.

Eble, K. E. (1979). The_Orart_ot_Teaching. San Francisco:

Jossey—Bass.

199

Eisner, E., & Vallence, E. (Eds.). (1973). Conflicting
Conceptions_of_£urriculum. Berkeley: McCutchan .

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the Life Cycle.
PsychologicaLIssuoLMonograohJ. New York: International

Universities Press.

Farley. E. (1983). TheologiathLEraomontatioandJmitLof
Theological_Education. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S. ., Buchmann, M. , Ball, D. ., & Noordhoff, K.
(1985). How do Teachers Learn to Use Research Knowledge?

W 1(2), 1- 4.

Feldman, K. A. (1976). The Superior College Teacher from the
StudentS' View. W: 5, 243-288-

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy of Research on
Teaching: Three Aspects. In M. C. Wittrock, (Ed.),

Handbook_oLRosearch_on_T.eaohino (3rd ed.). (pp. 37-49).

New York: Macmillan.

Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Morris, L. L. (1978). Hou_to_Oesign_a
Program_Eyaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Fletcher, J. C. (1979). The Making of a Minister: What's
Wrong with the Process? Action_Information, S, 4-6.

Forsberg, I., & Greenbaum, A. (1981). Faculty Expectations of

College Students. Colleoe_Student_Journal. 15(4). 387-
392.

Foster, P. J. (1981). Clinical Discussion Groups: Verbal

Participation and Outcomes. Journal_of_Modical_Education,
fifi, 831- 838.

Freire. P. (1983). Education_for__Critical_Consoiousnoss. New

York: Continuum.

Frymier, J. (1986). After Thirty Years of Thinking About
Curriculum. W. 2.5.(1). 58-63.

Fuller, E. (1982). Banish Junkyard Minds! Eternity_Magazineis
undate_132, 33(3): 017'U24-

Gagne, R. M. (1980). Preparing the Learner for New Learning.
TheorLIntLBraotice. 19(1). 6—9.

Gangel, K. O., & Benson, W. S. (1983). Christian Education-
Its History 5 Philosophy. Chicago: Moody Press.

200

Gardner. J W. (1964).Self:Renowal1_The_lndiyidual_and_the
lnnoyatiyc_SocictY New York: Norton & Company

Gasque, W. (1985, February 1). Must Ordinary People Know
Theology? Christianity_1oday, 32— 34.

Giroux, H. A., Penna, A. N., & Pinar, W. F. (Eds.). (1981).
Berkeley: McCutchan.

Gitlin, A., & Teitelbaum, K. (1983). Linking Theory and
Practice: The Use of Ethnographic Methodology by
Prospective Teachers Journal_of_Education_for_Tcachins.

2(3), 225- 234.

Gitlin, A., Ogawa, R. T., & Rose, E. (1984). Supervision,
Reflection, and Understanding: A Case for Horizontal
Evaluation. Journal_of_Teachor_Education. 31(3). 46-52.

Goodlad. J. I. (1984). AuPlace_Callcd_Schooli_Proscocts_for
the_Euture, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Goodman, J. (1983). The Seminar's Role in the Education of
Student Teachers: A Case Study. dournal_of_Teacher
Education. 24(3). 44-49.

Gorden, R. L. (1980). Intcryicuinc1_Stratcoyl_chhniouesi_and
Tactics. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Green, T. F. (1981). Acquisition of Purpose. In A. W.

Chickering & Associates, Thc_Modern_American_Collcoe.
(pp. 543-555). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grooms, T. H. (1980). Christian_Rc1ioious_Educationi_Sharing
Our Story and yision. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Groves, D. L., & Groves, S. L. (1980). Life Skills Education:

A Conceptual Framework. Collooo_Studcnt_Journal. 14(1).
83-91.

Gullette, M. M. (1984, July/August). The Heart of Good
Teaching. Change, 8-11,48.

Hartwig, F., & Dearing, B. E. (1979). Exoloratory_Data
E J . 0 l'l Ii E II I' I I] S i J
Sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hildreth, G. (1951, September). The Role of Experiential
Learning in the Education of Teachers. The_dournal_of
Teachcr_Education. 180-184.

201

Hill, B. V. (1986, April). Theological Education: Is it Out
of Practice? Eyancclical_Reyieu_of_Thcoloo¥ 174-182

Hook, W. F. ., & Fern, P. S. (1983/84, Fall/Winter).
Internships in Social Science: An Historical Perspective

and Suggestions for the Future. Innoyatiye_Higher
Education .8(1), 38- 44.

Houle, C. O. (1976). Deep Traditions of Experiential

Learning. In M. T Keeton. (Ed. ), Experiential_Learninsl
Rationalcl_Characteristics_and_Assessment. San Franciscoz

Jossey-Bass.

Hoy, W., & Rees, R. (1977, January-February). The
Bureaucratic Socialization of Student Teachers. Journal

of_Taacher_Education..28(1). 23-26.

Huebner, D. (1966). Curriculum Language and Classroom
Meanings. In J. B. Macdonald & R. R. Leeper (Eds.),

Lancuaoc_and_Mcaning. (pp. 8-26). Washington, DC:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Huebner, D. (1966). Curriculum as a Field of Study. In H. F.

Robison (Ed.), Preccdents_and_Promisc_on_the_Curriculum
Field. (pp. 94-112). New York: Teachers College Press.

Huebner, D. (1975). Curricular Language and Classroom
Meanings. In W Pinar (Ed. ). curriculum.1hcorizinsr.1he

Beconceotualists. (pp. 217- -236). Berkeley: McCutchan
Publishing.

Huebner, D. (1975). The Tasks of the Curricular Theorist. In
w. Pinar (Ed.), curriculum_Thcorizinci_The
.Reconccotualists, (pp. 250-270). Berkeley: McCutchan.

Hunt, D. E. (1978). Inservice Training as Persons-in-

Relation. Theory_lnto_£ractice..11(3). 239-244.
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling_Society. New York: Harper &

Row.

Intcrnshio_Prooram_Eyaluation_Packct. (1982). Boulder. CO:

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Isaac, 8.. & Michael. W. B. (1981). Handbook_in_Research_and
Fyaluation (2nd ed.). San Diego: EdITS Publishers.

Ives, B. D. (1980). The_Taoczhecorded_1ntcryiou (rev. ed.).

Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.

Joyce, B. R. (1980). Learning How to Learn. Theory_Into
Practice..19(1), 15—27.

202

Joyce, E., & Weil, M. (1986). Modals_ofi_Icaching (3rd ed.).

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kane, P. (1984, May). PEEPing Out of the Ivory Tower:
Preparing Educators for Nonschool Settings. Fhi_Delta

Kaooan, 621-622.

Kant, I. (1906). Ceher_Fadagogik. (trans. Annette Charton).
Boston: D.C. Heath and Co.

Keeton. M T . & Tate. P. J. (1978). Thc_Boom_in_Exoaricntial
W. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kidd, J. R. (1976). HolLAdultLLoarn (rev. ed.). New York:

New York Association Press.

Kierstead, J. (1985, May). Direct Instruction and
Experiential Approaches: Are They Really Mutually

Exclusive? EducationaLLcadorshio 25- 30

Killen, D. P. (1983). Theological Reflection--A Necessary
Skill in Lay Ministry. In R. F. Kinsler (Ed.), Ministry

WWW. (pp-
225-235). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books and Beneva, World
Council of Churches Oikoumene Publications.

Kinsler. F. R. (1978). W
Education. South Pasadena: William Carey Library.

Kirk. R. E. (1968). ExocrimentalmsigmirocodurchorJhc
Behayioral_Sciences. Belmont: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Klein, M. F. (1986, Winter). Alternative Curriculum

Conceptions and Designs. Theory_into_£ractice, 25(1), 31-
35.

Kliebard, H. M. (1975). Persistent Curriculum Issues in
Historical Perspective. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum

TheorizinoLThLReconccntualists. (pp. 39-50)- Berkeley:
McCutchan.

Kliebard, H. M. (1985). Three Currents of American Curriculum
Thought. In W. Alexandria. VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Knowles, M. (1978). TthdultharncchJeclcctmsm-zcies
(2nd ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Knowles, M. (1970). The_Modern_Practice_of_Adult_Educationi
AndraoocLYersuLPodacogy. New York: Association Press.

203

Kohlberg, L. (1980). Stages of Moral Development as a Basis
for Moral Education. In B. Munsey (Ed. ), Moral

Dcyalooment1_Moral_Educationi_and_Kohlherg. Birmingham,
AL: Religious Education Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Exooriontia1_Loarninsi_Expcricnce_as_the
Source_of_Learning—and_noyclopmcnt. Englewood CliffS. NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Kolb. D. A. (1985). Learning:StYlo_Inyentory (rev. ed.).

Boston: McBer and Company.

Kolb. D. A. (1978). Tcchnical_Manual_for_thc_Learnins_Stylc
Inyentory (rev. ed.). Boston: McBer and Company.

Kraft, I. (1982). A_Plan_for_Reconstructinc_Social_Hork

El I. I II E J'E . S! I H . .I I
Colleges. Sacramento: No publisher.

Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (Eds.) (1964).
.Affectiye_Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.

Kreider, R. (1986). The Recovery of the Academic Vision.
Faculty_Dialooue. a, 97-111.

Krippendorff. K. (1980). content_Analysis1_An_Introduction_to
its_Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Langford, J. M., & Bailey, G. D. (1981). The Relationship of

Learning Theory to Instructional Theory. College_Student
Journal. 15(2). 126-134.

Levinson. D. J. et a1. (1978). The_Scasons_of_a_Man1s_Life.
New York: Knopf.

Lickona, T. (1978). Helping Teachers Become Moral Educators.
Theor¥_lnto_2ractice. 11(3). 258-266.

Linskie. R. (1983). The_Learnino_Broces31_Theory_and
Fractice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Loevinger. J. (1976). Eso_Doyelopmcnt1_Conccotions_and
Theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Logan, R. D. (1983). Bridging the Traditional and Non-
Traditional: A Model for Higher Education. Liberal
Education. 59(3). 233-243.

Logos Bible College. (1986). '86 Interim Catalogue.

204

Macdonald, J. B. (1982). How Literal Is Curriculum Theory?
Theor¥_lnto_£racrics, 21(1). 55-61.

Manburg, A. (1984). An Innovative Response to the Challenge

of Field- Based Program Design. lnnogeriye_fiigher
Education 3(2). 108-114

Martin, W. B. (1985-86, Winter). Education for Character.
£acnlty_Dialosne,.i. 7-17.

Mayers, M. K., Richards, L., & Webber, R. (1972). Beeheoing
Exangelical_Higher_EducatiDn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

McCarthy, B. (1980) Iha_AMat_Sxstsmi_Ieaching_Lsarning
Stxles_wirh_EightLLs£t_Mnde_Iechniques. Chicago: Excel,

Inc.

McCarthy, B. (1985, April). What 4Mat Training Teaches Us
About Staff Development. BdnCaLiQnal_L£adfinfihin, 61-68.

McIntyre, D. J. (1984). A Response to the Critics of Field
EXperience SUPervision. JDurnal_9i_Ieasher_Educari9n,

McNeil, J. D. (1981). Cnrricnlumi_A_CDmDrehensixe
Introduorion (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Company.

Meeth, L. R. (1977, July). Report on Teaching: 4, Does
AnybOdY care? mange: 2(7)! 4'5-

Mentkowski, M. et a1. (1983). Assassing_ExDeriential
Laarningi_Ihe_Lsarning_Incident_as_an_Assassmsnt
Teohnigne. Wisconsin: Alverno College.

Michio, N. (1976). Education_and_lndoctrinationi_lhe
SDciDlDgical_and_2hiloaonhical_aases. Japan: University

of Tokyo Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualirerixe_nara,

Analyaisi_A_Sourcehook_ofi_New_Methods. Beverly H1115:
Sage.

Mosher, R. (1977). Theory and Practice: A New E.R.A.? Theory
Inr9_2rartice..l§(2). 81-88.

Murphy, D. M. (1975, Summer). Integration of Field Education

into the Curriculum. Iheologioel_EdnoaLion, ll(4), 285-
294.

205

Murphy, E. F. (1978). Ihe_Croun_Ireasurx_Dfi_Belerant
Quorariona. New York: Crown Publishers.

Musgrave, G R. (1975). Indiridnalized_1nstructioni_leaching
Strarsgies_Egcnsing_9n_rhe_Learner. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Muzik. R. C. (1978). College_5tndsnrsi_EzDsrrations_ah9nt
II 1| I Eli I E: Ii Eli III .
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.

National Institute of Education. (1984). lnyolxemenr_in
Learning. Study Group on the Condition of Excellence in
American Higher Education.

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia (Vol. 18).
(15th ed.). (1985). Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Newell, L. J. (1984, Nov/Dec). A Catalyst and a Touchstone.
m: 7'10 -

Nicklas, W. L., Black, W. L., & Simms, R. L. (1982). Field-
based Teacher Education: Programs that Work. The_Ieaoher

WI ”(1): 2'9.

Niebuhr, H. R. , Williams, D. D. ., & Gustafson, J. M. (1957).
Ihe_Adrancement_o£_Iheongical_Educarion. New York:

Harper & Brothers.

Niebuhr, H. R. (1956). Ihe_EnrDDse_Q£_the_Church_and_lts
‘Minierry. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Payne, S. L. (1951). Ihe_Arr_o£_Asking_Questions. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making
of Meaning . In A. W. Chickering & Associates, The_Modern

Amerioan_gollege. (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass .

Pinar. W. (Ed.). (1975). Curriculnm_1heorizingi_1he
Beconcenrualisrs. Berkeley: McCutchan.

Pinar, W. P., & Grumet, M. R. (1982). Socratic Caesura and

the Theory-Practice Relationship. Ibeory_inro_£raorioe,
2l(1), 50-54.

Postman, N. (1983, January). Engaging Students in the Great
Conversation. 2hi_Delran_Kaooan, 310-320.

206

Reynolds, H. T. (1977) . AnalxaiSJLNominaLDara. Beverly
Hills: Sage.

Rhema Bible College. Catalogue 1985-1988.

Rogers, C. (1969). Ereedom_ro_Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Roth, K. (1985). W
W Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.

Rowen. S. F. (1981). WWW
Eonoarion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Royce, J. (1964). The_Enoaoanlared_Man. Princeton, NJ: Van

Nostrand.

Rudolph, F. (1984, May/June). The Power of Professors.
Change, 12-17, 41 .

Schubert. w. H. (1984). W
Xeara. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Schuller, D. S., Brekke, M. L., & Strommen, M. P. (1975).

.Beadineaa_£or_Miniarry. ( Volume 1--Criteria). Vandalia,
OH: The Association of Theological Schools in the United
States and Canada.

Schuller, D. S., Brekke, M. L., Strommen, M. P., & Aleshire,

D. o. (1976). BeadineasJoLMinisrrx. ( Volume 2--
Assessment). Vandalia, OH: The Association of Theological
Schools in the United States and Canada.

Schwab. J. (1978). Win.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In ABBA

W. (pp-
39-89). Chicago: Rand McNally.

v5 0‘ ;o “90 to ‘u‘o o .- va 9 o .oo o o 9
WW. (January
1984). Quebec: Association d'Eglises Baptistes
Evangeliques au Canada.

Sheafor, B. W. , & Jenkins, L. E. (1981). Issues that Affect
the Development of a Field Instruction Curriculum.
MW 11(1). 12- 20.

207

Sheehyy G. (1976). WWW
Lita. New York: Dutton.

Shor, I. (1980). Critical_Iaaohing_and_Exer¥da¥_Liie.

Montreal, Quebec: Black Rose Books.

Short, E. C. (1986, Winter). A Historical Look at Curriculum
Design. Iheor¥_inro_2ractioe, 25(1), 3-9.

Siegel, S. (1956). NonDaramatric_Starisriss_£or_rhs
Behayioral_§oienoes. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smith, B. J. (1984). Intercultural_ExDeriential_Learning
PrDgrams_in_Sele2ted_InstitntiDns_D£_Highsr_Edncation_in
rhe_flnired_$rares. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Smith, D. G. (1977). College Classroom Interactions and

Critical Thinking. Journal_or_Edncational_Bsxsholog¥. 52.
180-190.

Smith, D. G. (1980, April). Instrnorion_and_Qut§omss_in_an
Undergradnare_5errino. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Boston.

Smith. D. M., & Kolb, D. A. (1986). Useris_Guide_£or_rhe
Learning_Stylsrlnrentor¥i_A;Manual_£or_1eachers_and
Trainers. Boston: McBer and Company.

Sonnier, I. L., & Goldsmith, J. (1985). The Pedagogy of
Neuroeducation. In I. L. Sonnier (Ed.), Methods_and
Ieohnignss_o£_flolistic_fldnoarion. Springfield. 11:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Sprinthall, N. A., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1983). The Teacher
as an Adult Learner: A Cognitive-Developmental View. In

G. A. Griffin (Ed.), Sta££_Deyelonmenr. Chicago: National
Society for the Study of Education.

Steinaker, N. W., & Bell, M. R. (1979). Tne_Exoerienrial
Taxonomxi_A_New_ADnrDach_to_Ieaching_and_Learning. New

York: Academic Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Caruso, D. R. (1985). Practical Modes of
Knowing. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning_and_1eaching_the
no 0 L... O. ’. 0 0‘ ’0 ’ 0 O ‘o, O... 0
the_Nati9nal_Sonistx_1or_ths_Srndy_oi_Edngationl. (pp-
133-158). Chicago: National Society for the Study of
Education.

208

Stratemeyer, F. (1951). The Expanding Role of Direct
Experience in Professional Education. In M. Malter, & T.

L. Stearns (Eds. ), WWW):
Wm. Michigan:

Edwards Brothers.

Tanner. D., & Tanner. L. N. (1975). W
Ihaor¥_inro_2raotioe. New York: Macmillan.

The Power of a Good Lecture. (1976, July).Renorr_on_Teaehinei
2.. Chanea, 3(6), 68-69.

Thelen. H. (1960) . W. New York:
Harper 8 Row.

Tom, A. R. (1984). TaaahinLaLaJeraiJrafr. New York:

Longman.

Tough. A. (1979). W511
W (2nd

ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.

Tough, A. (1981). Interests of Adult Learners. In A. W.
Chickering & Associates, Wilma. San

Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). BasiLBrineiniamenrrieninmJnd
lnsrrnorion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Vallance, E. (1986, Winter). A Second Look at Conflicting

Conceptions of Curriculum. Theory_inro_£raorioe, 25(1),
24-30.

Van Gilst, L. (1983/84, Dec/Jan). Are We Educating for
Service? ChrisrianjeumteriLleurnai 23(2), 4-5.

Wagner, P. A., & Freedman, G. B. (1985). Legitimate Classes
of Evidence for Identifying Effective Teaching. Journal

af_Thenght. 29(2), 35-39.

Waller. W. (1967). ThLSneinimLaLTaaehine. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Ward, T. W. (1985, Spring Term). Curriculum Research TE 910E.
East Lansing, MI: Class at Michigan State University.

Ward, T. W. (1983, January-March). Metaphors of Spiritual
Reality: Metaphors of the Church in Troubled Times.
BihiiethaeLSacra.

209

Ward, T. (n.d.). sahaaiine_aa_a_Dafaarixa_Annrnaeh_tn
Eanoarion. Institute for International Studies, Michigan
State University.

Ward. T., & Rowen. S. F. (1972). Tha_Sienifieanea_af_tha
Exrension_$eminar¥. Farmington, MI: Associates of

Urbanus.

Warren. V. B. (Ed. ). (1970). Tha_Saaand_Traasnrx_nf

Iaehnienas_fer_Taaehine_Aduits. Washington. DC: National
Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education.

Weathersby, R. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1980). Adnlr_neyeloomenri
imniinations_fnr_fliehar_fiduaaLion. WashingtOD: DC:

American Association for Higher Education.

Weathersby, R. (1978). Lifa_Staeas_and_Laarnine_intarastsi
The_Aonlr_Learner. Washington, DC: American Association
for Higher Education.

Webb, R. B., & Sherman, R. R. (1983). Liberal Education: An
Aim for Colleges of Education. Journal_or_Teaoher
Education, 23(4). 23-26.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Tha_Aims_ef_Edneatien. New York: The
Free Press.

Whitehead, J. D., & Whitehead, E. E. (1980). Method_in

New York: The Seabury Press.

Williams, C. R. , Neff, A. R. , & Finkelstein, J. H. (1981).
Theory into Practice: Reconsidering the Preposition.

Thaarx_inra_2raeriea 29(2), 93- 96.

Winn, M. (1985, May/June). The Plug-In Generation. Change,
14-20.

Witmer. 8- A. (1962)..Tha_Bihia_Ceiiaea_Stor¥1_Educatinn_nith
Dimension. New York: Channel Press.

Witmer, S. A. (1970). Field Work: Service in Training. In S.

A. Witmer. Tha_Bihia_Cniiaea_Stnrx. (pp. 134-148).
Wheaton: Accrediting Associaton of Bible Colleges.

Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.). (1986). Handhaak_ef_Basaareh_en
Teaohing (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Wolterstorff, N. (1984, Fall). The Mission of the Christian

College at the End of the 20th Century. annlry_nialogne,
(1), 39-48.

210

Yorke. D M. (1981). Eatrarns_nf_Iaaahine1_A_Sanrea_Bnak_fnr
IeaCh£r5_in_Eanhaz_BdnCahion. London: Council for
Educational Technology.

Zais, R. S. (1986, Winter). Confronting Encapsulation as a

Theme in Curriculum Design. Theory_lnro_2raorioe, 17-23.

Zanville, H , & Markwood. R. (1982). A_Caaaheek_en_2raetiaa
in_IntarnshiD_Ednaarien. Boulder, CO: The Western

Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative Paradigms of Teacher
Education. Journai_af_Ednearinn_fnr_Iaachine SA. 3- 9

Zeichner, K. M. (1980). Myths and Realities: Field-Based
Experiences in Preservice Teacher Education. Jonrnal_of

Taaehar_Eduaatinn. 31. 45-55.

Zeichner, K. M., & Teithelbaum, K. (1982). Personalized and
Inquiry-Oriented Teacher Education: An Analysis of Two
Approaches to the Development of Curriculum for Field-

Based Experiences. Journal_af_Eduaatien_fer_Taaehine, B,
95-117.

Zeichner, K. M. (1981). Reflective Teaching and Field-Based
Experiences in Teacher Education. lnrerohange, l2, 1-22.

Zeichner, K. M. (1978). The Student Teaching Experience.
Aatian_in_1aaahar_Eeueatien .1. 58-61.

Zeichner, K. M. (1980, February). The_5rnoenr_Teaohine
Teaohers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association of Teacher Educators, Washington, DC.