University of Notre Dame - Department of Theology : 2006 Seminar
Narrative
LEARNING GOALS
BRIDGING PROFESSIONAL FORMATION AND ACADEMIC PURSUITS
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY
BACKGROUND
The Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame attracts more than 200 undergraduate majors each year and houses five graduate degree programs. It is one among twenty other departments within the College of Arts and Letters, and offers the only two professional graduate degree programs in the College. Notably, the masters-level students in all four masters’ programs—M.T.S., M.A., M.Div., and M.S.M.—take many of the same courses.
In 2003, the M.Div. Committee developed learning goals for M.Div. students and faculty to focus and articulate the educational needs in each area of the program of studies. The Committee also hoped the learning goals might stimulate collaborative planning and course structuring, both within the faculty areas of study and among the department as a whole, so that by the time a student graduates, all these goals would be substantially addressed. The Committee foresaw that the learning goals would also serve as a prism through which the M.Div. directors may evaluate the effectiveness of the degree program. The entire faculty hoped that the department would be forced to think about how we can bring our theological and academic strengths to bear on the dispositions necessary for ministry. After three years of consultations and discussions, the faculty unanimously passed the learning goals, and the department began to implement the goals in the degree program. The faculty agreed to let each of the 59 full-time faculty members decide how to implement the goals in his or her own courses.
The implementation appeared to be going well, until John, the Department chairman, stopped Mike, the M.Div. director in the hallway, to describe what had happened the previous day.
John: Mike, I think we need to meet again soon to discuss the implementation of the M.Div. learning goals.
Mike: I agree! I’m in the middle of mid-program reviews, and I have some issues that I’d like to discuss. Did you see the irate letter to the campus newspaper that Julie, one of the M. Div. students, sent in?
John: I must have skimmed over it. What does she say?
Mike: Well, she comments on the Roman Catholic Church’s ordinations policy, and she frames the letter in a bitter denunciation of the church. Can you imagine? So, I called her to set up our mid-program review, indicating that I also wanted to discuss the letter with her. We met about a week ago.
John: How did it go?
Mike: Well, I think it could have gone better! I reminded her that one of our learning goals is to develop ‘a deepening love and hope for the Church as students grow in knowledge and skills necessary for theological integration,’ and then I asked her what she has learned about the church in her first two years of courses. She told me that she has learned a great deal about the ideal church, but she said that the realities of the church in her field placement and her other learnings about the church have inculcated anything but a deepening love or hope for it!
John: Wow! What have you done about this?
Mike: After consulting with other M.Div. staff, we decided to approach the faculty who teach the required courses, tell them what happened, and invite a dialogue about this issue. It didn’t go very well. The faculty each responded that they will not teach their topics in a way that inculcates love for the church, based on the theological input of the course. Each one asserted their right to academic freedom. We reminded them that they signed on to the M.Div. learning goals!
Just then, Randall, the M.T.S. director, walked by.
John: Oh Randall, I need to share something with you. A few days ago, a group of M.A. and M.T.S. students dropped by my office to complain about their graduate courses in biblical studies.
Randall: Yes, I’ve heard some murmuring as well, and was surprised in a way. What did they complain about?
John: The complaints revolved around two courses, one on the book of Genesis, and one on the book of Psalms. The students were unhappy about how the professors were teaching the courses. They didn’t think they were focusing enough on “the historical and literary aspects of the texts.” They said faculty were just dialoguing with them about their feelings, and their openness to various passages. They complained that faculty have been assigning reflection papers, asking them to apply what they’ve learned to fictional communities of faith, and discussing how ministers are to remain open to the transformative power of the Word of God in their lives.
Mike: That’s not all bad, but I think I understand the students’ concerns.
John: The students say they understand the need for M.Div. students to engage these topics, but they think these approaches take away from “the serious study of Scripture.” Some students even said they are considering transferring to “more scholarly programs” elsewhere!
Randall: What do we do?
Mike: Well, we need to think this through, because ATS wants all of our degree programs to have learning goals. Two weeks ago, I interviewed Cheryl, one of our second-year students, about her recent course in Modern Church History. As you know, I’m using the learning goals to gauge the M.Div. students’ progress during their mid-program reviews. Well, at first Cheryl said that she has gained wonderful insights into the history of various debates about different doctrines, and that she has a firm grasp of the Church in the modern period. But then I pressed her more on the matter, especially with regards to the learning goal that has to do with “the dynamic ways in which human freedom interacts with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in shaping the Church.”
John: How did she respond?
Mike: She looked taken aback, and she added that she doesn’t feel that God, through the Holy Spirit, can directly guide the church. She thinks that God keeps a distance from creation and doesn’t intervene in such matters. Apparently, she doesn’t feel that the department can, or has any right to assess her appreciation in that area. She indicated that appreciation has a lot more to do with personal faith commitments than it does with academic or ministerial formation. I was at a loss for what to say to her. Has the degree program failed to educate her? Is this a case for remedial work?
John: I don’t know, but I’m concerned. We need to talk more about all of this soon!
LEARNING GOALS
BRIDGING PROFESSIONAL FORMATION AND ACADEMIC PURSUITS
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY
BACKGROUND
The Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame attracts more than 200 undergraduate majors each year and houses five graduate degree programs. It is one among twenty other departments within the College of Arts and Letters, and offers the only two professional graduate degree programs in the College. Notably, the masters-level students in all four masters’ programs—M.T.S., M.A., M.Div., and M.S.M.—take many of the same courses.
In 2003, the M.Div. Committee developed learning goals for M.Div. students and faculty to focus and articulate the educational needs in each area of the program of studies. The Committee also hoped the learning goals might stimulate collaborative planning and course structuring, both within the faculty areas of study and among the department as a whole, so that by the time a student graduates, all these goals would be substantially addressed. The Committee foresaw that the learning goals would also serve as a prism through which the M.Div. directors may evaluate the effectiveness of the degree program. The entire faculty hoped that the department would be forced to think about how we can bring our theological and academic strengths to bear on the dispositions necessary for ministry. After three years of consultations and discussions, the faculty unanimously passed the learning goals, and the department began to implement the goals in the degree program. The faculty agreed to let each of the 59 full-time faculty members decide how to implement the goals in his or her own courses.
The implementation appeared to be going well, until John, the Department chairman, stopped Mike, the M.Div. director in the hallway, to describe what had happened the previous day.
John: Mike, I think we need to meet again soon to discuss the implementation of the M.Div. learning goals.
Mike: I agree! I’m in the middle of mid-program reviews, and I have some issues that I’d like to discuss. Did you see the irate letter to the campus newspaper that Julie, one of the M. Div. students, sent in?
John: I must have skimmed over it. What does she say?
Mike: Well, she comments on the Roman Catholic Church’s ordinations policy, and she frames the letter in a bitter denunciation of the church. Can you imagine? So, I called her to set up our mid-program review, indicating that I also wanted to discuss the letter with her. We met about a week ago.
John: How did it go?
Mike: Well, I think it could have gone better! I reminded her that one of our learning goals is to develop ‘a deepening love and hope for the Church as students grow in knowledge and skills necessary for theological integration,’ and then I asked her what she has learned about the church in her first two years of courses. She told me that she has learned a great deal about the ideal church, but she said that the realities of the church in her field placement and her other learnings about the church have inculcated anything but a deepening love or hope for it!
John: Wow! What have you done about this?
Mike: After consulting with other M.Div. staff, we decided to approach the faculty who teach the required courses, tell them what happened, and invite a dialogue about this issue. It didn’t go very well. The faculty each responded that they will not teach their topics in a way that inculcates love for the church, based on the theological input of the course. Each one asserted their right to academic freedom. We reminded them that they signed on to the M.Div. learning goals!
Just then, Randall, the M.T.S. director, walked by.
John: Oh Randall, I need to share something with you. A few days ago, a group of M.A. and M.T.S. students dropped by my office to complain about their graduate courses in biblical studies.
Randall: Yes, I’ve heard some murmuring as well, and was surprised in a way. What did they complain about?
John: The complaints revolved around two courses, one on the book of Genesis, and one on the book of Psalms. The students were unhappy about how the professors were teaching the courses. They didn’t think they were focusing enough on “the historical and literary aspects of the texts.” They said faculty were just dialoguing with them about their feelings, and their openness to various passages. They complained that faculty have been assigning reflection papers, asking them to apply what they’ve learned to fictional communities of faith, and discussing how ministers are to remain open to the transformative power of the Word of God in their lives.
Mike: That’s not all bad, but I think I understand the students’ concerns.
John: The students say they understand the need for M.Div. students to engage these topics, but they think these approaches take away from “the serious study of Scripture.” Some students even said they are considering transferring to “more scholarly programs” elsewhere!
Randall: What do we do?
Mike: Well, we need to think this through, because ATS wants all of our degree programs to have learning goals. Two weeks ago, I interviewed Cheryl, one of our second-year students, about her recent course in Modern Church History. As you know, I’m using the learning goals to gauge the M.Div. students’ progress during their mid-program reviews. Well, at first Cheryl said that she has gained wonderful insights into the history of various debates about different doctrines, and that she has a firm grasp of the Church in the modern period. But then I pressed her more on the matter, especially with regards to the learning goal that has to do with “the dynamic ways in which human freedom interacts with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in shaping the Church.”
John: How did she respond?
Mike: She looked taken aback, and she added that she doesn’t feel that God, through the Holy Spirit, can directly guide the church. She thinks that God keeps a distance from creation and doesn’t intervene in such matters. Apparently, she doesn’t feel that the department can, or has any right to assess her appreciation in that area. She indicated that appreciation has a lot more to do with personal faith commitments than it does with academic or ministerial formation. I was at a loss for what to say to her. Has the degree program failed to educate her? Is this a case for remedial work?
John: I don’t know, but I’m concerned. We need to talk more about all of this soon!