Guiding Question:
“How might technology itself
affect student formation?”
Findings:
The interaction of a person
with technology, as is the case in online education, has the potential to diminish
social well-being, train the brain to be distracted, and impede pastoral skill
and virtue formation. Therefore, while online learning programs and courses offer many positive elements, they are not particularly helpful for developing
character virtues and skills that are unique to pastoral ministry. Embodied mentorships,
such as theological field education/internship opportunities with seasoned
practitioners, are essential.
Recommendations for schools offering online pastoral formation programs:
- Schools would be wise to consider defining
and prioritizing character formation for students and faculty. The current standard is for students and faculty to undergo academic assessments: Faculty are assessed in the form of course evaluations while students undergo assessment through completing tests, exams, and assignments. While academic assessments are firming in place, most schools have no formal means by which to assess character. Why not find ways to assess the growth of student and faculty character? The method of assessment would likely differ from academic assessment. Prioritizing character formation will require some changes to the way education is delivered. For example, some schools are choosing to explore Competency-Based Theological Education (CBTE) as a way to shift learning priorities (see this article by Karen Stiller for an overview). Regardless of the model chosen, assessing character is a steep hill to climb for standard, on-campus programs; for schools committed to teaching and learning predominantly online, trying to assess character formation may end up feeling like scaling an insurmountable mountain.
- Schools committed to online education must ensure they have robust
theological field education (TFE) programs in place. Since online education is not an ideal way to nurture virtues, theological field education programs must work even harder to ensure students are getting embodied opportunities with mentors. Schools committed to staffing and providing resources to their field education departments will be much further along than those with weak, understaffed programs. Research indicates that many theological field education programs function on the periphery of theological schools because field education is often seen as less important than academic coursework. Additionally, due to vast discrepancies in
denominational requirements for ordination, TFE programs can vary
significantly from school to school. Problems vary from choosing appropriate supervisory settings and supervisors, providing adequate field supervisor training, and determining how to mentor students, who are serving as solo pastors with full pastoral
responsibilities. The more schools can do to support online students through strong field education programs, the better off those students (and field education supervisors!) will be.
- Schools should consider making space for faculty, administrators, and students to theologically reflect on the effects of technology
on teaching and learning for ministry. This could be a simple as setting aside class time at the beginning of a new semester as part of a review of the syllabus. It could also look like an annual faculty retreat where professors are invited to consider the impact of technology on their lives, their teaching, and their students. Reflecting theologically on the question, "how is technology affecting our formation into the image of Christ?" may surface interesting unspoken insights and perspectives that could shape and reshape how learning looks. This should not be a one time event. Administrators, faculty, and students should revisit this question regularly and prayerfully.
