Resources

Raymond B. Williams, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Wabash College, founding Director of the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion, long–time member of the Executive Board of the American Academy of Religion, and founding editor of the journal Teaching Theology and Religion, has moved on to what will no doubt be a very active retirement. An interview with Williams was conducted by Malcolm Warford to be published in a venue unknown to the subject, thus enabling Warford to capture the spontaneous, unguarded vocational narrative of this private, humble scholar–teacher. After Warford transcribed and edited the interview, Lucinda Huffaker, co–editor of Teaching Theology and Religion, inserted commentary to set out themes and emphases on teaching and learning (desig. – LAH). As an autobiography, the article is both a window and a mirror – revealing both the formative influences in one professor's life and providing readers with an opportunity for reflective comparison with their own vocational paths and identities.

The article is a reflection on what I perceive to be a confusion about the relation between theoretical judgments and judgments of pedagogical efficacy. My interest in the issue originated with my own confusion over persistent student resistance to certain assigned texts that I had initially felt confident would prove valuable in the classroom. The essay unfolds in three segments. In the first, I recount how this concern about the relation between theoretical judgments and judgments of pedagogical efficacy evolved out of my own teaching. I next list three tentative conclusions about the correlation or lack of correlation between theoretical judgments and judgments of pedagogical efficacy. In the concluding segment, I call for concerted resistance to the tendency of pure rationality to colonize the aesthetic and dramatic components of experience so essential to transformative teaching and learning.

The article is a reflection on what I perceive to be a confusion about the relation between theoretical judgments and judgments of pedagogical efficacy. My interest in the issue originated with my own confusion over persistent student resistance to certain assigned texts that I had initially felt confident would prove valuable in the classroom. The essay unfolds in three segments. In the first, I recount how this concern about the relation between theoretical judgments and judgments of pedagogical efficacy evolved out of my own teaching. I next list three tentative conclusions about the correlation or lack of correlation between theoretical judgments and judgments of pedagogical efficacy. In the concluding segment, I call for concerted resistance to the tendency of pure rationality to colonize the aesthetic and dramatic components of experience so essential to transformative teaching and learning.

Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) offer immediate, relevant feedback to professors on the teaching process as well as feedback to students on the learning process. While Classroom Assessment Techniques have been introduced, studied and analyzed in undergraduate education, application to graduate theological education has not been advanced. The author describes a recent research project that discerned faculty attitudes toward the implementation of Classroom Assessment Techniques in a seminary setting in hopes that more effective faculty development programs can be designed by implementing CATs.

One might think that primary research in library and church archives would be a dry, lifeless endeavor, far removed from the present–day spiritual urgency that quickens the religious studies classroom. After all, archives raise the specter of musty tomes housed in dark, dank, and isolated basements. To the contrary, based on interviews with several students and teachers doing such research, this article maintains that primary archival research in religious and theological studies is often experienced as empowering, connecting researchers to their subjects with an immediacy that secondary sources simply cannot provide. Diaries, letters, hymns, administrative reports, and church–school teaching notes are the sorts of documentary evidence and personal effects at issue, and these offer unexpected insights to researchers who brave the archives.

This classroom note demonstrates that a course may be improved by paying specific attention to Elliot Eisner's distinction between a course's explicit, implicit and null criteria. In an attempt to ground and identify those notoriously slippery curricula, this paper appropriates French philosopher Michel Foucault's concepts of practice, discourse and archival research. Having explored Foucault's understanding of these concepts, the paper analyses the course Communication and Processes within Groups at two distinctive phases in its twenty–year history. The resulting excavation of the course's implicit and null curricula twenty years apart shows that two different sets of facilitators teaching the same explicit curriculum to a very different student body, in vastly changed venues, are working out of two different understandings of what competence in the practice of ministry entails, two very different ministerial education discourses. This paper demonstrates that with students' questions, a teacher's intentional probing and Foucault's framework in hand, it is possible to access and articulate a course's hidden curricula. In such ways, the practice of mining the archive offers an imaginative way of both evaluating and improving a course that has been taught for many years.

Internships and other experiential education courses in Religious Studies departments particularly benefit from careful pedagogical preparation. In addition to the usual components of conceptual content and skills, these courses require knowledge about and understanding of human communication and interaction and organizational function. To be successfully collaborative in the classroom and with Community Partners for learning and service, students and teachers need tools for participant observation, integration of data and response, and reflection. This article proposes and discusses using 10 strategies of ethnography as a pedagogical frame. Developed in an internship class, these ten tools are demonstrated through teacher discussion and reflection and students' written work. Specific connections to the field of Religious Studies are highlighted. The article is written in the hopes of stimulating additional conversations on how experiential learning and teaching, specifically the use of ethnography, can be effectively and appropriately used in Religious Studies courses.

The author describes her participation in a religious studies teaching workshop where she was asked to think creatively about the art of teaching, what implications result from changes in the field, and the relationship of religious studies to other fields. General conclusions endorse pedagogies that are dialogic, participatory, and experiential and invite possibilities provided by changes in the field that encourage courses that are more inclusive of marginal voices and attentive to multicultural inflections. In assessing the relationship of religious studies to other fields, the author draws on her interdisciplinary background in religion and literature to apply Aristotelian rhetoric to the interpretation of a short story, thereby providing an actual model of how disciplines can complement each other while also highlighting aspects of the pedagogical and multicultural principles endorsed by the workshop participants. The application of Aristotelian principles of logos, ethos, and pathos becomes for the workshop participants a religious studies rhetoric: a provisional model for how to interpret classroom conduct.

This article reports on the findings of a study carried out with ordinands and faculty in English theological Colleges and Courses (programs). The project aimed to discover (a) how and to what extent students are trained to work in Britain's multi–faith society, and (b) how are ordinands thinking theologically about issues of religious diversity. This article highlights the examples of good practice that emerged from the study and considers what makes for good learning about multi–faith issues for ordinands training for the ministry.

Drawing on his own work in educational theory as well as his classroom experience, the author identifies important dialogical vices that he finds in his students: pride and cowardice. These vices are put both in the theoretical context of a greater understanding of the role of dialogue in learning and in the social context of the contemporary multicultural ethos from which the students come. In opposition to the vices, the author proposes dialogical virtues (humility, charity, and courage) and a concept of tolerance that help us to avoid pride and cowardice. In this way, we achieve genuine dialogue and multiculturalism and avoid what the author calls a pernicious multiculturalism