View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Ecological Pedagogy of Embeddedness: Theological Education for Human Flourishing

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Ecological Pedagogy of Embeddedness: Theological Education for Human Flourishing
Language: English
Authors: Tollison, Wm. Taylor
Source: Teaching Theology & Religion. Mar 2023 26(1):44-55.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Theological Education, Instruction, Ecological Factors, Holistic Approach, Place Based Education, Competency Based Education, Teachers, Teaching Models, School Community Relationship, Barriers, Instructional Systems
DOI: 10.1111/teth.12633
ISSN: 1368-4868
1467-9647
Abstract: This paper sets forth a proposal for an ecological pedagogy of embeddedness informed by place-based, challenge-based, and competency-based methodologies. While some theological institutions have begun implementing principles from competency-based models, theological educators have not adequately explored the resources within place-based and challenge-based systems. This paper will contribute to the literature on theological education in three distinct ways: first, this proposal will perform the oft-overlooked task of bringing these three pedagogical models into conversation with one another; second, this proposal will aim the outcomes and effects of the three pedagogical models toward the flourishing of the communities in which institutions are embedded; and third, this proposal will break new ground in its application of these three pedagogical systems to the context of a theological seminary.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1374002
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHitbhlTb0K28tOVx3ENBLBAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHR1cGgBXKYgofj7SwIBEICBmy7PheTu3ExEqQMZePs-efHlAuOYwP9bxXHspWw7QIQDF_9SEgnIR0XQ01_xA2XkBfttlUiiWtKesU11BdtcC1jfBOIBT2MoxmPD4IMFUdh3PUl-VqjA6oOWrZyc5oBKXGYIDduiNd82ZalVMzrS0Xwrw5feDq2pzM3VwGkay_gur9XMFyIewDUmUB_fJEnMEgfeQwY5uUVhxLdB
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163161026;7qh01mar.23;2023Apr20.02:21;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163161026-1">An ecological pedagogy of embeddedness: Theological education for human flourishing </title> <p>This paper sets forth a proposal for an ecological pedagogy of embeddedness informed by place‐based, challenge‐based, and competency‐based methodologies. While some theological institutions have begun implementing principles from competency‐based models, theological educators have not adequately explored the resources within place‐based and challenge‐based systems. This paper will contribute to the literature on theological education in three distinct ways: first, this proposal will perform the oft‐overlooked task of bringing these three pedagogical models into conversation with one another; second, this proposal will aim the outcomes and effects of the three pedagogical models toward the flourishing of the communities in which institutions are embedded; and third, this proposal will break new ground in its application of these three pedagogical systems to the context of a theological seminary.</p> <p>Keywords: challenge‐based learning; competency‐based education; ecology; human flourishing; pedagogy; place‐based education; theological education</p> <hd id="AN0163161026-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>In his 1987 essay <emph>The Loss of the University</emph>, Wendell Berry bemoaned the fragmentation of the various curricular disciplines into independent silos. As is widely recognized, such specialized educators—operating like industrialized factory workers—tend to merely focus on their individual parts and lose sight of the comprehensive whole. In Berry's view, this dynamic has resulted in a loss of agreement regarding the "thing made," that is, a holistic human person. This industrialization of the institution is at least partially symptomatic of a "displaced" university that "no longer knows where it is" and therefore "cannot know either its responsibilities to its place or the effects of its irresponsibility" (Berry, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>], pp. 619, 623). Like most modern educational enterprises, theological institutions tend to be guilty of this exam‐driven, overly‐standardized culture that often ignores the peculiarities of places and favors the universality of principles (Frame, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>]; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]). In this style of theological education, a student may appear to be prepared to minister <emph>everywhere</emph>, but if their education has not been crafted with a specific place in mind, they may not be ready to minister <emph>anywhere</emph>.</p> <p>In response to this "displacement" of the university, a tide of educators has arisen who intentionally craft their curriculum in conversation with their places. This "place‐based" educational model is a welcome advance in the context of the overly industrialized approach to education. These educators highlight how we should learn <emph>from</emph> or <emph>about</emph> a place as well as learn <emph>for</emph> a place. Additionally, in what is known as the "challenge‐based" pedagogical model, educators design curricula to sharpen real‐world critical thinking skills in the service of actual needs <emph>in</emph> a place. Lastly, another model, known as "competency‐based" education, has also surfaced. Rather than measuring time spent in a classroom, this model seeks to equip students with the skills they will need for their desired workplace. Unfortunately, what is not often considered is how each of these pedagogical systems can serve to complement one another inside an organic educational ecology. In this space, this paper proposes an ecological pedagogy of embeddedness informed by the best practices of place‐based, challenge‐based, and competency‐based methodologies. Embeddedness, as it will be shown, is an intentionally loaded term freighted with nuances of all three pedagogical models while also being aimed at the flourishing of the community in which the institution is embedded. While some theological institutions have begun implementing principles from competency‐based models, theological educators have not adequately explored the resources within place‐based and challenge‐based models.</p> <p>This paper will contribute to the literature on theological education in three ways: first, this proposal will perform the oft‐overlooked task of bringing these three pedagogical models into conversation with one another; second, this proposal will aim the outcomes and effects of the three pedagogical models toward the flourishing of the communities in which institutions are embedded; and third, this proposal will break new ground in its application of these three pedagogical systems into the context of a theological seminary. To accomplish these tasks, the current concerns in seminary education must first be discussed to frame the context for the proposal. Then, the proposed philosophy of education will be set forth within the context of these concerns. Lastly, the potential outcomes of this philosophy will be presented as both a remedy to the concerns in theological education and as a step toward the flourishing of the students and the communities in which they minister.</p> <hd id="AN0163161026-3">CURRENT CONCERNS IN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION</hd> <p>As a sampling of the literature throughout this paper will demonstrate, the enterprise of theological education has long been under scrutiny. Voices from across the spectrum of theological education are expressing concern over the following aspects :</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Student Preparation and Institutional Pedagogy</emph> : According to many, seminary students are not being prepared for the practical realities of ministry. They are instead spending time learning from a "placeless curriculum" about principles that may be far too theoretical to be helpful (Gruenewald, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]). When students arrive in ministry and encounter issues and experiences they did not cover in their classroom lectures or exams, they find they are not as prepared as they hoped. This paper will discuss how challenge‐based and competency‐based educational models inform this concern.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Local Congregation Involvement and Faculty Selection</emph> : In general, many seminaries do not seem intentionally connected to local congregations but operate in isolation from them. Additionally, it appears that faculty are chosen not because of pastoral experience in local congregations but merely due to their academic credentials (Hess, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref5">32</reflink>]). What might place‐based education say to this sort of model? This paper will explore a series of ideas on how these methodologies might assist in addressing these concerns.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Accessibility and Affordability</emph> : Residential requirements regularly cause students to relocate. This move affects not only the student but also the church in which they were previously serving. This relocation, coupled with consistently inflating tuition rates, makes seminary nearly impossible to afford or access for most. As a result, many students either do not attend seminary or, after completing seminary, they enter their pastoral role carrying the burden of debt. As it will be shown, it is widely recognized that all three methodologies (place, competency, and challenge‐based) are effective in making seminary education more accessible and affordable.</item> </ulist> <p>Interestingly, the three concerns described above have disproportionately impacted minority communities. Many have drawn attention to this unfortunate disparity between majority and minority scholarship (Liew, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref6">39</reflink>]) and have pointed out that the challenges of accessibility and affordability, for instance, inevitably lead to a deficit in minority leadership at an institutional level (Ringenberg, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref7">47</reflink>]). To address the problem, Yong asserts that the best place to start is in the reshaping of theological institutions (Yong, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref8">62</reflink>]). But what must be reshaped? According to Jennings and Watkins, the shape of the curriculum, the pedagogical delivery system, and the basic makeup of an institution can all tend to be structured around the preferences of a majority culture (Jennings, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref9">34</reflink>]; Watkins, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref10">57</reflink>]). How might institutions need to reshape their pedagogy to equip both majority and minority leaders better? I propose that the philosophical model described in this paper has the capability of powerfully addressing these issues in the following ways.</p> <p>First, by marrying the classroom and the community, the institution opens itself up to the wisdom of minority churches and pastors and positions itself to learn from them. Second, the model described in this paper is also designed to identify and empower minority leaders in communities in a way that values their pastoral experience and encourages the pursuit of further education. The reciprocal dynamic at play in an ecological pedagogy of embeddedness means that the community is not only brought into the classroom, but the classroom is also now seen as both attractive and attainable to the community. Bi‐vocational pastors who may have never considered an education are not only given a valuable voice in an academic setting but are also encouraged to pursue further studies themselves. Lastly, the model set forth in this paper addresses Ringenberg's concerns about affordability and accessibility and creates more clearly defined tracks for minority scholars to be identified and hired by institutions and churches.</p> <hd id="AN0163161026-4">PHILOSOPHICAL PROPOSAL FOR THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION</hd> <p>This diverse array of concerns calls for a richly textured and nuanced educational approach that is dynamically responsive to how these concerns may express themselves. This means that the educational experience and formation of a student engaged in theological studies must no longer be understood <emph>mechanistically</emph> (i.e., overly standardized) but rather <emph>ecologically</emph> or <emph>organically</emph>. Bessler discusses this shift in perspective as a move from a view of seminary as a "machine" to an "organism." Within the "machine" metaphor, the activity of a seminary is "self‐enclosed." In contrast, the "organic" or ecological metaphor suggests a "broader, more complex range of interactions" that go beyond the "seminary walls." Over and against the "machine" metaphor, the ecological metaphor contributes two distinct benefits.</p> <p>First, the ecology metaphor enables educators to consider how pedagogical methodologies might become complementary in addressing curricular and ministry preparedness concerns. Since students learn and engage with content in more than one way in an ecological model, the goals of place, competency, and challenge‐based models intertwine to create a dynamic learning experience that keeps congregational and real‐world application in view.</p> <p>Second, when pedagogy is viewed through the lenses of ecology, educators are able to gain an understanding of the background influences that may enhance or inhibit a student's learning experience (Daniel & Poole, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]; Kang & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref12">36</reflink>]). As Mikoski reminds us, "Theological education never occurs in the abstract. It always takes place in particular sociocultural settings" and in "institutions populated by complex and multi‐dimensional people" (Mikoski, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref13">42</reflink>], pp. 128–129). As such, our education of students for ministry must consider the context in which our students are embedded. This is not to say we should abandon the classroom but that the classroom's content should be informed by the realities of the place where the classroom is embedded. These dynamics enable educators to lend a listening ear to congregations and graduates to find out how they might better prepare students for the realities of ministry.</p> <p>So, what might it look like if seminaries shifted from a mechanistic view and considered their curriculum through the lens of an embedded ecology? How might a seminary learn <emph>from</emph> the places in which they are embedded in order to learn <emph>for</emph> these places? Could an institution's pedagogical philosophy be shaped by an intentional sensitivity to the needs of <emph>local</emph> congregations? The critical and defining question is this: <emph>What if a seminary embedded its students further into their current ministry context rather than taking them out of it?</emph> In what follows, a brief presentation of all three educational methodologies will be offered to discover how seminaries might apply and aim them toward the flourishing of the community in which they are embedded.</p> <hd id="AN0163161026-5">Place‐based education</hd> <p>It is impossible to divorce the question of what we do from the question of where we are – or rather, where we think we are. (Berry, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>])</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Definition: Place‐based education (PBE) is an approach to education that intentionally immerses students in their local places to utilize these places as springboards for learning. This pedagogy of place is closely related to the more relational pedagogy of community. It emphasizes hands‐on, real‐world experiences which create a heightened commitment to the communities in which students are embedded. </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As a teacher that is "always present" <emph>place</emph> requires students to go deeper in their understanding of their communities, moving them away from strict adherence to <emph>principles</emph> and toward a genuine love for <emph>people</emph> (Morris, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>]). Within a place‐based educational model, a student's learning experience is no longer bound to the classroom, but the places in which they are embedded are activated as laboratories for development, formation, and theological reflection (Fulkerson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref16">22</reflink>]; McBride, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref17">41</reflink>]). In this model, much of what students are able to learn outside the classroom would be nearly impossible to duplicate inside the seminary walls (Gruenewald, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Suggestions toward a "place‐based pedagogy" (Knapp, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref20">37</reflink>]) seem to have been present in a 1967 article in the <emph>Harvard Educational Review</emph> by Newmann and Oliver. Though I depart from their proposal in a few key ways, the model they present for "education in community" is very similar to the model advocated for in this article. They recommend three contexts in which learning should be pursued: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>) the classroom, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>) the laboratory, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>) the community (Newmann & Oliver, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref24">44</reflink>]). This blended ecology of learning environments creates a reciprocal dynamic in which learning is reinforced in multiple contexts. For seminaries, this would continue to include formalized instruction in the classroom but would add a more thorough approach to the "laboratory" and "community" contexts for learning.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Laboratory Learning & Competency‐Based Education</emph> : For the "laboratory" context, seminaries could create intentional internships in the local community where the performance of specific skills and tasks would be the focus. This would draw in competency‐based education quite naturally. Rather than theoretically discussing the life and responsibilities of the pastoral ministry in the classroom, in this "laboratory"/internship context, these topics would be learned as a byproduct of genuine participation in the activities.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Community Learning & Challenge‐Based Education</emph> : As for Newmann and Oliver's "community" context, this environment creates opportunities for students to explore current community issues alongside a community expert. This concept is in line with Gruenewald and Smith's suggestion that the "walls of the school must become more permeable, and local collaboratives and support structures must be built and maintained so that education truly becomes a larger community effort" (Gruenewald & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref25">28</reflink>] , p. xx). For seminaries, this "community as classroom" model might look like intentional mentorship relationships where a student is paired with a qualified mentor to grow in wisdom concerning the application of their knowledge into a real‐world context. Rather than an isolated academic presenting possible problems in the pastoral ministry, this model would empower community leaders, creating a well‐rounded, integrative, and down‐to‐earth learning experience for the student. This opens possibilities for "challenged‐based" learning to occur as mentors guide students through critical thinking skills related to solving real‐world problems.</item> </ulist> <p>For an example of how place‐based education might influence a seminary's curriculum, suppose a seminary wanted to offer an apologetics class. While the traditional model might include a discussion of the key apologetic questions discussed universally, the place‐based model would focus on answering the primary questions of their given places. The seminary would consider questions like, "What are the apologetic issues our students will face in ministry in our city? How might we best prepare our students to defend their faith in our local context effectively? What opposing worldviews/religious systems are most prevalent in our places?" These questions should not be asked in the abstract but should be discussed with local experts in these fields. In this way, the community comes into the seminary and shapes the curriculum through the input of local pastors, non‐profit leaders, and others. This dynamic creates a unique ecology for learning that is locally informed.</p> <p>What has become evident as a result of this brief discussion is the potential of place‐based education to address some of the concerns in theological education discussed above. The isolation between the seminary and the community/congregation is minimized, the classroom content is integrated with the experience in the community, and the need for relocation is removed. While this immersive learning experience has students learning <emph>in</emph> their places (laboratory/internship) and alongside or <emph>from</emph> their places (community/mentorship), students also receive an education informed <emph>by</emph> their places where the curriculum is designed to meet the needs of their context. As will be discussed further below, this model unleashes students to contribute to the needs of their communities <emph>now</emph> rather than waiting until graduation to serve in any meaningful way. What must be further explored in the next section is how these community stakeholders should also have an influential voice in developing the seminary's competency‐based and challenge‐based learning programs. Herein lies the powerful intersection of place‐based education with competency and challenge‐based methodologies.</p> <hd id="AN0163161026-6">Challenge‐based education</hd> <p>Everyone involved in any education enterprise shares the desire that graduates be equipped to respond capably in a rapidly changing world. (Curry & Docherty, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref26">15</reflink>], p. 61)</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Definition: Challenge‐based learning (CBL) pursues knowledge through interdisciplinary projects that address real‐world problems. CBL equips students with critical thinking skills by immersing them in their contexts and working with a mentor to gain insights. </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Dewey was not only one of the first to formally recognize the value of experience for education, but he also wisely pointed out that not all experiences are created equal. In fact, some experiences may be "mis‐educative." To safeguard the value of experiential learning, Dewey reminds us that everything "depends upon the quality of the experience." This means that the "central problem" of an education based on experience is to select the "kind of experiences" that will equip your students for the field for which they are preparing (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>]). In other words, "the content of the educational experience should be derived from the pre‐specified exit expectations" (Curry & Docherty, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref29">15</reflink>], p. 61). In my view, for these experiences to be "quality," they ought to be selected and guided by the principles of competency and challenged‐based learning in conversation with the places in which the institutions are embedded.</p> <p>Challenge‐based learning (CBL) provides an efficient and effective framework for learning while solving real‐world challenges. CBL pursues knowledge through interdisciplinary projects that address real‐world problems and equips students with critical thinking skills by immersing them in their contexts and working with a mentor to gain insights. CBL assists the student as he or she gains deep subject area knowledge, develops relevant skills, and does so in an environment where regular feedback from a mentor is expected. A CBL approach strengthens seminary education by providing a unique environment for development and offering an opportunity for merging academic disciplines with deep reflection in the context of real‐world experience.</p> <p>To overcome the concerns related to theological education discussed above, challenge‐based methodologies ought to be utilized in seminaries to identify, along with the involvement of community stakeholders, the challenges that come along with pastoral ministry in their embedded places (Kohn Rådberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref30">38</reflink>]). For example, for a student to be prepared to minister in their place, it would be wise to expose the student to the day‐to‐day realities of pastoral ministry. Amid ministry in their places, students will be challenged by real‐world problems and must work with their mentors toward solutions. Additionally, with praxis foregrounded as an epistemological priority, students are enabled to learn by doing, not only by listening (Cahalan, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref31">11</reflink>], p. 77). This immersive learning experience requires the students to gain deep subject area knowledge, connects them to real people rather than generic case studies, and offers an environment for integrating academic disciplines with deep reflection in the context of real‐world experience. These educational methodologies reorient "the educational process toward demonstrated mastery and the application of knowledge and skills in the real world. This reorientation builds a bridge between academics and employers, resulting in a better understanding of the knowledge and skills that students will need to succeed in work and in life" (Johnstone & Soares, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>], p. 14).</p> <hd id="AN0163161026-7">Competency‐based education</hd> <p>Competency‐based learning systems help to save both time and money. (USDOE, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref33">55</reflink>])</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Definition: Competency‐based education (CBE) measures skills and competencies directly transferrable to the student's desired workplace. CBE also provides flexibility, affordability, and personalized learning opportunities. </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The U.S. Department of Education explains the dynamics of Competency‐Based Education (CBE) by saying that the strategies of CBE "provide flexibility in the way that credit can be earned or awarded and provide students with personalized learning opportunities." It is this type of learning that "leads to better student engagement because the content is relevant to each student and tailored to their unique needs." Additionally, it "leads to better student outcomes because the pace of learning is customized to each student." Relatedly, "by enabling students to master skills at their own pace, competency‐based learning systems help to save both time and money." Lastly, "depending on the strategy pursued, competency‐based systems also ... take advantage of learning opportunities outside of school hours and walls and help identify opportunities ... to meet the specific learning needs of students." In other words, it appears that if seminaries hope to overcome the current challenges of theological education, they would be wise to craft their field‐based requirements around the real‐life ministry competencies pastors need, and to do so in conversation with the insights from competency‐based education.</p> <p>This type of "praxis model" alluded to here and suggested above in the section on CBL is designed to draw on the experience of community pastors and leaders to connect the student's learning to their current contexts (Martinez, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]). This sentiment is behind the 2018 ATS study, <emph>Mapping the Workforce: What Competencies Do ATS Alums Need?</emph> (Gin, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>]) In this sweeping study, Deborah Gin interviewed graduates from multiple ATS seminaries to discover the top 20 skills that graduates reported they needed in the workforce. Interestingly, demonstrating the widespread nature of the problem, among these top 20 competencies were several that are not typically covered in seminary curricula: administration, spiritual disciplines, how to have difficult conversations, interpersonal competency, active listening, formation, and many more. This study should be illuminating for seminaries who are having conversations about how they might better prepare graduates for the realities of ministry. Nevertheless, the competencies reported in this ATS study cannot merely be covered in a lecture; they should be experienced in a church. In this way, through "connections to place through projects and internships," competency‐based education and challenge‐based learning have the power to unlock the opportunities that place‐based education has to offer (Ark et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>], pp. 42–43).</p> <p>Unfortunately, the field education requirements for many seminaries are often not intentionally designed to learn <emph>from</emph> or <emph>for</emph> a place. Instead, without much guidance from the institution, students are simply expected to secure a mentor with an accompanying internship. This article is calling for a more intentional and missional approach to field education that is designed to meet and learn from the challenges of a given place. This approach enables the students to learn from their places and lessens the likelihood that the quality of the student's experience will rise and fall with the quality of their mentor or their experience in their internship. Rather than simply viewing these immersive experiences and embedded practices as checkboxes for field education requirements, an intentionally designed list of competencies and challenges should be recognized as powerfully formative and educative (Spears & Loomis, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref37">52</reflink>]). James K.A. Smith and David Smith put forward the notion that an "embodied understanding" of the way in which experiences and practices shape students serves to recalibrate our value systems and normal modes of operation in education. In this blended ecology, these competencies and challenges are not just "things to do" but are "things done to" students as they are shaped by the practices they perform in their places. This means that, rather than being an afterthought, the local church context and its rhythms are now unlocked and discovered as capable of shaping the student in significant ways. This philosophy serves as a helpful corrective to the classroom‐centric model that can tend to be isolated from real‐life experiences (Smith & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref38">50</reflink>]). In the ecological pedagogy of embeddedness, where competencies and challenges are aimed at places, the hopeful result will be the flourishing of the students and the communities in which they minister. Through internships and mentorships, students are immersed <emph>in</emph> their places to learn <emph>from</emph> their places and to minister <emph>to</emph> their places. This brings us to our final section: how might this ecological pedagogy of embeddedness contribute to the flourishing of both the students in the seminary and the communities in which they live?</p> <hd id="AN0163161026-8">HUMAN FLOURISHING AND THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION</hd> <p>The task of the Christian college must never be isolated from the mission of the church. (Wolterstorff, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref39">60</reflink>], p. 35)</p> <p>What is a seminary education <emph>for</emph>? What is its purpose? What are its aims and goals? In my view, Wolterstorff rightly asserts that the goal of Christian higher education is human flourishing, or, in Biblical terms, "shalom" (Wolterstorff, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref40">60</reflink>], pp. 24–25). This concept of shalom is a rich Biblical theme that includes the flourishing of humanity in vertical and horizontal relationships characterized by justice, fulfillment, and delight (Plantinga, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>]). In a later essay, Wolterstorff elaborates on his understanding of the "goal of education" when he says that "the goal is not just to understand the world but to change it. The goal is not just to impart to students the Christian world‐and‐life‐view but to equip and motivate them for a Christian way of being and acting in the world" (Wolterstorff, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref42">61</reflink>]). In fact, Wolterstorff claims that shalom is more than a vision; it is a command—a call for us to respond to injustices and to struggle to bring about human flourishing in our communities. What would this vision look like today? Bantu says the "biblical vision of shalom" envisions "no distinction between theological orthodoxy and liberative justice." In other words, to be a purposeful institution aimed at human flourishing, we must not separate the theology taught in the classroom from the demonstration of this theology in the places we are embedded. Instead, we should bring into the "context of theological academia" the "lived, wholistic theology," which is characteristic of the historic Black church (Bantu, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>], pp. 8, 12).</p> <p>In this way, I am advocating for a missional bent to the seminary experience in which we see the goal of education (shalom) intertwined with the church's mission in a mutually informative relationship. This shalom‐mission is not something that students can pause until they graduate but is something they must be actively engaged in during enrollment (Banks, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>], p. 133). This dynamic contributes to a rich ecological environment where learning is immediately implemented in real‐world situations. In short, the goal of theological education (the seeking of shalom) must not be separated from the present flourishing of the places in which these students are embedded. How might this insight concerning the goal of theological education enable seminaries to aim their pedagogy toward meaningful involvement in their places? A few historical examples may illustrate the possibilities.</p> <p>A cursory glance at the history of student involvement in the church's mission reveals that—rather than being "too busy" with schoolwork—students have historically been key players in pursuing shalom in their places. Consider the "kneel‐in" campaigns of the 1960s (Haynes, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref45">31</reflink>]) or the Student Volunteer Movement and other related missionary endeavors in the 1800s (Beaver, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]). While these endeavors were primarily the result of <emph>individuals</emph> becoming actively engaged, the <emph>institutions</emph> that have excelled at pursuing shalom in the way that Wolterstorff describes are the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). In the past, the students who attended HBCUs have often had deep "connections with the communities from which they originated." This connection naturally tends to result not in an "air of elitism" but a "sense of service and a linked sense of fate" with those who have been unable to pursue higher education (Favors, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, Jelani Favors points out that a common yet unwritten "second curriculum" has historically formed the heartbeat and <emph>ethos</emph> of HBCUs. This "second curriculum" is comprised of a "pedagogy of hope" that has inspired countless students toward seeking shalom. The "second curriculum" is not often taught but is embodied by the faculty and typically passed on outside of the classroom within informal mentorship relationships (Favors, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref48">19</reflink>]). It is here, outside the classroom and inside the community, that students, led by mentors, do not merely learn <emph>about</emph> the world but learn <emph>from</emph> it and how to <emph>change</emph> it. The example of the HBCUs shows a willingness to engage outside of the classroom in mentorship relationships in a way that is sensitive to the needs of their community. Though not intentionally designed on the institutional level but intuitively created on the professor's initiative, this model was and has been highly effective.</p> <p>In conclusion, imagine if an institution developed their curriculum in explicit conversation with their places (i.e., alongside their congregations and broader communities) to craft not only the classroom content but also the specific list of competencies and challenges that each student would need to perform to be an effective minister in their context. As illustrated throughout, this ecological pedagogy of embeddedness would not only be a step in the right direction of addressing the specific concerns present in theological education today but would also realign institutions toward their purpose and goal: the flourishing of students and their places.</p> <ref id="AN0163161026-9"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> For examples of non‐theological associated schools utilizing these various pedagogical models, see Teton Science Schools (https://www.tetonscience.org), Crosstown High (https://www.crosstownhigh.org), and Western Governors University (https://<ulink href="http://www.wgu.edu">www.wgu.edu</ulink>). For a few notable exceptions in higher education, see Partridge ([45]) and City Seminary in New York (https://<ulink href="http://www.cityseminaryny.org/city">www.cityseminaryny.org/city</ulink>). The institution I work at is also particularly interested in harvesting insights from all three of these pedagogical models (https://memphiscityseminary.org). Additionally, see Bartholomew's suggestions for the university and place (Bartholomew, [6], pp. 289–293).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> This list reflects a version of what is presented in Goheen ([24], pp. 299–300). It is striking to see the similarity of issues described in several works, including, for instance, the book‐length treatment of these issues along with an offering of possible solutions. See especially Warford ([56]). In response to the challenges listed above, there are several recent stories of large seminaries closing locations, relocating, or moving primarily online.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bacote contends that "It will be impossible to produce a generation of minority theological and biblical scholars if evangelical institutions are not environments in which bright minority students discover a commitment to their flourishing, expressed not only in personal piety and academic preparation but also in concrete efforts to understand and address the unique challenges such students face in the world of conservative Protestants" (Bacote, [3], p. 83).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref44" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> A few institutions that are working hard to overcome these challenges are The Meachum School of Haymanot (https://meachum.org) and Grimke Seminary (https://grimkeseminary.org).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref43" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> For a similar list of solutions to those that I have outlined above, see Rivera ([48], pp. 109ff) and Tisby ([54], pp. 203ff). Also, for a discussion of similar topics but from a slightly different angle, see Haymes ([30]). Haymes argues that "a pedagogy of place must be linked to black urban struggle." Haymes promotes a pedagogy of place as "the means through which Black communities can evaluate their own situations and build solidarity in the struggle for racial, economic, and political democracy" (Gruenewald, [26]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> This interaction with the world outside the seminary brings into play Bessler's comments about <emph>place</emph> that are instructive for our purposes. In his insightful essay, Bessler offers a way of understanding and appreciating the diverse influences and contributions of the context in which theological education is developed and conducted. These potential contributions of <emph>place</emph> are untapped resources waiting to be utilized to overcome the obstacles present in theological education (Bessler, [10]; Foley, [20]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref46" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Wolterstorff acknowledges elsewhere that this idea is connected to a former statement by Marx. However, his approach is obviously rooted in Christian teaching and not Marxism at all. Wolterstorff goes on to separate his views quite clearly from the critical theorists by saying "Theirs was a critique of domination in the service of radical liberation. Mine has been a critique of injustice and deprivation in the service of Shalom." (Wolterstorff, [59], pp. 164–165).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> The influence of the Black church on Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theology and ethics (Williams, [58]; Young, [63]) appears to also have affected the shaping of his seminary (House, [33]). Interestingly, Bonhoeffer is commonly known as an early proponent of the "lived theology movement" (see discussion in Hale, [29]). There is a point in Bonhoeffer's theological development in the 1930s while in Harlem when his theology turned from the "phraseological to the real." This is the heart of the application of a place‐based theology in the seminary context: the move from the theoretical, to the real.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> In reporting findings from a recent study, Cahalan points out that students reported that the "most integrative learning took place in immersion into a ministry context (field education or clinical pastoral education) and in classrooms where the 'horizon of ministry' was clearly in view" (Cahalan, [12]). Cha agrees and says that integration occurs best in immersive experiences like internship and mentorship (Cha, [13]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This emphasis on context can also be seen in the standards and handbooks of the Association of Theological Schools (ATS). By "context," ATS refers to the cultural setting of the institution within which most of its graduates will take up ministry (Tanner, [53]). These contextual spaces must be considered in the curricular objectives, or students may be prepared to do ministry in churches that do not exist (Bessler, [10]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> For instance, Newmann and Oliver discourage any sort of "pre‐planning" in the laboratory and community contexts. Though I think this has value in one sense, I think the better approach is to harness intentional insights from both competency‐based and challenge‐based learning and to utilize these insights in the laboratory and community.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curry and Docherty again elaborate by saying, "... learners should leverage and connect learning opportunities outside the formal defined pedagogical space. Education is vastly aided by a host of informal educators, some of whom are prominent and identifiable in the field placements or workplaces: other professional workers, support and administrative personnel, other learners, and clients. Recognizing and engaging these resources is a benefit to students trying to navigate and optimize attainment of both behavioral and tacit competencies. These informal educators will be more diverse than the designated faculty and not likely marked nor acknowledged for their true influence. Their legitimate involvement will contribute to the learner's developing sense of community ..." (Curry & Docherty, [15], p. 66).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> https://oese.ed.gov/archived/oii/competency-based-learning-or-personalized-learning/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This model also follows the five guiding principles for the development of high‐quality CBE programs found in Johnstone and Soares: (1) The degree reflects robust and valid competencies. (2) Students are able to learn at a variable pace and are supported in their learning. (3) Effective learning resources are available any time and are reusable. (4) The process for mapping competencies to courses, learning outcomes, and assessments is explicit. (5) Assessments are secure and reliable. (Johnstone & Soares, [35]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> For a proposal very similar to the one for which I am advocating, see Banks ([4]). In my opinion, Banks seems to place <emph>too</emph> much emphasis on learning outside of the classroom in a way that seems to totally exclude the classroom. Similarly, Perry Shaw discusses a "missional‐ecclesial" approach to theological education that appropriately puts the contextual aims of the curriculum in view (Shaw, [49]). What I appreciate about both Banks and Shaw is that they are attempting to bring the Biblical material into the conversation and are intentionally analyzing Jesus' approach to training his disciples for ministry.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> I've varied these arenas a few times throughout. To summarize, I think there is possibility to learn <emph>in</emph> your place (community as classroom), <emph>about</emph> your place (history and culture), <emph>from</emph> your place (listening to the community), and <emph>for</emph> your place (for the flourishing of your community).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringenberg likewise links affordability and accessibility in his chapter "Economic Limits as Academic Limits: The Problem of Accessibility" in Ringenberg ([47]). He not only highlights the urgent need for change in this arena but also demonstrates the way these concerns have disproportionately affected minority students.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0163161026-10"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Apple Classrooms|A History of Apple Education from ACOT to CBL. (n.d.). https://<ulink href="http://www.appleclassrooms.com/">www.appleclassrooms.com/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ark, T. V., Liebtag, E., & McClennen, N. (2020). The power of place: authentic learning through place‐based education. ASCD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bacote, V. (2013). Ethnic scarcity in evangelical theology: Where are the authors? In A. B. Bradley (Ed.), Aliens in the promised land: Why minority leadership is overlooked in White Christian churches and institutions (pp. 75 – 84). P & R Pub.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Banks, R. (1999). Reenvisioning theological education: Exploring a missional alternative to current models. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bantu, V. L. (2020). An introduction to Gospel Haymanot. In Gospel Haymanot: A constructive theology and critical reflection on African and diasporic Christianity (pp. 7 – 56). Urban Ministries, Incorporated.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bartholomew, C. G. (2011). Where mortals dwell: A Christian view of place for today. Baker Publishing Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaver, R. P. (1976). The American Protestant theological seminary and missions: An historical survey. Missiology, 4 (1), 75 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1177/009182967600400111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berry, W. (2019a). The loss of the university. In Wendell Berry: Essays, 1969–1990. Library of America.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berry, W. (2019b). The unsettling of America. In Wendell Berry: Essays, 1969–1990. Library of America.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bessler, J. A. (2008). Seminaries as endangered habitats in a fragile ecosystem: A new ecology model. In M. L. Warford (Ed.), Revitalizing practice: Collaborative models for theological faculties (pp. 1 – 31). Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cahalan, K. A. (2017a). Integrating dynamics in the seminary curriculum. In E. Foley, G. S. Mikoski, & K. A. Cahalan (Eds.), Integrating work in theological education (pp. 75 – 89). Wipf and Stock Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cahalan, K. A. (2017b). Introducing integrating work. In E. Foley, G. S. Mikoski, & K. A. Cahalan (Eds.), Integrating work in theological education (pp. 1 – 15). Wipf and Stock Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cha, P. T. (2008). Student learning and formation: An improvisational model. In M. L. Warford (Ed.), Revitalizing practice: Collaborative models for theological faculties (pp. 34 – 65). Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Challenge‐Based Learning|Take Action. Make a Difference. (n.d.). https://<ulink href="http://www.challengebasedlearning.org/">www.challengebasedlearning.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curry, L., & Docherty, M. (2017). Implementing competency‐based education. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 61 – 73. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v10i0.4716</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniel, D. B., & Poole, D. A. (2009). Learning for life: An ecological approach to pedagogical research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4 (1), 91 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01095.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society: Being three lectures. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Favors, J. M. (2019). Shelter in a time of storm: How black colleges fostered generations of leadership and activism. UNC Press Books. https://doi.org/10.5149/northcarolina/9781469648330.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foley, E. (2017). The ecosystem of theological education. In E. Foley, G. S. Mikoski, & K. A. Cahalan (Eds.), Integrating work in theological education (pp. 53 – 66). Wipf and Stock Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frame, J. M. (2012, May 23). Proposal for a new seminary. Frame‐Poythress.Org. https://frame-poythress.org/proposal-for-a-new-seminary/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fulkerson, M. M. (2017). Ethnography in theology: A work in progress. In C. Marsh, P. Slade, & S. Azaransky (Eds.), Lived theology: New perspectives on method, style, and pedagogy (pp. 115 – 133). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gin, D. H. (2018). Mapping the workforce: What competencies do ATS alums need? Association of Theological Schools, Commission on Accreditation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goheen, M. W. (2016). A missional reading of scripture for theological education and curriculum. In M. W. Goheen (Ed.), Reading the bible missionally (pp. 299 – 329). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, M. A. (2007). Art, ecology and art education: Locating art education in a critical place‐based pedagogy. Studies in Art Education, 48 (4), 375 – 391. https://doi.org/10.2307/25475843</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32 (4), 3 – 12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruenewald, D. A. (2014). Place‐based education: Grounding culturally responsive teaching in geographical diversity. In G. A. Smith & D. A. Gruenewald (Eds.), Place‐based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. 137 – 153). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769844</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (2014). Introduction: Making room for the local. In Place‐based education in the global age: Local diversity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769844</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hale, L. B. (2017). Lived theology 101. In C. Marsh, P. Slade, & S. Azaransky (Eds.), Lived theology: New perspectives on method, style, and pedagogy (pp. 173 – 187). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haymes, S. N. (1995). Race, culture, and the city: A pedagogy for black urban struggle. SUNY Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haynes, S. R. (2012). The last segregated hour: The Memphis kneel‐ins and the campaign for southern church desegregation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395051.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hess, M. E. (2008). Listening and learning to teach in theological contexts: An appreciative inquiry model. In M. L. Warford (Ed.), Revitalizing practice: Collaborative models for theological faculties (pp. 68 – 97). Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> House, P. R. (2015). Bonhoeffer's seminary vision: A case for costly discipleship and life together. Crossway.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings, W. J. (2020). After Whiteness: An education in belonging. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnstone, S. M., & Soares, L. (2014). Principles for developing competency‐based education programs. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46 (2), 12 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.896705</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang, H.‐S., & Lee, Y.‐B. (2014). Towards a cultural ecology of pedagogy based on Bruner's narrative theory. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 71, 115 – 118. https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2014.71.27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knapp, C. E. (2014). Place‐based curricular and pedagogical models. In D. A. Gruenewald & G. A. Smith (Eds.), Place‐based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. 5 – 27). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohn Rådberg, K., Lundqvist, U., Malmqvist, J., & Hagvall Svensson, O. (2018). From CDIO to challenge‐based learning experiences—Expanding student learning as well as societal impact? European Journal of Engineering Education, 45 (1), 22 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1441265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liew, T.‐S. B. (2017). Black scholarship matters. Journal of Biblical Literature, 136 (1), 237 – 244. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1361.2017.1368</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinez, J. (2013). Serving alongside Latinos in a multi‐ethnic, transnational, rapidly changing world. In A. B. Bradley (Ed.), Aliens in the promised land: Why minority leadership is overlooked in White Christian churches and institutions (pp. 59 – 73). P & R Pub.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, J. M. (2017). Public discipleship, constructive theology, and grassroots activism. In C. Marsh, P. Slade, & S. Azaransky (Eds.), Lived theology: New perspectives on method, style, and pedagogy (pp. 208 – 226). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mikoski, G. S. (2017). Integrating work at the course level. In E. Foley, G. S. Mikoski, & K. A. Cahalan (Eds.), Integrating work in theological education (pp. 125 – 137). Wipf and Stock Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, M. M. (2014). Place in leadership formation. In D. A. Gruenewald & G. A. Smith (Eds.), Place‐based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. 225 – 253). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newmann, F. M., & Oliver, D. W. (1967). Education and community. The Harvard Educational Review, 37 (1), 61 – 106. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.37.1.6066176325665628</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Partridge, J. (2016). HigherEd approaches to empowering students. Getting Smart. https://<ulink href="http://www.gettingsmart.com/2016/12/22/highered-approaches-empowering-students/">www.gettingsmart.com/2016/12/22/highered-approaches-empowering-students/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plantinga, C. (1996). Not the way it's supposed to be: A breviary of sin. Eerdmans.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringenberg, W. C. (2016). The Christian College and the meaning of academic freedom: Truth‐seeking in community. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137398338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivera, O. (2013). Blacks and Latinos in theological education as students. In A. B. Bradley (Ed.), Aliens in the promised land: Why minority leadership is overlooked in White Christian churches and institutions (pp. 103 – 113). P & R Pub.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, P. (2014). Transforming theological education: A practical handbook for integrative learning. Langham Global Library.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, D. I., & Smith, J. K. A. (2011). Teaching and Christian practices: Reshaping faith and learning. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobel, D. (2004). Place‐based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. Orion Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spears, P. D., & Loomis, S. R. (2009). Social ethics and the institution of education. In Education for human flourishing: A Christian perspective (pp. 170 – 217). InterVarsity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner, T. (2020). ATS commission standards of accreditation (approved June 2020). 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tisby, J. (2019). The color of compromise: The truth about the American Church's complicity in racism. Zondervan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> USDOE. (2013). Competency‐based learning or personalized learning|U.S. Department of Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personalized-learning">www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personalized-learning</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warford, M. L. (Ed.). (2008). Revitalizing practice: Collaborative models for theological faculties. Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watkins, R. C. (2013). A Black Church perspective on minorities in evangelicalism. In A. B. Bradley (Ed.), Aliens in the promised land: Why minority leadership is overlooked in White Christian churches and institutions (pp. 115 – 128). P & R Pub.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, R. L. (2014). Bonhoeffer's Black Jesus: Harlem renaissance theology and an ethic of resistance. Baylor University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolterstorff, N. (1983). Until justice and peace embrace: The Kuyper lectures for 1981 delivered at the Free University of Amsterdam. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolterstorff, N. (2004a). Teaching for Shalom: On the goal of Christian collegiate education. In C. Joldersma & G. G. Stronks (Eds.), Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian higher education (pp. 10 – 26). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolterstorff, N. (2004b). The mission of the Christian college. In C. Joldersma & G. G. Stronks (Eds.), Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian higher education (pp. 27 – 35). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yong, A. (2013). Race and racialization in a post‐racist evangelicalism: A view from Asian America. In A. B. Bradley (Ed.), Aliens in the promised land: Why minority leadership is overlooked in White Christian churches and institutions (pp. 45 – 58). P & R Pub.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, J. U. (1998). No difference in the fare: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the problem of racism. Eerdmans.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Wm. Taylor Tollison</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref47"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1374002
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Ecological Pedagogy of Embeddedness: Theological Education for Human Flourishing
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tollison%2C+Wm%2E+Taylor%22">Tollison, Wm. Taylor</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Teaching+Theology+%26+Religion%22"><i>Teaching Theology & Religion</i></searchLink>. Mar 2023 26(1):44-55.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Theological+Education%22">Theological Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instruction%22">Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ecological+Factors%22">Ecological Factors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Holistic+Approach%22">Holistic Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Place+Based+Education%22">Place Based Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competency+Based+Education%22">Competency Based Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teachers%22">Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Models%22">Teaching Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Community+Relationship%22">School Community Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Systems%22">Instructional Systems</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/teth.12633
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1368-4868<br />1467-9647
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper sets forth a proposal for an ecological pedagogy of embeddedness informed by place-based, challenge-based, and competency-based methodologies. While some theological institutions have begun implementing principles from competency-based models, theological educators have not adequately explored the resources within place-based and challenge-based systems. This paper will contribute to the literature on theological education in three distinct ways: first, this proposal will perform the oft-overlooked task of bringing these three pedagogical models into conversation with one another; second, this proposal will aim the outcomes and effects of the three pedagogical models toward the flourishing of the communities in which institutions are embedded; and third, this proposal will break new ground in its application of these three pedagogical systems to the context of a theological seminary.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1374002
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1374002
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/teth.12633
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 44
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Theological Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ecological Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Holistic Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Place Based Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Competency Based Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Community Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Systems
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Ecological Pedagogy of Embeddedness: Theological Education for Human Flourishing
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tollison, Wm. Taylor
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1368-4868
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-9647
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Teaching Theology & Religion
              Type: main
ResultId 1