Small groups in the church are scary, fun, dangerous and essential to a church’s spiritual well being through edification and accountability.
Small groups are scary. They are scary for first timers as well as regulars. Why? Often, people do not know what to expect. Where should I sit? What do the others expect from me? How will others receive me? What if I don’t understand the topic or say something stupid? The reasons why small groups are scary are endless. It is important that this reality is appreciated and attempts are made to reduce the level of tension participants might experience.
For example, you enter the meeting place for a small group that discusses the morning sermon. Everyone is chatting enthusiastically about it. Yet, you had significant concerns about the how scripture was used, the message and its application. Do you speak up? If so, will the group hear your concerns or dismiss them? Yet, if you remain quiet there may be others who share your concerns but are unwilling to share them as well. Also, by not sharing your concerns you rob others of the possibility of learning something from you.
Small groups are fun. They seek to provide a safe and respectful environment for learning and developing new relationships. They provide a context for socializing, and exploring questions of faith and its implications for life. Learning from others and developing/strengthening relationships are fun. They provide a basis for sharing our lives in healthy ways with others. Small groups that play, eat and do activities together often create stronger bonds than those that just meet.
Shared experiences create a stronger foundation for learning and accountability. Some of the best small group experiences I remember involved group camping trips. In Miami were I served in a large charge, we created a small group composed of moms and their junior high daughters designed to facilitate spiritual conversations between them. The six-week group began with a shared learning experience; they learned to scuba dive. It was a shared learning experience; both the moms and daughters were learning something new, though the daughters generally taught their moms the dive tables. After the scuba lesson we would explore what we learned and how that could assist moms and daughters in talking about their spiritual lives with each other. New relationships were forged between families and those shared experiences led to the development of some lifelong friendships. Small groups and learning ought to be fun.
Small groups are dangerous. They challenge participants to be open, honest and vulnerable. In the beginning groups are like a dating relationship, with each person sharing a little of themselves, discerning whether they can trust all those present, and overtime revealing more and more about oneself. Each person realizing that if someone leaves the group or when the group concludes that everyone retains their knowledge of others. Small groups are rooted in trust; trust is difficult to cultivate and protect.
My wife and I were in a small group with others from our church. The group was made up of five couples and appeared to be going well – people were sharing, there was openness to insights from others, we went camping and the food was good. About six-months into meeting regularly, we received a call from one of the men that he and his wife would no longer be attending anymore because she had left him. Everyone was shocked; no one saw it coming. The group thought the level of trust was high, but at least one couple was too scared to share what was happening in their lives. Where they afraid because it was a couples group and they thought everyone else’s marriage seemed ideal? Why didn’t the couples share their struggles? This couple felt isolated; it was too dangerous to be honest. When their marriage dissolved, the group felt violated and dissolved a short time later.
Small groups are essential. They are essential to the spiritual health of individuals and the congregation. We live in a cultural that values privacy and individualism. This desire for privacy and individualism is in the air we breathe; it isolates people from each other. We were created to live in a relationship with God and others. It is essential that the group be a safe and respectful place that seeks to build up and encourage. A setting where people covenant together, commit themselves to one another to grow in their love for God and others through studying together, praying together, challenging each other, and holding each other spiritually accountable for their lifestyle.
The early church’s approach to learning was labeled catechesis; it involved oral instruction in a question and answer format. Catechesis developed because the church was persecuted and it was a way to identify if someone was a “true” believer. One someone was catechized it meant that they knew the essentials of the faith, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s prayer, and the Apostles Creed at a minimum, had examined their lifestyle in light of their learning, and were held accountable by the person who would sponsor them for membership/baptism in the church. Small groups are essential in that they function in a similar manner. The study topics, themes and passages that groups explore contribute to our understanding of the faith and the working out of our salvation. Small groups provide a context for wrestling with issues in a safe place and accountability for who we are and who we are becoming in Christ. Small groups informally provide mentors/sponsors to challenge, support and encourage others to live as faithful Christ followers and to challenge others to live as faithful Christ followers as well.
Conclusion
Small groups are scary, fun, dangerous and essential. Janet, my wife, and I were invited to form a household group with some other couples from church. We decided to give it a try. The group was composed of four other couples and a single person. We met and ate together. Everyone shared a “safe” version of their life and what had brought them to the church. The program coordinator described the purpose of household groups. The purpose was vague and non-descript. As a group we met four more times, trying to set an agenda but there was little ownership. Scheduling the meetings became increasingly difficult; eventually the group dissipated. It was scary, we didn’t know each other and what to expect. Our meals together were fun and seasoned with good casual conversation. The setting was dangerous; this was due to the abstract purpose of the group. People were unsure about the level of honesty and vulnerability expected. The difficulty in finding times to meet contributed to a lack of trust. The lack of trust indicated an unsafe setting and a low level of commitment.
Small groups are scary, fun, dangerous and essential. Small groups mirror in many ways our relationship with Christ and each other. Following Christ is often scary in that we are never sure where he might lead. Following Christ is fun; it is fascinating to discern how God is at work in and around us. It is dangerous, following Christ is life transforming; we are being transformed into the image of Christ and learning to live as adopted sons and daughters of God. Following Christ is essential for we were created to be dependent on God, to love him and others in word and deed.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Using Blogger to enhance classroom learning
Using Blogger to enhance classroom learning
darwin k glassford
4-Feb-2011
Distance education by necessity is pedagogically innovative because of its commitment to enhancing accessibility to educational programs. During the last thirty years the pace of pedagogical innovation has increased dramatically due, in part, to two unrelated events.
The first event occurred in 1975 with the publication Malcom Knowle’s booklet Self-Directed Learning: a guide for learners and teachers was published. In a clear and practical manner, Knowles articulated his understanding of Andragogy – adult learning theory. Knowles believed that the focus should be on learning rather than teaching. In short “Andragogy makes the following assumptions about the design of learning: (1) Adults need to know why they need to learn something (2) Adults need to learn experientially, (3) Adults approach learning as problem-solving, and (4) Adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value” (http://tip.psychology.org/knowles.html). Knowles identified adults as self-directed beings and emphasized the need to cultivate life-long learning skills.
The second event impacting pedagogical innovation was the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 in c. 2005. The transition involved a shift in how the Internet was viewed. Web 1.0 used the Internet as a medium for content delivery; Web 2.0 shifted the focus to collaboration.
It is important to remember that the use of technology andragogically , whether it is a chalk board, white board, sympodium or smart board, is a tool, and that tools can be used correctly and incorrectly. As I explain how I’ve used two tools available to us in Google Apps, it is important to note they were adopted as a means to give students more control over their learning and as a resource for promoting learning in the classroom context.
The two tools I will demonstrate are blogging and Google Wave. Moving student reflections to the electronic context has made it easier to access and interact with the student writings in a timely manner.
The first tool I will explain is Blogger. I currently use this tool in two classes.
In one class I ask students to Blog on their learning experience as it relates to Scripture, Theology, Church History and Specialization at CTS. The guiding questions are, “The high points of your learning in regards to Scripture were?” and “What do you wish you would have learned?” The student grants me access to her blog, and I read them and comment. My comments are generally affirmative and seasoned with questions to help them reflect more on their learning experiences.
The second tool is Google Wave which I use in lieu of a discussion board. (Unfortunately, Google Wave is no longer available or supported.) Google Wave is more dynamic and allows students to share resources and collaborate much easier. (It also has a better notification system.) I use Wave for group projects and reading reflections (CTS has recently adopted CANVAS from Instructure and its discussion board is robust.). For the course reading(s) each week I ask students to post their assessment of the reading, noting why they agreed or disagreed with the ideas presented. I then ask them to respond to two other posts. Prior to class I read through the posts; write a brief response that affirms the key ideas in the posts and includes questions designed to propel the discussion forward. (I try to ask questions that connect the current readings with the next ones.) Google Wave keeps the entire discussion before the students. After reading the posts I frame the class discussions, focusing on misunderstandings, areas of controversy, and implications for ministry as well as incorporating key points into my presentation and other learning activities.
The online environment provides a venue for students who need to process information; who are more comfortable processing information by writing; and who are discovering and learning how to engage in public discourse to organize their thoughts. In addition, it allows me to provide timely feedback to students and encourage them to critically engage ideas in a constructive manner. When used appropriately, tools such as Blogger and Wave can be employed to enhance learning outside and inside the classroom context.
This material was originally presented to the CTS faculty during the Spring 2010.
darwin k glassford
4-Feb-2011
Distance education by necessity is pedagogically innovative because of its commitment to enhancing accessibility to educational programs. During the last thirty years the pace of pedagogical innovation has increased dramatically due, in part, to two unrelated events.
The first event occurred in 1975 with the publication Malcom Knowle’s booklet Self-Directed Learning: a guide for learners and teachers was published. In a clear and practical manner, Knowles articulated his understanding of Andragogy – adult learning theory. Knowles believed that the focus should be on learning rather than teaching. In short “Andragogy makes the following assumptions about the design of learning: (1) Adults need to know why they need to learn something (2) Adults need to learn experientially, (3) Adults approach learning as problem-solving, and (4) Adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value” (http://tip.psychology.org/knowles.html). Knowles identified adults as self-directed beings and emphasized the need to cultivate life-long learning skills.
The second event impacting pedagogical innovation was the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 in c. 2005. The transition involved a shift in how the Internet was viewed. Web 1.0 used the Internet as a medium for content delivery; Web 2.0 shifted the focus to collaboration.
It is important to remember that the use of technology andragogically , whether it is a chalk board, white board, sympodium or smart board, is a tool, and that tools can be used correctly and incorrectly. As I explain how I’ve used two tools available to us in Google Apps, it is important to note they were adopted as a means to give students more control over their learning and as a resource for promoting learning in the classroom context.
The two tools I will demonstrate are blogging and Google Wave. Moving student reflections to the electronic context has made it easier to access and interact with the student writings in a timely manner.
The first tool I will explain is Blogger. I currently use this tool in two classes.
In one class I ask students to Blog on their learning experience as it relates to Scripture, Theology, Church History and Specialization at CTS. The guiding questions are, “The high points of your learning in regards to Scripture were?” and “What do you wish you would have learned?” The student grants me access to her blog, and I read them and comment. My comments are generally affirmative and seasoned with questions to help them reflect more on their learning experiences.
The second tool is Google Wave which I use in lieu of a discussion board. (Unfortunately, Google Wave is no longer available or supported.) Google Wave is more dynamic and allows students to share resources and collaborate much easier. (It also has a better notification system.) I use Wave for group projects and reading reflections (CTS has recently adopted CANVAS from Instructure and its discussion board is robust.). For the course reading(s) each week I ask students to post their assessment of the reading, noting why they agreed or disagreed with the ideas presented. I then ask them to respond to two other posts. Prior to class I read through the posts; write a brief response that affirms the key ideas in the posts and includes questions designed to propel the discussion forward. (I try to ask questions that connect the current readings with the next ones.) Google Wave keeps the entire discussion before the students. After reading the posts I frame the class discussions, focusing on misunderstandings, areas of controversy, and implications for ministry as well as incorporating key points into my presentation and other learning activities.
The online environment provides a venue for students who need to process information; who are more comfortable processing information by writing; and who are discovering and learning how to engage in public discourse to organize their thoughts. In addition, it allows me to provide timely feedback to students and encourage them to critically engage ideas in a constructive manner. When used appropriately, tools such as Blogger and Wave can be employed to enhance learning outside and inside the classroom context.
This material was originally presented to the CTS faculty during the Spring 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)