Abstract
One of the exciting developments in majority world 1 theological education (TE) over the past several years has been implementing impact-based curriculum review processes in Bible schools and theological colleges (collectively termed “schools” in this editorial).
“Impact” has become something of a buzzword in these TE circles. Thus, the International Council for Evangelical Theological Education (ICETE) 2 had the theme Engaged and Effective – the Impact of Theological Education for its consultation in November 2015. Since then, and building on a pilot project involving ten schools, a number of other schools worldwide have undertaken (or are in the process of undertaking) an impact-based review of the curriculum of one or other of their study programs. I have been privileged to advise on this process with schools in India, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.
What sort of impact is being explored? It relates to the direction and dimensions of TE content, to curriculum processes and to the end results of TE efforts.
The broad, panoramic view of impact must relate to the mission and vision of any TE institution. For evangelical theological education, the need for a missional vision is key, as reflected in the Capetown Commitment that arose from the Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in 2010: “The mission of the Church on earth is to serve the mission of God, and the mission of theological education is to strengthen and accompany the mission of the Church” (Lausanne Movement, 2010). So, initially schools are encouraged to respond to a range of questions as a basis on which to build as they undertake their impact-based review—questions like:
What is God’s mission, especially in our part of this world? How do we know God’s mission is being achieved? What is the Church’s role in this mission? What sort of men and women does the church need so that it can fulfil its mission or mandate?
Educational accountability embedded within the European Bologna Process 3 over the past two decades emphasizes “fitness of purpose” and “fitness for purpose”. Fitness of purpose is the extent to which the mission and/or goals (raison d’être) of an organization or institution are suitable and appropriate for the institution’s context. Fitness for purpose is the extent to which the processes and systems of an organization or institution are suitable and appropriate for the organization to fulfil its vision/mission. It is fitness for purpose which impact-based curriculum review especially seeks to assess, and it is here that insights from a rather different discipline to education have been brought to bear: the discipline of community development.
The WK Kellogg Foundation Logic Model has been designed to enable not-for-profit organizations to measure the effectiveness of their development programs, and as a tool to enhance “program planning, implementation, and dissemination of results” (WK Kellogg Foundation, 2004: iv). The model comprises five elements: Resources/inputs “include the human, financial, organizational, and community resources the program has available to direct towards doing the work”; activities are “the processes, tools, events, technology, and actions that are an intentional part of the program implementation;” outputs “are the direct products of program activities;” outcomes “are the specific changes in program participants' behaviour, knowledge, skills, status and level of functioning;” and impact “is the fundamental intended or unintended change occurring in organizations, communities or systems as a result of program activities…” (p. 2).
Within the context of TE institutions, the activity is what is perceived to be the curriculum, in its broadest sense beyond merely the content syllabus. The output is the change seen in the graduates as a result of the activity. Often a graduate profile details expectations for output. Graduates move into churches and organizations, and outcome is change in those churches and organizations as a result of the presence and participation of the graduates therein. Meanwhile, these churches and organizations are set within societies, and impact is related to the longer-term societal change brought about by the presence of the church or organization. 4
Though the key terms used in the Kellogg Foundation model may differ from how they are often used in educational discourse, this seems to be an innovative approach for assessing the impact of TE curriculum—and especially so when TE schools are perceived by their stakeholders to be institutions for equipping people for God’s mission, with the Church as God’s main agent of change in the world. And so, the key dynamic being explored in schools undertaking an impact-based curriculum review relates to the curricular implications that arise in response to this question: “to what extent is our society reflecting God’s kingdom values and perspectives, because there are communities of God’s people (churches) in that society, who are served by graduates of our school, whom we have been responsible (and privileged) to equip for their ongoing journey with God?”
Schools asking this question undertake a detailed review process which entails significant surveys among key stakeholders—graduates, church and organization leaders, and community informants—in order to get substantial data to inform a critical analysis of the curriculum content and processes. It is heartening to hear that schools moving through the discipline and cost of an impact-based curriculum review process are making discoveries which affirm what they are already doing well and which challenge them to adapt—often significantly—the shape of their curriculum.
Presently, the impact-based curriculum review process has been (or is being) undertaken by a number of majority world TE institutions. One of the factors which make it strategic for schools to go through this process is because in many majority world countries they are not subject to government regulatory control or standards framework (akin to the Australian Qualifications Framework, New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the UK) over them, and so the review is a step towards enhanced quality assurance.
To what extent could the same impact-based process be profitably undertaken by TE institutions beyond the majority world? Program assessment is an essential component in educational administration, and the strength of the impact-based review is that it moves program assessment well beyond the limitations of graduate outputs (in the Kellogg terminology = outcomes in common educational terminology). And that must be significant in any institution which holds to an espoused missional vision built on key Christian theological tenets. In this respect, an impact-based review could well complement any state regulatory program assessment requirements.
Impact issues can be raised productively in educational sectors other than theological education too. Impact beyond student output (outcomes) is often recognized in vocational training and professional development, but how might it affect, for example, the curricular processes of typical K-12 (primary and secondary school) settings where Christian perspectives on education are being considered? Answering that question and researching cognate issues fit well among the tasks of this journal, as it explores “the relationship between Christianity and educational theory and practice in formal and informal settings.”
René Erwich’s article in this issue relates directly to questions of impact. It presents the results of research on the spiritual development of students of theology as part of their more general personal and professional life. Erwich offers qualitative analysis of written spiritual autobiographies, and connects them to Marcia’s (1966) account of identity status and its revisions. Erwich argues that theological curricula should invest more in spiritual guidance and formation of students, and provides some suggestions toward achieving this goal.
Benjamin Espinoza is also concerned with student formation. His focus is on evangelical graduate students in secular institutions of higher education in North America. He takes his starting point from existing work on graduate student socialization, and explores ways in which that work needs to be extended in order to understand the experiences of Christian doctoral students. A revised model, called reconciliatory socialization, is offered as a conceptual framework for future empirical research.
Kara Sevensma, Marj Terpstra, and their colleagues build upon earlier work on the contours of Christian scholarship on teaching and learning by examining the extent to which published Christian scholarship provides a foundation for Christian educators to critically assess educational uses of technology. Their literature survey of 26 Christian and religious journals from 1970 to 2016 reveals a limited body of scholarship that addresses the complex intersections of pedagogy, technology, and faith. They highlight emerging themes and point to gaps in the literature to suggest an agenda for future scholarship.
Mary Wong and Seong-Yun Lee turn our attention to Christian involvement in English education in Korea. They address criticisms of the promotion of imperialism in foreign missionary education, recommending closer attention to the positive mutual influences among foreign educators and their host and home societies. The article focuses on early educational missionaries in Korea and their role as advocates for Koreans during the Japanese Colonial period. After a historical overview, the authors highlight missionary contributions to social justice and the restoration of Korean national spirit, drawing lessons for present-day practice.
We trust that through the articles and reviews in this issue, you will be stimulated to reflect on impact-based issues in whatever educational setting(s) you are a participant in, whether formal or non-formal.