# Seminary Education and the US Dept of Ed Study



## GD (Jan 12, 2010)

A U.S. Department of Education study was invoked in another thread as support for the argument that distance learning is a superior method of education. Having worked in Research & Planning in the government sector, and assisted in large research projects with university partners, I tend to take such reports with a grain of salt. Since I needed a mental break from something else, I took a look at the meta-analysis for myself. So what do I think about the report? I’m sure it has some value. To be fair to the researchers, analyzing 55 differently conducted studies is not an easy task. I want to share some concerns about the applicability of their study to the claim that DL is superior for teaching seminarians. To avoid confusion, the numbers cited in parenthesis refer to the pagination of the .pdf file, not the hard copy of the meta-analysis.



SolaScriptura said:


> After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of \\\\\\"scientific studies\\\\\\" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.



I agree that readers should not assume the conclusions of this meta-analysis are gospel. The Department of Education evidently contracted out (or possibly issued a request for proposal for a grant-funded research project) the meta-analysis, which was prepared by five researchers from the Center for Technology in Learning.(3) Their website states, “CTL researchers are focused on _achieving change in education_, formal and informal.” [italics mine] The USDoE issued the meta-analysis with the qualifier, “no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.” (4) The meta-analysis admits that “many of the studies suffered from weaknesses such as small sample sizes; failure to report retention rates for students in the conditions being contrasted; and, in many cases, potential bias stemming from the authors’ dual roles as experimenters and instructors.” (19) 

I think readers should be very careful about assuming application across the board for this meta-analysis. Many of the studies involved are not exclusively DL, but “blended,” as in traditional educational experiences combined with an online virtual field trip. (53) The researchers caution, “Despite what appears to be strong support for online learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium.” (19)



Andres said:


> I think for the current conversation the above study would be skewed at best, and possibly not even applicable. The reason being is because seminary studies prepare men for ministry.



Agreed - I think there are significant problems applying the meta-analysis to seminary education. This analysis was compiled from 55 studies, mixing children and adults. All the studies comparing face-to-face to online appear to be on vocational topics, or at least do not indicate otherwise. (41-43) None of the studies comparing face-to-face to online appear to deal with classical education, the humanities, or languages (except for computer programming languages). (41-43) None of the 55 studies appear to include seminaries. (41-47) This perhaps reflects either the majority of DL program types, or possibly the interests of the CTL researchers, whose “backgrounds are in cognitive science, educational research, computer science, human-computer interaction, mathematics and science education, and classroom teaching.”


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 12, 2010)

David,

Thanks for this. I'm glad that you took the time to go through this study and look at its fundamentals. 

My anecdotal/experiential evidence (sem teacher since 1996) certainly tells me that learning the theory _and_ practice of pastoral ministry cannot be done well by distance and shouldn't be encouraged by our presbyteries, classes, sessions, and consistories.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jan 12, 2010)

Tell me: what are you getting at a Brick and Mortar Seminary, that you are not getting BETTER by interning at a local Church, while doing distance ed.? Please, enlighten us. Because nothing you have stated above, is anything but opinion. Professor Clark, of course, has an interest in promoting the idea that Online schooling is inferior to B & M, because his Seminary does not do offer extensive (any?)distance ed. his opinion is noted, but there are just as many opinions to the contrary.

However questionable the science is, it is the ONLY science in existence on the subject: and it suggests that Online is superior. Also, Seminary is not to "prepare men for ministry." Seminary teaches men theology, church history, and how to study the scriptures. It gives them tools; the local church prepares a man for ministry.


----------



## Bookmeister (Jan 12, 2010)

Damon,
I mean no disrespect here, I just want you to stop and think for a moment but your tone in this and the other thread has come across as less than exemplary. I think someone planning on going into ministry should be a bit more gracious. I know this from experience, this is an area in my life I have had to work very hard on bringing under control. Just my


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jan 12, 2010)

My apologies: I certainly am not trying to come off as rude or offensive. I just happen to believe strongly in the wonderful world of Distance ed. I have seen it work very, very well.


----------



## Andres (Jan 12, 2010)

David, just wanted to say thanks for showing me love in your OP.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 12, 2010)

Damon Rambo said:


> Tell me: what are you getting at a Brick and Mortar Seminary, that you are not getting BETTER by interning at a local Church, while doing distance ed.?


 
You are getting an academic environment. Like you, I don't think think that seminary is for preparing men for ministry, at least not simpliciter. Rather, it is to prepare men *academically* for ministry, and I'm sure we all agree that the academic, while only a part, is a significant part of ministry preparation. There are three things that you get at a b&m institution that distance ed struggles to imitate. First, you are getting real face-to-face interaction with qualified professors, and not only in the classroom. This is extremely different than non-synchronous distance education, which might carry most of the objective content but little of the person's character and spiritual verve. Second, you have access to resources, notably specialized libraries and access to professional peer-reviewed journals. Third, you are part of a learning community. At a good school, you grow, develop, and unite with your classmates and other seminarians in a way that influences you for life. I would say that the relationships I formed in seminary are at least as valuable as the information I gained. 

I'm not saying that distance ed can't be useful. I did several courses that way both during my undergrad and grad education. However, I seriously doubt that the academic product of distance ed equals its counterpart. Good schools often offer distance ed, but I haven't noticed any faculty at them with distance degrees


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 12, 2010)

I think Charlie makes some good points. One ideal solution might be two years of academic instruction, followed by one year in a local church.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jan 12, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me: what are you getting at a Brick and Mortar Seminary, that you are not getting BETTER by interning at a local Church, while doing distance ed.?
> ...


I disagree. First, good online distance ed. utilizes Chat rooms, forums, and even video, that in some ways is BETTER than face to face; it forces you to use your words to express yourself, instead of people being able to get what you are saying through hand gestures, expressions, etc. This helps your communication skills.



> Second, you have access to resources, notably specialized libraries and access to professional peer-reviewed journals.


Not sure what you mean. The online library that I have access to at my Seminary, put most Brick and Mortar Seminaries to shame. I can read journals, e-books, etc., all from where I am sitting, just by clicking. Saves HUGE amounts of time looking through shelves, waiting for someone else to return the book you need, etc.



> Third, you are part of a learning community. At a good school, you grow, develop, and unite with your classmates and other seminarians in a way that influences you for life. I would say that the relationships I formed in seminary are at least as valuable as the information I gained.



I have heard of the faith of many a young seminarian being destroyed by just such social interaction. I believe the apostle Paul modeled an excellent program of study, when he, not consulting with anyone, went away in seclusion for three years, presumably for prayer, study, and contemplation. I think DE combines this "seclusion with God" idea in your studies, while still allowing you to discuss and grow in an area. It eliminates the possible harmful elements of social interaction, that can drag you down spiritually.



> I'm not saying that distance ed can't be useful. I did several courses that way both during my undergrad and grad education. However, I seriously doubt that the academic product of distance ed equals its counterpart. Good schools often offer distance ed, but I haven't noticed any faculty at them with distance degrees



That's because degrees received online or through distance, do not say "online" on them. They are the exact same degrees. Most of the professors I have spoken with (who are under 50 or so), which includes professors from SBTS, NBTS, Liberty, and a couple of others, have taken at least a few classes through distance ed./online.

If you look at the catalogs of any of the Big Six Baptist seminaries, you will see numerous individuals with Ph.D's/ DTh's/ThD's, from South Africa....I promise you they did not travel to the country for several years.


----------



## cih1355 (Jan 16, 2010)

Damon Rambo said:


> Tell me: what are you getting at a Brick and Mortar Seminary, that you are not getting BETTER by interning at a local Church, while doing distance ed.? Please, enlighten us. Because nothing you have stated above, is anything but opinion. Professor Clark, of course, has an interest in promoting the idea that Online schooling is inferior to B & M, because his Seminary does not do offer extensive (any?)distance ed. his opinion is noted, but there are just as many opinions to the contrary.
> 
> However questionable the science is, it is the ONLY science in existence on the subject: and it suggests that Online is superior. Also, Seminary is not to "prepare men for ministry." Seminary teaches men theology, church history, and how to study the scriptures. It gives them tools; the local church prepares a man for ministry.


 
Learning about theology, church history, and how to study the scriptures are a part of what prepares a man for ministry.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jan 16, 2010)

cih1355 said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me: what are you getting at a Brick and Mortar Seminary, that you are not getting BETTER by interning at a local Church, while doing distance ed.? Please, enlighten us. Because nothing you have stated above, is anything but opinion. Professor Clark, of course, has an interest in promoting the idea that Online schooling is inferior to B & M, because his Seminary does not do offer extensive (any?)distance ed. his opinion is noted, but there are just as many opinions to the contrary.
> ...


 
They are what prepares a man to train as a minister, yes. But there study does not require hanging out and playing WII with ten other knuckleheads on the weekend, at a B & M seminary. They can be learned just as well, in the comfort of your home Church.


----------



## kjat32 (Jan 20, 2010)

I am coming at this from the perspective of the wife of a MDiv student who's in his second semester (online) from SBTS. Southern, like most seminaries, allows some distance ed but requires some b&m as well.
Pros:
Because of distance ed, my husband was able to start his degree without waiting for all the hoops to be cleared (including immigration);
Most of these classes require a lot of reading, which is usually done in private anyways;
Watching the lecture on CD was much better for my husband, who has a learning disability, than actually being in the class because he could stop it, rewind, etc.;
Obviously the freedom of doing classes according to YOUR schedule beats keeping up with a school's.
Cons:
It requires more self-control and a quiet environment (not always present in our zoo);
Language study needs to be done with access to someone you can ask questions of with the textbook;
"distance" communication suffers from the normal internet problems: nuances get lost, people tend to be less gracious, professors don't have the knowledge of a person's character to soften their judgment (my husband got reamed by one prof for his paper when it turned out to be miscommunication and the prof would've known that if he'd ever actually talked to my husband, another actually failed my husband because he was a week late with homework (so he wasn't allowed to take the final - and this is after he's spent more than 30 hours a week _all semester_ on this one 3 credit course! Ok, maybe I'm a little angry still sorry).

Now, I am in no position to say how well prepared for the ministry such a choice would have, but I don't think this issue can be cookie-cuttered with one answer for all. Considering the expense of seminary, not to mention possible costs of relocating a family, I think it's only fair of the seminaries to offer distance ed; but I do think they also need to make sure that the quality of education they're offering that way does not suffer.

Katherine


----------

