Glassroom Learning: Virtual Culture and Online Pastoral Education

Introduction

Christian higher education institutions across Canada are experimenting with radical shifts in educational content and delivery. Cyber education is becoming an increasingly popular supplement or replacement for embodied learning, especially during the global coronavirus pandemic. While keen to start my research on web-based theological education for years, the pandemic happened to coincide with this project’s timely beginnings. Merely days after gathering a backseat full of books from the University of Toronto libraries, the whole world started shutting down, including those libraries. As students and teachers vacated classrooms, schools quickly shifted courses to the Web.¹ Today, there are more online courses being offered than ever before. Now that the pandemic rush is over, Web-based courses and theological programs have been integrated into most school curriculums.

This book was originally written as my PhD dissertation. The title of that project was In Vitro Education. In vitro is a Latin term meaning within the glass or in glass. The title was an attempt to describe online education as akin to processes performed in glass test tubes, such as fertilization. That process is well known; if a couple is unable to conceive, a medical laboratory assists by providing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). In vitro can be a helpful procedure in extenuating circumstances. In vivo, on the other hand, is Latin for within the living or in a living thing. Most babies are born in vivo rather than via in vitro fertilization. Online education is in vitro learning. In vivo education, that which has been traditionally delivered through social, residential education experiences, is giving way to educational processes that are taking place within or behind or in front of glass computer screens. I am calling these learning spaces glassrooms. Whereas students traditionally encountered other learners and teachers in a shared, face-to-face, physical context, Web-based education has students looking at their classmates and assignments on screens using peer-to-peer software programs like Zoom and learning management systems (LMS) like Canvas. The educational content is similar, but the context differs significantly.

Just like IVF, glassroom learning can be helpful in some situations. Geographic distance may prevent someone from attending a residential seminary classroom, but online learning allows that person to participate from a distance. Likewise, the pandemic, where people may risk illness by gathering in the same physical space, made Internet learning a good option. Yet, students being taught via learning management systems and interacting with teachers and peers in small boxes that are digitally mediated using systems like Zoom or MS Teams, strikes me as somehow removed from embodied life, almost artificial. While the learning outcomes appeal the same in online and embodied contexts, the process of getting there differs significantly. This book grapples with the online/in-person tension guided by the following questions: what effect do shifts toward online courses have on those enrolled in programs of pastoral formation? Are online learners studying for ordained ministry being adequately prepared? At the start of this project, I hypothesized that online programs subtly shift the focus and purpose of ministerial education, from shaping the whole person for ministry toward shaping the intellect alone, resulting in pastors being educated with deficiencies in character virtue and self-differentiated leadership. While this hypothesis turned out to be sound, it did not go far enough. The Internet itself, a technological instrument, plays a far greater role in human formation than simply providing a medium for enhancing cognitive capacities and increasing opportunities for learning through dialogue. This book provides an overview of online education with a view of technology as a formational instrument. Two aspects of pastoral formation are examined in detail: self-differentiation and character formation. I investigate each through the lens of Internet education and the role technology plays in developing or inhibiting those aspects of pastoral maturity. Pastoral formation programs like the Master of Divinity (MDiv), unlike their academic counterparts such as the theological Master of Arts (MA), require field placements so students may gain practical experience in ministry. Therefore, the final chapter explores these field placements as possible contexts where embodied relationships with supervisors/mentors make up for the deficiencies of remote, technologically-mediated forms of education and create the environment for self-differentiation and character virtues. In the conclusion, I consolidate my research and make recommendations for change as well as areas of further exploration.

A Brief History of Theological Education

In the first chapter I review the history of theological education. I begin by describing how nurturing virtue in students used to be the goal of the early university. However, that ideal is now largely absent in secular as well as theological schools. David H. Kelsey’s work describes this turn as a shift from Paideia,² an education focused on developing a culture of learning through community focused on the Good or divine, to Wissenschaft, an education focused on dialectics and dialogue about theories and ideals as a way of thinking differently.³ Paideia appears in the early church, through the monastic and cathedral schools, with a shift toward Wissenschaft dialectics when universities started to emerge. Friedrich Schleiermacher’s work carved out a place for pastoral programs in the university, but they were designed with what Gavin D’Costa calls the science of research and professional training in mind rather than creating a learning culture promoting character formation.⁴ Pastoral apprenticeships and academic research were governed by denominations and their established universities, with no standardized ways of training from school to school and denomination to denomination. In 1918, a handful of theological school presidents formed the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) to fill that gap. The ATS created academic standards, yet questions of formation remain today.

The second half of the chapter addresses online theological education, providing an overview of the strengths of online education generally and online theological education specifically, plus the deficiencies of online education generally and online theological education specifically. Internet education’s rapid rise has proven to be a boon for institutions of higher education, including theological schools.⁵ The ATS has recognized the value of online education and has been quick to help theological schools move online. In 1999, two schools gained approval to deliver courses remotely. Three years later, the first mainly online MDiv was approved. By 2017, two thirds of ATS member schools offered online courses.⁶ The reasons for this speedy uptake are clear: Online education provides flexibility for schools and students, higher student enrolment, and opportunities to connect with students and faculty around the world. Research affirms the benefits of online theological learning, including the low cost of delivery, the expansion of the school’s reach, and increasing student engagement with materials, peers, and teachers. There has been excellent research into finding ways to maximize cognitive and social learning elements, such as the Community of Inquiry (COI) model developed by educators Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer.⁷ Their work has gone a long way to help online educators make the most of the shift online. However, not everyone sees the shift online with positivity. Some cite the difficulty engaging students, social isolation, and technological glitches that inhibit learning, as barriers to online learning.⁸ Additionally, theological schools have struggled with faculty buy-in, questions of how to promote spiritual formation online, and whether practical pastoral skills can be formed via online contexts.⁹ These last two aspects are raised as questions with very few answers, as very little research exists. The final section of this chapter looks at the ATS and their decision to allow institutions to define student formation without a standard, a problematic issue as Web-based learning continues to grow.¹⁰ The lack of definition about formation surfaces again in chapter 5 in the context of theological field education.

Technology and Its Effects on Learning

I begin chapter 2 by trying to uncover theological educators’ research about the impact of Internet technology on learning. There is very little research to be found. Instead, theological educators have focused on discovering creative ways to leverage technologies to teach more effectively online. Rather than looking more deeply at how technologies may be used more effectively for theological education, the heart of this book centres on the understudied aspect of how technology forms students. I begin with the question, how might technology itself affect student formation? My answer asserts that the interaction of a person with technology, as in online education, shifts social behavior and brain development. Therefore, online learning programs and courses are not ideal for those seeking to develop character virtues and skills.

My argument begins by outlining three views of technology described by Heather Kanuka.¹¹ I take up the Technological Determinism position, which becomes the backbone of the chapter. I recount a surprising human-computer relationship described by MIT professor Joseph Weizenbaum in the mid-1960’s.¹² Weizenbaum’s observation of the connections between a machine and those who interacted with it convinced him of the shaping power of technology on human beings. Philosopher Martin Heidegger also argues that technology changes the natural order of creation, including human behavior.¹³ He sees this unnatural re-ordering at the hands of technology as changing human beings and human societies in ways that make them more machine-like. Media theorist and educator, Neil Postman, argues along the same lines as Heidegger, suggesting humans are now perceived as thinking machines.¹⁴ This, says Postman, impacts all of humanity, including spirituality. The findings uncovered by these authors contribute significantly to my understanding of humanness and technology’s influence on human being.

Online educational technologies shape humans generally, but they also limit the ways educators educate. How computers store and use data restricts what educators can and cannot do. Computers and Web platforms, rather than a teacher, become the focal point for students, as described by a faculty mentor of mine who suggested, . . . the student’s attention is not on the instructor but [the online learning platform]. This increasing dependency on technology has its pros and cons. One downside is the potential erosion of skill development and capacity for human judgement. I cite an example raised by Postman about the way the invention of the stethoscope changed the practice of medicine.¹⁵ I also briefly reference technology’s impact on pastoral skill development in this chapter, taking it up more fully in chapter 4.

Part of this chapter focuses on the rise of generating data and numbers as offering greater legitimacy than direct human experience. It appears this shift has downplayed certain educational aspects, such as the humanities. According to McMaster University Professor of Religious Studies Travis Kroeker, the value of embodied human presence and such things as love, justice, beauty, and goodness are ignored when data collection is the goal.¹⁶ Family therapist Edwin Friedman also has concerns with the modern reliance on data and its impact on human being.¹⁷ He sees leaders, including those serving congregations, turn to data as a form of substance abuse to cope with chronic anxiety in the communal systems of which they are a part. Friedman sees this appeal to data phenomenon in congregations, families and societies as a whole. Friedman points his finger at academic institutions, in which the societal cortex is detached from the emotional processes driving it. Friedman’s idea about academic institutional anxiety is briefly covered here and further taken up in chapter 3 when I look at the possible role of chronic anxiety in theological school administrations. As a counterpoint to institutional anxiety, I suggest the use of Paulo Freire’s pedagogy.¹⁸ Freire focuses on setting students free to learn based on the generative theme. This is the investigation of people’s . . . praxis and this investigation works against the potentially oppressive methods of education that could be tied to a banking model of online education focusing on content and data.

In the second half of this chapter, I narrow my focus on technology by looking specifically at media, the Internet and their effects on human beings. Drawing significantly on Marshall McLuhan, I suggest the shift from print culture to digital mediums of communication has altered the focus of educators and students. This shift appears to be largely unnoticed by theological educators, due to the absence of research on this subject. McLuhan posits media can be separated into what is noticed (figure) and what remains unnoticed (ground).¹⁹ I explore the figure/ground relationship in detail and demonstrate its relevance for online education. McLuhan goes on to suggest that people become numb to the figure and the ground becomes obscured. I offer McLuhan’s description of Narcissus as a way of showing how the online medium can affect the ability to perceive reality. As I have demonstrated, interacting with technology changes human beings, making us more machine-like and affecting our ability to perceive reality. These shifts have major implications for Christology and the doctrine of the incarnation. They also have implications for teaching theology. For example, how do theologians instill the value of the incarnation in students through a disembodying medium? Regent College Professor Craig Gay suggests there is an urgent need to remember the significance of human embodiment in the face of the growing influence of modern technology.²⁰ He argues Protestant believers have been quicker to adopt technology in worship and learning because their experience is already desacramentalized, making it difficult to perceive the life of God in embodied life. Likewise, James K. A. Smith invites Christians into a renewed sacramental embrace of ashes and dust, blood and bodies, fish and bread as a way of experiencing God’s grace.²¹

I wrap up this chapter by looking at two aspects of human formation affected by technology and the Internet: social well-being and the brain. The Internet promotes helpful connections with others, but research shows it can leave people feeling isolated and depressed.²² Large quantities of time online have been shown to lead to increases in depression. Technostress, a term used by researchers Sharon Horwood and Jeromy Anglim to describe stress arising from smartphone usage, arises from cognitive-emotional preoccupation with . . . the smartphone.²³ Furthermore, Leonard Reinecke et al., found everyday Internet use has been linked to procrastination and its psychological effects.²⁴ These aspects of social well-being affect ways of interacting. There are also changes to the brain that affect thinking. According to Joseph Firth et al., smartphones promote habitual checking behaviors reinforced by information rewards.²⁵ As a result, Firth et al., conclude those who practise these behaviors perform worse in various cognitive tasks than others. Similarly, Mark Ellingsen concludes concentration and memory (and intelligence) suffer because of brain changes due to sustained Internet usage.²⁶ He stands with Nicholas Carr, author of The Shallows, drawing on Carr’s conclusions to state: heavier online use is making us more shallow . . . [and] less transcendent in our thinking and behaviors.²⁷

Bowen Family Systems Theory and Pastoral Skill Development

Building on chapter 2, in this chapter I suggest that the online learning interface acts as a third-party entity in the teacher-student relationship. I suggest the Web application or device serves as a member of an emotional system and I apply three Bowen Family Systems Theory concepts to that system. Very little has been studied about web-based education’s effect on the emotional system of teachers and students and that system’s impact on learning and ministerial formation. I define triangulation, differentiation of self, and societal emotional process and apply those concepts to aspects of learning, relationships with devices, theological schools and the accrediting associations’ decision-making.

I begin by defining anxiety and its role in traditional emotional systems. Drawing on theorists and therapists Peter Steinke and Edwin Friedman, I describe the chronic and systemic form of unhelpful anxiety as different from the acute and temporary stress that can be a motivator.²⁸ After clarifying how anxiety is understood in Bowen Family Systems Theory, I describe how it manifests in relationships, including relationships with technology using Bowen’s three concepts.

The first concept, the Triangle, describes the dynamic Bowen observed in a three-person emotional system. Triangulating a person into a two-person relationship serves to stabilize the emotional system when chronic anxiety rises. Most research on triangles focuses on human emotional systems but some authors, such as Michael Kerr and Monica McGoldrick, describe triangles that include technological devices.²⁹ I provide an example of how technology gets triangled into a two-person relationship through a personal experience Psychologist Sherry Turkle recounts in her book, Alone Together.³⁰ This serves to demonstrate how technology can be triangled into a relationship.

The second Bowenian concept I address is Differentiation of Self (DoS). DoS, according to Peter Titelman, is . . . an individual’s capacity to be an individual while functioning as part of a group.³¹ This is an important trait for pastors, ministering as servant-leaders in complex congregations that have the potential to be chronically anxious emotional systems. I suggest there are two challenges to self-differentiated learning in online contexts: students’ home contexts may be poorly differentiated emotional systems, thereby inhibiting a student’s development toward higher levels of differentiation; and students may become increasingly emotionally fused with technology, thereby inhibiting their ability to develop healthy relationships with others. In both cases, I review dynamics unique to web-based students who may not have the opportunity to interact with their peers and teachers in an embodied context. My examination of students in potentially poorly differentiated systems looks at James Fowler’s Individuative-Reflective stage of faith and the importance of learning differentiation through distance during this stage.³² My look at student emotional fusion with devices draws on Monica McGoldrick’s definition of the term; I apply her concept to research showing lower levels of self-differentiation along online students.³³ These findings are important for online theological educators seeking to nurture non-anxious, self-differentiated pastoral leaders.

The third Bowen Family Systems Theory concept I apply to online education is Societal Emotional Process. Bowen defines this concept as a societal fusion that results from chronic anxiety in society as a whole.³⁴ He describes the inability of individuals to take a stand different from those of society as indicating a lack of self-differentiation within an emotionally regressive society. I apply this concept to theological schools and the relative haste with which they have taken up online learning for pastoral formation to suggest there may be societal fusion at play. I cite examples of how thinking is being offloaded to search engines like Google and software programs requiring less creative and deep thinking.³⁵ These are examples of the societal emotional process at work, wherein theological schools appear to be shifting the delivery of courses and programs online, without careful consideration of what is being lost.

In the final section of this chapter, I describe discipleship for pastoral formation and the importance of taking difficult and costly decisions for the sake of faith. I draw on the work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer,³⁶ Dallas Willard,³⁷ and Richard Foster³⁸ to describe the radical act of following Jesus and the way of Christian discipleship. This aspect of enduring and overcoming challenge and difficulty is important for learning skills. I draw on the work of Hubert Dreyfus to show how Internet learning can only support learning to the point of competency in skill development and that embodied learning allows the student to gain proficiency and mastery of the subject.³⁹ I conclude this section by reviewing the role of pastor and arguing that this is to serve as a reminder to God’s people how to be human and that this happens best through embodied teacher-mentors.

Character Virtues and Online Theological Education

I pick up where chapter 3 left off by arguing that character virtue, similar to self-differentiation, is taught and developed as a skill. I begin by defining what virtue is and how it can be nurtured. I draw on Olli-Pekka Vainio’s understanding of Aristotelian excellence as it relates to virtues and Shannon Vallor’s work on practical wisdom’s dependence on contextual application, concluding with an appeal to Doug Blomberg’s exploration of wisdom as a way of being.⁴⁰

I address the question, How are virtues acquired? beginning with Aristotle’s position: virtues are developed in the same way as a trade or a skill.⁴¹ Practice is essential. Practice is one part of the equation; relationships are another part. Virtues are first learned, according to Ross A. Thompson, through intuitive . . . sensibility in parent-child encounters.⁴² Primary caregivers provide the first experience of character virtues such as love, empathy, and generosity and as one grows, developing those virtues and others requires something more. According to David James, other-directed emotional insights and shared activities are two important factors.⁴³ Therefore, understanding one’s own emotions and those of others are important for the growth of virtue.

After describing and defining virtue and virtue acquisition, I examine the place of virtue formation in theological education. After searching for articles written about virtue in the journal Theological Education, Marvin Oxenham found only one written between 1964 and 2017.⁴⁴ This, I argue, is due to the focus on Wissenschaft as a way of educating rather than the character formation goal of paideia education. I trace this particular shift by showing how the training of 1840’s Anglican clergy in Upper Canada offered more of an enculturing apprenticeship program, becoming more focused on academic learning after the program moved to Trinity College in Toronto.⁴⁵ This tension between a focus on Wissenschaft academics or paideia enculturation of character continues in theological schools today. I cite examples of both perspectives in recent literature before turning to the question of whether character virtues can be learned online. First, I look at this question through the lens of those who educate with a Wissenschaft perspective. As Oxenham observed above, virtue is not broadly used in theological education literature. Thus, broadening my