Straw for the bricks at last? Theological reflection under the Common Awards

ABSTRACT

One dominant narrativein practical theology and in ministry training is that there is a gap between the high esteem in which theological educators hold theological reflection, and students’ reception of the activity. The resulting discourse amongst theological educators yields a rich catalogue of theological approaches, teaching methods, and conceptual models for the development of reflective practitioners. Measuring the effectiveness of these approaches is more elusive. This preliminary study set out to test the narrative in the context of the Common Awards, a suite of academic awards in the United Kingdom, through which a group of Churches train their ministers. The study compared modules with highest reflective content with modules with no reflective content. This article explores three significant implications which offer a possible challenge to the narrative, and it invites a clear articulation of the components and skills which embody the Church’s vision of theologically reflective practice for ministry.

KEYWORDS:

• Theological Reflection
• Common Awards
• Summative Assessment
• Theological Education
• Ministry Training

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor

Director of Studies, South Central Theological Education Institution (centre:Guildford Diocece).

Notes

1 Defined by Cameron et al as the theology embedded in a group’s articulation of its beliefs (2010, 53–55). It is one of ‘Four Voices of Theology’ used by the authors as a device for navigating the ‘properly complex’ nature of theology in practice. The other three are ‘Operant’ theology (that embedded within the actual practices of a group), Formal theology (the theology of the theologians) and Normative theology (that which a practising groups names as its theological authority).

2 Summative assessment is marked. These marks contribute to the final mark given for an award.

3 Formative assessment is not given a mark. It is designed to encourage reflection on learning and to monitor progress.

4 A statistical test comparing the module results of different subjects. A paired t-test would have used the same students’ results across different modules, thus reducing intersubject variability. As all data was anonymous, a paired statistical test was not possible.

5 Mean score for modules with the highest reflective content was 60.61%, and for modules with no reflective content 60.46%. The difference of 0.153% was not statistically significant (p = 0.875) due either to the similarity of the scores or the smaller data set available. Mean student score in the 20 Credit modules with the highest reflective content[5] was 57.45%. The mean student score in the 20 Credit modules with no reflective content was 59.86%. The difference of 2.41% had high statistical significance (p = 0.003).

6 Results from this module were not used in the statistical tests.

7 These same questions are also important in relation to formative assessment of reflective ability.