Final Report: Teaching Spirituality Well: Teacher-Scholars Engaging Best Practices

Final Report: Teaching Spirituality Well: Teacher-Scholars Engaging Best Practices

Wabash Small Project Grant

Society for the Study of Christian Spirituality

Catholic Theological Union – October 31, 2008

Objectives

The consultation onTeaching Spirituality Well had two primary purposes. First, select leaders (current governing Board and past presidents) of the Society for the Study of Christian Spirituality (SSCS) were to explore ‘best practices’ in teaching spirituality in educational institutions. Second, potential strategies were to be developed for the support and facilitation of best practices within today’s educational, institutional ecology. An additional goal was to invite the broader Society membership into the conversation for an even broader consultation.

The questions with which we began included:

Why is teaching spirituality well important now, in particular?

What constitutes teaching it well?

What do we need to put in place to improve teaching and scholarship in the field?

Activities

The grant consultation began with several conference calls by project leadership (Mary Frohlich, Arthur Holder, Lisa Hess). A call for written reflections (1-2 pages) on the above questions was e-mailed to the consultation participants. Fourteen of the fifteen invited participants submitted the reflections. These were compiled and distributed for reading before the day-long event in Chicago,so that all those present would have a sense of their colleagues’ beginning thoughts.

The day of the consultation began with a time of morning praise. The remainder of the day was divided into four sessions of consultation followed by the late afternoon public consultation and anevening experiential session and reception, “A Reflective Exploration of the Visual Arts and Spirituality” (see enclosed schedule).

The first sessionintroduced the purposes of the day and refined the questions by employing a two-round World Café process (see The goal was a determination of major themes for more in-depth small group work.

Prior to arriving, the project leadership had identified within the compiled written reflections a clustering of concern around three themes: 1) issues of context, 2) integration between personal- formative and academic –critical agendas, and 3) ethical implications of teaching or “teaching toward what…?” The world-café process led to greater nuance.

One table proposed that the themes for discussion should be: 1) Student-focused Contextual Dimensions of Teaching/Learning Spirituality (micro to macro); 2) Teacher-focused Contextual Dimensions of Teaching/Learning Spirituality (macro to micro); 3) Responsiveness and Collaboration within the Public Domain. A second table urged a blending of the original three themes, especially #2 and #3. The third table urged 1) issues of context, 2) ethical implications and formative integration in classroom, 3) ethical implications and formative integration toward public domain.

The resulting clustering of themes for the working groups emerged:

1)Issues of Theory/Method in Teaching/Learning Spirituality—Advocacy and Imagining Scholarship for Teaching/Learning

2)Transformation with/of Students—Issues of Formation, Pedagogy, Service to Vocation

3)The Public Domain—Ethics, Constituencies (current and potential), Practices

Each participant chose to participate in one groups, forming three relatively equal working groups.

In the second session, the three working groups met. The questions for each group were: 1) “What are ‘best practices’ for teaching spirituality well given your group’s focus?” 2) “What might be some strategies for teaching spirituality well, given the focus of your group?”

In the third session(after lunch), the working groups reported to the larger group and received feedback. The reports below include a sampling of each group’s observations as well as some suggestions from the large group.

Group One: Issues of Theory/Method in Teaching/Learning Spirituality—Advocacy and Imagining Scholarship for Teaching/Learning

• In addition to method focused as an act of scholarship, Christian spirituality also relies on method as a pedagogical tool. The teacher’s responsibility to steward the learning environment requires clarity of one’s own method, so that the pedagogical experience can invite students to critical clarity, increased depth, and integration of concepts with lived experience.
• The discipline, relatively new but well-established, is moving into a period of renewed methodological inquiry beyond its original founders’ articulations of method, especially given the broadening of contexts of teaching/learning (Catholic, Protestant, unaffiliated, and more). The question remains: How can we define operative methods within the discipline yet remain polyvocal? ShouldSSCS move toward higher definition, or does that intentionally diffuse the interdisciplinarity that is characteristic of our field?
• Too often, the advocacy and imagining of scholarship for teaching/learning in spirituality begs the question of diversifying constituencies. Who are we serving as scholar-teachers, in addition to the classroom contexts within traditional educational environments? How does theory/method inform that reflective practice?
• Some potential strategies for communicating and inviting contribution to issues of theory/method in teaching/learning spirituality include:
• Web-site development, similar to
• An issue ofSpiritus, the SSCS journal, on methodology
• Co-sponsoring sessions with other AAR groups specifically about method as pedagogical practice
• An edited compilation, published as resource for interested membership
• Sponsor a symposium on “Teaching Spirituality Well” with aim of having it be publishable (perhaps inSpiritus)

Group Two: Transformation with/of Students—Issues of Formation, Pedagogy, Service to Vocation

• A governing image emerged: Teaching practices that allow students’ lived experience of Being at Home and Living into Homelessness amidst the foreignness of ‘the other,’ whether that “other” be a text, other classmates, or new critical frameworks for understanding. In the words of one participant, “Being lost is part of the experience of teaching-learning spirituality.”
• Hospitality and humility—modeled and not ‘taught’—are fundamental templates for best practices.
• Learning to hear is also a best practice—embodied intuition and contemplative practice that opens participants to new sights and sounds.
• Potential strategies for communicating and inviting contribution in issues of transformation with/of students (formation, pedagogy, service to vocation) include:
• Primary emphasis upon skill-development for forming a community of practice—in classroom, in broader institution, in individual-personal practice
• Skills for deepening awareness of who the Teacher is amidst multiple texts and contexts
• Development of trust in order to enter into “homelessness” for sake of learningwith least harm/difficulty
• Collaboration and publication of current practices for the above , perhaps with other AAR groups or with unexpected constituencies like spiritual director communities, etc.

Group Three: The Public Domain—Ethics, Constituencies (current and potential), Practices

• Spirituality scholars bridge the popular and critical contexts for contribution within the public domain. As such, various strategies are manifest for responsiveness and collaboration in “teaching spirituality well“ toward public concerns and challenges:
• Avoidance of the issue; focus on classroom and guild projects;
• Collaborative and complementary response to ‘outside’ constituencies that request perspective;
• Prophetic-Critical responses;
• Conflictual or pugilistic responses.

Working group participants surveyed their own professional experience and recognized thatthe first two strategies are the most common, in their purview.

• Best practices for teaching spirituality well beyond the traditional classroom require developed skills in definition, translation, and synthesis.
• Definition of the term spirituality is done both inductively and deductively—depending upon the nature of the public collaboration. It is often important to find out what the public gathering understands ‘spirituality’ to refer to before one delivers the critical sense of the term within the discipline.
• Translation of various contents into multiple contexts requires sensitivity to terms but also precision that protects integrity of contribution.
• Public scholars aim then for synthesis of disciplinary contributions and applicability within constituency of collaboration.
• Potential strategies for communicating and inviting contribution in issues of ethics, constituencies, and practices within the public domain include:
• Renewed engagement with what prophetic-critical contributions within the public domain might look like, and what might empower us to make them.
• Development of international communities of discourse within the discipline of Christian spirituality
• Collaboration with ongoing guilds of spirituality, nationally and internationally

The fourth sessionsent the working groups back to continue the conversation and to develop a contextual story and/or challenge specific to their focus to be presented in the public session.

The day concluded withthe public event, “Teaching Spirituality Well,” in which about a hundred participants engaged the three identified themes (Issues of Theory/Method in Teaching-Learning Spirituality; Transformation with/of Students; Teaching-Learning Spirituality in the Public Domain). Consultation participants from each working group presented a contextual case or challenge and then the gathering discussed questions of best practices in groups of about 8-10 people each. The session concluded with ‘take-home insights’-- personal responses from all participantswritten on 4X6 index cards. These are compiled and presented in the Appendix to this report.

Leaders and Partners

*Anne Astell, University of Notre Dame

*Douglas Burton-Christie, Marymount Loyola University

*Steven Chase, Western Theological Seminary

*Eileen Flanagan , Neumann College

*Mary Frohlich, Catholic Theological Union

*Lisa Hess, United Theological Seminary

*Arthur Holder, Graduate Theological Union

*Bradley Holt, Augsburg College

*Anita Houck, St. Mary’s University

*Elizabeth Liebert, San Francisco Theological Seminary

*Michael O’Sullivan , Milltown Institute (Ireland)

*Barbara Quinn, University of San Diego

*Sandra Schneiders , Jesuit Theological School at Berkeley

*Philip Sheldrake, University of Durham (England)

*Joann Wolski Conn , Neumann College

*Wendy Wright, Creighton University

Assessment

The most immediate impact of the consultation on participants was renewed collegiality and enhanced energy for constructive imagining of the future of SSCS as an association of teachers-scholars involved in transformative teaching-learning in spirituality. There was new appreciation of the founding voices, now clearly complemented by the next generation of leadership within the Society. There was much celebration and laughter, and even a little nervous energy from the founder(s) as they see the Society with a healthy and growing life of its own. New questions surfaced and some new conceptual voices entered the conversation. Greater interest in collaboration across constituencies and academic societies also emerged. The project is therefore affecting the Society for the Study of Christian Spirituality in some generative ways— i.e., future topics for shared investigation, renewed methodological inquiries across disciplines, clarification of methods for best teaching-learning practices within classroom settings, and broader inquiries into the impact of teaching-learning spirituality within the public domain.

Success for this consultation is defined largely by the clarity of focus, extent of leadership-membership contribution, and apparent bridging of scholarship-teaching concerns for “teaching spirituality well.” Short-term successcan be seen first in the successful focusing of attention on the three working theme-clusters. It was no mean feat to facilitate strong-minded scholars into just three working groups! Consultation participants clearly engaged the topics with energy and were able to provide leadership of the public session, facilitating contribution of insights by over 100 attendant voices. The fact that only one of over a hundred reported “Can’t see I learned anything—sorry.” suggests it was a useful time for 99%. In both the day-long and public events, there was a good diversity between learner-centered issues and teacher-scholar-centered ones, suggesting the groups bridged the theory-practice split quite well. Long term success of the venture remains to be demonstrated.A task force of the SSCS governing board is discerning next steps for deepening the conversation for the Society as a whole.

Reflection

The Society for the Study of Christian Spirituality is moving into a potentially generative phase of its relatively new but collectively reflective life. The discipline has become established and current leadership is stewarding its shared activities collaboratively and well. Both previous and current board membership include international representation. The critical conversation about what it means to teach spirituality well continues into new generations and potentially new constituencies. Insights seem to coalesce around several characteristics of the discipline:

• Self-implication for transformative learning;
• Importance of narrative/story-telling;
• The contribution of method for engaging lived experience with critical depth;
• Centrality of shared practice—in both scholar’s and student’s life-work;
• Difficulty of deep listening for/to ‘the other’;
• The movement between “being at home” and “being homeless” in the life-world of an ‘other.’
• Particular teaching tips for best practices are also summarized in the compiled insights.

We have learned that interdisciplinarity within our shared work is both a great strength and an unavoidable difficulty. Teacher-scholars have been formed in specific classical disciplines, so must negotiate the norms of inherited scholarship amidst the integrative contributions of Christian spirituality as a discipline. Refining methods across ecumenical lines and articulating the character of the self-implication of the scholar-teacher also continue to foster great discussion. Disseminating the critical work of the discipline remains a future priority, such that teaching-learning practices of integration, not simply content-transmission, remain a hallmark of the discipline.

Pedagogical experimentation toward best practices remains a signature of this group of teacher-scholars as well. Teaching methods involve formal academic addresses, small group discussions, innovative practices for many academic settings (fishbowl, world-café process, et al), and locally-specific, experiential sessions where context and inquiry join hands. Leadership is largely collaborative and shared, and the board continues to discern how best to encourage young scholars while offering continuity with senior scholars’ intermittent participation.

Challenges facing the organization includemaintaining high standards of critical scholarship;developing pedagogical strategies for diverse environments beyond traditional classrooms;providing a continually generative membership with increased opportunities to serve; and increasing diversification of leadership while maintaining the participation of able senior scholars whose identity is nurtured by continued access to leadership responsibilities.

Next Steps

Next steps are in the hands of a Governing Board task force to consider submitting a proposalfor a larger consultation with SSCS membership, governing board members, and the university and seminary deans whose decisions have much impact on how spirituality is taught. The SSCS journalSpiritus continues to urge submissions in the areas of method as well as other emerging insights related to this consultation. Board members planning next year’s SSCS and AAR sessions are attuned to the identified topics of interest and thematic clusters, which may help organize planning for years to come.

Dissemination

Project findings are included in the Appendices. The compilation of ‘take-home insights’ will be shared with Society membership as a whole. The Board will discuss via e-mail the strategies for what might be of communal interest and dissemination of materials here enclosed.

On following pages:

Appendix A: Final Budget Report

Appendix B: Schedule for the day-long leaders’ consultation

Appendix C: Verbatim responses from the public consultation event

Appendix A: Final Budget Report

For October 31 Consultation, “TEACHING SPIRITUALITY WELL”

Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, Illinois

INCOME

Wabash Grant 2500

TOTAL$2500.00

EXPENSES

Paid to CTU:

Overnight Rooms: 8 @ $65520

Breakfast: 8 @ $5 40

Coffee Break: 41

Dinner: 43 @ $15 645

Reception: 234

Fee for meeting rooms: 280

Receptionist: 30

Subtotal:1790.00

Paid to others:

Bus (Ammons Transportation) 300

Gratuity for bus driver 30

Housing allowance for those off campus: 4 @ $65260

Lunch supplies 50.10

Other supplies 41.43

Food for debriefing meeting 28.47

Subtotal: 710.00

TOTAL:$2500.00

Appendix B: Schedule – October 31, 2008

INVITED SCHOLARS’ CONSULTATION SESSIONS: “TEACHING SPIRITUALITY WELL – TEACHER-SCHOLAR’S ENGAGE BEST PRACTICES”

8:30 – 10:00 am5416 S. Cornell, Room 504

Prayer, Gathering, Opening up the issues. Are the proposed Working Groups the right ones? Refine the tasks for the day‘s work.

10:00 Coffee BreakRoom 504

10:30 – 12:30 pmRoom 504 and Library Conference Rooms

3 or 4 Working Groups on themes surfaced in the participants’ papers. These groups articulate the issues and brainstorm strategies and projects to go forward with them.

12:30 LunchRSCJ House, 5438 S. Cornell Ave.

1:30 – 3:00 pmRoom 504

The working groups report out, followed by facilitated discussion of potential strategies and projects to carry the agenda of “Teaching Spirituality Well” forward. Decision about who will prepare “cases” for the public session.

3:00 – 3:30 pm Room 504 and Library Conference Rooms

Preparation of “cases.”

3:30 pmBreak

PUBLIC PEDAGOGICAL SESSION: “TEACHING SPIRITUALITY WELL”

4:00 – 6:00 pm5401 S. Cornell, Courtyards 2 and 3

Each case is presented and discussed in small groups for 20-30 minutes, followed by wrap-up.

6:00Bus available to return participants to Palmer House.

6:00 – 7:00 pm5401 S. Cornell, Cafeteria and Courtyards 2 and 3

Dinner for all attendees. (Charge of $10 for those not part of the day-long consultation)

PUBLIC EXPERIENTIAL SESSION AND RECEPTION: “A REFLECTIVE EXPLORATION OF THE VISUAL ARTS AND SPIRITUALITY”

7:00 – 9:00 pm5416 S. Cornell, Room 339, Atrium and Art Gallery

Facilitated by Gilberto Cavazos-Gonzales, Associate Professor of Spirituality at CTU.

9:00 pmBus available to return participants to Palmer House and Hilton Towers.

Appendix C: Public Consultation Results

Verbatim transcription of “Take Home Insight” index cards

Students are engaged by spiritual biographies – reading the text of a life to gain an understanding of the practice of spirituality