Two Examples
Outline and Design of Projects
The Principle Investigators for this project will develop a working paper, develop protocols for each of the seminaries to use in reviewing the paper and preparing a response, monitor the discussion at the seminaries, and edit the results of the conference with the intent of developing a tool for further use in seminaries at Theological Education by Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU). The working paper will treat the Woodson phenomenon as it applies to Theological Education in HBCU seminaries with a Freirean approach to teaching and learning. This paper will serve as the foundation for further discussion to be conducted at each of the HBCU seminaries.
Each of the six HBCU seminaries will be asked to follow the predefined set of protocols to read, reflect, and react to the working paper by engaging in dialogue with scholars at their respective schools. Each seminary will be encouraged to develop its position either by reacting to the working paper or developing a working paper of its own relative to the teaching and learning of Theological Education in HBCU seminaries. Two faculty representatives from each of the six HBCU seminaries will be invited to the conference to present their school’s position.
Plenary lectures followed by small breakout groups will be the primary mode of collaboration. The representatives from the HBCU seminaries will present their school’s position relative to the working paper and will also present discussion questions for the breakout groups. Facilitators will summarize the breakout group discussions at a plenary session. The small groups will be comprised of representatives from three communities: scholars from HBCU seminaries; students from surrounding seminaries and undergraduate students of HBCU’s; and pastors from various African American denominations in the state.
The proposed format for the conference is as follows:
First Day
Opening Plenary Session to introduce participants and conference theme
1st school’s response to the Working Paper
Morning Break-out Sessions
Scholars
Students
Pastors
Lunch
2nd school’s response to the Working Paper
Afternoon Break-out Sessions
Second Day
Morning Devotional
ITC’s response to the Working Paper
Morning Break-out Sessions
Lunch
3rd school’s response to the Working Paper
Afternoon Break-out Sessions
Third Day
Morning Devotional
4th school’s response to the Working Paper
Morning Break-out Sessions
Lunch
5th school’s response to the Working Paper
Afternoon Break-out Sessions
Closing Plenary and Worship Session
Example #2 -from a grant proposal for a project in which two professors will collaborate in the evaluation, redesign, and peer observation of their teaching in each of their foundational courses that that they teach on a regular basis
We have designed our proposal/project in terms of three phases:
Preparation Phase: Fall, 2003
1. Work with Howard Gardner’s framework for multiple intelligences and Kenneth A. Bruffee, Higher Education, Interdependence and the Authority of Knowledge (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2nd edition, 1999) under the guidance of an outside evaluator and general consultant to tutor ourselves on various styles of learning.
2. Strategize regarding the “audience,” the diversity of needs, expectations, and learning styles of our students, in consultation with our consultant, outside evaluator, and our respective deans, our various colleagues, and each other.
3. Examine current course assessment/evaluation tools in order to appreciate their efficacy and appropriateness; work with pedagogical consultant Maloney who is skilled in the design and implementation of such tools; revise as necessary.
4. Refocus our two foundational courses ( “Old Testament Foundations” and “Introduction to Christian History”) to correlate content with appropriate pedagogical strategies, e.g., visual aids, websites, practices; the graduate student TAs will be particularly useful here in the identification, collection, and organization of materials as well as by offering comments and observations that will assist the design of our pedagogical strategies.
Implementation Phase: Spring, 2004 through Fall, 2004
1. Focus on foundational course “Old Testament Foundations” in Spring, 2004, and foundational course “Introduction to Christian History” in Fall, 2004 (i.e., in Spring one professor teaches and the other mentors; in Fall the other professor teaches and the first one mentors):
2. Plan and teach the foundational course with a TA/RA.
Teaching duties
a. CONTENT: Integrate pedagogical strategies identified in preparation phase, which address different learning styles;
b. AUDIENCE: Refine our analysis of classroom diversity, and continue the work of correlating this diversity to pedagogies that rely on a variety of learning styles;
c. ASSESSMENT: Deploy assessment tools developed during preparation phase;
d. Work with the TA/RA in terms of general pedagogical training;
e. Engage in evaluation with the outside consultants, as well as with the other foundations teacher.
Mentoring duties
a. CONTENT: We will both serve for the other as critical but helpful dialogue partner to revise and explains the course from the ground up. The general consultant will assist here, attending five to seven classes as an observer and then consult with the teaching team (teacher and TA) after the session.
b. AUDIENCE: Assist in identifying different learning styles and correlating pedagogical styles to actual student populations; the pedagogical consultant will help us design this section of the project;
c. ASSESSMENT: Consult on assessment tools, their implementation and evaluation. Pedagogical consultant will assist here.
Evaluation Phase: Spring, 2005
1. Re-examine effectiveness of pedagogical strategies deployed to communicate content, address diverse student audiences, and determine assessment in consultation with appropriate persons (e.g., the consultants);
2. Redesign our foundational courses on the basis of what we have learned, in consultation with our student teaching and research assistants, as well as our general consultant; present those findings to graduate students in a colloquium sponsored by the consultant;
3. Draft an article for appropriate journals, e.g., Teaching Theology and Religion, Theological Education;
4. Consult with dean and colleagues at our respective institutions on what we have learned regarding the design and pedagogy of the foundational course as we plan how to make our presentations to these groups: those who teach the foundational courses in their own seminaries (all those teaching Bible and history);