On Assignment from Camp 4 Collective on Vimeo.
Amazing people!!! Rock steady nerves and amazing endurance.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
So you want to program iphone? Episode 2
Well my first week of attempting to program the iphone has so far been challenging.
After downloading x-code and getting started on the Nerd Ranch book my first application, a simple question and answer app seemed to work. It was not however without a few hitches.
- I didn't know how to open the application interphase where you draw the buttons and other objects on a mock iphone screen. When double clicking on the xib file it would not open. Couldnt find a menu item to open it and a google search only had technical gibberish beyond my capacity to understand. So i tried an old windows trick on the hunch that perhaps the application existed somewhere but was not associated with the xib file type.... I searched and opened the interphase GUI developer program and then BINGO i am in business.
- I made a bunch of coding errors which the program alerts you to, but it doesn't always tell you how to fix.
- I learnt by trial and error that (ID) will never work it needs to be (id).
- The are many core concepts to learn and it is hard going so far.
- It can be hard to find time to concentrate on it.
So You want to Develop Ipad apps? Episode 1
Episode 1
Somehow i got it into my head that it would be good to do an annual challenge - I had heard that Bill Gates reads an out of field book every year, then the facebook guy ( ) undertakes a new challenge every year and this years challenge is to not eat the meat of anything that he hasn't killed himself. Last year i decided to get back into regular gym weight training and have so far stuck it out averageng 2-3 times per week, not bad at 40. So I thought, why not learn how to develop iphone/ipad apps. Although this is a late start this year, better late than never!
Now one might ask why would anyone without a strong programming background even attempt such a thing? Good question. Well the challenge has to be... Well a challenge so it can't be something I already have a strong backgrund in, it has to be new. Anyway i do have a good base of general computer knowledge, some experience with flash and basic (and i mean simple) actionscipting for games. When I was 13-14 i also used to prorgram in Basic (the language) on the apple 2e, as well as a good backgrou in maths and spreadsheet calculations. So how hard can it be?
Step one.
Find the right resources.
Nowadays it is fairly easy to get your hands on digital resources, but a lot of them are not good. So my first point of call has been to google, amazon and itunes uni.
It seems that the best two books available are:
- Iphone programming - the Big Nerd Ranch Guide by Joe Coneay and Aaron Hillegas.
- Programming in Objective C 2.0 by Stephen Kochan
To boot - both are available as kindle books from amazon, but i have to wait for the next edition of the Kochan book which comes out very soon, no point buying an out of date edition.
Video podcasts from itunesU
I found this great video cast from Stanford called Developing Apps for ios. The lecturer is very good, however he says that you should have some background in C programming, and he is right. However he does cover concepts well and it is worth watching after some work using the above books, and to get a feel on how things work.
Computer and software
I have a mac computer which is essential, and joined the apple programmer program (is thst an oxymoron) as a developer for (free) and downloaded X-code the program you use to do all the programming.
I also have an iphone or ipad otherwise - why bother!
I will come back and add more stuff as I find it. Because I am an absolute beginner, I hope my journey will be of help to others.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Honour Culture
Malcolm Gladwell mentions in one of his books the 'southern culture of honour' that is apparently still measurable in university studies with undergraduates- where their reaction to a stimuli is more aggressive than those from the north. This apparently is due to the founders having migrated from areas of the British Isles where this type of culture existed for survival value.
What is honour?
Honour is how you are esteemed by others? Your position in society or your worth is determined by others?
Dignity on the other hand is determined by your own sense of self-worth?
What is the Culture of Honour though?
Honour cultures could be characterised as cultures where you self-image is largely determined by the way others see you, rather than the way you see yourself. This would mean that if someone did something that would make you lesser in the eyes of the community, then you would be bound to act to restore your 'honour'. This would account for the practice of 'duelling', and other retributive acts on others if they slurred someone in the community. An honour culture often exists in nomadic tribes and in the modern world in gangs.
How could this have arisen?
It seems that the honour culture arises mainly in areas where humans live in relatively isolation from others- such as hunter-gatherers, or goat herders - where resources are relatively scarce. Outsiders or neighbours are not well known thus seen as a threat or at the very least, treated with suspicion. Survival in these circumstances requires one to rely on the strength of ones own hand or family. To protect oneself and family, one has to react aggressively and decisively and show no weakness in the face of a possible threat, so that one would not be seen as a weak target. The aim would be to discourage future threats. Any act that would diminish the standing of the individual or family would then be just cause for retribution.
An honour culture is also often characterised by a loose form of loyalty to the 'clan', 'family', tribe or gang. Strength comes in numbers, and other members may be expected to band together when facing an external threat. However the loyalty doesn't always go beyond this, as internal honour killings, or punishment to restore honour.
An honour culture is said to exist amongst middle eastern herders, and historically in the Scottish highlands.
What is honour?
Honour is how you are esteemed by others? Your position in society or your worth is determined by others?
Dignity on the other hand is determined by your own sense of self-worth?
What is the Culture of Honour though?
Honour cultures could be characterised as cultures where you self-image is largely determined by the way others see you, rather than the way you see yourself. This would mean that if someone did something that would make you lesser in the eyes of the community, then you would be bound to act to restore your 'honour'. This would account for the practice of 'duelling', and other retributive acts on others if they slurred someone in the community. An honour culture often exists in nomadic tribes and in the modern world in gangs.
How could this have arisen?
It seems that the honour culture arises mainly in areas where humans live in relatively isolation from others- such as hunter-gatherers, or goat herders - where resources are relatively scarce. Outsiders or neighbours are not well known thus seen as a threat or at the very least, treated with suspicion. Survival in these circumstances requires one to rely on the strength of ones own hand or family. To protect oneself and family, one has to react aggressively and decisively and show no weakness in the face of a possible threat, so that one would not be seen as a weak target. The aim would be to discourage future threats. Any act that would diminish the standing of the individual or family would then be just cause for retribution.
An honour culture is also often characterised by a loose form of loyalty to the 'clan', 'family', tribe or gang. Strength comes in numbers, and other members may be expected to band together when facing an external threat. However the loyalty doesn't always go beyond this, as internal honour killings, or punishment to restore honour.
An honour culture is said to exist amongst middle eastern herders, and historically in the Scottish highlands.
How could a loving God be a father and a judge, and damn people forever
On this one I think it also comes back to God’s character and core values. My thoughts on this (again with a disclaimer).
a. God’s nature is in balance – one aspect of his nature can not be overemphasized above the others, or we get a distorted God. Our modern culture likes to over-emphasise the loving nature of God (and also use our own concepts of love in this also).
b. Both the nature of his love and goodness (and power and knowledge) can be used to explain his role as judge and the existence of an eternal separation or ‘hell’ from his presence in eternity. I’ll explain.
c. Because he is Good – there is no darkness in him, no evil, a combination of his goodness and power combined would explain the concept of Holiness too. Because he is good he created the universe to be good, and ultimately will act on earth, in heaven and in eternity to return things to this. Because He is good – He is just- and the author of justice. He must act in this world, or in eternity on those who are not good, who do evil. He has no choice in this because he is good, he cannot not act regarding evil. Because he is Love, He wants to act to try and bring about a better outcome. He tries a range of things to try and talk people round (being slow to anger and merciful and doesn’t punish us as or sins deserve) but there comes a time when he has to act more vigorously. When He deals with evildoing he has two aims – restoration (from his Core value of Love- we like that bit) but also retribution (from his core value of goodness- punishment/fairness- an eye for an eye, or whatever measure you use unto others will be used to you). This is easier to explain with an example. Lets say Julia stabs Johnny in the back, and he is injured. If Julia is sorry, she can be forgiven (Love satisfied), however Johnny still has a knife in his back and has experienced pain. For justice some retribution must also be dished out to be fair to both parties, in the courts of today (and in Israel) this might include recompense (money for pain and suffering) or more severe justice. Another benefit of justice is that now Julia has experienced the consequences of her actions, and hopefully less likely to offend again. Therefore Gods Goodness and Love can be a basis for his judgements on the earth.
d. Because God is good, in eternity – he has to work out what to do with beings who have opted not to submit themselves to his will. Satan and his angels sinned in full knowledge in the blazing light of his Glory, so did not get a second chance. Humanity gets chance after chance, a redemptive work and a lifetime to respond to Gods call by the spirit in nature, history, humanity and the bible. Because God is loving he must provide enough light to each being to be able to make this decision, but not force them to make the ‘right’ decision.
e. Because he is good (just), he must also act in a retributive way in eternity on those who did not have justice (or fair punishment) exerted on them in this life. He must make sure that no one ‘gets away with it’ so to speak. All sin deserves some form of consequence, if there is no short term consequence in this life, then their must be one in eternity. For the Christian, God’s goodness meant that the punishment we should get had to be meted out on Jesus where he became sin for us. For the God-Man to be made sin and suffer separation from God, this is so unbelievably amazing that it blow my mind. That’s why he experience hell for us- hell being the absence of relationship and presence of God and carrying the guilt of sin. Even a microsecond of this must have been excruciating for the sinless Son of God.
f. Eternal destinies. If everyone who exists is an eternal being, then they must exist in eternity somewhere. If everyone has a free will, and they are free to choose to respond and follow God or not and be their own god, then their destiny is determined by this not by any other factor (how good they are, how much they suffered in this life or any other factor). If God is Good, then His eternal kingdom will be good. There wont be a dollop, smidgeon of evil in it. Because He is good and loves His creation he wants them to exist in an eternal state where there is no sorrow, no suffering or pain which all stem from evil. Only His will will be done in heaven, it is theoretically impossible for someone to exist in heaven who will not willingly surrender their will to Him utterly. That’s why Lucifer fell like the morning star, and the angels who followed him, because they would have been like antimatter meeting matter, or if not, they just couldn’t stand being in a place where they could not express their fallen nature. The same will be for the unrepentant sinner – they can not exist in a place where they will have to follow all the rules forever (they would not be able to meet the expectation) and would either have to be removed or create pain, suffering, cruelty and a host of other problems all over again. So what to do with them?
· The eternal destiny of an unrepentant sinner must be somewhere separate from ‘heaven’. Because God is good – he must keep heaven a good place. Because he is good – he must create a place where satan, demons and unrepentant evildoers can not do any more harm to each other or the universe. In this place they must also not be able to sin – thus it is place of confinement in terms of the inhabitants not being able to satisfy their evil cravings. This gives rise to the possibility that hell will be worse for some than others (a position supported by scripture) depending on the sin nature they bring with them. This would be hell in itself – like an itch you could never scratch J. Because of confinement – no potential for sinful actions exist in the universe – satisfying Gods core value of goodness. Because God is good the inhabitants are not forced to follow Gods ways in heaven, but can continue existing but be prevented from doing further evil.
· The eternal destiny must be opposite from heaven in nature as the unrepentant have rejected God, his nature and offer – if heaven is light then hell must be dark, if heaven is full of love (implying relationships) then hell must be a place of loneliness, if heaven is a good place (because God is good) then hell must be a bad place (in comparison). If there is no pain, or sorrow in heaven, then these must be possible in Hell as He will not be there to wipe the tear out of any eye.
g. The only question that really remains is – well even if ‘hell’ is an eternal place, do humans have to exist there eternally. Wouldn’t it be possible for them to pass through – like the purgatory that the Catholic church envisages? Or could this be a third temporary place. Now this is a nice thought – I like it. But it is difficult to find a lot of evidence for in the bible. Possibly because such a place does not exist. I couldn’t see why it should, why would their need to be a place of waiting? What purpose would it serve – punishment until someone had a change of heart? Wouldn’t seeing God face-to-face be enough for everyone to say “OKAY I believe now!”. That’s an even nicer thought. All I can say to this is that perhaps it is simply not possible. If Satan sinned in the glory of God and a 1/3 of the angels, then it is concievable that seeing him face to face doesn’t make any different. In the old testament the people followed a Glory cloud out of Egypt and still worshipped Baal. In the new testament they saw the Son of God (and that wasn’t enough for many). Perhaps more can be saved by responding to what measure of light they receive here than if this occurs after we die? Perhaps the outcome would have been the same (those who respond in this life would be the only ones who respond when they see Him)? We tend to think that if only there was greater light or more awareness then that would work? Perhaps it doesn’t. Perhaps it is psychologically/spiritually impossible for someone to repent after they have died? Perhaps the work of the cross only works through human belief- death and physical resurrection into newness of life, (unless alive at the coming of the Lord) and can’t be applied afterwards? I am thinking that if it was possible that there was another way – God would have made this other way possible, but there was no other way, so Jesus went to the cross.
Why would God create someone knowing they would be damned?
This issue has been a matter of debate for hundreds of years, so there is a lot of literature that can be referred to. To make a summary decision based on what feels right about this is probably not going to cut the mustard. My thoughts on this (disclaimer: this is my own limited understanding and should not be taken as definitive eternal Christian legal advice) go something like this:
It is possible for starters that we create we – not God. This power of procreation was given to humanity, all other animals and plants during creation to re-produce after their own kind. We get to choose whether we do so or not, what we become is due to a mixture of genetics, nurture and our own free will. Some theologians believe the soul/spirit is created by God at conception, others think it is part of the conception process, I think it is probably the latter because he finished his creation on the 6th day and said it was good. If this is the case – then the first part of the question is invalid – God doesn’t create someone to be damned. It could be argued that we were all in Adam – so in essence he created all of us – but I think this is really an argument regarding our ancestry not our individual being.
b. Perhaps a similar question is why did he create Adam at all knowing he would sin, and knowing all the trouble that would get us all into. In this case it is important to recognise that God acts according to his divine nature and “core values”. If we agree that His divine nature includes: perfect love, goodness, complete knowledge, creativity and complete power; then al His actions stem from this.
Love and creativity – relationships are core values for God, they exist in his trinity, therefore the expression of these two values is apparent in the creation of Adam. For Love to be realised – the created must be intelligent, emotional and have a free will (free to truly love the creator and other humans or not to do so). Otherwise he would have sophisticated blow-up-dolls, I am pretty sure he wasn’t keen on this idea. Because of his core value of love he created man anyway– knowing that some will break his heart, because Love is very important to him.
Love and creativity – relationships are core values for God, they exist in his trinity, therefore the expression of these two values is apparent in the creation of Adam. For Love to be realised – the created must be intelligent, emotional and have a free will (free to truly love the creator and other humans or not to do so). Otherwise he would have sophisticated blow-up-dolls, I am pretty sure he wasn’t keen on this idea. Because of his core value of love he created man anyway– knowing that some will break his heart, because Love is very important to him.
c. Because God is all knowing (omniscient) and all powerful doesn’t mean he can do everything. He can’t do things that are non-sensical or against his core values or divine nature: i.e. he can’t make a square-circle, or will himself out of existence, or do evil, or forget things. Perhaps foreknowing doesn’t help Him out because he can’t fix it. A couple of ideas around this:
· If Adam and Eve (perfect beings with no sinful nature) blew it, and he created them anyway, why didn’t he create another different Adam version 6201 who wouldn’t have made this decision. Obviously he couldn’t.
· If he had no power to alter the decisions of Adam and Eve, how could He have better luck with those born with a sinful nature – would selecting sperm 2071 to meet egg 103 make any difference?
· Could he select before something exists – i.e. until something exists it does not exist so how could He know something that is not and never will be? I.e. He knows everyone who exists and will exist and their choices and destiny, but he doesn’t know everyone who doesn’t exist because they don’t exist.
· For arguments sake if he could selectively breed us to improve the odds that ‘good natured’ people will exist who would choose Him, how would we know whether this is occurring.
· He could also wait for someone to exist, then knowing their future actions, abort them to avoid them doing this. But then he would have a dilemma on his hands – should he let them into heaven knowing that they would have not chosen him? Perhaps because they never lived and acted, their future actions never exist, so he couldn’t know them anyway (as above).
d. Because he is “good” he will not force a person to love and follow him. If he gives this right (a free will) to one He must give it to all. He must allow people to be born with this choice whether He likes it or not (and whether we like it or not).
e. If we all have a free will, then we will not be able to stand before the throne and say I didn’t follow you because you created me that way. We get the choice full stop.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Using Modern Pedagogy in Church.
Currently church messages are a one-way phenomenon. The church has largely focussed on 'what is taught' rather then 'the way it is taught'. A lot of effort has been put into having correct doctrine, but not enough on the ways and means to teach this effectively. We have focussed on communication of the message via a transmission model of learning, rather than a model based on a social-constructivist approach involving participation with the message. There are a number of problems with this.
From a learning theory perspective, the 'sage on the stage' method of teaching is one of the least effective ways to learn, as is memorisation or wrote learning. Both these practices still predominate in the church. Some still believe if we only cram enough bible versus into our children or congregation, then this will make them grow (or at least prevent them from leaving). This approach is based on a learning model that people learn like a sponge, or a jug which you fill up. The learning is removed from the context of the 'real world' and is a passive undertaking. In a typical meeting what the audience is learning is how to be a good audience, how to look like your listening, how to pay attention, how to keep the children quite.... we hope that something might get through, that the holy spirit might write the word in the hearts of the listener. The reality is that the church has become an event where mostly people are observers not active participants.
This model of learning is antiquated, is not pedagogically sound, and mostly results in a shallow learning experience. Bar a miracle, I doubt a lot happens in terms of internal or behavioural change in many church services. Unless their is an immediate opportunity to participate or do what is being preached it is just head knowledge... in one ear out the other.
What we need is a change of teaching methods to include those that promote deeper learning, richer understanding, and promote meaningful and transformative learning. Pedagogical approaches that are constructivist in nature, and engage the congregation in making personal connections with each other and the learning material with opportunities for putting it into practice are vital. A key to this social-constructivist approach to learning is the understanding that learning is powerful when it is actively created in the mind of the learner through conversation and interaction with others. The learner has to 'do something with what is learnt'. This could involve the congregation linking a concept to a current situation, comparing its differences or similarities to others, debating its importance, discussing exceptions to the rule, finding ways to appropriately apply and circumstances where it would be inappropriate to apply etc etc etc. Unless they are asked to do something with what is being taught they haven't really learnt anything. It is also preferably that their involvement involves discussion with someone nearby or a small group as there are manifest benefits such as: opportunity to build relationships, explore multiple perspectives, discuss in greater depth, ask and and answer questions etc.
10 Ideas on how to use a social constructivist approach in church.
1. Use twitter to collect questions during the service. Answer a selection of questions posted.
2. Have a short 5 minute recess for people to discuss and then post a twitter question from the group.
3. Ask a number of open ended questions and then get the congregation to form small groups to discuss, post nature of discussion on twitter and highlight interesting comments.
4. Post up a #yourchurch on the powerpoint so that people can discuss the sermon in real time.
5. Start the message with several different propositions - get members to stand depending on which proposition they agree with most. At the end see how many have changed their position? Ask them why or why not?
6. Ask random people who came to church to come up... then ask them what the message was about last week, also ask them how it has changed their life or actions this week?
7. Survey the church on key issues, then resurvey after a series and measure any impact via behavioural change. (Why behavioural... because it is the only way to validate a change in belief). Obviously this needs to be anonymous, and pick up people who have attended through the series.
8. Use volunteers to re-enact a story on stage.
9. Do a short quiz and get people to self-mark or self evaluate their own values or behaviours, and discuss this with someone nearbye.
10. Use learner response devices to get feedback from the congregation, with some interesting key questions... even before then after questions, predictive questions et al.
Use of a digital learning platform for church bible college, or training.
The use of online learning is rapidly expanding across the world, and there are manifest opportunities for rich learning through this rather than just posting curriculum to be devoured.
Modern online learning platforms provide a number of tools to bring about a social-constructivist learning experience such as.
1. Posting text, video, photos, animations and simulations
2. Allow people to do quizes - which feeds into the next learning session as a teacher can ascertain areas that people are unclear on and focus on this more than just covering more content.
3. Allow people to post questions (and answer each others questions) which promotes a rich and inclusive learning experience.
4. Personalisation can be achieved as learners can progress at their own pace, and can have access to a wider variety of learning material through links and optional tasks.
5. Assessment can be automated so that teachers can focus on creating better content and delivering better teaching strategies.
6. Learners and teachers can post interesting material on blogs within the learning environment.
So why not?
I think some of the reasons churches have not adopted modern learning approaches are as follows.
* Ignorance and inexperience- the church is largely unaware of and lacks experience or further education in the area of teaching and learning. The church can not then see the many benefits from such approaches.
* Fear - moving away from a top down, sage on the stage approach is a threat for some ministers as it reduces their control over their congregations and may diminish some ego's. It raises concerns about what might be discussed in church and how this should be managed? Also churches tend to be risk averse, which means that opportunities that challenge the status quo are overlooked or summarily dismissed.
* Time and Cost - it takes time and money to learn or adopt new approaches and more so to do them well.
*Tradition- many church practices are inherited from generation to generation with little evaluation as to their origin or effectiveness. Sometimes practices are justified as they were evident in the New Testament, even though the bible does not command a particular approach. (I.e. because Jesus preached from a boat... if we missed the point then we then follow this practice thinking it to be an approach modelled for us to follow).
*Lack of particular leadership qualities- leadership is a variegated phenomena. The church tends to be populated with leaders that are cautious and conservative who tend to select people with similar values and qualities when appointing new leaders.
So where to next?
The church (corporate) desperately needs to adjust itself away from a transmission only model of learning to one that includes social-constructivist approaches.
The church needs to focus equally on how to teach as well as what to teach.
The church needs to draw from other expertise in spheres of knowledge outside its own leaders experiences to enrich its own practices.... i.e. universities, schools, business, military.
The church should focus more on learning and less on teaching. i.e. "Are people learning effectively" rather than "Are we teaching effectively?"
The church should also focus on creating better learners, people who have the motivation, will and expertise to learn for themselves.
From a learning theory perspective, the 'sage on the stage' method of teaching is one of the least effective ways to learn, as is memorisation or wrote learning. Both these practices still predominate in the church. Some still believe if we only cram enough bible versus into our children or congregation, then this will make them grow (or at least prevent them from leaving). This approach is based on a learning model that people learn like a sponge, or a jug which you fill up. The learning is removed from the context of the 'real world' and is a passive undertaking. In a typical meeting what the audience is learning is how to be a good audience, how to look like your listening, how to pay attention, how to keep the children quite.... we hope that something might get through, that the holy spirit might write the word in the hearts of the listener. The reality is that the church has become an event where mostly people are observers not active participants.
This model of learning is antiquated, is not pedagogically sound, and mostly results in a shallow learning experience. Bar a miracle, I doubt a lot happens in terms of internal or behavioural change in many church services. Unless their is an immediate opportunity to participate or do what is being preached it is just head knowledge... in one ear out the other.
What we need is a change of teaching methods to include those that promote deeper learning, richer understanding, and promote meaningful and transformative learning. Pedagogical approaches that are constructivist in nature, and engage the congregation in making personal connections with each other and the learning material with opportunities for putting it into practice are vital. A key to this social-constructivist approach to learning is the understanding that learning is powerful when it is actively created in the mind of the learner through conversation and interaction with others. The learner has to 'do something with what is learnt'. This could involve the congregation linking a concept to a current situation, comparing its differences or similarities to others, debating its importance, discussing exceptions to the rule, finding ways to appropriately apply and circumstances where it would be inappropriate to apply etc etc etc. Unless they are asked to do something with what is being taught they haven't really learnt anything. It is also preferably that their involvement involves discussion with someone nearby or a small group as there are manifest benefits such as: opportunity to build relationships, explore multiple perspectives, discuss in greater depth, ask and and answer questions etc.
10 Ideas on how to use a social constructivist approach in church.
1. Use twitter to collect questions during the service. Answer a selection of questions posted.
2. Have a short 5 minute recess for people to discuss and then post a twitter question from the group.
3. Ask a number of open ended questions and then get the congregation to form small groups to discuss, post nature of discussion on twitter and highlight interesting comments.
4. Post up a #yourchurch on the powerpoint so that people can discuss the sermon in real time.
5. Start the message with several different propositions - get members to stand depending on which proposition they agree with most. At the end see how many have changed their position? Ask them why or why not?
6. Ask random people who came to church to come up... then ask them what the message was about last week, also ask them how it has changed their life or actions this week?
7. Survey the church on key issues, then resurvey after a series and measure any impact via behavioural change. (Why behavioural... because it is the only way to validate a change in belief). Obviously this needs to be anonymous, and pick up people who have attended through the series.
8. Use volunteers to re-enact a story on stage.
9. Do a short quiz and get people to self-mark or self evaluate their own values or behaviours, and discuss this with someone nearbye.
10. Use learner response devices to get feedback from the congregation, with some interesting key questions... even before then after questions, predictive questions et al.
Use of a digital learning platform for church bible college, or training.
The use of online learning is rapidly expanding across the world, and there are manifest opportunities for rich learning through this rather than just posting curriculum to be devoured.
Modern online learning platforms provide a number of tools to bring about a social-constructivist learning experience such as.
1. Posting text, video, photos, animations and simulations
2. Allow people to do quizes - which feeds into the next learning session as a teacher can ascertain areas that people are unclear on and focus on this more than just covering more content.
3. Allow people to post questions (and answer each others questions) which promotes a rich and inclusive learning experience.
4. Personalisation can be achieved as learners can progress at their own pace, and can have access to a wider variety of learning material through links and optional tasks.
5. Assessment can be automated so that teachers can focus on creating better content and delivering better teaching strategies.
6. Learners and teachers can post interesting material on blogs within the learning environment.
So why not?
I think some of the reasons churches have not adopted modern learning approaches are as follows.
* Ignorance and inexperience- the church is largely unaware of and lacks experience or further education in the area of teaching and learning. The church can not then see the many benefits from such approaches.
* Fear - moving away from a top down, sage on the stage approach is a threat for some ministers as it reduces their control over their congregations and may diminish some ego's. It raises concerns about what might be discussed in church and how this should be managed? Also churches tend to be risk averse, which means that opportunities that challenge the status quo are overlooked or summarily dismissed.
* Time and Cost - it takes time and money to learn or adopt new approaches and more so to do them well.
*Tradition- many church practices are inherited from generation to generation with little evaluation as to their origin or effectiveness. Sometimes practices are justified as they were evident in the New Testament, even though the bible does not command a particular approach. (I.e. because Jesus preached from a boat... if we missed the point then we then follow this practice thinking it to be an approach modelled for us to follow).
*Lack of particular leadership qualities- leadership is a variegated phenomena. The church tends to be populated with leaders that are cautious and conservative who tend to select people with similar values and qualities when appointing new leaders.
So where to next?
The church (corporate) desperately needs to adjust itself away from a transmission only model of learning to one that includes social-constructivist approaches.
The church needs to focus equally on how to teach as well as what to teach.
The church needs to draw from other expertise in spheres of knowledge outside its own leaders experiences to enrich its own practices.... i.e. universities, schools, business, military.
The church should focus more on learning and less on teaching. i.e. "Are people learning effectively" rather than "Are we teaching effectively?"
The church should also focus on creating better learners, people who have the motivation, will and expertise to learn for themselves.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Faith
Funnily enough I reckon the "faith churches" in Australia often seem to have the least amount of genuine faith. I think they often-place substitute real faith for a simplified formula product. Faith is linked to one-liner or single passage promises, and is a means to get something that one does not have. The problem arises because people often want an easy fix, a simple answer and clear-cut explanations. I worry that this is the exact opposite of what the Bible is. If it was supposed to be that simple, then Jesus would have spoken plainly like the disciples urged him too.
My definition of real faith: A genuine trust in the Lord and his word that supernaturally saves us and connects us to Him. Real faith acknowledges ambiguities and the tensions that exist in the scriptures and real life, and survives times where we seem not to be able to connect with God in a meaningful way. This sort of faith is a tough faith, with a relentless desire to hold one or die trying.
Faith is closely related or synonymous to belief and trust. Perhaps substituting these words would help those who are in the 'faith churches' to overcome the barrier that comes when you are programmed into a particular belief system by books, magazines, preaching and church culture.
My definition of real faith: A genuine trust in the Lord and his word that supernaturally saves us and connects us to Him. Real faith acknowledges ambiguities and the tensions that exist in the scriptures and real life, and survives times where we seem not to be able to connect with God in a meaningful way. This sort of faith is a tough faith, with a relentless desire to hold one or die trying.
Faith is closely related or synonymous to belief and trust. Perhaps substituting these words would help those who are in the 'faith churches' to overcome the barrier that comes when you are programmed into a particular belief system by books, magazines, preaching and church culture.
Take up your cross.
Jesus often talks in riddles and uses symbolism and "parables" - all of which can be taken multiple ways. It can be hard to be sure of exactly what he means. I have been reflecting on the verse where he tells us to take up our cross, and that he who lays down his life for His sake will gain it back
Often in the world of church, education and the community we expect people to change their behaviour, and we put in place sanctions to deter people from poor decision and consider better ones. Choice is a wonderful thing and people (given the right conditions) can choose to change the what they think, believe and even what they do, and often times they don't.
However it seems that Christ is in the business of changing the way people are- by giving a new nature and walking in the light he wants us to be transformed from the inside out by the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than from the outside in by effort alone. His requirement is absolute surrender of what and who we are. We don't really have the liberty to 'be who we want to be' or choose our own destiny or create our own image... we need to surrender to him to be reflect his image. Now that doesn't mean that we don't have a say and don't strive to achieve things in this life, nor that we all become carbon clones, but it all comes down to putting our ways before him for his guidance and being willing to do what He wants if there is a conflict.
Often in the world of church, education and the community we expect people to change their behaviour, and we put in place sanctions to deter people from poor decision and consider better ones. Choice is a wonderful thing and people (given the right conditions) can choose to change the what they think, believe and even what they do, and often times they don't.
However it seems that Christ is in the business of changing the way people are- by giving a new nature and walking in the light he wants us to be transformed from the inside out by the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than from the outside in by effort alone. His requirement is absolute surrender of what and who we are. We don't really have the liberty to 'be who we want to be' or choose our own destiny or create our own image... we need to surrender to him to be reflect his image. Now that doesn't mean that we don't have a say and don't strive to achieve things in this life, nor that we all become carbon clones, but it all comes down to putting our ways before him for his guidance and being willing to do what He wants if there is a conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)