Using IT as a teaching pedagogy

The impact of information technology (IT) in theological education have provided great software like Bible Works, Greek and Hebrew Tutor where they assist in learning grammatical paradigms, vocabulary and relevant background information. Nonetheless, biblical exegesis is more complex which requires the skills of analysis, comparison and evaluation. An article called “Hebrew Exegesis Online Using Information Technology to enhance Biblical language study” by Steven W. Klipowicz and Tim Laniak focus on developing an online course to teach Hebrew exegesis. (Teaching Theology and Religion, 1999, vol. 2 no. 2, pp 109-115)

Laniak’s development of a web-based pedagogy includes the following:

- Using the internet in which it provides the following educational features to support the learning of Hebrew exegesis:

• Interactivity: student can interact with other students
• Independent of time and distance: learner can access classes and other resources from anywhere and at any time
• Learner controlled: web-based instruction permits the learner to have direct influence upon learning content, pace, and sequence.
  

- A theory-driven pedagogy that used a web-based instructional design was created. This pedagogy was created with these approaches in mind:

• Asynchronous learning: Asynchronous learning is ‘learning at anytime or in any place using internet and World Wide Web software tools such as email, electronic bulletin boards, and web pages as the main vehicle for instruction.
• Collaborative learning: Collaboration is the process of shared creation: two or more individuals with complementary skills interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could have come to on their own.
• Peer review: Peer review is the directed involvement of students in the work of their colleagues for the purpose of critique and feedback. This method is founded upon the theoretical framework of situated cognition.
  

- Laniak’s evaluation:

An experiment is worth undertaking when the potential of new insights or practical gains is likely. Even in such cases, one must consider the risks and trade-offs. Standing at the end of the process, I am delighted at the progress most students made using this innovative format. OT 210-Tech was an experiment using informational technology to address a challenging pedagogical setting (10-hour monthly meetings) and justified by the likelihood of achieving specific educational goals in higher levels of critical thinking. OT 210-Tech also posed risks, especially for those unfamiliar with the use of the Internet. We are optimistic that future versions of this course will have fewer technological difficulties while maximizing the educational advantages of this approach.

We began the adventure by providing an hour-long orientation to the course technology. Students filled out forms identifying their computer systems, e-mail addresses and passwords. I used a computer projector to introduce our OT 210-Tech site. We walked through each "page'' and posted some simple documents. I provided hard copies of the electronic discussion guides that would be due each week on the Web site. I also explained that since this course was experimenting with some novel technology, they would have access to our technical support person in Massachusetts (who provided a letter of introduction with e-mail address, etc.) as well as to myself (by phone, fax, e-mail, etc.). I emphasized that if the technology became a problem at any point, they could resort to a more traditional form of communication (phone or mail) without any penalty. This was a very important offer but neglected by some of the students. Assignments began immediately. A short discussion guide with one page of questions (on twelve verses in the Hebrew Bible) was due the following Monday. As Murphy's Law would have it, the school's server was down that whole weekend! It became clear which students could "go with the flow'' (call or send me an e-mail and wait till they heard back) and which ones would quickly "hit the wall'' (repeated attempts to log on to the site, repeated phone calls expressing alarm and frustration).

After this initial challenge the course moved into a regular pace. Students would post their answers to the discussion guides every week for three weeks of the month. On two of these guides there was an essay question that required some specific form of research and reflection. They were either literary/linguistic/textual, historical, or theological. I would post their 1± 2 paragraph answers anonymously on our essay page to which they would then respond by posting a single paragraph in their own ``folder.`` A student's folder was the private page to which only the professor and that individual student had access. After the first month I encouraged the students to begin using another area of the site designed for their final projects. Two discussion boards (one for each group) were available for group interaction regarding an exegetical commentary. They were assigned a chapter of biblical Hebrew narrative and thirteen discreet exegetical steps to follow (see Stuart 1984). They could divide these up any way they wanted but they were to have the final project organized as a single commentary. The Web board was offered to facilitate group interaction during commentary production. Rough drafts of a student's work and many of the secondary resources could be reviewed by other members of the group who were studying the same passage. This source of input was optional; students would ultimately be graded on their individual (final) contributions to the group project. Of the two groups, only one used this feature extensively. The difference, I believe, was the ability of one group to mobilize and coordinate their efforts early enough in the semester. During our final class session there were two "application'' presentations, one from each group. One group presented a sermon; the other provided an apologetic presentation. We all took a look at the site to verify that the work on both passages was complete. The members of each group were then given four weeks to review the work of the other group critically and to prepare for a final quiz on these two passages. The peer review on these projects was entered into the same personal folders noted above.