While TEE does provide significant benefits in addressing some of the traditional formal education issues, it is not a panacea. In fact, TEE, primarily because of its diversity of forms and its relative youth compared to traditional formal education, introduces an entirely new set of issues. Some of these are being addressed while others will require further study and action.
First, there has been a general lack of acceptance of TEE as training equivalent to that of residential seminaries and Bible colleges. Despite the fact that TEE has been in existence for more than forty years, many still view TEE with suspicion, as evidenced by the lack of accreditation for most TEE programs. This strained relationship between TEE and traditional formal education models has arisen for several reasons. In the “early days, sweeping claims were made for TEE, and its presumed superiority over traditional Bible colleges.” Thus, almost immediately, parity became the expectation creating an unnecessary adversarial atmosphere. Additionally, traditionalists have viewed “programmed instruction,” the heart and soul of TEE, as too simplistic and limited. As Maldonado notes:
On the one hand it facilitates the assimilation of the content of a subject by dividing the information into small steps, by encouraging the active participation of learners in the process, by defining specific behavioral goals, etc. On the other hand , since it originates from a behavioralistic, pragmatic, and mechanistic frame of reference, programmed instruction tends to restrict horizons rather than broadening them.
Others have argued that “programmed instruction” is intended more for indoctrination and is an attempt to “domesticate” the two-thirds world church. National leaders, furthermore, have not always been supportive of TEE, due to the perceived diffusion of power as more leaders are trained and specialized knowledge of the trained pastor becomes available to congregations in general.
While it is true that “programmed instruction” can be limited, most of these issues can be addressed through the production of quality materials, driven by the national churches and contextualized to specific settings. Unfortunately, these steps have been difficult, due to a lack of full funding and resources for such efforts. Rather than having dedicated resources for producing such materials, TEE efforts are often appended to the workload of already overworked staff. Additionally, the national churches have often not taken ownership of the TEE programs. Thus, when support from the associated mission agency is reduced, the programs fall into disrepair. In some cases, these perceived shortcomings have resulted in difficulties for those seeking ordination.
Second, while it is true that part of the blame for poor outcomes can be placed on the quality of the materials, the lack of properly trained TEE teachers is also an issue. Teaching using “programmed instruction” materials is different than traditional formal models and requires specialized training. In traditional formal education, the teacher is lecture oriented, while TEE requires that the teacher be more focused on the needs of individual learners, acting as a mentor and coach. This issue is further aggravated by the fact that teachers often lack the personal identification with the learner necessary for the development of close relationships. This is due to a lack of time with each learner and cross-cultural barriers. Sometimes, the teacher is also hampered by not being sufficiently academically advanced beyond those they are teaching.
Overall, this has weakened the field experience component of TEE. One of the foundational elements of TEE is based on the ability of the teacher to create a dynamic environment during the weekly sessions in order to facilitate “experiential learning and spiritual formation.” If this perceived failure is true in fact, TEE has been reduced to imparting knowledge that is not likely to have a positive impact on the Church. Thus, in practice, the close mentor/apprentice relationship and the training in real-life situations that is so central to the biblical models have not been achieved.
Third, there are no checks and balances on the outcomes provided by TEE. In traditional formal education settings, checks and balances are provided by the accreditation process. If an institution fails to meet the standard, typically set by the Association of Theological Schools, it looses its accreditation, quickly followed by the loss of new learners and funding. In the case of TEE, however, there is no outside body to provide a binding third-party evaluation to ensure that the learners are doing the work, teachers are providing proper guidance, and that the outcomes meet the stated goals. While this may be true, the answer does not lie in formal accreditation. Such a path would quickly elevate the costs beyond the means of the learners and eliminate the flexibility that has been the hallmark of TEE. This is a difficult problem for which there is no immediate or obvious solution.
Fourth, the time required for completion and the program costs have not been as purported. In most TEE programs, ten or more years for program completion is typical. In cases where training is required for ordination, this can be especially difficult. The length of time, however, may not necessarily be an issue, due to the fact that the learner is fully engaged in ministry during the training. The larger issue is related to the program costs. While the cost to the individual learners is relatively low, estimates for the infra-structure required to operate a TEE program are higher than originally advertised. Maldonado notes:
TEE remains much too expensive for those national churches that still must fight laboriously to be self-supporting in economies deteriorated by devaluation, inflation, and unfavorable commercial exchange.
This is certainly true if the TEE program is dependent on foreign mission agencies to staff and administer the program. If the program, however, were to be fully integrated into the indigenous setting, some of these economic issues might be lessened or eliminated.
Finally, in practice, TEE does address some issues of contextualization by the simple fact that it takes place within the respective church communities. Unfortunately, this does not mean that the contextualization issues have been entirely conquered. While most TEE curricula include the basic foundational information, in many cases “modern processes of curriculum design have not been followed, so that the curriculum reflects a slightly adapted western course of studies.” Furthermore, many TEE programs seem to lack “deep contextualization.” Due to the resource shortage already inherent in many TEE programs, often TEE programs utilize resources written for a different culture. Some argue that this is no different than importing a textbook for a class. However, the difference is that with a textbook an interactive teacher is involved to help bridge the cultural gap. In the case of TEE “programmed instruction,” the text is the teacher and TEE coordinators often lack the training required to deal with these issues.
Additionally, TEE is highly dependent on the literacy of the learners involved. In cases where materials are available in the heart language of the learners, which is often problematic, Ahrrison notes that “a TEE program can fail if it makes unrealistic demands on the literacy levels of the learners.” Furthermore, even for the learner who has adequate literacy skills, the idea of education via the written page is highly western. Thus TEE in a written format is completely useless in pre-literate societies and foreign to those cultures that are primarily aural. In such instances, Sills has shown that in some African settings, eliminating “the classroom requirements of literacy and the printed word results in greater effectiveness in training pastoral leadership.” It is essential that the learning models of the target culture be evaluated prior to blindly assuming a written mode of instruction.
Latest Comments