Two Alternatives to Indoctrinationatory Pedagogy

Source

"In an indoctrinatory classroom, the employment of alternative norms or standards is seen not merely as another way of doing or judging however improper or misguided, but as nonsensical." 

- McDonough (2011)

In pedagogical terms, we often observe two extremes in educational philosophy. Liberal educators preach the twin doctrines of "rational autonomy" and "critical inquiry," while traditionalists tend toward a pedagogy of indoctrination, coercion, and rote recitation. Obviously, education exists on a spectrum between these two extremes and no institution perfectly lives up to its ideals whether liberal or conservative.

In this blog post, we will first define liberal educational philosophy and examine whether or not it lives up to its professed ideals. We will then consider an alternative third possibility that lies between the liberal and traditionalist educational philosophies called initiation, as described by McDonough and applied to Christian education by Reichard. Finally, we will consider some implications for teachers and educators at EBI, making practical recommendations for change
.

Liberal Education 

The most common alternative to indoctrination developed slowly during the enlightenment in the western world and now constitutes the ideal pedagogy in liberal environments. David Hume, a prominent enlightenment philosopher and skeptic, exemplified the type of independent thinker sought today in many educational settings. As a prominent doubter, Hume used reason to reject the metaphysical and spiritual, preferring instead to rely on cognition, reason and intellect for the answers to virtually all questions. A simple summary of Hume's outlook is, "question everything".

Indeed, according to McDonough, the goal of fostering critical, autonomous thinking has become the "summa bonum" (2011) of liberal education. Recently, however, some educators have become disenfranchised with this educational ideal, pointing out that this goal may be unachievable at best and misguided at worst.

McDonough points out on page 707 that,

"The goal of producing the autonomous, critical thinking subject idealized in the Enlightenment period of European history is no longer as clearly and distinctly the goal to which we set ourselves as educators. And with it, even the vaunted ‘critical pedagogy’—as oppositional as it may ever declare itself—has come into question as being the sole right way to educate in the wake of which all others fade into indoctrination."

In other words, educators and students are essentially indoctrinated into embracing critical pedagogy, which comfortably replaces previous indoctrination as the educational philosophy that matters. In that sense, liberal educational philosophy fails at the outset to stop indoctrination, being a form of indoctrination itself.

Finally, it turns out there are multiple forms of liberal educational philosophy. Liberal educators bicker and debate which one stands as the ultimate or best form of liberal educational philosophy and students are sometimes left demoralized, skeptical and confused at the end of a liberal education, unsure what to think or believe.

Initiation

McDonough defends a third alternative that lies between the liberal ideal of complete rational autonomy and the traditionalist's indoctrination: initiation. Although often confused with indoctrination, initiation is actually a hybrid of indoctrination and critical pedagogy that lies between the two extremes.

In initiatory classrooms, students are not merely passive recipients of information but instead exercise "creative agency" as they relate new questions or concepts to the "symbolic resources" of the community in which they are learning (709). The autonomous exercise of "creative agency" is the key difference between indoctrination and initiation while the guiding "symbolic resources" of the community in which the education takes place prevents initiation from developing into full-blown critical pedagogy.

Reichard (2013) adapts and reinterprets McDonough's work to the religious educational setting with the goal of perpetrating and strengthening "community of faith". Three stages of initiation defined by McDonough are rephrased by Reichard as:

1. Conflict - In this stage of initiation, students generate and ponder challenging questions that may call into question the indoctrination they experienced previously (secular or Christian). The educator, however, does not allow this questioning to devolve into Hume's "question everything" skepticism. Instead, according to Reichard, "The conflict stage occurs in a faith-affirming environment where students are free to ask difficult questions and wrestle with difficult problems..." but, crucially, "teachers do not celebrate conflict and doubt. Initiation supports the struggle but does so in perspective" (292). The outlook in an initiatory classroom is one of, "responsible freedom" within the confines of a particular Christian environment and tradition such as EBI.
2. Creativity - In this stage of learning, teachers guide students through the process of creatively addressing the tensions raised during the first stage. As this wrestling process unfolds, Reichard says, teachers must be prepared, "not only to tolerate 'monstrous' replies from students, but also to maintain the capacity to 'utter contraries, contradictions, and paradoxes while themselves retaining authority and legitimacy'" (McDonough 717, Reichard 292). While teachers provide crucial guidance to help students in their wrestling during this phase, student autonomy must be strictly maintained in order to attain the ultimate goal of the final stage of initiation: a personal integration of faith and learning born out of the student's own wrestling resulting in commitment to a particular belief system.
3. Commitment - The final stage of initiatory pedagogy, commitment, takes place as students wrestle through conflict, develop creative solutions to resolve the tension, and subsequently choose to adopt Christian beliefs as superior to those of society at large. Or they don't. It's up to the individual. Only this non-coercive approach to education within context of the unique traditions and "symbols" of a particular Christian heritage (such as historic NTM distinctives) guarantees student autonomy while simultaneously perpetuating a particular Christian community. Closure at this stage is crucial as teachers, "cannot leave the students suspended in doubt and confusion... students must be given the opportunity for initiation, albeit by free choice, into the rationally grounded beliefs of the Christian community" (Reichard 294). 

Recommendations and Conclusions 

I believe that educators at EBI should embrace an initiatory pedagogy as an alternative to indoctrinatory pedagogies currently employed in some parts of the Biblical Studies program. I will give four supporting rationales for this assertion:

1. Initiatory pedagogy embraces the best of both rational critical inquiry and faith traditions while producing students who can handle conflict and tension calmly, confidently, and rationally without resorting to undue pressure, coercive tactics, or systematic shunning characteristic of indoctrinatory environments.
2. Initiatory pedagogy produces genuine, personal commitment to dogmatic statements such as, "Jesus is the Son of God," or, "the Word of God is absolutely true in every part."
3. Initiatory pedagogy generates healthy conversations about the questions that matter for spiritual growth and this educational philosophy fosters an environment characteristic of Mannoia's ideal of "critical commitment" or Thiessen's ideal of "committed openness" (Reichard 286).
4. Initiatory pedagogy brings clarity to and furthers the "grace rediscovery" movement within Ethnos360/NTM by removing the capriciousness often associated with selective application of "grace" ideology. 

Practically speaking, I believe teachers at EBI should strive to define the key debates, problems or tensions in each of their areas of expertise, pose these issues as questions to the students and provide practical guidance and support as students creatively wrestle with and resolve these tensions for themselves. As an ideal pedagogy to strive for, initiation does not rule out all other educational strategies. Ideally, however, educators would begin to focus on the process of learning while celebrating the personal conclusions and commitments students reach as the desired goal of learning, regardless of whether those conclusions align perfectly with the teacher's personal perspectives.

A great example of the type of discussion and debate that leads to healthy interaction and ultimate commitment is the ongoing debate about progressive vs. classic dispensationalism. Teachers should not be the only ones privileged to participate in the debate. Students should carefully and intelligently examine the claims of both perspectives in the course of their studies at EBI, creatively resolve the tension for themselves, and commit to a personal conclusion. We indoctrinate students when we minimize the differences between the perspectives, pretend that no conflict exists, or present a "straw man" argument for the other perspective and proceed to demonstrate how nonsensical and silly those who hold such an opinion must be (ad hominem attack).

As a good start to understanding the practical applications of initiatory pedagogy, I highly recommend Reichard's article I've referenced in this post, particularly pages 293-295 where Reichard gives practical suggestions and real-life examples then critically analyzes the effects of initiation in Christian education. 

As always, thank-you for your time. Comments and feedback are always welcome. 

Works cited: 

IOANA, I., & CRACSNER, C. (2016). EDUCATION vs. INDOCTRINATION. Proceedings Of The Scientific Conference AFASES, 2561-574. doi:10.19062/2247-3173.2016.18.2.11

Reichard, J. D. (2013). From Indoctrination to Initiation: A Non-coercive Approach to Faith-Learning Integration. Journal Of Education & Christian Belief, 17(2), 285-299.