We tend to think of young children as “empty glasses” when it comes to what they need to know. Our primary school curriculum is intent on filling that glass with the building blocks of learning. It does so with a pre-determined mix of memorization and processes required to read, write, and perform increasingly complex calculations. With these tools, children explore a whole world of ideas. They both discover and generate data that is useful to them. These tools help them engage in real world functions, solve problems, and address genuine challenges.

However, as children grow into adults, there is a subtle but evident shift in how they learn. They begin relying less on “teachers” and more on their own individual experience and learning styles. Much of this has to do with their own successes with informal learning, but also with aptitudes, and gifting. While some learn to play the academic game according to the rules, others manage it successfully in their own unique way. Others struggle and drop out of school.

Part of this problem may lie in the traditional approach to “filling the glass” that focuses on “teaching” fixed content and using extrinsic motivation such as attendance and grades. In the competitive environment of schools, these criteria discriminate against those with less academic ability and those who are motivated to pursue other legitimate interests.

Filling the Glass

Young adults bring a lot of experience to the table along with unique interests, learning needs, and styles. Conquering the standardized curricula developed for higher education programs rewards those who can play the game well. Their prize is the status of having “earned” a high school or college degree. At some point in our educational system, there seems to be a shift from individual development and competence to education for its own sake. This shift is suspect if our goal is to develop competent people.

There is a movement, even in elementary education, to allowing students to take greater control in their learning. Yet many adult education programs continue to provide set curricula rather than allow students to choose the courses they need and want in the pursuit of their own calling. Programs change little in their approach from education of children to education of adults despite their significant cognitive, psychological, and social differences. Programs use “bundled” sets of courses determined by faculty, that lead to the coveted degree. Whether the coursework is relevant to the student and their vocational development seems to be of little concern.

In the guide we’ve published under the title of The Self-Directed Student, we have presented a brief review of sociologists, psychologists and educators who have helped us understand the dimensions and processes involved in adult learning. Adult learning theory has taken great strides during the past hundred years. But many of our programs are still based on an outdated understanding. Attempts to modify programs in the light of these discoveries often look like efforts to shore-up traditional approaches, rather than the paradigm shift in programing they suggest; from school directed to self-directed studies. The focus needs to shift from the goal of earning degrees to genuine personal and vocational development. These can be mutually compatible goals.

Student Controlled Studies

One of the first principles of adult education is that of self-direction. Adults want to be in control of their learning because that is the way they can keep it relevant to what they need. Meeting felt needs and the curriculum must coincide. These two perspectives—the student’s and what an academic program offers—must match for significant learning and growth to occur.

Reflecting on my own experience as a college student, there were very few courses that impacted my life. I do remember professors who made us read the text but spent most of their lectures talking about oblique nuances of their graduate work. When I became a professor, I wanted to be different—to generate “significant learning” in my students. I had been hired to teach a seminary course on the topic of “Contextualization.” A sample syllabus was provided but there was no textbook (nor could I find one).

I remember the desperate efforts I made to give lectures that sounded knowledgeable and insightful. I believed I had to meet expectations as the “sage on the stage.” I sometimes reflect on what a disappointment my classes must have been. How much better for all of us if I had focused on what my students really needed to learn and let them take the lead in that process. It would have been much better than trying to generate good lectures from the set curriculum.

The Shift to Self-Directed Learning

Towards the end of my short career as a seminary professor, I was assigned a course on “Cross-cultural Leadership.” The idea occurred to me of letting my students—most of them mid-career missionaries—take control of their learning. My first statement to them after introducing myself was: “What is your problem!?” After their initial surprise, they caught on and started working on defining their most immediate leadership challenges, proposing goals for their learning, and outlining what they were going to do in a learning contract.

When this world of possibilities opened to them, some were initially flummoxed, expecting me to tell them what to learn.  Others got very excited and over ambitious. Yet I was able to work with each one in shaping and resourcing their learning project. They learned more about their own ability to learn in their context, than they would have through a hundred lectures. Through that experience, I rediscovered the motivational power of self-directed studies and regained a sense of personal purpose in teaching. I went from being the “sage on the stage” to the “guide on the side.” It was the redemptive moment of my five-year stint at that seminary.

As adult educators, we need to encourage students to understand what they need and determine their learning path. We must identify with their real-life challenges and aspirations, and not carry on with our unfounded assumptions that they don’t know what they need to know. When we take the time to understand their individual challenges, we can help them address them. As they work on solutions, they grow and become better leaders.

Since that seminary course, I have continued to find that allowing students envision their goals, and then helping them choose the paths they take (through learning maps and contracts), is profoundly empowering. Their intrinsic motivation carries them through the process. The student takes leadership, while the teacher works as guide and facilitator. This is a deeply rewarding relationship.

Dr. Jonathan Lewis (Ph.D. Human Resource Development)

Our Creator has given each of us a unique inherent design to follow in order to develop into the persons that we are intended to become. Just as individuals have a unique genetic code that results in unique physical features (some exclusively ours like fingerprints and irises), everyone’s vocational design is also individualized and distinct. While perhaps less easily identified than physical traits or personality, evidence of this design is apparent in those who are confident, content, and successful in their vocational service in contrast to their counterparts who feel confused as to who they really are and unfulfilled in what they do.

When speaking of “Christian vocational development,” it is important to note that the identification of vocation starts with the assumption that the indwelling Spirit of God directs this process through motivational impulses, sometimes called “motivational gifts” (see Romans 12:3-8, the Bible). These gifts are easily identified by the impact made by believers as they respond to these holy impulses in service to others. What is more, the exercise of ministry is intended to fit in perfectly with that of others who are fulfilling their calling, just as a jig-saw puzzle is completed when all its pieces are fitted together.

It is also important to note that translators of Scriptures often use the word “vocation” and “calling” interchangeably. In Christian circles, “calling” is usually referred to when talking about those pursuing work in Christian service as a pastor, missionary, or teacher. For this reason, I prefer to use the word “vocation” to describe something that is just as compelling as a “calling” but expresses itself in many different occupations. Olympic gold medalist, Eric Liddell voices this idea well in this quotation: God made me fast. And when I run, I feel his pleasure.  Any Christian’s sense of fulfillment is ultimately defined by those things where we experience “God’s pleasure” in being who he has designed us to be.

The uniqueness of everyone born into this world seems to be part of the universal plan from the ultimate Designer and is achieved when people develop in accordance with their particular design. United in service to one another, we reflect the composite image and likeness of the Creator (Genesis 1:26). This is the description of the body of Christ that the Apostle Paul talks about in Ephesians 4:15-16 …speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Why Educational Systems Lead to Vocational Dissatisfaction

Modern education has tended to deny this uniqueness of design, and processes individuals through pre-established curricula intended to provide the masses with the basic skills needed to survive in the modern world. Some might argue that this is the only way to address the efficiency needed to achieve the goal of universal education. The three “Rs” (reading, writing and arithmetic) are considered universal outcomes of elementary education and everyone on the planet should be equipped with these skills. Secondary education expands on these basics and allows young people to identify areas of general interest and aptitude, eventually leading to the great divide between those relatively few (particularly in the non-western world) privileged to go into tertiary education who will presumably command more status, better work opportunities, and larger incomes; or going directly into the work force, with or without additional occupational training. This assembly-line approach to education meets broad national objectives and has been relatively successful at generating laborers and professionals to meet labor needs. However, it tends to stifle individual initiative in development and many fall through the cracks in the system because it doesn’t match personal learning styles or needs.

With due respect to educational reformers who are attempting with some success to define outcomes in terms of whole person competency, most current educational systems still tend to be focused on development of intellectual capability and largely ignore other intelligences and areas of gifting and aptitude which are just as important to a fulfilling life and improving productivity in the workplace. Again, it may be argued that information and its processing is the first step to becoming competent in vocational areas and that academia does that well. However, the integration of this knowledge in the workplace is often relegated to the “hoped for” in terms of tangible outcomes of academic courses and, if I may be so bold, much of this standardized knowledge acquisition is irrelevant to real life situations and achieves little by way of personal or vocational development.

When training programs are designed with the “one size fits all” mentality, they reflect an attitude that people are cogs in the machinery of business and industry, seldom taking into consideration their individual hopes and aspirations, let alone their happiness, unique gifts, motivations, character traits and aptitudes. Again, this may be necessary to achieve certain efficiencies in “educating people” for the workforce but leaves a lot to be desired if we believe that matching people with their particular proclivity for the work they do is important for their own fulfillment and to their contribution in the marketplace.

This Problem Surfaces in Training for Christian Service

Much of the training offered by Christian institutions is patterned after that offered by their secular cousins with the result that ensuing degrees and certification programs consistently launch persons into careers and services for which they are insufficiently prepared and which in the long run, they do not find fulfilling. Many of those choosing careers in Christian service exit the profession within a few years. A Duke University study found that 85% of seminary graduates entering the ministry leave within five years and 90% of all pastors will not stay to retirement.

How do we help Christians who want to serve God become who they are designed to be? It isn’t necessarily by putting them through more standardized coursework leading to higher degrees. Even those who do find fulfillment in what they do but want to grow in their service, often find little of value in much of the graduate level coursework that they are required to undertake at great personal cost and effort. Others prove themselves to be highly successful students but find themselves struggling in the careers they were presumably certified to perform. Lack of a good vocational fit leads to widespread dissatisfaction and stagnation, not only in the workplace, but in the church and ministries where Christians choose to serve.

This problem is compounded by the notion that the work of Christ is carried out primarily by professionals with theology degrees, when it’s obvious from Scriptures that the work of Christ has always been carried out by all those who follow him and are a part of his “universal body,” both past and present. All work is made sacred because it is offered as service to God through its only practical expression: service to and with others (Matt. 25:40). This work happens in all legitimate occupational spheres.

Prioritize Method, not Content

Many of our educational systems continue to employ methods that aren’t informed by research or best practice. Methods are important to learning. While many have abandoned the method of rote learning with a focus on memorization with the goal of information transfer, it is still widely practiced in the so-called “developing world,” a tradition that standardized exams to measure learning, even with adult learners. There is little correlation between the practice of rote learning and significant learning, particularly in higher levels of education. Significant learning requires integration of information with real life experience to generate understanding and competence adults seek. This rarely happens in the classroom except with basic skills targeted in elementary schools.

Adults are more highly developed than children cognitively and have very different learning needs. The hierarchical teacher/student relationship is often maintained with little regard for life-experience, maturity, and the knowledge base and reasoning skills adult students can make to learning, and their contribution to the construction of understanding as a peer group.

When teaching is done with the goal of information transfer, little significant learning occurs that leads to personal development or impact. Even more damaging is the widely held assumption that adults need “subject matter experts” to tell them what they need to know to succeed. This follows a self-serving hierarchical dependency that must be broken if individuals are to become lifelong learners who know how to identify and pursue their own learning goals.

A Systematic Change of Paradigm

As a lifelong ministry trainer, I suggest that there are better ways of developing vocational calling, particularly if we acknowledge that serving others is the way we express our service to God. We believe that God designed people uniquely and that they have the inherent capacity to uniquely reflect their Creator. If we are to help adults find vocational fulfillment, we must start with a wholistic approach that focuses on them—their individuality, their life experience, and their aptitudes. We must consider their personal motivations, their hopes and aspirations, their work contexts, and empower them to identify and pursue knowledge, skills and character development that is relevant to them and their specific goals. We must develop a wholistic approach that focuses on process and competence, rather than just knowledge acquisition, with the aim of helping individuals achieve personal fulfillment and bring a smile to God’s face.

This is particularly true for educational programs designed for followers of Jesus who feel “called” to serve in “Kingdom” work—whether in organized faith-based institutions or simply as “salt and light” in the marketplaces of the world. The need to teach doctrine to religious workers seems to be paramount in most Christian education programs, yet little is done to help them develop their unique, whole person gifting and vocational calling. This must be addressed, particularly with helping those who have taken years of formal training to enter the ministry and find themselves floundering.

Religion also has its way of producing its own needed operational “cogs” and too often, the concept of “calling” is relegated to the handful that choose to serve the church and its institutions as “full time” professionals. Yet the concept of service to God is universal and applies to all humans who believe and recognize the value of building their lives on the teachings of Jesus and obeying his dual commandment to love God and love people. Service to God is not an exclusive calling. We need to capitalize on the inherent gifting of believers and its expression in service in the marketplaces of the world.

As Go Global Network, we propose that God calls all mankind to himself and to his service—to the good works which he prepared for each human being from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 2:10). We believe that the “new birth” that Jesus talked about (John 3:1-8) is the way to connect with that divine purpose and gifting in each of us—to be empowered to grow as unique, spiritually alive human beings created to serve each other and thus experience the joy and fulfillment of reflecting the loving nature of our Creator and fulfilling his purposes. In this regard, the Bible provides us with a unique anthropological perspective that must not be ignored if we are serious about pursuing our divine fulfillment as human beings.

Through this blog, I’d like to launch a discussion around some of these tenets, starting with foundational educational paradigms that I believe we must examine. They are essential to Christian vocational development. Look for these in subsequent posts and please join me in exploring them.

Dr. Jonathan Lewis (Ph.D. Human Resource Development)

Welcome to Go Global Network! We are about exploring a new revolution in learning using the vast resources of the Internet. We believe all ministry training organizations need to wake up to these explosive opportunities.

Through an interactive blog, we plan to share some key concepts around shifting trends in educational mindset. We believe a paradigm shift is needed if we hope to train and large numbers of disciples of Jesus in today’s environment.

We will also open up a dialogue on how to increase the numbers of students we train.

We are a faith-based organization. We believe that the God of the Bible created us all uniquely and desires us to be all that the Creator designed us to be. Discovering our unique design and blossoming, is what brings us the greatest effectiveness and satisfaction in life.

Dr. Jonathan P. Lewis