Brad Poorman Pepperdine University |
||
|
Cycle 1 Review -rtf version
|
|
Online Lay Leadership Training Cycle 1 Review Brad Poorman
Action Research Question: How can the use of on-line tools provide educational training and support for the development of a learning community to help meet the need for trained lay leaders in the United Methodist church and establish a community of practice for those lay leaders to support their continued growth and development of expertise in effective lay leadership? Purpose: The purpose of my Action Research Project is to develop an online Lay Leader training program to be administered by McMurry University . Lay leaders share the core values of Christian Faith, Personal Relationships, Learning, Excellence, and Service with McMurry University . The program would consist of two learning tracks, the Certified Lay Minister track and the General Lay Leadership track. Common characteristics for both tracks would be to present lay leaders with practical knowledge and resources. Both tracks would also attempt to develop communities of practice where lay leaders can continue to learn how to better serve from each other.
My search for how I could use online tools to provide educational training and support for lay leaders began with discussions with Dr. John Russell, President of McMurry University. He was searching for ways McMurry could strengthen its ties to the Methodist church. He had also mentioned that some sort of lay leader training was needed because when he served on church committees at times he didn't feel qualified or prepared. Rev. Ava Berry, District Superintendent of the Abilene District had a discussion with Dr. Russell about how she saw a need for training to meet the new Certified Lay Minister position that had been approved by the General Conference of the Methodist Church . They decided to create a committee to investigate possibilities to address those needs. My action research seemed to tie in well with their goals so I was invited to join the committee for their first meeting. My Cycle 1 question was could I help the lay leadership committee understand why an online education program would be the best means of accomplishing lay leader training?
When I began this process I expected to build a site where courses were offered, requirements for certifications set, and certifications granted for lay leadership. I expected that professors from McMurry University and possibly seminaries to contribute courses. I thought that an extensive resource library could be built. I thought the library could become the repository of lectures from various speakers on topics relating to lay leadership. I believed the most effective model for online education was one similar to the Pepperdine program which would involve an initial face to face meeting followed by course work done primarily online. I hoped that online communities of practice would then develop among the students and continue after the certifications had been earned. I expected to demonstrate why this method was preferable, that the committee would agree, and then proceed to develop the training around this model.
Evidence and data for my first cycle was collected during a series of committee meetings where the program was being formulated and the role of online tools in the program was being defined. I had accumulated considerable information on other lay leader training programs for my Literature Review and was asked to share that research with the committee at the first meeting.
Evidence/Data Collected At the first meeting Dr. Russell began the meeting by discussing how he felt committee assignments within the church were made without any training or scriptural support for those placed in lay leadership roles. He also expressed his desire for stronger ties between McMurry and the Methodist Church . Ava Berry discussed how she had originally envisioned McMurry offering the newly created Certified Lay Minister training. However, there had been delays from the national church committees in determining the curriculum requirements. This is partially due to concerns at the national level that this certification will present a way to become a pastor without having to attend seminary. Dr. Russell added that with the current indecision on the program he was not interested in pursuing that at this time. I presented the various online programs I had researched during my Literature Review. I gave details on what they offered, the tools they used, pricing, and other information on each program. With that background information the committee turned their attention to what McMurry was going to offer. The first question posed was who's the audience? That was quickly followed by what needs are we looking to fill? I discussed my ideas of developing communities of practice that would act as a continuing support group for those involved in this training. The discussion turned to when to offer the programs. It was decided that a Friday night through Saturday afternoon during the mid-summer would be the best time. After checking for conflicts with several known summer functions it appeared that July 7-8 might be a good possibility. The discussion then turned to how to organize and deliver the programming. I presented what I saw as successful models in the programs I had investigated. I also said my experience was that some face to face time at the beginning of the program helped develop a camaraderie and familiarity that resulted in more openness in later online discussions. Dr. Russell supported the face to face meetings and said he felt we wanted the participants to be on the McMurry campus at some time during the program. There was a concern that the short time frame would prohibit the development of an online program by this summer. There was also a strong feeling that the first program in particular needed to be of high quality, and that rushing the development of online programs would put that in jeopardy. This concern coupled with Dr. Russell's desire to have the participants on campus led to a decision to offer the program in a conference format with ongoing discussion, support, and reflection offered online after the conference. Discussions of format were extensive with considerable time spent discussing the amount of time that should be devoted to disseminating new information versus sharing time and discussion. In addition there were discussions about the program topics which centered primarily on major church committees; however the exact topics would be decided at the next meeting. It was decided that we need a church leadership guru and after tossing around several names we decided to ask Bishop Dan Solomon, Bishop-in-residence at McMurry to head the lay academy.
I had planned on the Certified Lay Minister curriculum being a cornerstone of the program. However that was dropped early in the meeting which meant I would have to concentrate on my second portion of the program, general lay leadership training. I had planned on offering both of these as online programs. That was then set aside by the committee as not feasible for a program that would be offered this summer. I felt my action research project had been gutted and questioned its viability as a project. Shaken, but not deterred, I decided to try and get a better understanding of exactly what my role would be in this revised lay leadership program at the next meeting.
Evidence/Data Collected Bishop Solomon was invited to join the committee. He asked about the difference between this program and Roundup. Roundup is a Northwest Texas Conference wide training conference held every year in Lubbock Texas . The answer was depth; most of the Roundup sessions are 45 minutes in length with a presenter teaching a specific skill to help a person better perform their job or task. Some examples from Roundup are “How to build a good newsletter” or “How to outline a sermon.” The goal for the lay leader academy is deeper and the discussions will be held over two days. In addition, the goal would be to change a person's thinking about their leadership role and help them develop a scriptural answer to the question “Why am I doing this?” For example, the academy would help the participants discover answers to questions such as “What is the purpose of worship?” Ava Berry added that she believes that interactive experiences lead to growth. You need the experiential component to change attitudes. I added that I felt it was hard to change entire congregations by just a few people having a weekend experience. I felt it took time to for the attendees to reflect on the experience and internalize it. Also the program needs to make a commitment to offer continuing support to encourage the attendees after they leave. That is why the online component is critical. Ava Berry agreed that online groups should be formed for ongoing development and reflection. Bishop Solomon said it is easier to acquire new data than to acquire new attitudes. He also felt we should focus on the desired results and then work backwards. It was suggested that the academy offer 4-5 tracks. The following tracks were identified as possibilities: Worship Discussions were held concerning who could serve as discussion leaders or facilitators of these groups. A Academy for Faithful Ministry was proposed as a name for the conference and accepted. Very little discussion was held on any online component.
I was frustrated with the lack of progress on the online component. I began to analyze why the online component was receiving so little attention when the committee seemed so receptive and interested during my presentation at the first meeting. I also began by evaluating my position and role within the group. Do I have no credibility or standing within the committee? I initially believed I was going to a main player on the committee but in some ways I was an outsider in this context. While they all knew me, the committee has a larger bond in that they are mostly members of the clergy. Contributing to that I was introduced to the committee as the technical expert and therefore my input and opinions were viewed with a narrow scope. I also tried to analyze their reluctance to embrace this method of communication. I realized that as professional clergy they interact daily with people on a very personal level. Their experience is with face to face encounters where they rely on their well developed tools of observation to read people and know how to react. I believe their resistance to online training is partially due to a fear they will not have that connection. That takes them further outside their comfort level than I originally anticipated. Therefore while they understand the advantages, they are not ready to depend solely on that medium to communicate their message and interact with others. As the originator of the committee and the person that invited me to participate I also tried to figure out why Dr. Russell did not articulate strongly support for my proposed plan. I remembered that one of Dr. Russell's main goals is to reinforce the connection between McMurry and the Methodist church. He has stated that one way to achieve that is to bring the people to the McMurry campus. I believe he felt my original plan stressed the online component more than the on campus component and therefore he was not as supportive as I expected him to be. After listening to the depth of the discussions I became aware of the importance the committee placed on meaningful content. As these involved and concerned people discussed issues they felt were vital to the future of the church the concern they expressed was very thought provoking. I realized while my contribution was important the primary focus was the change they were trying to produce in people's thinking and actions .
I will use what I have learned from my cycle 1 to develop a site that is more supportive of the goals of the committee and ask how I can gain the support of the committee for a site that concentrates on building a post conference, ongoing, online support site?
|
||
| Brad Poorman bpoorman@mcm.edu |
||