|Section I: Andragogy||Section II: Procedures and Standards for the Modules|
The Doctor of Ministry (DMin) degree is delivered in four modules and two courses. The delivery is provided to cohorts within a certain concentration in four years. Each module includes a teaching intensive of about two weeks. Some international cohorts will prefer longer intensives. Seminary faculty teach the modules in partnership with outstanding field professionals. Program participants move through the program in a specific concentration and cohort.
Participants in the DMin program are professionals in ministry who continue their careers while completing requirements for the DMin degree. They take one module per year and devote about six hours a week in study throughout. Their expectations center on the professional relevancy and practical nature of the modules. Each module should be thought of as a one year experience.
A distinct cohort is provided for international in-residence students studying full time on the Andrews campus.
What follows are some guidelines and procedures to assist the lead professor in planning the modules. If you have further questions, feel free to contact the DMin office.
Assignments for each module in the Doctor of Ministry program should include certain learning modalities. A minimum of five of the following six modalities including (a) and (f) are to be included:
(a) A ministry development plan
(b) A professional portfolio
(c) Small learning groups with mid-year assignments in at least three of four years
(d) A mentoring relationship in the field
(e) Journaling, including assigned reading but including added journaling experience
(f) Context support group
Introduction — The goal and practice of the Doctor of Ministry Program is to guide participants on a coherent journey of transformational learning in the context of sound andragogical principles. The six learning modalities described below represent a congruent model designed to connect with and support each of the others in contributing to the learning process leading to a Doctor of Ministry degree. The intent of this brief is to introduce the theoretical framework and the practical means by which each contributes to the transformational process.
The andragogy of reflection undergirds the six learning modalities as an appropriate and intentional balance to the active aspect of learning engaged by professionals involved in the Doctor of Ministry program. It assumes an embedded learning context that provides a practical application context since participants continue their professional careers while enrolled in the program. Kolb's experiential and reflective learning theory (1984) provide the knowledge base backbone for application of the chosen learning modalities. As such there is emphasis placed on ministry-embedded learning where practical experience provides the essential context for professional learning and personal transformation.
Theoretical Foundation — The MDP reflects a constructivist approach to learning. Jennifer Moon (2004, p. 16) comments on Kolb's model by using the metaphor of a brick wall as representing the learning process. The bricks represent knowledge and the wall of bricks represent the structuring of that knowledge for useful application. Whereas a common assumption has been, and continues to be among some, that it is the responsibility of the teacher to assemble the bricks and rightly fit them together in a manner that serves the purpose of effectual learning, the andragogy of the Doctor of Ministry program assumes that the learner must be engaged with the instructors in assembling the bricks in order to build the wall according to a pattern that best fits him/her. Stephen Brookfield (2005, p. 306) holds that self-directed learning is central to the field of adult learning. Consequently, this learning modality has been chosen as a pivotal part of a learning process that places significant responsibility upon the student to envision and design their learning journey in the program.
Program Application — The Ministry Development Plan (MDP) is the participant's vision for their spiritual, relational, personal and professional development along with a detailed description of what will be involved in the completion of the specific concentration of the Doctor of Ministry degree offered by the Seminary at Andrews University. The "course of study" required to earn a Doctor of Ministry degree in their chosen concentration is expressed within the MDP, and is developed with guidance from their peer work group. It is ultimately approved as a completed assignment as part of the first module.
In each year of your DMin program your MDP is revisited and revised. When you experience your project assessment at the end of the program, you will be required, as part of the assessment, to present a three-to-five-page reflection paper, written to proper academic standards, describing and relating your spiritual, relational, and professional transformation in terms of your MDP. This step integrates your transformational learning experience, at least partially documented as you formed and revisited your MDP, as core to your program. You will read that paper to your committee during the assessment, and the change experience will thus be integrated into the assessment of your learning.
|The MDP is comprised of four distinct parts:|
|Current Situation: This portion will describe where the participant is currently in their professional role as a leader, in their spiritual life, in their important relationships, and in significant life roles.|
|Vision: During the first module the participant will be instructed in the process of developing and writing a personal vision document that describes their preferred future. The vision statement in the MDP may vary in length from a single page to several pages.|
|Action Plan: The plan of action is a detailed accounting of how the participant expects to get from where they are currently to where they hope to be at the time their degree is conferred. Their action plan should address spiritual and personal life goals as well as professional goals. It must describe practical experience in the area of their project. The action plan must also include attendance at one or more major development events outside of the program curriculum. The course map of the concentration outlines four modules. These modules include two-to-three-week intensives. The modules are a part of their action plan, but the action plan will include more than the formal curriculum.|
|Helping and Hindering Forces: Their MDP should describe the personal and professional circumstances anticipated that will provide assistance or challenge to achievement of their vision.|
The MDP is not cast in stone. Changes along the way are considered appropriate as they pursue their vision for personal and professional development.
Reflection Paper on the MDP for the Oral Assessment— At the beginning of your DMin journey, in the first module, you created a Ministry Development Plan (MDP). This document was adjusted from time to time, and served as a guide to your professional development during your years in the program. The MDP allowed you to set goals for your spiritual, relational, and professional growth. Now, as you near the end of the DMin program, we want you to reflect on the growth that you have experienced in attaining these various goals. The motto of the DMin program is “Changing the people who change the world.” We want you to share with your committee how you have changed.
So, you are asked to write a three to five page reflection on how the vision and action steps you developed in the MDP have become a reality in your life and experience. A clear description of your growth and learning spiritually, relationally, and professionally should form the core of your reflection. This paper will be read by you to the committee, near the end of the time allotted for your oral assessment. You will read the paper word for word, as is the normal process for the presentation of papers at academic conferences. You will be given 12 minutes to read the paper, followed by six minutes of dialog by the committee members. This is an academic work, and should be written clearly and concisely. You should have it edited, as the program will not provide editing for this document.
You will need to email a copy of the paper to firstname.lastname@example.org no later than five days before the date of your oral assessment. If you are physically at the seminary for your assessment, you will need to provide four hard copies to the committee as well.
There is no grade for this work, but it is a vital part of the assessment of your work in the DMin program, that will help the staff to evaluate their effectiveness in supporting other participants.
Theoretical Foundation — The portfolio model has gained wide acceptance as a learning modality in higher education and is supported by Malcolm Knowles' (1984) theories of Andragogy which emphasizes that adults are self-directed, need to learn experientially and approach learning as problem solving. The building of the portfolio is a self-directed learning strategy that connects learning to task in a concrete fashion. Carl Rogers' (Rogers and Freiberg 1994) focus on experiential learning adds that adult learners need to self-evaluate their learning process—a position that supports the portfolio modality in that the archiving is student-directed and is a self-assessment of their learning experience. Howard Gardner (1991, p. 240) views the portfolio as a necessary adjunct to the process of reflective learning and is an "essential phase in the development of an artistic practitioner in our culture." The portfolio over which the student has significant control in terms of content and organization becomes the voice of testimony regarding the comprehensive learning experienced in the Doctor of Ministry program.
Evidence of where the learning journey has taken the student is reflected in archives organized in the Portfolio according to the learning anticipated in the development plan since the Ministry Development Plan serves as a predictor for the content of the portfolio.
Program Application — The portfolio serves as a demonstration of professional growth during the doctoral program experience. Its purpose is both to describe the level of growth in the competencies outlined for the concentration in the Doctor of Ministry program and to encourage the participant's progress. It should be viewed as a practical record demonstrating growth as a ministry professional. The completed portfolio will be presented and approved first by the participant's work group and then by the cohort coordinator prior to the project defense.
There are three options for organizing the portfolio: 1) use of electronic folders on the participant's computer, 2) application of a personal website dedicated to the portfolio, or 3) use of a DVD containing the portfolio. An orientation to these processes is provided during the first teaching intensive.
The portfolio should include but is not necessarily limited to:
The portfolio should be organized according to the general categories represented by the following outcomes, or by the specific outcomes of the concentration:
|Enrichment of personal and family life|
|Greater commitment to ministry|
|An Adventist perspective of evangelism, mission, and ministry|
|Positive collegial relationships|
|A global view of society and ministry|
|Exceptional theoretical knowledge that contributes to advance ministry|
|An understanding of the biblical model of servant leadership|
|The ability to evaluate ministerial practices through theological reflection|
|The ability to use appropriate tools to analyze the needs of churches and communities|
|Skills that facilitate more effective ministry|
|The ability to articulate theological and theoretical understandings that advance global ministry|
|Habits of study that contribute to lifelong learning|
Theoretical Foundation — The Learning Group modality is supported by the conversational learning model (Baker, Jensen et al. 2002) which is articulated in the context of experiential and reflective learning theory. The Learning Group provides a context for social learning that leverages the synergy of a collective united in a common purpose of learning (Hannum, Martineau et al. 2007, pp. 515-521). Kolb (Baker, Jensen et al. 2002) discovered in his work on experiential learning that "experiences alone, be they classroom simulations, exercises, internships, or field projects, produce some learning, but that when learners participate in conversations abou the experiences, learning is greatly enhanced." Smith (1998, p. 30) writes of the effectiveness of social context by stating that we "learn from the company we keep." This classic model of learning recognizes the enormous amount of effortless learning that all humans experience in the context of relationships apart from formal schooling. Learning groups provide an intentional aspect of relational learning as a part of the strategy of the learning plan (McCauley, Center for Creative Leadership. et al. 2004, p. 101). The Doctor of Ministry program utilizes the learning group modality for reflecting on assigned books, evaluation and assessment of individual group member progress in the program, and reflection and feedback on assignments and the Doctor of Ministry project in particular.
Program Application — The group aspect of the learning experience in the Doctor of Ministry program is evident at several levels. The participant will be a part of a Doctor of Ministry cohort for the years in which she/he is engaged in the program. This larger group serves as "fellow travelers" in the process and functions as a valuable peer resource. Web-based communication will provide the cohort with ongoing contact and interaction on various topics and learning experiences.
The small work group is formed during the first module and serves as an important component of learning during each of the teaching intensives. In addition, the participant meets on a regular assigned basis as a part of this work group in order to fulfill specific assignments.
|These meetings are scheduled to meet at least two times a year for the purpose of cooperative learning and peer support.|
|Work group assignments are made in each year.|
|3.||The work group consists of a minimum of three and not more than seven individuals currently enrolled in the specific concentration of the Doctor of Ministry program.|
|4.||The structuring of the group includes 1) a facilitator to call and manage meetings; and 2) a secretary to keep minutes and post them by email to the specified concentration faculty group members|
|5.||This group reviews and signs off on specified assignments.|
Knowledge belongs to communities and diverse perspectives increase the depth of knowledge gained. Work groups provide a forum for participants to co-investigate principles of Christian ministry in a collegial, supportive environment.
Peter Jarvis (Peters, Jarvis et al. 1991; Jarvis, Holford et al. 2003; Jarvis 2004) and other proponents of social learning theory have convincingly stated that learning is primarily a social construct as opposed to a simple transference of knowledge. The mentoring element is a form of social learning employed as a learning modality in the Doctor of Ministry program whereby the learner observes and reflects with the mentor to build understanding in the context of ministry. Bandura's (1977) social learning theory emphasizes the role that modeling plays in effective learning and provides a knowledge base for the practice of mentoring as a learning modality. The program draws on several sources for practical models of mentoring (Stanley and Clinton 1992; Cohen 1995; Anderson and Reese 1999).
Program Application — The mentoring modality is the most recent addition to the learning portfolio of the Doctor of Ministry program. It is a challenging modality in terms of implementation since the program has little control over the context in which mentoring is initiated and maintained. Each participant is asked to recruit a mentor suited to the particular concentration they have chosen for their Doctor of Ministry program journey. Monthly contact with the mentor is to be initiated and scheduled by the participant as a demonstration of their commitment to the mentoring process and as a recognition of the mentor's role of respondent rather than initiator. A reflection is to be submitted to the cohort coordinator annually.
During the first year in the program DMin participants in all concentrations are required to select five to seven persons within their ministry context to serve on their context support group. These persons meet as a group once a year with the participant throughout their program and provide both encouragement and assessment of their growth throughout the journey. Assessment of transformation within the participant and transformation within the organization served by the participant is provided by feedback from the site group through:
The Process —
Theoretical Foundation — Reflective learning theory supports journaling as a learning modality in the Doctor of Ministry program. It is the purpose of the program to encourage the development of critical thinking processes through reflection (Gardner 1991, p. 224) as an expectation of learning and thinking at the doctoral level. Experiential learning when coupled with intentional reflection encourages a deeper discovery experience (Clarke 2003, p. 4) than is possible without intentional reflection as represented in journaling. Journaling can spark an awareness of the meta-cognitive aspect of learning (McCauley, Center for Creative Leadership. et al. 2004 pp. 214, 215, 220) and create an awareness of how one's learning takes place (Gardner 1991, pp. 106, 107). Such reflection expressed in writing can initiate ownership by the participant of the process of learning (Yinger, Clark et al. 1981, p. 13) and stimulate the practice of lifelong learning (Hannum, Martineau et al. 2007, pp. 540-545).
Program Application — The Doctor of Ministry program journaling begins with an email submission of a daily report of the learning and social activities during the initial intensive and each intensive thereafter. The high points of the journals are then processed and discussed reflectively each morning as a learning assessment exercise for both presenter and participant. These journals are graded for reflective quality and consistency and represent a portion of the total points credited for class assignments.
Reflective journals are expected for all required reading. These journals are to be 3-6 pages in length and organized by chapter or subsections of the book. The students are encouraged to assess what they have read and reflect honestly as to its value and meaning to them. Book review discussions on pre-intensive reading are generally included throughout the intensive schedule. This particular journaling assignment creates a valuable context in which to differentiate descriptive from reflective journaling as many students have been conditioned to "report" what the author of the book is intending to communicate rather than reflecting critically upon the concepts presented. The reading journals constitute a significant portion of the total points earned through class assignments.
The other reflective writing exercise integrated into the program is that of reporting specific learning experiences engaged by either the group at some point during the intensive or individually as a part of the student's learning experience. These assignments are occasional in nature and are not a regular part of the embedded elements in the program.
Anderson, K. and R.D. Reese (1999). Spiritual mentoring: a guide for seeking and giving direction. Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
Baker, A.C., P.J. Jensen, et al. (2002). Conversational learning: an experiential approach to knowledge creation. Westport, Conn., Quorum Books.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall.
Brookfield, S. (2005). The power of critical theory for adult learning and teaching. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England, McGraw-Hill International.
Clarke, M. (2003). Reflection: Journals and reflective questions: A strategy for Professional learning. NZARE/AARE Conference. Aukland, New Zealand, University of Western Sydney: 18.
Cohen, N.H. (1995). Mentoring adult learners: a guide for educators and trainers. Malabar, Fla., Krieger Pub. Co.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: how children think and how schools should teach. New York, BasicBooks.
Hannum, K., J. Martineau, et al. (2007). The handbook of leadership development evaluation. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: theory and practice. London; New York, NY, RoutledgeFalmer.
Jarvis, P., J. Holford, et al. (2003). The theory & practice of learning. London; Sterling, VA, Kogan Page.
Knowles, M.S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
McCauley, C.D., Center for Creative Leadership., et al. (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Moon, J.A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: theory and practice. New York, RoutledgeFalmer.
Peters, J.M., P. Jarvis, et al. (1991). Adult education: evlolution and achievements in a developing field of study. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Rogers, C.R. and H.J. Freiberg (1994). Freedom to learn. New York, Toronto, Merrill; Maxwell Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International.
Smith, F. (1998). The book of learning and forgetting. New York, Teachers College Press.
Stanley, P.D. and J.R. Clinton (1992). Connecting: the mentoring relationships you need to succeed in life. colorado Springs, Colo., NavPress.
Yinger, R.J., C.M. Clark, et al. (1981). Reflective journal writing: theory and practice. East Lansing, Mich., Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.
All modules and courses in the cohort schedule are to be linked within a program overview in every syllabus.
Supporting Materials — The practice of providing handouts, notes, etc. in printed form has been discontinued for DMin instruction. All participants are required to have notebook computers or computer access. Instructors are encouraged to have materials on CD or flash drive for distribution.
Reading Requirements — DMin participants should read an average of 20 pages per hour. Reading requirements for each module should be extensive. Reading journals, reports or book reviews must be required, usually three to five pages per book. Be certain that the required books are readily available to the student. This is the responsibility of the professor and not the DMin office. Participants are expected to purchase the books from a source convenient to them. They may be ordered from the Andrews University Bookstore, Berrien Springs, MI 49104, (800) 385-2001.
Writing Requirements — Doctor of Ministry modules should require reflection papers, articles, reports, term papers, or other written material. Writing assignments should apply a standard of 2 to 2.5 hours per double-spaced page.
Participants are to begin their post-intensive writing assignment (the particular project document chapter) during the intensive.
Site Contact Person — The site coordinator for intensives is selected for each site by the DMin program. The DMin office communicates the class arrangements and teaching equipment needs. We will be happy to provide the names and phone numbers of these coordinators. One or two months before the modules you may wish to get in touch with this person to confirm the details of your teaching site.
Professor’s Packet — You will receive from the DMin office a packet with the forms needed for proper reporting and evaluation during an intensive.
Work Load — DMin participants taking a six-credit module should expect to spend an average of 360 hours in course work. This includes 50 to 60 contact hours, 150 - 160 hours in pre-intensive requirements, and 140 - 150 hours of post- intensive work. Pre-intensive and post- intensive hours should be reduced for any work done above 60 hours during the intensive. These time references can be adjusted for five or four hour modules, or two hour courses.
Keep in mind that hours of professional experience in the context of case studies, portfolio work, and project work also apply.
When assigning reading, remember to reduce the reading load to allow for the written reflection on each title. A six credit module would typically assign about 2500 pages of reading prior to the intensive, allowing time for the journaling or other written reports.
The two hour courses in the program should include 100 to 120 hours of course work, including the contact hours. Courses may or may not require written work.
Lead Professors and Guest Presenters — A seminary faculty or adjunct faculty member is generally the lead professor responsible to the program committee for module design and implementation. The lead professor assures that program standards are met and is usually the major learning facilitator during the intensive.
There should be one or more guest presenters. These are generally outstanding field professionals who are present two or more days presenting during the intensive. Each module is provided a budget for travel of guest presenters and honorariums. Check current DMin program policies for honorarium information. Honorariums should be proportional to the time invested.
Guest presenters generally have no student assignment responsibility.
Contact the DMin program office for help with details at 269-471-3544. The program director will consult with you regarding the academic preparation and completion of the modules.
Six months before the module, the office will contact you for module requirements. The DMin office must have enough time to get the materials to the registered participants. Additionally, the individuals who plan to attend must have enough time to complete the pre-module requirements while still maintaining their full pastoral responsibilities.
The course requirements should include:
A sample course requirement document is available on request.
No changes to reading requirements should be made later then six months prior to the date of an intensive, unless a book is out of print.
This is an example of how 155 hours of pre-intensive work in a six credit module might be distributed:
Reading and journaling – 1,800 pages (100 hours)
Ministry Project and a 10-page report (55 hours).
Due Date — All pre-intensive work is due at the beginning of the intensive. Professors should apply exceptions when ordering or other difficulties interfere.
Contact hours with students during the intensive for a six hour module should be 50-60. These hours include diverse learning experiences.
Sunday 7-9pm (2 hours)
Mon-Thurs 8-12; 1:30-5:00 (30 hrs)
Friday 8-12pm (4 hours)
Sabbath or Sunday may include an applied week-end learning experience
Note: This is a recommended schedule. The schedule can be altered to meet the students’ preferences, as long as approximately 50-60 contact hours are maintained.
The First Session, Sunday Night — It is helpful to plan exercises that help participants build relationships with one another in the module in order to develop a spirit of professional collegiality. You will probably want to introduce the intensive by going over the intensive requirement sheet, describing the intensive format, requirements, grading, and deadlines.
Attendance Policy — With intensive time so concentrated, attendance is crucial. It would be wise to stress attendance in your course requirement sheet and to clearly indicate the consequences for absenteeism. No more than 10% of the contact hours should be lost by any student without some consequences.
Deadlines for Withdrawal — A few participants for various reasons may want to withdraw from the module, receiving a "W" rather than a letter grade. This option is possible, providing that the "W" is requested in writing by the deadline for these changes in the academic calendar of the semester when the grades are due. (These dates are listed in the academic calendar of the University Bulletin.) Students will not be allowed to drop the course after the "grades due date." If a DG has been granted, the "W" is no longer available. If the work is not then turned in, the alternatives are to receive the grade based upon what work has been completed, or a DN (Deferred and Not Completable).
Evaluation Forms — Have the class members complete these forms near the end of the session and return them in the teacher's packet to the DMin office.
The professor should ensure the student invests approximately 150 hours in post-intensive work for a 6 credit module including the written project report. The writing portion of a project should average 2.5 hours per double-spaced page.
Return the Teacher's Packet — Make copies of any documents you need and then return the originals with all the forms in the teacher's packet to the DMin office.
Lead faculty for a module or course have the responsibility of setting due dates for all assignments. As the deadline date approaches, they should contact those who have not completed and turned in assignments, urging them to complete their work. When work is submitted, it should be graded without delay.
Assignments for modules with an intensive taken January through April should be due no later than the following December 1; assignments for modules taken with an intensive May through August should be due no later than the following April 1; assignments for modules taken with an intensive September through October should be due no later than the following August 1. Established due dates for assignments need to provide adequate time for grading and posting grades prior to the end of the semester. Seven months following the intensive is generally the best time for assignments to be due. The university has grade-due dates that are generally within a week after the end of a particular semester. Check the AU calendar for those dates. That may affect the assignment due date. Until the work is completed or a DN is posted, a DG should be assigned. The teacher must inform the students of their grades via Moodle or email.
Again, a DG is to be posted by the lead faculty until the end of the semester that the work is due for a specific module or course, and then the appropriate final grade assigned when work is completed at the end of the semester in which work is due. We encourage that the lead faculty exercise appropriate grace for the participants, but set clear limits. We encourage that lead faculty assign a DN (deferred and not completable) if work is more than 90 days late. It is very important that the participants in your cohort understand the consequences of failure to turn work in on time. It means they must restart with a new cohort or drop the program. An F should not be assigned.
We further encourage that you post in your syllabus and strictly apply some consequences during any grade period you choose to give beyond the assignment due date. Those might be as follows:
|Assignment due date:||possible A grade|
|Late up to 30 days:||no more than A- grade|
|Late 31 to 60 days:||no more than B+ grade|
|Late 61 to 90 days:||no more than B grade|
|Late 91 days or more:||DN (deferred and not completable)|