social justice education: inviting faculty to transform their institutions – edited by kathleen...

Religious Education Research through aCommunity of Practice: Action Researchand the Interpretive Approach. Edited byJulia Ipgrave, Robert Jackson, andKevin O’Grady. New York, N.Y.:Waxman, 2009. 237 pages. ISBN 978-3-8309-2158-5. $33.50.

The past decade has seen a growing devel-opment in the European context of schol-arship and teaching on questions ofintercultural citizenship, human rightseducation, and religious education. From2006 to 2009, the European Commissionfunded a research project: “REDCo:Religion in Education. A Contribution toDialogue or a Factor of Conflict in Trans-forming Societies of European Coun-tries?” (http://www.redco.uni-hamburg.de/web/3480/3481/index.html). This editedcollection reports on one set of studiesbased at the University of Warwick,funded through that larger project.Although the research reported takes placeprimarily in the English system, it utilizesinnovative techniques in action research,with both the content, as well as theresearch methodologies engaged, provid-ing pointed insights for the North Ameri-can readers of this journal. This bookcollects a variety of exciting examples ofthe scholarship of teaching and learning,oriented towards religious education andquestions of conflict, in the midst ofdistinctly pluralist contexts.

Building from Wenger and Lave’s theo-ries of collective and situated learning,the scholars in these projects focused theirwork on the shared domains and compe-tences of religious education (as occurringin public institutions and non-faith-basedcontexts), an interpretive approach inpedagogy, and action research in educa-tion. Their specific understanding of “an

interpretive approach” was built on RobertJackson’s work, which utilizes three ele-ments pedagogically: representation,interpretation, and reflexivity. How is aparticular religion, religious practice, orsome other unit of study first represented?How is interpretation invited for the unitunder study? And how does that represen-tation and interpretation lead to a criticalself reflexivity on the part of both teachersand students?

The book is divided into four parts.Section one provides a theoretical back-ground for an interpretive approach inreligious education and for action researchin a community of practice. Section twooffers seven case studies of specificresearch projects that utilized this method-ology for exploring various elements ofreligious education. Section three offersbroader reflections on the preceding work,focusing on promises and contradictionsin the interpretive approach, challenges inwriting up action research through casestudies, and a meta-reflection on thedevelopment of the Warwick communityof practice. The final section offers initialfindings of relevance to the larger REDCoinitiative; that is, ways in which differ-ence, dialogue, and conflict can be con-ceptualized in the midst of religiouseducation practice.

The case study chapters explore differ-ent elements of analysis, among themgender, creativity, intellectual challengefor gifted students, assessment, profes-sional formation, and so on. These chap-ters are also rich in narrative descriptionof actual classroom assignments and otherpractices aimed at representing, interpret-ing, and self-reflexively engaging variousreligious practices and communities(including charts and tables that providewriting and dialogue prompts). The

REVIEWS

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing LtdTeaching Theology and Religion, Volume 15, Issue 1, January 201284

various studies described used tools suchas student diaries, teacher journaling,questionnaires, group interviews, role-plays, and other mechanisms for develop-ing and sustaining a community of inquirythat granted agency to learners in thevarious programs, and which requiredteachers to draw on iterative cycles offeedback. Several of the examples focusedon teaching about Hinduism or Islamin the context of British settings whereChristianity was the primary referent, butin which students were more familiar withgeneral diversity than with the depths oftheir own traditions.

Given the pressure within Europeancontexts to demonstrate adherence toresponsible mechanisms of assessment,the collection also explores how “implicitassumptions about assessment in theclassroom could undermine interpretiveapproaches to religious education, butsecondly how pedagogy and assessmentcan be more effectively aligned” (96).

The entire collection embodies a com-munity of practice model, both in terms ofthe studies which were clearly situated inspecific locations and drew on teachersand students in ways that developedshared capacity; as well as in the crossstudy discussion over the course of thevolume – particularly the final two sec-tions of the book, which focus on reflec-tions and the community of practice.

Given how ambiguous the boundariesare between senior high school curriculaand early undergraduate classes, this col-lection implicitly provokes interestingreflection on the potential challenges, aswell as opportunities, presented by the2010 American Academy of Religionguidelines for teaching religion inK-12 schools (http://www.aarweb.org/Publications/Online_Publications/Curriculum_Guidelines/AARK-12CurriculumGuidelines.pdf). Thoseguidelines explicitly suggest that thewidespread “illiteracy about religion”

that exists in the U.S. “fuels prejudiceand antagonism” and that it is possible to“diminish religious illiteracy by teachingabout religion from an academic, non-devotional perspective” (4). Yet thisvolume suggests that rather than the polesof either a “non-devotional” versus “devo-tional” form of religious education thatseem to be implied by the AmericanAcademy of Religion guidelines, there is athird posture possible that takes students’agency as essential and which offers a“reflexive and dialogical process . . . theprocess of trying to grasp someone else’sterminology was not simply about under-standing their use of signs – whetherwords or symbols – but included a ques-tioning of one’s own understanding anduse of signs” (23). By focusing on explor-ing (not prescribing) practice, and bring-ing to bear interpretive tools aimed atdeveloping self-reflexive engagement,these scholar-teachers drew their studentsinto engagements with difference that ledto respectful dialogue rather than conflict.Of all the approaches offered in theAmerican Academy of Religion guide-lines, perhaps that which is termed a“cultural studies approach” might be mostresonant with the interpretive approachexplored here.

Finally, the book offers a hopefulreflection on one, perhaps unintended,consequence of developing a communityof practice for action research in religiouseducation:

The main knowledge productionwas situated in the person and thecontext of the individual project, andcommunicated in terms of personal-ized, experience-near narratives,where identity, values and personaldevelopment are central. The wordmost used . . . was ‘inspiration.’ Bythis [the teachers] did not principallymean being “lifted” or to have apositive “experience,” but meant

Reviews

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 85

something akin to being “energized.”The younger members felt strongerin the face of forthcoming chal-lenges in the teacher role; the olderones felt that they had a lot more togive (instead of thinking that theircareer was coming to an end. (231)

I suspect most of us who teach in thearenas of religion and theology could usesuch energy. This book invites readers to,and provides its own inspiration for, sucha generative community of practice.

Mary E. HessLuther Seminary

The University and its Disciplines:Teaching and Learning Within andBeyond Disciplinary Boundaries. Editedby Carolin Kreber. New York, N.Y.:Routledge, 2009. xxiv + 246 pages. ISBN978-0-415-96521-7. $47.95.

The academic study of religion is rivenwith disagreement about many aspectsof our joint enterprise. In fact, we evendisagree about whether we are indeed ajoint enterprise. Is our field rooted inthe humanities or in a social or humanscience, or both? Who is our principlereference group or audience – theacademy, or the religion we study, or reli-gion generally? Where do we publish?Who do we list when we describe ourintellectual lineage? Is someone whoteaches about religion in a history depart-ment or a sociology department alsoundertaking the academic study of reli-gion? Should their courses “count” for amajor or minor? Is religion one thing ormany? Who are our students? Each ofthese questions illustrates the multiplicityof our field at both the discursive andpractical, academy-wide and institution-specific levels.

Sometimes these quandaries aresummed up by asking: is the academicstudy of religion a discipline? As thequestions raised here render explicit, theanswer, or perhaps more accurately, theanswers, sometimes depend upon whetherwe have core, shared content, paradigm,or method, and sometimes on our organi-zational structures (graduate programs andjournals, tenure lines and courses). Andour answers are, indeed, varied – the aca-demic study of religion is disciplinary,interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or eventrans- or anti-disciplinary in some under-standings of these terms. Moreover, whenwe turn our attention to the fractal ofreligious studies or theology as variantsthereof our answers multiply again. Theacademic study of religion is a complexterrain, indeed.

None of these debates appear in thebook The University and Its Disciplines:Teaching and Learning Within and BeyondDisciplinary Boundaries, and yet this is asignificant book for us. Why? All toooften when we ask who and what we arewe fail to consider ourselves as teachers.This book provides significant resourcesfor doing so despite the fact that it looksto disciplines that are quite evidently notreligious studies, theology, or the aca-demic study of religion. Its core concernis the relation of context-specific andcontext-transcendent aspects of teaching,learning, and assessment. Put another way,the book raises the question: how doeswhat – and how – we teach within ourfield(s) relate to what we expect all under-graduates to emerge with? If our generalgoal might be described, for example, ascritical thinking, how do students of anyparticular discipline acquire that? What isthe relation of discipline specific to widereducational aims? To address such ques-tions, this collection brings togetherresearch in the scholarship of teaching(followed by two chapters written inresponse to each case). Examining

Reviews

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd86

disciplinary structures and related matters,crucial themes include: signature pedago-gies (as formulated by Lee Schulman);ways of thinking and practicing; learningpartnerships; and academic tribes. Whilesuch terms do not all have their origin inthis volume, the authors use them to goodeffect, raising to visibility tacit processesthat characterize, create, and transmit dis-ciplinary knowledge(s) in fields as dispar-ate as history and biology, engineering andlaw. As its subtitle indicates, this is a bookabout both disciplinary boundaries andthe spaces beyond or between. Religiousstudies, theology, and the academic studyof religion most broadly has much to learnfrom these exempla.

The volume’s significance for the aca-demic study of religion lies in bringingthese notions to bear on what we do.Examples abound. First: does the aca-demic study of religion have a signaturepedagogy and if so what is it? Given thatthe notion itself emerged in part through astudy of professional education (includingthe clergy) and thus an apprenticeshipmodel, our answers to this may becomplex. And yet, to ask whether ourfield has one or more signature pedago-gies is crucial for our success as facultymembers and equally crucial for thesuccess of our students. One of our con-tributions to undergraduate education may,indeed, be the variety of our signaturepedagogies insofar as we are historiansand philosophers, literary critics andanthropologists, sociologists and psy-chologists.

A second question asks about the waysof thinking and practice characterizing ourfield. Given the ways the academic studyof religion has moved to emphasize reli-gion as lived and practiced (for example,see David D. Hall’s Lived Religion inAmerica: Toward a History of Practice,Princeton University Press, 1997) to turnreflexively to the academic study of reli-gion as lived and practiced raises to vis-

ibility much about what we do thatotherwise may pass unremarked. The oldadage that physics is what physicists do isnot dissimilar from the view that the aca-demic study of religion is what we do.(But then, who are we? And how is teach-ing and learning partly about the consti-tuting of individuals and who “we” are?)If, as this book suggests, historians, forexample, are those so focused on sourcesthat their eyes move to the bottom of thepage immediately – scanning for foot-notes – in empirical examinations of howthey read, and the puzzle of teachingrequires raising that to awareness in orderto teach others, what are our ways ofthinking and practicing? Do we share –for example – the ability to move amongvarious approaches and are we introduc-ing students to a variety of ways of think-ing and practicing in our classes? If so,do our majors and minors sometimesexperience what these authors worryabout when undergraduates move acrossthe curriculum and encounter widely dis-parate though equally unstated assump-tions about what it is to learn and how todo it? Do our approaches remain tacit?What is(are) our tacit knowledge(s)? Andare we situated well given our variety toraise such matters to awareness for stu-dents, a competency that citizens of thetwenty-first century may need more thanever?

These concerns about signature peda-gogies and ways of thinking and practiceare related to our understandings of disci-plines as epistemological. They are about,though, more than the content of our dis-ciplines, narrowly construed. So too arethe metaphorics of disciplines as homesor barricades, the idea of an intellectualcommons, and the ways in which ourdisciplines can be “black boxes” to beopened up. This book is an instructivetreasure chest and it can, indeed, help usopen up our sense of who “we” are andwho our students might become. Thinking

Reviews


through these issues forces us to thinkdeeply and theoretically about our fieldin new ways.

Susan E. HenkingHobart and William Smith Colleges

Grade Inflation: Academic Standards inHigher Education. Edited by Lester H.Hunt. Albany, N.Y.: State University ofNew York Press, 2008. xxiv + 223 pages.ISBN 1-882982-14-2. $23.95.

This collection of thoughtfully disturbingessays originated from papers presented ata conference on “grade inflation” orga-nized at the University of Wisconsin –Madison by Lester H. Hunt on October11, 2003, in the wake of sensational pressreports about the excessive number of Agrades being awarded at America’s eliteuniversities, including Harvard and Princ-eton. As the academic dean of PrincetonTheological Seminary, I have a responsi-bility to assure our trustees, faculty, stu-dents, as well as the churches and thedoctoral and other advanced degree pro-grams receiving our graduates, that ourgrades, in the words of John D. Wiley,former Chancellor of the University ofWisconsin – Madison, “truly do representsomething meaningful, whatever that maybe – that we have ‘standards’ on whichpeople can rely” (ix).

The term “grade inflation” was appar-ently coined by David Riesman, theHarvard sociologist and author of TheLonely Crowd, to describe an educationalphenomenon of the 1960s. If we takeRichard Kamber’s definition of this phe-nomenon as a “reduction in the capacityof grades to provide true and useful infor-mation about student performance as aresult of upward shifts in grading pat-terns” (47), then the economic metaphorof “grade inflation” may only confusematters. As Kamber notes, you can charge

as much as you want for a product, butgrades are sealed at both ends: A at thetop and F at the bottom. “When Bs, forexample, are awarded for what was previ-ously C-level work, then the only wayto differentiate what was B-level workis to award As to that work – which thendeprives the system of its capacity to rec-ognize A-level work” (48). Second, in theeconomic market sellers set their prices. Ineducation, the students are buyers of edu-cation and not sellers of assigned work.Grades “are tokens of recognition, notmeans of exchange” (49). Third, unlikeinflation when it is balanced and antici-pated, inflated grades are not relativelybenign but represent a cumulative harm.And finally, while price inflation can bebrought down, or, more usually, stabilizedby slowing the rate of increase, even if therate of increase in the awarding of highgrades were stabilized at current levelsgoing forward into the future, we wouldstill need reforms in grade distribution.Why? In 1960 an A or A- placed a studentin the top 10% to 20% of his or hercohorts, but today it places one in thetop 45%.

What caused this spike in gradesbeginning in the 1960s? Harvard historyprofessor Harvey Mansfield famously orinfamously blamed the problem largelyon affirmative action, in which generousprofessors awarded ill-prepared studentshigher grades than earned, but this claimhas not been sustained by empiricalstudies. Other hypotheses, noted by educa-tor Mary Biggs of the College of NewJersey, include the Vietnam War when afailing student could end up drafted – orworse. There is also the role of the NewLeft in attacking “white male professional-class authority,” (122) and growing facultydiscomfort with “judging,” which, afterall, is entailed by grading. Sometimeshigher grades appear to have beenawarded because expectations werelowered, with “thinned course content

Reviews


with reduced student workloads” (122–123). A changed power dynamic betweenstudents and teachers appears to haveemerged in this period represented by“pass/fail” grade options, lenient coursewithdrawal requirements, permission toallow exams to be retaken and papers tobe rewritten producing what Riesmancalled “the sanitized transcript” (123). Butmost of all, it was the transformation ofstudents into consumers who actually weregiven the power to evaluate their teachersand to do so anonymously. No wonderpositive correlations have been empiricallyestablished between easy graders andglowing course evaluations. For professorsmore energized by research than teaching,giving in to higher grades also saved a lotof time in dealing with disgruntled stu-dents and harried administrators concernedmore with student retention than with aca-demic rigor. What all of these hypothesesignore, however, is that once lenientgrading became the norm, the studentswho experienced it throughout theireducational careers knew nothing else –including those who went on to enter theprofessoriate. I am reminded of a Doones-bury cartoon in which Jules, a professor,gets a phone call from his wife Sara.“Jules, someone has just hurled a brickthrough our dining room window!” “MyGod!” Jules exclaims. “Are you okay,Sara?” “I’m fine, but listen to the note,Jules: ‘Ease up on the tough grading . . .or else!’ ” Jules replies, “These damnkids . . . they’re monsters!” Sara replies,“Actually, it’s signed by the faculty.”

What can be done about “grade infla-tion”? It took Princeton University eightyears of study, debate, and experimenta-tion under the courageous, and sometimesvilified, leadership of recently retireddean Nancy Weiss Malkiel to get thefaculty to implement a modest proposalto bring down As to no more than 35%of the grades given in any departmentor program within a given year. This

development continues to meet entrenchedopposition among Princeton undergradu-ates (if their student newspaper is a reli-able source), although a recent study findsthat rising grading standards have notimpeded their admission into top graduateprograms. This resistance of faculty andstudents alike, even at elite institutions,probably suggests that we are longoverdue for a national conversation on themeaning and purpose of grades. PerhapsAmerican education needs to followEurope in separating the function ofteacher and evaluator, and certainly weshould not make student course evalua-tions the primary datum for evaluatingteaching when reviewing promotions. Inthe meantime, a school could do worsethan follow the example of Dartmouth andnow the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill in placing on student tran-scripts the median grade earned in a classtogether with the class enrollment. If edu-cators cannot summon the moral courageto face this issue, they can at least signalstatistically that As are not necessarilyindicative of academic excellence.

James F. KayPrinceton Theological Seminary

Universal Design in Higher Education:From Principles to Practice. Edited bySheryl E. Burgstahler and Rebecca C.Cory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Educa-tion Press, 2008. xii + 308 pages. ISBN978-1-891792-90-8. $32.95.

This book directly addresses the changesthat can be undertaken by faculty, studentservices personnel, technology depart-ments, and administration in the imple-mentation of universal design. Thearticulated theories and the recommendedactions clearly come from authors whohave worked directly with colleagues inthe field. The volume devotes sufficient

Reviews


space to the theory of universal design tobe an introduction for newcomers to themovement. At the same time it lays outapproaches to concrete, practical applica-tions in almost every area of higher educa-tion. The audience for this book includesboth those new to universal design inhigher education and those familiar with itwho want to broaden its implementationin their own area of responsibility oracross their institution.

Universal design refers to the planningof spaces, activities, and resources toallow for the participation of people ofthe widest possible range of abilities anddifferences without additional adaptation.The goal is to have the adaptation built-in.A movement that started in the mid-twentieth century design of commercialproducts and was later expressed inarchitecture has now found its way intoeducation as the next step beyond accom-modation. In her introduction Burgstahleracknowledges that undertaking universaldesign can seem a daunting task and willrequire a series of small steps.

In Part 1, the Introduction, Burgstahlercovers the history and principles of UD inrelationship to other movements like theAmericans with Disabilities Act, effortsto increase accessibility, usability, andaccommodation. This brief but compre-hensive discussion orients the reader tothe larger field in which UD operates.

Part 2 concerns the practice of instruc-tion. The first chapter is devoted to differ-ent approaches to applying the principlesof UD to instruction. This is followed byten chapters that include: using UD in thefirst-year classroom, applications toassessment, reflections by both studentsand experienced faculty, serving studentswith psychiatric disabilities, the contribu-tion of UD to learning and teachingexcellence, using of UD for faculty devel-opment, promoting practical application,serving invisible disabilities, and teachingUD in graduate education. The chapters

are instructive in the principlesof UD. They are also highly practical –including the recognition of encouragingwords for faculty who may already feelbeleaguered. Describing the process ofguiding one body of faculty in addressinginvisible disabilities through UD, the train-ers report that “[f]aculty who initially feltoverwhelmed by the prospect of redesign-ing their whole course structure becameenthusiastic about making small revisionsbased on UD principles within the contextof their own course content and teachingstyles” (150).

Part 3 is comprised of seven chaptersthat cover implementing UD in studentservices, designing physical spaces, facili-ties, technology environments, accessibleweb-based lectures, and computer labs. Italso includes reflections from experiencedpractitioners.

Part 4 contains four chapters on theinstitutionalization of UD. These includechapters on indicators of institutionalchange, an outline of a change process,collaborations, and promoters andinhibitors of UD.

The book becomes an illustration of itsown principles as it conveys informationin varied formats for readers with differentinformation processing preferences.Charts, lists, and diagrams are usedthroughout the text. The various authorstake care to present the principles andtheir application in ways that encourageincremental implementation. One suchuseful aid is a rubric for assessing assign-ments and assessments, which enablesinstructors to gauge their own progressand concrete next steps for furtherprogress.

The book chapters were generated fromthree research projects undertaken byteams representative of large, small, state,and private colleges and universities aswell as community colleges. The clarityand practicality of the volume can beattributed to the fact that each chapter was

Reviews


developed by practitioners who work inspecific higher educational contexts. Inaddition to the contents of the volumeitself, an appendix directs the reader tonumerous additional resources created bythe same research projects. These areavailable at the University of Washingtonwebsite under the site name “DO-IT” andalso includes an extensive list of free pub-lications, video presentations, and trainingmaterials (http://www.washington.edu/doit/). This volume is available at a dis-count through the “DO-IT” site.

Universal Design in Higher Educationwould be useful for those planning toundertake an institution-wide commitmentto UD. At the same time it would be afruitful resource for faculty, staff, depart-ments, or administrators who are moti-vated to embrace UD. For professors ofreligious studies and theology who areconcerned about fully responding to diver-sity in the classroom or institution, thisvolume can serve as a guide for how toengage a practice that leads to moreuniversally accessible curriculum.

Mary Ann ZimmerMarywood University

Learning with Digital Games: A PracticalGuide to Engaging Students in HigherEducation. By Nicola Whitton. NewYork, N.Y.: Routledge, 2010. xx + 214pages. ISBN 978-0-415-99775-1. $33.00.

Overall, Whitton’s Learning with DigitalGames is successful in arguing that highereducation may benefit from the judiciousincorporation of video games into theclassroom. However, it suffers fromrepeated uncritical confusion of gaminggoals with pedagogical goals. Whittonshows her readers how to use computergames “to support learning, teaching, andassessment with adult learners” (1). Sheargues that games can foster creativity,

decision making, and collaboration; shealso offers general advice for those braveenough to write their own games for edu-cational use, but the book is not, nor doesit claim to be, a handbook on how toproduce video games. Whitton provides anengaging if overgeneralized introductionto ways in which video games can beused to teach general life skills.

Although Whitton offers hints on thedevelopment of course-specific games,she also urges the use of preexistingcommercially-available games like Rune-scape (an online multi-user fantasy role-playing game). Such games can be usedby emphasizing “the link between gamingactivities and intended learning objectives”(122). The unspoken conundrum is whysuch skills could not be learned outsideof the classroom. Whitton might do wellto consider more fully the arguments ofthose who suggest that games can make ussmarter, whenever and wherever we playthem, like James Paul Gee (What VideoGames Have to Teach Us About Learningand Literacy, Palgrave Macmillan 2003).This begs the question of why Whittonthinks that such learning should takeplace in the classroom under a teacher’sguidance.

Gaming can, in fact, be used success-fully in an educational environment inways that do not require synergy of thegame’s objectives with classroom objec-tives, and in ways that utilize the criticalskills of informed instructors in particularfields of study. For example, instructorscould bring games into the classroom assimply another form of contemporary“text” and interrogate their arguments bylooking at the genre and its typical charac-teristics. Using the arguments of videogame theorists like Ian Bogost (PersuasiveGames, MIT Press, 2007), instructorscould teach students to consider howgames present arguments, to deduce whatarguments are being presented in a givengame via the procedures it initiates, to

Reviews


unearth stereotypes, and to question agame’s assumptions (about violence as asolution to disagreement, for example).

Whitton, unfortunately, largely missesthis opportunity. Perhaps implicitly recog-nizing some of the problems that arisewhen conflating a game’s own goals witha classroom’s learning goals, Whitton sug-gests that some qualities of games must beapplied “with caution to learning” becausethey may inhibit student motivation.Among these are elements of “competi-tion” and “rules” (32). As effectiveteaching strategies, Whitton urges “col-laboration” over competition, and rulesthat work as “scaffolding,” and not to“stifle creativity” (32). The problem is thatcompetition and rules are two of the mostdistinctive features of games. A morefruitful approach might be for instructorsto query, with students, why games are sooften defined by competition and rules,and to ask in what ways such featuresshape the story or content relayed withinthe game. Using this approach with gamesthat portray aspects of religious groups,(in the context of war, for example,) couldyield very important results.

A striking aspect of Whitton’s approachis her confusion of the pedagogical pur-poses of the game itself with any peda-gogical purposes of the game’s context inthe classroom. Whitton argues that there isa “great deal of commonality between thecharacteristics of games and the character-istics of effective [classroom] learningexperiences” since both are “intrinsicallychallenging” and involve “interaction,”“goals,” and “levels of difficulty.” But forWhitton, the difference between the learn-ing encouraged by the game itself and thelearning encouraged in critical evaluationof the game is irrelevant, or at best isglossed over (31).

Although I personally believe thatvideo games can be used with greatsuccess in the religious studies classroom,I would advise against Whitton’s book as

an introduction to digital games, except asan argument for their general cultural rel-evancy. A better strategy might be to readselectively from introductory video gametheory texts available in works like KatieSalen and Eric Zimmerman’s Rules ofPlay (MIT, 2003), apply these insightscritically to examples of video gameswith religious content, and teach studentsthemselves to engage in critical analysisof game-play.

Rachel WagnerIthaca College

Distance and Blended Learning in Asia.By Colin Latchem and Insung Jung.New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2010. 266pages. ISBN 978-0-415-99410-1. $37.00.

Faculty interested in online learning inNorth America will find this book on dis-tance education in Asia an interestingcomparative study. Latchem and Jungdescribe and analyze “e-readiness ande-learning readiness” in Asian countries,where connection to the internet is muchmore likely to be through mobile phonesthan computers. Countries such as Paki-stan, India, China, and Afghanistan havecreated systems of “open education,” pro-viding free secondary and college educa-tion for poor residents. These countries’open and distance learning programsextend open education to those who arenot able to travel to a metropolitan areafor face-to-face education. This form ofeducation can involve the use of oldertechnologies – such as television or radio– or the newer computer technologies.

Open and distance learning programsand other information and communicationtechnologies deliver lifelong learning,workplace training, teacher training, pro-fessional development, and other educa-tional opportunities to the workforce andothers who need further professional

Reviews


development. The presence of theseoptions provides open access for peopleto develop beyond their current level ofeducation and thereby discover anddevelop skills requisite for other voca-tional opportunities.

Latchem and Jung provide guidingprinciples for the development of onlineeducation programs. They summarizetheories of instructional design, qualityassurance, accreditation of programs, andleadership development. They also discussdifferences between Asian and Euro-American perceptions of teachers andthe ways in which cultural paradigms ofeducation influence online learning. Forexample, Asian students expect teachers tobe the fount of all knowledge, while Euro-peans or Westerners can accept and eventhrive in an educational process in whichthe teacher spends time alongside the stu-dents, directing them to information andproviding a more active learning environ-ment. Contemporary global pedagogicalparadigms are shifting; the Asian “educa-tion market” is becoming more open to aWestern-European collaborative approachto education.

The authors analyze some of the chal-lenges and obstacles to distance educationin Asia. For example, open and distancelearning projects often have high drop outrates (sometimes as high as 95 percent).Education is slowed in Asia by the lack ofeconomic and social development. Acces-sibility is still an issue, even thoughmobile phone technology has spreadrapidly in Asia and access to education inAsia is rapidly growing. The authors arguethat educational providers are learninghow to address these issues.

This is an important book. It willbroaden the perspective of educators whomay not often consider comparisons tothe educational needs beyond their ownnational borders. Secondly, the book’sdiscussion of the needs, obstacles, andsolutions to providing quality education in

Asia provides a valuable reference guidefor those seeking to expand educationalopportunities in Asia.

R. Dale HaleAsbury Theological Seminary

Instructional-Design Theories andModels, Volume III. Edited by CharlesReigeluth and Alison Carr-Chellman.New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2009. 416pages. ISBN 0-8058-6456-3. $43.00.

This is a valuable book that will especiallyappeal to those interested in what is oneof the most fundamental questions in edu-cation, namely, how can teachers andinstructors help people to learn better?One of the features of pedagogical dis-course in theological and religious educa-tion is its often close connection withformal theology. Theologians frequentlysupply the conceptual models that heavilyinfluence how teachers and instructorsapproach their work. For instance, inCatholic educational circles, methodsof teaching Christology remain heavilyinfluenced by contrasting pedagogicalapproaches inspired by Kung and Kasper.This, of itself, is not a bad thing, but itcan distract from the essential educationalfoundations of the teaching and learningprocess. As a counterpoint to this, thisvolume takes an educational designapproach to learning and as such intro-duces a range of practical and theoreticalconcepts that are directed toward helpingteachers to design effective learningexperiences.

This volume focuses on instruction asa critical aspect of effective teaching andlearning. Instruction is understood as any-thing that is done purposely to facilitatelearning. Implicit in this definition is thenotion that teaching methods are contextu-ally driven. The volume is then dedicatedto identifying the optimal conditions for

Reviews


various instructional approaches. Unit 1centers on developing a common under-standing and vocabulary on instruction.In the first chapter, Reigeluth and Carr-Chelman establish a framework for under-standing instructional theory. This is basedon the notion that quality teaching needsto have a student centered focus. It recog-nizes, however, that this focus requiresadaptability to a variety of teaching andlearning contexts. With this understandinginstruction can become a multifacetededucational experience applicable to avariety of teaching situations. Throughoutthe book a common framework is givenwhich highlights the universal and situ-ational principles that are germane to anyteaching approach.

This idea is taken up in Unit 2 whichpresents key instructional principles inmajor approaches to teaching. By so doingmany of the theoretical disputes thatdominate contemporary learning theoryare avoided. This volume does not providea rigorous interrogation of the efficacy ofteaching approaches or their relationshipto what constitutes genuine learning. Forinstance, one issue that is emerging as amajor conceptual theme in the wider edu-cational literature is the value of directinstruction as opposed to models suchas discussion-based learning. In Unit 2a variety of teaching approaches arecovered; however, the focus is not on cri-tique and comparison but on what instruc-tional principles are best suited to thatapproach. The chapter by Huitt et al., forexample, looks at direct instruction. It listsfour phases that can be further dividedinto five stages as central to effectivelyusing this approach. Gibson, in anotherchapter, examines discussion-basedapproaches to learning. These aredesigned to engage learners in real-lifesituations that connect with the experien-tial world of the student. By usingMerrill’s principles of instruction toestablish a framework for discussion-based

pedagogy, she fosters student engagement.Of particular value here is the focus onimproving the quality of teaching andlearning within a particular approach. Thisfrees teachers from a concentration on anyone method and continues to direct themtoward those factors that help studentslearn.

Unit 3 examines how instructionalprinciples can be better understood andapplied to major types of learning. Theseinclude activities oriented toward skilldevelopment, using outcomes to fosterunderstanding, developing affectivelearning and emotional intelligence, andimproving integrated learning acrossdomains. This discussion has direct rel-evance for theology and religious educa-tion since it can span a range of learningtypes. One of the most notable of theseis the need to direct classroom teachingtoward both cognitive and affectiveoutcomes.

In this volume these particular out-comes are discussed in separate chapters,where a range of instructional principlesare provided. Teachers and instructors whowant to value both the cognitive and affec-tive aspects of learning may find thesehelpful. The volume concludes with Unit4 that revisits some of the conceptualthemes introduced in Unit 1. Gibbons’sand Rogers’s chapter seeks to providean architecture of instructional theory ormetaphor. For them, it is like developingthe structural layers of a house where themost obvious external features can beequated to instructional design principles.These are not, however, the foundationson which the house is built. This theme isalso taken up by Reigeluth and An whoargue that an emphasis on the universaland situational aspects of instructionshould not preclude a strong theoreticalbasis. They propose, therefore, that oneimportant area for future work is theorybuilding around an instructional basedapproach to pedagogy.

Reviews


The chapters in the volume aredesigned to build on each other. Theyare not, however, an easy read as theycombine complex practical and theoreticalissues and a wide range of supporting lit-erature. The volume does, nonetheless,provide a very solid introduction toinstructional design theory. This has greatutility for those who wish to ground theirteaching in theological and religiouseducation on what might maximize astudent’s learning potential.

Richard RymarzSt Joseph’s College, University of Alberta

The Future of Service-Learning: NewSolutions for Sustaining and ImprovingPractice. Edited by Jean R. Strait andMarybeth Lima. Sterling, Va.: StylusPublishing Company, 2009. xiii + 236pages. ISBN 978-1-57922-365-6. $29.95.

Service-learning finally has grown up inthe academy and this book announces itsrite of passage. Developed out of a panelpresentation at the 2008 Annual Meetingof the American Association of Collegesand Universities, this book raises practicalissues and visionary questions that cannotbe ignored by academic leaders andfaculty committed to the pedagogy ofservice-learning. At a time of dwindlingresources and in a rapidly changing highereducation landscape, Jean Strait, MarybethLima, and the other contributors thought-fully probe the future of service-learningand bring into focus the issues that willdetermine the direction it takes.

The work is divided into three themes:institutional and administrative issues,service-learning as a springboard forresearch, and key issues and challengesfor the future of service-learning. As withany edited volume, the chapters that fleshout each of these themes are neither equalin quality nor always focused on the larger

theme. For example, Barbara Jacoby’sexcellent chapter, “Facing the UnsettledQuestions About Service-Learning,” islocated with similar chapters on the themeof research and service-learning, yetJacoby eloquently raises seven difficultquestions about the future of service-learning that might have easily served asthe concluding chapter of the book. Butstructure aside, the volume treats readersto the insight, experience, and vision ofcommitted practitioners and advocates ofservice-learning.

As Strait implies in her introductorychapter, the book is informed by, andinforms, Thomas Ehrlich’s argument thatmoral responsibility and civic responsibil-ity are one. Service-learning is the “goldengoose” of experiential learning that causesstudents to reflect critically and simulta-neously on their own role as citizens andas moral agents. However, this reflectionmust be sustained by, and occur within,the context of enduring and interdependentpartnerships between the campus andcommunity partners, points driven homeby Melissa Kesler Gilbert, MathewJohnson, and Julie Plaut in their chapter,“Cultivating Interdependent Partnershipsfor Community Change and Civic Educa-tion,” and by Joseph A. Erickson in hiscontribution, “Service-Learning’s Impacton Attitudes and Behavior.” If campusesdo not give enough attention to cultivatingtrue community partnerships and facultydo not give enough pedagogical attentionto rigorous and intentional reflection onexperience, we should not expect to seegains in student engagement in the moraland civic life of our communities.

The book discusses the future ofservice-learning through the lens of twoareas that are at the forefront of thenational dialogue about teaching andlearning: globalization and diversity. Thechapter, “Service-Learning and the Devel-opment of Critical Reflexivity in TeachingEducation in the United Kingdom and the

Reviews


Republic of Ireland” by Timothy Murphy,Jon Tan, and Christine Allan provides ahelpful and hopeful discussion of howservice-learning in these settings providesa new paradigm for teacher education.Closer to home, the critique that service-learning is often done by white, middle-class students is unflinchingly addressedin the chapter, “I Do More Service in ThisClass than I Ever Do at My Site” by TaniaD. Mitchell and David M. Donahue. Thischapter gives voice to the increasingnumber of students from underrepresentedpopulations who do service-learning, andtheir often dichotomous experience ofworking in a community-based setting.This chapter is a must read for facultypresent and future.

Besides addressing these larger issues,the book provides administrators andfaculty with a plethora of practical infor-mation. From an institutional perspective,the chapter, “Location of Service-LearningOffices and Activities in Higher Educa-tion,” by Elizabeth C. Strong, Patrick M.Green, Micki Myer, and Margaret A. Postprovides very strategic advice about whythe location of service-learning offices ininstitutions matters to the success ofservice-learning. Long-time veterans ofthe service-learning movement, AndrewFurco and Barbara Holland, in “SecuringAdministrator Support for Service-Learning Institutionalization,” point towhy service-learning can no longer betreated as a movement and must now beseen as a key institutional initiative foraccomplishing key strategic goals. Mary-beth Lima and Jean Strait contribute veryhands-on chapters on funding for service-learning and integrating it with onlinecourses. Lorilee R. Sandmann considersthe thorny issue of the impact of service-learning on tenure and promotion issues inher chapter, “Second-Generation Promo-tion and Tenure Issues and Challenges.”This is another chapter every facultymember should read.

As service-learning moves from thecharismatic to the institutional in theacademy, campuses and faculty continueto grapple with the challenge of preparingfaculty to embrace best practices inservice-learning pedagogy, creating trueinterdependent community partnerships,and harvesting service-learning experi-ences for moral and civic education. For-tunately, this fine work is a map for thehero’s journey ahead. Read it, discuss itwith academic administrators and facultycolleagues, and allow it to guide yourfuture course and curriculum planning.

Joseph A. FavazzaStonehill College

The Mentee’s Guide: Making MentoringWork for You. By Lois J. Zachary, withLory A. Fischler. San Francisco, Calif.:Jossey-Bass, 2009. xii + 148 pages. ISBN978-0-470-34358-6. $18.75.

The Mentee’s Guide is the third volumeon mentorship written by Lois Zachary(this time with Lory A. Fischler). Itcomplements The Mentor’s Guide andCreating a Mentoring Culture. Allmentees will find The Mentee’s Guidetruly empowering as it puts the mentee inthe driver’s seat. Traditionally, menteeswere viewed as those who “sit at the footof the master” – not sufficiently empow-ered to ask for what they need and sosimply settling for what they were given.The Mentees Guide: Making MentoringWork for You is “the invitation to exerciseyour voice with full resonance and notto settle for anything less than what youneed” (xii). The reader is reminded thatthe word “mentor” has its origin inHomer’s Odyssey; Odysseus askedMentor, an elderly man, to watch over hisson Telemachus when he went to fightin the Trojan War. Although mentors intoday’s world may not have a goddess’s

Reviews


supernatural powers, the authors point outthat mentors have access to invaluableresearch on successful mentoring.

Mentoring can take place in formal orinformal settings; people can be mentoredin a group or in one-to-one contexts(which is the traditional and mostcommon model of mentoring). A prerequi-site for good mentoring is a reciprocallearning relationship between mentee andmentor – there should be equal engage-ment between the two. The mentoringrelationship is primarily a learning rela-tionship. Like any relationship, a mentor-ing relationship takes time to develop.Mentor and mentee, seen as equal part-ners, are focused on each other’s needs.The relationship should be characterizedby collaboration and openness. Learninggoals should be clearly defined in order tohave a satisfying outcome for both part-ners. Mentoring differs from coaching inthe sense that coaching is aimed at boost-ing skills in the present, whereas mentor-ing is oriented to the future – developingskills, knowledge, abilities, and thinkingto successfully move mentees from wherethey are to where they want to be.

The Mentee’s Guide describes mentor-ing as a four-stage cycle composed of pre-paring, negotiating, enabling, and closingthe mentoring relationship. The authorsemphasize the importance of preparationon the side of both mentor and mentee.The mentoring relationship starts with thementee. Although a desire to grow andlearn is important, it is not enough. Beforeengaging in a mentoring relationship,mentees need to clarify what they want toachieve, how they learn best, and whatkind of mentoring relationship wouldwork well for them.

The guide utilizes anecdotes to clarifystatements. We read, for example, aboutIan, a very ambitious young person whohad the opportunity of being mentoredby Marcus, the senior vice president ofsales in the company where both were

employed. Ian was, however, not willingto read the books suggested by Marcus.He was not prepared to do the seriouswork required to make mentoring asuccess.

In order to gain the most from a men-toring relationship the mentee should takesome time for reflection. The combinationof hindsight, insight, and foresight canbe very effective. It is also important tocreate a personal vision. “If you canimagine it, you can achieve it. If youcan dream it, you can become it” (21).A valuable checklist, “Beginning withthe End in Mind,” is provided (24).

Negotiating is the second phase of thementoring cycle, discussed in chapter 3,“Finding and Getting to Know YourMentor,” and chapter 4, “EstablishingAgreements with Your Mentor.” Theauthors suggest using a criteria-baseddecision-making model to enhance thementor/mentee relationship. KatherineKlein, a professor of management atWharton School of the University ofPennsylvania observes: “Once a mentorsees that you’re eager, the more likely itis the mentor will want to spend the timeand social capital on you, introduce youto the right people, and so on” (46).

Once a mentoring relationship has beenestablished, mentor and mentee shouldagree on the following issues: well-definedgoals, success criteria, and measurement,as well as accountability assurances,ground rules, confidentiality safeguards,boundaries and hot buttons, and protocolsfor addressing stumbling blocks. All goalsshould be SMART: Specific, Measurable,Action-oriented, Realistic, and Timely.The book provides a helpful SMARTmentoring goals worksheet as well as aSMART goal checklist to assist thereader (61, 62).

The third phase is called the imple-mentation phase or enabling phase, andis regarded as the longest phase. Duringimplementation the mentor and mentee

Reviews


strive to meet the mentee’s learninggoals. The authors suggest that thementee create a pie diagram indicatinghow he or she intends to spend the time.The “portions” of the diagram may indi-cate activities such as: spending timeshadowing the mentor, reflecting on prac-tice, day-to-day problem solving, andoffering feedback. The authors advocatefor transparency throughout – the timepie chart should be shared with the men-toring partner and they should discuss thefollowing two questions: What do weneed to do more of? and What do weneed to do less of? (81).

The authors are convinced that thefocus of mentoring ought to be on learn-ing. It is the task of the mentee to searchfor and make the most of learning oppor-tunities and to help the mentor to providethe right kind of challenge, vision, andsupport. Together with the mentor, thementee should regularly monitor progresstoward achieving his or her SMARTgoals. Mentees should considerjournaling as a powerful way ofpromoting learning.

Closure represents the final stage in thementor and mentee relationship. Closureoffers one of the most profound learningexperiences of a mentoring relationship(99). During closure conversations “deeplearning takes place, appreciation is articu-lated, and celebration occurs” (99). Thebook concludes with a helpful appendix,consisting of an extended annotated listof resources.

This work on mentorship is timely.Education technology has never beenmore sophisticated; online learning hasopened new vistas. Technology can never,however, be a substitute for the most valu-able human-to-human advising and learn-ing that occurs in a meaningful mentoringrelationship.

Peter GrabeRegent University

Christianity and Moral Identity inHigher Education. By Perry L. Glanzerand Todd C. Ream. New York, N.Y.: Pal-grave Macmillan, 2009. 275 pages. ISBN978-0-230-61240-2. $68.07.

In Christianity and Moral Identity inHigher Education, Perry Glanzer (BaylorUniversity) and Todd Ream (Indiana Wes-leyan University) explore the existenceand decline of – as well as contemporaryconversation about – moral education inpublic and private colleges and universi-ties in America. Though the history andanalysis are engaging enough to be ofinterest and accessible to a non-academicaudience, this text was written primarilywith a scholarly audience in mind. Facultyof many disciplines (including scholars ofhigher education), administrators, and stu-dents at public and private institutions ofhigher learning in North America will findthis to be a useful analysis of the shifts inthinking about the task of the universityvis-à-vis the life of an individual as astudent in the university, as a citizen in acountry, and as a human being in thisworld (20).

Consisting of three sections and a con-clusion, the text is directed by a centralargument: having surrendered the task ofeducating and shaping the “whole soul”(2) of the student, universities haveshifted “from what we call fully humanapproaches to moral education to less thanhuman approaches” (3). This result hasemerged, they claim, logically from withina society that has failed to find agreementabout the overall function or commonpurpose of being a person, as well as thetask of the university in shaping thatperson.

The first section of the book, “TheStory of Moral Education in Contempo-rary Higher Education” (11–94), reviewsthe work done by important scholars ofcognitive and moral development, begin-ning with the origins of the discussion

Reviews


around moral maturity, as well as the uni-versity’s dialogue on – and approachtowards – moral education. The secondchapter addresses the historical back-ground of the shift in American universi-ties from the moral formation of a “goodChristian gentleman” (55) to the characterformation of a good citizen, and the thirdchapter considers the return to the dia-logue about ethics and moral developmentin light of the 1960s rethinking about the“place and purpose” (58) of the universityin society. Finally, the fourth chapteraddresses the contemporary challenge edu-cators face regarding how to think throughthe orientation process of developingmoral “space” and thus moral identities,for students (94). The conclusion to Part Isuggests that the fractured understandingof moral education – traced in the previ-ous chapters – presents a larger challengefor universities at the moment than doesmoral education.

The second section, “A More HumanEducation: Moral Identity and MoralOrientation” (97–177), begins with thepremise that there are “human and lesshuman” (98–99) approaches to education,and that the deconstruction of identity oncollege campuses carries with it signifi-cant implications for overall moral devel-opment. Chapter five considers how thedevelopment of broad human categoriza-tion – such as race, gender, ethnicity,sexuality, and political affiliation or “citi-zenship” – has replaced common human-ity itself as foundational grounds formoral agreement, both contributingtowards identity formation and aiding inthe direction of moral education (98). Theauthors note limits and difficulties thatthe “less than human” categories place onthe development of moral education, pri-marily as students learn to negotiate themultiple facets of an individual identity,and to learn to prioritize these facets,to “best order our virtues in relation tothese identities” (110). In chapter six the

authors suggest three potential commonground approaches in moral educationthat move beyond categorization: arecovery of secular humanism, religioushumanism, and common ground human-ism. Chapter seven focuses exclusively onmoral education within the context of theChristian college or university. After anexplanation of methodology, the authorsidentify case studies and the degree towhich the Christian tradition informs theeducation process, considering qualities ofservice, social justice, virtue, and holiness(137–45). Part II concludes by addressinghow the processes of critical thought,human freedom, and autonomy are influ-enced on campuses that are bound to theChristian tradition. Rather than abandon-ing rational thought, the authors note,students at Christian institutions areencouraged to critically engage with theirtradition and faith culture, all the betterto enter into them and engage more fullywith them.

The third and final part of this text,“Strengthening the Moral Tradition ofChristian Humanism,” is composed of twochapters, and they are perhaps the mostsignificant chapters for professors of theol-ogy and religion. Chapter nine, especially,addresses what the authors believe shouldbe the task of Christian universities: tointegrate faith and learning in a moreintentional way and thus order the catego-rizing identities of the modern universitystudent such that “Christian” tops the list.This “redemptive development of humansand human creatures”(185), the authorsclaim, should be reinforced by Churchaffiliated institutions through the curricu-lum (194–200), through worship space(191–94), and through cultivation of adistinctly “Christian” identity in light ofother competing, lasting identities. This– the ordering of lasting identities – isaddressed in the final chapter, which takesa decidedly theological turn as it addressescurriculum that the authors claim could be

Reviews


part of a Christian university concernedwith moral education (207–209), issues ofreligion and citizenship, the moral visionthat should be developed as part of beinga good student, and modeling the schol-arly task of the Christian scholar at aChristian university (with, one presumes,Christian students). Glanzer and Reamconclude their study lamenting that,despite the quality education encounteredat all the schools involved in their study,they regret that they found no universityusing the language of “forming saints”(222–23), which is – they note – the ulti-mate expression of a human fulfilling theirmoral education.

This is an interesting book whose thirdpart is quite different in tone from the firsttwo parts, a fact that makes it a slightlyuneven read. Nevertheless, with itsdetailed history and “how-to” approach,the authors present some thought-provoking ideas for Christian universitiesor Christian professors at secular universi-ties, and therefore the text is of value forprofessors and administrators in institu-tions that meet that criterion.

Teaching is never neutral. If theAmerican university is responsible forunderstanding the moral order of theindividuals that it elects to educate, ifevery education is a process of moralformation, then the authors do present animportant challenge for Christian univer-sities who wish to be identified as such,and yet ignore or downplay the responsi-bilities of their own faith tradition.“Whose morality?” is the question theybring before Christian institutions, but theanswer that they are leading the readerto – “A Christian morality” – somewhatlimits readership and might even limitreadership among Christians whoseChristian university has room for morethan just Christians.

Brenda Llewellyn IhssenPacific Lutheran University

Social Justice Education: InvitingFaculty to Transform Their Institutions.Edited by Kathleen Skubikowski,Catharine Wright, and Roman Graf.Sterling, Va.: Stylus, 2009. xxiv + 243pages. ISBN 978-1-57922-361-8. $27.50.

In her engaging foreword to this editedvolume, novelist Julia Alvarez expresseshope that this book might function as a“kind of blue-sky inspiration” for educa-tors interested in answering the question,“What would it look like, an academy thathas social justice at its center?” (xxiii).

It might, it turns out, look very muchlike Middlebury College, DePauw Univer-sity, and four other liberal arts colleges,which together collaborated on a 2005–2006 Institute on Social Justice Educationfunded by the Mellon Foundation.Co-editor Kathleen Skubikowski, Directorof the Center for Teaching, Learning, andResearch at Middlebury College, detailsthe essence of this collaboration at thecore of the volume: chapter 6, which pro-poses a “Social Justice Across the Cur-riculum (SJAC)” movement along thelines of the very successful Writing Acrossthe Curriculum movement in the 1970s(88–89). Through the grant initiative,faculty and administrators came togetherto form “Mellon Model Institutes” thatengaged participants in practices of self-reflection, pedagogical experiments, andcurricular innovations to foster cultures ofinclusion, anti-racism, and diversity ontheir respective campuses. To consolidatethe results of this initiative and to commu-nicate it to a wider public, three membersof the Middlebury contingent solicitedthese essays, primarily though not exclu-sively from Institute participants, broadlyorganized as “Theoretical Perspectives onSocial Justice Education” (chapters 1–5),cross- and intra-institutional “Collabora-tions” (chapters 6–8), and a final collec-tion of discipline-specific examples of“Social Justice Pedagogy Across the

Reviews


Curriculum” (chapters 9–13). To these,the editors have added the foreword byAlvarez and a compelling afterword byMiddlebury student and social activist,Zaheena Rasheed.

Most volume contributors draw on acommon fund of theory, including well-traveled arguments for social justicepedagogy by Paulo Freire and bell hooks.Part of this common fund – and, indeed,the theory which framed the work of theoriginal Mellon Institutes (see 89–90) –is the “faculty development framework,”proposed by educational theorists Mari-anne Adams and Barbara J. Love. This“four-quadrant” framework is helpfullysummarized by Adams and Love them-selves in chapter 1, complete withsample inventories to help faculty reflectcritically on their students’ social identi-ties, their own socialization, the inclu-siveness of their curricula, and theflexibility of their teaching repertoire.By itself, this chapter represents a usefulresource for anyone planning a workshopor faculty development seminar on socialjustice education. At the same time, thissingle theory does not dominate thevolume: the other more theoreticalcontributions and the classroomexamples complicate this frameworkand offer various points of entry tothe shared task. The volume is highlycoherent, without being monological.

Those looking for specific suggestionsfor social justice pedagogies in the reli-gious studies or theology classroom willbe a little disappointed, insofar as theexamples profiled here focus on teachingin the social sciences, natural sciences,mathematics, English, and foreign lan-guages. There are, nevertheless, gems thatwould translate well into almost any class-room. In chapter 2, for example, Lee Ann

Bell reveals how one can expose structuresof racism by focusing on fundamental“story types,” namely “Stock” or “domi-nant” stories, “concealed stories,” “resis-tance stories,” and “emerging/transformingstories” (29–30). Chapters 9 and 10 revealhow social justice issues can be raisedeffectively even while inculcating funda-mental skills of mathematics and quantita-tive reasoning, in one case, and languageacquisition, in the other – extremely usefulexamples for those in the Academy whoplay content requirements against incorpo-rating social analysis, alternative frame-works, or liberatory pedagogies into thecurriculum. Kamakshi P. Murti’s use of“deliberative dialogue” to address thetopic “To Veil or Not to Veil: Germanyand Islam” (chapter 13) hits still closer tohome, even if the seminar in this case ishosted in a German department rather thanin Religious Studies.

More compelling than such individualpedagogical strategies is the underlyingconviction of the book that “a socially justclassroom needs a socially just academyin order to flourish” (97). Though most ofthe collaborations give ample cause forhope, DePauw historian Glen DavidKueckner sounds a cautious note, detailinga Canadian mining company’s attempts todenounce him to his dean and members ofthe university’s board of trustees, due tohis action in support of indigenous com-munities in Ecuador (chapter 3, 42–43).Genuine solidarity often comes at a price,even in higher education. For thosewilling to risk troubling the waters,however, this collection offers a verygood place to start.

Reid B. LocklinSt. Michael’s College,University of Toronto

Reviews


social justice education: inviting faculty to transform their institutions – edited by kathleen...

Documents