Presentation 1

The purpose of this chapter is to report findings of grounded theory research discovered through the analysis of participant responses in a focus group. The focus group consisted of randomly selected university and seminary graduates and students in the Philippines. Participants in the focus group responded to eight open-ended statements and two questions. The two questions measured the frequency of the use of lecture, reading and writing in classroom assignments. The eight statements gave the participants the opportunity to share their learning experiences in their respective institutions.

Alongside the focus group, an extant research project was used for comparison to the findings in this research. The research project was among seventy- five third-year Bachelor of Science in Electronics and Bachelor in Information Technology students at the Cagayan State University at Lasam, Philippines, in 2018. The study was published in the Journal of Technology and Science Education (JOTSE) in 2019.

The Focus Group

The focus group was conducted among participants in an iDisciple Philippines conference event. iDisciple Philippines is a ministry purposed to equip and train young leaders in disciple-making and gospel-driven ministry and mission. A total of twelve participants agreed to participate in the focus group, by responding to a questionnaire. All the participants in the focus group have at least a college education. Two are enrolled in a seminary. The participants were representative of a variety of Filipino socio-economic cultures and languages: professionals, clergy, workers, urban dwellers, provincial villagers, and from all three of the major island groups — Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao. Nine of the participants were females and three were males. The age of the participants ranged from 25 years old to 40 years old.

The Eight Directed, Open-Ended Statements

The focus group engaged the participants in responding to eight directed statements that sought to glean from their personal classroom experiences the type of teaching-learning methods that were employed by their professors and the impact on their learning. Three of the statements sought to discover the interpersonal relationships they experienced in the classroom and between the student and the professor. Two of the statements allowed the participant to explain the practicality of their education and how they adapted a lesson in a real-life situation.

The Statements

Describe your favorite teacher/professor, and what made him/her your favorite.

Tell us about your most enjoyable classroom or learning experience, and how it impacted your life.

Tell us about your least favorite subject, and how you think it could have been better.

Share with us ways one or more of your professors reached out to you to hear your ideas about how educational experiences could be improved at your school.

Tell us about an experience in which a professor stretched your thinking, ideas, or worldview about a concept or subject.

Describe ways that a professor provided learning experiences other than reading or lecture, and how this enhanced your learning.

Tell us about an experience when you were struggling with an assignment and your professor made adjustments to better fit your needs.

Tell us about an exciting classroom discussion you experienced and why it was meaningful to you.

Two Questions

As a follow-up, the participants were asked two questions in order to get a sense of their professors’ frequency of use of lecture, reading and writing. Their responses provide a simple data baseline reflecting their professors’ sensitivity to the context of the learners.

The Questions

9. As best as you can remember, how much of the time did most of your university or seminary professors use lecture as the primary teaching method?

• all the time

• most of the time

• some of the time

• seldom

10. As best as you can remember, how much of your classwork and/or homework assignments in your university or seminary were primarily reading and/or writing?

• all the time

• most of the time

• some of the time

• seldom

Research Analysis

The process of data analysis consisted of using grounded theory strategies to discover categories, patterns and themes in the participant responses. These findings were compared to the extant literature selected for this research. In the reading and analysis of the participant responses, followed by the correlation with the literature, three categories with corresponding patterns and themes were assigned: teacher preferences, learning preferences, and classroom preferences.

Teacher Preferences

A Teacher Who Is Present and Engaged

Participant responses to statements 1 and 4 – 7 exposed the preferences the participants held about a professor’s character, personality, style and manner of teaching. Without exception, all participants prefer teachers who are engaged and available. One student, in describing how his class could have been better, related three insightful observations:

Teachers need to understand the students: what they already know and what knowledge is lacking to complete a task.

Teachers need to provide clarification so that students understand the information and/or the task at hand.

Teachers need to be present for assistance, helping students to understand concepts and master them.

The Lingenfelters (Teaching Cross-Culturally, 104) support the students’ desire for an engaged teacher. They even suggest that “spending time with students in social situations” will give students the freedom to “volunteer information that will inform the teacher’s planning.”

A Teacher Who is Professional and Planned

The word professional appeared several times in the focus group responses. One student applauded a professor’s strict code of classroom ethic and her demand for excellence. Participants noted another aspect of professionalism is a professor’s knowledge of and passion for the content and subject matter being taught. Their confidence in the teacher is closely related to the teacher’s theoretical knowledge. This confidence is strengthened when the teacher not only demonstrates knowledge, but also how to apply the body of knowledge. Students want teachers to demonstrate a balance between “knowing their stuff”, as one participant reported, and knowing how to communicate it in a way that is real and applicable. Another participant wrote, “We want teachers to facilitate rather than indoctrinate.”

A Teacher Who Facilitates and Challenges

One participant describes a teacher who “clarified the lesson, was willing to re-teach if needed, and who was present to facilitate the understanding of concepts in practice.” Focus group responses revealed that teacher who facilitate are much preferred over those who simply present a lesson and expect the students to understand it. Participants expressed a sense of de-motivation when teachers were not able to connect the lesson to life. Students desire to know how what is being taught is relative to future studies and their future careers in the real world. Most participants explained not only a willingness to be challenged, but a desire for challenge.

The sentiments of the participants echo the Lingenfelters’ observations. They write, “Teachers cannot possibly teach to all the potential differences, but they can become more culturally sensitive to the diversity of their students. One of the most important things they can do is explain the context of what they are doing and make their teaching techniques explicit.” (104)

This type of teaching requires a commitment to presence, engagement and communication beyond simply dispensing information. Wan and Hedinger write, “Teaching and learning that is focused on simple information transmission can take place with minimal interaction. On the other hand, when a joint project that requires achieving real-world goals is a part of the teaching environment, that environment readily fosters meaningful interaction.” (Relational Missionary Training, 98)

A Teacher Who Understands

Several students expressed frustration when teachers’ expectations were not realistic. Again, the Lingenfelters speak to unrealistic expectations, writing, “Every teacher brings to the classroom expectations about curriculum that are rooted in his or her training and experience … We are the experts, and we assume our knowledge base is right for our assignment. In many situations, nothing can be farther from the truth.” (104)

In recent research among senior high school students in Caloocan, Philippines, educators learned “that students enjoy learning when their preferred type of activities are performed – hence, having the attributes of an active learner.” (“The Journey to Learning,” 2021) The research demonstrated that a teacher’s ability to recognize students’ learning styles and planning learning activities, accordingly, motivates students to engage.

Another component of understanding the learner rests in how curriculum is designed. Shaw writes, “Rather than beginning with the content, the instructor begins by asking the question: ‘What is it I hope that students will have learned, that will still be there and have value, several years after the course is over?’ The answer to this question forms the basis of the ‘learning outcomes’ for the course.” (Shaw, Transforming Theological Education, 176-177)

A Teacher Who Connects

Every participant expressed the preference for a teacher who can connect learning to life. In describing their least favorite classroom experience, most often their dislike related to an inability to understand the value of what they were learning. For example, one participant complained that a chemistry teacher focused most of her energy on memorizing the chemical elements but failed to explain “the actual use of those elements in real life.”

“Real life scenarios” is a phrase that occurs often in the participants’ responses, related both to their favorite teacher and their favorite classroom experience. Their responses give evidence that students desire to learn what is needed for their work/career/future (even for the following classwork), what is practical and useful for life. James Plueddemann makes clear the responsibility of the teacher and the curriculum to engage students in making connections between theory and practice. He writes, “… in addition to teaching content, the educator’s task in any situation is to help students make connections between the subject matter and their experience.” (Teaching Across Cultures, 19)

Plueddemann’s reference to Ted Ward’s metaphor of a rail fence describes the type of educational model that engages students in making these connections. He emphasizes that the “responsibility of the teacher doesn’t end with teaching content and relating it to the life experience. It’s also to help students build fence posts between the subject matter and their needs.” (20)

Stephen Brookfield describes the process of making education “coterminous with life.” Shaw states, “When it comes to planning an actual lesson, most students need to be guided through the process toward applying the message in a specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and tangible way.” Plueddemann critiques, “Globally, formal education is becoming more and more divorced from the real world of the learner and is often just a means for passing exams in order to get into the best schools, in order to earn high salaries.” (59)

Also, Mezirow explains that transformative education begins with the teacher’s understanding of “what the individual wants to learn.” Shaw’s research reveals “one of the great tragedies of theological education”; that is “the teacher- orientation of the lesson.” Shaw, (as well as Mezirow, Wan and Hedinger, and much of the literature) believes that in the traditional classroom, “the teacher does virtually all the thinking, most of the talking, and is often the only member of the class who learns much from the lesson.” Shaw’s research established hard evidence that, “students are … more interested in the personal and practical applications of what they are learning. In comparison, one focus group participant responded, “The class would have been better if she had helped us see the value of what we were learning.”

In other words, students want — and need to be able— to connect the dots between lessons and life. These five preferences paint in broad strokes what the participants in the focus group expect and desire from their teachers, and the type of teaching that has transformative impact in their lives. Though a researcher cannot establish an undeniable hermeneutical theory for the classroom from a sample this size alone, the many congruencies found with the body of literature on hermeneutics and educational theory referenced here, give support for viability of the teacher preferences stated in composing such a theory.