TEACHING VALUES: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE + James Waller + Associate Professor of Psychology Whitworth College During 1990-92, the Teaching Values Project of the Christian College Consortium, funded by Pew Charitable Trusts of Philadelphia, jointly awarded Whitworth College (Spokane, WA) and Asbury College (Wilmore, KY) a grant to address the teaching of values in Christian higher education. The specifics of the grant included the conception and presentation of faculty development workshops at both Whitworth (March, 1991) and Asbury College (November, 1991). Interested faculty from each institution developed relevant papers for presentation at these workshops. While developing the grant proposal, Steve Stratton (Asbury College) and I were struck with the wealth of writing on the theoretical mission of teaching values and the relative dearth of writing on the practical facets of teaching values. As we conversed with our colleagues, we became convinced that too few of us were comfortable with transposing our theoretical concepts of teaching values into classroom practice. With this in mind, we structured the day-long faculty workshops to begin with a concise philosophical rationale for the educational mission of teaching values and progress to practical employment of this mission. Where possible, and affirming our belief that many 1 of our best resources lie hidden on our own campuses, we encouraged the inclusion of faculty panels and small group discussions regarding the pedagogical mechanics of teaching values. As part of the dissemination plan forwarded to the Pew Foundation, the publication of many of these papers in a separate medium for expansive discussion and reaction was proposed. We are extremely pleased that Faculty Dialogue has agreed to serve as this forum to encourage discussion and reaction among church-related colleges and universities. The following six articles reflect revisions of the presentations given at Whitworth and Asbury College. These versions of the presentations encompass the constructive, insightful, and collegial criticisms of faculty at each institution. We are indebted to them for resulting clarifications and corrections but, of course, retain personal responsibility for opinions expressed in the content of the articles. The articles are arranged in the order in which they were presented at the workshops. They begin with very general introductions to the nature of ethics and values and progress toward increasingly more specific discussions of teaching values in higher education. In the opening article, Michael Peterson explores the implications of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation for a natural law theory of ethics. Peterson presents the foundational Old Testament precept of creation as testimony 2 that all created beings have "natures." The fact that God created humans with a definite nature, including a uniquely moral aspect, reflects something of God's image (imago Dei). Contrary to many prevailing theories, Peterson's interpretation thus provides us with an ontological basis for ethics that allows ethics to take on objective and universal dimensions. After contrasting natural law ethical theory with other major competing theories of ethical obligation (utilitarian, Kantian, and divine command theories of ethics), Peterson insightfully delineates the intimate relationship between natural law ethical theory and what has become called virtue ethics. Finally, Peterson addresses the role of natural law ethical theory in moral development within the context of liberal arts education. Peterson thoughtfully reminds us of the narrow path between the ". . . myth of value neutrality and the danger of repressive indoctrination" (p. xx) and tactfully addresses the responsible application of judgment about what is absolute and what is relative in ethical life. John Paul Vincent then continues a defense of the historic natural law theory of ethics and values. Presenting our students as American, modern, and adolescent, Vincent argues that these features run contrary to the embrace of natural law theory. We must also acknowledge, however, that an increasing number of our students are not American, come from cultures that may not be defined as 3 modern in Vincent's restricted terminology, and clearly are not adolescent. In light of these vitally significant differences, we may question the extent to which this growing number of "nontraditional" students express a similar reluctance to embrace natural law theory. Indeed, we may suggest that differences in cultural and life experiences may prompt a greater inclination toward the acceptance of natural law theory among some of our students. Following a brief synopsis of the presuppositions and tenets of natural law theory, Vincent presents two versions of natural law thinking. He first offers the work of C. S. Lewis as support for natural law theory. Lewis' understanding of the Tao as ". . . a transcultural and transpersonal source of moral knowledge" (pg. xx) is cited as a defense for the existence of a natural and moral law in the creational order. Second, Vincent presents an overview of Thomistic natural law theory. The Thomistic view, premised on the assumption that our human nature is given, has been tremendously influential in intellectual history and merits a modern reanalysis. Vincent's concluding examination of four advantages of natural law theory warrants thoughtful conversation, especially his assertion that ". . . the natural law tradition returns us to a more holistic theological position" (pg. xx). Although one may disagree with the presuppositions underlying natural law thinking, and a Thomistic view of reality, both Peterson's and Vincent's 4 contributions clearly provide a fertile ground for discussion. Focusing the issue more clearly on the teaching of values, Arlin Migliazzo envisions the significant impact a truly Christian higher education can make on American culture. Migliazzo quite accurately indicates that few of us have a philosophical quarrel with the educational mission of teaching values. Rather, we are frustrated because we are often at a loss as to how to link values and academics in the classroom. He examines the specific problems that lead to this frustration as well as strategies which may be used to compel students to confront the implications of their beliefs upon their values and behaviors. Migliazzo also offers two conceptual categories that prove helpful in initiating discussion about teaching values. One category, on an institutional plane, involves a distinction between "Message-dominant" and "Life-dominant" Christian colleges. Though this category may provoke an initial sense of reactance, it is undeniably beneficial in drawing our attention to some important institutional variations among Christian academies. Migliazzo makes it clear that these institutional variations affect more than a college catalog or viewbook-they affect the very way we go about teaching values in the classroom. The second category, on a pedagogical plane, depicts the search for educational wholeness at four levels of faith-discipline integration. These levels, generally 5 correlated with Bloom's Taxonomy of Higher Levels of Learning, again offer a helpful aid for opening discussions of how we do faith-discipline integration in our classrooms. More importantly, however, these levels of integration afford us a progressional scheme for our personal development in faith-discipline integration. Finally, Migliazzo concludes with a selected bibliography of integrative studies arranged by discipline. The bibliography, though not exhaustive, is an excellent aid for initial inquiry into integrative studies. In my subsequent contribution, I expand the discussion of the teaching of values by examining the issue of how values are best taught. Specifically, I develop a case against value indoctrination as the dominant method of value transmission in Christian higher education. In addition to stifling intellectual development, I argue that value indoctrination also leaves students poorly prepared to resist the counterarguments stemming from competing religious and secular worldviews. In contrast to the facile transmission of prepackaged answers favored in value indoctrination, I argue that it is only by confronting the values and assumptions inherent in American culture that we may effectively transmit an articulate, mature, and well-grounded Christian worldview. I advocate an approach to teaching values, termed value inoculation, that involves actively confronting the values and assumptions inherent in opposing religious and secular 6 worldviews. The efficacy of this approach is established by a presentation of relevant theoretical and empirical evidence from social psychological literature. Finally, several curricular and co-curricular implications of value inoculation are addressed. In the next contribution, Forrest Baird and Dale Soden challenge us to reexamine our use of critical thinking in the classroom. Their paper presents an intriguing analysis of the unnoticed conflicts between the value system and intellectual assumptions underlying the educational philosophy of critical thinking and those associated with Reformed Christian epistemology. Baird and Soden begin by offering a historical description of the Cartesian paradigm which they assert is foundational to the modern critical thinking movement. They then systematically delineate several conflicts between the Cartesian paradigm, as reflected in the critical thinking movement, and a Reformed Christian epistemology. The implications of these conflicts for Christian scholars and teachers also are addressed. Baird and Soden's contribution offers two important messages for the Christian academy. First, their work reaffirms the prominence of community in Christian epistemology. Contrary to the isolated and independent thinker idealized in the Cartesian heritage and the critical thinking movement, Baird and Soden remind us of the importance of "the community that distinguishes the relevant 7 from the superfluous, the important from the mundane" (pg. xx). Second, they also prompt us to be careful consumers of educational concepts, like critical thinking, that appear to be value-neutral educational goals. We leave challenged to scrutinize the unstated values and assumptions that lie behind many of our most celebrated and fashionable educational concepts. Steve Stratton and James Owens close the set of articles with a reminder that there are also experiences outside of the classroom setting that exert tremendous influence on value development. They specifically address the impact of mentoring through intentional relationships. Following a useful presentation of mentoring in history, Stratton and Owens explore the significant qualities of an excellent teacher and highlight the importance of creating a context for the development of knowledge and values. They contend that the Christian academy has failed in its classical mission to educate the whole person by giving reduced priority to campus responsibilities and duties that foster mentoring and value nurturance. Based on their own research, and adapted from a paradigm by Anderson and Shannon (1988), Stratton and Owens conclude with an engaging model of mentoring that discusses the mentoring relationship (role model, teacher, nurturing care giver), areas of mentoring (personal/social, career, spiritual), and functions of mentoring (tutor, sponsor, 8 encourage, counsel, befriend). Similar to Migliazzo's work, Stratton and Owens' article also offers challenges on the institutional and personal planes. On an institutional plane, it challenges us to reconsider the priorities of a Christian higher education. It specifically prompts our institutions to question the relative importance we place on mentoring in comparison to other more "scholarly" activities. On a personal plane, it challenges us to not ". . . only be a knowledgeable, well-researched information disseminator" (p. xx), but also to model Christian values and communicate concern and caring for students. Though not one of the submitted manuscripts, Dr. Leonard Oakland (English, Whitworth College) was one of the presenters at the Whitworth-Asbury workshops. In an engaging presentation, Oakland discussed some aspects of popular films that have a bearing on our understanding of value development in students. He specifically addressed the teaching of values through analyzing the choices characters make and reject within the narrative of a film. He argued that students can be made aware, through classroom presentation and discussion, that they face real-world decisions analogous to the choices faced by cinematic characters. Finally, four faculty from Whitworth College received awards from the Pew Foundation funds for developing projects related to the teaching of values. The names of these 9 faculty, along with a brief description of their projects, follow: Dr. Laura Bloxham (English) revised a course entitled "Images of Women in American Literature" to focus more clearly on gender and values-related questions. The course content and pedagogy were revised to engage students in: (a) a discussion of the values inherent in works of literature, (b) a discussion of the gender values inherent in literature, (c) a detailed analysis of the specific gender values portrayed in American literature from 1870-1910 and (d) understanding their own values with respect to gender values. Dr. Richard Schatz (Economics) revised a course entitled "History of Economic Thought" to directly address the issue of values as they have shaped economic thought both in our Western culture and in non-Western cultures. He accomplished this through two specific curricular adjustments. First, he addressed values in lectures and discussions on particular contributors to the development of economic thought (e.g., the values of the Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith, those of the African/West Indian development economist Arthur Lewis, and those of the modern African American conservative economist Thomas Sowell). Second, he amended writing assignments to specifically focus on the analysis of how human values have influenced the evolution of economic thought. Dr. Raja Tanas (Sociology) utilized his stipend to 10 complete research on a paper entitled "Christ, Society, and the Individual." The paper, addressing the integration of Christian and sociological perspectives on the emergence of the self in society, serves as a vital part of Tanas' teaching and mentoring responsibilities in the department of sociology. Finally, Dr. Doris Liebert (Education) developed three dinner and seminar sessions for education students designed to reinforce the values deemed important throughout Whitworth College's teacher education program. The sessions involved (a) a critical analysis of moral education, (b) dialogue with Christians in the public school classroom and (c) presentation of ethical choices for teachers. Readers interested in additional details of these projects, including Dr. Oakland's presentation, are encouraged to contact the authors directly at Whitworth College, Spokane, WA, 99251. 11