Harrison Forty Years on the Evolution of Theological Education by Extension Tee 20042

ERT(2004) 28:4, 315-328

Forty Years On: The Evolution OfTheological Education By

Extension (TEE)Patricia J. Harrison

KEYWORDS: Ministry, seminary,Bible school, distance education, pro-grammed instruction, field education,contextualisation

GenesisIn the early 1960s the EvangelicalPresbyterian Church of Guatemalafaced an enviable problem: theirchurches were growing too fast to pro-vide adequate shepherding for theirflocks.' The theological college simplycould not keep up with the demjind fortrained pastors, so congregations often

1 I am relicint on memory for many of thehistorical references in this article and wouldappreciate correction of any facttml errors.Too mciny people were involved in the devel-opment of TEE to name them all; I mentionthose best known to me and regret any impor-tant, unintentional omissions.

had to make do with untrained leaders,functional pastors. Their problem wasreplicated in a number of Latin Ameri-can Protestant Churches at the time.These pastors were usually maturemen who could not leave their jobs andtheir families for years of training in acity seminary. Searching for creativesolutions, the Presbyterians firstdecided to move their seminary fromthe capital to the village of San Fehpein a rural area nearer to many of theirchurches. However, they soon discov-ered that leaders in need of trainingcould no more leave jobs and familiesto attend a seminary twenty milesaway than one two hundred milesaway.

Undeterred, the Seminary staff andfaculty concluded that if the studentscould not come to the seminary, theseminary must go to the students. So inniral Guatemala in 1962, Theological

Dr Patricia Harrison, who holds degrees in theology, ethics, missiolo^, education, and TESOL from FullerSeminary, Oxford and several Australian Universities, teaches in Sydney, Australia; she has also taught inseveral overseas theological schools. Her doctorate from the University of Queensland deals with someperennial issues in Third World theological education. Through Austam Associates([email protected]), she currently offers professional consultancy and customised workshops onaspects of theological education, and seminary courses in missiology and cross-cultural leadership training Inthe following article she sums up for our 30th anniversary series insights she has gathered through her workin theological education, especially through her service as TEE Coordinator for the Asia TheologcalAssociation 1974-77, and as a member of the WEF Theological Commission and its Secretary for TheologicalEducation from 1977 to the mid-1980s.

316 Patricia J Harrison

Education by Extension (TEE) wasbom. In time, the number of extensionstudents far outnumbered those in theresidential program, and those beingtrained were primarily those who haddemonstrated their commitment toministry. Ralph Winter eind JamesEmery designed and commenced theprogram; Ross Kinsler, Benjamin andNelly Jacobs, Jose Carrera, BaudilioRecinos, Charles Ainley and otherswere soon to contribute much to itsdevelopment. They never dreamedtheir model of theological educationwould reverberate around the world.

ExodusThe TEE model could not be long con-fined to one small country. Wordspread quickly across Latin Americathrough mission and denominationalnetworks. Others wondered whetherTEE might solve some of their prob-lems. One of the earhest programs wasin Bolivia, where Ray Morris of thethen Andes Evangelical Mission was aprime mover. In 1967 the TEE conceptcaught the imagination of participantsin a conference of theological educa-tors in Armenia, Colombia, and similarprograms soon sprang up across Cen-tral and South America. Innovativevariations on the original modelemerged, such as the ConservativeBaptist program for marginally-literatepeasant fanners involved in churchplanting in Honduras.

By the early 1970s the new exten-sion model was spreading rapidlyacross Asia, Africa and the Pacific. TheTEE concept was spread by word ofmouth and print within missions anddenominations, by papers and discus-sion at international conferences, and

by the many seminars and workshopsstaffed by international and regionalorganizations, notably the WEF (nowWEA) Theological Commission and theEFMA/IFMA Committee to Assist Mis-sionary Education Overseas(CAMEOlater. Committee to AssistMinistry Education Overseas). Thesewere generally sponsored by localorganizations, such as the Asia Theo-logical Association, the Association ofEvangelicals of Africa and Madagas-car, and national EvangelicalAlliances. Later the WCC Programmeon Theological Education (now Ecu-menical Theological Education)became involved, spreading the wordamong a different constituency.

The pioneers of TEE soon realizedthey were developing not just a methodfor training more people, but a radicalnew concept of theological education.However, the significance of this wasnot always grasped by those whoadopted tiie model. TEE was some-times adopted more as an emergencymeasure to cope with unprecedentedchurch growth, or because it was seenas cheap leadership training. Limitedgoals and understanding accounted forsome of the problems subsequentlyencountered.

ChroniclesIn the 1970s and '80s the number ofnew TEE programs exploded as moreand more churches and missionsbecame involved. Initially, most werein the developing world and most wereevangelical. Somewhat later, conciliarchurches grasped the potential of TEE,particularly when Ross Kinsler serveda term with the WCC Programme onTheological Education. TEE made lim-

Forty Years On: The Evolution of Theological Education by Extension 317

ited appearances in Europe, NorthAmerica and Australia. Courses wereproduced in many languages, and at alllevels from basic literate to graduate.Hundreds of students became thou-sands. National TEE associations wereformed and international conferencesbuilt new networks.

Help for new TEE providers came inthe various forms, much of it providedby the WEF Theological Commissionand CAMEO, in cooperation withnational and regional associations,many of them affiliates of WEF. Sev-eral books and dissertations appeared,now mostly out-of-print.^ There wereeconomically produced newsletters,such as the Extension Seminary Bulletinfrom Guatemala, which appeared inSpanish and English, and a bulletinentitled Programming News (1969-1976) edited by Martin Dainton, a mis-sionary to Indonesia. This newslettermade an important contribution at thetime, when programmed instructionwas then intimately connected withTEE. It subsequently broadened itscoverage and became Theological Edu-cation Today (TET), which I editedfrom 1976 to 1983. John Langlois ofthe Theological Commission did a ster-

2 Early books on TEE included RalphWinter's Theological Education by Extension(Wm Carey Library. 1969), Ted and MargaretWard's Programmed Instruction for TheologicalEducation by Extension (Lansing. MI, CAMEO,1970), Fred Holland's Teaching through TEE(Kenya: Evangel Press, 1975), Ross Kinsler'sThe Extension Movement in TheologicalEducation (Wm Carey Library. 1978. rev edn1981), Kinsler (ed) Ministry by the People(WCC/Orbis) (a collection of case studies inTEE from around the world), and a number ofothers.

ling job from Guernsey, arranging theart work, production and distribution.We sometimes struggled to recruitcontributors; the best teachers wereoften too busy teaching to tell us howthey did it, but there was alwaysenough material to fill an eight-pagequarterly!

Our primary target was national(cind missionary) faculty teaching indeveloping countries at fairly basic lev-els in Bible schools and TEE, since it isat these levels that the vast majority ofThird World pastors are trained. Therewas no charge to recipients, so the pub-lication could circulate more readily inless affluent parts of the world. Theemphasis was on practical help forteachers, rather than on academic arti-cles about theological education,which could be found elsewhere; feed-back was very positive. After severalyears, and pressure from one or twosources (but not from its readership) tomake it a more academic publication,lET was reduced, mainly for financialreasons, to a page or two in WEF's The-ological News, and then disappearedaltogether. An anthology of articles.The Best of TET, was published by theTC in 1983. There is probably still aneed for a publication of this type. Inmore recent years we have seen TheT.E.E. Journal, based in South Africa, auseful publication of a different type.

A second important source of helpfor TEE workers came from regionalseminars, and from the cooperativepartnerships that often grew out ofthese. Those wishing to start TEE pro-grams would generally attend a work-shop. A number of these were spon-sored by the WEF Theological Com-mission or by regional associationslinked to WEF, such as Asia Theologi-

318 PatriciaJ Harrison

cal Association and the Association ofEvangelicals of Africa and Madagas-car. Workshops in many countrieswere run initially by Ralph Winter,Ross Kinsler, Ted Ward, Lois McKin-ney, Fred Holland, Ian McCleary, PeterSavage, myself and various others.Their expertise was variously derivedfrom early experience of TEE, plus abackgroimd in cross-cultural theologi-cal and/or secular education, andfamiliarity with programmed instruc-tion.

Because rmming a TEE programwas quickly seen to be a daunting task,most providers sooner or later soughtsome level of cooperation with others,at least in the development of home-study materials. TEE workshops didmuch to facilitate such cooperation,often bringing together people fromsurprisingly diverse denominationalbackgrounds.

Various models of cooperation wereexplored and continue to be used. Onemodel is a single, integrated, interde-nominational program, like TAFTEE inIndia. Programs of this type could berun from an existing campus, like theChristian Leaders' Training College inPapua New Guinea, or simply from acentral office. Another model is thenational or regional association ofextension programs. Such associa-tions may cooperate in sponsoringworkshops, produchig study materials,sharing ideas and insights, etc. Varia-tions in the degree of central policy for-mation uid control are possible. Exam-ples of regional associations are PAF-TEE in the Philippines, AETTE inBrazil, and TEEAC in Cambodia.

Cooperative course design devel-oped, and to varying degrees contin-ued, from the first Intertext project in

Latin America to the Text Africa projectfrom Evangel Publishing House inKenya, and SEAN courses, originallydeveloped by Anglicans in Argentinaand now distributed to many parts ofthe world fi-om the UK. Ambitious pro-jects sometimes floundered as busypeople failed to find time to produce thecourses they had agreed to write, butover time, a good number of coursesdid appear.

TAFTEE produced courses forIndia. AETTE brought together studymaterials from various denominationsin Brazil. PAFTEE gave its imprimaturto materials that met its standctrds inthe Philippines. The Christian Lead-ers' Training College in Papua NewGuinea produced the first of its TEEcourses. Cooperative ecumenical textproduction also began, and the Pro-gramme on Theological Education (for-merly the Theological Education Fund)gave prominence to TEE in its quar-terly. Ministerial Eormation. TEEseemed unstoppable!

NumbersAt this point we should pause and con-sider exactly what we mean by TEE.Definitions of extension education andTEE are many and various, often vagueenough to include evening school, cor-respondence courses or today, onlinelearning. It is not particularly helpfulto label such a wide variety of deliverymethods 'TEE'; there are alreadyenough generic terms like distance edu-cation, continuing education, externalstudies, ani flexible delivery in variouslanguages. Imprecise labelling hassometimes caused genuine TEE to bedisregarded ('we've tried that") orbrought into disrepute. It is better to


promote a more specific definition,based on the original Guatemalanmodel, but allowing for some variation.

Components of TEEAs developed in Guatemala, TEE hasthree specific components: self-studymaterials, regular seminars and life expe-rience and ministry in the students' owncontext. It was intended that these beclosely intertwined. None of these com-ponents was unique or new in the six-ties. It was the particular combinationand inter-relationship of these elementsthat was distinctive. TEE is not a cor-respondence course, it is not a part-time night school and it is not a seriesof short seminars.

Self-Instructional Materials.If theological education is to extendgeographically, it must break awayfrom dependence on lectures to delivercontent. But mere provision of 'notes'is an inadequate substitute for a goodteacher, especially when studentshave had limited education. The archi-tects of TEE believed that study mate-rials must be genuinely self-instnic-tionaL They do not replace a teacher,since regular seminars are still a criti-cal part of the process; they do replacemost of the teacher's lecturing function.

There is a crucial differencebetween TEE and a part-time lecturecourse with homework. When studentswork through self-instructional mate-rials in TEE they are not simply doing'homework'. Rather, the bulk of thecourse contentthe informationalinputis provided by these materials.This dispenses with the need for a sub-ject-matter-expert to visit all the cen-

tres to deliver lectures. Hence thematerials make it possible to extendtraining far more widely than is possi-ble with, say, an evening lecture class.

In the sixties and seventies, pro-grammed instruction materials (PIM)were popular in some educational cir-cles. They could help students studymore actively. Working through a goodprogrammed lesson was the next bestthing to having a tutor alongside,prompting one to think, respond andreview, and providing immediate feed-back. It seemed an ideal, affordablemethod to use in designing home-studymaterials.

Some experimentation with com-puter-assisted learning was emergingat the time, but this was of little inter-est to TEE leaders. Computers werenot too common, and were expensiveand bulky. TEE centres were, and oftenstill are, in poor or remote villages withno electricity. So Programmed Instruc-tion ('PI') did not hivolve software; itwas produced in books or in a moreaffordable stencilled format.

Thus programmed instruction,introduced at the outset, soon becameso widely associated with TEE thatmany believed it to be an indispensablecomponent. Those of us who led TEEwriters' workshops around the worldhad studied PI and sought to pass onwhat we had learned. I also took pri-vate tutoring in California from anexpert in the field. Strangely, I wassoon to find myself engaged in a cam-paign to dissociate TEE from pro-grammed instruction.

Tutorials/SeminarsRegular meetings of students andtutors were an essential component of


TEE from the outset. In communalsocieties the value of regular, face-to-face classes is particularly important.But the use of home-study materialsalters the purpose of these meetings.With no need for lectures, class time isfreed up for clarification, discussion,reinforcement, enrichment, testing,practical exercisesindeed for any-thing that cannot be adequately taughtin the printed materials. The tutorialsare intended to be highly participatorylearning experiences, and to include animportant element of bonding throughworship, sharing and mutual pastoralcare.

This dramatically alters the role ofthe tutor, who need not be the author ofthe materials nor even a subject matterexpert. What is essential is to have agood overall grasp of the subject, tohave prepared adequately, and to bewilUng and able to serve as a facilitatorof learning rather than as a lecturer.For some, this can be a difficult transi-tion.

Life and Ministry ExperienceOver recent decades theological educa-tors have learned much from ClinicalPastoral Education and from field edu-cation in the secular helping profes-sions. This has helped shape the movefrom the earlier, often unsupervisedfield work to the more focused conceptof supervised field education.

TEE students have plenty of lifeexperience, and most are engaged inpractical ministry in their churches.Adequate extension training must helpthem connect their studies with every-day life and ministry. In traditionalseminaries, most students areextracted from their home contexts, so

field education placements have to beengineered. Such placements may pro-vide new and challenging learningexperiences; at other times placementscan become somewhat artificial, or atworst, boring.

TEE maybe less able to provide newfield education experiences, but it isideally placed to help students connectnew learning with ongoing ministry intheir own contexts. All programsinvolve participants in discussionsintended to apply what they havelearned, but sufficiently strong connec-tions between theory and practice havenot always been made.

ExtensionAnother dimension in an adequate def-inition of TEE is its capacity to extendtheological education in various ways.

First, TEE extends geographical cov-erage well beyond the environs of theseminary. It trains students in theirown contexts instead of extractingthem for long periods, and so is posi-tioned near the extension end of anextraction-extension continuum in edu-cation. This helps to ensure that ruralparishes have a continuing supply ofpastors, as (unlike the graduates ofmany urban seminaries) most TEEgraduates remain in their own areascind continue to serve churches there.The structure of TEE enables it toextend training across a wide areawhile retaining regular personal con-tact among teachers and students. Cor-respondence courses, by contrast, canonly cover a wide area by reducing per-sonal contact to zero, while lecture-based courses are much more limitedgeographically.

Second, TEE greatly extends the


potential student body. Traditionally,theological education has been offeredmainly in fulltime residential collegesin the cities. To access such training ina poor country, students must havemoney or be heavily subsidised, usu-ally from abroad. It is too expensive forcolleges to house and feed many fami-lies, so the majority of students are sin-gle. In practice, Bible colleges in lessaffluent countries cater mainly forpromising young men, who, it is hoped,might one day make good pastors.

Each of these three words concefilsa limitation. There are relatively fewplaces or scholarships for women stu-dents, particularly in higher-levelEvangelical seminaries. While older,married students may be welcome inprinciple, it is usually financijillyimpractical to leave work and move tothe city for several years. The gifts andcalling of most young students, whileperhaps promising, are unproven. Fewhave even served on church commit-tees or held the office of deacon orelder. Proven, experienced leaders andfunctional pastors are largely excludedfrom traditional forms of tiieologicaleducation, though they may sorelyneed and greatly desire it.

TEE does not turn the young away,but it opens training opportimities tomany more besides. Some see TEE aspart of wider move from fulltime train-ing for a small elite towards a greaterdemocratisation of theological educa-tion. Ideally, it is said, if all the peopleof God should be able to 'do theology',then so far as possible, all should haveaccess to the tools for the task.

There are important policy ques-tions about whether a TEE progr l^mshould take over the adult Christianeducation function of the local church

or whether it should concentrate ontraining leaders who themselves can'teach others also', an approach morein the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:2. On theother hand, where lay believers seekserious theological education at ahigher level, there is room for moreinnovative thought in developing cur-ricula for lay people; their learningneeds differ significantly from those ofclergy.

It sometimes happens that seminar-ies whose main goal is to train pastorsfind themselves inadvertently trainingmainly lay workers. In some develop-ing countries Bible colleges attractschool leavers, some with little realinterest in the ministiy. They enrolafter failing to gain admission to a pre-ferred institution such as university orteachers' college. Such students willoften seek secular employment aftergraduation, or become reiuctiuit pas-tors. Christian training doubtless ben-efits these lay graduates and theirchurches, but an expensive residentialprogram is not a cost-efficient way totrain them, especially if at the sametime, the college cannot produceenough pastors.

JudgesThere appears to be an idea in somecircles that TEE has had its day. In factreports of the death of TEE have beengreatly exaggerated! Admittedly, for avariety of reasons, some extension pro-grams have disappeared or have beenreplaced by other forms of training. Notall have functioned well.

Nevertheless numerous programs,many fairly recent, continue to operatetoday in Africa, Asia, South America,the Pacific, and the former USSR, as


well as among Native Americans andAustralian Aborigines. TEE also existsin some more affluent western settings,where it has now generally introducedonline and other computer-based com-ponents. In some cases, changes aresuch that these programs may nolonger meet our definition of TEE.

As examples of flourishing exten-sion programs, I mention two withwhich I have had recent connections.The TEE Association of Cambodia(TEEAC) has brought together work-ers from a variety of churches, mis-sions and NGOs, to produce and delivercourses to several hundred pastors andother church leaders across thenationan impressive accomplish-ment, given the recent history of thatcountry. While member organizations,and TEEAC itself, run their own pro-grams, virtually all policy issues, stan-dards, etc., are centrally determined byTEEAC. The high degree of coopera-tion and fellowship has done much tostrengthen and expand the overallimpact of TEE on the churches.

Another example is the flourishinginterdenominational TEE program run(alongside a residential program) byCLTC in Papua New Guinea. This pro-gram peaked in the year 2000 withsome 5000 students across the yoimgnation. Unrest hi parts of the countryand the tripling of postage rates havereduced numbers somewhat sincethen, but enrolments remain strong,and include some high school students,whose Religious Education teachershave chosen to use TEE materials.New courses have continually beendeveloped, both in Enghsh (the lan-guage of education) and in Tok Rsin(the Pidgin lingua franca of much of thecountry).

TEE has its critics, and sometimes Iam asked whether it 'works'. This is animpossible question to answer invacuo'. One could as well ask whetherBible College or Sunday School works.TEE is not a single program. It is onevehicle for dehvering training. Asidefrom general comparisons of dehveiysystems, questions about efficacy canmost usefully be asked of a particularTEE program: Is TEE the best trainingchoice in this situation? Are qualitymatericils being used, and are theseproperly matched to students' educa-tional levels? Is there a sound theolog-ical base? How well contextuahsed arethe materials, and do they lend them-selves to real-Ufe apphcation? Are theseminars run properly, and how welltrained are the tutors? How effective isthe overall administration?

Particularly in its early days,sweeping claims were sometimesmade for TEE, and its presumed supe-riority over traditional Bible colleges.An unnecessary competitive aspectwas introduced, and expectations wereraised that could not always be ful-filled. Such situations sometimes led tojudgmental remarks.

However, criticisms of TEE fre-quently turn out to be criticisms of oneor two aspects of a particular program.Sometimes the critic's problem isreally with the ethos or theologicalposition of a program, or with poormaterials or inexpert tutors s/he hasencountered. Sometimes the stickingpoint is that programmed instruction isseen as a domesticating form ofinstructionas poor PI (or what some-times passes for PI) can indeed be,especially when written at a basiclevel. But these days PI should nolonger be seen as an indispensable


component of TEE.It must be recognized that, despite

some undoubted failings, TEE hasmade a major contribution to theologi-cal education in many countries, andhas brought biblical knowledge andpractical training to thousands whocould otherwise never have had accessto it. This is a tremendous achieve-ment. As with any other type of train-ing, there is a continuum of quality.TEE programs can be excellent,mediocre, orby any criteria, quite poor.

Objective evaluation of educationalprograms can be difficult where there isno benchmark and nothing in the regionwith which to compare it. Students inpoor-quahty programs, whether dehv-ered in college or by extension, oftenhave no idea what they are not learning.When keen Christians who previouslyhad no access to theological educationare provided with TEE courses, theyare often lavish in their praise. Thecourses may or may not merit suchadmiration, but something is almostalways bettermuch betterthannothing!

Any educational system is prone toparticular strengths and weaknesses,and TEE is no exception. I have enu-merated below some factors I believeare important in developing an effec-tive TEE program. The hst is not meantto be exhaustive, and emphasizes thesituation in developing countries,where TEE is most used. My commentsnecessarily reflects my own biases andexperience. Some of the same factorsare also critical to good seminary orBible college training.

ProverbsIn my experience, a high quality TEEprogram in a developing country typi-cally has all or most of the followingfeatures:

The sponsoring organization recog-nizes the importance of leadershiptraining overall, and of the TEE pro-gram specifically. It therefore accordsTEE high priority in funding and provi-sion of personnel. Too often, in prac-tice if not exphcitly, TEE is viewed assecondary or inferior to the traditionalresidential school and is resourcedaccordingly, virtually guaranteeinginferior quality. Allocation ofresources is generally a good guide totrue priorities. One is sometimestempted to ask, 'What are all these otherthings that are so much more importantthan the training of national Christianleaders?'

Too often, missionaries and BibleCollege teachers, ahready overworked,are asked to take on the design andteaching of TEE coiu-ses as an 'extra'task, with little if any reduction inexisting duties. They simply do nothave time to do this properly. A Churchor a theological college cannot expect toplan and implement a quality TEE pro-gram without employing extra staff. Itshould also be noted that the success-ful addition of any major program tothe work of an existing organizationwould benefit greatly from some under-standing of change dynamics.

The key stakeholders in the TEEprogram understand it, are con-vinced of its value, and are keen toimplement and promote it. Thisincludes national church leaders. Toooften TEE is initiated more because ofits presumed economy than because of


its inherent value as a form of theolog-ical education. Expecting people tostaff a program they do not reallyunderstand or believe in quickly leadsto discontent and perfunctory perfor-mance. The philosophy of TEE needs tobe carefully explained to all.

One reason some TEE programshave struggled has been that they havenever really been 'owned' by thenational churches, TEE was some-times initiated by keen missionarieswho failed to consult sufficiently withlocal church leaders. Such programsare vulnerable, especially in an imsta-ble political situation. If the missionhas to withdraw, the TEE program willsoon run down or close.

Church leaders may want a collegelike those of other churches. Pastorswho were themselves trained in a resi-dential college may feel this is the only'real' theological education; they sus-pect the missionaries are offering thema cheap, 'second-best' alternative.Some pastors feel threatened at theprospect of members of their congre-gation embarking on serious theologi-cal studies. They may then believe it isin their interests to emphasize thesuperiority of their own seminary train-ing. For such reasons, as well as fortheir knowledge of their people andculture, it is important to include localleaders in planning, administrationand teaching, A senior pastor withoutteaching or administrative skills mightplay a valuable role as chaplain to thestudents, A small pilot program in asituation where pastors will not feelthreatened can be one way to helpthem understand the value of TEE,

All TEE workers receive appropri-ate training for the tasks they will per-form, and attend periodic in-service

seminars to review basics, study prin-ciples of adult education, and maintainmotivation. Curriculum designers,course writers, translators, area coor-dinators and tutors are given detailedtraining by persons with appropriateeducational knowledge and TEE expe-rience. Experience suggests that aworkshop of at least two weeks is min-imal for training course designers,with a longer duration preferred. Ifcourses are actually to be writtenwithin a reasonable time, the bestapproach is usually to schedule aseries of production workshops with atrained facilitator. Promises by busypeople to write courses in their 'sparetime' usually result in long delays or nonew courses!

A common failing is that once initialtraining has been provided, no ongoingprovision is made for training newtutors or course writers, or for in-ser-vice refresher seminars for continuingworkers. After a few years with grad-ual turnover of personnel, there ishardly a trained tutor or course writerto be found. There were never enoughnew workers at one time to justifyanother workshop, so it is assumednewcomers can just 'pick it up', or per-haps learn enough by reading a tutors'booklet. Such gradual attrition of trainedleaders, tutors and course writers can dra-matically reduce the effectiveness of a pro-gram. Definite plans are required totrain new workers, even if they arrivein ones and twos. It is easier to provideongoing training in the context of abroader consortium.

The TEE program has clear objec-tives and caters appropriately for awell-defined target group. Leadersdecide at what educational level theprogram will function, making sure


they do not raise the entrance stan-dards so high that they exclude most ofthe students! They decide whethertheywill target mainly leaders, or laity.It can be great to have large numbersof students, but TEE is not essentially'a numbers game'. Some centres in theoriginal Guatemalan program have hadonly one or two students. "What isimportant is training the key people. TEEprograms are usually designed primar-ily for pastors and leaders, who arethen encouraged to develop their owngifts in reteaching some of tiie materialto others at a simpler level, probablywith little requirement of home study.Careful thought should be given to thesocial and cultural implications of placingan untrained pastor in the same classroomas members of his or her congregation.

It is very important that TEE stu-dents be selected partly on the basis ofstrong motivation. Without this, theywill not persevere long enough to com-plete their studies. Acceptance into theprogram should not be automatic, andhigh standards of home study andattendance should be reqtiired. Other-wise some will soon become slack andcomplain of 'too much homework'.They will come to class unprepared.Once this happens, an essential com-ponent of TEE is lost. Dihgent studentsalso suffer as standards drop, and asthere ai"e few others to form seriousdiscussion groups; TEE does not pro-vide for auditors. Once we succumb tosuch pressures, the whole programwill plummet in quality and depth, andin time, accreditation may lapse.

Some see extension training asappropriate only for basic training, andfail to see its potential for ministerialformation at higher levels. Such situa-tions as that just described feed that

perception and make it harder for TEEto be accepted as a serious trainingmodel.

In addition to the value of TEE fortraining church leaders, there areexciting possibilities for developingcurricula for educated lay people.These studies could relate theologicalunderstanding to certain professionalareas, such as business, law, medicine,education, economics, politics and gov-ernment. As Christian professionalslearn to apply theological understand-ing and Christian ethics to their voca-tions, they can make a significant con-tribution to national life and culture.

At the other end of the educationalspectrum are the many TEE studentswith limited educational backgrounds.It is not sufficient to provide materialsin the mother tongue; a TEE programcan still easily fail if it makes unrealis-tic demands on the literacy levels ofstudents. I have often suggested thatmost Bible Colleges and TEE programswould benefit from having at least onefaculty member with specialized train-ing in relevant aspects of languageteaching and remedial reading. Suchtraining might be acquired at graduatelevel as part of a sabbatical or furloughstudy program, in lieu perhaps of writ-ing one more thesis on a well-worntheological topic.

TEE has been conducted amongmarginal literates, but many adapta-tions and special expertise are neededto achieve success. Some of my ownworkshops over the years have dealtwith training ilhterates and semi-hter-ates, but it should be remembered thatTEE is not suitable for every situation.

The administration is well orga-nized, fits the local context, func-tions with integrity, and is ade-


quately funded. There need to be suf-ficient structures for the program tooperate relatively smoothly andaccountably, but without unnecessaryadministrative layers or red tape.National requirements for registrationof educational programs, accredita-tion, etc., will need to be met. Adequatestudent services and pastoral careshould be provided and the programneeds checks and balances to ensureongoing integrity, especially in moraland financial matters. Example speakslouder than preaching!

A carefully crafted and contextu-alised curricvdum is followed, and peri-odic workshops are held for curriculumupdating and review. Most TEE curric-ula include essenticil foundational sub-jects and ample biblical content,though often, modem processes of cur-riculum design have not been followed,so the curriculum simply reflects aslightly adapted western course ofstudies.

A major problem is that many pro-grams have been insufficiently contex-tualised. Real needs in the churchesand community are inadequately andoften only incidentally addressed. Thesame problem exists in many Bible col-leges, but can be more acute in TEE forreasons noted below. I am convincedthat the importance oideep contextuali-sation is often gravely underestimated.Without this, much of our teaching isdestined to be httle more than tran-sient head knowledge that fails toinform or transform hfe and work.

Quality self-instructional materi-als axe used, with all or mostdesigned for the context. A major rea-son for poor contextualisation in muchTEE is the propensity for 'borrowing'courses from other countries. This is

different from importing textbooks foruse with a teacher in a traditionalclassroom, because in TEE the self-instructional materials themselvesplay a kind of 'teacher' role. Further-more, TEE tutors frequently have lesstraining than Bible college teachersand may find it harder to help studentscontextuahse what they read.

Since many TEE programs areunder-resourced it is hardly surprisingif they fail to develop courses thatreally meet the needs of their own con-stituencies. Recognizing that thedesign of good self-instructional mate-rials requires expertise, time andmoney they do not have, they prefer tobuy translation rights from others.

The old idea, still current hi somecircles, that TEE should be written inprogrammed instructional format mustalso have deterred some would-bewriters. PI looks deceptively easy towrite, but is in fact quite difficult, espe-cially if the writer wants to produce aninteresting, varied course. Much thatpasses for PI is not PI! After leading anumber of programming workshops inthe early days of TEE, we realized thatfew participants actually went on towrite any PI. Those lessons that wereproduced were often dull and repeti-tive, and used a lot of paper. Since thattime I have generally taught writershow to design workbooks, with betterresults.

Some early TEE programs importedcourses on almost anything fromalmost anywhere, a practice that tooeasily resulted in patchwork curriculawith little cohesion. The importedcourses were designed for a variety ofeducational levels and were of differ-ent lengths. Some set one lesson aweek, others four or five. Qimhty and


style varied greatly. Courses some-times overlapped, while there was noassurance that everything studentsneeded to know would he includedsomewhere. If students in a centre hadcompleted the existing courses, it wasfelt that they could not be kept waiting.There followed a rush to obtain morecourses. So materials written for onesituation were translated, adapted(often in token ways), and recycled invastly different situations.

In more recent times, a high per-centage of new TEE programs havebegun to source their materials fromjust several international suppliers.These suppliers generally providecoherent curricula and self-studymaterials of quite good quahty. Com-mendably, they encourage users notjust to translate, but also to adapt theirmaterial. Their courses have enabled anumber of TEE programs to attain anacceptable standard. They have per-haps also spared us some much poorercourses that might otherwise havebeen written in a rush by people deniedtraining and resource for the task.

But there is a downside. The avail-ability of high-profile overseas courseshas tended to stifle the design of newcourses and innovative curricula. Care-ful contextualisation is accorded lowerpriority than it deserves; it is some-times forgotten that at times it mayrequire as much work to translate andadapt a course well as to write one'sown.

To understand the need for seriouscontextualisation is to recognize thatthere is no substitute for quahty mate-rials designed to meet real, localneeds. But this is not to suggest thatevery individual TEE provider shoulddesign a new set of courses! So long as

they are well integrated into the cur-riculum, some overseas courses maybe translated and adapted. Otherimported materials may with permis-sion be mined for ideas, illustrativeanecdotes, biblical exegesis, and so on.But at least some subjects need to bedesigned in our own context to meetour own needs. Context may be definedbroadly enough to suit a given culturaland/or geographic area. For example,good African courses are readily adapt-able for use in most of sub-SaharanAfrica, and some may, with more adap-tation, be usable in tribal societieselsewhere. They are unlikely to workwell in a modem European industrialsociety unless the program is targetingAfrican immigrants.

Creative, facilitative teaching meth-ods are used in the TEE tutorials, withspecial attention given to the develop-ment of thinking and problem-solvingskills, and to the transfer of classroomlearning to life and ministry. Howevergood the home study materials, TEEwill fail in much of its purpose if tutorscannot do their job well. Some tutorstry to lecture or spend most of the timeproviding 'the right answers' to ques-tions in the workbooks. Many do theirbest to stimulate discussion, but find ithard to compose good 'thought' ques-tions that help students relate the dis-cussion to real life. Tutorials rightlyemphasize discussion, but should alsoprovide time for reinforcement andenrichment of learning, using variousapproaches and simple media. Culturaland individual learning styles shouldbe taken into accoimt, along with somexmderstanding of adult education.

Some criticisms of TEE centre onconcerns that indoctrination mayreplace education, and piety, critical


thinking. Such concerns may be justi-fied, especially in countries where thewhole education system is essentiallydomesticating. But the problem ishardly confined to TEE; it is just as realin many Bible schools. The differenceis that printed TEE courses are morevisible to outsiders than what is taughtorally within the four walls of a college.Sound theological education needs tohelp students develop discernment,thinking and problem-solving skills,and ability to draw upon the biblicaltext and theological understanding inrelating faith to life. Pastors who lacksuch skills typically resort to legalism.But it is no small demand to achievethese ideals, especially at basic educa-tional levels.

For all these reasons, adequatetutor training and support are essen-tial. In addition to training seminarsand a general tutors' handbook, thereshould be a tutors' guide for each course,with guidelines and suggestions forevery tutorial, including a Hst of suit-able discussion questions. An analogyis the Sunday School teachers' quar-terly: it provides detailed lesson plansprecisely because most teachers areuntrained.

The Vision RemainsClearly, not all extension programsmeet these criteria, or others thatcould be added. In addition to person-nel and resources, vision, hnagination,patience, perseverance and hard workare needed to build quality theological

education of any kind.The situations in which TEE is

developed are often far from ideal;there is always a myriad of constraints.Overworked, under-funded staff do thebest they can, and succeed in providingtraining where previously noneexisted. Often that training is of highquality. Communication and the shar-ing of ideas and resources among theo-logical educators around the worldhave played a critical role in the devel-opment of TEE, and of theological edu-cation in general. A major contributionat this global level has been made bythe Theological Commission, alongwith regional affiliates of WEF (nowWEA). Subsequently, the ICAA didmuch to consolidate accreditation, andtoday, under its current name (ICETE)it still continues to make an importantinternational contribution to evangeli-cal theological education.

In conclusion, it is important toaffirm the validity and desirability ofchoices in modes of training. There aremany things a residential college cando that TEE cannot, and vice versa.Correspondence, radio or onlinecourses may be the only way to reachisolated students. Short seminars canmeet particular and immediate goals.Non-formal theological education cancontribute a great deal to continuingeducation of pastors and to lay train-ing. In short, the various modes ofdelivery all have a role. Some work bet-ter in one situation than in another.They should never be seen as mutuallyexclusive.

Documents

Harrison Forty Years on the Evolution of Theological Education by Extension Tee 20042