Directory | Admissions Request

• Educational Philosophy
• Curriculum Composition
• Methodology
• Morality & Ethics
• Integration
• Student Mix
• Scholar's Community

The third driving force of the program is the methodology. Instructional and research methodology are combined because they are interrelated. There was a time in America when scholarship, the word itself, only related to research. A faculty member on a tenure track is required to demonstrate scholarship, and this is normally done by publishing research. The old proverb, "Publish or perish" remains true in academia. Another adage has persisted in educational circles: "Those who can, research; those who can't, teach". Oxford/ACRSS claims that scholarship includes both teaching and research and that these methodologies must be combined to produce an effective model for adult education. The same expertise, integrity and competence which normally distinguish research should characterize the faculty/student interface both in the classroom and in the more private tutorial setting.

The European model includes specialized competency and quality in teaching and advising as a means to demonstrate scholarship. If there has been no learning, there has been no teaching. Should one do quality research, and not be able to communicate in the classroom in order to facilitate learning, an essential element of scholarship is missing that must be commonplace for an advanced educational program. The Oxford/ACRSS instructional and research methodology is structured to excite and direct the self-activity of the student and as a rule disclose only the essential elements of content that would not be comprehended through assignments and independent study.

The program has one track and one train. It is a single degree program dealing with the sociological integration of religion and society. The track and the train are the structured aspects of the delivery system and the design of the curriculum. The cars are filled by the essential elements of the course of study. Some cars are 30% and others are 70% full. The student participates in the curriculum by decisions which weight each compartment of the train. This is done both through a Learning Contract and the reading, writing, and research decisions made on each subject. Through the 30-70 option range, the student can weight the transcript record toward specific content or career goals. How does this work?

General competency and specific competency are learned through different techniques. For example, should one wish to learn to drive, the effort would not be model specific. If one learns to drive a Plymouth could they not also drive a Chevrolet. Learning to drive safely is the process of acquiring specific skills that would enable one to drive any automobile. The same is true should one learn to write a paragraph, this general competency would enable the student to write a paragraph on any subject within the limits of present knowledge. Through reading and research the special competency could be gained to write more complex material.

The content is less important than the structure of the paragraph. When one writes a research paper, the subject is not the decisive factor. Can the student invent a title, find material, synthesize it, create a composition with an introduction, development, and conclusion? Here the methodology, the competency and the process are decisive. Certainly content is important, but no content is communicated without proficiency in methodology. An assignment to write a brief research paper on a subject the student selects gives the student options. It is this discretion and individual proficiency that determines the content.

The Oxford/ACRSS program utilizes the short course method with various formats: seminar, colloquium, tutorial, and forum. The short course requires a detailed paragraph syllabus with specific written instructions. Advance preparation is required of all to be an informed participant in the short course. Time in class is kept to a minimum with the professor dealing only with the essential elements of the course content already detailed in the syllabus. Classroom note taking and questions are limited in order to utilize the time for the content essential to the course of study.

Note taking becomes a problem in a short course because the time to write down what the professor says hinders the student from engaging the idea and hearing the collateral material. Questions normally deal with a hidden agenda of the student and distracts both the professor and the student from dealing with the essential elements of the content specified in the syllabus. The interface with faculty and peers is not stifled. Provision is made at mealtime and other venues for interaction and interface on subjects of private interest to individual students. The collective time of the class cannot be diverted to particular interest of individuals.

For example, a two-hour course scheduled at a local college would provide teacher 32 clock hours to present the course content for a two credit course. The teacher has sixteen classroom hours for each credit earned. During a sixteen week semester, the class would meet one hour on Tuesday and Thursday. During the four months, time would be used to socialize, check the role, make verbal assignments, write things on the board, testing and other related activities. These activities cut into lecture time. The question and answer period eats away class time. The students limitations at note taking slows the process. No student can write down everything said in class. One speaks much faster than another can write. As the student attempts to write down something that seems important, often the next or supporting concept is missed. The student then asks, "Would you repeat that please?" What happened to the collateral reading and other assignments? Did the student become so dependent on the teacher that self-directed activity was limited?

It is difficult to explain the short course concept to a faculty member who has taught in a traditional semester setting. The short course can also be a problem for a student who approaches the brief encounter with the professor as if there were sixteen weeks of interface. Most professors do more harm than good to the student by putting them on overload. Presenting so much triviality is normally an effort to demonstrate the professors comprehensive grasp of the subject. Such action often intimidates the student by providing details the faculty member knows from a lifetime of study on the subject. Faculty members forget that students deal with six or eight other subjects. Older adults are also dealing with family, work, church and other community responsibilities. When each professor makes a specific course the most important, most students can not adequately evaluate the whole curriculum. The overload often produces procrastination by the student. Meanwhile, they try to psych out the different prof's testing methodology and work toward the test.

An example comes from an encounter in a university sociology course taught by the department chair. The professors opening statement, "Every semester I give seven F's. I always flunk seven students." Two or three left. Then the professor said, "There's two or three of you that flunked this course last term and you need it to graduate and you'll probably be in the seven again." Another one left.

On the first Friday quiz one student received a 62, another a 64, and the rest were in the 40's. The next Friday one score was a 64, another 65, with everyone else in the 40's. The third week the best two students were still in the 60's and everyone else in the 40's. The two better students made a pact not to read the next chapter and see how they did. It was a 1:00 pm class, at lunch on Friday one felt they should read the chapter, but the other insisted they keep their bargain. Finally they decided to read the bold print, the italicized words, under the pictures, the footnotes, and the graphs, but not the body of the text. They reviewed the chapter for fifteen minutes. She made 84, he made 79 and the rest scored in the 40's.

The best students had discovered the professor's secret plan to manipulate the reading of the text. As author of the text, he had lifted the essential elements from the text and placed them in the grafts, footnotes, bold print and italicized words. His exam was made from this selected data, not the whole of the text.

When the test papers were returned, the two were asked to stay after class. They were told that somehow they had unlocked the secret of his exam and if they shared it with others they would be included in the seven. By accident these students discovered the plan and never read the full text again for that course. Of course the next professor would be different and the whole process of discovering the key would start again. This overload of content and the manipulative nature of the professor is a common practice in American education. Content is important, but it must be presented in a manner it can be recalled. Otherwise, the content is lost. What is the residue of human study? What content is remembered following the final examination? How many college graduates could pass their college final exams on any given day. The content is lost, because it was presented through a pedological method. The student had limited involvement in the process.

What is left three weeks, three months, three years, three decades after the course is completed? Perhaps the discipline learned, the methodology used, the sources consulted, and the procedure to access resources remain together with the confidence of the achievement. The pride of a finished task. The reaching of a milestone. The value of a liberal arts education is not necessarily the content, but the benefits of the process together with other learned behavior that remains.

Just as a Pediatrician practices medicine in the care of children and their diseases, a Pedagogue is a teacher who leads children. Although pedagogy is used to define the teaching profession or the function of a teacher, the pedagogical method has become a description of a hypercritical or intolerant approach to education. The method has not proved effective with children. When the pedagogical manner is used with adults it greatly increases the transactional distance and limits the learning process.

A child learns by storing up facts that may be used in the future. Children can store facts because their "hard drive" is empty. The young mind has plenty of room to store unrelated facts; however, by age 25 there is no more room for unimportant or inconsequential things. As the age increases to 35, 45, 55, there is less and less tolerance for facts that are unrelated to adult life. The adult learner becomes discretionary and discerning and asks "is this important to me, can it be used in my life and career?" If data is valued at less than useful, adults will put it into short term memory just long enough to regurgitate it on an examination. Then it is forgotten...lost.

The Oxford/ACRSS methodology introduces the essential elements of the course of study in a process which moves data from the short term memory into the long term memory as knowledge. When information and facts are used to solve a problem or answer a question, the data is moved to the long term memory as knowledge. A concentration on the manner in which adults process information, together with a knowledge of adult study habits, enables the program to strengthen the knowledge base in the long term memory. Such a process uses content as a vehicle to create knowledge and thereby increase the competency base of the student.

American educational institutions use both intimidation and a process of elimination to reduce the graduating class to the "best and the brightest." This process makes failures out of most of the country's best brains. As few as 4% of clergy are able to complete doctorates in state universities. The number for women is about 18% and men complete at about the 30% level. This process makes failures out of bright people, not only because of a faulty educational philosophy, but also because the system attempts to teach adults as if they were children.

When adults are forced to remember large quantities of facts, through the process of passive aggressive behavior, they cram such facts into a little corner of the short term memory and then regurgitate it for an exam. To earn the credit, the student must beat the system by overloading the short term memory. With no procedure for processing the data into knowledge, most of the content is lost. Can this be higher education? Research confirmed little difference between an "A" student and a "C" student. The better student knows the facts at the time of the exam and the lesser student learns the information after the exam. However, when the student learns why the answer was wrong, the knowledge is now in the long term memory. It is difficult to discern between the A and C student three days or three months after the exam. Children are sent to school to learn certain things. One knows it before the test and receives an "A". Another scores poorly on the exam, but learns the information during evaluation. The American system makes no allowances for knowledge gained after the exam.

This is a bad system for children, it is even worse for adults. It threatens to eliminate and threatens failure at every turn. The European system has a facilitating evaluation system. There are no threats of elimination, because the faculty has a stake in the ultimate achievement of the student. Failure of the student would be considered failure of the faculty. Only at the final hurdle are candidates eliminated from the terminal credential because of an inadequate specialized competency level.

Oxford/ACRSS has modified the European process and eliminated the intimidation aspects of the American system. The content instrument is used as a written review, not an exam. It is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the faculty, the curricular components, and the delivery system as well as student readiness to proceed. It is based on a give and take process which moves the student toward competency in the essential elements of the course of study. The faculty generated content instrument becomes a written review. Faculty evaluation determines areas of deficiency in the essential elements and assigned Competency Assessment Projects to increase the level of competency to the acceptable level.

The grading system is designed to be facilitating and non-punitive. Two faculty must agree on the assigning of a letter grade. An "A" requires the faculty to identify exceptional scholarship. Competent graduate work is rewarded with a "B" and the student is judged to proceed with the next step in the process. The program does not have a failing grade. Instead of "C", "D" or "F", the faculty uses an In Process (IP) for conditional passing. When the "IP" is assigned, the faculty must critique the work thoroughly and make specific assignments designed to bring the work to an acceptable level.

Faculty may choose 30-60-90 days for completed work to be submitted. Should work not be completed satisfactorily within the time limit, the grade becomes Load Credit (LC) and is non-punitive. The faculty assigns an entry level course dealing with the content to increase competency in the subject matter and replace the semester hours needed for transcript credit. The Load Credit designation recognizes the student's participation (audit) of a course and exposure to input, receipt of all teaching materials and assignments. The LC means the student did not receive semester hour credit for the course on a transcript, but acknowledges the exposure to the content.

The post-test, pre-test problem in research becomes an asset in the education process. When a student confronts essential content elements that are not known, it generates a process of reading and research to learn. The process of dealing with a content instrument more than once increases the level of knowledge. With all due respect to the son of JFK who wanted to be a lawyer badly enough to set for the New York bar exam four times, John learned through the process. Each time the score was higher and finally despite the hounding of the press, Mr. Kennedy passed the New York Bar. Real Estate and other professional certifications permit adults to interface the process more than once to gain professional credentials. What if the New York Bar had said to John, you failed the exam. It does not matter what you may learn in the future, you will never practice law in New York? The Oxford/ACRSS program approaches the process through multiple exposure to content instruments without the negative aspects of public humiliation. It is a better way. It is a sound educational process for adults.

The Oxford/ACRSS does not grade on the curve, it uses the concept of the normal distribution of a population to understand the make up of the class. Normal distribution indicates that 68.4% of a population will be in the average apportionment of the standard curve and 15.8% will be outside in the above average and 15.8% will be in the below average category.

The faculty assumes that graduate students who advanced beyond the admission phase will fall within the normal distribution. Approximately one-sixth to be A students, about two-thirds will be B students and the balance will need special guidance and tutorial assistance to reach the level of competent graduate work. The faculty assumes this responsibility and is committed to facilitate the learning process to assist in reaching the B level of competency. The graduate faculty does not discriminate between a low and a high student in the competent range. The objective is competent graduate work. The methodology is a driving force that advances the program and facilitates the whole process.

The tutorial procedures used for centuries in the educational process at the University of Oxford have not been codified to date. A review of the mass of literature created by both the faculty and alumni of the university, together with personal interviews of faculty, students, and alumni, has permitted Oxford Graduate School to codify, in a small way, some of the procedures that have been used.

Data gathered from university sources has been tempered with European methodology and American educational practices in an effort to place the procedures in a context for the education of adults. The instructional and tutorial procedures used by Oxford Graduate School faculty are a result of the efforts to adapt these procedures to the context of the American student.

Consequently, the instructional methodology and the tutorial procedures of Oxford Graduate School form an andragogic/synergogic model created from adaptations derived from an elective process.

Presently nine (9) procedures are utilized by the Oxford Graduate School faculty. The Greek alphabet has been used to identify the procedures, and to code the methodology. The first three, alpha, beta, gamma, relate primarily to the core curriculum for formulational, functional and focus studies. The remaining six are used in various ways as foundational methodology. Other synergogic designs are used informally to judge performance skills and to clarify attitudes as a significant aspect of social effectiveness.

Instructional Methodology and Tutorial Procedures