Adam Behnke Transformational Education Dr.

Scottie May Field Research: Observation #1 I observed and will be observing a mens small group of LifeChurch. On Thursday of this past week was the first meeting. Other than myself, three other Wheaton College undergrad men attended in addition to the technical leader, who is a grad student. He lives in a house offcampus with seven or eight other undergrad and grad students. We met there at 8 oclock, and after introductions and chit-chatting in the living room for a few minutes, we made our way down to the finished basement and sat on 2 couches and a LazyBoy to officially start our discussion. The couches and LazyBoy were very comfortable and informal; they were not lavish, but rather the kind of couches you expect to find at a male college-house. It was very quiet down there with no disturbances over the course of the hour. I was not distracted away from the subject matter by anything except the need to take observation notes. The leader appeared very humble, he was dressed in a wrinkled t-shirt and corduroys with no shoes and he offered us only water. When we were settled down the first thing he did was ask us What are you expecting and/or how would you like this small-group to be? After we all answered with our expectations, he answered with his as well, and then introduced the theme, Freedom that we would be talking about. However, he did not introduce it by reading anything, but rather by explaining that this is what all small groups from LifeChurch are discussing and it will be a neat experience to all focus on the same topic at the same time. After this brief introduction, he asked all of us, What comes to mind when you hear the word freedom?

Everyone responded many times, the leader included, mentioning Mel Gibson from Braveheart, different songs, themes from major novels and movies, etc. Each of us spoke pretty equally and the leader seemed to be writing down many of the thoughts. He then guided us into talking discussing the many different facets of freedom, followed by exploring and mentioning any Scripture passages that talk about being free or freedom. I was very impressed by the leaders facilitation of our group. He mentioned three times throughout the night that during the small-group time he wants to be less of a leader to us and more of a Co-learner because he wants to explore freedom as well. The amazing part is he modeled this speech by participating in the discussion as I did and vigorously writing down much of what was said. There was quite a bit of silent time throughout the 50 minutes we were there, as the leader would often wait -- for longer than I am used to -- until somebody added to the discussion. I grew to enjoy this, because each time somebody spoke it was met with listening ears and it seemed to have been thought out in the preceding silence. I am sure there were far more implicit rules of this small-group being followed, but the only one I perceived was that everyone needed to contribute to the discussions. This developed throughout the night, as no one person would speak twice in a row the silence between talking seemed to indicate that those who had not spoken in a while should say what they were thinking about.

Field Research: Observation #2

This second observation was different in many aspects, but the dynamics were relatively the same. I observed/participated again at a mens small group of LifeChurch on Wednesday night. I have not been in a DSG, but it is rather similar in its implicit purpose of being one more avenue where Christians can be intentional and grow through community and relationships. The setting and individuals present were a bit different this time, as we met in the living room instead of the basement and a man in his late 20s (older than the leader) was present. Our group consisted of 5 people: 3 undergrad, 1 mid-twenties graduate student, and 1 late-twenties man who has a full-time job. We sat in couches and a chair in the upstairs living room, making us vulnerable to intrusions from the front door, of which three happened. It was not a big deal, but definitely not ideal. During the first week, we did not talk through any specific curriculum, but we did this week. The curriculum on Freedom was developed by the pastor and a couple others. To start off, the leader revealed he was apprehensive at first about the curriculum, but he likes it more and more as he engages in it. The curriculum calls for homework before the small groups meet, but only the leader and the older man had completed it. The leader did not scold us, but rather displayed that he does value the curriculum by explaining how beneficial the homework was for him followed by him leading us in completing much of it. There is separate material outside of the homework that the small groups are supposed to go over, but the leader did not skip a beat in telling us that we would all go through the homework right then and there. He affirmed that this was not bad, but proceeded to frame the night as being one where there would be a lot of selfwork and there would be a reflective mood this week. Because 3 of us did not have the curriculum with us, the leader calmly read it out loud and silence was given between questions

for us to think and write down responses in our own notebooks or journals. This process took about 25 minutes. At the end of this, each person, starting with the leader, revealed his main slavery descriptor that the curriculum had brought to life, and attempted to describe why he thought he was that way, or what underlying reason was behind us being enslaved, and not free, in certain areas. This was followed by another time of silence and subsequent disclosure where the leader encouraged us to reflect further. The night was finished on a lighter note, as the leader brought out rope to make simple bracelets. He thought this would be a good reminder of a couple things: we are bonded to Christ, we are striving to be free from _____ (insert specific issues here), and also as a reminder to pray for the other guys in the group. We all helped in making each others bracelets, and laughter was frequent as it was a lighter time that included some bracelet-making-mishaps. We concluded this with a time of prayer requests and prayer. Each of us prayed, and the oldest man ended with prayer. The leader made sure to emphasize before we started that he wants us to be people of prayer, and for prayer to be a significant aspect of our meetings together. Our prayer time was about 15 minutes long. I am impressed and grateful for this small group. The dynamics are life-giving to me, and the atmosphere in not one of power, but rather one of equality, where anyone can speak and everyone is respected and listened to. I do not know if I have included too much description, but that realm is a lot more comfortable and familiar than interpretation and evaluation, which I will now try to provide. In this LifeChurch small-group setting, what it means to be the teacher is not much different from the learner. The teacher or leader here engaged in every activity, implicitly framing himself as

a learner as well. His main job was to facilitate the night, to propose and explain why we were doing certain things, and to move from one thing to the next. He did not pry or ask questions that he himself would not also answer. Silence is something he uses to open the floor for anyone to speak. In the silence is definitely an implicit rule that everyone should speak and answer questions and that everyone should listen to whomever is speaking. Through this, as well as through the prayer for each individual by another, the integrity and value of every person was affirmed. In addition, the leader demonstrated the value of the curriculum by leading us in filling it out when we should have already finished it. This act made me trust him when he told us that he liked the curriculum, and further made me engage in it and think while completing it.

Observation #3 I continued observing a mens small-group of LifeChurch on Wednesday night in the living room of a college house. In attendance this week were five college students and one late-20s leader. The night was different from past experiences for two reasons: we started a study of Romans and a different man led as the regular leader was away at HoneyRock. Thankfully the change was not drastic, but the atmosphere did change noticeably. The night started out by waiting for about 20 minutes for everyone to arrive, followed by each person explaining his Thanksgiving break. After this, the leader explained again that the group is going through Romans and gave a recap of last weeks study -- Romans 1: 1-17. The tone of this passage contrasts the following passage -- 1:18-32, which we studied this week. Each man in the group has a binder with the passage of week printed out to encourage marking up the passage. After the recap of last week, we went into alone time with the text to start

experiencing the passage more. The leader advised us to look for themes, words that stand out, Pauls argument, etc. After about ten minutes, the leader unfortunately went into an unstructured question-and-answer time until a time of prayer requests and prayer at the end, in which every person spoke and every person prayed. The usual leader is gifted at guiding in a small-group setting. I have had nothing but good things to say about him and have learned a lot from the way he facilitates our small-group. Unfortunately, the unconscious comparison made the fill-in leader for this week appear much worse than he may be. I will talk first about the negatives of the night and finish with the positives. The actions and feel of the night revealed that the leader viewed his role as one of expert and fixer. In the way he responded and acted, I could tell he felt pressure and therefore responsible for what happened. He did not allow questions to sit in the air, but often spoke up after a couple seconds of silence. In addition, he usually said something after anyone spoke, which functioned to bring the focus back to himself. The learning environment was pretty violent, as the leader was in control and transmitting information to us dependent students. Even though the leader tried explicitly (Are there things you can relate from Pauls argument to this present time?), the text was not enthusiastically applied. The leader was not able to foster an attitude of introspection and self-study alongside study of the text. It was a harsh transition from ten minutes marking up the text to a leader-dominated discussion to life application. I think it would have been much easier to walk along that bridge if we were able to think about it in our heads immediately following the ten minutes of looking at the text. As soon

as the leader started to dominate the conversation, we students subconsciously stopped seeing the need to think deeply because the leader was in charge and had the answers. In the beginning I said, Thankfully the change was not drastic. The learning environment definitely did change and we students were slightly dispossessed of our ability to participate in truth, but the attitude of everyone involved -- including the leader -- was one of humility. The Bible and prayer were upheld with honor and respect and the leader alluded to lectio divina when he encouraged us to keep doing a slow-chew on the Word of God during this time and throughout the week. He demonstrated care by waiting until each individual arrived at the house. Also, when he answered questions, he usually would tag a but Im not sure onto the end. This signified to me that he viewed his role as leader, not himself, as having the answers.

Field Research Observation Report #4 I continued to observe a mens small-group of LifeChurch on Wednesday. Thankfully the regular-leader was present. We proceeded in our study of Romans. In evaluating this smallgroup, it is interesting to use the Stake Model because of the fluid and changing-nature of the meeting. In addition, I can only conjecture as to what the leader expected. Though using other language, the leader almost explicitly asked for our actual learning antecedents. He did not lead the week prior, so we spent about twenty minutes where he listened to us recap our findings from the previous passage and prodded us about our thoughts on the passages thus far. Following this, he offered a few additional observations that were not mentioned about the previous passages. Everyone values him and thinks him wise, as evidenced

by our furious scribbling while he was talking. I do not know if he has heard of the Stake Model, but in these twenty minutes he was discovering our actual antecedents and offering his own thoughts to build a common ground of joined expected and actual learning antecedents that we might more fully and cohesively approach the new passage of Romans 2:1-11. When it comes to commitment to a full two-hour meeting on Wednesday nights, no one in the small-group has a blameless attendance record. Consequently, the official Bible-study portion of the night usually begins at least twenty minutes after the eight oclock start time and one or more has left early multiple times. Both happened on Wednesday, the leader did not appear surprised or upset which tells me he might expect this environment as part of the learning transaction. In addition, the structure of the leaders lesson plan is loose and closer to the role of facilitator of discussion rather than holder of the reins of whatever happens. Therefore, besides him not being able to rely on a certain amount of time or people, he only plans for 10 minutes of individual study of the passage, followed by discussion, followed by prayer. However, because each person is studying the passage, he rarely even starts the discussion as every guy enjoyed or wondered on some aspect of the passage. The leader even expects to learn and benefit from this structure, and it appears that he usually does according to his statements of, I had not thought about that before or I like that connection or that is so cool. His attitude of openness positions him nicely to have similar expected and actual learning transactions. The expected and actual outcomes are intertwined with the transactions in this smallgroup due to that crucial ten minute individual-study time. Because the leader facilitates an open space for learning transactions, he reveals that he does not have a specific outcome or conclusion in mind, but rather desires that each person come to know the passage a little better through the

process beneficial and empowering group discussion. As I mentioned in the last couple papers, the value of each person in the group is affirmed in various ways, which this leader builds off towards the outcome of everyone learning from each other towards a fuller view of scripture, particularly the book of Romans. I do not have many suggestions due to how much I have learned from observing Craig, the leader, in our small-group setting. The only lacking-piece in my mind is application. We do not LOCATE at the beginning of our time, which leads to few of us making application connections at the end. Craig approaches the passage almost completely open-handed, but perhaps he could prepare some questions for the beginning of the lesson that draw out some areas of our own lives pertinent to the text, that we might be able to come to the text with greater focus and appreciation for how the Word is living and a part of our lives right now.