The seminary experience: Conceptual worlds of first-career and second-career seminarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3. How do the systems of thought described by first-and second-career seminarians compare? 4. Do first-and second-career seminarians identify an over-arching message to their theological education?Seminarians in Canada and the United States: A Review of the Literature more than adequate.They called Tomas biased against part-time, second-career seminarians.In the entire study, this exchange at MTS about the academic ability of second-career students is the only discussion of explicit differences between first-career and second-career students. SummaryThe ethnographic accounts reviewed here attended to what researchers observed, and how that behavior fit into theories such as deprofessionalization or organizational culture.Both ethnographies reveal that theological education involves intended activities such as class work and community worship, and the informal activities of students.Theological schools, like all professional schools, have stated purposes and create curricula to achieve those purposes.The next section briefly reviews the literature on the intended curriculum in theological schools. The Intended Curriculum: What Seminaries Hope To DoPorter (2006) distinguishes between various meanings of a school's curriculum.The intended curriculum refers to explicit statements about what ought to be taught.Course descriptions in a school's catalog describe the intended curriculum.The enacted curriculum refers to the various kinds of instruction actually delivered by a school.The learned curriculum, finally, is what students actually learn.This section discusses the intended curriculum in North American theological seminaries, focusing on the past 40 years.Before introducing the conceptual frameworks that guided the study, this section briefly reviews literature about first-and second-career students in professions similar to Christian ministry.Following the suggestion of Wheeler, Miller, and Aleshire (2007) that ministry is similar to other helping professions, this section points to representative literature about first-and second-career students in two such professions, social work and nursing.The section concludes by linking research about students in social work and nursing to this study of seminarians. First-and Second-Career Students in Social Work SchoolsThis section introduces literature about social work students in Canada and the United States, then reviews quantitative studies that take into account age as a variable of interest.After reporting on qualitative studies about the socialization of social work students, the section ends with a critique of the literature.experiences require them to engage "multiple systems as employees or parents" (p.583) may acquire skills in self-advocacy and achieve satisfying experiences in field work. First-and Second-Career Students in Nursing SchoolsNursing is another helping profession often compared to ministry because of its service orientation (Barretti, 2004;Wheeler, Miller, & Aleshire, 2007).This section introduces published literature about nursing students, then reviews studies that take into account age as a variable of interest.The section ends with a critique of extant research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".