0

University of Copenhagen, 29.05.2009 Claudia Welz

Adjunktpædagogikum 2008-2009 Contents I. The teaching case: Master course �Tillid, tro og tvivl� (Spring term 2009) 1. Course description 2. Challenges of this case 2.1 Participants and institutional framework 2.2 Research-based teaching and teaching-based research 2.3 Political situation 2.4 Didactic points 3. Personal background II. Franz Rosenzweig�s thoughts on �New Learning� as a source of inspiration 1. Biographical and historical context 2. Philosophy and education: �New Thinking� and �New Learning� 2.1 �New Thinking�: Speech-thinking 2.2 Pedagogical writings 2.3 Pedadgogical principles 3. Das Freie Jüdische Lehrhaus in Frankfurt � success, failure, and lasting significance 4. The relevance of Rosenzweig�s educational program 4.1 Learning between tradition and lifeworld 4.2 Learning in dialogue and in public 4.3 Learming in relation to the foreign III. Retrospective reflections on the case

1. Planning and performance of teaching Ad I.2.1) Structuring lessons Ad I.2.2) Co-ordinating schedules Ad I.2.3) Interdisciplinary integration of biblical, philosophical and church historical texts Ad I.2.4) Teaching techniques a) Lectures, discussions, summaries b) Media c) Team-teaching d) Experiments e) Student papers

2. Counselling (Vejledning) 2.1 Hjemmeopgaver 2.2 Kandidateksamen 2.3 Speciale

3. Evaluation 3.1 Development of new evaluation schemes 3.2 Feedback from the students

3.3 Feedback from mentor and censor Appendix

1. Kursusplan og litteraturliste 2. Vejlederbrev til speciale 3. Dokumentation af og i vejledning 4. Specialelogbog

5. Midtvejs- og slutevaluering: spørgeskema

1

I. The teaching case: Master course “Tillid, tro og tvivl” (Spring term 2009) The following considerations focus on the Master course �Tillid, tro og tvivl� (�Trust, Faith, and Doubt�) that I gave at the Theological Faculty of the University of Copenhagen in the Spring term 2009. The course was a so-called �Emnekursus� in Ethics and Philosophy of Religion, i.e. a course that concentrates on a special theme that is discussed during the semester. We met 13 times for 2 hours a week. The students got 15 ECTS for regular participation. 1. Course description (see appendix 1) The aim of this course was to clarify the meaning and forms, the potential and the limits of trust as a phenomenon and concept. Biblical and classic theological texts were discussed in the light of current debates in different disciplines. Various kinds of conflicts were examined, in which trust is put to the test or turns into its opposite. For example, the test of Abraham�s faith at Mount Moriah (Genesis 22) came into focus through the lens of Martin Luther�s Christian exegesis as well as through the lens of aphorisms by the Jewish poet Elazar Benyoëtz. The point of departure of the course was the problem of theodicy, which points to the complication of trust. What do people mean when they say �In God we trust� � although they might be in a situation similar to biblical Job? If faith in all its complexity cannot be reduced to a feeling of security and being-at-ease, but rather unites affective, cognitive and volitional dimensions and contains beliefs that can be questioned, it is not immune to doubt. On the contrary, in embracing existential uncertainty, uncontrollable contingency and risk, it may lead into affliction, trials and tribulation. Can we give compelling reasons for placing our trust in God � or is it impossible to find a rational foundation for faith, since trust itself is the unfounded fundament of life and inexhaustible source of religious reasoning? The idea of trust as groundless ground was investigated with special consideration of Ludwig Wittgenstein�s notes On Certainty, K.E. Løgstrup�s thoughts on trust as sovereign expression of life and Franz Rosenzweig�s double metaphor for trust as both the seed from which faith, hope and love grow, and the fruit that ripens from it � at once the easiest of all and just for that reason the hardest. In this context, the paradoxical nature of trust as something given that escapes our grasp came into view and in line with it the ambiguity of subjectivity that at the same time bears and undermines trust. The Protestant tradition defines faith as trust (fiducia). Faith�s foe, sin, is determined as self-enclosure (incurvatio in se). Hence, trust is linked to the openness of the self. But how does it come about and how is it preserved or restored? This question pays attention to the acts and omissions of human agents that determine the ethics and a culture of trust. Trust and distrust in the social sphere involve both pre-reflective and deliberate decisions concerning the persons trusted or suspected. How can we adequately judge a situation or a person? Immanuel Kant�s descriptions of the judgment of taste illustrate the subtle processes through which value-laden feelings are communicated. Søren Kierkegaard�s deliberations on love in Kjerlighedens Gjerninger show how our ways of seeing or overlooking another are responses that imply the seer�s responsibility. Paul Ric�ur�s analysis of the promise underlines the connection between another�s trust and my trustworthiness in the form of keeping my word as the basis of a culture of reciprocal recognition whose opposite is distrusting denial of recognition. The guiding question of the course was how faith can be distinguished from inter-human trust and the everyday certainties on which we rely in orienting ourselves in our world. What is the difference between religious trust in God and trust in one�s spouse, friends or parents and reliance on democratic institutions, a bank, a life-insurance or the weather forecast? This was clarified by comparing theological approaches to trust with prominent approaches from developmental psychology (Eriksen, Rochat), neuroscience (Kosfeld, Zak, Damasio et al.), sociology (Luhmann) and philosophy (e.g. Heidegger, Austin, Baier, Jones, Hertzberg, Lagerspetz).

2

2. Challenges of this case In planning and performing the teaching, I saw myself confronted with four challenges regarding (1) the participants of the course, (2) my own ambitions, (3) the political situation, and (4) practical issues to be planned. 2.1 Participants and institutional framework Already the first session showed that the participants of the course had many different backgrounds and interests. I asked each of the 11 students to present him- or herself and to say a little bit about why (s)he had chosen the course.

Obviously, not all of the students were theologians. Among them were also students with a background in philosophy and Danish literature, and one senior citizen. Some students wished to take exams in the context of their kandidatuddannelse, some wished to write papers, and some said that they participate only because they find the topic interesting. There were more women than men. Not all of them were present at every session. In one week close to the Easter holidays only four students came.

In view of this interdisciplinary and heterogeneous group of changing size, it was clear that I had to be flexible in my planning, especially attentive to what I could see in the faces of my students, and very careful in my formulations, if they were to be understandable for everyone.

2.2 Research-based teaching and teaching-based research Since the deadline to hand in my German Habilitationsschrift at the University of Zurich was end of April, if I was not to wait for the next opportunity in autumn, I worked under extreme time pressure and had to coordinate research and teaching, the organization of conferences and the participation in seminars and arrangements both at the Theological Faculty and at the Center for Subjectivity Research (CFS), where I am employed. This was to be done as clever as possible, if one project should not be run at the expense of others. It was the first time I was to teach the course, so it had to be planned from the very start. In order to benefit from synergy effects between the respective tasks of these months, I chose literature that I was to use also for my own research project and planned to discuss some controversial questions with my students. Partly, I would teach subjects that I had already investigated, and partly, I would write down the results of issues that I had not yet published in articles or put down in a chapter of my thesis. This way, my teaching was research-based, but my research was also teaching-based.

The challenge of this interconnection between research and teaching consisted in, on the one hand, granting that both parts were of high quality, and, on the other hand, in controlling my own ambitions. The course should be satisfying and instructive both for the students and for me. This implies that the focus of attention should not only be on my teaching, but also on the students� learning.1 1 As I understand it, research-based learning means that the students learn to orient themselves in current debates and to use research methods and theories on their own. It was the aim of my course to encourage them to research-based learning through research-based teaching. However, there is still no consensus concerning the question of what research-based teaching means. Per Fibæk Laursen, �Forskningsbaseret undervisning � og læring� i: T. Saugstad Gabrielsen/P. Fibæk Laursen (eds.), At undervise i Humaniora, Frederiksberg 1998, 93-109, 94f, has compiled the following five definitions:

1. the content of teaching consists of research results � but if we accept this definition, we must also call elementary school teaching �research-based;�

2. teaching is affiliated with research institutions � yet, the institutional contact does not grant a connection in content and method;

3

2.3 Political situation Another challenge consisted in answering to the political situation. In the semester preceding the course, the number of new students beginning to study Theology was very low both at the University of Copenhagen and at the University of Aarhus. The newspaper Politikken published an open letter, whose author suggested closing the Theological Faculties, which caused an ongoing debate.

The Dean in Aarhus considered changing the structure of the theological education in such a manner that two of the ancient languages Hebrew, Greek and Latin became optional, so that they in any case would not be a hindrance for admission. This idea provoked lively protest in Copenhagen, since, without these tools, the students would neither be able to translate biblical texts, nor to understand historical debates.

A meeting was arranged with representatives from both Aarhus and Copenhagen, where colleagues could discuss with each other. Suddenly, the most basic questions became the most important questions: Why should or does one study Theology, and how are its respective disciplines related to each other? Both universities decided to offer their own proposals that would be published separately. The form and performance of my course was to give an answer that would elucidate the coherent nexus of different theological disciplines and encourage interdisciplinary work.

2.4 Didactic points The interdisciplinary approach of my course was an extra challenge insofar as the material was taken from diverse contexts with specific technical terms and various methods of exploration. Didactically, the challenge consisted in creating a quick access to this material. Ideally, it should be presented in doing justice to its complexity, i.e. in avoiding oversimplifications, yet without presupposing too much previous knowledge.

One learns most of that one is engaged in. Therefore, I wished to supply presentations from my side with student activities. They should not just read and listen, but open their mouths and give their own contributions to the course. The students� contributions were remarkably constructive and interesting. They cooperated well, and it had never been a problem to motivate them. The didactic

3. teaching is led, if not performed, by researchers; 4. the teacher him- or herself is doing research in the field (s)he teaches, and lets his or her research become

fruitful for teaching � which is the general definition; 5. the students learn to do research through working with researchers � which is the most ambitious meaning of

the term. Personally, I embrace definitions nr. 4 and 5 � with the caveat that those students who do not want to become engaged as �co-researchers� have the right to refrain from this enterprise, i.e. they are not obliged to do more than participating in class. Fibæk Laursen (cf. ibid., 96f) gives some background information on the ideal of research-based teaching: In 1788, the University of Copenhagen determined that the professors should write dissertations on interesting and useful topics. In 1810 Fichte, Humboldt and Schleiermacher formed a new academic ideal of education when opening the University of Berlin: the teachers shall be active researchers, and students shall develop new knowledge together with their teachers in master-classes or seminars, where both teachers and students present and discuss preliminary results of their research activities. In sum, Fibæk Laursen (cf. ibid., 100, 104) describes research-based education as an ideal with the following features: One works with a discipline�s primary sources and not just with textbooks; the central methods are practiced in class; the students are invited to become active members of a professional society and get counselling in their projects; they get the chance to apply theories and methods to new problems and to become part of researchers� own projects; their teachers are active researchers. Working independently is an important part of research-based education.

4

challenge rather consisted in finding the right balance between lectures, discussions, work in little groups, or experiments with other forms of learning.

Last but not least, I wished to learn as much as possible from this course and the students� feedback in order to become an even better teacher. The feedback involved oral and written comments. For this purpose, I developed evaluation schemes that fitted precisely to the character of the course and could give the information to initiate �reforms� or minor transformations wherever necessary. 3. Personal background Personally, I have studied Theology and Philosophy at quite a few universities before acquiring my Master, namely the Sprachenkolleg der Evangelischen Landeskirche Württemberg in Stuttgart, the Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, the Dormition Abbey and Rothberg International School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, and the Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg. I was a Ph.D. student at the Institute for Hermeneutics and Philosophy of Religion at the University of Zurich, but organized research stays also at other institutions, namely at the Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Centre for German-Jewish Literature and Cultural History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the University of Hamburg, the Søren Kierkegaard Forskningscenter and the CFS at the University of Copenhagen. In this period between 1996 and 2006, I have experienced many different styles of learning and teaching. I made my first teaching experiences as a pupil, giving private lessons in English and other subjects. At the University of Heidelberg I worked as Research Assistant and Tutor in Church History. As a Post.doc at the University of Copenhagen, I gave several Master courses in Ethics and Philosophy of Religion: �Conscience � A Theological and Philosophical Key Concept� (Fall 2007), �Selvforståelse og dens grænser � Luther og Kierkegaard� (Spring 2008), �Heidegger: Sein und Zeit� (Fall 2008, together with Arne Grøn and René Rosfort). Furthermore, I organized two international conferences at the CFS that at the same time were Ph.D. courses with a �call for papers�: �Despite Oneself. Subjectivity and its Secret in Kierkegaard and Levinas� (Spring 2007, together with Karl Verstrynge) and �Religion and Subjectivity. Reconsidering the Relational Self� (Spring 2008, together with Arne Grøn and Carsten Pallesen).

II. Franz Rosenzweig’s thoughts on ‘New Learning’ as a source of inspiration The reason why I include here a section on a thinker whose work is not even available in Danish is that his thoughts On Jewish Learning have arisen from a crisis similar to the crisis of Christian theology in Denmark today, and that Rosenzweig�s proposals seem to speak right into the actual situation of religious education at the universities. Moreover, Rosenzweig does not only deal with trust as a content of thought, but develops his pedagogical thinking as pedagogy that is methodologically based on trust. Therefore, his approach became the source of inspiration for my own work with the students. In Part II, I will present Rosenzweig�s pedagogics, and in Part III, I will describe in what ways his approach became relevant for my course on �Tillid, tro og tvivl.� 1. Historical and biographical context Two international congresses in Kassel (1986 and 2004), the first of which had been organized in celebration of the 100. birthday of Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929), and the 2009 congress of the International Rosenzweig Society in Paris contributed to the fact that his work is more and more acknowledged not only in France (originally through Levinas and Mosès), the Netherlands (above

5

all through Miskotte), the USA and Israel, but also in German-speaking countries.2 While his main work Der Stern der Erlösung and his philosophical and theological writings receive more and more scholarly attention,3 there is hardly any newer secondary literature on his pedagogical writings, although they appeared relatively early in an English translation.4 Rosenzweig himself has placed his essays �Zeit ists� (1917), �Bildung und kein Ende� (1920) and �Die Bauleute� (1923) at the beginning of a collection of twelve writings which appeared in 1926 as a book entitled Zweistromland. In a new posthumous edition from 1937 called Kleinere Schriften, his wife Edith Rosenzweig added three so far unpublished writings: �Neues Lernen�, �Das Freie Jüdische Lehrhaus� and �Eine Lücke im Bildungswesen der Gemeinde�. I will ground my analysis on the latter edition and its English translation On Jewish Learning.

After the First World War, criticisms of culture, society and education played a key role in Germany. In contrast to the former identification of education with knowledge (extensive education), a new form of intensive education, the so-called �New Direction� (Neue Richtung) became trend-setting, which paid more attention to individual needs and competences and aimed at holistic forms of learning, fellowship and spiritual orientation of the learners.

Rosenzweig was born in Kassel and grew up as the only child of a rich, assimilated Jewish family. He first studied Medicine; later he focused on Philosophy and History. He wrote his Ph.D. thesis on �Hegel und der Staat� with Friedrich Meinecke as supervisor. He was on the point of conversion to Christianity when the experience of a Yom Kippur service in 1913 brought him back to Judaism. Until World War I, he studied with Hermann Cohen in Berlin at the Lehranstalt für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin. During the War, he wrote The Star of Redemption and decided against a research career. Stricken with progressive paralysis in 1922, he continued to write essays during many years of his illness and translated the Hebrew Bible together with Martin Buber. 2 Cf. W. Schmied-Kowarzik (ed.), Der Philosoph Franz Rosenzweig, vol 1: Die Herausforderung jüdischen Lernens, vol 2.: Das neue Denken und seine Dimensionen, Freiburg 1988; W. Schmied-Kowarzik (ed.), Franz Rosenzweigs ‚neues Denken‘, Freiburg 2006. 3 Cf. recently H. Putnam, Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life: Rosenzweig, Buber, Levinas, Wittgenstein, Bloomington, Ind. 2008. See also E. Birkenstock, Heißt philosophieren sterben lernen? Antworten der Existenzphilosophie: Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre, Rosenzweig, Freiburg 1995. For an introduction into Rosenzweig�s philosophy cf. for example S. Mosès, Système et Révélation, Paris 1982 (with a preface by Levinas); H.M. Dober, Die Zeit ernst nehmen. Studien zu Franz Rosenzweigs „Der Stern der Erlösung“ (Epistemata 84), Würzburg 1990 (= Dober 1990a); M. Fricke, Franz Rosenzweigs Philosophie der Offenbarung. Eine Interpretation des Sterns der Erlösung (Epistemata 348), Würzburg 2003; B. Casper, Religion der Erfahrung. Einführung in das Denken Franz Rosenzweigs, Paderborn 2004. An overview of important works in Rosenzweig research can be found in M. Schwartz, Metapher und Offenbarung. Zur Sprache von Franz Rosenzweigs Stern der Erlösung. Mit einem Vorwort von Stéphane Mosès (Monographien zur Philosophischen Forschung 284), Berlin/Wien 2003, 17-19. 4 Cf. W. Licharz (ed.), Lernen mit Franz Rosenzweig (Arnoldshainer Texte 24), Frankfurt a.M. 21987; J.E. Seiffert, �Kann die systematische Erziehungswissenschaft von Franz Rosenzweig lernen?� in: W. Schmied-Kowarzik (ed.), Der Philosoph Franz Rosenzweig, vol 1: Die Herausforderung jüdischen Lernens, Freiburg 1988, 383-389; I. Schulz-Grave, Lernen im Freien Jüdischen Lehrhaus (Oldenburgische Beiträge zu jüdischen Studien 2), Oldenburg 1998. At the conference in Paris in May this year, Frank Surall gave a paper on Rosenzweig�s pedagogy. He recommended the dissertation written by Mrs. Burkhard-Rietmüller (which I, however, could not get hold of). In the following, I am drawing on the Master thesis by Meike Huber, University of Tübingen, 2003.

6

2. Philosophy and education: ‘New Thinking’ and ‘New Learning’ 2.1 ‘New Thinking’: Speech-thinking As Rosenzweig unfolds in his essay �Das neue Denken� from 1925 (see GS5 III, 139-161), he understands philosophy as the reconstruction of experiences that can be made from different standpoints (cf. 117), as a thinking-in-relations that is revealing the interactions between God, man, and world. It is a thinking that is characterized by trust in experience (161: �Zutrauen auf die Erfahrung�) and in speech, the spoken language. Rosenzweigs�s so-called speech-thinking (Sprachdenken) is bound to time and bound to the other, to whom it addresses itself (cf. 152). No thought can be anticipated in this dialogue that receives its key words from its addressee. 2.2 Pedagogical writings The following pedagogical writings by Rosenzweig represent his existential and dialogical thinking and served as source of inspiration for my teaching � though not without transformations: a) Already in his during his life unpublished essay �Volksschule und Reichsschule� (1916) Rosenzweig claims that education is to be tested and verified in the lifeworld (KS 420-466). Education (Bildung) is understood as the ability to act. It is to help a person to come to terms with and to cope with his or her life. b) In his programmatic epistle �It is Time: Concerning the Study of Judaism� (i.e. time for change, time to work), which was written at the Balkan front in 1917 (KS 56- 78; OJL 27-54), Rosenzweig concentrates on the problem of religious instruction and the danger that a whole generation of assimilated Jews does not even attain a Jewish life, since there are no teachers for this. Of special interest is Rosenzweig�s suggestion concerning Hebrew lessons. He suggests (1) that the backbone of instruction be texts of the Jewish �sacred year�, prayers and biblical texts like the Decalogue; (2) that a lively method is all that counts, for the teacher cannot strive after completeness, and (3) that for this reason the more rational grammatical method of acquiring a foreign language should not be used at the outset (cf. OJL 30-33). Through these lessons, the student shall remember the concise Hebrew terms in all their originality and get an introduction into the life of the congregation. Rosenzweig stresses: �Language and meaning are co-related� (34). Regarding the role of the teacher, he envisages a new type of educator who would combine scholarly work with a teaching activity, for a good teacher is not merely a transmitter of knowledge, but is him- or herself in living contact with the sources of scholarship. Teaching is based ideally on a constant and mutual relationship between the teacher and all of his or her students � and the good teacher draws his inspiration from the very eyes of the students (41). The teachers are to have �a thorough theological background� (43). The fact that only future rabbis receive a theological education leads into �the lack of an intelligent Jewish public� and �an intellectual impoverishment� (46). If there is to be a satisfactory number of research workers, there must be a staff of teachers with a specifically theological training. Rosenzweig approves of �the stimulating atmosphere of life at a university� and demands two professorships for each subjects taught at the Jewish Theological 5 I will use the following abbreviations for Rosenzweig�s writings: GB = Die „Gritli“-Briefe. Briefe an Margrit Rosenstock-Huessy, ed. I. Rühle/R. Mayer, Tübingen 2002. GS = Der Mensch und sein Werk. Gesammelte Schriften [these texts are cited by volume and page]

I: Briefe und Tagebücher, ed. R. Rosenzweig/E. Rosenzweig-Scheinmann, Den Haag 1979. III: Zweistromland. Kleinere Schriften zu Glauben und Denken, ed. R. and A. Mayer, Den Haag 1984.

KS = Kleinere Schriften, Berlin 1937. OJL = On Jewish Learning. With an exchange of letters between Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig,, ed. N.N.

Glatzer, New York (1955) 1987. If one and the same publication is quoted in sequence, I mention only its page numbers in brackets.

7

Faculty, a liberal and an orthodox one, so that the confessional gaps would be bridged; no questions should be asked about party affiliations (47f). Furthermore, he claims that the teacher and scholar �must become one and the same person� (49). Rosenzweig�s idea of founding an Academy for the Science of Judaism (Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums), where the teacher-scholar would be on an equal footing with the rabbi, having received the same kind of theological training (51), was taken up by Hermann Cohen, to whom the letter was addressed. Cohen was teaching philosophy of Judaism at the liberal rabbinical seminary in Berlin. However, Rosenzweig has later criticized the Academy for focusing too much on historic research, thereby overlooking modern everyday life (cf. GS I, 511f).

c) In one of his most important epistles, �Bildung und kein Ende� (translated as �Toward a Renaissance of Jewish Learning,� see KS 79-93, OJL 55-71), addressed to his friend Eduard Strauss in 1920, Rosenzweig states outspoken: �Books are not now the prime need of the day. But what we need more than ever, or at least as much as ever, are human beings � Jewish human beings, to use a catchword that should be cleansed of the partisan associations still clinging to it.� (OJL 55) The Judaism of the Jew does, as Rosenzweig underlines, not mean a line drawn to separate the Jews from other kinds of humanity, but should be �no less comprehensive, no less all-pervasive, no less universal than Christianity is to the Christian human, or heathenism to the heathen humanist.� (57) The Jewishness he meant can be grasped through neither the writing nor reading of books, for it is only lived: �One is it.� (58) The religion implied here is not understood as a safe and quiet little corner or a partial demand, but affects everything, the whole person. Rosenzweig emphasizes:

�There is one recipe alone that can make a person Jewish and hence � because he is a Jew and destined to a Jewish life � a full human being: that recipe is to have no recipe [Rezept der Rezeptlosigkeit] [�] Our fathers had a beautiful word for it that says everything: confidence [Vertrauen]. Confidence is the word for a state of readiness that does not ask for recipes, and does not mouth perpetually, �What shall I do then?� and �How can I do that?� Confidence is not afraid of the day after tomorrow. It lives in the present, it crosses recklessly the threshold leading from today into tomorrow. Confidence knows only that which is nearest, and therefore it possesses the whole. Confidence walks straight ahead. And yet the street that loses itself in infinity for the fearful, rounds itself imperceptively into a measurable and yet infinite circle for those who have confidence.� (66f)

Thus, in Rosenzweig�s view, the Jewish individual needs nothing but readiness, preparedness, time and space to speak in, which is all that can be �organized� in advance � indeed very little (cf. 67). Having confidence means to be ready to wait, to renounce all plans, to listen to those who will come, and to satisfy spontaneous desires, the messengers of confidence (cf. 69). The teacher must be �a master and at the same time a pupil�, and it is essential that the discussion is public (69). �The discussion period should bring everybody together� � for questions are asked, doubts entertained, and desires expressed there (70). d) Rosenzweig helped establish the Free House of Jewish Learning (Freies Jüdisches Lehrhaus) in Frankfurt on the Main and was its leader during 7 years. In the draft of his speech of inauguration upon its opening (1920, cf. KS 94-99, OJL 95-102) Rosenzweig considered a new form of learning in reverse order: �A learning that no longer starts from the Torah and leads into life, but the other way round: from life, from a world that knows nothing of the Law, or pretends to know nothing, back to the Torah� � performing a movement from the periphery to the core, or from the outside, in (OJL 98). This form of learning leads from the alienation from Jewish life back to a cultural and religious identity and the consciousness of a community.

Unfortunately, the key word Vertrauen in the German original gets lost in the English translation:

8

�[�] we carry this life from the periphery where we found it to the center. And we ourselves are carried only by a faith [Vertrauen] which certainly cannot be proved, the faith that this center can be nothing but a Jewish center. This faith [Vertrauen] must remain without proof. It carries further than our words. For we hail from the periphery. The oneness of the center is not something that we possess clearly and unambiguously, not something we can articulate about. [�] We must search for this oneness and have faith [müssen vertrauen] that we shall find it. Seen from the periphery, the center does not appear invariably the same.� (OJL 100; KS 98)

The imperative �Turn into yourself, return home to your innermost self and to your innermost life� (102) is ending the speech. e) In the treatise �The Builders: Concerning the Law,� written in 1923 and addressed to Martin Buber, Rosenzweig comes back to the role of the teacher in interaction with his students: �New listeners, however, always imply new demands; thus a teacher himself is changed by what he teaches his students; or, at least he must be prepared to have his words changed, if not himself.� (OJL 73f)

Moreover, he argued that, just as knowledge can be acquired only by the individual�s delving into that knowledge, so practice can be understood only by practicing (cf. 20): �Teaching begins where the subject matter ceases to be subject matter and changes into inner power�� (76) While the way to teaching leads through what is knowable, the teaching itself is not knowable, since it is always something that is also in the future, something unfinished, whose results cannot be anticipated beforehand. The knowable is to be learned as �a condition for learning what is unknown,� for making it one�s own (81). Rosenzweig hopes that his words open up a dialogue which will be carried on with deeds and with the conduct of life rather than with words (92). 2.3 Pedagogical principles a) Chavruta: From the periphery to the center � together with another Rosenzweig�s �New Learning� connects up with the �old� traditional forms of Jewish learning in the Beth-ha-Midrasch, the house of the study of Torah and Talmud. One of these traditional rabbinical forms of learning is chavruta. The word is derived from chaver (i.e. the friend, fellow student, scholar) and designates a form of learning, in which one reads texts loudly and the other interrupts one whenever something is not immediately understandable. One takes the other�s questions as points of departure for one�s own commentary. Thus, Jewish tradition transmits and passes on especially the disagreements and controversial points of a dialogue, which involves an openness of meaning that at any time remains to be negotiated. For this reason, Rosenzweig emphasized that the living unity is still to be searched despite the fact that, seen from different points at the periphery, the center appears non-uniform. b) Wholeness and universality The aim of this way of coming home and re-membering (also in the literal sense of putting the members together again) is the human being as a whole (cf. KS 86f). Judaism is not primarily taken as a religion or confession with limited validity due to its historicity, but as a fact that deserves to be taken seriously in its liveliness here and now (cf. KS 88). Learning is not primarily directed to certain subject matters, but to the wholeness of life that is unlimited and therefore cannot be disposed of. It eludes planning and organizing, and therefore, Rosenzweig recommends the recipe of having no recipe: trust that is refreshed in each moment, freed from specific demands, open to new encounters. It cannot be predicted what will happen. In thinking and learning and teaching from the position of one�s own �Stand- und Lebenspunkt� (GS III, 160), one must be prepared to be moved in other unpredictable directions.

9

c) Orientation: The space and time of speech In addition to lectures, Rosenzweig offered seminars without planning their themes or contents beforehand. He wanted to prompt the participants� speaking as a form of learning. The meetings were supposed to offer �Sprechraum� and �Sprechzeit� � space and time for speech, �empty� forms of readiness or willingness that would be filled by what the persons gathered contributed, by their listening and by the words that would grow of it: �[A]us dem Hören werden Worte wachsen. Und die Worte werden zusammenwachsen und werden zu Wünschen. Und Wünsche sind die Boten des Vertrauens� (KS 91). Instead of planning beforehand what one person, namely the teacher, would say, there should be time and space for spontaneous wishes, questions and asking in reply � �das lebendige Fragen und Gegenfragen� (KS 100). Especially existential questions of orientation were welcome � questions of what one believes in, how one lives, and why one doubts. The courage to doubt was just as welcome as the power to wish (cf. KS 93). d) Learning as questioning The teacher was supposed to play the role of the �Vorfrager� (KS 101) � the one who raises the questions that come from the participants in the seminars. Raising good questions was seen as more decisive than giving normative answers. Giving normative answers to others� existential questions is impossible whenever these questions refer to a decision that cannot be delegated but only embodied. The doctrine, lesson or moral was seen as something future that can be reached only by doing what one thinks is right: �Lehre beginnt erst da, wo der Stoff aufhört, Stoff zu sein, und sich in Kraft verwandelt� (KS 109). That which has been understood is to be transformed into the capacity to act and to take the responsibility for what one has done. This way, teaching and learning comprehend the person and his or her life as a whole. Teaching is not primarily tied to objective knowledge, but rather to having the courage of one�s subjective convictions, the courage to respond, even though one will be changed in this process. For this, Rosenzweig�s friend Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy coined the formula respondeo etsi mutabor. In this sense, the teacher remains a learner, and both teaching and learning remain a lifelong task and praxis. 3. Das Freie Jüdische Lehrhaus in Frankfurt – success, failure, and lasting significance Since Rosenzweig opposed the idea of the learning community to lonely learning processes, it was natural that he founded the Free House of Jewish Learning. Rosenzweig actualized the old custom of learning in dialogue. He wished to realize a community constituted by language and culture, not by a common national identity (cf. KS 80).

The �return to the sources� thus became the watchword of the Lehrhaus. The main emphasis was on the Hebrew language as the key to the great documents of classical Judaism, and on the Bible and its commentaries. Around this core a wide program was arranged: conversations about arts, music, history, philosophy, etc. Rosenzweig reduced the lectures in favor of study groups. The teachers employed were not only rabbis such as Nobel and Salzberger, but also laymen, both men and women, local residents and guests. Among the teachers were e.g. Josef Agnon, Leo Baeck, Erich Fromm, Benno Jacob, Dora Edinger, Siegfried Kracauer, and Gershom Scholem.

Ideally the lecturers should listen to each other. At least the leading office-bearers (during Rosenzweig�s illness Rudolf Hallo, Rudolf Stahl and Martin Goldner) were present at all activities of the Lehrhaus. Financially, it was independent from the state; its supporters were those who profited from its program. There was no entrance exam; the willingness to spend time with questions of Jewish living and learning was the only term of admission. The calendar of events in each case was planned for one semester. After 1926 only occasional lectures and meetings were held due to the modest number of participants.

10

As Rosenzweig evaluated it, he was only partly successful in his effort to reduce ignorance and to cure the lack of interest (cf. GS I, 669). In his letter to Rudolf Hallo on the occasion of the shift of chairmanship in 1922 Rosenzweig expresses satisfaction, but also self-criticism and disappointment at the learners, whom he compares to the audience at a concert. They expected polished presentations, but remained uninvolved onlookers. Therefore, he called the work with them �hard� work that is nonetheless necessary. Rosenzweig�s study groups got positive feedback, not so much his lectures. Rosenzweig did not want to be admired, but understood � but it was hard for him to acknowledge the intellectual limits of his audience.

Despite the �failure� that consisted in the closure of the Lehrhaus, the project was successful in the sense that many of its students preserved the Lehrhaus tradition. Many new houses were opened in the 1920ies, e.g. in Stuttgart, Cologne, Mannheim, Wiesbaden, Karlsruhe, Munich and Breslau. In 1933 Rosenzweig�s Lehrhaus in Frankfurt was reopened under the directorship of Martin Buber (cf. OJL 16f). Since 1982 a new one is run there. 4. The relevance of Rosenzweig’s educational program 4.1 Learning between tradition and lifeworld On the one hand, learning in the Lehrhaus was influenced by a specifically Jewish outlook on life; on the other hand, the aim of the institution was precisely not to influence its participants, but rather to lead them to a standpoint where they could think for themselves and act independently, on their own initiative. Whether or in what way the learners� lifeworld corresponded to the tradition was nothing that the teachers would diagnose or manipulate. Correspondingly, teaching Ethics and Philosophy of Religion in Copenhagen today does not mean to pass some fixed answers on to the students, but rather to question influential traditions and discuss that which seems self-evident.6 Processes of orientation take place �between� tradition and lifeworld, past and future, individual and community � bringing together both parts through processes of communication. After all, the tradere of tradition happens in our common world today.

What I find especially attractive is the idea that learning is lifelong process,7 in which everyone is involved both as a teacher and a learner. Rosenzweig makes attentive to the fact that learning is bound to the search for identity and that this search takes time and requires reciprocal trust. Courses at the university that cover a whole semester can offer the continuity necessary for this process and can be both a �shelter-room� and a �laboratory� for thought-experiments, in which old and new ideas can be put to the test. 4.2 Learning in dialogue and in public Learning needs a room to move between the already given and the not yet found. The dialogue that moves between questions and attempts to answer can offer such a room. The ability to speak is thereby both presupposed and trained. Rosenzweig preserved the old tradition of chavruta and

6 Cf. A. Grøn & C. Welz, �Etik og Religionsfilosofi� (forthcoming in: Fønix 2009). 7 Lifelong learning is a key term also in contemporary literature on pedagogy, see for instance Karen Borgnakke�s explanation of �livslang læring� that includes socialization in the sphere of the family, teaching and learning in the sphere of school and education, qualification in the sphere of job(s) and leisure time, etc. (K. Borgnakke, Læringsdiskurser og praktikker, Aarhus 2005, 97f). As John Biggs & Catherine Tang describe it, the generic meaning of lifelong learning �that graduates can learn to handle whatever life throws at them � is vacuous, empty rhetoric. The embedded meaning, however, that students can learn to handle unseen problems in their chosen field of study is significant and attainable.� (cf. J. Biggs/C. Tang, Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Third Edition, New York 2007, 148) Lifelong learning opens a range of learning: �just-in-time learning, work-based learning and continuing professional education� (ibid., 160). Components of lifelong learning are the ability to work independently, to source information selectively, to monitor the quality of one�s learning, to improve decision making, etc. (ibid., 244).

11

reminded his contemporaries of the fact that learning is not only a private matter but of public interest and needs a public forum. The university can offer the public forum that is needed. What we can learn from Rosenzweig is that we are not caught between the alternative of either giving lectures (thereby promoting our own research) or arranging working-groups for our students (thereby promoting their ability to team-work). Rather, there are forms in-between that lead us �across the gap� and show that the alternative is an artificial one. When lecturing we can still learn from our students� questions, and they learn most when they indulge in dialogue, the most intense form of asking and replying, where the one cannot be represented by any other. A combination of discussions between two and discussions in plenum prevents superficiality and instead provides what has been called �learning-in-depth� or a �deep� approach to learning.8 4.3 Learning in relation to the foreign Learning just as speaking needs the self-critical reflection in the face of another who remains � the other. Regarding religious learning, it is important that the positions of all parties can change without necessarily flowing into consensus. Remarkably, Rosenzweig did not determine the common center before starting the enterprise of common learning, but kept it open what it is that will show itself as that which all actually have in common. Learning is a form of contextualization that involves moving in and through the differences. And theology at the university involves a passion for distinctions. This concerns also the very definition of what is one�s own and what is the foreign. The dividing line may run not only between persons, but also within a person who changes in the course of his or her learning process. In order to be able to distinguish, one needs �the other.� To put it in the words of Paul Ric�ur and the title of his book Soi-même comme un autre, one may also discover oneself as another, and this applies especially to Christians who can only be what they are in becoming it anew. As Rosenzweig was well aware of, Judaism is ethnically and thus without further ado �inherited� from the former generations, while Christianity requires one�s own �Yes� to one�s heritage. But both Jews and Christians have to perform a movement from the periphery to the center in appropriating what is theirs. If this process does not take place, we will also lose our means to distinguish between different traditions. III. Retrospective reflections on the case As Rosenzweig wrote to Margrit Rosenstock in a letter from April 17, 1918: �Erst im Lehren bewährt sich das Lernen.� (GB 76) Teaching is the locus where learning proves its worth and either stands the test of time or fails. My retrospective reflections on my teaching case could also be endowed with a question as heading: what have I learned from this case? In other words, have I learned something from this case, which is valid not only in this case? In the following, I will

8 Cf. Biggs/Tang 2007, 15: �Students may use inappropriate or low level activities, resulting in a surface approach to learning, or high-level activities appropriate to achieving the intended outcomes, resulting in a deep approach to learning.� The surface approach to learning consists, e.g., in memorizing to give the impression of understanding. The deep approach requires students to reflect, hypothesize, apply and so on. Note: �Surface and deep approaches to learning are not personality traits, as is sometimes thought, but are most usefully thought of as reactions to the teaching environment.� (ibid., 29) This statement questions Biggs/Tangs own typology of students, where �Susan� personifies the eager and engaged student applying a deep approach, while �Robert� personifies the disinterested, lazy student who applies the surface approach only in order to pass the exams, whereas for the intrinsically motivated student �it�s the journey, not the destination� (ibid., 47). See also P. Ramsden, Strategier for bedre undervisning, trans. S. Søgaard, Copenhagen 1999, 60f, 67, 71, where the surface approach is characterized as �atomistic� and �reproductive� and opposed to a holistic deep approach.

12

describe how I tried to respond to the above-mentioned challenges (cf. Part I. 2. of the report), conclude whether my strategies worked out or not and consider why. 1. Planning and performance of teaching Ad I.2.1) Structuring lessons To my surprise, the heterogeneity of the group was not a problem at all. The students listened to each other, sometimes corrected each other, and gave fruitful and very often complementary contributions to the discussion. The interdisciplinarity of the group was an extra potential. Whenever they did not understand what the conversation turned to, they raised the hand and asked. They understood that I was really curious about what they thought, and they accepted the invitation to speak. However, they also signalled that they appreciate lectures. Discussions were recognized as an important part of the lessons, but should � so the popular request at the midtvejsevaluering � not take time from my presentations. In order to pave the way for good dialogues in a relaxed atmosphere, I promised to supply them with handouts to every session, where I would summarize and explain the crucial points that they should remember for their exams. They could also download the handouts and supplementary articles and translations from �Absalon�, the university�s electronic learning system. I often took the writing of handouts as occasion to plan lessons and their structure. In order to encourage listening and discussing rather than reading the �results� I sometimes waited with the distribution of the handouts until the mid or end of a lesson. I then gave an outline of the lesson on the blackboard before plunging into it. At other times I distributed the handouts right away and added, e.g., a few theses concerning a controversial issue or questions concerning the literature and asked the students to relate to them and to provide arguments for one or another position. Ad I.2.2) Co-ordinating schedules In order to make research and teaching fit to each other, I selected relevant literature, prepared a compendium and made a plan for the course that corresponded somehow to my own working schedule (see appendix 1: Kursusplan og litteraturliste). As to research-based teaching, I must nonetheless admit a certain frustration. I had counted on synergy-effects between my teaching, talks at conferences, and the process of writing my thesis. Yet, instead of feeling energized, I felt rather overwhelmed and was constantly buried with work. In the shortage of time it was impossible to perform all tasks as thoroughly as I wished. Nonetheless, I tried � and fell ill. Luckily, it was only two sessions to catch up with later, but this taught me a lesson. I learned that it is not very healthy to be the slave of one�s own ambitions. In the mid of the semester I had to draw the consequences, cancel some seminars, and postpone the submission of my thesis. This was a difficult decision. But it had positive side-effects. The concentration on teaching and conferences fitting to my project allowed me to work more focused � and the �loss� of time could, after all, also be interpreted as a �gain.� The pressure to publish as fast as possible in order to be able to apply for upcoming positions brings with it the danger of being too fast, of not taking the time that it takes to think through the problems one is dealing with. I had anticipated some of the questions my students posed in class. However, they also came with comments that made me re-think some issues, and I enjoyed that I suddenly had the time to do so without being forced to write about it immediately and to find the perfect formulations as soon as possible.

This way, research-based teaching truly became teaching-based research � in a way that reaches beyond the catchy formula. During this process, my understanding of lecturing was transformed. I no longer wanted to live up to the ideal or demand of presenting something that is the �last word� on certain issues, but accepted the fact that, whatever we present, it remains nothing but �work in progress� and nothing but one voice in a greater chorus. For this reason, lectures (which

13

are per definition monologues) are not always the best promoters of one�s research: one does not only need time to unfold a line of argument, but also time to discuss it with others and to see whether it holds. To put it in line with Rosenzweig�s �New Thinking� and �New Learning,� an educator is not first a scholar and then a teacher, but is both simultaneously and matures in combining scholarly work with teaching activities. In a sense, the students become co-researchers, which they took as a challenging adventure. Ad I.2.3) Interdisciplinary integration of biblical, philosophical and church historical texts In regard to the discussions about the role of Hebrew, Greek and Latin for the study of Theology and about the interconnectedness of its diverse disciplines, I decided to give an indirect response that made clear that, first, the ancient languages are indispensable and, second, that one cannot account for the complexity of a phenomenon like trust or faith, if one chooses only one method of investigation and systematically excludes other approaches. By aligning biblical texts with texts by contemporary experts in certain fields, I came to use at least some technical terms and key sentences in the ancient languages.

For example, I juxtaposed Austin�s How to Do Things with Words with its distinction of several types of speech acts to the outcry of the father of an ill boy who wished Jesus to heal his son: �I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!� (Mark 9:24). The Greek formulation makes the contrast between belief and unbelief even harsher, while at the same time binding them together paradoxically (������������������ �������). I invited a colleague, who is both philosopher and New Testament scholar, to present an exegesis of the verse. This provoked a lively discussion among the students, who could suddenly see how closely faith is related to doubt.

I had planned several team-teaching events (see appendix 1), altogether with four colleagues, a Ph.D. student from the research team on �Trust, Conflict, recognition,� and a pastor. The series started off with the session on the Akedah (this Hebrew word denotes Abraham�s test: the so-called �binding� [not: sacrificing!] of Isaac), seen through the lens of Luther�s and Kierkegaard�s interpretations. I invited a colleague from Church History, who focussed on Reformation history. She distributed handouts with relevant excerpts. In this context, it was just natural to look into the original texts in Latin. Although the students sometimes said they could not remember the meaning and connotations of certain words (and the non-theologians have not learned the languages in question), they agreed that it was the right procedure to read texts not only in translations, because reading the original texts opens up new horizons of meaning.

Regarding Rosenzweig�s suggestions concerning Hebrew lessons, I restricted myself to taking up a biblical text that connects the world religions and to mentioning the importance of the Hebrew verb form �to believe� which is equivalent with �to have trust, to rely on� and to referring to the corresponding noun of God�s ηνµ) as it is prominent for instance in the psalms and other Hebrew prayers. The aim of the course was, after all, not primarily to teach Hebrew, but to illuminate the topic of trust by referring to the traditions that express it. Ad I.2.4) Teaching techniques It is impossible to learn about trust in a mistrustful atmosphere. The didactic challenge, however, consisted not only in creating a welcoming atmosphere, but also in living up to the standard of the current scientific debates. As the schedule of the course prescribes, the phenomenon and concept of trust was to be illuminated in an analysis of different approaches to it. This was a run with and against time. The didactic challenge consisted in reconstructing and evaluating various approaches to the topic as fair and exact as possible despite the shortage of time. There was no more than max. 2 hours time for each of thinker, whose approach we discussed. Regarding teaching techniques, I responded to the challenge as follows:

14

a) Lectures, discussions, summaries Due to the wide range of the program reaching into so many different areas of research, I normally began the sessions with an announcement of the agenda of that day and an overview over the respective field. My introductory lectures lasted no longer than 20 minutes, and the students knew that they should interrupt me if they had questions of clarification. Usually, I had noted down some open questions beforehand � questions we would then discuss in plenum. The plenary discussions had often been thought-awakening and provoked spontaneous elaborations on issues I had not prepared. I tried to jot down on the blackboard what I thought were the �essentials� of our discussions. Very often, my lectures took on a dialogical form, because the students followed the line of thoughts so quickly that they already anticipated what I was to explain next. In order to allow for discussions and to keep track of them while avoiding chaos, I delivered short summaries of the main thoughts at the end of the sessions � summaries related to the handouts or to the notes on the blackboard. b) Media Since my experiences with Power Point Presentations in the previous semester had been quite ambiguous, and since the mid-term feedback showed unambiguously that none of the students missed it, I refrained from using Power Point. On the one hand, it allows to go through the material in high speed, which saves time; on the other hand, it might go too fast and make the students passive through �serving� everything in a ready-made form. One student reported that some of his fellows were so happy about the slides, which could also be downloaded from the e-learning system, that they had decided to stay at home and read them on their own instead of spending time in class. The more traditional media like blackboard and handout seem to be more open to joint learning processes and astonishing developments that make worthy the effort of turning up. c) Team-teaching The team-teaching events with guest lectures were exciting both for the students and for me. Their questions told me that they had dedicated their full attention to the talks that lasted between 15 and 45 minutes. They also showed a certain curiosity as to how I would react to and comment on the input, which I as a rule had not seen or heard before class. Although it was a very specific political situation that gave me the idea to invite colleagues, it was such a tremendous experience to teach together that I would like to continue with it also in future classes. d) Experiments Due to my own negative experience with working groups, according to which the differences in interest, talent, preparation, devotion, age and character soon tend to develop to the advantage of some and the disadvantage or exploitation of others, I wished to do without extensive, long-lasting team work. However, in the lesson when we read Rosenzweig, we made the experiment and tested his method of chavruta. Since the �groups� consisted of only two persons and since both of them worked at the same time, both of them were active all the time and had to take responsibility for the results of their work. Although I reduced the test phase and the report phase to 15 minutes each, it was a very intense period, and since I had given different tasks to each little group, every one of the students was involved in reading, questioning, finding answers and reporting the results in the plenary meeting. Another experiment was an interlude with role play. I asked a volunteer to respond immediately to what I would say to her. I described the following fictitious scenario: we were out in a café late at night, and I came to drink more than just coffee. After the third Sherry, I would

15

address my friend: �Let�s go to the parking place now. I will drive you home, trust me!� The student responded completely correct, namely skeptically. We came to speak about the strange fact that the imperative �Trust me!� had the opposite effect: it provoked mistrust. This example illustrated the contradiction between the semantics and pragmatics of language and initiated a discussion of why we cannot without further ado demand trust from each other. e) Student papers I wanted to make sure that all students had the opportunity to give a short presentation (max. 10 minutes). They could themselves choose a text to refer to. There were several options for each session, either from the common pensum or from the supplementary literature or the theme of their own opgave. I asked them to prepare 1-3 pages with the main theses and three questions we would then discuss in plenum. When they sent the draft to me before the meeting, I gave feedback before class and made copies for the other participants. Not all students took the opportunity, but most of them. This was useful also for their teacher, because it showed how they understood and interpreted the texts we discussed, and possible misconceptions could be cleared up. One of the students chose to comment on an article I had written. This was a form of feedback I could wish to get more often. In general, it was a pleasure to get to know what the students thought and how they tried to make sense also of sophisticated issues. 2. Counselling (Vejledning) The Danish language provides a wonderful word for counselling, tutoring or supervision: vejledning. It contains the metaphor of the way, denoting the way on which both the student and the teacher go, giving or receiving directions. The problem is precisely that there is not just one way of doing it � but which way is the right one for this person in regard to this specific topic? To be a good guide demands the skill of accompanying another without taking the task out of his or her hands.

Vejledning entered into my field of competence the three contexts: (1) in the context of the so-called hjemmeopgaver, papers that the students write at home over a longer period of time, (2) in the context of the kandidateksamen, the Master exams, and (3) in the context of the speciale, the Master thesis. In all three cases, the students have to get the literature that they will use acknowledged by the teacher (pensumgodkendelse). 2.1 Hjemmeopgaver In addition to counselling concerning sources and secondary literature, I used to read and give feedback on at least one draft of the hjemmeopgaver, and sometimes I would demand some changes also in the �final� version before I would sign the official acknowledgment sheet. Some students were surprised about the thorough reading of their papers, but they also signalled gratitude for the �strict� feedback, because they were well aware of the fact that this was a sort of �training� for the more serious exams, where they got grades and not just a �passed� or �not passed� note. Most of them were eager to know �how to do things correctly� and invested quite some time into their projects. I left it up to the students, whether they would prefer to send a preliminary formulation of the problem plus bibliography via email or whether they would like to come to my office with it and discuss it �live� ad hoc. After having clarified the theme and literature, I sent a very useful scheme to the students that my colleague Jonas A. Jørgensen has developed: Hvordan skrive systematisk-teologiske opgaver eller speciale?

16

2.2 Kandidateksamen In preparation of the Master exams, students sometimes ask: �What do we have to know?� or �What do you expect that we can?� The first question concerns contents, and I usually refer to the handouts to every session. In one of my previous courses, I advised the students to build study-groups based on their notes to the sessions relevant for their exams, to go through the material together, and I offered to read and where necessary correct the collected written results of their meetings. The second question refers to skills, and here I usually reply that the active participation in the course is the best preparation to the exams, because we train precisely the skills needed in the exams: presenting and discussing different positions, considering pro- and contra-arguments, and suggesting possible solutions to the problems detected. In addition, I recommend the students to note down questions while they are reading and to pose them during the sessions. In case that the questions do not fit into the schedule of the day, they are welcome to show up at my office and discuss them with me privately. As to the formulation of the individual questions that the students get at their exams, I am grateful to my more experienced Danish colleagues, whose feedback at the department�s opgavemøder has prevented me from making mistakes in this delicate business. 2.3 Speciale Concerning counselling in regard to the Master thesis, I sent out a letter with information about the relevant procedures (see appendix 2: Vejlederbrev til speciale). The student who currently writes her speciale reported that some of her fellow students also made a copy of the letter, since it provides some clear guidelines � something they were very much appreciating.

(1) The letter starts off with some remarks about my research fields and preferred themes of teaching and counselling and explains how often we can meet and how much time the students can expect that I will spend with them and their texts. (2) The second point concerns criteria for the Master thesis and gives relevant internet links to, e.g., Studienævnets orientering om speciale and manuskripretningslinjer, Akademisk Skrivecenters skabeloner and literature on how to write a Master thesis. (3) In a third point, I explain some general rules about how we proceed: the students are supposed to send texts via email to me at least 2 days before we meet, and we set the meeting�s agenda before we go into details. (a) At the first meeting we speak about personal things like the professional background, specific interests, the ambitions and expectations of the students, and we discuss the �basics� of the thesis, namely the problem formulation, the aim of the investigation, the method, structure and preliminary selection of literature. Moreover, we fix dates for further appointments and, if possible, fill in the official sheet with the contract. (b) The following 3-4 meetings serve the discussion of 15-20 pages that the student sends, together with a mail explaining to which part of the thesis the extract belongs and which questions (s)he finds most important to clarify at that stage. (c) The last meeting is scheduled one month before the student will hand in the thesis, since there shall be enough time for revisions. All in all, I am ready to read at least 80% of the draft in the course of these 5 months. I am also willing to comment on one example of a revised section, e.g. the introduction, or the draft of the conclusion. (d) The counselling starts with the first meeting and is completed with the assessment of the whole process after the thesis has received its grade. On the way, I ask the students to give feedback on the vejledning that they receive, so that our cooperation can be optimized. (4) The fourth point concerns the roles of student and teacher. I appreciate independent work and thinking. Normally, we will meet once a month. However, if the students experience complications in the course of their work, they are welcome to contact me, and we will, if necessary, change the plan. By way of exception, I give feedback via mail. My role as I see it consists first and foremost in being a critical and constructive sparring partner and in contributing to an inspiring process of writing. But I also have the obligation of pointing out problems, of controlling formal requirements and of representing the Faculty in giving grades.

17

The rules outlined in this letter do not replace the rules of the studieordning. Rather, they show how I wish to follow and fulfil them. The decisive document that obliges us both is the contract. As we have learned in the course of the adjunktpædagogikumskurs, we have to take precautions in order to prevent unnecessary problems. Meticulous documentation of vejledning is imperative � not only in order to be on the �safe side,� but also to keep track of the process and to steer it in a transparent way (see appendix 3: Dokumentation af og i vejledning). I am in the habit of registering appointments in my calendar, where I beforehand reserve time for 5-6 meetings. After every meeting I ask the student to send a mail on our agreements, which serves as a sort of �protocol� or, alternatively, I use the computers� �commentary� function and save the texts I have commented on in a special file together with all the mails sent to the student. Furthermore, I keep a journal about my work with the help of the Specialelogbog (see appendix 4). 3. Evaluation Evaluation can proceed from different perspectives, and each view can catch something which is beyond the other�s horizon. My own evaluation of the course depends on the feedback from the group that is most affected by my teaching: the students, as well as from my mentor, who followed my teaching two times, and from the extern censor, who came once. I have been thankful for the feedback from all sides, because it has contributed to my learning process and helped me to come closer to the goal of becoming a better teacher. 3.1 Development of new evaluation schemes At earlier occasions, I have used the Theological Faculty�s course evaluation schemes. However, I sometimes noticed a discrepancy between the oral and the written feedback. Furthermore, I found it not very helpful to have all these little boxes where the students are supposed to put a tick in, since in most cases, this expressed only the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, but it showed not at all why this was the case and what could be changed in order to change these results. Thus I decided to develop my own feedback sheets in consideration of the course�s specific challenges � without the option of marking with a cross, but with much space for concrete comments. I wanted the students to put a name on what they liked, disliked, and wished to be transformed (see appendix 5).

(1) The evaluation scheme begins with some pieces of information about the individual students. Instead of just asking whether the level of the course is too high, adequate, or too low, I also asked them why, and how often they participated in the course and how many hours they approximately used for preparing it. I was also interested in how the students evaluate their own commitment and the relation between what they read individually and what they heard in class.

(2) The next question concerns the different forms of work and cooperation, i.e. the lectures, the discussions and their moderation, the student papers and my response, team-teaching and group work. I enlist all these forms under the heading Arbejdsformer: Hvad kan evt. gøres bedre? – asking directly what they think could be improved.

(3) The third point concerns the use of media. I want to know whether the notes on the blackboard are clearly arranged, whether the e-learning system has worked as it should, whether the handouts are useful and whether the time of distribution is fitting, and whether the students miss Power Point Presentations.

(4) Point four concerns the interaction between teacher and students. Here again, I ask them to give reasons for their answer and to make proposals for changes where necessary. The questions address the style of lectures and dialogues (are the formulations clear?), the teaching climate (does it invite active participation and questions from the students� side?), the reaction of the teacher to the students� contributions (in what way are

18

corrections communicated and how are they experienced?), the contact between teacher and students and among students, the way that issues were treated (thoroughly enough?), the teacher�s commitment, etc.

(5) The fifth point concerns issues related to research-based teaching, namely (a) the compendium and curriculum (is the content of the course relevant, and could the students professionally profit from it?), (b) interdisciplinarity (is the presentation understandable, or is there too much jargon in explanations?), (c) consequences of classes (does the teaching inspire to think independently and to indulge in further work on open questions?), and (d) overview and thoroughness (what about the summaries of results on the way and at the end of sessions, and what about the way that the material was worked through � does the course correspond to its announcement and the students� expectations?).

(6) The last point concerns general remarks concerning the course on the whole: What was successful? Is there something the students have missed? And what could be improved in future courses?

3.2 Feedback from the students According to Biggs/Tang, there are two paramount reasons for assessing: �formative, to provide feedback during learning; and summative, to provide an index of how successfully the student has learned when teaching has been completed.�9 The formative evaluation corresponds to the midtvejsevaluering in the mid of the semester, the summative evaluation to the slutevaluering at the end of the semester. In what follows, I will not mention the unproblematic points or the approval and praise, but focus exclusively on those points that made me consider changes or, to put it in other words, the points in which I could learn something new from the feedback of the students. The midtvejsevaluering took place already on March 4, 2009, i.e. during the fourth lesson. I got feedback from 8 students and told them the results the next time we met:

- 7 students gave comments that showed that they preferred a presentation from my side to discussions between students that are maybe barking up the wrong tree. They wished me to keep track and to signal what I think of the respective contributions. 2 students wrote that there may be more lectures than dialogue. 1 student�s critique of the style of discussions went in another direction: he wished more fundamental debates on open questions instead of �fishing� after the right answers.

- 5 students wished more information about what is expected from them during the exams. In reaction to that wish, I explained it several times, both privately and in public.

- 4 students were not yet sure whether they saw the central thread of the course. Luckily, this changed during the following sessions.

- 3 students asked for more summaries at the end of the lessons in order to get an overview. - 2 students found that the text material was overwhelming, and 1 student proposed doing

without the supplement in addition to the pensum. I did not want to do without the supplementary literature, but clarified that I did not expect the students to read it.

- 2 students asked me to clarify the aim of the course. I then gave hints at the beginning of every session.

- With 1 exception, the guest lecture got positive feedback. - 1 student replied that the use of the blackboard was not completely clear.

9 Biggs/Tang 2007, 190.

19

- 1 student suggested that the files in the e-learning system should be arranged differently and that changes in planning the lessons should be announced there in advance; yet, not all students used Absalon regularly. In reaction to these remarks, I arranged the files according to the dates of the lessons and made sure that all announcements were published also in the e-learning system.

- 1 student wished a less �slavish� discussion of the handouts; another student wanted the handouts already before the lessons as orientation for his reading. Nonetheless, I sometimes gave the handouts first at the end of the lesson, when I wanted the students to listen or to speak instead of reading �results� parallel to our discussions.

- 1 student missed a more practical perspective on trust and suggested to invite a pastor, which I did in reaction to her suggestion. Another student suggested the opposite: more non-theological perspectives on trust. Since we had a psychologists, a sociologist like Luhmann, philosophers like Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Ricoeur plus poets like Elazar Benyoëtz on the program, and since most of the students were theologians, I decided to continue to point out connections to theological debates.

- None of the students missed Power Point Presentations. The slutevaluering took place after the final session on May 13, 2009. Unfortunately, two students who normally came regularly could not come this day, so I got feedback only from 6 students (and 3 of the original 11 let me know that they would follow the course only sporadically, so I could not count on getting feedback from them anyway). In what follows, I mention the points that I still experience as challenging:

- One point concerns the precarious balance between lectures from my or from my colleagues� side, student presentations and plenary discussions. On the one hand, the students wrote comments like �fantastisk lydhørhed fra din side samtidig med evnen til at holde fokus i diskussionen� and assured me that there were �masser af stof til eftertanke,� but on the other hand, one student also gave the advice �nogen gange forvirrende at du svarer på spørgsmål midt i en gennemgang; vent hellere til du har talt færdig,� which depicts nicely how lively the lessons were, with the side effect that the students often interrupted the lecturers with their questions and spontaneous remarks. One student wrote it was good that I gave more lectures after the first evaluation.

- Another issue is the amount of literature we went through. The compendium was a think book of 457 pages, and I placed additional material in Absalon. The students were remarkably receptive and acquired creatively what they read. Nonetheless, some of them recommended reducing the material, because the amount confused them: �det var næsten uoverkommeligt at nå at læse det hele eller så meget at man følte sig velforberedt� � commented one of the most hard-working students (I also asked them how many hours they use for preparing classes). Especially in the beginning, it was difficult for them to get an overview of the research field, and the pensum was a �cocktail� of too many perspectives to be investigated in only short time. In future courses I will make the motto �less is more� to mine. In this context it is noteworthy that an �overload� of material can provoke superficial approaches to learning.10

10 Cf. the results of the interviews mentioned in Ramsden 1999, which show that the students assimilate to the expectations that they feel their teacher has (cf. ibid., 83), and that superficial approaches to learning are not only provoked by their own disinterest, lack of background knowledge and previous experience, but also by factors like anxiety in regard to the methods of grading, by bad or lacking feedback by the teacher, and by too much material to deal with (cf. ibid., 105)!

20

- A third point is the mode of presenting complex material. 2 students wrote that they wished �måske endnu mere opsummering til sidst� and �flere konklusioner�: more summaries and conclusions, but less work with open questions, because this presupposes broad knowledge. 1 student found that the course was �lidt overambitiøst� with too much work for me (�tysk grundighed�) and gave the advice: �pas på dig selv!� � take care! For the final session I had prepared some theses as my answer to the question I raised in the course description: What is the difference between religious trust in God and trust in one�s spouse, friends or parents and reliance on democratic institutions, a bank, a life-insurance or the weather forecast? Most of the students appreciated this move and indulged in the discussion. A philosophy student noticed, however, that it seemed that God�s existence was taken as self-evident in this discussion, and commented: �nogle gange teologisk indforståethed/selvfølgelighed.� Another student looked at the blackboard which at that point of time was filled to the brim and made the remark: �tavlebrug kunne godt være mere overskuelig.� I should have deleted some parts. The same student noted down that he was insecure whether I always comprehended completely what he meant to say. He is the only one who came with such a remark. I can make sense of it by considering the feedback from mentor and censor.

3.3 Feedback from mentor and censor Both mentor and censor mentioned that it would be a good idea to repeat the answers of the students or to take up at least that part of the answer that leads us further. I guess the problem of communication with the above-mentioned student consisted in my hesitation: when he said something which I thought was not completely to the point, I often was not quick enough to separate �right� from �wrong� immediately � which resulted in his insecurity whether I grasped what he meant. Something I can learn from this experience is that repetitions are essential and signal positively to the students what they shall remember and negatively what they shall forget. Such processes of selection provide the orientation that is necessary if one indulges into discussions as much as we did. The process of �collecting� (samle op) correct answers can be supported by putting the key words down on the blackboard � this way, they are �kept.� Independently of each other, mentor and censor made some observations that helped me correct habits I was not aware of. In the session that both of them attended, I at first sat down instead of standing up and going around. This was a disadvantage, since it took some time until I had �conquered� the room. Moreover, I did not have the overview to �catch� the students� attention that was visible in their eyes and postures to get further with it, e.g. by asking �Shall I say more to this?� or by turning to the ones who showed a special interest in the topic in order to deepen it, e.g. by pointing out a relevant passage in the text that one of the students could read aloud and then comment on it. Due to my nervousness during the first supervision, I also neglected one decisive thing: to present the guests and to clarify the situation. Via negativa it became clear for me how important it is to address people by name and to have direct personal encounters also in teaching situations � both with the students and the supervisors. Another crucial point is to introduce the program of the day, the agenda, right away. It shall be obvious �where we are� in relation to the last and the following sessions, which steps we are to take today, and how they relate to the overall schedule of the course. One remark by the censor leads us back to the theme of the course: �you are well-prepared � maybe too well�� This remark reminds of Rosenzweig�s Rezept der Rezeptlosigkeit, which is another word for: trust. Yet, it is trust that remains contestable by doubts. The kandidateksamen will show what my students have learned; and future courses will show what their teacher has learned.

21

Appendix 1 Det Teologiske Fakultet KAN: ER-Emnekursus ”Tillid, tro og tvivl” (”Trust, faith, and doubt”), 15 ECTS Forår 2009, onsdage 10-12, Auditorium 1 Claudia Welz: clw@hum.ku.dk

Kursusplan og litteraturliste Kurset sigte vil være at afklare tillidens betydning, former og grænser ved at diskutere bibelske og klassiske teologiske tekster i lyset af aktuelle debatter i diverse discipliner. Den reformatoriske tradition definerer troen som tillid eller tiltro (fiducia). Troens fjende, synden, er bestemt som selvindkrogethed (incurvatio in se). Det fortæller noget om tillid, nemlig at den medfører selvets åbenhed – men i hvilken forstand? Hvad er forskellen mellem det at tro på og betro sig til Gud og det at stole på ens kæreste, venner og forældre, at have selvtillid, at forlade sig f.eks. på demokratiske institutioner, vejrudsigten, ens bank eller livsforsikring? Forskellen kan tydeliggøres ved hjælp af perspektiveringer fra udviklingspsykologi (tillid som Urvertrauen), neuroscience, økonomi og sociologi (tillid som kompleksitetsreduktion, samfundets cement og social kapital), emotions- og moralfilosofi (tillid som affektiv holdning, kognitiv forventning og villig accept af sårbarhed), sprogfilosofi, salmer og skønlitteratur (i hvilke situationer bliver tillid eksplicit, og er den så allerede på vej til skepsis, hvis den ikke længere er en selvfølgelighed?), eksistensfilosofi (hvordan adskiller tillid sig fra fortrolighed på den ene og angst på den anden side, når vi befinder og skal finde os i verdens (u)hjemmelighed?) erkendelsesteori (på hvilken måde involverer tillid og mistillid dømmekraften og fungerer som orienteringsmønstre?), etik (hvis vi ikke kan producere tillid, hvordan kan vi så kultivere den, og hvordan hænger den etiske fordring sammen med pålidelighed, ansvarlighed og ensidig eller gensidig anerkendelse?) og religionsfilosofi (hvilken rolle spiller tillid, når troens sandhed står på spil, og hvordan kan vi bevare tillid i uvished og på trods af tvivlen?). Tekstbasis omfatter bl.a. Luther, Kant, Kierkegaard, Rosenzweig, Benyoëtz, Wittgenstein, Austin, D.Z. Phillips, Heidegger, Løgstrup, Luhmann, Eriksen og Ricœur. Et kompendium kan købes i Akademisk Boghandel i Studiestræde 3. Fra uge til uge er kursusmateriale til supplering af vores fælles pensum tilgængeligt i elektronisk form i kursusrummet i Absalon. Password er ”Tillid09”. Arbejdsformen vil for det meste være en kombination af forelæsning og diskussion i plenum. Indimellem vil der være korte perioder af gruppearbejde (5-10 minutters drøftelse af et spørgsmål i grupper af 2-3 personer), gæsteforedrag/team-teaching og et indlæg med rollespil i session 8. Hver session suppleres med et kort studenteroplæg, dvs. maks. 10 minutters præsentation af en tekst af frit valg enten fra pensum eller supplement. Til dette udarbejdes et handout (1-3 sider) med tekstens hovedteser og 3 spørgsmål vi så vil diskutere i undervisningen. Udkastet sendes til clw@hum.ku.dk senest om mandagen kl. 12 før kurset, kan eventuelt drøftes med mig og bliver gjort tilgængeligt i Absalon efter undervisningen. Hvis det ønskes kan udkast til skriftlige opgaver inddrages. Eksamenstilmelding finder sted den 1.-15. marts. Send et pensumforslag og evt. spørgsmål per mail. Pensumgodkendelse finder sted efter undervisningen eller senest den 12.3. mellem kl. 14 og 16 i vær. 353 på AST. Emne og litteratur for hjemmeopgaver aftales i forbindelse med undervisningen. Vejledning gives derudover individuelt. Opgaverne forudsættes, med mindre andet aftales, afleveret inden den 1. juli 2009.

22

(1) 4.2.2009 Introduktion: Om tillidens betydning. Ældgamle og aktuelle spørgsmål - Leksikonartikel ”Glaube” i: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 3 (42000), 940-988. - Antonio Damasio, “Brain trust“ i: Nature 435:2 (June 2005), 571f. - Michael Kosfeld/Markus Heinrichs/Paul J. Zak/Urs Fischbacher/Ernst Fehr, “Oxytocin increases trust in humans“ i: Nature 435:2 (June 2005), 673-676. - Paul J. Zak/Robert Kurzban/William T. Matzner, “Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness“ i: Hormons and Behavior 48 (2005), 522-527. - Michael Kosfeld, “Trust in the brain. Neurobiological determinants of human social behaviour” i: EMBO reports 8 (2007), 44-47. Supplement i biblioteket: - Leksikonartikler „Anfechtung“, “Glaube”, “Versuchung“ og “Vertrauen“ i: Theologische Realenzyklopädie.

(2) 11.2.2009 Urvertrauen? Tillid, religion og udviklingspsykologi - Jf. Markus 10,13-16; Matthæus 19,13-15; Lukas 18,15-17. - Joseph J. Godfrey, “Conceiving Trust for Philosophy of Religion” (Text for Georgetown University Philosophy Department Lecture of 30 January 2004), jf. www.stonybrook.edu/trust. - Erik H. Eriksen, Childhood and Society: 35th Anniversary Edition, New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company 1985, 3-5, 247-251, 268-274. Supplement i kursusrummet i Absalon: - Philippe Rochat, “Trust at the Origin of Development” (Foredrag på konferencen “Trust, Sociality, Selfhood” på CFS, Københavns Universitet, 4.-5. December 2008).

(3) 18.2.2009 Tillid som affektiv holdning, kognitiv forventning og accept af sårbarhed? Emotions- og moralfilosofiske diskurser

- Annette Baier, Moral Prejudices. Essays on Ethics, Cambridge, Mass./London, England: Harvard University Press 1994, 95-129 (”Trust and Antitrust”). - Olli Lagerspetz, “The Notion of Trust in Philosophical Psychology” i: Lilli Alanen/Sara Heinämaa/Thomas Wallgren (red.), Commonality and Particularity in Ethics, London/New York: Macmillan Press/St. Martin’s Press 1997, 95-117, plus Annette Baier’s “Response to Olli Lagerspetz” i: ibid., 118-122. Supplement i kompendiet: - Karen Jones, “Trust as an Affective Attitude” i: Ethics 107 (1996), 4-25.

25.2.2009 Timerne indhentes den 13.5.

(4) 4.3.2009 Fiducia og dens anfægtelse: Abraham (team-teaching med Anna Vind)

- Jf. Abraham i det Hebraiske Bibel (Genesis 15-22). - Martin Luther, Den store katekismus. Oversættelse, indledning og noter ved Leif Grane, København: Credo Forlag 2005, 42-50. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, herausgegeben im Gedenkjahr der Augsburgischen Konfession 1930, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 111992 (jf. WA 30/I, 125-238), 560-567. - Søren Kierkegaard, Frygt og Bæven (SKS 4), udg. af Søren Kierkegaard Forskningscenteret, København: Gads Forlag 1997, 101-104. Supplement i kompendiet: - Johann Anselm Steiger, ”Ad Deum contra Deum. Zur Exegese von Genesis 22 bei Luther und im Luthertum der Barockzeit“ i: B. Greiner/B. Janowski/H. Lichtenberger (red.), Opfere deinen Sohn! Das ‚Isaak-Opfer’ in Judentum, Christentum und Islam, Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag 2007, 135-154. Supplement i kursusrummet i Absalon: - Oswald Bayer, Martin Luthers Theologie. Eine Vergegenwärtigung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 32007, 15-25, 33f.

Midtvejsevaluering

23

(5) 11.3.2009 Poetisk perspektivering: tvivl som troens tvilling - Elazar Benyoëtz, Variationen über ein verlorenes Thema, München/Wien: Carl Hanser Verlag 1997, 16-25, 42-51, 106-109, 114-118. - Elazar Benyoëtz, Die Zukunft sitzt uns im Nacken, München/Wien: Carl Hanser Verlag 2000, 28-30, 164f, 168f, 176-185. Supplement i kursusrummet i Absalon: - Elazar Benyoëtz, ”Keine Macht beherrscht die Ohnmacht. Eine ungebundene Lesung um Abraham und seinen Gott“ i: B. Greiner/B. Janowski/H. Lichtenberger (red.), Opfere deinen Sohn! Das ‚Isaak-Opfer’ in Judentum, Christentum und Islam, Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag 2007, 109-134. Timerne fra den 18.03.2009 indhentes den 29.4.

(6) 25.3.2009 Det at have tillid og det at tale om tillid – sprogfilosofiske overvejelser (team-teaching med Troels Engberg Pedersen & Arne Grøn)

- Jf. Markus 9, 14-29. - J.L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words. The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, ed. by J.O. Urmson/M. Sbisà, London/New York: Oxford University Press 1976, 121-164. - Dewi Z. Phillips, “On Trusting Intellectuals on Trust” i: Philosophical Investigations 25:1 (2002), 33-53. Supplement i kompendiet: - Lars Hertzberg, The Limits of Experience (Acta Philosophica Fennica 56), Helsinki: The Philosophical Society of Finland 1994, 113-130 (”On the Attitude of Trust”). Supplement i kursusrummet I Absalon: - Heiko Schulz, Theorie des Glaubens (Religion in Philosophy and Theology 2), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2001, 227-355, 443-459 (især 302-315).

(7) 1.4.2009 Tillid, temporalitet og den etiske fordring: pålidelighed og ansvarlighed (team-teaching med Carsten Pallesen)

- Knud E. Løgstrup, Den etiske fordring, København: Gyldendal 111986, 17-39, 237-239. - Paul Ricœur, The Course of Recognition, trans. by D. Pellauer, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press 2005, 127-134, 150-171. Ingen undervisning onsdag den 8. april pga. påske

(8) 15.4.2009 Tillid og troens sandhed som problem - Søren Kierkegaard, Afsluttende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift til de philosophiske Smuler (SKS 7), udg. af Søren Kierkegaard Forskningscenteret, København: Gads Forlag 2002, 182-192. - Franz Rosenzweig, Der Stern der Erlösung. Mit einer Einführung von R. Mayer und einer Gedenkrede von G. Scholem, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag 51996, „Inhalt“ plus 423-443, 462-464, 471f. (engelsk oversættelse findes i kursusrummet i Absalon). Supplement i kursusrummet I Absalon: -Claudia Welz, “God’s Givenness and Hiddenness: Franz Rosenzweig on Human (Dis)Trust and Divine Deception” (manuskript til Claremont Studies 2009)

(9) 22.4.2009 Se, føl og døm! Tillid og mistillid som orienteringsmønstre (team-teaching med Gry Ardal Christensen)

- Søren Kierkegaard, Kjerlighedens Gjerninger. Anden Følge (SKS 9), udg. af Søren Kierkegaard Forskningscenteret, København: Gads Forlag 2004 (”Kjerlighed troer Alt – og bliver dog aldrig bedragen”). - Immanuel Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft und Schriften zur Naturphilosophie, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt 1957, 274f, 441-465. Supplement i kompendiet: - Gloria Origgi, “Is Trust an Epistemological Notion?” i: Episteme (June 2004), 1-12.

24

Supplement i kursusrummet i Absalon: - Anthony Rudd, “’Believing All Things’: Kierkegaard on Knowledge, Doubt, and Love” i: Robert L. Perkins (red.), International Kierkegaard Commentary 16: Works of Love, Macon: Mercer University Press 1999, 121-136. - Kants Kritik af dømmekraften – otte læsninger, red. af E.O. Pedersen/P. Jepsen/C. Friberg, Århus: Philosophia 2007, 9-22 (Esther Oluffa Pedersen, Per Jepsen & Carsten Friberg: ”At arbejde i det små med det store for øje” – En introduktion til Kants Kritik af dømmekraften), 49-69 (Carsten Friberg: ”Den æstetiske dom”). - Claudia Welz, ”Vertrauen und (Fehl-)Urteil: Alles glauben, um das Gute nicht zu übersehen?“ (manuskript til Mesotes 2009).

(10) 29.04.2009 Tillid som vished – eller tillid på trods af uvished? (Timerne fra den 18.3.) - Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty. Über Gewissheit, ed. by G.E.M. Anscombe/G.H. von Wright, trans. by D. Paul/G.E.M. Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1974, 17-19, 22-25, 28, 33, 39-41, 44, 66f. - N.K. Verbin, “Uncertainty and religious belief” i: International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51 (2002), 1-37. Supplement i kursusrummet i Absalon: - Wilfried Härle, Matthias Heesch & Reiner Preul (red.), Befreiende Wahrheit. Festschrift für Eilert Herms zum 60. Geburtstag, Marburg: N.G.Elwert Verlag 2000: - Oswald Bayer: „‘Eia, vere sic est‘! Cor per verbum veritatis verificatur” (159-170) - Wilfried Härle, “Befreiende Gewißheit. Das vertiefte Verständnis der reformatorischen Theologie bei Eilert Herms“ (171-190) - Hartmut Rosenau: „‘Ich glaube – hilf meinem Unglauben‘. Zur theologischen Auseinandersetzung mit der Skepsis“ (365-374)

(11) 06.05.2009 Tillid som kompleksitetsreduktion, samfundets cement og social kapital? En sociologisk tilgang

- Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power. With an Introduction by Gianfranco Poggi, Chichester/New York/Brisbane/Toronto: John Wiley & Sons 1979, 1-31, 39-47, 86-95. Supplement i kompendiet: - Niklas Luhmann, “Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives” i: Diego Gambetti (red.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, New York: Basil Blackwell 1988, 94-107. Supplement i kursusrummet i Absalon: -Werner Stegmaier, Philosophie der Orientierung, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2008, 408-422.

(12) + (13) 13.5.2009 A) At finde sig selv i verdens (u)hjemmelighed: Tro, fortrolighed og angst - Jf. fortællingen om Adam og Eva (Genesis 2-3); Peter (Matthæus 14,22-33). - Martin Luther, Genesisvorlesung (cap. 1-17) 1535/38, i: Luthers Werke im WWW (http://luther.chadwyck.co.uk/) < D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimarer Ausgabe), bd. 1-68, Weimar: Böhlau 1883-1999 [= WA]: WA 42: 117, 119, 127-129. - Martin Heidegger, Væren og tid. På dansk ved C.R. Skovgaard. Efterskrift ved Th. Schwarz Wentzer, Århus: Forlaget Klim 2007, Indholdsfortegnelse og 161-167, 213-226, 309-312. Supplement i kompendiet: - J.L. Schellenberg, Prolegomena to a Philosophy of Religion, Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press 2005, 106-126. Supplement i kursusrummet i Absalon: - Martin Heidegger, “The Problem of Sin in Luther” (two-part lecture given in the last two sessions of Rudolf Bultmann’s theological seminar on “Paul’s Ethics” at the University of Marburg on February 14 and 21, 1924; the student transcript has been published in the English translation in a volume edited by Theodore Kisiel & Thomas Sheehan, Becoming Heidegger. On the Trail of His Early Occasional Writings, 1910-1927, Evanston: Northwestern University Press 2007, 187-195).

25

B) Tillid, bøn og frihedens fristelse – Job mellem affekt og refleksion (Timerne fra 25.2.2009) (team-teaching med Dorothea Glöckner) - Jf. historien om Job (Job 1-42); Jesu død og opstandelse (Markus 15,20-16,19). - Franz Rosenzweig, Der Stern der Erlösung. Mit einer Einführung von R. Mayer und einer Gedenkrede von G. Scholem, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag 51996, 295-297. - Claudia Welz, “Klage und Vertrauen: Sich verlassen auf Gott in Gottverlassenheit?” i: Eva Harasta (red.), Mit Gott klagen. Eine theologische Diskussion, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2008, 121-140 (engelsk oversættelse findes i kursusrummet i Absalon). Supplement i kompendiet: - Merold Westphal, “Prayer as the Posture of the Decentered Self” i: B.E. Benson/N. Wirzba (red.), The Phenomenology of Prayer, New York: Fordham University Press 2005, 15-31. Opsamling og slutevaluering Hvis nogen har lyst til at deltage i konferencen om “Trust, Emotion, and Uncertainty”, der finder sted på CFS/KUA den 14. maj 2009, så er der mulighed for dette. Nærmere oplysninger findes på http://cfs.ku.dk/calendar-main/calendar2009/trust/ Interesserede studerende er velkomne.

26

Appendix 2) Vejlederbrev til speciale

Kære specialestuderende Hermed får du retningslinjer for min vejledning af specialer. 1. Min vejledning: felter, emner og tidsramme Mens jeg er forsker ved Center for Subjektivitetsforskning og underviser som gæsteforelæser ved Afdelingen for Systematisk Teologi vejleder jeg helst specialer indenfor mine aktuelle forskningsfelter og områder jeg føler mig hjemme i, nemlig Kierkegaards skrifter (læst med hensyn til bibelske kon- og subtekster og hans filosofiske samtalepartnere), tysk teologi (især Luther, Schleiermacher, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Tillich, Ebeling, Jüngel), jødisk religions-, dialog- og sprogfilosofi samt aforistisk poesi (især Rosenzweig, Buber, Wittgenstein, Benyoëtz), tysk og fransk fænomenologi og hermeneutik (især Husserl, Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida, Ricœur, Marion, Waldenfels). Jeg interesserer mig specielt for følgende emner: menneskesyn i teologi, filosofi og humanvidenskaber, samvittighed og selvforståelse, etik og personlig identitet, negativitet og normativitet, emotion og erindring, tillid mellem tro og tvivl. Jeg afsætter en (maks. halvanden) time(r) til hver vejledning og har 2-3 timer til forberedelse. Gennem forløbet mødes vi 5-6 gange. I alt er der omkring 30-40 timer til specialevejledning, inklusiv bedømmelse og udarbejdelse af specialeudtalelse. Tidsrammen vil blive håndhævet med en vis fleksibilitet. 2. Kriterier for specialer Det er vigtigt, at du kender studieordningens krav og studienævnets orientering om speciale (se www.teol.ku.dk under studenterinformation -> vejledninger). På samme webside kan du læse studienævnets manuskriptretningslinjer for skriftlige opgavebesvarelser på dansk og reglerne om eksamenssnyd/plagiat i modsætning til god akademisk skik. Udover det vil jeg henvise til akademisk skrivecenters skabeloner og rådgivning til specialeskrivning (se http://akademiskskrivecenter.hum.ku.dk/specialeskrivning/). Nyttige tips og flere oplysninger findes i Lotte Rieneckers og Peter Stray Jørgensens bog Den gode opgave – håndbog i opgaveskrivning på videregående uddannelser, Forlaget Samfundslitteratur, 3. udgave 2006. Undervejs kan det være, at vi finder ud af, at vi er fagligt uenige på nogle punkter. Det vil ikke påvirke den endelige vurdering af specialet, hvis du argumenterer sagligt og videnskabeligt for dine synspunkter. 3. Vejledningsforløbet Til alle møder forventer jeg, at du udarbejder skriftligt materiale og fremsender det til mig via e-mail senest 2 døgn før mødet. Forud for samtalen eller i samtalens begyndelse aftaler vi en dagsorden for samtalen. a) Første møde Til det første møde ønsker jeg 2-3 sider om din idé, det emne du vil undersøge, de teorier du forestiller dig at inddrage, samt en foreløbig litteraturliste. For at forstå din faglige baggrund vil jeg gerne høre, hvorfor du har valgt emnet, hvilke faglige interesser du har, og om du eventuelt har et andet fag. Til første gang må du derfor gerne medbringe en liste over de overbygningskurser du har fulgt og de opgaver, du har skrevet. Jeg vil også gerne høre lidt om dit ambitionsniveau for specialet og dine forventninger til vejledningsforløbet. Det er væsentligt, at vi tidligt finder (1) en problemformulering og fastlægger (2) opgavens formål, (3) metode/fremgangsmåde, (4) disposition og (5) materialeudvælgelsen, så der ikke sent i arbejdsforløbet sættes spørgsmålstegn ved grundlæggende elementer i specialet. Kom med din kalender, så kan vi lave (6) en tidsplan og aftale fremtidige møder. Efter (1)-(5) er fastlagt udfylder vi (6) specialekontrakten. Kom med blanketten, der kan udskrives direkte fra fakultetets hjemmeside (studenterinformation -> blanketter til kandidatuddannelse i teologi). I tilfældet at vi ikke få afklaret alle punkter med det samme, venter vi med (6) til møde nummer 2. b) Følgende møder De følgende 3-4 møder tjener til tekstgennemgang og diskussion. Send 15-20 sider til hver gang. Det er vigtigt, at du medsender et følgebrev, hvor du forklarer mig, hvor i specialet afsnittet skal placeres (medsend derfor indholdsfortegnelse hver gang). I brevet må du også meget gerne præcisere, hvor færdigt det er, og hvilke spørgsmål du gerne vil diskutere med mig.

27

Efter hvert møde vil jeg bede dig om at sende mig et mødereferat per e-mail, hvor du skitserer de vigtigste pointer fra mødet. Dette er for at skabe overblik og for at sikre, at vi er enige om det kommende arbejde, såvel som til brug for efterfølgende dokumentation for os begge. Hvis du vil, kan du bruge akademisk skrivecenters huskeseddel (http://akademiskskrivecenter.hum.ku.dk/handouts). c) Sidste møde før indleveringen af dit speciale En måned før indleveringen af dit speciale er vores sidste møde. Du skal have tid for revisionen af hele teksten. I alt regner jeg med at læse mindst 80% af dit udkast i løbet af 5 måneder. Jeg vil ikke kommentere den endelige version af dit speciale før bedømmelsen, men jeg læser dit udkast til konklusionen eller et eksempel for et revideret tekstafsnit (f.eks. indledningen) og giver tekstnær feedback. Medbring den endelige version af litteraturlisten og godkendelsesblanket til speciale til dette møde, så får du min underskrift. d) Evaluering Du må gerne undervejs kommentere vejledningen og komme med forslag til, hvordan vi tilpasser og optimerer samarbejdet. Midt i og efter forløbet vil jeg bede dig om at evaluere vejledningen. Vejledning starter ved den første samtale om emnet og slutter ved evalueringen af det hele vejledningsforløb efter bedømmelsen. 4. Kontakt, studerendes og vejleders ansvar Jeg sætter stor pris på de studerendes selvstændige arbejde og tankeudvikling. Hvis du fremskrider som planlagt, får du en gang om måneden respons på det du har skrevet. Men hvis der optræder komplikationer, der er uoverkommelige for dig, og du ikke kommer videre i skriveprocessen, så er du velkommen til at kontakte mig per e-mail for korte forespørgsler eller for at ændre en mødedato. Normalt svarer jeg inden for en uge. Jeg vejleder helst ved personligt fremmøde, men kan undtagelsesvis vejlede per mail. Det er mere tidskrævende at vejlede per mail og vil betyde at antallet af vejledningssessioner må indskrænkes. Hvis du er forhindret i at møde op til vejledning, holder pause med specialet, ønsker at skifte vejleder eller inddrage en medvejleder, forventer jeg, at du giver mig besked. Eventuelle klager skal følge reglerne angivet i studieordningen. Min rolle er først og fremmest at være din samtale- og sparringspartner i forløbet og at bidrage til en målrettet og fagligt udbytterig specialeskrivning. Men jeg skal også advare dig, hvis der er alvorlige faglige problemer i projektet, kontrollere formalia og repræsentere fakultetet i bedømmelsen af arbejdet. Kort sagt: jeg skal støtte din arbejdsproces på en konstruktiv og kritisk måde. Dette brev har opridset institutionens generelle retningslinjer for specialeskrivning og beskriver min forestilling om deres udmøntning. De regler, der forpligter os begge, er givet med studieordningen. Mit vejlederbrev formulerer derfor ikke selvstændige regler, men fremstår som et forslag og målsætning. Vi kan drøfte detaljerne i en konkret ”forventningsafstemning”. Denne har selvfølgelig ikke samme status som kontrakten. Jeg vil dog gøre mit til at de individuelle vejledningsprocesser bliver til gensidig inspiration og glæder mig til vores samarbejde! Men venlig hilsen Claudia Welz Postdoctoral Research Fellow Gæsteforelæser Center for Subjectivity Research Det Teologiske Fakultet University of Copenhagen Københavns Universitet Njalsgade 140-142, building 25, 5th floor Købmagergade 44-46 DK-2300 Copenhagen S 1150 København K Tel. 0045-353 28687 Tel. 353 23678 (vær. 353) Email: clw@hum.ku.dk

28

Appendix 3)

Dokumentation af og i vejledning 1. Forventningsstyring og information til studerende om vejledning

* Detaljeret vejlederbrev, der dækker mine og Fakultetets forventninger og udstikker rammer for forløbet, sendes ved begyndelsen af vejledningen * I brevet henvises til studieordningens krav, Studienævnets manuskriptretningslinjer og akademisk skrivecenters skabeloner, især udfyldelsespentagoner til fagudvikling (fra Lotte Rienecker & Peter Stray Jørgensen) * Specialekontrakt om emnet * Hvordan skriver man en systematisk-teologisk opgave? (dokument udviklet af Jonas Jørgensen)

2. Registrering af vejledningsaftaler og hvad der indholdsmæssigt vejledes på

* Min kalender: vi reserverer tid for 5-6 møder * Protokoll efter hvert møde: de studerende sender en email om de vigtigste aftaler * Journalføring i specialelogbog (Paper trail af de enkelte vejledninger): jeg noterer tids- og indholdsmæssige punkter om mit arbejde og gemmer tilsendte tekster med mine kommentarer * Email-korrespondance gemmes også i en særlig mappe i mit mailprogram

3. Progressionsopfølgning og evaluering af vejledning * Evalueringsskema til studerende efter vejledning,

udviklet af C.W., dækker følgende punkter: - Første møde / emnevalg - Email-kontakt - Samarbejdet / aftaler / realistisk pensum? - Tidsplan (nok spillerum?) - Håndtering af stress og nervøsitet (åbenhed, motivering?)

- Feedback efter karaktergivning (Kunne du genkende dit projekt i udtalelsen? Fair kritik? Er bedømmelsen som forventet eller overraskende?)

Rationaler: Hvorfor dokumentation?

a) for at holde den vejledte og mig selv på sporet b) for at opfylde institutets krav c) for at stå på den sikre side i en evt. klage

=> Målsætninger er transparens, forventningsstyring, progression i fagudvikling og en vis ”sikkerhedspolitik”

29

Appendix 4)

Specialelogbog Studerendes navn:

Dato

Studerendes henvendelse (mundtlig / skriftlig / kladde)

Vejleders reaktion Tid brugt

Opfølgning / møde

30

Appendix 5) KAN: ER-Emnekursus ”Tillid, tro og tvivl” (Forår 2009) Claudia Welz

Evaluering

Oplysninger om den enkelte studerende

a) Niveau (BA, KAN: Er undervisningens niveau for højt, tilpas, for lavt? Hvorfor?)

b) Fag

c) Køn

d) Hvor mange gange har du deltaget i undervisningen?

e) Hvor mange timer bruger du i gennemsnit på at forberede dig til hver enkelt undervisningsgang?

f) Hvorledes vurderer du din egen og holdets indsats? Hvordan er sammenhængen

mellem læsepensum og undervisningen?

g) Er kursets formål klart for dig? Synes du det kan opfyldes? Hvad burde evt. være anderledes vedrørende målet og dine egne forventninger?

h) Eksamensforberedelse (Føler du, at du er godt på vej til at oparbejde de kompetencer, der er nødvendige for at gå til eksamen? Er du klar over, hvad der forventes af dig til eksamen?)

Arbejdsformer: Hvad kan evt. gøres bedre?

a) Forelæsninger og dialog

b) Diskussion i plenum – lærerens moderation

c) Hvordan har studenteroplæggene fungeret? (Underviserens indsats i forhold til at informere de studerende om, hvordan man holder oplæg, underviserens efterfølgende respons)

d) Gæsteforedrag/team-teaching

e) Gruppearbejde

31

Brug af medier

a) Tavlebrug – er den overskuelig?

b) Har brugen af kursushjemmesiden på Absalon (det virtuelle kursusrum) fungeret tilfredsstillende? (også mht. forskellige mapper – oversættelser)

c) Handouts (Får du udbytte af handouts? Gennemgår du handouts bagefter? Er de brugbare? Passer tidspunktet af uddelingen?)

d) Savner du Power Point Presentations? Samarbejdet mellem lærer og studerende: undervisningssituation og interaktion

a) Forelæsning og dialogformer – er formuleringer klare og forståelige? Hvordan har dialogen været mellem de studerende og underviseren?

b) Lægger undervisningen op til aktiv, opmærksom deltagelse? Er du tilfreds med lærerens indsats? Er læreren lydhør over for de studerende? Stiller du den spørgsmål, du har, i timerne? Begrund gerne dit svar eller kom med forslag til ændringer

c) Lærerens reaktion/feedback til de studerendes bidrag og evt. korrekturer (tilpas? nedtalende? hjælpsom? Eller...?)

d) Har klimaet på holdet været godt? Hvordan har kontakten været mellem lærer og studerende og mellem de studerende?

e) Er undervisningen forløbet tilfredsstillende? Er stoffet behandlet tilpas grundigt? – Begrund dit svar

f) Hvordan vurderer du underviserens indsats (forberedelse, fremlæggelse, engagement, humør osv.)? Andre kommentarer – ris og ros eller forslag

32

Forskningsbaseret undervisning a) Hvad synes du om valg af tekster, undervisningsmaterialet, kompendiet og curriculum? Er

kursets indhold relevant for dig? Har det faglige udbytte af undervisningen været tilfredsstillende – hvis ikke, hvorfor ikke?

b) Interdisciplinaritet: Er fremlæggelsen af problemstillinger forståelig eller for indforstået? Er der

behov for flere forklaringer? c) Inspirerer undervisningen dig til at arbejde selvstændigt og tænke over kontroverse, åbne

spørgsmål? d) Føler du, at du får et overblik? Hvordan er opsummeringen af resultater undervejs (fx på

tavlen) og i slutningen af timerne? e) Er du tilfreds med tilrettelæggelsen af undervisningen? Kan du se den røde tråd? f) Lever kurset op til kursusbeskrivelsen? Er dele af stoffet behandlet for grundigt, tilpas, for

overfladisk? Giv meget gerne eksempler Supplerende kommentarer

• Hvad har været vellykket i kurset?

• Var det noget du har savnet i kurset indtil nu?

• Hvad kunne forbedres i anden halvdel af kurset?