University of Oxford, Faculty of Theology Bachelor of Theology and Certificates in Theology. Examiners Report Trinity Term 2011

Transcription

1 University of Oxford, Faculty of Theology Bachelor of Theology and Certificates in Theology Examiners Report Trinity Term 2011 Qualification Section A: General Report Completing candidates Continuing candidates Bachelor of Theology (BTh) Certificate in Theology (CTh) 6 11 Certificate for Theology Graduates (CTG) 0 3 Awards: Bachelor of Theology: Class 1 1 Class 2:1 8 Class 2:2 0 Class 3 1 Pass 0 Certificate in Theology: Distinction 0 Merit 4 Pass 2 Certificate for Theology Graduates: Distinction 0 Merit 0 Pass 0 Numbers sitting in each of the papers: Paper Title Seated exams Long essays A1 Old Testament A 20 n/a A2 New Testament A 20 n/a A3a Foundations of Christian Thought - A3b Development of Christian Life and Thought 2 A4 Christian Witness and the Contemporary World 2 B1 Old Testament B 4 10 B2 New Testament B B3 Biblical Interpretation 1 13 C1 Christian Doctrine 2 20 C2 Church History 6 C3 Ecclesiology - 5 C4 Study of Theology 1 D1 Mission and Ministry 20 1

2 D2 Christian Ethics 15 0 D3 Christian Worship 2 14 D4 Christian Spirituality - 6 E1 Christian Mission 1 1 E2 Christian Faith and Other Religions 1 E3 Christian Faith and Philosophy 2 - E4 Christian Faith and Science - - E5 Christian Faith and Social Sciences - E6 Christian Faith and Psychology - E7 Canon Law - E8 Confessional Study E9 Special Subject 3 1 Total submissions candidates were entered for the Trinity Term 2011 examinations for the BTh and the associated Certificates, of whom 16 students were completing their studies for an award. 20 candidates were sitting their first papers in these courses of study. The examinations process functioned very smoothly. There was a recurrence of irregularities in the paperwork associated with the submission of essays; unsigned title forms, OSS numbers instead of candidate numbers, unamended essay titles and so on. Though no doubt trivial, these irregularities cause irritating additional work for the examiners, especially the Chair, and should be easily avoided, and the Chair wrote to Colleges where this had occurred to explain the issue. It was pleasing to note that the moving of the seated examinations to Ewert House went smoothly and the Chair is particularly grateful to the Examination Schools staff for making this work so well. Many candidates submitted work of a high standard, and there was a number of Long Essays and examination scripts which were awarded first class, or high upper second class, marks. The Faculty Moderator was able to affirm that most of the candidates achieved work of a quality comparable with that submitted for the BA in Theology. The External Examiner commented that there was some very good work being done. At the weaker end, work was either too descriptive or exhibited a tendency to sermonise. Both the External Examiner and the Faculty Moderator made a number of helpful recommendations for when the BTh comes under Faculty review. The Chair notes that nomination of examiners for the BTh suite of courses is hampered by the Associate Faculty status of many excellent scholars, who are for this reason not eligible to be Examiners, except under special circumstances. The Chair recommends that this issue be looked at again by the Faculty Board. The Chair of Examiners is glad to record her thanks to the examining team: Dr Mark Edwards (Faculty Moderator), Dr Will Lamb (External Examiner), Dr Tim Bradshaw, Dr Bernard Green, Dr Matt Kirkpatrick, Dr Larry Kreitzer, Dr James Robson and Dr Andrew Teal. Their hard work and professionalism made her role as Chair much easier. Finally, the Examiners as a body wish to record their gratitude to all who assisted them in this examination round. In particular, the Examiners benefited from the expertise of seven Assessors: Dr Deborah Rooke, Dr Michael Lakey, Dr Cathy Ross, Dr Jennifer Cooper, Dr Pamela Sue Anderson, Dr Ida Glaser and Dr Liz Hoare. The Examiners are also greatly indebted to Dr Mike Froggatt at the Theology Faculty Centre, Mr Eric Warmington, IT Officer at Wycliffe Hall, and to Ms Shelley Mann, temporary Examination Candidates Data Manager, and other staff at the Examination Schools. 2

3 Dr T Bradshaw Dr M Edwards Dr EB Green Dr M Kirkpatrick Dr L Kreitzer Dr W Lamb Dr JE Robson Dr AR Teal Dr JR Williams (Chair) October 2011 Section B: Subject Reports A1 Old Testament A Number of candidates: 20 (all by seated examination) Mean score: 56% Median score: 57% 0 8 (40%) 10 (50%) 2 (10%) 19 sat the paper in English, 1 in Hebrew. The gobbets on Isaiah were answered by 17 candidates; those on Genesis by 8. The most popular essay question was on Genesis and the Ancient Near East, answered by 13. The next most popular essay question was that on Isaiah and the theological problems of the exile, answered by 6. There were 5 questions that received no exam answers. Gobbets: The Isaiah gobbets were generally done well, with an appropriate mix of literary, historical and theological comments. At points features in the text were ignored, or the salient issues not identified, but mostly a good set. The Genesis gobbets varied significantly. Some were good; others were a thin, uncritical description of the contents. It was good to see one candidate for Hebrew: more would be good. Essays: The essay on Genesis and the Ancient Near East was done well by almost everyone, without there being an excellent answer. The essay on Isaiah and the theological problems of the exile too often became an excuse to reproduce an essay on the servant songs. Students should make sure they stick to the question asked. A2: New Testament A Number of candidates: 20 (all by seated examination) Mean score 61% Median score 64% 1 (5%) 13 (65%) 4 (20%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 15 candidates offered the paper with English gobbets (all 4 of the possibilities were included) and 5 candidates offering the paper with Greek gobbets (with 3 of the 4 possibilities included). In Section B (Matthew and Mark) four of the six questions were answered (although neither of the Mark questions were chosen by any candidate). In 3

4 Section C (1 Corinthians) three of the four questions were answered (with fourteen answering the question on the Roman background of the city of Corinth). Candidates offering English gobbets averaged a mark of 59.33; candidates offering Greek gobbets averaged a mark of Most candidates showed familiarity with the major issues associated with the study of the Gospel of Matthew, including the structure of the gospel itself, its distinctive ecclesiastical features, and the nature of the Matthean community. If there was one feature generally omitted, it was the question of how Matthew creatively adapts traditional Jesus material to meet the needs of his church. As far as the essays on 1 Corinthians are concerned, most candidates tackled the topic of Corinth as a Roman city. Many candidates wrote of the geographical location of Rome as a centre of Roman trade, of its importance as a religious site with a variety of temples, etc. A couple of candidates even picked up on the importance of Corinth as a host of the Isthmian games and anchored this in texts such as 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 where Paul employs athletic imagery (perhaps the Olympic games of 2012 had caught their imagination!). One slight disappointment is the relatively minor attention given to 2 Corinthians within the discussion of the essays. At one level this is understandable, given that the set text for the paper is 1 Corinthians, but cases could have been made stronger by an appeal to supportive material from 2 Corinthians. The impression of the examiners is that the Faculty s lecture series on Matthew and those on Paul have been put to good use by the candidates within their exams. A3a: Foundations of Christian Thought There were no candidates for this paper A3b: Development of Christian Life and Thought There were two entry for this paper, by long essay. A4: Christian Witness and the Contemporary World There were two entries for this paper, both by long essay. B1: Old Testament B Number of candidates: 14 (4 by seated examination, 10 by long essay) Mean score: 60% Median score: 60% 2(14%) 5(36%) 6(43%) 1(7%) 0 0 There were 14 candidates for this paper, 10 taking it by long essay, 3 by seated exam in Hebrew, 1 by exam in English. It was pleasing that three took the exam in Hebrew; all translated the passage on Ruth. Some of the Long Essays had very general titles that made it hard to perform well. There were two excellent pieces. B2: New Testament B Number of candidates: 24 (12 by seated examination, 12 by long essay) Mean score (seated examination) 61.33% Mean score (long essay) 65.15% Median score 64% 3 (12.5%) 14 (58.3%) 7 (29.2%) B2 New Testament B There were 24 candidates for this paper (15 BTh, 8 CTH, and 1 CTG) twelve candidates offering the paper by exam and the other twelve by long essay. Of the twelve candidates who did the paper by seated exam, eight did English gobbets (8 on John, 6 on Romans, 2 on Hebrews), and four did Greek gobbets (all from Romans 4

5 5). All of the essay questions were answered from questions on John, Romans and Hebrews; no essay questions outside of these set texts were attempted. Candidates offering Greek gobbets performed better than those offering English gobbets, mainly due to a greater attention to the theological and exegetical issues arising from the text itself. Several of the essays were overly reliant upon secondary source materials, and did not engage the biblical text as thoroughly as they should have within the parameters of this paper. Some essays attempted to cover a topic that was far too broad within a 7,000 word essay, and probably would have been better off to narrow the scope of their topic and engage with it more deeply. Several essays went out of the way to demonstrate familiarity with Apocryphal texts and extra-biblical materials. A number of OT and NT commentators were cited in both exams and essays, and these covered a broad range of theological perspectives and faith traditions, although Anglican authors clearly dominated. Inconsistency in formatting of footnotes and presentation of bibliography was commonplace; students need to be encouraged to adhere to the guidelines presented in the BTh Handbook. B3: Biblical Interpretation Number of candidates: 14 (1 by seated examination, 13 by long essay) Mean score 57.8%, median score 57.5% 0 5 (35.7%) 8 (57.2%) 1 (7.1%) 0 0 There were 14 candidates for this paper (9 BTh, 4 CTh, and 1 CTG) one candidate offering the paper by exam and the other thirteen by long essay. One weakness within many of the long essays was the tendency to approach the topic as if it was a study in doctrine or systematic theology rather than an investigation of biblical interpretation. Most essays would have been improved significantly by an actual engagement with the biblical text itself, rather than a catalogue of what secondary sources said about the text, which was often done without any incisive critique of those sources. At the same time, there were a few essays which purported to be exegetical studies and seemed to be more appropriate to the B2 paper. One worrying feature was that several essays offered strikingly similar discussion, even using the same bibliography, citing the same prooftexts and using the same quotations in argument; this means that there was a lack of creativity and individuality within the essays. Again, inconsistency in formatting of footnotes and the presentation of bibliography was commonplace; students need to be encouraged to adhere to the guidelines presented in the BTh Handbook. C1: Christian Doctrine Number of candidates: 22 (2 by seated examination, 20 by long essay) Mean score 65% Median score 66% 2 (9%) 15 (68%) 5 (23%) The candidates in main showed signs of real industry and enthusiasm. Two chose the exam and wrote strong answers. The long essay covered a wealth of doctrinal topics, the best offering an excellent critique of an early twentieth theologian. Perhaps the most useful comment might be that some scripts clearly would have gained higher grades had they been revised or edited once more, no doubt indicating student rush or carelessness, but it is also important to emphasise the need for timely tutorial feedback on all student draft essay work. Overall students on this course are clearly interested, motivated and well taught. 5

6 C2: Church History Number of candidates: 6, all by long essay Mean: 62.2% Median: 62.5% 0 6 (100%) The subject matter of the essays were in the whole very narrow and there was not a good deal of location of the particular in the context. Many of the essays were primarily narrative, although there were critical essays punctuating the essays, all would have benefitted from a more careful structure, stronger direction of argument, and critical evaluation. C3: Ecclesiology Number of candidates: 5, all by long essay C4: Study of Theology There was 1 candidate for this paper, by long essay. D1: Mission and Ministry There were 20 candidates for this paper, all by long essay. Mean: 62.4% Median: 61% Classification Pass Fail No. of Candidates 2 (10%) 14 (70%) 4 (20%) Both markers noted three significant issues, which have been raised before but which remained causes of concern. These are: [1] Most seriously, in a number of essays there was reference to parishes, placements and named or easily identified people, without any explicit comment that the work was citing them with their permission. Although there may be good reason not to share the exact content of the essay with those outside the examining system, students should strive either to anonymize references convincingly (there were some good examples of this); or, indicate explicitly that those mentioned knew that they could be identified. We recommend that guidance from ethics committees for research should be explored if necessary. [2] Rather alarmingly from an academic perspective, was the serious lack of explicit, justified methodologies in most of the essays. Some essays engaged with well-known models in the introduction, but a justified analysis of the essay-writer s method would help the reader and raise the quality of the writing. [3] Finally, a more minor point, but worth making because it is one of the criteria, there is a concern with the number of scripts which appear to be final drafts, lacking a thorough check for typographical and presentational errors. In addition to these observations both markers were disappointed at the lack of inclusive language, which is especially important in presentations in this discipline. Many of the examples which prompted essays and reflection seemed rather trivial, and this didn't lead to essays of the highest quality. We wondered whether candidates who jumped too quickly into judging the people involved in the placements were aware of how brittle this made them appear. The tendency to suggest fixes with great directness didn't augur well for analytical reflection. Evidence of more humble, serious reflection, which included self-awareness, was rewarded. 6

7 D2: Christian Ethics D2a Christian Ethics: Ethics and Faith Class1 Class 2:1 Class 2:2 Class 3 Pass Fail 0 5 (33.33%) 9 (60) (6.67%) D2b Christian Ethics: Ethics and Ministry Class1 Class 2:1 Class 2:2 Class 3 Pass Fail 0 8 (53.33%) 5 (33.33%) 1 (6.67%) 0 1 (6.67%) D2 Combined Final Result Class1 Class 2:1 Class 2:2 Class 3 Pass Fail 0 7 (46.67%) 6 (40%) 1 (6.67%) 0 1 (6.67%) Number of Candidates: 15 (all by exam) Mean Score: 57% Median Score: 59% There were 15 candidates who sat the two ethics papers: D2a (Ethics and Faith), and D2b (Ethics and Ministry). For the first of these papers (D2a) candidates are asked to answer three questions, with at least one coming from each of the two sections concerning either foundational concepts or applied issues. On the whole, candidates chose to answer two on applied issues. Unlike the previous year, there was a good spread of answers chosen from the first section, with only one of the 8 questions remaining unanswered. However, there was a clear preference for question 4 concerning Natural Law, which was answered by 7 of the candidates. In the applied ethics section, the majority of questions were also answered, with only questions 11 (surrogacy) and 17 (environment) remaining unanswered. However, again there was a clear preference for questions 9 (Just War/pacifism 5 answers), 12 (euthanasia 5 answers) and 15 (sexuality 7 answers). Although there were a number of solid performances, with grades in the high 2:1 category, almost no answers warranted a Class 1 grade. On the whole, the quality of essay writing was poor, showing a lack of precision, and a failure to critically engage with the question. Vague generalisations were preferred to accurate and incisive arguments. In addition to the formal writing style, the knowledge base was equally general and shallow, such that very few candidates demonstrated real expertise in a certain area, or knowledge of the current debate. Most strikingly, in the applied ethics questions, almost no candidates showed knowledge of relevant current events or used concrete examples to back up their arguments. Two further issues were of note. First, several candidates showed a deeper knowledge of patristics, and answered all of their questions exclusively from this perspective. It is therefore important to note for both student and tutor that candidates should show knowledge of ethical issues across Christian history and particularly of the modern debate and not limit themselves to one particular era. Secondly, several candidates based their essays almost exclusively on Neil Messer s SCM Study Guide to Christian Ethics. Again, while this may be a relevant source (although, only an introductory one), candidates must show a breadth of expertise in the sources they draw on. On the whole, the second paper produced far better answers than the first. Many candidates managed to uncover the majority of nuances to the case study, getting behind the story to discuss what might be going on beyond a more superficial reading. Good answers to this question were able to offer sensitive, confident, and sometimes creative, responses to navigating the difficulties of the story, but were also able to balance ethical reflection with the pastoral description. A number of answers did not get this balance right, often by failing to offer adequate discussion of the ethical problems and why they held the position they describe. In a similar vein, some answers refused to engage with either the ethical or pastoral issues seriously by simply leaving all ethical reflection and pastoral direction up to the individuals in the story. Although the directional nature of pastoral care and the opinion of the minister are matters that are 7

8 necessary to discuss, their total rejection in this paper is problematic. Several answers suffered from being too short. Others were let down by not engaging with the three key elements of the question: to outline a) the ethical issues and b) to comment on what you would do c) at each stage. D3: Christian Worship Number of candidates: 16, 2 by seated exam, 14 by long essay Mean score 64% Median score 58% 3 (19%) 8 (50%) 4 (25%) 1 (6%) 0 0 D4: Christian Spirituality Number of candidates: 6, all by long essay Mean Score: 64% Median Score : 64% Class 1 Class 2.1 Class 2.2 Class 3 Pass Fail 1 (16.7%) 4 (66.7%) 1 (16.7%) Though a number of good answers were offered by candidates taking the examination in this paper, too many revealed a disappointing narrowness of knowledge and experience of Christian worship: several questions would have benefited from comparisons between different traditions and a firmer grasp of liturgical history. Discussions of practical issues, however sensible and sensitive, seldom showed much sense of liturgical principles which could be invoked as a guide to good practice. Fourteen candidates submitted long essays for this paper. The best showed an enthusiastic engagement with both original texts and secondary literature and a willingness to argue a case throughout. Too many, however, relied on limited bibliographies or failed to present a well-structured or fully developed argument. Several had not considered the ramifications of the question they had set out to answer, with the result that their essays misfired and did not reach a coherent conclusion. Section E papers Three of the nine papers available in Section E of the BTh syllabus were entered in this examinations round, all by long essay. There were two candidates for E1 (Christian Mission), one for E2 (Christian Faith and other Religions) and one for E3 Christian Faith and Philosophy. Three candidates chose to sit E9 as a language paper by seated examination and one candidate sat E1 by seated examination. Taken together, the entries in Section E produce the following statistics: 2 (22%) 4 ( 45%) 3 (33%) That three candidates chose further study in NT Greek is a development much to be welcomed among ministerial students. The Examiners in this paper commented that all candidates managed to translate and comment competently and to a high standard. The exam consisted of 2 passages each from Mark, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians, and 1 passage from 1 Peter; candidates were required to translate and comment on four of the seven passages. Only the passage from 1 Peter did not attract any candidate s interest. 8