1

CURA PERSONALIS IN THE UNIVERSITY SETTING BY

MICHAEL CONFORTI

In December of 1551, Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, wrote to his

nephew, Antonio de Araoz, on the ministry of Christian education. At the time Antonio was the

provincial of the Province of Spain, and Ignatius was writing to encourage Antonio to begin the

process of establishing schools there. Ignatius described the advantages of a Christian education

on the model being established by the Society, and noted that in a College run by the Society:

“[E]veryone learns” and “[c]are is [to be] taken,” that the students learn in a variety of ways, “by

means of classes, debates and compositions, so that they make great progress in learning.” He

also noted that because of the impact of Society-run colleges in the wider world, some students

would enter public life to play diverse roles -- some would preach and care for souls; others

would embark on careers in government service or in the administration of justice; and some

would enter other responsible occupations. In short, Ignatius said, since the children of today

become the adults of tomorrow, “their good formation in life and learning will benefit many

others, with the fruit expanding more widely every day.”1

From the beginning of the Society some of its primary objects included the teaching of

catechism, the instruction of youth in schools and colleges, and lecturing on philosophy and

theology in the universities.2 “In line with the overall end of Jesuit studies, Ignatius gradually

developed a vision of an educational system that concerned itself with the intellectual and moral

formation of the individual. By intellectual education Ignatius meant the imparting of knowledge

1 George E. Ganss, S.J., Ignatius Loyola: The Spiritual Exercises and Selected Works (New York: Paulist Press,

1991), 361-365. 2 Ibid., “Constitutions of the Society of Jesus,” ch. IV, 293-302.

2

and the inducing of a man to act according to the intellectual virtues.3 Education occupied so

prominent a place in its early ministry that the Society could rightly be considered a teaching

order like the Dominicans.4 During the lifetime of St. Ignatius, colleges were opened in

countries throughout Europe: at Messina, Palermo, Naples, Salamanca, Alcalà, Valladolid,

Lisbon, and Vienna. Many more colleges were added soon after his death, foremost among these

being Ingolstadt, Cologne, Munich, Prague, Innsbruck, Douai, Bruges, Antwerp, Liège, and

others.5 Although the fourth part of the Constitutions of the Society promulgated general

directions concerning studies, no specific educational blueprint existed. Various curricula drawn

up by Fathers Nadal, Ledesma, and others tended to be functional methodologies tailored to

individual schools, rather than comprehensive plans applicable to Jesuit educational practice as a

whole. In 1584 that all changed. Six experienced Jesuit educators, selected from different

nationalities and provinces, were called to Rome and charged with drafting “a single set of rules

and an order of studies intended to establish uniformity, solidity, and the usefulness of the

material taught . . . and the matter to be taught with all of the fruit and profit which our Institute

proposes to itself.”6 The report drawn up by this committee was sent to the various provinces in

1586. After review in the provinces, suggestions, criticisms and comments were incorporated in

a second plan, which was promulgated in 1591 as the Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum, more

3 Francesco C. Cesareo, “The Collegium Germanicum and the Ignatian Vision of Education,” The Sixteenth Century

Journal, vol. 24, No. 4 (Winter, 1993), 839. 4 John W. O‟Malley, The First Jesuits (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 239.

5 For a discussion of the historical development of Jesuits schools and Jesuit pedagogy, see generally, O‟Malley, The

First Jesuits, ch. 6. By 1556, the year Ignatius Loyola died, Jesuits had established 40 colleges around the world.

By 1600, there were 245 Jesuit schools, including 15 universities, and by 1749 the Jesuits had established 875

schools around the world. Frank H T. Rhodes, “The Mission and Ministry of Jesuits in Higher Education,” America

161, no. 3 (July 29, 1989), 55. The exact numbers, however, vary. Compare, R. Po-Chia Hsia, The World of

Catholic Renewal, 1540-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 32-33. 6 John W. Padberg, S.J., “Development of the Ratio Studiorum,” in Vincent J. Duminuco, S.J., The Jesuit Ratio

Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary Perspectives (Bronx, New York: Fordham University Press, 2000), 87.

3

familiarly referred to as the Ratio Studiorum.7 The version of the Ratio published in 1591 was

further refined into the definitive Ratio of 1599.8

As the Jesuits labored to establish their schools, they borrowed much from the teaching

practices of the University of Paris. Among these was the emphasis on the exercitium – the

active demonstration of knowledge and skills through written compositions and oral repetitions

in class, as well as through plays, disputations, and other performances open to the public.9

The Ratio Studiorum remained the principle guide to Jesuit pedagogy for more than 400

years. Recently, the Society has re-examined its guiding pedagogical principles. In 1986, the

International Commission on the Apolstolate of Jesuit Education published The Characteristics

of Jesuit Education as an attempt to “clarify the ways in which the vision of Ignatius continues to

make Jesuit secondary education distinctive today.”10

In 1993, the same commission issued a

practical guide to Ignatian pedagogy which centered around an Ignatian pedagogical paradigm.11

The paradigm, which integrates the fundamental dynamism of the Spiritual Exercises into a

pedagogical program, emphasizes experiential contexts, active learning and studied reflection.12

With this historical background in mind, the implementation of the Ignation vision of

education in the college classroom would appear to be fairly straightforward: identify the

standard and well established characteristics of Jesuit pedagogy noted above and then design a

lesson around those characteristics. The following is a description of such an instructional plan

constructed around two video clips which present two quite different historiographical

7 R. Schwickerath, “Ratio Studiorum,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Robert Appleton Company.

(1911). Retrieved May 13, 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12654a.htm. For the history

behind the Ratio, see, Padberg, “Development of the Ratio Studiorum,” in Duminuco, S.J., The Jesuit Ratio

Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary Perspectives, 80-100. 8 John W. Padberg, “Development of the Ratio Studiorum,” 81.

9 Ibid., 226.

10 Introduction, “Characteristics of Jesuit Education,” reprinted in Duminuco, The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum, 400

th

Anniversary Perspectives, 173-175. 11

Foreward, “Ignatian Pedagogy: a Practical Approach,” reprinted in ibid., 231-275. 12

Ibid., 247-251.

4

explanations for the coming of World War I.13

The goal of the plan is to introduce students to

historical thinking and to encourage students to develop an appreciation for the reality that

history and historians often supply different and sometimes competing interpretations of past

events.14

In the process, it is hoped that students will develop a critical approach to identifying

and evaluating differing historical narratives.

The first part of the exercise requires students, prior to class, to read the assigned pages in

their textbook and three selections from high school history texts available on the College on-line

course system (“Blackboard”). The instructions call for the students to reflect and respond in

writing to questions on a guided reading sheet entitled “Reading History Textbooks” also

available on Blackboard. The instruction sheet advises students that they will share their

responses and reflections in class.15

The questions on the guided reading sheet ask students to consider whether the differing

historical accounts that they read treated the same topics and details in a similar fashion and to

identify how these historical accounts were presented and organized. The guided reading sheet

also asks students to:

(1) identify several specific matters of fact and compare the coverage and

the treatment of the events in the differing accounts;

(2) analyze whether these accounts assessed the causes and consequences of

the war in the same way;

(3) evaluate the kind of language used and the objectivity of the accounts;

and finally,

13

The instruction sheet for this exercise is Appendix 1 hereto. 14

On the nature of historical thinking as a foreign land for students to explore, see, Sam Wineburg, “Unnatural and

essential: the nature of historical thinking,” Teaching History, vol. 129 (December, 2007), 6-11. 15

Appendix 2.

5

(4) consider what the authors wanted readers to learn about the events

leading to World War I.16

At the appointed time, the students discuss their homework responses and then watch the

two videos which seek to identify which states bore the ultimate responsibility for the coming of

World War I. After each video students complete questions on a guided viewing sheet entitled

“Responsibility for the War”.17

After both videos the students are given time in class to reach

their conclusions, using the readings, class discussions and the videos, to inform their response to

the last question on the guided viewing sheet. This question asks:

According to the each video excerpt, who was responsible for World War I?

1. Give two reasons developed in the video which support the claim of

responsibility.

2. Based upon what you know from the readings and the video, draw a

conclusion concerning the central question: Which country bore the

ultimate responsibility for World War I? Why?18

In the next stage of the lesson students break into groups so that each student might

attempt to persuade the other members of their group that his or her conclusion was the

historically correct one. Students are instructed to take notes on what the other students in the

group have to say as an aid in evaluating the persuasiveness of their arguments.19

Finally, the plan anticipates that, for homework, students reflect on the arguments of their

classmates and re-evaluate their own position. A handout drafted as a guide for this process of

reflection suggests that they summarize the position of the student who made the most effective

argument on the central question that differed from the responding student‟s own view. Other

questions for the students to consider include:

16

Appendix 2. The video excerpts are of short duration – about 7-10 minutes each. 17

Appendix 3. 18

Ibid. 19

Appendix 1, item no. 3.

6

Have you changed your position on causation based upon the group

arguments? Why? What are possible explanations that might account for

the differing viewpoints in the two videos? What does this tell us about the

uses and abuses of mediums of expression other than the written word?

Revisit your experience in learning about WWI in high school and through

your review of high school level texts. Has your assessment of those texts

changed as a result of this assignment?20

This instructional plan engages with each aspect of the Jesuit pedagogical model. First,

the plan encourages students to consider their prior experiences in reading and learning about

World War I as a way to situate their knowledge and activate prior learning. This is consistent

with the Ignatian goal to help the student understand what he already knows, as well as to assist

the student in broadening his or her experience. Second, by viewing and analyzing the film

excerpts, students are actively engaged in their learning. Active learning as a characteristic of

Jesuit education derives from Ignatius‟ insistence in the Spiritual Exercises that the person

making them must be actively involved in the process, not simply be a receptacle of information.

Third, encouraging a debate among students in a group setting implements the objectives of the

eloquentia perfecta.21

Finally, the planned lesson integrates a reflective process into the plan

because, in the Ignatian model, it is through reflection that the student comes to better

comprehend and understand his experience and its implications in his life. Reflection in the

Ignatian pedagogical paradigm always calls for some kind of action.

Yet, reflecting on the plan, the question arose as to whether simply plugging the

characteristics of Ignatian pedagogy into an instructional plan truly accomplished the core goals

of the paradigm. That led to a consideration the Ignatian notion of cura personalis as the root

principle from which all other aspects of Ignatian pedagogy are derived.

20

See Appendix 4. 21

On the historical background to the eloquentia perfecta, see John W. O‟Malley, S.J., “From the 1599 Ratio

Studiorum to the Present,” in Duminuco, The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary Perspectives, 140-141.

7

Cura personalis has been defined in various ways, but all definitions center on the idea of

teaching the whole person. The concept derives from Ignatius' belief that the Spiritual Exercises

must be adapted to the age, needs, and talents of the individual making them. The principle

becomes important in Ignatian education because it is the reference point for working with

students as they have developed intellectually and educationally. According to the

Characteristics of Jesuit Education, the curriculum of a Jesuit college should be centered on the

person rather than on the content of a particular discipline.22

Ideally, each student should be

allowed to develop and accomplish his or her educational objectives at a pace suited to

individual ability and the characteristics of the student‟s own personality. According to Father

General Peter Hans Kolvenbach, this care for each student, as a unique and valuable individual,

is an essential characteristic of the Society‟s vocation.23

The ultimate aim of Jesuit education is, therefore, the full growth of the person which

leads to action in the service of others. This goal of action urges students to develop self-

discipline, initiative, and integrity. Father Arrupe‟ has addressed this goal as "forming men and

women for others."24

Father Kolvenbach has described the hoped-for graduate of a Jesuit school

as a person who is "well-rounded, intellectually competent, open to growth, religious, loving,

and committed to doing justice in generous service to the people of God." Father Kolvenbach

reiterated this idea when he said: "We aim to form leaders in service, in imitation of Christ Jesus,

men and women of competence, conscience and compassionate commitment."25

22

“Characteristics of Jesuit Education,” reprinted in Duminuco, The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary

Perspectives, 181 and n. 19; see also, Rhodes, “The Mission and Ministry of Jesuits in Higher Education.” 58. 23

Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, S.J., “Cura Personalis,” Review of Ignatian Spirituality, XXXVIII, no. 114 (1/2007), 9-

17. 24

O‟Malley, “From the 1599 Ratio Studiorum to the Present,” in Duminuco, The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary Perspectives, 141; see also, Pedro Arrupe, S.J., Men For Others (Washington, D.C., J.S.E.A., 1974). 25

Address of Father General Peter Hans Kolvenbach, S.J., at the International Workshop on “Ignatian Pedagogy” A

Practical Approach,” Villa Cevelletti, Frascati, April 29, 1993, quoted in Vincent J. Duminuco, S.J., “A New Ratio

for a New Millenium,” in Duminuco, The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary Perspectives, 155 and n. 25.

8

These are, without doubt, admirable aims. In practical terms, however, attempting to

practice cura personalis in the college classroom presents challenges for the instructor that

require serious consideration and thoughtful reflection.

As I reflect upon my relationship with my students, it seems to me that the essence of the

cura personalis is understanding the student, for we cannot teach to the whole person if we do

not know the whole person. And so, each instructor must ask whether their instruction is more

teacher-centered than student-centered, and whether a student-centered pedagogy can be

developed if the instructor does not really know the student. Of course, given the realities of

teaching at the university level, getting to really know our students individually is a difficult task.

But we can, at least, understand how they learn, and we can inquire into how they have been

taught, not for the purpose of judging the supposed errors of the past, but as a way to open up a

window into their world. Perhaps, by gaining such an understanding, we can direct our teaching

to them, rather than at them, and in so doing at least teach to a larger part of the whole person.

So who are our students? The educational psychologists have given them various names

but the most popular seems to be “The Millennials”. As a group they seem to possess certain

identifiable, common characteristics and traits which, from the point of view of teaching to the

whole person, can provide useful insight into the attitudes and expectations of these students.

Research has revealed that Millennials believe that they are entitled to choices in

anything and everything that is of interest to them. Millennials also resist the need to conform in

their consumer choices to the expectations of others. These patterns of belief mean that

Millennials expect significantly enhanced learning options and far more educational services

from their colleges, universities and instructors.26

26 Richard Sweeney, “Millennial Behaviors & Demographics,” accessed http://www.library.njit.edu/staff-

folders/sweeney/Millennials/Millennial-Behaviors-December-22-2006.doc., 3.

9

In the same vein, when Millennials make their choices in products and services, they

expect them to be individualized and customizable to meet their changing needs, interests and

tastes. As a result, students expect almost personalized systems of instruction. In addition, to

Millennials the current process of assessment and feedback is cumbersome, slow and therefore

unsatisfactory.27

How many times have your students handed in an assignment in one class and

asked if they had been corrected and graded by the next?

Millennials strongly prefer learning by doing.28

They do not like to read. They almost

never read directions; they love to learn through interaction. Multiplayer gaming, computer

simulations, and social networks are some of their favorite environments and provide little in the

way of risk. Many Millennials are not good at risk taking since they believe it exposes them to

the negative judgment of their peers. Millennials are more engaged through active learning

techniques such as games, case studies, hands-on experiences, and simulations that, in their view,

can speed their learning and hold their interest. The great majority are, without question, more

likely to be engaged visually than through any other cognitive domain.29

Millennials prefer to keep their time and commitments flexible; they also expect other

people and institutions to give them more flexibility. Their demand for flexibility means that

colleges, universities, and instructors have to find alternatives to traditional delivery systems and

colleges and universities must achieve a certain amount of flexibility and convenience for

students even in areas, at the institutional level, that might involve significant systemic change.30

27

Ibid., 3-5. 28

Angela Weiler, “Information Seeking Behavior in Students: Motivation, Critical Thinking and Learning Theory,”

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 31, no. 1, 48. 29

Angela Provitera McGlynn, “Teaching Millenials, Our Newest Cultural Cohort,” The Education Digest, vol. 71,

4, (Dec. 2005), 15. 30

Ibid., 3-4.

10

Millennials are impatient. I once had a student become resentful of the fact that he had to

wait around because I spent „too much time‟ with another student during office hours. The need

for prompt satisfaction, or as some believe instant gratification, permeates virtually all of their

expectations. For example, students expect immediate feedback from instructors.31

They will

write you an email at 2 a.m. in the morning and wonder why they have not received a response

by the time they wake up and check their email. The almost universal tendency among

Millennials to procrastinate, especially with regard to written assignments, is also a reflection of

their reluctance to devote any significant time to their learning until they perceive that they must.

Many see their education as a commodity to be purchased rather than as a learning

process. Some researchers have concluded that many Millennials try to organize their schedules

so they can maintain access to all the activities that they deem worthwhile and still do what is

necessary to pass their courses. As noted by McGlynn, in this regard this generation is

somewhat self-contradictory because many are achievement-oriented but they are not willing to

do what it takes to achieve their educational objectives.32

Multitasking is a way of life for this generation. While this is seen as a strength by some,

many students believe they can learn complex concepts while listening to music or engaging in

other activities.33

They are expected to excel. If they do not excel and their parents have the financial

means, tutors and coaches are provided to them, particularly in their younger years.34

This

translates into the expectation held by many college students that they are entitled to individual

31

Ibid., 4; see also, Michael D. Ciocco & Diane Holtzman, “E-Portfolios and the Millennial Students,” The Journal

of Continuing Higher Education, vol. 56, no. 3 (Fall 2008), 69. 32

Angela Provitera McGlynn, “Millenials in College: How Do We Motivate Them?” The Hispanic Outlook in

Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 25 (September, 2007), 34. 33

Arlene J. Nicholas, “Preferred Learning Methods of the Millennial Generation.” United States International

Journal of Learning, vol. 15, no. 6, (2008), 29. 34

McGlynn, “Teaching Millenials, Our Newest Cultural Cohort,” 14; see also, Weiler, “Information Seeking

Behavior in Students: Motivation, Critical Thinking and Learning Theory,” 48.

11

attention, extra help, and other institutional resources to aid them with any difficulties which they

encounter.

Many educators feel frustrated that Millennials are especially difficult to reach and to

motivate. Of course, there are high achieving, studious, and conscientious students among this

new generation who are comfortable with more traditional pedagogies, but many other

Millennials seem particularly hard to motivate.35

However, understanding the culture of our

students may help ease our frustration with what we might perceive as their lack of motivation

coupled with a sense of entitlement.36

With this background in mind, let us revisit my Ignatian instructional plan to see how it

measures up to the goals of cura personalis. In several ways, the plan addresses the educational

idiosyncrasies of the Millennial student without sacrificing traditional pedagogical techniques.

There is an emphasis on reading in preparation for the lesson, yet it also engages the Millennials‟

proclivity towards visual learning through analysis of the video excerpts. By placing the focus of

the lesson on the student as actor, through interaction with the videos and through interaction

with their peers, rather than on the instructor as the source of knowledge, various components of

the lesson connect with the Millennials‟ need for active engagement in their learning. The

component of the lesson that requires each student to attempt to persuade the others in a small

group activity certainly addresses the Millennial student as an interactive learner in a social

setting. Finally, by requiring that the students reflect on the lesson, and write brief responses

based upon their reflections, the students are encouraged to think more deeply about what they

have learned, an Ignatian educational objective, while at the same time helping to move students

35

McGlynn, “Millenials in College: How Do We Motivate Them?” 35. 36

For an instructor‟s experience in teaching Millennials after a long hiatus from the undergraduate classroom, see,

Kenneth Stewart, “Lessons From Teaching Millennials,“ College Teaching, vol. 57, no. 2 (Spring 2009), 111-117.

12

away from their predilection towards “instant”, and often superficial learning, which fits so

neatly into their overly busy schedules.

What becomes plain from the foregoing is that, in many ways, the Ignatian pedagogical

paradigm of cura personalis through experience, excellence, active learning, and reflection is

particularly well suited to address the educational needs of the students who occupy college

classrooms today. However, it is our obligation to tailor our instruction to their needs without

sacrificing our best judgment as to what they need to know to succeed in the real world, for

themselves, and as men and women for others.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arrupe, Pedro, Men for Others (Washington, D.C., J.S.E.A., 1974).

Cesareo, Francesco C. “The Collegium Germanicum and the Ignatian Vision of Education,” The

Sixteenth Century Journal 24, no. 4 (Winter 1993), 829-841.

“Characteristics of Jesuit Education,” reprinted in Vincent J. Duminuco, S.J., The Jesuit Ratio

Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary Perspectives, (Bronx, New York: Fordham University Press,

2000), 162-230.

Ciocco, Michael D., and Diane Holtzman. “E-Portfolios and the Millennial Students.” Journal of

Continuing Higher Education 56, no. 3 (November 2008), 69-71.

Ganss, George E., Ignatius Loyola: The Spiritual Exercises and Selected Works (New York:

Paulist Press, 1991).

Hsia, R. Po-Chia, The World of Catholic Renewal, 1540-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press), 1998.

“Ignatian Pedagogy: a Practical Approach,” reprinted in Vincent J. Duminuco, S.J., The Jesuit

Ratio Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary Perspectives, (Bronx, New York: Fordham University

Press, 2000), 231-295.

Kolvenbach, Peter-Hans, “Cura Personalis,” Review of Ignatian Spirituality, XXXVIII, no. 114

(1/2007), 9-17.

__________, at the International Workshop on “Ignatian Pedagogy: A Practical Approach,” Villa

Cevelletti, Frascati, April 29, 1993, in Vincent J. Duminuco, S.J., “A New Ratio for a New

Millenium?” in Vincent J. Duminuco, S.J., The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary

Perspectives, (Bronx, New York: Fordham University Press, 2000), 145-161.

Kountz, Peter. “Ignatius of Loyola and a new direction for the history of the Jesuits,” The Catholic

Historical Review 82, no. 3 (July 1996), 469-475.

McGlynn, Angela Provitera, “Teaching Millenials, Our Newest Cultural Cohort,” The Education

Digest, vol. 71, no. 4, (Dec. 2005), 12-16.

__________ “Millenials in College: How Do We Motivate Them?” The Hispanic Outlook in

Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 25 (September, 2007), 34-37.

O’Malley, John W., “From the 1599 Ratio Studiorum to the Present: a Humanist Tradition?” in

Vincent J. Duminuco, S.J., The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary Perspectives,

(Bronx, New York: Fordham University Press, 2000), 127-144.

__________, The First Jesuits (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).

Nicholas, Arlene J. “Preferred Learning Methods of the Millennial Generation,” International

Journal of Learning 15, no. 6 (October 2008), 27-34.

Padberg, John W., “Development of the Ratio Studiorum,” in Vincent J. Duminuco, S.J., The

Jesuit Ratio Studiorum, 400th

Anniversary Perspectives (Bronx, New York: Fordham

University Press, 2000), 80-100.

Rhodes, Frank H. T., “The Mission and Ministry of Jesuits in Higher Education,” America 161, no.

3 (July 29-August 5, 1989), 54-60.

Schwickerath, R., “Ratio Studiorum,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Robert Appleton

Company. (1911). Retrieved May 13, 2009 from New Advent:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12654a.htm.

Stewart, Kenneth, “Lessons From Teaching Millennials,” College Teaching, vol. 57, no. 2 (Spring

2009), 111-117.

Sweeney Richard, “Millennial Behaviors & Demographics,” accessed

http://www.library.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/Millennials/Millennial-Behaviors-

December-22-2006.doc.

Weiler, Angela, “Information Seeking Behavior in Students: Motivation, Critical Thinking and

Learning Theory,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 31, no. 1, 46-53.

Wineburg, Sam, “Unnatural and essential: the nature of historical thinking,” Teaching History,

vol. 129 (December, 2007), 6-11.