Assessing Personal and Spiritual Formation at ATS
-
Editor's note: This presentation was prepared for the 2025 ATS Student Data and Resources Consultation (Pittsburgh, PA, April 3-4). Summary and transcript below have been edited for clarity.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2018 ATS study examined how member schools defined, set learning goals for, and assessed personal and spiritual formation under the Standards—the "who, what, and how" of formation assessment—arriving at a critical moment: the end of the Profiles of Ministry program (a 35-year-old psychometric instrument seen as outdated), the Educational Models and Practices Project on online learning, and the upcoming 2020 Standards revision weaving formation through more deeply.
Later analysis starting 2020-21 of 12 formation measures in the Graduating Student Questionnaire (GSQ) found online students rated their schools higher on 8 of 12 largely intrapersonal items (e.g., prayer, daily faith, self-knowledge, trust in God)—while on-campus students rated 4 interpersonal measures higher (viz. empathy for the poor, social justice, insight into others' troubles, respect for other religions). Composition likely influenced this, as online responses were largely represented by Evangelical schools.
Only about 60% of ATS schools had a working definition of personal and spiritual formation; definitions ranged enormously—from "everything in the classroom" to outward acts of justice, to interpersonal posture, to spiritual disciplines and practices.
Schools generally felt their resources were adequate, often using in-house tools alongside Myers-Briggs, spiritual gift assessments, Enneagram, and StrengthsFinders; deans played a strong formational role, though few faculty had formal preparation or assessment tools for formation. The pandemic interrupted further research, but the need for shared language and more robust assessment was clear.
KEY QUOTES
"Much of what was happening on campus was assumed, but it wasn't always named or measured."
"Online students actually ranked eight of the 12 areas of growth higher than their on-campus counterparts… the eight higher measures were almost all intrapersonal… the four areas ranked higher by the campus students were all interpersonal."
"Only about 60% had definitions… the language ranged so widely—from formation being everything that happens in the classroom, to formation being outward acts of faith or justice, to interpersonal ways of approaching others, to personal characteristics, to spiritual disciplines and practices."
TRANSCRIPT
§ Opening
Hi, my name is Jo Ann Deasy. I'm the Director of Institutional Initiatives here at ATS. Previous to my taking on this role full-time, I was also the Director of Student Research—the role that Christopher The has now taken over and done an amazing job with.
I've been asked to share a little bit of context regarding a small research project we did in 2018 to better understand how ATS schools understood personal and spiritual formation in the ATS Standards: their definitions, learning goals, and how they assessed formation—sort of the who, what, and how. I want to give you a little bit of context for that study, present a few highlights, and then I will hopefully be on live for some questions and answers after this short video.
The research that we did on personal and spiritual formation came at a critical point regarding conversations about formation in ATS. There were maybe three pieces to that—and one that we didn't know was coming.
§ The End of the ATS Profiles of Ministry (POM)
The 2018 research happened first off in response to the ending of the ATS Profiles of Ministry program. Back in the late 1980s—actually based on research done in the 70s and 80s, and then redone in 2003—ATS conducted a qualitative research project to determine what made a good pastor. Focus groups were held at ATS schools across the United States and Canada, involving faculty, denominational leaders, and some pastors and lay leaders, but mostly faculty and denominational leaders, who were asked what made a good pastor.
The results of all of those focus groups were coded; they looked for common themes and clusters that held together. They developed an instrument that—through interviews, surveying, and reflections from outside observers and field education sites—helped a student get a Profile of Ministry (POM): looking at the intersection of their personal characteristics with various practices of ministry, and also their perceptions of ministry. The report that came out of that was used by schools as a tool to help students discern their vocational trajectory, but also their psychological fit for ministry. It looked at about eight different scales and over 40 characteristics. POM was a very stable psychometric instrument, very internally validated—but at that time it was about 35 years old.
There were a lot of complaints about it being outdated: in terms of the case studies that some of the questions were based on; in terms of the ecclesial and cultural diversity of ATS students and schools and the places where they were serving; and in terms of delivery methods. When I arrived, they were still doing scantrons with students—back in 2014 and 2015, they were still doing scantrons with students. So all of that needed to be updated. But as we reflected on the critiques, it was a major undertaking, and we were not in a place to do it at that moment. People were not sure that we could develop one instrument that would work all across the diversities of ATS.
So Profiles of Ministry was ending, and we were looking for new ways to talk about how we assess spiritual and personal formation, particularly in terms of vocational discernment.
§ The ATS Educational Models and Practices Project (EMPP)
At the same time, in 2015 we launched the Educational Models and Practices Project to look at new educational delivery models. One of the main models we were looking at was online learning, which was still fairly new at that time. There were two study groups dedicated to online learning: one looked at the educational value of online learning, and the other at formation in online learning. Because early on—if you remember—there were a lot of debates about whether you could do personal and spiritual formation in an online format.
One of the things that came out of that study was the question about whether we were assessing personal and spiritual formation in an on-campus format. (At that point, programs were sort of one or the other—online or on campus.) We decided that much of what was happening on campus was assumed, but it wasn't always named or measured. So the idea of assessing—figuring out what really was effective, what really was having impact—was on the table. And people were beginning to argue that online learning really could be effective in personal and spiritual formation.
§ Findings from the 2020 ATS Student Questionnaires (Qs)
We did some analysis of Graduating Student Questionnaires (GSQ) looking at about 12 measures of personal and spiritual formation, and how students were rating the school's effectiveness in facilitating growth in those areas. In 2020, we found that online students actually ranked eight of the 12 areas of growth higher than their on-campus counterparts.
What we found really interesting is that the eight higher measures were almost all intrapersonal—things like ability to pray, ability to live out their faith in their daily life, self-knowledge, trust in God. But the four areas ranked higher by the campus students were all interpersonal—they all had to do with others: empathy for the poor and oppressed, concern about social justice, insight into the troubles of others, respect for other religious traditions. So those online were ranking their schools stronger on the intrapersonal; those on campus, on the interpersonal.
We do think that some of that might have had to do with the different ways ecclesial families talk about spiritual growth. Online learning at that time was very dominated by evangelical schools, and so the intrapersonal [emphasis was] much more reflective of their ecclesial tradition around formation.
§ A 2018 ATS Survey, the 2020 Standards, and a Global Pandemic
And then we were coming up on a revision of the Standards that was going to have formation woven through it in a more significant way. We didn't realize that we were about to hit a global pandemic, in which all schools would be going to online learning—and formation in that setting would be a big issue.
In 2018 we launched this research project primarily to see what we could do to replace what was happening with the loss of the Profiles of Ministry program—and also to prepare for this new Standard [3], which was going to be more principle-based and look at formation more fully.
The research focused on the language of assessment of personal and spiritual formation as it was in the Standards, particularly with regards to the master's degrees and the MDiv degrees. We were really asking for definitions: how a school itself defined personal and spiritual formation; the learning goals they had for their degrees; and then the who, what, and how of the school's assessment processes.
§ Findings and Surprises
Only about 60% had definitions of formation. Most of the Roman Catholic schools just referred us to the Program for Priestly Formation or the Workers in the Vineyard documents—but there were a large number of schools that didn't have a working definition of personal and spiritual formation.
Definitions of formation varied widely. Among those that did define it, the language ranged so widely: from formation being everything that happens in the classroom; to formation being outward acts of faith or justice; to interpersonal ways of approaching others; to personal characteristics; to spiritual disciplines and practices.
Deans played a strong formational role. We were not surprised to see how many deans were involved in formation, alongside formation faculty or the full faculty. The dean's role itself had a strong formational component for many schools.
Faculty preparation was thin. Very few faculty had strong preparation to serve in a formational role, or tools to assess spiritual and personal formation [within their teaching].
Schools felt resourced—perhaps surprisingly. A couple of other surprises were that schools felt they had adequate resources. We had been hearing a lot of need, but when we asked, they did not articulate that. Many of them felt very good about the in-house tools they had created and the way they had woven them together with easy-access tools they could also use—such as the Myers-Briggs, spiritual gift assessments, Enneagrams, StrengthsFinders. Not all of them geared specifically toward assessing formation or growth in formation, but they were using them to help with spiritual growth and vocational discernment for their students.
§ Closing
We really wanted to do more with the data, but then the pandemic hit, and we never really made it any farther with that. But we really saw the need for more conversation about how we, together as an industry, were understanding personal and spiritual formation, and for some more robust measures of assessment.
So I think I'll stop there, and hopefully in just a few minutes we'll have some time for questions and answers. Thank you.
DESCRIPTION: Remarks by Jo Ann Deasy, ATS Director of Institutional Initiatives (former Director of Student Research), recorded for the 2025 ATS Student Data and Resources Consultation. Deasy revisits the 2018 ATS Formation Assessment Survey, a research project that surveyed how member schools understand personal and spiritual formation, including working definitions, learning goals, and assessment practices. Summarizing findings on the diversity of formation language across the membership and assessment challenges broadly, Deasy's reflection contextualizes the 2025 Consultation by tracing what ATS learned about formation in 2018 and what gaps still remain. Linked below are Deasy's 2018 Colloquy article, featuring five concrete lessons on how to assess personal and spiritual formation, as well as the related report summarizing the ATS Formation Assessment Survey (2018) findings—an annotated inventory of formation assessment instruments and peer recommendations. See follow-up (2026) article.
KEYWORDS: open access / free access; theological education; ATS Formation Assessment Survey (2018); definitions of formation; formation assessments and tools; ATS Student Data and Resources Consultation (2025); presentation (transcribed); Colloquy article; study report
CITATIONS:
PRESENTATION: Deasy, Jo Ann. 2025. "Assessing Personal and Spiritual Formation at ATS." Presentation, 2025 ATS Student Data and Resources Consultation, Pittsburgh, PA, April 3. https://www.atsformationrepository.org/resources/assessing-personal-and-spiritual-formation-at-ats.
RESEARCH ARTICLE: Deasy, Jo Ann. 2018. "Five Things We've Learned About Assessing Personal and Spiritual Formation." Colloquy Online (Association of Theological Schools), October. https://www.ats.edu/uploads/resources/publications-presentations/colloquy-online/five-things-we%27ve-learned-about-assessing-personal-and-spiritual-formation.pdf.
STUDY REPORT: Association of Theological Schools. 2018. "Formation Assessment Tools Used by ATS Schools: Results from the ATS Formation Assessment Survey 2018." Pittsburgh, PA, October. https://www.ats.edu/files/galleries/formation-assessment-tools-used-by-ats-schools-181023.pdf.
