Global terms: Other Evidence Informed Practice & Research

Some interesting points about the problem of evil and the free-will defence

Research Summary: Some interesting points about the problem of evil and the free-will defence

Many people find Alvin Plantinga’s free-will defence to be a successful solution to the problem of evil. Essentially, Plantinga’s defence is that a world containing creatures that sometimes freely perform morally good actions is better than a world with no freedom. The author finds problems with this defence. He finds that it contradicts other important ideas about God, for example, that God is morally perfect – in this case, a hypothetical person who always freely chooses morally good actions would surpass God in morality (God, as morally perfect, cannot perform any immoral actions). He takes up a possible counter-argument – that God, as the ultimate source of His own actions, can always freely do what is morally right, because there are no controls over His actions – and rejects it, on the grounds that even if there are no controls over God’s actions, God being God still entails that He cannot perform any immoral actions. The points made can be used during discussions and debates in A level Philosophy and Ethics lessons, as will be shown in more detail below.

Researcher

Erik J. Wielenberg

Research Institution

De Pauw University, USA

What is this about?

  • Does the existence of evil rule out the existence of God?
  • Does the free-will defence stand up (that it is better to create free creatures, but freedom will always result in some evil actions)?
  • If God, as morally perfect, cannot perform immoral actions, does this make a person who always freely performs morally good actions more moral than God?
  • Or does God always do what is morally right freely, because there are no controls over God’s actions?

What was done?

This is a philosophical discussion about God, evil and the free-will defence, analysing and criticising different philosophers’ views and drawing insightful conclusions.

Main findings and outputs

  • Alvin Plantinga’s free-will response to the problem of evil is often held to be successful. Plantinga argues that a world containing creatures that sometimes freely perform morally good actions is better than a world with no freedom.
  • The author of the article, Erik Wielenberg, thinks that there are problems with Plantinga’s argument. God is, according to Plantinga and others, a morally perfect being whose perfection cannot be exceeded. Yet God’s morally good actions are not done freely. God cannot help but do what is morally good and is incapable of morally wrong actions.
  • This seems to mean that a hypothetical person who always freely chose to do what was morally good would exceed the moral perfection of God.
  • Wielenberg discusses a possible solution to the problem he has identified, provided by Kevin Timpe. Timpe proposes that God, as the ultimate source of His own actions, can always freely do what is morally right, because there are no controls over His actions.
  • Wielenberg finds this counter-argument to fail. There may be no external controls over the actions of God, if God exists: but the nature of God, as essentially perfect, entails that God cannot freely perform any morally good actions.
  • Wielenberg concludes by saying that in the light of the points he has made, believers in God ‘have some thinking to do’.

Relevance to RE

Colleagues teaching A level Philosophy and Ethics will find the original article very stimulating and useful, though it is closely and at times technically argued and needs ‘translation’ for use with A level students. However, having said that, the above list of Main findings and outputs could be transferred to a power point presentation and used to structure an extension lesson on the problem of evil. The points could be discussed and debated by students. The What is this about? questions could be used as the basis of a starter activity beforehand. Finally, students could be asked to evaluate Wielenberg’s arguments against Aristotle’s: Wielenberg believes that the concept of God may be contradictory because God cannot freely perform morally right actions, but Aristotle’s Prime Mover does not really perform actions in any case.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The points presented in the article are generally very useful within Philosophy lessons about the problem of evil and, as suggested above, could be used to extend students’ learning.

Find out more

Plantingian theism and the free-will defence, Religious Studies 52.4 pages 451-460 (published online 28 June 2016), 10.1017/S0034412516000135

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412516000135

Religious education for spiritual bricoleurs? the perceptions of students in ten Christian-ethos secondary schools in England and Wales

Research Summary: Religious education for spiritual bricoleurs? the perceptions of students in ten Christian-ethos secondary schools in England and Wales

This research draws on data from a project involving 350 students, to explore why students in ten Christian ethos secondary schools in England and Wales recognised Religious Education (RE) as a significant contributor to their spiritual development. The concept of a narthical learning space (NLS) is used to examine young people’s experiences. It is argued that the concept of RE as a narthical learning space alongside the notion of young people as spiritual bricoleurs illuminates how the students in this study interpret the contribution of RE to their spiritual development. A narthical learning space (based on the narthex, the entrance to a church building) is a space between spaces where young people can explore issues of faith and spiritual development in safety. Bricolage is a process by which individuals create meaning, by making creative and resourceful use of whatever materials are to hand regardless of their original purpose.

Researchers

Ann Casson & Trevor Cooling

Research Institution

Canterbury Christ Church University

What is this about?

This is about how students in ten Christian ethos secondary schools in England and Wales view RE, in relation to its contribution to their spiritual development. Focus group data are analysed to show how, for the students, engaging with different religions cannot be separated from spiritual development, and some recommendations for professional practice in RE are drawn out.

What was done?

This research article draws on the qualitative data generated in the ten Christian-ethos schools, in particular, as part of a wider project, from semi-structured focus group interviews with 350 students. The researcher spent two weeks in each of the schools over a period of two years. Students were interviewed in groups of 6 to 8 on the school premises. The original groups were selected by a key contact in the school, from years 7 & 8 (11–13 years old); year 9 (13–14 years old); and years 10 & 11 (14 − 16 years old) and where relevant years 12& 13 (16–18 years old). In addition, students from specific groups were interviewed; for example, the school worship committee, the school council, and student chaplains.

Main findings and outputs

  • Students stressed that RE was different from all other subjects in school. It was a lesson where they were encouraged to be spiritual.
  • They drew attention to RE as being a time and space to discuss the existential questions, in-depth topics and critical issues.
  • Many students commented on how encountering the opinions of other people, and different worldviews influenced their spiritual development, learning about other religion ‘engaged’ their minds and helped them ‘understand other people’s kind of ways of thinking ‘(Year 9 Student).
  • Students were exploring who they were and the roots of their beliefs within faith traditions.
  • They had a fragmentary approach to the religious traditions; this was apparent in their perception that learning about and from others, provided an opportunity for them to reflect on elements relevant for their spiritual development.

Relevance to RE

The researchers sum up the relevance to RE in a succinct way: “There needs to be a recognition of the professionalism, the academic rigour of RE, alongside an acknowledgement that when engaging with religious traditions, and existential questions; there must be an openness to the implications and opportunities for spiritual development in the classroom.” The message for RE policy makers, curriculum developers and teachers is that RE needs to combine religious studies with opportunities for students to reflect on and discuss the meanings of what they study for personal and social life: this is what students will naturally do, and teachers need to recognise and build on it.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The data represent a reasonable sample size, and the clear arguments reflect the data faithfully.

Find out more

Ann Casson & Trevor Cooling (2019): Religious education for spiritual bricoleurs? the perceptions of students in ten Christian-ethos secondary schools in England and Wales, Journal of Beliefs & Values.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2019.1632596

Research review series: religious education

Research Summary: Research review series: religious education

From the Conclusion section of the report (on page 39):

‘RE is vital in preparing pupils to engage in a diverse and complex multi-religious and multi-secular society. However, this review has also identified that there are significant challenges that limit high quality in RE, including:

  • insufficient time to teach an ambitious RE curriculum
  • school decisions that are not taken in the best interests of all pupils, such as decisions concerning the statutory teaching of RE, the opportunity to take a qualification in religious studies, or early examination entry
  • a lack of consideration about what it means to ‘be scholarly’ in objective, critical and pluralistic RE
  • a lack of clarity on what constitutes reliable knowledge about religion/non-religion, leading to teachers embedding unhelpful misconceptions
  • teaching approaches that do not support pupils to remember the RE curriculum in the long term
  • approaches to assessment that are poorly calibrated to the RE curriculum
  • insufficient development of RE practitioners to address gaps in professional subject knowledge

That said, this review shows that there are well-warranted and constructive ways forward that could support improvements in RE. The literature suggests that many of these are already taking place in the sector in subject communities and in some schools. The significant interest that RE attracts from a range of organisations and associations may also indicate that there is sufficient capacity to support improvements in RE in primary and secondary schools for the benefit of pupils.’

Researchers

Ofsted

Research Institution

Ofsted

What is this about?

This is a research review, which ‘explores literature relating to the field of RE’. Its stated purpose is ‘to identify factors that contribute to high-quality school RE curriculums, the teaching of the curriculum, assessment and systems.’ It states that ‘there are a variety of ways that schools can construct and teach a high-quality RE curriculum and ‘there is no single way of achieving high-quality RE’. It:

  • outlines ‘the national context in relation to RE’
  • summarises a ‘review of research into factors that can affect the quality of education in RE’
  • considers ‘curriculum progression in RE, pedagogy, assessment and the impact of school leaders’ decisions on provision’

(Quotations are from page 3 of the report.)

What was done?

The review drew on a range of sources, including specialist RE research outputs and Ofsted’s own Education Inspection Framework. These sources are summarised, and a range of factors are identified that can affect the quality of education in RE.

Main findings and outputs

The report’s general conclusions were presented in the Research summary section, above. There are other findings specific to particular issues, and some examples of these follow.
(In relation to knowledge, high-quality RE may have these features – ):

  • ‘consideration of the knowledge that pupils build through the RE curriculum, because accurate knowledge about religion and non-religion can be beneficial for achieving different purposes and aims for RE.
  • High expectations about scholarship in the curriculum to guard against pupils’ misconceptions.
  • What is taught and learned in RE is grounded in what is known about religion/non-religion from academic study (scholarship).
  • Carefully selected and well-sequenced substantive content and concepts.
  • ‘Ways of knowing’ are appropriately taught alongside the substantive content and are not isolated from the content and concepts that pupils learn.
  • A consideration of when pupils should relate the content to their own personal knowledge (for example, prior assumptions)’.
    (From page 9.)

(In relation to assessment, high-quality RE may have these features – ):
‘Different types of assessments are used appropriately:

  • Formative assessments can help teachers identify which pupils have misconceptions or gaps in their knowledge, and what those specific misconceptions or gaps are. This can inform teachers about common issues, so they can review or adapt the curriculum as necessary. Formative assessments are less useful in making judgements about how much of the whole curriculum has been learned and remembered.
  • Where summative assessments are used for accountability purposes, leaders can ensure that they are sufficiently spaced apart to enable pupils to learn the expanding domain of the curriculum.
  • The purpose of the test should guide the type of assessment, the format of the task and when the assessment is needed.
  • RE assessment needs to relate to the curriculum, which sets out what it means to ‘get better’ at RE.
  • Leaders and teachers can consider whether existing assessment models in RE do in practice treat the curriculum as the progression model.
  • Leaders and teachers can design RE assessments that are fit for purpose, in that they are precisely attuned to the knowledge in the RE curriculum that they intend for pupils to learn.
  • Leaders who ensure that assessments are not excessively onerous for teachers.
  • Professional development opportunities for leaders and teachers to reflect on how different assessment questions and tasks in RE can frame teachers’ and pupils’ expectations about engaging with religious and non-religious traditions.
    (From page 35.)

Other areas considered, with their own identification of factors that may support high quality, include systems, culture and policies; teacher education and professional development; and teaching the curriculum.

Relevance to RE

This report is of high relevance to RE and has, understandably, received much attention and discussion. Possibly its key strength in relation to relevance is its summary of a very wide range of sources into identification of characteristics that high-quality RE may have. This research report has contained its own necessarily brief summary of the original report, but readers are strongly encouraged to access the original report itself from the link provided at the end.

Generalisability and potential limitations

This is a very wide-ranging and comprehensive report, whose list of references would itself be valuable to researchers, master’s students or other interested professionals (there are 246 notes to published sources, and some individual notes are to multiple sources).

Find out more

The full report can be accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/research-review-series-religious-education

Religious Education Teachers and Character: Personal Beliefs and Professional Approaches.

Research Summary: Religious Education Teachers and Character: Personal Beliefs and Professional Approaches

This post provides an overview of the Religious Education Teachers and Character: Personal Beliefs and Professional Approaches Research Report. The report details a study comprised of an initial phase of life-story interviews with 30 participants followed by a survey with 314 respondents.

Researchers

James Arthur, Daniel Moulin-Stozek, Jason Metcalfe & Francisco Moller

Research Institution

Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, School of Education, University of Birmingham

What is this about?

The research goals of this report and study are:

  1. How do RE teachers’ personal beliefs and worldviews relate to their professional motivations?
  2. How do RE teachers negotiate religious diversity?
  3. What do RE teachers think about RE and pupils’ character development?
  4. What differences in beliefs about pupils’ character development are there between RE teachers holding different worldviews?

What was done?

This study explored the lives of RE teachers using a mixed-method design, comprising an interview phase followed by a survey. This approach allowed for inductive inferences to be made from the interviews, which could be then substantiated through the deductive testing of preliminary hypotheses with the construction of the survey instrument. For each phase, a separate non-probabilistic sample of practising RE teachers who taught RE as their main specialism was recruited through professional organisations and advertisements, including social media.

The first, qualitative phase of the study was inspired by the narrative identity paradigm (McAdams, 1996; 2013; McAdams and Guo, 2015). This uses semi-structured interviews to explore participants’ self-understandings of the development of the course of their lives. In addition to standard questions used in this paradigm, the interview schedule also included questions about teachers’ perspectives on RE and character development.

The second, quantitative phase, was designed drawing on initial analyses of the interviews and employed measures of religious practice and style, as well as individual items about RE teachers’ perceptions of character education. The data generated from these questions allowed for analyses of the relationships between RE teachers’ worldviews, their perspectives on character education and their professional motivations.

Main findings and outputs

  1. Personal worldviews informed RE teachers’ approaches in the classroom: RE teachers working in faith and non-faith schools were found to have a diverse range of personal worldviews – from atheism to theism, and all positions in between – but each kind of worldview supports a particular vision of what RE should be, and therefore generates an individual’s motivation to be an RE teacher.
  2. RE teachers were found to have fair and tolerant views of other religions and worldviews: RE teachers who did or did not have a religious faith, in faith and non-faith schools, were found to have a fair and tolerant approach to religious diversity. However, this study’s findings suggest that RE teachers that have a religious faith were more open to interreligious dialogue and learning from other religions.
  3. There was strong agreement among teachers with a religious faith that RE contributes to character education, and RE teachers should act as role models for their pupils.
  4. RE teachers that have a religious faith were more likely to think religions promote good character: There were significant differences in perspectives between RE teachers who reported belonging to a religion, and those who did not. The former were found to be more likely to think that religious traditions provide a source of good role models; they were also more likely to care about their impact on pupils’ religious beliefs and to believe pupils emulate their religious views.

Relevance to RE

The findings of this study confirm the importance of teachers’ personal beliefs and experiences to their professional lives. It is proposed that more opportunities be made available for RE teachers to further reflect on their own worldviews and consider the implications of their personal views for practice. Professional literature and guidelines about RE could be revised to sensitively advise teachers on the best ways to incorporate their own commitments and orientations in their approach to religions in the classroom; these should acknowledge the diversity of teachers’ personal worldviews. Given the widely held belief found among participants regarding the contribution of RE to pupils’ character development, this report provides evidence to suggest that schools and LEAs should develop coherent rationales and syllabi for RE lessons to create further opportunities for developing character. This would strengthen the provision that RE can make in schools, and also help cultivate the character growth of pupils of all faiths and those of none, through RE.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The sampling was, for both qualitative and quantitative phases, non-probabilistic and dependent on participants’ self-selection. There may be bias in both samples, which comprise RE teachers who volunteered in response to advertisements in particular venues. They therefore may be more committed, better networked and more enthusiastic than teachers who did not respond to advertisements to participate in the study.

Find out more

https://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/userfiles/jubileecentre/pdf/Research%20Reports/RE_Teachers_and_Character.pdf

Non-religious worldviews in RE: teachers’ perspectives

Research Summary: Non-religious worldviews in RE: teachers’ perspectives

In this article, findings from a qualitative study of the views and experiences of 25 RE teachers in England are used to identify and explore a range of issues, in relation to national and international debates and research. Examples of inclusion and the models that they suggest are considered and it is argued that major obstacles, such as limited time and lack of a framework for the integration of religious and nonreligious worldviews, can be overcome. However, it is concluded that this will require further research and curriculum development work and that international collaboration should be pursued.

Researcher

Dr Judith Everington

Research Institution

University of Warwick

What is this about?

Teaching of nonreligious worldviews in RE is recommended in several influential documents, but what are the issues that need to be dealt with?

  • The views and experiences of 25 teachers are given.
  • There are obstacles such as lack of time and an agreed framework.
  • However, it is argued that though further work will be needed, the obstacles can be overcome.

What was done?

The study was undertaken between 2014–16 and employed qualitative research methods. Questionnaires were completed by 25 teachers. Eleven of these (4 men and 7 women) agreed to participate in one-to-one, semi-structured interviews of 45–90 min duration. Participants responded to an invitation disseminated through RE networks. All were RE specialists.

Main findings and outputs

  • There is controversy about the inclusion of nonreligious worldviews in RE, some viewing it as essential to an inclusive RE, others as diluting RE’s distinctive content, but so far we know little of teachers’ views.
  • Most teachers were unsure how to define a nonreligious worldview but referred to institutional systems as ways of making sense of human experience or providing beliefs and values, almost all mentioning Humanism but not limited to Humanism.Most encouraged nonreligious students to express their views in the classroom.
  • All felt that nonreligious worldviews should be included in RE. It would build academic skills, for instance, and social cohesion. But the main reason given was to develop students’ own beliefs or spirituality.
  • The teaching approach most often referred to was to make frequent reference to nonreligious views or perspectives in RE lessons and to ensure space for the expression of students’ nonreligious views, though specific units or lessons were also included, if rarely on a systematic basis.
  • The main issue mentioned was lack of time. Others were lack of resources and knowledge. Also, do nonreligious worldviews ‘fit’ in a framework for studying religions?

Relevance to RE

There are key issues for schools, as well as researchers, to consider further. Much appears to depend on:

  • School support for RE, in providing curriculum time and encouraging the development of innovative approaches.
  • Teachers’ development of appropriate subject knowledge.

It also seems pertinent to consider other countries’ experiences, e.g. Norway, where nonreligious worldviews have been taught within RE since 1997. In general, work is also needed to identify which worldviews could be studied in addition to Humanism and to develop criteria for making decisions on this.

Generalisability and potential limitations

As the author says on page 20 of the text:

It is not possible to generalise from the findings of a qualitative study which relied on those with sufficient interest in the subject to volunteer their participation. However, the value of the research lies in the rich data provided by teachers who responded in some detail to questions about their views, experiences and concerns.

Find out more

Judith Everington (2019) Including nonreligious worldviews in religious education: the views and experiences of English secondary school teachers, British Journal of Religious Education, 41:1, 14-26.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01416200.2018.1478277

RE: knowledge, wisdom and truth

Research Summary: RE: knowledge, wisdom and truth

This is an explanation of critical religious education. Three key ideas are presented. The search for knowledge requires a rigorous academic study of religion; the search for wisdom demands the personal engagement of the learner in this study; and the search for truth draws knowledge and wisdom together. For the writer, the argument is encapsulated in Iris Murdoch’s observation that ‘to do philosophy is to explore one’s own temperament, and yet at the same time to attempt to discover the truth’. Regarding knowledge, RE must have a rigorous and systematic academic grounding. This has value for pupils, in the broader context of their striving for personal formation or the cultivation of wisdom. The key driver of critical RE is the search for ultimate truth. When the search for truth pulls together the study of religion and the personal formation of learners, critical RE is able to overcome the polarity between ‘learning about’ and ‘learning from’ religion. These ideas set excellent challenges to RE teachers: how rigorous is the study of religion in our classrooms? To what extent are learners engaged personally? Are they genuinely enabled to search for truth?

Researcher

Andrew Wright

Research Institution

University College London Institute of Education and London School of Theology

What is this about?

  • From the 1970s on, phenomenological approaches to RE tended to be limited to narrow descriptions of religions, not addressing pupils’ concerns.
  • Critical RE is one attempt to overcome this problem, enabling pupils to enter into a rationale critique of religion. Religion should be scrutinised, to build pupils’ religious literacy. It does not involve being cynical about religion: more, debating the truth issues raised by religion, building reasoned thought.
  • It is not a technique that can be trained, but a disposition for teachers and pupils, based on asking intelligent questions. It can be developed: it is needed in university theology or philosophy, the only difference at school being the need for it to be practised at levels appropriate to age or ability.
  • Critical RE makes the subject more intellectually rigorous, which may help to motivate pupils more fully (see Main findings and outputs, below).

What was done?

This is a scholarly essay, examining the background to and the nature of an approach to RE – critical RE – and offering arguments for the suitability and strength of this approach.

Main findings and outputs

  • Knowledge. RE must have a rigorous academic grounding. Critical thinking requires both distance from religion (in order to think and reflect), and engagement with religion (to experience its potential value). Rather than being taught religious ‘facts’, children should learn to think critically in the manner of philosophers or theologians.
  • There are potential dangers in this approach, that RE should become detached from religious adherents’ life-worlds, or too dry for pupils. However, an emphasis on wisdom helps overcome these dangers.
  • Wisdom. The modern divide between rational theology and experiential religion may be reflected in RE’s model of ‘learning about religion’ and ‘learning from religion’. Yet critical realist philosophy may help to bridge the divide: the search for knowledge of the world can be seen as a personal pursuit, helping to make us wiser, more responsible people. In RE this involves rigorously weighing religious truth claims and scrutining one’s own opinions in the light of the search for truth.
  • Truth. The core focus of critical RE is to be found in the question of ultimate truth. Is there an ultimate religious truth? Is there an ultimate order of things, which exists independently of our ability to perceive it? The question is unresolved. The aim of critical RE is to equip pupils with the skills to engage intelligently with the question for themselves. The choices between atheism, theism and agnosticism are unavoidable; the more critically and reflectively they are made, the better. The questions are simultaneously academic and personal.

Relevance to RE

There are strong messages for RE teachers in this article, that have the potential for positive impact on pedagogy. Rigour in RE, for example, does not mean the learning of more and more ‘facts’ about religion: the author offers a model according to which rigorous teaching enables pupils to gain progressively in theological and philosophical reasoning ability. This means that they will benefit personally from the process of critical RE. Teachers should focus lessons on ultimate questions arising out of religion, be prepared to discuss and debate these with pupils and encourage pupils to discuss and debate with one another. The process should be driven by concern for truth. Is this true? How do we know? What evidence and arguments can be given in support? What other points of view might be taken, and why? What do I think about this? Are my own reasons supported by good evidence or arguments?

Generalisability and potential limitations

Whilst not presenting data that could be viewed as generalisable or otherwise, the article certainly raises profound and important questions that ought to be considered seriously by RE teachers and other RE professionals in general. The approach explained in the article has been influential, rightly, and continues to be so.

Find out more

The Contours of Critical Religious Education: Knowledge, Wisdom, Truth, British Journal of Religious Education 25,4, pages 279-291 (published online 6 July 2006), 10.1080/0141620030250403

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0141620030250403

Mark Plater: Dialogue

Teacher/Researcher Case Study: Mark Plater

Previous experience

I have a growing experience of Religious Education research, dating back to my time as a diocesan education adviser in Chelmsford, when I ran an All Saints Trust funded RE Resources Project with a group of schools, comparing teachers’ responses to specific resources at three different stages: firstly, their immediate response to seeing the resource (a five-second glance, such as one might give at a bookstall); their more-considered reactions after a fifteen minute look through it; and finally, their reactions after having made use of it with a class of pupils. All of the resources were classroom materials, and it was interesting to note that quite often, what at first sight didn’t appeal, often was seen in a very different light once it had actually been used by pupils (and vice versa!).

Shortly after that project I embarked on an MPhil/PhD programme to explore Hallowe’en in schools. This was quite a different style of study, using a questionnaire to discover what was actually happening in respect of the festival in three local authorities, as well as an exploration of teachers’ attitudes to Hallowe’en. Although I eventually decided not to complete a PhD, I did publish this work (Plater, 2007) and continued to explore the topic, publishing a few years later the results of a pupil survey, examining their activities during Hallowe’en and their attitudes to it (Plater, 2013).

By now I had moved into higher education teaching, and, alongside my teaching, was actively engaged in leading regular field visits, locally to religious centres in the region, but also further afield, to London, Turkey, Rome, and India. Especially for students in Lincolnshire, such first-hand experience of non-Christian places of worship was often a novel experience, and some of my students had never previously even been to London, let alone Europe or Asia. I was already convinced of the value of travel, having myself lived in Australia and India, but these university visits further confirmed for me Allport’s ideas about contact theory (Allport, 1954): that such immediate experiences of the ‘other’ are invaluable for breaking down stereotypes and assumptions, and for helping the study of religion to come alive for students.

Dialogue

Another key concept threading through my experience of university teaching is dialogue. Apart from teaching several modules with this word in the title, I have also established strong links over many years with the Dialogue Society, a Hizmet-inspired, Turkish Muslim group who are based in London and several other cities around the UK, but who also were instrumental in setting up my student visits to Turkey. I have participated in many of their activities over the years, and now count them as good friends.

The same concept of dialogue has also been central in discussions about school religious education. Mike Castelli proposes Dialogic RE (Castelli, 2012; Castelli, 2018) as a pedagogic methodology for RE. A former work colleague- Antony Luby (Luby, 2019) – also works in this field, identifying different forms of dialogue used by pupils in a Catholic school setting, and Kevin O’Grady’s work (O’Grady, 2018) portrays the whole purpose of RE as being a dialogue with difference. These, and many others from across the world (e.g. Bagrowicz, 2010; Schihalejev, 2009; Linden, 2016; Shuster, 2016) lay emphasis on the importance of dialogue as a focus and methodology in the teaching of school religious education.

An idea is born

I have been the coordinator for a Lincolnshire RE Hub group for several years, seeking to support and develop RE in the region through teacher support and resourcing. In discussing this group with a director of the All Saints Educational Trust (ASET), the idea was developed for a local project which would help to fund the coming together of schools and faith practitioners for mutual benefit. The funding would enable us to purchase the expertise of the St Philip’s Centre, Leicester, as well as provide support for schools to fully engage with the programme. A funding bid was drawn up, using the expertise of this local ASET director, and we were successful in gaining funding for an initial pilot programme.

The programme was based on a very simple idea: to link faith practitioners to six schools for a year, allowing a relationship to develop between the two, and with funding to both incentivise engagement and cover the costs of active participation. The schools were free to engage in the programme in any way that they wished, and ideas and training was provided in order to stimulate suggestions and to enhance their enthusiasm.

The challenge of implementation

No difficulties were encountered in attracting interest from local schools, and I was then faced with the challenge of selecting six schools from the thirteen applications. The selected schools offered a balance of primary and secondary, large and small, rural and city. Named contacts were identified from all six schools, and faith representatives were identified by St Philip’s Centre according to school preferences.

A timeline had the pilot stage of the programme running from September 2019 through to July 2020, with the possibility of bids for further funding to expand the project into 2021 onwards. However, Covid-19 lockdown resulted in an extension of the first phase to December 2020, and the freezing of ASET funds from the same period, meaning that any expansion of the project had to go on hold, at least for the time being.

 Outcomes of the project

At three stages during the course of the pilot project intermediate feedback was gained from all participants and this was summarised into published Project Update leaflets. The purpose of the updates was to maintain enthusiasm, and to share ideas on how individual schools were engaging with this unique opportunity.  These leaflets provided photos of activities and descriptions and quotations from schools and faith practitioners. However, lockdown had affected participating schools in different ways, so that some of the planned visits had to be cancelled, and other activities were significantly curtailed. Most schools did manage to maintain involvement however, but often in different ways than they had initially intended or hoped.

A final project conference was held online in December 2020 to consider the impact of the programme and to update participants on how it might be developed further into the future. Follow up interviews were also held with all participants in order to ascertain the individual impact on schools and participants, and to seek their advice on how the programme might be refined. A Final Report on the project was published in November 2021 and can be accessed here: https://bgro.repository.guildhe.ac.uk/id/eprint/884/

Participants in the project were unanimously positive about its impact, and in some instances the claim was made that it had left a lasting impact on pupils and teachers. One teacher commented, “This project was amazing! It’s one of the best things we’ve ever been involved in” (Primary teacher).

However, there were two schools (one primary, one secondary) which did not fully engage. In one instance this was because the link staff member moved on from the school during the start of the programme, and in the other, personal circumstances led to a delay in establishing practical actions, and then came the impact of Covid. With such a small cohort of participating schools, two ‘failures’ amounted to one third of the participating schools, so this was a great disappointment for me.

Another learning point for me was the fact that, in the follow up interviews, several of the school link-teachers expressed the wish that clearer guidance and targets had been provided. As one teacher put it: “We’re used to being told what to do” (Primary teacher). My hope had been that schools would appreciate the freedom and flexibility that was provided through the open structures of the project, but in fact the lack of such targets only implied that there were no minimum requirements, that it did not matter how much they engaged: they were free to do as little or as much as time and circumstances allowed. I guess that I had underestimated the extent to which performativity and target-culture had infiltrated the teacher mindset. Without threshold standards and minimum targets, there was no framework within which to work; no set standard meant that the task was inconsequential, that it did not matter. In the event, all of these teachers did engage with the task and did make arrangements with their linked faith visitor, but this was due to their own interest and motivation, not, as was the norm for them, because there was a task that had to be done and for which they might be held accountable.

What next?

I am still hopeful that it might be possible to expand this project to a wider range of schools in the Lincolnshire area. However, this would not be possible without further funding to appropriately engage all participants in the setting up of the programme, and, in view of what I have said above, next time I might work with participants more closely to identify appropriate expectations and targets.

Meantime, lockdown afforded me the opportunity to engage with another fascinating piece of research: to explore the make-up of the 2020-21 cohort of secondary Religious Education trainees on various Initial Teacher Training courses across the country. Because this involved completion of an online survey, it ideally suited the lockdown context, and, because this proved to be the largest ever cohort of trainees for RE ITT, it was a unique group to work with in seeking to discover their motivations for entering teaching as a profession and to discover various other demographic details about the group. The results of this piece of work have now been published, and can be downloaded from: https://bgro.repository.guildhe.ac.uk/id/eprint/881/

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Bagrowicz, J. (2010). Dialogue in religious education. Paedagogia Christiana 26:2 pp. 215-232. DOI https://doi.org/10.12775/PCh.2010.032

Castelli, M. (2012). Faith dialogue as a pedagogy for a post secular religious education. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 33 (2), 207-216.

Castelli, M. (2018) Principles and procedures for classroom dialogue. In: Chater M (ed.) We Need to Talk about Religious Education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 143–154.

Linden, L. (2016) From Freire to religious pluralism: exploring dialogue in the classroom, International Studies in Catholic Education, 8:2, 231-240. DOI: 10.1080/19422539.2016.1206404

Luby, A. (2019) Dialogic skills in RE: recontextualising the dialogue school. Journal of Religious Education (67). Pp.127–142.

O’Grady, K. (2018) Religious Education as a Dialogue with Difference: Fostering Democratic Citizenship through the Study of Religions in Schools. NY: Routledge. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351064385

Plater, M (2007) ‘Toil & trouble revisited: Hallowe’en in schools’, British Journal of Religious Education 29:2

Plater, M (2013) ‘Children’s attitudes towards Hallowe’en’, British Journal of Religious Education 35:2.

Schihalejev, O. (2009) Dialogue in religious education lessons – possibilities and hindrances in the Estonian context. British Journal of Religious Education, 31:3, pp. 277-288

Shuster, D. (2016) Mutuality and Intersubjective Dialogue in Religious Education. Studia Paedagogica Ignatiana, 18:0 pp. 149 – 176.

 

Mark Plater

Mark has been a religious education teacher all of his working life, but has experienced a range of employment opportunities within that field over the past forty years. He is married, with two children and one grandchild, and, alongside work and family, enjoys a recently purchased small piece of woodland as a source of retreat and creativity.

Living the Bhagavad Gita at Gandhi’s Ashrams

Research Summary: Living the Bhagavad Gita at Gandhi’s Ashrams

The Bhagavad Gita is a philosophical Hindu scripture in which the god Krishna imparts lessons to the warrior prince Arjuna about sacred duty (dharma) and the path to spiritual liberation (moksha). This classical scripture has had a long and active life, and by the 19th century it had come to be regarded as a core text, if not the core text, of Hinduism. During the colonial period, interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita considered the relevance of Krishna’s lessons to Arjuna in the context of British colonial rule. While some Indians read a call to arms into their interpretation of this scripture and urged their fellow Indians to rise up in armed resistance, Gandhi famously read a nonviolent message into it. This research argues that equally as important as Gandhi’s hermeneutics of nonviolence is his commitment to enacting the lessons of the Bhagavad Gita as he interpreted them in the daily life of his ashrams (communities). When explored through the lens of daily life in these ashrams, we see that Gandhi’s interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita emphasized not just nonviolence but also disciplined action, including self-sacrifice for the greater good.

Researcher

Karline McLain

Research Institution

Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA

What is this about?

  • The Bhagavad Gita.
  • Mahatma Gandhi.
  • Life and ethics in Gandhi’s ashrams.

What was done?

This is a scholarly essay, analysing source material to cast light on Gandhi’s interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita.

Main findings and outputs

  • Firstly, it is clear that Gandhi sought to find the meaning of the Bhagavad Gita in practice, and through life in a community.
  •  For Gandhi, the battlefield scene of the Gita was an allegory: “it described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind (sic),and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring.”
  • The path of karma yoga was understood as disciplined action in pursuit of self-realisation, in the course of everyday life.
  • For over 40 years, when Gandhi was not residing in prisons run by the British colonial government, he was living on back-to-the-land intentional communities (ashrams) that he founded in South Africa and India. They tried to live out the Gita’s message.
  • The ethic of the ashram was not a neutral shared space but a ‘nonviolent neighbourliness’. Social ‘equals’ were treated as friends, ‘subordinates’ with service and superiors through civil disobedience. All this was worked out in local situations as self-discipline in everyday life.
  • In 1906 Gandhi took a vow of celibacy. He did this to better practice the Gita’s principle of self-sacrifice and service of others; he would lessen his attachments to his possession of a wife and four sons and treat all ashram members as co-equals.
  • When imprisoned, e.g. for refusing to carry an identity card (in South Africa in 1908), he read the Gita in prison and later wrote that its teachings should be carried out fearlessly – people should do their duty by what was right, even at the cost of their lives.
  • The practice of selfless service was the basis of Gandhi’s ashrams in India. Duncan Greenlees, a British resident, wrote –
    Then began the day’s work in earnest. Some went daily to the stables to scrub the floors and milk the cows; others swept the Ashram paths with brooms; others again prepared the morning meal in the fine kitchen. All in their turn went to clean the latrines. This was indeed a sacramental, purifying work that, bringing us at once into sympathy with the lowest castes of men, taught us to see God in everything, even in what the ignorant have named unclean.
  • On the morning of the Salt March in 1930, Gandhi insisted that only ashram members prepared to be killed should join him. They were allowed to take no food or drink, only a copy each of the Gita.

Relevance to RE

The research will develop teachers’ knowledge of Hinduism (the original article is very detailed, fascinating and to be recommended strongly). The material can certainly be of use in classroom teaching. The various stories can be told and discussed: why did Gandhi insist that only those ready to be killed should join him on the Salt March (note: ‘ready’ included having taken vows of celibacy)? Why were none allowed to bring food or drink? Why were all required to bring a copy of the Gita? Students can carry out their own research into life and ethics in Gandhian ashrams, drawing comparisons with communities of which they are members themselves and evaluating how people benefit from different kinds of community membership.

Generalisability and potential limitations

This research does not provide generalisable data as such, more a distinctive case study with which to deepen knowledge and understanding of the Hindu tradition.

Find out more

The original article is Karline McLain, Living the Bhagavad Gita at Gandhi’s Ashrams, Religions 2019: 10 (11), 619.

The article is available open-access at https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10110619

Marking: what works?

Research Summary: Marking: what works?

Marking, though a vital part of teachers’ work, is a key driver of large workload. The purpose of the research was to find evidence that would inform teachers’ decision-making about marking. Time available for marking is limited, so what is the best way to spend it? The review found a striking disparity between the enormous amount of effort invested in marking books, and the very small number of robust studies that have been completed to date. While the evidence contains useful findings, it is not possible to provide answers to all the questions teachers are asking. The review therefore summarises what we can conclude from the evidence – and clarifies where we simply do not yet know enough.

Researchers

Victoria Elliott, et al

Research Institution

Oxford University / Educational Endowment Foundation

What is this about?

  • The research is about marking.
  • Marking is an oft-discussed aspect of teachers’ work, given that good feedback to pupils seems vital but marking demands generate large workloads.
  • Teachers expend much time and effort on marking but the number of rigorous studies on its effectiveness is low.
  • Some evidence can be offered, but several unknowns remain.

What was done?

  • 1,382 practising teachers from 1,012 schools in the maintained sector in England completed a survey on their marking practices.
  • A literature search was undertaken that included randomised controlled trials from other contexts such as higher education, small studies by classroom practitioners, intervention studies and doctoral theses.

Main findings and outputs

  • 72% of teachers reported writing targets for improvement on all or most pieces of work they mark, the most common strategy of all ten practices asked about.
  • The more traditional approach to marking (identifying and correcting errors) is also taken by over 50% of respondents, on all or most pieces of work.
  • The different approaches taken have not yet been largely evidence-based.
  • Evidence emerging from the review is as follows – “Careless mistakes should be marked differently to errors resulting from misunderstanding. The latter may be best addressed by providing hints or questions which lead pupils to underlying principles; the former by simply marking the mistake as incorrect, without giving the right answer.
  • Awarding grades for every piece of work may reduce the impact of marking, particularly if pupils become preoccupied with grades at the expense of a consideration of teachers’ formative comments.
  • The use of targets to make marking as specific and actionable as possible is likely to increase pupil progress.
  • Pupils are unlikely to benefit unless some time is set aside to enable them to consider and respond to marking.
  • Some forms of marking, including acknowledgement marking, are unlikely to enhance pupil progress.
  • Schools should mark less in terms of the number of pieces of work marked, but mark better.
  • More studies are needed, on issues such as – what is the best use of class time to enable pupils to consider and respond to marking? What is the impact of rare-grade, formative-comment rich marking?

Relevance to RE

Marking is as relevant an issue to RE teachers as it is to teachers in general; or perhaps even more so, given that an individual RE teacher may well have relatively large numbers of pupils. RE teachers or departments might consider the evidence given above, together with the advice given below, when developing their own effective marking policies and practices.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The researchers say that because the range of studies to date is small, their survey could not be as systematic or detailed as might be wished, and that the findings are therefore tentative. However, this makes it essential for schools to monitor the impact of their decisions about marking, and evaluate and refine their approaches.

Find out more

The report is freely downloadable from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/evidence-reviews/written-marking/

Lucy Peacock: School linking

Teacher/Researcher Case Study: Lucy Peacock

I do not identify as a Religious Education specialist. Rather, I am an interdisciplinary researcher spanning education, the sociology of religion and interfaith studies. Nevertheless, my PhD research into interfaith encounters in schools provided an unexpected opportunity to constructively and critically engage in RE debates.


School Linking: A PhD case study
My 2016-2020 PhD examined the relationship between ‘interfaith encounters’ and ‘peaceful relations’ among young people in England’s schools by evaluating the work of the Faith and Belief Forum’s (F&BF’s) School Linking programme, an extracurricular scheme which brings students together to creatively engage with questions of identity, belonging and belief. School Linking pairs two classes, from two different schools (mostly, but not necessarily, from schools with a religious character), for one academic year. The linked teachers are trained in interfaith dialogue facilitation skills, before delivering three joint interfaith workshops, called Link Days, in which the students visit each other’s schools and take part in creative activities. For a student on the scheme, Link Days present opportunities to creatively explore their background, beliefs and communities with students that they may otherwise never meet.
For my PhD, I analysed 1,488 student and teacher surveys, conducted focus groups and observed School Linking activities in four faith schools in London to better understand how interfaith encounters foster interpersonal relationships between students, and what factors influence how School Linking is experienced by its participants. I completed my PhD in 2020, presenting my research findings in a report published on F&BF’s website. Recognising the need to challenge the assumptions of School Linking and articulate the complex processes underlying the relationships between the programme’s activities and ‘peaceful relations’ in a manner that was grounded in academic theory, I chose to reassess the intergroup model of contact theory (Allport 1954; Hewstone and Brown 1986), which essentially argues that contact between two or more groups reduces prejudiced attitudes. By mapping my findings onto Allport’s (1954) four ‘conditions’ for effective prejudice reduction (equal status, common goals, cooperation and institutional support), I presented F&BF with a practical ‘recipe for successful interfaith contact’ and reflected on how School Linking can further our understanding of the theory itself.


Implications for RE: An unexpected element
My academic background is in theology, and I see myself now as a researcher straddling the sociology of religion, education and interfaith studies. Whilst I expected my research to lightly touch upon RE, the extent to which it spoke to curriculum debates and teacher practice surprised me.
Early on, I noticed that students and teachers mentioned RE in their motivation for taking part in School Linking. A year 9 student from a Muslim-ethos school, linked with a Roman Catholic-ethos school said, “I am interested in learning RE in a different environment and this may also help me in my GCSEs”. When I asked teachers to simply state why they are taking part, responses included “raises the profile of the RE department at school”, “part of our RE curriculum is living / practising your faith so by teaching others our signs and symbols / celebrations of Catholicism we are fulfilling the curriculum”, and “support study of RS”. This was in the back of my mind, when, following a Link Day visit to a school’s local mosque, I observed a teacher telling his students, “as well as being important for interfaith relationships, everything we’ve covered here will be part of your GCSEs in six months’ time”.
During my data collection, School Linking’s reach was expanding beyond schools with a religious character to include community schools. Moreover, RE teachers were regularly being nominated by their schools to lead a School Linking class. It was important to me that I positioned my research in such a way that it spoke to the educational landscape experienced by my participants, but I struggled at times to configure my empirical and theoretical insights with the RE landscape. How significant is the connection between RE and extra-curricular activities? Will the scope of my research limit the implications for RE teachers? Can the research truly speak to RE when I don’t identify as an RE specialist?


Things ‘clicked’ for me upon reading the Commission on Religious Education’s Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward report (CoRE 2018). It was clear that the report’s proposed move towards and Religion and Worldviews curriculum fundamentally emphasised the complexity and diversity of religious and non-religious worldviews; it intrinsically questioned notions of ‘typicality’. I could not ignore that School Linking was, and still is, used as a tool to enhance RE provision and experience in schools, thus it was vital for me to examine whether its theoretical underpinnings enable the programme to engage in discursive shifts in RE. My findings indicated that framing School Linking through contact theory risks closing worldview complexity down. The type of knowledge reportedly gained by School Linking students is sometimes oversimplified; generalisable ‘facts’ speak to principles of intergroup contact theory, and often align with school assessment measures, but do not accurately capture the religious and worldview plurality of the programme’s participants. I explored this in more detail in my (2021) open access article, Contact-based interfaith programmes in schools and the changing religious education landscape: negotiating a worldviews curriculum, in which I proposed an alternative theoretical framework to School Linking – the ‘decategorization’ model of contact (Brewer and Miller 1984, 1988; Miller 2002).


The process of writing the article affirmed to me a hope that academic and policy debate will recognise the value that extra-curricular programmes can provide in exploring questions of religious and non-religious belief in the classroom moving forward. I invite RE teachers to explore alternative literature, such as my own research, when considering how to facilitate meaningful student encounters across worldview difference. A summary of its application to RE teaching in this RE:ONLINE feature is a very welcome first step.


Next steps: exploring worldviews in more detail
I continue to explore interfaith encounters in education. For now, I am working on two projects related to higher education. I am a research fellow on the Building Positive Relationships among University Students across Religion and Worldview Diversity (‘IDEALS UK’) project, which explores how university students develop attitudes towards religion and worldview diversity, and examines how different aspects of university life shape interfaith learning and development. This month also marks the start of my new project, STEM and Belief in UK and USA Higher Education, which aims to promote meaningful university Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) opportunities for underrepresented belief groups by better understanding how to foster STEM environments inclusive of belief diversity. Both of these projects consciously adopt the terminology ‘religion and worldview diversity’ to recognise that barriers in communication and understanding can arise from differences of perspective not captured by conventional categories of religion or faith. Considering ‘worldview’ alongside religion enables us to explore conceptual and empirical links between our higher education research and the continued Religion and Worldviews curriculum debate, something I look forward to sharing with the RE:ONLINE community in the coming months and years.


References
Allport, G. W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brewer, M., and N. S. Miller. 1984. “Beyond the Contact Hypothesis: Theoretical Perspectives on Desegregation.” In Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation, edited by N. S. Miller and M. B. Brewer, 281–302. Orlando, Fl: Academic Press.
Brewer, M., and N. S. Miller. 1988. “Contact and Cooperation: When Do They Work?” In Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy, edited by P. A. Katz and D. A. Taylor, 315–326. New York, NY: Plenum.
CoRE (Commission on Religious Education). 2018. “Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward.” Commission on Religious Education. Accessed 2 July 2022. https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/final-report-religion-and-worldviews-the-way-forward-a-national-plan-for-re/
Hewstone, M., and R. Brown. 1986. “Contact Is Not Enough: An Intergroup Perspective on the ‘Contact Hypothesis.” In Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters, edited by M. Hewstone and R. Brown, 1–44. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miller, N. 2002. “Personalization and the Promise of Contact Theory.” Journal of Social Issues 58 (2): 387–410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00267.
Peacock, L. 2021. “Contact-based interfaith programmes in schools and the changing religious education landscape: negotiating a worldviews curriculum.” Journal of Beliefs & Values, DOI: 10.1080/13617672.2021.2004708


Dr Lucy Peacock is a Research Fellow in Sociology of Religion