Teaching gifted children in RE
Jane Mary Ramsay Simpson
Research Summary
Through RE, many gifted students who might otherwise be missed can be identified. The findings of this research are based on a study of Heads of Department in three very different sec-ondary schools in Cambridgeshire, and how they identified and challenged students gifted and in studying religion. The lack of student challenge in much RE is discussed and ways are suggested to extend and enrich all. Strategies are discussed for doubly exceptional students (e.g. those with profound insights but poor written skills). The research suggests how the RE profession could develop an approach to giftedness, with direct implications for classroom activities including poems, debates and plays.
Researcher
Jane Mary Ramsay Simpson
Research Institution
Independent researcher
What is this about?
- What does ‘being a gifted student’ mean in relation to RE?
- What is a ‘doubly exceptional’ student?
- What kinds of pedagogy and support do gifted students need in RE?
- What are some good examples of these, and what can teachers do next?
What was done?
Literature searches on RE and giftedness, interviews with Heads of RE, surveys of schools’ policies and documentation.
Main findings and outputs
- Few teachers were aware of the overlap between RE skills and ‘doubly exceptional’ giftedness (e,g autistic or dyspraxic pupils with high insight but poor writing).
- Doubly exceptional pupils often show spiritual or emotional sensitivity, profound questioning, high expressivity and a sense of social justice.
- However, usually, RE teachers have responded to giftedness by producing extension activities based on higher thinking skills.
- ‘Teacher A’ says her most important strategies are asking open-ended questions, and providing extended reading resources.
- ‘Teacher B’ says her department has just begun to re-write schemes of work to cater for gifted students, providing more depth to challenge the most able.
- ‘Teacher C’ struggles to find opportunities to train to teach gifted pupils.
- ‘Teacher B’ used both classroom observation and assessed tasks to write students’ reports, commenting on both empathy and knowledge level. ‘Teacher A’ provided laptops and placed doubly exceptional students in top sets.
- Such pupils need support. ‘Concept cracking’ provided adequate tasks, e.g:
- Pupils decide which concept they are going to crack, such as abortion, find the related concepts such as ‘Is life sacred? ’, study the core ideas in different religious traditions and then see how these religions diverged when they put their ideas into practice.
- Moral dilemmas can be set: pupils can use creative methods such as poems, plays or debates to explore and respond to them. Gifted pupils themselves can help to identify suitable pedagogy.
Relevance to RE
- School and departmental policies can be assessed in the light of the research: is provision for the gifted planned adequately?
- The research would give an interesting and useful basis for teacher training or teacher development sessions.
- Regarding RE pedagogy, the examples of tasks for the gifted that are provided by the research could be adapted for use in teachers’ own schools.
- The creative, open-ended, exploratory style of pedagogy suited to the needs of gifted children could be explored and developed by RE teachers and RE departments; it could well prove to be helpful in improving provision for all children. Again, teachers can consult pupils about this.
Generalisability and potential limitations
Only three schools were researched, but the literature cited is broad and the examples of pedagogy are very interesting. For generalisability, it is really up to RE teachers to test out the conclusions of the research in their own schools, and the research gives a good basis for this.
Find out more
Bridging the gap between Religious Education and gifted education: theory and praxis in three secondary school programmes in Cambridgeshire, British Journal of Religious Education, 34:3, 247-261 (published online 6 February 2012)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01416200.2011.649342