Viewing archives for Research

Teachers and educationalists have taken part in two incredible days exploring Theologies of Reading at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge.

Why describe it as incredible?

The level of expertise in the room from primary and secondary teachers, RE advisors and educationalists complimented an inspiring series of lectures and discussions on aspects of RE.  Lectures came from post-doctoral experts in their fields of study providing a  ‘deep dive’ and nourishment into elements of RE as well as careful thought on how the themes could be transferred into different education settings.

In the course of Theologies of Reading Day One Hermeneutics, Qur’anic Recitation, Religious Commentaries in Midrash and Biblical Language in texts were explored.  These challenging concepts were enlightening, particularly with expectation of translating them into my own context of primary education.  The key to doing this for me was to breakdown each lecture into simple terms; Hermeneutics crudely became different viewpoints, Biblical Language and Texts became authorship and Religious Commentaries became evidence-based argument.

I then selected two of these concepts to develop into a teaching block from the Understanding Christianity resource – The Kingdom of God.  It linked to the liturgical calendar as Pentecost was upon us, this allowing me to explore the story of Pentecost through authorship and biblical evidence.  A great find to enable this was the purchase of an Infographic Bible!

The second element allowed me to explore the theological impact of Pentecost on the beliefs of Christians in the context of The Kingdom of God.  Healthy debates were held on the reasonableness of Jesus ascending to heaven and whether people did actually experience the Holy Spirit within them.  At times this digressed into wider discussions about the origins of the universe and the nature of the miraculous.  Year 6 pupils raised the idea that for the big bang to happen someone needed to create the space for it to happen – was that proof of God?  This obviously made for more thought as a couple of days later when a Year 3 child asked if God created everything then who created God?  Another child made the connection that maybe we could interpret the big bang as the creation of God – were they one and the same?

Day Two of the Theologies of Reading seminars allowed us to showcase our work and to explore some further concepts back in Cambridge. As part of this day we visited the university library and explored some of the treasures of the sacred texts that they hold.  It was a genuine privilege to ‘get up close’ to text dating back in some cases over 500 years.  To see personal notations and additions in pontificals as well as the evolution of script into scholastic ‘textbooks’ was amazing.  I was particularly inspired by the intimacy of the Book of Hours we saw.  I pondered how these very personal collections of bible verse, prayers and psalms could be translated into an assessment piece for Year 6 as a culmination of their total RE learning.

This visit was complimented by a lecture on Practical Criticism and coming to a text with purity, no context and experiencing it as a reader.  We read collectively as a group, discussed our stumbles and our cohesion.  Brought light to the semantics of the verse and offered our reflections.

So what next?

Taking the concept of reading a text ‘cold’ not only for RE but also across the wider curriculum may be a possibility.  Likewise transferring and connecting the skills of RE across the curriculum.  A fellow colleague posed the idea of what if you presented a religious text in a format that removed the ‘religiousness’; a bible text without the verses or chapters or a psalm presented as a simple poem.  Would the children interact differently to it?  Would it be better?  Some exciting ideas to explore…

For further information about the Theologies of Reading series contact Kathryn Wright  ceo@cstg.org.uk

Details of the original Theologies of Reading seminars which inspired this CSDP programme can be found here: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/theologies-of-reading

For information about the Understanding Christianity resource: http://www.understandingchristianity.org.uk

For information about University of Cambridge Treasures collection: https://www.50treasures.divinity.cam.ac.uk

Gert Biesta isn’t sure. He thinks that the benefit of research is to offer ‘informed uncertainty’ to them; teaching is a journey with pupils into the unknown. So, in response to a short presentation from me that showed how engaging with reports on Research for RE had built teachers’ confidence, he wondered whether that is a good thing or not.

This conversation happened during the AULRE[i] conference of May 9-10 at Newman University, Birmingham. We’re planning a series of blogs that reflect on this conference, in which the other writers and myself are asked to weigh up what the AULRE conference offers to teachers. It’s a good question, since AULRE wishes to become an association for a broad range of RE professionals and (I’d argue) the research presented at its conference needs to reach teachers to develop RE. If it can, it has tremendous potential. I’ll try to show why by drawing on a few of my conference experiences.

First, back to the confidence dispute. Having had time to think about it, I don’t disagree with Gert, the issues just need spelling out. This definition of positive emotional energy from the sociologist Randall Collins helps:

“. . . a feeling of confidence, courage to take action, boldness in taking initiative. It is a morally suffused energy; it makes the individual feel not only good, but exalted, with the sense of doing what is the most important and most valuable . . . Emotional energy has a powerfully motivating effect on the individual; whoever has experienced this kind of moment wants to repeat it.” [ii]

That’s what kept me going for thirty years as a teacher. Arguably, the contested nature and content of RE make this kind of confidence particularly needed. I do think that RE teachers need to have confidence, but it’s the confidence to face difference, uncertainty and ambiguity with pupils, so that they grow up able to relate to the world as it is. We need to be professionally robust and epistemologically humble.

The AULRE conference had three keynote sessions, all of which visited this same kind of territory, as all three speakers resisted the narrow accountability model that continues to dominate English education. Joyce Miller spoke on the CORE report and its reception, regretting that some commentators had seen an overemphasis on content knowledge and lack of attention to pupil self-awareness and reflexivity. [iii] David Aldridge considered a pedagogy of belonging; an alternative to technicist models, emphasising attentive listening, slowness and love. I was particularly provoked by Pat Hannam’s address, on education, RE and the future of the world. She illustrated the crises of environmental degradation, children’s unhappiness and policy drift (namely the Ofsted definition of ‘good’ education which alludes to neither the world nor children) and underlined our responsibility to bring children to action. It was commented that they may be doing so already without us, and whilst this may be true, it doesn’t remove our responsibilities as educators.

It was an excellent conference, and many more examples could be given, but it’s time to come back to the question of how teachers might benefit. Well, I hope it’s clear that visionary thinking is happening in our subject. At one level, I’d like teachers to be aware of it, participate in it and help it to build RE’s future; at another level, I’d like it to have to connect with the everyday reality of school. The two levels can be bridged, of course, and I’ll just mention one more AULRE conference example, Frances Lane’s presentation on using research communities of practice to support trainee and beginning teachers. It’s at this kind of interface where I see Culham St Gabriel’s research strategy developing in the future, as well as supporting later stage teachers to become researchers via master’s and doctoral work which informs classroom practice.[iv] If you are interested in making this kind of professional journey, you might well find inspiration and possible starting points at the AULRE conference, so do take confidence and get in touch if we might support you to attend. Kevin@cstg.org.uk

[i] The Association of University Lecturers in Religious Education now describes itself as the network for learning, teaching and research in religion and education. See http://aulre.org/

[ii] Randall Collins (2004), Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pages 39, 49, 121, 134, 105-9, 108, quoted in Christian Smith (2017), Religion: what it is, how it works and why it matters, Princeton: Princeton University Press, page 223.

[iii] See my May blog at https://www.reonline.org.uk/news/kevins-blog-religion-worldviews-and-big-ideas-where-do-you-stand/

[iv] We do already support doctoral researchers to present at AULRE through a bursary – again, those interested are welcome to email me.

Last week I attended the AULRE 2019 conference in Birmingham. AULRE is an association of members interested in learning, teaching and research in religion and education. This year around 70 delegates attended, this included university lecturers, PGCE tutors, advisers, consultants and teachers.

Not surprisingly, responses to and critique of the Commission on RE (2018) report flavoured many of the keynotes and papers presented. Joyce Miller stressed the importance of the inclusive nature of the report which she argued comprehensively presents a vision for all. She made a case for understanding the socio-political context of RE, re-examining the content of the subject through overarching conceptual categories and embracing the term ‘worldview’ as a way of providing meaning to the subject for all. She hinted at ways in which a Buddhist worldview might be explored through the vision of the Commission. I found this inspiring and hope Joyce will go on to consider other ways in which the Commission’s vision may become a reality. This has the potential to transform curriculum design in our subject and impact on classroom practice.

I attended a number of parallel papers, and one common theme running through them was the importance of the teacher’s context, career journey and own worldview when considering how they understand the subject of RE. For example, one researcher talked about how teacher’s understanding of the subject might be more relational or more subject focussed. Some teachers may have a stronger sense of vocation, some are influenced by policy change, but others are not. Professional learning was regarded as important in terms of implementing policy changes. If teachers do not engage with professional learning the research found that teachers were not aligned to policy changes and would often continue as before. There is a huge overlap between subject construction and the identity of the teacher. This provides some important questions for policy makers who want to bring about change. For example, it shows the importance of professional learning when a new agreed syllabus is introduced or when new approaches to teaching and learning are advocated such as the RE:searchers project or a resource like Understanding Christianity. In addition, if the recommendations from the Commission are to be taken forward, it shows how important the engagement of teachers is in this process.

One piece of research suggested that an understanding of the aims of RE is rarely static for a teacher. One important point made was that teachers are influenced by socio-cultural factors as well as ontological (beliefs about the subject) and epistemological (knowledge of the subject) ones. When beginner teachers embark on their careers the epistemological factors are very strong as they learn about the subject, but as they progress through their career the socio-cultural factors often become much stronger. In fact, it was argued that sometimes the epistemological factors have no bearing on the teacher at all once they are an established teacher unless they engage with research. This raised some important questions for me about the importance of interaction between researchers and teachers and the value of action research especially during times of change.

References:

Keynote: Dr Joyce Miller: Religion and worldviews- the way forward?

Parallel Paper given by Dr Elizabeth Russell

Parallel Paper given by Alexis Stones

The CORE report and the Big Ideas project are milestones in curriculum development in RE, but are they on the same road? The final CORE report doesn’t mention Big Ideas, nor does the 2017 Big Ideas for Religious Education e-book mention CORE, though the publications were only about a year apart and two people were members of both groups.[i] Elsewhere, there was a suggestion that Big Ideas would complement CORE by providing a curriculum pattern for its recommendations as they emerged. [ii]

The overlap between the two initiatives is clearly not just one of timing or personnel. To give just one instance of curricular continuity, point 5 of the CORE national entitlement is that ‘pupils must be taught about the role of religious and non-religious ritual and practices, foundational texts, and of the arts, in both the formation and communication of experience, beliefs, values, identities and commitments’. There is a close connection here to Big Idea 2, Words and Beyond: ‘Many people find it difficult to express their deepest beliefs, feelings, emotions and religious experiences using everyday language. Instead, they may use a variety of different approaches including figurative language and a range of literary genres. In addition, people use non-verbal forms of communication such as art, music, drama and dance that seek to explain or illustrate religious or non-religious ideas or experiences. There are different ways of interpreting both verbal and non-verbal forms of expression, often depending on a person’s view of the origin or inspiration behind them. The use of some non-verbal forms of communication is highly controversial within some religious groups, particularly their use in worship or ritual.’ [iii]

May’s Research of the Month is an article by Rob Freathy and Helen John. [iv] It’s a powerful intervention, whose novel contribution is to add four Big Ideas about the Study of Religions and Worldviews to the set of six Big Ideas for RE. The argument is that Big Ideas are also required to reflect on how we study religions and worldviews. Pupils should learn to recognise the contested nature of religions and worldviews, including the very concepts of religion and worldview; that who we are ourselves affects or determines how we study religions and worldviews; how different methods and disciplines are used in the study of religions and worldviews; and how the study of religions and worldviews is a vital tool in understanding the world around us.

My April blog, with its emphasis on the need to use textbooks critically, reflected other research on the contested nature of religions and worldviews. [v] What I’d like to pick up this month is the need for reflexivity, also referred to by Rob Freathy and Helen John as positionality. They explain this by saying that pupils should pause to consider their own identity, formed by different aspects such as nationality, ethnicity, gender and sexuality; and how it affects their experience of the world, how they study religions and worldviews and the results of their studies. Thus, the pupils should develop understanding of themselves as well as religions and worldviews. [vi]

Whenever I remark that I am 95% positive about the CORE report, I am (understandably) asked about the missing 5%. One commissioner was surprised by my view that CORE needed to say more about pupils’ self-awareness, but having checked again, I would still suggest that the report could be more balanced in this respect.  The nine elements of the national entitlement read as if pupils are looking outwards on religion and worldviews from no viewpoint and the need for self-reflection is not included. [vii] It is suggested later that ‘pupils reflect on their own personal responses to the fundamental human questions to which worldviews respond and learn to articulate these responses clearly and cogently while respecting the right of others to differ’; but this appears in a slightly isolated way, right at the end of the report.[viii]

By reminding us of reflexivity in learning, Rob Freathy and Helen John move the discussion on a way which is necessary. They don’t themselves make connections between CORE and Big Ideas, but there’s a sense that they could, to useful effect. There are prospective gains through looking again at CORE in the light of their Big Ideas about the Study of Religions and Worldviews.

A sequel to Big Ideas for Religious Education has appeared, Putting Big Ideas into Practice in Religious Education. [ix] This latest publication does set out to take account of CORE (see page 2), allies the Big Ideas approach with that of CORE (see page 6, on reflecting the complex, diverse and plural nature of worldviews; or footnote 23 on page 79, where different Big Ideas and CORE national entitlement items are linked together with different academic disciplines); and includes some recognition of pupil self-reflection (e.g. on page 10, regarding pupils’ personal search for meaning in the context of the study of religion and worldviews, or pages 47-48, where it is suggested that they might grasp the meaning of ‘sacred’ through conversation about their own precious objects). However, reflexive self-awareness is absent from the identification of what good RE students can do at different stages (see pages 76-78). Perhaps the writers will consider it when they turn to methodological questions, left open for now (see page 81).

On page 26 of Putting Big Ideas into Practice in Religious Education, in an outline key stage 1 topic plan, the following transferable question is included: is it possible to know the mind of God? I don’t know. Do send in thoughts from your younger pupils. Meanwhile, these are interesting times for curriculum development in RE.

[i] The final report of the Commission on Religious Education (CORE)  can be found at https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Final-Report-of-the-Commission-on-RE.pdf. The report on Big Ideas for Religious Education can be found at https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/collegeofsocialsciencesandinternationalstudies/education/research/groupsandnetworks/reandspiritualitynetwork/Big_Ideas_for_RE_E-Book.pdf .

[ii] Barbara Wintersgill, Big Ideas for Religious Education, unpublished paper, p.8.

[iii] CORE report p.12, Big Ideas for Religious Education report p.15.

[iv] See Introducing ‘Big Ideas’ to UK Religious Education. During March, this was our most read research report.

[v] https://www.rehttps://www.reonline.org.uk/blog/textbook-violence/online.org.uk/blog/kevins-blog-textbook-violence/

[vi] Rob Freathy & Helen C. John (2019) Religious Education, Big Ideas and the study of religion(s) and worldview(s), British Journal of Religious Education, 41:1, 35.

[vii] CORE report pp.12-13.

[viii] CORE report p. 77.

[ix] This e-book, which shows how the Big Ideas approach can be applied in practice and has been authored by Barbara Wintersgill with Denise Cush and Dave Francis, can be found at https://www.reonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Big-ideas-for-religious-education.pdf

How should RE teachers deal with the relationship between religion and violence? It’s not an easy question. April’s Research of the Month addresses it excellently, if without making it any easier.

The research at hand is about textbooks. It’s a book, Textbook Violence, edited by James R. Lewis, Bengt-Ove Andreassen and Suzanne Anett Thobro.[i] Eight of its chapters deal with school textbooks, three with university or teacher education level textbooks. It shows how school textbooks tend to avoid the subject of religion and violence. They present religion as good and a source for reflection. University textbooks usually also avoid the subject through approaching a religious tradition by describing the founder, texts, rituals, etc.

So, for example, Satoko Fujiwara writes about her experiences of preparing a school social studies textbook in Japan, where textbooks must be authorised by the state.  Insisting that religion is, by definition, free of violence, the examiners suggested that two pages on 9/11 and contemporary Islam be removed, and the publisher agreed.  Torjer A. Olsen analyses textbook versions of the colonisation and Christianisation of the Sámi people of Norway, showing that the resulting conflicts are not treated thoroughly.

As indicated above, the chapters are varied. I found most direct value for RE teaching in that of Michael H. Romanowski, though it is a critique of history textbooks. He analyses the language they use, what they leave out, the stories they tell and from whose point of view, and the ethical issues they sidestep, for example, the plight of Palestinian refugees. I placed a report on Research for RE that focuses on the professional practice strategies he recommends to teachers. [ii] I’ll also list those here:

• Don’t assume that pupils have prior knowledge of terminology. Take time to discuss the important words used, their possible meanings and the perspectives behind their use.
• Teach pupils how a textbook’s version of an event is limited and one of many. Get them to ask questions about why an event is covered, whose viewpoint is given, whose left out, whose interests are served, whether the account is believable and backed up by other sources.
• Draw on the ‘six facets of understanding’ of Wiggins and McTigue, asking students to explain (why is that so?), interpret (what does it mean?), apply (where else can I use this knowledge?); develop perspective (whose point of view is this?), empathy (do I understand it?) and self-knowledge (how does who I am shape my views?). [iii]

At the top of this piece I said that the research covered addressed the issue of religion and violence excellently, without making it easier for teachers to deal with. Michael H. Romanowski’s professional practice strategies show just what I meant. They represent rigorous critical teaching. They could be adapted to teach about various features of religion, not just its relation to violence. Nevertheless, controversies will build when the approach is applied in the RE classroom, and teachers will need to be skilled managers – Romanowski’s work should be combined with research on safe space. [iv] But he and the other writers in the collection are specifically concerned with textbooks, and even though none use the term, they convey an image of religious literacy: a chain, in which teacher educators teach teachers to use materials on religion critically, so the teachers can enable pupils to do so, as part of their educational entitlement. [v]

[i] James R. Lewis, Bengt-Ove Andreassen and Suzanne Anett Thobro (eds.), Textbook Violence, Sheffield (Equinox): 2017.

[ii] See Using textbooks critically and helping pupils to do the same

[iii] E.g. Robert Jackson, Signposts: Policy and Practice for Teaching about Religions and Non-Religious Worldviews in Intercultural Education, Strasbourg (Council of Europe Publishing): 2014. Chapter 5 of Signposts presents research on how to ensure civil, well-ordered classroom interaction when dealing with controversy.

[iv] Grant Wiggins and Jay McTigue, Understanding by Design, Alexandria, Virginia (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development): 2005.

[v] Commission on Religious Education Final Report: Religion and Worldviews, The Way Forward. A National Plan for RE, London (Religious Education Council of England and Wales): 2018,13 (b).

Lately, I’ve been fortunate to share in some very good conversations about these questions. One was a summit organised by David Aldridge, Gert Biesta, Pat Hannam and Sean Whittle, as part of their project on religious literacy within Culham St Gabriel’s Research7 series. I recommend keeping an eye out for the findings, when published, because the researchers have been doing a remarkable job. Their approach has been to review relevant literature then invite critical commentary from academics and teachers.

The underlying problem is a lack of an agreed definition of religious literacy. The term is used to convey different meanings and there has been a tendency to use it as if it is more straightforward. However, the researchers identify various definitions of literacy: it has meant well-read, or able to read, or equipped with knowledge of one’s culture, or possessed of a certain set of skills, such as financial literacy, digital literacy and so on. They go on to point out the different views of religious literacy – a critical engagement with religious truth-claims, or an ability to understand the basics of different religious traditions, or an appreciation of how religions intersect with social and political life, or the ability to talk about religion in the public sphere. They pose questions about whether and how religious literacy could or should be an organising principle for RE: given religion’s huge diversity, what counts as ‘basic’ knowledge? But how should ‘religion’ be understood, anyway – should we ask about what it means to live religiously? If there are different modes of what could be called religious literacy, is literacy the best term to carry the different educational meanings, given its basis in reading?

The summit, mainly involving academics, brought out further questions. Again, I can only give examples here, but that of non-religious worldviews was one. Martha Shaw includes these in her definition of religious literacy, together with pupils’ reflecting on their own personal values, and together with Adam Dinham is developing case studies of this approach.

The meeting with teachers took place a couple of weeks after the academic summit, adding questions which in some ways were new, though in other ways overlapped with those mentioned earlier. How do you develop religious literacy despite the demands of exams? Or, do you develop it within those demands? The lack of an agreed definition of religious literacy was what caused there to be two questions rather than one: if it’s defined as measurable knowledge and understanding of religion, the first question doesn’t apply. Prompted by problems over the term religious literacy to discuss what good RE is, none of the teachers then made use of the term to do so. I have no doubt that the term generates interesting discussion, but I open-mindedly wonder whether it adds any value to RE practice.

As well as looking forward to the results of the religious literacy project, I want to see how they’re affected by those of other Research7 projects. On teaching texts, does skilful handling of a text demonstrate religious literacy, or just one instance of it? On knowledge in the RE curriculum, is knowledge of religion through RE the same as religious literacy through RE, or are other factors involved in religious literacy? Or, do discussions of religious literacy help develop our view of what knowledge in the RE curriculum really means? On RE and technology, it would be surprising if today’s young people didn’t draw on technology to develop religious literacy, but does this affect the term’s meaning? On RE and educational and social disadvantage, is religious literacy a form of educational and social advantage, or something that provides these? Do young people need access to technology in order to develop the literacy and gain the advantages? At present, my only prediction is that the questions will multiply.

These days we’re gathering data on which Research for RE reports are read most and rated highest. At the time of writing, the top report is by David Lundie, entitled Does RE Work? It was read 86 times between July and November 2018, with an average rating of 5 stars.[i] After all, the question cuts to the quick. Many claims are made about what RE does for young people and society, but are they justified, and how do we know?

The research reported was a major study of RE in the UK that took place between 2007 and 2011. An hourglass model was used, where the ‘blizzard’ of policies, interests and pedagogical models at the ‘top’ was followed down to what happens in classrooms at the ‘middle’ and the wider impacts on pupils and society at the ‘bottom’. 24 schools were studied in detail.

The researchers found that there was confusion about the purpose of RE and that the subject tried to cover too many bases, ranging over knowledge and understanding of religion, citizenship, SMSCD, sex and relationships education, leading on charity activities and others. Exam demands were found to have huge power to drive but distort RE. Commenting in the How RE Teachers might make use of it section of the Research for RE report, David Lundie nevertheless draws out some positive advice for us. He writes about the need for a shared sense of meaning in the RE classroom, where there is an understanding not just of religious beliefs and practices but what they mean for members. The most successful teachers “demonstrated a ‘committed openness’, steering a course between dogmatic commitment and undifferentiated relativism”.

I thought further about the practice of this, referring to original sources for the Does RE Work? research.[ii] It seems that the best RE teachers seen neither insisted on answers to questions of truth nor acted as if any statement was true. They helped pupils to understand the roots of different views, in different religious or worldview commitments.[iii] The researchers recommended that teachers should help pupils to see how religious language relates to other signs, or aspects.[iv] This relates closely to the National Entitlement outlined in the CORE report, for example, criterion 1 (matters of central importance to the worldviews studied, how these can form coherent accounts for adherents . . . ) or criterion 6 (how worldviews may offer responses to fundamental questions of meaning and purpose raised by human experience, and the different roles that worldviews play in providing people with ways of making sense of their lives). Thus, though the research isn’t current, both its ratings and relevance are, which make it Research of the Month.[v] There is much more that is of interest in the Does RE Work? research and I would strongly encourage you too to track down the original sources. Why do RE teachers often find religion embarrassing? Why do text-books and exam boards have so much influence over us? How is RE perceived as different to other subjects? These are some of the important questions identified and addressed.

Finally, why does the question Does RE Work? make us sit up? Data from the Research for RE website can’t answer that question, but my hunch is that teachers and others are interested in evidence about not just whether RE works but how it could be made to work; one reader comments that he or she will use the research to plan and deliver lessons. We want to know much more about how the research reports are being used and would be particularly interested to receive your comments or emails on reports that you have found useful and how these have helped to shape your teaching.

i. David Lundie’s report of the Does RE Work? project can be found at Does Religious Education Work? An analysis of the aims, practices and models of effectiveness in RE in the UK

ii. See e.g. J.C. Conroy, D. Lundie, R.A. Davis, V. Baumfield, L.P. Barnes, T. Gallagher, K. Lowden, N. Bourque and K. J. Wenell, Does Religious Education Work? A Multi-disciplinary Investigation (London: Bloomsbury, 2013).

iii. Ibid. 126-9.

iv. Ibid. 225-6. I discuss the significance of Does RE Work? for RE teaching more fully in chapter 8 of Religious Education as a Dialogue with Difference: Fostering Democratic Citizenship Through the Study of Religions in Schools (New York and London: Routledge, forthcoming).

v. You can find an update to the research in David Lundie’s article, “Is RE still not working? Reflections on the Does RE Work? Project 5 years
on,” British Journal of Religious Education 40 (3) (2018), 348-356.

Do you know what an ensō is? Here’s one:

In Zen Buddhism the ensō is a symbol of enlightenment. The artist paints it in one single brush stroke or occasionally two. The circle can be complete or have a bit of a gap or a bump. It’s the latter I’m interested in. It denotes a lack of perfectionism, an openness to the world outside or that the wheel shouldn’t roll too easily.

You could use it as a metaphor for learning. A wheel with a bump. Or a series of wheels with bumps. You could have fun making up and illustrating your own metaphors for learning, but the wheels with bumps one suits December’s research of the month, Elizabeth L. Bjork’s and Robert Bjork’s work on desirable difficulties.

The idea of a desirable difficulty arises from Bjork’s and Bjork’s research on cognitive psychology. They talk about learning as a deep process that changes knowledge or understanding in the long term, in contrast to short term retrieval. If learners aim for short term retrieval, they can become dependent on poor learning conditions. Better learning conditions tend to interrupt normal practices, so though desirable, they’re difficult.

Bjork and Bjork argue that sites and types of learning should be varied, which is demanding. It means different rooms, different kinds of room, different kinds of space and different kinds of location such as indoor or outdoor; analytic tasks, creative tasks, individual tasks, group ones, and so on. If you’re feeling bumps but not wheels so far, consider Bjork’s and Bjork’s next point, that learning should be spaced or distributed – that is, that you should return to topics at periodic intervals rather than just cramming one topic for rapid gain. Building on this, they go on to say that topics should be interleaved with others, to develop comparison, contrast and higher-order thinking. Tests are important and can be used for learning not assessment: learners need to know what they know and take control over their future learning.

I can understand why there’s such interest in cognitive psychology amongst teachers. Ideas such as Bjork’s and Bjork’s feature frequently at conferences and I’m finding that they’re received enthusiastically when I present them. They invite teachers to plan imaginatively, offering ways to stretch and challenge learners and engage them with the richer aspects of subjects. On the Research for RE website’s report of Bjork’s and Bjork’s research we’ve said that RE teachers might apply it by, for example, introducing parallel studies of one religious tradition with another, or revisiting studies of one part-way through another. Varying the location of learning should include plenty of visits outside school. Again, this is demanding, but can be approached in an open-minded, anti-perfectionist way, where you can try out different ideas and see where they lead. If it goes too smoothly you may be missing something.

The ensō image is from http://martawoo.blogspot.com/2012/12/ensozen-circles-of-enlightenment.html

Elizabeth L. Bjork’s and Robert Bjork’s work on desirable difficulties is reported on RE:ONLINE at Boosting learning by making it desirably difficult

Over the past 33 years I’ve witnessed a lot of conversations that followed this general pattern:

Parent: I’m amazed. Why do you want to choose this subject?
Son or daughter: It’s the way (she/he) teaches it.

It even applies to that oft-assumed bastion of boringness, the Bible. Now we find that not only does the way it’s taught determine whether it’s presented well but also young people’s interest level and gain.

I’m talking about November’s research of the month, Professor Susan Docherty’s brilliant BJRE article ‘A new dialogue between biblical scholarship and Religious Education’. Susan brings a very wide range of knowledge and ideas to our attention and I can’t reflect them all here, so I’ll concentrate on a few that were new or seemed particularly useful to me. I’m no Biblical scholar. I’m coming from the RE side of the dialogue and encourage you strongly to read the original article. Generally, Susan argues that you’ve got to pay attention to the Jewish context of very early Christianity, and to recent work on interpreting the Bible. She’s in no way trying to privilege the text – texts, that is – but to address the fact that whilst RE specifications now put more emphasis on texts, weak practices like proof-texting jeopardise the learning experience.

So, on the Jewish background, New Testament texts should be read as Jewish texts, and reference made to works outside the canon. The Dead Sea scrolls show how the Qumran community held possessions in common and celebrated a communal meal in expectation of the coming of the Messiah. Jesus’ movement was not unique in the Judaism of the time. If you’re teaching about the problem of evil, note that the extra-canonical text 1 Enoch gives an interesting theodicy, where angels rebel against God, come to Earth and mate with women to create sin. The story appears much more briefly in Genesis. Paul’s concept of original sin seems to have arisen through interpreting different texts, which offered him alternatives to sift.

Within the official Bible, there are different views on e.g. immigration. There are a range of views and no single position, something that RE teachers need to explore. This moves us on to the contemporary world, where different viewpoints are brought to bear on biblical materials, sometimes to reduce power imbalances or engage readers from outside churches. The work of Symon Hill is cited, where he discusses Jesus’ teaching on prostitution with sex workers, one of whom points out that the text in question (Matthew 21:31) does not actually say that they must give up their work to get into the Kingdom of God, in contrast to ‘traditional’ interpretations.

What’s clear is that passages in the Bible must be considered in context and different possible motives and interpretations examined. This reminds me of the idea of ‘desirable difficulties’ in cognitive psychology. It’s a lot more complicated than memorising the lines and which issue they apply to, desirably so, because it reflects the content, stretches the learner’s imagination and thus offers a genuinely memorable experience. It reduces fundamentalism and offers personal engagement to learners. How do you see it? Where do your perspectives come from? What are the points from which you view? The CORE report rightly says that interactions between individuals and traditions are influenced by a whole range of factors (page 36). I think Susan’s research suggests some ways for RE to learn to reflect that complexity. Don’t take my word for it, though. Read it and think about how you might make use of it.

Culham St Gabriel’s Trust are very grateful to Professor Susan Docherty for reporting her research What Can RE Teachers Learn From Contemporary Biblical Studies? on the ReserachforRE website.  (This has now been moved inside RE:ONLINE). We are supporting further research into hermeneutical approaches to teaching religious texts, led by Dr Bob Bowie of Canterbury Christ Church University and Dr Farid Panjwani of University College London, as part of our Research7 series.

This blog was updated in April 2021 following the moving of the research reports into RE:ONLINE

What tops your list of priorities for RE? Good initial teacher training or CPD? A review of the EBacc so that we have parity with subjects included there? Improved syllabus or curriculum arrangements? Successful inclusion of non-religious worldviews? Perhaps, a completely renewed vision for the subject.

You might remark that all are needed and included in the final report of the Commission on RE. I want to focus on a different finding of the report, that the subject must get better at reflecting the complex nature of religion in the 21st century.

So, for example, on page 6 we read that ‘the distinction between religious and non-religious worldviews is not as clear-cut as one might think’, that we need to move ‘towards a deeper understanding of the complex, diverse and plural nature of worldviews at both institutional and personal levels’, and to ‘ensure that pupils understand that there are different ways of adhering to a worldview – you may identify with more than one institutional worldview, or indeed none at all’.[1]

Recognising and addressing such complexity sounds . . . complex. But the commissioners have captured the growing sense that accounting for the key beliefs and practices of six world religions will no longer do, if it ever did. Research backs this up.

One source they cite is Linda Woodhead on the religiously unaffiliated in Britain.[2] She reports how whilst ‘no religion’ now exceeds ‘Christian’ as most people’s self-designation, they are not straightforwardly secular. They reject religious labels and secular ones (they are not hostile to religion). A small minority believe in God whilst most are agnostic. A quarter take part in a personal religious or spiritual practice, but none take part in communal ones or join groups. ‘Nones’ share a liberal value set with many ‘somes’.

Another piece of boundary-blurring is this month’s Research of the Month, a new typology of religion from the Pew Research Center in Washington DC.[3] Their 2017 survey sorts US adults into seven groups based on the religious or spiritual beliefs or practices they share, how actively they practice and the value they place on religion. The Pew Center researchers generate categories from the data such as Sunday Stalwarts (traditionalist and highly engaged), Diversely Devout (traditionalist but also believing in e.g. psychics or reincarnation) and Solidly Secular (holding no religious or ‘new age’ beliefs). The categories cut across traditional religious and non-religious lines, and whilst some data may be unsurprising (76% of the Solidly Secular have no religious affiliation), it raises questions that 17% of the same category identify as Christian. The category of Religion Resisters, or those who think that organised religion does more harm than good, is where non-Christian religious faiths contribute their highest overall percentage (11%); by contrast, they make up 6% of the Sunday Stalwart category. The researchers recognise the problem of applying Sunday to e.g. Jews or Muslims but point out that 90% of the group belong to Christian churches: the survey questions used ‘daily’ and ‘weekly’ language.

As for holding more than one worldview, we could turn to the work of Graham Harvey, who writes of Maori and Hawai’ians who blend traditional practices with those of Anglicanism, Baha’i or Catholicism, without any sense of transgression.[4] Another of the Commission report’s angles on religious or worldview complexity is related to the point that worldviews, including religious ones, may not be primarily about holding beliefs.[5] There is a need to include the lived experience of individuals and communities.[6] Harvey’s emphasis on lived relational religion leads him to some startling conclusions: if Christianity is unique in placing belief at its centre it is not a religion (he later re-addresses the point and suggests that Christians ‘do religion like other people’).[7] I hope to return to his ideas critically in future blogs.

For now, I conclude that only research can underpin accurate portrayals of religion in the world. These reflect constant change and can only be gained through rigorous, imaginative methodology. We should remember as well that RE also needs evidence about learners and learning.

Links to research reports

We have reports of the various research sources mentioned above on RE:ONLINE.

Linda Woodhead: British ‘nones’: what do they believe in and do?

Pew Research Center: From Sunday Stalwarts to Solidly Secular

Graham Harvey: Religion is everyday life, not belief

1. The Commission on Religious Education, Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: the way forward. A national plan for RE, online material available at https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/final-report-religion-and-worldviews-the-way-forward-a-national-plan-for-re/ accessed on September 10, 2018.

2. Linda Woodhead (2016), ‘The rise of “no religion” in Britain: The emergence of a new cultural majority’, Journal of the British Academy, 4: 245–261. Available for free download at
DOI 10.85871/jba/004.245

3. Pew Research Center, ‘The Religious Typology: A new way to categorize Americans by religion,’ online material available at http://www.pewforum.org/2018/08/29/the-religious-typology/ accessed on September 1, 2018.

4. Graham Harvey, Food, Sex and Strangers: Understanding Religion as Everyday Life, Durham (Acumen) 2013: 115-16.

5. The Commission on Religious Education, Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: the way forward. A national plan for RE, page 74.

6. The Commission on Religious Education, Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: the way forward. A national plan for RE, page 76.

7. Harvey, Food, Sex and Strangers: Understanding Religion as Everyday Life, chapter 3, chapter 11).