|
|
Some influences from English RE on Norwegian RE: Experiences and challenges RL Network Conference - Kristiansand, Oct 6-7, 2008 Halldis Breidlid, Høgskolen i Oslo, 2008 This paper was originally delivered as a commentary to Julia Ipgraves lecture: "A comparative meeting between British and Norwegian pedagogics in religious education" at the same conference
INTRODUCTION
I want to share some reflections from my encounter with some English RE approaches and discuss how these approaches have influenced the RE reflective thinking in Norway, at least how they have influenced some RE pedagogues at the Faculty of Education and International Studies at Oslo University College. Tove Nicolaisen and I have through all the years since we first met with the Warwick and the Birmingham teams in 1994, introduced both «A Gift to the Child» and the Warwick based «Interpretive Approach» to our teacher students, as well as at several in service courses. In 2008 we even brought Norwegian RE teachers to the Educational Centre at Redbridge, London, where the teachers met a range of different English RE approaches, included the two mentioned.
I will briefly present certain aspects of the two approaches: «A Gift to the Child» (from the University of Birmingham) and «The Interpretive Approach» (from the University of Warwick) – and discuss these within the context of Norwegian RE.
During our first visit to the University of Warwick in 1994, we were introduced to «The Interpretive Approach to Religious Education» at the Warwick Religions and Education Unit through lectures, discussions, teaching materials and not the least: visits to sacred places (Hindu temple, Mosque, Sikh Gurdwara). From this study tour we brought experiences as well as new ideas back to Norway and to the ongoing discussions about new possible models for teaching religions, world views and ethics, as was the actual challenge in Norway at the time. The traditional K/L model («Christianity» and «Life Orientation» as two distinct subjects) was about to fade out. Should it be replaced by parallel subjects according to the religious or secular affiliations of the students, or could all students join in the same common subject? And what should that subject look like?
A NEW COMMON SUBJECT: KRL
A new common RE subject, KRL[1].
was established and was ready to be implemented from 1997. With a strong emphasis on Christianity and with strict rules for exemption, how could this subject include and be meaningful to students from religious minority groups or from a family background of Secular Humanism, all of which now merged into the same subject? Was there any room here for applying some of the ideas from the English RE approaches? Some of the principles of this first KRL syllabus were as follows:
- All religions should be introduced as «living sources for belief, morality and perception of life/the world»
- Dialogue and identity building were in focus
- A narrative approach was seen as a unique way of constructing identity
THE NARRATIVE APPROACH – AND «A GIFT TO THE CHILD»[2].
Since 1995 Tove Nicolaisen and I had been exploring the challenges of teaching religious stories in a multi-faith classroom, focusing on the relationship between identity building and a narrative approach. With the strong emphasis of this approach in KRL, we continued working with stories in what was expected to be an inclusive subject, and we worked out a model of different dimensions in religious stories, the so called «3 dimensional model»: The 3 dimensions which we highlighted were:
- The human, existential dimension
- The common religious dimension
- The specific religious dimension
The book: I begynnelsen var fortellingen. Fortelling i KRL, which came in 2000, presented this model in detail. The presentation of the model initiated a debate among RE pedagogues in Norway, and the model was both acclaimed and criticized. We have further explored, written and talked about the model in different contexts and have noticed that the concepts we developed have been applied by other colleagues in their writing. For instance when KRL/RLE colleague Geir Winje writes about how to teach and use art in the classroom, he is also explicitly using the principles of this model
[3].
.
Before explaining further why I am discussing this model in connection with English RE, I would like to give an example from the classroom:
In Grade 2 the pupils were to be introduced to Buddha, as a first encounter with Buddhism. Before saying anything about Buddha and Jataka stories, I simply told the Jataka story about the Monkey king[4].
, who lived in India a long, long, time ago, and about how he saved his fellow monkeys from the greedy human king, who wanted the delicious mango fruits which belonged to the monkeys. I told them about how he saved the monkeys at the cost of his own life. After telling the story we talked about what happened and their reactions to the different characters in the story. The pupils really got engaged and at the end they formed groups and made collages from certain parts of the story. Obviously we were moving and working within the human, existential dimension of this religious story.
Some days later I involved the children in the Birmingham approach: «A Gift to the Child», using a Mystery bag and a Buddha figure and telling stories from the life of Siddhartha, as well as using incense, the smell of which was recognized by a little boy with Buddhist background, but who had never heard about «Buddhism» as a concept. The pupils participated in different activities, following the «Gift to the Child» – approach, and probably tried to understand what kind of man this Siddhartha was. At the end, I told the story about his awakening and how he became a Buddha: sitting under the Bodhi tree - seeing all his former lives. And he saw that in one of these lives he had been, yes - exactly: a Monkey king! Immediately the response came from the class: Wow, so he was the Monkey king?
Through the involvement in the story of the Monkey king, the children had come to feel a kind of understanding and respect for this character, and this respect was now transferred to Buddha, what gave them a fuller understanding of his character. And eventually they would become ready for further teaching about the third dimension, the «specific religious dimension» of the story.
In contrast: Through a conventional and exclusive historic-systematic teaching strategy about the enlightenment of Buddha, such an understanding had not been possible.
This example indicated a successful link, and it convinced me that the two models: The model from the University of Birmingham: «A Gift to the Child» and the Norwegian «3 dimensional model» are actually fit to work hand in hand, at least on this level.
Further rethinking made it also clear that the «3 dimensional model» has quite a few similarities with «A Gift to the Child»: They are both concerned with pupils learning from as well as learning about religion. The first stage in »A Gift to the Child» is mainly concerned with what is called the »human, existential dimension» according to the «3 dimensional model». This leads up to the last stage, where the pupils meet other children who are actually practicing and dedicated to the specific religion and for whom the religion is something special to them, as «their religion». This corresponds with what is called the «specific religious dimension» within the «3 dimensional model».
In conclusion: even if the two models are not identical, they are both concerned with pupils benefitting from the stories and from the teaching content in general, even if the outcome is not the same for all children. As I see it, our encounter with «A Gift to the Child» in the mid-nineties has actually been instrumental in our development of the «3 dimensional model».
So far I have reflected on my experience of the influence from A Gift to the Child on Norwegian RE and the comparative aspect of two related models. Later I will reflect on and discuss the approach we were introduced to at the University of Warwick, and relate this to the Norwegian RE context. But first I want to introduce a common challenge for all RE, which is the concept of «world religions».
THE CONCEPT OF WORLD RELIGIONS
The challenges emerging from this concept are on several levels, but let us start with the obvious one: The classification of «world religions». As far as I have observed, most English and Norwegian RE are locked up in a conceptual thinking of «world religions». According to syllabuses in both countries there are certain «world religions» which are supposed to be introduced to the students. At the same time, most academics in the field of religion will reject the term «world religions». And historically this has not been a very clear concept. For – how many world religions are there in the world, anyway? Some examples[5].
will make the point clear:
- In the 1590s, when the word «religions» first appeared in English, two religions were identified: Protestant and Catholic (Harrison 1990)
- In the 18th Century four religions were identified: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Paganism (Pailin 1984)
- In 1870 (Max Müller) eight religions were identified : Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism
- In the 20. Century: Zoroastrianism was removed and Shintoism was added to the list.
- Eliade et al (2000) identify 33 principal World Religions
- Today some will restrict themselves to talking about the «G8» World Religions
There are three obvious problems related to this according to David Chidester:
- The identifications of world religions are arbitrary
- The concept of world religions is exclusionary: Some religions are included, others are excluded. «By privileging the religions that emerged from urban, agricultural civilizations of the Middle East, India, and the Far East, the model of world religions implicitly excludes all forms of indigenous religious life.»
- The framework is available for the ideological work of asserting conceptual control over the entire world. In the case of British colonialism, for example, the division of the world into «world religions» meant conceptual control over religious diversity in the service of the British imperial project. Generally, all such classifications are in the service of controlling the field of religious traditions, following the slogan: «Classify and conquer!»
To what extent is this discussion relevant for RE? Is the conceptualization of «world religions» in the curriculum «arbitrary, exclusionary and controlling»?
By comparing England and Norway I find that there are normally six religions classified as world religions in the English syllabuses:
- Christianity
- Judaism
- Islam
- Hinduism
- Sikhism
- Buddhism
In Norway the following five are classified as «world religions» (In the new RLE[6].
syllabus from 2008 they are introduced as: «Christianity and other world religions…»):
- Christianity
- Judaism
- Islam
- Hinduism
- Buddhism
It is interesting to note that Sikhism is not considered a «world religion» in Norway, even if it is considered a «world religion» in England. What does it then mean to be a «world religion»? Since these religions are favored in the curriculum, it is obviously important to know. Let me use Sikhism as an example, since this is a religious tradition which – in contrast with English RE – has been more or less excluded from the Norwegian RE. Since it is not considered a «world religion», how (if at all) is it then visible in the RE syllabus? In the so called Knowledge Promotion (K06) Sikhism was mentioned vaguely in the KRL syllabus under the section «Religious Diversity», Grade 10. The competence aim said that the students should «collect information and find special characteristics of some religions and creeds locally and nationally, including Sikhism, Bahai religion, Jehovahs Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints». To «collect information and to find special characteristics of» is a very modest approach compared to what is said about the «world religions»: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. The competence aims and the approach are very different. While the approach to the «world religions» includes a perspective both from the inside and from the outside, the approach to Sikhism and those religions which are not considered «world religions» is restricted to a superficial and outside view, with no room for inner diversity. And given the spread of Sikhism all over the world, it is a bit strange that Sikhism in the Norwegian RE syllabus is seen exclusively as a «local» and «national» religion. The same could be said of for instance the Bahai-religion: As Sikhism, the Bahai religion is an important global religion, and should be treated as such. To treat these religions as primarily local phenomena is misleading at its best, and not especially «objective». It is at least in sharp contrast with the treatment of those religions which are classified as «world religions».
The new RLE syllabus from 2008 does not represent any change to these approaches. Aims for the subject point out that
- The different world religions and world views () shall be introduced with respect
- Equal pedagogical principles shall be applied
- All religions shall be treated in an academic and objective way according to their features and their diversity
A crucial question here – and what is not clear from these formulations – is whether «all religions» means all religions, or if it just means «the big five»: the Norwegian «world religions».
In addition to this, the concept «world religions» tends to perceive the religious traditions as «unified systems» as opposed to wider traditions with an «inner diversity». This is a further challenge connected with the concept of «world religions». And this challenge is one of the main concerns of the Warwick RE Project.
«THE INTERPRETIVE APPROACH» – AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MAIN PRINCIPLES IN RLE
Is there anything to learn from the hermeneutic and reflective approach – «The Interpretive Approach» - developed at the University of Warwick, which emphasises flexibility and inner diversity?
In the new RLE syllabus expressions are explicit about objectivity and diversity. Approaching a religion in an «objective» way means that the teacher will also have to deal with «diversity». The hermeneutic approach from Warwick is therefore useful to consider. According to this hermeneutic approach, in order to understand a religious tradition it is necessary to relate to living individuals practicing their faith. Practice becomes an essential part of what constitutes a religious tradition, as for instance «Islam». The individual is an agent – being influenced, but is at the same time influencing the religious tradition.
Moreover, a religious tradition must be understood in terms of the individual, the group and the wider tradition. These are all integral parts of a dialectical process. For outsiders to understand the tradition it is important to relate to all these aspects and let them clarify each other. Learning to know individual Muslims gives a better understanding of Islam as a tradition, and learning about Islam as a tradition gives a better understanding of the individual Muslim. In that way it is possible to say something both of the diversity and of what is common for all Muslims.
THE TEACHING MATERIALS
In the Norwegian syllabus, as well as in the English, the main objectives traditionally focus on religions. In Norwegian text books and teaching materials this is traditionally followed up by using the same pattern: learning about «a religion». What the Warwick project has done is interesting also from a Norwegian perspective: The teaching material is built up focusing on religious groups and individuals in society. One unit is for example about Christian groups and is called accordingly: «Christians», and not «Christianity», as it would have been in Norway. Another unit is called: «Muslims», a third one: «Hindus», a fourth one: «Sikhs» etc. Through these individual representatives from different groups within a wider religious tradition the students are supposed to learn about the traditions as well. This is a reflection of a totally different approach to religious practice and diversity than is the case in Norway, where both curriculum and teaching material focus on the «religions» as such.
Learning from the English approach would better fulfill one of the purposes of RLE, namely objective learning – because: if the students are not learning properly about the inner diversity, the teaching is not objective, but selective.
According to the main principles, teaching the new RLE subject should be in an objective, but also in a critical and pluralistic way. The Warwick approach encourages reflection and constructive critique. The students are supposed to learn from their fellow students and to be able to test different «truth-claims» in the classroom. The teacher working with children from different backgrounds has to qualify himself to deal with «dialectic learning» in the classroom, that is: learning resulting from discussions and different perspectives in the class.
Maybe this is something that can help satisfy the «critical learning» aspect in RLE?
References
- Breidlid, Halldis og Tove Nicolaisen 2000/2008: I begynnelsen var fortellingen. Fortelling i KRL. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
- Breidlid, Halldis og Tove Nicolaisen 2007: På skattejakt i fortellingsuniverset. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen
- Breidlid, Halldis og Tove Nicolaisen 1999: «Stories and Storytelling in Religious Education in Norway» in Chidester, Stonier, Tobler (ed): Diversity as Ethos. Challenges for Interreligious and Intercultural Education. Cape Town
- Breidlid, Halldis og Tove Nicolaisen 2004: «Multi-faith Religious Education in a Religiously-mixed Context. Some Norwegian Perspectives» in Larsson, Rune and Caroline Gustavsson (ed): Towards a European Perspective on Religious Education. University of Lund, Sweden
- Chidester, David 2003: «Global Citizenship, Cultural Citizenship and World Religions in Religion Education in Jackson, R. (ed) (2003) International Perspectives on Citizenship, Education and Religious Diversity, RoutledgeFalmer, London
- Grimmit, Grove, Hull and Spencer: A Gift to the Child. Religious Education in the Primary School. Simon & Schuster Education 1991
- Jackson, Robert 1997: Religious Education. An Interpretive Approach. Hodder & Stoughton Educational, London
- Jackson, Robert 2004: Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality: Issues in Diversity and Pedagogy. RoutledgeFalmer, London
- Nesbitt, Eleanor 1999. «Diversity as Ethos in Society: Negotiating Power Relations» in Chidester, Stonier, Tobler (ed): Diversity as Ethos. Challenges for Interreligious and Intercultural Education. Cape Town
- Winje, Geir: 2005: Estetiske arbeidsmåter i KRL. http://www.rlnett.no/art/
- Winje, Geir: 2006: Metodisk arbeid med religionenes musikk i KRL.
http://www.rlnett.no/art/
- Winje, Geir: 2009: Høytidsmarkering i barnehage og skole. http://www.rlnett.no/art/
Fotnoter
1) «Kristendomkunnskap med religions- og livssynsorientering», later «Kristendoms-, religions- og livssynskunnskap» («Christianity and General Religious and Moral Education»)
3) See for instance his three articles at http://www.rlnett.no/: «Høytidsmarkering i barnehage og skole». «Estetiske arbeidsmåter i KRL», «Metodisk arbeid i religionenes musikk i KRL»
5) From Chidester, David 2003
6) «Religion, livssyn og etikk» («Religion, Philosophies of Life, and Ethics»
|
