Action Research and the Interpretive Approach to Religious Education

Abstract

Over the last decade action research has been used to interrogate the interpretive approach to religious education as 1 strand of religious education research undertaken at the University of Warwick. The 4 phases of this activity (an initial master's study, a doctoral follow-up, a community of practice and subsequent integrations into debates over religious education pedagogy) are traced. Several arguments are advanced, intended to highlight principles for the study of religion in schools in any national context, though as we will see, the article also signposts further desirable research and debate. The first principle advocated is that for the study of religion in schools to have integrity, pupils must be enabled to have a free, responsible dialogue with difference. The second is that some form of action research is needed to facilitate this dialogue. The third is that any legitimate educational theory has application in classroom practice and is capable of modification in the light of it. The interpretive approach to religious education has shown itself to be legitimate in these ways.

KEYWORDS:

• action research
• interpretive approach
• pedagogy
• religious education

Notes

Harold Loukes, Teenage Religion (London: SCM Press, 1961).

Linda Rudge, “‘I am Nothing. Does it Matter?’ A Critique of Current Religious Education Policy and Practice on behalf of the Silent Majority,” British Journal of Religious Education 20, no. 3 (1998): 155–165.

Robert Jackson, Religious Education: An Interpretive Approach (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1997), 88.

The ways in which the early action research enhanced the interpretive approach are discussed in Robert Jackson, Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality: Issues in Diversity and Pedagogy (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004), 103–105.

Keijo Eriksson, “In Search of the Meaning of Life: A Study of the Ideas of Senior Compulsory School Pupils on Life and its Meaning in an Experiential Learning Context,” British Journal of Religious Education 22, no. 2 (2000): 115–127.

John Elliott, Action Research for Educational Change (Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press, 1991).

In maintained schools in England religious education content is set down in a syllabus agreed by local authority members, teachers and representatives of faith groups.

Kevin O'Grady, “Motivation in Religious Education: A Collaborative Investigation with Year Eight Students,” British Journal of Religious Education 25, no. 3 (2003): 214–225.

Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan Lytle, eds., Inside Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge (New York: Teachers’ College Press, 1993).

Frederick Erickson, “Introduction,” in Inside Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge, eds. M. Cochran-Smith and S. Lytle (New York: Teachers’ College Press, 1993, i-xiv), iii.

Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures, ed. Clifford Geertz (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 3–32.

Hans Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (London: Sheed and Ward, 1975).

Julia Ipgrave, “Inter faith Encounter and Religious Understanding in an Inner City Primary School” (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Warwick, 2002), 1.

Kevin O'Grady, Motivation in Secondary Religious Education (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Warwick, 2007).

Mikhail Csiksentmihalyi, “Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity,” in Handbook of Creativity, ed. R. Sternberg (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 313-333.

John Cotterell, Social Networks and Social Influences in Adolescence (London: Routledge, 1996).

Julia Ipgrave, Robert Jackson, and Kevin O'Grady, eds., Action Research and the Interpretive Approach: Researching Religious Education through a Community of Practice (Münster, Germany: Waxmann, 2009).

Wolfram Weisse, “Reflections on the REDCo Project,” British Journal of Religious Education 33, no. 2 (2011): 111-126.

Robert Jackson, “The Interpretive Approach as a Research Tool. Inside the REDCo Project,” British Journal of Religious Education 33, no. 2 (2011): 189–218.

The relationship between interpretive and dialogical religious education is discussed in Robert Jackson, Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality: Issues in Diversity and Pedagogy (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004), 124–125. The two types of pedagogy are seen as closely linked because both emphasise reflexivity, education about others and self-awareness.

Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Martyn Hammersley, “What Can the Literature on Communities of Practice Tell us about Educational Research? Reflections on Some Recent Proposals,” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 28, no. 1 (2005): 13.

These issues are debated in Martyn Hammersley, “Action Research: A Contradiction in Terms?” Oxford Review of Education 30, no. 2 (2004): 165–181; Hammersley,“What Can the Literature on Communities of Practice Tell Us About Educational Research?”, 13; Kevin O'Grady, “Is Action Research a Contradiction in Terms? Do Communities of Practice Mean the End of Educational Research as We Know It? Some Remarks Based on One Recent Example of Religious Education Research,” Educational Action Research 19, no. 2 (2011): 189–199.

Judith Everington, “The Use of the Interpretive Approach in the Professional Development of Student Teachers of Religious Education,” in Religious Education Research through a Community of Practice: Action Research and the Interpretive Approach, eds. Julia Ipgrave, R. Jackson, and Kevin O'Grady (Münster: Waxmann, 2009), 100–113, 106ff.

Linda Whitworth, “Developing Primary Teachers’ Understanding and Confidence in Teaching Religious Education,” in Religious Education Research through a Community of Practice: Action Research and the Interpretive Approach, eds. Julia Ipgrave, Robert Jackson, and Kevin O'Grady (Münster, Germany: Waxmann, 2009), 114–129, 121–127.

Joyce Miller, “Raising Humanities Teachers’ Understanding of Their Pupils’ Religious and Cultural Backgrounds,” in Religious Education Research Through a Community of Practice: Action Research and the Interpretive Approach, eds. Julia Ipgrave, Robert Jackson, and Kevin O'Grady (Münster, Germany: Waxmann, 2009), 130–149, 142 ff.

Gemma O'Dell, “Action Research into Teaching about Religious Diversity: Pedagogical and Gender Issues in the Application of the Interpretive Approach,” in Religious Education Research through a Community of Practice: Action Research and the Interpretive Approach, eds. J. Ipgrave, R. Jackson, and K. O'Grady (Münster, Germany: Waxmann, 2009), 56–71.

Kevin O'Grady, “Freedom of Belief for English Religious Education Pupils: Some Findings from the Warwick REDCo Community of Practice” (conference paper, presented at Session XVII of the International Seminar for Religious Education and Values, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, July 29, 2010).

Nigel Fancourt, “Reflexive Assessment: The Interpretive Approach and Classroom Assessment,” in Religious Education Research through a Community of Practice: Action Research and the Interpretive Approach, eds. Julia Ipgrave, Robert Jackson, and Kevin O'Grady (Münster: Waxmann, 2009), 84–99.

Amy Whittall, “Developing Appropriate Principles and Strategies for the Teaching of Gifted Students of Religious Education,” in Religious Education Research through a Community of Practice: Action Research and the Interpretive Approach eds. Julia Ipgrave, Robert Jackson, and Kevin O'Grady (Münster, Germany: Waxmann, 2009), 114–129.

James Conroy, “Does RE work?” (conference paper, presented at Session XVII of the International Seminar for Religious Education and Values, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, July 26, 2010.).

For U.S. readers this is a key but hard point to consider. On the one hand, our English research has repeatedly shown that a religious education remote from pupils’ own views and concerns will fail to interest them. On the other hand, incorporating pupil expression of religious experience or attitude into curriculum teaching and learning about religion would be problematic in U.S. public educational institutions. This was often a sticking point in our REDCo discussions with our French colleagues, whose situation is comparable to that of the United States.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kevin O'Grady

Kevin O'Grady has 25 years of experience of teaching and leading religious education in English secondary schools. He has studied at the universities of Lancaster and Warwick, gaining his doctorate in 2007. Kevin was research co-ordinator of the Warwick REDCo community of practice, 2006–2009, part of the English contribution to the European Commission-funded REDCo project. He is a member of the ongoing REDCo network and of the International Seminar on Religious Education and Values. He is widely published on religious education pedagogy and action research, his main interests. Kevin is Faculty Leader for Religious Education, Personal, Health and Social Education, Citizenship and Careers at Aston Academy and an Associate Fellow in the Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit. E-mail: [email protected]