Examining Grimmitt`s Human Pedagogy In Informing

Explore how an approach to the study of religion may inform teaching and learning in religious education.

As academisation progresses across England, academies free from locally agreed syllabuses seek to design their own religious syllabus or select a syllabus to follow. Therefore, it is imperative to reconsider the objectives and instrumentation of religious education. Furthermore, as a community of religious educators it is crucial to reflect on the gargantuan task, we face in considering what objectives we seek in the classroom and how best to achieve them. Within this essay, I consider Grimmitt s human development approach to religious education. This highlights the instrumental value of religious education in developing capacities in students rather than any intrinsic value in religious knowledge (Grimmitt 1991). However, this will be evaluated against concerns from theists such as Kalve and Barnes, that Grimmitt s pedagogy is pluralistic and is too theologically demanding on students and staff (Engebretson 2004 Barnes 2009). Yet, upon reflecting on my own personal experiences in classrooms I believe Kalve and Barnes are arguing an abstract doctrinal point that is not a concern for everyday practicing theists. Furthermore, that the skills and abilities Grimmitt seeks to encourage through his pedagogy can reinforce the religious beliefs of students rather than deconstruct them, this is something I have observed anecdotally. Finally, I will consider some practical implications of Grimmitt, whether it is sufficient in itself and appropriate for all key stages. Ultimately, I conclude that Grimmitt s, in conjunction with other pedagogies, provides a strong foundation for lesson planning and curriculum development.

Traditionally, knowledge has been viewed by most epistemologists as intrinsically valuable and so not requiring any further justification. This view is present within education in that it is important for students to learn about world religions for the sake of acquiring knowledge about them, and for theists especially to acquire the sacred truth that their religion promises to provide (Engebretson 2004, 9). Grimmitt revolts against this traditional philosophical position, instead proposing that the value of religious education in schools stems from its instrumental value in what religious education can provide students (Engebretson 2004, 9). These instrumental goods Grimmitt s separates into abilities of pure religion and abilities of applied religion. Abilities from pure religion are skills and knowledge which develop an understanding of religious beliefs and the lived experience of their adherents (Grimmitt 1991, 77). On the other hand, abilities from applied religion are more abstract skills pertaining to a child s individual development. These are skills formed from a study of religion that aids students in developing their sense of identity, values, morality and in answering life s big philosophical quandaries (Grimmitt 1991, 77). For Grimmitt, it is these sets of abilities which provide the instrumental value of religious education. This is supported by the view of some mainstream educationalists such as Loeb, Swift, Brighouse and Ladd. They argue that the aim of education is to encourage capacities in children which provides opportunities for them to flourish in life, such as the capacity for personal relationships, economic productivity or treating others as equals (Brighouse et al. 2018, 23). For example, students learning of other cultures and their practices encourages the capacity in the student to treat members of other cultures as equal. Failing to develop the capacity for cultural tolerance may hamper the student s ability to engage in liberal democracy and so, damage their opportunity for flourishment (Brighouse et al. 2018, 23). Grimmitt s instrumental understanding of the objectives of religious education are compatible and supported by Brighouse et al s position of education, as developing capacities to aid in student s flourishment. Therefore, Grimmitt s suggests that pedagogy should be grounded in developing the capacities in students that aid their human development rather than knowledge attainment.

Grimmitt having established the objectives of a pedagogy within religious education advances his pedagogy of human development. Fundamentally, Grimmitt s aims to use questioning and reflection to provide opportunities for human and spiritual development, to fulfil the self-needs of the students (Grimmitt 1991). To enable this, Grimmitt provides a four-stage framework for lesson-planning: engagement, discovery, contextualisation then reflection with emphasis placed on narrative activities such as storytelling or art (Grimmit 1991, 83). Devices such as a bell or verbal cue should be utilised to signal a transition between different stages to encourage students to change their response (Grimmitt 1991, 84). Firstly, engagement, this marks the initial interaction between student and the religious material, such as a Menorah or Kirpan. This phase should be driven by the student s natural curiosity encouraging their spontaneous reaction to the stimulus. No implicit connection to the religious value should be made, but the material should be represented in a way that encourages the students to display reverence (Grimmitt 1991 83-84). Discovery follows engagement, here it should be made clear to the children, by some cue, that they are entering the world of religious ideas. During this stage the teacher should draw the students focus onto specific elements of the material, for example the number of candles on a Jewish Menorah. Whilst spontaneous reaction should still play a part in this phase it is here students, with limited aid from the educator, should begin to interpret the material spiritually (Grimmitt 1991, 84). Subsequently students then enter the contextualisation phase, it is at this stage students should engage in the religious and social context of the material provided by the educator. Grimmitt recommends the use of a distancing-device to encourage reverence towards the religious tradition such as putting a name to a believer that allows dialogue to occur in the third person (Grimmitt 1991, 84). For example, This is Ben, a Jew, he believes that the nine candles on the Menorah are symbolic of a miraculous story that occurred in the Temple . Finally, students enter the reflective stage. This final phase is similar to the initial discovery stage but is distinct in that students now understand the religious context of the material. Students should be free to independently reflect and share their ideas and emotions towards the material now they understand the religious context. In doing this, students are provided with the educationally valuable opportunity to utilise the religious insight they have gained. Thereby, encouraging self-knowledge and self-awareness, students developing their abilities in applied religion and pure religion (Grimmitt 1991, 84). Overall, the aim of this four-part structure is to maximise the religious and educational privileges that the material can bestow upon the children through self-reflection and dialogue (Grimmitt 1991, 84).

Putting this into practice, a lesson on Buddhism may take the following form. The educator recounts the narrative of The Four Sights of Buddhism to the students asking for their initial spontaneous response to the story, this is the engagement stage. The teacher then declares to the class we are now entering the world of religious ideas to move them into the discovery phase. Here, students are encouraged to focus on the sights themselves, what is common between them and how they might respond spiritually to seeing them. Following this, students are provided with the religious context, namely how the Four Sights fits into the foundations of Buddhist teaching and Siddhartha Gautama s origins. A video of a Buddhist explaining what the story means to them may be useful to fulfil the role of distancing encouraging reverence towards the story given the religious context. Finally, the teacher then brings the class together for a moment of reflection in the final reflective stage, examining what they have learnt and how this may build on their self-knowledge. For example, encouraging the students to think spiritually how they may respond to grief or sickness. This then completes the lesson.

I believe that overall, Grimmitt s pedagogy of human development is a good approach to both the objectives of religious studies and the teaching of it. Grimmitt s aims of religious education as developing abilities within students to aid their personal development matches my own anecdotal evidence. In discussions with teachers of religious education about what they believe the objective of religious education to be, they typically talk about the development of key skills such as critical thinking, tolerance, and empathy. The development of these is something the teachers sometimes believe is not developed in other subjects studied in state education. Furthermore, from my time observing and teaching in secondary schools I have found that the student s peak engagement in religious studies is often during dialogic tasks that Grimmitt s methodology encourages. In addition, the structure of this inter-student dialogue in the classroom usually follows a Grimmitt-esque outline. Students often begin by sharing their spontaneous opinion (engagement) and then refine it picking on a certain point (discovery). Teachers then often provide some religious context to keep the debate on track and on topic (contextualisation), before the students take their refined points from earlier and apply their religious insight (reflection). I do not see this observation as coincidental but rather as a display of the intuitiveness of Grimmitt s argument that from my experience is naturally reflected in students dialogic methods.

But, some theists and theologians, such as Kalve and Barnes (Engebretson 2004, 12 Barnes 2009), could strongly object to the pluralism that is essential to Grimmitt s view. Pluralism within religious education is the viewpoint that all world religions should be taught as equally valid within a democratic society, and that the societal multiculturalism is sought after for the sake of itself (Grimmitt 1994, 134). In order to engage in Grimmitt s four stage process, one must be willing to put oneself in the position of that religious believer and consider them to hold valid beliefs. If the student does not accept their validity, then it becomes impossible to engage in the reflective process. Much like it would be impossible to engage in maths if the teacher tried to educate you that 2 + 2 = 5. However, for some theists to teach that all world religions are equally valid could be a gross misrepresentation of the actual beliefs of religious adherents and places too higher demand on theistic staff and students. To teach or be taught a pluralistic pedagogy requires theists to abandon central claims of their epistemological supremacy and accept that other religions hold an equal epistemological truth (Barnes 2009, 615). For example, this could translate to a Christian refuting the singleness of the truth that Christianity provides them. Thus, critically endangering their delicate web of religious beliefs that form their Christianity. This is because Christianity s truth is provided by Christ as the Son of God, to refute this truth claim is to also refute Christ as God incarnate threatening the fundamentals of Christianity (Barnes 2009, 615). This is also true of other world religions in the face of pluralism, for Islam this could be to deny the unique truth of Muhammad s revelations or the Buddha s enlightenment under the Bodi tree for a Buddhist. Therefore, despite pluralism claiming to be a theory of equality encouraging religious tolerance it is in fact revisionist requiring theists to surrender core theological claims (Barnes 2009, 615). This is too much to ask of students and staff for the benefit of one pedagogy. In addition, the confusion that pluralism generates is something I have observed in my experience on placement in secondary school. During a GCSE Year 10 class on Christian ethics a practicing Islamic student exclaimed This cannot be right! Only Islam can tell us how to behave properly! . This therefore suggests that we should avoid Grimmitt s pedagogy as a theory which risks misrepresenting religious beliefs and demanding too much of students and staff.

However, I personally do not find such a criticism convincing, theologians arguing this point are making a niche doctrinal point that does not impact upon the lived experience of most theists. In a 2011 survey, 51% of theists claimed that all religions share equal validity, only 31% disagreed (YouGov-Cambridge). From personal experience in school this is also the majority view in the classroom from both staff and students. Religious education teachers who are also theists that I have discussed this with often state that they believe being a religious education teacher is a God-given duty, to help students develop spiritually in whichever way that may be. Furthermore, I have observed students reflect and come to their own personal realisation that they believe all the different world religions are worshipping the same God but in their own way with their own practices. This is a far cry from the panicked criticism of theologians believing that pluralism is an existential threat to the religious beliefs of staff and students. Instead, I have personally witnessed students deepen their own religious understanding of their own religious background. For example, there was a year 11 class where several practicing Islamic students expressed surprise at learning that Islam does not believe in sex before marriage. This all suggests that concerns surrounding the pluralism in Grimmitt s pedagogy should be dismissed.

In evaluation, whilst Grimmitt s pedagogy of human development may avoid theological criticisms there are still practical implications. Firstly, there is the risk of repetitiveness and thus student disengagement from Grimmitt s clearly defined lesson structure. But, this is to be expected and any sound educationalist would incorporate multiple pedagogies into their scheme of work. Yet, I feel it is important that other selected pedagogies are philosophically compatible with the aims and objectives of Grimmitt s, in developing capacities in students. Smart s phenomenology or Hay s spiritual development models (NATRE n.d.) may be appropriate assistants for this reason. Secondly, there is also practical concern about preparing students for exams in KS4. Given the importance of accuracy and depth in GCSE Religious Studies and the time-restraint on teaching a busy specification, Grimmitt s pedagogy may be inappropriate for this key stage. This is because there is limited time to allow for an entire lesson of debate and reflection with limited knowledge attained, even if it develops capacities I believe are vital. To this extent, unless if the way students are assessed radically changes, I am prepared to concede that Grimmitt s pedagogy must be largely relegated to KS3.

In conclusion, I believe that Grimmitt s human development pedagogy provides a strong basis for lesson planning and curriculum design. Grimmitt s focus on developing abilities in students to further their spiritual and personal development is supported by the natural way students seem to engage in classroom dialogue. Furthermore, by the view of some mainstream educationalists on the purpose of overall education. This is despite concerns from some theologians that Grimmitt s approach is pluralistic and thus is too demanding on theistic students and staff in asking them to surrender their religious claims to epistemological supremacy. But, this is not the case as the abilities that Grimmitt seeks to develop in his pedagogy can reaffirm the religious beliefs of students rather than denying the uniqueness of their religious beliefs.

References

Barnes, L. (2009). An alternative reading of modern religious education in England and Wales. British Journal Of Sociology Of Education, 30(5), 607-619.

Brighouse, H., Swift, A., Loeb, S., Ladd, H. (2018). Educational Goods: Values, Evidence and Decision Making (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Engebretson, K. (2004). Learning About and Learning from Religion. The Pedagogical Theory of Michael Grimmitt. Journal Of Religious Education, 52(3), 8-14.

Grimmitt, M. (1991). The Use of Religious Phenomena in Schools: Some theoretical and practical considerations. British Journal Of Religious Education, 13(2), 77-88.

Grimmitt, M. (1994). Religious education and the ideology of pluralism. British Journal Of Religious Education, 16(3), 133-147. Retrieved 10 October 2022, from.

Methods of Teaching RE. NATRE. Retrieved 9 October 2022, from https://www.natre.org.uk/primary/teaching-re/methods-of-teaching-re-1/

YouGov-Cambridge. (2011). Census 2011-Religion. Retrieved 9 October 2022, from