Abstract
Over the past three decades, the development of religious education in Australia has been largely shaped by catechetical and curriculum approaches to teaching and learning. To date, little emphasis has been placed on the pedagogical dimension of religious education. The purpose of this research project is to explore the manner in which ‘brain-based’ learning theory contributes to pedagogical development in primary religious education. The project utilises an action research methodology combining concept mapping, the application of ‘brain-based’ teaching strategies and focus group dialogue with diocesan Religious Education Coordinators (RECs). The insights derived contribute to the formulation and validation of an appropriate pedagogical model for primary religious education, entitled the ‘DEEP Framework’. The model reflects an integration of insights from brain-based theory with nuances from the contemporary Australian religious education literature. The project identifies four key, interactive principles that are crucial to pedagogical development in religious education, namely: Discernment, Enrichment, Engagement and Participation. It also recognises a fifth principle, ‘an orientation towards wholeness’, as significant in combining the various pedagogical principles into a coherent whole. The DEEP framework enables teachers to more successfully select and evaluate appropriate, interconnecting teaching strategies within the religious education classroom. The framework underpins the pedagogical rationale of the recently developed Archdiocese of Hobart religious education program and forms the basis for the implementation of a coherent professional development program across the Archdiocese.
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Pedagogy: A Way Forward for Religious Education in Australia? - 1
Introduction: - 1
Aims of the Research Project: - 3
Doctoral Research Question - 4
Sub questions: - 4
Key Definitions: - 4
Religious Education: - 4
Pedagogy - 5
Brain-based Learning - 5
Key Issues addressed in the Literature Review: - 5
Methodology 8 Timeline - 9
Organisation of the Dissertation - 10
Conclusion - 11
Chapter Two: Pedagogy: The 'Missing Link' in Religious Education - 12
Introduction: - 12
Figure 1: Religious Formation in a School Context - 13
Catechetical Framework - 13
Curriculum Framework: - 18
Pedagogical Framework - 22
Conclusion - 31
Chapter Three: Pedagogy: A National Concern - 32
Introduction: - 42
Theme One: Neuronal Connections - 42
Acquisition - 43 Elaboration - 45
Encoding: - 45
Theme Two: Synaptic Density and Environmental Influences - 47
Theme Three: Brain Systems and the Role of Emotion - 50
Theme Four: Bicameral Brain - 53
Theme Five: Brain-based Learning Frameworks - 55
Figure 2: A modified representation of Herrmann’s ‘Whole Brain’ Model - 59
Theme Six: Neurotheology - 61
Theme Seven: Critical Periods - 62
Critique of Brain-Based Learning Theory - 63
Conclusion - 64
Chapter Five: Action Research Methodology: Linking Theory and Practice - 65
Introduction: - 65
Methodology Rationale: General Overview of Action Research - 65
Figure 3: Action Research Continuum - 68
Stage One: Technical Action Research: Concept Mapping - 68
Stage One: Data Gathering and Analysis - 69
Phase One: Preparation of the database - 69
Phase Two: Generation of conceptual data - 69
Phase Three: Structuring of the Central Themes - 70
Phase Four: Successive Representations – identification of criteria - 70
Stage Two: Participatory Action Research: Fieldwork - 71
Figure 4: Overview of Stage Two of the Action Research Process - 72
Stage Two: Data Gathering and Analysis - 72
Figure 5: Sources of Data – Stage Two: Triangulation Models - 73
Phase One: Professional Dialogue and Development (July, 2003 - 74
Phase Two: Critiquing the initial framework (Term 2, 2003) - 74
Phase Three: Critiquing revised framework (Term 3, 2003) - 76
Participants - 77
Research Instruments - 78
Summary of the Research Process - 78
Fig 6: Overview of Action Research Procedure - 79
Use of Controls - 80
Constraints/Limitations: - 81
Conclusion - 85
Chapter Six: Action Research: Stage One - Conceptual Outcomes - 86
Introduction: - 86
Action Research Stage One: Concept Mapping - 86
Figure 7: Overview of Concept Maps: Literature Review - 87
Map 1: Catechetical Framework for Religious Education - 88
Map 2: Curriculum Framework for Religious Education - 88
Map 3: Pedagogical Framework for Religious Education - 91
Map 4: Pedagogy in Australia - 93
Map 5: The Brain and Learning - 95
Concept Maps linked to the DEEP Framework - 97
Figure 8: Overview of Concept Maps leading to the DEEP Framework - 97
Map 6: Discernment: The generation of personal meaning and understanding (6.0) - 98
Map 7: Enrichment: Catering for individualised learning (7.0) - 100
Map 8: Engagement: Personal choice to be involved in learning (8.0) - 102
Map 9: Participation: The communal dimension of learning (9.0) - 104
Conclusion - 106
Chapter Seven: The DEEP Framework: A Pedaogigical Scaffold for Religious Education - 107
Introduction: - 107
Identification of Overarching Themes - 107
1. The role of ‘meaning making’ in the learning process – Discernment - 108
2. Catering for the diverse learning needs of individual students - Enrichment - 109
3. Fostering an openness and personal commitment to learning - Engagement - 110
4. The Communal Dimension of Learning - Participation - 111
5. An Orientation towards Wholeness - 113
Introduction of the DEEP Pedagogical Framework - 114
Figure 9: ‘DEEP’ Framework: Key Principles - 116
Specific Pedagogical Criteria Linked to the DEEP Framework - 116
Principle One: Discernment (6.0) - 117
(i) Opportunities for meaning to emerge - 117
(ii) Elaboration - 118
(iii) Connected Knowing - 119
(iv) Critical and lateral thinking - 120
(v) Reflective Practice: - 121
Principle Two: Enrichment (7.0) - 123
(i) Learning styles: - 123
(ii) Cognitive processing styles - 124
(iii) Multiple Outcomes - 125
(iv) Mixed ability levels - 126
(v) Open-ended responses - 127
Principle Three: Engagement (8.0) - 128
(i) Problem based: - 129
(ii) Personally relevant - 130
(iii) Regular feedback - 130
(iv) The role of emotion - 131
(v) Risk taking - 132
(vi) Neural fatigue and recovery - 133
Principle Four: Participation (9.0) 134
(i) The ‘wisdom’ of the community: - 135
(ii) Collaborative learning teams - 136
(iii) Modelling, Joint Construction and Independent activities - 137
(iv) Individual and group accountability - 137
Overlapping Criteria - 139
Preliminary Pedagogical Criteria for the DEEP Framework - 139
Figure 10: Preliminary Pedagogical Criteria for the ‘DEEP’ Framework - 140
Chapter Eight: Action Research: Stage Two - Statistical Data - 142
Introduction: - 142
Action Research Stage Two: Fieldwork - Statistical Data - 142
Table 1: Initial Criteria developed by RECs: Matched to the DEEP Framework - 143
Table 2: Frequency of Criteria Evident in Nominated Teaching Strategies - 146
Table 3: Open-ended Evaluations Coded against DEEP Criteria - 148
Table 4: Rating Lesson Effectiveness: Phase 3 - 150
Conclusion - 152
Chapter Nine: The DEEP Framework: A Practical Critique - 153
Introduction: - 153
Broad Critique of the DEEP Framework - 154
Insights from the Statistical Analysis of the DEEP Framework - 154
Insights from the Focus Group Analysis of the DEEP Framework - 155
Insights on Specific Criteria - General Observations - 159
Insights on Specific Preliminary Criteria - 160
1.0 Discernment Criteria - 160
1.1 Original Criterion: Generates opportunities for meaning to emerge - 160
1.2 Original Criterion: Reconstructs learning through elaboration - 161
1.3 Original Criterion: Nurtures ‘connected knowing’ - 162
1.4 Original Criterion: Emphasises critical and lateral thinking processes - 163
1.5 Original Criterion: Engages the learner in reflective practice - 163
2.0 Enrichment Criteria - 164
2.1 Original Criterion: Inputs data through a variety of learning styles - 164
2.2 Original Criterion: Accommodates cognitive processing styles - 165
2.3 Original Criterion: Addresses a range of outcomes in one task - 165
2.4 Original Criterion: Caters for mixed ability levels - 166
2.5 Original Criterion: Allows for open-ended responses - 166
3.0 Engagement Criteria - 167
3.1 Original Criterion: Is problem based - 167
3.2 Original Criterion: Is personally relevant - 168
3.3 Original Criterion: Provides learning connections through regular feedback - 168
3.4 Original Criterion: Acknowledges the role of emotion in learning - 169
3.5 Original Criterion: Encourages risk taking - 170
3.6 Original Criterion: Allows for neural fatigue and recovery - 170
3.7 Proposed additional Criterion: Learning experiences are co-constructed - 171
4.0 Participation Criteria - 172
4.1 Original Criterion: Values the ‘wisdom’ of the community - 172
4.2 Original Criterion: Function within small collaborative learning teams - 172
4.3 Original Criterion: Incorporates Modelling, Joint Construction and Independent activities - 173
4.4 Original Criterion: Encourages individual and group accountability - 174
4.5 Proposed additional Criterion: Activities are time efficient and manageable - 174
Conclusion - 175
Figure 11: Revised Pedagogical Criteria for the ‘DEEP’ Framework - 176
Chapter Ten: The DEEP Framework: A Small Step on the Journey - 177
Introduction: - 177
Synthesis of Key Findings - 177
1. Enhancing an understanding of the learning process in religious education. - 178
2. The evaluation of teaching strategies in the religious education classroom - 182
3. The impact of brain-based learning theory on pedagogical development. - 183
4. Implications for religious education in the Archdiocese of Hobart - 185
(i) Curriculum Development - 185
(ii) Enhancement of teacher quality - 185
(iii) Professional Development: - 187
(iv) Broader implications for the Archdiocesan system - 188
Generalisation of Research Findings - 189
Future Research Directions: - 190 Conclusion - 192
B IBLIOGRAPHY - 195
A PPENDICES - 215
