Problems of assessment in religious and moral ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of the West of Scotland] On: 23 March 2013, At: 07:48 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjbv20

Problems of assessment in religious and moral education: the Scottish case a

Lynne Grant & Yonah H. Matemba a

a

School of Education, University of the West of Scotland, Ayr, UK

To cite this article: Lynne Grant & Yonah H. Matemba (2013): Problems of assessment in religious and moral education: the Scottish case, Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & Education, 34:1, 1-13 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2013.759338

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Beliefs & Values, 2013 Vol. 34, No. 1, 1–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2013.759338

Problems of assessment in religious and moral education: the Scottish case Lynne Grant* and Yonah H. Matemba

Downloaded by [University of the West of Scotland] at 07:48 23 March 2013

School of Education, University of the West of Scotland, Ayr, UK This article is concerned with assessment issues in Religious and Moral Education (RME) offered in Scottish non-denominational schools. The analysis of the findings in this article is weighed against the framework of the new ‘3–18’ Scottish curriculum called ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ (CfE). CfE was introduced in primary schools in 2009 and a year later in secondary schools as replacement of the much criticised ‘5–14’ Curriculum which had been in use since 1992. It is based on qualitative data collected from schools in five Scottish local authorities between 2009 and 2011 as part of a moderation project. What is being problematised in this article is the revelation from the data about issues that impact adversely on good assessment in RME in five key areas, namely: planning, religious knowledge, progression, self and peer assessment, literacy and values. The implications of these assessment problems for effective teaching and learning in RME are analysed. Keywords: Religious and Moral Education; Scotland; Curriculum for Excellence; assessment

Introduction and background Religious Education (RE) is a difficult curriculum subject to assess not least due to disagreements over what to assess (Blaylock 2000), how this should be done (Hargreaves 1995) and even whether it is possible or even desirable to assess the subject (Hand 2006). Problems of assessment in RE are directly related to the contested aims of RE: is it about teaching cognitive facts about religions (Smart 1984), teaching for religious commitment (Baker 2001) or teaching about religious knowledge as much as about religious commitment (von Brömssen and Olgaç 2010)? In Scotland, this debate is polarised between the way RE is offered in the two sectors of public education, namely, denominational and non-denominational (McKinney 2008). In the denominational sector the Roman Catholic Church controls and operates 373 (56 of which are secondaries) of the 377 faith based schools (both primary and secondary) with the rest divided between Episcopalian Church (three primaries) and Jewish faith (one primary) (Scottish Government 2011). Again, of all the school subjects on the nationally recognised curriculum (unlike most countries Scotland does not have a prescribed national curriculum although in *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis


2

L. Grant and Y.H. Matemba

practice state funded schools follow the curriculum provided by the government) RE is unique because two distinct and separate curricula are offered: one with a ‘secular’ and neo-confessional slant for non-denominational schools called ‘RME’ and the other with a neo-confessional slant but typically faith based by its intention for Catholic schools called ‘RE’ (Rodger 2003). All other faith-based schools follow the non-denominational curriculum (Matemba 2011). Since the early 1990s RE in Scotland has undergone two important curricular changes as part of wider educational reform, first the 5–14 Curriculum introduced in 1992 and now Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) introduced in 2009 (although implementation in secondary education was delayed until a year later in 2010 to allow time for teacher preparation in the new curriculum) (Scottish Government 2010). Briefly, CfE arose from the recommendations of a 2003 Curriculum Review Group (CRG) which proposed a transformation of Scottish education by replacing the ‘5–14’ with a ‘3–18’ Curriculum. This curriculum shift means that for the first time ever CfE provides a single curriculum framework with effective structures of assessment and qualifications (although by the time of writing in 2012 the new national qualifications framework had not been implemented) for children from ages 3 to 18 (LTS 2006). CfE is underpinned by four curricular capacities in teaching and learning, namely: (a) develop successful learners; (b) make confident individuals; (c) make responsible citizens; and (d) make effective contributors. What is also different from the previous arrangement is that CfE has a cross-curricular approach in teaching key themes across several subject areas (LTS 2006). Uniquely, it only provides approved ‘experiences and outcomes’ so that teachers can feed into the final version of what exactly to teach (Priestley and Humes 2010). Assessment in Scottish Religious Education Assessment in Scottish RE – both in the denominational and non-denominational sectors (i.e. RME) – is actually a fairly recent development which emerged in 1981 after the law that had previously prevented any form of assessment in the subject was lifted by an act of parliament (British Government 1981a, 403). Historically, since education was formalised in Scotland in 1872 and even after the Catholic Church agreed to make its schools part of state education in 1918 (O'Hagan and Davis 2007), RE was the only subject which by law could not be assessed. The irony was that even when RE was made a compulsory subject (in 1929) (Knox 1953), by law the state could not interfere with or be involved in determining how the subject was to be designed and taught (although the Secretary of State had powers to enforce the provision of RE in schools) (see Rodger 2003). Such prerogative was given to Churches and schools because of the sensitivity surrounding religion (i.e. Christianity) since the Scottish Reformation (Fairweather and MacDonald 1992), an issue made more intense with Catholic Irish immigration during the second half of the nineteenth century (Conroy 2001). Although traditionally assessment has not been a firm part of RE, the various curriculum reforms that have come as part of wider educational reforms during the past two decades or so have helped to inform the subject about best practices in teaching, pedagogy and assessment. More so for the fact that the new 3–18 curriculum (i.e. CfE) has been undertaken to address the educational failures of the previous 5–14 Curriculum and further for the reason that teachers are constantly reminded about best practices and excellence in teaching and learning (Scottish


Journal of Beliefs & Values

3

Executive 2004). Hannah, in his study of Scottish RE was hopeful in his conclusion that the ‘educationalisation’ of Scottish RE had begun with the coming of the 1992 5–14 Curriculum (Hannah 2007). While recognising some positive strides (i.e. teacher professionalisation in RE, recognition of the subject by General Teaching Council Scotland (GTCS) and the adoption of ‘educational’ rather than merely ‘confessional approaches), Matemba’s recent book exposes some key areas of criticism of the now defunct 5–14 RME programme. First, that it taught merely for basic knowledge in religion through the use of a ‘supermarket’ approach. By this approach pupils spent much of their time in RME identifying and labelling strands (which the Smartian approach identifies as dimensions of religion which should be studied ‘objectively’) such as celebrations, festivals, customs, sacred writings, stories, key figures, beliefs, sacred places and so on. As such the study of religion in schools was a dull affair, lacking in imagination and, at worst, a teacher centred subject (Matemba 2011, 93ff). Examining the guidelines of the new 3–18 RME Curriculum it is pleasing to note the attempts that have been made to make teaching and learning in religion more meaningful, challenging and invigorating. This is evidenced by the fact that the new curriculum emphasises reflective skills to be achieved by learning objectives which help children to engage more meaningfully with the material content through the use of high order learning competence terms such as evaluate, criticise, judge, create, reflect, judge, apply and so on in learning a given content area. In other words, different from 5–14 Curriculum, the current CfE targets pupils’ learning through the deliberate use of phrases such as ‘I can explore this,’ ‘I can investigate that,’ ‘I can reflect on that,’ ‘I can research this,’ and so on (LTS 2006, 2009a). The two separate types of state funded education in Scotland already noted reveals another important distinction between ‘faith’ and ‘secular’ schooling on the matter of assessment in RE. Owing to the difficulties of assessing ‘faith’ in education (Halstead and McLaughlin 2005), Roman Catholic controlled schools in Scotland have always been uncomfortable with the issue of assessment in a subject which to them has one main function: faith development in Catholicism (Coll and Davis 2007). For instance, the first ever (1991) Her Majesty’s Inspector of Education (HMIe) report on RE in Catholic Schools in Scotland noted that assessment was hardly ever done and that of all Catholic secondaries that were inspected, none offered examinations in RE except one school which offered a Higher Scottish Certificate Examination course and four schools which offered National Certificate modules in levels 5 and 6 (i.e. S5–S6) (SED 1991, pp. 21ff). This explains why to this day, although RE is an all-important subject of study in Catholic schools, formal examinations have remained unpopular in that sector of education (see for example, SED 1987). On the other hand, RE offered in non-denominational schools (i.e. RME) has always been keen about assessment since national examinations were first introduced in the subject in 1984 (Fairweather and MacDonald 1992), three years after the law barring assessment in RE was amended (British Government 1981b). The present study This article is based on qualitative data collected between 2009 and 2011 as part of cross sector moderation work project in Scottish schools (primary and secondary)


4


located in five Scottish local authorities. Moderation within the context of this project was a means for schools and local authorities to discuss examples of self-selected materials under the banner of moderation for improvement in teaching and learning in schools (Bushell 2006; Good 1988; Hall and Harding 2002; Radnor 1996). The moderation project involved a total of 100 schools (with the split being 87 primary and 13 secondary schools) and a total of 355 participants over a two-year period. Participants involved in the moderation work included: (a) 281 teachers with the split being 194 primary and 87 secondary school teachers; (b) 53 headteachers; (c) 21 classroom support staff; and (d) 5 local authority quality improvement officers (one from each authority). For this project, schools and local authorities submitted self-selected materials for moderation from different subject areas of the school curriculum including RME as examples of ‘best’ practice. Materials submitted for analysis, appraisal and recording included teacher’s planners and students’ work such as work books (i.e. jotters) and completed group projects as well as posters and pictures of pupil work. In addition, formal discussions with a number of headteachers and teachers were undertaken as part of this project. The self-selected materials on RE came from non-denominational schools (i.e. offering RME). This article has three specific aims relating to RME: (a) to capture and record best practices in RME: (b) to assess the extent to which teaching, learning and assessment (TLA) in RME has improved in the light of curriculum improvements in the subject from ‘5–14’ to CfE; and (c) using CfE framework, to examine effective assessment strategies in RME. In line with research ethics, all participants and local authorities involved in the project gave their consent for the findings to be made public. Further, anonymity was strictly maintained and that sources of all verbatim excerpts used have been given anonymous codes to protect the identities of the participants and local authorities concerned.

Findings Planning and choice of tasks The research found that weak lesson planning and poor choice of tasks was endemic in the work submitted for moderation. In primary schools much of the teaching, learning and assessment were based on simple worksheets involving colouring in, filling in missing words and so on. In secondary schools, assessment tasks were based on mere description of religious phenomena with little attempt at assessing critical thinking and reflective analysis of issues as CfE now suggests. In other words, TLA in RME made little connection to specific CfE outcomes. This suggested that TLA in some schools were at odds with the principles of the current CfE guidelines, which in part, states: There is scope to increase higher order skills and critical thinking through developing learning based on the fourth level experiences and outcomes to encourage deeper learning. (Stewart 2011, 4)

Examining what was taught in schools and how this was assessed it was evident that teacher’s knowledge and understanding reflected little about the expectations of the new curriculum on how RME is to be taught and assessed. The findings revealed that teachers were employing the thinking, pedagogical, and assessment



5

strategies of the 5–14 Curriculum but calling these CfE strategies. Clearly, many RME teachers were still stuck in the groove of the 5–14 Curriculum. For instance, materials analysed in the moderation work indicated that RME was offered only in one hour (i.e. one class) a week. Given that the lack of adequate time for RME was one of the key areas of concern in the 5–14 curriculum (see Hannah 2007), one would have thought that this problem had been addressed in CfE and yet it seemed this was not the case. Part of the problem is that the latest government guidelines for RE while reiterating that by law the subject should be taught in schools has not provided any guidance on how much time schools should spend on the subject, except in Roman Catholic schools where the minimum time for RE in primary and secondary schools has been set at 2.5 hours and 2 hours per week respectively (Stewart 2011, 3). We therefore wonder why similar guidance has not been given to specific time allocation in RME (i.e. for non-denominational schools). From some of the materials we assessed, the implication of reduced time for RME was that in one secondary school, for example, a single class project took four lessons (i.e. a month) to complete. Based on the submitted work, in one week, students in that school spent the entire RME period writing an introduction. In explaining how the project work was organised, secondary teacher 1 noted: The Secondary 1 RME project took four lessons to complete. At the beginning of the first lesson I introduced the plans for the project using PowerPoint presentation. One group was researching Sikhism, one group was researching Islam and one group was researching Hinduism…

With so much that can be taught and assessed in a diverse and content saturated subject such as RME, the lack of adequate time had serious implications not only on how much material could be covered, the depth of material but also on how effectively this could be assessed. As a consequence of this, many of the materials submitted for moderation indicated a lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the religious subject or topic studied.

Religious knowledge Another key finding was the failure of teachers to assess religious knowledge. Rather, the findings showed that teachers were more interested assessing students’ generic skills such as listening, working in groups, enthusiasm and so on. In many of the materials assessed, there was little or no attempt made to assess religious knowledge itself. In one school, for example, a teachers’ log on pupil assessment working on a group project in S1 stated: Pupil 1: Has answered well the question. Good reflection. Pupil 2: Has struggled to have her voice heard but eventually got on with the task. Pupil 3: Is good in group work and wants to get on – done quickly. Pupil 4: Is a good team member. Good work.

6

L. Grant and Y.H. Matemba Pupil 5: Has good humour.


Pupil 6: Always has an opinion and should do well in the team.

Clearly, the teacher in the above example failed to assess knowledge and understanding about religion which should be the main concern of teaching and learning in RME. In fact, the class project in question involved three groups of students working on three religions: Sikhism, Islam and Hinduism. In this case, it could have been necessary for the teacher to explore what the children learnt and how they engaged with the knowledge gained on the three religions that had been selected for investigation. Evidently, this finding was at odds with RME CfE guidelines as one of its learning outcomes is to help students ‘explore and develop knowledge and understanding of religions…’ (LTS 2009a, 1). Academic progression The new statutory guidance for RME in CfE identifies progression of knowledge acquisition as one of the aspects of excellence in TLA. For example, the guidance on CfE states that RME should ‘…ensure continued progression, depth, personalisation and choice…’ (Stewart 2011, 4). However, the findings reported in this article suggest that there was little progression in TLA in RME in the materials that were examined. Crucially, work which should have been covered in the early or first levels (i.e. primary education) of CfE was found to be repeated in early secondary school. Secondary teacher 6 revealed one of the underlining causes of this problem: Frankly I am less interested to know what they learn in primary schools. I have guidelines document to refer to and I am qualified to make my own judgement as what to teach.

A key factor contributing to this problem was that there was little collaboration and a lack of communication between primary and secondary teachers in terms of what each sector taught and to what extent this was covered. This was compounded by the fact that in Scotland curriculum guidelines do not have separate sections containing materials for primary and secondary. Rather, as in the CfE guidelines, the curriculum only has five levels covering pre-primary, primary and secondary education, namely: early, first, second, third and fourth levels. In each of the five CfE levels, teaching, learning and assessment in RME is based on three main dimensions or strands, namely: (a) beliefs; (b) values and issues; and (c) practices and traditions (LTS 2008a, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b). The implication of this for assessment in RME in the moderated work was that due to poor collaboration between the sectors, secondary school teachers assessed basic facts about religion which frankly should have been the task of primary education if effective progression and continuity in the subject was to be realised in line with CfE. Self and peer assessment The materials analysed in this research indicated that there was an attempt to involve students in some form of self and peer assessment. On the face of it this was a good TLA strategy and demonstrated links with the assessment for learning


7

strategies first introduced in Scottish schools in 2001 (Mansell, James, and Assessment Reform Group 2009). The outcome of this strategy however, indicated that this did not achieve the desired results; at least as far as students were able to assess their knowledge about religion was concerned. In one secondary school where a group self-assessed its project work, the following comments were noted: [In week one]: We had a great start to our project and got a fair amount of done. We have finished our introduction and made a start of other stuff.


[In week two]: We progressed a lot and finished the front cover and introduction. We hope to write out the festivals and famous people next week. [In week three]: We have progressed very much and now only need to complete conclusion. [In week four]: Today we completed our booklet and we hope that it impress [sic].

In another school where students peer assessed each other’s work, the following comments which students made on each other’s work (i.e. peer assessment) were noted: Student 1: Good colourful and clear. Student 9: Not saying what he plans to do. Student 3: Only one picture, more information needed. Student 4: Not much into each belief. Student 10: Good but little messy. Student 6: It doesn’t make sense. Student 7: Wasting space. Student 8: Wasting paper yet good info. Well done.

Besides the fact many of the comments were vague and ill-informed, the crucial issue was that none of the students either in the self or peer assessment exercises commented on the substantive issues of the religion upon which the tasks being assessed were based. In other words, self and peer assessment exercises observed in this research did not in any way indicate whether students understood, questioned or were challenged by the religious issues under investigation. Again, it was evident that students did not have any skill in peer or self-assessment. In other words, students did not know what and how to assess. This finding concurs with research on peer and self-assessment on the point that to maximise the benefit of this practice for effective teaching and learning student may need some training in the specific lesson or scheme being used (Conway et al. 1993; Dochy, Segers, and Sluijsmans 1999; Hanrahan and Isaacs 2001).


8


Literacy One of the unique contributions that RME makes is that, if planned and taught well, it can enhance literacy (Wright 1993). Thus, as students study different cultures and religions they come across a wealth of new ideas, concepts and terms. Literacy in RME also opens up the child’s mind to new horizons of understating in dealing with religious ambiguity which contemporary approaches of RME such as phenomenology sometimes bring. Therefore, radical religious literacy is always needed in RME because studying religion(s) exposes the child to some uncomfortable realities such as contradictions, cruelties, taboos and even ambiguities arising from truth claims (Conroy and Davis 2008, 200). Another useful layer of literacy which effective RME can bring about is teaching about basic literacy related to wider learning such as: (a) accurate knowledge related to meanings of words, terms and concepts; (b) grammar in areas such as spelling, use of tenses, apostrophe and punctuation; and (c) skills of debate and coherence in presenting an argument. The issue of literacy in RME also fits well with the framework of CfE because one of its key components is literacy across learning (LTS 2006). A noteworthy finding in this research was that in the work submitted for moderation there was little attempt to assess religious literacy. Examining the lesson planners that were submitted for analysis and reporting it was not clear if teachers were aware that religious literacy was central to effective TLA in RME. In other words, no evidence was found to suggest that teachers had identified specific religious issues for closer study and understanding. Rather, what was found indicated heavy reliance on students’ project work on a religion of choice. The problem is that these projects were so wide, covering almost every aspect of a religion, such that it was unclear exactly what specific issues children were to focus on as a way of expanding their knowledge of the religion chosen for study. For instance, there were no thought-provoking and challenging questions or statements to guide students in their study of religion. Rather, students were merely being asked to make their front page cover ‘informative and eye catching’ or in the introduction students were asked to state ‘what you are planning to do in the booklet.’ Even in cases where students were required to comment on specific religious issues, it was unclear what exactly they were to focus on. In other words, teachers did not provide enough guidance to allow an in-depth study of the religions students had chosen for their projects. Statements such as ‘describe some of the festivals and why they are important’ or ‘what does your group think about this religion’ or ‘are there famous people who follow this religion,’ which teachers provided did little to inspire or challenge students to focus on specific religious issues for closer reflection and debate. Further, the materials submitted for moderation illustrated the fact that TLA in RME did not focus on a basic literacy. Misspellings were endemic and grammatical errors such as capitalization of proper nouns, tenses, punctuation and so on were common place. Worryingly, no attention was given to ensure that religious terms were spelt correctly. For example, in Hinduism, students wrote ‘korma’ instead of ‘karma,’ ‘febirth’ instead of ‘rebirth,’ ‘hindu’ instead of ‘Hindu,’ ‘complacated’ instead of ‘complicated,’ ‘relgion’ instead of ‘religion,’ ‘itresting’ instead of ‘interesting,’ and so on. There were other more substantial factual errors of literacy that were noted. One of these concerned a group work project on Hinduism which gave the impression that Mahatma Gandhi was a religious leader in that religion. The issue should have



9

been to investigate biographies of key religious leaders and yet the little guidance given had suggested that there was no or little difference between a religious leader and a famous person who happened to belong to a certain religion. In the case of Hinduism under discussion here, the problem is that children who chose this religion for their project remained with the erroneous impression that Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu religious leader when in fact he was not. We make the point that Gandhi might have been a famous Hindu and perhaps a good one for that matter, but he was not a religious leader in that religion. The findings in this section suggest that in a lot ways student’s work submitted for moderation had little teacher in-put. There was little evidence to suggest that teachers had properly assessed students’ work and made necessary comments or suggestions for improvement before students were allowed to submit their final work. If there was more teacher-input in these materials many of the basic errors noted could have been corrected before final submission for moderation. However, there is a more fundamental question to ask here: why did teachers submit selfselected pieces of students’ work as examples of ‘best practice’ for moderation when clearly many of these were not because of the many inherent errors in them? Could it be that the concerned teachers were unaware about some of these errors themselves? And if the second proposition can be taken at face value, then what should be said about teacher expertise and professional insight in RME in Scotland? If this apparent lack of professional insight is to stand as an example, then perhaps it validates some of the critical comments made in the recent (2010) ‘Donaldson Report’ (entitled: Teaching Scotland’s Future) which, inter alia, has bemoaned inadequate levels of basic literacy and subject knowledge among Scottish teachers (Donaldson 2010).

Values CfE emphasises the fact that one of the aims of RME is to ‘develop respect for others and an understanding of beliefs and practices which are different from my own’ (Reynolds, Hopkins, and Stoll 1993, 1). A critical examination of the data indicated that there was some ambiguity regarding how teachers were to assess if students had acquired the necessary values such as respect for others’ beliefs and so on. The following verbatim excerpts based on self-evaluation comments by the students themselves after a lesson on Hinduism, illustrates this contention: Student 2: Hinduism is a very complacated religion, best leaving it for Hindus [sic]. Student 12: I think that Hinduism is a hard subject to find information especially the timeline and I wouldn’t want to follow it because they have so many gods. Student 5: Hinduism is an itresting and complicated relgion so best leave it for Hindus and their gods [sic].

The issue here touches on what we have already observed that there was a lack of in-depth knowledge about religion to the extent that it was not clear if children learnt anything ‘religious’ to be able to make an informed and critical judgment about others’ beliefs. Further and perhaps critically, there is little evidence to show how, if at all, to what extent teachers were able to assess values such as respect,

10



justice, compassion and so on which are fundamental issues of study in the new CfE guidelines for RME. Discussion The findings reported in this article indicate several issues of concern some which it was assumed had been addressed by the new CfE. They reveal that RME in Scotland continues to receive less time in the curriculum, a fact that is seriously impacting on how teachers effectively teach and assess the subject to the necessary depth because there is simply no time between tasks given and the time it takes for teachers to assess the work. The findings also reveal serious shortcomings related to progression and continuity of teaching and knowledge acquisition from primary to secondary school. Due to lack of effective communication between primary and secondary school teachers, there is unnecessary repetition of lessons and tasks. In a subject that is denied adequate teaching time, this further constrains how much time teachers can have to effectively assess teaching and learning in RME. The research has revealed serious failures of teachers to assess basic literacy in RME. This is a missed opportunity because literacy is one area where RME can create opportunities for literacy. In other words, teachers should maximise the potential of RME as one of the effective vehicles for literacy across the curriculum. However, passing on students work for moderation with basic literacy errors was a disappointing reality found in the research. It was also evident in the research that self and peer assessment was poorly carried out in all most of the materials that were analysed. This perhaps reveals the fact that there are fundamental gaps in teacher knowledge about assessment in RME or that teachers expect the basics of self and peer assessment to be taught in other curricular areas and for their pupils to understand what was needed. For this reason teachers were unable to impart assessment skills to their students. The little self and peer assessment which was done revealed the fact that students had scant and superficial knowledge about what to asses in RME and even how this could be done. More, worryingly is the fact that what little was assessed had less to do with an aspect of religion. This is an important point because any RME lesson that does not assess religion is tantamount to having no RME at all. RME is fundamentally about the study of religion and while other areas of the curriculum should be considered, fundamentally it is religion which RME should be concerned with, first and foremost. The research also revealed some ambiguity regarding how values are to be assessed and whether the current assessment strategies on this contested aspect of RME as currently used in Scottish schools is adequate. This is a complex issue we cannot fully resolve here, except to suggest the need for teachers to plan their teaching in such a way that intrinsic and contested issues such as values can be assessed. Conclusion Given the challenges and issues on assessment in RME described in this article, several issues can be pointed out. While it is accepted that naturally RME is a difficult subject to assess, it will help the situation if teachers in Scotland assess tasks in line with CfE. The shadow of the 5-14 curriculum appears to have lingered within Scottish education two years after the introduction of Curriculum for Excel-



11

lence. This is because we continue to see RME reduced to assessing basic religious facts. In other words, on the whole, teaching and assessment in RME has remained at the lower cognitive level of identifying, describing, matching, colouring and so on. This is actually at odds with the new CfE which would like to see RME raise the bar in teaching and assessment so that students are able to discover, critique, demonstrate, challenge and so on. The evidence analysed in the article suggests that, at least as far as RME is concerned, teachers are struggling to interpret and plan lessons that meet the aims of the new CfE. This may indicate that teachers need to refresh their skills on how best they should assess RME in the new curriculum format and in particular, what techniques they may use to equip their students with practical skills in self and peer assessment in RME as well. At the moment, it seems that teachers are failing to provide adequate guidance to their students in these matters. It is also necessary to emphasise that the need for teachers to concentrate on assessment tasks that focus on religion as a substantive issue in RME. While it is possible that good RE does exist in Scottish schools (Lundie 2010), the findings in this article reveal that in many cases assessment of RME is out of focus largely due to the fact it is hardly being based on religion but rather, on other issues which while necessary, should nevertheless not be allowed to consume the limited time RME is now being given in schools. Finally, based on the findings analysed in this article, it is evident that school practices in RME are failing to match with the ambitions of CfE and its pedagogical approaches to the subject. However, given the fact that the new CfE programme is in its very early years of implementation, future research will be needed to map out the extent of the mismatch between the ideals and practices of the new curriculum in the area of RME. Notes on contributors Dr Lynne Grant is a lecturer in the School of Education, University of the West of Scotland, UK, where she is responsible for Social Subjects and Leadership for Learning. Lynne gained her PhD in 2007 from the University of Strathclyde. Prior to joining the University of the West of Scotland, Lynne held senior management posts in a primary school and worked at education authority level. Her research interests are varied and include moderation for accountability and improvement, quality assurance and assessment, educational effectiveness, and the impact of social capital on young people’s educational attainment. Lynne is the author of more than 20 published materials including peer-reviewed articles, chapters, reviews, and abstracts. Dr Yonah H. Matemba, from Malawi, is lecturer in the School of Education, University of the West of Scotland, UK, where he is responsible for Religious Education and Health & Wellbeing. He gained his PhD in 2011 from the University of Glasgow. Previously he taught Religious Education at the Botswana government’s Molepolole College of Education, then History at the University of Botswana and finally, Religious Studies at the Catholic University of Malawi. He is the author of more than 20 peer-reviewed articles, book chapter, reviews and books. In 2010 he served as a peer reviewer for the Journal of Moral Education and currently is a member of the Association of University Lecturers in Religion and Education (AULRE).

References Baker, D. G. 2001. “Future of Homemakers and Feminist Awakenings: Autoethnography as a Method in Theological Education and Research.” Religious Education 96 (3): 395–407.


12


Blaylock, L. 2000. “Issues in Achievement and Assessment in Religious Education in England: Which Way Should We Turn?” British Journal of Religious Education 23 (1): 45–58. British Government. 1981. “House of Commons Debate: Religious Education – Scotland.” Hansard 9: 395. British Government. 1981. “House of Lords Debate: Religious Education – Scotland.” Hansard 424: 200–251. Bushell, G. 2006. “Moderation of Peer Assessment in Group Projects.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31 (1): 91–108. Coll, R., and R. Davis. 2007. “Faith School and State Education: Church–State Relations and the Development of the 5–14 Religious Education Programme in Scotland.” Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 11 (1): 543–558. Conroy, J. 2001. “A Very Scottish Affair: Catholic Education and the State.” Oxford Review of Education 27 (4): 543–558. Conroy, J., and R. Davis. 2008. “Citizenship, Education and the Claims of Religious Literacy.” In Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy, edited by M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee, 187–203. Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense Publishers. Conway, R., D. Kember, A. Sivan, and M. Wu. 1993. “Peer Assessment of an Individual's Contribution to a Group Project.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 18 (1): 45–56. Dochy, F., M. Segers, and D. Sluijsmans. 1999. “The Use of Self-, Peer and Co-assessment in Higher Education: A Review.” Studies in Higher Education 24 (3): 331–350. Donaldson, G. 2010. Teaching Scotland’s Future: Report of a Review of Teacher Education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Goverment. Fairweather, I., and J. MacDonald. 1992. Religious Education. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Good, F. 1988. “A Method of Moderation of School Based Assessments: Some Statistical Considerations.” The Statistician 37 (1): 33–49. Hall, K., and A. Harding. 2002. “Level Descriptions and Teacher Assessment in England: Towards a Community of Assessment Practice.” Educational Research 44 (1): 10–15. Halstead, J. M., and T. McLaughlin. 2005. “Are Faith Schools Divisive? In Faith Schools: Consensus or Conflict, edited by R. Gardner, J. Cairns, and D. Lawton, 61–72. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. Hand, M. 2006. Is Religious Education Possible? London: Continuum. Hannah, W. 2007. An Analysis of the Development of Religious Education Within the Secondary School Curriculum and Educational Thinking, and its Reception in the Educational World. Glasgow: Strathclyde University, Unpublished PhD thesis. Hanrahan, S. J., and G. Isaacs. 2001. “Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment: The Students' Views.” Higher Education Research & Development 20 (1): 53–70. Hargreaves, D. H. 1995. “School Culture, School Effectiveness and School Improvement.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 6 (1): 23–46. Knox, H. M. 1953. Two Hundred and Fifty Years of Scottish Education. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. LTS. 2006. A Curriculum for Excellence. Building the Curriculum 3–18 (1) – The Contribution of Curriculum Areas. Edinburgh: Learning Teaching Scotland. LTS. 2008. Curriculum for Excellence. Religious Education in Roman Catholic Schools – Experiences and Outcomes. Glasgow: Catholic Education Service. LTS. 2008b. Religious and Moral Education: A Portrait of Current Practice in Scottish Secondary Schools Edinburgh: Learning and Teaching Scotland. LTS. 2009. Curriculum for Excellence. Religious and Moral Education – Experiences and Outcomes. Glasgow: Learning Teaching Scotland. LTS. 2009. Curriculum for Excellence. Religious Education in Roman Catholic Schools – Experiences and Outcomes. Glasgow: Learning and Teaching Scotland. Lundie, D. 2010. “‘Does RE work?’An Analysis of the Aims, Practices and Models of Effectiveness of Religious Education in the UK.” British Journal of Religious Education 32 (2): 163–170.



13

Mansell, W., M. James, and Assessment Reform Group. 2009. Assessment in Schools Fit for Purpose?: A Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. London: Economic and Social Research Council, Teaching and Learning Research Programme. Matemba, Y. 2011. Religious Education in Comparative Perspectives: Curriculum Developments in the Secondary School Sectors of Scotland and Malawi, 1970–2010. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG. McKinney, S. 2008. “Catholic Schools in Scotland and Divisiveness.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 29 (2): 173–184. O'Hagan, F., and R. Davis. 2007. “Forging the Compact of Church and State in the Development of Catholic Education in Late Nineteenth Century Scotland.” The Innes Review 58: 72–94. Priestley, M., and W. Humes. 2010. “The Development of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence. Amnesia and déjà vu.” Oxford Review of Education 36 (3): 345–361. Radnor, H. A. 1996. Evaluation of Key Stage 3 Assessment Arrangements for 1995 Final Report. Exeter. University of Exeter. Reynolds, D., D. Hopkins, and L. Stoll. 1993. “Linking School Effectiveness Knowledge and School Improvement Practice. Towards a Synergy.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 4 (1): 37–58. Rodger, A. 2003. “Religious Education.” In Scottish Education: Second Edition – Post-Devolution, edited by T. G. K. Bryce and W. M. Humes, 600–605. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Scottish Executive. 2004. A Curriculum for Excellence. The Curriculum Review Group. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Government. 2010. No Delay for Curriculum for Excellence, Scottish Goverment News. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/04/22164648. Scottish Government. 2011. How Many Schools in Scotland? Online Scottish Government Statistics. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Schools/FAQs. SED. 1987. Management Issues in Religious Education in Secondary Schools. Dundee: Consultative Committee of the Curriculum. SED. 1991. Religious and Moral Education 5–14: Working Paper No. 7. Edinburgh: Scottish Office. Smart, N. 1984. “The Scientific Study of Religion in its Plurality.” Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion: The Humanities, 365–378. Stewart, L. 2011. Curriculum for Excellence – Provision of Religious and Moral Education in Non-denominational Schools and Religious Education in Roman Catholic Schools. Glasgow: Learning and Teaching Scotland. von Brömssen, K., and C. R. Olgaç. 2010. “Intercultural Education in Sweden Through the Lenses of the National Minorities and of Religious Education.” Intercultural Education 21 (2): 121–135. Wright, A. 1993. Religious Education in the Secondary School: Prospects for Religious Literacy. London: David Fulton Publishers.