Teachers' perspectives on the relationship between secondary school departments of science and religious education: Independence or mutual enrichment?
There is a gap in the research on the relationship between secondary school subject departments, particularly where, as in the case of science and religious education (RE), there is not the traditional relationship that may be seen in science and maths or across humanities subjects. More awareness o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Curriculum journal (London, England) England), 2024-09, Vol.35 (3), p.378-395 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 395 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 378 |
container_title | Curriculum journal (London, England) |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Woolley, Mary Bowie, Robert A. Hulbert, Sabina Thomas, Caroline Riordan, John‐Paul Revell, Lynn |
description | There is a gap in the research on the relationship between secondary school subject departments, particularly where, as in the case of science and religious education (RE), there is not the traditional relationship that may be seen in science and maths or across humanities subjects. More awareness of content taught in other departments is important for pupils' coherent experience of curriculum and schooling. This article reports on data from 10 focus groups with 50 participants from six universities, where student teachers of science and RE revealed a complex picture of relationships between the two departments in their placement schools. Furthermore, this article reports findings from a survey where 244 teachers and student teachers of science and RE shared their perspectives on the relationship between the two school departments. The measure was adapted from Barbour's typology, a classification describing the nature of the relationship between science and religion in a range of literature. The terms ‘conflict’, ‘independence’, ‘dialogue’, ‘collaboration’ and ‘integration’ were presented to teachers of both subjects. Little evidence was found of conflict between science and RE departments, but more ‘independence’ than ‘dialogue’ between the two departments was reported. In the light of these findings, the benefits of boundary crossing are explored alongside the role teachers should play in boundary crossing. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/curj.233 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_curj_233</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>CURJ233</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2993-492165807180e7f0464de2551a5d4f18d83bd084e88c1aa3841449711cdce5353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kF1LwzAUhoMoOKfgT8id3nQmbdKm3ogMPyYDQbbrkiWnNqNLStI69kf8vabOW2_OgcPzPnBehK4pmVFC0js1-O0szbITNKEsL5OsIOwUTUjJRcJpkZ-jixC2JKJU0An6XoFUDfhwg7s4O1C9-YKAncV9A9hDK3vjbGhMhzfQ7wEsDqCc1dIfcFCNcy3W0Enf78D2MVjHqwGrAEurR4H5NG4IGPSgfl33eGFjAuIYKefxbugH2WKw3qhm1DxcorNatgGu_vYUrZ-fVvPXZPn-spg_LhOVlmWWsDKlORekoIJAUROWMw0p51RyzWoqtMg2mggGQigqZSYYZawsKFVaAc94NkW3R6_yLgQPddV5s4uvVZRUY5_V2GcV-4xockT3poXDv1w1X3-8jfwPUzh6zw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Teachers' perspectives on the relationship between secondary school departments of science and religious education: Independence or mutual enrichment?</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Woolley, Mary ; Bowie, Robert A. ; Hulbert, Sabina ; Thomas, Caroline ; Riordan, John‐Paul ; Revell, Lynn</creator><creatorcontrib>Woolley, Mary ; Bowie, Robert A. ; Hulbert, Sabina ; Thomas, Caroline ; Riordan, John‐Paul ; Revell, Lynn</creatorcontrib><description>There is a gap in the research on the relationship between secondary school subject departments, particularly where, as in the case of science and religious education (RE), there is not the traditional relationship that may be seen in science and maths or across humanities subjects. More awareness of content taught in other departments is important for pupils' coherent experience of curriculum and schooling. This article reports on data from 10 focus groups with 50 participants from six universities, where student teachers of science and RE revealed a complex picture of relationships between the two departments in their placement schools. Furthermore, this article reports findings from a survey where 244 teachers and student teachers of science and RE shared their perspectives on the relationship between the two school departments. The measure was adapted from Barbour's typology, a classification describing the nature of the relationship between science and religion in a range of literature. The terms ‘conflict’, ‘independence’, ‘dialogue’, ‘collaboration’ and ‘integration’ were presented to teachers of both subjects. Little evidence was found of conflict between science and RE departments, but more ‘independence’ than ‘dialogue’ between the two departments was reported. In the light of these findings, the benefits of boundary crossing are explored alongside the role teachers should play in boundary crossing.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0958-5176</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-3704</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/curj.233</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Barbour's typology ; boundary crossing ; interdisciplinary learning (IDL) ; religious education ; science education</subject><ispartof>Curriculum journal (London, England), 2024-09, Vol.35 (3), p.378-395</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Educational Research Association.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2993-492165807180e7f0464de2551a5d4f18d83bd084e88c1aa3841449711cdce5353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2993-492165807180e7f0464de2551a5d4f18d83bd084e88c1aa3841449711cdce5353</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7192-388X ; 0000-0001-8067-3480 ; 0000-0003-2917-6627 ; 0000-0002-3133-3276 ; 0000-0002-3247-7271 ; 0000-0001-9016-5578</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fcurj.233$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fcurj.233$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Woolley, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bowie, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hulbert, Sabina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riordan, John‐Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Revell, Lynn</creatorcontrib><title>Teachers' perspectives on the relationship between secondary school departments of science and religious education: Independence or mutual enrichment?</title><title>Curriculum journal (London, England)</title><description>There is a gap in the research on the relationship between secondary school subject departments, particularly where, as in the case of science and religious education (RE), there is not the traditional relationship that may be seen in science and maths or across humanities subjects. More awareness of content taught in other departments is important for pupils' coherent experience of curriculum and schooling. This article reports on data from 10 focus groups with 50 participants from six universities, where student teachers of science and RE revealed a complex picture of relationships between the two departments in their placement schools. Furthermore, this article reports findings from a survey where 244 teachers and student teachers of science and RE shared their perspectives on the relationship between the two school departments. The measure was adapted from Barbour's typology, a classification describing the nature of the relationship between science and religion in a range of literature. The terms ‘conflict’, ‘independence’, ‘dialogue’, ‘collaboration’ and ‘integration’ were presented to teachers of both subjects. Little evidence was found of conflict between science and RE departments, but more ‘independence’ than ‘dialogue’ between the two departments was reported. In the light of these findings, the benefits of boundary crossing are explored alongside the role teachers should play in boundary crossing.</description><subject>Barbour's typology</subject><subject>boundary crossing</subject><subject>interdisciplinary learning (IDL)</subject><subject>religious education</subject><subject>science education</subject><issn>0958-5176</issn><issn>1469-3704</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kF1LwzAUhoMoOKfgT8id3nQmbdKm3ogMPyYDQbbrkiWnNqNLStI69kf8vabOW2_OgcPzPnBehK4pmVFC0js1-O0szbITNKEsL5OsIOwUTUjJRcJpkZ-jixC2JKJU0An6XoFUDfhwg7s4O1C9-YKAncV9A9hDK3vjbGhMhzfQ7wEsDqCc1dIfcFCNcy3W0Enf78D2MVjHqwGrAEurR4H5NG4IGPSgfl33eGFjAuIYKefxbugH2WKw3qhm1DxcorNatgGu_vYUrZ-fVvPXZPn-spg_LhOVlmWWsDKlORekoIJAUROWMw0p51RyzWoqtMg2mggGQigqZSYYZawsKFVaAc94NkW3R6_yLgQPddV5s4uvVZRUY5_V2GcV-4xockT3poXDv1w1X3-8jfwPUzh6zw</recordid><startdate>202409</startdate><enddate>202409</enddate><creator>Woolley, Mary</creator><creator>Bowie, Robert A.</creator><creator>Hulbert, Sabina</creator><creator>Thomas, Caroline</creator><creator>Riordan, John‐Paul</creator><creator>Revell, Lynn</creator><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7192-388X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8067-3480</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2917-6627</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3133-3276</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3247-7271</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9016-5578</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202409</creationdate><title>Teachers' perspectives on the relationship between secondary school departments of science and religious education: Independence or mutual enrichment?</title><author>Woolley, Mary ; Bowie, Robert A. ; Hulbert, Sabina ; Thomas, Caroline ; Riordan, John‐Paul ; Revell, Lynn</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2993-492165807180e7f0464de2551a5d4f18d83bd084e88c1aa3841449711cdce5353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Barbour's typology</topic><topic>boundary crossing</topic><topic>interdisciplinary learning (IDL)</topic><topic>religious education</topic><topic>science education</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Woolley, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bowie, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hulbert, Sabina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riordan, John‐Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Revell, Lynn</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Curriculum journal (London, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Woolley, Mary</au><au>Bowie, Robert A.</au><au>Hulbert, Sabina</au><au>Thomas, Caroline</au><au>Riordan, John‐Paul</au><au>Revell, Lynn</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Teachers' perspectives on the relationship between secondary school departments of science and religious education: Independence or mutual enrichment?</atitle><jtitle>Curriculum journal (London, England)</jtitle><date>2024-09</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>378</spage><epage>395</epage><pages>378-395</pages><issn>0958-5176</issn><eissn>1469-3704</eissn><abstract>There is a gap in the research on the relationship between secondary school subject departments, particularly where, as in the case of science and religious education (RE), there is not the traditional relationship that may be seen in science and maths or across humanities subjects. More awareness of content taught in other departments is important for pupils' coherent experience of curriculum and schooling. This article reports on data from 10 focus groups with 50 participants from six universities, where student teachers of science and RE revealed a complex picture of relationships between the two departments in their placement schools. Furthermore, this article reports findings from a survey where 244 teachers and student teachers of science and RE shared their perspectives on the relationship between the two school departments. The measure was adapted from Barbour's typology, a classification describing the nature of the relationship between science and religion in a range of literature. The terms ‘conflict’, ‘independence’, ‘dialogue’, ‘collaboration’ and ‘integration’ were presented to teachers of both subjects. Little evidence was found of conflict between science and RE departments, but more ‘independence’ than ‘dialogue’ between the two departments was reported. In the light of these findings, the benefits of boundary crossing are explored alongside the role teachers should play in boundary crossing.</abstract><doi>10.1002/curj.233</doi><tpages>18</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7192-388X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8067-3480</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2917-6627</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3133-3276</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3247-7271</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9016-5578</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0958-5176 |
ispartof | Curriculum journal (London, England), 2024-09, Vol.35 (3), p.378-395 |
issn | 0958-5176 1469-3704 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_curj_233 |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | Barbour's typology boundary crossing interdisciplinary learning (IDL) religious education science education |
title | Teachers' perspectives on the relationship between secondary school departments of science and religious education: Independence or mutual enrichment? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T20%3A29%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Teachers'%20perspectives%20on%20the%20relationship%20between%20secondary%20school%20departments%20of%20science%20and%20religious%20education:%20Independence%20or%20mutual%20enrichment?&rft.jtitle=Curriculum%20journal%20(London,%20England)&rft.au=Woolley,%20Mary&rft.date=2024-09&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=378&rft.epage=395&rft.pages=378-395&rft.issn=0958-5176&rft.eissn=1469-3704&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/curj.233&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3ECURJ233%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |