Spiritual,
Moral and Religious Education is a Flagship area for Research in Australian
Catholic University
|
Cardinal Clancy Centre for Research in the Spiritual, Moral, Religious and Pastoral Dimensions of Education. |
|
Spiritual,
Moral and Religious Education is a Flagship area for Research in Australian
Catholic University
|
|
The Contribution of Thomas Groome’s Shared Christian Praxis to Catholic School Religious Education: Reflections by Practitioners
Introduction by Graham Rossiter
When it comes to evaluating the contribution of Thomas Groome’s Shared Christian Praxis to Catholic School Religious Education in Australia, there is a need to clarify firstly just what is being evaluated. Sometimes the evaluations seem to be at cross purposes because different things and different issues are being considered and this is not always clear to those contributing to, or reading the evaluation. For example, evaluations may include one or more of the following components:-
1. The appropriateness of Groome’s Shared Christian Praxis as an approach to adult catechesis.
2. The appropriateness of Groome’s Shared Christian Praxis for use in voluntary commitment groups in Catholic schools.
3. The appropriateness of Groome’s Shared Christian Praxis as an approach to classroom religious education in Catholic Primary schools.
4. The appropriateness of Groome’s Shared Christian Praxis as an approach to classroom religious education in Catholic Secondary schools.
5. How does a particular adaptation of Groome’s Shared Praxis (say in the Parramatta Diocese Sharing Our Story document) compare with Groome’s original concept?
6. How does a particular adaptation of Groome’s Shared Praxis (say in the Parramatta Diocese Sharing Our Story document) rate as an appropriate approach to religious education in Catholic secondary (and Primary) schools?
6. How does Groome’s own adaptation of Shared Christian Praxis in the Sadlier text books rate as an appropriate approach to Catholic school religious education?
What follows are two very brief reflections relating to 1, 2, 3 and 6. Then there are contributions by some leadership personnel in schools in the Parramatta diocese on their study of Groome’s Shared Christian Praxis, informed by their own experience of its adaptation for use in that diocese. Their concerns are with numbers 3 to 6.
The Presumptions in any approach to Religious Education need to congruent with the realities of the context
Groome’s Shared Christian Praxis is an appropriate and effective method in adult catechesis groups and in voluntary youth commitment groups. Here the natural conditions of membership presume that those who meet do so with the intention of working together, praying and sharing ideas in ways that promote Christian faith. No matter how much the approach is modified for classroom use in religious education, as evident in various adaptations, there still seems to me to be assumptions, either explicit or implicit, that do not take adequate account of the realities of the compulsory setting.
From his writings, as well as from conversations with Groome, I think that he is not as attuned to the difficulties that a ‘devotional’ approach to classroom religious education creates with secondary school students as are many Catholic secondary school teachers are in Australia. I raise questions about the appropriateness of any theory of classroom religious education that does not take seriously into account the context and the spiritual starting points of students. If this is not done, the fundamental value of classroom religious education in introducing young people to the Christian religion is compromised -- and hence a principal opportunity for first evangelisation is not as effective as it could be. The problems in presuming a more faith-intensive process than is realistic flow over into various aspects of classroom religious education:- aims, objectives or outcomes, content, titles for units of work, the language of the teacher and the language of official curriculum documents, and the language in student texts and other resources.
Use of the various phases in Shared Praxis
Whether or not teachers of religion follow the steps in Shared Praxis (or Sharing Our Story) in sequence, these stages provide a useful checklist of procedures. Good teaching of religion has always included many of the elements specified by Groom in shared praxis.
The starting point and level expected in ‘personal sharing’ in shared Christian Praxis will always be a problem for teachers and students. Often it is better in religion lessons not to begin with a long verbal teacher introduction or group/class discussion because this is too easily interpreted by the class as a ‘devotional sermon’ or a ‘compulsory personal sharing session’. Where some student written or analytical work begins quickly in a lesson, there is a better chance of getting across the expectation that this is a ‘study’ of religion/Catholicism. Indeed this usually leads to more focused and more personal discussions later. Teachers in senior classes using Sharing Our Story have noted that if they commence lessons by trying to engage students in a critical reflection on present situations/experience, the whole lesson may founder if it has been constructed to be dependent on feedback from pupils at this stage. If the whole first step yields nothing useful then this can get the lesson off to such a bad start that it is difficult to rescue it.
Any approach to religious education will have both strengths and weaknesses. Efforts to try different approaches, different topics and different materials need continual evaluation to help refine classroom teaching. The more theoretical articles as well as the practical reflections that follow help in that direction.
* * * * * * *
The Application of Groome’s Shared Christian Praxis to the Sharing Our Story Approach to Religious Education in the Parramatta Diocese
by Mark Devlin, St Anthony’s Primary School, GIRRAWEEN NSW.
The Shared Christian Praxis (SCP) approach to religious education, as detailed by Thomas Groome, outlines five main components which he explains in depth. I feel a relevant way to critique this is to briefly investigate how the Parramatta Diocese has adapted SCP in its Religious Education Guidelines and to compare this to Groome's original theory.
The present Parramatta Diocesan Religious Guidelines, Sharing Our Story (SOS), were published in the late 1980s and were based on a modified version of SCP. The five component parts of SCP were somewhat simplified to four steps that involved a cyclic approach to each topic. The four steps were, and still are: 1. Life Experience; 2. Christian Story; 3. Critical Reflection and 4. Action Response.
Essentially these remain faithful to Groome's ideas, but I feel that a number of significant differences and difficulties now exist that take away from the original theory. Firstly, very few R.E. teachers have actually read Groome's work and consequently there is very little understanding or appreciation of his intentions. It has tended to be the case that the SOS support units have been adapted "as is" and taught in schools in a formularised manner. This application of SCP ignores the interconnectedness that Groome suggests should exist between the elements. However, to give due credit, teachers are now being encouraged to step out of a fixed pattern and investigate ways of moving between the steps that more accurately reflect Groome's theory.
Secondly, in SOS the second step is entitled "Christian Story" and it generally involves the presentation of a Gospel incident that is relevant to the chosen topic. This interpretation of "Story" is way too narrow and it misses many vital elements of the SCP component of the same name. Groome intentionally capitalises the word so as to significantly broaden its meaning. He intended it to not only include narratives, i.e . Gospel and other Bible recounts, but also myriad expressions of our "faith tradition.'' Some of these "expressions" would include symbols, sacraments, rituals, feast days, expected lifestyles and, of course, the written Scriptures. If this interpretation of story was incorporated into SOS then it would enrich the program and reflect more faithfully Groome's approach.
The third point I wish to raise relates to the fact that SCP is written for use in a Christian community and presupposes a dynamic practising group of believers. The Catholic schools of the late 1990s may in themselves be dynamic practising communities, but for many of our students, religion is something that is done at school and has little or no relevance to them outside the school environment. With both SCP and its application in SOS there seems to be the assumption made that the children have a reasonably solid knowledge base on which to build, but this is increasingly being shown to not be the case.
Finally, in the SOS program, the fourth step is termed Action Response and this involves challenging the students to see how they can apply the revelations of a recently completed unit of work in their own lives. Too often teachers feel compelled to solicit a concrete example from the students and I feel this strays from Groome's intent. He firmly states that he believes that only with the help of the Holy Spirit can SCP effectively be utilised as a model of R.E. By taking the approach with Action Response as outlined above many teachers are not only forcing pupils to make responses which are contrived but also they are possibly dismissing the role of the Holy Spirit.
By way of conclusion and in support of the SOS documents, I feel the manner in which SOS has been embraced, especially in primary and many lower secondary schools, suggests that perhaps it addressed a most definite need and, in a way, was perhaps too successful. I feel that Thomas Groome would be truly affirmed by this and maybe see it as the work of the Holy Spirit in Religious Education.
* * * * * * *
The Application of Shared Christian Praxis to the Primary School Classroom in the Parramatta Diocese
By Lee Denton, Chisholm Catholic Primary School, BLIGH PARK NSW.
The Shared Christian Praxis approach was originally developed for committed, adult, Christian education. Through adaptation, many of the elements can be used with various degrees of success in the primary classroom where I have found this to be the case on a first hand basis. I will limit my reflection to this context.
Issues/Implications
1. The component of Present Action (Groome, 1980:184) identifies a social context. Children in years 5 and 6 are beginning to understand the world beyond their insular environment, but most of their present action is restricted to their own experience and how their immediate environment effects them. In studying units of work on the environment and Asian studies with my year 6 class this year, I am seeing a pleasing awareness of the social context which probably would not have been present in the last generations of year 6 children.
Children in years kinder to 4 would have a great deal of trouble with the social context and the present action component would need to be limited to their personal experiences.
The past, present and future aspect of present action would find the same distinction in the primary school. Years 4, 5 and 6 would be able to grasp the concept of time, but the lower grades have trouble distinguishing between yesterday and last week. The young child tends to measure time in "sleeps". For example there are 8 sleeps to my birthday. The upper primary grades begin to show a depth of thought and creativity about the future. They know what they want it to be like and what they fear it will be like. The intentionality that is spoken of by Groome (1980:187) is probably the next step after this and I hazard a guess that not all adults could reach this level either.
2. The second component, Critical reflection (p. 185) primarily focuses on noticing the obvious instead of just seeing it as the way things are. Primary children are very astute at this, probably more so than adults because they are learning the ways of the world and when certain aspects of their society are highlighted for discussion, they can identify these elements.
Children have great difficulty of delving deeper than this, however, because the cornerstone for such critical reasoning is memory. Children have not had enough time in their small number of years in this world to have developed enough memories to recognise assumptions on which ideologies are based.
One aspect of critical reflection which I believe is very beneficial if not crucial for children, is that they learn about themselves (p. 188). They crystallise knowledge of their likes, dislikes and behaviours.
3. Dialogue is seen (p. 188) as building Christian community within a group. This point sums up the Catholic primary school's main reason for existence. If the catholic school classroom does not build up and strengthen the Christian community it has failed in its evangelisation. Academic excellence is imperative, but if the families in our primary school community are not drawn to be more full members of the Christian faith community we are doing them a disservice. The dialogue is shared by the children, teacher and other adult participants, but God is also present. There are many symbols in the primary school to make children aware that certain times are special because God is with them in a special way ‑ a prayer focus in the classroom, the lighting of a special candle, certain music which creates mood.
4. In the primary school setting I believe that the Praxis approach for Religious Education has been unduly criticised. As developed by the Parramatta CEO, it was never meant to be a lock-step approach where the stages were to be laboriously adhered to. Nor were the accompanying units of work meant to be mandatory. The Christian Doctrine was the only compulsory element and these traditions need to be built upon in the secondary school ‑ a practice which I believe could have been more undiluted in the past. The whole process was supposed to have been set in the context of the individual classroom and adjusted to meet the needs of the children ‑ and, of course, the unit to be studied.
I believe teachers today feel less hesitant to adapt praxis by adding their own resources ‑ ones they feel are more appropriate for their children. I also believe that teachers do not stick to progressing through the components one after the other in the same lesson. Teachers are more likely to revisit the components out of order and would definitely not apply them in the one lesson ‑ taking a series of lessons, if not weeks, to complete the unit.
5. The last component is identified as making clear or interpreting. (p. 197) This is probably the most difficult stage for children as many of the concepts raised are not easily evaluated ‑ not that all aspects of religious education can be evaluated and assessed. There is the element, whether we like it or not, in the Sharing Our Story document which expects the teacher to see some attitudinal change in their charges. An emerging acknowledgment is that we can help children become aware of the knowledge component of their religious education and the "rest" we leave for the children to realise in a personal way. The former can be assessed and the latter cannot. It is occasionally demonstrated through the child's action, but who knows what the seeds the teacher has sewn in each child, and how many years it will take for them to germinate.
* * * * * * *
Some Reflections about applying Groome’s Idea of Shared Praxis to Primary School Religion Lessons
By Alan Whiticker, St Andrew’s Primary School, Marayong NSW.
Catholic Religious Education by Shared Praxis can be described as a “group of Christians sharing in dialogue their critical reflection on present action in light of the Christian Story and its Vision toward the end of lived Christian faith” (Groome, 1980:184). Shared Praxis therefore takes place in a situation of group dialogue. Critical reflection upon it takes place in light of the Christian community's Story. For the classroom use of Shared Praxis in Religious Education, this seems to require that the Christian Story and its Vision be made available in the pedagogical context.
In my opinion, this is an assumption which tends to undermine the effectiveness of the praxis method in the context of the Primary Catholic School. A critical examination of the five distinguishable pedagogical movements can help support this view.
Present action refers to the whole human engagement in the world ‑ what we are doing physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually. It is the present action that becomes the object of critical reflection. The problem when using the praxis method with children as young as 6‑10 years is that their 'engagement in the world' is limited with a very low impact on others. This in turn results in a poor springboard for the next two phases.
Critical reflection uses reason, memory and imagination to reflect on present action. This movement can described as where the “head and the heart are fused inevitably together in self‑knowledge” (Groome, 1980:188). Once again, any teacher who has ever had to deal with discipline problems in young children knows of the difficulty of getting children to critically reflect on their own behaviour. While children can use their imagination effectively on many levels, the ability to use memory and to reason is dependent on their particular level of cognitive development.
Dialogue begins with one's self. It involves telling and listening in which participants share in dialogue their critical reflections on their present action. While dialogue is an integral part of the shared praxis process, I feel it is also one of its weaknesses. It takes gifted teachers to elicit responses from large groups of children and to stimulate meaningful discussion. In my view, the effectiveness of the dialogue process depends far too much on the success of the former phases: present action and critical reflection.
The fourth stage, The Christian Story, is a metaphor for all experiences of our faith tradition. The Christian story, in my opinion, is the richest source of all religious education. By using a combination of Scripture and human experience (or how the Gospels are lived out in the children's daily lives, the Story then becomes something which can be critically reflected upon rather than passively accepted. This, I think, is the most positive aspect of the shared praxis process but it has the potential to be undermined by the constraints of the first three.
Lastly, there are many versions of the vision, all combining to make up the common story of Christianity. We must lead children to chose a response that is appropriate to the vision of God's Kingdom and become children who, by their own group discernment, discover God's intention for them. This is no easy task (and difficult to assess) but an important consideration when using the shared praxis method is to ask; “Is the Praxis contributing to the building of the Kingdom because if it is not, then is the whole process problematic and inappropriate?”
It is important that we maintain continuity with and faithfulness to the story of the Christian people but only with the help of the Holy Spirit can the truth be known. At best we can only say that Catholic religious education by shared praxis is a “reflective/active knowing” that “arises from the present, is formed by the past, and is to shape our future” (Groome, 1980:210).
Note: Thomas Groome, 1980, Christian Religious Education: Shared Christian Praxis, Harper and Row, San Francisco.
* * * * * * *
An Evaluation of the use of Groome’s Idea of Shared Christian Praxis in Secondary School Religious Education
By Rose Mary Bellamy, Parramatta Marist High School NSW
While the shared Christian praxis approach was originally directed towards catechesis (a definition of Catechesis true to its original meaning implies a voluntary, adult and committed faith-sharing community), I believe it can be successfully adapted to the modern educational setting, although perhaps not with the same fervour as the theorist Terry Lovat (1991) suggests: "because of its educational and theological precision" shared Christian praxis is "by far the most admirable faith forming religious education model available today". The adaptation to a compulsory, adolescent and uncommitted school community is not, however, without its difficulties.
As explained by Groome, shared Christian praxis is directed to make the Christian story and vision, arising out of the life of Christ, "accessible" to students. One of the strengths of the approach is in its provision for an exploration of the Christian tradition, or, to use Groome's metaphors, the Christian Story and Vision. Gary Finlay (1987) argues the need for the cultivation of a sense of tradition, a 'turangawaewae' or 'standing place for the feet' in young people, for students to be exposed to the Christian story/vision in order that they contextualise the present in an understanding of the past. Groome refers to this as "the historical self and society...our present action is the consequence of our past and the shaper of our future". This provides Religious Education with the academic rigour that gives it credibility in today's vocationally focussed, crowded curriculum.
Groome's learning environment for shared Christian praxis involves a small group approach in an environment physically and emotionally appropriate to participation in cooperative learning, -- one in which students are sufficiently open and trusting to engage in reflection, shared dialogue and action. The reality of trying to implement the shared praxis approach is such that this ideal is rarely, if ever, attained in the classroom. Questions can be raised about the readiness of young Australians for the steps proposed by Groome -- in the classroom context. The development of a level of trust sufficient for students to engage in dialogue of the type described by Groome requires time and skilful handling by the teacher. Where mistrust is present because of unresolved racial, social, gender or personal tension issues, as would be the case in many classrooms, it is difficult to see how the atmosphere would be conducive to students engaging in this level of dialogue. The immaturity the students ("in fact, youth is an insuperable obstacle to being an educated person" (Adler 1987) and their presence in a world where instant gratification is promoted as a desired goal, are other obstacles to be overcome. Additionally, as commented upon by Crawford and Rossiter (1988), in any classroom it is to be expected that there would be a number of students who would have reservations about organised religion: "some will have hostile feelings ...based upon unhappy experiences with Church representatives and Religious Education teachers...and some will have been bored by ineffective, over-sentimentalised presentations...". To what degree will the critical reflection and dialogue be possibilities with students such as these?
I believe that the involvement of the affective domain and the step of critical reflection in the Praxis method can be attended by a number of dangers. There is a danger of opening the doors for those who believe that the way to teach Religious Education is through exploration of their own story, where religious education is about telling students what to do as a result of the teacher's own life experience. Uninformed teachers of this mould could see the use of the life experience step as permission to indulge their need for an audience and their need for emotional contact with students.
There is also a danger that students, revealing themselves in the critical reflection stage, could make themselves vulnerable to the comments of others in the group and to the inexperienced handling of such situations by teachers.
The approach calls for teachers who have been well educated in the philosophy as well as the pedagogy of the movements and this is not as often the case as it should be. My involvement in School Review process in the Diocese of Parramatta in 1996 allowed me access to Religious Education teachers' responses to SCP in many schools. The confusion over SCP and the insecurity in its use in teaching were widespread, by far the greatest concern of teachers and reviewers.
Where the approach is adopted sequentially, as is frequently the case, the movements depend upon the degree to which students have engaged in preceding steps. The Christian Story and Vision need to be skilfully linked to the Christian community's story and vision. This can require a greater Scriptural scholarship than is possessed by many teachers. Similarly, if in the "dialectical hermeneutics" of movement 4 the present praxis and Story/Vision do not interrelate to provide new "wisdom", then the response of movement 5 will not be an authentic response to be "more faithful to God's invitation".
The praxis approach also stresses involvement through dialogue (as opposed to discussion) with self, the members of the community that sponsors the school, and with God. Active partnership by teacher and student, with the teacher as a leader of learners, rather than an 'answer person', and critical reflection leading to decisions based upon discernment are essential aspects.
My more immediate concern, as a teacher of Year 9 Religious Education, for the appropriateness of Shared Christian Praxis, is raised rather strongly by the quoted Freire definition of dialogue. To what extent fourteen-year old boys are inclined toward a 'naming of the world' or a 'search for truth' in a Religious Education classroom is questionable, and the task of leading a class of thirty such in small groups to do so, rather than 'an imposition of their own truth', is daunting!
Notwithstanding the difficulties, in the final analysis, shared Christian praxis is concerned with good educational theory and practice. It follows the same valid precepts as pedagogy in Science, History, English and other disciplines, providing a solid framework for curriculum design, allowing for and encouraging a wide range of teaching/learning strategies. It is sufficiently flexible to allow for adaptation to the range of classroom realities. Especially through movement 3, SCP provides experiences that are sufficiently rigorous and challenging to allow Religious Education to take its place as a credible academic discipline.
The design of the SCP method goes a fair way towards meeting the need for a more creative and critical approach to teaching Religious Education than the Catechism approach of the sixties and the 'bean bag' approach of the seventies. The successful practitioner of shared Christian praxis is, I believe, one who uses the praxis movements in evaluation of his/her own teaching.
References:
Lovat, T. J., 1991, The critical model of Religious Education: Justification and some live evaluations, Word in Life, 39, 2,18‑20.
Groome, T., 1991, Sharing faith: A comprehensive approach to religious education and pastoral ministry, Harper and Row, San Francisco.
Finlay, G., 1987, A "Turangawaewae" for Young Catholics: A Case for Tradition in Religious Education, Catholic School Studies, 60, 2,15‑19.
Adler, M quoted in Finlay, G. 1987.
Crawford, M and Rossiter, G., 1988, Missionaries to a Teenage Culture, Christian Brothers' Province Resource Group, Sydney.
* * * * * * *
 |