Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE

An Analysis of the Conceptual Frameworks Utilised by Undergraduate Theology Students when Studying Science & Religion

Author: Tonie L. Stolberg and Peter Fulljames

Journal Title: PRS-LTSN Journal

ISSN:

ISSN-L:

Volume: 2

Number: 2

Start page: 167

End page: 199

Return to vol. 2 no. 2 index page

Introduction

Interdisciplinary courses on science and religion have been offered to students studying theology or religious studies in a few institutions in the U.K. for several years. However, recently there has been a significant increase in the number of courses dedicated to this area of study and there is now considerable scope for research into patterns of learning and teaching. As particular issues in the interaction of science and religion also feature in other courses in departments of philosophy, theology and history, research into teaching and learning in this area may be of interest to the PRS community as a whole.

Our previous work in this area1 has found that those institutions that deliver courses in science and religion assume that mutual conversation is possible. Indeed recent commentators2 suggest that dialogue is not only assumed by tutors but is the inevitable outcome, since the learning and teaching of courses takes place within an already prescribed framework, delineated by, perhaps, a core course text3, or the label given to the relationship4. What needs to be appreciated is that the nature of the assumed dialogue differs markedly. Some courses aim to show that there can be consonance between science and religion, others argue for a greater degree of interaction perhaps in different ways for different issues which we describe as correlation, and others are working towards the more systematic interaction of assimilation.

What is not known is whether the participating students share the same expectations as their tutors as to the nature of the dialogue, or the nature of the assumptions they bring to their learning. The majority of the previous research at tertiary level education has focused on the impact of an individual’s beliefs on the acceptance or otherwise of the concepts underpinning the science curriculum. This has been particularly the focus of researchers in the United States, since the secularisation of the American school curriculum precludes the study of the interaction of scientific conceptual development on a student’s religious education. Tertiary level educational studies have focused on the impact of an individual’s religious beliefs on their acceptance of standard scientific theoretical models such as biological evolution5, or how a student’s belief system shapes their understanding of the nature of science in general6, or particular areas of scientific understanding such as astronomy7. Even a student’s future career choice8 has been analysed in terms of its potential impact on future science education strategies and the likelihood of changes in public perceptions with regards to science policy decisions such as those surrounding environmental issues9.

Work in other countries that have different educational environments to that found in the United States have, nevertheless, focused on very similar issues. Even where ‘religion’ refers to public and personal dimensions of Islamic faith, in contrast to the broadly Christian context of students in the majority of research10, the focus is on how scientific education is influenced by the prevailing socio-religious context11.

Even more limited is research that focuses specifically on the learning and teaching of science and religion as an interdisciplinary area with its own pedagogical issues and concerns12. In 1996, Science & Education devoted a complete issue to the theme, ‘Science, Religion and Education’13. The articles focus on the appropriate metaphysical basis for the teaching and learning of science, and whether a particular approach is still appropriate when the curriculum is extended to include discussion of issues within a historical or cultural context.

Within the United Kingdom context, research has focused on secondary level education. There is a considerable range of common issues that both science and religious educators could address concerning the data, nature and application of science14. However, empirical research has been limited to the relationship between students’ attitudes towards science and attitudes towards religion and the influence on these attitudes of particular views of science (scientism) and of religion (creationism)15, and how these may be different within the distinctive religious context of schooling in Northern Ireland16.

The objectives of this study are therefore to bring together issues raised by previous research, and act as a starting point for research into the learning and teaching of science and religion at the tertiary level. There are three main aims; firstly, to assess whether the typology for ways of relating science and religion used previously to compare the approaches of different course designers and teachers can be used to interpret the views of learners. Secondly, to explore whether the views of learners and the process of learning may be interpreted in terms of the conceptual frameworks used in thinking about science and in life as a whole. Thirdly, to gather base line data for future research into the learning and teaching of the science-religion relationship.

Method

Sample

As far as we are aware, there are undergraduate theology or religious studies students undertaking science and religion courses at 12 different institutions of higher education in the U.K. With the agreement of their tutors, and working within the constraint of the time frame in which this research took place, 72 students of theology or religious studies at 6 institutions in the United Kingdom who had recently completed modules on science and religion completed a questionnaire. 25 of the respondents were male and 47 were female. 44 were aged between 17 and 21, 12 aged between 22 and 36, 10 aged between 37 and 65, and 6 aged over 65. 64 of the respondents had achieved at least one pass at GCSE grade C (or an equivalent) in a science subject. 17 of the respondents had achieved at least one A-level pass (or an equivalent) in a science subject.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 students in 4 institutions. The 13 students were selected from the 72 students who had completed the questionnaire on the basis of their willingness to be interviewed and the practicability of arranging interviews. 8 of the interviewees were female and 7 male. 5 interviewees indicated that they had studied science and passed their General Certificate, with 3 indicating having studied science to a higher level, achieving a post-16 level qualification.

Measures—Questionnaire

Measures—Interviews Interview questions explored further the areas investigated in the questionnaire and also how the cognitive approaches of learners are influenced by their perceptions of the nature of science, their ways of relating science and religion and the conceptual frameworks being used in their every day lives.

The first two questions20 explored the extent of interviewees’ formal science education, the importance of science in their everyday lives, and changes in their views of the nature of science as they had participated in a course on science and religion.

The next two questions21 invited discussion of religious issues which might be added to a course on science and religion or to which science would be irrelevant, in order to explore the views of learners about different ways of relating science and religion. Further consideration of such ways was possible in response to two further questions22 asking how views may have been influenced or may have changed. These final open-ended questions encouraged learners to refer to their conceptual frameworks and how they may have changed, allowing for the possibility that responses to all the earlier questions might also be interpreted in terms of conceptual frameworks.

Procedures and analysis The questionnaires were administered by staff in each institution, who emphasised that confidentiality and anonymity of respondents would be respected. The data were analysed using the SPSS statistical package. The interviews were conducted in groups by one of the researchers, each student having the opportunity to respond to each of the questions in the schedule if he or she wished to do so. Confidentiality and anonymity were emphasised, and it was explained that pseudonyms would be used in reports of the research. The interviews were recorded and at a later date transcribed. Analysis of the data used standard procedures in the analysis of qualitative data and included both literal and interpretative reading of the data.

Results and Discussion

Part 1. Questionnaire

For each section of the questionnaire the frequencies of responses will be presented and the internal consistency of scales tested. It will then be possible to consider the relationships between different ways of relating science and religion and other variables measured by the questionnaire. Religious commitment: Responses to items about identification with a religious group and personal prayer indicate that there was diversity in the personal religious commitment of the students of theology or religious studies who completed the questionnaire, although for a majority the level of commitment was high. 58% identified strongly with a religious group, 15% identified to some extent, 17% marginally and 10% not at all. 60% stated that they prayed regularly, 26% sometimes and 14% never. There was a high positive correlation between

Endnotes

  1. Fulljames, Peter and Stolberg, Tonie L., “Consonance, Assimilation or Correlation?: Science and Religion Courses in Higher Education”, Science & Christian Belief, 12, 2000,35-46.
  2. Cantor, Geoffrey and Kenny, Chris, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way: Problems with his taxonomy of science-religion relationships”, Zygon, 36/4, 2001, 765-781.
  3. The text examined by Cantor and Kenny is Ian Barbour’s influential book Religion in an Age of Science. The text and his taxonomy were referred to by all the courses taking part in this study, and were specifically singled out by many of our student interviewees as a way of describing and understanding the science-religion relationship.
  4. We recognise in this report that, as Cantor and Kenny also observe, we are open to the charge that, by using the label “science and religion”, our research presumes that the learning and teaching of the science-religion relationship must be judged by the relative success or failure of students in constructively interrelating science and religion. Although we do make an assessment of students’ attempts to undertake this conceptual task, the main focus of this report is the applicability of taxonomies such as Barbour’s or our own derivation, to understand and support learning and teaching and the proposal of a more appropriate (and practical) approach.
  5. Cobern, William W., “Point: belief, understanding, and the teaching of Evolution”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31/5, 1994, 583-590. Also, Smith, Mike U., “Counterpoint: belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31/5, 1994, 591-597. Also, Ayala, F. J., “Arguing for Evolution: Holding strong religious beliefs does not preclude intelligent scientific thinking”, Science Teacher, 67/2, 2000, 30-32.
  6. Brazelton, Elizabeth W., Frandsen, John C., McKown, Delos B. and Brown, Charles D., “Interaction of Religion and Science: Development of a questionnaire and the results of its administration to undergraduates”, College Student Journal, 33/4, 1999, 623-628.
  7. Brickhouse, Nancy W., Dagher, Zoubieda R., Letts IV, William J. and Shipman, Harry L., “Diversity of Students’ Views about Evidence, Theory, and the Interface between Science and Religion in an Astronomy Course”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37/4, 2000, 340-362. Also, Shipman, Harry L., Brickhouse, Nancy W., Dagher, Zoubeida and Letts IV, William J., “Changes in Student Views of Religion and Science in a College Astronomy Course”, Science Education, 86, 2002, 526-547.
  8. Esbenshade, Donald H., “Student Perceptions about Science & Religion”, The American Biology Teacher, 55/6, 1993, 334-338.
  9. Petersen, Rodney L., “Science and Religious Education: A deepening Conversation”, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 17/2, 1997, 68-72.
  10. This is also the case in this present study, in which all the students self-selected for interview identify themselves as either practising Christians, or as having been brought up in a Christian cultural context.
  11. Anees, M. A., “Islam and Scientific Fundamentalism”, Technoscience, 8/1, 1995, 21-22. Also, Loo, Seng P., “Scientific Understanding, Control of the Environment and Science Education”, Science & Education, 8, 1999, 79-87. Also, Loo, Seng P., “Islam, Science and Science Education: Conflict or concord?”, Studies in Science Education, 36, 2001, 45-78.
  12. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, does carry articles focusing on particular topics for study in its section ‘The Teachers’ File’, but even here rarely carries studies in pedagogy. A welcome, recent exception was Nyhof-Young’s examination of how classroom discourse might be improved by the adoption of “feminist” teaching tools. See, Nyhof- Young, Joyce, “Education for the Heart and Mind: Feminist pedagogy and the religion and science curriculum”, Zygon, 35/2, 2000, 441-452.
  13. The issue contained the following articles: Mahner, Martin and Bunge, Mario, “Is Religious Education Compatible with Science Education?”, Science & Education, 5, 1996, 101-123. Settle, Tom, “Applying Scientific Openmindedness to Religion and Science Education”, Science & Education, 5, 1996, 125-141. Lacey, Hugh “On Relations between Science and Religion”, Science & Education, 5, 1996, 145-153. Turner, Harold, “Religion: Impediment or Saviour of Science?”, Science & Education, 5, 1996, 155-164. Poole, Michael, “… for more and better religious education”, Science & Education, 5, 1996, 165-174. Woolnough, Brian E., “On the Fruitful Compatibility of Religious Education and Science”, Science & Education, 5, 1996, 175-183. Wren-Lewis, John, “On Babies and Bathwater: A non-ideological alternative to the Mahner/Bunge Proposals for Relating Science and Religion in Education”, Science & Education, 5, 1996, 185-188. Mahner, Martin and Bunge, Mario, “The Incompatibility of Science and Religion Sustained: A reply to our critics”, Science & Education, 5, 1996, 189-199.
  14. Bausor, John and Poole, Mike, Science and Religion in the Agreed Syllabuses – an investigation and some suggestions (QCA, 2001, unpublished report).
  15. Fulljames, Peter, “Science, Creation and Christianity: A further look”, in Francis, L. J. Kay, W. K. & Campbell, W. S. (Eds), Research in Religious Education (Leominster: Gracewing, 1996) pp. 257-266. Also, Fulljames, Peter, Gibson, Harry & Francis, Leslie “Creationism, Scientism, Christianity and Science : a study in adolescent attitudes”, British Educational Research Journal, 17, 1991, 171-190.
  16. Francis, Leslie J. and Greer, John E., “Shaping Adolescents’ Attitudes towards Science and Religion in Northern Ireland: the role of scientism, creationism and denominational schools”, Research in Science and Technological Education, 19/1, 2001, 39-54.
  17. Using the instrument of attitude towards science developed by Menis, J., “Attitudes towards School, Chemistry Students and Science among Upper Secondary Chemistry Students in the United States”, Research in Science & Technological Education, 7, 1989, 183-190.
  18. Francis, Leslie J. and Greer, John E., “Attitude toward Science among Secondary School Pupils in Northern Ireland: Relationship with sex, age and religion”, Research in Science & Technological Education, 17/1, 1999, 67-74.
  19. A modified version of the instrument used by Fulljames, P., Gibson, H. M. & Francis, L. J., “Creationism, Scientism, Christianity and Science: A study of adolescent attitudes”, British Educational Research Journal, 17, 1991, 171-190.
  20. Question1: ‘Looking back at your formal science education, what relevance does it play in your life today? Can you describe a specific example?’ Question 2: ‘Is the science you studied as part of this module different? In what way? Can you describe a specific example? Why do you think that is?’
  21. Question 3: ‘What religious issues, not covered by the course, do you think science has something to say about? Why?’ Question 4: ‘Are there any religious issues where an input from science or scientists would be irrelevant? Why?’
  22. Question 5: ‘How does scientific thinking or religious thinking influence your views? Do you ever bring both ways of thinking to bear on the same issue? Question 6: ‘Can you give an example as to how the course has altered, if at all, your religious views in any way? In what way has this course affected your view on broader religious issues?’

Return to vol. 2 no. 2 index page

This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.

 

-
The British Association for the Study of Religions
The Religious Studies Project