McKinney, Stephen, Hall, Stuart, Lowden, Kevin, Smith, Marjorie, Beaumont, Paul (2014)
Searching for Meaning – Science and Religious Education Teachers collaborating in
interdisciplinary teaching and learning, Scottish Educational Review, 46 (1), 32-47.
Searching for Meaning – Science and Religious Education
Teachers collaborating in interdisciplinary Teaching and
Learning
Stephen McKinney
University of Glasgow
Stuart Hall
University of Glasgow
Kevin Lowden
University of Glasgow
Marjorie Smith
Scottish Schools Education Research Centre
Paul Beaumont
Scottish Schools Education Research Centre
ABSTRACT
One of the aims of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) in Scotland is greater
inclusion of interdisciplinary learning and teaching in school education. There is,
arguably, a limited amount of guidance in the CfE literature to advise and support
secondary teachers in the practical implications of the planning, preparation and
implementation of interdisciplinary learning and teaching. This paper examines
this guidance and insights from research literature and presents the findings from
a research project, Searching for Meaning, which focused on science and
religious education teachers collaborating in planned interdisciplinary learning
and teaching in secondary schools. The paper identifies some of the key factors
for effective interdisciplinary learning and teaching between science and religious
education. These include: support from the school leadership; openness to
interdisciplinary work and willingness to learn about other disciplines; teamwork,
dialogue and joint planning and the need for time and support for teachers.
These findings are potentially significant for other forms of interdisciplinary
learning and teaching.
INTRODUCTION
This paper reports on a research project entitled Searching for Meaning (SfM),
which was funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and was conducted by
researchers from the University of Glasgow in conjunction with staff at the
Scottish Schools Education Research Centre (SSERC). The project sought to
understand: the practical and procedural implications for science and religious
education teachers as they engaged in collaborative interdisciplinary work and
the impact of interdisciplinary learning on the pupils.
32
The research was undertaken in two phases. First, a questionnaire was sent by
mail to a large sample of science and religious education teachers in Scotland.
Once the questionnaire had been completed and returned, science and religious
education teachers from a number of denominational and non-denominational
schools across the country were invited to participate in CPD events organized
by SSERC.1 The participants discussed collaboration between science and
religious education in their schools and SSERC resources were provided to
facilitate the collaboration.2 After the collaborative work had commenced in a
number of schools, members of the research team conducted the second phase
of the research: interviews and focus groups in four schools in late 2012. The
aim was to discuss: good practice (including use of resources); further resource
and development needs and potential barriers to collaboration in interdisciplinary
work. The four schools were selected because there was evidence of successful
collaboration or there were serious barriers to collaboration. In the two schools
that collaborated successfully, the team interviewed teachers of science and
religious education and conducted focus groups with pupils. In the two schools
that encountered serious challenges, members of the team interviewed one
teacher to discuss why the collaboration had not been successful and the
barriers that had been encountered. This paper focuses on the second phase of
the research.
The article will, first, examine the policy and theoretical context for the
research, followed by a brief explanation of the methodology of the quantitative
research and a summary of the findings of this phase. The paper will continue
with an explanation of the sample for the qualitative research, a detailed
presentation of the findings of this phase and a discussion of the findings. The
paper will conclude with some final comments.
INTERDISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND TEACHING IN CURRICULUM FOR
EXCELLENCE
The Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) initiative for children aged 3-18 in Scotland
states that the purpose of the curriculum can be encapsulated in four capacities
that will enable young people to be successful learners (which includes
openness to new thinking and ideas); confident individuals; responsible citizens
and effective contributors (Education Scotland 2014a). CfE identifies eight
curricular areas or subjects for school education: expressive arts, health and
wellbeing, languages, mathematics, religious and moral education, sciences,
social studies and technologies (Scottish Executive, 2006). One of the key CfE
documents, Building the Curriculum 3 (2008) identifies four contexts for learning
as important factors or elements in building the framework of the curriculum; one
of the four contexts for learning is interdisciplinary learning (The Scottish
1 The state funded school system consists of denominational and non-denominational schools. The vast majority of the denominational
schools are Roman Catholic (SCES, 2014; Scottish Government, 2014).
2 ‘Science’ refers to chemistry, physics and biology. There are a wide variety of titles for the study of religion in Scottish schools across
denominational and non-denominational schooling: religious education; religious and moral education; religious, moral and philosophical
studies; religious studies. These titles are used with inconsistency, thus, we have chosen to adopt ‘religious education’ as a useful generic
term for both denominational and non-denominational schools except where specific terms are used in documentation or in interviews.
33
Government, 2008). Interdisciplinary learning involves two or more disciplines
and aims to support learners in the use of ‘knowledge and skills from different
disciplines’ to ‘help them make real connections between subjects and
disciplines’ (Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2010).
The vision of the
application of interdisciplinary learning that emerges in CfE is that it is an
‘important approach at all levels of CfE’. It is important to note that the use of the
term ‘inter-disciplinary’ is based on an assumption that extant discrete disciplines
continue to be in position and continue to be relevant ‘modes of thought’ and CfE
advises that there should be a balance between opportunities for interdisciplinary
learning and subject learning (Moran, 2002, p. 17; White, 2004a, p. 188,
Education Scotland 2014b).
The introduction of greater emphasis on interdisciplinary learning at all levels
of CfE, including secondary schools, can appear to highlight a fundamental
difference in learning and teaching between primary and secondary schooling. It
may be easier to introduce (or continue) interdisciplinary learning in the primary
school because the teachers have been educated to facilitate learning across the
curriculum and there is more time and scope within the working week to enact
interdisciplinary learning (Humes, 2013). There may even be time and scope to
create an interdisciplinary classroom (Stepien et al., 1993). However, some
caution must be exercised: while the primary teacher may be better positioned to
adopt this greater emphasis on interdisciplinary work, there still remains
significant emphasis on subject disciplines in the primary school (Savage, 2011).
Secondary schools have traditionally had a strong focus on discrete subject
areas throughout the different stages, with much less emphasis on
interdisciplinary learning and teaching, and less experience of planning and
implementing this form of learning (White, 2004b). There are serious challenges
in introducing (or increasing) interdisciplinary learning in the secondary school
and potentially a serious tension in preserving the balance of the specialist
nature of these discreet subject areas (and teachers) with a more flexible and
porous interdisciplinary learning. It is important to examine CfE documentation
and supporting documentation for elucidation on interdisciplinary learning and
teaching in secondary schools and guidance on how to introduce and
consolidate this form of learning and teaching across disciplinary areas.
The discussion of interdisciplinary learning and teaching in the CfE
documentation focuses on (1) the coherence of this form of learning with the
fundamental philosophy of CfE and the underlying principles (e.g. the
experiences and outcomes) and (2) the rationale; aims; description; importance
of rigour; potential benefits and evaluation of this approach to learning (Learning
and Teaching Scotland, 2010, Education Scotland, 2102). There is a
foundational statement outlining the features of effective interdisciplinary learning
on page 21 in Building the Curriculum 3 (2008) (reproduced in subsequent major
documents / web statements):
 Can take the form of individual one-off projects or longer courses of study
 Is planned around clear purposes
 Is based upon experiences and outcomes drawn from different curriculum
areas or subjects within them
 Ensures progression in skills and in knowledge and understanding
34

Can provide opportunities for mixed stage learning which is interest
based (The Scottish Government, 2008).
There are other brief references to interdisciplinary learning in Building the
Curriculum 3, but no further explanation of interdisciplinary learning or guidance
on planning, preparation and implantation for interdisciplinary learning.
There is a more detailed explanation of interdisciplinary learning and guidance
for implementation in Interdisciplinary Learning: Some Guidance Points
(Education Scotland, 2010). This is a preparatory document for the Learning and
Teaching Scotland discussion paper Interdisciplinary Learning (Learning and
Teaching Scotland, 2010). Interdisciplinary Learning: Some Guidance Points
places some emphasis on the implications for teachers and working processes
when planning to implement interdisciplinary learning. This document advises
that interdisciplinary learning in the secondary school requires ‘teams of
teachers’ (p. 6) to engage in what is described as ‘joint planning’ (p. 8),
‘plan…jointly’ (p. 11) or ‘team planning’ (p. 10), aware that this learning needs
‘careful planning’ (p. 10) and has ‘to be planned fully’ (p.3). The document states
that it is important to ensure that ‘teachers have time, opportunity and support to
develop interdisciplinary activities’ (p. 10), reiterating the importance of time and
support on page 11. The document recommends appropriate CPD, because:
It takes time for teachers to work together and think out why interdisciplinary
learning is valuable and the best ways of developing it in their particular contexts (p.
12).
The advice in this document, ultimately, provides no insights beyond these
statements and this is illustrated in the exemplar of good interdisciplinary
learning drawn from a secondary school (science and technology teachers
working together) (pp. 20-23). This exemplar fails to provide any description or
explanation of the careful and full joint planning of the team that had been
identified in the document.
The document, Interdisciplinary Learning (Leaning and Teaching Scotland,
2010) and the guidance on the Education Scotland website (Education Scotland
2014b) (most of the key points of this 2010 paper are replicated in the formal
guidance for interdisciplinary learning on the Education Scotland website) place
very little emphasis on the teacher, but, consistent with other CfE documentation,
are primarily focused on the learner and, in this instance, the benefits of
interdisciplinary learning for the learner. There are some very concise comments
concerning the importance of planning and adequate time for planning (the
substance of a short paragraph from page 11 of Interdisciplinary Learning: Some
Guidance Points):
They [schools] also need to create the time and provide the support for teachers to
plan collaboratively for interdisciplinary learning. Such provision of time and support
makes a very important contribution to teachers’ continuing professional
development (Education Scotland, 2010; Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2010, p.
6).
The impetus for the time and support that would come from the schools would
presumably have to come from the school leadership. There are also three bullet
points in a section entitled Guiding Principles:
35



Appropriate balance of disciplinary and interdisciplinary learning…
Effective organization and/or timetabling
Provision of appropriate time and support for teachers’ learning (Learning
and Teaching Scotland, 2010, p. 12; Education Scotland, 2014b).
There are, however, no other references to the importance of joint team
planning. The concise document CfE Briefing 4 Interdisciplinary Learning (2012)
discusses planning for interdisciplinary learning but much of this is focused on
the purpose and learning intentions of the learning (Education Scotland). This
document contains one mention of teamwork and effective dialogue between
practitioners. This document also provides some guidance for teachers to take
interdisciplinary learning forward but this is a checklist to ensure that the
interdisciplinary learning meets the needs of the learners.
In summary, the examination of CfE documentation and support
documentation demonstrates that there is little more than a skeleton outline of
some of the key aspects of planning, preparation and implementation of
interdisciplinary learning: the importance of team-work, dialogue and careful joint
planning and the need for schools and school leaders to provide time and
support for teachers, including appropriate CPD. In the absence of more detailed
advice from CfE documentation, further insights need to be sought from research
literature to identify additional key aspects for effective interdisciplinary learning
and teaching – aspects that are crucial if this form of learning and teaching is to
be implemented successfully at the secondary school level.
Teachers within disciplines must recognize the academic status of other
disciplines, be open to communication with other disciplines and recognize the
value of interdisciplinary work. This will mean eschewing any hierarchical notions
of disciplinary superiority and status, grounded in exclusionary discourses of
‘more powerful’ forms of knowledge (Paechter, 2000; Moran, 2002). It will also
mean the rejection of dismissive stereotypes of other subject disciplines (Harris
et al, 2012). If interdisciplinary learning between two or more subjects is to
succeed, then, teachers of the disciplinary subjects will require knowledge of the
concepts, skills and processes of each subject’ and how they relate to each other
to forge genuine links between the subjects (our italics) (Turner-Bisset, 2001, p.
46). Teachers cannot engage in any form of meaningful interdisciplinary work
without this relevant knowledge, which can be acquired and developed through
opportunities such as in-service meetings in schools (Gardener and Boix-Mansill,
1999; Turner Bisset, 2001). If this knowledge is not acquired, however, then the
interdisciplinary learning may be more accurately termed as pre-disciplinary work
– work that is not informed, but drawing chiefly from common sense or
experience (Gardener and Boix-Mansill, 1999). The team teaching that is part of
interdisciplinary learning must, as is stated in the CfE documentation, be planned
carefully and be supported but also requires commitment, enthusiasm,
negotiation and harmonious working relationships between the teachers as they
work in a new and unfamiliar way (Warwick, 1971; Plank, 2011). There can be
limited commercial resources available to support teachers who engage in
interdisciplinary learning and there can be insufficient time to create adequate
36
resources (Harvie, 2012). Where resources do exist, the teachers will be
required to master the new material – another demand on time (Plank, 2011).
INTERDISCIPLINARY LEARNING: SCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Interdisciplinary learning can incorporate a number of disciplines but
interdisciplinary learning and teaching between science and religion is
sometimes viewed as ‘difficult’ and ethically volatile’ (Byrne and Brodie, 2012).
This combination appears to be more problematic than collaboration between
subjects such as science and maths or between religious education and
humanities subjects, because collaboration between science and religion
education in schools is connected to the hotly contested, contemporary debate
about the nature of the relationship between science and religion (Dawkins,
2006, 2011; Grayling, 2011, 2013; Harris, 20014, 2006; Hitchens, 2007). This
debate can often lead to polarized positions: science and religion are perceived
to be fundamentally different ways to understand reality that have recourse to
different types of evidence (Reiss, 2008). A more nuanced understanding of the
relationship can be discerned in a variety of models that have been constructed
to categorize contrasting relationships between the disciplinary areas of science
and religion, for example: (1) conflict; independence; dialogue and integration
(Barbour, 1990; Reiss, 2008); (2) religion trumps science; science trumps
religion; independence and integration (Nord, 1999) and (3) conflict, concordat
and consonance (Astley and Francis, 2010). These categorizations identify
positions of independence (there is no relationship) and conflict but also the
possibility of some form of relationship through accommodation and even
potential integration between science and religion. This variety of models can
also be applied to science and religious education in secondary schools, and,
adopting the more positive model of potential integration, provides scope for
opportunities of interdisciplinary learning and teaching between science and
religious education. Reiss (2008) argues that learning and teaching on
science/religion issues will enhance the learning of young people in science. This
can be extended to include enhancement of learning and teaching in religious
education.
As noted previously, the aspiration of the Scottish Government is for greater
emphasis on interdisciplinary learning within schools and this incorporates
collaboration between science and religious and moral education (and religious
education in Roman Catholic schools). There is mention of the potential for
collaboration between these two subjects, though there is little detail on the
practical implications of initiating interdisciplinary learning. The document
Building the Curriculum 1 The contribution of the curriculum areas (2006)
describes some of the potential areas for interdisciplinary learning: the section on
religious and moral education states that ‘important connections’ can be made
between themes in religious and moral education and other subjects such as
history, science and the arts (our italics). The section on religious education in
Roman Catholic schools contains no explicit reference to cross-curricular links
with science per se but states that learning in religious education is
fundamentally interlinked with learning throughout and across the curriculum (our
italics). The section on science comments on promoting links with other subjects
37
including religious and moral education. The Principles and practice document
for religious and moral education states:
Social studies and science offer opportunities to relate religious and moral education
to global contexts and to raise contemporary moral and ethical issues (Education
Scotland, 2014c).
The Principles and practice document for religious education in Roman
Catholic schools provides a more general statement about ‘meaningful links’ with
other parts of the curriculum (Education Scotland, 2014d). The Principles and
practice document for sciences encourages links and interdisciplinary work with
other curriculum areas but makes no explicit reference to religious and moral
education (Education Scotland, 2014e).
The research project, Searching for Meaning, adopted the positive model of
potential integration between science and religion and considered the
relationship between science and religious education to be rich in possibilities for
interdisciplinary learning in Scottish secondary schools (Harris et al., 2012). The
aim of the research project was to gather data on the values, beliefs and
attitudes of teachers of science and religious education towards interdisciplinary
collaboration and those attitudes held by pupils concerning the potential links
between science and religious education. The research sought to address the
following questions:
 Can science and religious education teachers work together on themes in
a way which will enhance the pupils’ understanding of science/religion
issues?
 What are the resource and CPD needs of both groups and can we
establish an effective model for interdisciplinary working?
The research consisted of two phases: quantitative and qualitative.
SEARCHING FOR MEANING PHASE ONE: QUANTITATIVE SURVEY
A self-completion questionnaire was sent by mail to a large sample of science
and religious education teachers in all secondary schools (124) in eight local
authorities (out of a total of 32 local authorities) in Scotland in summer 2011
(Scottish Government, 2013). In total 89 questionnaires were returned
(Simmons, 2008). The survey sought relevant background details and
information in two major areas: (1) current practice and (2) potential for
collaboration. In terms of (1) current practice, the survey clarified: the extent of
any current collaborative work between science and religious education
teachers; the confidence of the science and religious education teachers to teach
their own subject and their confidence to teach aspects of the other subject; their
understanding of pupil views on the relationship between religious and scientific
perspectives. The questionnaire provided very little evidence of any formal
collaboration or co-teaching between teachers of science and religious education
in the sample (there was little evidence of co-teaching between any disciplines).
There is evidence that both science and religious education teachers were very
confident in teaching their own subject area, but lacked confidence if teaching a
topic that was substantially and explicitly focused on the other subject area. A
high percentage of science and religious education teachers stated that most
38
pupils think that scientific and religious views are completely unrelated or offer
conflicting perspectives. Pupils who study at advanced levels do, however,
perceive links between the two subjects. Similar findings were identified in an
earlier study of pupil attitude towards the relationship between science and
Christianity in Scottish secondary schools (Fulljames, 1996).
In terms of (2) potential for collaboration, the survey clarified: the potential for
collaboration (including areas with most and least potential for collaboration); the
benefits and potential impact of collaboration; the strategies that could support
such collaboration and, importantly, the barriers to effective collaboration. The
findings from this section of the questionnaire provide strong evidence of a desire
for greater understanding and collaboration between science and religious
education teachers. The teachers identified a number of practical conditions
required to enable effective collaboration. There would need to be a commitment
and support from the school leadership and the existence or creation of a school
culture that would be open to changes in vision and operation. A greater
understanding and mutual respect between the two subject areas would have to
be developed. Significant potential barriers to effective collaboration were
identified as: appropriate timetabling of common or shared themes in the two
subjects that allows collaboration; finding space and time for joint planning and
preparation; allocation of extra resources and workload issues (especially
increase in workload).
SEARCHING FOR MEANING PHASE TWO: QUALITATIVE WORK
In the second phase of the research four schools were selected as case study
schools. In all of the case study schools, science and religious education
teachers undertook or attempted to undertake a joint study of stem cell research
within the school in second year (aged 12-13) and sixth year (aged 17-18):
exploring the scientific and the ethical implications of this research. Professional
resources were produced by the Searching for Meaning project for the CPD
sessions to help facilitate the collaboration. These schools were a mix of
denominational and non-denominational and were located in different parts of the
country. It is useful to categorize them as group A and group B. Group A refers to
two schools that engaged in successful collaboration between science and
religious education teachers and fully participated in the research. Group B refers
to two schools that encountered a number of serious barriers to effective
collaboration and participated in the research in a very limited way. In group A,
school 1 (A1) is a non-denominational school in the west of Scotland. The school
had over 1000 pupils and 86 teachers. Two teachers were interviewed: a teacher
of religious education, a teacher of biology and two focus groups were conducted
with S2/3 pupils. The second school (A2) is a denominational school in the east
of Scotland. The school has over 750 pupils and 64 teachers. A teacher of
religious education and a teacher of biology were interviewed and a focus group
was conducted with S2/3 pupils. In group B, school 1 (B1) is a nondenominational school in the borders. One teacher of religious education was
interviewed. The school has over 1000 pupils and 100 teachers. The second
school (B2) is a non-denominational school in the north of Scotland. The school
had 1444 pupils and 108 teachers. One teacher of science was interviewed. We
39
have analyzed the interviews and focus groups using the themes that were
generated by the quantitative survey and further sub-themes that emerged from
the qualitative work. As it would be very difficult to present a thematic
comparison of schools A and B, the findings will be presented consecutively.
FINDINGS: SCHOOLS A1 AND A2
The findings will be presented under three headings: the benefits and potential
impact of collaboration; the factors and strategies that could support such
collaboration and the barriers to effective collaboration.
The benefits and potential impact of collaboration
Schools A1 and A2 reported a number of important benefits from the
collaboration. We have categorized these as: impact on teachers; expansion of
cross-curricular links and sharing success with wider communities and impact on
pupils and parents. The impact on biology and religious education teachers was
quite marked. The biology teachers in schools A1 and A2 were both very
enthusiastic about the collaboration and commented that this had significantly
increased their understanding of the contemporary scope of religious education:
I was really quite amazed at the fact there was so much linkage between religious
and moral education and biology in particular and I felt quite ignorant in some sense
because I didn’t realize obviously what the course of religious and moral education
contained, things such as pollution and ethical issues such as stem cell…(biology
teacher, A1).
Prior to the collaboration, the biology teacher in school A2 appeared to base
her understanding of contemporary religious education on her own experience as
a school pupil:
I had a meeting with (the religious education teacher) and she took me through
nd
some of the lessons that they did in 2 year with the kids and how they teach it from
a religious education point of view and I hadn’t encountered that before in my life.
When I did religious education we did the bible… and you didn’t discuss feelings or
debates or moral issues, no discussion about that. It was very different for me and it
was good to see that (biology teacher, A2).
Similarly, the religious education teacher in A2 appreciated deepening her
understanding and updating her knowledge of scientific issues. This teacher
stated that this influenced the way she approached the teaching of the topic in
religious education.
You have to actually know the scientific views on that as well, so for us we became
far more knowledgeable about the topic as well and you have to be up-to-date on all
the advances and anything new going on, so for us that was really good as well, so I
think it was a win-win situation (religious education teacher, A2).
One of the interesting outcomes of the research was that it led to further
cross-curricular links within the schools and sharing beyond the schools. In
school A1 the collaboration was extended to home economics and teaching
about foods that are used at religious festivals. The home economics teacher
was enthusiastic and saw this as a ‘fantastic opportunity’. The religious education
40
teacher did caution that extending to other curricular areas should not be forced
but should evolve naturally and in a way that makes sense to children (and to the
staff).
I want it to be very natural and at the moment it is very natural…and the children are
making sense of it between science and religion which I think is important because
when you do interdisciplinary stuff they don’t often make the connection (religious
education teacher, A1).
Both schools A1 and A2 had shared their experiences and the resources with
schools across their cluster or local authority.
Teachers in both schools commented on the impact of the collaboration on
the pupils. Teachers in A1 stated that they could discern an improvement in the
critical debating skills of the pupils in science and teachers in A2 stated that it
had had an impact on critical skills which could be transferable to other subjects
and other contexts and helped develop decision making skills:
It brought in their own decision-making processes and how to make those decisions
and how to make informed decisions which is something that quite a lot of them at
that age haven’t really encountered before… (biology teacher, A2).
Pupils in both schools stated that the interdisciplinary approach had enhanced
their learning of the topic. The pupils in the focus group in schools A1 and A2
stated that it had helped them to understand the issues, other points of view and
the ethics and values of other pupils – which challenged their views:
We were working in groups like we had to work together. It wasn’t just our opinion,
we had to take into consideration all the others’ opinions (pupil, A1).
In some cases, the pupils even changed their views as a result of the
discussions:
I wouldn’t say it was wrong, but my opinion completely changed (pupil, A1).
Some pupils in school A2 had discussed the scientific and ethical aspects of
stem cell research with their parents at home and the school had received
positive feedback from the parents.
The factors and strategies that could support such collaboration
We identified a number of factors and strategies that supported collaboration:
The resources provided by SSERC; the support of the school leadership,
especially the head teacher; communication; effective planning and preparation
and the importance of rapport between the science and religious education
teachers.
Both schools praised the quality of the ready-made SSERC SfM resources
and teachers in A2 described them as ‘superb, absolutely brilliant’. Both schools
commented on the importance of the support from the school leadership: the
faculty and departmental heads and the key role of the head teacher.
The head teacher … she’s been very, very supportive and she was probably the one
that got us all together in the first place because she heard about the research and
she is marvellous with anything that’s raising the profile and anything that’s
benefitting the children (religious education teacher, A1).
41
In school A2, the teachers pointed out that the senior leadership of the school
had provided practical assistance in addressing some of the timetable issues and
this enabled the religious education and biology classes to work together, though
some challenges in timetabling remained.
The teachers in school A1 stressed the importance of planning and
organization, and that that communication was an important factor in ensuring
the success of the collaboration. Several modes of communication were
employed, face-to-face and email, and this was enhanced by the close proximity
of the classrooms used by the teachers. They also stated that the quality of the
communication was key as was a willingness to be open, share ideas and learn
from each other. The teachers explained that they shared a good rapport and
high quality of interpersonal relationships.
The barriers to effective collaboration
Despite the success of the collaboration in schools A1 and A2, both schools
identified some barriers to effective collaboration and extension of the
collaboration. In school A1 the barriers were change of personnel (one of the
religious education teachers had taken maternity leave during the collaboration),
the pressure of time and trying to ensure that the collaboration cohered with the
new curriculum:
So trying to find the time to do this, spend the time getting the resources and getting
it right I probably would have wanted more time…other difficulties I think it’s
identifying how it’s fitting in with Curriculum for Excellence (religious education
teacher, A1).
Another barrier they identified was that the enthusiasm for collaborative work
was not shared by all teachers outside of religious education and science.
In school A2, the teachers were also concerned about the time available to
them and, although the school leadership had assisted with the timetable, the
timetable still proved, at times to be a challenge for the collaboration at S6 level
and the focus was almost exclusively on religious education.
It’s fitting it in, but then trying to find times where we had a free period at the same
time as science …and it’s really, really difficult to get together with them… (religious
education teacher, A2).
This was exacerbated by the physical distance between the two departments
(unlike school A1) and this created a challenge for effective communication:
We’re at completely different parts of the school, you know they’re here and we’re
sort of way along there and three floors up…so that the hardest bit is actually
meeting with each other and saying ‘what do you think about this?’ (religious
education teacher, A2).
They also discussed the extra pressure on workload caused by the collaboration:
The pressures that there are with Curriculum for Excellence right now and the
workload is phenomenal and this (SfM) was just a tiny little part of that and it took up
a lot of time and just managing getting together, that was hard and I really wanted to
do it and I found it hard. So people that were maybe not quite so committed would
have found that quite difficult (biology teacher, A2).
42
This last comment revisits the anxieties expressed in school A1 about the
perceived lack of enthusiasm discerned in other colleagues.
FINDINGS: SCHOOLS B1 AND B2
Staff who attended the CPD from schools B1 and B2 had been enthusiastic
about the project and, when approached by the research team, were very willing
to become case study schools. The research team contacted the schools to
organise visits to conduct interviews and focus groups staff in both schools,
similar to those conducted in schools A1 and A2. When the staff were contacted,
they reported that the project had stalled. In both instances researchers
conducted short telephone interviews with staff members to understand the
barriers that had prevented the work from being enacted in the schools.
In School B1, the researchers interviewed a teacher of religious education. This
teacher reported that the work had stalled at the planning stage as a result of a
member of staff associated with the project being absent for a considerable
length of time during the academic year. In school B2 the science teacher also
reported that they had begun the process of developing joint religious education /
science working but that other demands on staff time and a lack of leadership
support to prioritize the work had meant that the project had not progressed far
beyond the planning stage.
In both schools it was clear that staff were still enthusiastic about the work.
They recognised the benefits of the religious education and science teachers
working together in interdisciplinary work for their own professional development
and the education of pupils. In both schools staff suggested that the work would
be revisited at some point time in the future and they would look for some
opportunity to develop it more fully. However, it was also clear from the
informants in both schools that there were a number of serious barriers to
initiating interdisciplinary learning. The informants in both schools were sceptical
that they would secure senior management support for the collaborative work.
They were anxious that the interdisciplinary work would be identified as a low
priority and, without this support, they would struggle to progress the work.
Enthusiastic staff may be a necessary prerequisite for the work to develop but
without leadership support the staff would struggle to balance the
interdisciplinary work with the competing demands on their time.
DISCUSSION
The discussion will focus on the following key themes that were identified in the
policy and theoretical context: (1) the support from the school leadership; (2)
teachers acquiring relevant knowledge and (3) the importance of team-work,
dialogue and careful joint planning; the need to provide time and support for
teachers, including appropriate CPD and adequate resources.
The practical implications of support from leadership for interdisciplinary
learning in schools receive little attention in the CfE documentation. There are
some comments that teachers should have enough time, opportunity and support
to develop activities (Interdisciplinary Learning: Some Guidance Points) and time
and support are reiterated in Interdisciplinary Learning (2010) and the guidance
on the Education Scotland website. It could be argued that the support from the
43
school leadership is presumed in the CfE documentation - in the context of the
presumed support of school leadership teams for the government initiative, CfE
(Bogotch et al, 2010). In our research, the support of school leadership appears
to be essential for the initiation of interdisciplinary learning. The leadership in the
schools in group A demonstrates openness to change and a willingness to
respond to new initiatives (Begley, 2010). They helped to create a ‘collaborative
culture’ and shape the organizational structures required to sustain this culture
(Leithwood, 2010; Fullan, 2013). In school A1 the leadership provided
enthusiasm and impetus for the interdisciplinary work and supported the work
and appeared to share ‘ownership’ of the work. The leadership effectively
modelled support for interdisciplinary learning in the school (Southworth, 2005).
In school A2 the senior leaders made decisions to address timetable challenges
to ensure that the work could commence (O’Brien et al., 2008). In schools B1
and B2 the joint work had stalled for a number of reasons and the teachers
voiced concerns that one of the major barriers in reviving the initiative would be a
lack of support from senior leadership in leading and modelling the challenging
but necessary change in culture (Reeves, 2009).
The importance of teachers acquiring the relevant knowledge to engage in
interdisciplinary learning and teaching was emphasized in the research literature
(Gardener and Boix-Mansill, 1999, Turner-Bisset, 2001), rather than in the CfE
documentation. The necessity of acquiring this knowledge was confirmed in our
research. Both science and religious education teachers in schools A1 and A2
commented that they had to learn more about the content of the other subject
before initiating interdisciplinary learning. Their comments indicate a move from
pre-disciplinary knowledge or, in the case of biology teacher A2, outdated
knowledge to a greater knowledge and updated understanding that challenged
stereotypes, preconceived perceptions and hierarchical conceptions of the
superiority of science over religious education (Moran, 2002; Harris et al., 2012)
This also ensured a greater appreciation of the academic validity of the other
subject. An interesting development was that the religious education staff in
school A1 had the confidence and impetus to further expand interdisciplinary
learning and teaching (with home economics).
The discussion of teamwork in the CfE documentation is almost exclusively
located in the preparatory document, Interdisciplinary Learning: Some Guidance
Points. There is one mention of teamwork in CfE Briefing 4 Interdisciplinary
Learning. Teamwork is however essential in the secondary school if
interdisciplinary learning and teaching is to be implemented. The teachers in
school A1 stated that the very good relationship between the two sets of
teachers and close physical proximity enabled them to communicate and
dialogue regularly, plan and organize as a team. This team teaching enabled the
pupils and teachers to examine the topics from multiple perspectives and moved
them from a ‘dualistic’ approach to disciplinarity (Plank, 2011). The SfM
resources proved to be invaluable in the development of interdisciplinary learning
and teaching and contributed to the enthusiasm of the teachers for
interdisciplinary learning and teaching at the CPD events. The SfM project was
also able to finance the professional production of resources created in school
A1. The production of these innovative and creative resources represented a
44
financial investment that would have proved almost impossible for the school in
normal circumstances (Harvie, 2012).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has identified and examined the practical requirements that enable
effective interdisciplinary learning and teaching between science and religious
education in Scottish secondary schools: support from school leadership; teacher
commitment and enthusiasm; teachers acquiring relevant knowledge of other
disciplines; team-work, dialogue and careful joint planning; the need to provide
time and support for teachers, including appropriate CPD and adequate
resources. The paper has also identified the potential barriers to this effective
interdisciplinary learning and teaching: lack of leadership support; pressures of
time and challenges of timetabling; change or absence of personnel (maternity
leave or illness); lack of enthusiasm in other staff and lack of physical proximity.
The number of informants in the qualitative strand of this research is quite small
but does provide evidence of effective collaboration in interdisciplinary learning
and teaching between teachers of science and religious education. The wider
relevance of the practical requirements and barriers to interdisciplinary learning
and teaching in Scottish secondary schools identified in this paper can be tested
by application to similar collaborations, collaborations between other disciplines
and to other national contexts.
REFERENCES
Astley, J. and L.J. Francis. 2010. Promoting positive attitudes towards science and religion among
sixth-form pupils: dealing with scientism and creationism. British Journal of Religious Education
32 (3), 189-200.
Barbour, I.G. (1990) Religion in an age of Science: The Gifford lectures 1989-1991, volume 1.
London: SCM.
Begley, P.T. (2010) Leadership: Authentic. In P. Paterson, E. Baker and B. McGaw B. (Eds)
International Encyclopaedia of Education. Elsevier. 7-11.
Bogotch, I. E., Townsend, T. and Acker-Hocevar (2010) Leadership in the implementation of
innovations. In P. Paterson, E. Baker, E and B. McGaw (Eds) International Encyclopaedia of
Education. Elsevier. 128-134.
Byrne, E. and Brodie, M. (2012) Cross-Curricular Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School.
London: Routledge.
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press.
Dawkins, R. (2011) The Magic of Reality. London: Transworld Publishers.
Education Scotland (2010) Interdisciplinary Learning Some Guidance Points. Online at
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/resources/i/genericresource_tcm4629020.asp?strReferringCh
annel=educationscotland&strReferringPageID=tcm:4-615801-64
Education Scotland (2012) CfE Briefing 4 Interdisciplinary Learning. Online at
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/resources/c/genericresource_tcm4732286.asp
Education Scotland (2014a) The purpose of the Curriculum. Online at
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/thecurriculum/whatiscurriculumforexcellence/thepurposeofthe
curriculum/
Education Scotland (2014b) About Interdisciplinary Learning. Online at
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/learningteachingandassessment/learningacrossthecurriculum/
interdisciplinarylearning/about/contextforlearning.asp
45
Education Scotland (2014c) Curriculum for Excellence: Principles and practice religious and moral
education. Online at
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/learningteachingandassessment/curriculumareas/rme/nonden
ominational/principlesandpractice/index.asp
Education Scotland (2014d) Curriculum for Excellence: Principles and practice religious education
in Roman Catholic Schools. Online at
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/learningteachingandassessment/curriculumareas/rme/rerc/pri
nciplesandpractice/index.asp
Education Scotland (2014e) Curriculum for Excellence: Sciences principles and practice. Online at
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/sciences_principles_practice_tcm4-540396.pdf
Fullan, M. (2013) The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Fulljames, P. (1996) Science, creation and Christianity: a further look. In L. J. Francis, William J.
Kay and William S. Campbell (Eds) Research in Religious Education. Leominster: Gracewing.
257-266.
Gardener, H. and Boix-Mansilla, V. (1999) Teaching for Understanding in the Disciplines – and
Beyond. In J. Leach and B. Moon (eds) Learners and Pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing Ltd. 78-88.
Grayling, A.C. (2011) The Good Book. London: Bloomsbury.
Grayling, A.C. (2013) The God Argument. London: Bloomsbury.
Harris, S. (2006) Letter to a Christian Nation. London: Bantam Press.
Harris, R., Harrison, S. and McFahn, R. (2012) Cross-curricular teaching and learning in the
secondary school. Humanities, History, geography, religious studies and citizenship. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Harvie, J. (2012) Interdisciplinary Education and Co-operative Learning: Perfect Shipmates to sail
against the Rising Tide of ‘Learnification’. Stirling International Journal of Postgraduate
Research 1 (1), 1-22.
Hitchens, C. (2007) God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. London: Atlantic Books.
Humes, W. (2013) Curriculum for Excellence and Interdisciplinary Learning. Scottish Educational
Review. 45 (1) 82-93.
Learning and Teaching Scotland (2010) Interdisciplinary learning (discussion paper). Online at
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/resources/i/genericresource_tcm4620621.asp
Leithwood, K. (2010) Transformational School Leadership, In P. Paterson, E. Baker, E and B.
McGaw (eds) International Encyclopedia of Education. Elsevier. 158-164.
Moran, J. (2002) Interdisciplinarity. London: Routledge.
Nord, W.A. (1999) Science, Religion and Education Phi Delta Kappan. 81 (1), 28-33.
O’Brien, J., Draper, J. and Murphy, D. (2008) School leadership. 2nd edition. Dunedin: Edinburgh.
Pachter, C. (2000) Changing School Subjects. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Plank, K.M. (2011) Introduction, In K.M. Plank (ed.) Team Teaching. Across the Disciplines, Across
the Academy. Sterling: Stylus publishing. 1-12.
Reeves, D. (2009) Leading change in your school: how to conquer myths, build commitment, and
get results. Alexandria, Virginia USA: ASCD.
Reiss, M.J. (2008) Should Science Educators deal with the Science/Religion Issue? Studies in
Science Education 44, 157-186.
Savage, J. (2011) Cross-Curricular Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School. London:
Routledge.
Scottish Catholic Education Service (SCES) (2014) schools past and present. Online at
http://www.sces.uk.com/schools-past-and-present.html
Scottish Executive (2006) A Curriculum for Excellence. Building the Curriculum 1: The contribution
of the curriculum areas. Online at
46
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/thecurriculum/howdoyoubuildyourcurriculum/curriculumplanni
ng/whatisbuildingyourcurriculum/btc/btc1.asp
Simmons, R. (2008) Questionnaires. In N. Gilbert (ed.) Researching Social Life. Los Angeles:
Sage.
Stepien, W. J., Gallagher, S. A. and Workman, D. (1993) Problem-Based Learning for Traditional
and Interdisciplinary Classrooms in Journal for the Education of the Gifted 16, 338-357.
Southworth G. (2005) learning-centred leadership. In B. Davies (ed.) The Essentials of School
Leadership. London: Sage.75-92.
The Scottish Government (2008) Building the Curriculum 3. Online at
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/building_the_curriculum_3_jms3_tcm4-489454.pdf
The Scottish Government (2013) Local Authorities and Councils. Online at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/local-government/localg
The Scottish Government (2014) Scottish Schools: Frequently Asked Questions. Online at,
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Schools/FAQs
Turner-Bisset, R. (2001) Expert Teaching. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Warwick, D. (1971) Team Teaching. London: University of London Press.
White, J. (2004a) Conclusion, In J. White (ed.) Rethinking the School Curriculum. London:
Routledge Falmer. 179-190.
White, J. (2004b) Introduction, in J. White (ed.) Rethinking the School Curriculum. London:
Routledge Falmer. 1-19.
47