Incident: Image of God

Next I have a closer look at one of the incidents. First I give a contextual description of the incident, as the incident is embodied in the whole lesson. A seemingly boring lesson turns into one of the most vivid interactions among the observed lessons. Then I have a more microscopic look at the thematic and interactive level of the incident and gain different insights on it from the students’ and teacher’s perspectives.

5.2.2.1. Context of the incident

A selected incident from School D occurred in the second lesson about Judaism;

the short transcription of this incident is presented in Appendix 9. Judaism and Christianity are more familiar to students if compared to other world religions, as they more or less dealt with in history and literature lessons (Danilson, 2007a, 2007b; Jansen-Mann, 2007; Laks, 2007). The first lesson dealt with the notion of monotheism, the Holy Scripture, and the laws. The second lesson expanded upon the concepts of the chosen nation and Messiah. The incident occurred at the end of the lesson, when dialogue arose between students and the teacher.

The lesson starts with an introduction by the teacher about the contents of the last lesson and topics of the current lesson: ‘the belief in a monotheistic God in connection to the concept of a chosen nation’. This was followed by a period for the individual reading of a textbook paragraph, in order to answer the question “What problems could arise through the idea of the chosen nation?”

As students worked at a different pace, some became bored during the final minutes of the reading task.

Peter asked four different students – all girls – to answer the question. He appreciated all the answers, reformulated, and then expanded them, before placing the presented viewpoints into a broader context and writing short keywords on the blackboard. He also related the answers of the different students to one another. Students took notes and looked down, waiting for the teacher to choose who will be asked next. The teacher asked for volunteers. A

girl from the second bench, Rita, referred to the ‘superiority’ of Jews. The teacher corrected her: “The Jews believe that they are chosen for suffering. But yes, it is still possible.” He gave an example from everyday life: if one wins the lottery twice, one can feel that “the rest of the people can buy the tickets but I will win – such a feeling is quick to come”.

The teacher asked for additional volunteers, but no new answers emerged.

He pushed the phenomenon of the chosen nation away from being specifically a Jewish phenomenon. He claimed that something similar can be followed in the desire to be the best nation or to see that a state has a crucial role in world history. He brought the claim back to the concrete level, showing that it is also relevant for Estonians. Peter shared a funny folktale about the competition of languages, in which the Estonian language won second place after Italian with the sentence “sõida tasa üle silla” [drive slowly over a bridge]. The students became animated when he told the second story – how Estonians went to Egypt and exclaimed: “Nii ilus!” [So beautiful] and so the river got its name ‘Niilus’

[Nile]. He also shared a myth about ancient Estonians visiting America; they tasted local fruits that were sweet and called the local people ‘maiad’ [sweet-lovers] – Mayas. He concluded that it is possible to see the wish to be important in the history of many nations. He asked if anyone has anything to add, but received no response.

Peter continued with a lecture on a new subtopic about the idea of Messiah, about which students have already read. Students looked in their textbooks to remember what they have read. Peter stressed that it is believed in Judaism that they are chosen for suffering, as is also seen in history – after a short indepen-dence, they were often captured or deported. Peter explained that the Messiah is believed to be God’s messenger, who will establish a kingdom of happiness and justice. He added a short comparison with the Messiah-idea in Christianity.

Although the interlude with stories about Estonians cheered students up, their interest soon waned. A boy from the third bench, Juhan, sprawled. He may have been bored or perhaps just sleepy after the lunch break. Some students took notes. Peter assigned the next task: to read the succeeding paragraph in the text-book. Students started reading about Jewish religious life and the synagogue.

The students looked tired and were perhaps a bit jaded.

The incident was preceded by pointing at a contradiction between the text and a photo, which the teacher accentuated. According to the textbook, it is prohibited to incorporate images of anything into a synagogue, but some lions are included in the photograph. The students’ behaviour seemed to change after the introduction of the contradiction by the teacher, but this only captured their attention for a short while, and soon several of them had become distant. Juhan yawned again,¹⁹ and another student rubbed his face.

Peter wrote the next task on the blackboard: “Why is God not represented in images in Judaism?” The teacher tried once more to capture the students’

19 In his feedback, Juhan said, “I was sleepy not because the lesson was boring but I had a short sleep last night”.

attention by asking them about the proper word for making sculptures. Peter could not find the right word. He criticised himself and then asked students how they call making sculptures – “Do you model, cut, cast, or what?” Students laughed and looked refreshed. Peter believed they understood what he meant.

He repeated the question, and some students wrote it down.

Incident ‘Image’. The full transcription of the incident is provided in Appendix 9. Peter decided to give the task as pair-work, which resulted in a real breakthrough. The lesson had been very teacher centred up to this point; the lecture was alternated only by reading the textbook and a ‘teacher asks – student answers’ style of conversation²⁰. Students changed their relaxed position to sit more erect. They turned to their partners and looked at each other. Many stu-dents started speaking at once, while others thought a bit and then commenced exchanging ideas. After a few moments, almost everybody was involved in a discussion; two students alone wrote their notes, as their peers discussed the topic in groups of three. As with every pair-work task in this class, students’

interest increased. This is particularly remarkable considering that their attention was decreasing during the previous part of the lesson. Students actively discussed the question for four minutes. Some pairs prepared to answer and started writing notes. The buzz in the class lessened, and Peter started asking students the question. In the next few minutes, the students argued with each other and with the teacher until the lesson ended. This is described more precisely in the next section.

5.2.2.2. Thematic level of the incident

Students were given the task of thinking about the arguments behind the Judaic prohibition of representing God in an image. The first topic was introduced by a boy (Riho), who argued based on the authority of the holy texts of Judaism. The teacher categorised the answer as Scripture-centred, very logical, and widely used especially among religious people.

Peter said that, in Judaism, faith must be supported by other logical argu-ments as well, and asked the second student to respond. A girl (Carola) provided a second reason: fear of making a mistake. Meanwhile, students engaged in a side conversation that not representing God in an image is relevant for Christianity as well.

The next student, Nelly, gave an example of anthropomorphism. The teacher countered with an example from Christianity. Nelly did not agree; she thought that only Christ is represented in imagery. The teacher convinced her with a description of a painting of Michelangelo and icons depicting the Trinity.

20 In other lessons, he used more varied patterns; he showed extracts from films, the stu-dents read firsthand tests as well as textbooks, and Peter varied the writing of thoughts with small-group discussions.

Laura introduced a new argument: God is visualized in order to evade contradictions between different perceptions of God.

The subsequent three contributions pointed at the holiness of God, but all three students approached it from different standpoints. Maria mentioned that the holiness of God would be undermined if an image were destroyed by enemies of this religion. A more abstract conception of God, without per-ceptible representation, does not have such danger. Paula indicated the tendency to worship statues or pictures instead of God. Finally, Rita argued for the inner sense of holiness, feeling subordinate in the face of an unimaginable God whose name is not even pronounced.

Figure 2: Thematic level of the incident ‘Image’

The composition of the thematic level of the incident is very clearly structured, as seen in Figure 2. The next paragraph puts some flesh on the bones of the thematic level. I will look at what hindrances and potentials could be followed in interaction level of the incident; what is the interactional level for these contributions?

5.2.2.3. Interactive level of the incident

The teacher first asked Riho to contribute (the only boy asked during the lesson), and he answered in a clear, assured voice that it is in the Scripture not to construct images. Some of the students smiled at his answer. Peter expressed surprise at the content of the answer, confirming and appreciating the answer

Why not to depict God in an image?

A: Scripture prohibits

B: Wrong way to depict

C: Because of God’s holiness

B1: Anthropo-morphism

B2 Antithesis:

Icons Michelangelo

C1: Vulnerablity C2: Idolatry C3: Humility B3: Contradictions

between different images

with the longest comment given in this round. The teacher supported the boy’s answer very explicitly, showing his admiration for the untraditional answer.

To open the door for further discussion, and stress continuity with more secular justifications, Peter continued with a comment that gave respect to Jewish explanations and showed them as reasonable at the secular level as well, which was understandable for students. His comment further highlighted the value of the first response, and the readiness to listen to more contributions to comprehend such an approach and find common ground with it. Thus, the first contribution established the ground for a dialogue with an imaginable party not present in class – namely, with a Jew.

The teacher asked the next student, a girl from the back (Carola). She answered quietly: “I think that there is fear of [representing the] image [God]

in a wrong way.” Peter paused, his face expressing that he is puzzled. He repeated the phrase said by the girl and asked what the right way to represent God is. Carola looked confused by the remark and answered that nobody knows. The teacher wrote the answer on the blackboard (“Fear to err”) and asked if anybody else had an example for the kind of misrepresentation they could fear. By writing the statement on the blackboard and asking others for examples, Peter demonstrated his appreciation for the answer and again opened the floor for thinking in the same direction. The girl looked down. The audio recorder catches that, at the same time, another girl (Nelly) and a boy (Karl) from the last bench were discussing that, in Christianity, God is not represented in imagery either. This activated their thinking; Nelly raised her hand and waited for her turn.

Peter noticed her and asked her to be next. Nelly volunteered not with the discussion she had with Karl, but with an example of anthropomorphising God:

“For example if…they would humanise God, but at the same time God should be something higher, something else and if they describe Him as an ordinary human being…”

The teacher wrote ‘anthropomorphise’ on the blackboard and a loud whispering arose from the class: “But if they would make an image of a frog?” The remark contributed to easing the atmosphere. Nelly smiled at the saying; she did not feel attacked. The teacher did not react to the remark, but concentrated on Nelly’s answer, for the first time clearly objecting to the answer.

“But what a suggestion! – Later, let’s take Christianity arising from Judaism.

And here God is in the image. Let’s take Michelangelo …”

Nelly was one of the most outspoken students in religious education classes, providing interesting and reasoned contributions. The teacher took a chance to go beyond merely supporting her answer to challenge it. One girl (Laura) in front raised her hand very high. The dialogue with Nelly was not yet finished,

so Laura had to wait for a while. Nelly interrupted the teacher’s performance very assertively, without waiting for approval to interfere:

“But, may I, may I, may I? Is it God’s image in Christianity? There is only Jesus Christ’s image everywhere!”

This is the topic she has previously been discussing with her desk-mate. She did not agree with what the teacher was saying.

Peter continued: “Let’s take Michelangelo…I even have it with me…”

Nelly murmured: “Those artists are just a different topic…”

Karl, sitting next to her, whispered: “He did not hear you…”

Nelly smiled, put her hand to her mouth as shouting for a moment, but then listened to the teacher’s reply. The teacher wanted to show Michelangelo’s

‘Creation’ on an overhead projector; the screen did not roll down at frst but finally he succeeded. He pointed out that the depicted figure is not Christ, but God the Creator. He also gave other examples of illustrating God on icons.

Nelly watched him carefully, holding a pen in her mouth. She was convinced by the explanation and did not want to say anything more.

Peter called on Laura, who was still raising her hand. She did not follow the last discussion, but introduced a new explanation: to avoid contradictions and different perceptions of God. Peter repeated the answer, wrote it on the blackboard without any comment, and asked for more ideas. Laura smiled.

The next student the teacher called on, Maria, proposed that they would be afraid that images could be destroyed by enemies of Judaism. Peter repeated the answer and wrote “Bad sign”.

Paula raised her hand, and the teacher called on her. She had been active in other lessons; in this lesson, she spoke for the first time, saying that there is a danger that rather than worshipping God, people may worship the statue instead. Peter accentuated her reply by saying that it is often used as an argument against depicting God.

Peter asked for the last contribution. A girl from the second bench, Rita – who often volunteers contributions – spoke out for the second time in this lesson about the holiness of God for Jews. She also drew a parallel to not using the name of God as being too holy.

5.2.2.4. Students’ perspective

In the group interview with stimulated recall, three girls and two boys parti-cipated; students had the chance to comment on the lesson and how they felt.

Peter often repeated the contributions of students, putting them into a wider context, appreciating them at some level or questioning their logic at another level. His own turns tended to be longer than those of the students’. When asked how students feel when Peter paraphrases their contributions and whether he

understands them correctly, students replied that they mostly appreciated how he led the conversations.

Nelly: “Sometimes we say a thought and the teacher helps to accomplish it and brings in sides which we were not aware of. He brings our contributions to a level higher than we thought. (…) I think that you present a halfway thought, and then he develops it further.... If it is not exactly the same, what I said about it, I always say that I thought differently. There is nothing wrong that we understand differently. Indeed he likes it that we think differently.”

Nelly was the girl whom the teacher confronted most often in the lesson. She found it to be a useful and challenging way to learn about her own ideas and develop them further. She was not shy in expressing her disagreements, being very aware of the fact that the teacher likes it. She had no fear of entering into a discussion, but perceived it as a safe and even expected way to participate in the lesson. In the light of her answer, it is surprising that students so rarely argued with the teacher and each other. Learning through discussions – expressing their own views – is often a new experience for them. It seems that the religious education lesson gave them the possibility to participate in a lesson in a way they cannot experience much in other lessons.

Paul: “He certainly communicates with us better than some other teachers do. He pays respect to us, giving us the possibility to say our opinions.”

The students also commented on the atmosphere of the lesson and teaching-learning methods used. They appreciated that the lessons did not concentrate on simply learning facts, but rather on understanding deeper structures and ways of thinking in different religions. They found that they benefit from it much more than just learning to repeat facts by heart.

Laura: “Yes, we discuss more, we do not learn, for example, how the Buddhist monks are called, or merely discrete facts.”

Gerda: “It is more important to get a sense of a religion, to form your opinion, then you understand it more – then what the Buddhist monks are called.”

Laura: “It helps us to think, to consider ourselves. But it is more difficult indeed than learning things by heart.”

In regard to the interaction level, and on the ways Peter gives feedback, students believed that he sometimes encouraged them by approval but usually challenged them as well by pointing out weak points in their arguments. In addition, while looking at the videotaped material, Laura noticed one student’s facial expression: smiling when initially approved and then more sorrowful when critiqued. In her comments, she stated that the teacher never brings forth only weaknesses.

Laura: “In the beginning the teacher said that, yes, many would agree with you, then Lisa shone completely. But then the teacher stated that [it was true] in some

respects, but not completely. It is fun to look, how her lips turn down ((smiles))…”

Gerda: “To be honest it is quite a bad feeling when it is said that your thought is completely wrong.”

Laura: “In that respect it is rather good that he always mentions something good and something bad, never only that your answer is totally wrong.”

The feeling of being supported by the teacher’s comments, even when a student cannot find an answer – was expressed also by Gerda:

“In one lesson where I said that I do not have any idea what to answer, he said,

“In one lesson where I said that I do not have any idea what to answer, he said,

Im Dokument the role of the school (Seite 153-161)