This paper takes as its starting point, one of the explicit aims of Religious Education (RE) in England, namely, the development of students' religious understanding. It shows how curriculum documentation, whilst stating that religious understanding is an aim of RE fails to clearly outline what is meant by it. This paper draws upon longstanding and ongoing debates in the field and suggests that religious understanding may be best conceived as a spectrum of understanding. Approached in this way religious understanding becomes not an all or nothing affair, but a lens through which the student of religion may regard the beliefs and practices before them. Finally, the paper proposes an interpretation of religious understanding, which focuses on the soteriological dimension of religion, thus providing the student with a particularly religious lens through which to understand religious traditions in RE and concludes by outlining what such an approach might look like in practice.
The intention of this paper is to make a contribution to religious education (RE)'s constant search for a rigorous curriculum identity. The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)/Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) project 'Does RE work?' has recently reported its findings, in which it concludes that RE suffers from too many competing expectations. A major reason for this is that, according to the report, policymakers have 'freighted it with too many competing imperatives'. Such imperatives range from religious literacy, through multicultural awareness, philosophical understanding, moral development and understanding heritage to sex and relationship education. In all, the project lists 13 such imperatives! It is little wonder then that the project echoes OfSTED's recent finding that teachers were under-confident and unsure as to the aims and purposes of the subject. The AHRC/ESRC project's findings also reflect a theoretical debate in RE that has been going on for some time. This debate might be termed 'religious education and disciplinary identity'. So, should RE be regard as a discipline in its own right, rather like history is regarded as a discipline, or is RE better understood as employing a number of disciplines such as philosophy, anthropology, psychology in its pursuit? This question of the subject's identity did not simply arise out a move from a 'confessional' Christian identity to a multi-faith identity in the 1970s but was a live issue well before then. This paper takes the view that RE needs to prioritise its aims for the subject and place the aim of pupils' spiritual and moral development at the forefront of its concerns. In so doing religious educators need to continue the debate about the representation of religion in RE.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.