Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2021.2006539
Kristian Niemi
In the spring of 2019, a manifesto for discussion was published on international knowledge transfer [IKT] in religious education. It was the result of a meeting between scholars in the field of religious education [RE]. According to the authors, although international knowledge transfer is an ideal in all fields of knowledge, it is not clear that the field of religious education is an integrated field of research which produces common, cumulative knowledge. There seems, they argue, to be a general presumption that research results concerning religious education from one country would either not be of interest or importance, or that said results would not be transferable due to context-dependency. Through the Manifesto, the authors want to address the issue; they offer suggestions of what could be done, how, and invite colleagues “from the field of religious education (and beyond)” to contribute. It is not clear from the Manifesto nor the description of its background why the particular format of a “Manifesto” was chosen, instead of a research article or some such. Perhaps it enabled the text to be spread more readily—as it was, in various national channels for research on religious education. It was later published verbatim in the journal of Religious Education, and was followed up by an article where some matters are elaborated further; background, the question of validity, as well as a suggestion for typology of shared knowledge for the field of religious education. This has sparked some academic replies, as well as the main topic of this text: International Knowledge Transfer in Religious Education. The editors claim that it is “the first book on international knowledge transfer in religious education in the history of this discipline”. It should be said that there have been numerous international publications on religious education; the REDCo project comes to mind, as well as titles on religious education in various countries, such as REL-EDU, The Routledge international handbook of religious education, Religious education in the European context; and methodologies developed for the specific purpose of discussing and analyzing religious education from an international perspective. Many more titles could be mentioned; indeed, some are, in the chapters of the book. However, the editors do seem to have a point; no book has previously been published on the specific topic of international knowledge transfer of religious education.
{"title":"Review: International Knowledge Transfer in Religious Education","authors":"Kristian Niemi","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2021.2006539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2021.2006539","url":null,"abstract":"In the spring of 2019, a manifesto for discussion was published on international knowledge transfer [IKT] in religious education. It was the result of a meeting between scholars in the field of religious education [RE]. According to the authors, although international knowledge transfer is an ideal in all fields of knowledge, it is not clear that the field of religious education is an integrated field of research which produces common, cumulative knowledge. There seems, they argue, to be a general presumption that research results concerning religious education from one country would either not be of interest or importance, or that said results would not be transferable due to context-dependency. Through the Manifesto, the authors want to address the issue; they offer suggestions of what could be done, how, and invite colleagues “from the field of religious education (and beyond)” to contribute. It is not clear from the Manifesto nor the description of its background why the particular format of a “Manifesto” was chosen, instead of a research article or some such. Perhaps it enabled the text to be spread more readily—as it was, in various national channels for research on religious education. It was later published verbatim in the journal of Religious Education, and was followed up by an article where some matters are elaborated further; background, the question of validity, as well as a suggestion for typology of shared knowledge for the field of religious education. This has sparked some academic replies, as well as the main topic of this text: International Knowledge Transfer in Religious Education. The editors claim that it is “the first book on international knowledge transfer in religious education in the history of this discipline”. It should be said that there have been numerous international publications on religious education; the REDCo project comes to mind, as well as titles on religious education in various countries, such as REL-EDU, The Routledge international handbook of religious education, Religious education in the European context; and methodologies developed for the specific purpose of discussing and analyzing religious education from an international perspective. Many more titles could be mentioned; indeed, some are, in the chapters of the book. However, the editors do seem to have a point; no book has previously been published on the specific topic of international knowledge transfer of religious education.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47488732","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0284
S. Mora
Open education expands access to learning resources, tools, and research through collaboration and connection in a flexible learning framework that removes technical, legal, and financial barriers so that learners can share and adapt content to build upon existing knowledge. The foundation of “open education” first emerged in England when the Oxford Extension Movement was established in 1878 to provide education to the general masses. Following the success of these extension centers, the US Congress passed the Smith-Lever Act in 1914 to create a system of cooperative extension services connected to land grant universities. These extension cooperatives provided courses in agriculture, administrative policy, economics, and other subjects at little or no cost. Participants were given flexibility to direct their own learning by accessing instructional materials as they needed. In the late 1960s, theories regarding the value of this self-directed learning began to transform traditional classroom practice and again, interest in open learning gained popularity. By 1969, Prime Minister Harold Wilson garnered support to establish the British Open University, which globalized education through television and radio instruction. During the 1970s, even though open learning practices were favored in K-12 schools, ongoing criticism redirected educators back to standardized teaching methods. In the 1980s, the invention of the Wide World Web (1989) led to the creation of applications and networks that could deliver web-based education. The development of online “social” networks fostered the expansion of collaborative projects such as Wikipedia (2001) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2001), which broadened the educational landscape to support barrier-free learning. The emergence of online participatory platforms enabled several leading academic institutions who had been using web-based applications to curate and share their learning materials. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) created the MIT Open Courseware Project (2002), which led to the creation of massive open online courses (MOOCs). As educators worked together on the development of open educational content, the Cape Town Open Education Declaration (2009) was written as a statement to promote the use of open resources and open teaching practices in education. This declaration catalyzed further emphasis of Open Educational Resources (OERs), which included freely adaptable textbooks, journals, and open data projects. To share these resources, instructional repositories such as MERLOT and the OER Commons evolved. Open repositories enable educators to find instructional materials they can adopt, adapt, and create without financial or legal constraints. In some cases, OER projects focus on a disciplinary area such as digital humanities, open science, and open courses. To protect the rights of content creators, Creative Commons licenses assist with the attribution of these resources. The exp
开放教育通过灵活的学习框架中的协作和联系，扩大了对学习资源、工具和研究成果的获取，消除了技术、法律和财务障碍，使学习者能够在现有知识的基础上共享和调整内容。“开放教育”的基础最早出现在英国，1878年牛津扩展运动(Oxford Extension Movement)成立，旨在向普通大众提供教育。随着这些推广中心的成功，美国国会于1914年通过了史密斯-利弗法案，建立了一个与赠地大学相关的合作推广服务系统。这些推广合作社以很少或免费的方式提供农业、行政政策、经济学和其他科目的课程。参与者被给予灵活性，通过访问他们需要的教学材料来指导自己的学习。在20世纪60年代后期，关于这种自主学习价值的理论开始改变传统的课堂实践，对开放式学习的兴趣再次受到欢迎。到1969年，首相哈罗德·威尔逊(Harold Wilson)获得支持，建立了英国开放大学(British Open University)，通过电视和广播教学使教育全球化。在20世纪70年代，尽管开放的学习实践在K-12学校受到青睐，但持续不断的批评使教育者重新回到标准化的教学方法。在20世纪80年代，万维网的发明(1989年)导致了应用程序和网络的创建，这些应用程序和网络可以提供基于网络的教育。在线“社交”网络的发展促进了诸如维基百科(2001)和布达佩斯开放获取倡议(2001)等合作项目的扩展，这些项目拓宽了教育领域，以支持无障碍学习。在线参与式平台的出现使一些一直在使用基于网络的应用程序的主要学术机构能够策划和分享他们的学习材料。麻省理工学院(MIT)创建了麻省理工学院开放课件项目(2002年)，这导致了大规模开放在线课程(MOOCs)的诞生。随着教育工作者共同致力于开放教育内容的开发，《开普敦开放教育宣言》(2009年)被写为一份声明，以促进开放资源和开放教学实践在教育中的使用。这一宣言进一步推动了开放教育资源(OERs)的发展，其中包括可自由调整的教科书、期刊和开放数据项目。为了共享这些资源，诸如MERLOT和OER Commons这样的指导性存储库得以发展。开放存储库使教育工作者能够在没有财务或法律限制的情况下找到他们可以采用、改编和创建的教学材料。在某些情况下，OER项目侧重于一个学科领域，如数字人文学科、开放科学和开放课程。为了保护内容创作者的权利，知识共享许可协议有助于这些资源的归属。开放教育运动的扩大也推动了开放教育实践(OEP)的新探索，包括移动学习、个性化学习和其他开放教学法。2012年，世界开放教育资源大会发表了联合国教科文组织《开放教育资源宣言》，声明“人人都有受教育的权利”。这句话反映了开放教育的基础。
{"title":"Open Education","authors":"S. Mora","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0284","url":null,"abstract":"Open education expands access to learning resources, tools, and research through collaboration and connection in a flexible learning framework that removes technical, legal, and financial barriers so that learners can share and adapt content to build upon existing knowledge. The foundation of “open education” first emerged in England when the Oxford Extension Movement was established in 1878 to provide education to the general masses. Following the success of these extension centers, the US Congress passed the Smith-Lever Act in 1914 to create a system of cooperative extension services connected to land grant universities. These extension cooperatives provided courses in agriculture, administrative policy, economics, and other subjects at little or no cost. Participants were given flexibility to direct their own learning by accessing instructional materials as they needed. In the late 1960s, theories regarding the value of this self-directed learning began to transform traditional classroom practice and again, interest in open learning gained popularity. By 1969, Prime Minister Harold Wilson garnered support to establish the British Open University, which globalized education through television and radio instruction. During the 1970s, even though open learning practices were favored in K-12 schools, ongoing criticism redirected educators back to standardized teaching methods. In the 1980s, the invention of the Wide World Web (1989) led to the creation of applications and networks that could deliver web-based education. The development of online “social” networks fostered the expansion of collaborative projects such as Wikipedia (2001) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2001), which broadened the educational landscape to support barrier-free learning. The emergence of online participatory platforms enabled several leading academic institutions who had been using web-based applications to curate and share their learning materials. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) created the MIT Open Courseware Project (2002), which led to the creation of massive open online courses (MOOCs). As educators worked together on the development of open educational content, the Cape Town Open Education Declaration (2009) was written as a statement to promote the use of open resources and open teaching practices in education. This declaration catalyzed further emphasis of Open Educational Resources (OERs), which included freely adaptable textbooks, journals, and open data projects. To share these resources, instructional repositories such as MERLOT and the OER Commons evolved. Open repositories enable educators to find instructional materials they can adopt, adapt, and create without financial or legal constraints. In some cases, OER projects focus on a disciplinary area such as digital humanities, open science, and open courses. To protect the rights of content creators, Creative Commons licenses assist with the attribution of these resources. The exp","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75165374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-17DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2021.1963162
Oddrun M. H. Bråten
Abstract The question of how religion in different contexts, including history, impact (religious) education systems will be discussed, to set the scene for further exploration by contributors in this special issue. I present a hypothesis: that new social patterns reflecting the present plurality are not sufficiently accounted for in educational systems, as they rather reflect the traditional religious landscapes. Our focus is Religion and Education, but findings are relevant also for the broader field of Education because of the historic and even present close links between religion, state, and educational systems of different countries.
{"title":"The Role of Space and Time: A Comparative Exploration of Religion and Education, Introduction to the Special Issue","authors":"Oddrun M. H. Bråten","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2021.1963162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2021.1963162","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The question of how religion in different contexts, including history, impact (religious) education systems will be discussed, to set the scene for further exploration by contributors in this special issue. I present a hypothesis: that new social patterns reflecting the present plurality are not sufficiently accounted for in educational systems, as they rather reflect the traditional religious landscapes. Our focus is Religion and Education, but findings are relevant also for the broader field of Education because of the historic and even present close links between religion, state, and educational systems of different countries.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49492618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-06DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2021.1961658
Abdurrahman Hendek, N. Fancourt
Abstract In this paper, we consider the differences between national and supranational space and time by focusing on one important strand within supranational processes: the European Court of Human Rights, which has given several judgements on religious education. We compare how the ECtHR’s decisions and guidance are represented and interpreted in Turkey and England. This analysis shows that these decisions are deployed as catalysts for change as well as bulwarks of the status quo. We also consider how the two countries’ responses are different, notably because Turkey has been a responding state in several proceedings, but England has not.
{"title":"The Effects of Judgements by the European Court of Human Rights on Religious Education in England and Turkey","authors":"Abdurrahman Hendek, N. Fancourt","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2021.1961658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2021.1961658","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, we consider the differences between national and supranational space and time by focusing on one important strand within supranational processes: the European Court of Human Rights, which has given several judgements on religious education. We compare how the ECtHR’s decisions and guidance are represented and interpreted in Turkey and England. This analysis shows that these decisions are deployed as catalysts for change as well as bulwarks of the status quo. We also consider how the two countries’ responses are different, notably because Turkey has been a responding state in several proceedings, but England has not.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15507394.2021.1961658","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48466450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0285
The beginnings of academic freedom are testimony to internationalism. European universities in the Middle Ages were self-governing to a degree, but the Church or the state controlled them for centuries. As modern science emerged in 17th-century England and as partaking in research and scholarship began to spread in the 18th and 19th centuries throughout Europe, an interest in the protection of free inquiry intensified. Students who pursued advanced education did so in Europe where many of them became professors, and where, consequently, the idea of Lehrfreiheit emerged: the right of the university professor to freedom of inquiry and teaching. Modern notions of academic freedom began to coalesce in the 19th century and on into the early and mid-20th century with the ascendancy of the research role performed by academics. Yet the point should not be lost that a broader interest in freedom of thought and teaching predates this process of formalization. Assertions of scholarly freedom in the 13th and 14th centuries at the University of Paris constitute a legacy of protections in the pursuit of knowledge, and the term scholastic freedom is traceable to Pope Honorius III in the 13th century. Owing to its span across time and cultural contexts, it is unsurprising that understandings of academic freedom have evolved and are thereby also susceptible to misunderstanding and misapplication. That there might be simply one way to construe academic freedom is a modern paradox. More accurately, academic freedom is nestled in a constellation of cultural, social, and political settings and traditions and histories. Academic freedom is often assumed to be a necessary condition for an authentic academic profession wherever professors are employed. In only a limited number of national systems, particularly the United States, academic freedom is strongly associated with tenure. But globally, most systems of higher education do not have tenure. This fact begs the question of how academic freedom, however construed, can exist in an absence of tenure protections. Answers to the question are again conditioned by histories and traditions, long or limited, that situate professors’ work in a relationship between the state and higher education. The reality that academic freedom is understood differently in different parts of world makes comparison difficult. This likely accounts for the relative paucity of explicitly empirical treatment of academic freedom in international comparative focus. In actuality it is challenging to offer a universal definition of “academic freedom.”
{"title":"International Perspectives on Academic Freedom","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0285","url":null,"abstract":"The beginnings of academic freedom are testimony to internationalism. European universities in the Middle Ages were self-governing to a degree, but the Church or the state controlled them for centuries. As modern science emerged in 17th-century England and as partaking in research and scholarship began to spread in the 18th and 19th centuries throughout Europe, an interest in the protection of free inquiry intensified. Students who pursued advanced education did so in Europe where many of them became professors, and where, consequently, the idea of Lehrfreiheit emerged: the right of the university professor to freedom of inquiry and teaching. Modern notions of academic freedom began to coalesce in the 19th century and on into the early and mid-20th century with the ascendancy of the research role performed by academics. Yet the point should not be lost that a broader interest in freedom of thought and teaching predates this process of formalization. Assertions of scholarly freedom in the 13th and 14th centuries at the University of Paris constitute a legacy of protections in the pursuit of knowledge, and the term scholastic freedom is traceable to Pope Honorius III in the 13th century. Owing to its span across time and cultural contexts, it is unsurprising that understandings of academic freedom have evolved and are thereby also susceptible to misunderstanding and misapplication. That there might be simply one way to construe academic freedom is a modern paradox. More accurately, academic freedom is nestled in a constellation of cultural, social, and political settings and traditions and histories. Academic freedom is often assumed to be a necessary condition for an authentic academic profession wherever professors are employed. In only a limited number of national systems, particularly the United States, academic freedom is strongly associated with tenure. But globally, most systems of higher education do not have tenure. This fact begs the question of how academic freedom, however construed, can exist in an absence of tenure protections. Answers to the question are again conditioned by histories and traditions, long or limited, that situate professors’ work in a relationship between the state and higher education. The reality that academic freedom is understood differently in different parts of world makes comparison difficult. This likely accounts for the relative paucity of explicitly empirical treatment of academic freedom in international comparative focus. In actuality it is challenging to offer a universal definition of “academic freedom.”","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80880681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2021.1932399
Rosemary Laoulach
Abstract This paper will identify some studies which suggest that Religious Education (RE), at least in the West, has problems in its ability to engage students in deep learning. In order to posit a suitable pedagogy, we need to ask, what are the aims of RE? These vary, but some common goals include, promoting values, personal meaning, moral behavior and spiritual or religious faith. The pedagogy best suited to these aims remains a contentious issue. This paper will add to the ongoing discussions that support the view that RE can benefit from inquiry learning, and the methodology and content of philosophy.
{"title":"Should Philosophy Be the Tool for Inquiry-Based Learning in Religious Education?","authors":"Rosemary Laoulach","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2021.1932399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2021.1932399","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper will identify some studies which suggest that Religious Education (RE), at least in the West, has problems in its ability to engage students in deep learning. In order to posit a suitable pedagogy, we need to ask, what are the aims of RE? These vary, but some common goals include, promoting values, personal meaning, moral behavior and spiritual or religious faith. The pedagogy best suited to these aims remains a contentious issue. This paper will add to the ongoing discussions that support the view that RE can benefit from inquiry learning, and the methodology and content of philosophy.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44239181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2021.1958651
S. Tuastad
Abstract In Scandinavia, religious schools are both rarer and more controversial than in many other European countries and the United States. Scandinavian politicians fear that these schools foster social division and undermine personal autonomy. However, researchers have not paid much attention to these political concerns. In this study, the ethical autonomy of students at religious schools is scrutinized and compared to the experiences of students at non-religious schools based on interviews with 35 recent and former Norwegian high school students. Deep ethical confrontations occurred regularly only at the religious school, but it paradoxically also had a stronger sense of ethical belonging.
{"title":"Ethical Autonomy at Religious Schools: Students’ Experiences at a Christian School in Norway, 1990–2015, Compared to Majority Schools","authors":"S. Tuastad","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2021.1958651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2021.1958651","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Scandinavia, religious schools are both rarer and more controversial than in many other European countries and the United States. Scandinavian politicians fear that these schools foster social division and undermine personal autonomy. However, researchers have not paid much attention to these political concerns. In this study, the ethical autonomy of students at religious schools is scrutinized and compared to the experiences of students at non-religious schools based on interviews with 35 recent and former Norwegian high school students. Deep ethical confrontations occurred regularly only at the religious school, but it paradoxically also had a stronger sense of ethical belonging.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48813570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2021.1953915
Giselle C. M. Greenidge
Abstract Due to large numbers of students arriving in the U.S. with different religious beliefs/backgrounds, it is necessary to analyze the religious environment of students’ home country and examine how it affects educational attainment. This research examines the relationship between religious freedom/restrictions and international enrollment rates in graduate school programs in the U.S. This study uses a quantitative cross-sectional research design that represent a total of 78 countries. The results demonstrate that students from countries with high levels of government restrictions enroll in graduate school at a relatively lower rate than students from countries with low levels of such government restrictions.
{"title":"A Country’s Religious Freedom and Graduate School Attendance in the U.S","authors":"Giselle C. M. Greenidge","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2021.1953915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2021.1953915","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Due to large numbers of students arriving in the U.S. with different religious beliefs/backgrounds, it is necessary to analyze the religious environment of students’ home country and examine how it affects educational attainment. This research examines the relationship between religious freedom/restrictions and international enrollment rates in graduate school programs in the U.S. This study uses a quantitative cross-sectional research design that represent a total of 78 countries. The results demonstrate that students from countries with high levels of government restrictions enroll in graduate school at a relatively lower rate than students from countries with low levels of such government restrictions.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15507394.2021.1953915","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47964429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-29DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2021.1943271
J. Doney
Abstract This paper focuses on the development of Religious Education in England and Norway examining changes that took place in the 1960s. Using Statement Archaeology, the influence of the Christian ecumenical movement on English RE is identified. This movement has mostly been overlooked in the historiographies of RE, yet it appears to play a key role in creating circumstances in which the legitimate study of non-Christian worldviews becomes possible. The paper presents existing research that demonstrates how these global ecumenical discourses affected educational policies in England, setting out a compelling case for further exploration of the developments in Norway.
{"title":"Unearthing Ecumenical Influences on Education Policy in England and Norway using Statement Archaeology","authors":"J. Doney","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2021.1943271","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2021.1943271","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper focuses on the development of Religious Education in England and Norway examining changes that took place in the 1960s. Using Statement Archaeology, the influence of the Christian ecumenical movement on English RE is identified. This movement has mostly been overlooked in the historiographies of RE, yet it appears to play a key role in creating circumstances in which the legitimate study of non-Christian worldviews becomes possible. The paper presents existing research that demonstrates how these global ecumenical discourses affected educational policies in England, setting out a compelling case for further exploration of the developments in Norway.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15507394.2021.1943271","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43587698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：