Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2021.1877521
B. Grim, P. Lambert
Abstract Religious literacy is important for the global economy and businesses within it. Religious populations are dramatically outgrowing nonreligious populations worldwide, especially in emerging markets. At the same time there is a global countervailing trend of rising restrictions on freedom of religion and belief. At a macro level, such restrictions threaten the health and growth potential of the global economy. At a micro level, companies tone deaf to religion will be less successful in an increasingly religious world. There are specific practices that companies can take to advance religious literacy in the workplace that will empower employees to contribute their fullest.
{"title":"Religious Literacy in Business","authors":"B. Grim, P. Lambert","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2021.1877521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2021.1877521","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Religious literacy is important for the global economy and businesses within it. Religious populations are dramatically outgrowing nonreligious populations worldwide, especially in emerging markets. At the same time there is a global countervailing trend of rising restrictions on freedom of religion and belief. At a macro level, such restrictions threaten the health and growth potential of the global economy. At a micro level, companies tone deaf to religion will be less successful in an increasingly religious world. There are specific practices that companies can take to advance religious literacy in the workplace that will empower employees to contribute their fullest.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":"48 1","pages":"57 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15507394.2021.1877521","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60011259","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 : 2020-12-22DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2020.1856306
Brittany A. Aronson, Muna Altowajri, Dominique Brown, E. Enright, H. Stohry
Abstract This study contributes to our understanding of how pre-service teachers engage in courses that discuss racism, whiteness, Christian privilege, and religious diversity. First, we contextualize the racialization of religion in U.S. society and describe the literature distinguishing Christian privilege, hegemony, and whiteness, as well as what is known about teachers’ understanding of religion. Second, we present our theoretical framework, which is informed by intersectionality theory and critical whiteness studies. Third, we share the findings from our longitudinal study of pre-service teacher coursework. Finally, we conclude with implications and recommendations for increased religious literacies within teacher education.
{"title":"A Call for Critical Intersectional Religious Literacies: An Intersectional Examination of Whiteness and Christian Privilege in Teacher Education","authors":"Brittany A. Aronson, Muna Altowajri, Dominique Brown, E. Enright, H. Stohry","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2020.1856306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2020.1856306","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study contributes to our understanding of how pre-service teachers engage in courses that discuss racism, whiteness, Christian privilege, and religious diversity. First, we contextualize the racialization of religion in U.S. society and describe the literature distinguishing Christian privilege, hegemony, and whiteness, as well as what is known about teachers’ understanding of religion. Second, we present our theoretical framework, which is informed by intersectionality theory and critical whiteness studies. Third, we share the findings from our longitudinal study of pre-service teacher coursework. Finally, we conclude with implications and recommendations for increased religious literacies within teacher education.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":"48 1","pages":"155 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15507394.2020.1856306","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42486260","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 : 2020-12-14DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2020.1816524
P. Kuhlken
Abstract Thirty professors gathered for a 2017 National Endowment in the Humanities summer institute, “The Challenges of Teaching World Religions,” to confront complexities and nuances, hegemonies and political intrigue, hypocrisies and paradoxes–as these and other challenges play out in the present state of Religious Studies. This is the story of one participant’s attempt to practically apply often abstract or esoteric expertise in the 101 classroom. Modern comparative religious study is modeled on biology, which presumes an unchanging essence. However, World Religions professors must accept that religions change and vary, so beyond the inception of founding texts and principles, in an existential sense, there is no stable essence in lived traditions. Therefore “religion” can never be essentialized into an undisputed whole, so “religions” should best be kept as a plural. As an example for World Religions pedagogy, NEH participants scrutinized blindspots that became visible with greater exposure to the diversity (political, historical, experiential, ritualistic, creedal) within each religious tradition, especially as they are actually practiced by various adherents, so hearing from a range of guest speakers, visiting sites, and using a range of World Religions textbooks modeled a twenty-first century pedagogy for teaching World Religions without the monocular “having the right answer” syndrome. Seeing religion not only as a path of wisdom, but also as an exercise of power, seminar participants examined the invisible assumptions of hegemonies, and made imaginative leaps to the experiential reality of selected world religions–all the while, having epistemological humility.
{"title":"“Dear World Religions 101 Professor: Some Essentials About Non-Essentializing”","authors":"P. Kuhlken","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2020.1816524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2020.1816524","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Thirty professors gathered for a 2017 National Endowment in the Humanities summer institute, “The Challenges of Teaching World Religions,” to confront complexities and nuances, hegemonies and political intrigue, hypocrisies and paradoxes–as these and other challenges play out in the present state of Religious Studies. This is the story of one participant’s attempt to practically apply often abstract or esoteric expertise in the 101 classroom. Modern comparative religious study is modeled on biology, which presumes an unchanging essence. However, World Religions professors must accept that religions change and vary, so beyond the inception of founding texts and principles, in an existential sense, there is no stable essence in lived traditions. Therefore “religion” can never be essentialized into an undisputed whole, so “religions” should best be kept as a plural. As an example for World Religions pedagogy, NEH participants scrutinized blindspots that became visible with greater exposure to the diversity (political, historical, experiential, ritualistic, creedal) within each religious tradition, especially as they are actually practiced by various adherents, so hearing from a range of guest speakers, visiting sites, and using a range of World Religions textbooks modeled a twenty-first century pedagogy for teaching World Religions without the monocular “having the right answer” syndrome. Seeing religion not only as a path of wisdom, but also as an exercise of power, seminar participants examined the invisible assumptions of hegemonies, and made imaginative leaps to the experiential reality of selected world religions–all the while, having epistemological humility.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":"48 1","pages":"216 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15507394.2020.1816524","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49312208","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 : 2020-11-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0263
Chad Hoggan
Originating and most often used in the discipline of adult education, the term transformative learning “refers to processes that result in significant and irreversible changes in the way a person experiences, conceptualizes, and interacts with the world” (“Transformative Learning as a Metatheory: Definition, Criteria, and Typology.” Adult Education Quarterly 66.1 [2016]: p. 71, cited under Origins and Overviews). Its origins are in a white paper published in 1978, wherein Jack Mezirow of Teachers College, Columbia University, reported the results of a study of women’s re-entry work programs in community colleges across the United States (Education for Perspective Transformation. Women’s Re-Entry Programs in Community Colleges [1978], cited under Origins and Overviews). In this report, he coined the term perspective transformation to describe the profound changes experienced by some of the women in their study. Over the next several decades, Mezirow developed and continually refined this concept into a comprehensive theory of adult learning, always maintaining a focus on the transformative potential of learning, i.e., its ability to help learners change in fundamental ways rather than merely adding knowledge or skills. During this theory development, his use of terms extended beyond perspective transformation, as he referred to his work as transformation theory and then transformative (or transformational) learning theory. From these beginnings, a large base of literature emerged addressing the profound changes that are possible from learning in adulthood. Of the various names used over time by Mezirow and others, transformative learning is the most ubiquitous term in this scholarship. It is used to refer to Mezirow’s evolving theory of adult learning, but it is also used to refer to any of a number of theories that focus on significant changes that learning can have on people, especially those changes that are not adequately encompassed by the usual descriptors: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Many of these theories were developed independent of Mezirow’s work, sometimes even prior to it. It is probably most accurate to say that transformative learning is not a single theory, but rather a collection of theories around a similar phenomenon. This collection of theories (and more commonly called “approaches” to transformative learning) derived from numerous, disparate disciplinary perspectives that often had little theoretical connection with each other. Therefore, when scholars write about transformative learning, they may be referring to Jack Mezirow’s theory, another theory in the adult education literature that addresses transformation, or the range of theories (or approaches) as a whole. Nevertheless, beginning with Mezirow there has arisen a literature around the phenomenon of the transformative potential of adult learning. Although historically this literature has been mostly by North American scholars, it is increasingly being used by scho
{"title":"Transformative Learning","authors":"Chad Hoggan","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0263","url":null,"abstract":"Originating and most often used in the discipline of adult education, the term transformative learning “refers to processes that result in significant and irreversible changes in the way a person experiences, conceptualizes, and interacts with the world” (“Transformative Learning as a Metatheory: Definition, Criteria, and Typology.” Adult Education Quarterly 66.1 [2016]: p. 71, cited under Origins and Overviews). Its origins are in a white paper published in 1978, wherein Jack Mezirow of Teachers College, Columbia University, reported the results of a study of women’s re-entry work programs in community colleges across the United States (Education for Perspective Transformation. Women’s Re-Entry Programs in Community Colleges [1978], cited under Origins and Overviews). In this report, he coined the term perspective transformation to describe the profound changes experienced by some of the women in their study. Over the next several decades, Mezirow developed and continually refined this concept into a comprehensive theory of adult learning, always maintaining a focus on the transformative potential of learning, i.e., its ability to help learners change in fundamental ways rather than merely adding knowledge or skills. During this theory development, his use of terms extended beyond perspective transformation, as he referred to his work as transformation theory and then transformative (or transformational) learning theory. From these beginnings, a large base of literature emerged addressing the profound changes that are possible from learning in adulthood. Of the various names used over time by Mezirow and others, transformative learning is the most ubiquitous term in this scholarship. It is used to refer to Mezirow’s evolving theory of adult learning, but it is also used to refer to any of a number of theories that focus on significant changes that learning can have on people, especially those changes that are not adequately encompassed by the usual descriptors: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Many of these theories were developed independent of Mezirow’s work, sometimes even prior to it. It is probably most accurate to say that transformative learning is not a single theory, but rather a collection of theories around a similar phenomenon. This collection of theories (and more commonly called “approaches” to transformative learning) derived from numerous, disparate disciplinary perspectives that often had little theoretical connection with each other. Therefore, when scholars write about transformative learning, they may be referring to Jack Mezirow’s theory, another theory in the adult education literature that addresses transformation, or the range of theories (or approaches) as a whole. Nevertheless, beginning with Mezirow there has arisen a literature around the phenomenon of the transformative potential of adult learning. Although historically this literature has been mostly by North American scholars, it is increasingly being used by scho","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":"119 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76710322","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 : 2020-11-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0265
K. Underwood, Gillian Parekh
Inclusive education as a model of service delivery arose out of disability activism and critiques of special education. To understand inclusive education in early childhood, however, one must also engage with broader questions of difference, diversity, and social justice as they intersect with childhood studies. To that end, this article contains references that include other critical discourses on childhood and inclusivity as well as critiques of inclusive education. Inclusive education has a much deeper body of research in formal school settings than in the early years. School-based research, however, often examines social relationships and academic achievement as outcome measures. This research has established that education situated in a child’s community and home school is generally more effective than special education settings, particularly when classroom educators have access to appropriate training, resources, policies, and leadership. Schools, of course, are part of the education landscape of the early years, but they are not inclusive of the full spectrum or early years settings. The early years literature on inclusion is different in focusing more attention on development, family, and community (as described in the General Overview of Early Childhood Inclusion). A critique of early childhood education research has focused on school readiness and rehabilitation and the efficacy of early identification and early intervention. This research is largely informed by Western medical research, but this approach has led global institutions to set out priorities for early intervention without recognizing how our worldview shapes our understanding of childhood and difference. The dominant research domain, however, has also identified that family and community contexts are important. This recognition creates a fundamental difference between inclusion research in school settings and such research in early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care has always focused on the child and their family as the recipients of services, while educational interest in the family has been viewed as a setting in which the conditions for learning are established. Support for families is at the center of early childhood inclusive practice, both because families are largely responsible for seeking out early childhood disability services and because families are critical in children’s identity. Inclusion in schools and early childhood education and care can both be understood through theories of disability, ability, and capability. In both settings, education and care have social justice aims linked not only to developmental and academic outcomes for individual children, but also to the ways that these programs reproduce inequality. Disability as a social phenomenon has its historical roots in racist and colonial practices, understood through critical race theory, that are evident today in both early childhood and school settings. Understanding
{"title":"Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and Social Justice","authors":"K. Underwood, Gillian Parekh","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0265","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0265","url":null,"abstract":"Inclusive education as a model of service delivery arose out of disability activism and critiques of special education. To understand inclusive education in early childhood, however, one must also engage with broader questions of difference, diversity, and social justice as they intersect with childhood studies. To that end, this article contains references that include other critical discourses on childhood and inclusivity as well as critiques of inclusive education. Inclusive education has a much deeper body of research in formal school settings than in the early years. School-based research, however, often examines social relationships and academic achievement as outcome measures. This research has established that education situated in a child’s community and home school is generally more effective than special education settings, particularly when classroom educators have access to appropriate training, resources, policies, and leadership. Schools, of course, are part of the education landscape of the early years, but they are not inclusive of the full spectrum or early years settings. The early years literature on inclusion is different in focusing more attention on development, family, and community (as described in the General Overview of Early Childhood Inclusion). A critique of early childhood education research has focused on school readiness and rehabilitation and the efficacy of early identification and early intervention. This research is largely informed by Western medical research, but this approach has led global institutions to set out priorities for early intervention without recognizing how our worldview shapes our understanding of childhood and difference. The dominant research domain, however, has also identified that family and community contexts are important. This recognition creates a fundamental difference between inclusion research in school settings and such research in early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care has always focused on the child and their family as the recipients of services, while educational interest in the family has been viewed as a setting in which the conditions for learning are established. Support for families is at the center of early childhood inclusive practice, both because families are largely responsible for seeking out early childhood disability services and because families are critical in children’s identity. Inclusion in schools and early childhood education and care can both be understood through theories of disability, ability, and capability. In both settings, education and care have social justice aims linked not only to developmental and academic outcomes for individual children, but also to the ways that these programs reproduce inequality. Disability as a social phenomenon has its historical roots in racist and colonial practices, understood through critical race theory, that are evident today in both early childhood and school settings. Understanding","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83895179","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 : 2020-11-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0264
Marie K. Heath
Digital citizenship is a term meant to convey the possibility of a new or different type of citizenship which occurs as digital citizens participate within the constraints and opportunities of the internet. It refers to new possibilities of citizenship outside or beyond our physically bounded space and within cyberspace. Early usages of the term often referred to safety, character, and comportment in a digital space. However, the term now refers to new forms of participation or engagement in the global community. These new forms of participation require specific skills (including media literacy, collaboration, and digital ethics) and access (including access to technology and access to inclusive online spaces), as well as new pedagogies and practices from educators.
{"title":"Digital Citizenship","authors":"Marie K. Heath","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0264","url":null,"abstract":"Digital citizenship is a term meant to convey the possibility of a new or different type of citizenship which occurs as digital citizens participate within the constraints and opportunities of the internet. It refers to new possibilities of citizenship outside or beyond our physically bounded space and within cyberspace. Early usages of the term often referred to safety, character, and comportment in a digital space. However, the term now refers to new forms of participation or engagement in the global community. These new forms of participation require specific skills (including media literacy, collaboration, and digital ethics) and access (including access to technology and access to inclusive online spaces), as well as new pedagogies and practices from educators.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85884979","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 : 2020-11-02DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2020.1832948
Joshua Patterson, R. Foster
Abstract Recent rises in anti-Semitism and other types of religious bullying on college campuses have highlighted the importance of curricular interventions. Despite this salience, little is known about students’ decisions to enroll in courses that address religious difference. This paper used logistic regression to explore the influence of institutional characteristics, student demographics, and student identity and worldview on course decisions in the IDEALS data set. A number of variables emerged as significant with the largest coefficients relating to institutional characteristics. This paper offers empirical basis for expanded curricular engagement with religious difference and advances research on student course decisions generally.
{"title":"Who is Learning about Religion? Factors that Predict First-Year Student’s Curricular Decisions","authors":"Joshua Patterson, R. Foster","doi":"10.1080/15507394.2020.1832948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2020.1832948","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent rises in anti-Semitism and other types of religious bullying on college campuses have highlighted the importance of curricular interventions. Despite this salience, little is known about students’ decisions to enroll in courses that address religious difference. This paper used logistic regression to explore the influence of institutional characteristics, student demographics, and student identity and worldview on course decisions in the IDEALS data set. A number of variables emerged as significant with the largest coefficients relating to institutional characteristics. This paper offers empirical basis for expanded curricular engagement with religious difference and advances research on student course decisions generally.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":"48 1","pages":"178 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15507394.2020.1832948","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49336220","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0262
Charlotte J. Sharpe, P. Cobb
The notion of a coherent instructional system builds on the Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, and Bryk’s concept of instructional program coherence, which the authors define as “a set of interrelated programs for students and staff that are guided by a common framework for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and learning climate” (Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23.4: 257, cited under Foundational Works). A coherent instructional system includes an aligned set of policy instruments as proposed by Newmann and colleagues. However, it also encompasses a set of supports for teachers to improve their instructional practices. The motivation for this elaboration stems from the implementation of more rigorous college and career readiness standards (CCRS) in all US states. Research on teaching indicates both that most US teachers will need to develop new forms of instructional practice if their students are to attain these more rigorous learning goals and that the development of these instructional practices requires sustained support. Thus, the core elements of a coherent instructional system include instructional materials that aim at rigorous student learning goals, student assessments that are aligned with the instructional materials, and supports for teachers’ learning, the most common of which are school or district professional development, teacher collaborative meetings (sometimes called professional learning community meetings), and content-focused coaching. Some accounts of coherent instructional systems include additional elements, such as added supports for currently struggling students, routines for hiring teachers, and so forth. Looking beyond the specific elements, the key characteristic of a coherent instructional system is that the elements are tightly aligned and mutually reinforce each other. In this regard, it is important to distinguish the notion of a coherent instructional system from the closely related concept of curriculum coherence. Schmidt, Wang, and McNight clarifies that the content that teachers are expected to teach in a particular subject matter area is coherent if that content is organized as “a sequence of topics and performances consistent with the logical and, if appropriate, hierarchical nature of the disciplinary content from which the subject-matter derives” (Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 37:528, cited under Foundational Works). Thus, curriculum coherence is a highly desirable characteristic of one of the core elements of a coherent instructional system, the instructional materials that teachers use as the basis for their instruction. The notion of a coherent instructional system foregrounds the relations between these materials and other influential aspects of the immediate school and district con
{"title":"Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School System Levels in the United States","authors":"Charlotte J. Sharpe, P. Cobb","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0262","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0262","url":null,"abstract":"The notion of a coherent instructional system builds on the Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, and Bryk’s concept of instructional program coherence, which the authors define as “a set of interrelated programs for students and staff that are guided by a common framework for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and learning climate” (Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23.4: 257, cited under Foundational Works). A coherent instructional system includes an aligned set of policy instruments as proposed by Newmann and colleagues. However, it also encompasses a set of supports for teachers to improve their instructional practices. The motivation for this elaboration stems from the implementation of more rigorous college and career readiness standards (CCRS) in all US states. Research on teaching indicates both that most US teachers will need to develop new forms of instructional practice if their students are to attain these more rigorous learning goals and that the development of these instructional practices requires sustained support. Thus, the core elements of a coherent instructional system include instructional materials that aim at rigorous student learning goals, student assessments that are aligned with the instructional materials, and supports for teachers’ learning, the most common of which are school or district professional development, teacher collaborative meetings (sometimes called professional learning community meetings), and content-focused coaching. Some accounts of coherent instructional systems include additional elements, such as added supports for currently struggling students, routines for hiring teachers, and so forth. Looking beyond the specific elements, the key characteristic of a coherent instructional system is that the elements are tightly aligned and mutually reinforce each other. In this regard, it is important to distinguish the notion of a coherent instructional system from the closely related concept of curriculum coherence. Schmidt, Wang, and McNight clarifies that the content that teachers are expected to teach in a particular subject matter area is coherent if that content is organized as “a sequence of topics and performances consistent with the logical and, if appropriate, hierarchical nature of the disciplinary content from which the subject-matter derives” (Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 37:528, cited under Foundational Works). Thus, curriculum coherence is a highly desirable characteristic of one of the core elements of a coherent instructional system, the instructional materials that teachers use as the basis for their instruction. The notion of a coherent instructional system foregrounds the relations between these materials and other influential aspects of the immediate school and district con","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83538099","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0259
Helen Hedges
Ways children make sense of their lives in their families, communities, and cultures are of immense interest to parents, teachers, and researchers internationally. “Working theories” originated as an holistic outcome of Te Whāriki, the Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) early childhood curriculum (Ministry of Education 1996, Ministry of Education 2017). The term describes the provisional and exploratory ideas and understandings children—and adults—develop as they participate in learning. Working theories help children and adults with meaning making, explanation, prediction, and problem solving. The term therefore has wide educational relevance beyond NZ. Working theories have connections with, but are not the same as, knowledge development or a focus on learning academic concepts. Developing accurate knowledge is not necessarily a goal for young children. In contrast, theories frequently persist in the face of contrary evidence and involve both progression and retrogression in understandings as children attempt to meld new ideas and experiences with their prior, albeit limited, knowledge and experience—rather curiosity and inquiry into personally interesting and meaningful understandings motivates children. More than a focus on cognitive and knowledge development, working theories include all of children’s embodied, linguistic, communicative, and social efforts to learn. The goal of such efforts is to participate and contribute more effectively and competently in their families, communities, and cultures. Consequently, there is an expectation that adults will engage with and support children’s working theory development in respectful, reciprocal, and responsive interactions. Most related literature is at present from NZ; international interest is more recent and growing. Scope for future research includes specific topics of children’s theorizing, especially topics adults might struggle to understand or respond to; ways to document working theories and working theory development over time; exploration and application of Māori concepts and examples given the bicultural aim of Te Whāriki; and ways curriculum might be designed around working theories. The following bibliography has four sections. The first section is literature that has worked on Understanding the Concept of Working Theories. The second section offers examples of working theories from research undertaken with children, adults in teaching roles, and families. The third section describes teacher understandings of the concept of working theories and ways these might drive curriculum, and the fourth section has examples of pedagogical strategies and responses. Naturally there are overlaps between sections 2 through 4 and section assignment does not mean the selected literature does not address material in other sections.
孩子们如何在家庭、社区和文化中理解自己的生活，引起了家长、老师和国际研究人员的极大兴趣。“工作理论”起源于新西兰(NZ)早期儿童课程Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education 1996, Ministry of Education 2017)的整体成果。这个词描述了儿童和成人在参与学习过程中形成的临时的、探索性的想法和理解。工作理论帮助儿童和成人理解、解释、预测和解决问题。因此，这个词在新西兰以外具有广泛的教育意义。工作理论与知识发展或注重学习学术概念有联系，但又不相同。发展准确的知识不一定是幼儿的目标。相反，当孩子们试图将新的想法和经验与他们之前的(尽管有限的)知识和经验融合在一起时，理论经常在面对相反的证据时坚持下去，并且涉及到理解的进步和倒退——而不是好奇心和对个人感兴趣和有意义的理解的探究激励着孩子。工作理论不仅关注认知和知识的发展，还包括儿童所有的具体的、语言的、交际的和社会的学习努力。这种努力的目标是更有效和更有能力地参与家庭、社区和文化并作出贡献。因此，有一个期望，成人将参与和支持儿童的工作理论发展在尊重，互惠和响应的互动。目前相关文献多来自新西兰;国际上的兴趣是最近才出现的，而且还在不断增长。未来的研究范围包括儿童理论化的特定主题，特别是成年人可能难以理解或回应的主题;记录工作理论和工作理论发展的方法;在《Whāriki》的双重文化目标下，对Māori概念和实例的探索和应用;以及围绕工作理论设计课程的方式。下面的参考书目有四个部分。第一部分是关于理解工作理论概念的文献。第二部分提供了对儿童、成人教学角色和家庭进行研究的工作理论的例子。第三部分描述了教师对工作理论概念的理解，以及这些理论可能推动课程的方式，第四部分有教学策略和反应的例子。当然，第2部分到第4部分之间会有重叠，而部分作业并不意味着所选的文献不涉及其他部分的材料。
{"title":"Young Children's Working Theories","authors":"Helen Hedges","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0259","url":null,"abstract":"Ways children make sense of their lives in their families, communities, and cultures are of immense interest to parents, teachers, and researchers internationally. “Working theories” originated as an holistic outcome of Te Whāriki, the Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) early childhood curriculum (Ministry of Education 1996, Ministry of Education 2017). The term describes the provisional and exploratory ideas and understandings children—and adults—develop as they participate in learning. Working theories help children and adults with meaning making, explanation, prediction, and problem solving. The term therefore has wide educational relevance beyond NZ. Working theories have connections with, but are not the same as, knowledge development or a focus on learning academic concepts. Developing accurate knowledge is not necessarily a goal for young children. In contrast, theories frequently persist in the face of contrary evidence and involve both progression and retrogression in understandings as children attempt to meld new ideas and experiences with their prior, albeit limited, knowledge and experience—rather curiosity and inquiry into personally interesting and meaningful understandings motivates children. More than a focus on cognitive and knowledge development, working theories include all of children’s embodied, linguistic, communicative, and social efforts to learn. The goal of such efforts is to participate and contribute more effectively and competently in their families, communities, and cultures. Consequently, there is an expectation that adults will engage with and support children’s working theory development in respectful, reciprocal, and responsive interactions. Most related literature is at present from NZ; international interest is more recent and growing. Scope for future research includes specific topics of children’s theorizing, especially topics adults might struggle to understand or respond to; ways to document working theories and working theory development over time; exploration and application of Māori concepts and examples given the bicultural aim of Te Whāriki; and ways curriculum might be designed around working theories. The following bibliography has four sections. The first section is literature that has worked on Understanding the Concept of Working Theories. The second section offers examples of working theories from research undertaken with children, adults in teaching roles, and families. The third section describes teacher understandings of the concept of working theories and ways these might drive curriculum, and the fourth section has examples of pedagogical strategies and responses. Naturally there are overlaps between sections 2 through 4 and section assignment does not mean the selected literature does not address material in other sections.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83792544","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：