The chapters of the volume present diverse ways of understanding religion, learning and literacy. As expected, the chapters also partake in the broader academic discussion on religious education. The most concrete example is perhaps how several authors (Aukland; Biesta; Domsgen) use and develop further the internationally well-known traditional typology of ‘learning religion’, ‘learning about religion’ and ‘learning from religion’ that is derived from the work of Grimmitt (1987, 2000). These further developed models include ‘learning in religion’ by Roebben (2009), i.e. learning through the practices of religion (Domsgen), and ‘learning how’ to explore religion and worldviews (Aukland). In the typology presented by Domsgen, ‘learning in’ is not to be understood as a complete equivalent of ‘learning religion’, but rather as a modern application of it that emphasizes religious social practices and shaping one’s lifestyle within and in relation to those practices. In that model, lived practices meet with lived life. The typology also combines several aspects presented earlier in ‘Learning and religion: the conceptual realm of ‘change”, to produce a concise typology of learning concerning religion. A full description of the model is presented in Domsgen’s chapter (Fig. 21.1).

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Inferences Regarding ‘Change’: Religion, Learning and Literacy

  • Martin Ubani

摘要

The chapters of the volume present diverse ways of understanding religion, learning and literacy. As expected, the chapters also partake in the broader academic discussion on religious education. The most concrete example is perhaps how several authors (Aukland; Biesta; Domsgen) use and develop further the internationally well-known traditional typology of ‘learning religion’, ‘learning about religion’ and ‘learning from religion’ that is derived from the work of Grimmitt (1987, 2000). These further developed models include ‘learning in religion’ by Roebben (2009), i.e. learning through the practices of religion (Domsgen), and ‘learning how’ to explore religion and worldviews (Aukland). In the typology presented by Domsgen, ‘learning in’ is not to be understood as a complete equivalent of ‘learning religion’, but rather as a modern application of it that emphasizes religious social practices and shaping one’s lifestyle within and in relation to those practices. In that model, lived practices meet with lived life. The typology also combines several aspects presented earlier in ‘Learning and religion: the conceptual realm of ‘change”, to produce a concise typology of learning concerning religion. A full description of the model is presented in Domsgen’s chapter (Fig. 21.1).