Challenges for self‐assessment in religious education

This article explores the place of self‐assessment in religious education in the light of general research into self‐assessment, particularly as part of assessment for learning. In particular, it analyses the problems of ‘enculturation’ of learners into classroom assessment practice in religious education. The distinction between assessment of learning and assessment for learning is described and, applied to the distinction between learning about religions and learning from religion. The four types of self‐assessment are set out, with an analysis of the challenges facing teachers in getting pupils to apply common current assessment criteria to their own work. Overall, four problems arise from pupils using current assessment criteria. They are identified as: (i) the issue of ‘plasticity’, (ii) the timing of self‐assessment processes, (iii) the problem of assessment of affective qualities, and (iv) the confusion between self‐assessment and learning from religion. Finally, the implications of these problems for both further research and for pedagogy are discussed.     

The classification and framing of religious dialogues in two English schools

This article explores the place of discourse about religions in education by comparing two very different schools. It initially outlines some of the current debates around religious discourse, notably in dialogue. A theoretical frame for analysing religious discourse in schools is proposed, combining a theorisation of three levels of dialogue with both notions of classification and framing and with a distinction between the formal curriculum and the institutional curriculum. Research in ‘Flintmead’ and ‘Headley’ is then described: the former an elite Anglican private boarding school, the latter a secular non-selective state day school. The analysis shows how the schools build complex structures across the different dialogical levels, between and within the formal and institutional curriculum, with varying strengths of classification and framing. In particular, similar approaches to religious education sit alongside different discursive structures. The implications of the study for further comparison are discussed, and for understandings of religious dialogue.