27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Within the Value of Diversity, the Value of Unrepeatable: Improvisation as Generative Teaching-Learning Perspective and Procedure in the Classroom
Eleonora Zorzi, Marina Santi
University of Padua, Italy
Presenting Author: Zorzi, Eleonora
These challenging times (COVID-19 pandemic and the following disruptions to activities in schools; the ongoing Russian war of aggression against Ukraine) have highlighted inequalities still permeating our education institutions (EU, 2022; p.3). Equity and inclusion in education and training demand to eradicate the negative effects of individual circumstances on people’s prospects in life, looking at diversities not as disadvantages but as human conditions from which all education reasonings have to start (Sen, 1999). Recognizing and respecting diversities can create tensions and can challenge the homogeneous system framework. In a society that, through techniques and technologies, favors the value of repeatability (of recording), in a scientific world that, from positivism onwards, appreciates the effectiveness of replicability, a changing perspective could be to valorize diversities (against homologation) and the unrepeatable (against repeatability).
In the pedagogical field, the unrepeatable is traceable and recognizable in the "awareness of diversity" that constitutes the Shibboleth of every genuine educator (Borghi, 2000, p. 103). The educator who does not bother to identify the singular and unrepeatable characteristics of each pupil, who instead of conceiving and conducting teaching as a perennial apprenticeship and living in school and class as a "laboratory", lays down in the cotton wool of general ideas, is placed in the enclosure of a pedagogical province where the transmission of notions and habits of homogenizing behavior are the instrumental forms, suitable for the conservation (repetition?) of the existing state of affairs (Borghi, 2000, p .103, in Bocci, 2021, p.93). Therefore the unrepeatable can be the common value which connects all the diversities and differences: everyone, everything, and every moment are unique and unrepeatable and this is the core of teaching-learning processes which want to recognize dignity and respect for the actors and knowledge involved.
The concept of unrepeatable is central in improvisation and deeply rooted in the very process of making it (Berliner, 1994; Becker, 2000). Five dimensions make possible the unrepeatable (Sparti, 2005, p.118): inseparability (process and product occur and flow simultaneously); originality and uniqueness (each act is different from the previous one every time); impromptu (everything takes place in a here and now and is a response to a series of circumstances, perceived as unrepeatable and propitious moments); irreversibility (one can go only forward, signifying what has already done); responsiveness, (the ability to react to changes, to make decisions). A further aspect differentiates true improvisation, from improvisational processes of another nature: awareness of doing and while doing improvisation (Bertinetto, 2016; Zorzi, 2020, p.32).
So improvisation can be conceived as the process in which the awareness of diversities and the unrepeatable of each one are manifested, collocated in the pedagogical perspective of pedagojazz (Santi, 2016) and of the educational and didactic differentiation (Tomlinson, Mc Tighe, 2006; D'Alonzo, Monauni, 2021; Ingold, 2018).
This work - based on previously published studies (Santi, Zorzi, 2016; Zorzi, 2020) - deals with the topic of diversity intended also as unrepeatable in the educational field, investigating how improvisation can be a generative teaching-learning perspective and procedure in the classroom. The research aims are to understand when and how improvisation emerges in teaching-learning processes, and to investigate which kind of didactic activities are connected to improvisation as a practice that sustains diversities and valorizes the unrepeatable. Research questions are: How is it possible to realize improvisation in teaching? Which kinds of activities or practices can offer space for improvisation in the classroom? Can teachers conceive the practice of improvisation - in the fullness of its dimensions (Zorzi, 2020) - as a perspective/procedure to express their awareness of diversities and unrepeatable, promoting well-being through this practice in the classroom?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedQualitative methodology (Bogdan, Biklen, 2007; Denzin, Lincoln, 2008) drove the research reflection on the aims and the questions, and the phenomenological approach (Husserl, 2002) allowed us to choose the best procedures to collect and analyze the data. To answer the research questions and to develop the research aims, 6 focus groups were conducted (Vanassche, Kelchtermans, 2016), with volunteer professional teachers (expert and novice), to discuss with them their experiences with improvisation in the classroom and their reflections about its characteristics. Participants were 35 in total: 2 early school teachers; 10 primary school teachers; 7 lower secondary school teachers; 16 upper secondary school teachers. In this way, all the different grades of school were represented. Also, different disciplines were represented because there were 22 teachers from linguistic and humanities areas; 9 teachers from scientific-technical areas, and 2 support teachers. Every focus group was composed of 5-6 participants and lasted about 2 hours: this choice has been taken to facilitate a deep discussion and to have enough time for everyone to share experiences and reflections. In every group were represented at least 3 or 4 different school grades and at least 2 or 3 different discipline areas. The results of the focus groups have been drawn by a content analysis (using Atlas-ti 9) conducted on the transcriptions of the discussions. Starting from a bottom-up process, the coding procedures followed the grounded theory coding phases (Charmaz, 2006), guided by the intention of preserving the meaning of participants as accurately as possible, to close improvisation and its dimensions by their professional perspectives. Every focus group started with some general and exploratory questions: what do you think about improvisation in the classroom? Do you think you sometimes improvise during your teaching? How do improvisational processes emerge during a lesson? Which kind of activities could promote it? Do you think that improvisational activities could be useful in teaching practice? In which ways? Questions were posed just as stimuli to reflect and start, but every discussion was open to variations and to follow authentic teachers’ interests. The researcher was most of all a facilitator and moderator (Goodman, Goodman, 1990) of the discussion, and every group was looked at as a community of inquiry (Lipman, 2003): teachers and researcher co-constructed didactic and pedagogical knowledge and concept in collaboration; participants and facilitator were shaped in the reciprocal dialogue (Edwards-Groves, et al., 2016).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFrom the content analysis (that will be concluded within the next month) the results emerged are the following. For the first research question (how is it possible to realize improvisation in teaching?) improvisation is conceptualized by teachers as a process that can characterize two different moments of teaching. Improvisation emerges within (1) teaching design as an approach that promotes processes that make students protagonists, letting them space: it means that teachers set lessons on a canvas, minimal structure/maximal autonomy (Barrett, 2012), managing and optimizing time. Improvisation emerges also during (2) teaching-learning processes when teachers make themselves available to relationships, to listening and tuning with students: it means sharing perspectives and learning priorities with the classroom and developing a work method that starts from (a) experiences lived by students; (b) students’ questions, curiosities, provocations; (c) errors and misunderstandings; (d) discussing and reasoning together with students; (e) classroom’s needs and requests.
For the second research question (which kind of activities can offer space to improvisation?), the activities emerged that offer improvisational processes, valorizing diversity and the unrepeatable are: (1) laboratories (i.e. theater laboratory, body, and voice); (2) cooperative and collaborative works (i.e. digital classroom, group works; collective texts); (3) project-works (i.e. documentaries; videos; questionnaires); (4) real-experiences and practical activities (i.e. problem-solving; case analysis; debates; experiments); (5) questioning and discussing (i.e. thematic discussions; inquiry discussions; deepenings). They are all activities aimed at students’ participation and autonomy. The complete content analysis will also specify the different didactic proposals connected to the disciplinary areas offering a more complex vision of the topic. Teachers who are open to improvisation, perceive the awareness of the unrepeatable because every lesson and every student are different from the other: they facilitate and scaffold students valorizing diversities and the resources of what is happening.
ReferencesBarrett, F. (2012). Yes to the mess. Harvard, Boston: Harvard Business School.
Becker, H.S. (2000). The etiquette of improvisation. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7 (3), 171-176.
Berliner, P.F. (1994). Thinking in Jazz: the Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
Bertinetto, A. (2016). Eseguire l’inatteso. Ontologia della musica e improvvisazione (Italian Edition). Il Glifo ebook. Edizione del Kindle.
Bogdan, R. C., Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc, (5th edition).
Bocci, F., De Castro, M. (2021). La pedagogia impegnata di bell hooks. L’integrazione scolastica e sociale. Vol.21, n.1, febbraio; pp. 74-92.
Borghi, L. (2000). La città e la scuola. Milano: Elèuthera.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. London et al: Sage Publications.
D’Alonzo, L., Monauni, A. (2021). Che cos’è la differenziazione didattica. Brescia: Scholé.
Denzin, N.K, Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Edwards-Groves, C. Olin, Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2016). Partnership recognition in action research: understanding the practices and practice architectures for participation and change. Educational Action Research, 24(3), 321-333.
EU (2022). Education and Training Monitor 2022 (https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2022/downloads/comparative-report/Education-and-Training-Monitor-Comparative-Report.pdf).
Goodman, Y.M., Goodman, K.S. (1990). Vygotsky in a whole-language perspective. In C. L. Moli (Ed.). Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Application of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Husserl, E. (2002). Idee per una fenomenologia pura e una filosofia ermeneutica. Torno: Einaudi [Or. title (1931). Sein und Zeit. Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag]
Ingold, T. (2018). Anthropology and/as Pedagogy. Routledge.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education, 2nd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Santi, M. (2016). Education as jazz: a framework to escape the monologue of teaching and learning. In M. Santi, E. Zorzi (Eds.); pp. 3-27.
Santi, M., Zorzi, E. (eds.) (2016). Education as Jazz. Interdisciplinary Sketches on a New Metaphor. New Castle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Sen A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sparti, D. (2005). Suoni inauditi. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Tomlinson, C.A., Mc Tighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design: connecting content and kids. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.
Vanassche, E., Kelchtermans, G. (2016). “Facilitating self-study of teacher education practices: toward a pedagogy of teacher educator professional development”, in Professional Development in Education. Vol. 42, n.1, pp. 100-122.
Zorzi, E. (2020). L’insegnante improvvisatore. Napoli: Liguori.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Perspectives of School Assistants on Individual Learning Support in Diverse Contexts
Isabel Kratz, Matthias Martens
University of Cologne, Germany
Presenting Author: Kratz, Isabel;
Martens, Matthias
The topic of school assistance has received increasing attention in German educational policy and educational science contexts since the obligation of an inclusive school system was legally anchored in Germany by the UN-CRPD in 2009. Thereby the function of inclusion support for students with special educational needs to participate in school is linked to the expectation of bridging the gap between individual needs and the school’s ability to support them (cf. Laubner et al., 2022, p. 7). According to Dworschak (2010), school assistants mainly accompany one student who needs individual support inside and outside of class due to special needs in the context of learning, behaviour, communication, medical care and/or coping with everyday life. As a systemic measure, school assistance is discussed in terms of its effect on inclusive education, especially with regard to the various facets of stabilizing or irritating practices, orientations and processes that accompany it (cf. Blasse et al., 2021, p. 189).
By bringing school assistants into the classroom, two professional groups coexist being responsible for student learning. At the same time, the practice of school assistants is subject to different conditions and normative expectations than those of teachers. The diversity among the topic of school assistance and individual learning support can be related to several aspects: the diversity of political and structural requirements depending on federal states and local authority, the diversity of the people working as school assistants concerning their profession and qualification, the diversity of their job and role(s) in school and in class, and finally the diversity of the students they support. While school assistance appears to be one of the younger yet a rather complex field of research, the arrangement of individual learning support in inclusive educational settings has long been a subject in German research on school pedagogy and didactics (cf. Hackbarth & Martens 2018) as well as in international discourses on adaptive education (cf. Wang 1992) .
The paper presentation will focus on the perspectives of school assistants on individual learning support by taking into account the tensions they face when dealing with self and external expectations. On the one hand, school assistants are not allowed to ‘teach’ students – on the other hand, they work more closely with individual students than any other professional group in the classroom. That leads to the main question of the paper presentation: To what extent do school assistants take responsibility for learning and how are these teaching-learning-processes structured? In this regard we are interested in the following aspects: How do school assistants negotiate the artificial separation of teaching and additional support? What are the perspectives of school assistants on subject-related professional learning? Which individual learning needs do school assistants identify, how do they describe them, and how do they meet them didactically? Considering that we will focus on the value of diverse perspectives on children’s needs as well as the risk of the exclusionary effect on children that might become evident due to fixed one-to-one learning support and other practices.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo explore the perspectives of school assistants on individual learning support, we are choosing a qualitative research approach by analysing group discussions and further natural as well as initiated conversations between school assistants using the documentary method (Bohnsack, 2017). Based on Karl Mannheim’s (1952) sociology of knowledge, the method offers the opportunity to reconstruct people’s explicit (theoretical) as well as implicit (atheoretical) knowledge by focusing their interactions and ways of speaking. Dealing with the complexity of diverse learning and teaching contexts in particular, the documentary method enables to face tensions that underly people’s expectations and experiences in the research field.
The paper presentation is based on empirical data from a PhD project on the inter-organisational professionalisation of school assistants. The specificity of the profession of school assistants lies in its location in two social organisations: while they carry out their professional practice in school, in most cases their employment and funding is done through external agencies. The project considers the associated inherent logics of social pedagogy and school pedagogy and how they are related. In order to do justice to the complexity and difference of professional structures and working conditions, data is collected in both organisations: one agency and two contrasting schools. In one of the two schools, we conducted 4 group discussions with school assistants (initiated by the researcher, duration from 50 to 85 minutes) and 11 audio-recordings of “natural” conversations (initiated by the school and/or the agency, e.g. staff meetings, group interactions, or collegial cas consultation) so far. The data collection in the second school and at the agency is planned for spring and summer.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe data analysis offers insights into the way school assistants deal with tensions regarding the adoption and development of didactics, taking into account the ambivalent situation of being responsible for learning and not being entitled to evaluate the students at the same time. When it comes to individual learning support, the assistants mention a lack of equality in relation to the teachers. In terms of the responsibility for learning, school assistants show individual competence in the sense of advocacy responsibility for students. In addition, they self-identify as professionals who have a diagnostic eye on students through distanced observations and close interaction at the same time, especially when it comes to social learning. However, this self-attribution seems to be expressed in a subject-differentiated manner; for example, in selected subject-didactic questions, they demand targeted management and responsibility by the teachers in the form of provision of materials and individual learning plans. School assistants see in particular the need for regular one-to-one learning situations by teachers in order to identify developmental levels and to counteract estrangement between teachers and students with special educational needs. Overall, the data point to the tendency to an orientation towards equality and shared responsibility for all students. With view to the core interest of the research project, it can be discussed to what extent responsibility for learning is an opportunity for the professionalisation of school assistants. The data collected so far show that responsibility for learning is closely linked to self expectations as well as external expectations in relation to one’s own professional image. Comparing different schools should give an answer to the question of how differently or similarly the professional image is negotiated and to what extent the schools can be reconstructed as a professional space of experience for the school assistants.
ReferencesBlasse, N., Budde, J., Demmer, C., Gasterstädt, J. Heinrich, J., Lübeck, A., Rißler, G., Rohrmann, A., Strecker, A., Urban, M. (2021). Lehrpersonen und Schulbegleitungen als multiprofessionelle Teams in der ‚inklusiven‘ Schule – Zwischen Transformation und Stabilisierung. In K. Kunze, D. Petersen, G. Bellenberg, M. Fabel-Amla, J.-H. Hinzke, A. Moldenhauer, L. Peukert, C. Reintjes & K. re Poel (Hrsg.): Kooperation – Koordination – Kollegialität. Befunde und Diskurse zum Zusammenwirken pädagogischer Akteur*innen an Schule(n). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. S. 189-208
Bohnsack, R. (2017). Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Budrich.
Dworschak, W. (2010). Schulbegleiter, Integrationshelfer, Schulassistent? Begriffliche Klärung einer Maßnahme zur Integration in die Allgemeine Schule bzw. die Förderschule. In: Teilhabe, 3/2010, Jg. 49, S. 131-135
Hackbart, A. & Martens, M. (2018). Inklusiver (Fach-)Unterricht: Befunde – Konzeptionen – Herausforderungen. In T. Sturm & M. Wagner-Willi (Hrsg.): Handbuch schulische Inklusion. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. S. 207-222
Laubner, M., Lindmeier, B. & Lübeck, A. (2022). Schulbegleitung in der inklusiven Schule. Grundlagen und Praxis. Weinheim & Basel: Beltz.
Mannheim, K. (1952). Essays on the sociology of knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wang, M. C. (1992). Adaptive education strategies: Building on diversity. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Religious Dimension of Intercultural Education in Confessional Religious Education: Religious Education Teachers’ Views and Opinions on Teaching Methods in Croatia
Marija Jurišić1, Gordana Barudžija2
1University of Zagreb, Croatia; 2Education and Teacher Training Agency
Presenting Author: Jurišić, Marija
The topic of this paper is placed in the context of contemporary social changes from the perspective of multiculturality. Political approach to social diversity, interculturalism present the demand for coexistence within the framework of equality, respect for the dignity of each person and dialogue. (Portera, 2011; Rey-von Allmen, 2011; Banks, 2014). The field of education is an important means and method of achieving those goals. Education for religious diversity is increasingly affirmed as an indispensable factor in education. The subject of religious education in public schools is seen as an important part of education for dialogue, a factor for promoting the dignity of each person and coexistence with others. (Keast, 2007; Council of Europe, 2008) Qualified teachers are an essential pre-condition for achieving goals related to intercultural education. (European Commission, 2019)
The theoretical concept of intercultural education and its religious dimensions form the political guidelines and educational documents of the Council of Europe. Although intercultural education has undergone a transformation, the diversity of religions and worldviews was not taken into account up until 2002. (Rey-von Allmen, 2011) Ever since 2002, a year that is closely related to the global event of September 11, there have been revisions of the concept of intercultural education, followed by the introduction of the religious dimension. (Jackson - O'Grady, 2019) The religious dimension of intercultural education is realized in religious education in public schools where the acquisition of knowledge about other religions and non-religious beliefs, the development of intercultural sensitivity and communication, and education for interreligious and ecumenical dialogue are expected. (Council of Europe, 2008; Jackson, 2014; Jackson - O Grady, 2019) The manuals and guidelines for the implementation of religious education based on the recommendations of the Council of Europe (Keast 2007; Jackson 2014) all promote a non-denominational model of religious education in Europe. However, despite the tendency to introduce non-confessional religious education in public schools in Europe, religious education in most European countries is still confessional. (Rothgangel et al. 2014a, 2014b, 2016, 2020)
It can be concluded that at the European level, learning about religions is recognized as crucial for reducing religious inequalities and discrimination at the social level. Considering that the Republic of Croatia is a member of the Council of Europe and has a specific, confessional form of religious education, we were interested in the extent to which the implementation of the religious dimension of intercultural education was researched. Training teachers for the religious dimension of intercultural education, in addition to knowledge about religions and worldviews, also requires knowledge of adequate teaching methods and competencies. (Korkeakoski – Ubani, 2018; Whitworth, 2020; Sweetman 2021)
This paper explores the issue of the work methods used by religious education teachers in confessional religious education in the Republic of Croatia when transferring knowledge about religious diversity. The aim of this research is to examine the attitudes and opinions of Islamic, Orthodox and Catholic religious education teachers about didactic approaches and the development of intercultural competence in teaching when discussing religious diversity.
The research results, although primarily focused on the Croatian context, will show how they contribute to the European context in relation to the ability of confessional religious education to integrate and implement the guidelines provided by the Council of Europe and recommendations regarding the realization of the religious dimension of intercultural education. The current thesis in the European educational discourse is that learning about religions can only be achieved in a non-denominational environment. The results of the analysis of the attitudes and opinions of religious education teachers with regard to teaching will show the validity of this thesis, which can also be applied to the wider European context.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedQuantitative methodology was used for the research and it was carried out using the survey method, for the purpose of which the survey questionnaire “Intercultural competence: attitudes, opinions and specific behaviours of religious education teachers” was created by Jurišić and Razum (2021). The questionnaire was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Catholic Faculty of Theology of the University of Zagreb. The questionnaire consists of 30 questions, 2 of which are open-ended, 28 closed-ended, and the most frequently used form of response is the Likert scale. The quantitative research was conducted in the period from November 2021 to January 2022. The survey was conducted online. The respondents signed the informed consent form before completing the survey, and they were informed about its anonymity clause. At the end of the data collection, the collected data were controlled and prepared for processing, after which they were processed and analysed in the statistical software package for social sciences ( SPSS 28.0). Quantitative analysis was applied while processing the results, and descriptive statistics were used to show absolute and relative frequencies, while inferential statistics was used to determine differences (T-test) at a risk level of 5%, i.e., 95% confidence. 460 respondents participated in the research, of which 103 (22.4%) men and 357 women (77.6%). At the national level, in the public schools of the Republic of Croatia the subject Religious Education is taught in several confessional and religious versions by representatives of individual religious communities. For this purpose, religious education teachers affiliated with the Catholic Church, the Islamic Community, the Orthodox Church and the Heritage Reformed Congregations were asked to participate. A representative sample was not created; therefore the results cannot be applied to the general population of religious education teachers. 375 Catholic religious education teachers (81.5%), 65 religious education teachers affiliated with the Heritage Reformed Congregations (14.1%), 18 Orthodox religious education teachers (3.9%) and 2 Islamic religious education teachers (0.4%) participated in the research.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe paper will focus on the results regarding the teaching methods as well as the intercultural competences that religious education teachers develop in students. The expected results are as follows. At the teaching level, the attitudes and opinions of religious education teachers regarding the methods and forms of work in religious education classes will indicate a certain level of unevenness between theoretical knowledge and practical work. We expect differences in relation to the religious education teachers’ motivation and acquired knowledge about other religions with regard to the methods that contribute to the development of intercultural competence. Previous research has shown that a very small percentage of religious education teachers use adequate didactic and methodological approaches when discussing religious diversity. Also, attitudes and opinions regarding the development of intercultural competences in religious education classes and the use of teaching methods will reveal that religious education teachers focus their teaching less on the development of attitudes and skills in students, and significantly more on the acquisition of knowledge, the cognitive level of intercultural competence.
ReferencesBanks, James A. 2014. An Introduction to Multicultural Education, Seattle: Pearson.
Council of Europe. 2008. The Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the dimension of religions and non-religious convictions within intercultural education. Available online: http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/atti/dimensione_religiosa_ing.HTM (accessed on 1 September 2021)
European Comission. 2019. Key competences for lifelong learning. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Jackson, Robert, and Kevin O’Grady. 2019. The religious and worldview dimension of intercultural education: the Council of Europe’s contribution. Intercultural Education 30: 247-259. doi:10.1080/14675986.2018.1539306
Jackson, Robert. 2014. 'Signposts': Policy and Practice for Teaching about Religions and Non-Religious Worldviews in Intercultural Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Keast, John. 2007. Use of „distancing“ and „simulation“. In Religious diversity and intercultural education: a reference book for school. Edited by John Keast. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, pp. 61-66.
Korkeakoski, Katja, and Martin Ubani. 2018. What positive things do students from different backgrounds see in integrated RE lessons with collaborative teaching? Three cases from a Finnish teaching experiment. Journal of Religious Education. 66: 49–64.
Portera, Agostino. 2011. Risposta pedagogica interculturale per la società complessa, Pedagogijska istraživanja. 8: 19-35.
Rey-von Allmen, Micheline. 2011. The Intercultural Perspective and its Development Through Cooperation With the Council of Europe. In Intercultural and Multicultural Education. Enhancing Global Interconnectedness. Edited by Carl A. Grant – Agostino Portera. New York: Routledge.
Rothgangel Martin, Martin Jäggle, and Ednan Aslan, eds. 2020. Religious Education at Schools in Europe. Part 5: Southeastern Europe. Wien: V&R unipress, Göttingen – Vienna University Press.
Rothgangel Martin, Martin Jäggle, and Geir Skeie, eds. 2014b. Religious Education at Schools in Europe. Part 3: Northern Europe. Wien: V&R unipress, Göttingen – Vienna University Press.
Rothgangel Martin, Robert Jackson, and Martin Jäggle, eds. 2014a. Religious Education at Schools in Europe. Part 2: Western Europe. Wien: V&R unipress, Göttingen – Vienna University Press.
Rothgangel, Martin, Martin Jäggle, and Thomas Schlag, eds. 2016. Religious Education at Schools in Europe, Part 1: Central Europe. Wien: V&R unipress, Göttingen – Vienna University Press.
Sweetman, Bernadette. 2021. Learnings from the Adult Religious Education and Faith Development (AREFD) project for initial teacher education of religious educators. Journal of Religious Education. 69: 453–466.
Whitworth, Linda. 2020. Do I know enough to teach RE? Responding to the commission on religious education’s recommendation for primary initial teacher education. Journal of Religious Education. 68: 345–357.
|
