Volume 66, Issue 4

The discussion about competences and standards has been very vivid in religious education since 2003/2004. Three main lines of that discourse can be distinguished: First, the theoretical discussion about the problems and chances of competences in religious education and about several competence models in terms of religious education. Second, the implementation of competence orientation into the practice of religious education. Third, empirical research about competences in the field of religious education. Especially two problems emerge from the overview: Competence orientation took place much too fast and (sufficient?) empirical research is still lacking. It is difficult to predict the further development of competence orientation. But the current situation calls for cumulative empirical research and the establishment of minimal standards in religious education.

The article startswith summingup current discussions about competence-centred Religious Education (RE) at school. This kind of RE is based on the fundamental competences of religious education and the characteristics of good teaching according to Hilbert Meyer. What is still missing in pastor and teacher training is a practical guide on planning and giving lessons in competencecentred RE. In this context, previous lesson plans have to be substituted by lesson guidelines that are directed to processes and outcome. Furthermore, in order to come to more specific observations on pupils’ religious literacy, we will need more data and more refined analyses.

The growing number of Muslim children in state schools has created a task for Muslims with which they are not familiar from within their own traditions. The crux is to figure out a way how Muslim children can encounter other faiths and lifestyles and develop a fruitful dialogue which will benefit society as a whole. During this encounter Muslims ought to, next to their own religion, accept the religious claim to truth of other religions and justify this acceptance with the fundamentals of their own religion. This situation creates the task for Islamic theology to reflect the status of other religions in their theological history, so that Muslim children may no longer experience a discrepancy between their beliefs and the values of the pluralistic society.

The process of discovering and discussing questions of vital importance with students forms a central concern of Religious Education. Existential as well as ultimate questions often derive from interreligious issues which may be quite different from the student’s personal religious background. In this case, the hermeneutical gap between one’s own tradition and the foreign one needs to be considered more broadly. Didactic devices may help in remaining conscious of this gap: (1) Methodological clues provided by the material itself can indicate the remaining differences. (2) Being reported by peers from other religions, experiences can also provoke individual questions grounded in the adolescents’ lives - and indicate differences at the same time. (3) The creation of materials should be integrated in interreligious dialogues to ensure that all questions regarding materials form part of living communication between religions and are included in a hermeneutical process.

In recent years, constructivist positions have gained considerable influence on pedagogical thinking in general and religious education theory and practice in particular. The basic argument comes down to the question how learning happens. From a constructivist perspective, learning has to be understood as an active social process of creating individually viable meaning through the experience of difference. Current practice of RE seems to be widely shaped by a kind of pragmatic constructivism. The paper first describes and critically evaluates three of its basic options, which redefine the role of the learner, the instructor and the subject matter in religious learning processes. Secondly, a search for blind spots of constructivist practice is carried out considering works of the French philosopher and sociologist Bruno Latour. The key point is not to underestimate the ‘share of things’ in every learning process however self-constructive learning may be.

Constructivist approaches have been highly influential in German discussions on Religious Education in recent years. However, the use of this theoretical framework has so far focused mainly on the didactical implications of constructivism. Building upon current concepts of constructivist learning in RE, but also with reference to the larger debate in theology and pedagogy, this article addresses the potentials and challenges of constructivism for a theological understanding of Religious Education.

The article is written from the perspective of a German post graduate teacher education institute („second phase of teacher education“) and discusses the implementation of so-called „Performative Religious Education“ in German grammar schools. The author compares different types of the performative approach and draws attention to possible misunderstandings and forms of abuse on the way from the theoretical concept to the classroom. The article closes with three proposals for further clarification and research.

The performative approach in religious education tries to answer the question of how to talk appropriately about religion with students who - for whatever reason - do not participate in any religious practice and thus lack personal experience to draw upon. Based on the latest statistics about church membership, prayer and the attendance of services in Germany, the article describes religious acts as preconditions for RE, as topics in RE and as aims of RE. In doing so, the author shows why performative methods in RE can be regarded as a specific form of activity-oriented teaching and therefore comply with the standards of general didactics.

Building upon the other articles in this issue, the author discusses the question what can be said about the current situation in the didactical discussion on Religious Education. He suggests to understand the different “approaches” as dimensions that are not mutually exclusive but should be combined with each other, depending, among others, on the possible fit with the respective content taught. Moreover, he demands that the current debate about whether we are dealing with a loss of tradition or with religious individualization as presuppositions on the side of the pupils should not lose sight of the need for doing justice to both developments. Finally, the author points to the need for empirical evidence to back a particular approach that should no longer be justified by the often-found reference to “good experiences”.