A Proposal to Incorporate Experiential Education in Non-Confessional, Intercultural Religious Education: Reflections from and on the Norwegian Context
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and suggestions to the author of “Why a non-confessional, intercultural religious education should integrate an experiential theory of learning: Reflections from the Norwegian context”.
This is an interesting and timely article adding to the research field. As stated in the article, there is a need for a more nuanced and developed understanding of learning within RE research. Most researchers contributing to the RE field in Norway have developed their RE research, and didactics, along religious studies lines, while being less advanced in terms of pedagogical theory. Thus, even if there has been a scientific shift from theology to religious studies, the overall understanding of learning is as underdeveloped in the latter as in the previous RE paradigm. However, the article addresses this challenge quite late (page 5). To introduce the theoretical discussion earlier, and how the author contributes into it, will make the article interesting form the very beginning. The lengthy introduction with a quite detailed description of the political background related to the Norwegian RE subject (p.1-3), and then another introduction about the Norwegian RE research field (p-3-4), is not needed in this article, and the introduction/s takes too much space from the main parts of the article. In addition, several other articles, also international ones, have already described the curricular changes and the political controversies related to the RE subject in Norway, and the author cites a number of them.
The article presents three main theorists, Vygotsky, Freire and Dewey (p. 6-8). The presentations are introductory, but mentions some key theoretical concepts. Yet, several of the concepts in section 3 are not reflected upon related to the research question in section 4 (p.8-9). It is argued in the beginning of the article that RE teaching will benefit from a experiential learning perspective, but the article does not specify more in depth what this means except taking the various experiences of the students as starting point, and emphasizing interaction between the teachers and the pupils/students. I am not requesting concrete didactical examples, but a more specific argumentative contribution on how the selected pedagogical theories can enhance non-confessional and interreligious education (cf. p 3). I think more substantial reflections are important in order to avoid a straw-man discussion between student and teacher centered approaches.
Such reflections could for example be to utilize some of the mentioned concepts more closely to con-confessional and interreligious RE teaching. What does it mean to teach non-confessional and intercultural RE within the zone of proximal development? How does that differ from teaching RE within the actual zone of development? The article suggest that the ZPD means to learn from more skilled others and to acknowledge the everyday experiences of the learners (p.7). However, Vygotsky is well-known for his emphasis on education as something that need to transcend what pupils know from their everyday lives. How can RE teaching find ways of being in touch with the pupil’s diverse knowledge about religion and worldviews, but at the same time move beyond them beyond their initial preunderstandings? Vygotsky claimed that the aim of education is to replace everyday concepts with scientific concepts. Actually, contrary to the authors argument on page 6 (line 248), Vygotsky aimed at individual context-free knowledge, even if he rejected the idea about universal cognitive development.
Hence, the article tends to present the three theorists more similar than they their original writings allows. Vygotsky is presented in a manner that makes central aspects of his theory invisible. Parts of the educational reception of Vygotsky have made him into a student-centered theorist, but I would rather present him as an object-centered theorist. His theory of mediation puts materiality in the center. Vygotsky’s emphasis on object-mediation, or artifact mediation, is not reflected in the article. Thus, the reviewed article cites several of Vygotsky’s original works, but his key theoretical understanding of development and learning as an artifact dependent mediation process is lacking. Prof em. Heid Leganger Krogstad has published articles where she reflects on how Vygotsky can contribute to non-confessional interreligious RE teaching.
My knowledge about the two others, Freire and Dewey, is more superficial than my knowledge about Vygotsky. However, to present the three theorists within the same tradition of learning theory is misleading, or needs explanation. As claimed by Professor Roger Säljö, to group social cultural learning theory with experiential centered perspectives on learning, is common but inaccurate. I suggest a presentation where the differences between Vygotsky, Freire and Dewey are made more distinctive. Such a revision might add to the discussion (section 4) and conclusion (section 5) as well. The article argues that critical and experiential learning will develop a positive understanding of cultural and religious differences, but is less specific on how and why this is the case.
The aim of the reviewed article is to contribute to a more developed understanding of learning in the RE research field. I recommend that the author develops the discussion and conclusion beyond general reflections, and engages the theoretical concepts more in depth and closer to his/her argument.
In my view, the lengthy scholarly RE discussions about ‘learning about’ and ‘learning from’ reflects a rather outdated and simplistic view on what learning is, and particularly what non-confessional intercultural religions learning entails.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
line 203 analyses should be analysis
very good theoretical background provided
well presented and well argued article - good use of sources to support claims
good contribution to the discipline of RE
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has improved the article, and most recommendations are met. The article would still benefit from being more concrete on how the educational thinking of Freire, Dewey and Vygotsky could contribute to non-confessional intercultural religious education RE, but I think it is sufficient.
The inserted paragraph on Vygotsky as distinguished from Freire and Dewey needs additional references, for instance: Practice Theory in Empirical Practical Theological Research: The Scientific Contribution of LETRA | Tidsskrift for Praktisk Teologi (mf.no)..
Author Response
Thank you again for your review. The comments and suggestions have been very helpful. I have now added additional references to the inserted paragraph on the differences between Vygotsky, Freire, and Dewey. Thank you also for suggesting an important publication from the LETRA project. In addition to the article from Johnsen and Afdal 2020, I have added references to both Norwegian and international research that examines the different theoretical frameworks.
