Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Report: “Advancing Religious Education in Australia: The voices of practitioners and scholars”

 

 

            This article lays out the educational context that defines Catholic schools in Australia, especially its altered focus in Religious Education (RE) with special attention to the shifting religious profiles that typify this setting. Next, the article outlines its method that based on a national conference of Catholic educational institutions and bodies that oversee Catholic schooling, with a brief account of Leximancer for purposes of aggregating the conference’s keywords. Finally, through a form of phenomenological analysis, it opens the discussion to possible thematic points of emphasis. In conclusion, the author brings focus to the diverging viewpoints of participants in the national conference called “Ways Forward in Religious Education.” For purposes of this report, the reviewer will assume single authorship for the duration; line numbers are offered parenthetically.

            The article outlines an interesting example of ecclesial discernment that characterizes the focal event as more than simply an academic or educational conference. Its use of Leximancer is meant to capture the core themes of these proceedings in a way that marks a shift in emphasis for religious education in the Australian context. It contributes an important perspective on this ecclesial process.

            There are several points that the author should consider while presenting this material to the readership of this academic journal. For a wider audience, arguably, it is not appropriate to capitalize tradition as one might in some Catholic contexts (see, e.g., #80, 89-90). In a sense, similarly, synodality is capitalized (105, cp. 107), when it is recommended to avoid this practice. Stylistically, in the Discussion section, there are also a lot of capitalized terms, such as “Main Idea,” that may best better put into quotations or uncapitalized.

            On the topic of terminology, this reviewer also advises further consideration of how this model of religious education regards itself as “modern” (see # …). One might also wonder whether this creates dissonance with the theoretical viewpoint of Philip Barnes and his consideration of post-modern religious education (see Barnes 2014), upon whom this author draws considerably for shaping and developing the stance of the article and its recommendations. This point would be considered particularly in the context of his reflections on religious education in a post-modern viewpoint, which is key for his eventual aim of developing a postliberal understanding of religious education.

            In order to underscore how this ecclesial discernment fits with the wider, more global shifts, it would benefit from the teaching authority of Pope Francis. The literature review includes references and direct citation of the writings or statements of Pope Francis, but the Reference section is devoid of any full citation of these sources. Not only should the author include the full citation of these sources, but for the sake of the reader the text itself would benefit from some guidance about the import of these papal perspectives, especially since the article makes a point of emphasizing the alignment of Catholic schools with the Magisterium, the Church’s teaching authority. This Australian context, I suppose, is not an anomaly but this viewpoint may allow particular insights into a global challenge.

            There are some minor inconsistencies in the article. Take, for example, the explanation of the size and significance of Catholic education in the Australian context. On the one hand, the author states that .7 million students are education in Catholic schools (#41) and, in the next breath, states that there 805,000 students (#44). Is this a discrepancy based on dueling sources? Whatever the case may be it is particularly disruptive for a reader, and this instance disrupts the outset of the article.

            On another minor note, there is a clerical inconsistency. The title of the conference, additionally, is represented in three different ways on three different occasions: once, in quote (see #96); next, italicized (127); finally, unitalicized (276, 353). It is recommended that the author choose a single style, and to ensure that it conforms with the style guide.

            Finally, it is not clear how the title fits with the subject of this article. How is religious education being “advanced”? In what sense? For some, it would be putative that there is advancement being demonstrated in this process. In a more constructive, this reviewer strongly appeals for the author in the Discussion section to emphasize what are areas for future development. Practically speaking, there is little attention to precisely how Catholic schools would shift religious education—aside from the themes that author highlights through the use of Leximancer. It is an assumption of this reviewer that Leximancer is exclusively text-based, so a clearer explication of this method would be appreciated. Also, it would be helpful to clarify if Leximancer was used as an integral part of discernment, or is simply being used after-the-fact. Indeed, from a theological perspective, there is still substantial groundwork to develop the foundations for this educational and religious shift in focus. Although it may not yet be developed in Australia, there are several theological movements such as scriptural reasoning, comparative theology that may help foster some of these pedagogical strategies in the curricular change that the author is indicating, and potentially outside of the classroom.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Acceptable use of academic English, aside from the points raised above.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is excellent and shows great clarity in the hypothesis, the process and the conclusions. A small detail on which I would like to draw the attention of the authors. There is a mention of non-Catholic (students). As such the definition is strongly self-referential and, according to me, does not prove the desired openness the authors wish to portray on the educational policy of Catholic/Christian Educational Institutions. I would prefer if instead of non-Catholic another form could be used (i.e. students of others faith groups, differently believing students .... or any other which may avoid self-referentialism). 

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx